[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1651089571156.jpg (382.4 KB, 1408x1600, Mao-Zedong-1967.jpg)

 No.942438[View All]

Why is it when communists come into power their way of referring to the revolutionary group changes from the proletariat to the "people"? People is not a class. People don't lead revolutions, classes do. It's always been something that has bugged me. It's not uncommon today to see in Sakaist and idpol circles this "people" terminology too. As if by some magic "people" are the revolutionary group. At the same time these circles do not mind the usage of terms which imply class such as labor aristocracy and settlers! So what gives? Class for thee, but not for me? Sounds like a dangerous combination of opportunism and revisionism to my ears.
104 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The only successful systems include the bourgeoisie
>gee thanks Mao for founding a state that now has a "people's bourgeoisie" and billionaires on the Politburo
>Yes, thank you Mao for making the necessary decisions to establish a DotP, in the only way it has historically been proven to be possible.
It's the only way possible!


File: 1651163131475-1.jpg (97.54 KB, 660x440, SuicideProofNets.jpg)

>I think the evidence to support that is scare
Top kek. Nevermind the billionaires, the commodity production, the communist movements that they have at least attempted to suppress, the fact that no effort has been made to eliminate other classes, or the miserable conditions in which workers often find themselves.


Did I say that with absolutely no context to those statements, which means that those statements would apply universally?


Context and nuance is silly, all that matters is all the systems without the bourgeoisie collapsed and the only ones that remain are systems that include the bourgeoisie. Those systems are good because they still exist, and the others are bad because they don't. The deciding factor is the existence of the bourgeoisie, so that means the bourgeoisie are good.
Why would I want to overthrow the bourgeoisie then?


>Nevermind the billionaires, the commodity production, the communist movements that they have at least attempted to suppress, the fact that no effort has been made to eliminate other classes, or the miserable conditions in which workers often find themselves.

The question is: could they reasonably have done that? Is that not the route the USSR took which took them to non-existence? Could PRC have expected different results from following the same path?

You have to views things through the lens of the concrete challenges the socialist project faces.


no I think context is good, I'm open to nuance, you're very welcome to add it.
I just haven't heard you lay out any other alternative, and the one you laid out didn't withstand the challenges of capitalist siege and that is in fact to a degree damning evidence against the viability of that model.


>Why would I want to overthrow the bourgeoisie then?
"Overthrow" means many things, not all of which have to be done at the same time.


It didn't withstand the capitalist siege that China was an enthusiastic participant in.


True, this was a grave error, but I don't think it's very likely the USSR would have survived much longer, with or without PRC.
Certainly we can learn from that era that we should be much less willing to comdemn fellow socialist projects for revisionism, and as such never work against them as long as there are other imperialist capitalist powers to contend with.


The point is not about what they could have done. The point is that there is clearly and undeniably no Dictatorship of the Proletariat in China.


The point of scientiffic socialism is entirely about what can be done.


>The point is that there is clearly and undeniably no Dictatorship of the Proletariat in China.
I disagree. I deny it. I think all you've said can be true and there can still be a DotP


File: 1651164715194.jpeg (75.89 KB, 1168x1168, 9v8aidbsgcj41.jpeg)

>The People


China has kind of made its own bed on this one, not that it matters because they don't give a shit about international socialism. If the USSR was the one to survive the split it would be treated with much less suspicion than the one that cosied up to NATO.


if you want me to agree that Hua Gaofeng and Deng and their immediate successors overcorrected and swung the PRC too far right-wards then I absolutely agree.

Where I disagree is that PRC is no longer socialist. I also believe that it has come back on the right path after the ascension of Xi and the concessions he has had to make to Bo Xilai's line.


Tbh they're just hard to take seriously as a socialist power when after decades of wrecking and autism for "realpolitik" reasons their major allies are… Russia. Their fucking ally from the beginning. Who isn't even socialist anymore. It's no wonder most communist insurgencies attack them.


File: 1651166689690-0.png (422.02 KB, 450x675, alternative.png)

>in the only way it has historically been proven to be possible.
Uphold Dengism-Thatcherism


I am sympathetic with that point, but I always think we should consider; what was the alternative for these people?
Mao absolutely messed up by antagonizing the USSR, and that's a mistake we should learn from, but what do we do after that and now?
Given the tools they had and whatever miscalculations they had made, what options were they left with?

