A Critical Reassessment of Maoism?
Posted by Tell No Lies on June 8, 2010
Is it soup yet?
We are publishing this piece not as an endorsement of its analysis, but to encourage discussion among revolutionaries and communists.
from FreedomRoad.org
Maoism broke new ground in asking tough questions that the international communist movement had largely feared facing. It offered the inspiration of a courageous revolutionary practice—in China as well as other countries. Yet, while several of the communist parties that made a critique of the Soviet experience from the right (e.g., the Italian Communist Party, the French) were for their own reasons prepared to call into question many of the fundamentals of Leninism (as transpired during the 1970s and early to mid 1980s with the development of what came to be known as “Eurocommunism”), Maoism was unprepared to challenge Marxism-Leninism from the Left in ways that could have advanced a revolutionary (rather than social democratic) project.
Toward a Critical Reassessment of Maoism
By Khalil Hassan
Max Elbaum’s Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che offers the revolutionary Left an opportunity for a long-needed self-examination. A well-written and thoughtful book, it seriously examines much of what led to the formation of a New Communist Movement in the USA, and much of what led to its collapse by the 1980s. An exhaustive review is necessary since Elbaum’s book can and should catalyze a needed dialogue and analysis of that period. At the same time, the publication of this book, and its harsh condemnation of the political tendency known as Maoism as being the principal problem of the revolutionary Left, offers us a moment to begin a reassessment of the political tendency that came to be associated with the late Chairman of the Communist Party of China.
The following essay presents a series of theses toward such a reassessment. A much more in-depth look is warranted, but in light of the discussion that has accompanied the publication of Revolution in the Air, it is critical to clarify terms, and better understand the Maoist political tendency.
It should be added at the outset that Elbaum collapses most of the problems of the New Communist Movement into his notion of the errors of Maoism. With this thesis, I am in fundamental disagreement. The New Communist Movement, a movement that, as Elbaum correctly noted, arose out of the progressive social movements of the ’60s and attempted to rebuild a revolutionary current in US politics, died due to an ultra-leftism that crossed political currents, a fact that Elbaum grudgingly seems to accept, albeit in contradiction with his main argument.
This ultra-leftism was grounded less in traditional dogmatism and a slavish support for the nuances of the foreign policy of the People’s Republic of China, and more in semi-anarchist assumptions and practices; voluntarism (at the levels of theory and practice); and a search for a mythological orthodox communist heritage. Underlying all of this, however, was the critical error: the failure of the new revolutionary Left to recognize and comes to grips with the crisis of socialism, a crisis that went back to the Stalin era in the former Soviet Union. Our collective failure to understand the crisis of socialism and its implications was linked to a social practice of ultra-leftism.
Maoism and the Crisis of Socialism
It is, therefore, fitting that one should begin a reassessment of Maoism by addressing the crisis of socialism. In its fundamentals, what came to be known first as “Mao Zedong Thought”, and later by many as “Maoism,” was an effort led by forces within the Communist Party of China (CPC), and later in other communist and revolutionary movements and parties, to address the crisis of socialism. In this regard, to narrow an understanding of Maoism to the specifics of China’s foreign policy misses the mark entirely. Foreign policies of any country, regardless of rhetoric, are driven by various forces, including class forces, ideological pulls, historic tensions, perceived national interests, and on and on. Maoism, on the other hand, represented a political tendency, and a complex one at that. It certainly contributed to the foreign policy of the People’s Republic of China, but it was not identical with it.
What can we say were some of the elements of Maoism? To borrow from the Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin, “Maoism offered a critique of Stalinism from the left, while Khrushchev made one from the right.” Maoism emerged as a critique of the Soviet experience. It did so in a contradictory manner in that it represented both a political critique of the actions of the Soviet Union post-Stalin, as well as an often-implied theoretical critique of the Stalin period.
As such, contained within the broad rubric of Maoism were sub-tendencies or alliances that shifted over time. Thus, within Maoism one could find those who sought justification for their analysis based, ironically, on Stalinism. At the same time one could find those that more overtly critiqued the Stalin period and the approach to socialism that it represented. (Elbaum does acknowledge the sub-tendencies within Maoism, but tends to represent this as some haphazard united front. See p.140.)
All that said, I would argue that the key elements of Maoism that made it more than an amalgam of ideas are as follows:
- (1) It reaffirmed Marx and Lenin’s proposition that socialism was not a mode of production but represented a transitional period between capitalism and communism during which elements of both modes of production would exist (and by implication, be in struggle).
- (2) Given point #1, and that there would continue to be classes, class struggle would continue during socialism, but this struggle would take different forms than had existed under traditional capitalism.
- (3) Classes, including antagonistic classes, could in fact re-emerge during socialism. Socialism, therefore, was not a period in which there could be no reversals. The consolidation of capital under the rubric of state property—to borrow from Engels—was insufficient to guarantee a transition to communism or the emancipation of the oppressed.
(4) The 20th century had witnessed the rise in importance, if not centrality, of the national liberation struggles and struggles for national independence against imperialism. While class struggle in the imperialist countries would remain important, and the struggle on the part of the socialist camp against imperialism could be invaluable, by implication Maoism saw both of the latter as being relatively weak compared with the former.
- (5) The Communist International (Comintern) had been a disaster and undermined the sovereignty of revolutionary movements and their ability to develop revolutionary strategies that fit their concrete conditions. Rather than the Comintern’s serving as a body to coordinate revolutionary strategies developed indigenously, the Comintern was seen as imposing strategies from without. Flowing from this was the notion that while there needed to be support of revolutionary movements and parties, the internal contradiction within each social formation must be the decisive measure of the character of a revolutionary movement.
- (6) That a broad united front against imperialism was necessary, including within it a variety of middle forces that were not in and of themselves revolutionary.
- (7) That the worker-peasant alliance was critical in the advancement of any revolutionary process in the so-called Third World.
- (8) That the Soviet Union had degenerated into a capitalist state, and was, in effect, an example of social imperialism.
There are, of course, in addition the points and elaborations on matters of philosophy offered by Mao.
