Why is there so much hate for Maoism on here...

mao PERSONALLY made pig iron forges in every commune and cracked the whip until the peasants forged sparrow bone steel

Maybe if you completely misunderstand what self-criticism is about and what the cultural revolution is about. Yeah Mao fucked up in certain aspects but you can't blame him for idpol.

Still don't see how any of this is a reason to disregard everything he ever wrote.

I'm not saying it's intended or anything, but it's merly a practical observation. This text theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity-politics elaborates on it.

The problem is not if Mao did it personally or not. Stop trying to satarize a problem, just to make it less serious.

It's volkisch ideology for people who like red and yellow instead of red and black.

Peasants a shit, land reform a shit, pig iron a shit, Maoism a shit.

...

Maoism has a good praxis. That's why many leftist organisations in developing countries are Maoists.

Also Mao's ideas about stopping revisionism are worth looking at, considering that's one of the reasons the USSR failed after 1956. In general Maoism isn't that bad at all, but you have to dislodge Maoism as an ideology from Mao's actual policies which were highly flawed (though not as bad or horrible as some claim)

Even though the idea was retarded, this policy is actually a really progressive effort to establish communism - wether you like it or not. Sadly the material conditions weren't right.

I have defended communism and it's ideas far too often for a tankie to now tell me that everyone producing bad steel in their back yards is communism

Well it's a step into the direction of free association, basically everyone can be a steel worker or a farmer if he wants to

not true

Forgot pic

If peasants are shit then farm your own food

peasent =/= farmer

Farmer is a job, peasant is a social caste

Pretty sure throught history most farmers have been peasants

People like sparrows, user.

Yes, but theres more to it than just giving them the tools to make steel (without education), especially when it's not like everyone has to make steel.

And in this case, those would literally be all the options. Everyone is either a steel worker or a farmer. Wonderful, I must say.

fuck sparrows tbh

Where does the delusion end?

Zebra Finch >>>>>>everything else

Only downside is they reproduce like rabbits

Dude, China was a shithole at that time, what the fuck you expect? I merely said it would have been a baby step into the direction of free association, if it worked (which it evidently didn't). Today smartphones and computers allow us much more variety

Obviously. I said above he should have build up proper material conditions for this, like the Bolsheviks did

Them not to lie to themselves that this nonsese they were doing was socialism.

As is capitalism

What a fun image

My issue isn't even material condition or anything, I'm just saying people don't usually start dominating each other, just because one guy has a steel mill in his back yard and another on doesn't

Mao failed to revolutionize the means of production and ended up creating arguably the most powerful capitalist state on Earth.

"Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?"

Mango Kult is Nazbol

He """failed""" because he died and the revolution was betrayed you fucking idiot. Mao did more for the global working class than your piss poor excuse for a "leftist" could do in ten lifetimes.

If only Mao and Stalin could live forever, ruling over the world with benevolent cybernetic fists until those pesky proles conform to the Beneficent Science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and create True Existing Socialism.

CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS

They had a huge impact.

bbc.com/news/magazine-35461265

Because he's Stalin's most successful flunkie, followed into his path of destroying communism to save communism. You can't expect good theory or governance from him any more than you could from Molotov or Beria.

Because they have this level of understanding of Maoism.

Great Leap Forward?

What? I hope you meant to say reductionist…

DUDE
SELF CRIT
LMAO

...

The real reason people hate Maoism is because of the very unfortunate truth that they, as first world people won't be able to participate in the revolution and are essentially in a different class than the third world proletariat.

Prove me wrong protip nah

Back in Mao's time, the proletariat was most definitely still in the first world countries (and Eastern Europe). The third world and the poor gommie countries had the peasantry.

Not under capitalism though.

The job of the first world "worker" is to sabotage the imperialist system from the inside.

Third Wordlist is retarted.

Mao Zedong Thought basically got split into two distinct schools that both get called maoist, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Maoist Third Worldism. Most of the hate is for third worldists.

I read that. Quotations of Mao is an utterly useless book. Because the quotations are so short and lack context, a reader not already familiar with Mao won't get a damn thing from reading that.

Maoism is a bourgeois ideology for larpers tbqh

50 shades of idealism right ere boys

Because most of the time maoists are cultish basket cases

Maoism is literally a cult. First they worship mangoes then they run away into the Japanese mountains and kill themselves.

Let's be honest here, communism always had cultish undercurrents. From Marx's conflict with the "unbelievers" and predicting a final eschatological event which will prenounce he advent of paradise, to Lenin's cult of personality being promoted by the rest of the party (even if against his wishes), and then to Stalin's blood-soaked autos-da-fé and expiation sessions. I recall seeing at least one Civil War photo of a portrait of Marx in a red guard barracks.

The thing with Maoism is that China isn't that big on traditional religion, but has an extremely strong influence of folk religion, and the cultish characteristics inherited from Stalin was a perfect replacement, specially for Mao who was well aware of this. The fact that old folk religion was being suppressed further strengthened the cult.

