What's this board opinion on Mao?

BEHOLD
FASCISTS

His followers are always the craziest people the left has ever produced. Nailing cats and dogs to trees, "self-criticism" sessions that end in tying people to trees to die of exposure in the mountains, worshipping mangoes, causing ecological collapse by mass killings of animals.

All of these are real, actual things done by Mautists.

An ignorant fuck with lunatics followers
Barely had anything to do with socialism, "maoism" it's alive only as a term today

Greatest revolution of the 20th century. Led the greatest revolution so far in history, and liberated hundreds of millions of people. Simultaneously the greatest counter revolutionary & revisionist of the 20th century.

In his personal life, he was a shitty human being and probably a narcissist. He dumped his 2nd wife after she went through the hardships of the long march so he could date a younger, hotter woman & a moviestar - Jiang Qing. When Jiang got old, he cheated on her with teenage girls, and their relationship got so rocky that the two refused to speak to each other out of hate.

In his later years, post 1969, he openly drifted to the right wing. After the end of the GPCR in 69, he immediate let about sidelining, and then purging the left-Maoists in the CCP & PLA, while simultaneously propping up prominent rightists (eg, Hua Guofeng and Deng). He rejected the left-maoist economic policies, scrapped the Flying Leap of Lin & Chen in favor of de-communization of the countryside. He almost certainly ordered the assassination of Lin Biao, the purging of Chen Boda (His shadow writer, and the man responsible for most of MLM theory) He sidelined and pushed against the Shanghai Maoists (Gang of Four) to the point where he was reportedly drawing up plans to have his own wife arrested in his lifetime, and propped up a cult of personality around the rightist Hua Guofeng (who was responsible for purging the GO4), declaring him his constitution successor. Internally, he consistently sided with rightists in the party after the end of the GPCR (eg, Deng, Zhou, Hua).

In Foreign policy, he drifted far to the right post-1970, and ordered Maoists around the world to side with the USA & NATO against the USSR. He supported the Pakistani led genocide and mass rape against Bangladesh which killed some 2 million people. He supported NATO & Colonial forces in Africa. He supported the Ferdinand Marcos regime in the Philippines while they were slaughtering communists, as well as the Augusto pinochet regime in Chile, going as far as to order the Chinese Embassy there to close it's doors to leftists fleeing fascist death squads. In order to justify this push to the right and combat the previous proto-third worldist foreign policy of the left Maoists under Lin & Chen, he had the revisionist/social-imperialist "Three World's Theory" drafted. This caused a massive split in the world maoist movement that gave birth to Hoxhaism.

same poster -
bah, pardon the spelling/grammar errors. I'm tired.

Well that explains why Jason Unrhue exists

It is worth mentioning that the Hoxhaist/Maoist split goes beyond the revisionist "Three Worlds Theory". Said theory led Hoxha to reevaluate all of Mao's "contributions" to Marxist thought, and in doing so he discovered that most of them were fundamentally revisionist and class-collaborationist, and that Mao changed them at will in accordance with his own needs.

A good example of these sorts of narcissistic, opportunistic theories is "New Democracy". I will allow Mao himself to justify his revisionist beliefs:

“In our country the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie comes under the category of contradictions among the people. . . . In the period of the socialist revolution, exploitation of the working class for profit constitutes one side of the character of the national bourgeoisie, while . . . its willingness to accept socialist transformation constitutes the other. . . . The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited. . . . But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled can . . . be resolved by peaceful methods.”

Contrast this, if you will, with Stalin's view on the subject:

“Capitalists in town and country . . . growing into socialism — such is the absurdity Bukharin has arrived at . . . .
Either Marx’s theory of the class struggle, or the theory of the capitalists growing into socialism;
either an irreconcilable antagonism of class interests, or the theory of the harmony of class interests. . . .
The abolition of classes . . . by the capitalists growing into socialism — such is Bukharin’s formula.”

As we can see, the two statements are completely contradictory. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Mao, like Bukharin, is a right-deviationist that deserves the most merciless of criticisms and condemnations.

I will provide a few more of Mao's statements for the purpose of eliminating all doubts anyone may have on the matter:

“Places in the organs of political power should be allocated as follows: one-third to . . . the proletariat and the poor peasantry; one third to . . . the petty-bourgeoisie, and the remaining one-third to . . the middle bourgeoisie and the enlightened gentry”.

