The "people" is also the political subject of the fourth political theory. Maybe it's because universalizing class struggle defeats itself.
The people lead the revolution yes, no single class does.
All experiments based strictly on class have failed. It is unscientiffic to persue that line.
Mediation and development amongst the people is necessary.
>Why is it when communists come into power their way of referring to the revolutionary group changes from the proletariat to the "people"?
Because they're usually referring to a coalition of classes and elements (peasants, national/petty bourgeoisie, etc) rather than the proletariat alone.
>>942438>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.
Because English is a retarded language where somehow there isn't a word with the implicit meaning of "not the elite, not the rulers", so your translations are wonky.
I need you Anglos to stop semantically hyper analysing TRANSLATIONS
on implicit semantic meaning through your own limited, monolingual monocultural lense.
No socialist leader who ever won was English speaking like this. The meaning of words like "people" change slightly over time. Stop acting like you, a loser on an image board, know more about the meaning and rhetoric of original than people running entire armies or governments for years. End of thread.
This board will really complain about anything
In the case of China, an alliance of classes carried out the revolution, not just the proletariat. It refers to the Chinese nation which in an alliance between peasants, the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie threw out the imperialists. In Russia there was also an alliance between workers and peasants.
It's just a synonym for the vast majority of people who make up the fabric of society. Monopoly capitalists and financial oligarchs live somewhat seperated from the people, in their opulent enclaves, rather disconnected from the people.
Secondly, it's also good populism. Much better than terms like "the proletariat" which sounds outdated to the average person.
because they also had to make sure the peasants were happy…. and in general the point of socialism is not just the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that for the goal of a society which is in control of itself rather than at the mercy of Capital. So it is about The People
Because Mao was a class collaborationist.
pretty all class struggle are class, are class mixed
he understood that the revolution had to be a broad one, but personally he was for the proletariat…. u lose all nuance when you start thinking in terms of what happens = what a leader believes. It's necessary to understand that you hold a particular viewpoint which you will have to push against others, while working with others for a shared goal.
Sage to all.
volk mysticism replacing class conch; good stuff
class conch is not something achievable solely by the proletariat, unless you define it in very broad terms
the problem isnt that it's trying to bring together all willing members of any classes to fight for a humane way of living, the problem is the "corpuscule" shit where individuals are only a piece of the whole, and the whole is exactly a sum of the parts, making each individual expendable if it makes the volk experience or whatever (whats the actual german word for this? is it even right to translate it? w/e) better as decided by a leader (or administration or class or race or w/e) who represents society, plus the idea that you can abolish class as an issue while keeping entrenched inequalities.
The argument for being being anal dicks about who can and cant be part of the real movement or benefit from it is firstly because it leads to an annoying purity spiral since in no case has there been a majority of people as pure proletarians, living communally in dorms, pounding steel or whatever together, like marx said was required (because of this all real movements have had to include peasants and be theorized by petite-bourgeois), so it becomes "well who has the worst job? Who has the least money" and you get anarchist dropouts and shit. Many honest working people have a house, car, and maybe even some tools they use for their business. This isn't the vast majority, but it's ridiculous to try to divide up working people based on a 19th century schema. The main contradiction right now is between the cartels running our society, aka the realass bourgeoisie, and everyone else. The second reason is that eliminating the commodity form, moving private property to state or informal ownership based on use, etc. can all come later, but they arent galvanizing issues which fire people up, theyre theoretical. First power has to be seized for direct betterment of the masses of people. Then within this, class struggle will continue. But seizing power from the big bourgeoisie crime syndicates is objectively class struggle too. So this is just the progression which naturally has to happen. After the class collaboration, sure eliminate private property and send the intellectuals and bourgeois to labor camps where they can learn how to be a real worker or something i dont care. If you have the support and ability.
being anal dicks*
>>943035>suggesting that other classes than the proletariat can be revolutionary is "volk mysticism"
Good luck with the pure prole revolution, when this has has never happened and the proletariat increasingly doesn't exist.
because they're putschists that want a dictatorship of the middle class, not communists
>>943349>dictatorship of the middle class
real shit??? is someone gonna finally come and install my AGA?
