The basic principles of Maoism

I describe myself as a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, which causes a great deal of confusion given how little the average person knows about this ideology. I make this post to clear up the basic ideas and principles behind this ideology and end this understanding.

MLM was first theorized by Peruvian revolutionaries in the 90s, and regards Marxism as constantly evolving, and that every past Marxist experiment has important lessons to teach us. Of course, Stalin and Mao were both incredibly flawed individuals and nobody will deny this, but that does not mean that they didn't do some things right and that we cannot learn from their mistakes.

The idea of Maoism is that capitalism is inherently exploitative and oppressive, and that a mass popular movement should take place to overthrow it. This movement should be lead by an organization of revolutionaries, but should be kept in check by the armed masses.

We can observe in past socialist experiments that, although economies most often rapidly expand and improve standards of living, a bureaucracy forms and capitulates to oppression again. Maoists think that the government must be kept in check by an educated and armed populace and constantly criticized to make sure that it's operating in the interests of democracy and freedom. The problem with previous revolutions has been that the working class itself was not mobilized and the creeping oppressive elements of the party were free to erode the revolutionary nature of the state.



Of course, this isn't nearly a complete explanation, but it's the easiest explanation for people unfamiliar with dense Marxist theory. I just wanted to dispell the notion that I'm in favour of dictatorship and mass murder. I merely desire true democracy, in economy and in social organization.

 

The Three Stooges Marx, Lenin and Mao are all dead and so is their delusional political theory. Never worked any where, never will. Get over it.

 

So, what do you think of the Hundred Flowers Campaign?

(For our readers who may be unfamiliar with the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign)

 

Do you really expect someone who has dedicated dozens of hours to studying philosophy and social theory from these people to be swayed by two sentences from someone who's never read a word of their writing, sentences in which not a single point is made?

- - - Updated - - -

It would have been perfect if Mao hadn't gone back on it.

Mao was a brilliant general and writer, but he was a bad administrator.

 

If Mao was a bad administrator, then in what sense are you a Maoist?

Do you consider the Great Leap Forward another great idea badly administered or a catastrophe as complete and heartless as the Holodomor?

Does the introduction of Communism always entail horrible widespread famines and forced labor?

------------- For readers unfamiliar with The Great Leap Forward

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

 

If you wish to persuade others over to your perspective then you ought to dispense with the "my ideology is more complicated than yours" junk. Marxism is no more complicated than many other philosophical ideas. Hegel for instance is a chore and a half.

If you want to make a case you need to stop the elitism.

[hr][/hr]

As for your ultimatum - capitalism or democracy - I choose the former.

 

If you want a vanguard revolutionary party to rule, isn't that a dictatorship (ignoring any nonsensical marxist semantics you might use to deny it)? And since most if not all countries that have called themselves marxist did some kind of mass murder... I still think you support dictatorship and mass murder, because you support marxism-leninism-maoism, which have throughout history only lead to bad things. It's good that you atleast look at previous failures and recognise they are failures. But when are you going to draw the right conclusion? That it is the fundamental idea behind marxism which is wrong. polish a turd all you want but... you know.

 

You always hear the same excuses from the strap hangers,
trying to defend the indefensible.

 

It's not elitism, I'm simply describing a very different approach to politics. Marxists regard their political views as an extension of a long line of social analysis and criticism. Democrats and Republicans base their discourse on current events rather than analysis of history.

Then what separates your ideal society from slavery? With ownership in the hands of a few and no voice for the masses, freedom exists only on paper.

 

I want a vanguard party to rally the masses to their cause. I don't care how many parties there are after the establishment of a socialist republic, so long as people have the freedom to criticise and organise.

The French Revolution devolved into mass execution, but that speaks nothing of the ideals behind it. When societies have to make radical changes on their own, with enemies on all sides, things like this happen.

Notice that Cuba, who had support from the eastern bloc and was thus guaranteed security, was one of the most successful socialist revolutions. Aside from the trial and execution of some Batista collaborators, there was no unnecessary violence.

 

The basic principle of Maoism is tyranny. There, I just saved you a bunch of typing.

 

Marxists treat his writings as though they were based on eternal truths. They were not, he totally made up constructs that go against human nature and history. Pipe dreams.

Some form of capitalism has created more improvements in living standards for more people than any other system.

 

Because my political views are based on his contributions to economic and sociological analysis.

The Holodomor wasn't an intentional mass murder either. Both were famines in famine-prone regions that were exacerbated by happening in regions where the state was still establishing industry and infrastructure.

Are loaded questions inevitably sensationalist garbage that don't stand up to scrutiny?

No to yours, yes to mine.

