Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, AMA!

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, AMA!
: socialism Page 1 of 55
COMMENTS
This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, AMA! self.socialism

136 Submitted 1 year ago * by kc_socialist
- Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
There has always been a lot of confusion over

what exactly Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or
Maoism for short, is within the leftist community
here on Reddit. Hopefully this AMA will make
things clearer and allow for a productive
discussion regarding MLM and its role in the
Marxist tradition.
Maoism is a continuation and rupture with
Marxism-Leninism, meaning that it traces its
theoretical and practical legacy to Marxism-
Leninism but developed it in unique ways that
caused a qualitative leap beyond Marxism-
Leninism. Despite what many assume, the
recognition of this development didn't occur
during the life of Mao. During the 70s groups that
called themselves "Maoist" merely agreed with
Mao's interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, and
weren't unified around a common understanding
of "Maoism" as a theoretical concept as we are
today. This is generally what is termed Mao Tse-
tung Thought, i.e. Marxism-Leninism without the
recognition of the universality of Mao's
contributions. Third Worldism emerged from the Socialism
117,344 Comrades
tradition of Mao Tse-tung Thought in the 70s and
80s, mainly drawing from Mao's Three Worlds
Theory, which MLMs reject, and Lin Biao's idea of
global people's war. Hence, Mao Tse-tung search
Thought, and Third Worldism, are not the same as

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Maoism proper, as a
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/3vk787/marxismleninismmaoism_ama/ 10/29/2017
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, AMA! : socialism Page 2 of 55
higher stage of Marxism-Leninism, wasn't theorized until the late
1980s and early 1990s in light of the experience of the people's war username
waged by the Peruvian Communist Party (Shining Path). This led the
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, of which the Shining Path remember me
was a leading force, to declare Maoism as the newest development of This post was submitted
Marxism in 1993. Since then the universality of Maoism has been
136 points (89% upv
recognized, and has served as an animating force of revolutionary
movements in India, Nepal, the Philippines, and soon Afghanistan.
So, what are the contributions of Mao that laid the groundwork for a
further development of Marxism-Leninism? We can boil them down to
five key concepts:
New Democracy- In countries dominated by imperialism the
material conditions for socialism, and the development of the
productive forces, cannot be completed by the bourgeoisie. The
working-class, with the Communist Party at the helm, must form a
united front with several classes in alliance against imperialism. This
enables a telescoping of the stages of bourgeois revolution and
proletarian revolution in order to rapidly prepare the road for socialist
construction in the under-developed countries. The new democratic
revolution would smash the remains of feudal relations and carry out
an agrarian revolution by distributing land to the peasants. This would Subreddit Info
be a prelude to the next stage of the revolution, the socialist
391 currently o
revolution.
The Mass Line- A method whereby cadres and Party members listen Welcome to
to the concerns of the masses, study those concerns and demands
Socialism as a political
under the light of Marxist-Leninist theory, and then formulate democratic and social con
concrete solutions to then propagate amongst the masses. This can production by the workers
be summed up in the phrase “from the masses, to the masses”. community rather than ca
The Law of Contradiction- Mao explained that dialectics has one fundamentally on the abo
fundamental law, which is the unity and struggle of opposites. The relations.
negation of the negation and the transformation of quantity into Socialism is also a socio
quality are merely expressions of the struggle of opposites dedicated to the critique a
(contradictions). Mao explained that contradictions are constant, but exploitative structures, inc
that unity is temporal. Struggle produces unity, which produces gendered, ethnic oppress
struggle, and then unity etc. This can be summed up in Mao’s famous Socialism, as a movemen
thesis of “one divides into two”, which is in contradistinction to the different systems of oppre
previous thesis that prevailed in the Marxist movement “two conditioning, intersectiona
combines into one”. While one divides into two recognizes the process related within the current
of conflict and change inherent in all things, two combining into one seeks to overcome oppre
manner without neglecting
negates the possibility of contradictions after unity is achieved.
that it might be eliminated
Protracted People's War- A three stage method of warfare emancipation may be rea
(strategic defense, strategic equilibrium, and strategic offensive) in Socialism cannot be achie
which the "three magic weapons" of the Party, the united front, and oppression continues and
people's army lead the struggle against the state and capitalism. PPW We look forward to your p
focuses on developing "red base areas" of proletarian political power but please be mindful of o
as preparation for the seizure of power. This will take on different
Are you new to socialist id
forms in different countries, but the main development is that PPW alternatives to capitalism
rejects the focus on a prolonged legal struggle culminating in an our educational materials
insurrectionary moment, i.e. (the orthodox ML strategy) this sidebar.
Cultural Revolution- The recognition that the bourgeois ideological CHAT
superstructure lingers on after a successful socialist revolution, and
• Socialism Discord
that this ideological superstructure must be attacked. This leads to
the recognition that class struggle continues under socialism, and • Help
even intensifies, as the working-class fights for ideological supremacy Posting Guideline
and to construct its own proletarian superstructure to supplant the
bourgeois superstructure. No:
Note: Many of the explanations in this post come from a forthcoming • Racism
• Sexism
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism study guide that I have created that • Ableism
should be online soon. Here is the study guide. • Homophobia
• Transphobia
294 comments share report
• Religious Bigotry
• Fascists
top 200 comments show all 294 • Rape Apology
• Reactionaries
sorted by: best?
• Police Apology
• Trump Supporters
[–] TheYetiCaptain1993 - commulist • 32 points 1 year ago • Lesser Evilism (Cli
• Supporting Neolibe
• Anti-Working Class
1. Is Maoism applicable to first world/global north anti-capitalist
Furthermore, do not make
struggles? This might be a stupid question, but I am woefully
under-read on Mao Zedong Thought, and most Maoists I am • Gulag jokes
• Kronstadt jokes
aware of applying Maoism in the real world are in the third
• Icepick jokes
world/global south
Keep meta posts construc
2. What would you suggest as first reading for someone with This is not a sub for sharin
some background in marxist thought but absolutely none in histories or for sharing scr
Maoism to learn 101 level maoism? things liberals say.
permalink embed
No linking to /r/Socialism
participating in subs that
[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 32 points 1 year ago /r/Socialism is a sub for so
level of knowledge about
Is Maoism applicable to first world/global north anti- you are derailing discussi
capitalist struggles? socialist positions, your co
Yes. Obviously, protracted people's war will look different, removed, and you may re
since the bourgeois state in the imperialist centers is stronger ban. If you are not a Socia
and developing parallel political power will be more difficult. about it, be polite
trolling.
The Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, not affiliated in
any way with the RCP-USA, has done great work in thinking Want to organize? Sign u
through what exactly PPW would look like in an imperialist http://www.organizeleft.or
country like Canada or the U.S. Here's their take on it. I would
Educational Mate
also read Joshua Moufawad-Paul's blog post regarding the
universality of PPW and the Maoist strategy in the imperialist + Socialist Starter P
countries, and his Misconceptions About Maoism.
+ Videos
What would you suggest as first reading for someone with
some background in marxist thought but absolutely none in + Literature
Maoism to learn 101 level maoism?
+ Historical Posts
I think the Communist Party of India (Maoist)'s study guide is
FAQ and resources can a
good, albeit a bit outdated in some respects. I would also start
/r/Socialism Wiki.
with Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction to learn the basics
of Mao's development of Marxist dialectics and epistemology.
permalink embed parent
AMA Schedule
[–] TheYetiCaptain1993 - commulist • 13 points 1 year ago Date Name
Thanks for the reply, and thanks for doing this AMA! Friends of the sub
+ Chat Servers
load more comments (5 replies)
+ General
+ Tendency
+ Educational
[–] Blackbelt54 - Marxism-Leninism • 23 points 1 year ago
+ Debate
Do China, Vietnam, and other "revisionist" states require an
+ Entertainment & S
entirely new revolution and smashing of the state to become
socialist again? + Regional
permalink embed
Using Naut CSS Template
/u/-Ex-
[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 29 points 1 year ago Sidebar images are
Yes. Why? Because MLM doesn't just view revisionism as "bad

socialism" as the tankies and many MLs do, but as state
capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie.
Thanks for your answers :) how do you define state

capitalism?
[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 22 points 1
year ago
When the the proletariat ceases to control the state,
thus leading to the rise of revisionism, which signals the
MODERATORS
rise of the bourgeoisie. This is why Mao always stressed
cometparty
putting politics in command and that the political line
determines whether or not the proletariat actually - don't message m
controls the state and means of production. Revisionist
and liberal political lines show that the proletariat no OKELEUK
longer controls the state and MoP. That's the basic MarxistJesus
Maoist conception. Of course this should all be viewed as
- Vote Ginger Jen
a process bound up in the class struggle rather than a
singular moment of betrayal of proletarian politics.
vidurnaktis
agnosticnixie
[–] donkeykongsimulator - Chicanx Communist • 10 points
1 year ago Tiak -
When the the proletariat ceases to control the state, denversocialists
thus leading to the rise of revisionism, which signals - Revolutionary S
the rise of the bourgeoisie.
Jackissocool
How do you respond to the common 'actually existing
socialism' argument that since the bourgeoisie never had - Libertarian Hype
a revolution to smash the proletarian state post-Stalin

and post-Mao, the state was still controlled by the el_gato3 - the hot take
proletariat, even though it was revisionist?

