What's the deal with Maoists?

I know that everyone on the left has numerous disagreements with everyone else on the left, but why does it seem that everyone hates Maoists. I'm not looking for criticism of Mao, per say, but why do people hate Maoist organizations in general. The only solid criticism I've seen on here have been of the Third Worldists, but they are just a segment of Maoists and from what I understand there are strong disagreements with them amongst other Maoists, yet other Maoists get dismissed out of hand. The closest Maoist group near me is FRSO, and I know some people in it who look like they are engaged good work, but when I look online it appears that other socialists have a problem with their presence in organizations. tl;dr: What's the deal with Maoists?

t. someone with ultraleft tendencies who just started reading about maoist ideas like the mass line and am intrigued by it

Attached: confused.jpg (540x720, 37.87K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/5ecMgcTpmdw
medium.com/@wolf.aldrich/three-questions-about-china-and-the-communist-party-of-china-7056e40b40f3
ft.com/content/6e012f42-1dae-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6
medium.com/@John_Pollock22/chinas-coming-coup-xi-jinping-s-war-with-jiang-zemin-2353d9e49f1f
nytimes.com/2017/10/23/world/asia/china-xi-business-entrepreneurs.html
nytimes.com/2018/03/19/business/economy/china-xi-jinping-liu-he.html
ft.com/content/29ee1750-a42a-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2
boingboing.net/2018/04/21/are-there-no-workhouses-4.html
mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/business/china-communist-party-foreign-businesses.html
daily.jstor.org/communist-party-of-china/
news.vice.com/article/china-will-re-educate-government-officials-to-remind-them-that-communism-is-awesome
scmp.com/news/china-insider/article/1299795/china-orders-nations-journalists-take-marxism-classes
archive.is/6a1lf
workers.org/2013/06/13/marxism-and-the-social-character-of-china/
forbes.com/sites/raykwong/2011/07/25/friends-dont-let-friends-become-chinese-billionaires/#7788481e2dda
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11399732/China-executes-Ferrari-loving-billionaire-gangster.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

maoists are the hugest brain wojack leftists imo

Can't speak for the rest of the idology but I love their thoughts on education reform: "students should be allowed to sleep in class and copy off eachother's papers." Fuck yeah!

Attached: 4a4f2f81f55d84b356df7ae6e21888557424a53c38343c73ffee9c411b408860.jpg (300x256, 156.24K)

Maoists are LARPers-lifestylists supreme.

And don't get me wrong, Mao is one of the best thinkers and leaders of Marxist alignment. Regardless, people calling themselves maoists not in the vicinity of China are terrible, and in political sense, calling yourself as such is telling right from the getgo: "I don't care about actual struggle, I want to jump with red flags and be into skinhead hooliganism"

What do you mean by this? At this point, LARPers-lifestylists is kind of a meme used to describe anyone from what are basically USSR historical reenactment organizations to antifa. Are there more concrete examples of errors Maoists are wont to do that inspires such disdain, organizationally, theoretically or otherwise?

maoism is a gladio psy-op

...

Attached: jason.png (492x431, 351.35K)

"Maoists" is too vague. There's normal MLs who are just influenced by Mao (like the FRSO or the Black Panthers), third worldists (Unruhe, the LLCO), MLMs (Sendero Luminoso, Naxalites), and probably others. Even within those divisions lots of Maoist groups hate each other (see all the ridiculously long polemics published by assorted US MLM groups against each other).

I actually do defend the USSR and it's achievements when people unfairly smear it. My main criticism of the USSR was that it didn't finish the revolution due to the circumstances it was in, and it allowed itself to fall to counterrevolution. I think more than anything there needs to be a better Marxist theory/analysis of counterrevolution.

Ok, then do you know what are the criticism with the MLMs or the MLs who are influenced by Mao like FRSO? I have heard the criticisms of Third-Worldists already that I can comprehend, but I don't really know what the substantive critiques of the others are. All I've heard are boilerplate criticism like "they're crazy" or the charge of lifestylism as in this thread, or just not-so subtlepassive-aggressive jabs that so-and-so orgs have a lot of Maoists in them.

