| Theory |
|
The Anachronism of "Western" Maoism November 20, 2005 by RedStar2000 |
Here is a discussion of one of those trivial "accidents" of history that "crop up" from time to time...the phenomenon of "western" Maoism.
It really "should not exist" at all...there's no material base for it in the "west" and hasn't been since the 18th century.
It was really never more than an "exotic fad" among a very small minority of western young people...who were sincerely searching for a revolutionary alternative to bourgeois liberalism and social democracy.
In fact, it's almost completely disappeared now...only in a few "western" countries do Maoist groups still exist and publicly function.
One of those countries is, of course, the United States...which has always furnished a benign environment for all kinds of weird cults and fads.
So, from time to time, it is necessary to "struggle with them" at some length.
We wouldn't want ordinary people to get the idea, after all, that Maoism is "the" revolutionary alternative to capitalism.
What a disaster that would be!
========================================
We sure seem to be getting a ton of Mao's blather being posted here lately.
What did we do to deserve that?
This one, at least, is easily disposed of.
quote (Mao):
We have the Marxist-Leninist weapon of criticism and self-criticism.
Neither Marx nor Lenin ever heard of such a thing and probably would have doubled over in laughter had anyone suggested it.
I don't remember now if it was an idea borrowed from Stalin or if it was one of "Mao's historic contributions" to "revolutionary" theory.
In any event, it's horseshit!
The Maoist ritual of self-criticism works like this...
Someone gets up in front of a group and says "I made some mistakes as follows..." and "I made those mistakes because I didn't follow the great leader's ideas properly..." and concludes with "I promise to pay closer and more serious attention to the great leader's ideas so I won't make those mistakes in the future".
This was also the practice of early Christianity, of course. The identified sinner would have to stand up in front of the congregation and publicly confess his sins and formally promise to "sin no more". Private confessions (inside a little booth) were a later innovation.
Indeed, if Mao didn't get this idea from Stalin, then he might well have borrowed it from the practices of Christian congregations in China itself. I don't know that this was true, but I think it's a plausible hypothesis. Mao was an inquisitive youth and might well have been curious about Christian practices in early 20th century China.
But, as I've noted, the whole idea is as foreign to both Marx and Lenin as Christianity itself. Marx and even Lenin were both harshly critical of capitalist society and of those whom they thought were collaborating with it while trying to pass themselves off as "revolutionary". But neither of them ever expected people to get up in public and "confess their sins" and "promise repentance".
It would have struck them as medieval.
I think it is a good illustration of how backward Maoism really is...that is, how much it "shows the marks" of the pre-capitalist society in which it emerged.
In a modern capitalist (much less post-capitalist) society, it would be merely laughable...like a skit on Saturday Night Live. *laughs*
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 9, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
Another thread about Bob Avakian and the RCP.
*yawns*
For readers outside the U.S., you should be aware that upwards of 99% of all Americans have never heard of Bob Avakian or the RCP.
Indeed, probably upwards of 96% or more were and remain completely unaware of the recent "world can't wait" demonstrations.
The probability that Bob Avakian will "lead a revolutionary government" in the United States is around 0.0000000000000001 or less!
So it's not something to "get upset over". Historically speaking, the most probable political trajectory for the RCP is into some version of "left" reformism...that's where Leninist parties "go to die".
There is a marginal possibility that the RCP could, instead, move in a leftwards direction after the retirement of the "Avakian generation".
It's possible that the young generation of activists in the RCP will come, through experience, to find theological Maoism stale and irrelevant to building a revolutionary movement in an advanced capitalist country.
I wouldn't "bet the rent money" on it...but sometimes history comes up with little "surprises" for us and not all of them are unpleasant.
As to "how to struggle against Leninism" in existing movements, I have a few suggestions to offer based on personal experience.
1. The "personality cult" around Avakian is the RCP's greatest political weakness at this time. Do not hesitate to embarrass them about this in every situation...especially when the masses themselves are watching. Draw out the obvious inference...would you want to live in a country run by this guy?
Avakian clearly wants to be "America's Mao"...so you should freely point that out whenever the subject comes up.