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 21
points 1 year ago

During the socialist transition period the state is a
site for class struggle. It's not guaranteed that
the proletariat will win. The bourgeoisie doesn't
need a revolution to restore capitalism or erode
the proletarian character of the state, since
socialism is transitional and thus has the ability to
be defeated or rolled back because the
bourgeoisie still remains. China is a perfect
example of this. The Chinese bourgeoisie rose
through the ranks of the CCP and introduced
liberalization and transformed the character of
the state by peaceful means.
[–] ultralinks • 6 points 1 year ago
Is this why you call Stalin a revisionist in the

30s because he clearly says that socialism is
the first phase of communist society and in no
certain terms puts him at odds with Marx?
So this Mao statement is not referring to the same

thing. Is that correct?
points 1 year ago

No. That was referring to the period of New
Democracy in which the national bourgeoisie was
put under the command of the Communist Party.
The socialist side of industry was still developing
and proletarian politics was still in charge. Both
are state capitalism, yet of two different types.
One is state capitalism under the command of the
proletarian state, similar to Lenin's NEP in a way, while
the other is when the rising bourgeoisie has pushed
out proletarian politics and has started reversing the
advance towards communism while turning back to
capitalism.
[–] Blackbelt54 - Marxism-Leninism • 9 points 1
year ago
How do we assess the difference between the
two? When can we say that a state is on the
"capitalist road"? What's the difference
between a strategic retreat and a turn towards
capitalism?
[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
[ S ] • 15 points 1 year ago
Well a strategic retreat would still have

proletarian politics in command. The NEP
under Lenin was a strategic retreat, but the
state still retained a proletarian character
and a proletarian political line was
dominant. A state embarking on the
capitalist road would be an abandonment
of that and a dismantling and/or
transformation of the proletarian state and
economy.
[–] rockoman100 - Communism cannot be defeated forever • 6
points 1 year ago

I've always assumed this was probably the case.
Revisionism has historically been nothing other than the
surrender of socialism to the prevailing global capitalist
ideology.
That being said, I do still have cerain issues with the idea
that we ought to be dogmatically committed to a certain
type of socialist thought, while all else must be considered
"revisionism".
[–] JoyBus147 - YP-TMT • 4 points 1 year ago
Usually when I hear "tankies," the speaker is including

Maoists. How does MLM not fall into "tankyism"?
Also, how does MLM aim to prevent the deep bureaucratization
that has tended to arise in most socialist states?
year ago
Usually when I hear "tankies," the speaker is
including Maoists. How does MLM not fall into
"tankyism"?
MLM is anti-tankie. Tankies embrace a vulgar anti-
imperialism devoid of political substance and defend
revisionist states as socialist. As I have stated earlier in
this AMA, Maoism views revisionism as a reversal of
socialism and the rise of a new bourgeoisie. If there are
people calling themselves Maoists who support the
DPRK, China, Cuba etc. as actual socialist states, of
which there are a few on this site, then they are
absolutely terrible Maoists. In fact, they aren't Maoists
at all. People who lump Maoists in with tankies have no
understanding of the term tankie, which I will admit is
elastic and unscientific. Tankieism can basically be
broken down into four aspects, in my opinion.
First, support for revisionism, secondly, dogmatism and
the extreme focus on the economic base and productive
forces when defining socialism, thirdly, support for
social-imperialism, and fourthly, support for any state
that claims to be anti-imperialist even if said state is a
minor imperialist power that opposes Western
imperialism.
Also, how does MLM aim to prevent the deep
bureaucratization that has tended to arise in most
socialist states?
Cultural revolution.
which I will admit is elastic and unscientific

That's probably where my confusion comes in. It
seems like tankie is really just used as shorthand for
"any leftist I perceive to be to my right."
Thanks!
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 3 points 1 year
ago
Extremely broad here, but 'tankie' always referred to
supporting post-socialism violent quelling of often right-wing
or social-democratic revolts in the eastern bloc.
Maoists didn't exist during that time if we're going by the
strict MLM group, and in retrospect don't think it was a good
idea for Krushchev etc to do those things?
[–] theWanderingGentile - Fist • 18 points 1 year ago
Thanks for this great summary; would you please elaborate on the
Law of Contradiction? I am having a little trouble grasping the
theory and its significance.
permalink embed
[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 27 points 1 year ago
Sure. This is actually a good opportunity to demonstrate one of

the significant areas that Mao broke with Stalin and Marxist-
Leninist orthodoxy. Prevailing Stalinist understanding of
contradiction was that antagonistic contradictions didn't exist
once socialism was established, since the contradiction
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat had been resolved.
This is the main reason that Stalin and the CPSU
misunderstood contradictions within their own country,
because they regarded unity as absolute, consequently
bourgeois ideas, behavior, and capitalist elements could only
be brought from outside. The ability to understand how and
why bourgeois social relations and ideology linger on during
the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat was not present
during the Stalin era, and this consequently led to many
innocents being punished or executed because they were
"infiltrators" or "wreckers" from the outside. Mao's
development was that unity was only produced through
struggle, and that eventually unity would collapse into struggle
again, and so on and so on. Unlike the Stalinists, who praise(d)
the monolithic party, Maoists view line struggle as key to the
development of political lines and a healthy party life.
Mao explained that the three elements of dialectics laid out by
Engels, were really expressions of the primary element of
dialectics, the unity and struggle of opposites. The negation of
the negation and the transformation of quantity into quality
were merely expressions of the struggle of opposites. As Mao
put it,
Engels talked about the three categories, but as for me I
don’t believe in two of those categories. (The unity of
opposites is the most basic law, the transformation of
quality and quantity into one another is the unity of the
opposites quality and quantity, and the negation of the negation
does not exist at all.) The juxtaposition, on the same level, of
the transformation of quality and quantity into one another, the
negation of the negation, and the law of the unity of opposites is
‘triplism’, not monism. The most basic thing is the unity of
opposites. The transformation of quality and quantity into one
another is the unity of the opposites quality and quantity. There
is no such thing as the negation of the negation. Affirmation,
negation, affirmation, negation . . . in the development of
things, every link in the chain of events is both affirmation and
negation. Slave-holding society negated primitive society, but
with reference to feudal society it constituted, in turn, the
affirmation. Feudal society constituted the negation in relation to
slave-holding society but it was in turn the affirmation with
reference to capitalist society. Capitalist society was the
negation in relation to feudal society, but it is, in turn, the
affirmation in relation to socialist society. -Talk on Questions of
Philosophy
[–] lovelybone93 - Read Stalin, not the Stalinists • 15 points 1 year
ago
I don't want to be an ass, but Stalin absolutely recognized
that class struggle continues under socialism in his essays,
Mastering Bolshevism and Inherent Contradictions of Party
Development
year ago
He didn't recognize intra-party struggle as a
concentrated expression of class struggle, and the
"Stalin constitution" declared that socialism was
irrevocably established and antagonistic classes had
been eliminated, thus no class struggle.
[–] lovelybone93 - Read Stalin, not the Stalinists • 19 points
1 year ago
I didn't mention the 1936 Soviet constitution, nor did
Stalin alone author it. Mao built on Stalin somewhat,
but to claim Mao discovered that class struggle
continues under socialism is an utter falsity.
the further forward we advance, the greater the
successes we achieve, the greater will be the fury
of the remnants of the broken exploiting classes,
the sooner will they resort to sharper forms of
struggle, the more will they seek to harm the Soviet
state and the more will they clutch at the most
desperate means of struggle, as the last resort of
doomed people....It should be borne in mind that the
remnants of the broken classes in the USSR are not
alone. They have the direct support of our enemies,
beyond the bounds of the USSR.
• Stalin, Mastering Bolshevism
points 1 year ago

...but to claim Mao discovered that class
struggle continues under socialism is an utter
falsity.
Of course! Mao didn't discover it but gave greater
theoretical clarity to the question. Elements of the
conception of the mass line, cultural revolution,
and the class struggle continuing under socialism
can be found in both Lenin and Stalin. Does that
mean that Mao contributed nothing? No, he took
the germ of those ideas and elaborated and
developed it more systematically.
[–] lovelybone93 - Read Stalin, not the Stalinists •
11 points 1 year ago

Ah, the statement I replied to initially ran
counter to what you're saying now. I find
Stalin and Mao complementary, though
miniscule, miniscule parts of what they're
saying aren't relevant to today. I find Stalin to
be more relevant, though, even having read
Mao's Quotations. Combat Liberalism along
with Oppose Book Worship are key works for
any communist to read though.
[–] [deleted] • 3 points 1 year ago
Could you explain what Mao means by this?

The juxtaposition, on the same level, of the
transformation of quality and quantity into one another,
the negation of the negation, and the law of the unity of
opposites is ‘triplism’, not monism.
year ago
Basically that the separation of the three is incorrect,
because the law of contradiction is universal and lies at
the root of the negation of the negation and
quantitative/qualitative change. Because of this, Mao's
conception of dialectical materialism is "monoist" rather
than "dualist" or "triplist". I think this footnote does a
good job explaining what Mao means by dualism and
monism as well.
[–] insurgentclass - abolish everything • 31 points 1 year ago
Thank you for preparing this post, like many others I only know
the basics of Maoism. I'm interested in reading the questions and
responses here and learning more about this ideology.
permalink embed
[–] RefSocDem - I don't want full Marx • 12 points 1 year ago
Cultural Revolution- The recognition that the bourgeois

ideological superstructure lingers on after a successful socialist
revolution, and that this ideological superstructure must be
attacked. This leads to the recognition that class struggle
continues under socialism, and even intensifies, as the
working-class fights for ideological supremacy and to construct
its own proletarian superstructure to supplant the bourgeois
superstructure.
Was the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s-70s a successful
example of this concept in action?
permalink embed
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that a new theoretical terrain was
breached, namely, the recognition of class struggle continuing
during the socialist transition period and the necessity to
develop socialist relations of production and combat bourgeois
ideology through mass mobilization and class struggle. Mass
participation was very high, and indeed many people formed
new mass organizations on their own initiative. As far as
failure, the cultural revolution had many. Innocents were
attacked and there was unjust sentencing and punishment,
and these instances should rightly be criticized. What we have
to remember is this, Marxism develops through class struggle
and experience. The GPCR was the first attempt at tackling the
problem of bureaucracy, the development of socialist relations of
production, and the problem of a lingering bourgeois
superstructure. Mistakes will be made, and we shouldn't shirk from
defending the GPCR, but we shouldn't uncritically accept every
action as correct either. The GPCR laid the groundwork for the
conceptualization of the problems faced by a post-capitalist society,
which is what all Marxists, regardless of tendency, should begin to
examine.
[–] OKELEUK - Reichstag's on Fire • 11 points 1 year ago
Could you elaborate more on the Mass Line in action?

