Skip Navigation
Comradeship // Freechat @lemmygrad.ml
The Soviet Reporter @lemmygrad.ml

I don't get Maoists at all

Like, let's say that hypothetically China is not socialist. Why do they feel the need to equate it to the USA or to constantly diss it? Literally, no other country has 800 military bases abroad, and no other country will vulture the resources away from a fallen China like the USA would. So, being a Maoist to me just is helping the USA Intelligence departments. Literally, NATO and Western Imperialism are the main enemies, I don't get why some groups wouldn't want to take China as an ally. Even if they were ultra capitalist like the Maoist say, if the West falls is not like China would even be able to become the USA 2.0. They make up a dystopian future based on lies and fears and then equate that fake future to our current world, and end up equating an evil empire to a country that just wants to give the rest of the world another option.

Maoists feel like an "us vs the world" exclusive club to me

61 comments

  • China began its period of peaceful development and opened up to Western markets while the US was bombing Vietnam and Laos, while there were coups in Indonesia and Congo and Chile and throughout the third world, and while the US was pulling farther and farther ahead in the Cold War. It implemented sweeping reforms that rolled back collectivization and opened up its people to Western exploitation.

    In hindsight it's clear this was a strategic choice to buy time to peacefully develop their productive capacity and geopolitical strength, and it worked, but for fourty years it looked like a betrayal of the revolution and liberal revisionism and capitulation to capital etc etc

    Even now, it seems China would be fully willing to go back to collaboration with the US to continue peaceful development. China will let allies fall and let genocide wipe out other potential allies without taking action, won't support revolutionary guerilla movements or risk international peace to engage in international militant struggle, and will let their own people be used as cheap disposable labor 48+ hours a week making US toys.

    The extreme caution is definitely frustrating, even as China keeps being proven right and their caution keeps paying off. I think Maoists will have to confront the fact that there's a new Cold War eventually, and I'm interested in seeing how they respond politically.

    • I think I want to point out that for every guerrilla movement not supported by china, there's probably two countries being lifted out of poverty and indentured servitude to thr imperialist powers.

      Ive been reading wretched of the Earth lately and this quote on pg. 105 really struck me. "The Cold War must be ended, for it leads nowhere. The plans for nuclearizing the world must stop, and large-scale investments and technical aid must be given to underdeveloped regions. The fate of the world depends on the answer that is given to this question." Is this not exactly what China has done?

      • Absolutely correct, I didn't mean to imply China is isolationist. They are just extremely cautious, but the Belt and Road initiative and the Developmental Bank are still revolutionary projects.

        But while China peacefully fights underdevelopment, the US spreads underdevelopment violently and without mercy. Their dedication to peace is in contradiction with the realities of US-backed dirty wars and expansionism.

        But I'm prepared to be proven wrong. China has done it before, after all!

    • and will let their own people be used as cheap disposable labor 48+ hours a week making US toys.

      This hasn't been happening for years, it's come to a point where factories have trouble finding workers and have to offer more and more incentives, and most people pick it up as a summer job to save some money. Of course, development is unequal and this is true across generations too; there are people in China who have been factory workers all of their adult life (and maybe even their teenage life), but this is rarely the case with the newer generations.

      Retirement age for them is something like 55 for women and 58 for men.

      In general it's safe to say China plays the long game. It's not unique to the CPC; even imperial dynasties planned ahead like that. Deng, Xi etc plan ahead for centuries after their death. We can see that with Hong Kong for example, the lease was 100 years. After 100 years (and the fall of the original government that signed the lease) , China came knocking and said time's up, give it back now. They understand that there are short(ish) terms sacrifices to make for long term prosperity.

      • In general it’s safe to say China plays the long game.

        I remember the astonished vibes of articles coming out in Polish press for 2008 Olyimpic in Beijing, they were absolutely unable to believe a country can plan 30 years ahead and deliver. Sinophobic ones then shat bricks in fear. Truly a Napoleon quote moment.

    • When considering the difference between how Ultras see things and we do; I think it comes down to something extremely simple. A question.

      What is the goal of the socialist movement?

      For some reason a lot of people, in the west especially, get very intellectual about this. They think the goal should be strict adherance to a political philosphy. To the teachings and writings of whatever hodgeposh of socialist thinkers they've put together as "the good ones".

