A Study of Maoism

[Dagashi Shojo]

Disregarding the lie about me being an "opportunist," if I am harassing anyone, please report me to the mods. If I am guilty, I trust they will give me a warning or a ban, and I will reflect on my rule breaking actions. Mao is the founder of Maoism, and his actions show how destructive the ideology can be, along with it's dangerous similarities to Fascism. No one is trying to start a fight, they're attacking an ideology who's adherents have killed millions in the name of totalitarianism, personality cults, etc.

Maoism influenced revolution and revolutionaries. Dagahsi Shojo hates Mandela, she hates the Black rights movement, she hates Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, hates the Aboriginal rights movement, hates the Pans-African and anti-colonial movements. Without Mao and Fidel, there would still be apartheid. They came to this thread to obviously start a fight, That was your objective to attack an ideology to try and disprove it to try and get people to flock to your own which doesn't work. National syndicalism didn't influence anything or anyone in a significant way compared to Maoism.

If we could debate without falling into hysterics, that would be great, not that I'm expecting much at this stage. Nelson Mandela was not a Maoist by any stretch of the imagination; and while I'm more sympathetic to Castro than most other dictators, he and Guevara both contributed to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and many more taking refuge in other countries. Ironically, Che himself was a racist who hated Africans and wanted to impose his own brand of socialism on them. It is extremely likely, given this penchant for hyperbole, that you greatly exaggerate the role of Maoism in Pan-African and anti-colonial movements (next it will be claimed Gandhi was a Maoist).

This petty preoccupation with my ideology, as opposed to the fact that myself and others despise Maoism because it is a totalitarian dictatorship which killed millions, is not doing your position any favors. The only way it could get more ridiculous is if you claimed I was a Trotskyist Fascist saboteur.

[Socialist Tera]

killed millions in the name of totalitarianism, personality cults, etc.
She called Mandela totalitariant. She is obviously ever ignorant or the subject or trying to be opportunistic on the subject.
All of those movements except Cuba has huge Maoists elements in them.

How was Mandela totalitarian? Or Mao-inspired?

Mandela was originally inspired by Mao when he was a revolutionary fighting against the government before his arrest. He also loved Castro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Abqg7iNab8

Maoism influenced revolution and revolutionaries. Dagahsi Shojo hates Mandela, she hates the Black rights movement, she hates Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, hates the Aboriginal rights movement, hates the Pans-African and anti-colonial movements. Without Mao and Fidel, there would still be apartheid. They came to this thread to obviously start a fight, That was your objective to attack an ideology to try and disprove it to try and get people to flock to your own which doesn't work. National syndicalism didn't influence anything or anyone in a significant way compared to Maoism.

If we could debate without falling into hysterics, that would be great, not that I'm expecting much at this stage. Nelson Mandela was not a Maoist by any stretch of the imagination; and while I'm more sympathetic to Castro than most other dictators, he and Guevara both contributed to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and many more taking refuge in other countries. Ironically, Che himself was a racist who hated Africans and wanted to impose his own brand of socialism on them. It is extremely likely, given this penchant for hyperbole, that you greatly exaggerate the role of Maoism in Pan-African and anti-colonial movements (next it will be claimed Gandhi was a Maoist).

This petty preoccupation with my ideology, as opposed to the fact that myself and others despise Maoism because it is a totalitarian dictatorship which killed millions, is not doing your position any favors. The only way it could get more ridiculous is if you claimed I was a Trotskyist Fascist saboteur.

Seriously debating with you in 2016 LUL. Che left Africa because he thought the Congo was corrupt. Gandhi supported Indians joining the army, if you knew anything, the Violent Indians had more of an impact in freeing India than Gandhi. Gandhi succeeding had more to do with the time he rebelled than his ideology, any other time he would of been killed and thrown in the trash.

[PaNTuXIa]

How was Mandela totalitarian? Or Mao-inspired?

Mandela was originally inspired by Mao when he was a revolutionary fighting against the government before his arrest. He also loved Castro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Abqg7iNab8

If we could debate without falling into hysterics, that would be great, not that I'm expecting much at this stage. Nelson Mandela was not a Maoist by any stretch of the imagination; and while I'm more sympathetic to Castro than most other dictators, he and Guevara both contributed to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and many more taking refuge in other countries. Ironically, Che himself was a racist who hated Africans and wanted to impose his own brand of socialism on them. It is extremely likely, given this penchant for hyperbole, that you greatly exaggerate the role of Maoism in Pan-African and anti-colonial movements (next it will be claimed Gandhi was a Maoist).

This petty preoccupation with my ideology, as opposed to the fact that myself and others despise Maoism because it is a totalitarian dictatorship which killed millions, is not doing your position any favors. The only way it could get more ridiculous is if you claimed I was a Trotskyist Fascist saboteur.

Seriously debating with you in 2016 LUL. Che left Africa because he thought the Congo was corrupt. Gandhi supported Indians joining the army, if you knew anything, the Violent Indians had more of an impact in freeing India than Gandhi. Gandhi succeeding had more to do with the time he rebelled than his ideology, any other time he would of been killed and thrown in the trash.