Class Struggle and Retreat under Socialism
It is impossible in this short essay to take on each of the themes, but it is worth offering some summary points. This essay began with a lengthy quote from Engels in order to illustrate that from the beginning, Marxism has attempted to grapple with the interrelationship between the state, capital, private capitalism and capitalist relations. Engels offered, very presciently, the notion that the state could serve as what he termed the “aggregate capitalist.” In other words, the fundamental feature of capitalism is not the existence of private capitalists.
Maoism, in attempting to understand the development of the USSR, took this as a key starting point. Stalin had looked at class struggle as a matter of military action either against foreign aggressors or against imperialist agents. In both cases the answer was simple for him: elimination. The notion of class struggle and the possibility of the emergence of a new oppressive class arising from both small commodity production and from within the socialist state and party itself were simply not on the table. For Stalin, as for many of his followers in what came to be known as the New Communist Movement in the USA, socialism was a one way street: the only way for there to be capitalist restoration or otherwise backsliding was through a counter-revolutionary insurrection or an external invasion.
Beginning in the 1940s some Trotskyist tendencies began exploring the possibility that there might be other ways to reverse the socialist course. (The noted Marxist C.L.R. James was among the more prominent Trotskyists to suggest that a form of state capitalism had emerged in the USSR under Stalin.) Maoism, through its various exponents, including but not limited to Mao, saw the key to proceeding along the socialist road in the question of what steps were taken to move against capitalist relations and build the power of the workers and peasants.
Maoism challenged the economic determinism of Stalinian Marxism, even in its post-Stalin incarnations. It suggested that while the development of the productive forces was essential, economic development in and of itself would not, ipso facto, lead toward communism, even if a communist party were in command. It is in this context that it is useful to consider the quote from Mao that Elbaum so frequently ridicules: “The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything.” The entirety of the quote reads as follows:
The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it may lose. The line is a net rope. When it is pulled, the whole net opens out. (Mao Zedong, “Summary of Chairman Mao’s talks with Responsible Comrades at Various Places during his Provincial Tour from the Middle of August to 12 September 1971,” in Stuart Schram, editor, Chairman Mao Talks to the People: Talks and Letters: 1956–1971 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), p.290.)
While the point was overstated and subject to the wild interpretations by an infantile movement that Elbaum cites, the critical feature of this notion is that there is no inevitability on the road to socialism, whether that is in the pre-revolutionary stage or in the post-revolutionary stage. The party’s political and ideological line, which Mao never reduced to a set of programs and proclamations, but always founded on a concrete analysis, was the battleground in the construction of socialism.
If one does not believe that a socialist society can move backwards short of an insurrection or invasion, then it is clear that none of what Mao elaborated would make a bit of sense. As an author close to the Communist Labor Party (which came to oppose the notion of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union) wrote in the 1970s, the notion of capitalist restoration would be like humans devolving into apes. Yet it was the possibility of capitalist restoration that Maoism attempted to address.
Cancelled stamp?
While Elbaum and many others may think that Maoism was completely off the mark in such an analysis, there is an interesting question one must ask: If the USSR was socialist, why was it that a formal restoration of Western-style capitalism transpired so easily? Why was there no civil war? Why was it that cadres of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) did not rally en masse against private capitalism? How, in other words, did the great tree become infested with termites? Short of a conspiracy theory that places all the blame on a cabal of a small group of leaders, there are few answers besides getting to the root of actual class struggle as it was playing out in the former USSR. (And such conspiracy theories have proliferated within the international Left. The Workers Party of Belgium (PTB), an otherwise outstanding force on the Left, retreated from a semi-Maoist analysis of the USSR and focused its analysis of the collapse of the Soviet bloc on conspiracies carried out by the CIA, Gorbachev and Yeltsin.)
Was Maoism correct that the Soviet Union had become a form of state capitalism? I believe that it is far from clear what the actual social formation was. In that regard the characterization of the USSR as capitalist, let alone social imperialist seems more descriptive than analytical, and even in the descriptiveness, missed many important nuances. The debates that included such forces as those grouped around Monthly Review magazine, the French Marxist Charles Bettelheim, Samir Amin, and others were informative in probing this question but not decisive in answering the problem. Despite the disappearance of the USSR, understanding what transpired remains a key theoretical task of all serious forces on the revolutionary Left.
Actual Soviet Practice
It is important in making this analysis of the Soviet Union and the possibility of the restoration of capitalism (or the creation of some other sort of non-socialist, post-capitalist state) to ask a question about the international role of the USSR, particularly because Elbaum walks very quickly around issues of Soviet international practice while blasting the Chinese for each and every transgression on proletarian internationalism. Influencing both Maoism and Chinese foreign policy was the question of whether there was an actual threat from the USSR, i.e., a threat to China and possibly to other countries.
In order to answer this it is important to consider theoretical propositions as well as actual practices. During the Stalin era the CPSU elaborated two important notions with regard to the possibility of a supposed socialist division of labor on both the political party front and on the nation-state front. In the early years of the USSR, the federation that was to become the USSR supported the notion of self-determination up to and including the right of secession. Nevertheless, when forces, including communists, within many of those nation-states suggested that self-determination should be exercised in favor of greater autonomy or outright independence, they were met with repression. This included actions in the Ukraine as well as in what came to be known as Soviet Central Asia.
Coinciding with these purges was the emergence of the notion of the so-called “Russian Elder Brother,” i.e., the Russian Republic playing the leading role in the division of labor within the USSR. After World War II this notion was further expanded to include the relationship between the USSR and the East European People’s Democracies as well as the Mongolian People’s Republic. In its most extreme form this proposition played itself out in the 1968 Soviet invasion of the then Czechoslovakia.
