Maoists place India 6th on Global Terrorism Index

[Socialist Tera]

Maoism has been successful doing that in China. If the capitalists were eager to make the changes, it would of been made within the system already. The main problems with a lot of capitalists, they are not willing to use the force necessary to force change to happen.

If they weren't willing to use the force necessary to force change to happen, then they wouldn't be in power. Lrn 2 French Revolution.

Terrible analysis and bad use of dialectical materialism. The social and political conditions of France and India is completely different.

[United Marxist Nations]

Maoism has been successful doing that in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

tl;dr : while the ruling upper class (venture capitalists and Party brass) lives in luxury apartments in Shangai skyscrapers and seaside villas, the majority of the Chinese people live on less than 4 US$ a day.

[Risottia]

Knowing your stance on socialism, if the reverse was happening in a socialist country. You would be cheering for the capitalists to overthrow the "corrupt socialist government". The idea of socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a state to oppress the bourgeois class and use the state as a tool to reach defeat capitalism, then get rid of the state.

You evidently don't know more about my stance on socialism than you do about socialism itself.

Go get yourself an education on the latter and avoid spreading lies on the former.

[Socialist Tera]

Maoism has been successful doing that in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

tl;dr : while the ruling upper class (venture capitalists and Party brass) lives in luxury apartments in Shangai skyscrapers and seaside villas, the majority of the Chinese people live on less than 4 US$ a day.

GDP does not equal living costs. Also, capitalism was restored when Mao died and the markets were restored, using Marxist theory, they aren't even socialist.

[United Marxist Nations]

If they weren't willing to use the force necessary to force change to happen, then they wouldn't be in power. Lrn 2 French Revolution.

Terrible analysis and bad use of dialectical materialism. The social and political conditions of France and India is completely different.

The one using it badly is you. India is too backward at the present moment for a successful socialist revolution, and the development of the proletariat is sorely needed.

[Dracoria]

This doesn't answer my question. When capitalists would be equally eager to eliminate religious persecution and the caste system, how can you present that as an example of Maoism?

Nevermind the fact that India is indeed attempting to eradicate the caste system, though they could certainly be trying harder with the persecution.

Maoism has been successful doing that in China. If the capitalists were eager to make the changes, it would of been made within the system already. The main problems with a lot of capitalists, they are not willing to use the force necessary to force change to happen.

Congratulations! You just failed Marxism 101.


They claim to be fighting against a corrupt system, while actively trying to establish a more corrupt and violent one.


Exactly where did I say so?

Knowing your stance on socialism, if the reverse was happening in a socialist country. You would be cheering for the capitalists to overthrow the "corrupt socialist government". The idea of socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a state to oppress the bourgeois class and use the state as a tool to reach defeat capitalism, then get rid of the state.

If you consider China a gleaming example of Maoist success, you may as well just let the capitalists keep doing what they're doing. 'Communist' China's early years were an utter failure until the leadership decided to transition to state capitalism, which is what's succeeding so well for them. If they'd have gone for it from the start, maybe the nation would have surpassed the US already.

I'd go on about how this strain of Maoism smacks of the Khmer Rouge who became so self-destructive that the Vietnamese communists turned on them, how they're defeating their own cause, but it seems many prominent leftists and communists on the forum are already at it.

[Condunum]

Yes, terrorism is bound to cause deaths and suffering only among the hated class enemy.

Not.

They are engaged in guerrilla warfare to get rid of the horrible caste system. They are real revolutionaries, they fight, they suffer, they fight for the greater good. Of course, a revolution in India needs to be violent, they are using as much force as the government uses against them.

A revolution in India needs to be violent. A revolution in India needs to be violent. The nation of Gandhi. No, fuck that. Communist terrorists are still terrorists, and the Indian caste system is (legally) abolished.

[Socialist Tera]

Terrible analysis and bad use of dialectical materialism. The social and political conditions of France and India is completely different.

The one using it badly is you. India is too backward at the present moment for a successful socialist revolution, and the development of the proletariat is sorely needed.

The USSR was very successful until Khrushchev ruined it.

Maoism has been successful doing that in China. If the capitalists were eager to make the changes, it would of been made within the system already. The main problems with a lot of capitalists, they are not willing to use the force necessary to force change to happen.

Knowing your stance on socialism, if the reverse was happening in a socialist country. You would be cheering for the capitalists to overthrow the "corrupt socialist government". The idea of socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a state to oppress the bourgeois class and use the state as a tool to reach defeat capitalism, then get rid of the state.

