Talk:Maoism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 29, 2002 - October 13, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to

Something very odd about this article In the tiny section about Cambodia, it said Pol Pot and his Khmer Rough were described as "Maoist". How can that be accurate when Pol Pot hated the Vietnamese and Chinese? In his reign, he was known to have rounded up and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Chinese who lived in Cambodia. I just feel that section of the article is too contradictory.--Secret Agent Man 01:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This isn't true

A significant feature of Maoism relative to other forms of communism is that it tolerates significant corruption unless and until this proves to be contrary to "the people's will" - as assessed by a powerful leader as in Stalinism.

Now one could argue that Maoism generates a great deal of corruption, but that's different from ideologically tolerating it.

It would be more true to say that Chinese society accepts that corruption is an inevitable side effect of authority - that is, that those in power are able to steal, and will steal, from those they rule. This is however very much to be preferred to clandestine stealing, by parties one never sees, and also much to be preferred to open theft and slaughter by simply taking stuff in the old fashioned ways. At least, if a mandarin steals from you, you can shame him. This is not possible for a thief in the night, or a conqueror.

This also isn't true (or at least it needs to be NPOV'ized).

These seem to ignore the degree of respect for traditional Chinese social norms that Mao relied upon during his rise - suggesting that Maoism as such may be a doctrine specific to China and its

Confucian

ancestor cult.

Mao's mother was a Buddhist. This makes it more credible that he would simply 'exploit' the Confucian beliefs, and also more credible that he didn't respect traditional norms, since Mao was very openly anti-Buddhist, and did what he could to destroy w:Tibetan Buddhism.

Most Chinese people (and in fact most Chinese Maoists) don't think Mao had much respect for traditional Chinese social norms. Chinese Maoists consider this a good thing.

Now I have read some Western authors argue that Maoism had deep traditional Chinese roots, but this point of view (along with the view that a lot of people think that this notion is ridiculous) needs to presented in a NPOV manner.

yup. And the difference between Confucian, Buddhist and Daoist ideas of 'traditional Chinese' also needs to be explained. Probably with a link to

w:Three Vinegar Tasters

or something.

Needs to be rewritten to conform to NPOV.

As the only version of communism to have successfully laid the educational and infrastructural foundations of a modern industrial capitalist economy, Maoism is of more current interest than other 20th-century branches of communism.

There is a significant body of opinion (including the official ideology of the PRC) that argues that first part of the sentence is not correct.

infrastructural yes, educational no, there's a split on this issue.

Also, it would be nice to identify specifically the scholars who think the opinions in the last paragraph

if the views are so controversial that they require attribution, and if they can't be attributed to a whole school of scholars (too many to list), they probably shouldn't be here. Also many consider it out of line to ask for attribution on opinions that are widely held by any group of people, as it allows for ad hominem attack on the scholars quoted, who may or may not really be representative of those accepting the argument.

Could we have an explanation of where, in doctrinal terms, Maoism differs from

Mao's mass line theory. Constant indoctrinication in writing via Little Red Book. Returning urban professionals to peasant farming (taken to extremes by w:Pol Pot. Trying to decentralize industrial activities to the villages, as in the infamous 'iron casting exercise'.

Removed this. Name the scholars....

Some Western scholars argue that China's rapid industrialization and relatively quick recovery from the brutal period of civil wars 1911-1949 was a positive impact of Maoism, and contrast its development specifically to that of Southeast Asia, Russia and India. One argument is that Mao's strong personality and doctrine served the same purpose as American executive and military leadership, and the Marshall Plan, in Europe - an extremely simple theory of the origin of modern continental trading blocs: NAFTA, EU, and China itself.

this should go back. It is so widely held an opinion that it requires no attribution. The fact is, obviously, the military control of the entire subcontinent of China did aid in rapid development, as did the military control of the entire subcontinent of Western Europe under the USA and Britain. There are however other theories of the origin of the trading blocs, back to Orwell etc.

_________________________________________________________

This entry would be much better with bullets on the tenents of Maoism. It had aims, and goals and methods. It had success and failure. It produced disaster, catastrophy and crimes against humanity on scales almost unimaginable. Just imagining one billion poeple is all most unimaginable.  ;-|

Yup, most everything about China is unimaginable to us barbarians. ;-)

How could something like the Cultural Revolution happen ? The answer is Maoism. Two16 21:54 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yup, most everything about China is unjustifiable to us barbarians.

