Word of the Left

15 Responses to “Mao's Birthday and Boxing Day”

1. #  Anonymous 12/27/2006 6:50 AM

   Hi LeftyHenry,
   
   Your latest post is a good example for growing bankruptcy of mainstream Marxists. Mao is not some sort of god to celebrate with religious fervor in his Birth and Death days.If you had at least made 1 single statement about his mistakes this comment from would not have been needed.We have to defend the revolution not leaders. We have to Hail the people who rallied for the revolution and not the leaders.A critical analysis of leaders in revolution is needed as the proletariat is still struggling and hailing the dead leaders without critically examining them is almost a useless was of blog space.
   
   I really don't want to comment about the early History of Mao. The sources either elevate him to God or Demonise him. But after once he got the power he fell in to the biggest Trap every man is bound to Fall Corruption. The Post revolutionary Mao's actions seriously negated whatever the accomplishments of Pre Revolutionary Mao. And I think Deng is wrong to say that Mao is 70 right and 30 wrong. It should be the reverse.I hope you will publish my comments and the Links i Provide so that some Anti communist Idiots may Know the true Nature of Communism not just reguriate Bourgeoisie Propaganda and just bash Mao A Trotskyist's Perspective of CCP's Victory over Chiang
   Cultural Revolution from the same author
   Some More Background Information about the Cultural Revolution and all that is wrong about Mao
   The Relationship and Differences Between Mao Tse-tung and Liu Shao-Ch’i,
   What Our Position Should Be on the Factional Struggle Inside the CCP
   struggle in CCP
   
   
   * Peng Shuzi is a notable Chinese Trotskyist his other works can be found here
   
   Ganapathyram  

2. #  LeftyHenry 12/27/2006 1:09 PM

   hello G.Ram,
   
   I'm suprised you came to the conclusion that I was "celebrating Mao with Religious fervor" because that is definately not what I was doing. Since I think September, almost everything I posted on this blog has corresponded with a current event. Mao's birthday, I thought, would be a good day to talk about the bullshit propaganda that is floating around about Mao.
   
   I'm not denying the fact that Mao made major mistakes and errors, but that is not what this post was about, it was about correcting the lies that we hear today, and I heard when I was listening to the radio.
   
   Also, Of course we should hail the people who fought the revolutions but without the leadership of the revolutions, the outcome would be very different. Mao in particular contributed much to Marxism-Leninism especially in terms of military tactics and contradictions. I understand your point of critical analysis but the point of this post was to also point to Maoism's achievements which are rarely noticed.
   
   Lastly, I see you have drifted to Trotskyism which is perfectly fine but keep in mind, Trotkyism has NEVER achieved a revolution in all of its history. It is also mainly a first world phenomenon that outside the US and Europe, is only active in India and several African countries. In all those places, the trotskyist movement is a fraction of the size of the Marxist-Leninist movements.  

3. #  troutsky 12/27/2006 2:24 PM

   There is good reason for examining the historical record and trying to discern what lessons of value we can find to apply to our own struggle. Honesty about mistakes is necessary so we don't repeat these errors. Celebrating the successes is important for these reasons although tactics and strategies from one period are not necessarily applicable in our own. Trotskyists and other communists must start forming a united front to beable to join with other socialist and anti-capitalist forces.I think Marxist-Lenninist concern for ideological purity must be discarded in favor of a super-inclusive first stage.  

4. #  ShineThePath 12/27/2006 5:27 PM

   Ganapathyram, it would be far more interesting if you Trotskyists actually had a discussion about Mao Zedong rather than consistently leaving the same links to the impotent and dead Fourth International's critiques. What is the point of you trying to post if you don't bring about specific criticism.
   
   Further, who are the Trotskyists to accuse others of religious ferver? Just because a Communist leader has a birthday and LeftHenry makes mention of such a fact and the significance of Mao doesn't qualify as a religious obdience. There is no genuine criticism in that, what so ever. It would be similar in commenting on all Trotskyists who have pictures of Trotsky on their myspace and etc. It is utterly pointless.
   
   Further, Deng Xiaoping's statement on Mao are a theft of Mao's own genuine criticism of Stalin. Xiaoping said Mao was 70-30; Why Deng Xiaoping, a revisionist and market persuing bureaucrat, used such a ratio was to persue his own gutless enterprising.
   