2. The RCP is a Maoist party. For more politically sophisticated audiences, a brief "history lesson" may be in order. Maoism is a peasant ideology that arose in China at a time when it was mostly feudal in class composition. It "bears the marks" of its own history...including, of course, leader worship.
Pound away on the fact that the RCP wants to replace the despotism of capital with the despotism of the RCP!
The RCP wants to run the show and thinks, in fact, that they are the only ones who are "fit to rule" a post-capitalist society.
3. Don't allow them to "wave the image of communism" in front of people without contradiction. What the RCP really wants is socialism...a form of class society in which the despotism of capital is replaced with the despotism of the party, especially the despotism of the Great Leader.
Communist society is attractive to many people...whereas the features of Russian and Chinese socialism are both widely-known and generally unattractive. The "best version" of the RCP's socialism would still be a lot like things are now. Communism would be something that would happen "in the distant future"...like "the return of Jesus".
So it's necessary to confront the RCP in public about what they really plan to do.
4. Exercise caution when joining a group that is already run by the RCP (or any other Leninist party). The party leadership will regard you as a foot-soldier whose only responsibility is to carry out your orders in a disciplined fashion.
By all means attend an RCP demonstration that, in your opinion, might be useful. But...make your own sign!
5. It's probably pointless to challenge the RCP's "anti-capitalist credentials" -- the RCPers that you are likely to run into are young and sincerely anti-capitalist.
There are occasional "hints" in Avakian's writings that he is, well, "skeptical" of the Marxist concept of proletarian revolution and would prefer a Maoist "revolution of the whole people" or something like that.
But most of the young members of the RCP are probably completely ignorant of such subtleties...and wouldn't understand what you were getting at.
6. Remember that the young Maoists are not "class enemies" or anything like that. You may freely dispute their more fantastic claims without descending into verbal abuse.
And be sure to send them to the redstar2000papers.com -- it can't do any harm and it may do some of them much good.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 9, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I would like to know how it is exactly that you come to the conclusion that Maoism is stale and irrelevant when there are Maoist revolutions currently occurring in Nepal, India, Turkey, and the Philippines, and well preparations for the launching of People's War in Iran and Afghanistan.
To begin with, you exaggerate. Only in Nepal is there a significant "protracted people's war" taking place. It's true that there are still guerrillas in the field in the Philippines...but they only appear to be sporadically active at this time.
The alliance of Maoist parties in India is turning towards bourgeois electoral politics...or so I've read. Even the Nepalese Maoists suggest that they will replace the monarchy with a bourgeois "democracy".
I'll admit that the situation in Turkey is, well, unclear to me at this time. It seems "far-fetched" to me that Maoism would have a whole lot of appeal to the Turkish proletariat...though I suppose it's possible. I would be inclined towards the view that a more traditional Leninist party (like Lenin's Bolsheviks) would be more attractive to Turkish workers than "exotic" Maoism. Turkish workers now resemble, in my opinion, Russian workers of 1917 -- half modernized and half pre-modern.
Your suggestion that the Maoists are preparing to lead a protracted people's war in Iran or Afghanistan is not entirely implausible...but remains, after all, just a claim until it materializes.
And I must add, of course, that your implication that these revolutions, even if or when they do materialize, will be "communist" is entirely a-historic.
Instead (as in China itself), those revolutions are "echoes of 1789"...their purpose is to smash all the obstacles that stand in the way of the emergence of modern capitalism in those countries. The scraps and tatters of "Marxist" rhetoric are simply used to attract the support of the emerging proletariat.
The material conditions for communism simply do not exist anywhere in the so-called "third world"...indeed, they may not exist yet even in the advanced capitalist countries -- at least to the required level of development.
Thus Maoist rhetoric about communism can simply be dismissed as hype...they don't really want communism and even if they did, they couldn't do it.
But regardless of the complexities and uncertainties regarding the political possibilities in those far-away lands, you did not notice that I was being specific.
I said that Maoism is stale and irrelevant with regard to proletarian revolution in advanced capitalist countries.
