“You’re right, people do lie, and cheat, and stab you in the back. There will be people who use you, and don’t love you even though they say they do. This is, indeed, how revisionism expresses itself within the party; it is paramount to oppose revisionism so as not to fall into opportunism.” – Beyoncé
While researching news into the latest military coup in Thailand, we came upon this interesting statistical analysis from a bourgeois perspective on why Thailand has had so many coups. While the analysis predates this latest coup, it does apply in the general sense, and interestingly, it is not a Thailand-specific analysis, but one from the perspective of bourgeois universality, that is, the bourgeois view on the cause of military coups under conditions of global capitalism and bourgeois democracy.
The article is in the form of an interview with a statistician and he declares Thailand to be within the statistical model for coups on a number of things, notably poverty, and yet also being an outlier in terms of the sheer number of coups in its history.
In this article we see the limits of bourgeois thinking and perspective, and why the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analysis of semifeudalism and semicolonialism is of much values to understand Thailand and its history of coups, and how the principle of universality of Protracted People’s War is reinforced by this example. Continue reading
The following is a brief exposition of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is part of a larger theoretical work outlining Marxist-Leninist-Maoist philosophy in the United States. It was compiled by Maosoleum Guest Writer Neftali, the author of “Notes on Mass Line, Communist Organization, and Revolution”, On Marxist Philosophy. and The Materialist Conception of History. Views here are thus those of Neftali, and do not necessarily represent the entire views of the writers of Maosoleum. If you would like to have a dialogue with the author on this piece please address Neftali in the comments below. NOTE: The section “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is Our Shining Path for World Revolution” skips over two entire sections on Capital and the proletariat which the author still has in rough form.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism [MLM] is the banner of world revolution today, it is our guiding light which has synthesized past proletarian revolutionary experience in relation to guiding proletarian universal science of historical materialism. It is the most correct universal and scientific approach to making revolution. The banner of MLM marks three significant points of rupture and continuity in the practice of proletarian revolution in its scientific mode, they correspondingly adopt the name of significant figures which represent through merit of both theoretical elaboration and political work were able to capture essential features of the class struggle at their moments and raised the universal features to light for us. It takes upon itself in sequential order of history Marx, Lenin, and Mao. Each phase which took upon it new universal significance also took upon itself both a continuity and a rupture, hence Marxism transformed to Marxism-Leninism which correspondingly transformed to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. They are at this stage in the course of development of revolutionary science and in relationship to the whole course of development and experience of proletarian revolution inseparable and packed as the meaningful name which is in essence the political line of world revolution.
Interesting short article on Soviet Maoism.
This is a translation of an article in Russia by Alexei Volynets which appeared here: http://rusplt.ru/policy/sovetskie-hunveybinyi-sssr-nujen-mao-dzedun.html with the title: The Soviet Red Guard: The Soviet Union Needs Mao Zedong. It was published on July 10.
From the 1960s to the 1980s tens of Maoist groups operated in Russia fighting against the ‘bourgeois, degeneration’ of the bureaucracy.
When histories of the dissident movement in the Soviet Union get written the “democratic”, pro-Western sector of this movement get the bulk of the attention for reasons that are rather obvious. Far less attention is paid to the nationalists of the ‘Russian party’ and the various Left dissidents. But far the most unfortunate groups of dissidents are the followers of Chairman Mao, the Soviet ‘Red Guards’. They have been left out of the story by both the “western voices” of those years and have been ignored by the contemporary historical memory of all other…
View original post 2,004 more words
Present advocacy of “Left Unity” is for the promotion of an unprincipled and spurious adherence to liberal opportunism which seeks to negate ideological struggle and combat the advancement of a revolutionary proletarian line. That is not to say there are tactical positions that “The Left” can unite around to accomplish specific goals, but we must regard this as strictly tactics and not a foundation for a permanent basis as there are lines of demarcations that separate the revolutionaries from the opportunists. Mao Zedong touches upon this point in his essay Combat Liberalism:
“But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.”
Our comrades who call for “Left Unity” in terms of forming a united front to end capitalism are in fact as Mao said rejecting ideological struggle. To these comrades ideological debate should be shunned because “we are all Marxists”, they take an agnostic stand on revisionism and are completely unaware of the foundations of their errors in this regard. When we refuse to engage in ideological debate out of not seeking to offend the person or risk a quarrel, then we are not only taking a paternalistic attitude towards our opponent and treating them as if they were children, but also show our lack of confidence in our own revolutionary line and demonstrate our inability to articulate it coherently. To arrive at the point of unity from the standpoint that “we are all Marxists” or “we are all Leninists” or even that “we are all socialists”is to not take upon ourselves the tasks of making comradely criticisms which we as Communists have a duty to ourselves to make of others as well as ourselves. As Mao Zedong once again in his wisdom tells us:
“Be resolute, fear no sacrifice and surmount every difficulty to win victory.” – Mao Zedong, The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains
I wanted my first post after an unexpected hiatus to be about the several drafts in store (On Queer Maoism, on Identity Politics, on Eclecticism and Dogmatism, on the BRICs/MISTs mass upsurges, etc), but as Helmuth von Moltke the Elder once quipped, no plan survives contact with the enemy. So here we go.
Much has been debated in the last few years around Syria’s civil war in the wider left, the socialist, and communist movements, including the various Marxist currents. Recently, however, there has been an upsurge of commentary and line struggle because of the recent declaration of open military support for the “Free Syria Army” (FSA) on the part of NATO and the USA. In particular, this has led to informal line struggles in my own circles both online and offline. Thus, a matter that is important but not urgent, has become one of urgency, specially because I identify certain confusions among Maoist forces, in particular an eclectic and sometimes opportunist tailing of revisionist and nationalist forces both in Syrian and out of Syria, but also an abandonment of the struggle to establish the central principle of Maoist Scientific Socialist struggle: the universality of Protracted People’s War.
Those who call themselves Marxist can be as diverse in thinking as the many thousands of Christian denominations in this World. Somewhere along these lines one is bound to come across the word “Market Socialism“. Market Socialists tend to believe that the Nordic Countries and Titoite Yugoslavia have “proved socialism worked”(whatever this means) and for some of them that post-Mao China still(!) serves as a healthy socialist society. How one defines “work” is an entirely different matter but for argument’s sake let us suppose the person also calls themselves a Communist. That this person desires a classless and stateless society and see’s socialism as a transitional stage for this. In other words they are in agreement with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But what is this?