How come Maoism even exists at this point…like at all? Like in Peru and south america arguably the area where Maoist Peoples war techniques were used the most and to the most effect… Even there with the rare exception of a place like Nicaragua it would almost universally result in failure with the Guerrillas either surrendering to the goverment after decades (FARC) or devolving into outright drug gangs (Shining Path)
Should Maoist Revolutionary Organizational and Political concepts even be tolerated when they have shown to be almost universally ineffective when implemented?
What organizational principles and strategies do you suggest that would have worked better for these South American and Asian groups?
Well i dont exactly know as i dont know the specific circumstances of each nation But one thing that i do think is that spending decades in the jungle fighting a "peoples war" dosent seem to work
The Maoist people war technique has never worked outside China/Asia
"maoism was a mistake" - mao
"Mao is the Chinese Pugachev"
Maoism isn't just a specific practice. Nowhere in Maoist ideology does it say "Maosim is only peasant revolution" or "Maoism can only mean people's war". There are plenty of Maoist parties out there that don't advocate people's war, because they realize it wouldn't suit their conditions.
Pretty much all revolutionary militant movements in 2018 are Maoist.
This. Maoism is hardly even a specific ideology now as much as it is a commitment to immediate militant leftist resistance to the status quo.
Lmao, who is deciding whether or not to tolerate them? There is no major leftist influence in the world for this to be a meaningful decision. Support them because theyre communists serious about fighting against capitalists and reactionaries. That doesnt mean support everything they do, of course, but its not like your support makes any actual difference, its purely just ideological masturbation for us to say "my support is now officially withdrawn" without having any power or influence.
… said the hoxhaist
How come communism even exists at this point…like at all? Should communist Revolutionary Organizational and Political concepts even be tolerated when they have shown to be almost universally ineffective when implemented?
Mao was the Joseph Smith of Marxism.
Literally re-wrote the entirety of the theory to satisfy his own opportunism. That's why his theory is highly inconsistent, and why hardcore Maoists will say the only "good" Mao was 1960s Mao.
His dialectics are all fucked up, much, much closer to Spinoza than Hegel or Marx. Just a bunch of vulgar monism and subjectivism.
Posting without a trip this time, Anal Waters?
I'm not AW.
Why are you even communist, like at all?
Your question reeks of idealism. You should probably convert to some sort of religious fundamentalism. If Maoism, indeed, has considerable impact throughout the world, it follows directly that it is effective, and what even is this question?
It depends what you mean by Maoism. There's Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Naxalites), Mao Zedong Thought (used to be the ideology of the Communist Party of China), Maoism Third-Worldism (Jason Unruhe), and "normal" Marxism-Leninism with Maoist influences (Black Panthers and a lot of other groups in the 60s and 70s). I'm pretty sure the FARC has never been Maoist though.
How many successful ones? Also no ML state calls itself Maoist.
Indigenous movements in Latin America aren't Maoist.
Because the alternatives are first worlders looking down on us and saying: "Look, you'll never be able to do anything because you are irrelevant shitholes, just wait until the workers in developed countries like France and Sweden that earn 20 times more than you revolt so we can show you how real socialism works because you are too stupid. Just like Marx said, only rich workers with protections from the state, like the english, can be revolutionary unlike lumpens like the Irish and negeoes, so don't even waste your time."
- t. Trotsky and other anti-MTWs
Why is Maoism the only solution for the Third World? What makes Maoism "special" in this regard?
Maoism is the only one that lets us take action into our own hands instead of waiting for the elusive day the pampered net exploiter workers of the Imperial core to rescue us.
Which btw has never happened, countries where capitalism is most developed like Britain, Japan and the US are filled of reactionary working class people that support imperialism and the continued exploitation of the third world, so waiting for them to rescue us or show us how "real" socialism is done is mere fantasy.
you don't even need to be AW to realize his dialectics are a coarse oversimplification of actual Marxian dialectic
the building of dual power and a party structure to sustain it, and a swift armed insurrection when the moment of crisis comes (i.e. Leninism)
>Should Maoist Revolutionary leftist Organizational and Political concepts even be tolerated when they have shown to be almost universally ineffective when implemented? FTFY
What are first worlders exploiting? Non-moralistic answers only please
uhhh… Africa and Central/South America mostly. East Asia and the Middle East
Maoism is basically a sppoked and dumbed down version of Machiavelli. Development of marxism my ass.
Seriously? Catholic Socialism. Mexico nearly had it in 1913 and it is what caused America to arm the (still ruling) capitalist PRI party to stop them. The church has direct access to all latin americans, moreso than any individual government down there. The church is willing to send missionaries and archivists to random villages on horseback to catalog the people there into the church's records. For example my parents (both born in Mexico), have no documents with the Mexican government yet have birth, confirmation, and some employment records with the church through a missionary that worked in their community. This is also how they got into America - the church offered them a free bed where the police didn't have the balls to search for them.