There is a lot of asking for sources and scholars here. This is probably not the right question. The real question is, what are the counter-arguments to the controversial points of view that are presented?

Mswake noted that one could read the page and still not know what Maoism "is". Using bullets one could list the tenants of Maoism and provide explanation of what Maoiam "is". Compare and contrast is fine. But a positive definition is better.( That means a definition which which answers the question "What is Maoim? ) Its skeleton might look like this:

""Tenents of Maoism"" Maoist believed

• point
• point
• point

This wouldn't require much research. I shall do it. I couldn't trust myself to write definitive bullets off the top of my head.  :-(

If I read harsh on Mao, its probably to compensate for the awe I have at his accomplishments. In fact I like him, but I 'm never going to apologize for his actions.

I would really like to have

Two16

This article is very basic. Colipon 18:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tried to explain the current governments attitude toward Maoism. Essentially, the idea is that China has "outgrown" Maoism. Also the idea that Maoism was an excuse for Mao to gain power is not a very strong idea among Chinese historians. There are some Chinese historians who think this, but they seem to be in the minority. Roadrunner

Raodrunner I don't have any problem with the edits you have made, but I think it is naive to say what some or most Chinese historians think, if you are referring to historians resident in the PRC. Chinese historians are not free to say what they think. Any Chinese historian who said that Mao was a cruel, debauched, treacherous old megalomaniac (which he was) would at the very least lose their post, and might well be sent off for some re-education. Adam 07:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect here. The idea that Mao in his later years was a cruel, debauched, treacherous old megalomaniac is consistent with the official PRC history of Mao. Within the official ideology the fact that Mao abused his powers in his later years is taken as a warning against the cult of personality and for the importance of maintain the rule of institutions of the Communist Party.

The reason why it is important to say what historians within the PRC think is that most people in the West really don't have a clear idea of what people in China really do think. The idea that Mao invented Maoism to justify his personal power is not common. The idea that Mao used (or rather misused) Maoism to justify his personal power is part of the official history, and is in fact used to justify the rule of the Communist Party.

Similiarly, I wouldn't say that Maoism is in practice irrelevant.

Roadrunner 18:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

________

Mao's roots in Chinese thought came from anti-Confucian thinkers like Mo Tzu and the Legalists, who were already out of the mainstream by the Han period. He wrote a poem presenting an admiring view of the emperor Shih Huang Ti, who backed the Legalists and conducted the burning of the books. Perhaps a precedent for the cultural revolution?

I don't think Roadrunner quite grasps the point that the PRC is a communist dictatorship, and that neither historians nor anyone else are free to say what they think.

It's an authoritarian dictatorship, but its not particularly communist. There are limits as to what can be written, but these are somewhat broad. There really are no limits as to what can be said in private conversations, and people will tend to tell you what they think if you ask nicely. You'll generally find a huge range in what people in China think about Mao. Also you can usually tell that you are not getting the "party line" because people will say that they hate aspect X about the Communist Party, they like aspect Y, and they are ambivalent about Z.

I of course have no objection to quoting Chinese historians, provided it is made clear that what they write cannot be equated with what western historians (a term which includes Chinese historians living in the west) write in a climate of intellectual freedom.

The problem is here is because the West has more intellectual freedom doesn't make what a Chinese historian has to say necessarily more invalid. Sure Chinese historians are under political constraints that Western historians aren't, but at the same time a Chinese historian is "closer to the action" and has some knowledge and perspectives that most Western historians just don't have. In many cases, this outweighs (and in some cases far outweighs) the political constraints.

Actually, my own impression is that the main problem with Chinese historians is that they are so used to thinking in a Marxist framework, that even anti-Communist Chinese historians in the West have a difficult time thinking outside of a Marxist framework of history. At the same time, the intellectual blind spots that Chinese historians have aren't more serious than the ones that Western historians of China have. They are just different.

One thing that you do find in talking with most Chinese who have lived for a long period in the West is that they find the faith that Westerners have in their political systems to be rather naive. There is a wonderful quote "the difference between Chinese and Americans is that the Chinese know that their government is lying to them." Roadrunner 00:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't have any problems with Roadrunner's edits. Adam 23:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner's points are all fair enough. I should have said that "China is a capitalist dictatorship run by people who call themselves communists." I certainly agree that Marxist thought-categories can be just as inhibiting to historical writing as fear of the state. Adam 00:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just as a stark example. A Maoist in Cambridge, Massachusetts would have little problem publishing a history that said that the Gang of Four were wonderful people, that the Cultural Revolution was also a wonderful worker's paradise in which no one died except for evil capitalists, and that Deng Xiaoping was a horrible person that ruined China. Such a book would almost certainly be banned in China.

