
Maoism or Mao Tse-tung Thought (Chinese language: 毛泽东思想, pinyin: Máo Zédōng Sīxiǎng), is a variant of Marxism-Leninism derived from the teachings of Mao Zedong (1893–1976). In the People's Republic of China (PRC) it is the official doctrine of the Communist Party of China. Since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping started in 1978, however, the definition and role of Mao Tse-tung's ideology in the PRC has radically changed. It should be noted that the word "Maoism" has never been used by the PRC in its English-language publications except derisively: "Mao Tse-tung Thought" has always been the preferred term. Likewise, Maoist groups outside China have usually called themselves "Marxist-Leninist" rather than Maoist. This is a reflection of Mao's view that he did not change, but only developed, "Marxism-Leninism". The word "Maoist" has been used either as a pejorative term by other communists, or as a descriptive term by non-communist writers. However, some Maoist groups, believing that Mao's theories were substantial additions to the Marxist canon, call themselves "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" or simply "Maoist"; for example, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), who distinguish themselves from the much more mainstream Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist). Outside the PRC, the term Maoism was used from the 1960s onwards, usually in a hostile sense, to describe parties or individuals who supported Mao Zedong and his form of Communism, as opposed to the form practised in the Soviet Union, which the parties supporting Mao denounced as "revisionism." These parties usually rejected the term Maoism, preferring to call themselves Marxist-Leninists. Since the death of Mao and the reforms of Deng, most of these parties have disappeared, but various small Communist groups in a number of countries continue to advance Maoist ideas. ==Maoist theory== Unlike the earlier forms of Marxism-Leninism in which the urban proletariat was seen as the main source of revolution, and the countryside was largely ignored, Maoism focused on the peasantry as a revolutionary force which, he said, could be mobilized by a Communist Party with "correct" ideas and leadership. The model for this was of course the Chinese Communist rural insurgency of the 1920s and 1930s, which eventually brought Mao to power. Furthermore, unlike other forms of Marxism-Leninism in which large-scale industrial development was seen as a positive force, Maoism made all-round rural development the priority. Mao felt that this strategy made sense during the early stages of socialism in a country most of whose people were peasants. Unlike most other political ideologies, including other socialist and Marxist ones, Maoism contains an integral military doctrine and explicitly connects its political ideology with military strategy. In Maoist thought, power comes from the barrel of the gun, and the peasantry can be mobilized to undertake a "people's war." This involves guerrilla warfare using three stages. The first stage involves mobilizing the peasantry and setting up organization. The second stage involves setting up rural base areas and increasing co-ordination among the guerrilla organizations. The third stage involves a transition to conventional warfare. Maoist military doctrine likens guerilla fighters to fish swimming in a sea of peasants, who provide logistical support. Maoism emphasizes revolutionary mass mobilization, village-level industries independent of the outside world (the Great Leap Forward urged each and every Chinese to melt down industrial pots and pans to smelt their own iron from scratch), deliberate organizing of mass military and economic power where necessary to defend from outside threat or where centralization keeps corruption under supervision, and strong control of the arts and sciences. A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from other left-wing ideologies is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period (as a result of the fundamental antagonistic contradiction between capitalism and communism). Even when the proletariat has seized state power through a socialist revolution, the potential remains for a bourgeoisie to restore capitalism. Indeed, Mao famously stated that "the bourgeoisie [in a socialist country] is right inside the Communist Party itself", implying that corrupt Party officials would subvert socialism if not prevented. This was the main reason for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, in which Mao exhorted the public to "Bombard the [Party] headquarters!" and wrest control of the government from bureaucrats (such as Liu Shaoqi) perceived to be on the capitalist road. Mao's doctrine is best summarized in the Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong of Mao Zedong, which was distributed to everyone in China as the basis of revolutionary education. This book consists of quotations from the earliest days of the revolution to the mid-1960s, just before the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. ==Maoism after Mao== Since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, and the reforms of Deng Xiaoping starting in 1978, the role of Mao's ideology within the PRC has radically changed. Although Mao Zedong Thought nominally remains the state ideology, Deng's admonition to seek truth from facts means that state policies are judged on their practical consequences and the role of ideology in determining policy has been considerably reduced. Deng also separated Mao from Maoism, making it clear that Mao was fallible and hence that the truth of Maoism comes from observing social consequences rather than by using Mao's quotations as holy writ, as was done in Mao's lifetime. In addition, the party constitution has been rewritten to give the pragmatic ideas of Deng Xiaoping as much prominence as those of Mao. One consequence of this is that groups outside China which describe themselves as Maoist generally regard China has having repudiated Maoism and restored capitalism, and there is a wide perception both in and out of China that China has abandoned Maoism. However, while it is now permissible to question particular actions of Mao and to talk about excesses taken in the name of Maoism, there is a prohibition in China on either publicly questioning the validity of Maoism or questioning whether the current actions of the Communist Party of China are "Maoist." Although Mao Zedong Thought is still listed as one of the four cardinal principles of the People's Republic of China, its historical role has been re-assessed. The Communist Party now says that Maoism was necessary to break China free from its feudal past, but that the actions of Mao are seen to have led to excesses during the Cultural Revolution. The official view is that China has now reached an economic and political stage, known as the primary stage of socialism, in which China faces new and different problems completely unforeseen by Mao, and as such the solutions that Mao advocated are no longer relevant to China's current conditions. Both Maoist critics outside China and most Western commentators see this re-working of the definition of Maoism as providing an ideological justification for what they see as the restoration of the essentials of capitalism in China by Deng and his successors. Mao himself is officially regarded by the Chinese communist party as a "great revolutionary leader" for his role in fighting the Japanese and creating the People's Republic of China, but Maoism as implemented between 1959 and 1976 is regarded by today's Communist Party of China as an economic and political disaster. In Deng's day, support of radical Maoism was regarded as a form of "left deviationism" and being based on a cult of personality, although these 'errors' are officially attributed to the Gang of Four (China) rather than to Mao himself. Although these ideological categories and disputes are less relevant at the start of the 21st century, these distinctions were very important in the early 1980s, when the Chinese government was faced with the dilemma of how to allow economic reform to proceed without destroying its own legitimacy, and many argue that Deng's success in starting Chinese economic reform was in large part due to his being able to justify those reforms within a Maoist framework. Some historians today regard Maoism as an ideology devised by Mao as a pretext for his own quest for power. The official view of the Chinese government was that Mao did not create Maoism to gain power, but that in his later years, Mao or those around him were able to use Maoism to create a cult of personality. Both the official view of the Communist Party of China and much public opinion within China regards the latter period of Mao's rule as having been a disaster for their country. The various estimates of the number of deaths attributable to Mao's policies that have been offered remain highly controversial. For more discussion of this period, see the article Cultural Revolution. At the same time, even this period is largely seen both in official circles and among the general public as preferable to the chaos and turmoil that existed in China in the first half of the twentieth century. Among some people there is nostalgia for the idealism of revolutionary Maoism in contrast to the corruption and money-centeredness some see in current Chinese society. Many also regret the erosion of guaranteed employment, education, health care, and other gains of the revolution that have been largely lost in the new profit-driven economy. On December 24, 2004, four Chinese protesters were sentenced to prison terms for distributing leaflets entitled "Mao Forever Our Leader" at a gathering in Zhengzhou honoring Mao Zedong on the anniversary of his death. Attacking the current leadership as "imperialist revisionists", the leaflets called on lower-level