   Anyway happy "Maomas" (sarcasm Trots) and Boxer Day. I guess you watch hockey Henry, only hockey fans know its boxer day lol  

5. #  Frank Partisan 12/27/2006 7:21 PM

   Trotsky was significant in 1905, but even more in 1917. Trotsky was the leader of the 1917 Russian revolution.
   
   I think the united front, based around correct demands, is the way to go. I was very influenced by the mobilizations against the war in Vietnam. They included forces as liberal Dems, around correct demands, as out of Vietnam now.  

6. #  LeftyHenry 12/28/2006 12:34 AM

   Yes STP, 2007 Hockey Championship is my Christmas lol. Canada kicked Sweden's ass lol.
   
   RE, Trotsky was not the leader. Lenin, Stalin, and trotsky were the main leaders. Lenin and Stalin planned the revolt, Trotsky basically carried it out. Plus, that was a trotskyist revolution as much as it was M-L because of Stalin's role.  

7. #  Anonymous 12/28/2006 3:45 AM

   LH
   
   Lastly, I see you have drifted to Trotskyism which is perfectly fine but keep in mind, Trotkyism has NEVER achieved a revolution in all of its history. It is also mainly a first world phenomenon that outside the US and Europe, is only active in India and several African countries. In all those places, the trotskyist movement is a fraction of the size of the Marxist-Leninist movements.
   
   I am not an full fledged Trotskyist FYI and i do not agree with Trotsky's analysis and decisions in many places. I consider myself just a Marxist as Lenin,Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg did.And I have mentioned before to you that I have been a ML with heavy sympathies to Maoism.But i really find the way the parties operate totally ineffective.And MLM in India movement is practically dead with Charu Majumdar and Vinod Mishra. The groups existing now were just animated shells of the former united CPI(ML). And ML and Maoists have been active for 30 years in 3rd world countries and they have accomplished nothing.
   
   STP
   Ganapathyram, it would be far more interesting if you Trotskyists actually had a discussion about Mao Zedong rather than consistently leaving the same links to the impotent and dead Fourth International's critiques. What is the point of you trying to post if you don't bring about specific criticism.
   
   
   I just gave those criticsms because i find them pretty much neutral which does not worship Mao and at the same time do not demonise him.Did you ever clicked those links ? and I did mention the Bankruptcy of mainstream Marxists that includes Trotskyists too.
   
   LH
   Lenin and Stalin planned the revolt, Trotsky basically carried it out.
   
   Are you really ignorant about the events in 1917 or deliberately trying to change the history ? In reality Stalin opposed the plans for insurrection(not as severely like Zinonev and Kamenev), supported the provinsial government and even refused to publish April Theses in pravda while Lenin is in exile.He is smart enough not to vote in opposition to the insurrection attempt like Zinonev and Kamenev in CC. The events of october is planned by Trotsky and carried out efficiently by Sverdlov(The President of CC at that time and the one who had Signed for the Executions of the Czars) while Stalin initially took sidelines to save is skin if the insurrection had gone wrong
   Pls read this unbiased account of the October Events and Trosky's "History of the Russian Revolution" is 3 volumes long and i assure that it is completely neutral too.
   
   Stalin simply had some Machiavellian skills which he played out efficiently to capture power.And Trotsky did had a chance to capture the power as the Commissar of Red Army when the CC demanded his resignation but he didn't do . And he is not responsible for the failure of Movements which apply label themselves with his name and never understood what he stood for in the same way i think we should not blame Mao for the failure of Naxalites in India.
   
   Ganapathyram  

8. #  LeftyHenry 12/28/2006 7:17 PM

   G. Ram,
   
   The Naxalites aren't a failure, they control or have a strong presence in 160 regions in India and are judged to be the largest internal threat to the Indian government according to even bourgieousie sources. It is typical of trotskyists (not saying you are) to down play worker uprisings all over the world, but considering the day and age and the weakness of the International Communist movement, the Naxalites are doing well.
   
