Hey Zig Forums

The point was that none of what you said applies to Marx at all. Marxism doesn't make moralistic claims, nor is it utopian like the utopian socialists of before.
>Read this article and tell me this isn't nationalism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
I don't agree with much of what the cultural revolution entailed, but no, that was not nationalism.
Literal liberal meme definition of imperialism. Under this definition all conflicts are imperialism and all land acquisition since time time immemorial, no matter the reason, is imperialist. Here is an actual structured definition of what imperialism is marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm
In regards to it's praxis of a protracted people's war outside of the material conditions of China and countries in a similar situation to the one it was in? Not very much. However, theorectical contributions and concepts like the mass line, new democracy, and the gradual abolishment of the distinction between the urban centers and the countryside still find relevancy in tendencies like MLM and others.

Why don't you just read Marx you fucking slug?

"And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law"
Hmmm, something tells me Marx doesn't like the Bourgeoisie. But I guess your right, it doesn't apply to him
"Workingmen of all countries, unite!"
Huh, being pro-worker doesn't apply to Marx? Really?
As the productive forces continued to advance, Marx hypothesized that socialism would ultimately be transformed into a communist society: a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership and the underlying principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"."
Nothing even slightly Utopian about that!
I'm not sure how propaganda advocating for the blind following of the state could be anything except Nationalism.
One, you're playing the semantics game
Two, I read through that. It's basically saying imperialism is when Capitalism exploits people by creating a monopoly. That's wrong because most of early colonialism was done under mercantile philosophies, and early colonialism was without a doubt imperialist. If you somehow consider mercantile philosophies capitalist, then you're basically turning imperialism into a word that means "Exploitation of a people, except when Communism does it", which is not only a blatant case of semantics, it's attempting to change the definition of a word with negative connotations to be non-applicable to yourself, which is intellectually dishonest. But once again, I'll be generous, give you the benefit of the doubt, and I'll say that what Mao did wasn't imperialism, just the invasion, exploitation and destruction of a foreign culture to benefit his country, but just not under capitalism.

That just sounds like a more complicated definition of populism
That just universal suffrage, and him saying that every country would come to democracy there own way, which most pro-democracy advocates agree with
But since agriculture has advanced, there'd be no benefit to doing that

Anyway, let's say I'm wrong, and all that is applicable and original. That does not answer my question, I'm not asking about how Mao influenced the radical left, I'm asking people who primarily embrace Mao's ideology as to why they do so

I have read Marx, and this question isn't about Marx, it's about Mao, who was active 100+ years later

He is not making a moral claim of the bourgeoisie being "good" or "bad".
He is not making a moral claim that the proletariat is "good" or "bad".
No, there isn't, because communism isn't viewed as some miracle world or Utopia in which things just happen and society comes about due to our "belief" in it. It is viewed as a consequence of the antagonisms of capitalism and the advancement of the productive forces of society, not as a thing to be established or revered. It is the conclusion to a material dialectic, not something that is founded on us wanting something "good" or "better". The statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a term that is largely misunderstood and almost purposely misconstrued as well.
It can be, but colonialism isn't necessarily imperialism. They can correlate with each other, but they are still two distinct things.
More of development to capitalism proper
No, it's giving a strict definition to it that explains what it is, how it materially operates, and it's relation to capitalism. It disregards the previous moralist liberal definition to give a real concrete definition and explanation for it other than "bad man takes land". Economic exploitation isn't "when mean things are done", that also has a strict definition for communists.
If you're talking about Tibet, then no not really. If you are talking about Vietnam, then yes that was retarded. However that support had more to do with the decaying relations between the USSR and China and the resulting differing backing of states.
In the same way a supermarket is a more "complicated definition" of "lots of food". Populism is a component of the Mass Line, but the mass line isn't just populism.
If you remove its explict mention of communism and anti-imperialism, things which partially define new democracy.
I'm no maoist, but there are multiple places in the world where the antagonisms between the urban and rural are layed open to bear, and I would even go so far as to say such antagonisms still play out in developed countries as well.
Again, you're only going to really find full blown maoists in countries which share material conditions similar to China during it's revolution, especially those where a protracted people's war is viable. Other developed places you'll be more likely to find either Marxist-Leninists or Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, that being people who incorporate aspects of Moaism to Marxist-Leninism (with varying degrees of success).