The other aspect of the socialist division of labor concerned the relationship between parties. Chinese suspicion and resistance to the notion of a new Communist International had little to do with the pragmatism that Elbaum implies, but rather to the actual experience of the Comintern. The Chinese Party, specifically, had a very negative experience with Comintern directives in which disasters unfolded due to dogmatic and otherwise out-of-touch direction. The Executive Committee of the Comintern (ECCI), the leading body between Comintern congresses, held an international role analogous to the central committee of the communist party of a nation-state. Thus, the Comintern could dissolve a party, alter its leadership, or change its direction. An example of some of the more extreme measures included the physical elimination of the leadership of the Communist Party of Poland (and the dissolving of the party) by the Comintern in 1939, all carried out under the leadership of the CPSU.
Thus, at the level of experience, there was a sound basis to be suspicious of actual Soviet practice. To be added to this can be included Stalin’s machinations in the late 1940s to separate Sinkiang Province off from China; the withdrawal of Soviet aid in 1960; the unilateralism of the USSR and the CPSU in its relations with other parties generally, and the CPC in particular; and the twice-discussed/considered nuclear bombardment of China that the USSR contemplated (along with the USA).
It is worth mentioning these points to understand that Elbaum’s notion of some sort of grand anti-imperialist front that the Chinese allegedly broke simply does not correspond with the actual facts. Second, that there was a relationship that the Soviets wished to impose on others that was very Eurocentric and assumed Soviet hegemony. These facts all contributed to the development of Maoism as a political trend, but also contributed to the development of Chinese foreign policy.
A note should be offered about Chinese foreign policy. Elbaum is absolutely correct that many in the Maoist movement slavishly followed Chinese foreign policy in much the same way that an earlier generation followed Soviet foreign policy. In both cases the results were often disastrous. The failure of any party or organization to independently elaborate its own international line leads to both bad theory and worse practice. In the case of China, there are examples, many offered by Elbaum, that almost defy explanation. The stand of the Chinese on the 1973 Chilean coup and its aftermath is certainly one example. The failure of the CPC to distinguish the objectives of Cuban foreign policy from that of the USSR is yet another example. The withdrawal of assistance to several revolutionary movements, and in some cases defaming such movements certainly unsettled the international anti-imperialist movement.
Yet Elbaum fails to acknowledge in the same bold way that Soviet practice, both pre– and post–World War II left something to be desired when it came to proletarian internationalism. This can include the invasion of Poland in 1939; the division of Europe into spheres of influence; machinations against Yugoslavia; the disastrous advice to the Greek Communists during World War II and the abandonment of the Greek Revolution in the late 1940s; Soviet support of the Argentine military junta in the 1970s; Soviet support of Ethiopia in its war to suppress the Eritrean national liberation movement… and the list goes on.
In the cases of both the Chinese and the Soviets there is much that we did not know and do not know or understand that might explain some of these actions. Other actions were driven by objectives that have little to do with ideology, but a lot to do with the nuances of the national and international class struggle.
Why Did Maoism Fail?
If Maoism was an attempt at a critique of Stalinian Marxism from the Left, why did it fail, possibly permanently, but at the least for the moment? There are Marxists far greater than I who have attempted and are attempting to articulate an answer to this question. As a modest contribution to this discussion, however, I would suggest that Maoism emerged over time, rather than full-blown, as a critique of the Soviet experience. One can see, for example, in reading Mao’s A Critique of Soviet Economics (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977) the beginning of an analysis on the question of socialist society. In other words, Maoism, as a body of theory, cannot be summed up by simply looking at CPC resolutions, Chinese foreign policy, or even the words of Mao at a particular moment. It must be understood as a movement, theory, and practice over a space of time.
Maoism attempted to critique the Soviet experience, and by implication Stalinian Marxism, from within the traditional Marxist-Leninist paradigm. In a peculiar sense, Maoism attempted to both break new ground and simultaneously cling to a certain orthodoxy in order to justify its positions. Maoism became trapped within that paradigm in ways that weakened its possibility of successfully addressing the crisis of socialism. The failure to conduct an outright demarcation with Stalinian Marxism certainly provided fertile ground for a retreat. More importantly, it could not pave the way toward a revolutionary resolution of the crisis of socialism.
Ironically, as important as was the worker-peasant alliance in Maoist theory (and for Mao personally), steps were taken during both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution that were far in advance of where the peasantry was as a class. Certainly on the positive side the development of collective farms and communes represented a step to move further down the socialist road. But capitalist relations were going to continue at least to some degree under socialism, and this could not be eliminated quickly, particularly in an underdeveloped, formerly semi-colonial country.
To the extent to which a criticism of voluntarism should be accepted (and it should), it could be contained in the tendency within Maoism to identify correctly what needed to transpire, but to assume that victory could be accomplished through persistence. This voluntarism was a response to the depressing determinism of the Soviet bloc theory and practice, but it could and often did lead to counter-productive ends. The cadre and supporters became weary, and cynicism ended up prevailing. Within cynicism, capitalism and capitalist relations find a fertile ground for growth.
Maoism represented a contradictory attitude toward the question of the communist party. On the one hand, the importance of a revolutionary party at all stages in the revolutionary process was constantly reaffirmed. Maoism correctly identified that it was within the communist party and the state apparatus that a new class of exploiters could emerge, precisely because the means of production were no longer owned privately. For this reason, Mao’s calls, during the Cultural Revolution, for struggle against the party and for the creation of new revolutionary organizations represented an important breakthrough for Marxism.
"Maoism correctly identified that it was within the communist party and the state apparatus that a new class of exploiters could emerge, precisely because the means of production were no longer owned privately."
Yet this call, and Maoism itself, balked. The unanswered question was whether there really was a space for additional revolutionary parties. Was the struggle against bourgeois tendencies in THE communist party the only legitimate ground, or was it possible for revolutionary forces to constitute other formations that, while being in support of socialism, might have a difference with the official communist party? Maoism stepped up to the precipice and then halted. It could not answer that question within the traditional Marxist-Leninist paradigm. And, when faced with the chaos at a certain stage in the Cultural Revolution, retreated from even asking the question. This, I would suggest, had international theoretical and practical ramifications for the development of the revolutionary Left.
