Hey, I am Chinese, in our textbook, we dont have maoism but we only have mao zedong thought, and indeed, in the textbook it describles mao zedong thought as a successful realistic application of marx-lennism in the Chinese context.
Bruh where were you? We were worried sick without you. The anarchists and LeftComs were starting to get to me. I need 3 shots of dialectical and historical materialism. And just general ML propaganda.
@@nopasaran191 Libertarian Marxism is not anarchism, comrade. In fact, Marxian thought and anarchist thought are not very compatible, unless one's only partially influenced by the former. Dogmatism is kind of cringe, but it is better to have congruous influences, at the end of the day.
@@lucaiovis As I understand it It’s a type of libertarian socialism just like say anarcho syndicalism and many other lib-left ideologies. Maybe I am wrong for calling myself a libertarian Marxist but I am trying to describe the ideology that’s closest to what I believe. Like I said earlier, I’m a libertarian socialist who reads and engages in the discourse around it. I also try include Marxist ideas while engaging in praxis. I see Marxism as tool to dissect our economic system, economic life, government, class, etc. It’s much closer to that (in my view) than a bunch of solutions. Material conditions matter. I’m not saying I fully disagree with you but at the same time being a Marxist and an anarchist aren’t mutually exclusive. They both have the same goal and With all these things in mind I still feel comfortable calling myself a libertarian Marxist.
@@nopasaran191 The main difference between a Libertarian Marxist ideology like let's say De Leonism and Anarcho-Syndicalism would be that the latter rejects the idea of keeping the state, even if it's extremely minimal, while De Leonism (like all Marxist ideologies, for that matter) does not want to abolish the state right on. Using Marxian theory is great, I'm just saying Libertarian Marxism is different from anarchism in a very significant way. Marx himself was opposed to anarchism; and was more often than not quarreling with anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon, so using his bibliography *completely* would necessitate abandoning core tenents of anarchist thought. The Zapatistas, who are unorthdox anarchists / quasi-anarchists, only use Marx limitedly.
Fantastic video comrade. On the application of people's war, actually one of the major problems in the Greek civil war is that the Democratic army of Greece focused mainly on guerrilla warfare and didn't use the mass popularity it had in the urban areas to defeat the monarchofascist state. Of course this wasn't the sole reason of the revolution's defeat, fighting off two of the largest imperialist powers on earth at the time was a challenge in-itself along with various other reasons, such as the betrayal perpetrated by Tito (closing borders to the partisans after the Tito-Stalin split) and the Treaty of Varkiza.
I just read about some of the riots and how the government killed thousands of students. It's honestly horrifying knowing what the bourgeois and government are capable of. How they're willing to slaughter the future of their country with impunity.
I think I sometimes want to call myself a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-Guevarist-Thirdworldist-Gramscist-Rosaist-Fanonist--Engelist-Everybodyist-Finnbolist-Whatever-Brechtian-Freirean, but guess I could just go by Marxist-Leninist to simplify it. I would go by just Marxist if it weren't for the risk of people mistaking me for a Trotskyist ew!
@@johnbrown8570 Here in Ireland, Trotskyists are such complete legends. They're at the forefront of pretty much every workers' struggle and movement against oppression. I haven't met a single Trotskyist so far who isn't absolutely awesome.
My English is not very well,but I really want to show my opinion. I am a Chinese who born and now live in China,and I can tell you that our basic understanding of Mao Zedong Thought is that it's a important development of Marxism.Anyone who try to deny the fundamental meaning of Marxism to Mao Zedong Thought is not a real Maoist.Even the most radical Maoists in China can not say that.Your understanding of Maoist is quite objective to me.I generally agree with you.As a communist,being practical and realistic is always the principal.
At least Chinese communists of today seem to be real Marxists. They did remind Marx birthday and build a new Marx statue in his German birth town Trier in 2018. And they did write that this inviting of the worlds capitalists into China was and is required to quickly develop China's infrastructure and technology strength, which is a precondition for the development of Socialism. Since nobody can urge them to say this, I only can consider this as true. At least in the moment. The website Beijing review.com has this 200 years Karl Marx articles. You can search there for it. The party also has an English Marxist theoretical magazine, that should contain all related considerations about Western, and some Chinese capitalists in China, under the rule of the communist party, hopefully also under the rule of its 88 million members. The cheap labour was the honey trap they urged the worlds capitalists to come to China and also as far as possible press them to the required technology transfer. And also when having capitalists within the country is dangerous, it seems to be true, that advanced technology and workforce is a condition for installing Socialism. It was Marx who considered the advanced Western countries as the first who make revolutions. But the second German Socialist revolution 1919 did let crash itself down by capitalist tactics, murder and money.
@@FakeNewsHunter Marx was obviously wrong about which countries would have the necessary preconditions for revolution. Imperial Russia was the least developed "major" (so, first-tier royalty) country in Europe, and by a lot. I'm sure many honourable comrades like to tell themselves that China is really just playing a double game to achieve a win for communism, but...you're still ignoring the exploitation of the Chinese proletariat. Like, isn't that why we want to overthrow the bourgeoisie???
@@fun_ghoul If Chinese people get a better live, exploitation is OK. There was no other chance to get the world-wide capitalists in this honey trap to bring thechnology and know how to China in ths short time.
@@fun_ghoul National bourgeoisie stands totally in contradiction to the comprador bourgeosie and the neocolonial imperialists, Mao clearly recognized this very problem. Xi Jinping has attempted to reorient the massive might of China's productive forces (after 30+ years of development under Deng) towards a strong national defense against the imperialists and neocolonialists so China can preserve and further develop socialism. Without Deng and the national bourgeoisie, China would be vulnerable to imperialist subjugation and up for grabs in perpetuity by the neocolonial powers under a comprador's jackboot, even potentially a so-called "red guard" black shirt (ultraleft fascist) comprador jackboot.