This doesn't mean that the points in the book are correct, that someone who believed that the points in the book were incorrect didn't really believe it, and that someone in China who argued that the book was nonsense was just parroting official ideology. One could point out that despite the political constraints involved, that someone who lived through the Cultural Revolution would at least have some useful information that might even be more "valid" than someone who spent that period in Cambridge.

Roadrunner 01:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How is "Maoist groups outside China have usually called themselves "Marxist-Leninist" rather than Maoist" not a duplicate of "These parties usually rejected the term Maoism, preferring to call themselves Marxist-Leninists", especially when the latter is in a paragraph starting with "Outside China ..." and we've already established that the term "Mao Zedong Thought" is used within China?

But hey, if you want to keep extra verbiage in your article and make it less useful to readers, no biggie.

Shouldn't there be some mention of the Maoist International Movement in the article? There is already a link to their website.

It's a very small group, maybe too small to warrant a mention in a general article on Maoism. Would certainly qualify for an article of its own, though, and inclusion on a list of communist or Maoist parties. My understanding is that it diverges from more conventional Maoist groups like the RCP on certain points. An explanation of these views might make it worth noting in this article, as an example of hostility and ideological opposition between Maoist parties. Everyking 21:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have an axe to grind against the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which you labelled "a petty cult" and moved to a position of less "prominence" (second on a list of two, against the standard practice of using alphabetical order to avoid the impression of favouritism). Care to explain why you have singled out this party for attention among the ten or so that are mentioned in the article?

If they are unconventional or divergent, that should be explained (not merely stated) in an appropriate article, either this one or (better yet) an article on the group itself. But your changes smell strongly of POV. Please find a more neutral approach. Shorne 16:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We conventionally order ext. links based on importance and usefulness to the reader. Not only is MIM a very small group, it holds unusual views that don't reflect mainstream Maoism (and there was a note that its views are unconventional, until you removed it). I would be all in favor of a brief mention of MIM's positions in the article, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier response above; I would also love to see an article specifically on Maoism in the U.S., and an individual article on the group would be just fine, too. However, it makes sense to me that Maoist groups that are actually engaging in armed warfare, and therefore make international headlines, should be placed most prominently in the external links list, followed by groups like RCP that do have some degree of actual influence in the radical left in their respective countries, and finally by a group like MIM, which I maintain is indeed essentially a petty cult. I think this logic should also apply within the body text of the article as well, which is why I moved the mention of MIM after the RCP. Everyking 17:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the comment about unconventional views for reasons of NPOV. It said something like "This group is NOT representative" and no reason was given. I still do not believe that it is appropriate to single out one group for this treatment. Even if it is true that MIM's views are unconventional within contemporary Maoism, the complete lack of discussion of their positions anywhere on Wikipedia makes the note about unconventional views inappropriate. It amounts to dismissing them as fringe kooks and leaving it at that.

As for whether MIM is small or petty, I have not found any information on the subject. Their Web site indicates a fundamental disagreement with the RCP, which they evidently consider non-Maoist. Labelling one party unconventional but not the other smacks of bias, especially in light of the ideological dispute.

You still haven't said what is unconventional about MIM. If you wish to pursue this tack, I suggest either writing an article on MIM, in which you can compare their positions to those of the mainstream, or adding a section to this article (something like "Contemporary Western Maoism") for a fair discussion of the major rifts among those calling themselves Maoists. In any case, I consider it inappropriate to make judgements on Wikipedia. Provide factual information and appropriate references. Readers can decide for themselves. Shorne 20:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quit telling me to do everything; you're an editor just as much as I am. Certainly I wasn't making a judgement in the article, except that I noted that they are unusual on some points, and I moved the position in which they were mentioned a little bit below that of another party because it is less notable, which is a fair and objective judgement to make. Who would disagree with me on the first point? They say that it is rape to have sex under capitalism; women must be spelled "wimmin", "person" as "persyn" and "human" as "humyn"; white workers in the first world can't actually be a revolutionary class because they are living off the exploitation of the third world, and so they are actually exploiters themselves (this has been argued to be racism); and so on, I'm probably forgetting some stuff. So it seems to me that a note about their views being regarded as unconventional is only fair. Everyking 20:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not those views are unconventional, they do not appear to clash with Maoism. I have reworked one paragraph to include a sample of a doctrinal dispute between MIM and the RCP, to the best of my ability. I wasn't able to determine the RCP's beef with MIM, as only one article on the RCP's Web site (according to the search engine) even mentions MIM, and it doesn't go into specifics. MIM, on the other hand, openly calls the RCP Trotskyite (thus non-Maoist) and extensively presents its side of the dispute.