Though choice, I mean with A you can throw your hair like a boomerang, but B let's you headbump enemies and stick to ceilings. Decisions decisions…

Attached: 220px-RockyRodentJPBoxArtSNES.jpg (220x161, 17.85K)

The only significant group of Maoists at this point are the MLM's which I haven't seen much substantial criticism of besides an essay on marxists.org by some small English maoist group which upheld the three worlds theory. Which makes sense because RIM groups have been essentially the only communist organizations actively waging revolution since the end of the cold war. Groups like the FRSO were and are pretty insignificant but i did hear of some rape coverup scandal or something with one of the FRSO factions recently so there's that.

Attached: french-gonzaloists-vs-the-llco.jpg (672x372, 313.89K)

Beyond the obvious criticisms (e.g. anarchists who don't like them because they support states), here are major criticisms of MLMs:
And, most importantly,
I don't know much about why people don't like the FRSO. Note that that org split in the 90s and one of its successors pretty much rejected Marxism-Leninism so that's why they're criticized. The other successor is the Mao-influenced ML group I was talking about.

Attached: DITD9JNUIAAp3mn.jpeg (1067x966 90.31 KB, 148.77K)

Alright, this is more what I was looking for. Thanks for helping me understand a bit better

main problem with maoists is that they're basically right and have good strategy in most things, it was true, non-revisionistic Marxism, social science, but application of their ideas were catastrophic; regardless of that Communist Party of China is probably the last realistic and true socialist party in power so their project wasn't failure in every aspect

I hope China will build true communism and world will look at them with admiration

Attached: chińska-piosenka.webm (640x360, 3.33M)

Attached: giveup.jpg (334x372, 22.08K)

For whatever reason certain autists gravitate toward certain ideologies and they become intertwined in people's eyes. Like all the reddit mod's on /r/socialism are Trots for whatever reason, so naturally everyone here hates Trotsky. It's just another form of tribalism. The deeper you go the harder the autism flows and every little disagreement gets blown out of proportion.

Attached: yuko shrug.jpg (255x255, 31.28K)

well MLM (invented in the 80's) is different from MZT (made by Mao himself) and MTW (aka Jason Unruhe). Mao centered groups in the west are guilty of giving in to the cult of personality shit and not actually understanding Mao as an anti-tankie figure and model for socialism, or just another oriental fetishism, a lot of unfortunate shit. But there's plenty of good MLM theory, google MLM mayhem it's the best blog out there right now.

Attached: 0edd8f74338b404e0c04da48d0d80db1e30b0dec2577f0339960e963fa3844c4.jpg (686x457, 31.45K)

it was literally invented in Peru you mong

This, the Avakianites (RCP-USA) have pretty much destroyed the Revolutionary International Movement with their fuckery.

lmao

Watch La Chinoise. It is still relevant because you can still witness the same kind of autism on social media, 50 years later.

Attached: la-chinoise.gif (480x270, 4.72M)

I want the political correctness brigade to leave.

Attached: shut-upp.gif (277x269, 731.88K)

Funny enough, watching the trailer for that movie was technically the initial impetus of my inquiry into Maoism. Still have yet to see it

Yeah I am a Maoist

M Socialism
A With
O Liberalism
I mean
S Chinese
T "characteristics"

It was this trailer. youtu.be/5ecMgcTpmdw
I looked up the lyrics I liked the most, such as "The masses are the real heroes" and was surprised to find that they were quotes from Mao

You're describing Deng there bud

whot

I do not have any problem with any actual Maoist guerrillas (such as those in India and the Philippines), but anyone who takes Maoism or Third Worldism seriously as a philosophy is an idiot.

