Maoists do make compelling points. As communists we should be considering the Maoist point of view without shit-slinging and we should consider criticisms to be in good faith.
The obstacle for me is that Maoist organizing has only gotten weaker support from the masses since the 90s and there has not been any successful projects. From an analysis of theory standpoint, I often find them spot on in many of their observations. The global communist movement is a lot weaker than we (in the West at least) would like to admit. China may be making advances for China and helping to weaken Western imperialism’s hold on the world, which we all obviously applaud, but there’s no concrete evidence to suggest that they will be leading the global communist movement from a place of ideology anytime soon.
We are in a period of retreat and concession to the bourgeoisie still. Are there encouraging signs for the future? Sure. But we’ve got a long way to go. It’s no surprise that there are some overwhelming obstacles for M-L parties in the world that have nerfed the revolutionary energy. But communists are still in the position of gaining support among the masses and you can’t force the revolution without a truly revolutionary situation, especially after 30+ years of unimpeded neoliberalism. Perfect theory is never perfect in practice, and Maoism from Peru and the RIM is proof of this. Meanwhile, the general strike happening in India is a result of the M-L party organizing workers, not the Maoist party. We’re really only just getting started. We can’t let our desperate hopes put the cart before the horse.
Sorry if this comment wasn’t the most clear or connected. I’m just kind of spitballing what’s coming to mind. I personally thought it was a good article. Thanks for sharing.
but there’s no concrete evidence to suggest that they will be leading the global communist movement from a place of ideology anytime soon.
SWCC, the Doi Moi reforms, and other similar measures are showing that utilizing markets to serve socialism is 100% effective. China is either already beating or about to beat the US on every meaningful metric: % of world trade, life expectancy, home ownership rates, education, patents / tech advancement… etc.
Maoists on the other hand are still playing theory games in their heads, constantly bickering with each other about who is more revisionist, and killing and alienating themselves from every group / peoples they encounter.
I have to say during Cultural revolution you could attack anyone and then many red guards would follow you. He mustnt to be capitalist or rightist. Many schools were destroyed for it’s teachers, names or histories. During Cultural revolution, the laws didnt work. Imaging you argued with your neighbour yesterday and now he is leading hundreds of red guards standing in front of your home.That was happening every day
I have to say during Cultural revolution you could attack anyone and then many red guards would follow you. He mustnt to be capitalist or rightist. Many schools were destroyed for it’s teachers, names or histories. During Cultural revolution, the laws didnt work. Imaging you argued with your neighbour yesterday and now he is leading hundreds of red guards standing in front of your home.That was happening every day
I’m assuming most of us are aware the cultural revolution as it occurred in China. But separating the GPCR from the hypothesis of Cultural Revolution in general, hasn’t history demonstrated that a Cultural Revolution/mass struggle against reaction in some shape or form will be necessary/inevitable as long as classes remain post-revolution?
Why should we not view the GPCR as a first attempt at Cultural Revolution, a theory that needs more exploration, rather than its failures being wholly indicative of how future attempts will go? Genuinely asking
Maoists do make compelling points. As communists we should be considering the Maoist point of view without shit-slinging and we should consider criticisms to be in good faith.
The obstacle for me is that Maoist organizing has only gotten weaker support from the masses since the 90s and there has not been any successful projects. From an analysis of theory standpoint, I often find them spot on in many of their observations. The global communist movement is a lot weaker than we (in the West at least) would like to admit. China may be making advances for China and helping to weaken Western imperialism’s hold on the world, which we all obviously applaud, but there’s no concrete evidence to suggest that they will be leading the global communist movement from a place of ideology anytime soon.
We are in a period of retreat and concession to the bourgeoisie still. Are there encouraging signs for the future? Sure. But we’ve got a long way to go. It’s no surprise that there are some overwhelming obstacles for M-L parties in the world that have nerfed the revolutionary energy. But communists are still in the position of gaining support among the masses and you can’t force the revolution without a truly revolutionary situation, especially after 30+ years of unimpeded neoliberalism. Perfect theory is never perfect in practice, and Maoism from Peru and the RIM is proof of this. Meanwhile, the general strike happening in India is a result of the M-L party organizing workers, not the Maoist party. We’re really only just getting started. We can’t let our desperate hopes put the cart before the horse.
Sorry if this comment wasn’t the most clear or connected. I’m just kind of spitballing what’s coming to mind. I personally thought it was a good article. Thanks for sharing.
SWCC, the Doi Moi reforms, and other similar measures are showing that utilizing markets to serve socialism is 100% effective. China is either already beating or about to beat the US on every meaningful metric: % of world trade, life expectancy, home ownership rates, education, patents / tech advancement… etc.
Maoists on the other hand are still playing theory games in their heads, constantly bickering with each other about who is more revisionist, and killing and alienating themselves from every group / peoples they encounter.
He supports Cultural Revolution. I can say it’s not a good article just by this point
Yes, this is completely disqualifying.
why shouldn’t we support the cultural revolution?
I have to say during Cultural revolution you could attack anyone and then many red guards would follow you. He mustnt to be capitalist or rightist. Many schools were destroyed for it’s teachers, names or histories. During Cultural revolution, the laws didnt work. Imaging you argued with your neighbour yesterday and now he is leading hundreds of red guards standing in front of your home.That was happening every day
I would like an answer to this too.
I have to say during Cultural revolution you could attack anyone and then many red guards would follow you. He mustnt to be capitalist or rightist. Many schools were destroyed for it’s teachers, names or histories. During Cultural revolution, the laws didnt work. Imaging you argued with your neighbour yesterday and now he is leading hundreds of red guards standing in front of your home.That was happening every day
I’m assuming most of us are aware the cultural revolution as it occurred in China. But separating the GPCR from the hypothesis of Cultural Revolution in general, hasn’t history demonstrated that a Cultural Revolution/mass struggle against reaction in some shape or form will be necessary/inevitable as long as classes remain post-revolution?
Why should we not view the GPCR as a first attempt at Cultural Revolution, a theory that needs more exploration, rather than its failures being wholly indicative of how future attempts will go? Genuinely asking
You are right. I just focused on the absurd Cultural Revolution of the last century, and did not deny the possibility of the future