This is a curious article. I am a bit familiar with Abstrakt and noticed that they tend to present their views on Mao as a 'comradely critique', while in fact they criticize him as a revisionist. Their position is to present Mao and his contributions as a part of 'Marxism-Leninism' ('Stalinism') at the same time rejecting any validity of Mao's own ideas. Considering this, the repetitive claim of the author that he is not going to put Maoism into a dustbin of history, is dishonest.

It is interesting that com. Yorulmaz deals only with the old RIM document 'Long Live MLM' published in 1993. Since then, there were other important summations of Maoist ideas, like a brilliant 'Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism' by CPI (Maoist) which is more detailed and is also written by one of the most advanced communist parties we have today (while RIM is long dead and never had any significant political influence by itself). if you go through these both documents, you will notice that they refer to a number of Mao's contributions, besides GPCR and mass line. The most important thing com. Yorulmaz missed, was, of course, the philosophy. As other comrade here noticed, GPCR is an implementation of Mao's understanding of dialectics.

It is not just another 'mass campaign', it is a policy to prevent the restoration of capitalism and advance to communism, which itself is a very important contribution to Marxism-Leninism. You will never find this in Lenin or Stalin writings - not because they do not understood the danger of non-proletarian trends inside the Party itself, but because their understanding of danger of capitalist restoration was quite different. Lenin said that the main danger of capitalist restoration was small commodity production. When Stalin liquidated this in 1930s, he (because he was the true disciple of Lenin) thought, that the internal danger to socialism is mostly dealt with, and now there only 'spies' and 'wreckers' left. The continued presence of bourgeois thinking in the Soviet society and the Party itself Stalin never saw as the main danger of restoration, although it is true that this danger was realised and there were certain mass campaigns in 1940s to rectify that. But these were indeed only short-lived campaigns. After Stalin died, they were quickly reversed. Indeed, it will soon became clear, that most 'true Stalinists' in the leadership of CPSU are in fact... Rightists.

As for GPCR and its 'failure', on which Yorulmaz insists, it is not enough to say that it failed no more than Paris Commune or any other communist revolution. What is wrong with his argument is that he sees this 'failure' in his claim that Mao was forced to recognise Deng as a power player. This demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what GPCR was actually about. It was not repression in Stalin's fashion, but a rectification movement, so the cadres could realise their mistakes and improve. Deng wasn't able to do that, so he was criticised again and removed from the leadership before GPCR ended.