cadre to "change (The Party's) current line and to revert to the socialist road." The Zhengzhou incident is one of the first manifestations of public nostalgia for the Mao era to make it to the international press, although it is far from clear whether these feelings are isolated or widespread. In the West, Maoism is remembered as one of the more violent manifestations of the 1960s wave of student-led radicalism. Major ideological disputes among the Western groups that continue to uphold Maoism are common. For example, the Maoist Internationalist Movement regards the white working class in the First World as a non-revolutionary "labor aristocracy", whereas the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) claims that all but a minority of white workers in countries such as the US have revolutionary potential. In Europe, several parties that were created in the 1960s and '70s under the influence of Mao Zedong Thought continue to support his ideas. Among the most active are the Workers Communist Party (Norway), the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany, the Maoist Communist Party (Turkey-Northern Kurdistan), the Communist Organization of Greece, and several others. However, the strongest Maoist parties exist outside the Western world, mainly in Latin America (for example, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Argentina) and in Asia (several Indian parties, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the Communist Party of the Philippines, etc.). In general, Maoist movements outside China are strongly opposed to the current Chinese government, which they see as having hopelessly strayed from the principles of Maoism. ==Military strategy== The military aspects of Maoist theory have garnered much more universal respect than his political or economic ideas. Mao is widely regarded as a brilliant military strategist even among those who oppose his other ideas. His writings on guerilla warfare and the notion of people's war are now generally considered to be essential reading, both for those who wish to conduct guerilla operations and for those who wish to oppose them. As with his economic and political ideas, Maoist military ideas seem to have more relevance at the start of the 21st century outside of the People's Republic of China than within it. There is a consensus both within and outside the PRC that the military context that the PRC faces in the early 21st century are very different from the one faced by China in the 1930s. As a result, within the People's Liberation Army there has been extensive debate over whether and how to relate Mao's military doctrines to 21st-century military ideas, especially the idea of a revolution in military affairs. See also: Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong ==External links== ===General=== *[http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/mao/index.html The works of Mao Zedong] *[http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#maoism The Encyclopedia of Marxism] Mao Zedong Thought. *[http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/a.htm#mao-tse-tung The Encyclopedia of Marxism] Mao's life. *[http://www.monthlyreview.org/0105commentary.htm Monthly Review January 2005] Text of the leaflets distributed by the Zhengzhou Four. ===Maoist parties (listed alphabetically)=== *[http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/ Maoist Internationalist Movement] *[http://www.pcr-rcpcanada.org/ Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada (PCR-RCP)] *[http://rwor.org/ Revolutionary Communist Party USA] ''Revolution'' paper online *[http://www.icmlpo.de International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations] Coalition of 30 Marxist-Leninist parties from around the world, "having a positive attitude towards Stalin and Mao" *[http://www.awtw.org/rim/index.htm Revolutionary Internationalist Movement] Coalition of various Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties from around the world ===Revolutions=== * [http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper277.html A paper on "Maoists of Nepal" from website of "South Asia Analysis Group" www.saag.org] *[http://www.csrpus.org/ Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru] Information on Shining Path. *[http://www.philippinerevolution.org/index.shtml Philippine Revolution Web Central] Information on the Philippine Communist Party, the New People's Army, and Revolution in the Philippines *[http://www.defendsison.be/ Committee to Defend the democratic rights of Jose Maria Sison] Jose Maria Sison, Founding Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines * [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=+site:news.bbc.co.uk+Maoists Search] BBC for news about Maoists (using Google) * [http://news.google.com/news?q=Maoists&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn Search for Maoists] on Google News Maoism
Something very odd about this article In the tiny section about Cambodia, it said Pol Pot and his Khmer Rough were described as "Maoist". How can that be accurate when Pol Pot hated the Vietnamese and Chinese? In his reign, he was known to have rounded up and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Chinese who lived in Cambodia. I just feel that section of the article is too contradictory.--User:SecretAgentMan00 01:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) This isn't true :A significant feature of Maoism relative to other forms of communism is that it tolerates significant corruption unless and until this proves to be contrary to "the people's will" - as assessed by a powerful leader as in Stalinism. Now one could argue that Maoism generates a great deal of corruption, but that's different from ideologically tolerating it. ::It would be more true to say that Chinese society accepts that corruption is an inevitable side effect of authority - that is, that those in power are able to steal, and will steal, from those they rule. This is however very much to be preferred to clandestine stealing, by parties one never sees, and also much to be preferred to open theft and slaughter by simply taking stuff in the old fashioned ways. At least, if a mandarin steals from you, you can shame him. This is not possible for a thief in the night, or a conqueror. ------ This also isn't true (or at least it needs to be NPOV'ized). : These seem to ignore the degree of respect for traditional Chinese social norms that Mao relied upon during his rise - suggesting that Maoism as such may be a doctrine specific to China and its Confucian ancestor cult. :: Mao's mother was a Buddhist. This makes it more credible that he would simply 'exploit' the Confucian beliefs, and also more credible that he didn't respect traditional norms, since Mao was very openly anti-Buddhist, and did what he could to destroy w:Tibetan Buddhism. Most Chinese people (and in fact most Chinese Maoists) don't think Mao had much respect for traditional Chinese social norms. Chinese Maoists consider this a good thing. Now I have read some Western authors argue that Maoism had deep traditional Chinese roots, but this point of view (along with the view that a lot of people think that this notion is ridiculous) needs to presented in a NPOV manner. :yup. And the difference between Confucian, Buddhist and Daoist ideas of 'traditional Chinese' also needs to be explained. Probably with a link to w:Three Vinegar Tasters or something. ----- Needs to be rewritten to conform to NPOV. :As the only version of communism to have successfully laid the educational and infrastructural foundations of a modern industrial capitalist economy, Maoism is of more current interest than other 20th-century branches of communism. There is a significant body of opinion (including the official ideology of the PRC) that argues that first part of the sentence is not correct. ::infrastructural yes, educational no, there's a split on this issue. ----- Also, it would be nice to identify specifically the scholars who think the opinions in the last paragraph :if the views are so controversial that they require attribution, and if they can't be attributed to a whole school of scholars (too many to list), they probably shouldn't be here. Also many consider it out of line to ask for attribution on opinions that are widely held by any group of people, as it allows for ad hominem attack on the scholars quoted, who may or may not really be representative of those accepting the argument. ---- Could we have an explanation of where, in doctrinal terms, Maoism differs from Marxism-Leninism? I've read the page and I still don't know what it actually ''is''. For example - "in contrast to Leninism, Maoism holds that..." User:Mswake 12:33 Aug 31, 2002 (PDT) : Mao's mass line theory. Constant indoctrinication in writing via Little Red Book. Returning urban professionals to peasant farming (taken to extremes by w:Pol Pot. Trying to decentralize industrial activities to the villages, as in the infamous 'iron casting exercise'. ---- Removed this. Name the scholars.... ::Some Western scholars argue that China's rapid industrialization and relatively quick recovery from the brutal period of civil wars 1911-1949 was a positive impact of Maoism, and contrast its development specifically to that of Southeast Asia, Russia and India. One argument is that Mao's strong personality and doctrine served the same purpose as American executive and military leadership, and the Marshall Plan, in Europe - an extremely simple theory of the origin of modern continental trading blocs: NAFTA, EU, and China itself. ::: this should go back. It is so widely held an opinion that it requires no attribution. The fact is, obviously, the military control of the entire subcontinent of China did aid in rapid development, as did the military control of the entire subcontinent of Western Europe under the USA and Britain. There are however other theories of the origin of the trading blocs, back to Orwell etc. _________________________________________________________ This entry would be much better with bullets on the tenents of Maoism. It had aims, and goals and methods. It had success and failure. It produced disaster, catastrophy and crimes against humanity on scales almost unimaginable. Just imagining one billion poeple is all most unimaginable. ;-| :Yup, most everything about China is unimaginable to us barbarians. ;-) How could something like the Cultural Revolution happen ? The answer is Maoism. User:Two16 21:54 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC) :Yup, most everything about China is unjustifiable to us barbarians. ---------- There is a lot of asking for sources and scholars here. This is probably not the right question. The real question is, what are the counter-arguments to the controversial points of view that are presented? ------ User:Mswake noted that one could read the page and still not know what Maoism "is". Using bullets one could list the tenants of Maoism and provide explanation of what Maoiam "is". Compare and contrast is fine. But a positive definition is better.