Movimiento Socialista Mundial
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mao’s ultimate aim was also a classless, stateless, and moneyless society, that’s always the bait that draws the gullible in and that it always turns into a dictatorship and never happens shouldn’t come as a surprise. Before anything can work the world needs to get rid of the Mao’s, Stalin’s and Pol Pot’s and there’s plenty of them. The people will stop them? That’s not worked very well, has it.
————————————————————————
I do not think you have read one page of the works of Mao Tse Tung. Mao never advocated for a socialist/communist society, it is just a lie that you are inventing, even more Lenin did not advocate for that type of society either, and I have read most of the works of Lenin, and reading all of them is a waste of time, and the five famous one are a complete distortion of socialism, and the socialist party has debunked all of them
Mao did not have a clue of what socialism really is,( like Trotsky did not have a clue either ) it was just a nationalist theory for under developed countries to establish state capitalism, most of the followers of Maoism were young students, and most the maoist parties were conducted by students, similar to the followers of Ernesto Che Guevara .
The five volumes of Mao Tse Tung which I have read and study ( including his military writing ) do not contain any marxist or socialist principles including his book on the contraction which is a philosophical mess up, and he was the creator of the Three world theory which is a reactionary and anti socialist conception was rejected by the Maoists too. The theory was published on Peking Review and distributed in a pamphlet form
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch4.htm. Mao conceptions were rejected by Leniists and stalinists
They ended up supporting all kind or reactionaries and right wings government around the world including the government of Augusto Pinochet based on the three world theory, they were so embarrassed that they tried to blame the theory on somebody else, there is nothing revolution on the so called Mao Tse Tung thought.
They lost more than one half of their international supporters, and when Teng Tsiao Ping came to power they lost even more, when Mao made alliance with Richard Nixon many maoist organization said that he was placing the Chinese revolution on a red carpet for Richard Nixon and the USA.
They created the concept of the soviet social imperialism because they wanted to take a chunk of the spheres of influences of the Soviet Union during the time of Khrushchev, but they were imperialist too like any other imperialist country, as rosa Luxembourg has said that any capitalist country ( small or large ) is imperialist
If Lenin philosophical book was it mess based on bourgeois materialism, Mao was even worse. even more, the dates and the order of the books and articles were compiled at their own convenience too. You better take your right wings nonsenses to same place else, probably you will fit better on a MAGA forum. You can fool somebody else, but not to us
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm
The difference between old dynastic China and now is the high development of capitalism to compete with other capitalist classes in the world; it is the same old repression, killing, lack of freedom, lack of democracy, child labour, people working longer hours, and workers living in factories.
It is all a Maoist paradise according to the Maoists; they used to say the same thing about Stalin; even more, they were saying that without Mao and without Stalin, development would not come about; they were the ones who made the revolution, the China of Mao, and the soviet union of Stalin. At any international meeting, they were hanging more pictures than the saints of the Vatican.
That is the reason why Mao was called the helmsman; without Mao Tse-Tung, thought the earth would stand still; the same was said about Adolf Hitler. Donald Trump is a Boy Scout compared with them.
The Congress of the CPC is a congress of capitalists and capitalist development; some of those members of the CPC have more money than many Western capitalists. They are saying that New York AND London wealth was moved to Beijing; the Russian oligarchy is nothing compared to the Chinese oligarchs; they came late to the distribution of capital; the poorest one is the prime minister; nobody in Beverly Hills has the mansion that he has; Trump is living in a ghetto; the president of Uruguay was living in an old house and driving a 1965 Volkswagen.
The new Chinese emperors live in palaces like the old dynasty emperors; the only difference is that the new emperors are capitalists and control a large world market, extracting surplus value from the free labour of the working class
A black Jesus, a white Jesus, or an asian Jesus will not make any difference; it is the same mythology. They can add two hundred more books to the Bible, and it will not make any difference either; it is a false historical narratives copied from different civilizations. None of the personalities never existed
There will always be criticism of anything, and Mao quite rightly comes in for his share. No one is criticising what came after Mao.
If you cite content from ‘ChinaObserver ’, you should also mention who’s behind it and that it’s an anti-communist propaganda channel. The same goes for today’s Russia, where everyone is said to be living on bread and water.
It’s not what you earn, it’s what you can buy with it. Ten years ago, a cafe-type lunch cost about 30 Yuan; today that’s about £3.36. If you’re going to pay nearly the same in London for a tea bag and some hot water, you’re going to need high wages.