permalink embed
...take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic

ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into
concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses
and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses
embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate
them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in
such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the
masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas
are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and
over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming
more correct, more vital and richer each time. -Some
Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership
A hypothetical example would be something like this. Listen to
the concerns and complaints of people, which are often all over
the place and unclear. Take these concerns, and study them
using the Marxist method and formulate these concerns into
concrete demands, programs etc. Take these programs or
demands back to the masses and explain them. If the people
adopt them and test them then more can be learned and this
method can continue on indefinitely. If they are rejected then
rethink and reformulate the program/demands. Basically, this
method serves to hold the Party to account at all times to the
masses through their participation and direction.
Basically, this method serves to hold the Party to

account at all times to the masses through their
participation and direction.
Where do you think the CCP went wrong in this and what can we
learn from that to preserve the mass line from similar mistakes
in the future?
year ago
During the GPCR good party members were unjustly
attacked and removed, which allowed careerists and
opportunists into the Party, but I think something else is
important here. Socialism can always be defeated,
because the bourgeoisie has not been totally defeated
and is constantly seeking to return to power.
Furthermore, the smaller elements of capitalism still
remain, like petty commodity production, which as Lenin
said, constantly creates and reifies a new bourgeoisie
and petty-bourgeoisie. There was a two line struggle in
the CCP during the GPCR and up until Mao's death, and
the proletarian line lost to the revisionist line of Deng
and others. What we can learn here is that line struggle
in the Party is inevitable, and necessary, and is the
concentrated expression of the larger class struggle
taking place in society. This is why the mass line is
important, because without a direct connection to the
masses, revisionism is bound to take hold. In the future
this will have to be constantly cultivated and carried out
in order to preserve party life and allow for debate and
mass control and participation.
Interesting, thanks for the answer and great job on

this AMA. :-)
Here is an excellent explanation of how a contemporary MLM

party does Mass-Work and Mass-Line.
Here's an example from a Canadian health org.
How many fundamental differences are there between Maoism-

third worldism and MLM (particularly Third worldisms that are
connected to organizations and aren't just troll youtube accounts)?
Not just origin wise, but in terms of theory and practice.
Do you analyze the labor aristocracy and colonized and imperialist
nations differently? If so, why?
Additionally, what is the MLM position on "secondary" or particular
contradictions relating to gender and Patriarchy? Is gender to be
"reformed" or "abolished." Is gender central, or increasingly marginal,
towards understanding the imperialist political economy?
permalink embed
How many fundamental differences are there between

Maoism-third worldism and MLM (particularly Third
worldisms that are connected to organizations and aren't
just troll youtube accounts)? Not just origin wise, but in
terms of theory and practice.
Third Worldists believe that the entire "First World", serves as
a global bourgeoisie. MLM views this analysis as unscientific
and paints too much with a broad brush. As I mentioned in my
original post, Third Worldism views the exploited nations as the
"global countryside" which needs to surround the "global cities"
(imperialist nations). Marxism-Leninism-Maoism accepts that a
labor aristocracy exists in the imperialist nations, but that a
proletariat also exists, and the labor aristocracy is not engaged
in the direct exploitation of the "third world". What's funny
about the theory and practice about Third Worldism is that it
emerged completely from the "First World" at around the same
time that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism was being declared a
universal development by communist movements in the
"Third World" like the PCP and Nepalese communists! Not only
that, but because of Third Worldism's insistence on the
impossibility of revolution in the "First World" groups are
totally disconnected from the masses. Ironically, Thrid
Worldism is a bizarre manifestation of "First World" elitism. All
the leg work of revolution is left to the peoples of the "Third
World" while the "brilliant theorists" of the "First World" sit
back and lecture on how to make revolution.
Do you analyze the labor aristocracy and colonized and
imperialist nations differently? If so, why?
I briefly addressed the labor aristocracy difference above, but I
feel the need to address the difference in understanding
imperialism here. MLM uses Lenin's theory of imperialism,
while Third Worldism, because of its embrace of Mao's Three
Worlds Theory and abandonment of an actual class analysis,
vulgarly categorizes the nations oppressed by imperialism as
composed of a majority working-class, with no social
investigation into what the class composition of said nation is.
"It's proletarian because it's oppressed by imperialism." Or
"It's all bourgeois because it's imperialist." Are undocumented
migrant workers in the U.S. bourgeois or part of the labor
aristocracy because they can buy a shirt made in Bangladesh with
their meager earnings? No. Are they exploiters of the "Third World"
or are they primarily exploited by the bourgeois class in the U.S.?
They are primarily exploited by their national capitalist class. Third
Worldism lacks all nuance and Marxist analysis. It trades an
analysis of exploitation in for one based on privilege. "First World"
workers are more privileged than a worker from Mexico, but do they
directly exploit anybody? No.
Additionally, what is the MLM position on "secondary" or
particular contradictions relating to gender and Patriarchy?
MLM view class as the primary contradiction within society,
although for oppressed nations the primary contradiction can be
between a given nation and imperialism. However, patriarchal and
gender oppression stem from class society, and thus the struggle to
eliminate class is a struggle against patriarchy and vice versa.
Patriarchal oppression is part of class oppression, not a separate
or complementary oppression, and has its root in class society as
a historical materialist fact, neither born with capitalism as a
mode of production, nor merely a residual or vestigial feudal
remain, but rather an intrinsic part of any class society
regardless of mode of production. As such, only communism can
destroy patriarchy once and for all. Any attempts to separate
patriarchy from class society as whole ultimately lead to
strategic dead-ends for feminism.
Is gender to be "reformed" or "abolished."?
I would look into proletarian feminism. It's a new strand of
feminism that is currently developing out of MLM.
Is gender central, or increasingly marginal, towards
understanding the imperialist political economy?
I believe it's important to understanding the imperialist political
economy, especially in the underdeveloped nations where vestiges
of pre-capitalist modes of production are preserved.
[–] marxism-feminism - Third Worldist • 8 points 1 year ago*
Is gender to be "reformed" or "abolished."?

I would look into proletarian feminism. It's a new strand
of feminism that is currently developing out of MLM.
I have never seen an explicit confrontation of this issue in
any 'proletarian feminist' texts. If the most basic
assumption of any type of feminism, liberal to marxist, is
that wimmin exist on some level, then surely the first and
most basic question must be, "why?".
Most 'proletarian feminist' texts do however betray an
implicit assumption about this question, and unsurprisingly,
this is unquestioningly imported from dominant ideology --
that gender is to be reformed. The 'proletarian feminists' i
have talked to have confirmed this. In this they are no different
from Engels.
[–] donkeykongsimulator - Chicanx Communist • 4 points 1
year ago
I recommend looking into gender nihilism. Its fairly new
and so theres only one real text on it (on libcom.org).
While it was originally developed by anarchists I feel
that it can and should be adopted by every serious
socialist.
[–] SheepwithShovels - Anarchist • 3 points 1 year ago
I feel that it can and should be adopted by every

serious socialist.
Why?
[–] donkeykongsimulator - Chicanx Communist • 6
points 1 year ago

Because it is the decolonization of a cis-
heteropatriarchal classification that solely exists
in class society (capitalism in particular). Gender
is an extremely violent construction, and is
responsible for the murders of trans women, the
coercive operations on intersex infants, the
oppression of queer children made homeless by
their family are all "victims of gender." Gender
and gender-oppression is a construction from
class society (the theoretic basis for this can be
found in Engel's work Origin of the Family).
[–] SheepwithShovels - Anarchist • 3 points 1
year ago
solely exists in class society
I don't believe this is true. Gender roles have
existed in primitive classless societies. Why
wouldn't they exist in modern ones?
Gender is an extremely violent
construction, and is responsible for the
murders of trans women, the coercive
operations on intersex infants, the
oppression of queer children made
homeless by their family are all "victims of
gender."
While these are unfortunate and tragic, is gender
the root cause of this or toxic interpretations of
gender? Isn't it possible for gender to exist without
sexism, transphobia, ect.?
Gender and gender-oppression is a construction
from class society (the theoretic basis for this
can be found in Engel's work Origin of the
Family).
While the economic system does play a role in the
development of genders, class society is not the
cause of gender itself.
[–] donkeykongsimulator
- Chicanx Communist • 5 points 1 year ago
Gender roles have existed in primitive

classless societies. Why wouldn't they
exist in modern ones?
Gender roles didn't exist in primitive
classless societies. There was a rough sort
of a division of labor in classless societies
based on physical capabilities in which
those who were too weak or important to
the tribe to hunt (young children, those
members of the tribe able to give birth/be
impregnated, and the elderly) were the
gatherers/looked after the campsites and
whatnot. This laid the framework for what
our concept of gender would be like in
class society, but it was not gender as we
know it today because it was not an
exploitative system based on domination
(we know pre-class societies were not
exploitative because they had no surplus to
exploit).
is gender the root cause of this or toxic
interpretations of gender? Isn't it
possible for gender to exist without
sexism, transphobia, ect.?
gender is the basis that gives sexism and
transphobia its power. to quote the gender
nihilist manifesto:
"We are radicals who have had enough
with attempts to salvage gender. We do
not believe we can make it work for us. We
look at the transmisogyny we have faced in
our own lives, the gendered violence that our
comrades, both trans and cis have faced, and
we realize that the apparatus itself makes such
violence inevitable. We have had enough." X
While the economic system does play a role
in the development of genders, class society
is not the cause of gender itself.
I would argue that it does. Sexism, and the
division of humanity into different genders &
sexes, because the creation of a patriarchal
family was necessary when the ruling class men
needed a way to have their offspring inherit
their resources and power. Engels and
numerous Marxist feminists have gone into
more depth about this. I recommend reading
Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State by Engels.
ago
I can confirm that I haven't seen a clear answer, or at
lest one that departs from Engels on this either.
[–] VinceMcMao - M-L-M(Protracted People's War in the "1st world") •
9 points 1 year ago

