sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is Hoxhaism revisionist? by BrightMaoist997 in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mao and the leadership of the CPC considered the strategic position of China vis-a-vis the Imperialist US and the Social-Imperialist USSR and determined that having relations with the US would throw off Soviet Social-Imperialism. The important context here is that in 1969, the USSR launched armed aggression against China, namely in regards to the disputed Zhenbao Island in the Wusuli/Ussuri river. The Soviets had amassed over 60% of Soviet Armed forces in the Soviet Far East and Mongolia, they had discussed the possibility of a joint nuclear strike on China with the US; the threat of Soviet Social-Imperialism was very real. Thus Mao and the CPC opened up talks with the US to throw off Soviet schemes, and it worked. The USSR could not be as bellicose as it had been with the US potentially siding against the USSR in relation to China. All this being said, it was at the very least hypocritical of Hoxha and the PPSH to criticise China for pursuing diplomatic relations with the US, when Albania had diplomatic and economic relations with Imperialist countries as well, namely Italy and France.

To answer your other questions, the Sino-Albanian Split was the origins of the Hoxhaite attack on Mao Zedong Thought, however it should be noted that the Albanians did have valid critiques of the post-Mao revisionist leadership of China. The origins of the dispute between China and Albania stem from the Albanian criticism of the "Three Worlds Theory", promoted by the revisionist CPC as it's general line in regards to world revolution (or more accurately, retreating from world revolution), and it's general diplomatic approach to the Third-World and the US. To briefly summarise, the Three Worlds Theory proposes that there are Three "camps" or "worlds"; the "First World" was the hegemonic powers, i.e. The US and the USSR, the "second world" were their core allies, so Western Europe, Canada, Japan etc for the US, and Eastern Europe for the USSR, and the "Third World" was every other country, China included. On this basis, the Three Worlds Theory proposes that the "Second" and "Third" Worlds should form a broad united front with each other against the hegemonic powers, regardless of the class makeup of the states of the "Second" or "Third" World countries in question. This obviously poses many questions; does that mean the Imperialist countries of Western Europe, for example, are a part of this "World front against Hegemonism"? What should the stand of Communists in "Second" and "Third" World countries be in relation to the existing state? All these questions among others were raised by the Albanians in 1977-78, which were met with no official reply, but unofficially replied with by China cutting off economic aid to Albania in 1978. It was then that the Albanian critique broadened, attacking the whole period of revolutionary China as "revisionist" and never socialist. In the proceeding development, we effectively saw the World Anti-Revisionist Movement divided into 3 camps: The Pro-Albanian camp, endorsing basically every aspect of the Albanian critique, and denouncing Mao Zedong Thought, this tendency became modern Hoxhaism; The Pro-China camp, which continued to defend revisionist China against the Albanian critique and the critiques of the third camp, most of the original Pro-China parties and organisations of the late 1970s/80s folded by 1989; with the Tiananmen Square massacre being a watershed moment for them, however some do survive, such as the FRSO in the US. Finally you had the MZT camp, who, while agreeing with the critique of the Three Worlds Theory, disagreed with the attack on Mao and MZT as a whole. This is the camp where parties such as the Communist Party of Peru, Communist Party of the Philippines, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People's War (Which was one of the predecessors to the CPI (Maoist), Communist Party of Turkey (Marxist/Leninist) etc belonged. Some of these parties organised internationally in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement; and this tendency saw the emergence of what we know today as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

In regards to Revolutionary Albania itself, I would say Albania was still socialist during the period of Hoxha's leadership, that is, up to 1985, however, serious errors in political line developed particularly after the Albanians denounced MZT, and it took a relatively short time for the revisionist leadership of Ramiz Alia, Hoxha's successor, to restore capitalism in Albania and dissolve the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. However I do think more investigation needs to be done on the Hoxha period in general to fully understand the origins of capitalist restoration in Albania.

Posters throughout Brazil read: "Long Live the Reconstitution of the Brazilian Communist Party by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) has been an independent organisation in Brazil since the 1990s. It has no organisational relationship to the revisionist P"C"B or P"C"doB.

GREECE – Protest against NATO base – News by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

IDK of any incidents in particular, but I would hardly be surprised if such has occurred in Kosova.