Yes, but Mandela was much more libertarian than Che.

[Socialist Tera]

Mandela was originally inspired by Mao when he was a revolutionary fighting against the government before his arrest. He also loved Castro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Abqg7iNab8

Seriously debating with you in 2016 LUL. Che left Africa because he thought the Congo was corrupt. Gandhi supported Indians joining the army, if you knew anything, the Violent Indians had more of an impact in freeing India than Gandhi. Gandhi succeeding had more to do with the time he rebelled than his ideology, any other time he would of been killed and thrown in the trash.

Yes, but Mandela was much more libertarian than Che.

I'd say yes, in his later years, in his early years he would likely be similar to Ho Chi Minh if he got in.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, but Mandela was much more libertarian than Che.

I'd say yes, in his later years, in his early years he would likely be similar to Ho Chi Minh if he got in.

Maoist China was only supportive of Ho Chi Minh opportunistically.

Otherwise, as for what Dagashi is saying about Maoism, yeah, it's pretty awful. Mao supported positions that were terrible, and China with Maoism even supported Pol Pot. Other Maoist-inspired regimes proved little better.

[Socialist Tera]

I'd say yes, in his later years, in his early years he would likely be similar to Ho Chi Minh if he got in.

Maoist China was only supportive of Ho Chi Minh opportunistically.

Otherwise, as for what Dagashi is saying about Maoism, yeah, it's pretty awful. Mao supported positions that were terrible, and China with Maoism even supported Pol Pot. Other Maoist-inspired regimes proved little better.

Pol Pot was an opportunist, Mao was wrong by supporting Pol Pot, he was being a bastard to the USSR. I am slowly becoming a Hoxhaist. Pol Pot only called himself a Maoism after Mao died, he said he was his own thing.

[United Marxist Nations]

Maoist China was only supportive of Ho Chi Minh opportunistically.

Otherwise, as for what Dagashi is saying about Maoism, yeah, it's pretty awful. Mao supported positions that were terrible, and China with Maoism even supported Pol Pot. Other Maoist-inspired regimes proved little better.

Pol Pot was an opportunist, Mao was wrong by supporting Pol Pot, he was being a bastard to the USSR. I am slowly becoming a Hoxhaist.

Aside from obvious material benefits, Hoxha's regime was pretty awful too.

[The New Sea Territory]

Pol Pot was an opportunist, Mao was wrong by supporting Pol Pot, he was being a bastard to the USSR. I am slowly becoming a Hoxhaist.

Aside from obvious material benefits, Hoxha's regime was pretty awful too.

Hard-hitting, serious criticism of Hoxhaism.../s

[United Marxist Nations]

Aside from obvious material benefits, Hoxha's regime was pretty awful too.

Hard-hitting, serious criticism of Hoxhaism.../s

Look, I respect the benefits Hoxha brought to his country, but I struggle to find a word other than "awful" for a regime that literally made it illegal to have facial hair and follow a religion.

[Dagashi Shojo]

Maoist China was only supportive of Ho Chi Minh opportunistically.

Otherwise, as for what Dagashi is saying about Maoism, yeah, it's pretty awful. Mao supported positions that were terrible, and China with Maoism even supported Pol Pot. Other Maoist-inspired regimes proved little better.

Pol Pot was an opportunist, Mao was wrong by supporting Pol Pot, he was being a bastard to the USSR. I am slowly becoming a Hoxhaist. Pol Pot only called himself a Maoism after Mao died, he said he was his own thing.

So, if I am to interpret you right, I am criticized for nationalism, but the guy who said "The religion of the Albanians is Albanianism" is all good?

[Socialist Tera]

Pol Pot was an opportunist, Mao was wrong by supporting Pol Pot, he was being a bastard to the USSR. I am slowly becoming a Hoxhaist. Pol Pot only called himself a Maoism after Mao died, he said he was his own thing.

So, if I am to interpret you right, I am criticized for nationalism, but the guy who said "The religion of the Albanians is Albanianism" is all good?

You are openly a nationalist, your nation is above all else. He never said that he is a nationalist, he said simply that we should not divide themselves over by petty things as religion.

[United Marxist Nations]

So, if I am to interpret you right, I am criticized for nationalism, but the guy who said "The religion of the Albanians is Albanianism" is all good?

You are openly a nationalist, your nation is above all else. He never said that he is a nationalist, he said simply that we should not divide themselves over by petty things as religion.

He did that by banning religion outright. He didn't want to prevent division over religion, he wanted to get rid of the people who weren't already on his side of the argument about religion.

[Socialist Tera]

You are openly a nationalist, your nation is above all else. He never said that he is a nationalist, he said simply that we should not divide themselves over by petty things as religion.

He did that by banning religion outright. He didn't want to prevent division over religion, he wanted to get rid of the people who weren't already on his side of the argument about religion.

Didn't he ban in public?

[United Marxist Nations]

He did that by banning religion outright. He didn't want to prevent division over religion, he wanted to get rid of the people who weren't already on his side of the argument about religion.

