I cant decide between Marxism Leninism or Marxism Leninism Maoism. I have been researching this for some time and I do know the difference between MZT and MLM. I know about the PCP and Chairman Gonzalo and have read most of the fundamental documents and that is the Maoism that I am referring to. What I cant decide is whether or not Maoism is a new development or simply Marxism Leninism. For exampleThe Mass Line. I think the mass line is a really useful concept and I love the way Mao lays it out but is it anything new? Sure he went into more detail but isnt it common sense? All communist parties that have come to power have used this method, and it was being used long before Mao talked about it. But to contradict myself a lot of ML parties dont use this concept very well, sometimes not at all in which case they become irrelevant. I can see how making the mass line a requirement of a party instead of just an assumption is definitely helpful, but does that make it different from ML, and couldnt that still just be ML-MZT?Protracted Peoples War. I like this strategy. It has shown time and time objectively through practice to be extremely difficult for Bourgeois governments to combat even in places with "free" elections. The problem I have is with its universality in Imperialist countries. For example, the KKE is a pretty big party that involves with mostly legal work. If they were to start PPW in Greece now, would it really be an effective strategy, or would it get them all killed? What if the situation is a revolutionary one? Why would PPW be better in an industrial country like theirs then simple Leninist insurrection? Something else that bothers me is why Peoples war in Peru, India, Nepal and Philippines have gone through periods of great success and then almost absolute defeat (with PPW its always almost)? The same happened with the Peoples war in China too and it takes decades to recover fully, why is this the path of most well known examples of peoples war?On Contradiction. This part I dont get at all just from ignorance. Apparently Mao advanced dialectics somehow with some new principles on contradiction, like the universality of contradiction and one divides into two. I dont see how this is an advancement simply because I havent read enough on dialectics in general from Engels and Lenin so it seems to me like the same stuff that they were saying. If someone could explain this to me that would be great because most explanations of how Mao developed dialectics just says he talks about universality and one divides into two, like that is supposed to explain anything. By the way I have read on contradiction and I understand the concepts of universality and one divides into two, I just dont understand their relevance, or even why they effect practical work in any substantial way. I am sure I am missing something here.Critique of the revisionists in the USSR. I love this and agree completely. I think it was completely valid to criticize Stalin for overlooking that internal contradictions still existed in the USSR and I see the relation to mechanical materialism. Where I get confused, is that Lenin said class struggle gets stronger under Socialism too, and Im pretty sure Stalin did early on too but I cant remember where. Is this really a Maoist concept or is this just Leninism, that Stalin misinterpreted?Its always right to rebel and the Cultural Revolution. This I dont really need much convincing on, the Cultural Revolution was obviously something new that is a theoretical development. I doubt Lenin and Stalin would ever consider that acceptable but it has shown through practice to be necessary and correct and so therefore it is a development. The question here comes down to does this warrant a whole title, and whole new communist parties? I mean Im not really decided on whether this is an issue worth splitting over although I am very tempted to say yes. I think most ML parties would agree on this though and there isnt really a need to call yourself Maoist over this one thing, although perhaps with the addition of the other concepts maybe, maybe.There are other smaller things that Ill just cover in one paragraph like the two line struggle, which is correct but I dont see how its a development on Marxism Leninism. New democracy, which is obviously not universal and therefore doesnt warrant a new ism. Bureaucrat Capitalism, to be honest I dont see how this is any different from Imperialism, its just Imperialism but looked at from the other angle, its nothing new, although perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept.To conclude at the moment I see lots of useful and correct things that come from Mao/Maoism, that ML parties do sometimes get away without following, but I dont see how they are qualitatively different from ML. And if they are a new development, are they worth splitting or forming a new party for, or even just reconstituting an old party (this depends on what party though). I am genuinely grateful to anyone who answers or contributes to even one of these questions for me. I would also be happy to hear from MLs on what they think of this. Please tell me if there is anything Ive missed and I will add it to the thing or make any self crits required. Thank you comrades! via /r/communism https://ift.tt/2DdJfeG
No comments:
Post a Comment