Lets have a Mao thread. Was he a great Revolutionary and philosopher who led China to the light? Or was he a crypto-Anarchist petit-boug opportunist? Is Maoism a crucial next step in the development of Marxism? Or is it an idealist cult-creed, the 'militant wing of identity politics'? Lets hear it from all sides.
Personally i'm liking Maoism more and more, but it has to be creatively adapted and improved of course.
I recommend Zizeks text 'The Marxist Lord of Misrule' lacan.com
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
monthlyreview.org
tandfonline.com
rationalwiki.org
twitter.com
Post mangoes.
dead sparrows are also fine
That's actually a nice point and I would say it applies to Leninism in general. The problem now is of course that revolution in developed countries never succeeded, so this is the only working model we have.
Mao is one of those weird people where you read his shit and a lot of it is brilliant but his actual tenure as leader of China was a total shitshow. It really is amazing how somebody can write such good theory and then fail utterly in putting it into practice.
Yes there seems to be something that Marx missed that is fundamental to Capitalism.
I agree hes weird.
I think most of us can agree that a lot of shit went terribly wrong under Mao's leadership. The great leap forward was a huge fuck up. The cultural revolution went to shit (regardless of what you think about it in theory, personally I kinda like the impulse to "bombard the headquarters" and all that). And two seconds after he died, China became the most revisionist socialist state ever. Most of the gains of the socialist construction in China were reversed while the authoritarian one-party system was preserved. I still kinda like Mao though.
Maybe but that's what I like about him. The focus on "the masses", the mass line, the anti-bureaucracy stuff, the skepticism of towards the traditional vanguard party because of the idea that they will become the new bourgeoisie if they're not held accountable by the masses, all that stuff is what I think is missing from orthodox Marxism-Leninism. I read Continuity & Rupture by J. Moufawad-Paul (one of the most popular modern books on MLM) and thought it was cool. However, that anti-authoritarian, pro-masses stuff in the theory seems to be what's attracting a bunch of retarded LARPers to it in practice. I really lost interest in Maoism when I started researching actually existing Maoist movements.
Most Maoist groups in third world countries will fight a never ending people's war on the government until they inevitably degenerate completely. The Shining Path (who formally "invented" MLM) degenerated into drug trafficking and retarded terrorism. In the first world Maoists are always the most autistic LARPers on the entire left. Just look at Red Guards Austin, the cult of Bob Avakian, Tjen Folket (in Norway), etc.
Some of Mao's thought is interesting but Maoism is an embarrassment.
The ironic part was that the bureaucratization and revisionism of which Mao constantly complained and tried to combat through the cultural revolution was allowed to thrive precisely because of many ML policies that subvert proletarian democracy. You don't need to bombard the party headquarters if you can just recall party officials and elect new ones without worrying about getting purged for factionalism.
Agree. There shouldn't be a need to bombard the headquarters and beat up a bunch of crypto-revisionist teachers or whatever if you set up a functioning political system.
spicy
How was Mao any more nationalist than for example Lenin?
Except it isn't communism in power because all forms of communism/socialism that are not sufficiently internationalist degenerate into capitalism.
Mao literally only got into power because they thought Cash-Me-Check was being used by foreigners, along with a shitty job fighting the Japs.
Mao was willing to collaborate with United States to "industrialize" in 1949 before the revolution, but the U.S. turned him away. He was a hardly nationalist. Any anti-imperialism he had came less from idealism, and more from pragmatism.
uh god
OH GOD
wew
Castro wrote letters to FDR and honestly would've been okay with being a US Puppet if they allowed him to do reforms.
which is fine.
Nazbol Dengism has got to be the most degenerate ideology i've yet encountered.
the problem is not whether the third world revolt against capitalism. the question is how can they even be successful given the first world M-I complex.
lmao
please leave
Even dumber, tbh. Considering Soviet Union outlasted most nationalist borg capitalist countries, masquerading as socialist.
Also, China aint ethnically homogeneous, dumb shit. You did the dumb burger thing, and assumed that Han means everyone is homogeneous, despite the fact Hakka are a large group and designated as Han.