Conclusion
There is certainly much more that can and should be said about Maoism. This essay is only a minor contribution toward that discussion. We should conclude, however, by reiterating the earlier point about the source of the problems of the New Communist Movement. By pinning the blame on Maoism, Elbaum avoids some deeper questions about problems within the Marxist-Leninist paradigm. By simply looking at those groups that subscribed to Maoism and those that did not, the striking feature was the commonality of problems, and in many cases, practices.
The New Communist Movement emerged out of a social milieu that provided a foundation for ultra-leftism. Was that ultra-leftism avoidable? Certainly. But in order to avoid that ultra-leftism, our movement could have used greater help from prior generations of revolutionary theorists and activists. More importantly, the New Communist Movement would have needed to come to grips with the crisis of socialism. By believing that the problems of the USSR, other revolutionary movements, or even the Communist Party USA were primarily problems of insufficient political will to move in the right direction, we laid ourselves wide open to fall into voluntarist theory and practice.
Maoism broke new ground in asking tough questions that the international communist movement had largely feared facing. It offered the inspiration of a courageous revolutionary practice—in China as well as other countries. Yet, while several of the communist parties that made a critique of the Soviet experience from the right (e.g., the Italian Communist Party, the French) were for their own reasons prepared to call into question many of the fundamentals of Leninism (as transpired during the 1970s and early to mid 1980s with the development of what came to be known as “Eurocommunism”), Maoism was unprepared to challenge Marxism-Leninism from the Left in ways that could have advanced a revolutionary (rather than social democratic) project. Thus, and contrary to Elbaum, we owe a debt of gratitude to Maoism for opening up a door through which we must now pass, even if as a theory it could only take the first steps.
TOR said
For me, this article seems to represent a Maoist grasping towards genuine Marxism but failing to reach it for fear of being called a Trotskyist. It is part of what are now very common attempts to critique and solve the problems of Stalinism while somehow avoiding Trotsky’s work on these questions entirely or even failing to acknowledge the differences between genuine Leninism and Stalinism. We don’t have to discard Leninism to solve the problems of Stalinism, but have to use a genuine Marxist-Leninist analysis to understand these problems and figure out how we might be able to get beyond them, which is what Trotsky attempted to do in his work. We must build on Trotsky’s work if we really want to figure out these issues.
I also admit that Mao made many valid points in his Critique of Soviet Economics that we should also take into consideration and analyze using the Marxist method of dialectical materialism to understand the context in which they were made and how they related to the actions of the CPC, Mao and the CPSU as well as the contours of the international class struggle unfolding at that time.
... said
Then again Trotsky’s political works were inspired more by anger than by reality. Not distinguishing between the semi-conscious bureaucracy of the Party (culminating in the secret speech) and Stalin and his supporters is silly.
saoirse said
Both FRSO organizations put forth a strong line against ultra-leftism. I think this is a great essay that offers us new avenues to discuss things on Kasama. During the 70s the PUL had a great little handbook on ultra-leftism, its one of the things that made me conclude anarchism was insufficient and led me to leave the Love and Rage RAF and join FRSO. Earlier the RWH had a critique of ultra-leftism in China and in trade union work in the US. I still find there insights a value reference. There have been some important debates on the mass line and Obama in particular some on Kasama over ultra-leftism v. movementism v. reformism. I hope this reopens some of those discussions.
zerohour said
saoirse, where can we find those documents you are referring to?
chegitz guevara said
I’m not sure it’s correct to say there was no counter-revolution in the USSR, or at least not in Russia. The Russian Parliament, then dominated by the Communist Party, refused to go along with Yeltsin’s full scale reversion to capitalism, rose up, and was physically suppressed. By this point, the masses of the former USSR were so alienated and demoralized that they weren’t prepared to rise up to defend their property.
Yet, clearly there has been no counter-revolution in the PRC. We might, perhaps, consider the events around Tienanmen to be a defense of the revolution and socialist forms of property, and the suppression of it to be the counter-revolution, but the question in both Russia and China, then is, how did the counter-revolution end up in charge of the military and the state before such half-hearted efforts to defend the revolution were made.
Mike E said
Chegitz writes:
There was, (imho and, i believe, in fact) a counterrevolution in China.
They arrested the left, killed and imprisoned many. They confronted and isolated those sections of the military considering armed resistance. And then they moved quickly (to first destroy the peoples communes in the countryside, and then open parts of the country and parts of the economy to rapid restructuring (using foreign capital and expertise to create models and “advanced” areas of capitalist restoration.)
The change of power happened virtually the second Mao died — within days their coup happened — i.e. 1976. And the numbers of people arrested and killed is (obviously) not yet known. Though the public showtrial of the Four (plus the chen boda forces for added frills) were held in 1980.
There was resistance at the time (including some attempts by militia in Shanghai to fight in an armed way). But most of it is undocumented. And there was a “cave in” by the most left forces within the military — for reasons that can be guessed, but which have not been documented.
By 1978, the changes (wrought by the coup) were pretty open and extensive (and the fiction separating the Hua Guofeng forces from the hardcore Deng center had faced, as Hua was simply discarded after his usefullness evaporated).
though Bill Hinton (unfortunately) played an aggressive role in upholding the 1976 coup, he did later help documented the massive changes that were in play by 1978.
I.e.: The Great Reversal: The Privatization of China, 1978-1989.
On the contrary, Tienanmen was the unsheathing of raw capitalist state violence in the midst of a struggle that (in complex ways) included and entwined both popular resistance and inner-party disputes.
This was (obviously) not a Maoist-led resistance in the streets (though maoists were present especially in the worker contingents). But the suppression was far from a defense of the revolution — it was the bloody insistence on the current ‘Chinese model” of capitalism and harsh repression that has been on display ever since.
Patrick said
This is an interesting article.
In many ways, there is many things that are clearly correct: Maoism, at some point, failed. But isn’t this true of the entire communist movement overall in the 20th century? But it isn’t also true that Maoism offered the greatest advance ideologically and practically for the oppressed the world over?