Guevarism is actually a thing (although possibly almost exclusively in South America). But the people who use the term to describe themselves don't tend to view it as exclusive or sectarian, but applies it in addition to their other socialist position(s). Typically people will say something like "I'm a Marxist-Leninist and a Guevarist". One of my aunts has even described herself as "Anarcha-Communist and Guevarist" once.
I'm a Guevarist, Che Guevara was a communist Marxist Lenenist, but people call it Guevarism because it practically it uses Che Guevara thought on how the revolution is in South America. But yeah the thing is that Che Guevara is the hero of all Latin American revolutionaries
I was born in Brazil and Guevarism as far as I know is not a "thing". Maybe as a symbol of struggle but surely not as a qualitative innovation to marxism-leninism. I can be wrong but what kind of innovations Guevara introduced on theory or practice that would justify a new "ism"? Idem for Bolivarianism, Hugo Chavez coined this term as a form to give people from the "Bolivarist" heritage some common ground for action and a sense of belonging to the Latin American world as a whole. Bolivar was similar to Napoleon, so Bolivarianism is "21st century" socialism that tries to get some support from "honest liberals" that are against the "system". The "radical left" in France tries to do the same kind of recycling but with French Revolution 18th and Commune 19th centuries imagery. Of course, Chavez is much better than Melenchon and the pale leftists that we have now in Europe.
@@Painocus why so aggressive? Your comment has no sense at all. The topic here is about Guevarism being a real concept or not (coming from the Maoist topic). Btw, you are not your grandfather so I don't see how this extra info adds any quality to this exchange.
I was an ML for a while in large part because of the problem you mention: Maoists (at least those on the internet) having trouble explaining what MLM truly means and why it's a break from ML. I am now a supporter of MLM, but it took a long time for me to understand what made that necessary. To understand MLM, I believe you have to study Peru, and studying Nepal also helps. The Peruvian (and Nepali) conception differs drastically from the Indian and Filipino conceptions, which makes sense given that the PCP synthesized MLM. The Indian and Filipino parties have less unity on the question of Maoism. In those parties there are people who believe in the qualitative break from ML, but there are probably more people who believe there is no true difference between MZT and MLM. You can see this in some of CPI(M)'s Documents as well as Duterte's statements on the question. I believe that looking at Mao alone, his exact writings are not quite universal, but the PCP headed by Gonzalo synthesized his contributions into a universal understanding. For instance: the PCP didn't think that surrounding the cities from the countryside was the principal aspect of PPW. Instead, they focus on its stages: gathering forces, followed by strategic defensive, equilibrium, and offensive. This is what a good Maoist means when they talk about the universality of PPW. As for Cultural Revolution, you seem to believe it was a definite contribution and you seem to believe it's universal (talking about the bombard the headquarters stuff and all that). Maoists in addition believe that a new cultural revolution must start as soon as the party gets state power, and that the GPCR's lessons must be applied at all stages of revolution (always searching for and fighting the emerging bourgeoisie within the party and party controlled organizations for example). Finally, there are some important things that I and some comrades believe to be integral to the universality of MLM, but which are overlooked thanks to a lack of study on Peru and Nepal. Those would be the militarization of the party and the concentric and simultaneous construction of the Three Instruments (party, people's army, and united front). The militarization refers to instituting military discipline and skills in party members, and leaving no able member exempt from the possibility of fighting in the people's army or people's militias. The concentric & simultaneous construction is a more theorized way of keeping the party in command of everything. At all stages of party building, the PA and UF should be built with it, rather than mechanically putting one or both of those things off until the party is formed. In addition, the three instruments should function in high coordination, but also with tactical autonomy, like a human body, which is also concentrically constructed: the brain (the party) primarily controls the body, the skeleton (the people's army) protects the brain and gives the muscles (the united front/the embryo of the new state/the masses) a structure to operate on top of. It also means that the party must be inside the army and both must be inside the UF. Also, when you mention stuff like the mass line, it's true that the bolsheviks and other anti-revisionist Marxists/MLs did practice something pretty close to that, but Mao fully theorized it. Stalin for his part, as well as the parties that followed his line, clearly strayed far away from the mass line for decades, because they took a very top down approach to problem solving, rather than relying on and working through the masses like the GPCR did. Classical ML did not stay aligned with the principals of the mass line for long. I think that there are embryonic forms of everything MLM added inside what ML and Marxism historically were, but those things were not consistently and theoretically applied to running communist parties in those times. ML was a rupture with flaws in Marxism, and in the same way, I believe MLM is a rupture with flaws that ML contains and still exercises today.
A bunch of hyperbole. There is no basic ideological difference, no basic fundamental difference in the NPA Philippines, NPA Nepal , Peru. This is all made up. All three parties have applied MLM to their own distinct situations.
So MLMs basically say that Protracted People's War is not a particular military strategy (e.g. surrounding the cities from the countryside), but a military doctrine that talks about how a Communist Party should engage with military affairs. They will say that the October Revolution can be reinterpreted as a PPW. Their critique is of the October Road strategy, which they define as a long period of legal organizing work, and then a moment of insurrection. The MLMs emphasize that the period from 1905-1917 included illegal armed organizing by the Bolsheviks, and that insurrection in 1917 was only the end result. The RCP in Canada which is MLM says that they think PPW in Canada could feature insurrection in the cities as part of their overall strategy, which kind of shows you what their thinking is like. I think Maoists are really divided on this issue because some of them make it sound like Urban Guerrilla Warfare, but others will deny it. I think they would say the defining features of PPW would be like: Having a people's army under the control of the Party, no protracted legal period but the commencement of armed activities as soon as forces are available, the progression from strategic defensive to equilibrium to offensive. My view is that they have kind of distorted the meaning of PPW to be so vague that it applies to any armed activities by communists, but I hope that MLMs would consider my description to be at least charitable to their view.