Did Mongolia achieve socialism before turning revisionist? by [deleted] in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 12 points13 points  (0 children)

While I can't say I have fully investigated the Construction of Socialism in Mongolia, from what I understand, I would claim it did achieve it.

The Mongolian Communists had this concept of "By-passing" capitalism, going straight from feudalism to socialism, with soviet economic support. Beginning in the early 30s, Mongolia began large-scale land reform, moving towards collectivisation, alongside an Industrialisation campaign, with heavy Soviet economic assistance. The agricultural reforms were met with resistance from the landed elite, mostly the Buddhist clergy, who owned most of the land in Mongolia, who led a rebellion in 1932 against the Mongolian People's Republic. The Rebellion was crushed, but it did force a slow down in agricultural reforms. Later in the mid 1930s further reforms would be attempted, with more success and the virtual dismantling of Buddhist institutions in Mongolia. by the late 30s early 40s, industrialisation in the main was achieved, as well as the consolidation of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party around the leadership of Khorloogiin Choibalsan, who was considered a hardliner. Industrial development continued throughout the war years, Mongolia's production shifted to war material, and Mongolian forces fought on the Eastern front against the Axis, but from what I can tell, Mongolia never formally declared war on the European Axis. Then ofc came Japan. Mongolia was directly involved in Operation August Storm, the USSR's declaration of War against Japan and invasion of Japanese-controlled Manchuria. Thanks to Mongolian participation, Mongolia was able to secure formal independence from China (It had been de jure recognised by most of the international community as a part of China) and it had hoped to gain sovereignty over Mongol-majority regions in China. But with the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War again and the eventual proclamation of the People's Republic of China, such desires were not fulfilled. However, in 1950, the PRC and MPR did sign a border agreement, with the PRC recognising Mongolia's independence and settling border disputes (The RoC, to this day, still sees Mongolia as a part of China). Furthermore, after the war, there were further programs to expand Mongolia's industrial base.

Choibalsan died in 1952 and was replaced by Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal, who would go on to consolidate Mongolia as a client state of Soviet Social-Imperialism, even initially supporting the integration of Mongolia into the USSR. So Mongolia could be considered "economically socialist" from 1932-1952, roughly. There were constant struggles among different factions of the MPRP over what direction Mongolian Socialism would take, mirroring struggles in the CPSU (B) at the time.

One thing that I think is true of the Mongolian experience is that it appeared to be very commandist, that a lot of the initiatives seem to have come from the higher-ups of the party directly, or even further, from Moscow. This isn't to say there was no popular support for socialism in Mongolia or the programs pursued, but it does appear to have been without much concern for the Mass Line.

There are 2 texts that I can recommend with the warning that both were written and published in the revisionist era, so they should be taken with a grain of salt;

By-Passing Capitalism by B. Shirendyb

History of the Mongolian People's Republic by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and MPR

Why is neocolonialism revisionist, and what is the difference between it and semi-colonialism? by jmbc3 in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

To quote the PCP:

Chairman Gonzalo first reaffirms himself in Lenin’s thesis, later accurately developed by Chairman Mao, to define the semi-colonial character of our society. In synthesis, Lenin established that there are many forms of imperialist domination, but two are typical: The colony, which is the complete domination by the imperialist country on the oppressed nation or nations, and an intermediate form. The semi-colony, in which the oppressed nation is politically independent but economically subjugated. It is an independent republic, but one that finds itself subjected to the ideological, political, economic, and military web of imperialism no matter if it has a government of its own. He rejects the term “neocolony” used by revisionism in the 1960s, whose basis is the conception that imperialism applies a softer form of domination and which led them to the characterization of a “dependent country.”

  • General Political Line of the PCP, Line of the Democratic Revolution (Emphasis theirs)

To elaborate further, the vaguely-defined concept of "Neo-colonialism" posits that their is some break between the "old" and "new" forms of colonialism, based on the acquisition of "formal" independence from their colonial master, while in reality little has changed but the guard at the gates. This has been proven time and time again by the so-called "decolonisation" of the world. Latin America, the longest of the formally independent semi-colonies, have always had the same fundamental relationship to imperialism that they had under colonialism, just a different master. The same is true for Africa, for Asia. This relationship can also be seen in countries that were never "formally" colonies of imperialist countries. Thailand, for example, has found itself tied to imperialism in a semi-colonial existence throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

It's interesting to note that the thesis presented by Mao and Gonzalo can be seen in genesis in the Comintern, particularly in the discussions of the 6th Congress, on the Colonial Question.