Nazbol guy was banned. Discuss Mao and Maoism, don't derail this thread into a debate over nazbol.
very nice
If this is indeed the problem then i fear its all over and Nick Land was right. But i think the might of the US Empire and its military machine has been in decline for a while, it might be a paper tiger.
bump
yes
"yes"
I would say that Mao was a great revolutionary and his early domestic policy was very good. Industrialization, literacy campaigns, abolishing feudalism etc. was very leadership. Mao's foreign policy was terrible. Attacking India, splinting with Soviet's, reproaching the west were all very poor choices. Mao was a good theorist and his foundation is working well in China, but outside of China, Maoism is a hindrance for socialist development. *caught Afghanistan, Nepal,India caught*
Mao doesn't really break with histmat in the same way Benjamin does though.
Heres Zizek in the Text above:
No it wasn't. Life expectancy went from 40 to 60 years during his leadership.
That's great but it doesn't disprove the statement that it was a shitshow.
The fact that there were some positive developments doesn’t disprove the fact that it was a shitshow.
It does, actually, you massive brain-damaged twits.
If that's a shitshow, then fucking everything is a shitshow.
Mao is the most accomplished and beloved revolutionary leader of all time. If you think he of all people failed then there truly is no hope.
He did a wonderful job at starving out useless people and making a filthy polluted wasteland out of many parts of China. The Chinese are now barbaric backwards Capitalists and have had their growth stunted by a good 50+ years thanks to his efforts in successfully undermining China, destroying its culture, destroying ancient texts and books filled with knowledge (lost forever hahaha), and paving the way for Jewish subversion and the installation of a Judean Bank. In other words he helped pave the way for Globalism just like Hitler did in Germany.
Gangster Computer God….
Mao did some good things for sure, but a lot of his policies were straight up retarded.
He accomplished something, but the most accomplished revolutionary would have to be Kim Il-sung because his country didn't regress to capitalism after his death.
Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?
But why tho?
Stop pretending you care about non-white foreigners you dumb nazi. Communism is the only reason China is independent and rich, you just want them to be like India so you can loot them forever.
I hear that a sharp-tongued Chosenite whispered sweet honey in his ear and twisted 'round the ideals of a Nation-State and spun it into Judeo-Marxism and put a Communist ideal upon it…like a golden chain. Jews infiltrated China long ago my friend. Be like us and thou shalt share and bolster our victories in kind.
I don't care about foreigners and I have only basic (shall we call it mandatory) love for my own people. You fail to understand that "White" in this day and age is a litmus test for "Judeans" to compare themselves and Gentiles with.
China belongs to us because we used Mao to destroy their ancient culture and get them hooked on Capitalism. You silly Ostrich.
Why loot when you can skim off the top and get everyone under usury? You can play at Capitalism, Communism, Marxism, NSDAP, or anything under the sun…but the the truth is that your banks were created by us and that means you pay the piper when it's time or you receive more and more pain.
Name all the countries who's banking and financial structure don't pay tribute and are not owner by a 3rd party (By Judea).
can we get rid of this guy.
On a side note and in the interest of de-derailing this thread, 'Combat Liberalism' remains one of the most iconic Marxist texts to this day. An absolute must if you ask me, weirdly i find that Maoism has even has some self-help aspects.
Being such an intellectual coward that you want to ban discourse that doesn't mollycoddle and give you a chance to dry your tears every single time you hear dissenting arguments is the enemy of fair play and parlaying an opponent. You couldn't set a thread back on track if I shoved a locomotive up your tender tranny boipucci.
At no point did it occur to you that maybe, other people don't care as much about ethnic groups as you do? This is a chan, no one is offended. It's just boring and devoid of useful information outside of medicine.
That pic is basically all of human history though, why single out the Chinese? We're all mutts fam, from one end of the earth to the other, this shit is laughable.
What, is he in control of the weather? BTW, the "Millions starved" shit is made up.
That was Cornman's fault.
Wrong, China's economic production continued to grow rapidly all throughout the CR. As well, the CR eradicated many backwards practices and involved a massive education campaign, which set up China for further development.
What was he supposed to do?
That was Lin Biao and Deng.