Where did your super special true pure socialism happen? Cambodia?
the khmer rouge were inspired by mao so this is a weird angle. although i guess you could just be doing nonsense rhetoric in style with "marxism-leninism" in general
No they weren't, they were allies with Mao but never called themselves maoists. None of the principles of MZT were present in KR praxis.
But where did you ultra pure special true socialism happen??
pee pee poo poo
your main theoretical work is literally a pocket-sized collection of quotes, stop pretending to be some complex system of thought or some shit
where did all of your fancy theory, that's totally true despite never being subject to experimentation and real world trial, ever become anything but theoretical?
Weren't Mao's books ghostwritten anyway? Wouldn't take his opinion so seriously when he never even fucking wrote anything.
the little red book was compiled by staff at some state publishing house around 65. they mostly take from speeches and pamphlets starting around the time mao took over the party in the 30s, which could have been ghostwritten by others
Kapital largely is a collection of descriptive stances on how the economy worked in the 19th century.
It has almost nothing on political praxis, how to carry out and maintain a revolution, and crucially it is the experiences, and lack hereof, of the 19th century.
To parade it around today like some holy gospel is not socialism, it's religion with red flags.
It's almost like the Quran in its fixation on toilet etiquette.
>>943379>being this illiterate
please stay away from "fancy theory" like anything with paragraphs in it, i fear your safety in case it gives you a stroke or something
Oh no, not making Marxism actionable for the masses, oh no the horror
yeah, Chen Boda. And when he got de facto purged and Mao had to start doing his own shit, he started saying the most retarded stuff like how nuclear war would be good for the proletariat
You will never be a GOSPLANer.
You are not the intellectual you think you are. You books have less value than you confer unto them. You will remain irrelevant. You will get to play with you power fantasies, but nothing more.
>>943385>i will never be a bureaucrat
source? Mao never said nuclear war would be good for the masses. Quote him saying that
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.
Where are the alternatives you can point to?
Yeah except then we're gonna have dudes who think capitalism with a red flag is socialism and the people's bourgeoisie is good, though of course I'm sure that's what you actually want
Funny, Mao himself admitted to Molotov he never read that shit, so I guess you're following the Maoist line on this one lmao
Answer the question: what evidence is there of an alternative?
>>943391>Billionaire bourgeoisie in the Politburo>dictatorship of the proletariat
how are Maoists so painfully revisionist to the point that terminology loses it's meaning
To quote Engels>"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world."
>>943411>if there are bourgeois individuals in the party, that means that the party is controlled by the bourgeoisie as a class
Anon would that not also mean whichever parties Engels himself joined or associated with were also evil revisionists controlled by the bourgeoisie?
The alternative is reading Marx and Lenin instead of whatever the fuck you consider to be theory
if your state power is dominated by the bourgeoisie, it's not a dictatorship of the proletariat. Billionaires aren't gonna defend the revolution - for the love of Christ read some Marx my guy
so doing nothing an sitting in a chair is the alternative?
Good luck with that.
I agree, but I don't think there is evidence that the CPC is controlled by the bourgeoisie as a class.
Fine you can point to bourgeois individuals, but that would be a very crude analysis and would condemn pretty much any movement.
>>943427>"Without Revolutionary theory, there can be no Revolutionary movement."
If you'd read Lenin you'd know the answer
Comrade, did I suggest litterally no reading or no theory?
No. I asked for evidence that an alternative is possible, and spamming "read berk" is not an adequate response to that.
>>943391>in the only way it has historically been proven to be possible
Are you retarded?
Are you able to provide an example of a viable alternative?
>>943438>Kapital largely is a collection of descriptive stances on how the economy worked in the 19th century.>It has almost nothing on political praxis, how to carry out and maintain a revolution, and crucially it is the experiences, and lack hereof, of the 19th century.
This post enough proves you have absolutely no clue what the fuck you are talking about and should not be taken seriously. How the fuck do you think you're gonna engage in a world historical shaping of society without any proper knowledge of how the world works first? Shitposting about Pee-Pee W's and buying a Huawei will not bring about socialism my guy>I asked for evidence that an alternative is possible
Sorry Margaret Thatcher, I forgot there is no alternative. I love red capitalism now
Ever hear of the USSR? The guys that bankrolled Chairman Retard?
The thing that collapsed and doesn't exist anymore? I said viable
.>>943444>This post enough proves you have absolutely no clue what the fuck you are talking about and should not be taken seriously
How so? Which thing that I said concretely do you disagree with?