Mao has nothing of interest to say to an advanced proletariat. The only peasantry we have left in the United States are "kulaks"...and even they are being "liquidated as a class" by the large agricultural corporations. In the decades to come, there will only be an agricultural proletariat in the U.S....something that Mao probably couldn't even imagine.
Mao's idea of "land to those who work it" would be a reactionary demand in the context of an advanced capitalist country...a plea to turn workers back into independent small capitalists. Only in the context of a semi-feudal society is Mao's demand progressive -- it's part of the fundamental process of smashing the old landed aristocracy that stands in the way of the emergence of modern capitalism.
You see, that's what Maoism really is...a way of struggling to break the chains of old landed aristocracies as well as foreign imperialism and its domestic lackeys.
It's the "modern version" of 1789. Our "1789" (in the U.S.) took place in 1860-65. Maoism is as relevant to us as a "new and improved" kerosene lamp.
quote:
Mao made great progress in the areas of criticism and self-criticism, analysis of the bourgeoisie within the communist party, on the topic of national liberation, on dialectical materialism, and countless other areas.
That's like saying that Martin Luther "made great progress" in "understanding" the "relationship" between "Man and God".
It's just metaphysical babble.
What Mao was "good at" was organizing peasants to effectively rebel against their masters.
And that's no "small" accomplishment. The "Communist" Party of China really did smash centuries of feudal stagnation as well as the imperialist "conquerers" of China.
They deserve credit for that!
Otherwise...???
quote:
Not only this, but Red Star 2000 is in complete denial that this is a WORLD situation, and that the struggles of peasantry in the third world DIRECTLY effect the revolutions in the first world. Nothing could be more relevant to the world revolution and the fight for communism, a stateless and classless society, than Maoism.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I've discussed many times the absolute necessity for American revolutionaries to support anti-imperialist insurrections in the "third world"...we cannot hope to make any progress at home until the American Empire is drastically weakened by being deprived of its conquests.
You'll recall the remarks made by Marx himself on this subject. Something along the lines of "the English proletariat cannot hope to free itself until Ireland is no longer in chains".
I think, in fact, that the main obstacle to proletarian class consciousness in the United States over the last 50 years has been the success of empire.
If it turns out that the Maoists are the most capable political formation in the "third world" for organizing the defeat of U.S. imperialism -- then that's fine with me.
And it's quite possible that such will be the case...the Maoists will "do 1789" better than anyone else.
The problem is the small number of remaining Maoists in the "west" who think that "China's 1789" has some relevance to modern proletarian revolution.
That just makes no sense at all.
quote:
The term personality cult refers to dogmatic and religious worship of a leader.
True...but explicitly religious terminology is not required. For example, consider the official Maoist slogan: Mao is the red sun in our hearts.
That's not explicitly "religious"...but the "odor" is there.
Mao himself explicitly distinguished between "good" personality cults and "bad" personality cults. He said that a personality cult around a leader was "good" provided that the leader puts forward a "correct political line".
And the RCP's Bob Avakian agrees with this.
quote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with popularizing various different revolutionary leaders like Lenin, Mao, Fred Hampton, Bob Avakian, Prachanda, etc.
I disagree.
"Good" Personality Cults?
There's everything wrong about "publicizing various revolutionary leaders".
Once More Against "Leadership"
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 9, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Mao's contributions on topics such as dissent in socialism, unleashing the masses, criticism and self-criticism, etc. are extremely relevant to the proletariat in even advanced imperialist countries.
After the Shanghai "January storm" (1966), there was no significant public dissent in Mao's China.
It's true that prior to that great upheaval that threatened to establish a "Shanghai Commune" (modeled on the celebrated Paris Commune), Mao did publicly call upon the masses to "bombard the headquarters".
He recognized the emerging modern bourgeoisie that was, of course, inside the party and even inside the party leadership.
In other words, he saw with his own eyes what was really happening: 1789!
And he didn't like it. And he tried to stop it.
But when the most radical elements of the party and the masses of working people in the most developed and politically advanced city in China responded to Mao's call by moving in the direction of at least a quasi-proletarian revolution...well, Mao shit himself in terror -- along with all of the "leading sections" of the party.