“The new-democratic republic will be . . . different from the socialist republic of the Soviet type under the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

“Our state is a people’s democratic dictatorship. . . . . The aim of this dictatorship is to protect all our people”.

“Why should the bourgeois and petty bourgeois democratic parties be allowed to exist . . . over a long period of time? . . . Because it is . . the policy of the Communist Party”.

“Why should the bourgeois and petty bourgeois democratic parties be allowed to exist . . . over a long period of time? . . . Because it is the policy of the Communist Party to exist side by side with the democratic parties for a long time to come”.

“Under the conditions existing in our country, the use of peaceful means, i.e., the method of persuasion and education, can change capitalist ownership into socialist ownership”.

Of course, there will be some stubborn individuals who will continue to make excuses for Mao, saying that he was referring to the transition from feudalism into capitalism. Further quotemining reveals that this is not the case:

“The socialist revolution in the ownership of the means of production was fundamentally completed in 1956”.

“Socialist relations of production have been established”.

So what, then, was Mao's goal in utilizing his influence to impose this deviant form of revisionism upon the international revolutionary movement? The answer is simple: these very nature of these two revisionist theories ("New Democracy" and the "Three Worlds Theory") indicate that Mao attempted distort Marxism by turning its central thesis of class struggle into his own crooked doctrine of "struggles between first-world and third-world nations".

(CONT.)

continued from

It was for this reason that Mao had absolutely no qualms about establishing relations with/supporting murderous right-wing dictators like Haile Selassie and Pol Pot while favoring their "anti-imperialist" backers, the US, over the semi-socialist USSR. The entire matter reveals itself to be the epitome of a slippery slope.

This also tells us that Mao's decision to side with the "anti-revisionists" during the international split caused by the USSR's decision to take a social-imperialist course of action in 1956 was nothing more than a play for personal power and prestige, for under his leadership, the Chinese Communist Party would undertake initiatives that would make Khrushchev seem like a staunch defender of Marxism-Leninism in comparison.

There is much more to the Sino-Albanian split than meets the eye, and I would recommend reading up on the subject. Doing so will enable legitimate Marxists to make effective critiques that go beyond "he's a total autist".

Here are a few sources for anyone that is interested:

marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/toc.htm

espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/chinese-revisionism/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_split

What the hell does it mean to be "semi-socialist"? That the government does lots of stuff, but not all the stuff?

Based Hoxha poster.

I was referring to the fact that the unlike China, the brezhnevite USSR never outright abandoned socialist doctrine, instead opting to covertly cling to capitalism while hoping that anti-revisionists would fail to notice the commodity-dependent economy, widespread oligarchical bureaucratization and market reforms.

Perhaps a more apt term would be "Pseudo-socialism", since it implies that the facade is socialist, whereas the application is not.

What makes Maoism any less socialist than other socialist doctrines?

The truth is, that Maoism is to other retarded M-L dogmatic orthodoxies is what Marxism is to Anarchism.

Surely 3 rewrites should be enough to catch that spelling error.

Unlike Maoism, orthodox Marxism-Leninism does not reject class struggle, embrace class-collaborationism, or call for a "peaceful transition of power".

refusing to differentiate between the various theories that you oppose is a recipe for dogmatism.

delet this

in all seriousness, i'm really tired. please excuse the many typos that are present throughout my shitty comments

You know how Stalin's strategy to reach undisputed power was to appoint craven flunkies to every position possible? And how that fucked the USSR up in the long run? Well people often forgot that Mao too was a Stalin-appointed flunkie.

i think we should kill pidgeons

what did you mean by this

Thank you based albania poster. You are the only ML on here I like.

Ismail, is that you?

Ismail isn't a Hoxhaist anymore as I recall.

60 million comrades dead. yeah he can fuck himself.

Hi, I'm currently writing a presentation on critiques of maoism, and I've collected a few articles I will be reading over the next few weeks to summarize their points and issues with Mao(ism, his rule, his ideas, the concept of the cultural revolution, his praxis - which is often praised, influence [historical/contemporary] etc.).