Zachary Schultz That's a good summary. Speaking of strategy, there's the idea of encircling the centres from the peripheries which takes the form of encircling the cities from the countryside in rural third-world countries but obviously another form in other types of countries. It can also be region/nation based (in a "prison of peoples" type of country such as Spain, France or the US, for example the idea would be to work in the peripheries -the peripherized nations- and to encircle the dominant nation). Third-worldists also apply thIs, except that for them there is one global center and one global periphery. Also, PPW isn't "all military action taken by communists". For example, focoism (which fits more to what TFB described) isn't PPW. One of the key features of PPW is the mass-based character
HisMajestyGuigui I feel like "mass based character" is less of an objective measure and a bit more of a measure of how much maoists like the revolutionaries. I've seen maoists say that the FARC was doing focoism which is just completely untrue, it was very much a people's war with a mass based character. Frankly more mass based than recent people's wars aside from Nepal.
Well, the FARC are clearly not doing focoism. They claim to be based on it tho, but they don't really follow it (kinda like the Kurds aren't doing democratic confederalism), their practice is more armed reformism. That's why they're still here.
The term "maoist" appeared during the sino-soviet split for those who sided with the CCP. Since the 80s however, it's a short hand for Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which is different from Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong thought as MLM considers that Mao's contributions are universally applicable, as a pose to unique to China and similar conditions
Thank you so much. I've been waiting for you to post a video! This is great content too, and the final nail in the coffin for my consideration of MLM. You elaborated excellently on hunches I had but could not quite explain. Thank you. I look forward to your next video.
Brandon Ginkel Nasser was definitely an imperialist, regardless of his views about America and Israel. He only wanted the Sinai peninsula and never recognized Palestinians as real Arabs. He also hated non Muslim Egyptians.
And Pol Pot! I did research and found what I consider the real Pol Pot and the real reason of the "killing fields" in the usual capitalist propaganda. Nearly in the first seconds where I did see and hear this unbelievable lovely man, it was clear for me, that the official story is similar mass-murder scam like also Stalin, Gaddafi, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Assad. I literately believed exactly what he did say: They were young and inexperienced, were always urged to react and in this process did make mistakes, mainly due to trusting lower ranks of which some (!) really did provide murder. There is an unpublished interview of over one hour with him. Only 25 min. were once posted to RU-vid. I should have a copy of this. Today on youtube is only a dirtyly manipulated propaganda cut of 7 min. left. More later. I will post what I found. There is also a badly propaganda video interview with his partner where nevertheless important statements were made.
I would be interested in that as well. On Pol Pot, I've been doing research and I kind of think he was crazy. It's hard to find information you can trust, but whilst I've determined the Killing Fields have been grossly overstated regarding the 'killing' portion, I believe that portion was still significant and mostly baseless. I can't find any evidence he wasn't killing people that wore glasses on suspicions of intellectualism that could fuel a revolt against him, for example, which is not good when you need to have a degree of self-sufficiency in your state. There was a reason his ideas were systematically rejected by other Marxists. It's always possible I'll change my mind as I find out more, but as of now, I was surprised to have a lot of the worst things you hear about him confirmed by other Marxists, just softened a bit.
I don't know if this is a good stance or not, but I pretty much reject all "isms" and so on. For me, the only "ism" is communism (in a modern sense of the word). Use and accept everything that is useful and beneficial to your particular situation and reject the opposite. All "isms" have something useful in them and all have something that is not useful, it all depends on the situation and context. Maybe I'm wrong but thats how I choose to see it. Great video!
I like the term "Marxism-Leninism" because it is a label that Trots, soc-dems, Left-coms and Anarchists will never accept or use. It is a label that in practice reflects modern scientific Socialism. It is a good label for genuine communists to identify each other, however I would never use it when talking with non-Communists. I always label myself simply a "communist" when speaking with average joes on the street who are not familiar with all this terminology.
TheFinnishBolshevik Good point. Great video! Your implementation of dialectic was well made and needed. Could you make a video about this topic. I think that Hegel's science of logic is crucial for understanding Marxism/Leninism.
Nope, Maoism is not ML applied to thrid world, you can argue that MZT is, but Maoism is still something new, and still being formed by groups such as the Indians, Pinoy, JMP, and on, i reject this notion of it just being for the third world. Hell Maoism rejects the notion of a third world, thats MZT that came up with that, and Maoists tend to agree that was when Mao became reactionary. To us there is only two types of countries, Imperialist capitalist and semi colonial. The third world nonsense came from Deng Xiaoping the capitalist roader.
TheMaddenComebackKid so what?? Pakman made multiple videos like myth of leftist violence, video on socialism. He confronted pundits like dave rubin and carl of akkad. Hes good in my book
+end the cycle sure, but being good does not mean a person is 100% right - no one is. we have to struggle against wrong ideas, to think otherwise is liberalism really (relevant mao www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm )
I myself am not a maoist, but from what I've heard of (some) maoists argue that the real "break" of maoism from marxism-leninism is simply the distrust in the party system. The distrust is not so much a rejection, but a kind of relation, between the people and the party, a tension, the cultural revolution is seen not merely as a particular revolt but as an ongoing struggle. Here maoism is moreso a kind of principle to remember in practice, the dialectic of history persists within socialism and will only annihilate within communism.
Yazha Johnson Why? Just because he sided with Khrushchev? Bullshit. Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh did and they’re not revisionist. Fidel was a Marxist Leninist to his core.
This is the first time I actually understood what Maoism actually is. I don't know why but I was always very confused when researching the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. This video cleared things up for me.