The masses were threatening to "get out of hand" and "take over everything themselves."
Horrors!
So Mao, like all despots ("enlightened" and otherwise), called in the army.
After Shanghai, there were "mass committees" set up -- each with direct participation (oversight) by trusted army officers to make sure that the masses did not "get out of hand again".
Such was Mao's track record in "unleashing the masses".
As to the ritual of "criticism and self-criticism", I have already noted its historically primitive character here...
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291969382
quote:
The Chinese and Nepalese revolutions have absolutely nothing in common with the bourgeois revolution in France.
You wish!
In fact, the only real difference between France in 1789, China in 1949, and Nepal right at this very moment is terminological.
The use of "radical language" by the proto-bourgeoisie was known "back then" and it still is not at all uncommon.
Radical language is useful in mobilizing the masses to overthrow the old feudal regime...but that does not mean that it's true.
And one must also remember what Leninists always hate to be reminded of: material reality prevails!
To put it bluntly and briefly: if you attempt to create "a socialist state" in a primitive country then your "socialism" will be primitive...and, in fact, will become capitalism.
Suggesting otherwise simply illustrates that Maoism in the "west" has completely abandoned Marx's historical materialism.
As you, in so many words, admit...
quote:
You must realize that the world situation has GREATLY changed since Marx's time, and revolutions are no longer going to begin in the advanced capitalist countries like Marx said.
Ok...fair enough.
But it would help matters a lot if you and all Maoists would stop calling yourselves Marxists!
You have no right to appropriate the name and reputation of that great revolutionary thinker to cover up the ugly corpus of your own shabby metaphysics.
quote:
Marx never lived to see the emergence of the imperialist system.
What horseshit! You think there was no such thing as imperialism until after Marx died?
What do you imagine the Haitian slaves were rebelling against at the beginning of the 19th century? Did the French conquer Algeria in 1840 because they were having "a bad hair day"? Did the British wage a cruel and bloody war against the rebellious peasants of India in the 1850s "to avoid dishonour"? Were the "opium wars" fought to defend "the right to get high"?
The 19th century was characterized by imperialist wars and anti-imperialist struggles...both plainly visible to Marx and Engels.
To be sure, I'm well aware of the "idea" that emerged after the beginning of the last century...that "imperialism" was a "new stage" or even the "highest stage" or "last stage" of capitalism. This was not "just Lenin's idea" -- there were books promoting this thesis written by a number of prominent social democratic theorists prior to World War I.
I do not, in fact, find this hypothesis at all compelling. It seems to me that imperialism has been part of capitalism from the beginning...the search for cheap resources (including human labor power) and profitable markets is built in to the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism.
No "special analysis" is "required" to explain imperial wars of conquest or inter-imperialist wars between rival capitalist despotisms.
The reason that Lenin pounded so hard on this idea of "imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" is that he needed a rationale to make the prospects for socialism in Russia look plausible.
And it "sounded Marxist"...even though it wasn't. There was never any prospect for "socialism" in Russia back then.
The proof was in the practice...just four short years after Lenin's coup, he himself was telling his own party that state capitalism would be a great advance over "the present situation". And he was also begging for foreign capitalists to invest money in Russia.
You see, it was 1789 there!!!
quote:
The imperialist system has created a new world situation in which the masses of the third world have become what Maoists called the third world proletariat. The simple fact that they live in oppressed countries gives open opportunity for socialist revolution in the third world.
A perfect example of Maoist anti-Marxist "shabby metaphysics".
People over there are to be told that what they are doing is "making socialist revolution"...even though what will actually happen is 1789!
It's quite likely that third world Maoists believe their own rhetoric...sincerely think that "socialism" is what they're going to "build".
But what's your excuse (or that of any "western" Maoist) for swallowing that rubbish?
May I just assume that all of you folks are simply totally ignorant of the basic fundamentals of Marxist historical materialism?
quote:
Maoists don't want communism?!
They don't think communism is possible...except in some far distant future era -- after many eons of "guidance" by the Leninist party and its "Great Leader".
