Essay:Problems with Maoism

Note: The essay is a work in progress.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a controversial ideology, to say the least. I wrote the Maoism article initially with a more 'neutral' standpoint whilst still critiquing its theory under the 'Criticism' section. This will be a more biased viewpoint of Maoism, as it describes the problems with it. Despite my bias, I will attempt to remain neutral. I will consider not only its theory, but its praxis, and seeing how it Maoism applies to the real world.

If you can't understand the first heading, please head to the next section where it breaks everything down.

Addressing Marxists and Gonzalo-Critiquing Maoists

I will first address potential points, and I will start with the Marxist-Leninists who sympathise with Maoists.

The Marxist-Leninists who support Maoism are those who are also typically anti-revisionist, e.g. align with Hoxhaism or some other anti-revisionist ideology. If you are one who does not belong to the anti-revisionist group, but still sympathises with Maoism, then please continue on reading this essay. Otherwise, to those who support anti-revisionism will addressed in a similar to the Maoists.

Now to address those who are somehow critical of Gonzalo, but support Maoism. One of the main arguments I usually get is that "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism isn't synthesised by Gonzalo". Even if it is true, you cannot deny that Gonzalo has made a lot of contributions to the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, despite him not writing much theory to begin with. I agree when it comes to the synthesis of Maoism, but most Maoist movements such as the CPP-NPA, have adopted the "maoism" label and ideology later on. So there is no hypocrisy when stating that Gonzalo synthesised Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

To those who identify as "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" only (as in they're not "Marxism-Leninist-Maoism, principally Maoism" or MLMpM for short), this is still directed towards the same critique. MLMpM is just a label, and there is no distinction between those who support Maoism and those who support MLMpM. You may be critical of Gonzalo or some other leaders, but this is nonetheless directed towards the same ideology.

The Theory of Maoism

The Basics of Maoism

I have already written down what is Maoist theory in the Maoism article, but let's break it down further. I will also be sourcing the "Interview with Chairman Gonzalo", which is the main source of where Maoism comes from. Here is what Gonzalo describes as MLM:

Why do we say that we are in a new, third, and higher stage, Maoism? We say this because in examining the three component parts of Marxism, it is clearly evident that Chairman Mao Tsetung has developed each one of these three parts. Let's enumerate them: in Marxist philosophy no one can deny his great contribution to the development of dialectics, focusing on the law of contradiction, establishing that it is the only fundamental law. On political economy, it will suffice to highlight twothings. The first, of immediate and concrete importance for us, is bureaucrat capitalism, and second, the development of the political economy of socialism, since in synthesis we can say that it is Mao who really established and developed the political economy of socialism. With regard to scientific socialism, it is enough to point to people's war, since it is with Chairman Mao Tsetung that the international proletariat has attained a fully developed military theory, giving us then the military theory of our class, the proletariat, applicable everywhere. We believe that these three questions demonstrate a development of universal character. Looked at in this way what we have is a new stage--and we call it the third one, because Marxism has two preceding stages, that of Marx and that of Lenin, which is why we speak of Marxism-Leninism. A higher stage, because with Maoism the ideology of the worldwide proletariat attains its highest development up to now, its loftiest peak, but with the understanding that Marxism is--if you'll excuse the reiteration--a dialectical unity that develops through great leaps, and that these great leaps are what give rise to stages.

So we can describe the differences in Maoism (according to Gonzalo) in 3 ways of which they are either not in Marxism-Leninism or have been succeeded by Mao Zedong:

• Firstly, it's the Marxist philosophy. Mao has developed the law of contradiction.
• Next is the political economy, Mao has introduced 'bureaucrat capitalism' and the other is the development of the political economy of socialism.
• The final is the scientific socialism, where Mao has introduced the Protracted People's War and its universality.

Gonzalo also says that MLM is a continuation of Mao Zedong Thought:

We based ourselves on Maoism, which at that time was called Mao Tsetung Thought, and on the establishment of a general political line. The fraction has the great distinction of having reconstituted the Party, and once that was done, the instrument then existed: the "heroic combatant;" the Communist Party of a new type, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist; the organized political vanguard--and not a"political-military organization" as it is often incorrectly put, but the Party required to launch the struggle to seize Power with arms in hand through people's War.

