Maoism The Real Child of Stalinism

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Internationalis...
Maoism The Real Child of Stalinism
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

Maoism The Real Child of Stalinism

A pamphlet about Maoism from an internationalist perspective.

Table of Contents

  • The position of the working class and the formation of the Communist Party of China

  • The Communist International and the Chinese Revolution

  • Russia, stronghold of anti-revolution

  • The revolutionary struggle between 1925 and 1927

  • General Chiang Kai-shek’s coup and military expedition to the north

  • The uprising of the Shanghai proletariat

  • The revolutionary bourgeoisie massacred the working class

  • The destruction of the party of the working class

  • The Red Army and the leaders of the uprising

  • Trotsky and lessons learned from the experiences of 1927

  • The Communist Left and a lesson on China’s development

  • The scene of imperialist controversy

  • Great marching in the service of the Imperialist War

  • The reunification of the Chinese Communist Party with the Kuomintang

  • Wang Ming’s defeat and the appeasement of the United States

  • Mao’s domination over the Party and refining the opposition

  • The formation of state capitalism under the title of “The People’s Republic of China”

  • Crisis in the counter-revolutionary camp

  • Last word and conclusion

mcolome
Mao and Stalin

There were not any major differences between Stalin and Trotsky either

d-man
is this pamphlet online in English?

I don't seem to find this pamphlet online in English.

As regards mcolome's comment, there are major differences between Stalin and Trotsky, for instance precisely about the above-mentoned Chinese question.

Also, I would say there are even not so "smal" differences between the consolidated state power of Stalin and Mao. To my knowledge there was no comparabe massacre in Mao's China like on the scale of the 1937-38 Stalinist terror against the own revolutionary party.

Comunero
I don't think the scale of a

I don't think the scale of a massacre is any kind of meaningful difference. It's more important that in the Cultural Revolution the main massacre wasn't executed in a planned way and carried out by trained and well organized repressive organs, it was more a pogromist chaos which Map was able to more or less control to his own means. I don't have any important insight in the meaning of this, but it's possible that it sheds some light in the difference between a State emerged from the defeat of a proletarian revolution and a stalinist State emerged from a bourgeois conflict. But a discussion about numbers doesn't seem very productive.

mcolome
Trotsky, Stalin and Mao

Isaac Deutscher indicated that Trotsky provoked the ascense of Stalin when he was also a despot like him. When Trotsky was the comissair of the Red Army he was a despot. He asked for the militarization of the workers unions and forced the workers to work over time in a so called socialist country based on wage slavery, and production of surplus value from the sweat of the workers. He was a defender of the despotic idea of the vanguard party and the despotic idea of the so called workers state, like Stalin he considered that property in the hands of the state is socialism, in reality it is state capitalism. They were rival leaders with different point of view of how to control workers from the top, a Lasallean conception, which is also the basis of the vanguard party. There are not too many criminality of Trotsky because he was not allowed to take the power of the Soviet Union, otherwise he would have been a criminal like Stalin and all others bolsheviks . The killing of workers did not take place during stalin, it started during the time of Lenin and Trotsky. The question of China both agreed that a socialist society was possible to be established on a backward society like China, which is impossible without capitalist development, for them socialism was state capitalism, the same system that was established in the Soviet Union

d-man
on Chinese question



You're saying that socialism was impossible in a backward country like China (and seem to think that Stalin thought the opposite), but would not this position lead to support of Stalin's policy of working with bourgeois parties like the KMT (since the socialist revolution was not on the agenda in your view)?

mcolome
Mao and Stalin

I didn’t say that. Lenin was the first one who adopted Trotsky theory of the permanent revolution and most Bolsheviks including Stalin adopted it too which is in total contradiction with Marx concept of socialism which must be a post capitalist society no a pre-capitalist society Lenin himself said that state capitalism was a step forward for socialism therefore he knew that socialism in Russia was not possible to be established in a backward society. Ironically, Stalin on his book on anarchism he showed that he knew the real definition of socialism but he preferred to support soviet state capitalism.

The original slogan of the Bolsheviks was land bread and freedom and they were a minority of 1-10% when they took power which was a coup , theyknew that Russia was an agrarian society and the peasants only wanted a land reform and they were forced to develop capitalism and economic exploitation by extracting surplus value from the wage slaves In reality mao is a child of Bolshevism and Leninism and also Stalin . The difference between Stalin and Trotsky was based on managerial character like the difference between Bolshevik and Menshevik

d-man
huh?

Quote:
Trotsky theory of the permanent revolution and most Bolsheviks including Stalin adopted

Nope, Stalin didn't adopt the theory of permanent revolution. This is pretty uncontroversial.

Amir1
Someone tell me  What is

Someone tell me  What is difference of Trotsky theory of the permanent revolution with Marx concept?

