Stalinism and Maoism

Did an ideological difference between Stalinism and Maoism exist? Does it go beyond the emphasis on the peasantry promoted by Maoists? Did any ideological dispute happen between the two tendencies regarding both their Marxist-Leninist roots and their contemporary developments? Did any of this play a role in the Sino-Soviet split of the late '50s?

Other urls found in this thread:

Stalinism is authoritarian distortion of Marxism, maoism, in the other hand, is completely non-Marxist, anti-intellectual, voluntaris ideology, which have base in kulaks and petty-bourgeoise. I hope I helped. учиться!


What is it that makes Stalinism Marxist and Maoism non-Marxist?

ps; sdr fuck Marxism

Again, its either high quality steel, or communism doesnt work. Utopia or bust, nothing in between.

"We know only giant corporations win the markets, but you can get rich with your small business, we promise!"

t. capitalist raising spirit.

Maoism does seem to extensively rely on "enthusiasm", doesn't it? Its focus on making the masses constantly ecstatic is disturbingly similar to the fascist taste for ceremonies.

Both wanted to be the biggest boy in the sandbox basically. World was too small for both egos.

contrary to what you can read about Mao, one positive thing that can be told about Stalinist economic policy is that it was successfull as fuck

It does. Maoism is pure madness and fundamentally anti-Marxist ideology of small peasant bourgeoise and nationalist idpolers.

Since we are on the topic and I don't want to make another Mao thread, can some ☭TANKIE☭ try to justify the cultural revolution in any way?

Nothing is every black and white, but the CR had some fascistic elements, there were book burnings, foreign embassies were attacked (even the Albanian embassy ffs). Also a constant focus on MAOMAOMAO as a national figure (Marx and Engels disapeared from public view).

There is nothing inherently "fascist" about book burnings and personality cults.

Its an activity done mostly be right wing brainlets, close enough.

The absolute state of leftypol tbh.

"Fascist" is not a synonym for "bad" or "authoritarian". Qin-era China and 13th-century France also saw state-sanctioned autodafes — were those fascist societies?

No, but in the modern era pretty much only fascists burn books.

That's not true. Many different organizations have been involved in book-burning, from the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice to Mao's little Red Guards.

Not a tank but
The Cultural Revolution was an attempt to let the grassroots proletariat criticize and tear down the contradictions of contemporary post-revolutionary China. The CCP of course immediately put the kibosh on it because it threatened their economic and political control of the country, and was tremendously disruptive with so many groups trying to settle ethnic or class 'scores' from previous centuries. The movement was coopted back by the Party and ended up as a contorted self-parody and personality cult.

Maoism is very much obcessed with the spiritualistic "power of human will", I'm sure Mao literally believed that if you have enough human bodies anything is possible - while more traditional Marxism emphasizes technology and industry.

Stalinism doesn't exist, it's a more evolved form of Leninism, or rather the codification of it, or rather the stratification of the state including its parliamentarism. This includes reduction of dialectical materialism leading into industrialism, formalization of socialism and popular fronts.

Maoism is an ultraleft ideology that rejects dialectical materialism and builds more on contradictions, cranks up insurrectionism, romantic adventureism, in practice this means: Decentralization, communization, informal democracy, "revolution after the revolution", militancy.

t. low I.Q. illiterate smashie

Both Marxism-Leninism and Maoism are ideologies while Marxism isn't. Marxism is merely the observance of our current conditions of existence and its reproduction. Leninism and Maoism formulate the political will to transcend a given situation, the political idea of a choice, formal vs actual freedom. I'm a Marxist-Leninist but Maoism is still mostly correct; but the brainlets here will pull out something Mao said or did which they personally don't like so it must be "anti-Marxist" which is an oxymoron in itself.

Maoism sounds more and more fash every day tbh.

It's not like you already have a humongous confirmation bias towards Maoism and try to see fascists everywhere in stuff you don't like. Reminds me on Perlman who said Mao was a Nazi. Why can't anarchists make an argument and have to resort to smears?

I'm not an expert on the chinese revolution or Maoism but was there really an alternative to this? Obviously you don't collaborate with the national bourgeoisie for any fancy ideological reason, only because you've made the judgement that it's strategically necessary at the time. And looking at what happened, did this decision not justify itself? They successfully got rid of the jap imperialists and gained control of their own country. Class collaboration doesn't sound great, but if the choices are either an alliance with the national bourgeoisie to achieve a certain goal, or being ideologically pure while achieving nothing, then the first option is clearly better.


So are you saying the elements I mentioned aren’t common between Maoism and Fascism?


what the hell are you talking about.

We could have had global communism if it wasn't for autism such as this

Maybe read something you idiots. I also recommend Rethinking Mao by Nick Knight and this:

I deny that these things are inherent in Maoism at all, and are just a really dumb attempt of an anti-communist smear.

What does any of this have to do with communization?
Are you familiar with Franco Freda per chance? I disagree with the notion that common Maoism is "fascist" but Freda interestingly tried to reconcile Maoism with Evolian Radical Traditionalism

Have you read the book?


Since people come up with all sorts of weird vague definitions of what communization is (Stalin was the only one that provided a sane theory about it) you should define what it means to you so I can respond to your arguments. Making an ignorant low-effort post doesn't deserve anything than a book reference.


I hate anarchists so fucking much, i have empathy for your goals but my god some of you are really fucking stupid to see trough the bullshit made up by muricans or are too blind to read actual soviet history. Either way fuck off