>>943444>Sorry Margaret Thatcher, I forgot there is no alternative. I love red capitalism now
The fact that there's no evidence that's pragmatic is uncomfortable, sure, but it being inconvenient and not feeling good does not change the evidence.
>>943451>Kapital largely is a collection of descriptive stances
You didn't even crack the thing open.
>>943451>How so? Which thing that I said concretely do you disagree with?
Maybe the fact that you're too lazy to read Capital and made up the excuse that it no longer applies to anything, and you want others to do the same as you lmao
You're either gonna turn neolib or fascist by the end of the year if you don't read some theory asap, and no I don't mean Mao or Deng or Reagan or whoever you think is theory
Please quote the passages of norminative claims or pragmatic suggestions on how to politically organize from Capital then please
>>943454>"there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be."
If you'd read Marx you'd know the answer
Pragmatic is as empty a word as unelectable
Please quote me saying that it no longer applies to anything
Please quote the passages of norminative claims or suggestions on how to politically organize from Capital then please
>>943451>The USSR doesn't exist anymore so it was totally unviable
Absolute brainlet Dengoid tier shit, any wonder you're getting bullied. Maoist China doesn't exist anymore either retard.
How could a thing that failed be viable? Is that not a good way to determine what is viable and what is not?
If not, how do we test what is viable and what is not?
Okay, what would the viable alternative have been for Cuba, China and Vietnam? What should they have done?
If you'd read Marx you'd know that it is not a normative "ideology". It is a materialist philosophy. No one is questioning Mao's ability to win a civil war - but that has nothing to do with Marxism.
Yes that's why Marxism has to be APPLIED in order to be actionable.
That's what Lenin and Mao spent a lot of time doing. If you don't, Marxism is just a list of interesting facts. You need more than that to have a political movement. That's why Kapital alone is not enough.
>>943468>How could a thing that failed be viable?
This is Dengoid moron analysis, not materialist analysis, and not even a Maoist assessment.
Explain to me how you simultaneously believe Mao created a viable system unlike the Soviets, but China is also an imperialist capitalist state.
And also explain why this system is so viable it only succeeded with the Soviets backing it, and has never succeeded since the fall of the USSR and the "viable" PRC now refuses to fund a single revolution anywhere. Seems like a system that conspires with capitalists to encircle what helped create it and is then unable to reproduce itself outside of its borders isn't viable for any purpose we need it, and it's actually a net harm.
>>943491>Explain to me how you simultaneously believe Mao created a viable system unlike the Soviets, but China is also an imperialist capitalist state.
Well here's the thing anon, he doesn't even think Dengoid China is capitalist
So why does he have a Sendero flag?
>>943491>Mao created a viable system unlike the Soviets
Mao alone did not, but China was able to adapt and survive into the modern era. The soviet union did not. The experiences of the 20th century are as such that the path PRC took was more viable than the one the USSR took.
>China is also an imperialist capitalist state.
I disagree with this assessment. Socialism in not a checklist of properties, but a relation of power and development. Socialist *society* may be, but socialism is not.
>And also explain why this system is so viable it only succeeded with the Soviets backing it,
I believe that was a mutualist system, and Maoism is always suposed to take into the concrete national realities. Marxism will never look exactly the same when applied to different places, if those places have different conditions.
Where have I heard this argument before? Or right.>Reagan alone did not, but the United States was able to adapt and survive into the modern era. The soviet union did not. The experiences of the 20th century are as such that the path USA took was more viable than the one the USSR took.
>>943484<putting Lenin and Mao on the same level
Lenin spent god knows how many decades reading, writing and analyzing before he finally "applied" Marxism. Theory without practice is worthless, yes, and practice without theory is even more so.>That's why Kapital alone is not enough.
You didn't even read that shit. You're just making excuses for yourself lmao>>943503
Why do you dislike the comparison? Because you're uncomfortable with learning from non-whites?
Even if you are not imprrssed with how much he read we can still learn immensely from his experimentation, especially the parts that went bad.
>You didn't even read that shit. You're just making excuses for yourself lmao
I have. I've not stated an incorrect thing about Kapital ITT.>>943520
I believe they benefitted equally from each other, is my point. I don't think it's a prudent assement to state that PRC only existed due to USSR support.