What "western" Maoists actually want right now is a society that would fundamentally resemble what we have now...except that the capitalist class would no longer possess either wealth or power. Instead, the power would be in the hands of the Party and the wealth in the hands of a state apparatus created and run by the Party.
quote:
For example, Maoists in various different imperialist countries advocate insurrection (as in the USA), while in countries like Italy and Canada, Maoists advocate the strategy of insurrectionary people's war, which is a combination of both revolutionary strategies.
No they don't. No one, not even a Maoist, is so idiotic as to advocate insurrection of any kind in any developed capitalist country at this time.
We shall, in time, learn what "western" Maoists really think...when a potentially revolutionary situation actually emerges in one or several imperialist countries.
Assuming, of course, that there will still be any Maoists left in the "west".
I rather doubt that there will be. Their numbers have steeply declined over the last three decades and their various "vanguard parties" have, one by one, collapsed.
Sure, the RCP is still active -- even though it is much smaller than it used to be.
But we'll see when the time comes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 11, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote (A World to Win News Service):
The basic problem with this revolt, as far as the powers that be are concerned, is not who is behind it, but that no one is. No one started it, so there is no one to call it off.
This Maoist news service inadvertently reveals a truth they would rather you not stop and consider.
Yet another significant popular rebellion in the complete absence of a vanguard party to "lead it".
I rather expect, in fact, that all of the Leninist parties in France are knocking each other over in their rush to "condemn the violence" of French youth.
Anyone surprised?
quote (same source):
[The French Government] banned women wearing a head covering from entering a school as if depriving observant young Muslim women of an education is anything but racism and more oppression of women.
This Maoist source evidently disapproves of state actions to prohibit superstitious practices in public schools.
As I have had occasion to note in previous threads, Leninism does seem to have a "soft spot" for religion.
What's the difference between "faith in God" and "faith in the Party and its Leader"?
Not as much as you might think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on November 13, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
We look at communism in a realistic and dialectical materialist way. Communism is absolutely impossible until the fundamental contradictions between nations states are resolved, communism cannot exist, period. The entire world needs to be socialist before we can have communism. Claiming anything else would be adventurist and metaphysical.
You think that Marx was "metaphysical"...for recognizing the historical and material differences between different countries.
It would presumably follow from your "criticism of Marx" that all such differences must be "abolished" before communism is "possible".
What is this if not a recipe for postponing communism forever?
After all, the world will never be "the same" everywhere and "therefore" the time will never arrive for the "transition" to communism.
So what Maoists really want is an eternal despotism of the Party and its Great Leader. What you really promise us is "better emperors" than all previous forms of class society.
That's not good enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 13, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What exactly makes [Maoism] an "exotic" ideology and practice, and what is the basis for your assumption that the Turkish [proletariat] would not take to Mao, but take more to [a] traditional Leninist party?
Because Turkish workers have already been "semi-modernized"...like Russian urban workers in, say, 1900-1917. Turkish workers are not backward peasants looking for a "benevolent emperor".
I think Turkish workers would find Maoist rituals "too exotic" to be appealing.
Lenin's more "down-to-earth" approach and "plain speaking" would, I think, appeal much more to them.
Of course, I am admittedly speculating...but my speculation is grounded in historical materialism -- something as alien to "western Maoism" as the surface conditions on Pluto.
They think that humans everywhere want to march in big parades carrying huge pictures of a "Great Leader".
Imagine an enormous balloon replica of Bob Avakian at the next Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City. Picture his swollen mug towering over the streets of the city.
That's sort of what they have in mind. *laughs*
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 13, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Mao is great, you are an asshole!
The reader should take this as a warning. If you ever even hint that the sun doesn't really shine out of Mao's ass, expect nothing but verbal abuse from the Maoist faithful.
Contemporary western Maoists like to say that they "won't be like Stalin".
Don't bet the rent money on it! *laughs*
quote:
Yeah, nice try, no, it's not a plausible hypothesis. I'm beginning to realise that you make up a lot of stuff based on nothing more then your own guessing or maybe what you wish is true.
As you wish. I always make it clear to the reader when I am offering a hypothesis and when I am speaking instead of documented fact.