My orientation is that Maoism is the best place to begin, to reassess and refocus, but not a dry, set collection of axioms ready to launch at any problem, but in a critical, humble, and persistent way. What has always intrigued me is that Maoism has continue to seed new revolutions even after Mao’s death.
Yes, the GPCR failed to prevent capitalist restoration. But why? Can we simply explain it away by blaming the ultraleftism of various factions? In many ways, I don’t think we can.
saoirse said
hey Zerohour the RCP published the book revolution and counter revolution in china (i think that’s the name). it contains many of the main split documents btwn the RWH and RCP. The RCP used to sell the book at Revolution books. I highly recommend it. These documents were also published by the RWH as Red Papers 8. The PUL (Proletarian Unity League) document may be on the net? or some FRSO folks may have a copy?
t1201971 said
I always thought that FRSO rejected the “state capitalist” and “social-imperialist” analysis of the Soviet Union and was close to the PTB view on this. Or is this document from Diet FRSO instead of full flavor, original formula M-L FRSO (Fight Back!)?
b_y said
i’m not a member of FRSO/OSCL or any socialist organization. but i want to say that i’m quite embarrassed for folks that continue to engage in unprincipled name-calling on a public forum. it seems like distinguishing the two FRSOs by their full names would suffice. in fact, it would even take less effort to type out than your clever quip.
just a thought…
land said
Saorise: There have been some important debates on the mass line on Kasama. Joshua Horn’s articles. And Mike Ely’s posts .
I will get them together. Other people can add. I think it would be good to have them in one place. Along with the relevant articles.
As to the above post by Mike Ely: I would like to know more on
“And there was a “cave-in” by the most left forces within the military for reasons that can be guessed – but which can not be documented.”
saoirse said
B_y 100% agree with you. This has happened before on this site and I think its poisonous and against the spirit of how Kasama conducts debate. T1201971 i am also not in either organization at this time so I will refrain for offer my own take on your question. Land that is awesome.
land said
Also in Patrick’s post “If Maoism offered the greatest advance ideologically and practically for the oppressed the world over (which I think it did) and if it has continued to seed new revolutions after Mao’s death” then why would we say it failed?
Jed says in Letter From Katmandu “The masses are the makers of history.” is how Mao put it, advice Prachanda’ party apparently heard well.
The definition ultraleftism – doesn’t that just mean stop using the word revolution or communism.
nando said
T writes:
Everyone here agrees that this is against the spirit of Kasama. And frankly when it happens, it is like a rat scurrying across the floor to shouts of “get it, get it.” Which is a good sign that we have established an agreed-upon counter-culture.
It is also worth noting that such snarky methods are not just “the usual internet flaming” — but also are consciously adopted by some people and trends. It seems tied to a particular hostility to open discussion, and a lazy demonization of anyone who disagrees.
If the world was simple, and if our truths were obviously correct, then we could treat anyone who doesn’t share our views as a moron or a pig. (Glenn Beck does it too.)
It’s just a way of avoiding difficult questions by pretending they were settled long ago.
nando said
There has been sharp struggle inside the Chinese communist party over whether to use this term “ultraleft” (in regard to problems in the cultural revolution and the line associated with Lin Biao.)
The forces around Mao argued for the term “left in form, right in content” to stress their insistence that rightism remained the major danger and source of capitalist restoration.
The forces around Zhou Enlai argued that the problem was ultraleftism (on one hand) and rightism (on the other) — to pose themselves as a golden mean (and to portray “correct” politics as a process of “breaking through the middle” of various proposals).
Like Land i see the use of “ultraleft” as a flag…. that is not to say it is not possible to be voluntarist, or adventurist, or hyper-dogmatic or whatever. But in my experience, particularly in the U.S. left, “ultraleft” is a term reserved for people who do open revolutionary and communist work — and it is applied by people who think such things are absurd and counterproductive. that is simplifying things a bit (of course), but it is true enough that I simply don’t use that term.
The problem of Weatherman was not some simplistic “ultraleftism” but a form of pessemism and despair that came cloaked in lots of empty and militant posturing. I think the core problem with the RCP is similar pessimism around revolution which took a number of rightist forms (in the 1990s) before settling on the current inward spiral and cultish self-bewilderment. And so on.
It is a bit awkward, but i think there is a reason to stick with Mao’s phrase in many cases:
“left in form, right in essence.” Because it stresses that the main conflict in a revolutionary movement is (almost always) whether or not to actually be revolutionary, whether to actually prepare and then make a revolution.
t1201971 said
OK, I got the fact that you can count the number of people on this thread who have a sense of humor on one hand- anyone actually wanna answer the question? Or am I just going to be bashed by the next 20 people on here for cracking a joke?
nando said
Snarky jokes are against the culture of this site. If we didn’t have those rules, this place would be unbearable.
Make all the jokes you want, but rein in the flaming. It’s not that funny.
t1201971 said
Nando: give me a break.
Here’s some advice: if you want life to go a little easier, grow/rent/buy/steal a sense of humor.
I know this will be deleted and that’s fine, but your response doesn’t do anything to dispel the stereotype of leftists as humorless. I’m not 12 years old, I don’t need to be told what’s appropriate for a public forum.
So it’s not OK to crack a joke about some social-democrats, but it’s perfectly acceptable to compare me to a rat and say that I’m “hostile to open discussion”, that I engage in “lazy demonization(s)” and that what I say is poisonous?
I post on here every once in a while. Looking thru any of my old posts, can anyone tell me where I’ve shown myself to be hostile to open discussion or where I’ve demonized other tendencies? Whatever, I don’t feel like hanging out so I can get bashed some more- I’m out.
shinethepath said
Lets be clear – I think firmly that Freedom Road Socialist Organization has rejected for the most part the positions to come out of the RWHq around China and Brezhnevite orientation, it has instead taken on, for the most, the Maoist analysis of socialism and what had occurred in China. Its important to review, that in the late 80s’ and early 90s’ FRSO began breaking with the revisionist Brezhnevite line altogether and this was responsible for the minority split that became Fight Back! or FRSO (ml)
shinethepath said
And to speak as a FRSO member in NYC, we in our own ways, are rehabilitating the orientation deemed “ultra-left” by the RWHq critiques – it is a joke amongst some of ourselves that we’re setting up the Zhang Chunqiao Headquarters.
