A Study of Maoism

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

Remember, everyone, we're on this now:

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).

[Teemant]

Remember, everyone, we're on this now:

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).

Things like these are not actually for reading. For example nobody reads "Das Kapital". One can only read such books/works when they are really wanting to belive them.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

Remember, everyone, we're on this now:

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).

I have no time to read a Maoist/Stalinist authoritarian socialist essay. Please, give a TL;DR.

[Salus Maior]

Mao was a liar and fool who had zero grip on reality. His writings on guerrila warfare have some tactical merit, mainly because they borrow heavily from other authors, Sun Tzu among them, but his economic and ideological theories are not worth the time I once briefly spent reading about them.

And that's from a socialist perspective.

Yep. Mao was a great revolutionary but not a great leader.

And that situation was only worsened by there not being any checks or balances to his power.

[The New Sea Territory]

Remember, everyone, we're on this now:

I have no time to read a Maoist/Stalinist authoritarian socialist essay. Please, give a TL;DR.

Mao makes some changes to dialectical materialism, citing Lenin as inspiration. The "unity of opposites" or as Engels put it the "interpenetration of opposites" becomes the primary law of dialectical materialism. At least, from what I read of it.

On a purely theoretical level, I disagree. However, I fail to see how this change affects the rest of Maoist politics.

[The New Sea Territory]

I think the best part about Mao was his belief in the "continuous revolution", I think that was probably the most powerful part of his ideology, the idea that societies would culturally stagnate and backslide into imperialism and oligarchy without a continuous reinvigoration of revolutionary zeal in the country, and his Cultural Revolution, based on this theory, really changed the cultural face of China for the better, destruction of imperialistic relics, barefoot doctors, promotion of women's rights and changing cultural attitudes on women and replacing old cultural tomes, institutions and works with modern, revolutionary cultural works, rewriting the Chinese language, mass protests in the streets, he was a political mastermind and his notion of "continuous revolution" was probably the most powerful aspect of Maoism, I would say.

Agreed, I just find there are other ways to do this that don't necessitate an authoritarian power structure. Revolt within a cultural context can be done in other ways.

[The New Sea Territory]

My thoughts about Maoism:

"State-capital, in sublating private capital, negates or represses private capital. The ideology of anti-individualism - that is, of collectivism or one-sided socialism - so essential to Maoism in particular and to revolutionary ideology in general is congruent precisely with the project of the repression of private capitalism and private accumulation, together with the characterological tendencies corresponding to these, on the part of bureaucratic capitalism (state-capitalism). This policy of repression, typified by the Maoist slogan "smash self", also has the effect of inhibiting the emergence of communist egoism within the home proletariat; a form of egoism which the bureaucracy confounds, consciously or unconsciously, with bourgeois egoism."

To explain what that means, the authors were saying that anti-individualist strains of Marxist thought will inevitably reproduce the liberal selfishness they criticize so much, through the egoism of bureaucrats in a post-revolutionary state. Maoism's streak of vicious anti-individualism is not only in opposition to Marx and Engels*, it's also implicitly selfish, as the smashing of the working class "self" only leaves the bureaucrats to expand their self. The selfishness of the working class destroys the selfishness of any authoritarian position, but under Maoist dogma this cannot be. Instead, we should give all the power to the bureaucrats and hope they don't reproduce class society or bourgeois egoism under a new name.

*"Communism is quite incomprehensible to [egoists] because the communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism, nor do they express this contradiction theoretically either in its sentimental or ‘it its high-flown ideological form...The communists do not preach morality at all..." (The German Ideology)

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

Remember, everyone, we're on this now:

Things like these are not actually for reading. For example nobody reads "Das Kapital". One can only read such books/works when they are really wanting to belive them.

That is not true.

Reading those works make us more knowledgable. Seeing as the point of this thread is to intelligently critique Maoism, we must gain that knowledge from nothing. Therefore, we read.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Mao is pretty much the poster boy for why being a good military leader doesn't necessarily make you a good civil leader. Credit for ending the century of humiliation, I suppose, though China remained a basket case until Deng took over.

[Risottia]

Remember, everyone, we're on this now:

Things like these are not actually for reading. For example nobody reads "Das Kapital". One can only read such books/works when they are really wanting to belive them.

I've read the Manifesto, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, Grundrisse der deutschen Ideologie, Mussolini's speeches, Smith's Wealth of Nations among others.

Do you think I was "really wanting to believe them" all?

[Kravanica]

Terrible ideology that killed 45 million people in 4 years. But not real Marxism cause it's never real Marxism if it doesn't work.

[The New Sea Territory]

But not real Marxism cause it's never real Marxism if it doesn't work.

Keep telling yourself that.

When people say "it's not real Marxism", they are saying Mao changed some fundamentals of Marxist theory.