Believe it or not, only two people have ever drawn my attention to errors of fact on my site...both of which were promptly corrected.
Keep in mind that when I do speculate, I do so in the context of historical materialism...something that western Maoists have already abandoned.
Thus the "response" that I quoted above...as if I had urinated in his fountain of "holy water". *laughs*
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 14, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote (redstar2000):
Keep in mind that when I do speculate, I do so in the context of historical materialism...something that western Maoists have already abandoned.
quote:
Historical materialism? Please tell us how you came to this conclusion.
Mao himself described his efforts to "search for truth" as a youth. For example, he enrolled himself in several different schools and then dropped out when he didn't find what he was looking for. He spent many hours in the local library reading "at random" whatever "western" books (translated into Chinese) that he could locate.
Christian missionary churches (mostly Protestant) were known as a "source" of "western ideas" in early 20th century China...they were visible.
Is it so "far out", then, to suggest that Mao might have "checked them out"? Not because Mao had any interest in Christianity as such...but rather because he might have been curious about what else they might have had to say.
And even if he personally never saw the inside of a Christian church in China, he could easily have learned about Christian practice from other rebellious Chinese youth like himself.
Then the question becomes: did Protestant churches in early 20th century China actually practice "public confession of sin"? And, guess what? I don't know!
But it seems to me entirely possible that they did...it's a common feature of "primitive" churches. The "new faith" must be "reinforced" against the social pressure of the surrounding public indifference.
Thus my speculation about the source of the Maoist ritual of "self-criticism" is based on specific historical circumstances.
Something which, as I've already noted, "western" Maoists have entirely abandoned.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 15, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But these things were brought into creation by teenagers who factionalized the hell out of things and began turning on each other instead of focusing on the bourgeois leaders running around. Some got into gun battles, executions and more. It was (revolutionary) self-defeating chaos....what would have happened if that had implemented the direct democracy with all the factionalized red guards?
Who knows?
Maoism, as a variant of Leninism, holds it to be "self-evident truth" that the masses (including teenagers!) are "inherently incapable" of self-government.
Without "qualified leadership" (themselves), everything will just "turn into chaos".
Perhaps this "would" have been the case in Shanghai. The masses in China "were" and "are" too backward to assume and utilize power. This was certainly Lenin's own view about the Russian masses of his own time.
But this is another example of what makes Leninism in general and Maoism in particular an anachronism in the "west". Ordinary people here are far more information-rich ("culturally advanced") than is the case in the "third world". And, with the internet, that process is accelerating.
Advanced capitalist societies are where the proletariat learns both the necessity of self-government and "how to do it".
They are where that "eternal illusion" of class society finally crumbles...that timeless quest for a "really benevolent despot" is finally abandoned as utterly futile.
I contend that the masses in the "west" are either already capable of self-government or will approach that point in the course of this century.
It is certainly legitimate to challenge my contention...but reality imposes severe constraints on your challenge. If not this century, then what about the next? Or the one after that?
I don't think that "western" Maoists believe that it will ever "really be possible" to "let the people decide".
Because if that were possible, then there'd be nothing left for the Party to do.
Horrors!
quote:
In the French Revolution of 1789, it was not the bourgeoisie that was in the majority, but it was the bourgeoisie that led that revolution forward.
Quite true. Marx and Engels pointed out that "all previous revolutions" simply deposed one minority ruling class in order to replace it by another.
We are ruled today by an "aristocracy of capital" that is just as much an arrogant minority as the court of a Roman emperor.
But Marx and Engels went on to point out that proletarian revolution would be different. It would arise from the material self-interests of the overwhelming majority of the population and would, when successful, actually abolish all classes.
Thus one cannot extend "by rule of thumb" the characteristics of all "prior revolutions" to include that of proletarian revolution.
I think Marx and Engels were right about this; it will be something very different from anything the world has ever seen before.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 16, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You abused Mao by belittling him as only someone who came the "middle peasant" class who cannot comprehend things.
Why is it "abuse" to point out that Mao was a "middle peasant" and saw the world through the eyes of one?
I certainly never suggested that he "could not comprehend things" (or, in other words, that he was "stupid"). I simply made a Marxist commonplace observation: your class origins have a very strong influence on how you will "comprehend things".
