Very recently I’ve been questioning Marxism-Leninism and MZT, after a very good friend of mine has told me they’re considering Maoism themselves, and after I’ve seen many former M-Ls become either MLMs or Hoaxhaists, in some rarer cases. My question to anyone who reads this, regardless of tendency, is so; do you think Marxism-Leninism is more equipped to deal with the modern proletariat’s liberation, or does that fall on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, rendering Marxism-Leninism/MZT revisionist? Respond with your case for either in the comments section.
And if I may add, this is my first post on this site!
I agree with @pimento@lemmygrad.ml.
MLM is too dogmatic (not even in the Marxist sense of the term, but in just the general sense). It absolutely advocates for people’s protracted warfare in almost all cases without a sense of strategy or tactics. Many successful revolutions, including Mao’s, made use of a whole host of tactics. Maoism does not make a difference between adventurism and valid force; indeed, I would say that it negates different forms of struggle for only a violent struggle.
There’s nothing wrong with force, to be clear, but it should be used with other forms of revolution and struggle, otherwise you’re just limiting your repertoire of skills and tactics that you could be using to fight against the ruling class. Keep in mind that Maoism is also NOT a “rupture” from Marxism-Leninism. There is nothing that Mao revised about Marxism-Leninism; he simply built on what was already there based on the conditions which is what Mao Zedong Thought basically is.
In addition: Maoism has a culture of “left” deviationism (at least from my own personal experience), is anti-AES (one of the core beliefs of most Maoist groups is that Vietnam, China, Laos, Cuba, and even the DPRK to some degree aren’t truly socialist) and it may have had some origins in US intelligence, or at least with the aid of US intelligence. Back when the CPUSA was the top dog of communism in the United States (and before they unfortunately started allying themseles with the Democrats nowadays), there were at least two cases of members trying to split the CPUSA through Maoist thought during the 60s. One turned out to be almost entirely made up of FBI and another communist political party was made by the notorious Bob Avakian (who was an FBI informant at least in some point of his life).
This was, of course, before the Communist Party of Peru (often called the “Shining Path”) declared that their ideology would be “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.”
This was a) sometime after Mao Zedong had already died without giving any input on this and b) after he had said repeatedly during his life-time that he did not mean there to be a “rupture” or a different form of Marxism-Leninism made by him. So on both counts: Gonzalo’s “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” is, to me at least, fraudulent. It technically doesn’t even exist and literally what MLs call “Mao Zedong Thought” is already an extension of Marxism-Leninism with an emphasis placed by Mao Zedong and his cohorts on certain Marxist ideas and tactics.
Finally: I love Mao Zedong. But I would also leave some room to criticize him. The problem is that it’s hard to keep track of every Maoist group (there’s literally around a dozen variations of Maoism) but one thing I’ve noticed is the personality cult and sloganeering of Mao Zedong. However: it is usually said and acknowledged (even if it’s a bit controversial) that Mao Zedong also made mistakes, particularly during the later part of his career.
One more thing that I probably should advise, but please consider reading the works of Mao’s companions, such as Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai, etc., etc. There are many more, but you cannot get a good understanding of Mao just by reading his work (though reading Mao’s work would make you understand that he’s very much a Marxist-Leninist and describes himself repeatedly as such). Mao was influenced by others even as he influenced others himself (and he certainly was the most influential person in the CPC). I would advise delving more into what they thought and that includes Deng Xiaoping (who Maoists tend to regard with disdain).
I could recommend you some modern-day books written by Chinese people to begin with, but they’re all, well, expensive unless you’re willing to read PDF versions of the books or purchase them anyway for your education. Of course, if you don’t want me to recommend you any, that’s fine as I’ve already given you a lot to mull over, I think (and reading people such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, never mind Mao Zedong, will take a while).
Anyways, I hope this helps @Zako_Hat@lemmygrad.ml. Pinging others so they see it and maybe save this post in case they want to.
@albanianbolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
Hope I’m not missing any other people on Lemmygrad that have posted recently, but eh, I probably have.
Anyways, thanks for the question! Good luck on learning more!
:)
Thanks for tagging me, that was a great read!
