[ 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."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

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


File: 1652551179137.jpg (146.45 KB, 1440x1080, 1650332700299.jpg)

 No.969579

Genuine question. How do Maoists justify Mao splitting the Communist bloc and later siding with the United States of America at the height of the cold war?
What are some older written analyses on the whole shit?

 No.969588

basically Khrushcev in his retardation tried to strongarm Chinese into being little doggies to Moscow like the rest AES, so Mao bitchslapped them bitches

 No.969592

>>969588
But did he really have to side with the US? Not even Tito did that.

 No.969594

File: 1652551542423.png (6.67 MB, 3550x1768, caunz6t4prf61.png)

>>969579
it's easy to support liberals when you have no stake in the proletarian movement and are also retarded

 No.969595

>>969592
wasn't is Deng tho?

 No.969664

>>969579
The official explanation was that the Khrushchov Revisionist Renegade Clique had actually restored capitalism in the USSR. Since the USSR was just as capitalist as the USSR, in Mao's tortured reasoning it made no difference which power to ally with.

The official theoretical justification for this is the "theory of the three worlds", and reading it you really do think Mao was going senile. It's like the cold war era worlds dichotomy except modified - now the first world are the two imperialist powers, the USA and the USSR, the second world are their developed satellites, IE the UK and Poland, and the third world are the poorer nonaligned states as before.

 No.969669

>>969664
>The official theoretical justification for this is the "theory of the three worlds", and reading it you really do think Mao was going senile.
One of the most depressing things about studying socialism is the realization that a lot of "theory" produced by successful revolutions is clearly just post-hoc justification for policies that have already been decided upon.

 No.969671

>>969664
*the USSR was just as capitalist as the USA, missed that
>>969585
unhinged

 No.969673

>>969594
This is nauseating.
But I do insist on a source.

 No.969674

Only the albanians were right in that dispute but the USSR was still socialist.

 No.969675

>>969674
Sorry m8 but I can't take Enver "Cuba is trying to colonize Angola" Hoxha seriously.

 No.969677

>>969675
So who do you "take seriously"? Or are you intentionally making me interpret this as you siding with Khrushchev during this era?

 No.969684

OP, keep in mind that so far none have addressed your question in the OP because nobody here reads the source material before voicing their worthless hot takes. In this, most leftypollers are no worse than the people they derogatorily call "Twittoids".
<mfw waiting for the Maoist quotes and source that won't show up: 💀

 No.969689

>>969674
>albanians
Hoxhaists tend to be cringe on China and AES. It just comes across as dogmatism. Deng wasn’t the only prominent CPC member who supported the reforms. From what I have read of Deng's own words and seen of Deng's own actions, (and for that matter Xi as well) he comes across as a principled Marxist (and ofc there's always more for me to learn/read but you know).

QUESTION TO THE WESTOIDS:
If deng wasn't a marxist, why did he join the CPC before it was ever remotely relevant, and fight in the Civil War for them when it would have been a thousand times easier just to join the KMT? And also if Deng was a “capitalist roader” or KMT spy, why did he not try to coup Mao when he practically controlled the army?

China isn't even imperialist, just look at how much China is impacted by unequal exchange. Minqi Li wrote an article for Monthly Review about it: https://monthlyreview.org/2021/07/01/china-imperialism-or-semi-periphery/

Also reminder to everyone that..
1) Mao never ever called Deng a 'capitalist roader'.
2) 'capitalist roader' doesnt mean someone who wants or is trying to bring back Capitalism, but rather means someone who supports Soviet Economic Planning methods (which Mao thought had become like Fascism) I.e. Liu Shaoqi & Peng Dehuai.

>‘Presently Soviet Union is in the hands of the dictatorship of the Big bourgeois class, German fascist kind of dictatorship, Hitler kind of dictatorship and other such bourgeois class dictatorship, They are worse than De Gaulle'.