Mike E said
[moderator note: We have very few rules here, but flaming of other participants is not allowed -- it degrades our discussions. And beyond that, it is contrary to the kind of left, and political culture, and revolution that we want to have. Also, protracted discussion of our moderation and rules should be moved to the appropriate moderation thread, because it too clogs up our substantive discussions. Humor, listening and an easy mutual generosity are encouraged. Please move any further discussion of our rules here.]
Mike E said
SP writes:
Interesting comment. Is there more to be known?
Tell No Lies said
t1201971,
The answer to your question can be found by clicking on the link at the top of the article. I’ll be honest. I chuckled at the “Diet FRSO” comment even though I’m on balance more sympathetic to them than the Fight Back! FRSO (I have friends in both). But it was sectarian, just like STP’s use of the term “Stalinoid Brezhnevite” to describe the high-fructose diabetes inducing FRSO is sectarian. And sectarianism, even when its funny (or perhaps especially) is poison to the political culture we are trying to build here. Nobody is hungry to delete your comments. On the contrary, we are very happy to have voices representing various trends participating in discussions here. I’m not agnostic on the differences that get expressed here, but I sincerely appreciate that I have things to learn from people I disagree with and hope that they can at the very least pretend that they might have something to learn as well.
jp said
in passing: maybe it’s because I’m not party to the history, but I only read the ‘diet’ comment as funny, not malicious.
Mike E said
Questions about this post:
when was it written?
Does it represent FRSO/OSCL’s common unifying ideological view today?
Or is it a historical document with some local or generational significance, but that the organization generally no longer relates to?
Mike E said
Notice how distracting trolling remarks are. And how boring it is when we are distracted by them. And how endlessly we can debate what they meant and how they were meant.
JP writes:
Yes, maybe it is because you are not party to the history. Precisely.
If (hypothetically) I implied here that you and everything you dedicate your life to is worthless and wrong, and if I did it in a witty one-liner (to underscore the fact that I think you are a pathetic joke and not worthy of substantive engagement)… would you find that snarky quip to be funny?
How would you respond? And (more importantly) where would that take our discussions on Kasama?
Please go to our moderating thread, and suggest where YOU think we should draw the line — or argue that we should not have any moderating intervention at all since, after all, T-longnumber explains:
Playing the victim, T-longnumber writes:
No one attacked T-longnumber in an ad hominem way, or implied he/she is a rat or that he/she is hostile to discussions. We simply said (and repeat) that flaming is not acceptable here, and degrades our conversation.
Here is the simple fact:
We discourage snarky flaming here, gently and patiently. Plus, no personal attacks on people and their motives. It is distracting to what we are trying to do. And that is true whether a particular flame is marginally clever or not. And drawing that line goes against the grain of much left culture — which is often self-hating and bitter.
If someone is frustrated by our rules, they can always construct their own little flamepit and amuse themselves with snarky FRSO roasts all day long.
jp said
actually, one of the kasama characteristics i like is the general well-considered tone of argument.
i offered my comment because i thought it might be of interest, to those of you in the middle of the argument, to know how it looks to a particular someone from outside. if such information was provided to me, i would consider it helpful precisely for that purpose of offering perspective.
for example, if i characterized the Committee of Correspondence as ‘cpusa light’ i would consider it an arguable, but not disrespectful characterization.
if, given the history, it is internally seen as an act of flaming, then so be it. if you don’t want my opinion, then so be that, too.
Mike E said
There are gray areas, JP. Characterizing political groups is necessary and we need that. I think characterizing FRSO (Fightback) as (for example) Breshnev-like in their politics is actually descriptive (if probably debatable), but hardly flaming. Calling them “Stalinoid Breznevites” consciously injects a different tone.
I don’t think anyone would blink if you called CoC “CP light.”
The point is not to stamp out characterization, but obvious snideness and sniping. Trolling is designed to provoke a particular kind of dull booger-fling.
This “diet” quip has now succeeded in dominating the thread for a day. T-longnumber kept that diversion spinning by repeatedly returning to it (complaining about our supposed humorlessness etc.)
That’s not ok. That why we have a rule against flaming.
As for wanting your opinion, JP, we obviously want it. But not here. There is a place where opinions on moderation are sent. Please use it.
[moderator note: End of diversion. Post any further comments on our moderating thread. Further off-topic comments on this thread will simply be removed. Seen?]
Mike E said
Note to Patrick who writes:
I always squirm a little bit over the word “failed.”
People say “their marriage failed” when people get divorced. But maybe their marriage was wonderful, and then (over time) they took separate paths. Why is that “failure”?
I think Maoism succeeded, in many ways, in giving communism a new life. And if you can imagine a world (in 1960s) WITHOUT the cultural revolution and Maoism, you can get a sense of that.
Maoism (as a movement and as a particular synthesis) ran its course and ran into its limits. And ran into some particular limits in China.
But I suspect this has to do with the nature of real life, not some intrinsic “failure” of Maoism. The dynamism of movements and ideological frameworks has a lifecycle. things come into being (out of the contradictions of the past) and they are transformed (based on their own contradictions).
The fact that Maoism succeeded, in so many ways… does not mean we should remain frozen there, turn it into some new timeless orthodoxy, or ignore the fact that it is insufficient (and was, in some ways always insufficient).
I understand what you are saying, of course, but just have a different view.
saoirse said
my own take on this stuff was that the RCP were largely correct in assessing the counter revolution in China. Though at the time of the split many of the main documents from the RWH seemed to be arguing against the idealist method Avakian was utilizing suggesting it was too soon to tell. It always seemed to me that the Maoist trend in FRSO always held a nuanced position that there were left and right errors during the cultural revolution in a way that defined itself out side of a more orthodox Maoist position that specified the right errors in the counter revolution. This trend, in my mind, had a parrellel to the criticism the RWH and others had of the party building frenzy of the 70s which included the pre-mature declaration of a party by the RCP. I still identify with this Maoism and Maoist identity or trend in FRSO.