Secularism doesn't work in societies where the dominant factor in peoples' lives is shared prayer. Communities that have no electric power or cell service have no need of industrial work ethics Marxism discusses. But they do engage in communism every day, as they have no access to money as there are no banks. The ones who make it to the cities are already ready to accept socialism in their life, as they send back most of their income to their parents back home. This holds true for remittances from those who immigrate to America.
And what are first worlders doing exactly that is "exploitation"… buying things?
What he's asking is how an American or European janitor, cashier or fry chef actually benefits from any of that.
Anyone have literature on the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), Naxals, or any other Maoist movement outiside of China?
Not much and that's a huge part of the problem. People in the 3rd world are subjected to slave conditions just so a person in the 1st world can pay $700 for an iphone.
I can't afford an iphone.
The problem with "Maoism" today is simply put: all style, no substance.
I became interested in Maoism when I was a naive 18-year old and watched too many of Jason Unruhe's early videos (this was 2010 when Roo was still dressed up like Fidel Castro and doing the news in front of a Chinese flag). I joined an MLM party a few years later after I was more theoretically prepared and ready to do real world activism. Turns out the entire party (I won't say which) was nothing more than a Mao-Stalin fan club which had very little to offer in terms of real world praxis. It was simply USSR fanboying, Mao fanboying, DPRK fanboying, Venezuela fanboying, all with a pristine 3rd World militant aesthetic. Everyone wore keffiyehs (like the $30 ones you used to be able to get at Urban Outfitters), Che shirts, combat boots, and "newsboys" hats and were hyper-confrontational with everyone. But in terms of actual action they offered nothing. Oh, and they were always sloganeering, as if that's an adequate substitute for doing shit. "Muh mass line", "organize the masses", "down with American imperialism", "Zionism is racism", "save the DPRK", etc.
First as tragedy, then as farce.
Only proves my point.
LARPing is not a problem exclusive to Maoism. There's no Maoist party in my country but we have ML parties and they are LARPy as hell.
The problem isn't LARPing, the problem is that the Maoist parties I've seen offer zero in terms of praxis. They usually just tail other leftists without contributing much of their own.
I don't think the LARPing and the armchairism is a particular problem for Maoists today, the problem is that the fucking cultism. It's not just the RCP, the MLPD in Germany is also a fucking cult. When you go to one of their events, it comes over like a scientology outreach event, normally in communist parties you have a) oldfags from the Cold War era and b) students, but with the MLPD you see suburban moms with little children having a barbecue or some shit. It has a creepy vibe. It definitely doesn't help that they also have huge amounts of money.
I'm in the US, so that's probably the issue. I know French Maoists are much better about direct action. Giving charity to people in the 3rd World isn't class struggle so that's a moot point.
The cultism is particularly bad. Why is it that Maoists always do this?
Actively supporting US proxies is worse than doing nothing
I think we can all agree that out of the First World Maoists, French ones are the best. I think their cultism is a bit based on the fact that out of all communist tendencies, its philosophy embraces some sort of romantic revolutionary adventureism, and the flowery way Mao wrote certainly plays a part. Also, Maoist are probably the closest what we get to ultra-leftism, but unlike traditional ultra-leftists they actually do put emphasis on organizing, and being embossed by the Cultural Revolution in China which some Maoists percieve as the highest form of the communist movement drives them towards fringe radicalism to reject the ruling paragims, materially and culturally.
I wasn't implying I uncritically agree with the action itself, it was just a response to the claim that Maoist parties never do anything.
TBH Maoism is pretty shitty if you live in the 1st world. It's not like most western countries have a sizeable peasant population.
This is fucking bullshit. Trotsky, like literally every Leninist, always maintained that revolution would start in the less developed capitalist countries and SPREAD to the more advanced countries shortly thereafter.
Guys, I've got an idea, what if Dengism isn't actually an ideology of its own, but Bukharinism + acceleration?
It's literally how Marx started his critique of capitalism, with how it failed the promises of the French Revolutions and the Spring of 1848.
Okay but Lenin was clearly wrong about that. Rosa died, The Spanish Republic floundered, the Spring of '68 didn't install socialism in France, so what's your answer now?
And thats why anything remotely leftist = our support. We are in no position to be choosy.
"Leftist" is subjective. Maotards often side with anything *anti-American* moreso than leftist, hence why they claim to support Iran, Putin's Russia, Hezbollah (basically turd positionists with a Shia theology), Houthis, etc. Some even deny the Rohingya massacres in Myanmar on the basis that any political intervention would be an *act of war against China* given Myanmar and China's strong relationship. Priorities, man.
So when Shining Path murders Tupac Ameru members we're supposed to just be okay with that and not question what's going on or why?
Priority is to get anything remotely leftist to matter. In general, what you consider leftist is to be pushed.