Mao's philosophy has little to do with dialectics, but is much more in line with Chinese mysticism (such as the anarchist Taoism of Laozi). However, it is possible he read Hegel later in his life since he shilled him to our favorite war criminal Henry Kissinger. It's also possible that Guo Moruo (one of the chief writers/philosophers of Maoist China who has been compared to Goethe) read Hegel since he could supposedly read in German.

And as a political leader, Mao was a failure. While he was able to win the war against the Kuomintang and gain the support of the people, nothing he did after that had succeeded. He failed to industrialize China during the Great Leap Forward due to a failure to take support from the Soviets who had already successfully industrialized.The Sino-Soviet Split was not only a great blow to China, but most likely played a part in the fall of communism. The Cultural Revolution pretty much resulted in anarchy. With the split and all these failures in achieving socialism, China had to become friendly with the US and eventually became capitalist under Deng Xiaoping. In short: Mao was a Stalinist Trotskyist who destroyed any hopes of world communism.

Go to bed corn man

...

as opposed to any of the 4 comrades, or the students in Tienanmen (many of whom were maoists, singing many cultural revolution era songs), or the Sendero Luminoso who recognized the necessity and universality of the cultural revolution and protracted people's war.

Attached: 1446163824930.jpg (951x840, 90.47K)

Comrade Deng was the only one that respected the values of Sun Yat sen and China will keep prospering!

the left KMT right here lads, this where working with socdems gets you. Madame sun yat sen should've been hung by the red guards.

I have no problems with Guerillas in 3rd world countries (even though their not very efficient and end up slaughtering themselves see i.e India)

What I really hate are western Maoists, who denounce existing Socialism (USSR-post Stalin, GDR,Cuba,China post Mao etc) they have their perfect view of socialism and if a country needs to adapt it's ways to not get crushed they label it Revisionism and stop supporting it.

Western Maoists also tend to rely on questionable tactics. The red guards austin, for example don't engage in class war or organize the Proletariat in anyway, they have their guns, mask themselves and walk through the streets like they're the shit and the next bolsheviks.
It's resemble the lifestylishness of Anarchist and the denouciation of existing socialism of LeftComs

The RCP Canada is genuinely good though, they don't do a shitty parody of Mass Line and they don't intend to surround the cities with a Canadian peasant mass that doesn't exist.

lol. Not even a Maoist or leftcom, but it was very clearly capitalist

Dirty revisionist

idk, maybe i give them a read

it is socialist

While China has Markets and a private sector, it still has the key industries under their control and that is the control of the communist party, I'll mind you.

But you might ask.


You see, the Chinese State is controlled by Workers and farmers. They make up the most part of the CPCh.

While China has markets, they do have five year plans that aim at providing a better life for the people and forming China into a well off prosperous socialist nation.

China has lifted, in the last 30 years, 600 Million out of poverty. Poverty

population has averagely decreased 22.29 million per year. The Income average of each Chinese rises faster than the GDP with 7%


Yes, China also has income equality.China allowed inequality to grow but stopped the drift to unfairness at the start of the 21st century., whereas it has carried on despite the Crisis in the West

The Bourgeoisie in China exists, yes, but they need to obey to the Communist party and need to follow their rules. The Economy isn't your typical western Market economy, it is a socialist Market economy.

The left wing in the CPC is pushing through

with hu jinato and Xi Jinping. They've fought and continue the fight against Jiang Zemin and his followers.

Till 2050 China plans to be a socialist Nation and till 2021 China will be poverty free.

(medium.com/@wolf.aldrich/…

ft.com/content/6e012f…

medium.com/@John_Pollock2…

nytimes.com/2017/10/23/wor…

nytimes.com/2018/03/19/bus…

Just read this whole thread on twitter: )

I've been intrigued by the principles of the "Vatan Partisi"…..which holds Ataturk as a great nationalist and friend of the working class like Mao, Lenin and Marx. kind of goes real hard against the nominalist over a dozen US military bases in Syria Kurdistan tendencies of this board (suck it up) but they're Turanist-Maoists that seem close in line with me like Maurras and Sorel alike.