LOL. You watched a video by someone who literally doesn't know what Maoism is. There are dozens of people, even non-Maoists, explaining where Finbol fucked up several times in his characterizations. It would be like watching an Alex Jones video on manners.
Can't it be argued that the cultural revolution took on a different character in China? Was there much stress for socialist realism in say the 50s? Is the idea that the cultural revolution must occur several times something new?
I suppose you are right. In China cultural revolution combined the cultural aspect but also the notion of combating old ideology more broadly as part of transition towards Communism. I suppose all socialist states thought culture would evolve and become more progressive all the time but not in the same way as Mao meant it. I think the idea of many cultural revolutions in the chinese sense is something new. Mao already spoke of a "cultural revolution" in the more traditional sense of word in the 40s but it received a broader meaning in the 60s.
Yeah, all socialist countries had their cultural revolution. USSR and Albania used the term "Cultural Revolution" to describe their fast progress in all fields of culture (working style, art, sports, education etc.). Chinese put the "rebel against the revisionists" mentality in to the cultural revolution and made it a mass movement.
I haven't read Furr's book yet but the Nazis already spread lies about mass rapes by the Red Army before the Red Army even took over Germany. There's no clear evidence to indicate that they committed any more abuses then other armies of comparable size. The American and British forces were guilty of similar wrong doings just the same, but nobody talks about that. Talking about the Red Army rape "epidemic" is basically doing Goebbels' work.
To the extent that they did "More" is only true in numbers. Not in percentage. In other words, the Red Army was bigger than the amount of troops the allies had in the west. So, even with more people being raped by the Red Army, the percentage was lower in the East with the Red Army than in the West. Not to mention the Red Army (1st Ukrainian Front) entered Germany in January 1945 during the Vistula-Oder Offensive, and the Western Allies did not enter Germany until March 22nd 1945. Furthermore, most people only freak out about Berlin, where many solders did lose control, although most rapists were shot, and Stalin even issued an order that curbed the behavior, however, the percentages of Red Army rapists was lower than any other country in World War II (this also goes for shooting their own men for treason, the USSR also had the lowest percentage of that, although it was bigger than most numerically due to the large size of the Red Army. Furr goes over in his book how the propaganda was started- which I do not remember what he said exactly either.
I absolutely love your videos. They really help me understand Marxist literature because of the complicated language that is used in Marxist literature. You really explain different theories in a way that I understand it.
Fascinating video and extremely informative! I've always wondered about differences like this but over the past twenty-plus years, always found it difficult to obtain. I'm inclined, on what little I've previously known of Maoism, to agree with your stance on it. I really do appreciate this video and all your videos. One of the most interesting and informative channels on here!
You mention Greece, and it should be mentioned that post-WW2 there was a civil war in Greece that lasted for 4 years. The left revolutionaries basically operated in an advanced form of People's War (although not by chance, and therefore it just resembled a People's War, but it contained all the basic elements). And what happened? The British and the Americans came in, intervened and crushed them utterly. As a result, Greece ended up in a 30-year military right-wing dictatorship that largely dismantled the left in Greece. It wasn't a fault of the left that they lost. They couldn't do a full revolution at the time. But it shows what would happen if People's War was applied in a Western country. It would be crushed immediately. And Greece had the perfect geography to stage a guerilla war, and a highly trained, experienced and well-manned revolutionary army. It still couldn't withstand aerial and artillery bombardment, blockades and the long war of attrition. Particularly because they were mostly fighting with outdated weapons, while the government forces were supplied with the latest military technologies.
IOW, they tried and failed. At least they tried, and the idea that they are TO BLAME for the fash junta thereafter is fucking ludicrous. Fascism is just capitalism with more state-paid goons.
@@fun_ghoul The Junta was just the culmination of the dictatorship. The Greek government since 1945 was a UK and then a US puppet, propped up with scam elections and paying fealty to the king. The Junta came into effect when the "democratic" government was no longer functional enough to hold the left back.
You really got the point, particularly on the Cultural Revolutionary part. I wouldn't consider people outside of China being able to be aware of that. I believe that holding on to Dialectical Materialism is what really matters. Our strategies must be adjusted as situation changes, based on down-to-earth analysis on former practice. We do need ideologies to guide our struggle, but we should also develop them by practice before it comes to further practice. And that is what a real Dialectical Materialist should do. Great Job, Comrade. Workers Of The World, Unite! Cast Away Illusions, And Prepare for Struggle.
Agree with your thought on not taking Maoism as an big development of the theory but more an application. I am from China, feeling lucky that I found this channel, real comrades are not easy to find these days.
Well the general idea that the revolution, not least in an imperialisted country will require a revolutionary war to free the country from the chains of neo-colonialism/ colonialism makes perfect sense. Even the Soviets had their revolutionary war, in reality this was what Russian Civil war was.
Some thoughts on this topic: Fight against deviations from the Marxist-Leninist line inside the party was a very real thing inside the Bolshevik party. The whole 20s were about fighting "left" deviations like Trotsky and "right" deviations like Bukharin. Ultimately both of these tendencies lead back to a restauration of capitalism. So Stalin must have been aware of the danger of these deviations and both kinds of revisionism, because he was actively defending "Leninism". "It is always right to rebel", so a critique of the Party and the cadres is also something not foreign to Leninism. The whole idea of the proletarian democracy is that all public officials are possible to recall. This was supposed to make sure that there would be no abuse of power. Corruption, cronyism and negligence of duties was a huge problem in the Soviet Union throughout its history and some would argue that allowing this to flourish especially under Brezhnev and Gorbachev was eventually the reason for the dissolution (read Socialism Betrayed Behind the collapse of the Soviet Union by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny). Stalin was one of the people trying to fight it, through criticism from above and below how it was called.
