Question concerning Mao's dialectics vs. Hegelian dialectics

(Antonio Wolf PLEASE answer this.)

So I was re-watching that nutty Jewess' video critiquing Roo and came across one thing she said in her video which really got my noggin joggin'. Namely, that Mao switched up the traditional (if you will) Marxist dialectic ("Hegel placed on his head") with Daoist and Buddhist dialectics. She didn't go into too much detail about it, but the impression I got was that the whole primary vs. secondary contradiction stuff comes out of Daoism and its idea that contradiction is an ongoing thing rather than being resolved in a synthesis à la Hegel.

What I was wondering is, did Mao modify Marxist dialectics simply so that it would fit with his conditions (as Roo likes to claim), or did he do it out of his own cultural biases? Hegel was very much a Christian theologian so it's safe to say the more theological elements of his dialectics would be alien to a Chinese like Mao. But are Mao's dialectics necessarily a good methodology he came up with through intellect?

There's also the implications these methods have for politics. A Hegelian-influenced Marxist understands that revolution must be brought on by people *within* the given society as they're the ones who move it. In the case of capitalism, it's only the proletariat who have this quality so any revolution must come from them. What I get from the Maoist perspective is nearly the exact opposite, namely that revolution can (Roo likes to say "can" rather than a more dogmatic "must", making Mao out to be more naive) come from people outside the mainstream society, since they are barely affected by the dominant ideology and do not reproduce it the correct way (allegedly). This was one major argument of Althusser's as Althusser was a Maoist and also a Spinozaist (Spinoza's philosophy overlaps *a lot* with Daoism), and Althusser's baptism of Marx as antihumanist and antihistoricist can be interpreted as nothing more than a defense of Mao and MZT. It's also no surprise why Althusser's disciples became full blown advocates of idpol and propping up people on the fringes of society as transgressive and revolutionary in their own right. Anyway I'd like answers.

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/6jc9jx/thoughts_on_maos_interpretation_of_dialectics/
reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/48w4qa/dialectics_an_introduction/d68zafh/
marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm
marxmyths.org/maximilien-rubel/article.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm
marxist.com/what-is-dialectical-materialism.htm
jstor.org/stable/23733219?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
youtube.com/watch?v=BN7FpwAa-Ls
maoistrebelnews.com/2015/04/16/the-bloody-feet-of-the-rcp-canada/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Roo wrote a book on Maoist dialectics. Read it.

Bumping for AW.

Don't bring that cancerous sophist here. He will just dump heaps of substanceless snark.

Why not? OP's post is right up his alley.

Okay, so who should I turn to then?

I know nothing about Mao but
In Marx (and Hegel) it's both ongoing and resolved, isn't it?

See Marx giving an example in Capital vol. 1 Chapter 3 Section 2 A:

That's why I'm looking for a legit dialectician to answer this for the sake of clarification.

Basically, I'm writing a response to Roo's Turd Worldism (which is why I was watching and reading other responses to him) and one argument I want to make is that Mao's dialectics were shit.

There was a good back and forth on this on /r/leftcommunism not long ago, featuring extensive citations and comparisons made by a guy called /u/pzaaa which might answer your Q: reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/6jc9jx/thoughts_on_maos_interpretation_of_dialectics/ (read OP → read pzaaa's comment → reply → final reply).

Whether Mao is himself consistent and right unto himself or not is one thing (looking at that and glancing over On Contradiction I'd say he isn't), it seems he is definitely incredibly off from Marx. Mao doesn't just continue the "dialectical materialism" distortion and understanding as such found in Stalin (Mao actually Stalin's as illogical!), but he himself consciously goes beyond both the understanding of dialectics of Stalin and Marx.

See also:
reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/48w4qa/dialectics_an_introduction/d68zafh/
marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm
marxmyths.org/maximilien-rubel/article.htm

marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm

Althusser doesn't mention Mao but his take is definitely based on him

Thank you fellow armchair.

So is there any aspect of Daoism in these like the Jewess claims?

I don't think so. If anything there's traces of Confucian ethics in there, but that's it. The Jewess you're talking about is I presume that YouTuber who does a really high squeaky voice and talks nonsense? Not reputable or really ever useful at all.