I really don't see how the class-collaborationist aspects of Mao's doctrine really apply today. Collaborating with national bourgeoisie may have proved pragmatic in instances of national liberation, however in the era of neo-colonialism the national bourgeoisie seems to be in the pocket of the global bourgeoisie. It can even be argued, in China's case, that giving the National bourgeoisie this much ground is what allowed them the dominance that they now hold in PRC politics today.

A common problem I see among MLs (which I suppose is a symptom of the cult-like undercurrents mentioned above) is to take old theory and practice as sacred and immutable, rather than products of their time.

The biggest example is no doubt the ad hoc authoritarian machine Lenin had to build in order to simply keep the socialist State standing and keeping Russia from splintering into a million fiefdoms. His decisions have been adopted with little criticism and innovation by the following ML States. The big exception to this was arguably Mao, who probably saw that the civil war was stalled for decades and would have to depart from ML canon in order to succeed in China. But his decisions, of course, were as much products of his time as Lenin's were to his, and have in turn also been adopted with little criticism or innovation by following MLM states. Oh well.

It's literally the entire reason China is as fucked up as it is today.

What's even the difference between MLs and MLMs? Back in the 60's and 70's "Maoist" was shorthand for anti-revisionist, but now all MLs are anti-revisionist, so what's the distinction? Is it just that they believe in PPW? I can't see any other differences.

Because

is the first recommendation for a theoretical text. Maoism had some solid insights, but for the most part it was made up of whatever Mao had on his mind at the moment, and woe betide you for not knowing what that was. He was certainly a competent guerrilla commander and knew better than the Comintern when it came to the war in the 30s and 40s, and his role in liberating China can't be underestimated. But everything else was kinda dubious, from the very obvious personality cult to the ultraleftism and Cultural Revolution to the insistence on dictating economic policy when he hadn't studied economics. I feel like if he'd been more willing to depend on loyal and pragmatic subordinates and to take criticism for mistakes he would have been able to achieve more. That being said, all his mass propaganda, struggle sessions, and dubiously competent grand ventures basically paved the way for ultrapragmatists like Deng to overrun the party and abandon socialist principles.

I'm not a Maoist, but the central text of Maoism isn't his Quotations, it's his four essays on philosophy, "On Contradiction", "On Practice", "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People", and "Where do Correct Ideas Come From?". That and a handful of other pamphlets like "Combat Liberalism" and "A Critique of Soviet Economics". Anyway, aside from that I'm not too much of a fan of Mao because I think the Cultural Revolution was an enormous misstep, and a lot of the ideas that circulated around that time laid the groundwork for what would eventually become Identity Politics. Although to place all that blame on Mao alone is unfair, as he was developing ideas that had started to emerge within the Marxist movement as early as the Second International.

I was more pointing out that the quotations are the first thing that actually got recommended on the thread. Thanks for mentioning those - I'm not half so familiar with him as I should be, and I'll give them a read asap.

What I was trying to get at more was that Maoism seems very focussed on Mao and individual perfection instead of actual politics. Every encounter I've had with modern Maoists has had zero theory and 100% personal virtue and standards, which seems to confirm this. I'm sure that there's plenty of value in the theory, but as far as it was and is done it's all about personal conformity and virtue.

I agree with you, this actually the biggest problem I have with MLs and MLMs in general, they basically spend all of their time defending defunct Socialist Republics and various dead Communist leaders and almost no time actually learning or discussing actual theory or current material conditions. It's just dogmatism and the exact opposite of treating Dialectical and Historical Materialism as living sciences. Ironically I actually think Lenin and Mao were good theorists, but with the dissolution of the USSR there's no reason to be an ML or an MLM in our current situation, at least I don't think there is. Anyway, these were good posts user.

Well, yes and no. Yes because Maoist praxis is generally just about inflicting senseless chaos and violence, which did kill millions in China. No because we don't judge the validity of x ideology just based on how many deaths it has associated with it, especially when a lot of those deaths are exaggerations and western lies.

The greatest contributions Mao made to socialism was his ideas on the PPW, imo. The rest is mostly garbage. Cultural Revolution is destructive, not conducive to socialism, and led to a mass suppression of thought in China. New Democracy ultimately enables class collaborationists and third world dictators.

His major departures from traditional Marxist-Leninist thought is ultimately pretty minor. The Sino-Soviet split is much more complicated than muh different interpretations that liberal historians tend to claim.

Most of the hate for Mao comes from his complete inability to put his good ideas into practice, and the mismanagement of the Chinese economy in a massive failure, as seen in the great leap forward

I mean you joke but Mao's level of incompetence neared this if you take out the "personally did this" parts

the red guards where the original punk rockers, the only legit counterculture of the 20th century

Correct. Thus Maoism as a theory is functionally moot since capital now reigns supreme everywhere. Anyone calling themselves a Maoist today, especially in the First World, just has a boner for Cultural Revolution aesthetics (which are pretty good imo)

I think Maoism is very useful for a revolution and social transformation. It's very popular in India, Nepal and the Philippines for good reason. But in terms of building socialism, it is very flawed.

