The following is a series of articles on the nature of Leninism and its relation to Maoism. This site encourages debate and discussion on the basics of Karl Marx, VI Lenin, Mao Zedong and others. The first two pieces are by Harsh Thakor and we also include a link to another article on a similar basic subject.-SJ Otto

By Harsh Thakor

Re-producing an enlightening polemical debate on whether Maoism is a rupture from Leninism—Complex, but both sides have a point. The emphasis should be maintaining Leninism as an integral part of Maoism. It is still not a radical rupture in my view. I feel that Maoism is enrichment like generally the Gonzaloites[1] say and not a rupture from Leninism as JMP (J. Moufawad-Paul) and his supporters say. I have projected opposing views of 2 comrades here. The aspect of evaluation of Comrade Joseph Stalin is central in this debate and the 'rupture ' supporters tend to discredit him. Strangely the supporters of 'Principally Maoism' or Gonzalo thought refute that Maoism is a rupture. Arguably thus the RGA or Struggle Sessions trend polemically more sound on Lenin and Stalin than the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party).

Quoting Comrade Noon-o Panir "Maoists who can’t stomach any talk of rupture from ML (Marxist-Leninist), or of “Stalinism” even in scare-quotes, should try an experiment. Replace both “ML” and “Stalinism” in the above sentence with “Marxism-Leninism, Stalin Thought”. What else would we call the (unacknowledged) guiding thought of the Bolsheviks, with its own international line, and with Stalin as their Great Leader, after ML was already synthesized and recognized as a new stage?

Now from there, in light of MLM and even Mao’s own candid remarks on Stalin which can at times sound superficially Trotskyish[2] (http://massline.org/SingleSpark/Stalin/StalinMaoEval.htm), try to evaluate the good and bad of ML-Stalin Thought, especially compared to ML-Mao Zedong Thought.

The MLM rupture from ML is really a rupture with ML-Stalin Thought, because the universal is always expressed through the particular, and Stalin’s particular interpretation of ML was deficient in theory and application despite being the best thing around until Mao came along. So even before CPC (Communist Party China) conquered power, Mao had begun the long rupture with Stalin Thought, which was necessary to preserve continuity with and redevelop the genuine revolutionary core of ML.

Given that modern Maoists trace back their ideological lineage through groups like PCP (Communist Party Peru) who made a point of taking up ML-MZT (not just reasserting genuine ML) against their contemporary arch-revisionists, why should the above line of reasoning be hard to stomach to any Maoist? It’s the dogmato-revisionist Hoxhaites[3] who cling to the unacknowledged ML-Stalin Thought, not us!

Anyway this is just how I’ve come to understand JMP on continuity and rupture, but I could be wrong. Hope I’m not unintentionally misrepresenting anything."

Regarding the universality of ML-Stalin Thought, you're of course right that it was in fact not universal, so logically there should be no need to rupture from it.

But does this necessarily mean that in the *concrete historical conjuncture* in which ML-Mao Zedong Thought arose (already in mid-1930s) and developed toward MLM, there was no need to rupture from ML-Stalin Thought?

I don't think it does. Because like I've said, during Stalin's leadership of the Bolsheviks and the ICM (International Communist Movement), due to specific historical circumstances which can't even all be blamed on Stalin alone, the ICM largely defaulted to mechanically copying the actual historically existing application of ML to Russia (ML-Stalin Thought) with all its good and bad, rather than reclaiming the universally applicable revolutionary core of ML and making an application to one's own country.

Think here of ML-Wang Ming Thought, how it might stand in relation to ML-Stalin Thought, and how both of those would stand in relation to ML-Mao Zedong Thought.

Or, going back to the Lenin/Kitschy beef, consider Lenin's rupture with the Second International: was this a rupture with Marxism in the sense that a Maoist understands Marxism today? Or was it a rupture with Marxism as it had come to be historically institutionalized and operationalized through the Second International, in what we might interchangeably label as "Marxism-Second International Thought" or, since Karl Kautsky was the "pope of Marxism" within the Second International, as "Marxism-Kautsky Thought"?

Reply from Comrade James Cliff "Stalin Thought, if you want to call it that was only appropriate in its specific conditions in its specific times we would no need a rupture from it because it was not universal. ML was universal and Mao Thought was universalized into Maoism, again no rupture some ideas corrected with new discoveries and new conditions but to rupture is not to adjust or discover. It is not the issue of breaking with old ideas that is challenged but what ideas are being promoted in their place. Mao did not rupture with ML he just enriched its content and made new additions. Marxism-Leninism not flawed development happens when a science faces new conditions just as Lenin did with Marxism, it was not as if Marxism was itself limited it was enriched and expanded through application to new conditions. There are revisionists who say ML but also revisionists who say MLM. ML provided all the basis for MLM plus new discoveries ML was not so limited. A lower evolution of a thing is not limited. All powerful because true means something."

Again by Harsh Thakor-

DID LENINISM HAVE LIMITATIONS AND WAS MAOISM A RUPTURE FROM IT?

Quoting chairman Joma Sison "Every development in ideology and the natural and social sciences has historical limits and is open to further development. Marx and Engels critiqued free competition capitalism excellently. It would be the role of Lenin to critique monopoly capitalism. It would be the further role of Mao to confront modern revisionism within the ruling communist party and socialist society and offer theory ad practice of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship in order to combat revisionism, prevent the restoration of capitalism and consolidate socialism and ensure that the socialism will prevail over imperialism in the long run. Like the Paris Commune prototyping the proletarian revolution but being defeated within months, the GPCR (Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution) prototyped the proletarian revolution of its kind and was defeated after 10 years. Like the Paris Commune, which stressed the essence of proletarian revolution and open the way to the October Revolution, the GPCR has shown the principles and methods of combating revisionism, preventing capitalist restoration and consolidating socialism in the future socialist revolutions."