Can't like this post enough very great break down between
M-L-M and revisionist third worldism. I would add that when
it comes to gender in and of itself, I don't think the
abolition of gender is important in so much as the abolition
of patriarchal gender roles which pre-determine socially
that certain genders are only meant to do crrtain things and
the gender division of labor, and social norms.
[–] marxism-feminism - Third Worldist • 4 points 1 year ago*
There is ultimately nothing to gender, outside of gender

roles.
If one can provide the correct answer as to why and
how the concept of “red” or “purple” acquires social
meaning, then one can also begin to provide the
correct answer as to why and how “womyn” or “man”
acquires social meaning. Once the basics of the
process for the establishment of any particular social
meaning is understood (apparently an incredibly
challenging concept to many!) then the only question
remaining is: in creating the social meaning of “womyn”
or “man”, how different are these practices to the
practices of gender roles? Are they not the same? When
the social meaning of “womyn” is produced and
reproduced by someone saying or reinforcing the idea
that “wimmin are the ones who like pink”, then only an
anti-feminist would say that is not a gender role; only the
most befuddled failure of a feminist would say that this is
not actually the construction of the social meaning of
“womyn”; and even the most imaginative of a feminist
could not hope to invent a sensible proposition for the
construction of the social meaning of “womyn” outside of
the practice of gender roles such as this. To reiterate, if
we’re to keep with dialectical materialism then there’s no
such thing as a metaphysical “womyn” out there that
exists apart from the results of humyn activity. Gender,
as a social construct, must be determined by social
activity to possess any meaning – to even exist at all –
and this activity we call the imposition and practice of
gender roles. When a frilly dress is “womyn”, that’s a
gender role; when a particular body part is “womyn”,
that’s a gender role. And it also holds true in the reverse
perspective: when “womyn” is a frilly dress, that’s a
gender role; when “womyn” is a particular body part,
that’s a gender role. From whichever way one looks at
things, and squirm and wriggle as one might, it’s gender
roles all the way down.
-- https://alyx.io/feminism/2015/06/14/is-gender-inherently-
oppressive/
[–] demonessv • 3 points 1 year ago*
Mayer (the author) has already missed the radical

dimension in feminism by reducing the question of
gender to the imposition of normative roles. In so
doing, gender is consigned to a matter of 'culture' or
'politics' - from the perspective of marxist
structuralism, no matter what flavor, this means
gender is fundamentally part of the superstructure
and not the base. This remains true no matter how
much effort is spent emphasizing the importance of
culture and how it influences the economy.
In truth gender is directly part of the 'base' itself.
The patriarchal organization of society is both the
social and material context from which capitalism
emerged. Why are there gender roles in the first
place? Because they are the basis of economic
production - they organize the production and
reproduction of labor-power, the basis of all other
production.
Yes, patriarchy manifests in the imposition and practice of
gender roles - the function of which is to organize and
produce labor-power. The essence of patriarchy therefore
resides in a place other than its manifestations, in the
same way that a law of physics isn't 'directly' observable
as an object but rather through the effects it exerts upon
objects. Patriarchy is not equivalent to the imposition and
practice of gender roles, but the structure that sets this
gender role logic in motion.
[–] demonessv • 3 points 1 year ago*
MLM view class as the primary contradiction within

society, although for oppressed nations the primary
contradiction can be between a given nation and
imperialism. However, patriarchal and gender
oppression stem from class society, and thus the
struggle to eliminate class is a struggle against
patriarchy and vice versa.
Consider this: it is in fact class struggle that stems from
patriarchy - in a sense. In another, class struggle and
patriarchy are the same thing.
Class struggle at its most basic is the problem of who owns
surplus-value. Patriarchy is the problem of who controls
labor-power. Patriarchy is not just an epiphenomenon
(however important) of capitalism: it organizes all of
society into discrete family units, the function of which is to
(re)produce and orient labor-power. In this sense,
patriarchy and the family are means of production. Labor-
power is the foundation upon which all production is built,
and is therefore also foundational to the problematic of
surplus-value and who owns it, the very basis of class
struggle.
How does this tie into Mao's notion of continued class
struggle after the establishment of socialism? I'm unfamiliar
with MLM, but I'm extrmely interested. It seems to me that
the patriarchal family is a crucial element of capitalism that
can, and historically has, lingered in socialist nations,
contributing to the resurgence of bourgeois ideology.
Eliminating the capitalist appropriation of surplus-value is
not the same as eliminating patriarchy, the social
organization of labor-power that creates the conditions of
capitalist exploitation.
[–] preatomicprince - Communism • 9 points 1 year ago*
Thanks for doing this ama. MLM is something I've been meaning
to study in more detail.
1. What is the MLM attitude towards the current socialist sates,
i.e. China, Cuba, DPRK etc. Do you still consider them all
socialist?
2. How widely is the univerality of PPW accepted? Is it
completley accepted by almost all maoists that PPW is also
applicable in the centres of imperialism or is there still
debate about this?
Edit: removed a question because I missed that you answered it in
the main post
permalink embed
What is the MLM attitude towards the current socialist

sates, i.e. China, Cuba, DPRK etc. Do you still consider
them all socialist?
No. The MLM position on this is that there are no current states
that are "actually existing socialism". Here's an article by the
PCR-RCP that deals with this, but the DPRK specifically.
How widely is the univerality of PPW accepted? Is it
completley accepted by almost all maoists that PPW is also
applicable in the centres of imperialism or is there still
debate about this?
It's viewed as a universally applicable strategy, subject of
course to the concrete conditions of each country. Shining Path
was the first to declared PPW as a universal strategy in the
'80s. PCR-RCP also has an article about the universal nature of
PPW and what it might look like in the imperialist countries.
Check out these articles from the NCP-LC on this issue too.
What is Protracted People's War
Notes on the Universality of Protracted People's War
[–] white_anarchist_teen - Mao • 4 points 1 year ago
http://www.bannedthought.net/Cuba-Che/Foreign-
Anti/WhatIsSocialism-JSH-2013.pdf
This one specifically deals with Cuba.
[–] Adonisus - A Hero is just a man who knows he's free... • 6 points 1 year
ago
What is your view on Mao's view of the Arts, i.e. that the artist
should always put politics before personal expression?
permalink embed
I think it's pretty uncontroversial in the Marxist sense. All art

has political content. Art should serve class struggle, but that
doesn't mean that personal expression isn't important. Isn't
politics personal expression too?
What are your thoughts on the current state of the party-building

movement in the US?
permalink embed
Right now the U.S. is in a period of pre-party work, i.e.

Building progressive, anti-imperialist, and non-NGO mass
organizations is priority number one. After a sufficient number
have been created the most theoretically and practically
advanced members can be drawn on to form a party. All the
current parties aren't engaged in mass work and are either
bogged down is reformism, or they are small sects serving up
stale Russian history lessons amongst themselves. In short,
the state of the parties in the U.S. is pretty sad.
Which is why I'm hoping that the NCP(LC) will result in

something, well, fruitful.
year ago
As an outside supporter of the NCP-LC, I agree
wholeheartedly.
New Democracy- In countries dominated by imperialism the

material conditions for socialism, and the development of the
productive forces, cannot be completed by the bourgeoisie. The
working-class, with the Communist Party at the helm, must
form a united front with several classes in alliance against
imperialism. This enables a telescoping of the stages of
bourgeois revolution and proletarian revolution in order to
rapidly prepare the road for socialist construction in the under-
developed countries. The new democratic revolution would
smash the remains of feudal relations and carry out an
agrarian revolution by distributing land to the peasants. This
would be a prelude to the next stage of the revolution, the
socialist revolution.
So if I am understanding correctly, this would not be necessary in
countries with no/close to no feudal relations remaining such as
the US?
permalink embed
Correct. New Democratic revolution is only necessary in the

countries oppressed by imperialism.
[–] JuanboboPhD • 5 points 1 year ago
Thanks OP for the AMA!

I have some questions regarding the Cultural Revolution.
Was the cultural revolution successful in changing the political
culture of China?
Is it possible to change to super structure that quickly?
What is required for the culture and superstructure to change?
Can the superstructure be changed in places like the United
States?
permalink embed
Was the cultural revolution successful in changing the

political culture of China?
As I said in an earlier post, yes and no. Yes in the sense that
for the first time in human history millions of ordinary people
actively participated in the running of society. Political,
economic, and cultural questions were debated furiously
amongst the mass organizations, communes, and trade unions.
Even the minutiae like stop lights were debated, with many
people saying the old way should be done away with because
red=socialism which equals forward progress.
Is it possible to change to super structure that quickly?
It will take a long period of time to do so, which is why Mao and
subsequent Maoist parties have stated that during the period of
socialism several cultural revolutions will be required to completely
smash the bourgeois superstructure and achieve communism.
What is required for the culture and superstructure to change?
The mass mobilization of the working-class and its allies in the class
struggle against the ideological state apparatus that remains after
the successful socialist revolution.
Can the superstructure be changed in places like the United
States?
Yes, but only after the material base of society is transformed first.
To attempt to change the superstructure first without first
establishing a proletarian dictatorship, social ownership of property,
and economic planning would be like shitting before you pull your
pants down.
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 5 points 1 year ago
I think it was and it wasn't. It suffered from heavy

handedness, and a few excesses of course. I think it had a
lasting impact on Chinese culture right into their revisionist and
capitalist era, for the positive. Instead of looking specifically at
The Cultural Revolution looking at general cultural shifts under
the Communist Party, the end to footbinding and that as a
symbol for the inclusion of women as equal to men in all
aspects of society (even if in practice that's never the case in
global patriarchy) has fundamentally shifted Chinese culture
and by extension the entire world.
I think superstructure can change on a dime. I like to think of
the way US black liberation struggles have had a lasting impact
on popular culture - and that was without any shift in the mode
of production!
I'm old school cultural revolutionary on your third question. I
remember growing up the teacher would treat women and
racial minority and queer students more poorly, and would
spout off state-approved right wing bullshit all the time. And
we had reactionary dress codes and traditions and nationalism.
If we had a revolution in those days and a cultural revolution,
we'd woop that teacher's ass and get someone with some
actual sense in the class room. This would have a lasting
impact on all of the younger grades coming up etc. How often
do people cite their favourite teachers as really significant
figures in their life's trajectory?
In the United States, it has to change. The general way of thinking
is anti person, and once society begins to be half-way decent for
the lower class, the bourgeois stranglehold on culture and history
will erode.
[–] JuanboboPhD • 3 points 1 year ago
Do you think the "hippie" movement is a Cultural

"revolution"?
Did China also have "reactionaries" to this?
What did the communist use to change the culture? I would
like to know the Democratic Structure and how it
permeated throughout the country.
Can you recommend any books on the Cultural Revolution?
load more comments (1 reply)
[–] actuallyexistingn00b - Lenin • 4 points 1 year ago
Hi, your thread inspired me to make my first ever reddit post after
lurking for several months! I've been reading a lot of threads and
some articles to try to learn more about Marxism, and this is the
first big thread I've seen about MLM specifically. Anyway, to my
question: From what I've seen about the cultural revolution, it
seems especially chaotic, and could plausibly be manipulated to
form a cult of personality or even a coup. What exactly happened
in China and how did this get handled? How should a future
revolution maintain democracy and legitimacy during this stage?
Thanks very much for doing this!
permalink embed
[–] MeadofUoden - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism • 6 points 1 year ago
Why aren't there any good Maoist subreddits? There are plenty of
Maoists on Reddit.
permalink embed
I don't know. There's /r/Maoist, but it's pretty much dead.

