I wanna learn more about Maoism. Does any one recommend any specific text by Stalin, Mao, or any other Maoists, or should i just read the selected works of Mao on Marxist Internet Archive?
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
I'm almost certain that Stalin wasn't a Maoist at all, and I'm also certain that Stalin and Stalinists differ greatly from Maoist thought.
To the other part, I would recommend Quotations by Chairman Mao as a starter and then read the selected works like you said.
Quotations sucks and should only be used as a reference tool.
On Contradiction is a piece that I think people should read, Maoist or not. Especially some of our board present Third Camp trot members
On Practice is good as well
Combat Liberalism is a piece that is short and necessary for people to read
I've heard that Guerilla Warfare is good as well, but I haven't read it myself
On Contradictions within the Party is good for learning about putschism and ultrademocracy in the proletarian army
Anything by Lin Biao, especially his Preface to Quotations by Mao
Long Live the Victory of People's war by Lin Biao is by far the largest breakthrough in Maoism. If you read nothing else, read that
When reading the works of Deng, Liu, or Zhao, keep a critical mind open, especially in the later works. They wrote some stuff that flirted with capitalist roader phenomena.
The Peking Review is also a great collection of Maoist works when actually applied to China. It's a newspaper of sorts.
I'll post more later if you'd like, I'm out of pocket till the end of the week. Let me know.
Stalin would not be considered a Maoists but he influenced Mao, and a lot of Maoists seem to respect him.
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
Maoists also say things such as "Stalin not properly recognizing different kinds of contradictions" and "incorrectly solving contradictions within the party"...
As for the bolded part,it seems that the CPC took the tactical (statistically inevitable) mistakes (many of them caused by actual sabotage withing the NKVD ranks!) to a level of "not properly recognizing different kinds of contradictions".
Also the first remard about Stalin "falling into metaphysics and subjectivism" is dubious (and unsubstantiated) too...
http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/d ... stalin.htm
I notice you use this phrase a lot, yet you can't name more than 2 divisions in leninism, which the word implies. Perhaps the word your looking for is opposition. Historically it was the maoists who can only be described as third camp, because they revised leninism into something even both stalin and trotsky wouldn't recognize. Where hoxha would simply copy the soviet system, mao created a state-capitalist system, by his own admission, supported by a bloc of classes, instead of a DDOTPP. Not even stalin was stupid enough to build some sort of a popular front in the USSR.
I know it irks you some people dislike what marxism-leninism produced, but seriously get over it. I held that view when I was M-L, and trust me when I say it that it's pretty infantile. If the history of marxism proves anything, it's that it's a great tragedy to cling to the 'original' or 'mainstream', we had to move on from classical marxism at one point, and social democracy used to be a pretty significant force in marxism before lenin and luxemburg. See where I'm going with this? Judge objectively, not with this stupid prejudice of yours.
Conscript, why did you take two words out of my post and derail the topic? Wouldn't a PM have sufficed?
I'm using "Third Camp Trotskyism" as the opposition to Orthodox Trotskyism.
Learn about your ideology before you go on the infamous critical polemics that Trots love to participate in.
Third Camp is a reference to the Trotskyist movement that decided to fight against capitalism and "stalinism" simultaneously. I'm referring, of course to the movements inability to recognize the principal contradiction, which must be resolved first with the Broad United Front. I really suggest that you read the essay before going on to derail a thread like this.
It was the progression of leninism, not the revision. Mao sought to apply leninism to China, which had different material conditions than Russia.
Would you explain to me approximately what years China became a "state-capitalist" system, and what reason you have to believe this?
And yet, he and Lenin, and Trotsky did just this to overthrow the Czar. So did Mao to repel Japanese imperialists.
I dislike the unscientific approach of Trotskyism which says that all potential temporary allies should be rejected on the basis of bullshit bourgeoisie concepts like "stalinism." And I also dislike the fact that every conversation a Third Campist enters into turns into an offensive against actual material socialist states, for which there is no defense, because Third Campists don't uphold any socialist state besides Russia under the NEP, and they never formed one to be criticized. Shows the effectiveness of the ideology huh?