No prob!
What books would you recommend?
And yes, I know that we have at least some CPUSA members here and I respect that they have every right to contest what happened with the Biden campaign and whether or not it was an “alliance” with the Dems or what have you. They have every right to argue against what I said about them nowadays. I also understand that there are people that are trying to change the CPUSA from the inside, that they do good work on the ground in terms of mutual aid, that they’ve radicalized people, and that a lot of people within the organization weren’t happy with how the Party approached the Biden campaign.
If you want to contest what I’m saying, that’s fine by me. At the end of the day: unless the general leadership has some secret plan that I don’t know about or has a general strategy that they keep close to themselves, I’m just being honest with how I see the organization in the present. I think the rank-and-file and especially the new members will be the future of the organization and that even the leadership can’t stop that, regardless of whether they try or not.
I have some friends within the organization and they’re good comrades so, if you feel that I’m being too harsh or unfair, please say so.
Thanks.
Hello. The only addition i would make is that Maoism is not exactly marxism leninism first and foremost. Real maoism, the one of Mao ze dong, is actually Chinese nationalism. The Communist Party of China is still a maoist organization. The CPC, Mao included, were/are chinese nationalists firsts, communists second.
The Communist Party of China is still a maoist organization.
It is not, they follow Marxism-Leninism with Mao-Zedong-Thought, which is different from Maoism.
Please re read what i wrote. I wrote real Maoism, which is, obviusly, what Mao did and write. Someone in Peru or India can claim the mantle of ‘Real Maoism’, but i consider real maoism the maoism the person whom the ‘word’ maoism denotes.
Obviusly, i dont consider Gonzaolism real Maoism, since as i wrote, real Maoism is chinese nationalism. The CPC is the sole and true authentic maoist organization. The day CPC stops being Maoist, is the day the CPC will not exist as a party, and China wont exist as a country. The only thing which keeps alive the thing we call ‘China’ is the Communist Party of China, and thus, Maoism.
There is a reason why Mao’s face is in the chinese money, for everyone to be reminded daily what Maoism is and represents. No Maoism means no china and thus no chinese money. The CPC really reminds daily to their people what the CPC is and the role they play on keeping alive the Project China.
Maoism and MZT are already well-defined terms, and trying to reverse their meaning will just lead to confusion. Not to mention that the CPC itself uses the term MZT (eg in the Chinese constitution).
And there is also a good reason why MZT is not called Maoism: while Marxism analyses capitalism, and Lenin analyses imperialism, there is no qualitatively new development of capitalism which Mao could have analysed. Instead, he applied Marxism-Leninism to the material conditions of China.
I disagree, but okay.
Oh, of course it is your right. Perhaps a question you could ask yourself to ponder over the weekend is where Marxism-Leninism fits into supporting Pinochet, Pakistan against Bagladesh, and commiting to an alliance with the US to kill of USSR. Now unite these facts with a reasoning: If CPC was ML first and foremost, they could never done such a thing. Thus, the only logical conclusion must be fund somewhere outside of Marxism-Leninism or global communism.
See you around comrade :)
Welcome to Lemmygrad!
I think if anything, MLM is the revisionist one, or at least it doesnt work. Maoism wasnt written by Mao like the name might imply, but by the Shining Path in Peru. Their revolution failed, and there has been no other successful Maoist revolution (afaik). On the other hand, Marxism-Leninism has guided the revolutions in Russia and China, and is still the state ideology of China (in the form of Marxism-Leninism with Mao Zedong Thought).
Thanks for the warm welcome! And what an interesting view; however, MZT has had an unfair advantage over MLM as you mentioned, seeing as MZT had more favorable conditions to develop in.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. MZT and MLM arent two ideas that developed in a vacuum and are in direct competition. Instead, they are theories which were molded by the revolutions in China and Peru, respectively. And you can clearly see which theories have proven successful in this way.
Yeah, indeed. Thanks for the readjustment!
Just chiming in to say welcome! It seems you and @pimento@lemmygrad.ml Have already had a good discussion about the topic at hand, so I’ll refrain from sticking my oar in!
Also, welcome to Lemmygrad.