Didn't he ban in public?

He outright banned it. It wasn't even legal to get married in a religious ceremony, or even to allow your beard to grow (a requirement for Monastics and some Muslims). Owning Bibles or icons was illegal. Many clergymen were killed. Services were illegal, and the government would publicly shame people who held to religious fasts.

[Socialist Tera]

Didn't he ban in public?

He outright banned it. It wasn't even legal to get married in a religious ceremony, or even to allow your beard to grow (a requirement for Monastics and some Muslims). Owning Bibles or icons was illegal. Many clergymen were killed. Services were illegal, and the government would publicly shame people who held to religious fasts.

You know you can disagree with some aspects to Maoism and Hoxhaism, banning religion is not a big aspect of it.

[United Marxist Nations]

He outright banned it. It wasn't even legal to get married in a religious ceremony, or even to allow your beard to grow (a requirement for Monastics and some Muslims). Owning Bibles or icons was illegal. Many clergymen were killed. Services were illegal, and the government would publicly shame people who held to religious fasts.

You know you can disagree with some aspects to Maoism and Hoxhaism, banning religion is not a big aspect of it.

Yes, but there's no denying that Hoxha was guilty of many of the things you criticize people for.

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

So, building off the link I posted: What did you fellows think of the first part of the Little Red Book?

[Kergstan]

Great leap forward.

Just that.

Probably the greatest sadist the world ever knew together with hitler.

He once said

"If half of the people must die to let the other half survive, let's make them die"

[Internationalist Bastard]

So, building off the link I posted: What did you fellows think of the first part of the Little Red Book?

I think I further want to right a little blue book

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

Ok, people. We're done with giving opinions on Maoism as a whole. I don't know why you're still posting them, because I took everything related to that off of the OP.

So, building off the link I posted: What did you fellows think of the first part of the Little Red Book?

I think I further want to right a little blue book

I don't quite understand what you mean...

[Jinwoy]

As the world's most unapologetic Marxist, I feel it is in my right to say these few words.
Yes, thank you UMN, you may stop clapping.

Maoism is definitely an ideology that twists me in the wrong ways - it is the development of ideas from a nation that was torn apart by rabid colonial imperialists and the subsequent hybrid of capitalism-feudalism that allowed China's economy to work. Many of his ideas are definitely based on the Leninist view of Imperialism, but that's the only identifiable gene in this mess of third-world focused anti-exploitation pro-modernisation scribblings from the little red book.

Maoism as an ideology, however, isn't at fault for coming into existence - if not Mao, then surely one of the other figureheads of the Chinese revolution would've made an ideology equally as atrocious. Why? Because it was created from the conditions present at China at the time. Maoism is the ideology of a desperate nation trying to get away from a desperate situation and failed horribly at it. The antithesis was inevitable as what happened with the 'marketization' under Deng. Deng, while I agree was disastrous to the ideological revolution in China, was exactly what the conditions of Maoism allowed for in the wake of the big cheese's death. China needed a solid state after the revolution and this is what Deng brought to the table.

[Bojikami]

Maoism is pretty lit tbh

[The Anti-Social Socialists]

I for one, am intrigued by Mao's identification with anti-imperialism to convey the necessity of the Communist Party. The depiction of utter reversal into exploitation reminiscent of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as a method of inducing fear is rather extraordinary. The fact that this is fear is further exploited to relate the Party with popular action and popular action to be Revolutionary, I find, is also a tactful measure of repression of opposition by implicit fear of humiliation and public denunciation.

Furthermore, the act of relating more active rectification to the Party ensures that, by itself, the network of associative propaganda from just the first chapter of Mao's Little Red Book, when coupled with Mao's cult of personality in the late 1960s and/or his incredible popularity from 1949, until the failure of the Great Leap Forward, may well have been enough to instil in at least the majority of peasants, disengaged youth and leftists, a sense of necessity of action on behalf of the Party, while fear of persecution by these masses may have held the tongues of the rest.

[Salus Maior]

Maoism is pretty lit tbh

If by "lit" you mean that it almost burnt China to the ground with infighting...Then yes, it was.

[Bojikami]

I for one, am intrigued by Mao's identification with anti-imperialism to convey the necessity of the Communist Party. The depiction of utter reversal into exploitation reminiscent of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as a method of inducing fear is rather extraordinary. The fact that this is fear is further exploited to relate the Party with popular action and popular action to be Revolutionary, I find, is also a tactful measure of repression of opposition by implicit fear of humiliation and public denunciation.

Furthermore, the act of relating more active rectification to the Party ensures that, by itself, the network of associative propaganda from just the first chapter of Mao's Little Red Book, when coupled with Mao's cult of personality in the late 1960s and/or his incredible popularity from 1949, until the failure of the Great Leap Forward, may well have been enough to instil in at least the majority of peasants, disengaged youth and leftists, a sense of necessity of action on behalf of the Party, while fear of persecution by these masses may have held the tongues of the rest.

Interesting analysis.