Deng.
Deng.
Maoism: Millions starved.
McDonalds: Billions served.
You guys can't stop getting your asses handed to you on a platter of silver and gold, eh Zig Forums?
The fact that western propaganda exaggerated the famine doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Also…
t. Zizek
No it wasn’t. Mao initiated the split because he was triggered by Cornman talking smack about daddy Stalin and his pursuit of a perfectly reasonable and practical policy of detente with the west. It was pure dogmatism on Mao’s part.
Right, imagine how much faster it would have been if China wasn’t engulfed in a low intensity civil conflict.
Create a genuine proletarian democracy consistent with the principles he laid out in “On Contradictions Among the People” instead of calling for “a hundred schools of thought” only to arrest people who spoke out. This also would have made the Cultural Revolution unnecessary.
No it wasn’t. Three World’s theory was Mao. Mao also established diplomatic relations with the US and backed the Khmer Rouge even after they started massacring their own people, although it was before the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia. Deng’s policy of backing the KR in the war (and attacking Vietnam directly) was just a continuation of the policy Mao had initiated.
ftfy famalam
Keep punching those trashcans kiddo. You're looking good. XD
He had good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with them. His face is still plastered here and there in the nightmare police state of China, but his ideas are largely forgotten. Kind of sad to see China turn into a massive capitalistic corporation.
That quote is great proof of how full of shit Zizek is. He cites Jung Chang to make that claim, totally outing himself.
Who gives a fuck about Zizek smearing communists?
Mao criticized Cornman, Cornman withdrew technical advisors and assistance. His fault.
Why? So what, any political debate or activity at all is detrimental to growth and thus should be prevented? There's no evidence the CR held anything back.
No it wasn't.
There is no evidence that this happened. You are supporting Vietnamese Social Imperialism. Khmer Rouge was the most advanced Communist society there was.
And no, Urbanites don't count as people.
Daily Reminder that Zizek is a Cypto-Nazi, and that Cat User literally defended Arrow Cross Fascists during the 1956 "Hungarian Revolution"
;^)
sorry dude thats not even possible they both are dead idk if u heard the news
I agree that it's lazy of Zizek to take obvious anti-communist propaganda like "Mao: The Unknown Story" at face value without really questioning it at all. But he's a philosopher, not a historian so for him it's not that important if x million or y million people died in the famine.
You are ridiculously dogmatic. Why are you so personally invested in the idea that Mao didn't make a single mistake which he can be criticized for?
Zig Forums was a mistake. It's nothing but trash. The BO should just delete this board and put it out of its misery tbh. This is r/communism tier.
you say that like BO's MTW sperging isn't what killed this place.
Sure thing.
Is there any further reading/information on this? Interesting post btw.
I believe this is one of the most commonly recommended articles on the topic.
monthlyreview.org
Thanks, what are your thoughts on China’s troubled relations with Vietnam and the CCCP at the time? I don’t really know the fine details as to why things fell apart.
It was the Chinese that made it official by openly denouncing the Soviet Union as "revisionist traitors". Before then it was a disagreement between two countries that were still allies as far as the west was concerned, but Mao officially broke that alliance.
The Chinese economy literally experienced negative growth from 1966 to 1967 (-5.7%), and again from 67 to 68 (-4.1%).
>No it wasn't.
Yes it was.
tandfonline.com
No I didn't. I said that the uprising in Hungary was dominated by progressive, pro-socialist elements, and that the reactionaries that did exist were marginalized and disorganized. Even if you vehemently disagree with that assessment at least have the intellectual honesty to properly represent my position.
Doesn’t Vietnam and China still have troubled relations to this day? I’m pretty sure Vietnam is more friendly with the US of all countries than with China, right?
The main sticking points were over Kruschev's de-Stalinization (Mao loved Stalin) and his policy of pursuing peaceful coexistence with the West. Mao opposed the latter policy and was hoping for a more confrontational approach to East-West relations. There was also some level of competing national hegemonic ambitions at play, with both China and the USSR wanting to be at the head of the global communist movement. The conflict with Vietnam sprouted from the Sino-Soviet rivalry, since Vietnam was a Soviet ally and went to war with Cambodia, a Chinese ally.