KMT wasn't bad from some of their principles…SOME, mostly it was implemented Georgism, although not a fan of Geolibertarianism, unfortunately a Leftist version has yet to exist…yet.

my sources got fucked up whoops

medium.com/@wolf.aldrich/three-questions-about-china-and-the-communist-party-of-china-7056e40b40f3

ft.com/content/6e012f42-1dae-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

medium.com/@John_Pollock22/chinas-coming-coup-xi-jinping-s-war-with-jiang-zemin-2353d9e49f1f

nytimes.com/2017/10/23/world/asia/china-xi-business-entrepreneurs.html

nytimes.com/2018/03/19/business/economy/china-xi-jinping-liu-he.html

ft.com/content/29ee1750-a42a-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

They have more tangible gains.

I used to hate Mao and Maoists until I actually started reading Mao and I realized that he was right on a lot of things. Especially the eternal people's revolution, and mass line as a form for the proletariat to continue class struggle into and out of socialism. Protracted people's war and cultural revolution were undoubtedly great tactics at subverting the status quo. Mao was a great tactician and he improved on the theories of Marx and Lenin.
Still, I think Maoist praxis really doesn't apply to developed superpowers like the US but I think there is a lot to learn from Mao.

Attached: maoism.jpg (842x562, 91.4K)

It's a pretty interesting film if you are a leftist nerd and browse Zig Forums regularly.
I say this as someone who thinks Godard is overrated: "Pierrot le fou" is awesome but "Le mépris" is boring and overindulgent and "A bout de souffle" is okay but not that thrilling either.
La chinoise is about three Maoists and one ML student who share an apartment in Paris, just one year before May 1968. Godard was at the time (and still is) a Marxist, and I guess he tried to put into pictures what he thought of this movement as a 36-year old Swiss guy.

Maoism was a big thing in France in those years, because a lot of leftists in Paris were very enthusiastic about the Cultural Revolution, including Alain Badiou.
I think Godard admired the political fervor of French and German students during that time, but he also saw them as naive and overenthusiastic, and in insight Maoists were overzealous, and still are to this day on the internet. "Stalin did nothing wrong" is an assertion that is easier to utter confidently and semi-ironically backup with facts than "Mao did nothing wrong", when you think about it.
why can't I have a cute bourgeois-bohemian MLM gf :(

Attached: la-chinoise-lol.png (250x199, 62.28K)

so can someone explain to me how the idea of "Cultural Revolution" doesn't conflict with marx' theory that the material base determines the ideological/cultural superstructure, and therefore it's the material circumstances one should change, not the culture itself? (Haven't read mao btw)

The base and superstructure continually reinforce each other, and development isn't linear, it zig zags, so the way to prevent revisionism which leads to capitalism (as happened in post Stalin USSR) is to prevent elements of boujee culture from entering the higher echelons of power within the democratic centralist structure, the revolutionary masses, with the correct theory in their hands, stamps out the bad theory in elements of itself and the party.

lmao, of course trots would post on reddit

Attached: trotsky death.png (400x401, 308.57K)

not


enough

mapo dofu

okay thx that makes sense
and as happened in china too

You are right, but it's not just tribalism though.
Like Maoism in the 50-60s, Trotskyism was a hip alternative to the official Khrushchevite party line for communists in the Western bloc.
I haven't read neither Trotsky or Mao, and while I'm sure their writings are worth studying, the ideologies associated with them aged pretty badly.

This is apex Zig Forums

"Bloc of Four Social Classes" is actual class collaboration and MLM take it even further with the idea of New Democracy, cultural revolution is retarded because it depends on defining what "culture" is specifically proletarian and enforcing it rather then letting it arise naturally through the material conditions of society which leads to mass confusion and purging over what exactly is correct cultural thought, protracted peoples war doesn't always work and fails in more urban environments or smaller countries, and the agrarian focus only really works for china and a few other countries. Other then that, the mass line is worth saving and maybe his ideas on contradiction. Also, for all his criticisms of the Soviet Union, he failed in many ways to not fall into the same trappings which led to later revisionism.