So what I'm getting from this is, the whole idea of primary vs. secondary contradiction is pure sophistry that has no basis in Marxism, or anything closely resembling Marxism. Mao uses a bunch of weasel words ("things") and vague abstractions in order to hide his lack of philosophical knowledge.

Primary vs. Secondary comes off as a kind of vulgar monism where everything is determined by ONE PRIMARY CONTRADICTION. This is probably also where Althusser got the ISA stuff. But really, even if you wanted to make that argument, it's nonsense to suggest imperialism (i.e. US and NATO vs. Bashar al-Assad, EU vs. Russia, US vs. the Venezuelan government, the West vs. "Islam") is the primary contradiction, because imperialism (or at least what we recognize as imperialism) can't exist without capitalism. So it makes no sense at all to say first we end imperialism by teaming up with the national bourgeoisie and religious nutters then we end capitalism by expropriating shit.

I can definitely see how this mode of thought would lead one to Turd Worldism. In their view, First Worlders are born to exploit, so to say, and because change can only come externally it holds that any socialist revolution has to come from Third Worlders who can smash into the First World.

Granted, if Roo saw the plebbit thread he'd just blow it off as: "Yeah well Maoism has been PROVEN to work whereas LeftComm never has. Checkmate armchairs." Notice how he can never make an adequate defense of Mao other than: Mao won, so his dialectics MUST be correct. It's like ideologues for capitalism claiming the system they advocate "must" be correct because the Eastern Bloc has since dissolved. Roo can't discuss methodology or philosophy because he's far too ignorant on the subjects.

To demonstrate what I mean, let's take the example of Israel/Palestine (a very clear case of imperialism or settler-colonialism). How the FUCK does the "primary contradiction" of Israel occupying the Palestinians explain the lesser contradiction of the hatred of women among Israel's ultra-orthodox? Would making Israel Palestine again and thereby replacing Jewish elites with Palestinian elites make the ultra-orthodox less woman hateric? No! Now, both patriarchy and imperialism/settler-colonialism can be explained through private property relations (in other words, relations of production).

Imperialism is not a separate MoP from capitalism; imperialism IS capitalism in a more developed form.

Zizek touches this subject in his "in defense of lost causes" for those that have it

What exactly does he say?

Mao was an outright conman who set himself up as the subject of cult worship, similar to Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.

Like all false prophets he was an opportunist who changed the rules (in this case Marxism) when it suit him. He wanted to side with the national bourgeoisie and give them power in the government, so he came up with the whole primary-secondary contradiction. He wanted to trade with America so he came up with the Three Worlds Theory. He mutilated genuine Marxism only because he wanted a means of justifying his actions, just like Stalin. A bunch of petty bourgeois peasants running through the jungle resulting in a system where the national and petty bourgeoisie control 50% of the gov. isn't a proletarian revolution and never will be.

Link?

Okay, first off if you want a honest view on Maoism please don't read Mao through r/leftcommunism. That's obviously going to lean very anti-Maoist, these people already made their mind up.
If you want to understand Mao, read the basics of Marxist-Leninist DiaMat first:
marxist.com/what-is-dialectical-materialism.htm
Then, I recommend Rethinking Mao by Nick Knight, to get an overview on Mao Zedong thought.
jstor.org/stable/23733219?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Uhm, no, Mao never says that and states repeatedly that one must take in account individual scenarios and evaluate them. The thing about secondary and primary contradiction is an attempt to practically apply dialectics to the real world as a guide to action, and is has proven itself to be correct in Cuba, Vietnam, China, Korea etc. every fucking time. When a country is targeted by imperialism, the interests of the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie align. That was the case in every fucking national liberation movement, and only when imperialism was defeated, class struggle begins. Similary with the alignment of the kadets and the bolsheviks in the Russian revolution to overthrow feudalism as well. The reason this is the case is an economic one, not a philosophical one. Imperialism means that there can't be accumulation of capital, because the recipients of the surplus are not in the country, the cycle of capitalism which relies on accumulation and reinvestment can not properly occur and imperialism must be dealt with first. This doesn't mean that one should support the national bourgeoisie if there is a direct communist option already, like in Cuba. But even in Cuba the Cuban Revolution was petit-bourgeoisie in character. The idea that struggle creates unity which then resolves into another struggle is a objectively correct analysis of the communist revolutions we witnessed in the 20th century. This isn't anti-Marxist in character, it's an expansion of Marx who didn't experience imperialism in its current form.
Why do you think any Maoist would object to that? There is however a certain difference of development between capitalist countries, unironically read Lenin.
Not a Third Worldist but that's a retarded strawman. Third Worldism makes an economic/materialist argument.


