u/JITTERdUdE - originally from r/GenZhou
As I’ve been more immersed in ML spaces, I’ve noticed a few people talk about their distrust or disliking towards “ultras”, referring to hardline Maoists, particularly in Western countries. I have read and seen some articles by them, such as this blog post by Black Like Mao which claims China is not a socialist power and is exploiting African countries. They similarly accuse the USSR, Vietnam, and Burkin Faso of the same thing.

Having gone from being an anarchist to a Marxist-Leninist, I try not to just jump on board with mass criticism of other communist ideologies, as many anarchists have with “tankies”, so I’ve been curious to understand the ultra ideology and mindset and critically analysis it.

I wanted to understand ML criticisms and opinions of ultras to understand their disagreements (or agreements) with their beliefs, given I’m not totally familiar with Maoist theory.

  • archive_botOPB
    0·
    4 years ago

    u/Elektribe - originally from r/GenZhou
    They literally don’t understand that socialism in one country is an internarnational benefit to all socialists and part of the international movement… They think that going to war with countries is more revolutionary than developing a socialist economic base. Communism isn’t about wars in streets, it’s.about strengthening the DoTP - period. How the fuck are ultras right when they fail to grasp two largely fundamental characteristics of socialism?

    ‐‐‐-

    Hence the three main aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    1. The utilisation of the rule of the proletariat for the suppression of the exploiters, for the defence of the country, for the consolidation of the ties with the proletarians of other lands, and for the development and victory of the revolution in all countries.
    1. The utilisation of the rule of the proletariat in order to detach the labouring and exploited masses once and for all from the bourgeoisie, to consolidate the alliance of the proletariat with these masses, to draw these masses into the work of socialist construction, and to ensure the state leadership of these masses by the proletariat.
    1. The utilisation of the rule of the proletariat for the organisation of socialism, for the abolition of classes, for the transition to a society without classes, to a socialist society.

    The proletarian dictatorship is a combination of all these three aspects. No single one of these aspects can be advanced as the sole characteristic feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, in the circumstances of capitalist encirclement, the absence of even one of these features is sufficient for the dictatorship of the proletariat to cease being a dictatorship. Therefore, not one of these three aspects can be omitted without running the risk of distorting the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only all these three aspects taken together give us the complete and finished concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    The dictatorship of the proletariat has its periods, its special forms, diverse methods of work. During the period of civil war, it is the forcible aspect of the dictatorship that is most conspicuous. But it by no means follows from this that no constructive work is carried on during the period of civil war. Without constructive work it is impossible to wage civil war. During the period of socialist construction, on the other hand, it is the peaceful, organisational and cultural work of the dictatorship, revolutionary law, etc., that are most conspicuous. But, again, it by no means follows from this that the forcible aspect of the dictatorship has ceased to exist or can cease to exist in the period of construction. The organs of suppression, the army and other organisations, are as necessary now, at the time of construction, as they were during the period of civil war. Without these organs, constructive work by the dictatorship with any degree of security would be impossible. It should not be forgotten that for the time being the revolution has been victorious in only one country. It should not be forgotten that as long as capitalist encirclement exists the danger of intervention, with all the consequences resulting from this danger, will also exist.

    To put simply workers must take recognized ruling power from capitalists and transform all the mechanics of society from reproducing capitalism to reproducing socialism under workers. To abolish all class by transforming these mechanical relations of economics such that no capitalists nor proletariat exist, but only workers in benefiting society.

    Civil wars can be revolutionary in this goal. But also every stage alongside that in building it is revolutionary - transformative. Building collective farming as was in the ussr was a revolutionary act - it’s why “the holodomor” is a false narrative intended to demonize collectivization while fascists destroyed crops and murdered people to keep capitalist economics dominant. They had developed state supported farms such that kulaks were by far the dominsnt producers to far surpassing them in three years. Taking economic power away from capitalists and bringing it to proletariat and the masses. That is a revolutionary act. Economics is a form a form of “war of political power”. Physical force is another form. Hence why we exist today in a dictatorship of the bourgeosie currently and one of the challenges is not how do we fight back person for person, but the consideration of material access both for sustaining existing and for increasing power.