I didn't derail the topic, I suggested that certain *ahem* Third Camp Trotskyists actually learn something about the science of Marxism and DiaMat rather than striving what in the end only becomes social-democracy or Market Socialism. Opposing everybody you think is a dick because they are a dick is infantile and goes against DiaMat.
Read On Contradiction and address your justification of treating "stalinism" as the principal contradiction instead of picking two fragging words out of my attempt to be helpful and going on the stereotypical trotskyist criticism vomit fest.
@Loz: I've heard the things about Stalin falling into metaphysics, but I haven't studied the Maoist criticism of Stalin enough to even begin a conversation on, sorry. One thing that I do recall Maoists being critical of Stalin for is falling into the "police paradigm," though I don't understand this argument enough to adequately argue it.
But, I'm sure that it would be better for us to actually suggest works of Mao for Red Brigade to investigate, since that's what Red Brigade intended for this thread to be.
@ Red Brigade: I forgot the name of one and wasn't near a computer at the time, but ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY is another good reading from Mao.
Serve the People is another
Because you felt it was necessary to bring it up, as irrelevant as it was, as a snipe similarly not in a PM. I wouldn't have replied though if the OP didn't get what asked for already. If it's such an inconvenience for some we can request a split.
Funny how there aren't any schactmanites on this forum. Where are these third campists I hear so much about from you? I used to be the 'third campist' back when it just referred to anyone that didn't support Communism, but it seems you've adopted a new definition.
More accurately, it was about fighting the imperialist west and the similar bourgeois imperialism of the USSR, as it was claimed. It is not 'stalinism' per se, because that would imply the trotskyist doesn't consider the USSR to be a run-of-the-mill bourgeois state, and is instead a degenerated workers' state that requires a political revolution.
No, they, like most trotskyists, don't believe in building a party-led coalition of various classes most of which have no interest in socialism. Rather they follow Lenin and Trotsky's model, a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry completing the historical tasks of the bourgeoisie themselves and liberating their country from imperialism.
When the maoists and their populist coalition seized control of china and nationalized everything. I believe it is so because that is how it was, and it is how Mao described post-1949 China.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... wv5_30.htm
What overthrew the czar in february had nothing to do with a popular front. What happened in october is the negation of the need for broad front to develop the country and overthrow the old system and its imperialist backers. Instead in favor of the proletariat leading the peasantry in a revolution against the bourgeoisie and its newfound allies, the disenfranchised aristocracy, that ruled russia immediately after february.
What mao did, from the 20s onward to '49, was ally with the same national bourgeoisie which whored itself out to whatever imperialist gave it the best opportunity, from Germany to the allies. Japan was an exception because it wanted conquest.
If Lenin had Mao around to listen to, the bolsheviks would've continued doing what Stalin did as general secretary pre-april, supporting the provisional gov't and the 'revolutionary' national bourgeoisie. The only thing maoism could perhaps bring to the table is the fantastic idea of having the party rule the provisional gov't in a coalition with whatever class they could get.
What Lenin did and what Mao did cannot be compared.
Except we don't, trotskyists support allying with the peasantry, but we recognize their disinterest in socialism and thus have no plans to integrate them as equals to in the government. This is why the bolsheviks dissolved the constituent assembly.
Maoists take it a couple steps further. Not only is the peasantry as revolutionary as the proletariat, but so is the petty-bourgeoisie and the comprador national bourgeoisie, so long as all four are ruled by the party and its bureaucracy in a coalition, the so-called 'new democracy'. I see nothing scientific about this, and you're making yourself look like a mystic.
translation: i hate it when people criticize M-L!!
I'd love to see you prove any trotskyist supports the NEP. You're quite ignorant of the left opposition's history. Are we forgetting who was lambasted as being 'super-industrialist'?