My god are you a butthurt faggot. Mao advocated for riding Marxist-Leninist indoctrination for every party cadre. Mao wasn't almighty as well, you know.

youtube.com/watch?v=BN7FpwAa-Ls

Why do Maotards always insist on using phrases like "proven correct"?


What if the NB benefit from imperialism? That seems very much like the case today in India, Palestine, etc.


You can end imperialism without ending capitalism, that's armchair's point.


Go into detail and explain how that statement is a strawman. Don't pull a Roo and use catchphrases and assertions without details to support them.

Because we ought to learn from history? If the timeline of national liberation -> communist revolution occurs every fucking time it looks like a bloody pattern to me. Marxism isn't just inductive, it's also deductive.
Then they aren't national bourgeoisie, they are agents of imperialism. National bourgeoisie (petit-bourgeoisie under imperialist occupation) usually has an interest to develop their own domestic profits, a pattern you can observe from the American Revolution to the Syrian Civil War. Same has happened in Russia, and Lenin implemented the NEP and even Bukharin gave a speech which he ended with "Accumulate! Accumulate, accumulate and reinvest". Were they all anti-Marxist? Of course once imperialism/feudalism or whatever is defeated, class struggle begins immediately once the proletariat realizes that ultimate liberation can only be attained in socialism. There is a reason why the communist party of Syria supports Assad for now.
No you can't, capitalism always develops into imperialism as it seeks out new markets, resources and labor power, it's a question of power though, not every capitalist country can be imperialist, and usually, those country do significantly worse than imperialist countries because they don't have access to superexploitation. Therefore, they are more likely to have a proletarian movement.
Imperialism is a tool to palliate the results of capitalist contradictions for the domestic proletariat. Therefore, to have a revolution in the first world you need to cut its access to imperialist spoils. Capitalism always fucks somebody over and you need to bring that fuckery back into the west as it was in the 20s to actually radicalize people. I'm not a Third Worldist because I believe that there are other mechanics at work than just imperialist exploitation, but they kinda have a point regarding revolutionary potential. Leftcoms argue that there is no difference between a worker in Bangladesh and a worker in Switzerland because they are both wage laborers which is a ridiculous position, because one is way more likely to realize the conditions of his/her own existence. Also, I'm not Jason but he has been explaining his position for years and people still pull off these strawmen at him, which is kinda his own fault because of his attitude, but I can see why he reacts like that.

Except none of those revolutions you mentioned actually made it to communism. China, Vietnam, Cuba, DPRK, etc. are all revisionist.

Moving the goalposts, the question is first and foremost how a proletarian movement can attain power and erect a dictatorship of the proletariat, the question of anti-revisionism is a different issue. Since other leftist tendencies didn't even established a DotP I find it quite dishonest to use that as an argument.

Also small correction, Cuba ain't that revisionist, they just want to decentralize planning and give more power to cooperatives, and the DPRK is revisionist only on a cultural level

Here's some Roo:
maoistrebelnews.com/2015/04/16/the-bloody-feet-of-the-rcp-canada/

Ideologic at its finest. I swear you faggots have a vocab of like 30 words max that you arbitrarily string together into these shitty little lego constructions, it's impossible to read this shit, you're dumber than the AI they have out now. Please to be ending your life asap

What are you even trying to say. Are you sober? You come over as a little drunk.

bleep bloop reiviszion imperilaisme

What you vomit out is unreadable. Go to bed.

bump

Where my man A.W. at?