By សតិវ អតុ
The Hundred Flowers
Campaign, The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, all are campaigns
run by Mao and all of them are listed in various articles complete with
staggering numbers of death and destruction. For example this is from the
British newspaper
The
Guardian:
"Chairman's legacy
The Long March
Mao was among several leaders of
a protracted retreat that started in October 1934 and took the communist army
9,000km. Although it ensured the survival of the party, only 20,000 of the
90,000 who started out on the march in Jiangxi
province made it to the end in Yanan in Shaanxi.
As well as disease, exposure and battles with the Kuomintang, the high rate of
fatalities was a result of repeated inner-party purges.
Hundred Flowers Campaign
Emboldened after the early
successes of the republic, Mao decided in April 1957 to relax censorship and
invite constructive criticism about his rule. "Let a hundred flowers
bloom" in the arts, he said. But such was the flood of complaints that the
Great Helmsman quickly changed his stance. Within six months, 300,000 intellectuals
were either killed, imprisoned, sacked or branded "rightists" in need
of political re-education.
Great Leap Forward
Mao was personally responsible
for this disastrous attempt to jumpstart the economy by collectivising
agricultural production and establishing smelting kilns in every village to
match Britain's
industrial output in 10 years. The radical experiment started with the
attempted abolition of money and private property, and ended with a famine that
killed between 30 million and 60 million peasants after the failure of harvests
in 1959 and1960.
Cultural Revolution
An aging Mao attempted to build a
new political base through the spread of a personality cult. From 1966 devoted
students across the country formed Red Guard units, which spearheaded a vicious
purge against Mao's opponents - real and imagined. Anything related to the Four
Olds - old ideas, old customs, old culture and old habits - was a target.
Millions died. When the students threatened to move out of control, Mao used
the People's Liberation Army to crush dissent."
The article even bashed
The
Long March, which is considered, by those Chinese who lived in or near that
time period, a major event
—a
test of bravery, a challenge that put those who survived this as major heroes.
Most Chinese that where alive during that time period or new of it take great
pride in that event. It is a major event in which members of the communist
guerrilla army suffered great hard ships and horrible weather conditions in
order to fight against the
Kuomintang.
To describe it as the "result of repeated inner-party purges," is a
major insult to the people of
China
and their accomplishments. It is also simply not true. It is an outright lie.
Today's US
mainstream media has revised China's
history to make one of the most influential person of the last century into a
common criminal. Pundits and pseudo-historians have inflated numbers of people killed and denigrated the history of Mao to the point of creating an absurd cartoon.
Clearly, leftists as myself, have almost nothing in common
with the Western world's view of a man who's philosophy I and others have
relied upon for our political theories.
"What was the Cultural Revolution?
The movement was fundamentally
about elite politics, as Mao tried to reassert control by setting radical youths against the Communist Party hierarchy. But it had
widespread consequences at all levels of society. Young people battled Mao’s
perceived enemies, and one another, as Red Guards, before being sent to the
countryside in the later stages of the Cultural Revolution. Intellectuals, people deemed “class enemies”
and those with ties to the West or the former Nationalist government were
persecuted. Many officials were purged. Some, like the future leader Deng
Xiaoping, were eventually rehabilitated. Others were killed, committed suicide
or were left permanently scarred. Some scholars contend that the trauma of the
era contributed to economic transition in the decades that followed, as Chinese
were willing to embrace market-oriented reforms to spur growth and ease
deprivation."
"The Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution in a historical perspective is the most transcendental development
of Marxism-Leninism made by Chairman Mao; it is the solution to the great
pending problem of the continuation of the revolution under the proletarian
dictatorship: “It represents a more profound and wider new stage in the
development of the socialist revolution in our country.”
What was the situation that presented itself? As stated in the Decision of the
Communist Party of China on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution states:
“Although overthrown, the bourgeoisie still tries to avail itself of the old
ideas, culture, habits and ways of the exploiting classes in order to corrupt
the masses and to conquer the minds of the people in its endeavors to restore
its power. The proletariat must do exactly the opposite: It must deal
merciless, frontal blows to all the challenges by the bourgeoisie in the
ideological arena and change the spiritual composition of the whole society
using its own new ideas, culture, habits and ways. Our present aim is to crush,
through struggle, those who occupy leading posts and follow the capitalist
road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois ‘authorities’ in the
academic fields, to criticize and repudiate the ideology of the bourgeoisie and
other exploiting classes, and to transform education, literature, and art and
the rest of areas of the superstructure that do not correspond to the economic
base of socialism, in order to facilitate the consolidation and the development
of the socialist system.”