If you consider China a gleaming example of Maoist success, you may as well just let the capitalists keep doing what they're doing. 'Communist' China's early years were an utter failure until the leadership decided to transition to state capitalism, which is what's succeeding so well for them. If they'd have gone for it from the start, maybe the nation would have surpassed the US already.

I'd go on about how this strain of Maoism smacks of the Khmer Rouge who became so self-destructive that the Vietnamese communists turned on them, how they're defeating their own cause, but it seems many prominent leftists and communists on the forum are already at it.

Pol Pot was his own thing. He was an opportunist who only called himself a Maoist to suck up to Mao.

[United Marxist Nations]

Maoism has been successful doing that in China. If the capitalists were eager to make the changes, it would of been made within the system already. The main problems with a lot of capitalists, they are not willing to use the force necessary to force change to happen.

Knowing your stance on socialism, if the reverse was happening in a socialist country. You would be cheering for the capitalists to overthrow the "corrupt socialist government". The idea of socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a state to oppress the bourgeois class and use the state as a tool to reach defeat capitalism, then get rid of the state.

If you consider China a gleaming example of Maoist success, you may as well just let the capitalists keep doing what they're doing. 'Communist' China's early years were an utter failure until the leadership decided to transition to state capitalism, which is what's succeeding so well for them. If they'd have gone for it from the start, maybe the nation would have surpassed the US already.

I'd go on about how this strain of Maoism smacks of the Khmer Rouge who became so self-destructive that the Vietnamese communists turned on them, how they're defeating their own cause, but it seems many prominent leftists and communists on the forum are already at it.

The Naxalites are rather infamous in Leftist circles for killing lots of Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, and basically anyone who isn't a Maoist, or the "right" kind of Maoist even.

[Manisdog]

These guys are corrupt people who take bribes from mining companies, I wonder how does the op even support this

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Terrible analysis and bad use of dialectical materialism.

You are the one telling him that?

Chamou pro fight. Se eu fosse o Marxists não deixava essa passar.

[Risottia]

GDP does not equal living costs.

And who was talking about GDP? Are you even able to read, or to answer with something that isn't lies and strawmen?

Also, capitalism was restored when Mao died and the markets were restored, using Marxist theory, they aren't even socialist.

The majority of people were poor in China before Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continued to be poor in China during Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continue to be poor in China after Mao, while the ruling classes live in luxury.
Which proves that Maoism accomplished nothing, except for substituting an old ruling class with a new one.

[Tubbsalot]

This doesn't answer my question. When capitalists would be equally eager to eliminate religious persecution and the caste system, how can you present that as an example of Maoism?

Nevermind the fact that India is indeed attempting to eradicate the caste system, though they could certainly be trying harder with the persecution.

Maoism has been successful doing that in China. If the capitalists were eager to make the changes, it would of been made within the system already. The main problems with a lot of capitalists, they are not willing to use the force necessary to force change to happen.

Maoists in China enforced an atheist state, which is as bad as a theocracy when it comes to religious persecution. They didn't have a caste system. You are incorrect.

And while the capitalists in power in India right now aren't doing a good job with the persecution (although I'll repeat that they HAVE been working on the caste system, quite effectively, in fact), the capitalists of any developed country would be tackling it as a priority. As I have already said.

Are you actually reading my posts?

[Luziyca]

Terrorism and murder are never the answer. It only makes people hate a cause, no matter how valid it is. Peaceful protest, spreading awareness and civil disobedience are the best ways to fight against the bourgeoisie in the modern era.

As a leftist, this.

[Socialist Tera]

GDP does not equal living costs.

And who was talking about GDP? Are you even able to read, or to answer with something that isn't lies and strawmen?

Also, capitalism was restored when Mao died and the markets were restored, using Marxist theory, they aren't even socialist.

The majority of people were poor in China before Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continued to be poor in China during Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continue to be poor in China after Mao, while the ruling classes live in luxury.
Which proves that Maoism accomplished nothing, except for substituting an old ruling class with a new one.

Never been proven and is pretty much just a myth to give socialism a bad name.

[United Marxist Nations]

The one using it badly is you. India is too backward at the present moment for a successful socialist revolution, and the development of the proletariat is sorely needed.

The USSR was very successful until Khrushchev ruined it.

If you consider China a gleaming example of Maoist success, you may as well just let the capitalists keep doing what they're doing. 'Communist' China's early years were an utter failure until the leadership decided to transition to state capitalism, which is what's succeeding so well for them. If they'd have gone for it from the start, maybe the nation would have surpassed the US already.

