- cross-posted to:
- shitliberalssay
- cross-posted to:
- shitliberalssay
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/434011
You must log in or register to comment.
Historical ignorance much, “Jacobin”? The vast majority of the Chinese working class was in the countryside at the time. China was overwhelmingly a rural peasant society back then. If anything this brought the party closer to the actual masses.
If western leftists would only actually study the history of the Chinese revolution instead of making up a narrative in their heads based on a superficial pop history understanding to justify their preconceived western biases against China…
They would understand for example that the CPC initially had a fairly small base because the Chinese industrial proletariat was not yet developed and a lot of the party cadres were from a more educated urban millieu. They started by trying to emulate and simply copy the kind of approach to party building and organization that the Bolsheviks had but that was unsuccessful due to the different material conditions of China. They experienced defeat after defeat when following western/Russian advisors’ guidance until Mao understood that they needed an approach that was tailored to Chinese conditions.
Building bases of operation among the rural peasantry was not only good for the guerilla campaign, it was also what helped the CPC adopt a correct mass line. They gained first hand experience with the real conditions of the vast majority of the Chinese population, it taught the party cadres what the people’s most urgent needs were. Mao always urged to observe and learn from the people. If the CPC had remained a party primarily of the urban proletariat they would have stayed detached from the mass of the people and would not have been able to craft a strategy that won over the masses.
The first task of a revolutionary party is to understand the class composition of the country they operate in. For China this was primarily rural, peasant, semi-feudal. For Russia it was a combination of urban industrial proletariat and rural peasantry. Different conditions called for different strategic approaches.
The rural peasantry of China, Russia, Vietnam, and elsewhere were the largest and most oppressed class of the 20th century, and made up the backbone of their respective revolutionary armies.
Trotky’s wrong answer to the peasant question is largely why the global south has rejected trotskyism.
I would also include India’s vast rural population, though as we know unfortunately they never had a revolution to liberate them the way the other three countries you mentioned did.
Indeed, Trotskyism has a track record of 100% failure and was such a collosally erroneous line of thinking that many ex-Trotskyists later became the most unhinged neocons.
Yet for some reason the ideological allure of Trotskyism’s messianic purity cult manages to this day to continue to lead the western left into dead ends with and without CIA help.
deleted by creator
At first I was wondering “weres the socdem” then I saw jacobin 🤮
this is such a shit take