I think the Chinese Cultural Revolution was pretty unique. I would recommed everyone to read Dongping Han's The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Yeah absolutely! However I meant it was particularly unique in the sense how massive the movement was in the rural areas of China; how poor rural people became empowered by Mao's words and took their lives into their own hands. The rebellion against corrupt village leaders, the great cooperation and mutul aid between the people, the free education and health care that came for the first time through the institution of the collective, the dramatic improvement in agricultural production and the great experimentation that the peasants did in agriculture was astounding. The improvement in rural and poor people's lives during the CR is quite unique in human history: not only, because of how fast the improvements came but how the improvements were achieved. Of course after Mao's death Deng Xiaoping ruined a lot of the achievements of The CR, but personally I just find the Cultural Revolution quite amazing.
CPUSA are idiots, just like the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The SP of GB's twitter is atrocious, they think that socialism has never been tried. They make socialists look bad.
1) I agreed with you on the parts about sectarianism at the end, and how its totally absurd to create factional splits over names, images, and smaller tactical differences. I see no reason whatsoever that MLs and MLMs cant work together, especially here in the US. 2) I disagree on some things, but perhaps the best way to express that disagreement is to pose a question to those who are sympathetic to the arguments in this video: Was the Chinese Revolution at least as big and "World Historical" as the Russian revolution, and if so, did new material and theoretical developments arise in the crucible of that revolution? I would argue yes on both fronts. And while I am not overly concerned with attacking MLs over our differences, the fact is that Mao and our Chinese comrades did learn from the failures and mistakes of the Russian revolution and attempted to address those shortcomings in the actual process of revolution. The Cultural Revolution was NOT just the basic idea that the superstructure needs to be changed as well as the base, but was more about *unleashing the people that the party was supposed to represent on the party itself*. This strikes me as a move that Stalin would never have made, and it strikes me as a real dialectical answer to the problem of a party ossifying over time, separating its interests from the people, and giving rise to an impenetrable bureaucracy. Mao tried to figure out a way to not only keep the party accountable to the proletariat it was representing, but to give the masses agency in the ongoing process of revolution. This, imo, imbues the people on the ground with a real sense of power and that sort of bottom up power is essential to win, maintain, defend, and perpetuate any revolution. So while I can agree on some of the points about New Democracy and even PPW, I still think Maoism represents an advancement of the science of Marxism big enough to justify that addition of Maoism on the end of Marxism-Leninism. Having said that, I don't ever get super sectarian and I'm definitely not a dogmatist. Ill work with any principled comrade of any stripe around shared goals and be extremely friendly and loving and loyal in the process. And I think *principled* MLs and MLMs are as close to one another as *principled* An-Coms and An-Syns are, they both share a tradition, both overlap very heavily, both can absolutely work together around virtually any goal, etc. Lastly, I will argue that what makes the difference between MLs and MLMs most distinct in the 21st century, imo, is their conception of what constitutes socialism. MLs and MLMs disagree heavily over whether, say, China is a socialist country or not, the former saying yes, and the latter saying no. If Maoism is just an expression of Marxist-Leninism then why do they differ on such a fundamental question? I'd love to hear any and all comradely feedback!
"The Cultural Revolution was... This strikes me as a move that Stalin would never have made" P sure FinnBol said this in the video. He said that cultural revolution was not new but "it is right to rebel" against bureaucracy was, and Stalin never supported such a thing, thinking the enemies were mainly external.
22:58 But Stalin also believed in moving closer to communism politically, with the struggle for democratic reform. It was just that these political reforms were struck down by the revisionists.
Well the Greek Communist Party call itself a M-L party, but in reality they fully supported the revisionist phase of USSR, even applauding the Perestroika until its collapse. GCP (KKE) theory after the USSR 1991 collapse rejects transitional programs and NEP policies, resulting to its full retreat during the great financial crisis in 2010. It was the biggest chance for KKE to take advantage of the material conditions in Greece with hunger and poverty to percentages only spotted during the WW2 in Greece and yet they failed the working class. Hope that changes in the future, since now KKE is on rise again with serious possibilities of becoming the second party in the upcoming Euroelections of 2024.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Because the Great Leap Forward is the reason why many people hate Mao. Did he intend to kill that many people in the process or no?
He did not intend to kill anyone in the Great Leap and the deaths due to the famine have been largely falsely blamed on him and exaggerated. This is a great article on that topic: monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/
Man we need to debate this topic. Im not very good righting in english, but I can talk very well. If you are interested in something like that, give me a message.
FinnishBolshevik do you think that the Cuban Communists have to overthrow Raul's government? Or will the party oust the restorationist clique by itself?
If they actually want to restore capitalism they should be ousted. But allowing some foreign tourist companies and small business is not capitalist restoration.
Yes Mass line is vanguard, we never said it wasn't , it is supposed to expand upon, now while the vanguard is made up of basically the intelligentsia, the mass line bridges the gap between the vanguard to the workers, as they often hear the ideas what the workers suggest and the vanguard thus makes sure that it can be used for a Marxist system and if it can benefit the revolution, however if not than it is discarded. I also disliked how you just gave simplistic argument of how the mass line works, that sounds like it was in bad faith.
Peaceful coexistence is another theory that was correct as formulated and practiced by Stalin (and Mao, until he started allying with the US) but distorted by Khruschev to mean the end of class struggle. Khruschev made the revisionist claims that coexistence could last forever, that inter-imperialist wars could be avoided, and that Western bourgeois democracy was a path to socialism.