I'm updating a page[0] with notes, quotes and thoughts I gathered from the articles, but maybe I've missed some points of good articles (also seeing that I'm probably going to be using all of them I listed), so I wanted to ask people here if they knew some other good pieces I missed. For the most part, I'm trying to use left communist, "classical" marxist or anarchist (ie. generally non-authoritarian/tankie) sources.

Also, pro-Maoists and that whole crowd, I'm also out on the look for critiques-of-critiques to avoid simple errors people accuse anti-Maoists of, so material from that side would also be appriciated.

[0] regist.ra.rs/~xat/outline-maoism.html - I will base my article on the notes I gather here. If it turns out well, I might even make it in a video format and put it on YouTube.

For a modern pro-Maoist perspective on the ideology, read Continuity and Rupture.

...

Pls explain

yeah, I hear he's turned into a literal dengist. /marx/ is a shithole, anyways.

I'm sure he'll understand why we'd need to put him up on the wall.

1893-1959 GOAT tier
1959-1976 Nigga wtf are you doing tier

Yes. And those that follow him are Maotists who have Mautism.

This is just flat-out wrong, btw Any high-school history textbook will tell you that Stalin's USSR supported Chiang Kai-Shek until Mao was on the verge of total victory.

By avoiding "tankie" sources, you're needlessly handicapping your own endeavors. This is because most "non-tankies" would prefer to eliminate two birds with one stone by attacking the general platform of Marxism-Leninism as opposed to just critiquing the "Maoist" phenomenon.

I would certainly recommend checking out some Hoxhaist sources - Hoxhaism, as an international movement, was born from Hoxha's opposition to Mao. It is for this reason that Hoxha and his followers have some of the best and most focused critiques of Maoist theory.

With "non-tankies sources" I was mainly thinking of the texts from USSR, for example during Khrushchev or Brezhnev, or maybe Stalinist positions. There is no reason in itself why I would exclude a Hoxhaist position, if I were already to include a Lenninist critiqe, except if there were clear contradictions to other arguments I raised, and (let's asssume) perfered.

Do you have any texts you would recomend to critique Mao (not only his Ideas, I know that his "Three worlds theory" was dismissed by Albania, but also his Rule)? I'll certainly add them to the list of sources (I'd even add Stalinist or Tankie sources, I just haven't looked into them that much), and I'll see if I'll add them in the end.

fucking toppest of jejs

Yeah, I would recommend checking out the sources I linked in the second part of my anti-mao rant:

From what i've heard, the wikipedia article on the Sino-Albanian split was penned by Ismail during his Hoxhaist phase. For this reason, it's not as impartial as one would expect a wikipedia article to be, and it effectively serves as a Hoxhaist critique of Mao's actions during the aforementioned split.

The latter half of Hoxha's "Imperialism and the Revolution" is an exemplary Hoxhaist piece on Maoism in theory and practice. Sections one and three are refutations of "Mao Zedong Thought", whereas section two contains his analysis of Mao's foreign and domestic policies. (The first half has little to do with China or Mao, so I would avoid it)

Despite the admittedly unattractive url, the espressostalinist page reveals itself to be more useful than one would expect; it offers a variety of lengthy (and sourced) critiques of mao from a variety of viewpoints, some of which you may appreciate.

Nigga you really got to read some economics

Also writing more=/=being right

lol the substance of your post is "people who disagree with me need to read economics"

that's literally an ancap-tier statement.

what is this supposed to mean? are you demonizing the fact that i actually put effort into my posts?

Effort=quality is just a missconception of the labour theory of value.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc
i actually like people with talent to write assloads of stuff, it's only that it's quite depressing when this theory is flawed and phony.
Now i recommend to you to read «economic theory of the leisure class» to understand why capitalism, capitalists and class collaboration is needed to achieve socialism.

Also
Yeah pretty much, since my position is based merely on the economic(and as we know, infra-structural)aspects and it's logical implications.

you can critique mao without resorting to liberal lies

didn't hoxha say that dengism was the logical conclusion of maoism?

Like what? Mises?

10/10 good joke, but i refered to marx, bukharin, etc… you know, actual intelectuals unlike autist chink farmer and white supremasist bunkerman

Cultural revolution was peak Maoism though

Ewwww