   Also, I notice you seem to think that the Bolshevik Revolution was some kind of sudden military coup that came out of no where. Trotsky joined the party in July after being a hardcore menshevik who regularly contributed to Menshevik Publications. Shall we look at the events that set the stage for the
   physical uprising? In 1916, the Bolsheviks led 500,000 strikers in 480 strikes in Petrograd alone. In early 1917, 575,000 strikers would be led in stay in strikes. By July, there were no less then 17 subdistrict commitees affiliated with the Bolsheviks thanks to the organization and leadership of Stalin, Molotov and others. Link Trotsky followed the orders of the Central Commitee  

9. #  Anonymous 12/29/2006 12:53 AM

   Hi LH,
   
   Its pointless for us to discuss about the Naxilte power. I live here and in my observation they were not as powerful as they once used to be.They are so much dogmatic that they follow the Mao blindly and they are just trying to emulate him.India is not China and Indian politicians are not Chiang. And there is really no need for a guerrilla warfare at present situation.And no where in future i see their success(If they do i will not oppose it and wholeheartedly welcome them)
   
   And regarding the events in October did you ever clicked those links ? Yes the Central committee at the persuasion of Lenin decided to carry out the insurrection in October and Trotsky as the Chairman of Petrograd Soviet carried it out.FYI in 1916 the bolsheviks pretty much were sent in to underground with most of leaders Exiled and members arrested. There were no strikes in 1916 as the Russian workers and peasants were still patriotically fighting in WW1. And after the February revolution while Lenin and Trotsky still in Exile The Bolshevik leaders(Stalin,Kamenev,Kalinin and Sverdlov) fully supported the Kerensky's govt.Only after arrival of Lenin did most of them changed their position. And Lenin had to threaten them by resignation to make them accept his views.In fact Stalin as editor of Pravda when Lenin is still in Switzerland refused to publish April theses.If you delibrately refuse to acknowledge thsi FACT then there is no point in discussing about it.And i have been worshiping Stalin for nearly 8 years so no need for preaching about your great comrade's might to me.It is clear that you have been fooled successfully by Stalin school of Falsification.And I no where mentioned that the October revolution was a coup.It is the Insurrection of workers,soldiers and peasants against the provincial government.
   
   And Trotsky never wholeheartedly joined Mensheviks. His position was unification of the party.He broke with the Mensheviks in 1906 and took a middiel position for long time.
   
   Ganapathyram  

10. #  Anonymous 12/29/2006 5:30 AM

    What is important here above all else is the similar engagement of these questions in a tabloidesque manner rather than a Marxist one. The main question of Stalin is whether or not he committed errors, he did. We, as you have in the past, don't "worship" Stalin but critique him for his practical errors, his ideological deviations and dogmatism, and his ethical failings. I can obviously see the great horror in the Great Purges for example; however approaching any historical epoch or analysis of a nation based on this type of reasoning is clearly going to lead to mere Bourgeois liberal analysis, not a material Marxist one. The questions we must address first and foremost about Stalin is not whether editor of Pravada he published X article, the question is under his leadership was CPSU (B) moving forward to Socialism. This is the first question we can engage on. Then we can engage on ideological and practical concerns, which deal with this movement through Socialism.
    
    Engaging in the tit for tat historical factoids IS the actual bankruptcy of "Marxism." This sort of engagement in who is the proper leader based on not ideology, but on their bigger name. Trotsky WAS incrediblly useful and heroic during the Bolshevik Revolution, his leadership (his AUTHORITARIAN leadership) of the red army was necessary; however that doesn't give someone a golden ticket to the thrown of the Bolshevik Party. Sorry. What always confuses me is the "bankruptcy" of Trotskyists like yourself when it comes to this question, treating Trotsky as if he were just born to lead rather than needing to be elected by the party to that leadership. Who utterly gives a shit essentially who led what, it isn't important, the importance of this all is the question of the corresponding character to material reality of the ideology of these leaders.
    
    Which begs the question, you have yet to anwser, how is Trotskyism superior to Maoism? You claim Trotsky wasn't ever a Menshevik, ok will give you this; however how does that excuse him from his orthodoxy, from his determinist mentality, from his essentially STALINIST mechanisms? These are the real questions, not whether or not Trotsky was the 'most awesomest leaderzz of the Bolshevikz!' (Sarcasm)
    
    Now on the links you sent. I have read some of them at other points in time, but I refuse to read them at this point, because essentially your tactic is avoidance. Ratehr than engaging in a conversation about the Cultural Revolution and theory of Maoism and Trotskyism, you throw these various lenghty articles that "we must read to understand" then engaging in a conversation. What if conversly I where to do the exact same and link you to Mao's archive, or link you to Alain Badiou's work on the Cultural Revolution, or Kostavis Marakis' critique of Trotskyism without ever engaging the question itself. HEY MORE "BANKRUPTCY" OF 'MAINSTREAM MARXISM.'
    