I think the only point I have, and it's really just a question, but: Is China's current outlook on productive forces different than it was during the Xiaoping era? Reading the most recent five year plan and reading the rhetoric of Xi Jinping lately, I've noticed a sort of acceptance of capitalism being a major economic force in China, but it's being "used" to develop China into the proper conditions of bringing about socialism. It doesn't seem like a fetishism of productive forces in the same way that was described in the video, but rather a strategy of laying out the conditions for socialism. I assume we'll only know if they follow through with the centennial goals and actually "press the socialism button," but I'm curious to hear yours (or someone else's) thoughts on contemporary (2015-present) China. I assume my main question would be if I have fallen for some dogma or if it's a genuine strategy being put forth by the CPC. I personally lead to the strategy side, as the damage of capitalist restoration has been done, and soviet/mao style socialism would need to be adapted or changed entirely to fit the modern conditions of china and global capitalism. I'm hopeful that Xi is actually taking the steps to develop China into a "modern" socialism, so I feel like I'm somewhat banking on the assumption that the special opportunity to develop the nation's productive forces while not under the same level of siege that the USSR or Mao's China will be used to further socialism instead of capitulating further to the rule by capital.
China still follows Dengism. Dengism claims that socialism shouldn't be built in China because China supposedly doesn't have enough productive forces. But that has always been simply an excuse, many writers have even flat out said that Deng was never a socialist but only a bourgeois-revolutionary who supported overthrowing the feodalists and foreign imperialists, but nothing more. Under Dengist policies capitalism was restored even though China already had a socialist economy. Under Dengism the capitalists rule the economy, the state and the "communist party", which is now led by a bunch of millionaires and allows capitalists to join it. Dengism has turned China into a capitalist imperialist state, which oppresses the workers and has absolutely zero plans to actually build socialism. China currently claims to have a "socialist market economy". They already claim to have socialism. They claim they want to build a modern socialist country, but none of the goals they outline have anything socialistic about them. They are all simply about creating a wealthier and more powerful country. There was no need to abolish socialism in the 1980s (when Deng began doing it) or later. Of course right-wing revisionists like Deng Xiaopeng and Xi Jinping believe that the country can be developed better with capitalism, "private initiative" and foreign investment rather than with socialism or mobilizing the workers. That is a strategy some people support. It is the strategy of revisionists and people who are honestly mistaken.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I tend to agree with most of what you said, especially on the points of the deterioration of the character of the CPC, but I would like to ask: Could it be said that China's so-called strategy of developing into a developed capitalist state be an actual stepping stone into socialism if done right? Soviet socialism was inevitably left with the scars of its former conditions, with a semi-feudal peasantry and an underdeveloped productive base, and during China's revolution, it was in a similar (if not more backwards) position. Lenin wanted to speed up the development of the productive capacity in the USSR through the NEP with state capitalism in the hands of the proletariat as an intermediary between capitalism and socialism, yet it was short-lived due to the constant threat of sabotage and invasion, internal and external (among many other factors). This period certainly wasn't socialism, but it was still socialist-oriented. Considering Deng already killed real socialism in China, is it improbable to say that the CPC could take the route towards something like the NEP as an intermediary between Chinese capitalism and Chinese socialism? China today is definitely in a less precarious situation geopolitically (in some ways) than the USSR was during its period of NEP, and this fact could give way to the conditions favorable to this "transition into a transition." I would say though, adhering to my main point of agreement with your side, there would still need to be massive changes in the structure/composition of the CPC to achieve a NEP-like policy in China today. There is a severe lack of actual worker's democracy, an absence of a true mass line, and, as you said, a proliferation of the capitalist class entering the ranks of the CPC, all of which need to be addressed and promptly treated. Though on the other side of this coin, it could be said that China doesn't need their own NEP because the nation could already be deemed "developed enough," so it's a question of perspective. Is China "ready" for socialism now, or does it need a period of continued capitalist development in the hands of the party to build socialist institutions before it can fully "enter" socialism? My main line of thought is trying to avoid a total state of defeatism for Chinese socialism, but I fear that without mass action against the revisionist aspects of the party, the party won't make these changes by itself. There have been gains in the past regarding anti-corruption movements and the consolidating of more private enterprise into state hands, but there are severe deficits of socialist institutions being implemented. I want to be a realist, but I also want to stay optimistic for a (large) country to achieve real socialism after the collapse of the USSR. But it really isn't my place to speak on what should be done in China and I realize that, the will of the Chinese people and their actions will determine China's future. I try not to be an armchair communist, but I am genuinely curious to hear your perspective on the future of the CPC, as you have much more seniority and education as I do. Also I would just like to say thank you for taking the time to respond, especially on a video that's already 6 years old
@@April-zr4bi When in doubt, read what Lenin, Marx, et al has to say. Just one Lenin quote here to establish that China is a capitalist state: "I have already advised you to turn for help to Engels’s book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. This book says that every state in which private ownership of the land and means of production exists, in which capital dominates, however democratic it may be, is a capitalist state, a machine used by the capitalists to keep the working class and the poor peasants in subjection; .while universal suffrage, a Constituent Assembly, a parliament are merely a form, a sort of promissory note, which does not change the real state of affairs. The forms of domination of the state may vary: capital manifests its power in one way where one form exists, and in another way where another form exists-but essentially the power is in the hands of capital, whether there are voting qualifications or some other rights or not, or whether the republic is a democratic one or not-in fact, the more democratic it is the cruder and more cynical is the rule of capitalism. One of the most democratic republics in the world is the United States of America, yet nowhere (and those who have been there since 1905 probably know it) is the power of capital, the power of a handful of multimillionaires over the whole of society, so crude and so openly corrupt as in America. Once capital exists, it dominates the whole of society, and no democratic republic, no franchise can change its nature." -Vladimir Lenin, The State, Lecture given in 1919.