I think cautious optimism and support for PRC is warranted, in spite of the many flaws and the terrible ways they've had to adapt to capitalist unipolarity.

I certainly think total denouncements and working against them is unhelpful, even if there are many valid criticism to make, just as you have done, comrade.


In terms of capitalism Thatcher was absolutely correct. Shock-therapy, deregulation and crackdowns on labour were absolute necessities for the perpetuation of capitalism.

There was no alternative for capitalism.


You're reading too much into it. "The people" is just a figure of speech, not a term of art within marxist theory. It's just a way to refer informally to the masses.


I believe Mao in his youth read anarchist theory which would explain some things (like the overt focus on power/hierarchy as opposed to the study of history and the political economy)
>social justice before revolution
The parallels with today are scary. Fuck.
Rehabilitate this man immediately. He grows more based with each passing day.
>we the people
LMAO. Not an American, is this fucking real? Literally proving OP.


Most revolutions happened in semi feudal countries, you cant just leave out the peasant class if they're such a huge plurality. The sickle in the hamsic represents the peasantry, it's baked into the imagery.


File: 1651183006038.png (49.29 KB, 800x534, ClipboardImage.png)

And you'll never guess what one of the stars of the Chinese flag symbolizes


Yeah I agree the term should always be proletariat.


“proletariat” can be made just as holy as “people”


Nothing to do with being holy. It's simply to do with describing reality accurately. "People" is a nebulous term that doesn't delineate by class.
Proletarians means a concrete class, the "people" against the "tyrants and elites" is very vague and that is how bourgeois revolutions in America, France and so on rallied the masses. For we who are communists we have to insist on using the terms proletariat, peasantry, bourgeoisie etc. It's "proletarians of all lands unite" for good reason.


A star?


>I don't think there is evidence that the CPC is controlled by the bourgeoisie as a class.
The fact that there are billionaires speaks clearly otherwise. And not just a few billionaires either, since 2018 or so China has had more billionaires than any other country.


>The question is: could they reasonably have done that? Is that not the route the USSR took which took them to non-existence?
Is this a joke?


>In the original description of the flag by Zeng, the larger star symbolizes the CCP, and the four smaller stars that surround the big star symbolize the four social classes of China's New Democracy mentioned in Mao's "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship": the working class, the peasantry, the urban petite bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie


This is the main problem I have with Maoism and it's why Stalin was always a little sceptical of Mao and supported Wang Ming.


Proof China is class collaborationist and hence fascist


Class collaboration on its own isn't enough for fascism. China doesn't have the other features, primarily and obviously anticommunist terror.


The political struggle between Mao and Wang Ming was about the policy of the united front with the KMT against the Japanese. It was Wang who argued for greater cooperation with the KMT and subordinating the CPC fully to it, ie. even greater cooperation with the national bourgeoise, which was the policy of the comintern at the time. Mao was arguing the CPC should retain organisational and class independence within the united front. In the 30s and 40s the comintern/pro-soviet policy was more pro-class collaboration with the national bourgeoisie than Mao was.


They've put MLs (revolutionary communists) in prison since Deng took over. It continues to this day under Xi so I wouldn't say it's that clear-cut even on that point.


I don't know how you can claim Mao stood for class independence given the alliance with the petite bourgeoisie, and let's be real, if it was class independence, it was the peasantry, not the proletariat.
The ousting of the likes of Wang Ming led to China's "national Marxism" which continues to this day with "socialism with Chinese characteristics". They should have simply joined the USSR.


>I don't know how you can claim Mao stood for class independence
I'm not but he stood for a position of more class independence during the united front relative to Wang. I think Mao was a class collaborationist, both with the peasantry and the national and petit bourgeoisie, but claiming that Wang Ming was the antithesis of that when he and the Soviets advocated the CPC do all that stuff even more makes no sense.
The Comintern/USSR/Stalin strongly opposed and objected to building any independent proletarian party or political program in china due to the alleged weakness and small size of the chinese proletariat and need for communists to instead fully support a bourgeois democratic revolution led by the KMT and their 'Red General' Chiang Kai-shek. Honestly Stalin with his committment to stageism would've sooner done a second shanghai massacre hand in hand with chiang than let a communist party that wanted to 'join the USSR' take over in China. This sort of advocacy of proletarian class independence and a chinese soviet republic is far closer to chinese left oppositionism a la Chen Duxiu than anything Wang Ming ever advocated.