Attached: 45d847e9eb85ca782a1cea8bd3d6f8fd9a251a9b.png (1920x1080, 549.16K)

Modern Maoism has nothing to do with China or nationalism and was founded by Peruvian communists. Maoists are communists and have the same goal as them, they just consider Maoism to be the highest application of Marxism-Leninism or some shit like that. Also they hate Hoxha.

Most 21st century "Maoists" are either Third Worldist closet-nationalists, or in the first world, edgy young adults that think "Cultural Revolution" means communism can be achieved through identity politics.

Please educate me, tell me how saying the bourgeoisie should be removed from removed from power is saying that they're anything but bad?
Tell me, why would you encourage the workers to revolt if they're not good?
Nobody ever said Utopias came about from belief in them
Then why are there people who follow the ideology of communism, and why do some of them make it their life's work to establish a dictatorship in order to accomplish that?
I kind of agree with you here, but at this point we're splitting hairs as to what's capitalist and what's not, so I'm just going to dismiss this example
It already had a strict definition before Lenin had to redefine it to suit his purposes. This is an example of "newspeak" being used to control arguments. Tell me, why does it matter if a country is capitalist, is exploitation not exploitation? If two countries do the same thing to two smaller states, but one is communist, why would one be imperialism and one not?
Okay fine, it's populism, but in the form of one of those suggestion boxes you see an corporate offices, where the management doesn't actually read the suggestions
Isn't the idea behind Communism that there's no government? And if we're talking about democracy in the dictatorship of the proletariat phase, isn't that kind of contradictory? The dictatorship only exist out of necessity, and is ultimately supposed to be a necessary evil that should only last as short as it can. Wouldn't democracy just hamper its efficiency of distributing production?
So if I understand you correctly, they're deviating from the orthodox Marxist path of saying that countries need to be industrialized after the country turns to communism, and are instead proposing to mend relations between the rural and urban areas?
That sounds like less ideology and more methodology. Hypothetically speaking, a Not Socialist could use the tactics Mao used out and not embrace his ideology. I'm looking for the people who share the same end goals as Mao, not just those who share his tactics
Pic related would disagree, isn't he this boards former BO? Is he just an edgelord like said, and nobody takes his type serious, even in your community, or is there a thriving pure Maoist culture? If it's the former, then I think my question is answered

Attached: image.png (720x990, 1023.17K)

For another example, there's Jason Unruhe. Is he:
An edgelord
A Maoist with some kind of refined modern theory I don't know about
Or has he just taken parts of Mao's ideas and mixed them with more modernly applicable ideas

Going to bed. If you have a reply I'll respond in the morning

no, BO isn't even a Maoist or a tranny. you can keep taking random unflattering pics of communists from deviantart or whatever and say "DIS IS U!!11" but it won't make it anymore real.

Karl Marx was a jew not a nigger

That picture looks black to me. Black jews confirmed?

Maoism isn't "whatever shit Mao did". If you want to understand the differences, read Continuity and Rupture by JMP