These explanation don't match. Through the eyes of the
mainstream Western press the history of Chinese communism is strictly limited
to power struggles and bloody purges. Nothing else has any meaning to the
Western pundits. To be blunt The New York
Times explained nothing at all about the Cultural Revolution and why it was
waged.
Probably the biggest oversight on the part of Western
thinkers is that the Maoists of today don't really rely on the leadership of
the man for their inspiration
—they rely on the philosophy that the
man developed. This is why so many people around the world still find Maoism
important. Mao developed a school of philosophy and that philosophy includes a
rather complete system. In other words
it is the books he wrote that makes him
so important to those of us who call are selves Maoists.
Politicians and pundits in the West can never accept the
idea that a non-capitalist non-white man philosopher can have anything of value
to offer the reader. They are biased and because of their inaccurate representations
of Mao and his philosophy, many people the world over miss out on studying it. From
The
Guardian:
"According to a confidant of
Mao - a retired senior member of the Communist party- it is this refusal to confront
and reassess the darkest episodes of China's past that is preventing the
country from achieving its potential in the future.
In a rare interview, Li Rui,
Mao's personal secretary during the Great Helmsman's most murderous period in
power, told the Guardian that the biggest problem facing modern China was its
inability to face up to history.
Few people know the horrors it
contains more intimately than the 88-year-old, whose outspoken views have taken
him in and out of the centre of power in Beijing
and the political wilderness of gulags in freezing Heilongjiang province."
Many people in the west don't even realize that such a Maoist
school of philosophy exists. Since Mao is not counted among the Western
thinkers, such as Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre or Ayn Rand, the West
refuses to even consider Maoism as a real philosophy.
Maoism is a very complete philosophy. It includes simple
suggestions as to how people can live better in the world,
such
as:
Do you doubt this conclusion? Facts
will force you to accept it. Just try and appraise the political situation or
guide the struggle without making any investigation, and you will see whether
or not such appraisal or guidance is groundless and idealist and whether or not
it will lead to opportunist or putschist errors. Certainly it will…."
The whole point of this is just to warn people to
investigate situations in the flesh, themselves, rather than rely only on books
or written materials to get information on various situations. It is simple but
good advice. But other writings are more profound. They explain how to
understand political power—how it works and how to use it. Most political
people are familiar with the quote: "All political power comes from the
barrel of a gun." Over the years a lot of people have criticized that
quote as if he was saying something sinister. But former President Ronald
Reagan, our own Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and other right-wing Republicans
have endorsed that view even if they don't say so outright. In
Kansas the Republican
party has
pushed for loser gun laws that allow citizens to carry guns anywhere.
No one believes more in the power of a gun than the Republican gun owners and
such groups as the
NRA.
The philosophy of Mao contains a lot of writings on issues
dealing with China,
but most of it is universal in possible application. As with Sartre's Being and Nothingness, which is
considered a complete philosophy, Mao's ideas are also considered that way by
those who follow him. And Mao wrote many books, almost an encyclopedia of
political theory.
As I wrote earlier this month in an article called Maoism -
On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as opposed to just plain Marxist-Leninism. It would
appear at first glance that I was strongly opposed to just plain
Marxist-Leninism. Most Maoists strongly oppose revisionism. The simple
definition is that of non-Maoist, Marxist-Leninists of the old fashion, or for
old and past types of M-Ls. For example, from the
Red
Guards Los Angeles:
"Opportunism vs Maoism: St. Louis
Revolutionary Collective as a Lesson for the US Maoist Movement
The following is a joint statement
from Kansas City Revolutionary Collective (KCRC), Red Guards Los Angeles
(RGLA), Tampa Maoist Collective (TMC), Queen City Maoist Collective (QCMC), Red
Guards Austin (RGA), and Revolutionary Association of Houston (RAH). This
statement details the ongoing struggle to seek revolutionary principles and
practice from Saint Louis Revolutionary Collective (STLRC). We hope to be able
to dispel rumors, half-truths, and outright lies. This document is an effort to
go into detail and give nuance to what we identify as the misguided practice
and ideological errors of STLRC with specific focus on the leader of STLRC.