Attached: 044e2535fa090d031d05e069580fc33cdbcb51dea42baab17d37fa6af4bf465a.jpg (696x423, 42.89K)

I've been getting into MLM the past few months. It's dank. And J. Moufawad-Paul (MLM Mayhem) is brilliant.

your word filtering is pretty gay, mods. and not even funny like Zig Forumss

Attached: p160442_p_v8_aa.jpg (960x1440, 301.76K)

You are disrespecting Lenin hat, do not post with it.

That's called State Capitalism, not socialism.

How the hell is defending Stalin politically correct?

I honestly think it might be a good idea to let go of "Maoism" and instead see his theory as a contribution to Marxism-Leninism, and also communism as a whole. That's how Mao himself formulated it, I'm pretty sure he always spoke of Marxism-Leninism and not Maoism. Mao has clear libertarian socialist influences and I can see how some of his theories are perfectly compatible with anarchism.
As usual, Maoists ruin Mao.

Attached: mao.png (850x400, 288.77K)

It's the correct political stance on Zig Forums.

not ML, mao was a revisionist

anarkiddies know no end to their idiocy

You Lenin had a similar thing called the NEP?

be gone leftcom

This doesn't indicate worker control. This happens in the west too.
Millionaires and billionaires populate the ranks of the CPC. It's disingenuous to hold up some cases of the state going after wealthy people as proof of working class power.

These are just buzzwords, what even is a socialist market economy? State owned enterprises are just a form of bourgeois nationalization, they aren't run by and for workers unless they are free from the laws of the market, which they clearly aren't in China as the government sees their negative profitability as an issue and has resorted in the past to privatizing them or doing public-private partnerships to.

Protect the industrial, commercial, agricultural and livestock enterprises of the national bourgeoisie. All privately owned factories, shops, banks, warehouses, vessels, wharves, farms, livestock farms and other enterprises will without exception be protected against any encroachment. It is hoped that workers and employees in all occupations will maintain production as usual and that all shops will remain open as usual.
– Proclamation of People's Liberation Army

real maoism is just garbage spouted to peasants by wannabe warlord intellectuals and merchants

wow the fucking nostalgia trip

You're misreading what they wrote. The sentence is supposed to be read as mocking the person for choosing to defend the USSR by being a "contrarian tough guy" rather than evidence based research of the truth.

Trotsky was a fradulent New York jew. Stalin had every right to icepick that motherfucker. only good thing about him was Juan Posadas.

Absolutely not. In the west, it's big business the ones behind the wheel. They obey nothing but the >need< for greater profits.

Do you not think that capitalists are rivals you utter mong? It does happen in the west, what the fuck do you think happened to Bernie Madoff? Same thing in China, when a billionaire crosses a line made by other billionaires in the CPC, they tend to get offed.

Classes are not monolithic entities. Capitalism may benefit the bourgeois as a whole, but they are still constantly at each other's throats. Many bourgs are sociopaths that see power as an end unto itself.

Read the maoist book.

Attached: 1_RdzUSnR9hc6JwJOv_iFqQA.jpeg (1600x1195, 459.61K)

boingboing.net/2018/04/21/are-there-no-workhouses-4.html

Attached: 1474994194904.jpg (540x472, 53.73K)

That shit was cribbed straight out of Stalin's short course gomr8

The CPC is in charge. It's the main actor in the economy, unlike the US which is a tool for porky to fuck their rivals as bourgeois states are meant to be.

you probably defend the modern day CCP lmao

The CPC is in charge of the economy but the economy itself is still thoroughly capitalist. Even if you still consider the CPC a socialist party the economy is demonstrably capitalist.

Attached: 1491217742673.jpg (413x600, 158.16K)

I ain't giving money to doug

No?