This is because all tankies, including Maoists, are actually utopians draped in quasi-Marxist rhetoric.
reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/imper.htm
Cockshott never says this, but I thought about what he wrote here a bit and realized that's what it is about their mindset, which to me seemed not just un-communist, but actively anti-communist.

I get the love for mao, but wasn't gonazola a complete failure of a communist revolutionary who was so brutal he alienated the very peasantry he was supposed to be relying on. At least mao was very good at not plundering every peasant village like the KMT did.

No matter what anyone says, the real reason why people dislike maoists on here is because of an overexposure to the worst maoist twitter posters. Do the same with ML, anarchism, or anything else and you'll have Holla Forums jump to the newest ideology with the least cringe pictures.

that is true
maoists on twitter are terrible

b-b-ut muh gorzillions! gommunism uz ebol

>lol why do you disagree with people who disagree with you? what is this, a religion? You need radical centrism bro :^)

Dontcha know hanging dead dogs from poles is the true way to socialism?

Hmmm, it makes sense. Their ideal political practice is freely inflicting righteous harm against evildoers, or at least for a good cause. It's half idealist, half anti-social.

These are such shitty strawmen I'm not even gonna bother with them.

Let me refer you back to your original post

Your claim that Marx had "cult like" tendencies was that he got into arguments with people who didn't agree with him and that he thought there would be an endpoint of social development.

Fug

lol, the US farming industry is entirely dependent upon underpaid, overworked illegals with zero rights to speak of. If that isn't reminiscent of a peasant underclass I don't know what is.

...

Honestly, its because its the favored form of Leninism by Sjeydubas, thats it really. If it wasn't that way it wouldn't be more disliked than the other Leninist sub ideologies here.

...

...

ebin

They started independently from (and in some cases, as for example the Shanghai Commune, stayed opposed to) Mao. Mao only used the opportunity to get himself back in power.

Cool strawman

Spooks. In the west mao is constantly portrayed as a blood-soaked oriental strongman responsible for hundreds of bazillions of deaths. Although its widely acknowledged by demographers, even pointing out that the PRC made incredible gains in health, longevity, and education under mao, probably the most in human history, makes you come off like a conspiracy theorist or cult member.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/

"Tendencies" is a stronger word than "undercurrents". I'm saying its beginning shared some points in common with religions, and that includes conflict (purely verbal, in Marx's case) with proponents of other "doctrines", an apocalyptic event (collapse of capitalism and revolution) and eventually, workers' paradise, as it were, which most definitely would be the "end of history" as he said.

Mao+Communization=2017 World Revolution now. be the redguard you want to see in the world

I hope you all had your daily self-crit session today comrades.

...

hoxha was just an albanian nationalist

Is revolution worth if it leads to so much suffering?

I like some of his writings and some of his ideas. I wouldn't say I have a great understanding of him, but I appreciate him.

But I may shit on "Maoism" sometimes since I absolutely disagree with third worldism. And, usually, if I end up talking about a modern day Maoist, they are a third worldist, so I shit on them.

Communism is literally the only overarching goal that humanity has at the moment. It is worth just about any sacrifice.

only if you go to the front lines comrade

yeah but they probably won't because there's no point for a construction worker who makes 70k a year who has 3 kids and is 10 years away form paying off the house to take up arms and forcefully overthrow capitalism capitalism/and the state. Third world proletariat has nothing to lose other than their chains that's why socialism has predominately occurred in developing nations.

The only real way for a 1st world nation to have serious revolutionary potential is during serious financial collapse. During crises of capitalism the 1st world always tends towards fascism because it's a system that still protects their muh privilege in the global arena.

It's not impossible but in the US (where I am) we would need to have an economic collapse so bad that it makes the Great Depression look like a vacation to Disneyfuckingland.

yes user workers in 1917 are the same as workers now. please don't ever take that flag off

even then, I doubt any major revolution would be socialistic in nature

we're more likely to get an ancap revolution lol

I disagree. Campaign Trump's foreign policy for instance was radically anti-imperialist since, were it implemented, it would basically result in the total destruction of the American empire. Isolationism and reactionary politics can actually save the world in this scenario.

...

I have a different view

"1st world" people, especially the youth: no future, things going to shit
"3rd world people": either everything is so shitty that they can't really organize (think a place like Congo) or things are getting better bit by bit, there's a future for them

There'll be plenty of revolutionary potential in the 1st world soon. Maybe not now, but this situation is really rather new: the new generations will be worse off than their parents, etc.

The situation after the world wars was an odd one: you had the wars indeed, and you had the soviet union/communism, and so on - this is what created the (kinda sorta) equal societies in the west, combined with the huge economic growths which did help everyone to rise a bit in these countries. You don't have that anymore; austerity politics everywhere, no fucks given about the welfare states, etc.

lol. give out a few more programs and they'll all go back to no

...