About the applicable of his ideas. I do have some problems on the definition of "where". People's war, the "where" is Greece example. I believe the strategy won't work in Greece as well. But What is the border of this where? Border of a country? I believe the where is and have to be big, to the extent that applicable is no longer a problem.
19:44 I don't understand what was wrong with what Khruschev said. Stalin already believed that the proletariat had been abolished, and the working class and collective peasantry and socialist intelligentsia held power, under the leadership of the working class. Mao basically believed something similar. The difference between Stalin and Khruschev regarding classes, is that Khruschev said internal class struggle was over, while Lenin and Stalin believed it continued (and could even be aggravated) in an ideological form due to commodity production regenerating capitalism. Maoists say that there is an internal reactionary (revisionist) class under socialism, the managers, and the class struggle is against them. But I like to believe that if managers aren't paid too much, then they won't be reactionary under socialism.
TheFinnishBolshevik Oh and one other short question if its ok: You made a great video debunking the self made men argument. Do you know what percentage of capitalists actually are self made men in the us or finland?
Can't agree more, although I'm roughly from where Mao was born (less than 100KMs away) and I like Mao and Maoism( or, like you said, and like what the Chinese gouvernment said, the Maosetong Thought), I see it as a good application of ML in China (also applicable to many other 3rd world countries). Of course the international working class, and communists (those who really believe in ML) should always be united under the red banner of ML, there is no need to have a split. Afterall, the international bourgeoisie have more or less united (although seemingly devided) to exploit, oppress and decieve the working class for such a long time, it would be disaterous to have such a split in the Marxist-Leninist.
understandably, youngsters who simply read the book of marx and read the word revolution... they open a dictionary and see the meaning of revolution in the webster dictionary... so their revolution is as defined by webster...
I think the problem with ppw in most countries is that it focuses on the rural population and in the countryside without creating strong bases in the cities hundreads of thousands if not millions of people in the third world ,live in slums and survive by working in industry ,services or illegal/unregulated activities ,these people are very much oppressed and exploited but for the most part i haven't seen much organizing by the popular military organizations. I understand that urban guerilla is very hard specially while being in the house of power ,but i think using armed struggle against cruel bosses ,corrupt politicians ,violent police officers and carrying out heists and expropriation of opressive figures of power can very much win the support of the vast majority of slum dwellers and people living in the periphery of the big cities and by uniting the struggle of those people with ,the struggle of the rural proletariat the revolutionary forces can win faster by creating an insurgency that is widespread and the capitalists in the cities cannot hold on to their economic power and through that help the government and reactionaries in the countryside. That is my oppinion on why so many maoist revolutions ,failed or became decades long conflicts without any major gains in either side. But i'm an anarchist and my understanding of PPW is probably limited though i was for a couple of years an M-L and very close to maoism.
Good video, agree in general, but to use the term Maoism is misleading and marxists-leninists should avoid it. Mao was the first to point out to the fact that there were no general rules for revolution, he wouldn't advocate for countryside guerrilla tactics in small and industrialised countries. Mao's problem with Moscow was double (more practical): 1) Unclear position on whether the Soviet Union would support Communists locally or a right wing "provisional government". We all know that Soviet Union flirted with both Sun Yat-send and later with Chiang Kai shek and Mao was suspicious of that. 2) Internally, Soviet movement was divided as many Chinese communists favoured the orthodox view of revolution led by industrial workers, Mao clashed with those views and as far as I know he was expelled from the party in the early 20's because of this position. Moscow had a fairly paternalistic view on ideology and I would guess that many in Russia wouldn't take Mao's writings seriously. So I agree that Maoism does not differ from Leninism as both adopted pragmatic strategies to reach power.
Mao was not the first to say there are no general rules to revolution, Lenin said this many times here is an example: "Let us begin from the beginning. What are the fundamental demands which every Marxist should make of an examination of the question of forms of struggle? In the first place, Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not “concoct” them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation, changes. In this respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass practice, and makes no claim what ever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by “systematisers” in the seclusion of their studies. We know-said Kautsky, for instance, when examining the forms of social revolution-that the coming crisis will introduce new forms of struggle that we are now unable to foresee." - Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare (1906)
@@BasedGodFlashy While Leninists recognize varied forms of struggle based on success, we also recognize 1) socialism in all countries follows certain laws according to the material conditions, i.e. level of development, and not cultural factors, 2) capitalism also follows certain laws that we must be conscious of through Marxist-Leninist science, and 3) democratic centralism and other methods of praxis may be universally applicable or applicable to all known situations; for example, anarchism has failed and will never work because the bourgeois will strongly resist revolution; for another example, Rosa Luxemburg denied democratic centralism and suffered the consequences.
People's War is not a principle of Maoism. It is a principle of the Protracted People's War universalists. It was, in reality it was just a strategy applicable to China and most Third World countries. Outside of mostly rural-backward countries it is non-applicable.
Thanks Comrade, One of the biggest mistakes many, especially Marxist-Leninists make is regard the strategies and tactics of Marxist-Leninists in a particular part of the world, under certain specific conditions at certain times as if it like scripture and forever set in stone and applicable to all places, under any conditions for all time. I know of certain American Maoists who believe that that they must have People's War in the U.S. What I have been looking for from Marxist-Leninists is an analysis of how to organise the present working class to defend and advance their class interests when the number of industrial jobs has been greatly reduced and replaced with services and information related jobs. From the way I see it, industrial workers tend to be more militant, have a stronger class consciousness and sense of solidarity with their fellows because ofthe nature of their work which requires them to depend upon each other and being concentrated in one workplace, they tend to have a greater sense of community. The coal miners in the U.K. for example, lived in mining town and cities which grew up around the mines, which fosters a strong sense of community, hence solidarity and the miners in the U.K. were amongst the most militant of the U.K. working class, even though most U.K. workers were Labour Party supporters or members. However, many services jobs tend to be more individual in nature, such as couriers delivering packages and letters independently and separately from their colleagues. The nature of work of say web designers is very individualistic in nature, with designers spread across the world, quite often not having even met each other in person,with most communicating or collaborating with each other remotely over the Internet. For example, a left-wing web designer proposed to others around world that they set some standard rates for work done, which they will all abide by and nobody was interested. As to why, he said that some amongst them regarded themselves as "so good" that they could demand the rates they want and the client who needs their services will pay - in short a very petty-bourgeois world view, which tends to regard themselves "superior" to their peers. Firstly, do you agree with me and secondly, how do Marxist-Leninists deal with today's workforce which is more atmosied than before?