I don’t know what it means to say that Maoism failed although I appreciate the bluntness of it. TNL authored a document called the historical failure of anarchism which title alone shock up many folks in a good way.
Mike E said
Much to think about in your comment, Saorise.
Just a question in reply: Didn’t anarchism fail precisely in a way that Maoism didn’t? Isn’t that the difference?
Maoism “failed” in the way a small child “fails” when they get up on chubby legs to walk, and then falls, and then gets up again. It was part of a learning curve of a real world process.
Anarchism failed in the way that an alchemist failed when trying to magically turn lead into gold. There was something fundamentally wrong with the whole method.
saoirse said
I think TNL title was in fact more a provocation than declaration at the time. Many had a literal interrpetation of his thinking whereas I think he was still in fact an anarchist arguing for anarchism. I wondered if Patrick too was being provocative or if he thought Maoism had in fact failed.
jp said
to say any ideology has ‘failed,’ or not, seems to me to make use of ideologies as platonic forms.
echoing Mike (i think): any ideology valuable to human experience must account for the possibility of its own transformation, given new circumstances which to which it may, in fact, have contributed. no such thing as the end of history for me.
Tell No Lies said
Saoirse is correct. I was playing with the different senses of the word “historical” in a way that was both intentionally provocative and that in retrospect probably involved an unconscious recognition of where my thinking was ultimately headed. My view at the time was that the history of anarchism in the 20th century was one of failure and defeat but that the project could and should be saved by confronting the causes of those failures and defeats. But of course the term “historical” was read by pretty much everybody else as suggesting that anarchism had failed more deeply and fundamentally than I was yet prepared to (consciously) acknowledge.
This sort of thing can greatly complicate the reading of texts. We rarely say precisely what we want to say, but often say things we need to say without knowing that that is what we are doing. This is, I suppose, another digression.
... said
I think Anarchism didn’t ‘fail’, it was simply a part of the learning curve of socialism before the commune. It’s just that for various reasons the forms of socialism proven wrong empirically (anarchism, social democracy, left communism, Trotskyism, Marxist-Leninism, and ‘Stalinism’) have a life of their own.
land said
I learned most of what I know from Mao and Maoists. I don’t know that much about anarchism. I know anarchists and I think they are important to building a rev movement. But at some point we just go our different ways.
I do like the analogy of learning to walk versus turning lead into gold.
land said
On the above post about learning from Mao I do not mean there is nothing to learn from people who are not Maoists. Or learning from history, Or even people I do not agree with.
But for me Mao has a special place.
b_y said
I think anarchists and M-L folks need to continue to critically examine those moments where they ‘go different ways’ and reconsider “why?”. Perhaps even more important to sustaining revolutionary momentum, “how?”.
In the case of established revolutionary parties that had seized state power, was the antagonism by left opposition movements really such that left them with nothing but their chosen course of action? Was resistance to state policy always objectively counter-revolutionary just because the state monopolized those terms? Or was it possible that the transitional state became so fearful and conservative in the face of an unstable revolutionary process that it suppressed certain developing capacities that could have unleashed even greater participation and leadership from below?
It’s all fine and good that you are inspired by Lenin and Mao, or uh Durruti. But does that affection sediment into uncritical sentimentality or, even worse, chauvinist tautologies?
land said
There is much I didn’t say in the above posts. It sounds too emotional.
And kind of simplistic.
Will go more into things later.
Mike E said
“…” wrote:
I think it is a valid point that anarchism was (organically and deeply) part of the learning experience of socialism. Certainly it is hard to understand or appreciate the Chicago Haymarket events without that perspective.
And yes, there is a problem of clinging to old concepts that may have been cutting edge (or the best we had) in some previous period, but that (lifted into our present) show their age and fatigue.
Land writes:
I think that Land makes an important observation — and it applies to me as well. I left school at 17 and dove into the Maoist movement. My training and worldview are marked by the fact that much of what i learned and experienced was from within a Maoist framework (ideologically) and a Maoist framework (organizationally).
Part of the value of these discussions is that (inevitably) breezes from other quarters stir things up. And I just want to mention how much I appreciate, and learn from, the contributions of others here, including those i disagree with on many matters.
Otto said
Mike said:
Does that mean I could argue that the Sandinista revolution of 1979 was not a failure because they did make some progress until they lost an election in the late 1980s.
They seem to be social Democrats today,but could we argue that they were a success for 8 years?
land said
I think it is important to delve into why Maoism was not a failure. Not so we can relive it or so we have a name to go by.
First we are in a different time and Kasama has made clear what are some of the new things we need to delve into.
Khukuri for one. Debate on the revolution in Nepal is another. And the original writings of Kasama on there is life after the RCP.
Whether one is a Maoist or not and whatever way people choose to bring that into the present at this time the message this system wants to desperately get across is that communism is dead.
Our message or one of them has been communist revolution changes everything. Now some of the youth today know close to nothing about Mao. How can you relate to communism changes everything if you don’t about the revolutionary days in China. If you don’t know how the revolution in Nepal is changing the lives of people. The lives of women and we saw some of this in the pictures of cultural events on May Day in Katmandu.
Whatever we are able to bring together has to have some revolutionary people. I think the big question is “Is this possible?” and I think the no answer goes along with Maoism was a failure. And I think it’s the wrong answer because it is possible. But we don’t yet have the analysis of “Where’s Our Mississippi?” So this debate is kind of life and death.
But it is not the time for a discussion on what’s wrong with the revolutionaries of the world.
Otto said
That’s a good point and I would add that just as the system wants us to think that communism is a failure, they don’t want us to conclude that the system is a failure. In that light revolution isn’t an option, but a necessity. We do need to stress the failure of capitalism and imperialism.
Mike E said
Land writes:
I suspect that the next big break and opening may not be visible at the moment. If true we can’t analyze our way there. it is a matter of creating a movement that is flexible enough and alert enough to be able to perceive and act.