      When any "real" socialist- that is a socialist actually furthering the cause of socialism/participating in an active communist party -will probably tell you its something along the lines of improving the lives of the greatest number of people by preventing their oppression and exploitation. Its to unite the working class and use that solidarity to push for our own best interests.

      So when China does very pragmatic things in order to do the 2nd thing, and protect themselves for the long term it enrages the people who think the first way. They've spent all this time studying theory and learning its ins, and outs. Mostly because their own country is devoid of a real party apparatus to put them to work, and they end up doing that as an outlet for their frustrations instead.

      "How dare China come out here, and be super successful while not doing things the way they're supposed to. It can't be "real socialism" because it doesn't look like what i pictured in my head."

      That's basically the mindset i think they are stuck in.

      It is a very human thing to do. To latch on to something specific and get upset when things don't work out how you wanted exactly. People just need to get over it.

      The Chinese are trailblazing for socialism in an era with new technologies no other socialist figures of the past knew about, and with new geopolitical situations nobody 50 years ago could have imagined. They have no choice, but to just make it up as they go. To be pragmatic, and cautious, and do the best they can. Because the stakes are quite literally humanities future.

      If China fails there is a pretty good chance we just go extinct sometime in the next few centuries. Even if we don't life won't be good for most people. The entire species fate is literally riding on the Chinese's shoulders. Luckily everything I've seen suggests that the people running the CPC are some of the greatest tactical minds in history.

      • Very well put. Though i don't know that i entirely agree with your last paragraph. It seems a bit too fatalistic. China is definitely the biggest cause for hope but it is not the only one. When i see things like what is happening in Burkina Faso at the moment, it gives me hope for the Global South as a whole, hope that the revolutionary spirit will never be permanently crushed and will emerge time and time again from the ashes. The most that the enemies of the working class can do is delay it, yes they can cause more suffering, but they can't stop the progression of history. Perhaps my optimistic faith in humanity is misguided, but this is the way i see it at the moment.

      • For some reason a lot of people, in the west especially, get very intellectual about this.

        I think the materialist explanation is two fold.

        Western Marxists are completely divorced from the real material struggle for socialism. Whether we read theory or not (and a lot don't) we don't have the actual lived experience of revolution or running socialist experiments.

        And of course, imperial superprofits are redistributed to the labor aristocracy and bourgeoisified labor force in the imperial core. Anything which threatens this, like China, is in material contradiction to maintaining lavish first world lifestyles.

        Both of these things are lessening. While the struggle for socialism in the West is still theoretical, we are connected with our comrades around the world and their struggle is ours.

        And as the empire declines the limits to growth and superprofits mean a state of permanent austerity for the imperial core. That means the collapse of the labor aristocracy and debourgeoisification/proletarianisation of workers.

        There's hope for them yet!

    • In hindsight it's clear this was a strategic choice to buy time to peacefully develop their productive capacity and geopolitical strength, and it worked, but for fourty years it looked like a betrayal of the revolution and liberal revisionism and capitulation to capital etc etc

      This is so important. I think, frankly, it would have been naive to defend China as a socialist project in the 90s and early 2000s, the height of capitalist restoration. What possible reason would an observer, internal or external, have to believe that China was sticking to a socialist path and not undergoing a total surrender to capital? The only thing to go off of was a frankly ridiculous promise from the CPC that they were actually definitely pulling off history's greatest long game to dupe the capitalist west into building up their productive forces for a big socialist switcheroo. It's preposterous, unprecedented, and unbelievable.

      But... time has proven

      to be perhaps the greatest long-term geopolitical strategist of all time, the CPC to be a genuine vehicle for working class democracy, and
      to be a world-historical contributor to the development of socialism. If people remain stuck in the old analysis (which, again, was obviously the reasonable conclusion at the time!), then they are not doing living, materialist Marxism. Our understanding must continually evolve and incorporate the new lessons being learned by those struggling for socialism around the world, and at this point that clearly includes the PRC.

    • This is a very reasonable take.

    • It wasn't a completely peaceful development and opening up. During that time they fought Vietnam, too, and ended up setting themselves against the USSR, which also set socialism back a century as far as I'm concerned.

      But if China pulls through and is able to successfully break with the Shanghai liberals, especially if they can pull through and continue the trajectory after Xi and not go the way of the USSR, it will be a great victory for all of humanity and will make up for any past foreign policy mistakes as far as I'm concerned.