Before the 20th century, China was ruled by Emperors and Dynasties for thousands of years. No chance of anti-capitalism there. In fact,t the famous ‘Silk Road’ trading route was started around 130BC, when we were still in the Iron Age. Today it’s called the ‘Belt and Road’ trading route and stretches as far as Africa and into Europe. Not sure why I added that, except to make you wonder why they didn’t abandon capitalism, but introduced regulated capitalism instead and seem to be doing very well out of it.
________—————————————
Again, you are shooting like a sniper and skipping the main issue; the main issue is statism, and statism has existed in China since the time of the dynasties; it is not a new phenomenon.
We never mentioned the concept of anti-imperialism, and anti-imperialism is not anti-capitalism, and every capitalist country is imperialist; and China is an imperialist country. We were talking about the technological development of China compared with Europe and why capitalism did not evolve in China first, and we were talking about the Asiatic mode of production or the despotic Asiatic mode of production, and that feudalism never existed in China.
Regulated capitalism and non-regulated capitalism are capitalism; regulated capitalism is known as state capitalism. In a certain period of the history of capitalism, it was abandoned by the capitalists, and they adopted monetarism. Now they are coming back to state capitalism. China is a combination of state capitalism and market capitalism, and that is the reason why it is more efficient than the soviet union state capitalism
Nazism and fascism are regulated capitalism or state capitalism, and soviet is regulated state capitalism, and one reason for its collapse was state capitalism because it is a very inefficient form; it was only successful in Germany
Inflation is not produced by protest; it is produced by the overissuance of inconvertible currency. Inflation is a monetary issue, and you must read Das Kapital to understand that.
The increase in the price of a raw material does not produce inflation; price increases are controlled by the market system, and the market is the king in this society.
The USA is the largest exporter of oil, and the price of gasoline and diesel is pretty high; therefore, shortage is not the cause of high prices.
You are just repeating the parts that are shown by the capitalist press of a minority group of protestors, but they never mention the heart of the problem, which is capitalism; people are protesting due to austerity measures, war expenses, and elimination of social programs, police brutality, and repression; the capitalist press does not mention that
You can read the capitalist press, but you can not read the socialist press; it does show your political preferences.
Inflation and price: this is part one of four articles about inflation and prices; even bourgeois economists do not understand the causes of inflation
Dictatorship during the time of Marx meant Government ( it did not mean repression), and the expression was taken from the Roman legal system, and the dictatorship of the proletariat was only expressed by Marx in a letter to one of his collaborators; it was never part of his major works,
Marx never paid too much attention to the conception, as well the labour vouchers were taken from the utopian socialists, and the SPGB never supported that conception
You are repeating the same nonsense that you read on Wikipedia, published by the echoes of the capitalist class; the expression was used in the XIX century just in case that the working class of Europe decided as a minority class to take power, but it would have led to state capitalism, as well as the Manifesto ( or the German Manifesto) contained reformist and state capitalist clauses
After the Commune of Paris, Marx wrote that the working class, as a majority, was able to take power through the electoral process, and that is mentioned in our pamphlet titled What is wrong with parliament?
We have to mention Marx in our writing because we are a ‘Marxist’ party; we are not a liberal or a capitalist party to base our principles on Adam Smith or Locke.
You are the one living behind because it was only a measure applicable to the XIX century in case that the working class, as a minority, decided to overthrow capitalism; the new conception is that the socialist revolution must be a revolution of the majority. You are getting involved in topics that you do not have any knowledge of; you should bring your notebook to take classes.
It was Lenin, in his three parts and three components pamphlets, who wrote that the heart of Marxism was the dictatorship of the proletariat; he was wrong; the heart of Marxian theory is the labour theory, and the materialist conception of history. Lenin did not move further than the communist manifesto; he was stuck in the 19th century, and he did not mention Marx newer works, including his anthropological works
The discussion on the First International with Bakunin was not mainly about the DOP; it was about the conspiracy theory versus the political participation of the working class. Bakunin was a Blanquist and a proto-Leninist
You are basing your thoughts on bourgeois thinkers; you can defend capitalism without defending its thinkers. Theory does not fall from the sky. The Socialist Party has never supported the DOP, and actually it is not needed anymore with the world’s development of capitalism.
The Cultural Revolution was like a fanatic religious movement. The book burning was similar to the book burning of the right wing christians and the Nazis in Germany.
Opera, which was apeople’ss creation like Italian opera, was also eliminated by the Cultural Revolution.
All beautiful Chinese paintings made on cloth and other media were eliminated. ted
It was not a cultural revolution; it was a political reactionary movement.t
There was a president in Latin America who was more advanced than Mao, who eliminated all the import duties on classical music, ballet and opera.