All Land in China is owned by the State

and 50% of the Economy are SOEs
and the other Private Companies get controlled by the CPCh btw

Overall, China's SOEs include the world's largest (or near top)

-Telecom
-Energy co
-Bank
-Infrastructure co
-Rail co
-Metals co
-Shipping co
-Mobile telecom
-Auto companies

four of the world's largest banks are Chinese SOEs. This is an essential mechanism the state uses to control the entire Chinese economy, state and private.

Chinas Private Buisinesses are mostly small the Industries that are the backbone of a economy are owned by the State

mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/business/china-communist-party-foreign-businesses.html

nytimes.com/2017/10/23/world/asia/china-xi-business-entrepreneurs.html

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (794x457 188.5 KB, 154.46K)

State ownership does not mean socialism when the state has been overtaken by revisionists and capitalists. The PRC is in a state similar to the soviet union post Stalin just more openly capitalist. The CPC has allowed literal capitalists into the party since the early 2000s and has purged many neo-maoist party members and repressed their supporters.

1)Bourgeoisie is in charge of both economical and political life.
2)MoP are not owned collectively or publicly
Country is not socialist if it has large public sector. (For example, Belarus has 72%-80% share of public sector (World Bank estimates).

The CPCh consist of Workers and Farmers they have the political Power in the country

ft.com/content/6e012f42-1dae-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

daily.jstor.org/communist-party-of-china/

Attached: Screenshot_2.jpg (447x222 56.3 KB, 25.89K)

Who do you show me membership figures of regular party members? Regular members have next to no sway in deciding the actual policies of the country. Central commitee is composed of reactionary dengists, who used the opportunity to become bourgeoisie themselves. 1% of your country controls 33% of country wealth.
Party influence on business is just a form of lobbying and market control.
Mao's biggest fear, threat he fought his whole life against came to live - restoration of capitalism and dengist triumph. They reinstated profit motive, commodity production and private ownership of MoPs and yet this clique of capitalists claims the existence of "socialist planned economy" while grabbing more and more wealth for themselves and destroying Mao's legacy.

lmao

Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie:

Mandate re-education courses in Marxism for all government officials?
Order all journalists and students of journalism to take courses in Marxism?
Step up the ideology drive on college campuses and introduce Mao Zedong thought classes in 2,600 universities?
Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, deliberately ensure that average manufacturing wages have been rising consistently by ~11% per year at the expense of corporate profits, compared to other “developing” countries like India where wages have stayed repressed for decades?
Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie roll out comprehensive social programmes in the middle of a neoliberal wave of austerity in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis?
Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in a situation where workers beat a steel executive to death due to privatization plans, step in, prevent workers from being prosecuted, and then reverse the privatization?

(news.vice.com/article/china-will-re-educate-government-officials-to-remind-them-that-communism-is-awesome

scmp.com/news/china-insider/article/1299795/china-orders-nations-journalists-take-marxism-classes

archive.is/6a1lf

workers.org/2013/06/13/marxism-and-the-social-character-of-china/ )

Would a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie kill their biggest Billionaires?

Would they arrest corrupt politicians that commit fraud against the Chinese People?

forbes.com/sites/raykwong/2011/07/25/friends-dont-let-friends-become-chinese-billionaires/#7788481e2dda

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11399732/China-executes-Ferrari-loving-billionaire-gangster.html

yes

Sucdems introduce Marxism in everyday life of their people and they take the side of workers when they kill their boss? They kill their most influencial billionaires? Weird huh

 no, you cannot excuse the predominance of ‘worker-friendly’ (to say the least) policies by saying that the PRC is a social democracy. Social democracies existed within specific social conditions (from the 1940s to the 1970s) within specific geographical areas (Europe and the settler-colonies of North America, Australia, and New Zealand), and often existed only for the settler/labour-aristocratic/petit-bourgeois classes. It was the displacement of exploitation from the First World to the Third — it was imperialism, plain and simple. Social democracy never represented a distinct articulation of capital, and has never, ever been a phenomenon in periphery countries.

where did the billionaires come from in the first place

If it suited their interests, yes. While the bourgeoisie is a nice classification from the outside, they don't necessarily see it that way from the inside. I seriously doubt someone like Bill Gates accepts Trump as his compadre just because they've both accumulated an arbitrary amount of wealth. In fighting in any group is a constant.

