[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / siberia / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)


File: 1730275863852.png (253.36 KB, 500x357, ClipboardImage.png)

 

how did Maoists in the west react to the Nixon and Mao visits and later trade agreements
72 posts and 20 image replies omitted.

>>2004665
>a McDonald’s did open for business at the Great Wall while I lost all interest in making pilgrimage to China

>>2004665
This is like when weeaboos say no crime happens in Japan

>>2021509
I have read Mobo Gao's The Battle for China's Past and he is a self-professed Maoist who engages with Chinese sources.
From this I think youre sorta on the right track, though it is less "revision to his class collaborationism" and more "denunciation of class collaborationism after its period of strategic usefulness had ended." Mao is viewed as a socialist revolutionary who allied with feudal-bourgeois elements in an anti-imperialist revolution leaving the communist party holding power. In his period of leadership he is understood to have pushed for more socialist elements and opposed introduction of market incentives and western managerial techniques. He is viewed, in hindset, to have predicted wrongly which imperialist power was the greater threat, but otherwise the cultural revolution and its policies (supporting international revolution, decommodifying essential services and making them availible in rural areas, promoting more workers and peasants to higher positions, maintaining a "socialism under siege" mentality) are upheld, if seen as failing to achieve their negation-goals like attacking the bureaucracy. Deng is loathed for tearing apart late-Maoist society and replacing it with essentially 1950s Maoism, and one of the big failings of Mao according to Maoists is not purging the nationalist-bourgeois elements of the party harder

>>2004523
It's important to remember that Maoism in general has little to do with Mao or his policies. Maoism in North America in particular is a loose coalition of assorted opportunists, Feds, and vulgar ethno-racial nationalists that would be expelled by any Communist party worthy of the name. In China, the leadership of the CPC isn't interpreted as a clean break in 1978 but a continuation of policies that Mao himself instituted.

>>2026397
a friend of mine who lived there and etc told me a lot of murders are ruled as suicides and they have a crazy high conviction rate, one of the highest, which is usually not a good sign wrt to actual criminal-justice.

>>2032034
The Tang law code still has some power through sheer inertia, and in that code a person can't be convicted unless they understand what they did wrong which means a lot of what would be done in the trial in most systems of law is done before the trial by the investigation.

>>2032034
yeah just watch a few Japanese crime videos on YouTube.

>>2032049
There are some famous cases in the Tang law code of people being let off over cutting down trees in protected forests.
It's not wrong it's different. I'd rather go through a Chinese court than a Roman or Anglo court because of it.

>>2031985
Most contemporary accounts do not mention at all that Mao was popular because he was seen as hip and because he was a non-white figure.

>>2021509
>>2026967
It's actually interesting to compare Maoism to Stalinism, Stalin's rule was far more chaotic than anticommunists prefer to depict that era with the Party as some overpowering force. It was a lot of social chaos. Large parts of the USSR were more or less frontier towns plagued by bandits who had been expropriated ex-kulaks. It would not be rare to be working on a collective farm and coming under an armed attack. Some of the most vigorous Stalinist types who spoke up to denounce people as traitors and counter-revolutionaries (doing so to save their own skin) also ended up becoming suspect later on and were often sent to gulags or eliminated, since there was no official policy on how Stalin should be viewed most people could just have liked from liking him marginally more than Nicholas II to worshipping him as hard as the Japs worshipped the Emperor. believing they wouldn't have won the war otherwise cause he was a divine leader

>‘It’s worse in the army than doing forced labour on the Baikal railway,’ one soldier grumbled to his mates. Some harked back to the Red Army in its democratic years in the early 1920s, when they talked to officers as equals and treated orders as the signal for a general debate. The memory rankled like a broken promise. The Soviet army was supposed to be comradely and open. It did not use barking NCOs. Instead junior officers, backed up (or undermined) by political representatives, were charged with drill and training. The results were predictable. ‘If they send me to the front,’ remarked a young recruit as he contemplated mobilization for Finland, ‘I’ll sneak off into the bushes. I won’t fight, but I will shoot unit commander Gordienko.’ ‘As soon as we get to the front,’ one deserter said, ‘I’ll kill the deputy politruk.’ ‘Red Army discipline is worse than under the old tsarist regime,’ the older veterans complained. The young heard all of this and learned. ‘We’ll only get leave when we’re dead.’


>Among the Red Army, attitudes towards the nation’s leader were complex and various. Many soldiers avowed less respect for him than their respective front commanders. ‘Stalin won the war, but he was responsible for so many deaths,’ said Corporal Nikolai Ponomarev. Major Fyodor Romanovsky of the NKVD was unsurprisingly a passionate admirer: “He saved the Soviet state. He possessed a very good mind and picked good people. Stalin destroyed our traitors and malingerers. We were real communists in those days.’