 

You make it sound so innocent, but this vanguard party would rule as a dictatorship a la ussr and prc right? You have to use force, because there's no way in hell the masses would voluntarily support it. But the masses don't really know what they want do they..

Actually, it says a lot about their ideas. Stupid people with stupid views who implement their stupid ideas in a stupid manner. The french idiots who made a metric calender and the "cult of reason" are the same kind of idealistic fools as the russian communists, trying to impose their delusional ideas onto reality, trying to turn society upside down and get suprised when everything turns to (*)(*)(*)(*). They are the opposite of conservatives. Conservatives say one thing: "go slow, don't (*)(*)(*)(*) everything up. ". communists and the french revoluationaries are the oposite, and they say "go fast as possible, (*)(*)(*)(*) everytyhing, turn everything upside down, I WANT CHANGE NOW". And then everyone dies. how many times do you people need to set fire to various societies before you learn it's not a good idea?

hurray, now bring up the excuses for crimes against humanity you have for the ussr and prc.

 

What separates YOUR ideal society from slavery? All you've done is replace "Capitalists" with the "Revolutionary Vanguard" Freedom still exists only on paper.

Democrats and Republicans both study and analyse history. They're coming to different conclusions than you, that's all.

And how will you guarantee the masses freedom to organize and criticize? Do you really think the "revolutionary vanguard" will just peacefully step aside once they have "rallied" (that is, gained control of) the masses?

You're making excuses for The French Terror, (and the abuses of the Holodomor, the Hundred Flowers and the Great Leap Forward) while trying to act as if Cuba, which people still are willing to risk a 90 mile trip across open ocean to escape from 55 years after it was set up, is some sort of communist success story. You're not making a very good case for your ideology IMO

They're not totally made up, they are conclusions he reached by studying history, they are not, however, the only conclusions possible from his studies. Marx was a product of his times and subject to his time's limitations on knowledge. Note that Marxism's greatest successes were in Agrarian societies like Russia and China, which Marx would have found a stage behind the developmental level he saw as necessary

 

I am suggesting that the Great Leap Forward indicates Mao's economic and sociological ideas leave much to be desired.

What sociological and economic contributions did Mao demonstrate given the failures of the Hundred Flowers and the Great Leap Forward.

 

Freedom from artificial hunger, freedom from homelessness, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploited labour. All of these are freedoms that one can actually experience.

When your livelihood depends upon your ability to give a profit to your employer, your freedoms are only on paper, because your freedom to do x takes a backseat to your need to provide for yourself.

They do this, but they aren't creating large traditions of it.

The masses will be the ones with the guns.

There were two major waves of people leaving Cuba, one was a response to the seizure of private property and the other a response to an economic crash that occurred when they were forced to become more independent due to the fall of the USSR. It's not like the average person is constantly chafing for an escape.

 

Ha ha. Hilarious. Saying Mao was a "bad administrator" is like saying Idi Amin was kind of mean.

I lived in the workers' paradise of Beijing for three years. I can tell you two things about it: The Chinese people profess publicly that they love Mao and that he is the "father of their country." But privately he is as despised as can be. There is nearly no one over the age of 40 in China who doesn't know someone personally who was murdered by Mao. Interestingly, I was in Beijing on June 4, 2014 - do you know the significance of that date? Though Chang'An Avenue and TienAnMen were both overrun with military troops and machine-gun toting police officers on that day, the official government position was "June 4? We have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing happened on that day." That was the day that the Chinese people finally rose up against their statist aggressors and begun to take back incremental pieces of their own self-determination.

 

I'll quote massalijn.nl on this

Most of these have to do with the structure of a revolution and how it relates to economy and class.

 

OK, fair enough.

Although you are going to be hard pressed to find any peasants to organize in the US these days. And you'ld better hurry up organizing the proletariat before all the factories get shipped to China.

 

I love how the philosophical imagery of communism always comes down to this: you have to kill lots of people to make it work.

 

I follow Magooism...and Im damn good at it....

 

America is a curious case. We'll need to develop a new, American form of socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

To change who holds power, there must be a threat. The current rulers usually choose to fight rather than peacefully acquiesce. If you could change it by voting, they'd make it illegal.

 

In many countries communists can be elected. My country, Canada, has had communist members of city, provincial and federal legislatures. Communists have never come to power here even though they could by popular vote, for reasons that should be obvious. We're not into tyranny.

 

The USA is already the world's most successful country, and has led the world into a whole new era of prosperity. Clearly, what the US has been doing has been working rather well. So WHY do you still think "let's scrap all that for some untried idea, which has failed all other times it has been tried".

That strikes me as being very stupid.