    On the question of success, one has to say who is calling the kettle black? Can you name any other organizations apart from the "Marxist-Leninist" or Maoist variety who have ever engage in the actual historical project in the same depth and manner? Can you signify to me the last council communist revolution or Trotskyist one at that? Rather then honestly critiquing these movements with a depth of honest criticsm to improve our struggle you offer us nothing. Can you speak to how we can improve our struggle or how the various elements of the Naxalites can improve theirs? Or rather to you engage in more of a bourgeois opportunism?  

11. #  Anonymous 12/30/2006 4:34 AM

    STP:
    
    For the Last time i am not a Trotskyist. I am formerly a Marxist-Leninist with heavy sympathies to Maoism. I am not claiming that i have read everything written by Mao or Trotsky or Lenin fully but i have read a good deal by them. I do not agree with most of Trotsky's analysis especially about role of peasantry. I have some reasons for that for eg in India there are two types of Peasants one who owns the land and the one who does not own the land but work in the land for wages while the former falls in to petty bourgeoisie the latter clearly falls in to Proletarian.And IMO Mao's theory (or which is practiced by Naxalites in India for eg) mostly never gives importance to working class in cities which has a heavy presence(Unlike Mao's China).It is clear that as materialists Marxists should take the tactics given by both Trotsky and Mao and apply it to situation and we should not try to emulate them we should learn from them(Trotskyists too have failed particularly here IMO).
    
    Regarding Stalin IMO have done more damage to Marxism(More than In Mao's analysis) than any one else.So i wish not to discuss about him anymore.  

12. #  Anonymous 1/01/2007 11:37 PM

    Your debates are interesting.I have dine resaerch on the Maoist Movement in India and feel there is vast potential.Another important debate is on the formation of the REvolutinary Internationalist Movement and thecorrect period to form aCommunist International.In India the movement is divided into many trends of which some have virtually capitulated to revisonism.Although leading a big movement the C.P.I.(Maoist)is still vitiated with left sectarianism and although it is conducting armed struggle it's actions are often acts of individual heroiusm in place of the mass line and not always based on the broad peoles movements.It is still in the stage of building guerilla Zones and has not built base araes like the Chinses Communist party did in their struggle.The best lessons to be studied is during the Telengana Armed Struuggle between 1946-1951 i Andhra Pradesh where rrevolutionary base areas were formed and a mass line carried out.No douby the comrades have made death -defying sacrifices and have led big movemenst in Andhra Pradesh,Bihar and Dandkaranya but still acorrect approach is not emphasisied towards building mass organsiation swhich are indispensable in the movement and often it treats mass organsiations as mere party fronts .Work is alos neglected on the trade Union Front.The wrong aspects of the Charu Mazumdar annihialtion line i the early 1970's is still prevalent.
    In contrast groups like C.P.I(M.L)Liberation and Kanu SAnyal C.P.I.(M.L) have virtually capitualated to revisonism ,embracing parliamentary politics.  