I'd go on about how this strain of Maoism smacks of the Khmer Rouge who became so self-destructive that the Vietnamese communists turned on them, how they're defeating their own cause, but it seems many prominent leftists and communists on the forum are already at it.

Pol Pot was his own thing. He was an opportunist who only called himself a Maoist to suck up to Mao.

1) The USSR had begun to degrade before Khrushchev came to power, the fact that Khrushchev came to power in the first place is evidence enough of this.

2) And Mao still liked him. Moreover, Mao began to ally himself with the US, and tried to start shit with the Soviet Union.

[Tubbsalot]

The majority of people were poor in China before Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continued to be poor in China during Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continue to be poor in China after Mao, while the ruling classes live in luxury.
Which proves that Maoism accomplished nothing, except for substituting an old ruling class with a new one.

Never been proven and is pretty much just a myth to give socialism a bad name.

Never been proven? What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you live in the same universe as us?

[The Sotoan Union]

Terrorism is a largely modern phenomenon that wasn't prevalent in the 18th century. Don't try to look at history with a modern view to fit an agenda.

That's what history is for.

Yes, bad history is for reinterpreting to support our modern political agendas.

But good history is interpreting history for what it was.

[Personal Freedom]

Maoism has been described by the Chinese government as a failure. They use a different type of economy now and that has made them an industrial power, not Maoism. I can see why communism and class warfare would be a real issue in India, but terror tactics will not work. They only serve to make an idea less popular.

[Socialist Tera]

The USSR was very successful until Khrushchev ruined it.

Pol Pot was his own thing. He was an opportunist who only called himself a Maoist to suck up to Mao.

1) The USSR had begun to degrade before Khrushchev came to power, the fact that Khrushchev came to power in the first place is evidence enough of this.

2) And Mao still liked him. Moreover, Mao began to ally himself with the US, and tried to start shit with the Soviet Union.

He saw that the USSR became revisionist and betrayed socialism. If Molotov became the premier of the USSR, this would not have happened.

Never been proven and is pretty much just a myth to give socialism a bad name.

Never been proven? What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you live in the same universe as us?

It has actually never been proven, all the supposed evidence is fraud. It is pretty much a conservative think tank. It's a throw back to the days of the yellow peril.

[Risottia]

And who was talking about GDP? Are you even able to read, or to answer with something that isn't lies and strawmen?


The majority of people were poor in China before Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continued to be poor in China during Mao, while the ruling classes lived in luxury. The majority of people continue to be poor in China after Mao, while the ruling classes live in luxury.
Which proves that Maoism accomplished nothing, except for substituting an old ruling class with a new one.

Never been proven

Yes, yes.
Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_China

In a landmark paper published in the Review of Development Economics, economists Ravi Kanbur and Xiaobo Zhang conclude that there have been three peaks of inequality in China in the last fifty years, “coinciding with the Great Famine of the late 1950s, the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s, and finally the period of openness and global integration in the late 1990s.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 919.f01t04

The effect of Maoism on inequality has been more or less the same as venture capitalism.

[Condunum]

1) The USSR had begun to degrade before Khrushchev came to power, the fact that Khrushchev came to power in the first place is evidence enough of this.

2) And Mao still liked him. Moreover, Mao began to ally himself with the US, and tried to start shit with the Soviet Union.

He saw that the USSR became revisionist and betrayed socialism. If Molotov became the premier of the USSR, this would not have happened.

Never been proven? What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you live in the same universe as us?

It has actually never been proven, all the supposed evidence is fraud. It is pretty much a conservative think tank. It's a throw back to the days of the yellow peril.

What are you talking about?

[United Marxist Nations]

1) The USSR had begun to degrade before Khrushchev came to power, the fact that Khrushchev came to power in the first place is evidence enough of this.

2) And Mao still liked him. Moreover, Mao began to ally himself with the US, and tried to start shit with the Soviet Union.

He saw that the USSR became revisionist and betrayed socialism. If Molotov became the premier of the USSR, this would not have happened.

Yet he had no trouble doing so himself later.

[Risottia]

He saw that the USSR became revisionist and betrayed socialism.

Yeah, that's why Mao joined forces with Nixon against the Soviet Union and Vietnam. Because Nixon was the best communist around! Uh uh!

[Socialist Tera]

He saw that the USSR became revisionist and betrayed socialism. If Molotov became the premier of the USSR, this would not have happened.

It has actually never been proven, all the supposed evidence is fraud. It is pretty much a conservative think tank. It's a throw back to the days of the yellow peril.

What are you talking about?

I'm basically saying that the information is fraudulent. The people who made up the lies are secret racist.