Wang Ming was more loyal to the USSR which would've resulted in a better outcome. It's obscene to claim Stalin would've carried out a massacre like Shanghai.
Also associating the entire KMT with Chiang Kai Shek is wrong and it's what a lot of ultraleft Maoists who seem to have a grudge against Stalin ignore and the USSR still allowed only the CPC to take over Japanese areas in Manchuria. It was only after 1945 that it become clear the civil war would resume. Plenty of KMT members supported the revolution and still work today in the PRC (Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang).


>Wang Ming was more loyal to the USSR which would've resulted in a better outcome.
This may be true but does not change the fast that on real policies advocated it was Mao who favoured more class independence for the CPC and Wang Ming less, precisely due to his close allegiance to orders from the Comintern and that its silly to bash Mao for his (true) class collaborationism while praising Wang Ming who advocated even more of it.

As for the Stalin speech you linked I'm very glad to see it because I'm quite familiar with it and wouldn't mind discussing it at length.
Using it to argue that 'associating the entire KMT with Chiang is wrong' and that there were good pro-revolutionary elements of the KMT is particularly embarassing since in this very speech given during the very brief Nanjing-Wuhan speech Stalin mocks Trotsky for his arguing that the Wuhan government and Left KMT were 'a fiction' and maintains that the CPC should continue to support it and not form soviets or have an independent class policy, because the Left KMT in Wuhan will lead the national democratic revolution. And yet this supposed revolutionary and 'left' KMT government in Wuhan a mere two months later would also massacre and purge communists and meekly join Chiang in Nanjing, joint in their counter-revolutionary aspirations (not to mention that the Wang Jingwei clique which made up the KMT 'left' would go onto be the staunchest anti-communists and collaborators with Japan).
I've also always been tickled by Stalin (who is here advocating the menshevik theory of stageism) accusing trotsky and zinoviev of being 'semi-mensheviks' and to raucous applause claiming that he is glad they're criticising him and that he'd be worried if mensheviks like them were praising him instead, which i've always seen as a light dig at trotsky who in his report that Stalin is here responding to (and which had been blocked from being released to the conference) explicitly points out that Martynov (the erstwhile leader of the actual white emigre mensheviks) has been praising Stalin's and the comintern's policy in china as a good and menshevik one.

I also don't think the RCCK is particularly good evidence of how many great leftists there were in the KMT since it was effectively established to soak up KMT defectors of which there were many that Mao happily brought on as part of his new democracy agenda (which you have stated to dislike and distrust) and was not made up of or led by prominent KMT figures but by long-time renegades like Soong chin-ling and Feng Yuxiang who had been kept out of power by the KMT for decades, hardly an argument for the KMT actually being a revolutionary organisation the CPC should've been subordinated to.

Anyhow I would encourage you to read the report by Trotsky to the conference that Stalin was responding to
for a fuller picture of the dialogue therein, and if you're further interested the two subsequent speeches given by Trotsky then
and finally a, i think, rather prescient article by Trotsky from the beginning of april, before the Shanghai massacre that is rather revealing of what the Comintern position was on the KMT on the eve of the 'great counter-revolutionary betrayal' by Chiang (who of course was fully rehabiliatated and supported for a long time after Shanghai, the fiction of the Wuhan government dissipating and countless further massacres of literally hundreds of thousands of communists by the KMT) https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/04/china.htm


At the time of the speech the Wuhan government what Stalin said held true, the left KMT was still working with the CPC. They were split at the time.
Also I really don't see the problem with his 'stageism' here since China in 1927 was obviously nowhere near a proletarian revolution (the one that did come 20 years later was a peasant revolution). If they had done what Trotsky claimed would it have been any different? The basis for such a revolution wasn't there.
I may not like Mao's conception of revolution but obviously trying to win over left KMT members wasn't a bad thing.


Anyway my question to Trotskyists on the Chinese revolution question is how do you conceive a revolution would've been carried out? If I was being cynical and advocating Maoism, doesn't the fact that the 1949 revolution had a bourgeois element who worked in the PRC during the 1950s prove that some sort of 'stageism' is necessary? As a M-L my criticism of Mao is his role in underestimating the urban proletariat which have to be the real communist basis or the whole thing falls apart, but in such a backwards country as China the working class was so small that some sort of bloc had to be made, IMO.