>Yet for every party zealot there were those whose families had suffered badly at the hands of Stalin. Nikolai Senkevich, a Red Army doctor, often asked himself: ‘Is there no one to rid us of this cannibal?’ His father had died in the Gulag after being convicted of hoarding flax seed. His brother had served ten years in a labour camp for ‘political crimes’. Corporal Anna Nikyunas said: ‘We were fighting for our country, not for Stalin. To be honest, in the trenches, the last thing we thought about was Stalin.’


>But repression alone could not have achieved the state’s triumph: it also commanded real support among most ordinary citizens. Such people’s motives were more positive than fear. ‘Life is getting better,’ the huge posters told them. Inch by inch, for millions, it was. With Europe and America in economic depression, the Soviets could boast full employment and rapid growth. A village boy who sought work in the towns would not be looking long. For the young, the prospects started to look bright. By 1938, the Soviet Union had the largest engineering sector in Europe. But more immediately, people could also point to improvements at home. Things had been so bad for so long, after all, that almost anything looked like progress.


>Whatever else, the Soviet regime offered work. Not surprisingly, its most enthusiastic supporters were the people whose careers flourished in a fast-transforming labour market.

>>2004523
Mao was petty bourgeois and Maoists are retarded.

>>2033418
Stalinism and Maoism are basically the one of the only major ways you can get any sort of meaningful communism to exist in real life, tell me, how are you supposed to do stuff like provide free housing across a continent, develop loads of industry to raise living standards and protection, and protect yourself from capitalist powers across the Earth without a huge centralized state apparatus?

File: 1731952049712.png (277.05 KB, 199x938, ClipboardImage.png)

Some thought Mao betrayed them because they believed in "no comprises" like the Progressive Labor Party, others interpreted it as a sign of U.S. imperial decline. "Supporting" it might not be the right word, but like… not viewing it as a contradicting what they believed. This was one such group.

>One of the largest new antirevisionist groups to surface in the late 1960s, the Communist League (CL) was distinct in a number of ways. It had direct roots in the Communist Party USA and the main “second wave” group, the Provisional Organizing Committee (POC). It disdained the New Left, student movement origins of the new communist movement groups. Unlike the Revolutionary Union and the October League, which also grew out of local collectives in California, CL came directly from an organizing effort in a black community.

>>2004523
They took the Deng Pill

File: 1731952416191.png (2.23 MB, 1911x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2035009

>>2033414
Coming from a lower-class background, Stalin was also willing to get his hands dirty in ways many Bolsheviks weren't but also had the intellect and cunning to become an actual leader instead of just a goon.
At the time of the February Revolution he was one of the few Bolsheviks actually inside Russia (not in exile) and was able to set up a agitator network against the Provisional Government before Lenin had even arrived with Germany's help. Lenin soon became fascinated with the "wonderful Georgian" as he described Stalin. Lenin was a self-hating intellectual and despised the overly academic/intellectual nature of the inner circle of the Bolsheviks. Stalin came off as a salt-of-the-earth simpleton. He also appreciated Stalin's overt brutality, particularly in dealing with the unruly minorities during the Civil War.
Following Lenin's death, Stalin was successfully able to manipulate the top Bolsheviks while having them underestimate him as an idiot Georgian peasant. He first allied with Zinoviev and Kamenev against Trotsky, and once Trotsky was defeated politically he allied with Bukharin and Rykov against Zinoviev and Kamenev. Having taken control of the left and center-left of the party, Stalin then attacked Bukharin and Rykov and had them defeated, leaving him at the top.
How was he able to do this? Lenin had made him General Secretary of the Central Committee. This was not a particularly respected post pre-Stalin, the position of Premier and the Council of Ministers were viewed more prestigious under Lenin. The supremacy of the Party bureaucracy over the state posts is a feature Stalin introduced and still endures in places like China and North Korea today.
Stalin was able to use the then-underestimated post of General Secretary to control mid-level party appointments and stack local cadres with more brutal thugs similar to him and loyal to him. This is how the careers of the likes of Khrushchev, Bulganin, Brezhnev, Beria, Yagoda, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, etc. began. Thus when Stalin instigated major political assaults on the Zinoviev-Kamenev bloc and later the Rykov-Bukharin bloc, they found that they had very little low to mid level party support.

>>2005872
It baffles me, the amount of "communists" who have never internalized this, the most quintessential Marx quote of all time.