( That means a definition which which answers the question "What is Maoim? ) Its skeleton might look like this: ""Tenents of Maoism"" Maoist believed *point *point *point This wouldn't require much research. I shall do it. I couldn't trust myself to write definitive bullets off the top of my head. :-( If I read harsh on Mao, its probably to compensate for the awe I have at his accomplishments. In fact I like him, but I 'm never going to apologize for his actions. I would really like to have Mao over for tea with Buckminster Fuller, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. We would drink out Lamsang Souchong out of tin camp mugs. Stomping Tom Conners would play and he'd write songs about us. User:Two16 ----- This article is very basic. User:Colipon 18:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) ----- Tried to explain the current governments attitude toward Maoism. Essentially, the idea is that China has "outgrown" Maoism. Also the idea that Maoism was an excuse for Mao to gain power is not a very strong idea among Chinese historians. There are some Chinese historians who think this, but they seem to be in the minority. User:Roadrunner Raodrunner I don't have any problem with the edits you have made, but I think it is naive to say what some or most Chinese historians think, if you are referring to historians resident in the PRC. Chinese historians are not free to say what they think. Any Chinese historian who said that Mao was a cruel, debauched, treacherous old megalomaniac (which he was) would at the very least lose their post, and might well be sent off for some re-education. User:Adam Carr 07:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) :: Actually you are incorrect here. The idea that Mao in his later years was a cruel, debauched, treacherous old megalomaniac is consistent with the official PRC history of Mao. Within the official ideology the fact that Mao abused his powers in his later years is taken as a warning against the cult of personality and for the importance of maintain the rule of institutions of the Communist Party. :: The reason why it is important to say what historians within the PRC think is that most people in the West really don't have a clear idea of what people in China really do think. The idea that Mao invented Maoism to justify his personal power is not common. The idea that Mao used (or rather misused) Maoism to justify his personal power is part of the official history, and is in fact used to justify the rule of the Communist Party. :: Similiarly, I wouldn't say that Maoism is in practice irrelevant. User:Roadrunner 18:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) ________ Mao's roots in Chinese thought came from anti-Confucian thinkers like Mo Tzu and the Legalists, who were already out of the mainstream by the Han period. He wrote a poem presenting an admiring view of the emperor Shih Huang Ti, who backed the Legalists and conducted the burning of the books. Perhaps a precedent for the cultural revolution? ---- I don't think Roadrunner quite grasps the point that the PRC is a communist dictatorship, and that neither historians nor anyone else are free to say what they think. :: It's an authoritarian dictatorship, but its not particularly communist. There are limits as to what can be written, but these are somewhat broad. There really are no limits as to what can be said in private conversations, and people will tend to tell you what they think if you ask nicely. You'll generally find a huge range in what people in China think about Mao. Also you can usually tell that you are not getting the "party line" because people will say that they hate aspect X about the Communist Party, they like aspect Y, and they are ambivalent about Z. I of course have no objection to quoting Chinese historians, provided it is made clear that what they write cannot be equated with what western historians (a term which includes Chinese historians living in the west) write in a climate of intellectual freedom. :: The problem is here is because the West has more intellectual freedom doesn't make what a Chinese historian has to say necessarily more invalid. Sure Chinese historians are under political constraints that Western historians aren't, but at the same time a Chinese historian is "closer to the action" and has some knowledge and perspectives that most Western historians just don't have. In many cases, this outweighs (and in some cases far outweighs) the political constraints. :: Actually, my own impression is that the main problem with Chinese historians is that they are so used to thinking in a Marxist framework, that even anti-Communist Chinese historians in the West have a difficult time thinking outside of a Marxist framework of history. At the same time, the intellectual blind spots that Chinese historians have aren't more serious than the ones that Western historians of China have. They are just different. :: One thing that you do find in talking with most Chinese who have lived for a long period in the West is that they find the faith that Westerners have in their political systems to be rather naive. There is a wonderful quote "the difference between Chinese and Americans is that the Chinese know that their government is lying to them." User:Roadrunner 00:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) Having said that, I don't have any problems with Roadrunner's edits. User:Adam Carr 23:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) Roadrunner's points are all fair enough. I should have said that "China is a capitalist dictatorship run by people who call themselves communists." I certainly agree that Marxist thought-categories can be just as inhibiting to historical writing as fear of the state. User:Adam Carr 00:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- :: Just as a stark example. A Maoist in Cambridge, Massachusetts would have little problem publishing a history that said that the Gang of Four were wonderful people, that the Cultural Revolution was also a wonderful worker's paradise in which no one died except for evil capitalists, and that Deng Xiaoping was a horrible person that ruined China. Such a book would almost certainly be banned in China. :: This doesn't mean that the points in the book are correct, that someone who believed that the points in the book were incorrect didn't really believe it, and that someone in China who argued that the book was nonsense was just parroting official ideology. One could point out that despite the political constraints involved, that someone who lived through the Cultural Revolution would at least have some useful information that might even be more "valid" than someone who spent that period in Cambridge. User:Roadrunner 01:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- How is "Maoist groups outside China have usually called themselves "Marxist-Leninist" rather than Maoist" not a duplicate of "These parties usually rejected the term Maoism, preferring to call themselves Marxist-Leninists", especially when the latter is in a paragraph starting with "Outside China ..." and we've already established that the term "Mao Zedong Thought" is used within China? But hey, if you want to keep extra verbiage in your article and make it less useful to readers, no biggie. ---- Shouldn't there be some mention of the Maoist International Movement in the article? There is already a link to their website. :It's a very small group, maybe too small to warrant a mention in a general article on Maoism. Would certainly qualify for an article of its own, though, and inclusion on a list of communist or Maoist parties. My understanding is that it diverges from more conventional Maoist groups like the RCP on certain points. An explanation of these views might make it worth noting in this article, as an example of hostility and ideological opposition between Maoist parties. User:Everyking 21:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::You seem to have an axe to grind against the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which you labelled "a petty cult" and moved to a position of less "prominence" (second on a list of two, against the standard practice of using alphabetical order to avoid the impression of favouritism). Care to explain why you have singled out this party for attention among the ten or so that are mentioned in the article? ::If they are unconventional or divergent, that should be explained (not merely stated) in an appropriate article, either this one or (better yet) an article on the group itself. But your changes smell strongly of POV. Please find a more neutral approach. User:Shorne 16:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::We conventionally order ext. links based on importance and usefulness to