[Kravanica]

But not real Marxism cause it's never real Marxism if it doesn't work.

Keep telling yourself that.

When people say "it's not real Marxism", they are saying Mao changed some fundamentals of Marxist theory.

Mao tried to apply Marxism in a Chinese sense. Since China didn't have a large industrial base like Russia did, Mao had to change things. But at the end of the day, it was still Marxism. Just Marxism made to suit the unique circumstances of Chinese society. Things like collectivization of agriculture which led to the whole 45 million people dead in four years thing. Those were Marxist. Collectivization doesn't work. And of course Mao blamed his failures by scapegoating "enemies of the Revolution".

But continue trying to shrug it off because it isn't Real Marxism™. Maybe your ideology *gasp* doesn't work.

[Geilinor]

Keep telling yourself that.

When people say "it's not real Marxism", they are saying Mao changed some fundamentals of Marxist theory.

Mao tried to apply Marxism in a Chinese sense. Since China didn't have a large industrial base like Russia did, Mao had to change things. But at the end of the day, it was still Marxism. Just Marxism made to suit the unique circumstances of Chinese society. Things like collectivization of agriculture which led to the whole 45 million people dead in four years thing. Those were Marxist. Collectivization doesn't work. And of course Mao blamed his failures by scapegoating "enemies of the Revolution".

But continue trying to shrug it off because it isn't Real Marxism™. Maybe your ideology *gasp* doesn't work.

I'm no Marxist, but Mao had no clue. You can't try an ideology for factory workers on peasants and think it will work.

[Kravanica]

Mao tried to apply Marxism in a Chinese sense. Since China didn't have a large industrial base like Russia did, Mao had to change things. But at the end of the day, it was still Marxism. Just Marxism made to suit the unique circumstances of Chinese society. Things like collectivization of agriculture which led to the whole 45 million people dead in four years thing. Those were Marxist. Collectivization doesn't work. And of course Mao blamed his failures by scapegoating "enemies of the Revolution".

But continue trying to shrug it off because it isn't Real Marxism™. Maybe your ideology *gasp* doesn't work.

I'm no Marxist, but Mao had no clue. You can't try an ideology for factory workers on peasants and think it will work.

What Mao tried to do was create an industrial base out of nothing. He forced farmers to become factory workers while trying to compensate for the loss of agricultural productivity through collectivization. Obviously this didn't work, and Mao blamed it on a lack of commitment to socialism and on "enemies of the Revolution" within Chinese society. Mao was hopelessly idealistic and evil in many ways.

[Pandeeria]

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

All the shit going down in Africa is an example study of why capitalism should never be tried.

It's easy to cherry pick failed examples while completely ignoring the underlying problems of why Communism in the 20th century failed on multiple levels.

[Pandeeria]

Remember, everyone, we're on this now:

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).

Isn't there any shorter works of Mao we can discuss?

[The Liberated Territories]

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

It's not even the no-true-communist argument that needs to be made here, but a part/whole sort of fallacy.

You've argued based on the failure of one school of thought within communism that it shouldn't be tried.

Considering that various forms of communism and socialism were tried in 30 or so odd countries, one must speculate on when these marginal schools are going to take action into their own hands to disprove them wrong. Otherwise we can only base things on the evidence that we know.

[Pandeeria]

It's not even the no-true-communist argument that needs to be made here, but a part/whole sort of fallacy.

You've argued based on the failure of one school of thought within communism that it shouldn't be tried.

Considering that various forms of communism and socialism were tried in 30 or so odd countries, one must speculate on when these marginal schools are going to take action into their own hands to disprove them wrong. Otherwise we can only base things on the evidence that we know.

Most of those countries were puppets of other states, or were so heavily influenced that it was inevitable their system would shift toward totalitarianism.

In essence, all Communist movements that took power in the 20th century were outgrowths of the Russian Revolution; of the Bolsheviks. Mongolia was turned into a Soviet satellite state, the Warsaw Pact were both decimated by World War Two and were Stalin's puppets, and both China, Cuba, and North Korea took heavy inspiration and influence from the USSR. Further more, the various SE Asian communist states took inspiration from China.

It is also of no coincidence that all of these places were undeveloped, rural dirt holes with famine and disease. It doesn't matter what system you practice, when you don't have an educated populace and the necessary infrastructure, industry, and social programs to ensure things go smoothly, then terrible stuff will happen. It's the same reason why Africa and (to a much lesser extent) South East Asia and Central America is like it is.

[The Liberated Territories]

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

All the shit going down in Africa is an example study of why capitalism should never be tried.

It's easy to cherry pick failed examples while completely ignoring the underlying problems of why Communism in the 20th century failed on multiple levels.