We orient towards the masses!
[–] nilcom - Left Communist • 8 points 1 year ago*
What are your thoughts on left communism outside of "they pose

no threat to capital" or similar sentiments?
permalink embed
I think it's a very Eurocentric tradition that hasn't learned, and

refuses to learn, from historical experience of revolutionary
movements. It can never pose a threat because it's totally
disconnected from the class struggle and completely based in
the realm of philosophical musings.
[–] totallynotacontra - Libertarian Socialist • 11 points 1 year ago
Amusingly 'disconnected from the class struggle and

completely based in the realm of philosophical musings' is
how I'd describe any Maoists in my neck of the woods.
year ago
Sounds like they need to reorient themselves to the
masses, or you need to seek out some different Maoists.
ago
Which group is this?
[–] totallynotacontra - Libertarian Socialist • 4 points 1 year
ago
I don't think they even have a group anymore.
Whats left of them just form front groups with left
liberals and protest the current government.
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 1 point 1
year ago
And they're a bunch of maoists?
[–] totallynotacontra - Libertarian Socialist • 1
point 1 year ago

The leadership are or were.
[–] ultralinks • 3 points 1 year ago
I think it's a very Eurocentric tradition that hasn't

learned, and refuses to learn, from historical experience
of revolutionary movements.
You've never read anything by left-communist then
considering that the whole tendency came about from
looking at and studying the Russian revolution, how it
degenerated and then every other social event since the
tendency came into existence.
It can never pose a threat because it's totally
disconnected from the class struggle and completely
based in the realm of philosophical musings.
And what you are proposing is anything different? All you
have done here is to compare one set of ideas with other
sets of ideas and then arbitrarily saying that one is better
than the other.
[–] Moontouch - Sexual Socialist • 5 points 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on Guevarism?

permalink embed
Well, I assume you mean focoism, which is adventurist and not

based on the masses and their support. PPW is far superior
and focoism produced nothing but failure outside of Cuba and
isn't universal.
[–] CS2603isHard - Leninist • 2 points 1 year ago
not based on the masses and their support.

I don't claim to be an expert on foco theory, but isn't this
the exact opposite of the intention? I was under the
impression that the entire idea behind focoism was to echo
popular sentiment in a focal point so as to ignite the flame,
so to speak.
Just as a curiosity, where has PPW produced anything but
failure? Focoism has Cuba and the Sandinistas, but has PPW
worked to produce a socialist revolution anywhere other than
China?
year ago
Focoism tries to build a revolutionary movement by
example. A handful of guerrillas should inspire the
masses to revolt by their actions. This is what Fidel and
and Che did. They hid in the Sierra Maestra mountains,
and undertook small military actions, to try to win over
the peasants through deeds. This failed in the Congo,
and is a major reason why Che ended up getting killed
in Bolivia because the guerrillas couldn't win over the
peasants and were totally disconnected from the class
struggle in the country. Focoism is like a weird
adventurist combination of Blanquism and propaganda
by the deed. PPW says that without a base amongst the
masses, there is no hope for success. The masses must
lead and support the Communist Party, the people's
army, and the united front. The people's army should
not be distinct from them, unlike focoism in which the
guerrillas are disconnected from the masses. Focoism
also doesn't try to build dual power for the seizure of
state power or to carry out land reform as was done in
China. That didn't happen in Cuba.
Just as a curiosity, where has PPW produced
anything but failure?
PPW, unlike other forms of warfare, including focoism,
reverses the question generally asked regarding war
strategy. Namely, instead of how do we demoralize the
enemy, PPW asks, how do we build and maintain the
people's morale for a long period of struggle while
wearing down the enemy. Framing the question this way
helps to better understand the dialectic of success and
failure. Of course PPW failed in Nepal and Peru, but it
has and is succeeding in the Philippines and India.
[–] mittim80 - mfw • 4 points 1 year ago
What is your opinion of the Shining Path and Naxalites? What have
they done right, what have they done wrong?
permalink embed
Shining Path
They were the first to assert Maoism as the third and highest
stage of Marxism, moving beyond Mao Tse-tung Thought. Their
people's war was very successful in mobilizing peasants and
linking the struggle in the countryside with the struggle in the
cities. Plus, they were the first to declare PPW as a universal
strategy. As far as things they did wrong, two main things
come to mind. One, is the cult of personality built up around
Chairman Gonzalo, something I talked more about elsewhere
in this thread. Secondly, the Party's focus on total war, or total
annihilation of the enemy. This really goes against the Maoist
conception of PPW during the first phase of strategic defensive
in which the people's army should only tactically engage in
small struggles when victory is assured. The PCP was brutal, of
that I can't deny, however, they were not as brutal as the
Truth and Reconciliation Committee made them out to be
afterwards. The narrative of the PCP targeting peasants during
the '80s is mostly propaganda. The CIA was giving training to
the Peruvian military in counter offensive measures, one of
them was for military personnel to pose as peasants or Shining
Path fighters, which would then lead to a crumbling of support
for the PCP because they were perceived to be carrying out
atrocities. The Peruvian state also armed peasants and trained
them in counter insurgency methods to fight the PCP.
Naxalites
They have done many things well, such as establishing a firm
base in the "red corridor" in India. My biggest gripe with them
is their line on the Khmer Rouge, which they consider to have
been actual communists and the DRK to have been the last
actually existing socialist state. They don't go about
proclaiming this or writing large tracts about it, but it pops up
in some of their older cadre training documents from the late
'90s, like their MLM study guide (which is overall very good,
minus the Khmer Rouge stuff). I have even heard that one of
the precursor groups to the CPI(M) was responsible for
popularizing Pol Pot in parts of India by distributing little
badges with Pol Pot's face on them to people. Yikes.
[–] mittim80 - mfw • 1 point 1 year ago
when you speak of establishing "bases of support," does

this include abolishing capitalism in occupied areas and
instituting a socialist mode of production and organization,
like in EZLN territories?
ago
As much as is appropriate. Using the formal definition of
ultraleft (rather than any communist 'left' of me) we
don't really think it's worth moving the economy further
than the people and vice versa. Bases of support also
means places where the locals won't snitch on you,
whether or not you can fundamentally shift the way
value is created and/or moves in an area.
But I mean what's the point of taking over territory if

you're not going to liberate it from the capitalist
mode of production. Or is that supposed to come
from the top-down when the revolution is won?
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 2 points 1
year ago
If we want to take that route why don't we just
start co-ops with our friends or build farm
communes for a half dozen families?
These base areas are not areas that are
necessarily 'taken over' because the party doesn't
and can't 'take over' an area, they can only gain
support and/or help the people who live in that
area liberate it. This question is a fundamental
misunderstanding of the idea of a red base area.
In addition, it sounds like you're suggesting a
very extreme version of Stalinist 'socialism in one
country'. While it's important to abolish the value
form in a single neighbourhood, it's no good if we
stop there and can't move forward.
For example, in the more 'new democracy' era in
China while Japanese occupation was literally
slaughtering people left and right, it wouldn't be
right to abandon the struggle and 100%
expropriate the national bourgeoisie in every rural
town where the Marxist-Leninists were half-
popular.
Ah I see. So basically you're saying the red
armies/guerrillas shouldn't be the ones to
overthrow the capitalist more of production but the
people themselves through red army support.
..But then in that case what is the need for a red
army? Couldn't you just spread class consciousness
through various means, and once most of the
citizenry is class conscious they can do the fighting
and "revolution-ing" themselves? If the majority of
people in every town, district and province all just
decided to collectively overthrow capitalism, no
army could stop them; it's not like the bourgeois
state could massacre most of their own population.
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 1
point 1 year ago

I'm not sure if this is still a serious
question. The bourgeois state, especially if
the bourgeoisie is an imperialist one from
halfway across the world, would routinely
massacre people in virtually every socialist
revolution. The Japanese and the
Nationalist Army killed people all the time
in this way.
Secondly not every person is willing or able
to put themselves on the line for socialism,
even as a socialist. People with family
responsibilities or disabilities etc might not
be really able.
In addition why would this class
consciousness spread if the current
socialist revolutionaries aren't using force
to stand up against the bullies? The left-
com strategy of spreading propaganda
until Half The Population Plus One is a
committed socialist is incredibly
unsuccessful and totally divorced from
class struggle and has retreated into ivory
towers.
[–] mittim80 - mfw • 1 point 1 year ago
The left-com strategy of spreading

propaganda until Half The Population
Plus One is a committed socialist is
incredibly unsuccessful
I don't think class consiousness and
rejection of capitalism can happen with
people hair acting on their own, I agree
that's unrealistic, but rather there would be
local syndicates or other socialist
organizations that would organize resistance
and guide the revolution.
And yes, I stand by my opinion that an
almost-universally socialist working class,
organized in such a way, could reject
capitalism and the bourgeois armies would
be almost powerless to resist. You brought
up the example of the Japanese. While the
Japanese killed millions of civilians, they
"only" killed 5% of China's population
including military casualties. The bourgeois
can kill a lot of people, but once a critical
mass of organized people reject and resist,
the state simply does not have the capacity,
or the will, to fight back. Iranian 1979
revolution is a perfect example of this
(rejecting the state, not capitalism, although
theoretically they could have).
[–] UpholderOfThoughts
- System Change • 2 points 1 year
ago
k
[–] unapologeticallymaoi - Its right to rebel! • 3 points 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on Stalin?

permalink embed
[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 20 points 1 year ago*
Great question that requires an in depth answer.

