By Cathal “Consider it as an audacious step that we must take; all audacious steps are the beginning of a new task, and the new has a problem: a terrain not sufficiently known; let’s take fir…
Huh? Marxist-Leninist-Maoists just add to Marxism-Leninism. Just because something is ML doesn’t mean MLMs don’t uphold it also. But the focus on having a correct political line, the necessity of ideological struggle, and self critisism are emphasized much more clearly in Mao than what I’ve read from Lenin in my experience. It might be in Lenin, I’ve only read a few of his books.
Plus, ML was synthesized by Stalin after Lenin’s death, so I don’t see what your point about MLM being synthesized after Mao’s death has to do with anything.
MLM upholds AES but probably differ from what you consider to be AES. They think China under Deng is revisionist, but support the USSR and China under Mao. That’s a small difference and one that should be resolved through ideological struggle, not just dismissal IMO.
From Gonzalo they get (as I understand) the universality of protracted people’s war (which comes from Mao’s take on dialectical materialism), concentric construction (basically a formalization Lenin in What Is to be Done) and I think “excellent leadership” which I only have a vague idea of.
So what do you mean by revisionist? I have always understood revisionist to mean basically stripping Marxism of it’s revolutionary essence or anti-capitalist essence. MLM doesn’t do that.
To say Maoists uphold lying in order to manipulate people… That’s a hefty claim I’ve never seen any evidence of before. And honestly it sounds like an unprincipled accusation that comes from not wanting to engage with thinking/writing.
But the focus on having a correct political line, the necessity of ideological struggle, and self critisism are emphasized much more clearly in Mao than what I’ve read from Lenin in my experience. It might be in Lenin, I’ve only read a few of his books.
Before I comment on this, here is a quote by Lenin:
A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfills in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analyzing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification—that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses.
Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
A political line and theory should not be chosen based on their word usage and emphasis. The theory that guides action should be chosen when it is in accordance with objective reality, most importantly. If the theory is not in accordance with objective reality, then it is imperative to reevaluate the theory being used.
I will now comment on the question of Maoism, and will use as a reference Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!, the text produced by a Maoist organization in the 80’s.
The problem with Maoism is that Mao Zedong did not present anything new to the analysis of reality because we still live in the imperialist stage of capitalism, which was a qualitative difference to the monopolist capitalism as analyzed by Marx and Engels. Marxism-Leninism is therefore a necessary development to the understanding of our reality, adding to the contributions of Marxism. Imperialist capitalism hasn’t changed qualitatively, only quantitatively.
The historical context of the development of Maoism (or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) was born out of the Sino-Soviet split, when communist parties around the world were profoundly disappointed by Soviet downfall spiral into revisionism and reactionary bullshit with Khrushchev’s secret speech.
When Maoists claim Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the highest stage of development of Marxism, they usually claim protracted people’s war as an universal development of Marxism. It is definitely a creative development of military strategy by the Chinese communists, and was admired by many military strategists, including reactionary ones. However, I’ve never seen a Maoist explain why it is an universal appliance. Based on China’s material conditions of semi-feudality, waging a war against imperialist aggression on the countryside is an exceptional strategy.
Currently, there are 3 major Maoist parties which use a strategy openly based on Mao’s protracted people’s war; in Philippines, India and in Peru. Each of these communist parties are participating in a struggle which has been happening for more than 40 years, which they have been unfortunately losing. For reference, the Chinese people’s war took around 25 years, with very clear political and military gains. Their endurance is admirable, and it doesn’t seem they are abandoning their efforts anytime soon, but we must remind ourselves that we won’t win any war without the support of the people. This is the most important aspect of our struggle. Any military strategy may be adequate when the majority of the people is in our side.
While I have doubts of the universality of this strategy, I nonetheless hope they face a final victory. A victory for these communists is a victory for all of us.
Huh? Marxist-Leninist-Maoists just add to Marxism-Leninism.
Not the user you are responding to but I disagree. MLM ruptures with fundamental positions of ML as synthesized by Stalin (the notion that class struggle existing under socialism, for instance.)