"Bad" is a moralist claim. The bourgeoisie are subject to removal not out of personal moral disagreement, but due to the inherent class antagonisms of capitalism, in which the material self-interest of the proletariat is in conflict with the material self-interest of the bourgeoisie. Eventually these material interests come to a head, in which the economic antagonisms of these two classes can only find resolve in conflict in which both consolidate power and work to retain/obtain a monopoly on violence. The difference between the two and why communists find the proletariat to be the driving class is that while the bourgeoisie require the proletariat to exist in some fashion (and thus the continued existance of the before mentioned class antagonisms which inevitably erupt in open conflict), the proletariat do not require the bourgeoisie or the existence of the capitalist class system. That is to say, the capitalist sows the seed of his capitalism's destruction even in victory as he reafirms the same system that gave way to the conflict in the first place, while the proles victory comes with it the liquidation of the capitalist class system.
See above.
In what way are you defining Utopia? Are you implying that communists find communism to be perfect?
By finding the analysis of capitalism by Marx to be largely correct and historical materialism to be of sound methodology. Again, communism is not something which is established but moved into as the conditions which make a state necessary for human society cease to be. It is also something not revered, with it just merely being the consequence of the system before it, with us functioning as the instruments which bring it about in the same fashion the bourgoisie, then mere merchants, were the instruments which brought about the emergence of capitalism with their backing and involvement in the revolutionary movements of that era. A conflict which ended with the collapse of feudalism and the it's estate system and the rise of the bourgeoisie class. To quote Zizek somewhat ironically, "Communists experience themselves as instruments in which to exercise a historical necessity".
Unless "take land, use military" is a strict definition to you especially in the age of capitalism, then no it did not.
How would a socialist state economically exploit the smaller one in the first place unless it maintained the things which made such exploitation possible (i.e. a capitalist system and profit motive). What is your definition of exploitation? Is it a moral one or a concrete material one? Regardless, one system wishes to end imperialism while the other wishes for it's continued propogation. To argue that they are the same because similar means are used is liberal infantialism.
But the mass line was generally followed, and doing so actually is what caused some problems because it assumed the peasantry class had already been cultivated to the point that immediate and critical decision making could be deferred to the masses with no proletariat structure like that with the Soviet bodies that operated with the Bolsheviks and underestimated the impact the petit and national bourgeoisie could have on such a system.
Eventually.

The USSR was also a democracy, but that's another argument. Mao argued that new democracy was better because it allowed the immediate material greviances of the populace, a populace divided into four classes, be aired to the government and thus prevent the rise internal conflict and the consolidation of these entities towards fighting against imperialist aggression. It was viewed as a necessary evil as well, with the process being New Democracy, then Socialism, then Communism.
More of slowly industrializing the rural parts and bringing the two closer over time. Marx and Engles wrote about the division between urban and rural themselves, and also wrote partially about eventual (post-industrialization) solutions to it.
Most communists share the same end goal, but differ in methods. Tendency generally denotes method. MLs, Trots, Maoists, DeLeonists, etc. all have the end goal of communism but differ in method. A Nat Soc would not be a maoist if he merely adopted the tactics, because he would lack the theory and goal.
No, that isn't BO. Pretty sure that BO is just ML or something close to it.
People rarely take Western maoists seriously due to the fact that a lot of them are, as the user before said, just edgy teens who have an axe to grind, who believe the USSR and the US to both be imperialists, and/or who believe that first-world revolution is impossible (third worldists). I could probably count the amount of maoists on this board ever on one hand. Possibly one and 1/5th.

Actual edgy teen grown up. Has bad theory, despite having maybe one or two "good" moments which are mostly defined by comparison to more embarrassing figures.

Stop with this liberal bullshit of "imperialism is when you use soldiers against another country". China was socialist at that time, and socialist countries can not be imperialist because it doesn't have monopolists pushing for conquering new markets. The USSR was involved in Africa quite a lot and didn't once used their connections there to set up a sweatshop there. Neither did the Chinese in Eritrea.

You can still dislike it, especially that invasion of Vietnam, but don't use the word imperialism, use the word "Chinese hegemonism" or something. The USSR also quite clearly invaded Hungary and the ČSSR but as Al Szymanski investigates it in Is the Red Flag Flying? it didn't constitute imperialism.

Maoism was specifically designed for the conditions of semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. Maoists typically view Western countries as degenerate and full of reactionary pro-imperialist labor aristocrats who leech off the labor of exploited countries in the Global South. They don't see much hope for any revolutionary change in the West - instead orientating themselves towards the poor countries of the world.