He wanted young people to appreciate classical music, and all import duties on classical literature and novels, poetry and humanities books were eliminated.
There was no book burning; on the contrary, young people fell in love with classical music and the humanities, now university and schools want to reverse everything
ttps://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d34ee7b3-5089-53f6-970c-122277267d6b/content
Karl Marx: Asiatic Mode of Production. Is statism a new Chinese phenomenon?
Statism is traced back to the origins of some old dynasties; the only difference with actual China is that it is based on a capitalist mode of production.
The Late Marxs Revolutionary Roads: Colonialism, Gender, and Indigenous Communism
The Chavistas were saying that Marx and Engels did not know anything about colonialism; it was after the widespread publication of the letter of Marx against Simón Bolívar, or the Latin American Napoleon.
Marx and Engels wrote extensively on colonialism, and he was working on a mode of production different to the European mode of production, which Mao wrongly called feudalism. It was totally different to European feudalism
Some historians have argued that capitalism could have been born first in Chinarather than in England
https://sacu.org/the-needham-question-revisited/. The Needham question: if China had scientific advancement first, then why did capitalism not evolve in china ?
It was published as a pamphlet by Progress Publisher and China Publications, and it was sold by China Books and Periodicals in several languages. It was published in Albania too during the time of Enver Hoxha, and a review was made in Albania today. The pamphlet should have been a wake-up call, and Lenin on state capitalism should have been a wake-up call too
I’ve got to agree with you Grandpa, it doesn’t look to me like you are using AI. I come across a lot of AI through work and although your contribution has a look of it, you’re grammar has some pretty obvious flaws.
—————————————————————-
He does; sometimes the re-posting creates errors on WordPress
Ciudanado, can you tell me which is the work where Stalin shows he knows what real socialism is? Is it “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics”?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm.
On linguistics, he is trying to prove that languages are not part of the ruling class, but the colonialist imposed their language in the colonies
https://www.marxists.org/espanol/stalin/obras/oe15/Stalin%20-%20Obras%2001-15.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawVSrBxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABwZG9mAWJyaWQRMWphSG1XdUZ6TGdjWVdZWDVzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEfDhAPNN2lgwi9N0QN4Xim0CfGjKU-XxgHQUV2rbJRSM8x282NBBBVg6gxX9c_aem_X_PBF_yeNLH8koF3HDlN3w. It is on his foreign language publications, and it looks like the Latin America stalinist have not read it yet
No wage slavery, no market system, common possession of the means of production; therefore, he knew the real definition of socialism
The study groups only teach Leninism and the Opposition, and Lenin: what is to be done? : imperialism, state, and the revolution and national question
Looks like someone has been playing with AI!
If this person wants to debate, we are happy to do so, but on the basis of our party’s case, not some imagined or isolated points.
Just one more thing – yes we use socialism and communism interchangeably – get over it!————————————————–
You are correct; he has already shown his underwear. He is using Wikipedia and AI writing; those headings are from AI
He doesn’t bother to read our links because he assumes we slavishly follow what the SPGB says, although we are the SPGB, not followers. He also never refers to our points in our own posts here, no matter how much energy and effort we put into replying to him. It is rude, actually.
——————————————————-
He has not read that the SPGB has had public debates with different people or organisations.
The SPGB has had public discussions with Nazis and fascists, things that are not done by other organisations, including capitalist organisations, and in this forum members of the party also have their own personal views different to the SPGB.
We have had members of other organisations in this forum who have answered and analysed our articles because they are open-minded.
He is just a waste of time, or probably he is just a troll.
He is picking everything from Wikipedia and from AI publications
Notice that he does not respond to any content, including our pointing out his historical errors.
One can only believe he has very little knowledge of 20th-century Chinese history, too. It is through awareness of history that we understand the world we live in today.
He sees Têng Hsiao-p’ing as the capitalist saviour of his “regulated capitalist” China, even though Têng was a butchering bandit in the 1930s and the violent repressor of the 1989 pro-democracy uprising.
—————————————————
Teng is the favourite of the Western capitalists because he was the one who brought the International Monetary Fund and placed the Chinese workers on a silver platter. Nothing different from what was done in Vietnam and what Trump is doing in Venezuela with Delcy Rodriguez; she is the Teng Tsiao Ping of Venezuela
Probably he has not read the ethnological notebooks of Karl Marx about the despotic Chinese and Asiatic mode of production; the Russians did not bother to study them because their society was similar to the russian state capitalism, which is not different from the actual Chinese mode of production based on despotism too.o
To understand history, first you must understand the materialist conception of history, and he is basing his analysis on the bourgeois conception of history and on Wikipedia, which is pure idealism