Again if it suites their interest and just so happens to make good publicity, then yes. If the US can orchestrate entire wars on smaller, poorer countries and convince the world that they were somehow the victims, then why couldn't a few bourgs orchestrate a "noble" take down of a "corrupt" peer?

Come on user, you don't take burger propaganda at face value, why would you take China's?

Attached: horse sip.jpg (500x734, 53.12K)

How does any of this even come close to proving the PRC isn't a capitalist hellhole? Even burgerland sometimes prosecutes porkies when they try to step on each other's toes.

Did you skip these Marxist reeducation courses?
What you are describing are Keynesian band-aids aimed to deal with workers dissent during yet another global crisis.

Putin killed Russian multibillionaire oligarch Berezovsky. Is Russia a socialist country too? It is just regular infighting between the bourgeoisie.
Rise of corruption is one of the numerous side effects of capitalism restoration in state capitalist economy. Even if there is real political will to fight it, you would only be fighting the symptoms, not the disease.

People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be, until they have learned to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. V. I. Lenin

Their clique publicly praises Marxist and Maoist thought because their (especially Xi) legitimacy as children of revolution leaders depends on it. If they could, they would abandon all references to Maoism altogether, because the biggest threat to them is new maoists, youth disillusioned by the growing inequality and porkies getting richer and richer.
If Mao saw the what the China became today, he would be horrified.

China's State Controlls the economy and Workers controll the State. It's DoTP. That they frequently kill Billionaires doesn't mean that they're socialists but it shows that Billionaires don't have the political power.


Why would the bourgeoisie have interests in killing themselves?


In all other Socialist countries, they came to an end with a ruptrure, after the counterrevolution all socialists aspects of the countries were erased. Bourgeois democracy was implemented, the constitution got rewritten and the Bourgeoisie claimed power. Why would the capitalists have interests in having a democratic centralised communist party instead of a Bourgeois democracy? Why would they teach the workers Marxism? Wouldn't that lead to them realised how "capitalist" the country is? It makes zero sense. Why would they hold up a Communist Party and not rewrite the whole country like they did in the USSR,GDR, etc?

Ask workers in sweatshops if they control the state. Chinese "social" market economy is less equal than US (42.2 vs 41 gini. For comparison: Belarus 26.5, Sweden 25). 1% holds 33% of country's wealth. What's worse is that this 1% is consisted of children of party officials). It is cleptocratic authoritarian state capitalism, advancing interests of new bourgeoisie. It is not DoTP under any definition, but dengist. DoTP is characterized by the systematic destruction of bourgeoisie and capitalist elements during the movement towards communism. Dengists currently move in quite opposite direction, reinstating profit motive and surplus extraction and exploitation of one by another.
This is a characteristic of capitalist monopolies, they naturally turn into government-capitalistic monopolies. Capitalist monopolies in China are held by high-ranking party officials' families and relatives, their friends. Chinese monopolistic capitalism has already shown it's face abroad, in Africa.
While state always advances interests of the ruling class, bourgeoisie also always has competition and infighting between themselves during the process of monopoly formation.
Exactly the same situation happened in Vietnam. Party nomenclature reinstated capitalism for their own personal gain at the expense of the workers. Situation was different in the USSR, where external populists seized power.
They employ ML and Maoism as a tools for their legitimacy as they claim to be successors of the revolutionaries that shaped China, which they have nothing in common de-facto. They can quote Mao as much as they wish, they are not fooling anyone.

Ask the workers that sit in the National Peoples council if they run the economy and they'll will say yes

Most authoritarian government claim to be representative of the will of their citizens. Anyone with a brain can tell that modern China is an oligarchical autocracy.
Not everyone sporting red symbolism has our interests in mind.