You’d think Vietnam would stop hating China by now, especially after the fall of the Soviets.
Well they still have periodic trade and border disputes, like China's claiming of nearly the entire South China Sea, including areas claimed by Vietnam. While getting into bed with the US is obviously a bad idea, Vietnam is probably right to be worried about Chinese imperialism.
this is the saddest thing for me about mao. what did he mean by thid, seriously?
Literally baiting dissidents and getting them to out themselves. I'm sorry you don't understand Mao's 4-dimensional marxism.
total dick move tbh
I would've done the same.
what's the RCP like
are they as crazy as rationalwiki.org
do they do anything?
sums it up pretty well. they are a cult.
How do you respond to the accusation Maoism is just Marx + Daoism?
That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
It's simple. Take the M from Marx and use it to replace the D in Daoism.
shiiieet
Mao's dialectics were monist as fuck and VERY similar to the shit you see in Chinese philosophy.
bump
Spinoza was also a monist
bump
Have you guys read Ibrahim? He fucking eviscerates Kemalism in his writings
Who else /dengist/ here? Mao laid the groundwork for the new China, but China was built into the powerhouse it is today by pic related. Now with Xi at the helm, China will bring about world socialism in the coming decades.
Kai murros is based
I don't understand how one could be this fucking delusional. How many layers of twitter MLism are you on right now?
I really have no idea how China oppositionists can't see what Xi is doing and what the CPC has been doing for the past few decades. China is in the primary stage of socialism. It was Marx himself who identified capitalism as a necessary prelude to socialism. Deng was absolutely right that China needed to develop it's productive forces before moving to socialism and China now has some of the most advanced productive forces in the world. The next obvious step is to gradually move back to socialism and Xi is doing just that.
This is how I know you're not actually a Marxist. Class interests will always be more important than any professed adherence to an ideology. The Chinese bourgeoisie is in the government, party leadership and the NPC. It's not in their interests to move towards a socialist society (which is why they don't). Also a few articles that have been posted here multiple times before have shown how utterly watered down and revisionist official Marxism is in China.
No, China is not in any stage of socialism. They're in this other thing called capitalism.
>Deng was absolutely right that China needed to develop it's productive forces before moving to socialism
It's very obvious that "primary stage of socialism" is nothing but a fancy word for capitalism.
Under the control of the Chinese bourgeoisie.
Dengoids always say this without saying how or giving a single example.
And Xi has been cracking down on this for years now. He's been curbing the power of the billionaires and rooting out corruption.
It wasn't in the interests of NEPmen to move to socialism either, yet the USSR eventually did.
There are multiple stages that China has to go through to reach advanced socialism and eventually communism. The first one retains many functions of capitalism, yes, but solely because they needed to allow the productive forces to grow and also to stay competitive in a Western-dominated capitalist world. Now that China has developed it's productive forces exponentially, it can now focus on progressing towards the more advanced stage of socialism. This is why Xi is stressing the importance of science and technology, especially in the fields of robotics and AI which are the innovations which will inevitably bring about advanced socialism.
For now much of it is, yes. The state however has the final say in the matter. Did the Soviet state not eventually commandeer the property owned by the NEPmen?
The anti-corruption campaign, the Belt and Road initiative, the automation mandates, the Chinese Dream concept, the curbing of billionaire influence in the party, the massive rise of the standard of living to name a few. I have no idea how China opposers think that a socialist revolution can and will occur in the first world but scoff at the idea that China, an already Marxist-Leninist state, will just stagnate forever and never change. China is really our only hope.
are we even talking about the same country here
Most of these are literally just developmentalist policies that could be enforced in any Western country. The last two could just as well occur in any "welfare state" that has some social-democratic elements in the government.
Who thinks this?
I mean no one says it will stagnate. China, much like India, could become socialist if a workers' uprising were to overthrow the state and seize the means of production. Capitalism is screwing the Chinese workers over pretty badly so there's definitely some revolutionary potential.
Reminder state ownership and culling of bourgeois class is NOT socialism, if it was, Singapore would be a dotp
