Relevance of Mao texts for non Maoist

[UndergroundConnexion]

I was wondering what ya'll where thiking about the folowing statement :

"Mao's writings are still valuable for people opposing Mao's actions".

So even though you do not agree with what he did, could you still read (and get inspired ) from Mao's writing , even though, your like me , opposed to Mao's actions.

[Marukusu]

In order to fully understand the doctorine of "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong thought", you should read some texts written by Mao himself. If you want to fully understand Leninism, read the works of Lenin - and so forth and so on.

Though Mao had his flaws as a politician, he was a brilliant theorist IMO.

[Pirate Utopian]

i think any person calling himself or called a marxist is intresting to read, hell i even read some essays by Kim Il Sung.
the theory can always be intresting and have some good elements in it, if you agree with a specific thing from the story you shouldnt disagree with it because you dislike Mao, Stalin, Trotsky or whoever your reading.
make your own mind.

[bezdomni]

Maoism is an evolving ideology. It accpets criticism and is open to change.

So even a person who is not necessarily a Maoist can still learn a lot from Mao's writings and contribute to "Maoism".

I suggest you at least read Quotations.

[Janus]

"Mao's writings are still valuable for people opposing Mao's actions".

For counter-revolutionaries,yes. Counter-insurgency specialists still read his works in order to counter modern day guerrilla tactics.

[Pandii]

I would think it is necessary to read past theory simply for the knowledge, and as said above, it is open to criticism and change, so it can be alterated to be benificial to even a non-maoist. The Quotations I think are a useful resource.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Mao's writings will always be relevent

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry@February 18, 2007 05:33 am
Mao's writings will always be relevent

Only is you want to see the fullest folly that state socialism can become.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+February 18, 2007 10:03 am--> (Nusocialist @ February 18, 2007 10:03 am)

LeftyHenry

@February 18, 2007 05:33 am
Mao's writings will always be relevent

Only is you want to see the fullest folly that state socialism can become. [/b]

Hardly. Cambodia, North korea... Besides the point of this thread was to discuss the relevence of theory, not critise decisions made by Mao after the revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lefty:

Mao's writings will always be relevent

You are right, I have found them very useful helping me refute a rather poor theory (which I cannot mention here (or I might be warned for derailing a thread)). His writings are perhaps among the weakest of the those inflicted on us by supporters of this un-named theory -- they certainly rival Stalin's, Engels's and Dietzgens's.

So, yes I am really glad he inflicted this stuff on us.

[SPK]

Mao understood that capitalism could be reborn even after the proletariat came to power and that it could return to dominance under the guise of the socialist state itself. Arguably, Mao even believed that capitalism could have a resurgence after the withering away of the state and the transition to a communist society. These concerns were one factor driving the constant political and social upheaval within the party (CPC), state apparatus, and China as a whole, particularly during the cultural revolution phase in the sixties and seventies. Socialism was not viewed as holistic, totalizing, and harmonious by virtue of simple party hegemony or the shift in the economic mode of production. The bourgeoisie, according to Maoist doctrine, was not finally defeated in the overthrow of capitalism, but would continue on as a potential threat in the CPC itself – as “capitalist roaders”. The fight against these elements would continue well into the building of communism and require constant mass mobilizations and ideological struggle among the people. It would require the revolution to be dynamic, in a state of flux, with leaps and ruptures over the long-term to suppress bourgeois tendencies.

Given the apparent vigor of the “actually-existing” socialist states of his time, those insights perhaps seemed a bit more hypothetical, as compared to their reception today. In retrospect, he was quite prescient. Almost every single one of those states collapsed with barely a shot being fired: the USSR and Soviet-bloc countries from 1989-1991, China itself in 1976, and so on. Their transition to capitalism was effected in some cases by an almost complete disintegration of ideological legitimacy and authority among the people as a whole. But those transitions in all cases also revealed the conscious and calculated reconstruction of a new bourgeoisie from the remnants of the ruling communist parties and state apparatuses: the current oligarchs in Russia being one notable example. This fundamental change from the period when Mao was alive – what was initially only a potential or possibility has become an actuality, a material reality -- makes him very relevant today, in terms of assessing why the historical socialist bloc vanished into thin air and how to avoid that fate again in the future.

But in reading Mao, one question persistently demands our attention. How is it that China, under Mao, managed to build the foundations for capitalist restoration, given the consciousness of that very real possibility and the attentiveness in formulating strategies for avoiding precisely that outcome? Socialism in China barely lasted a quarter-century – Mao’s body had hardly gone cold before Deng Xiaopeng and his compadres began plotting their coup to oust the Gang of Four. And we know what happened after that. All this, despite Mao’s rich theoretical contributions and internal political strategy, which were unique at the time within the communist movements.

Compare those ideas and strategies to the dominant approach in the Soviet Union. The USSR certainly was not amenable any broad ideological mobilization of the masses analogous to what occurred in China. They were far more wedded to the use of overt force and violence and bureaucratic statist mechanisms to “mold” and “engineer” its peoples. They weren’t open to any similarly broad, open challenge to elements with the party and sure as hell didn’t take the position that the CPSU could become a Trojan horse for the reinstitution of capitalism. Yet, the grey, dour USSR – far less dynamic and in flux that China -- ultimately lasted much longer.

So the question is: what explains the spectacular contradiction, the disconnect between Maoism and the reality of the almost immediate capitalist restoration following Mao’s death?

[More Fire for the People]

I think Mao is important for non-Maoist for two reasons:
(1) Mao took an autonomist turn within the confines of Leninism.
(2) Mao opened the path for the development of a post-colonial Marxism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@February 18, 2007 03:07 pm
Lefty:

Mao's writings will always be relevent

You are right, I have found them very useful helping me refute a rather poor theory (which I cannot mention here (or I might be warned for derailing a thread)). His writings are perhaps among the weakest of the those inflicted on us by supporters of this un-named theory -- they certainly rival Stalin's, Engels's and Dietzgens's.

So, yes I am really glad he inflicted this stuff on us.

Maoism is the farthest advance and most highly developed form of Leninism.