13. #  Anonymous 1/02/2007 6:37 AM

    I would not say it is Che Guevera's focoism but a path in between focoism and Maoist Peoples Warthat the C.P.I.(Maoist)is upholding.One must take into account that liberated areas have not been formed by the C.P.I.(Maoist) in Andhra Pradesh,Bihar or Dandkaranya and they are still building guerilla Zones.(Remember experience of Chinese REvolution)True there have alos been heroic actions in self -defence and retaliation like the Jehenabad jailbreak and the Madhuban Attack in Bihar but the overall militray line is defective .Enough emphasis has not been given to work in the towns(building trade Union Movement) and linking democratic mass movements to Armed Struggles.Today i Bihar and Andhra Prdaesh mass organsations can function virtually only from underground.However we must praise their efforts and in certain ways there path(military actions) has resembled that of the Chinesee revolutionaries,or later the Neplaese and Peruvian.What has to be studied most is the Telangana Armed Struggle between 1946-1951 whee the mass line was truly implemented and peoples organs of revolutionary power were set up.I there base araes the C.P.I.Maoist has not re-distributed 1/4of the land re-distributed in the Telangana Struggle.(refer to Andhra thesis)Other negative features were intra -group clashes between the erswhile Maoist Communist Centre and the Peoples War Group.Not enough emphasis is given on educatin of cadres.
    WE must complement the organisation for producing death defying cadres who dipped their blood in service of the Indian REvolution.However their claim that the re-organsiation of the party has completely taken place is wrong as the party in India is still at the re-organisational phase.
    There are also revisionist formation like C.P.I.M.L Liberation and the latest Unity formation between red Fag and the Kanu Sayal Group to form a C.P.I.(M.L)is a development of the revisionsit trend.
    In recent years another development that took place was the formation of the Communist Party Re-Organisation Centre of India(Marxsit Leninist),perhaps the closest to that of Mao Tse Tung's line.In states of work it has adopted acorrect approach to the question of the relationship of the mass organisation with the party,particularly in Orisa and Punjab.A massive peasant movement of middle peasants and labourers has been built in Punjab (Also 3 great election campaigns while in Orissa a massive movement of tribals ahs been developed in Malkangiri district.However a military line has not been developed by the organisation in strategic areas of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar ,nor has a sustained campaign been undertaken to combat revisionsiand defend Mao Tse Tung Thought Country-wide.
    A very significant aspect of the Indian Revolutionary Movement is the struggle of the mass revolutionary line after the Naxalbari line refuting the Charu Mazumdar 'line of Individual annihialtion of the class enemy'.Tarimala Nagi Reddy (30th death anniversary yaer)led the Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Commmitee of Communist REvolutionaries and later with DV.Rao formed the Unity CEntre of Communist Revolutionaries of India in 1975.Famous mass movements led were that of the Punjab Students Union and the Naujavan Bharat Sabha in the late 1970's and the famous protest against bthe killing of the student leader Prithipal Singh Randhawa in 1979.Later during the Khalistani Movement a section of the organisation led by Comrade Harbhajan Sohi played amajor role in formulating a mass revolutionary line combating state and Khalistani terrorism.Eg A famous 10000strong rally in MOga in Faridkot district in Punjab on July 10th 1987 and 2 massive commemoration conferences commemorating the martyrs of Sewewala in 1991.The broad masses were armed with traditional weapons in combat.The formatio of the Centre of Communist REvolutionaries of India(C.C.R.I.) in 1988after the principlaed strugge waged by Harbhajan Sohi and Anand in their respective oragisations has historic significance and so does the merging of 4 organsiations in 1994 into the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L)Comrade Harbhajan Sohi made the graetset contribution in developing the International line agaisnt the Chinse 3 world theory and the formation of a Communist International.Most relevant documents have been written on the b uilding of a Communist International.
    
    Qurbani  

14. #  Anonymous 1/02/2007 8:25 AM

    LeftHenry,
    You have made agreat debating site on Maoism and I share many of your views.I appreciate your defence of Maoism in India.Though the C.P.I(Maoist) is vitiated by wrong left sectarian trends they still lead a powerful armd struggle (IN ANDHRA PRADESH,BIHAR AND dANDKARANYA.THEY ARE THE STRONGEST ORGANISATION IN INDIA)Their main defect is that they often fail to implement the mass line and many of their armed squad actions substitute mass peoples movements rather than advance them or based on them.(semi-focoist)They also have adefective approach towards mass organsiations,failing to recognise the mass charcter of mass organsiatins and using them as mee front organsiations.
    Another significant movement in India is led by the Communist Party -Re-Organsiation Centre of India(Marxist Leninist) which leads a powerful movement iu Orissa and Punjab.True there are weakneses like inability to build armed strugle i strategic araes,defend Maoism ideologically through programmes and build annAll-India Movement,it is the most correct organsiation theoretically and in practice.In Punjab it has amass political FRont and done outsatnding work in organising the poor a,landless and middle peasants and has been able to resolve the contradiction of the mass organsatio with the Party.In Orisa it has led asuperb tribal Movement giving the bset example of AgrariaN revolutrionary practice.
    I staunchly stand by Left henry's arguments and again applaud his defence of Comrade Mao.
    
    Qurbani  

15. #  Anonymous 1/02/2007 8:10 PM

    ..
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe thinks
    communism is SUPER
    
    even though it never works
    because we are not robots
    
    
    
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe feels
    communism is fair
    
    fools can't or won't think it through
    idiots just keep scheming
    ..