-Mao Zedong, 1964.
(Some Interjections At A Briefing The State Planning Commission Leading Group)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_18.htm

Also an extra point I want to make is that what gets called 'Dengism' (The Four Modernizations) was actually Zhou Enlai's policy.
>At the latest stages of the Cultural Revolution, in 1975, Zhou Enlai pushed for the "Four Modernizations" in order to undo the damage caused by the Mao's policies. in one of his last public acts, Zhou Enlai made another pitch for the Four Modernizations at the 4th National People's Congress.One core tenet was the rejection of the previously long-held concept known as the "iron rice bowl".

 No.969690

>>969677
>Or are you intentionally making me interpret this as you siding with Khrushchev during this era?
I am siding with Khruschev in this era. Plenty of Mao's criticism was valid sure, but initiating a formal break with the USSR had catastrophic consequences, and pivoting towards the US in the 70s completely destroys the credibility of his accusations that the Soviets weren't taking a harsh enough stance against the West. A lot of criticism of Khrushev is valid, but ultimately the USSR was far more than just him. It was still a socialist society, it was still the primary benefactor of revolutionaries around the world, and it was still the leading bulwark against imperialism. Ultimately it was the best hope for the socialist revolution to succeed, and we are immeasurably worse off for its demise.

 No.969695

>>969579
>noo you must ally yourself with a revisionist capitalist roader state with a stagnant khrushchevite economy instead of working with another capitalist state with an actual growing economy
I'm glad China fucked over Khrushchev, otherwise I have a feeling the tiananmen square colour revolution attempt would have succeeded

 No.969696

>another mao bad thread

 No.969698

>>969690
>I am siding with Khruschev
I really fucking hate westoids

 No.969700

>>969689
Mao =/= Maoism
Mao Zedong was a Marxist-Leninist. You may think he was a sub-par one theoretically, but that is what he operated by.
Maoism consists the people wars across present-day Asia and Latin America and aren't Mao cults, but was founded on partial critique of Mao's mistakes.

 No.969703

>>969700
Explain quickly how this is relevant to what I said

 No.969707

File: 1652556021567.jpg (25.52 KB, 434x538, FB_IMG_1651601709383.jpg)


 No.969709

>>969696
Bashing on Mao is good from time to time

 No.969714

>>969700
You're not responding to the OP but rather engaging in the ever-recurring leftypol behavior of never getting familiar with Maoist theory.

 No.969717

>>969715
So actively aiding imperialism by providing it with weapons is okay, but criticizing such policies is glow?

 No.969720

>>969707
>>969717
Memes were a mistake
That shit is no laughing matter

 No.969721

>>969689
> 'capitalist roader' doesnt mean someone who wants or is trying to bring back Capitalism, but rather means someone who supports Soviet Economic Planning methods (which Mao thought had become like Fascism) I.e. Liu Shaoqi & Peng Dehuai.
<capitalism is when you do central planning and the more central planning you do the more capitalist it is
wut

 No.969727

>>969695
>i'm glad [random event] because otherwise [random other event]!
take your meds

 No.969728

File: 1652556448394.mp4 (920.98 KB, 320x240, my son.mp4)

>>969715
Saboflag may be many things, but not a glowie

 No.969730


 No.969732

>>969730
Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead
This is your source?

 No.969734

>>969730
>I like rightists
Uh, Mao bros?????

 No.969735

>>969732
i looked us "kissinger mao transcript" if you don't like that link then go look it up yourself
>>969734
it really does wonders when you actually read the bullshit these liberals spouted

 No.969737

File: 1652556850239.png (257.18 KB, 474x355, zorak.png)

Chinese communists forming the CCP instead of submitting themselves to the CPSU shows that Leninists will break democratic centralism when it suits them. can't have any Sino-Soviet split if there's one and only one party

 No.969740

>>969737
Ok Bordiga

 No.969743

>>969740
that doesn't even make sense, both of you are retarded

 No.969752

>>969689
Pointing out that the likes of Deng wished for China to become a superpower even if it meant jettisoning socialism isn't dogmatism.

 No.969753

>>969743
Calm down autist. Bordiga thought the USSR should be ruled by the Third International. His post reminded me of that.