the reader. Not only is MIM a very small group, it holds unusual views that don't reflect mainstream Maoism (and there was a note that its views are unconventional, until you removed it). I would be all in favor of a brief mention of MIM's positions in the article, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier response above; I would also love to see an article specifically on Maoism in the U.S., and an individual article on the group would be just fine, too. However, it makes sense to me that Maoist groups that are actually engaging in armed warfare, and therefore make international headlines, should be placed most prominently in the external links list, followed by groups like RCP that do have some degree of actual influence in the radical left in their respective countries, and finally by a group like MIM, which I maintain is indeed essentially a petty cult. I think this logic should also apply within the body text of the article as well, which is why I moved the mention of MIM after the RCP. User:Everyking 17:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::I removed the comment about unconventional views for reasons of NPOV. It said something like "This group is NOT representative" and no reason was given. I still do not believe that it is appropriate to single out one group for this treatment. Even if it is true that MIM's views are unconventional within contemporary Maoism, the complete lack of discussion of their positions ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia makes the note about unconventional views inappropriate. It amounts to dismissing them as fringe kooks and leaving it at that. ::::As for whether MIM is small or petty, I have not found any information on the subject. Their Web site indicates a fundamental disagreement with the RCP, which they evidently consider non-Maoist. Labelling one party unconventional but not the other smacks of bias, especially in light of the ideological dispute. ::::You still haven't said what is unconventional about MIM. If you wish to pursue this tack, I suggest either writing an article on MIM, in which you can compare their positions to those of the mainstream, or adding a section to this article (something like "Contemporary Western Maoism") for a fair discussion of the major rifts among those calling themselves Maoists. In any case, I consider it inappropriate to make judgements on Wikipedia. Provide factual information and appropriate references. Readers can decide for themselves. User:Shorne 20:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::::Quit telling me to do everything; you're an editor just as much as I am. Certainly I wasn't making a judgement in the article, except that I noted that they are unusual on some points, and I moved the position in which they were mentioned a little bit below that of another party because it is less notable, which is a fair and objective judgement to make. Who would disagree with me on the first point? They say that it is rape to have sex under capitalism; women must be spelled "wimmin", "person" as "persyn" and "human" as "humyn"; white workers in the first world can't actually be a revolutionary class because they are living off the exploitation of the third world, and so they are actually exploiters themselves (this has been argued to be racism); and so on, I'm probably forgetting some stuff. So it seems to me that a note about their views being regarded as unconventional is only fair. User:Everyking 20:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::::Whether or not those views are unconventional, they do not appear to clash with Maoism. I have reworked one paragraph to include a sample of a doctrinal dispute between MIM and the RCP, to the best of my ability. I wasn't able to determine the RCP's beef with MIM, as only one article on the RCP's Web site (according to the search engine) even mentions MIM, and it doesn't go into specifics. MIM, on the other hand, openly calls the RCP Trotskyite (thus non-Maoist) and extensively presents its side of the dispute. ::::::Instead, I mentioned the two groups' positions on white workers, which seem to provide a good example of a fundamental rift between two Western parties that call themselves Maoist. If the information is inaccurate, please correct it. I have done my best with the literature that I could find. ::::::I have also categorised the links, for the convenience of readers, and restored alphabetical order. Unless you can show that your judgement about the relative size or pettiness of various parties is "fair and objective", I cannot accept any allocation of "prominence" to any particular party. User:Shorne 22:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Maoism, MLM and MLMTT == Maoism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought are different concepts, and should not be confused. The article needs a rewrite.--User:Soman 13:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I rewrote it somewhat. I added some information that people wanted about the main precepts of Maoism, although not in the form of a bulleted list. I also supplied more background information in general and aimed for a more neutral tone. :I left that last paragraph alone, not really knowing what to do with it. Anyone else care to have a go? It certainly seems bizarre to claim that Maoism is the only communist ideology to have laid the groundwork for capitalism. ''All'' twentieth-century socialist governments culminated in a restoration of capitalism. And Maoism certainly would not consider that a glorious outcome, so it's rather hard to see what the author of that sentence intended. :I also don't understand what distinction Soman has in mind between Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The two seem to be equivalent. As for Marxism-Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought, I think that the article discusses this distinction adequately, though of course more could always be said. User:Shorne 03:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Good changes == Deleting that last paragraph was a good idea. I also like the new section "Maoist Military Strategy". Thanks to those who made these changes. User:Shorne 06:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) As with Khmer Rouge, Shorne's attempts to wreck this article will be resisted. User:Adam Carr 02:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I am not attempting to wreck anything. Your accusation is outrageous. User:Shorne 02:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Censorship by Mr Adam Carr== User:Adam Carr has been persistently reverting entire batches of changes in spiteful response to some alleged "whitewashing" by me of the page Khmer Rouge. Readers are invited to consult the talk page for Khmer Rouge to see this person's wretched behaviour. In addition, Mr Carr promised on User talk:Shorne to revert future changes by me to this and many other articles. Readers are welcome to judge for themselves his sense of fair play and integrity. In the meantime, I have had to call for this article to be protected from Mr Carr's stubborn attempts to suppress anything—rather, any''one''—that he happens not to like. User:Shorne 06:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) :The only real difference I see in the edits is the assortment of some external links and a mention of MIM ideology. I don't feel very strongly about either version, and I'm not sure why Adam objects so strongly to Shorne's version. It worries me that the reverts may be based on Adam's dislike of Shorne and isn't taking into account the merits of individual edits. User:Everyking 12:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Anyone with any integrity would give a valid reason for reverting edits. Carr's reversion seems to be based wholly on spite, as with his similar interference with the article Khmer Rouge, which culminated in the protection of that article. ::The changes to Maoism were worked out over a period of days and represent a reasonable compromise. I am glad to discuss particular changes with anyone and consider other possibilities, but I cannot accept personal grudges as a basis for the wholesale destruction and censorship of text. User:Shorne 19:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) == An Addition on Maoism in China == I added the following to the paragraph about nostalgia for the Mao era, because I thought it was important to have an illustrative example of exactly what people were talking about. Additionally, I added a link towards the bottom with the full text of the mentioned leaflet and analysis thereof. I've never made a big Wiki edit, soooo... I hope this is OK? "On December 24, 2004, four Chinese protesters were sentenced to prison terms for distributing leaflets entitled "Mao Forever Our Leader" at a gathering in Zhengzhou honoring Mao Zedong on the anniversary of his death. Attacking the current leadership as "imperialist revisionists", the leaflets called on lower-level cadre to "change (The Party's) current line and to revert to the socialist road." The Zhengzhou incident is one of the first manifestations of public nostalgia for the Mao era to make it to the international press, although it is far from clear whether these feelings are isolated or widespread." The New Zealand Red Flag group has been defunt for a very long time now, thus has been removed. The Communist Party of Aotearoa is the present representive of Maoism in New Zealand, but are so small that they don't warrant being mentioned. ---- Your edits will be much more acceptable if you become a registered User and sign your edits. User:Adam Carr 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ---- Removed link to the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. They are not Maoist, though often called Maoist by those opposed to them. I know many of these women of RAWA personally, and thus am not speculating.