First off, I will not repeat the tired old formula of the lazy
internet Maoists when they transpose Deng's maxim of "70%
good, 30% bad" onto Stalin. I think young Stalin pre-1930s
was decent, while the Stalin of the 30s and onward was very
un-Marxist in his understanding of the Party, the state, the
dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism, and dialectics. The
reason I say that the Stalin of the 20s was decent was because
I believe that he represented the correct position in the two line
struggle that emerged in the Party after Lenin's death between
himself and Trotsky. However, this doesn't change the fact that
Stalin's conception of dialectics was utterly mechanistic and the fact
that because of this his influence on the Party caused many
mistakes to be made regarding the peasantry and the construction
of socialism, that's to say nothing about the mistakes it caused in
the international communist movement. Stalin mistrusted the
peasants, put too much emphasis on technical experts instead of
the workers, ignored the relations of production, and stifled intra-
party democracy through his conception of the "monolithic" party
and mistrust of the masses. I will also say that Mao represented an
initial break with both Stalinism and Trotskyism. For example, in
regards to the 1927 Chinese Revolution the "Stalinist" view in
China, represented by Li Lisan, was to support the Kuomintang
because it would push for bourgeois revolution. Trotsky's supporter,
Chen Duxiu, also wanted to support the Kuomintang but draw the
working-class towards it and ignore the peasantry. Mao opposed
both by basing his analysis on the actual conditions of China and
instead based the Communist Party on the peasantry as the main
force, with the industrial working-class as the leading force.
I will also note that most Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties around the
world don't consider Stalin to be that great either. Today's
unquestioning Stalin admires are dogmatists and are usually tankie
MLs and/or Hoxhaists.
Can you expand more/give literature on Stalin's vs. Mao's

line on the Kuomintang?
year ago
JMP has a great write up on the mimetic nature of
Trotskyism and Stalinism, and the three lines of Mao,
Trotsky, and Stalin during the Chinese Revolution.
That is a truly awful article and is pretty typical of

everything JMP produces on Trotskyism. He doesn't
understand a single thing about Trotskyism, which
one would think is surprising because he spends so
much time raving about it, but then again that level
of ignorance is pretty typical of the anti-Trotskyist
left.
I would probably link Stalin's critiques before JMP's, and
that isn't an endorsement of Stalin, that's just how blindly
ignorant JMP is.
points 1 year ago

Would you mind pointing out what you feel is
lacking in the presentation and analysis of the
Trotskyist position in the article.
I quoted the maxim in my earlier post but as for content I

agree w/ all this.
year ago
Lol. I know. Your comment wasn't posted when I was
typing my reply. You're not one of the people I had in
mind when I mentioned "lazy internet Maoists".
It should be kept in mind that while Duxiu was sympathetic

to Trotsky, Trotsky was extremely critical of his positions,
some of which you can actually read here, for example his
softness on the KMT and his attitude towards the
peasantry.
[–] anonlocalhost • 2 points 1 year ago
The reason I say that the Stalin of the 20s was decent
was because I believe that he represented the correct
position in the two line struggle that emerged in the
Party after Lenin's death between himself and Trotsky.
Can you put some meat on this?
year ago
In my opinion the problem facing Russia and the Party
in the '20s was two-fold. One, what is the role of the
peasantry in constructing socialism, and two, can
socialism be constructed in the absence of successful
revolutions in Western Europe?
Trotsky had a fundamental mistrust of the peasantry due to
his dogmatic transposition of Marx's analysis of the German
peasantry in the 1840s to 20th century Russia. According to
Trotsky, and his theory of permanent revolution, the
peasantry would eventually prove to be a counter-
revolutionary force due to their feudal and petty-bourgeois
consciousness, which would eventually turn into a civil war.
This could only be avoided if the peasantry was submitted to
the discipline of the proletariat, as a passive subject merely
acted upon and commanded by an outside force, and help
came from successful revolutions in the West.
Both Lenin and Stalin recognized the necessity of a class
alliance with peasantry and that they could act in
revolutionary ways as a class. Both recognized that the
peasantry had an interest in constructing socialism, unlike
Trotsky who believed they would only support bourgeois
reforms and oppose socialism, because socialism would
eliminate the landlords as a class and smash residual feudal
relations. Stalin's line understood all of this, Trotsky's didn't.
Secondly, Trotsky believed that it was impossible to construct
anything other than "artificial" socialist institutions in Russia
until help came from the advanced countries in the West.
Hence why in Results and Prospects Trotsky said the
following. (emphasis mine)
Without the direct State support of the European
proletariat the working class of Russia cannot remain in
power and convert its temporary domination into a lasting
socialistic dictatorship.
The international situation, and the class composition of
Russia, made this totally divorced from reality, which Stalin,
Zinoviev, and Kamenev correctly pointed out. History proved
that it was possible to build socialism without the aid of
revolutions in the West and to do it through the alliance of
the proletariat and peasantry.
70% good 30% bad. Some of the heavy handed 'censorship'

that took place are too top down compared to the bottom up
approach in cultural revolution. National Question is an
important work but basically a rough draft and modern Maoists
have some updates on it.
ah
[+] [deleted] 1 year ago* (4 children)
[–] nuggetinabuiscuit - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism • 3 points 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on the current state of China, as well as

the modern Chinese Communist Party?
permalink embed
Currently China is state capitalist, which some Maoists have

even claimed is now outright fascist. Although I find the charge
of fascism a bit hyperbolic. As far as the current CCP, it's full of
revisionists, bourgeois Chinese nationalists, and billionaires.
There is a wing sympathetic to Mao, but in a nationalistic sense
based on nostalgia, not in a genuine commitment to MLM. In
fact, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups are heavily monitored,
broken up, and their members arrested. The CCP sometimes
uses the name and legacy of Mao to whip up patriotic fervor
and support for their policies, but doesn't actually want the
masses to take up Maoism and revolt.
[–] Opsroom - socialist • 3 points 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on the current political situation in Nepal?

permalink embed
Good question because it further proves two line struggle and

the possibility for socialism to be defeated by revisionism. The
UCPN(M) has capitulated and made peace with the bourgeois
state, and a revisionist line prevails in the party. This is why
there was a party split and the people's war was relaunched in
Nepal. It will be interesting to see what becomes of that, since
the split party from UCPN(M) has significant base areas and
support. Combine that with the ongoing people's war in India,
and the soon-to-be launched people's war in Afghanistan by
the C(M)PA, and exciting developments lay ahead for the
international communist movement.
[–] donkeykongsimulator - Chicanx Communist • 4 points 1 year
ago
What about the Philippines?
year ago
Probably the most theoretically and militarily advanced
communist movement in the world. They should be at
strategic equilibrium by next year, which is HUGE as far
as the possibility for victory in their people's war. The
NPA is already in 71 provinces. The CPP and NDF have
huge support throughout the country too. There's a real
possibility of a communist revolution happening in the
Philippines before India.
[–] vapor-virtual - maoist of manila | teen militant • 3 points
1 year ago
Old thread but this makes me tear up a little... Long
live the national struggle!
Questoon: can there be successful peoples war without

mass class consciousness among most of the proletariat? It
seems to me like many maoist have tried to employ PPW
without support from the asses and this is where they failed
ago
Maoist People’s war is not simply a war of liberation but
also a fundamentally different way of waging war. In the
past we have addressed this issue through the example
of the New People’s Army. In which we contrast
Gonzaloist Total War with the NPA’s revolutionary
military discipline. The classic position on war is to
demoralize the enemy as quickly as possible to defeat it.
Protracted People’s War poses the question in the
inverse: the question is how to moralize the people for
as long as it takes until victory for the dictatorship of the
proletariat is achieved.
From maosoleum.
I think the first stage of PPW which is strategic defense
builds with this question.
The Indian example involves creating unity with the
indigineous people, the lower castes and the
revolutionary proletariat,
And the NPA in the Philippines (even though they are MZT)
involves a broader movement of not just Maoists fighting
against the semi feudal semi colonial situation.
Thanks from responding. Sorry my original comment

has so many typos, I didn't even realize
[–] rebelcanuck - Permanent Revolutionary ⚑☭ • 3 points 1 year ago
Would you recommend wearing PPW while waging PPW? Why or

why not?
permalink embed
I'm not familiar with PPW as a clothing item.

[–] rebelcanuck - Permanent Revolutionary ⚑☭ • 5 points 1 year
ago
OK my joke failed. It means personal protective wear.
[–] Adonisus - A Hero is just a man who knows he's free... • 3 points 1 year
ago
Another question:
What is your opinion of the so-called 'Mao Cult'? I am aware that
the Cult of Personality that surrounded Mao was not apparently
the work of Mao himself (Lin Bao had more to do with it), but
there are things about it I find somewhat problematic.
permalink embed
You're correct about it mainly being the work of Lin Biao, and
his Genius Theory specifically. Cults of personality are anti-
Marxist in the sense that they deny, or downplay, the working
classes ability and desire to transform society by transferring
that agency to the will of a single person. This can also serve
as a hindrance to a communist movement because people are
united around a person rather than broader theoretical or
political questions. For example, Abímael Guzman, or "Chairman
Gonzalo", allowed a cult of personality to be built up around himself
in the Peruvian Communist Party (Shining Path). Now, the PCP by
around 1992 was reaching the point in their people's war of
strategic equilibrium, meaning that the people's army and
proletarian organs of political power were approaching an equal
footing with the Peruvian state. However, Gonzalo was arrested and
Shining Path collapsed into two factions because their unity was
around Guzman moreso than MLM. Without him and his "Gonzalo
Thought" they descended into terrorism, opportunism, and drug
trafficking because their unifying pole had moved from MLM to just
the individual of Gonzalo. This, fundamentally, is what is wrong with
cults of personality in communist struggle.
I know the AMA is over, but if you could answer this one, I'd be
grateful. What's the MLM analysis of the Zapatistas? If my
understanding is correct, the EZLN began as a Maoist group, but
then adapted and shifted by orienting itself to the people of
Chiapas and keeping its revolutionary practice very flexible, to the
extent that the territory resembles something very close to
anarchism. Is this a good example of Maoist practice? Simply a
successful accident? Something else entirely?
permalink embed
The Zapatistas refuse to take power, as well as launch a

revolution against the Mexican state. Marcos' phrase used to
be "our word is our weapon", perfectly encapsulating the
Zapatista strategy of non-violent resistance and isolation from
the Mexican masses. This is different than Mao's recognition
that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun", which
implies mass armed struggle to transform society.
Thanks! We'll see how the Trot ama goes next week,
because you've made MLM look pretty darn appealing.
[–] TakeMyUsernameAgain - Marxist-Leninist-Maoist| FRSO • 4 points 1 year
ago
Awesome AMA comrade! I have some questions to ask you:
1. What is your view of the Tienanmen Square Massacre?
2. What position do you hold on the theory of Soviet Social
Imperialism? What do you make of the Sino-Soviet Split more
generally?
3. I am a Marxist-Leninist who upholds MZT and actively considers
myself a Maoist above all else. I think there is much that is
universal in Mao, but PPW is not the correct strategy in the US. I
uphold the strategy of insurrection. What would you say to
convince me otherwise? In the future, do you think a party could
be built of comrades who are MLM and ML-MZT?
permalink embed
What is your view of the Tienanmen Square Massacre?