All jobs are becoming more "individualized", and so is the free time that we once used to all spend congregating with family and friends in meatspace. Instead, we talk about how bad capitalism is on Pootoob while the capitalists keep fleecing us.
PPW can work without being in rural areas, if you focus on the lumpen prol (small time criminals and in for some countries such as the US, colonized people) this whole myth of it just being in rural area is incorrect, we understand its not possible in every country, personally i think Urban Guerilla warfare as Carlos Marighella pointed out is more pragmatic in some cases
Question. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has there been a successful People's War post 1991, or, without the covert or overt assistance of another Socialist Country?
I can always rely on you FB for an authoritative orthodox analysis. So it does my heart good to hear you not condemn Maoism or Mao Thought! I tend to agree with you that Mao's great contributions were as an educator and organizer. His ideas are easy to read and understand, are practical and doable and have mass appeal -- and you have given them your imprimatur! --- what more could anyone want? Thanks as always for your good efforts on everyone's behalf.
When I asked for you opinion on western education I meant in terms of how do you think capitalism effects learning and do you think everyone should go to university, sorry I should have specified.
I think its pretty harmful that in capitalism education is very theoretical and separate from working. However you are told to get a degree which will get you a job. This results in people studying things which won't necessarily interest them but are perceived as competitive on the market. For instance I was forced to study business more then I wanted to at the expensive of learning programming better. Socialist education should include work as part of the education and be more practical. You should also be able to study what interests you if it is compatible with the needs of society. You shouldn't have to worry if it will get you a high paying job. Every job should be well paid enough or give you the chance to earn more.
Everyone really should earn the same hourly wage in a socialist society. Differential pay should only be introduced when issues of demand and supply necessitates it.
Didn't Mao actually towards his death indicate his approval for what would become "reform and opening up"? I know none of us love captitalist restoration but I have a hard time not seeing it as a necessary step for China as the Soviet Union dissolved, mostly as a way to a) make the capitalists dependent on them b) take the target off their back of western Imperialism c) develop the productive forces in a controlled way (quite different than the capitalist restoration in other parts of the eastern bloc) to prepare for socialism And what are you thoughts nowadays, with xi strongly indicating the need for development towards socialism, particularly by the 2049 date?
Any thoughts on Louis Althusser and theoretical anti-humanism? Althusser was heavily influenced by Mao Zedong Thought, and Mao was (allegedly) a fan of his work, so much so that he invited Althusser to China right after the Cultural Revolution (at least, according to Althusser's memoir). Shabbat shalom!
What about politics in command referring to red engineers, doctors etc in China? In the USSR they were ok with using tsarist-era experts because they were experts; they just had commissars overseeing them. They promoted socialist experts but they were still willing to use politically imperfect experts. But in Cultural Revolution I've heard they wanted only "red experts".
Sadly in the bulk of the Western Imperial core, rural areas are the MOST reactionary, and we have the surveillance state everywhere else with incredibly toxic petite bourgosie consciousness.
I find it funny how u have more questions and reservsation then positions. Sounds like u dont get core of revolution, its something viseral that must be tuned like a guitar to play consistent rythnm. For such a guitar with so many strings u must have a strong organization and with practice has been revised and simplified without diluting message
18:20 Stalin might've been right here. The nomenklatura does try to restore capitalism but it is always supported by external forces. But it is true Stalin underestimated the nomenklatura
every household could till lands and improve harvests because the governments became mindful bringing agricultural advance knowledge to countrysides... true... cooperatives are assistedfinancially by government banks... teachers wages made very fair... nurses wages then followed to be given more(i think still struggling for very fair nurses wages)... too much increases of tuition fees by private institutions are getting opposed... its a process of patience with time and determination to achieve an objective... one step forward at a time...
"Base yourself in the rural areas and try to put down a tank with an AK-47" this is exactly what TKP/ML and MKP doing here in Turkey and they haven't had a real progress since the late 70's
good video, but i would disagree on one minor point. I do not think, that Stalin and the CPSU neglected ideological class struggle and just focussed on the theoriy of procutive forces to reach communism. It is debateable if there was put enough effort for ideological class struggle but it is wrong to say that they negclected it. Stalins work on economic problems deals with economy, so it is clear from this standpoint that he concetrated on economy. But even economy is ideological class struggle: there was the debate about the law of value, the machine tractor station etc., shortly after Stalin's death the texbook of political economy was published, which dealed with this reviosionism in economy,. But next to economy there were other topics in ideological class struggle. Especially in the late 40ies there was struggle against bourgeoise ideology in science, art, philosophy, music, linguistics and so on. Maybe the CPSU, Stalin and the whole communist world during this time should have spent more time and energy in this. But in this time economic reconstruction after the war and the thread of US-imperialism was considered more important
I agree with you. The vulgarization of "the theory of productive forces" was very implicit in the USSR, not explicit. They focused very much in economic competition with the West, arms race, space race, etc. To some degree Mao did the same thing but I think the USSR got too caught up in that especially after Stalin.