 No.969755

>>969734
To be fair to Maoists I'm pretty sure that a lot of them openly reject Mao's later thinking and admit he went off the deep end.

 No.969761

>>969753
> Bordiga thought the USSR should be ruled by the Third International
ok so you are retarded

 No.969762

File: 1652557766717.jpg (17.27 KB, 217x225, 1601903287959.jpg)

>>969753
>Bordiga thought the USSR should be ruled by the Third International

 No.969764

convinced that the same people telling you to read the heccin bookerino are self-taught entirely via leftypol memes

 No.969766

>>969761
Supposedly it's something he said to Stalin. He was wrong obviously, the Communist International would've only been able to rule a worldwide federation of socialist states as was the goal. The task of the Communist Party of Italy was a proletarian revolution in Italy.

 No.969767

>>969766
> Supposedly it's something he said to Stalin
show it

 No.969776

>>969753
>Bordiga thought the USSR should be ruled by the Third International
sounds based. national Leninism is not viable, as demonstrated by the Sino-Soviet split

 No.969784

I was reading transcripts of Zhou Enlai's meetings with foreign officials (from other socialist countries and capitalist countries) and one thing that came up several times was excessive Soviet military spending at the neglect of the civilian economy which Zhou thought was insane and dangerous.

 No.969785

>>969784
I think this related to "social imperialism" as well since the argument would go that the USSR spent so much on its military to maintain a hegemony.

 No.969843

>>969721
Are you just ignorant of the sorry state of affairs in the soviet union post Stalin? Or are you intentionally disingenuous?

 No.969881

>>969843
>Are you just ignorant of the sorry state of affairs in the soviet union post Stalin?
You mean the "sorry state of affairs" where they reached the height of their power and prosperity, and reached unprecedented heights in human social and technical development?

 No.970297


 No.970335

File: 1652573260507-0.jpg (8.89 KB, 260x358, Glowzalo.jpg)


 No.970689

>>970335
Jezus christ Gonzalo was a retard

 No.971162

File: 1652601876096.jpg (183.47 KB, 612x694, hoxha3.jpg)

>>970335
Seen that before and got a good laugh about Gonzalo being incredulous that the PPSh correctly identified US imperialism as the main enemy.

 No.971176

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch4.htm

>>969737
>can't have any Sino-Soviet split if there's one and only one party
The splits in once strong and unified parties suggests otherwise. The split was caused by revisionism.

 No.971188

>>971176
>The splits in once strong and unified parties suggests otherwise
this just suggests even more problems with Leninism. there must be a single unitary system which by its very structure is unable to split

 No.971199

File: 1652603167268.jpg (40.07 KB, 1024x507, 766765.jpg)


 No.971200

>>971188
There's no unsplittable political formations, whether parties or states, the only way to victory is a persistent struggle. Since we are dealing with men and class interests there will always be divisions to a degree and thus the potential for splits. Leninism represented a much tighter strengthening over the existing Marxist/socialist movements.

 No.971237

>>971200
>Leninism represented a much tighter strengthening over the existing Marxist/socialist movements
not enough, clearly
we know that since socialism is a higher mode of production, whichever form is viable will therefore "eat" capitalism. and it must do so as a single system, just as capitalism is a single system. a system not governed by any single person but an emergent gestalt

 No.979195

>>971237
Capitalism is governed by men not a 'gestalt'. And they have splits, divisions, just as communists do,

 No.979205

>>979195
>not knowing about emergent systems

 No.982523

>>979205
That doesn't relate to capitalism. Capitalism is defined by a division of mankind into proletarians and bourgeoisie, market economy, production for profit, private ownership. It's not god or the invisible hand or animal spirits, but humans.

 No.982524

>>969669
I've had this post in my head for the past week and I keep laughing about it, depressingly accurate. You hate to see it but it does sort o prove Engels right about action being worth more than theory.

 No.983785

>>979195
>Capitalism is governed by men not a 'gestalt'.
<what is a law of value


Unique IPs: 15

[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 ]