While this document is quite long, we felt it was necessary to go into these
errors as thoroughly as possible so as to not leave anything up to the
imagination or discard any crucial analysis. We hope that comrades in St. Louis who oppose the
right-opportunist revisionist line and ideology of the leader of STLRC will
hold him accountable, struggle against his liberalism, and seek principled
unity with the broader movement."
This is an example of an attack by Maoist groups against a
revisionist organization. In this case, there is reasons why such an attack was
needed against a Marxist-Leninist group. It brings up an important issue I have
had with Maoist groups.
Nevertheless, while Marxism-Leninism
has obtained an acknowledgment of its universal validity, Maoism is not
completely acknowledged as the third stage. Some simply deny its condition as
such, while others only accept it as “Mao Tse-tung Thought.” In essence, both
positions, with the obvious differences between them, deny the general
development of Marxism made by Chairman Mao Tse-tung. The denial of the “ism”
character of Maoism denies its universal validity and, consequently, its
condition as the third, new, and superior stage of the ideology of the
international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, that we
uphold, defend, and apply.
As an INTRODUCTION, in order to better understand Maoism and the necessity to
struggle for it, let us remember Lenin. He taught us that as the revolution
advanced to the East it expressed specific conditions that, while they did not
negate principles or laws, were new situations that Marxism could not ignore,
upon the risk of putting the revolution in danger of a defeat. Notwithstanding
the uproar against what is new by pedantic and bookish intellectuals, who are
stuffed with liberalism and false Marxism, the only just and correct thing to
do is to apply Marxism to the concrete conditions and to solve the new
situations and problems that every revolution necessarily faces. In the face of
the horrified and pharisaic “defenses of the ideology, the class, and of the
people” that revisionists, opportunists and renegades proclaim, or the furious
attacks against Marxism by brutalized academicians and hacks of the old order
who are debased by the rotten bourgeois ideology and blindly defend the old
society on which they are parasites.
For some Maoist persons and groups it is important to fight
against revisionism. But to what extent? In some countries, such as those in
the
Middle East, there are few Maoist groups
that hold any power. They are quite small compared to all the groups around
them. For example in
Iraq
there are the
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist - Revolutionaries
of
Iraq.
they are a good group, but not large enough to be recognized by our own US
military as a serious player on the world stage. They are a good group, but
they are small. There is nothing wrong with supporting them, but compared to
the other actors in the theatre of the
Iraq war and the war with
Islamic
State or ISIS, they are just barely noticed. However there is the
Kurdistan Workers' Party/ Partiya
Karkerên Kurdistanê or as they are known, the PKK. This group has an area
they control and they are putting up serious resistance to
ISIS.
The PKK is based their movement on
Murray
Bookchin, a secular theory based on collectivism. According to an article
in a mainstream publication called
WSJ:
"INJAR MOUNTAIN, Iraq—Nine
years ago, Zind Ruken packed a bag and left her majority-ethnic-Kurdish city in
Iran, escaping a brutal police crackdown and pressure to marry a man she’d
never met.
Now the 24-year-old is a
battle-hardened guerrilla, using machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades to
fight Islamic State extremists in Syria
and Iraq.
Ms. Ruken’s journey provides a
glimpse behind the remarkable rise of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, the
cultlike Marxist-inspired group she fights for and whose triumphs against
Islamic State have helped it evolve from ragtag militia to regional power
player."
So this group is fighting against ISIS
for a leftist cause. They are not Maoist, but they are fighting against the
imperialist power of Turkey.
We have to admit that ISIS in Iraq
and the Taliban, fighting in Afghanistan,
have put up an amazing resistance to US imperialism. But we have nothing
in common with what they want to do. There are people in those parts of the
world who believe they will gain some sovereignty to their nation state and
maybe the control of their resources. But ISIS and the Taliban want to create a
right-wing theocracy based on Islam. They have executed people for belonging to
the WRONG branch of Islam. They would no doubt want to kill a Marxist or a
Maoist. They have noting in common with
any kind of Marxism. So for this part of the world, the PKK offers some relief
from religious persecution.