Communism People's Republic of China Culture of the People's Republic of China
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Maoism:
Maoism
Maoism
Maoism
Maoism
Maoism or Mao Tse-tung Thought (Chinese language: 毛泽东思想, pinyin: Máo Zédōng Sīxiǎng), is a variant of Marxism-Leninism derived from the teachings of Mao Zedong (1893–1976). In the People's Republic of China (PRC) it is the official doctrine of the Communist Party of China. Since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping started in 1978, however, the definition and role of Mao Tse-tung's ideology in the PRC has radically changed. It should be noted that the word "Maoism" has never been used by the PRC in its English-language publications except derisively: "Mao Tse-tung Thought" has always been the preferred term. Likewise, Maoist groups outside China have usually called themselves "Marxist-Leninist" rather than Maoist. This is a reflection of Mao's view that he did not change, but only developed, "Marxism-Leninism". The word "Maoist" has been used either as a pejorative term by other communists, or as a descriptive term by non-communist writers. However, some Maoist groups, believing that Mao's theories were substantial additions to the Marxist canon, call themselves "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" or simply "Maoist"; for example, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), who distinguish themselves from the much more mainstream Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist). Outside the PRC, the term Maoism was used from the 1960s onwards, usually in a hostile sense, to describe parties or individuals who supported Mao Zedong and his form of Communism, as opposed to the form practised in the Soviet Union, which the parties supporting Mao denounced as "revisionism." These parties usually rejected the term Maoism, preferring to call themselves Marxist-Leninists. Since the death of Mao and the reforms of Deng, most of these parties have disappeared, but various small Communist groups in a number of countries continue to advance Maoist ideas. ==Maoist theory== Unlike the earlier forms of Marxism-Leninism in which the urban proletariat was seen as the main source of revolution, and the countryside was largely ignored, Maoism focused on the peasantry as a revolutionary force which, he said, could be mobilized by a Communist Party with "correct" ideas and leadership. The model for this was of course the Chinese Communist rural insurgency of the 1920s and 1930s, which eventually brought Mao to power. Furthermore, unlike other forms of Marxism-Leninism in which large-scale industrial development was seen as a positive force, Maoism made all-round rural development the priority. Mao felt that this strategy made sense during the early stages of socialism in a country most of whose people were peasants. Unlike most other political ideologies, including other socialist and Marxist ones, Maoism contains an integral military doctrine and explicitly connects its political ideology with military strategy. In Maoist thought, power comes from the barrel of the gun, and the peasantry can be mobilized to undertake a "people's war." This involves guerrilla warfare using three stages. The first stage involves mobilizing the peasantry and setting up organization. The second stage involves setting up rural base areas and increasing co-ordination among the guerrilla organizations. The third stage involves a transition to conventional warfare. Maoist military doctrine likens guerilla fighters to fish swimming in a sea of peasants, who provide logistical support. Maoism emphasizes revolutionary mass mobilization, village-level industries independent of the outside world (the Great Leap Forward urged each and every Chinese to melt down industrial pots and pans to smelt their own iron from scratch), deliberate organizing of mass military and economic power where necessary to defend from outside threat or where centralization keeps corruption under supervision, and strong control of the arts and sciences. A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from other left-wing ideologies is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period (as a result of the fundamental antagonistic contradiction between capitalism and communism). Even when the proletariat has seized state power through a socialist revolution, the potential remains for a bourgeoisie to restore capitalism. Indeed, Mao famously stated that "the bourgeoisie [in a socialist country] is right inside the Communist Party itself", implying that corrupt Party officials would subvert socialism if not prevented. This was the main reason for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, in which Mao exhorted the public to "Bombard the [Party] headquarters!" and wrest control of the government from bureaucrats (such as Liu Shaoqi) perceived to be on the capitalist road. Mao's doctrine is best summarized in the Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong of Mao Zedong, which was distributed to everyone in China as the basis of revolutionary education. This book consists of quotations from the earliest days of the revolution to the mid-1960s, just before the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. ==Maoism after Mao== Since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, and the reforms of Deng Xiaoping starting in 1978, the role of Mao's ideology within the PRC has radically changed. Although Mao Zedong Thought nominally remains the state ideology, Deng's admonition to seek truth from facts means that state policies are judged on their practical consequences and the role of ideology in determining policy has been considerably reduced. Deng also separated Mao from Maoism, making it clear that Mao was fallible and hence that the truth of Maoism comes from observing social consequences rather than by using Mao's quotations as holy writ, as was done in Mao's lifetime. In addition, the party constitution has been rewritten to give the pragmatic ideas of Deng Xiaoping as much prominence as those of Mao. One consequence of this is that groups outside China which describe themselves as Maoist generally regard China has having repudiated Maoism and restored capitalism, and there is a wide perception both in and out of China that China has abandoned Maoism. However, while it is now permissible to question particular actions of Mao and to talk about excesses taken in the name of Maoism, there is a prohibition in China on either publicly questioning the validity of Maoism or questioning whether the current actions of the Communist Party of China are "Maoist." Although Mao Zedong Thought is still listed as one of the four cardinal principles of the People's Republic of China, its historical role has been re-assessed. The Communist Party now says that Maoism was necessary to break China free from its feudal past, but that the actions of Mao are seen to have led to excesses during the Cultural Revolution. The official view is that China has now reached an economic and political stage, known as the primary stage of socialism, in which China faces new and different problems completely unforeseen by Mao, and as such the solutions that Mao advocated are no longer relevant to China's current conditions. Both Maoist critics outside China and most Western commentators see this re-working of the definition of Maoism as providing an ideological justification for what they see as the restoration of the essentials of capitalism in China by Deng and his successors. Mao himself is officially regarded by the Chinese communist party as a "great revolutionary leader" for his role in fighting the Japanese and creating the People's Republic of China, but Maoism as implemented between 1959 and 1976 is regarded by today's Communist Party of China as an economic and political disaster. In Deng's day, support of radical Maoism was regarded as a form of "left deviationism" and being based on a cult of personality, although these 'errors' are officially attributed to the Gang of Four (China) rather than to Mao himself. Although these ideological categories and disputes are less relevant at the start of the 21st century, these distinctions were very important in the early 1980s, when the Chinese government was faced with the dilemma of how to allow economic reform to proceed without destroying its own legitimacy, and many argue that Deng's success in starting Chinese economic reform was in large part due to his being able to justify those reforms within a Maoist framework. Some historians today regard Maoism as an ideology devised by Mao as a pretext for his own quest for power. The official view of the Chinese government was that Mao did not create Maoism to gain power, but that in his later years, Mao or those around him were able to use Maoism to create a cult of personality. Both the official view of the Communist Party of China and much public opinion within China regards the latter period of Mao's rule as having been a disaster for their country. The various estimates of the number of deaths attributable to Mao's policies that have been offered remain highly controversial. For more discussion of this period, see the article Cultural Revolution. At the same time, even this period is largely seen both in official circles and among the general public as preferable to the chaos and turmoil that existed in China in the first half of the twentieth century. Among some people there is nostalgia for the idealism of revolutionary Maoism in contrast to the corruption and money-centeredness some see in current Chinese society. Many also regret the erosion of guaranteed employment, education, health care, and other gains of the revolution that have been largely lost in the new profit-driven economy. On December 24, 2004, four Chinese protesters were sentenced to prison terms for distributing leaflets entitled "Mao Forever Our Leader" at a gathering in Zhengzhou honoring Mao Zedong on the anniversary of his death. Attacking the current leadership