A Study of Maoism

[The New Sea Territory]

My question has always been how Mao's dialectics differed from the standard Marxist-Leninist or Marxist orthodoxy. I've read that he simplified Engels three laws.

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

Mainly, it is that Maoism sees the peasants, not the working class, as the proletariat. It works around this central theme, including within it some tenets of Leninism, Stalinism, and Trotskyism at once, but all tailor-made for China alone.

Not really, it just argues that in pre-industrial societies, the peasants ARE the chief working class.

I can see the point of that idea, but then again, Marxist historical analysis predicates that society progresses in stages. Maoism attempts to leapfrog the capitalist stage that Marx thought essential and break feudalism down straight into socialism.

The result? Very bad things.

Ah, my bad.
At least I was close. Means my memory isn't as bad as I thought it was.

So, shall we get started in the readings, since activity has largely vanished, or should we wait?

[Pandeeria]

Not really, it just argues that in pre-industrial societies, the peasants ARE the chief working class.

I can see the point of that idea, but then again, Marxist historical analysis predicates that society progresses in stages. Maoism attempts to leapfrog the capitalist stage that Marx thought essential and break feudalism down straight into socialism.

The result? Very bad things.

Ah, my bad.
At least I was close. Means my memory isn't as bad as I thought it was.

So, shall we get started in the readings, since activity has largely vanished, or should we wait?

The readings poor favor.

[Kubra]

Mainly, it is that Maoism sees the peasants, not the working class, as the proletariat. It works around this central theme, including within it some tenets of Leninism, Stalinism, and Trotskyism at once, but all tailor-made for China alone.

Not really, it just argues that in pre-industrial societies, the peasants ARE the chief working class.

I can see the point of that idea, but then again, Marxist historical analysis predicates that society progresses in stages. Maoism attempts to leapfrog the capitalist stage that Marx thought essential and break feudalism down straight into socialism.

The result? Very bad things.

As I say time and time again, stageism isn't a thing. It was a later train of thought based on a very rigid sort of economic determinism. Marx never held it to be so.

And in any case, the soviets were fairly wishy washy on the matter. They were alright with a large amount of peasant organization and political participation during the civil war era, but then soviet advisors sent abroad to places like Turkey and China were pushing the matter of stageism and 'socialism-building'.

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

So, after that brief discussion, the first reading assignment (*cringe*) is the essay On Contradiction. It's lengthy, especially online, but it forms part of the backbone of Maoism (according to various sources).

[Pandeeria]

Not really, it just argues that in pre-industrial societies, the peasants ARE the chief working class.

I can see the point of that idea, but then again, Marxist historical analysis predicates that society progresses in stages. Maoism attempts to leapfrog the capitalist stage that Marx thought essential and break feudalism down straight into socialism.

The result? Very bad things.

As I say time and time again, stageism isn't a thing. It was a later train of thought based on a very rigid sort of economic determinism. Marx never held it to be so.

And in any case, the soviets were fairly wishy washy on the matter. They were alright with a large amount of peasant organization and political participation during the civil war era, but then soviet advisors sent abroad to places like Turkey and China were pushing the matter of stageism and 'socialism-building'.

I think proper capitalist development is necessary. When you try to go right from Feudalism to Socialism (Russian Empire, China, Korea, etc.) bad things have happened. I think the capitalist development and with it general increases in education and various standards of living are necessary to ensure a socialist revolution doesn't end up in a totalitarian form of government.

[Kubra]

So, after that brief discussion, the first reading assignment (*cringe*) is the essay On Contradiction. It's lengthy, especially online, but it forms part of the backbone of Maoism (according to various sources).

An online reading group ain't gonna last long if it uses the long, meaty works.
For a short and more easily discussed work, I reccomend "analysis of the classes in chinese society".
If one wants to stick with long works, ones better off with "On New Democracy", cuz directly political writings are just more entertaining.

[Kubra]

As I say time and time again, stageism isn't a thing. It was a later train of thought based on a very rigid sort of economic determinism. Marx never held it to be so.

And in any case, the soviets were fairly wishy washy on the matter. They were alright with a large amount of peasant organization and political participation during the civil war era, but then soviet advisors sent abroad to places like Turkey and China were pushing the matter of stageism and 'socialism-building'.

I think proper capitalist development is necessary. When you try to go right from Feudalism to Socialism (Russian Empire, China, Korea, etc.) bad things have happened. I think the capitalist development and with it general increases in education and various standards of living are necessary to ensure a socialist revolution doesn't end up in a totalitarian form of government.

Think it all you want, that ain't my disputation, just the supposition that it's the marxist position.

[Cedoria]

As I say time and time again, stageism isn't a thing. It was a later train of thought based on a very rigid sort of economic determinism. Marx never held it to be so.

And in any case, the soviets were fairly wishy washy on the matter. They were alright with a large amount of peasant organization and political participation during the civil war era, but then soviet advisors sent abroad to places like Turkey and China were pushing the matter of stageism and 'socialism-building'.

I think proper capitalist development is necessary. When you try to go right from Feudalism to Socialism (Russian Empire, China, Korea, etc.) bad things have happened. I think the capitalist development and with it general increases in education and various standards of living are necessary to ensure a socialist revolution doesn't end up in a totalitarian form of government.

Well, Marx said the same thing, effectively.

Although not a Marxist myself, I can again see his point.

[Cedoria]

So, after that brief discussion, the first reading assignment (*cringe*) is the essay On Contradiction. It's lengthy, especially online, but it forms part of the backbone of Maoism (according to various sources).

It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.