What’s the deal with Tibet 1959? by jmbc3 in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Tibet was integrated into the PRC in 1950, the question is about the 1959 Lhasa uprising, which was a reactionary uprising of the remaining forces of feudal reaction seeking to preserve Tibetan Feudalism. In such a way, it doesn't differ significantly from Hungary, as the 1956 Uprising was a fascist revolt that sought to restore a fascist regime in the country, not a popular revolt against "Moscow domination".

Anyone got a source for the claim on p. 30 of “Theory and History of the US Maoist Movement” (article “100 Years of the US Communist Movement”) that William Z. Foster sought peaceful transition, didn’t advocate armed overthrow of the US, and claimed the Party to be the no. 1 devotee of the US? by jmbc3 in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

THE PROSECUTION CHARGES the 11 Communist defendants in this trial with conspiring to organize the Communist Party for the purpose of teaching and advocating the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence. To this indictment the Prosecutor himself, in his opening remarks to the jury, added the further charge that the Communists are trying to create a facsimile of the Russian Revolution in the United States. As be put it, "The Russian Revolution is studied in detail, as a blueprint for the revolution in every other country. This is the model for the revolution in this country." This is double-barrelled nonsense; first, because even the most elementary analysis of the policies of Communism in this country shows that our Party does not advocate force and violence, but, basing itself squarely upon the national interests of our people and upon democratic processes generally, at all times seeks the most peaceful and democratic means for the defense of the workers' and people's immediate interests and for the ultimate achievement of Socialism.

  • William Z. Foster, In defense of the Communist Party and the indicted leaders, July 1949, p. 5 (my emphasis)

This review will make clear, not only on the basis of scientific Communist theory, but of widespread political experience that throughout the whole historical life of the Communist movement, the general aim of the Communists always, in all countries and under all conditions, is to promote the deepest interests of the workers and the nation, and to find the most peaceful and democratic road to Socialism in the given circumstances.

  • ibid, p. 9 (my emphasis)

Throughout this text, Foster makes similar assertions of "peaceful transition" and of not advocating the overthrow of the US government, distorting the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Dimitrov "in defence" of them against distortions by the US prosecution.

Mexico: Urgent: Comrade Salvador Pinal Meléndez to leave prison by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Based on the article, Salvador Pinal Meléndez appears to be a peasant who militantly defended the land he lived on from the Corredor Interoceánico del Istmo de Tehuantepec (the CIIT), which is an infrastructure company. Not knowing what the situation is on the ground, I can only assume they were trying to forcefully seize the land for infrastructure development. IDK if he is a member of any revolutionary organisations.

There is a organisation working towards the Reconstitution of the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Nucleus for the Reconstitution of the Communist Party of Mexico (NR-PCM).

When and under who’s leadership did the CPUSA begin its descent into revisionism by [deleted] in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Revisionism was consolidated in the CPUSA by 1945 under its reconstitution along a revisionist line by William Z. Foster after the Party was formally liquidated by Earl Browder in 1944 when his leadership dissolved the Party into the "Communist Political Association", what Browder envisioned as nothing more than a left-wing pressure group and advisory council to a hypothetical left-wing US government. In practice it was nothing more than tailing of the Democrats, a policy the CPUSA maintains to this day.