as "imperialist revisionists", the leaflets called on lower-level cadre to "change (The Party's) current line and to revert to the socialist road." The Zhengzhou incident is one of the first manifestations of public nostalgia for the Mao era to make it to the international press, although it is far from clear whether these feelings are isolated or widespread. In the West, Maoism is remembered as one of the more violent manifestations of the 1960s wave of student-led radicalism. Major ideological disputes among the Western groups that continue to uphold Maoism are common. For example, the Maoist Internationalist Movement regards the white working class in the First World as a non-revolutionary "labor aristocracy", whereas the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) claims that all but a minority of white workers in countries such as the US have revolutionary potential. In Europe, several parties that were created in the 1960s and '70s under the influence of Mao Zedong Thought continue to support his ideas. Among the most active are the Workers Communist Party (Norway), the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany, the Maoist Communist Party (Turkey-Northern Kurdistan), the Communist Organization of Greece, and several others. However, the strongest Maoist parties exist outside the Western world, mainly in Latin America (for example, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Argentina) and in Asia (several Indian parties, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the Communist Party of the Philippines, etc.). In general, Maoist movements outside China are strongly opposed to the current Chinese government, which they see as having hopelessly strayed from the principles of Maoism. ==Military strategy== The military aspects of Maoist theory have garnered much more universal respect than his political or economic ideas. Mao is widely regarded as a brilliant military strategist even among those who oppose his other ideas. His writings on guerilla warfare and the notion of people's war are now generally considered to be essential reading, both for those who wish to conduct guerilla operations and for those who wish to oppose them. As with his economic and political ideas, Maoist military ideas seem to have more relevance at the start of the 21st century outside of the People's Republic of China than within it. There is a consensus both within and outside the PRC that the military context that the PRC faces in the early 21st century are very different from the one faced by China in the 1930s. As a result, within the People's Liberation Army there has been extensive debate over whether and how to relate Mao's military doctrines to 21st-century military ideas, especially the idea of a revolution in military affairs. See also: Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong ==External links== ===General=== *[http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/mao/index.html The works of Mao Zedong] *[http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#maoism The Encyclopedia of Marxism] Mao Zedong Thought. *[http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/a.htm#mao-tse-tung The Encyclopedia of Marxism] Mao's life. *[http://www.monthlyreview.org/0105commentary.htm Monthly Review January 2005] Text of the leaflets distributed by the Zhengzhou Four. ===Maoist parties (listed alphabetically)=== *[http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/ Maoist Internationalist Movement] *[http://www.pcr-rcpcanada.org/ Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada (PCR-RCP)] *[http://rwor.org/ Revolutionary Communist Party USA] ''Revolution'' paper online *[http://www.icmlpo.de International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations] Coalition of 30 Marxist-Leninist parties from around the world, "having a positive attitude towards Stalin and Mao" *[http://www.awtw.org/rim/index.htm Revolutionary Internationalist Movement] Coalition of various Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties from around the world ===Revolutions=== * [http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper277.html A paper on "Maoists of Nepal" from website of "South Asia Analysis Group" www.saag.org] *[http://www.csrpus.org/ Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru] Information on Shining Path. *[http://www.philippinerevolution.org/index.shtml Philippine Revolution Web Central] Information on the Philippine Communist Party, the New People's Army, and Revolution in the Philippines *[http://www.defendsison.be/ Committee to Defend the democratic rights of Jose Maria Sison] Jose Maria Sison, Founding Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines * [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=+site:news.bbc.co.uk+Maoists Search] BBC for news about Maoists (using Google) * [http://news.google.com/news?q=Maoists&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn Search for Maoists] on Google News Maoism
Maoism
Something very odd about this article In the tiny section about Cambodia, it said Pol Pot and his Khmer Rough were described as "Maoist". How can that be accurate when Pol Pot hated the Vietnamese and Chinese? In his reign, he was known to have rounded up and killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Chinese who lived in Cambodia. I just feel that section of the article is too contradictory.--User:SecretAgentMan00 01:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) This isn't true :A significant feature of Maoism relative to other forms of communism is that it tolerates significant corruption unless and until this proves to be contrary to "the people's will" - as assessed by a powerful leader as in Stalinism. Now one could argue that Maoism generates a great deal of corruption, but that's different from ideologically tolerating it. ::It would be more true to say that Chinese society accepts that corruption is an inevitable side effect of authority - that is, that those in power are able to steal, and will steal, from those they rule. This is however very much to be preferred to clandestine stealing, by parties one never sees, and also much to be preferred to open theft and slaughter by simply taking stuff in the old fashioned ways. At least, if a mandarin steals from you, you can shame him. This is not possible for a thief in the night, or a conqueror. ------ This also isn't true (or at least it needs to be NPOV'ized). : These seem to ignore the degree of respect for traditional Chinese social norms that Mao relied upon during his rise - suggesting that Maoism as such may be a doctrine specific to China and its Confucian ancestor cult. :: Mao's mother was a Buddhist. This makes it more credible that he would simply 'exploit' the Confucian beliefs, and also more credible that he didn't respect traditional norms, since Mao was very openly anti-Buddhist, and did what he could to destroy w:Tibetan Buddhism. Most Chinese people (and in fact most Chinese Maoists) don't think Mao had much respect for traditional Chinese social norms. Chinese Maoists consider this a good thing. Now I have read some Western authors argue that Maoism had deep traditional Chinese roots, but this point of view (along with the view that a lot of people think that this notion is ridiculous) needs to presented in a NPOV manner. :yup. And the difference between Confucian, Buddhist and Daoist ideas of 'traditional Chinese' also needs to be explained. Probably with a link to w:Three Vinegar Tasters or something. ----- Needs to be rewritten to conform to NPOV. :As the only version of communism to have successfully laid the educational and infrastructural foundations of a modern industrial capitalist economy, Maoism is of more current interest than other 20th-century branches of communism. There is a significant body of opinion (including the official ideology of the PRC) that argues that first part of the sentence is not correct. ::infrastructural yes, educational no, there's a split on this issue. ----- Also, it would be nice to identify specifically the scholars who think the opinions in the last paragraph :if the views are so controversial that they require attribution, and if they can't be attributed to a whole school of scholars (too many to list), they probably shouldn't be here. Also many consider it out of line to ask for attribution on opinions that are widely held by any group of people, as it allows for ad hominem attack on the scholars quoted, who may or may not really be representative of those accepting the argument. ---- Could we have an explanation of where, in doctrinal terms, Maoism differs from Marxism-Leninism? I've read the page and I still don't know what it actually ''is''. For example - "in contrast to Leninism, Maoism holds that..." User:Mswake 12:33 Aug 31, 2002 (PDT) : Mao's mass line theory. Constant indoctrinication in writing via Little Red Book. Returning urban professionals to peasant farming (taken to extremes by w:Pol Pot. Trying to decentralize industrial activities to the villages, as in the infamous 'iron casting exercise'. ---- Removed this. Name the scholars.... ::Some Western scholars argue that China's rapid industrialization and relatively quick recovery from the brutal period of civil wars 1911-1949 was a positive impact of Maoism, and contrast its development specifically to that of Southeast Asia, Russia and India. One argument is that Mao's strong personality and doctrine served the same purpose as American executive and military leadership, and the Marshall Plan, in Europe - an extremely simple theory of the origin of modern continental trading blocs: NAFTA, EU, and China itself. ::: this should go back. It is so widely held an opinion that it requires no attribution. The fact is, obviously, the military control of the entire subcontinent of China did aid in rapid development, as did the military control of the entire subcontinent of Western Europe under the USA and Britain. There are however other theories of the origin of the trading blocs, back to Orwell etc. _________________________________________________________ This entry would be much better with bullets on the tenents of Maoism. It had aims, and goals and methods. It had success and failure. It produced disaster, catastrophy and crimes against humanity on scales almost unimaginable. Just imagining one billion poeple is all most unimaginable. ;-| :Yup, most everything about China is unimaginable to us barbarians. ;-) How could something like the Cultural Revolution happen ? The answer is Maoism. User:Two16 21:54 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC) :Yup, most everything about China is unjustifiable to us barbarians. ---------- There is a lot of asking for sources and scholars here. This is probably not the right question. The real question is, what are the counter-arguments to the controversial points of view that are presented? ------ User:Mswake noted that one could read the page and still not know what Maoism "is". Using bullets one could list the tenants of Maoism and provide explanation of what Maoiam "is". Compare and contrast is fine. But a positive definition is better.