Here in the
US
it is my belief that we need unity of the left as much as possible. There are
some Marxist-Leninists we can work with in coalitions of for individual issues.
For example there are some members of
Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA) that are willing to work with Marxists or
Maoists. There are some DSA members who are straight up democratic socialists
or liberals who we have nothing in common with. I would argue that some DSA
members want to help break down the barriers between the
US public and the
word Socialism. Socialism is still a bad word for many people here in the
US. For
example, in a recent
DSA
meeting in Wichita:
"Other actions the group
discussed include educational outreach, ways to educate people as to what
socialism really is and how to reach public educational facilities.
A discussion was held on promoting
socialist candidates. The group agreed we will all support Democrat James
Thompson and Brandon Johnson, but we are not sure at what point we want
such candidates to endorse us as a group since socialism is still a dirty word."
I think it makes sense to work with a group that wants to
break down the stigma of socialism. A friend of mine, who used to be a member
of the
Socialist Workers Party,
wrote to my blog to
respond
to this:
"The Midwest Is Red: May Day message of the Kansas City Revolutionary
Collective
Each year I try to post and repost May Day messages from parties and
organizations around the world. This message was posted by the Kansas City
Revolutionary Collective. I
have not met these folks yet, but this group is in Kansas City which is a 3 ½ hour drive from my
home town. This is the closest Maoist organization to me and I hope to make a
trip up to Kansas City
to meet these folks sometime soon."
My Friend said this:
"Bill Bolinger said...
I have been opposed to capitalism
most of my life. I have studied almost everything I could find of a
"revolutionary writings and thought"! I was in the Socialist Workers
Party from 1976- 1985. I can not see you organization having any chance to
attracting but few people! We did not either through people were surprised that
we were not larger because the saw us so many places! Unless a movement arising
from the legitimate struggle of the people and from their organization I do not
believe it will be effective. Many have bought into various claims of the
system but the dissatisfaction is the greatest I have seen since the 1960's!
Few people have any method to figure out what to do because of lifelong
indoctrination of the system! Bill Bolinger"
He was being honest. It is hard to get through to people
with that life-time of indoctrination of the capitalist ideology and the hatred
of socialism and communism that the average American goes through during their
early educational years.
One problem we have as Maoists is that we sometimes have
narrow minded revisionist who are as hard on us as the political right is.
“The author (of an article
called
Maoism
as Anti-Eurocentrism, by
Redzeal)
either
is ignorant of, or lying about, the anti-Eurocentrism of the early Comintern
and its continuation by Trotskyists. What's more I find it hard to take
seriously an analysis which upholds Maoism as anti-Eurocentrist when Mao
demanded that a billion Chinese act like idiots and worship him as an infallible
deity. Plus, how anti-Eurocentric was Mao's betrayal of third world revolutions
when it conflicted with his diplomatic goals?”
And some earlier comments said it all:
“I don’t consider Maoism to be
Marxist.”
And:
“Mao was not a Marxist and China is
just another state capitalist excuse for being commie.”
Clearly there are those revisionists we can't work with at
all. They are under the influence of petit bourgeois libertarianism. They are
useless and we should attack them as if they were right-wing.
I think it is important to clarify that I have a huge hatred
of capitalism and all it has done for me and others. Someday a philosopher may
come along and provide us with a better idea than Maoism. It is more important
for me to oppose and try to destroy the capitalism order of things rather than
promote any ideology. But it is important to have ideas, ideology and something
we can put our beliefs into. I find Maoism the most important philosophy I have
ever encountered. That is not to say there are no other good philosophies out
there that can be useful to us. I don't recommend that anyone avoid other philosophies.
There are many that I find interesting and useful, including the works of
Rosa Luxemburg,
Antonio Gramsci and
Epicurus. But Maoism
stands out as the best philosopher and people around the world have adopted him
as their main ideology. We must defend and explain what Maoism is and why we
need it.