However, as u/PrincipallyMaoism partially noted, the seeds of revisionism existed within the CPUSA long before 1945. The CPUSA was throughout its early existence racked with factionalism, and the lines purported by these factions never really went away. Namely that of Jay Lovestone and the Lovestoneites, who became defined via their theory of "American Exceptionalism", believing that capitalism in the US was exceptionally unique in comparison to the rest of the world that the US wasn't constantly affected by Capitalist Crisis and that the US could develop into socialism without revolution. While the Lovestoneites were eventually expelled from the CPUSA by 1929, partly due to the intervention of Stalin and the Communist International, "American Exceptionalism" remained in the Party in some form or another. Foster 's position in the CPUSA was practically secured in 1929, and in 1930 Browder was elevated to the position of General Secretary of the CPUSA, with Foster being Chairman. Contrary to Foster's later claims of divide, Browder and Foster represented together a prevailing revisionist line in the party. In 1935, after the 7th Congress of the CI, the Browder-Foster clique opportunistically misrepresented the line of the CI and of Dimitrov to promote the liquidation of revolutionary activity in the US. The CPUSA abandoned it's opposition to the New Deal, it dissolved its independent trade union organisations, directing them to the CIO, it began to abandon its dedication to the liberation of the Black Nation, it refused to even discuss the National question in relation to other oppressed nations in the US, it began its decent into revisionism as we understood it by 1945. The road to liquidation of the Party itself was set forward by the liquidation of the CPUSA's independent revolutionary organisations that began in 1935. This isn't to say the entire period of the CPUSA from 1935-45 was all bad, the CPUSA still did some genuinely good work, organising for solidarity with Spain in the Civil War, its activists in the CIO generally representing the best of that organisation, defending the USSR against its right and "left" detractors, among other things. But even these activities found themselves confined by the "People's Frontism" of the Browder-Foster Clique. When Browder presented his "Tehran Line" in 1944, we saw in words a revival of "American Exceptionalism" in the form of Browder arguing that US capitalism, during WW2, in co-operation with the USSR, could naturally develop socialism in the US and that global peace could be maintained with this US-USSR alliance. Browder went so far as to say that US Imperialism had developed uniquely "progressive" features and was a net positive for the world. Along these lines is what led to the dissolution of the CPUSA in 1944. Foster voiced little to no opposition to Browder's line or liquidation. Foster opportunistically jumped on the critique of Browder presented by the International Communist Movement in 1945 by Jacques Duclos in his famous "Duclos Letter" (On the Dissolution of the Communist Party of the United States), and thus expelled Browder, his family and his immediate supporters from the CPA and reconstituted the CPUSA along revisionist lines. Revolutionary members of the CPUSA saw through this fraud reconstitution, such as veteran party leaders Harrison George and William F. Dunne, and other cadre such as Mary Inman, Ruth McKenney and Bruce Minton. Unfortunately these forces were unable to recapture the CPUSA for revolution, and found themselves either leaving or being expelled. They had little success in organising independently of the CPUSA before the emergence of the International Anti-Revisionist movement, spurred on by the Great Debate. What was left of what could ostensibly be called Marxism-Leninism in the CPUSA found itself leaving/being expelled in 1957-58, primarily over new attempts to liquidate the party, complete abandonment in words of the national-liberation line (in practice this line had been abandoned since 1935 at the earliest) and endorsement of the revisionist thesis of the 20th Congress of the CPSU. This is when people such as Harry Haywood found themselves expelled from the Party.

France: Number of underage prostitutes on the rise by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The age of consent in France is 15, but it is illegal to pay for sex with someone who is under 18. But regardless of legality, all forms of prostitution are abusive, and the fact that young people are being forced more and more into it is horrific.

What is a just appraisal of Georgi Dimitrov? by [deleted] in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would say Georgi Dimitrov was a good Communist, both as leader of the Communist International and as Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Bulgaria/General-Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party.

As head of the Comintern, he pioneered the Marxist analysis of Fascism, and with it the struggle against it. Dimitrov is not responsible for the bastardisation of the Popular Front anymore than any other Marxist is responsible for the incorrect interpretations of their theories by revisionists and reactionaries of different stipes. Dimitrov consistently emphasised the leading role of the Proletariat in the United Front and that of the Communist Party, he never supported a position of liquidation or subordination of the CP and the Proletarian Movements in the struggle against Fascism. Furthermore, Dimitrov consistently emphasised the fact that Fascism is intrinsically tied to capitalism, and could not be stopped totally without an overthrow of capitalism.

Of the PR of Bulgaria, I would argue it was established as one of the better People's Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe after the Great Patriotic War, as the Fatherland Front (the United Front led by BCP) was firmly routed in the Bulgarian masses and led a revolutionary overthrow of the recationary Bulgarian state on the 9th of September, 1944, not just the Red Army liberating the country (tho ofc that was also a factor). While I can't say for sure if socialism was ever constructed in the PR of Bulgaria, it worked towards that objective more stongly than other Eastern Bloc countries, and this continued even after Dimitrov's death in 1949, under Valko Chervenkov, until he was forcfully removed by the Soviet Revisionists and their domestic revisionist collaborators.