Which do you think says that class struggle doesn’t exist under socialism? Your wording isn’t clear. The State is an instrument of class oppression and so the existence of a socialist state implies class struggle exists. Mao also held that class struggle continues to exist in socialism and I’ve never heard any ML or MLM reject this. Can you point me to something to read?
Huh? Marxist-Leninist-Maoists just add to Marxism-Leninism. Just because something is ML doesn’t mean MLMs don’t uphold it also. But the focus on having a correct political line, the necessity of ideological struggle, and self critisism are emphasized much more clearly in Mao than what I’ve read from Lenin in my experience. It might be in Lenin, I’ve only read a few of his books.
Plus, ML was synthesized by Stalin after Lenin’s death, so I don’t see what your point about MLM being synthesized after Mao’s death has to do with anything.
MLM upholds AES but probably differ from what you consider to be AES. They think China under Deng is revisionist, but support the USSR and China under Mao. That’s a small difference and one that should be resolved through ideological struggle, not just dismissal IMO.
From Gonzalo they get (as I understand) the universality of protracted people’s war (which comes from Mao’s take on dialectical materialism), concentric construction (basically a formalization Lenin in What Is to be Done) and I think “excellent leadership” which I only have a vague idea of.
So what do you mean by revisionist? I have always understood revisionist to mean basically stripping Marxism of it’s revolutionary essence or anti-capitalist essence. MLM doesn’t do that.
To say Maoists uphold lying in order to manipulate people… That’s a hefty claim I’ve never seen any evidence of before. And honestly it sounds like an unprincipled accusation that comes from not wanting to engage with thinking/writing.
Before I comment on this, here is a quote by Lenin:
A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfills in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analyzing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification—that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses.
Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
A political line and theory should not be chosen based on their word usage and emphasis. The theory that guides action should be chosen when it is in accordance with objective reality, most importantly. If the theory is not in accordance with objective reality, then it is imperative to reevaluate the theory being used.
I will now comment on the question of Maoism, and will use as a reference Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!, the text produced by a Maoist organization in the 80’s.
The problem with Maoism is that Mao Zedong did not present anything new to the analysis of reality because we still live in the imperialist stage of capitalism, which was a qualitative difference to the monopolist capitalism as analyzed by Marx and Engels. Marxism-Leninism is therefore a necessary development to the understanding of our reality, adding to the contributions of Marxism. Imperialist capitalism hasn’t changed qualitatively, only quantitatively.
The historical context of the development of Maoism (or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) was born out of the Sino-Soviet split, when communist parties around the world were profoundly disappointed by Soviet downfall spiral into revisionism and reactionary bullshit with Khrushchev’s secret speech.
When Maoists claim Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the highest stage of development of Marxism, they usually claim protracted people’s war as an universal development of Marxism. It is definitely a creative development of military strategy by the Chinese communists, and was admired by many military strategists, including reactionary ones. However, I’ve never seen a Maoist explain why it is an universal appliance. Based on China’s material conditions of semi-feudality, waging a war against imperialist aggression on the countryside is an exceptional strategy.
Currently, there are 3 major Maoist parties which use a strategy openly based on Mao’s protracted people’s war; in Philippines, India and in Peru. Each of these communist parties are participating in a struggle which has been happening for more than 40 years, which they have been unfortunately losing. For reference, the Chinese people’s war took around 25 years, with very clear political and military gains. Their endurance is admirable, and it doesn’t seem they are abandoning their efforts anytime soon, but we must remind ourselves that we won’t win any war without the support of the people. This is the most important aspect of our struggle. Any military strategy may be adequate when the majority of the people is in our side.
While I have doubts of the universality of this strategy, I nonetheless hope they face a final victory. A victory for these communists is a victory for all of us.
Not the user you are responding to but I disagree. MLM ruptures with fundamental positions of ML as synthesized by Stalin (the notion that class struggle existing under socialism, for instance.)
Which do you think says that class struggle doesn’t exist under socialism? Your wording isn’t clear. The State is an instrument of class oppression and so the existence of a socialist state implies class struggle exists. Mao also held that class struggle continues to exist in socialism and I’ve never heard any ML or MLM reject this. Can you point me to something to read?
Gonzalo was a revisionist though.
Mao Zedong Thought > Maoism