Could you answer the thread about the negation of the negation? Stalinbro wants to know why Mao rejected it.
because Mao was a fucking idiot who didnt understand it
good post. now we just need to teach more priests about marx
Elaborate. What did Mao get wrong about it?
The negation of the negation is the entire mechanism by which opposites are unified and quantity turns into quality.
Dialectics literally doesn't make any sense without it.
Yeah I got that. As much of a pseud as he is, Anal Water did a good job BTFOing Mao. Mao's "dialectics" never sublate. They never transcend. It's just one side over another and the winning side moves on to a different contradiction.
Misconceptions About Maoism
1. Maoists are only concerned with peasant revolution.
This is probably the most common argument levelled against maoists at the centres of capitalism, a claim that keeps being despite all attempts on the part of maoists to argue otherwise. For when people think of Mao Zedong and the Chinese Revolution, the first thing that pops into their heads––if they aren't reactionaries [see below] is the large-scale peasant movements, the Long March, and the belief that when some of us talk of a "Peoples' War" we are interested in mobilizing the peasantry. Clearly this allows our critics to dismiss us out-of-hand because, obviously, there is no peasantry in Canada, or the United States, or Western Europe, or etc. Clearly there is no social class at the centres of capitalism that qualifies as the peasantry and so, if maoism is just a peasant marxism, then it wouldn't make any sense.
So let me say it again: we maoists are not primarily concerned with a universal peasantry that we believe exists in every country. When some of us speak of the importance of Mao's theory of protracted peoples war and its applicability to our social contexts we are not imagining a scenario where we will disappear into the hills with some active and over-exploited peasantry similar to the peasantry that exists in China. Nor do we believe migrant workers, rural labourers, let alone farmers at the centres of capitalism count as a peasant class. We generally believe that peasants only exist at the peripheries of global capitalism, in semi-feudal societies, and not at the imperial centres. Good lord, I don't know how many times I have to say this! Stop telling me that I believe in some non-existent Canadian peasantry––I don't live in a bubble.
If Mao organized the peasants in China, and if other revolutionary parties organize peasants, it is because these movements happened in societies where pre-capitalist formations were retained and allowed to flourish under comprador capitalism. Thus, in these contexts, peasants were often the most revolutionary social class––mainly because they were far more numerous than a nascent and underdeveloped proletariat. Hence the maoist concept of semi-feudalism that has to do with these social formations. When it comes to capitalist modes of production like Canada and the US, though, we maoists do not believe that there is anything that can be properly called a peasant social class. Stop telling us that we do when we do not because it's getting annoying.
Also, stop telling those of us who believe in the theory of Peoples War that this theory is dependent on some non-existent peasantry that you think we want to organize. We don't. I mean, if they did exist I'm sure we would want to organize them, but just like you we're pretty sure they don't exist and so we aren't trying all that hard to find some class simply because it fits into our romantic social categories. We aren't imagining that the cities will be surrounded by some imaginary peasant hinterland.
Which "Maotards" support anything anti-American? Can you give some examples (preferably of actual Maoist organizations which do this and not some random twitter retard). Are you talking about MLM? MZT? Maoism-Third Worldism?
Most MLM's are pretty "ultra-left" in that they don't believe there are any currently socialist societies anywhere on the planet (not even Cuba or the DPRK) and they believe China is a straight up imperialist capitalist country. So I doubt many of them support Russia for example. They probably oppose imperialist countries going to war with Iran but that's different from "supporting Iran". And like said, some Maoist orgs support Ro.java, which isn't consistent with "supporting anything anti-American" since they're basically a US proxy.
Why did Mao reject the Negation of the Negation?
I'm not well read / smart enough to talk about the differences between Hegelian, Marxist and Maoist dialectics. I have a very surface level understanding of dialectics and dialectical materialism. Sorry mate.
Did you watch the video where Anal Water BTFO'd Mao?
What's the difference between "orthodox" Maoism and MLM? MLM disregards the three worlds thing?
No but I read the blog post. I wouldn't call myself a Maoist (there is no Maoist organizations where I live so going around calling myself a Maoist would be total LARPing anyway) but I do like some of Mao's ideas and the ideas of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (which was made into a coherent ideology in the 80's and isn't actually just anything Mao said or did, contrary to what some people on Holla Forums seem to think). But what I like about Mao/Maoism has nothing to do with any "higher development of dialectics" or whatever (as I said, I have a very surface level understanding of dialectics), so AW's critique might be completely valid but I don't really care about it tbh.
I don't have time to write a proper answer but you're right about the three world's thing. If you wanna know more about the differences between Mao Zedong Thought (the pro-China, anti-revisionist ML movement of the 60's and 70's) and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism ("modern" Maoism which emerged in the late 80's), you should listen to this podcast with J. Moufawad-Paul. He's the author of the book Continuity and Rupture which I also recommend if you want to learn more about MLM.