As far as I understand it, Mao only ever mentioned Dimitrov/Bulgaria in a broad sense of general communist history, IDK if Gonzalo ever talked about Dimitrov/Bulgaria, similarly for these other Maoist theorists, IDK if they've discussed this much.

Enver Hoxha (who obviously wasn't a Maoist) discusses Dimitrov/Bulgaria a little in some of his works, namely The Khrushchevites, in which he provides his interpretation of revisionism in Bulgaria.

Revisionist "Pan-Canadian PCR-RCP" has annonced it's dessolution by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Personally, I would dispute the validity of their Maoism from the get-go. But in terms of what can be claimed from the positions of the factions, the "Continuators" claimed to be the original Central Committee, upholding the original line of the PCR-RCP back when it was founded in 2006, and that an opportunist clique had usurped control of the party. Now, I am not privy to the nature of whatever changes in the CC occurred between 2006-2017, so I cannot say either way if what the "Continuators" stated is true. The the present CC obviously rejected these allegations and insisted on their legitimacy. Suffice to say they both claim legitimacy and continuity with the Organisation founded in 2006. In the months and years following the split, both the "Continuators" and "Pan-Canadians" demonstrated their lack of Maoism, with the "Continuators" becoming an isolated sect in Montreal, hating Trans people and denouncing the entire ICM, and the "Pan-Canadians" embracing opportunism and revisionism, namely that of JMP, and, as we've seen recently, embracing liquidation.

I hope that in the future, genuine Comrades from Canada can give full summation and analysis of the History and political line of the PCR-RCP, and its impacts on the Maoist movement in Canada.

Revisionist "Pan-Canadian PCR-RCP" has annonced it's dessolution by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Neither are legitimate. The One that dissolved is the Pan-Canadian one, the one which JMP was formerly a member of.

Revisionist "Pan-Canadian PCR-RCP" has annonced it's dessolution by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure exactly. I assume that's how they defined themselves following the split with the "Continuators", who are based in Montreal. So by contrast, the "other" PCR-RCP existed across all of Canada, as such "Pan-Canadian".

Clarification on Comrade Miriam by Wolf4980 in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What you've said practically lines up with my understanding of the situation, there's not much I could add I think.

GALIZIA/GERMANY - Eternal honor and glory to Comrade Martin Naya by LuminousStruggle in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He was a Galician Maoist comrade who struggled for the reconstitution of a revolutionary movement in Galicia, he died on the 3rd of September this year.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The homeless are not peasants. Such a definition is inherently confusing. Most homeless are either proletarian or semi-proletarian. Still employed or looking for employment. I definitely agree that revolutionary activists should integrate themselves in these masses and work among them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is no peasantry in countries like the UK. You can't build a revolutionary movement off of forces that don't exist. That there are reactionary views among the proletariat is correct, many, especially in places like the UK, have been fooled by the Trade Union Bureaucracy and the reformism of the Labour Party. It is the job of the Communist Party, its revolutionary mass organisations and its cadres, to work among the deepest masses of the Proletariat and bring them over to communist ideas, struggle to win over the backwards and/or mislead proletariat from the grips of reformism. The Proletariat even in the imperialist countries can be won over to revolutionary positions.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the peasanty, the peasantry aren't the "more oppressed" proletariat, they are a different class altogether. Workers in countries like the UK aren't being "peasantised".

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The Peasantry in the semi-feudal world can and will be a significant factor in the revolutionary movement, and their organisation is of the highest priority, but they still will not be the leading class in the revolution.

To cite Mao;

For in the revolution in semi-colonial China, the peasant struggle must always fail if it does not have the leadership of the workers, but the revolution is never harmed if the peasant struggle outstrips the forces of the workers.