>>2004539
>bourgeois revolutionary supports bourgeois nation
who wouldve thought
mautists are retarded

They put fingers in their ers and sing lalala

>>2044511
of course your posting

>>2006963
Depends on culture / subculture; you have Southern petit booj aristo mentality, as well as Northern SOE / state service mentality.

In any Communist state, the military often has great prestige, especially since information control prevents adventures like Abu Ghraib from leaking out to the masses.

>>2049842
What's Northern SOE?

>>2050314
The Chinese Northeast, which had the majority of China's heavy industry (originally built by the Japanese, upgraded by Soviets, kept and developed by the Chinese under Mao), is notorious for its traditionally strong state sector under Mao, which turned it into a rustbelt under Deng.

>>2037897
I don't think he actually said that. Those words were kind of put into his mouth by Western journalists such as Mike Walace, and when asked about it he'd say "To get rich is no sin. However, what we mean by getting rich is different from what you mean." He was saying pauperism is not socialism and their task was to develop the productive forces to lead to common prosperity. The idea was not to permit the emergence of a new bourgeoisie (at least in theory).
https://china.usc.edu/deng-xiaoping-interview-mike-wallace-60-minutes-sept-2-1986

>>2044510
Well, most people here are more likely to have read Sakai than Marx at this point, so you shouldn't be surprised.
>>2049842
>In any Communist state, the military often has great prestige
Yes, because militaries under socialism have different missions that imperialist militaries.
>especially since information control prevents adventures like Abu Ghraib from leaking out to the masses.
Well, China hasn't been at war with any country for over 45 years and persues peace instead of escalation, so things like that don't happen.

>>2021509
>it is a class-collaborationist movement that considers the bourgeois democratic insitution painted red the highpoint of socialist development
Ultras do realize that New Democracy ended right? There were only a couple years of class collaboration if you are going by what Mao said he was doing, after collectivization there wasn't a Chinese bourgeoise again until Deng.

>>2051133
And what is it now?


See The Encyclopedia on anti-Revisionism
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/erol.htm

File: 1734375817665.png (79.68 KB, 236x260, home-header-1.png)

I am a philosopher, what I have to say is very important so read below.
>>2004665
>>2004539
>>2004592
>>2004925
>>2004928
Further proof that revolutionary socialism cannot work because it runs out of steam due to laws of physics. Find me a person that is super disciplined and willing to go to the end even if it is unprofitable and i will find you one million opportunists who would bail out and return to individualist pursuits. The only way to have a functional working socialism is what China TODAY is doing, ie, Join our party, Start your business. China's socialism works because it has become a fact of life for the average pleb without him having to show ideological fervor or some political signaling as was the case in Ost Block countries. The pleb does not want to be constantly involved in politics, since politics for the pleb is like going to a whorehouse. He wants to bang a hooker but not live with her. Capitalism, Feudalism and Liberalism are very successful because they don't demand constant participation from the populace. They just modify social relations, institutions etc and the people have to adjust. Communism on the other hand demands loyalty and constant politicking, everything has to be viewed through the principles of the ideology. This is the same reason why very corporate-culture-heavy workplaces are totalitarian hellholes and everyone gets tired of them. Religions that demand excessive obedience to religious leadership and dogma are the same thing. People get tired of being used as a resource. Demanding people "work together" quickly breaks down as such a state of affairs goes against the laws of thermodynamics. You can either purse a radical transformation of people's natures or you can use the existing institutions to "nudge" the person into the direction you want. Successful regimes have a deep state and they know how to manipulate the public to maintain their power. Further point elaborated below:
>>2007365
After watching that video, it is clear to me that putin is a fascist in the materialist sense since he is devoid of ideology (inb4 ilyin) and is only focused on maintaining power in order to have freedom of political movement. He uses populism, nationalism, social justice in order for russkie plebs to keep trusting him and fight for his mansions in Ukraine.

Mao was based. 'Marxism-Leninism-Maoism' is retarded.

>>2081882
unironically right

>>2007365
Fascism is reactionary and revolutionary, a utopian attempt to remake society from the bottom up based on mass activism. This is unorthodox for something that has typically been seen as a right-wing movement, because that kind of radicalism (destroying the old structure and building a transformed society of transformed individuals) was more typical of the far left. It also has really peculiar economic tendencies. It was all hot steam and bluster in its opposition to socialism, and a big part of its message was that it would preserve business against any attempt at socialization or collectivization. And it did do that, along with opposing the labor movement. But at the same time it represented the interests of the farmer and "petty bourgeoisie", which wanted land reform and opposed the monopolists, financiers, and general excess of free market capitalism. And masses of unemployed also made up a big supporter of the fascist parties, and they demanded relief in the form of public jobs programs. So basically the fascists have a weird, hybrid pseudo-socialism where technically-private firms were so controlled by the government and subordinated to "public interest" that they were basically socialized, while their rhetoric was based on a violent opposition to Marxism and Communism.