( That means a definition which which answers the question "What is Maoim? ) Its skeleton might look like this: ""Tenents of Maoism"" Maoist believed *point *point *point This wouldn't require much research. I shall do it. I couldn't trust myself to write definitive bullets off the top of my head. :-( If I read harsh on Mao, its probably to compensate for the awe I have at his accomplishments. In fact I like him, but I 'm never going to apologize for his actions. I would really like to have Mao over for tea with Buckminster Fuller, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson. We would drink out Lamsang Souchong out of tin camp mugs. Stomping Tom Conners would play and he'd write songs about us. User:Two16 ----- This article is very basic. User:Colipon 18:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) ----- Tried to explain the current governments attitude toward Maoism. Essentially, the idea is that China has "outgrown" Maoism. Also the idea that Maoism was an excuse for Mao to gain power is not a very strong idea among Chinese historians. There are some Chinese historians who think this, but they seem to be in the minority. User:Roadrunner Raodrunner I don't have any problem with the edits you have made, but I think it is naive to say what some or most Chinese historians think, if you are referring to historians resident in the PRC. Chinese historians are not free to say what they think. Any Chinese historian who said that Mao was a cruel, debauched, treacherous old megalomaniac (which he was) would at the very least lose their post, and might well be sent off for some re-education. User:Adam Carr 07:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) :: Actually you are incorrect here. The idea that Mao in his later years was a cruel, debauched, treacherous old megalomaniac is consistent with the official PRC history of Mao. Within the official ideology the fact that Mao abused his powers in his later years is taken as a warning against the cult of personality and for the importance of maintain the rule of institutions of the Communist Party. :: The reason why it is important to say what historians within the PRC think is that most people in the West really don't have a clear idea of what people in China really do think. The idea that Mao invented Maoism to justify his personal power is not common. The idea that Mao used (or rather misused) Maoism to justify his personal power is part of the official history, and is in fact used to justify the rule of the Communist Party. :: Similiarly, I wouldn't say that Maoism is in practice irrelevant. User:Roadrunner 18:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) ________ Mao's roots in Chinese thought came from anti-Confucian thinkers like Mo Tzu and the Legalists, who were already out of the mainstream by the Han period. He wrote a poem presenting an admiring view of the emperor Shih Huang Ti, who backed the Legalists and conducted the burning of the books. Perhaps a precedent for the cultural revolution? ---- I don't think Roadrunner quite grasps the point that the PRC is a communist dictatorship, and that neither historians nor anyone else are free to say what they think. :: It's an authoritarian dictatorship, but its not particularly communist. There are limits as to what can be written, but these are somewhat broad. There really are no limits as to what can be said in private conversations, and people will tend to tell you what they think if you ask nicely. You'll generally find a huge range in what people in China think about Mao. Also you can usually tell that you are not getting the "party line" because people will say that they hate aspect X about the Communist Party, they like aspect Y, and they are ambivalent about Z. I of course have no objection to quoting Chinese historians, provided it is made clear that what they write cannot be equated with what western historians (a term which includes Chinese historians living in the west) write in a climate of intellectual freedom. :: The problem is here is because the West has more intellectual freedom doesn't make what a Chinese historian has to say necessarily more invalid. Sure Chinese historians are under political constraints that Western historians aren't, but at the same time a Chinese historian is "closer to the action" and has some knowledge and perspectives that most Western historians just don't have. In many cases, this outweighs (and in some cases far outweighs) the political constraints. :: Actually, my own impression is that the main problem with Chinese historians is that they are so used to thinking in a Marxist framework, that even anti-Communist Chinese historians in the West have a difficult time thinking outside of a Marxist framework of history. At the same time, the intellectual blind spots that Chinese historians have aren't more serious than the ones that Western historians of China have. They are just different. :: One thing that you do find in talking with most Chinese who have lived for a long period in the West is that they find the faith that Westerners have in their political systems to be rather naive. There is a wonderful quote "the difference between Chinese and Americans is that the Chinese know that their government is lying to them." User:Roadrunner 00:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) Having said that, I don't have any problems with Roadrunner's edits. User:Adam Carr 23:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) Roadrunner's points are all fair enough. I should have said that "China is a capitalist dictatorship run by people who call themselves communists." I certainly agree that Marxist thought-categories can be just as inhibiting to historical writing as fear of the state. User:Adam Carr 00:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- :: Just as a stark example. A Maoist in Cambridge, Massachusetts would have little problem publishing a history that said that the Gang of Four were wonderful people, that the Cultural Revolution was also a wonderful worker's paradise in which no one died except for evil capitalists, and that Deng Xiaoping was a horrible person that ruined China. Such a book would almost certainly be banned in China. :: This doesn't mean that the points in the book are correct, that someone who believed that the points in the book were incorrect didn't really believe it, and that someone in China who argued that the book was nonsense was just parroting official ideology. One could point out that despite the political constraints involved, that someone who lived through the Cultural Revolution would at least have some useful information that might even be more "valid" than someone who spent that period in Cambridge. User:Roadrunner 01:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- How is "Maoist groups outside China have usually called themselves "Marxist-Leninist" rather than Maoist" not a duplicate of "These parties usually rejected the term Maoism, preferring to call themselves Marxist-Leninists", especially when the latter is in a paragraph starting with "Outside China ..." and we've already established that the term "Mao Zedong Thought" is used within China? But hey, if you want to keep extra verbiage in your article and make it less useful to readers, no biggie. ---- Shouldn't there be some mention of the Maoist International Movement in the article? There is already a link to their website. :It's a very small group, maybe too small to warrant a mention in a general article on Maoism. Would certainly qualify for an article of its own, though, and inclusion on a list of communist or Maoist parties. My understanding is that it diverges from more conventional Maoist groups like the RCP on certain points. An explanation of these views might make it worth noting in this article, as an example of hostility and ideological opposition between Maoist parties. User:Everyking 21:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::You seem to have an axe to grind against the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which you labelled "a petty cult" and moved to a position of less "prominence" (second on a list of two, against the standard practice of using alphabetical order to avoid the impression of favouritism). Care to explain why you have singled out this party for attention among the ten or so that are mentioned in the article? ::If they are unconventional or divergent, that should be explained (not merely stated) in an appropriate article, either this one or (better yet) an article on the group itself. But your changes smell strongly of POV. Please find a more neutral approach. User:Shorne 16:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::We conventionally order ext. links based on importance and usefulness to the reader. Not only is MIM a very small group, it holds unusual views that don't reflect mainstream Maoism (and there was