[Kubra]

I think proper capitalist development is necessary. When you try to go right from Feudalism to Socialism (Russian Empire, China, Korea, etc.) bad things have happened. I think the capitalist development and with it general increases in education and various standards of living are necessary to ensure a socialist revolution doesn't end up in a totalitarian form of government.

Well, Marx said the same thing, effectively.

Although not a Marxist myself, I can again see his point.

no he very well did not
he very explicitly called a movement towards capitalist the capitalist mode of production by those with communal property relations a bit of english vandalsim

[Pandeeria]

So, after that brief discussion, the first reading assignment (*cringe*) is the essay On Contradiction. It's lengthy, especially online, but it forms part of the backbone of Maoism (according to various sources).

As of now, I'm too tired to take things in. I need to go to sleep. However I must say, I like the writing style more than the long winded writing of Lenin and Marx.

[Kubra]

So, after that brief discussion, the first reading assignment (*cringe*) is the essay On Contradiction. It's lengthy, especially online, but it forms part of the backbone of Maoism (according to various sources).

It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.

If it seems to be babble, it's because it's meaty neo-hegelian theory. That doesn't detract from its seriousness.
Lenin's "materialism and empirio-criticism" ain't a much better read, but we have no reason to believe it was no seriously believed or not undertaken with all seriousness.

[The New Sea Territory]

So, after that brief discussion, the first reading assignment (*cringe*) is the essay On Contradiction. It's lengthy, especially online, but it forms part of the backbone of Maoism (according to various sources).

It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.

The German Ideology was aimed at Marx's enemies within Die Freien (notably Stirner), and it is generally considered a serious ideological work.

If you at least read the thing, you might see what Mao was trying to say. He subordinates two of Engels's specified laws of dialectics to one other law, and cites Lenin as influence for doing so. However, its understandable not to be able to speak Marxist fluently. It's a foreign language itself at times.

[Cedoria]

It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.

The German Ideology was aimed at Marx's enemies within Die Freien (notably Stirner), and it is generally considered a serious ideological work.

If you at least read the thing, you might see what Mao was trying to say. He subordinates two of Engels's specified laws of dialectics to one other law, and cites Lenin as influence for doing so. However, its understandable not to be able to speak Marxist fluently. It's a foreign language itself at times.

What makes you presume I haven't read it? I have, for your information.

It's nowhere near the caliber of Marx's works I can assure you, it's not even intended to be such.

[Risottia]

Boorish variant of Marxism that would make Marx turn in his grave.

I will give it praise in that it came very close to restructuring Chinese society, although the methods and the path it was going wasn't one worthy of any positive comment.

And for what? Modern China is almost the complete opposite once more.

Basically this.
Maoism is just rural Stalinism with soy sauce. With the difference that Stalin's plans actually improved the industrial output, while Mao's lunacy caused famines - seriously, killing all the sparrows?
And of course the ones who proclaimed their strict adherence to Marxist orthodoxy were the first to jump on Nixon's bandwagon.

[Cedoria]

It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.

If it seems to be babble, it's because it's meaty neo-hegelian theory. That doesn't detract from its seriousness.
Lenin's "materialism and empirio-criticism" ain't a much better read, but we have no reason to believe it was no seriously believed or not undertaken with all seriousness.

Seriousness in the sense of intention arguably, but not in terms of its accuracy.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

So, after that brief discussion, the first reading assignment (*cringe*) is the essay On Contradiction. It's lengthy, especially online, but it forms part of the backbone of Maoism (according to various sources).

Are there any specific chapters that we should take note of?

[The New Sea Territory]

The German Ideology was aimed at Marx's enemies within Die Freien (notably Stirner), and it is generally considered a serious ideological work.

If you at least read the thing, you might see what Mao was trying to say. He subordinates two of Engels's specified laws of dialectics to one other law, and cites Lenin as influence for doing so. However, its understandable not to be able to speak Marxist fluently. It's a foreign language itself at times.

What makes you presume I haven't read it? I have, for your information.

This:

It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.

...makes me think you haven't read it, or at least that you didn't read it that well. I don't particularly agree with Maoism or this text, and find that Maoist parties have a disproportionate tendencies towards cults of personality or self-destruction (see: RCP/Bob-Avakianism and The RAF, respectively). That doesn't make this text not a serious representation of Maoist political theory.

It's nowhere near the caliber of Marx's works I can assure you, it's not even intended to be such.

Where did I say this?

[Infected Mushroom]

Mao? He's a psychotic peasant.

[Kubra]

If it seems to be babble, it's because it's meaty neo-hegelian theory. That doesn't detract from its seriousness.
Lenin's "materialism and empirio-criticism" ain't a much better read, but we have no reason to believe it was no seriously believed or not undertaken with all seriousness.

Seriousness in the sense of intention arguably, but not in terms of its accuracy.

idk what accuracy you're aiming for with anything in our philosophical milieu. I mean, by that measure, we can poke a lot of good fun at Engels. Like, a lot.

[Cedoria]

Seriousness in the sense of intention arguably, but not in terms of its accuracy.

idk what accuracy you're aiming for with anything in our philosophical milieu. I mean, by that measure, we can poke a lot of good fun at Engels. Like, a lot.

We can, I never suggested that we couldn't.

[The Liberated Territories]

Maoism is an example study in why communism should never be tried. *runs away before the no-true-communist brigade comes*

[Ashlak]

Isn't Maosim basically just agrarian themed Leninism?

[Major-Tom]

An ideology of death, destruction, and pure irrationality. I find it hilarious when Westerners ascribe to doctrines like Maoism, these cushy white kids living in the suburbs who think they're somehow part of the proletartiat cause they read an article on Mao and Chomsky. I would know, I used to be one of em. Then I wised up