You mean in places such as Angola, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Benin, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe? I'm pretty sure the non-communist wrecked countries, such as Ghana and South Africa, are doing generally better.

[Pandeeria]

All the shit going down in Africa is an example study of why capitalism should never be tried.

It's easy to cherry pick failed examples while completely ignoring the underlying problems of why Communism in the 20th century failed on multiple levels.

You mean in places such as Angola, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Benin, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe? I'm pretty sure the non-communist wrecked countries, such as Ghana and South Africa, are doing generally better.

You know that Malawi, Burundi, the CAR, and Liberia are some of the poorest countries in Africa (some of them more poor than any that you've listed) and they were capitalist since their independence, right? Actually they were before that, as their colonial oppressors already adopted capitalism for a century or two.

[Geilinor]

You mean in places such as Angola, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Benin, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe? I'm pretty sure the non-communist wrecked countries, such as Ghana and South Africa, are doing generally better.

You know that Malawi, Burundi, the CAR, and Liberia are some of the poorest countries in Africa (some of them more poor than any that you've listed) and they were capitalist since their independence, right? Actually they were before that, as their colonial oppressors already adopted capitalism for a century or two.

Other people can cherry pick too, you know. Ghana, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, and Gabon are doing relatively well and used capitalist methods to do it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Considering that various forms of communism and socialism were tried in 30 or so odd countries, one must speculate on when these marginal schools are going to take action into their own hands to disprove them wrong. Otherwise we can only base things on the evidence that we know.

Most of those countries were puppets of other states, or were so heavily influenced that it was inevitable their system would shift toward totalitarianism.

In essence, all Communist movements that took power in the 20th century were outgrowths of the Russian Revolution; of the Bolsheviks. Mongolia was turned into a Soviet satellite state, the Warsaw Pact were both decimated by World War Two and were Stalin's puppets, and both China, Cuba, and North Korea took heavy inspiration and influence from the USSR. Further more, the various SE Asian communist states took inspiration from China.

It is also of no coincidence that all of these places were undeveloped, rural dirt holes with famine and disease. It doesn't matter what system you practice, when you don't have an educated populace and the necessary infrastructure, industry, and social programs to ensure things go smoothly, then terrible stuff will happen.

Yet all the above are the result of capitalist wealth. Why does Finland have the best education system, France the best healthcare system, Sweden the best welfare system? Certainly it can't be due to socialism, which has never been instated on a massive scale in these countries as the USSR had. All of these systems are the product of capitalism being able to fund them. It seems that in order for "socialism" to be productive, it needs to become a parasite on existing capitalist nations.

[Gigaverse]

You know which communist parties are the ones using Maoist rhetoric nowadays? Those trying to blow shits up.

I may have missed a "peaceful" one; but this is the general trend I'm seeing.

[Pandeeria]

Most of those countries were puppets of other states, or were so heavily influenced that it was inevitable their system would shift toward totalitarianism.

In essence, all Communist movements that took power in the 20th century were outgrowths of the Russian Revolution; of the Bolsheviks. Mongolia was turned into a Soviet satellite state, the Warsaw Pact were both decimated by World War Two and were Stalin's puppets, and both China, Cuba, and North Korea took heavy inspiration and influence from the USSR. Further more, the various SE Asian communist states took inspiration from China.

It is also of no coincidence that all of these places were undeveloped, rural dirt holes with famine and disease. It doesn't matter what system you practice, when you don't have an educated populace and the necessary infrastructure, industry, and social programs to ensure things go smoothly, then terrible stuff will happen.

Yet all the above are the result of capitalist wealth. Why does Finland have the best education system, France the best healthcare system, Sweden the best welfare system? Certainly it can't be due to socialism, which has never been instated on a massive scale in these countries as the USSR had. All of these systems are the product of capitalism being able to fund them. It seems that in order for "socialism" to be productive, it needs to become a parasite on existing capitalist nations.

The US and Europe (as gradient, typically getting more poor the further East you go) are rich not because of capitalism, but because they managed to build up massively developed middle classes over the course of centuries through the exploitation and plundering of the Earth. Starting from the colonization of the Americas, to later Africa and Asia, and with Economic Imperialism (forcibly setting up markets in foreign countries, like what the US did to Japan and South Korea after World War Two), all of it was extremely profitable and brought in wealth which quite built it's self up nicely.

Even countries like Sweden and Finland benefited (as they were very close trade partners with Denmark, a colonial power, whom were trade partners with the Dutch and British). For countries like Russia, China, and various other states that had to develop their middle classes in a different way, they tended to be more poor. Luckily after rapidly industrializing (thanks to Stalin, of all people, with Russia and Deng Xiaoping with China), it made it significantly easier for them to produce things. That's not an advent of capitalism, but of technology itself.