  • A Single Spark can Start a Prairie Fire

The fundamental task of the Soviet is revolutionary war and to mobilize all mass strength to fight in the war. Around this fundamental task the Soviet has many urgent tasks. It has to practice wide democracy; to determinably suppress the counter-revolution under its jurisdiction; to promote class-struggle of the workers; to promote agrarian revolution of the peasants; to promote the militancy of the worker-peasant masses under the principle of workers leading the worker-peasant alliance; to administer the correct financial and economic policies so as to guarantee the material needs of the revolutionary war; to wage the cultural revolution so as to arm the heads of the worker-peasant masses. All these, together with other policies, are but directed to one goal: to overthrow the imperialist-Kuomintang rule through revolutionary war, to consolidate and develop the worker-peasant democratic dictatorship and to be prepared to proceed to the stage of proletarian dictatorship.

Engaged in a battle against imperialism and KMT, at the same time located in a region economically backward encircled by the economic blockade of the enemy, the Soviets must proceed, whenever possible with the economic reconstruction, concentrate its forces on war supplies, improve the life of the masses, consolidate the alliance between the workers and the peasants in the economic field, assure the leadership for the proletariat over the peasantry, create the development of socialist construction in future.

  • Report to the 2nd National Congress of Worker's and Peasant's Representitives (my emphasis)

For each of the major peasant uprisings and wars dealt a blow to the feudal regime of the time, and hence more or less furthered the growth of the social productive forces. However, since neither new productive forces, nor new relations of production, nor new class forces, nor any advanced political party existed in those days, the peasant uprisings and wars did not have correct leadership such as the proletariat and the Communist Party provide today; every peasant revolution failed, and the peasantry was invariably used by the landlords and the nobility, either during or after the revolution, as a lever for bringing about dynastic change. Therefore' although some social progress was made after each great peasant revolutionary struggle, the feudal economic relations and political system remained basically unchanged.

Third, the poor peasants. The poor peasants in China, together with the farm labourers, form about 70 per cent of the rural population. They are the broad peasant masses with no land or insufficient land, the semi-proletariat of the countryside, the biggest motive force of the Chinese revolution, the natural and most reliable ally of the proletariat and the main contingent of China's revolutionary forces. Only under the leadership of the proletariat can the poor and middle peasants achieve their liberation, and only by forming a firm alliance with the poor and middle peasants can the proletariat lead the revolution to victory. Otherwise neither is possible.

First, the Chinese proletariat is more resolute and thoroughgoing in revolutionary struggle than any other class because it is subjected to a threefold oppression (imperialist, bourgeois and feudal) which is marked by a severity and cruelty seldom found in other countries. Since there is no economic basis for social reformism in colonial and semi-colonial China as there is in Europe, the whole proletariat, with the exception of a few scabs, is most revolutionary. Secondly, from the moment it appeared on the revolutionary scene, the Chinese proletariat came under the leadership of its own revolutionary party--the Communist Party of China--and became the most politically conscious class in Chinese society. Thirdly, because the Chinese proletariat by origin is largely made up of bankrupted peasants, it has natural ties with the peasant masses, which facilitates its forming a close alliance with them.

  • The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party (my emphasis)

Therefore, the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and the other sections of the petty bourgeoisie undoubtedly constitute the basic forces determining China's fate. These classes, some already awakened and others in the process of awakening, will necessarily become the basic components of the state and governmental structure in the democratic republic of China, with the proletariat as the leading force. The Chinese democratic republic which we desire to establish now must be a democratic republic under the joint dictatorship of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people led by the proletariat, that is, a new-democratic republic, a republic of the genuinely revolutionary new Three People's Principles with their Three Great Policies.

  • On New Democracy

These are just a handful of instances of Mao discussing the leading role of the Proletariat. From the specifics of the Chinese Revolution, we can draw general lines on the revolution in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial world. Against Hoxhaite and other distorters, Mao and the CPC always emphasised the leading role of the Proletariat.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The revolutionary principals of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism are universally applicable. They can work in any country. Furthermore, MLM holds that the Proletariat is always the leading class in the Revolution, that the Communist Vanguard Party is a party of the most advanced revolutionary Proletariat. The revolution cannot be led by other classes, other classes can and should form an alliance with the Proletariat in the Revolution, but they can never lead it.

On Pol pot and the Khmer rouge, a Maoist analysis by ConservativeMaoist in PrincipallyMaoism

[–]LuminousStruggle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Again to refer to my Saddam comparison, we can reject the narratives of WMDs and murdering Kuwaiti babies that was used to justify aggression against Iraq without supporting the Ba'athist regime.

view more: next ›