Bolsheviks was the leftwing of second international so you could say second international was oppose to concept of Marx and Marx concept of  socialism was post capitalist society. Therefore Marx method is wrong

mcolome
The theory of the permanent

The theory of the permanent revolution is just a name, the real meaning is that socialism can be established in economical backward society, which means that capitalism can be skipped, ( socialism is a post-capitalist society ). That is what the Bolsheviks did since the very beginning

Stalin and his groups of Bolsheviks kept supporting revolt in the third world which they called socialists or proletarian revolutions, and they were anti-agrarian revolts, and the vast majority of the workers were peasants, like in the Soviet Union

The best example is China which was an economical backward society and he supported the Chinese bourgeoisie revolution falsely called a socialist revolution. Socialist revolutions have not taken place in any part of the world yet.

Stalin supported the concept of socialism in one country, and it was created by Nikolai Bukharin the man that was later executed by the Stalinists.

Bolshevism is a combination of Kautsky's theory of the vanguard party and Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution, despite the fact that Lenin said that the vanguard party concept was only applicable to Russia

Draba
Some explanations about the comments

Some explanations about the comments of this thread:

  1. Those who have read the pamphlet, see that the pamphlet is critical of Trotsky's position in this context.
  2. Comparing Stalin (Communist Murderer) with Trotsky is similar to comparing Hitler with Pannekoek. Both Trotsky and Pannekoek were great revolutionaries who made big mistakes special in later parts of their lives, but both died as revolutionaries.
  3. In contrast to Trotsky, Trotskyism belongs to the left of capital.
  4. On other things, I comment on the correct thread.
mcolome
When Trotsky was the

When Trotsky was the commissary of the Red Army he was a despot and he ordered the killing of many Anarchists. Pannekoek is a different case because he was an anti-Bolshevik Marxist.

Tagore2
Hello, mcolome, do you

Hello, mcolome, do you consider yourself a Marxist? So you could give a Marxist critique of Trotsky.

What class did Trotsky represent? Because accusing someone of "despotism" is meaningless from a Marxist point of view: Communists are for dictatorship, the question is which class it is. You mean that Trotsky was a representative of capitalists or big landowners? Or a part of them only?

When you accuse Trotsky of killing "anarchists", you mean he was mean? You know, "anarchism" is a very vague word and there were "anarchists" in the Red Army and the White Guards. After all, we have statist anarchists, militarist anarchists, democratic anarchists, terrorist anarchists, anarchist looters and even Stalinist anarchists.

You look for bad guys to explain the story: this is historical Manichaeism, not historical Materialism.

mcolome
You want a better answer just

You want a better answer just read one of the biggest biographers of Trotsky known as Isaac Deutscher, he said that the ascent of Stalin to power is due to Trotsky because he lost his own popularity among the workers of Russia. The so-called Russia revolution was only a coup in order to install state capitalism, and capitalism in any form is capitalism and it does not represent the interests of the working class. Mao was not a child of Stalinism, he was like Stalin a child of Bolshevism and Leninism. The anarchists were not killed because they were anarchists of any source, they were killed because they were in opposition to the Bolsheviks and the red army conducted by Trotsky also killed bolsheviks. It is strange that the ICC is talking against anarchism when in the past they were defending anarchism, it is strange that they defending Leninism when in the past they were raising critiques against Lenin. I don't worship Marx, and he never worshipped himself, I supported certain aspects of Marx critiques toward the capitalist society, as well I do not support Leninism and its distortion made to socialism either. Trotsky and Stalin just were rival leaders and both defended the concept of the vanguard party to control and dominate the workers from the top to the bottom, and both considered that state capitalism was socialism like Lenin himself. Just to say that Mao is a child of Stalinism is totally wrong. Stalin continued the legacy of the Bolsheviks and the legacy of Vladimir Lenin. Communists are not for dictatorship communists advocated for a classless and stateless world society

d-man
so it is online?

Draba wrote:

Some explanations about the comments of this thread:

  1. Those who have read the pamphlet, see that the pamphlet is critical of Trotsky's position in this context.

So is the pamphlet (in English) online or not?

Draba
The pamphlet is not in English online

d-man wrote:

So is the pamphlet (in English) online or not?

The pamphlet is not in English online.

d-man
Is it online at all?

If it is not online in English, does it at all exist in English print? Or if not, is it at least online in Farsi (which people can put into Google-translate)? Otherwise there is no point to announce/advertise this pamphlet here.

zimmerwald1915
Checking In

d-man wrote:

If it is not online in English, does it at all exist in English print? Or if not, is it at least online in Farsi (which people can put into Google-translate)? Otherwise there is no point to announce/advertise this pamphlet here.


Well, it's nice to get a reminder every now and then that IV exists and is active. And I don't think it does any real harm.

Amir1
the artical is existed in

the artical is existed in Farsi and is translating in English now. unfortuntley google translator can not properly translate farsi to English

Draba
Pleas download here

d-man wrote:

If it is not online in English, does it at all exist in English print? Or if not, is it at least online in Farsi (which people can put into Google-translate)? Otherwise there is no point to announce/advertise this pamphlet here.

Pleas download here