  • "Maoists" are often westerners who have inherited decades of failure to achieve socialist revolutions in their own countries. They are free to spend too much time thinking about what socialism should be and could be in their heads rather than what socialism is. To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions. China doesn't always live up to these expectations.

    If you've never actually lived under socialism, you have no frame of reference for understanding how it's different from capitalism. If you've never seen anything but capitalism, you don't know how to identify its absence. This, more than anything, is what ultras struggle with. I think that's something we can all relate to on some level, even if some have a better handle on it than others.

    • To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions.

      I have been thinking about this since I read it a couple hours ago. Brilliant insight, thank you for sharing.

    • To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions. China doesn’t always live up to these expectations.

      I would say a couple important components of this that are hard for some of us to grapple with at times (if only because of how complex it is to understand):

      • The realities of socialist states operating in a global economy dominated by the capitalist mode and its imperial tendrils. Had socialist China developed in a world where socialist states were common, it might be they'd look a lot more socialist right now even on a surface level. But they instead had to develop under a kind of siege from global Red Scare violence and it was critical to develop their "productive forces" in order to be capable of meeting the moment. As far as I can tell, they effectively decided the way for them to do this was to couple themselves up intricately in the global economy and its capitalist mechanisms, while taking care to maintain collective control over the means of production and distribution at home.
      • The nature of transition itself. If I understand right, China came from being largely feudalist prior to the revolution and from fighting off imperial Japan. It wasn't like they had highly developed capitalist, industrial forces already and for reasons unknown, decided to make them less restricted. They didn't have that kind of development yet, or at least, not at scale. So they essentially had to spend decades playing catch up with the world's biggest industrial powers to be able to stand up to them properly, much less do what they're doing now and surpass them. They could have tried to do this while also being as dogmatically "true socialist" as possible, but they needed rapid growth and were probably not going to get that from dogma.

      And in spite of this, China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty and is a much more equitable and helpful government than anything western capitalist governments tend to provide. So even despite the limitations of the conditions, they're still something to look to as a good example.

      It's sort of a funny thing in a way, seemingly contradictory. I think China may be the most successful example of applied marxist theory, or "scientific socialism", in spite of how they can look on the surface. When the conditions were more fitting for revolution and the dismantling of the old reactionary ways, they were led by Mao. When the conditions were more fitting for industrializing as fast as possible, they were led by Deng. Obviously it was not all neat and tidy along the way, and even internally there were splits on how to do things, but overall, what they appear to have done is faced down "contradictions" (in the dialectical meaning) on both a global and local scale.

      And one way I think ultras can get tripped up is in viewing the struggle as primarily local and that if you make allowances for geopolitical scale contradictions, you're betraying the cause at the local level somehow. But it truly is about the global proletariat and liberating the local is sometimes inexplicably intertwined with the global as well. And in this way, China's Belt and Road, and other such forms of interdependence, are strides toward increasing the quality of life for thousands or millions beyond themselves, while also helping those places to extricate themselves from western imperialist exploitation and dependence.

      I feel like in some sense, you could say they are working to build "dual power" on a global scale context, which might be a lot harder if not possible, if they were not so thoroughly coupled into global trade and production. And they are already so far into the transition, that one of the western empire's more clumsy attempts to punish the world and decouple (the tariff nonsense) has more helped secure China as an alternative to others than reaffirmed the bullying mob boss that is the western empire.

      This turned into a huge post more so than I meant to lol, but I was kind of thinking things through as I wrote. I think anyone who doubts China as a force of "scientific socialism" should look at what they mean for some of the most exploited, not just what they mean for people in a sense of transitioning from developed capitalism to more developed socialism. And that goes back to what you originally said. It really comes down to looking at things in their proper context.

  • Because the people that call themselves "Maoist" are dogmatists. Which ironically is not "Maoist", Mao even directly adressed Dogmatism and why it is bad. 'Mao Zedong Thought' is something that was right for the specific circumstamces of China during the specific timeframe in which he lived. It is not a guide that should be read like a holy scripture that needs to be followed word by word.

    Doing so would be against Marxist philosophy, it just makes 0 sense.

    But why they are like that I dont know. Maybe someone can tell me that.

61 comments