The RCP's Bob Avakian, for example, grew up as the privileged son of a federal judge...do you think it "impossible" that this has not strongly influenced his political views?
He really believes, for example, that some people are "fit to rule" and most people must be ruled "for their own good."
Is this not a lesson taught in a million ways to every upper-class child?
I don't mean by this that we are all "helpless prisoners" of our class origins. We can, with strenuous efforts, sometimes overcome some of those limitations. And sometimes our class position itself changes dramatically...which leads to changes in the way we look at the whole world and everything in it.
I suspect that the children of many "middle class" workers are now finding themselves "drifting downwards" in the social "food chain"...beginning to realize that they will never be able to live as well as their parents did. The "American Dream" is starting to "come apart" around the edges...and I expect the young working class to become considerably more radical as time passes.
Think what Mao saw around him when he was growing up -- the desperate struggle of middle peasants to hold onto their class positions and avoid sinking into the misery of the poor peasantry.
What lessons did he learn from this? One of them was certainly part of the Chinese tradition of his era: go to the city and become "an educated man" and you will never be reduced to the misery of the poor peasantry.
And that is what he did! Only after he went to a city and began to be exposed to "western" ideas did he realize that "individual solutions" made no sense and that one had to critically examine one's entire society.
Not only was Mao not "stupid", he was probably one of the brightest and most perceptive kids in early 20th century China.
But, like all of us, he was shaped by his social environment.
No one stands "outside of history" or "above one's personal historical experience".
To suggest otherwise simply reveals, once again, the idealism at the core of "western" Maoism.
quote:
Are you implying here that Mao got this idea of criticism and self-criticism from the Christian Church?
Yeah...that it's possible that he got the idea from them.
The ritual of "self-criticism" has a religious character.
It's like the "public confession of sin and repentance" that Christians used to do before the invention of the "confessional booth".
Or maybe he got the idea from Stalin.
I don't think he just "made it up on his own".
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 16, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here we go again, eh?
One thing this statement illustrates is the conservative core of "western" Maoism.
Sure, it can be harshly critical of capitalism and imperialism abstractly and in general. And that is so rare here that a group like the RCP can appear to be "revolutionary" just in contrast to the general reactionary character of American political life.
But it always "pays off" to take a closer look.
quote (Bob Avakian):
Now, just to be clear, my point is not that we should, by any means, be casting Black preachers in general into the enemy campthat would be very wrong and a terrible mistake. We should certainly not be giving up on uniting with many of them...
"Preachers", regardless of their ethnic/cultural identification, are "in the enemy camp". Any Marxist would understand that...but Maoists are not Marxists and, for all their yapping about "uniting with" and "struggling against" have, in fact, no intention of seriously struggling against superstitious reaction.
quote (Avakian):
While all that is important, the fundamental point Im making here is we cannot allow the polarization to be around religion per se (in and of itself), although a big part of the polarization does have to be against Christian Fascism, against reactionary theocratic fundamentalism. And there is a vast difference between those two things (religion in a general sense and, on the other hand, Christian Fascism and reactionary theocratic fundamentalism generally); there is a qualitative difference which we should understand.
This is not only nonsense but also illustrates how useful "dialectics" can be in obscuring the substitution of nonsense for sense.
The assertion that there is a "qualitative" difference between "religion in general" and Christian fascism is a "dialectical" -- that is meaningless -- statement.
Any critical examination of religion reveals its social role in class societies -- it exists to "justify" oppression and exploitation.
It's not just a matter of "bad ideas" that people will "give up" when they "learn better". It is part of the entire institutionalized apparatus of repression that characterizes this and all class societies.
For Avakian to suggest that we should "unite" with part of it "against" the "really bad part of it" is as utterly ridiculous as suggesting that we "should unite" with the federal "Department of Labor" against the federal "Department of Commerce".
But that's how "western" Maoism works in practice.
quote (Avakian):
I noticed, in a report on a speech by Cornel West, that during this speech he pointedly said: My secular friends on the left have to understand that most of the country is religious.