>At the time of the speech the Wuhan government what Stalin said held true
I'm sorry but that's simply not the case, Trotsky was 100% correct in his assessmen that there was no meaningful KMT left or Wuhan revolutionary government and that it would be folly to cling to illusions about it, which it was, all the assumptions the Comintern based its policy in China around were proved false shortly thereafter. It was not the case that the Wuhan government and KMT Left was a revolutionary government in April and May, and then abruptly ceased to be in June and July, but rather that the Comintern, mislead by its leaders and the CPC mislead by the Comintern held onto an illusion and undertook grave political mistakes until the Wuhan government openly turned on them and joined arms with Chiang. A genuinely communist party and international would apply marxist materialist analysis of the forces in play and, as Trotsky did, predict accurately that Wuhan was not revolutionary, not a real government, but a fiction and a dangerous fiction at that. It does not do communism any favours for its supposed devotees to only ever look at the movement of history in snapshots. There was a correct line and an incorrect line, the incorrect line was followed with catastrophic results for the chinese workers.

As for the question of the chinese revolution more broadly, Trotsky had always consistently advocated a workers and peasants alliance in china as had triumphed in russia, and he does so in the articles I linked. A socialist revolution cannot include alliance with the national bourgeoisie, the role of which and of the petit bourgeois nationalists that swelled the ranks of CPC leadership, isolating Mao doomed China to the path it has followed so far.
I agree that Mao underestimated the urban proletariat, but must point out that in this he was only following the Comintern which had consistently underestimated the chinese proletariat and insisted that it was weak and small and could not ally with the peasantry (which it also claimed wasn't even ready for agrarian revolution!), the comintern and Soviet 'M-L' position on the chinese revolution was consistently behind Mao's due to their reassimilation of Menshevik stageism after Lenin's death and the failure of european revolution and 'third period' policies, I think due to the Soviet leadership increasingly coming to believe the revolution had been a premature mistake, but being unable to openly state such a thing and forced to glorify and venerate it, had to engage in a comintern policy of "do as i say and not as i do" to constrain the activities and revolutionism of the international communist movement to an absolute minimum.


If there was no KMT left then why did they work with the CPC to begin with? Their actions suggested before July 1927 a difference with the right wing KMT faction. It should be noted the Soviets in June 1927, with a telegram from Stalin himself, called for the formation of a revolutionary communist-worker army in Wuhan.

I don't see how the Comintern underestimated the Chinese proletariat given the 1949 revolution that happened was obviously not a proletarian one.

The Soviets still gave ample support to foreign revolutionaries, even into the 1980s, they didn't regard it as a mistake. If they truly hated the revolution then they would've packed up in 1924 when the German revolution failed but that didn't happen did it? They did the best they could in a shit situation. And when the time came in 1939 and 1945 they extended Soviet power and socialism more broadly in areas previously untapped. Some would say the Afghan Saur Revolution was premature but they did it anyway. Now, Afghanistan, before you claim otherwise, genuinely was a proletarian revolution on the Soviet model, and the Khrushchevites, albeit haphazardly, did send the army to defend it.



J U C H E and S O N G U N

Get dprkpilled immediately.


People talk about Russia in 1917 having a large peasant population and that's true but the proletariat was a rapidly growing class and very large in the big cities, they also had a much better party for organisation and leadership. The bourgeois revolution had already occured. China in the 1920s was far more backwards. That is where the Comintern was coming from and frankly it's not clear to me that adopting the Trotskyist program would've worked any better.

Someone also mentioned Chen Duxiu earlier but curiously he also worked with the Wuhan government and worked with the KMT since 1921.


Now let's talk about Li Li-san who did promote the role of the urban proletariat.


why is Leninhat more coherent all of a sudden?


>you're doing a [x]
holy fucking shit how can you people talk like this? this is the most infuriating, childish, redditish, retarded way to speak and i must sperg out whenever i see this


When have I not been? I've always been willing to debate with anyone who is honest and isn't someone who hurls slurs like a fascist imbecile. And I've long accepted that Marxist-Leninists have to work with Trotskyists, syndicalists, and so on, when necessary.


It's vulgar populism. Opportunists have always sought to falsify Communism.

Unique IPs: 19

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]