The trotskyists and other anti-stalinist communists never had a massive state behind them controlling official parties and crushing dissenting communists.
offensive remarks removed
Still waiting for you to direct me to these imagined third campists.
It's funny you mention striving for what in the end becomes social-democracy or market socialism, because that matches up finely to the history of stalin and mao.
If this is what you think trotskyism, or even the historical third campism, is about you are absolutely clueless.
I feel no need to adopt and justify class collaborationism, so no.
It wasn't a snipe, it was a reference to the essay itself and what I feel are it's practical applications today, especially in light of the Libyan situations and many "leftists" supporting the NATO backed rebels.
Modern Third Camp Trotskyism opposes the Broad United Front because elements of that United Front are "stalinist" or "totalitarian" in nature.
The USSR wasn't social-imperialist until Stalin died. Socialism in the USSR until 1945 was about self-preservation, not imperialism.
Third Camp Trotskyists differ from Orthodox Trotskyism in that they find "stalinism" a separate beast to fight against, while similarly fighting imperialism at the same time, even supporting imperialism to bring "more democracy" to certain areas. This is why some Third Camp Trotskyists have abandoned class struggle and become neo-cons.
Why would you not use the tools at your disposal to achieve socialism in an underdeveloped semi-feudal country? Third Camp Trotskyism insists that the Communist Party fights alone, against the local petit-bourgeoisie and the imperialists simultaneously, rather than recognizing the principal contradiction (Japanese Imperialism), securing the country, and then continuing to the defeat of class enemies, which is what the Maoists did, successfully.
What's the alternative to nationalizing industry under the Communist Party.
Your short Mao quote doesn't adequately explain to me what state-capitalism is or why China was state-capitalist in 1949
Temporary allies through New Democracy repelled the Japanese. What is your alternative? Fight them all at the same time?
And how does this differ with the Broad United Front, which works to defeat the imperialists using the tools of the bourgeoisie, then continuing to exclude the bourgeoisie after the resolve of the principal contradiction.
It's not a criticism, it's a liberal naysay fest, similar to the non-pragmatic approach of third wave feminism. There are plenty of criticism's that can be made of the USSR and China, but calling them "state-capitalist" does nothing to put light on the actual issues at hand.
Since China did not produce commodity or make policy changes for profit, China was not state capitalist until the return of the capitalist-roaders. China's economic and social policies were made to raise the standard of living, increase life expectancy, promote literacy, develop industry, create and push forward proletarian culture.
China today would be my understanding of "state-capitalism."
I meant more "Russia under the direction of Lenin" than the NEP specifically.
Because they never created a state. That's my criticism. What did the 4th International actually do to secure a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat?"
We have physical countries to evaluate and criticize. Third Camp Trotskyism brings nothing to the table for evaluation.
Sure, because of the prevail of revisionism after their deaths, which can be attributed to faulty leadership and decision making on their part. Third Camp Trotskyism takes Marxist economics and attempts to mash them with Bourgeoisie political systems. The result is "not wanting to step on toes" and allowing social democrats back in because they "aren't as harsh as a stalinist."
Explain the Dialectical thinking behind opposing Assad in Syria?
Like I said, what is the alternative? Fight them both at the same time? The Party direction ensured their victory after the war, the Kuomintang was smashed, and they had the support of the people because they weren't killing the Chinese while the Japanese were killing the Chinese.
EDIT: Found this interesting from Wikipedia
Not Worker's revolution like Orthodox Trotskyism advocates, defeat.
Last edited by proletarian on 17 Dec 2011, 08:27, edited 1 time in total.
Going back to the thread.. Marxist Internet Archive has a lot of works online.
I'll ditto proletarian with On Practice and On Contradiction, I'll also throw in On The Correct Handling of Contradictions Among The People.
Only because you brought up Stalin will I throw in Critique of Stalin’s Economic Problems Of Socialism In The USSR. Concerning Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR is along similar lines but it was not on Marxist Internet Archive.
I'd also check out these Maoists websites:
"Don't hate on me bro" - Loz
Alternative Display:Mobile view