What went wrong?

His entire ideology being revisionist garbage?

He shifted right after the CR so they didn't disagree as much. I think it was mainly Zhou's influence

He decisively broke from marxism
He was a shit theorist who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, let alone recognize when he was inside one
His sheer incompetence and charisma directly caused the world's largest man made famine
Everything about the Jiangxi Soviet

He's literally the greatest military leader in history fam

explain

What does that have to do with him being a garbage theorist?

All Mautists need to be purged for the next socialist revolution to succeed

fuck all mautists
fuckem

Explain what?

Have you read Marx? (of course you havent your a retarded fashie with a flair for red aesthetics)

what the fuck is the cultural revolution and great leap forward?

I'll have you know Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an immortal dialectical science built upon the accumulated knowledge and experience of real worker's struggles around the world and a keen connection with the really existing circumstances facing the oppressed peoples today.

im asking to explain why an anarcho-com is calling things revisionist. not in your nature

are you one of yon anarcho-stalinists?

this thread:

more libmarx tbh

Literally everyone calls him Chiang Kai-shek. As a Chinese teacher of mine noted, the increased accuracy of Pinyin is fairly pointless compared to the loss of understanding which results from switching away from the far more famous name.

Over a billion people know him as Jiang Jieshi, not just in the mainland but also in Taiwan and Singapore; the main diaspora of Han Chinese AKA the people most directly involved with ol' O'-Shrek.

This is because "Jiang Jieshi" is not merely a different romanization of 蔣介石, but a Mandarin romanization. In Taiwan they call him the same, but the predominance of Wade-Giles and Tongyong Pinyin have him romanized as either "Chiang Chieh-shih" or "Jiang Jieshih". "Chiang Kai-shek" applies only to the Cantonese reading of the characters (蔣介石). Cantonese, because Chiang was born during late Qing in which Cantonese was the standard dialect of the empire (he also had a major hateboner for the Mandarins in general, which made the PLA BTFOing the KMT not only all the way to Taiwan all the more tasty, but the fact that Taiwan was majority Mandarin speaking as well as having its own indigenous people with Hokkien and Hakka varieties, whom he all loathed as subhuman non-Hans).

...

People forget that he ultimately was just another one of Stalin's flunkies, and thus anathema to anything about socialism beyond the basic level nationalized economy.

In the West, obviously. In China & Taiwan this entire conversation is irrelevant.

10/10 prank tbh.

just a prank comrade

Didn't follow Lenin's guidebook to unraveling contradictions of capital one is anchored to while being conducive to the communist movement and providing positive reforms.

I think he was otherwise a theoretical genius. Unity of opposites and peasantry-inclusive revolution (which really contrasted with Stalin's patronizing approach the the peasantry) and the consequent theory of bourgeois-national relations creating subjectivizing subcategories of labor to draw from.

Also, while it's unrelated to him as a communist, he actually had really good poetry. In a way he's like the Hegel, except instead of God and the Christ he draws from Confucius and Taoism in his spiritual influences.

I was arguing for the Eastern pronunciation specifically bc it's in the East that he's most relevant politically and historically. Just like we shouldn't call Ljubljana Laibach simply because Germans still do it (I also don't argue for using Mando/HYPY just because the Chinese do it, but because it's only really the Mandarin-speaking world that even gives a shit about the figure, so its pronunciation might as well be adopted for usefulness's sake).

He didn't google Bookchin

Mao has fucking top notch theory, he is a profound and excellent philospher. Stfu you retard anarkiddie

'I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.'

'Over a long period, we have developed this concept for the struggle against the enemy: strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. This also means that we must despise the enemy with respect to the whole, but that we must take him seriously with respect to each concrete question. If we do not despise the enemy with respect to the whole, we shall be committing the error of opportunism. Marx and Engels were only two individuals, and yet in those early days they already declared that capitalism would be overthrown throughout the world. However, in dealing with concrete problems and particular enemies we shall be committing the error of adventurism unless we take them seriously. In war, battles can only be fought one by one and the enemy forces can only be destroyed one by one. Factories can only be built one by one. The peasants can only plough the land plot by plot. The same is even true of eating a meal. Strategically, we take the eating of a meal lightly - we know we can finish it. Actually, we eat it mouthful by mouthful. It is impossible to swallow an entire banquet in one gulp. This is known as a piecemeal solution. In military parlance, it is called wiping out the enemy forces one by one.'

>In a way he's like the Chinese Hegel
Not saging for just a correction because I want to see where this thread goes.

He was pretty successful in the beginning, but didnt know shit about economics, and then did a cultural revolution were he killed lots of people and destroyed chinese history.
Then he died and all his successors were killed off and deng got in power and turned china capitalist

Cultural revolution was actually good though, what makes you say it was bad?

Maoism is based on the divide between rural and city people.
But in america the rural people are all gun totting rednecks and the city people are cosmopolitan globalist neoliberals

If real maoism ever happened in america all you leftypol city folk would be first against the wall

Mao was an autist and not just in the meme sense. Look at his writing style, it's a perfect match with the more autistic cases on r/fullcommunism.

Maybe the tankies on /r/fullcommunism were influenced by all the Mao texts they read.

Paying your debts to Soviet Union with rice when 600 trillion chinese died from starvation.

600 trillion? Surely you mean 870 quadrillion, fucking commie apologiser!!