Advertisement
by The New Sea Territory » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:13 pm
| Ⓐ ☭ | Anarchist Communist | Heideggerian Marxist | Vegetarian | Bisexual | Stirnerite | Slavic/Germanic Pagan | ᚨ ᛟ |
Solntsa Roshcha --- Postmodern Poyltheist
"Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave
of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors."
-Renzo Novatore, Verso il Nulla Creatore
by The Northern Chinese Provinces » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:15 pm
Cedoria wrote:The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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.
The Three Unknowns三不知
I do not know how many soldiers I have, how many friends I have, nor how many enemies I have.兵不知有多少,朋友不知有多少,敌人不知有多少。
by Pandeeria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:16 pm
The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote:Cedoria wrote: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?
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Kubra » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:19 pm
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.Cedoria wrote:The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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.
by The Northern Chinese Provinces » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:21 pm
The Three Unknowns三不知
I do not know how many soldiers I have, how many friends I have, nor how many enemies I have.兵不知有多少,朋友不知有多少,敌人不知有多少。
by Pandeeria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:22 pm
Kubra wrote: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.Cedoria wrote: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.
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'.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Kubra » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:27 pm
An online reading group ain't gonna last long if it uses the long, meaty works.The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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).
by Kubra » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:27 pm
Think it all you want, that ain't my disputation, just the supposition that it's the marxist position.Pandeeria wrote:Kubra wrote: 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.
by Cedoria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:29 pm
Pandeeria wrote:Kubra wrote: 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.
by Cedoria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:30 pm
The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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).
by Kubra » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:32 pm
no he very well did notCedoria wrote:Pandeeria wrote:
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.
by Pandeeria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:34 pm
The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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).
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Kubra » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:34 pm
If it seems to be babble, it's because it's meaty neo-hegelian theory. That doesn't detract from its seriousness.Cedoria wrote:The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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.
by The New Sea Territory » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:37 pm
Cedoria wrote:The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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.
| Ⓐ ☭ | Anarchist Communist | Heideggerian Marxist | Vegetarian | Bisexual | Stirnerite | Slavic/Germanic Pagan | ᚨ ᛟ |
Solntsa Roshcha --- Postmodern Poyltheist
"Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave
of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors."
-Renzo Novatore, Verso il Nulla Creatore
by Cedoria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:41 pm
The New Sea Territory wrote:Cedoria wrote: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.
by Risottia » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:46 pm
Nusaresa wrote: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.
by Cedoria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:46 pm
Kubra wrote:If it seems to be babble, it's because it's meaty neo-hegelian theory. That doesn't detract from its seriousness.Cedoria wrote:It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.
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.
by FelrikTheDeleted » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:49 pm
The Northern Chinese Provinces wrote: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).
by The New Sea Territory » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:52 pm
Cedoria wrote:The New Sea Territory wrote:
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.
Cedoria wrote:It's mostly nonsensical babble, primarily because it was aimed at Mao's internal CCP enemies, not a serious ideological work.
It's nowhere near the caliber of Marx's works I can assure you, it's not even intended to be such.
| Ⓐ ☭ | Anarchist Communist | Heideggerian Marxist | Vegetarian | Bisexual | Stirnerite | Slavic/Germanic Pagan | ᚨ ᛟ |
Solntsa Roshcha --- Postmodern Poyltheist
"Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave
of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors."
-Renzo Novatore, Verso il Nulla Creatore
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:56 pm
by Kubra » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:57 pm
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 wrote:Kubra wrote: 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.
by Cedoria » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:20 pm
by The Liberated Territories » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:31 pm
by Major-Tom » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:48 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Arfuara, Camtropia, Dakran, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], Greater Arab State, Hekp, Ifreann, Repreteop, San Lumen, The Archregimancy, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The Two Jerseys, United Calanworie
Advertisement