a note that its views are unconventional, until you removed it). I would be all in favor of a brief mention of MIM's positions in the article, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier response above; I would also love to see an article specifically on Maoism in the U.S., and an individual article on the group would be just fine, too. However, it makes sense to me that Maoist groups that are actually engaging in armed warfare, and therefore make international headlines, should be placed most prominently in the external links list, followed by groups like RCP that do have some degree of actual influence in the radical left in their respective countries, and finally by a group like MIM, which I maintain is indeed essentially a petty cult. I think this logic should also apply within the body text of the article as well, which is why I moved the mention of MIM after the RCP. User:Everyking 17:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::I removed the comment about unconventional views for reasons of NPOV. It said something like "This group is NOT representative" and no reason was given. I still do not believe that it is appropriate to single out one group for this treatment. Even if it is true that MIM's views are unconventional within contemporary Maoism, the complete lack of discussion of their positions ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia makes the note about unconventional views inappropriate. It amounts to dismissing them as fringe kooks and leaving it at that. ::::As for whether MIM is small or petty, I have not found any information on the subject. Their Web site indicates a fundamental disagreement with the RCP, which they evidently consider non-Maoist. Labelling one party unconventional but not the other smacks of bias, especially in light of the ideological dispute. ::::You still haven't said what is unconventional about MIM. If you wish to pursue this tack, I suggest either writing an article on MIM, in which you can compare their positions to those of the mainstream, or adding a section to this article (something like "Contemporary Western Maoism") for a fair discussion of the major rifts among those calling themselves Maoists. In any case, I consider it inappropriate to make judgements on Wikipedia. Provide factual information and appropriate references. Readers can decide for themselves. User:Shorne 20:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::::Quit telling me to do everything; you're an editor just as much as I am. Certainly I wasn't making a judgement in the article, except that I noted that they are unusual on some points, and I moved the position in which they were mentioned a little bit below that of another party because it is less notable, which is a fair and objective judgement to make. Who would disagree with me on the first point? They say that it is rape to have sex under capitalism; women must be spelled "wimmin", "person" as "persyn" and "human" as "humyn"; white workers in the first world can't actually be a revolutionary class because they are living off the exploitation of the third world, and so they are actually exploiters themselves (this has been argued to be racism); and so on, I'm probably forgetting some stuff. So it seems to me that a note about their views being regarded as unconventional is only fair. User:Everyking 20:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::::Whether or not those views are unconventional, they do not appear to clash with Maoism. I have reworked one paragraph to include a sample of a doctrinal dispute between MIM and the RCP, to the best of my ability. I wasn't able to determine the RCP's beef with MIM, as only one article on the RCP's Web site (according to the search engine) even mentions MIM, and it doesn't go into specifics. MIM, on the other hand, openly calls the RCP Trotskyite (thus non-Maoist) and extensively presents its side of the dispute. ::::::Instead, I mentioned the two groups' positions on white workers, which seem to provide a good example of a fundamental rift between two Western parties that call themselves Maoist. If the information is inaccurate, please correct it. I have done my best with the literature that I could find. ::::::I have also categorised the links, for the convenience of readers, and restored alphabetical order. Unless you can show that your judgement about the relative size or pettiness of various parties is "fair and objective", I cannot accept any allocation of "prominence" to any particular party. User:Shorne 22:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Maoism, MLM and MLMTT == Maoism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought are different concepts, and should not be confused. The article needs a rewrite.--User:Soman 13:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I rewrote it somewhat. I added some information that people wanted about the main precepts of Maoism, although not in the form of a bulleted list. I also supplied more background information in general and aimed for a more neutral tone. :I left that last paragraph alone, not really knowing what to do with it. Anyone else care to have a go? It certainly seems bizarre to claim that Maoism is the only communist ideology to have laid the groundwork for capitalism. ''All'' twentieth-century socialist governments culminated in a restoration of capitalism. And Maoism certainly would not consider that a glorious outcome, so it's rather hard to see what the author of that sentence intended. :I also don't understand what distinction Soman has in mind between Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The two seem to be equivalent. As for Marxism-Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought, I think that the article discusses this distinction adequately, though of course more could always be said. User:Shorne 03:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Good changes == Deleting that last paragraph was a good idea. I also like the new section "Maoist Military Strategy". Thanks to those who made these changes. User:Shorne 06:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) As with Khmer Rouge, Shorne's attempts to wreck this article will be resisted. User:Adam Carr 02:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I am not attempting to wreck anything. Your accusation is outrageous. User:Shorne 02:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Censorship by Mr Adam Carr== User:Adam Carr has been persistently reverting entire batches of changes in spiteful response to some alleged "whitewashing" by me of the page Khmer Rouge. Readers are invited to consult the talk page for Khmer Rouge to see this person's wretched behaviour. In addition, Mr Carr promised on User talk:Shorne to revert future changes by me to this and many other articles. Readers are welcome to judge for themselves his sense of fair play and integrity. In the meantime, I have had to call for this article to be protected from Mr Carr's stubborn attempts to suppress anything—rather, any''one''—that he happens not to like. User:Shorne 06:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) :The only real difference I see in the edits is the assortment of some external links and a mention of MIM ideology. I don't feel very strongly about either version, and I'm not sure why Adam objects so strongly to Shorne's version. It worries me that the reverts may be based on Adam's dislike of Shorne and isn't taking into account the merits of individual edits. User:Everyking 12:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Anyone with any integrity would give a valid reason for reverting edits. Carr's reversion seems to be based wholly on spite, as with his similar interference with the article Khmer Rouge, which culminated in the protection of that article. ::The changes to Maoism were worked out over a period of days and represent a reasonable compromise. I am glad to discuss particular changes with anyone and consider other possibilities, but I cannot accept personal grudges as a basis for the wholesale destruction and censorship of text. User:Shorne 19:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) == An Addition on Maoism in China == I added the following to the paragraph about nostalgia for the Mao era, because I thought it was important to have an illustrative example of exactly what people were talking about. Additionally, I added a link towards the bottom with the full text of the mentioned leaflet and analysis thereof. I've never made a big Wiki edit, soooo... I hope this is OK? "On December 24, 2004, four Chinese protesters were sentenced to prison terms for distributing leaflets entitled "Mao Forever Our Leader" at a gathering in Zhengzhou honoring Mao Zedong on the anniversary of his death. Attacking the current leadership as "imperialist revisionists", the leaflets called on lower-level cadre to "change (The Party's) current line and to revert to the socialist road." The Zhengzhou incident is one of the first manifestations of public nostalgia for the Mao era to make it to the international press, although it is far from clear whether these feelings are isolated or widespread." The New Zealand Red Flag group has been defunt for a very long time now, thus has been removed. The Communist Party of Aotearoa is the present representive of Maoism in New Zealand, but are so small that they don't warrant being mentioned. ---- Your edits will be much more acceptable if you become a registered User and sign your edits. User:Adam Carr 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ---- Removed link to the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. They are not Maoist, though often called Maoist by those opposed to them. I know many of these women of RAWA personally, and thus am not speculating.
Maoism
Communism People's Republic of China Culture of the People's Republic of China
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Maoism:
Maoism
Maoism
Maoism
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