Mao’s Evaluations of Stalin

A Collection and Summary

(Sept. 6, 2006)

[This collection of quotations about Stalin from Mao’s writings was originally prepared by me as part of a much larger project by the Single Spark Collective to attempt to reevaluate Stalin. The introduction and summation sections were written by me with some valuable input and criticisms by other members of Single Spark. Right after this collection came out it was published as a pamphlet by a radical publishing house in India. (Unfortunately this pamphlet was virtually impossible to obtain in the U.S.) —Scott H.]

Introduction

The Single Spark web site is sponsoring a collective investigation and reappraisal of Stalin, and the Soviet Union in his times, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. As such, it seems appropriate to start by first reviewing the various evaluations and criticisms of Stalin that Mao himself made over the years. We are not assuming that these comments are what our own final appraisal of Stalin should be exclusively based on. The passage of time and the opening up of Soviet archives, and a large amount of additional critical commentary from a variety of perspectives has given us the resources on which to base a more objective evaluation than was possible in Mao’s day. But Mao’s comments nevertheless form a good initial orientation for us as we begin our investigations.

The excerpts below do not include every single reference to Stalin by Mao, but they do include all of them we have located which could be deemed to explicitly or implicitly evaluate Stalin in some significant way. (If you know of others, please email us!) Most of these comments, however, were not meant to be all-sided evaluations of Stalin, and all of them are the products of their times. In most cases these comments below are excerpts from larger documents, but an attempt has been made to include enough of the context so that the remarks are clear. The unattributed words in brackets are clarifying remarks that were inserted by the editors of the different editions of Mao’s writings. Our own editorial clarifications are also in brackets and are signed “Ed.” The English source editions used are listed at the end of this document.

Many of these quotations come originally from various Red Guard editions of Mao’s writings which were published during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-69). These editions sometimes contain only portions of a particular work and therefore it is necessary to consult more than one edition. Moreover, some of Mao’s speeches are only known to us through notes that were prepared by listeners. Although these notes are generally pretty carefully done, there are in some cases different versions of the notes which do show considerable differences between them. As might be expected, there are also sometimes different translations of Mao’s writings into English which show some differences. And, finally, some of Mao’s writings as officially published by the Chinese government—especially volume V of the Selected Workswhich was published after Mao’s death—have been expurgated or changed to reflect the political line of the CPC at the time they were published. For all these reasons there are sometimes different “versions” available of particular works by Mao, as will be seen below.

In part II below we attempt a summary of Mao’s criticisms of Stalin by specific topic.

Part I: Mao’s Evaluations of Stalin

(In Order by Date)

      “Generally speaking, all Communist Party members who have a certain capacity for study should study the theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, study the history of our nation, and study the circumstances and trends of current movements; moreover, they should serve to educate members with a lower cultural level….
      “The theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are universally applicable. We should not regard their theories as dogma but as a guide to action.”
      —“On the New Stage” (Oct. 12-14, 1938), MRP6, p. 537. In a slightly different translation in SW2, pp. 208-9.

      [Edgar Snow writing:] “On another occasion I asked Mao whether, in his opinion, Russia’s occupation of Poland was primarily justified by strategic-military necessity or political necessity.
      “Mao seemed to think that the governing factor was strategic necessity, but that the move was partly military and partly political. The political side was not related directly to the world condition of the revolutionary movement but to the Soviet Union’s historic relations with Eastern Poland. The Soviet-German Pact, on the other hand, was not political but a strategic-military necessity. Stalin wanted it in order to block Chamberlain’s effort to build a coalition against Russia. Mao claimed that Chamberlain had clearly indicated to Hitler that he had to make a choice between fighting Russia or fighting England. If Hitler attacked Russia, Chamberlain was prepared to tolerate his occupation of Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, and the Baltic states. If not, he would use Poland to oppose Hitler. Stalin was then compelled to seek his own agreement with Hitler.”
      —Edgar Snow’s report of an interview with Mao, in “Interviews with Edgar Snow” (Sept. 24-26), 1939), MRP7, p. 229. Thus according to Snow, Mao fully supported Stalin’s decision to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany and to occupy eastern Poland. (See also pp. 221-228 of the Snow interviews.)

      “December 21 of this year is Comrade Stalin’s sixtieth birthday. It can be anticipated that this birthday will call forth warm and affectionate congratulations in the hearts of all those people in the world who are aware of this event and who know suffering.
      “To congratulate Stalin is not merely doing something to observe the occasion. To congratulate Stalin means to support him, to support his cause, to support the cause of the Soviet Union, to support the victory of socialism, to support the orientation he points out for humanity, and to support our own close friend. Today in the world the great majority of humanity is suffering and only by following the orientation pointed out by Stalin, and with Stalin’s aid, can humanity be rescued from disaster.
      “We Chinese people are now living in a time of profound calamity unprecedented in history, a time when help from others is most urgently needed. The Book of Poetrysays, ‘Ying goes its cry, seeking with its voice its companion.’ We are precisely at such a juncture.
      “But who are our friends?

Fore the rest click here.