A clamp down on revolutionary dissent by a state capitalist
regime. Many of the protesters sang the International, held
pictures of Mao, and chanted slogans from the Cultural
Revolution. The general sense was one of returning to
revolutionary socialism and criticizing the severe rightward
trend that had developed post-Mao.
What position do you hold on the theory of Soviet Social
Imperialism?
I believe that the theory of social imperialism is correct on the
whole. However, I believe the seeds of this development were
sown during the Stalin years, especially in the aftermath of
WWII. The division of the countries by the great powers was
setting the stage for what would come later, as well as Stalin's
idea that Red Army occupation and forceful political
maneuvering could produce anything other than "barracks
socialism".
What do you make of the Sino-Soviet Split more generally?
One divides into two. The revisionists and emerging imperialist
policies of the CPSU needed to be criticized openly and a new
line had to be drawn in the international communist
movement. That being said, the CCP often used the theory of
social imperialism for their own revisionism and wrong-headed
policies. Supporting the Khmer Rouge over the North
Vietnamese was absolutely wrong and inexcusable, as an
example.
I am a Marxist-Leninist who upholds MZT and actively
considers myself a Maoist above all else. I think there is
much that is universal in Mao, but PPW is not the correct
strategy in the US. I uphold the strategy of insurrection.
What would you say to convince me otherwise?
I would say that, what has insurrection accomplished outside
of Russia? Nothing. In fact, the theory of insurrection has
served as a breeding ground for opportunism and revisionism. Why?
Because the insurrectionist strategy relies on a prolonged legal
struggle that depends on a general crisis to weaken the state, and
mass military defection, which then culminates in the
insurrectionary moment. This has only happened in Russia due to
the unique circumstances of WWI. Everywhere else insurrection was
tried (Germany, Hungary, France, Britain etc.) it has failed. The
parties that have supported, and continue to support, this approach
have used it to avoid cultivating a revolutionary movement, instead
opting to concentrate on trade union struggles and electoralism.
The revolution is placed far beyond attainment and no actual
preparations are made to make one. Plus, do you honestly believe
an insurrection could succeed in the imperialist countries? At the
moment of insurrection will the untrained masses rise up against
some of the most powerful militaries in world history and defeat
them? Absolutely not.
Protracted People's War recognizes this problem and poses the
following. First, the proletariat needs a Party, army, and a united
front, what Mao called the "three magic weapons", in order to win.
The legal struggle should continue, but should also be combined
with the illegal struggle. Base areas of proletarian political power
should be constructed, in urban areas these could look like the
neighborhood party committees established in places like Lima that
were set up during the Peruvian people's war. This is the germ, or
the foundation, of dual power that is constructed alongside the old
state in preparations for the capture of power. Furthermore, people
should be trained militarily as well if they hope to succeed. The
above are the universal aspects of PPW, whether in the imperialist
countries or in the oppressed countries. Obviously, in the U.S. we
are not going to surround the cities from the countryside, however,
we need to understand revolution as a protracted process that
combines legal and illegal action and the development of dual
power, that is the universality, in a basic sense, of PPW. PPW
recognizes this necessity, the strategy of insurrection doesn't.
In the future, do you think a party could be built of comrades
who are MLM and ML-MZT?
If they recognized the universal applicability of Maoism and dropped
MZT and became Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, yeah, I could see it.
[–] donkeykongsimulator - Chicanx Communist • 1 point 1 year
ago
The division of the countries by the great powers was
setting the stage for what would come later, as well as
Stalin's idea that Red Army occupation and forceful
political maneuvering could produce anything other than
"barracks socialism".
Don't some see the PRC under Mao as "barracks socialism"? How
true would you say that assertion is?
[–] TakeMyUsernameAgain - Marxist-Leninist-Maoist| FRSO • 1
point 1 year ago

we need to understand revolution as a protracted
process that combines legal and illegal action and the
development of dual power
This is why I do not hold PPW as universal actually. What
you just described is insurrection and the exact strategy
used by the Bolsheviks. Every MLM I have seen who holds
PPW universal does so by abstracting it so much that it is
no longer actual PPW.
year ago
What you just described is insurrection and the exact
strategy used by the Bolsheviks.
Funny you should say that because within the past few
years many MLMs have argued the between 1905-1917
the Bolsheviks engaged in an earlier form of people's
war through guerrilla actions.
Why is Jason Unrue such a raving asshat?

Also. Any idea what books Mao read to become such a great
military leader?
permalink embed
Why is Jason Unrue such a raving asshat?

I have no idea. Probably his inability to take criticism,
combined with his vulgar theoretical knowledge and Third
Worldism. He's just a do nothing Third Worldist on YouTube.
Nothing to see here.
Also. Any idea what books Mao read to become such a great
military leader?
Sun Tzu's The Art of War is one.
ago
Even TWs hate Unruhe lmao
friendly reminder
Lol that wave he does. On point.

[–] counterrevolutionary - CWI • 2 points 1 year ago
What is going on in there! Wow!

Raving Asshats are really great poles for people who are
having trouble in their own life. His unshakable confidence in
everything he says, even when it comes without any
investigation and is just off the top of his head is really
comforting to unhappy young white men.
[–] QuintonGavinson - Ultra Left Mao-Spontex • 4 points 1 year ago
Does capitalism require capitalists?

permalink embed
[–] donkeykongsimulator - Chicanx Communist • 2 points 1 year ago
define capitalism and capitalists

[–] QuintonGavinson - Ultra Left Mao-Spontex • 5 points 1 year ago
I'm using the Marxist definition of capitalism (wage labour,

commodity production, private ownership of the means of
production, capital accumulation etc.) and by capitalists I
mean; a people or group who have ownership over the
means of production, have control of the profits produced
and pay the wages.
[–] donkeykongsimulator - Chicanx Communist • 1 point 1 year
ago
you just answered your own question, what does this have to
do with maoism?
[–] QuintonGavinson - Ultra Left Mao-Spontex • 7 points 1
year ago
I didn't answer the question at all, actually?
I'm asking for a Maoist perspective on the issue, as it
is an important step in understanding what we
recognise as capitalism and what we don't. Once I
have clarified the Maoist (or just /u/kc_socialist)
position on this issue, it opens up room for further
questioning and debate, with a proper foundation.
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 3 points 1
year ago
I'm pretty convince that capitalism requires
capitalists and I've never heard of a maoist who
didn't? I'm not 100% sure of course. I think we
can talk about a 'state capitalism' with some
distinction from 'capitalism' and if the dictatorsihp
of the proletariat is in control of the state we can
possibly have a type of capitalism without any
real capitalists to point it (but surplus labour is
being taken by elements of the state all the
same).
- Unified Left
[–] sexylaboratories • 2 points 1 year ago
I can't really contribute to this post at the moment, but I will do a

lot of reading from the links and suggestions in the comments to
learn more, I'm very curious in the applicable differences of
Maoism for developed nations, how the parallel structure
suggested by it specifically differs. Thanks a lot for making this
thread!
permalink embed
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 1 point 1 year ago
Good question, I'd like to hear this. My experience has been that
this hasn't (yet) been emphasized by maoists in canada for
instance, with the notable exception of the attempt and at least
partial success of replacing the student government in in some
universities with direct-democracy styled maoist governments.
[–] Ragark - Pastures of Plenty must always be free • 3 points 1 year ago
How is the mass line different than just listening to the people?
permalink embed
Because it involves politicizing them in the process, and

undertaking Marxist social investigation.
[–] Ragark - Pastures of Plenty must always be free • 2 points 1 year
ago
Who is doing the listening and the politicizing? Can the
people perform this politicizing?
ago
The entire party is composed of people and not donkeys
or robots.
[–] Ragark - Pastures of Plenty must always be free • 2
points 1 year ago

Obviously. But are these people of the masses, or
are they simply bureaucrats who tell the people what
to believe?
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 1 point 1
year ago
Could you explain what you mean by bureaucrat?
None of the communists I've ever met are
particularly inclined to do paperwork and
accounting.
[–] Ragark - Pastures of Plenty must always be free
• 2 points 1 year ago

Someone of the party that has been separated
from the masses, usually unelected.
[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 1
point 1 year ago

What on earth are you even talking about
anymore?
[–] Ragark
- Pastures of Plenty must always be free •
3 points 1 year ago

Are you dodging the question? Not
every government official was elected,
even in the USSR. So who is
"interpreting" the will of the masses?
Some guy that's part of the
interpretation department, or an
elected official, or the people
themselves?
[–] UpholderOfThoughts
- System Change • 1 point 1 year
ago
You've totally lost me.
continue this thread
[–] stopstopp - Mao would downvote kc_socialist • 3 points 1 year ago
If you are in a fascist country that isn't imperialist and imperialists

are invading, who do you make a truce with to destroy the other
and why? You cannot say neither.
permalink embed
If you are in a fascist country that isn't imperialist...
I don't think this is possible. Fascism is predicated on imperialist
aggression, especially the forceful acquisition of new territories for
economic domination.
...imperialists are invading, who do you make a truce with to
destroy the other and why? You cannot say neither.
I guess it would depend on the overall political conditions. It was
appropriate for Italian partisans to side with the Soviets, Americans,
and British during WWII to defeat fascism. However, the Chinese
Communist Party was also correct in siding with the Kuomintang
during WWII against the Japanese imperialists. One sided with
imperialists to defeat fascism, the other sided with fascists to defeat
imperialists. I think both were correct given each one's concrete
conditions.
[–] stopstopp - Mao would downvote kc_socialist • 2 points 1 year
ago
Interesting answer, I agree with that is the goal of fascism
as an ideology but correct me if I'm wrong fascism also only
comes about because the state failed at imperialism (ie
spain, germany, italy).
year ago
fascism also only comes about because the state
failed at imperialism (ie spain, germany, italy).
I would say that fascism, and imperialism generally, is
an attempt to resolve the inner contradictions of
capitalism outside of national boundaries by "moving
them around", as David Harvey might say, in physical
space, i.e. Forcefully creating or opening new markets
etc.
Also, check out this short work on a Marxist-Leninist-
Maoist conception of fascism if you haven't yet. I think
that fascism is a broad and slippery ideology that is
really hard to pin down, but I think the above, as well as
the old ML maxim of it being the "open terrorist
dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic,
most imperialist elements of finance capital" applies too.
[–] okiecommie • 4 points 1 year ago
This is a great AMA, comrade!
I just ask that you recommend a work by either a Maoist or Mao
himself for each of the Five Key Concepts that you outlined in the
original post.
permalink embed
New Democracy- On New Democracy

Protracted People's War- On Protracted War, What is
Protracted People's War
Mass Line- Basics of the mass line and Mass Work
Law of contradiction- On Contradiction and Talk on Questions
of Philosophy
Cultural Revolution- check out the book Cultural Revolution at
the Margins and check out this compilation or resources.
[–] okiecommie • 3 points 1 year ago
Thank you. I've read the majority of Quotations, but

sometimes a quote or two doesn't cover the scope of a
theoretical issue.
[–] fireflyMfucker - Raise the flag high • 3 points 1 year ago
There are 3 forces of power in a modern society:

The state
The Capital
The proletariat
Why do ML's insist on the state taking over the capital instead of
there proletariat taking over the capital?
If Communism is the goal, why isn't it better for the proletariat to

organize change instead of the state doing it for us?
permalink embed
The workers capture state power and use the state to take into
ownership the means of production. The state is a hammer,
and the workers are the ones swinging it.
[–] fireflyMfucker - Raise the flag high • 2 points 1 year ago
How? It's not like the proletariat controlls the state in any
way. It's a seperate entity.
They capture state power through revolution.