How can Maoism be the superior system when it required bootstrapping from the Soviets, but the supposed #1 Maoist power in the world, China, doesn't actually bootstrap any other Maoists?
If Maoism is only viable with the USSR in existence, it is no longer viable.
>>943523>Because you're uncomfortable with learning from non-whites?
Because Mao was a theorylet and a retard. A military genius, yes, but absolutely not an example of Marxism>we can still learn immensely from his experimentation, especially the parts that went bad.
Finally we're on the same page about something>I have. I've not stated an incorrect thing about Kapital ITT.
Summarize the first chapter for me
Maoism still exists. Maoism is happening in China and many places in the 3rd world.
Of course any revolution benefits from outside help, but if a system is not able to withstand capitalist siege, we need to adapt so that we can.
PRC could have followed USSR into non-existence. We should be happy that they didn't.
The first chapter is largely about what values are, which kind there are. IIRC it's the chapter with exchange value and SNLT being explained by linen.
>>943523>Why do you dislike the comparison?
I don't even like lelninist theory, but even I can tell the difference between an actual materialist theorist and a jackass who writes in memes.>especially the parts that went bad.
You mean absolutley all of it after the revolution?
>>943530>You mean absolutley all of it after the revolution?
Had that been true, PRC wouldn't exist today.
tldr PRC good because PRC exist
Or maybe bushels of wheat?
Existing > not existing
Materialist genius at work
>>943526>PRC could have followed USSR into non-existence. We should be happy that they didn't.
I don't know about that. One less capitalist superpower sounds like a good thing.>>943527
Hey, he actually has read the first chapter. Credit where it is due. Of course, Capital has nothing to do with the point thta he is making. It would be more to the point to note what Marx did in the First International regarding "socialist" parties full of bourgeois wreckers.
capitalist power not existing > capitalist power existing
The US is a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The state and the established political forces within the US could not resist the logic of capitalism even if they wanted to.
PRC can and does, with the former being the most important part.
>>943547>The US is a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
So is China.
The non-existence of power and politics is what capitalism is, as it has turned out.
PRC exists as a political force that can resist capitalism, even if it has to allow capitalism to some degree to exist within it.
Socialism is that poltical force, it is the resistance to and sublation of capitalism.
USSR had no bourgeoisie, but it collapsed, disproving forever that a state can exist without the bourgeoisie. Thank you for convincing me to become an anti-communist, anon.
>>943523> Because you're uncomfortable with learning from non-whites?
lmaooo, pulling the Sinophobia card already? Guess we've also got to learn from Chiang Kai-Shek too, or are you afraid of learning from POC revolutionaries??
I think the evidence to support that is scare, and PRC is politically able to perform many feats that are impossible for capitalist societies to carry out.
>>943547>The US is a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
Oh yeah? Have you checked who wrote the Constitution?
Oh cool, you're applying Maoism by following his example of word-salad pseudophilosophical bullshit
>>943553>USSR had no bourgeoisie, but it collapsed, disproving forever that a state can exist without the bourgeoisie
Disproving forever that a state can exist like that, under the conditions relevant to the USSR and withstand imperialist capitalist siege.
Therefore if we stand in the same situation it is unwise to make the same decisions.
Yes it's unwise to attempt to remove the bourgeoisie, glad we agree.
I apologize for being unclear.
I am saying that politics that can resist and end capitalism is socialism. Whatsoever can do that, that is socialism.
please quote me saying that. I don't think a reasonable reading of my arguements could lead to that conclusion.
The only successful systems include the bourgeoisie>>943388>gee thanks Mao for founding a state that now has a "people's bourgeoisie" and billionaires on the Politburo>>943391>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!
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?
>>943576>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.
>>943582>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.
>>943594>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
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.
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)>>943544>social justice before revolution
The parallels with today are scary. Fuck.>Orwell
Rehabilitate this man immediately. He grows more based with each passing day.>>943559>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.
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.
>>943430>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.
>>943583>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?
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.
>>968972>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.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/05/24.htm
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).
>>969198>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 https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/pcr/01.htm
for a fuller picture of the dialogue therein, and if you're further interested the two subsequent speeches given by Trotsky thenhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/pcr/02.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/pcr/03.htm
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.
>>969536>>969556>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?
>>942955>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: 33