Instead, I mentioned the two groups' positions on white workers, which seem to provide a good example of a fundamental rift between two Western parties that call themselves Maoist. If the information is inaccurate, please correct it. I have done my best with the literature that I could find.

I have also categorised the links, for the convenience of readers, and restored alphabetical order. Unless you can show that your judgement about the relative size or pettiness of various parties is "fair and objective", I cannot accept any allocation of "prominence" to any particular party. Shorne 22:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maoism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought are different concepts, and should not be confused. The article needs a rewrite.--Soman 13:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote it somewhat. I added some information that people wanted about the main precepts of Maoism, although not in the form of a bulleted list. I also supplied more background information in general and aimed for a more neutral tone.

I left that last paragraph alone, not really knowing what to do with it. Anyone else care to have a go? It certainly seems bizarre to claim that Maoism is the only communist ideology to have laid the groundwork for capitalism. All twentieth-century socialist governments culminated in a restoration of capitalism. And Maoism certainly would not consider that a glorious outcome, so it's rather hard to see what the author of that sentence intended.

I also don't understand what distinction Soman has in mind between Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The two seem to be equivalent. As for Marxism-Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought, I think that the article discusses this distinction adequately, though of course more could always be said. Shorne 03:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleting that last paragraph was a good idea. I also like the new section "Maoist Military Strategy". Thanks to those who made these changes. Shorne 06:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As with Khmer Rouge, Shorne's attempts to wreck this article will be resisted. Adam 02:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not attempting to wreck anything. Your accusation is outrageous. Shorne 02:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr has been persistently reverting entire batches of changes in spiteful response to some alleged "whitewashing" by me of the page Khmer Rouge. Readers are invited to consult the talk page for Khmer Rouge to see this person's wretched behaviour. In addition, Mr Carr promised on User talk:Shorne to revert future changes by me to this and many other articles. Readers are welcome to judge for themselves his sense of fair play and integrity.

In the meantime, I have had to call for this article to be protected from Mr Carr's stubborn attempts to suppress anything—rather, anyone—that he happens not to like. Shorne 06:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only real difference I see in the edits is the assortment of some external links and a mention of MIM ideology. I don't feel very strongly about either version, and I'm not sure why Adam objects so strongly to Shorne's version. It worries me that the reverts may be based on Adam's dislike of Shorne and isn't taking into account the merits of individual edits. Everyking 12:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone with any integrity would give a valid reason for reverting edits. Carr's reversion seems to be based wholly on spite, as with his similar interference with the article Khmer Rouge, which culminated in the protection of that article.

The changes to Maoism were worked out over a period of days and represent a reasonable compromise. I am glad to discuss particular changes with anyone and consider other possibilities, but I cannot accept personal grudges as a basis for the wholesale destruction and censorship of text. Shorne 19:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added the following to the paragraph about nostalgia for the Mao era, because I thought it was important to have an illustrative example of exactly what people were talking about. Additionally, I added a link towards the bottom with the full text of the mentioned leaflet and analysis thereof. I've never made a big Wiki edit, soooo... I hope this is OK?

"On December 24, 2004, four Chinese protesters were sentenced to prison terms for distributing leaflets entitled "Mao Forever Our Leader" at a gathering in Zhengzhou honoring Mao Zedong on the anniversary of his death. Attacking the current leadership as "imperialist revisionists", the leaflets called on lower-level cadre to "change (The Party's) current line and to revert to the socialist road." The Zhengzhou incident is one of the first manifestations of public nostalgia for the Mao era to make it to the international press, although it is far from clear whether these feelings are isolated or widespread."

The New Zealand Red Flag group has been defunt for a very long time now, thus has been removed. The Communist Party of Aotearoa is the present representive of Maoism in New Zealand, but are so small that they don't warrant being mentioned.

Your edits will be much more acceptable if you become a registered User and sign your edits. Adam 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed link to the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. They are not Maoist, though often called Maoist by those opposed to them. I know many of these women of RAWA personally, and thus am not speculating.