So we have a basic grasp of what MLM is. It is following Mao Zedong Thought with the addition of the universality of the People's War, and the addition of the 'Three Worlds Theory' as Gonzalo describes the Soviet Union as 'Social Imperialist'. Let us take a look at what not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is.

Contrary to popular belief, Maoism has not invented the Mass Line. The Marxist-Leninists have been doing it a long time before that within the Soviet Union. Neither has 'New Democracy' been invented, as the Marxist-Leninists been doing that with the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union. Therefore, I will not need to speak about this, as they are already integral within Marxism-Leninism.

Mao Zedong Thought in Contrast to Maoism

Gonzalo admits that Maoism is a continuation of Mao Zedong Thought. Does this mean that every person who follows MZT is a maoist? Certainly not, not even maoists who follow Gonzalo agree with this. Therefore it would be a good idea to contrast those with follow Mao Zedong Thought (those who have the abbreviations ML-MZT or just ML) and those who just follow MLM. People who follow Mao Zedong Thought are also typically of those who support China as a modern socialist nation. Maoists typically do not, they view China as a revisionist capitalist nation, as Gonzalo describes here:

The present leadership of China is revisionist, and is really led by a perverse character, an old and rotten revisionist, Deng Xiaoping. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution he was thoroughly exposed and the world saw what he was and continues to be, an out and out revisionist, a lackey of Liu [Shaoqi]. It's Deng who is leading China, once a socialist country, in a rapid and all-out restoration of capitalism. It is pertinent to point out that positions espoused by Gorbachev were previously espoused by Deng, in accordance with his own conditions.

Clearly there is a difference between MZT and Maoism. Therefore for the rest of the essay, MZT will only be mentioned as an ideology which is separate from Maoism.

Maoism in Contrast to Marxism-Leninism

Gonzalo views Marxism-Leninism as an ideology which was good for its time, however, it needed a successor and that successor was Mao Zedong. Anyone who is a Marxism-Leninist but not a Maoist is not a genuine communist:

So for us, what exists in the world today is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and principally Maoism. We think that to be Marxists today, to be Communists, necessarily demands that we be Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and principally Maoists. Otherwise, we couldn't be genuine communists.

Do maoists think this way? Not all. In fact I would only say that some maoists say that is the case. However, this puts them in contradiction. If they were to work with Marxist-Leninists (to which it is still the majority of Marxists) this means that they are working with not real genuine communists. It's either they only accept Marxism-Leninism because it isn't outdated, or they accept it because they have no other option.

Does Mao Deserve its Own Ideology?

Let us ask if Mao Zedong deserved to be a successor to Marxism-Leninism. What is a successor? Well it is something that is next in line, typically something that is superior than what came before. Has Mao Zedong discovered the law of contradiction? No, as in the book 'On Contradiction', Mao stated that it was Lenin who initially discovered it beforehand:

Lenin said, "Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects."

He did however, refine it to make it understandable to the Chinese proletariat. It was a mere refinement, not a new discovery. In 1955, he given a question of whether Mao Zedong Thought should be elevated to Maoism, Mao himself replied: "Marxism-Leninism is the trunk of the tree; I am just a twig." This is not modesty, this is dialectics as he truly hasn't discovered anything new. Next is the discovery of 'bureaucratic capitalism' and the political economy of socialism. Bureaucratic Capitalism has been described by Gonzalo as:

We conceive of it this way: capitalism developed on top of a semi-feudal base, and under imperialist domination. It is a capitalism born late born tied to feudalism and subordinated to imperialist domination. These are the conditions that produce what Chairman Mao Tsetung has called bureaucrat capitalism.

This is considering the material conditions of Peru. Without going too much into it (as it deserves its own title), Mao Zedong never discovered 'bureaucrat capitalism'. Nor is this particular to the material conditions of China either, Russia has been considered 'semi-feudal' at the time as well. Does this mean Russia isn't 'semi-feudal' therefore there was no bureaucrat capitalism?

Also considering the latter part of Mao introducing a 'political economy for socialism'. Gonzalo states that it was Mao who initially developed and established the political economy for socialism. Does this mean that the Soviet Union (even before the death of Stalin and after the NEP) wasn't socialist? Or is it that Mao discovered a 'better socialism' somehow?

The last part is the People's War and its Universality. This deserve a heading on its own as it needs to be talked about more in depth, but let's assume that Mao didn't discover the People's War either. Concluding from this, Mao Zedong did not deserve its own ideology (Mao didn't even want it to begin with).