For examples of modern Maoist movements, check out the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, the Naxalites in India, or the NPA in the Phillipines.

Attached: npaa.jpg (924x813 31.4 KB, 160.56K)

Oh my god, when will you faggots learn? The NPA isn't even Third-Worldist, just because they are in the Third World doesn't mean they have adopted that ideology. That's like saying communists from Asia are Maoists because Maoism = Asian.

The Shining Path isn't claiming to be Third-Worldist either. They claim to have developed another "stage" of Maoism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo Thought (yes I know it's autistic). I don't know anything about the Naxalites but AFAIK they haven't claimed to be MTW either. There are only two actual MTW organisations I know of: The LLCO and RAIM. Both are shady as fuck and likely to be a cover-up for drug trade.

I admit I'm not as educated on the issue as others on this board. But isn't first world Maoism a contradiction? The theory and praxis is specifically suited for countries under the thumb of feudalism and colonialism.

Third-Worldist argue that if you're living in the First World, spend all your efforts on sending money to organisations in the Third World, help them with what you can, and run on an entirely anti-imperialist platform in the First World.

To add on to that, MTWs believe that once socialism is established in the Third World, the First World will be "cut off" from the resources and labour power it needs to sustain its high living standard, and then revolution happens in the First World. This is wrong because of two things:

- Even if revolution happens in the Third World, and is not immediately overthrown because the US and other imperialists grow increasingly incompetent in staging coups and military intervention (not unrealistic), it can immediately asphyxiate the revolution with economic warfare, and, what is in my opinion the most likely outcome, the socialists can always just sell out, there is nothing stopping them. Do they think that the Maoists in Nepal would be opposed to Western investments? Fuck no they wouldn't. I mean, fuck, Mao himself did it after investments from the USSR got cut off.

- the only reason the USSR could push socialism to the Spree River in Berlin, was because Russia was already a huge imperialist empire that regularly expanded west- and southwards before the Bolsheviks took power. The idea that such a feat could be duplicated if, say, Uganada and Botswana became socialist, is absolutely insane

Not if the first world imperialists are themselves being asphyxiated by the sudden disappearance of the spoils of imperialist plunder

The difference is that socialist revolt can not happen simultaneously in every imperialized country, and the imperialists already have huge stockpiles of long over-produced goods. Imperialists can play divide and conquer while sabotaging anti-imperialist countries internally far, far more effectively and for much longer than the anti-imperialist countries can simply refuse to hand over goods.

That implies that revolution in the Third World would happen everywhere at the same time, which is not what Marx or Lenin thought would ever be possible and with the increasing divide between less developed and more developed states in the Global South with an increased economic divide and division of labour between them, it seems even more unlikely. There might be 10 or 20 years between each individual revolutions in medium-sized TW countries.

True. You can see this right now with the US forming an anti-Venezuelan alliance amongst Latin American countries.

And how did that work out? Embarrassing failure for every imperialist and imperialist-allied country

They're not even finished setting up pieces with Venezuela, they had literally one stumbling block because the US is losing its hold, but it's a joke if you think they're done with it.

Vietnam showed how a small TW country can survive a massive imperialist invasion and emerge 100% victorious

You do realise Vietnam "won" by setting up sweatshops for Western companies? Even if you think that is okay, it means that there wasn't any "cutting off" for imperialist countries towards their TW labour force.

That came after the war, you historically illiterate raisin cookie

Because economic warfare ensued after military defeat of the US

Do you think the only thing the US has at its disposal is troops on the ground? In Cuba there will be shortages this year because of the economic sanctions

that's why you need a self reliant economy, twerp

seize le means of masturbation

Obviously, Vietnam and China agree with you here. But to reach that they invite Western investment to reach productive forces. It's a recipe for poverty if you want to reach self-reliance on your own as a small country (or a country with over a billion people like China).

the left needs to cry

Communist top kek…