File: 1734829698867.png (9.82 KB, 1042x191, ClipboardImage.png)

People really brush all the falsification that Mao did under the rug. If anything, he was the originator of the "Marxist who never read Marx or Lenin." At the start, the communists were genuinely a proletarian organization but then it just fell apart to new democracy and "Chinese characteristics" which are both total betrayals to basic Marxist theory. This is why Pol Pot got called a Maoist.
>but he killed landlords!
Yeah cool but the capitalist system is maintained, just restructured a little bit. The class collaboration is so integral to Maoism that it's on the fucking flag.

>>2081910
The problem is that many Western self-proclaimed Maoists were only Maoists because it was seen as hip in the 70's


>>2097393
>UPI
glowie source
about as reliable as Radio Free Asia

>>2097397
the point still stands

File: 1735826951274.png (353.88 KB, 588x531, ClipboardImage.png)

Western Maoists are a joke in every sense. Self-hating white people and upper-class minorities who can't even stand their own communities and who seem to thrive on the approval of neurotics, both contributing nothing but annoyance online and IRL. What have they actually accomplished? Just some epic LARPing about a totally real people's war that's supposedly around the corner!"

>>2100271
>Self-hating white people and upper-class minorities
remember this applies to 90% of people on here calling you a westoid


>>2087796
And yet China is closer to socialism than anyone else. What does this say about Marxism?

>>2100334
>China is closer to socialism than anyone else
two more weeks

>>2005046
It's interesting to read about left-wing groups in the U.S. in the late 60s who tried to cosplay as Che like the Weather Underground. Look up interviews with Mark Rudd talking about it. They really believed in what they were doing, but they misrecognized what happened, so Che succeeded in Cuba so therefore they should be like Che in the U.S., and it totally flopped and was self-destructive to their own movement. The only people they killed (although they did intend to kill soldiers at a barracks) were their own when they blew themselves up. They didn't even put two and two together, that Che was already dead when they began doing this, they were enthralled by his martyrdom and in love with themselves. They did have some success organizing students at Columbia University (somewhat like the encampments there recently), but they wanted to believe the people who showed up at these demonstrations they had organized would be future insurgents if they just got ball rolling. That was completely wrong.

>>2081910
both are retarded


File: 1737342206237.png (918.5 KB, 800x600, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2103787
>>2005046
On the other Maoists, there was a maneuver in the 70s called the "industrial turn," which was basically American Maoists saying, we're a bunch of upper middle-class students who don't know what we're doing, so let's get factory jobs and actually become proletarian and merge with them and organize them.
There are really only two surviving groups of 70s American Maoism. One is a cult led by a guy named Bob Avakian, they're deranged:
https://youtu.be/vhsYu9p2Kho

There's also the FRSO. They're much more focused. Relatively small but, like, when there were strikes recently by the UAW and Teamsters, their channels would feature interviews with members of those unions who are (basically) FRSO members. Not, like, a lot. But they play a role in protest movements as well, they were involved in BLM, the Palestine protests going on now.
I saw a video on the news recently of the police breaking up a Palestine encampment in my city, and most of the people there were MENA youth, but then I saw the local FRSO people (I know who they are) there with bullhorns shouting instructions to people while they were being arrested about what to do. They might have set up some kind of organization to bail them out. They're not usually going at people with communist symbols or red flags and all that, more like a cell that exists within these other movements.

File: 1737345323213.png (391.35 KB, 736x414, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2044448
>Coming from a lower-class background, Stalin was also willing to get his hands dirty in ways many Bolsheviks weren't but also had the intellect and cunning to become an actual leader instead of just a goon.
from loyle soldier to capo, a man after my own heart

>>2103787
Utopian Socialist revolutions (basically every revolution besides the US) failed because they're Utopian and not pragmatic. They're based philosophically in Rationalism which is the "retard fuel" for leftism. It's the belief of certainty of uncertain facts, basically a faith-based science where "proof" of your "theory" is not required. These are the whack-jobs of enlightenment who are philosophically the equivalent of a quack mad-scientist cutting up people's brains and hooking them up to machines for "purity" or some other make believe nonsense

>>2095568
>The problem is that many Western self-proclaimed Maoists were only Maoists because it was seen as hip in the 70's
why though


Unique IPs: 48

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / siberia / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]