[–] fireflyMfucker - Raise the flag high • 2 points 1 year
ago
No, the proletariat helps the Communist party
capture the state, and after that the party and
proletariat goes separate ways.
What? No.
[–] fireflyMfucker - Raise the flag high • 2 points 1
year ago
Ok, sure!
What do you mean when you say the state?

[–] Honcho21 - CWI • 2 points 1 year ago
How would you explain or justify the internal party purges of the
Chinese Communist Party which saw the murder of thousands of
party members? My memory is a little hazy, this must have been
around 1937 I think?
permalink embed
Are you thinking of the Great Purge that happened in the CPSU
in the late '30s? The Chinese Communist Party didn't have a
purge in '37.
ago
Maybe they're thinking of the Anti-Bolshevik League
Incident?
load more comments (1 reply)
What would you say about Bob Avakian's New Synthesis? I

assume you have criticisms to make. From what I've read, I think
I like it and sympathize with it but I've also noticed strong
opposition to it.
permalink embed
I think WorkersDreadnought had a good critique of the "New

Sythesis" here and here
The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan also has a good
critique of it here
I'm not a proponent of the "New Synthesis", in fact I view it as
a confused theory emerging from an archaic political cult.
Thanks for the links. I'll be looking into them.

I didn't think you supported it but I was curious how you'd
criticize.
I don't know that anyone is 'against it', more that people are
saying nothing in it is particularly new, and nothing in it is
particularly a synthesis. More that a cult leader cannot be mlm,
he eventually had to write his own ideology.
What are some of the common misconceptions leftists have about

Maoism?
permalink embed
[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 1 point 1 year ago
Misconceptions About Maoism.

[–] Adonisus - A Hero is just a man who knows he's free... • 1 point 1 year ago
Another question from me:

What is your overall opinion of Chen Duxiu?
permalink embed
Meh. He was a good writer, but his line on the peasantry in

China and the Communist Party's relationship with the
Kuomintang was wrong.
[–] Adonisus - A Hero is just a man who knows he's free... • 1 point 1
year ago
Do you think he deserved as much condemnation as he
would get from the Party through the years?
year ago
Criticizing his line for being wrong, yes. Endlessly
heaping abuse on him for being a Trotskyist, no. He was
a co-founder of the CCP after all, and was committed to
revolution, so he doesn't deserve to be completely
tarnished. His dogmatism and incorrect strategy and
tactics should provide enough to condemn without
making up bullshit about him being a "wrecker" or
"social-fascist" for being a Trot.
[–] [deleted] • 1 point 1 year ago
Is this AMA gonna be a weekly thing? If so I like it. What's next on

the list next week?
permalink embed
I don't know if it's going to be weekly, but there has already

been a volunteer to do a left communist AMA next.
Awesome, thanks for doing this AMA by the way, I'm

actually reading up more on Mao thanks to you
Can we do a Trot one soon? We have several

knowledgeable Trot mods, and I have questions about my
own tendency.
year ago
We will probably do that one after the upcoming left
communist AMA.
[–] JoyBus147 - YP-TMT • 1 point 1 year ago
Yay!
[–] Sergeant_Static - Abolish Poverty • 1 point 1 year ago
Thanks for the AMA! I personally haven't read any Stalin or Mao,
and my historical knowledge of both the Soviet Union and the
People's Republic of China are a bit hazy, so I appreciate being
able to ask questions.
Did the Soviet Union's policies start to deviate from socialism at
any point in time? When and why? How can deviations like this be
avoided in the future?
Did the PRC's policies start to deviate from socialism at any point
in time? When and why? How can deviations like this be avoided
in the future?
Can one be a ML/MLM in theory, but not support the Soviet
Union/PRC in practice? Do you support the Soviet Union or the
PRC, either in part or completely? Why or why not?
Do you believe that, as political speech and organization in many
first world countries like the United States are not as suppressed
as they were in pre-revolutionary Russia and China, Marxist-
Leninist organizational theories and methods are still applicable in
those places? If so, why and what modifications could we make? If
not, what would you propose we do differently?
permalink embed
Super broadly, I think there were some problems cropping up

in the Lenin and Stalin era. Some retreats back to capitalism
perhaps in the NEP era and some issues regarding national self
determination of some of the more so-called peripheral nations in
the USSR.
The NEP stuff, I'm not convinced it was the wrong move. The Stalin
stuff, I think every single socialist party today has improved on this
issue, it's just that the first party to have an experiment had the
wrong hypothesis.
PRC's situation is more complex for many reasons, not the least
being that there's like 80 nationalities and it's just a much bigger
country. I don't have a simple quip to explain how they ended up as
a capitalist country.
I think all MLM don't support the Soviet Union or PRC today, Soviet
Union doesn't exist.
I think all ML and all MLM think that the two most significant events
in the history of the world are the Russian and Chinese revolutions
though.
What do you mean "support"? Send money to? Train troops or send
over our troops? Can you clarify that?
While organization was suppressed in both China and in Russia,
some serious conditions changed pre revolution. The February
Revolution lead to a 'democratic' climate and similarly the military
situation with Japan led to a large communist party wit mass
support that wasn't exactly suppressible.
The pcr-rcp at least, believes that
1. We saw a modernization of the state, as the executive branch
has centralized and now directly holds the political power;
2. Army has become a professional corps;
3. The bourgeoisie has experienced the fight against communism
at the international level;
4. Capitalism in the imperialist countries has developed
mechanisms that allow it to last, despite economic crisis.
These 4 things have change and traditional marxist tactics ie a
protracted legal struggle followed by a large strike/insurrection like
October Road aren't sufficient.
We use the thesis of Protracted People's war, typically as the
universal strategy for both imperialist and peripheral countries.
[–] OnlyBrowsesRlol • 1 point 1 year ago
1.) How can you explain the millions of deaths caused by Mao
directly from his policies and ideological changes thought to bring
China into a shining era of communism?
2.) How do you explain how China survived through it's
"experiment" into communism only by liberalizing it's economy
and allowing the free market to take hold in China? Allowing, once
again, the 'bourgeois' to take hold in China through big business
to become the economic superpower it is today?
permalink embed
point 1 is a false statement so we don't 'explain' it.

point 2 is kind of weird as well. 'how do you explain how
chinese communism survived only by being capitalism'. That's
like saying how do you explain how your pet dog survived only
by getting run over by a truck. The chinese communism
happened before the liberalizing and turning into chinese
capitalism. Things that happen in years with smaller numbers
(ie 1964) happened before things that happen in years with
bigger years (ie 1981). So more specifically Deingist market
reforms in the 80's don't help the 1949 revolution unless Deng
has a time machine.
[–] Maoistgod • 1 point 1 year ago
Should I read for Marxism leninism maoism?

permalink embed

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, AMA! - Socialism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, AMA! - Socialism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, AMA! self.socialism

There has always been a lot of confusion over

Thought, and Third Worldism, are not the same as

Yes. Why? Because MLM doesn't just view revisionism as "bad

[–] Blackbelt54 - Marxism-Leninism • 13 points 1 year ago

Thanks for your answers :) how do you define state

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 22 points 1

1 year ago Tiak -

a revolution to smash the proletarian state post-Stalin

proletariat, even though it was revisionist?

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 21

points 1 year ago

[–] ultralinks • 6 points 1 year ago

Is this why you call Stalin a revisionist in the

[–] Blackbelt54 - Marxism-Leninism • 7 points 1 year ago

So this Mao statement is not referring to the same

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 14

points 1 year ago

[–] Blackbelt54 - Marxism-Leninism • 9 points 1

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

[ S ] • 15 points 1 year ago

Well a strategic retreat would still have

[–] rockoman100 - Communism cannot be defeated forever • 6

points 1 year ago

[–] JoyBus147 - YP-TMT • 4 points 1 year ago

Usually when I hear "tankies," the speaker is including

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 8 points 1

[–] JoyBus147 - YP-TMT • 3 points 1 year ago

which I will admit is elastic and unscientific

[–] UpholderOfThoughts - System Change • 3 points 1 year

[–] theWanderingGentile - Fist • 18 points 1 year ago

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 27 points 1 year ago

Sure. This is actually a good opportunity to demonstrate one of

[–] lovelybone93 - Read Stalin, not the Stalinists • 15 points 1 year

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 16 points 1

[–] lovelybone93 - Read Stalin, not the Stalinists • 19 points

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 21

points 1 year ago

[–] lovelybone93 - Read Stalin, not the Stalinists •

11 points 1 year ago

[–] [deleted] • 3 points 1 year ago

Could you explain what Mao means by this?

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 5 points 1

[–] insurgentclass - abolish everything • 31 points 1 year ago

[–] RefSocDem - I don't want full Marx • 12 points 1 year ago

Cultural Revolution- The recognition that the bourgeois

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 19 points 1 year ago

[–] OKELEUK - Reichstag's on Fire • 11 points 1 year ago

Could you elaborate more on the Mass Line in action?

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 15 points 1 year ago

...take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic

[–] [deleted] • 6 points 1 year ago

Basically, this method serves to hold the Party to

[–] kc_ soci al ist - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[ S ] • 19 points 1

[–] [deleted] • 3 points 1 year ago

Interesting, thanks for the answer and great job on

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [deleted] • 7 points 1 year ago

Here is an excellent explanation of how a contemporary MLM

[–] [deleted] • 9 points 1 year ago

How many fundamental differences are there between Maoism-