And that, "of course", is an "eternal truth"...presumably Americans are so inherently stupid that they are unable to follow the path of the European proletariat in abandoning reactionary superstitions.
This is not the place for a critique of Professor West's ideas.
But it is the place to condemn Bob Avakian's passivity towards superstition "in general".
When some kids from the RCP's youth group tried to organize some public resistance to Christian fascism, I applauded their efforts.
Well, that sort of thing has been stopped...presumably at the command of Avakian himself. The RCP "cannot" be publicly perceived as "an enemy of religion" because, presumably, "most of the country is religious".
Such spineless acquiescence to the hegemony of reactionary superstitions in this country is typical of "western" Maoism in practice.
It's enough to make one vomit!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 16, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
It's kind of sad to see it...but I don't see how it can be denied that "western" Maoists have a deeply anti-working class prejudice almost "built-in" to their whole "outlook on things".
Consider these "samples"...
quote:
The workers in the west today are so tightly surrounded by petty bourgeois thought.
quote:
The comment about slaves was to give the example of how a population that has been deprived of an education is naturally put into a situation of subservience to a population that has a monopoly on education.
quote:
Most proletarians in the United States reject evolution, reject science, are deeply religious, have negative views of women, are extremely capitalistic... And the white sections of the proletariat have negative views of the Black sections of the proletariat!
quote:
NEWSFLASH: PROLETARIAN MEN BEAT THEIR WIVES!
quote:
Most people in the mainstream population when not using the internet to look at porn are using it to find out the latest news about the private lives of movie "stars" and sports "heroes" which also explains why Entertainment Tonight is a lot more popular and watched then the entire on-air programming for PBS.
quote:
The kids around me growing up in the ghetto have deeply rooted backward ideas, and lack of education. They cannot articulate themselves. They are obsessed with capitalist culture (i.e., platinum, spinning car rims, etc.). They called women "bitches" and view them as vessels to be masturbated into.
And so on.
It's the working class seen directly through the ideological lens of modern capitalism. Or script notes for a new PBS "Special Report" -- The Working Class -- Rotten Bastards All!
And what, you might wonder, is the motive for all this Maoist invective?
Good question!
quote:
Without a vanguard party to lead the proletariat to throw off all backward ideas within itself, those backward ideas will reign supreme!
Thus they dispose of Marx's "obsolete idea" that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves".
Clearly all those rotten bastards must be made to behave better "for their own good".
It should not surprise you that the modern "western" working class is totally indifferent to Maoism. Why would they ever "accept the leadership" of people who despise them?
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 17, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Another collection of Mao's banalities.
*yawns*
quote (Mao):
To put the two statements together, we may cite the Chinese adage, "Nothing in the world is difficult for one who sets his mind to it."
A fine example of the idealist core of Mao's thinking.
Just "set your mind to it" and you "can do anything".
This is (as a historical materialist would expect) proto-capitalist ideology -- our "modern version" appears daily in the Opposing Ideologies forum:
Anyone who really works hard and wants to become rich can do it.
Or in slightly different words...
In America, you can be anything you want!
One would imagine that "western" Maoists would be embarrassed to post this sort of thing.
But when it comes to "the red sun in our hearts" they are completely shameless.
Sad...or hilarious?
You decide.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 18, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You can't understand Mao because you are not of his class.
*laughs*
Evidently, you have "grasped" Mao's "methods" better than perhaps even you realize.
Mao's method of dealing with his critics was to send them off to a fate that he personally labored so diligently to escape.
You know, shoveling hog turds in the countryside!
This was called "re-education"...teaching Mao's critics what it was like "to be in Mao's class".
And it worked! No one who had been through it ever criticized Mao again; they "understood" Mao "perfectly".
No doubt you envision a similar fate for "assholes" like me.
Don't bet your rent money on it. *laughs*
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 19, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
========================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| It's a common delusion that those who govern us are "looking out for our best interests" -- but two major hurricanes should have shown everyone in the U.S. just how delusional that idea really is. The "emergency preparedness plan" everywhere here [in the path of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita] simply consisted of a loud shout: Run for your life!
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 3 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