I’m not sure what that means, or if it is true. Can you elaborate some more?
I suspect we do need a critical discussion/debate about the shortcomings of today’s revolutionary movements (their assumptions, strategies, ideologies etc.). No?
land said
In many of the Nepal articles in response to different questions we said “this is what a revolution looks like.”
If we are and I think we are looking for a Mississippi then how do we bring out “this is what looking for the Mississippi looks like.”
There could be a tendency and I see it in the debate around the “failures” to downplay what was changed.
By “revolutionaries of the world” I mainly meant internationalism is a place to start.And I think we all agree on that.
I didn’t say it very clearly.
Patrick said
Lets back up.
The context of this article was an exchange with Max Elbaum in Freedom Road Magazine, (already about ten years old), who put forward the notion that Maoism was to blame for the failures of the Left that emerged in the 60′s. This article was a refutation of that and in many ways a defense of Maoism, but also a accounting of its limits.
TNL pointed out in another thread the he felt that Mao in the tumult of the GPCR was faced with impossible choices, and what I take from that is that Maoism reached the barriers of its own logic faced with the international situation.
Burningman seems to dislike the Maoist moniker, preferring something like “neo-maoist”. Others in FRSO/OSCL prefer “post-maoist.”
Hassan writes “Thus, and contrary to Elbaum, we owe a debt of gratitude to Maoism for opening up a door through which we must now pass, even if as a theory it could only take the first steps.”
So where do we begin Mike? I unite with you that the limits of Maoism was mainly due to real life, and not some intrinsic “failure” of Maoism, but we have to wonder, what now?
I would posit that we still need to base ourselves in the experience and history of MLM, but firmly and purposefully move away from fretting about old playbooks. We are watching the Nepalese emerge as an example from this, and in that process, we have to re-define what a communist means in this context.
Eike Me-lie said
“Left-Refoundation” is doing a good job trying to make Mao safe for Trotskyism.
land said
In the above post I wrote “How can you relate to communism changes everything if you don’t know about the revolutionary days in China.”
In an odd way that statement kind of leaves out the youth. Because a whole generation has grown up without seeing and feeling part of a revolutionary society. Most youth today know little about revolutionary China. I think our new movement needs “It’s right to rebel.”. It needs Serve the People. I think as the Kasama article says “there is real glory and continuing value to Maoism, as a body of thought and as a movement for liberation. And as a distinct international trend.” And we need to take it “out the door (away from being a communist project draped in fantasy draped in fine words) to the beautiful blue planet crammed with contradiction and life.
And we do have to dig at all the summations without fear of what whatever truths we find.
One they are interesting. Two they actually happened. And it makes revolution real “this is what revolution looks like”. And there is alot we can learn from these – if we know them. So we need to know them.
In terms of “looking for our Mississippi” that would be a good subject for an article and post.
And more on how to confront the Damn Them! Damn Them! crimes of this system. Because I agree it is not going to come out of analysis.
Harsh Thakor said
I may differ with this essay but I applaud the work for raising some of the most important debates within Maoism.One central debate is whether other parties be allowed to function after the victory of a Socialist Revolution .The 2nd one was one some of the errors of the qusetion of International Line of both U.S.S.R and China.Personally I oppose the advocating of the term ‘Maoism’in itself.
I would still defend Com Stalin and his great role in defending the Socialist State and winning the War.Imagine any leader in his situation encircled by the Western and Nazi enemies displaying iron nerves.No state previously in history had achieved so much for the working class in term s of literacy,employment and health or achieved such production heights.Had it not been for the Ribbentriv-Molotov pact the U.S.S.R would never have been saved who went on to libertae the East European countries.True major mistakes were made on the Chinese question and on immense repression unleashed wrongly on party members but we have to analyse the situation.
In the Chinese context ,true a wrong stand was taken on Chile and Lin Biao’s militray analysis in 1967 was too general and simplistic in the universal applictaion of the peoples war theories.However remember that Vietnam would never have troumphed over America wothout Chinese support.The 3 worls theory was a creation of DEng Xiaping and not of Com Mao.Mao esatblsihed relation s with U.S.A only for tactical purposes and not to compromise revolutionary struggle.An error took place on placing more emphasis on U.S Imperialism and inability to support third world revolutions.However we must not forget that in the G.P.C.R revolutionary democratic achievements took place unequalled in the history of mankind in spheres of education,production,agriculture,science and health.Never in history before had the working class posessed as much polical power.However there were several excesses and adequate debate and dissent was not facilitated . Mao Tse Tung’s personality cult reached phenomenal proportions.The rise of Lin Biao and authority of the army in relationship with the broad masses also needs important study which makes us question the need for factions or other parties within a Socialist State.Afterall even sections of the proletariat could differ and the Communist party must not impose it’s will on the masses.I agree greater democracy could have been given to the mass organisations.However the Socialist state has to be protected and mere multi-party formations may well defeat it.Only after mastering the experiences of the Bolshevik party under Lenin,the errors of Stalin and the development and defeat of the G.P.C.R can we develop a new concept on parties.Atleast a central vanguard party may be needed to guide factions or other parties and lead movements against revisionism,who would silmunataneously encourage debate.The qeustion is can graeter democracy be initiated within a monolothic party in itself,or are other parties also needed.
It is still wrong to use the term Maoism as even in the G.P.C.R the C.C.P.called it Mao Tse Tung Thought.We are still in the era of Imperialism as propounded by Lenin in his colonial thesis and not in era of ‘Maoism.’Maoism implies that we are no more in the era of Imperialism’.One wrong stand by the C.C.P.took place in 1969 when it’s report stated that it is the era wehen ‘Imperialism is heading for a total collapse .’I wish readers refer to the late com. Harbhajan Singh Sohi’s's writings on Mao Tse Tung Thought’ in 1980 as against the Deng -Hua clique.
Whatever the mistakes we have to carry the immortal flames of Marx,Lenin,Stalin and Mao Tse Tung reverbertae in the hearts of the masses.