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:

1. Firstly, it's the Marxist philosophy. Mao has developed the law of contradiction.
2. Next is the political economy, Mao has introduced 'bureaucrat capitalism' and the other is the development of the political economy of socialism.
3. 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 nor did he claim that it was universal. Concluding from this, Mao Zedong did not deserve its own ideology (Mao didn't even want it to begin with).

Revolutionary Violence is a "Universal Law"

Gonzalo also thinks that revolutionary violence is a law:

With regard to violence we start from the principle established by Chairman Mao Tsetung: violence, that is the need for revolutionary violence, is a universal law with no exception. Revolutionary violence is what allows us to resolve fundamental contradictions by means of an army, through people's war. Why do we start from Chairman Mao's thesis? Because we believe Mao reaffirmed Marxism on this question, establishing that there are no exceptions whatsoever to this law. What Marx held, that violence is the midwife of history, continues to be a totally valid and monumental contribution.

This is in total contradiction to what Lenin stated earlier about revolutionary violence in "The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism":

True revolutionaries will perish (not that they will be defeated from outside, but that their work will suffer internal collapse) only if they abandon their sober outlook and take it into their heads that the “great, victorious, world” revolution can and must solve all problems in a revolutionary manner under all circumstances and in all spheres of action. If they do this, their doom is certain.

[...]

What grounds are there for assuming that the “great, victorious, world” revolution can and must employ only revolutionary methods? There are none at all. The assumption is a pure fallacy; this can be proved by purely theoretical propositions if we stick to Marxism. The experience of our revolution also shows that it is a fallacy. From the theoretical point of view—foolish things are done in time of revolution just as at any other time, said Engels, and he was right. We must try to do as few foolish things as possible, and rectify those that are done as quickly as possible, and we must, as soberly as we can, estimate which problems can be solved by revolutionary methods at any given time and which cannot. From the point of view of our practical experience the Brest peace was an example of action that was not revolutionary at all; it was reformist, and even worse, because it was a retreat, whereas, as a general rule, reformist action advances slowly, cautiously, gradually, and does not move backward. The proof that our tactics in concluding the Brest peace were correct is now so complete, so obvious to all and generally admitted, that there is no need to say any more about it.

Revolutionary violence does not fix all problems. It is not a universal 'law'. It is something that can only be applied when it is needed to be done so. This will be important later on.

War can be "Constructive"

Another deviation is that Gonzalo assumes that war can be constructive:

We see the problem of war this way: war has two aspects, destructive and constructive. Construction is the principal aspect. Not to see it this way undermines the revolution--weakens it.

War is nothing but destructive. This doesn't mean the masses cannot join a war, but it means it undermines social relations between each other and only results in further suffering of the proletariat. The war between the western world in World War I for example, was a clash between imperialist powers. The proletariat fought alongside each other for no reason aside from nationalism. There is no construction here. There is only destruction, both in the aspect that it destroys resources and the productive forces, and that the proletariat are alienated from the wars as well. In terms of a class war, this is much of the same thing. In the context of the Soviet Union, the Russian Civil War spurred out, and it was a fight between the Whites and Reds. There were proletarians on both sides, and it resulted in alienation. It had to recover from the civil war with the New Economic Policy.

Gonzalo's view on the Peasantry

Gonzalo states the peasantry, progressives and the proletariat are united together, which form a new 'relations to the means of production':

In the economic base, under the New Power we are establishing new relations of production. A concrete example of this is how we apply the land policy, utilizing collective work, and the organization of social life according to a new reality, with a joint dictatorship where for the first time workers, peasants and progressives rule--understanding this to mean those who want to transform this country by the only means possible--people's war.

A new dictatorship where the workers, peasants and progressives (petit bourgeoisie) rule. This exact same sentencing has been talked about by Lenin when it came to the Socialist Revolutionaries:

To counter Marx’s doctrine that there is only one really revolutionary class in modern society, the Socialist-Revolutionaries advance the trinity: “the intelligentsia, the proletariat, and the peasantry,” thereby revealing a hope less confusion of concepts.

There is more to Gonzalo's views on the peasantry, but as so far regarding theory, this will be abridged.

The Protracted People's War is Universal

And as such we arrive the crux of the theory, the Protracted People's War (PPW) is universal. The PPW was first introduced by Mao Zedong as an alternative to the traditional revolution carried out by the Bolsheviks. Vietnam and China is what I would consider both examples to be based on the concept of the 'Protracted People's War'. I will ignore Vietnam for this essay (as it is irrelevant) and focus on the material conditions of China. Firstly, it was introduced because the party tried a similar approach such as the Bolsheviks, and it results in a failure. There needed to be a new strategy done, as the traditional method does not apply to the material conditions of China. We must remind ourselves that China is vastly rural, with only a few areas of it actually being industrialised. It had more peasantry than the Bolsheviks did.

What is a PPW? It is a method combining guerrilla warfare with the willingness of the partisans and communist party members, and conventional struggles from the Bolsheviks. This tactic worked well within China, owing thanks to these major factors:

1. It was defensive, not offensive. The Kuomintang had massacred the urban members of the CPC, then China had to go through a struggle with the Japanese, and another massacre was prompted after that. The government was making mistakes, which resulted in the CPC gaining more and more support.
2. China had a vast landscape, and cities were so far apart that they can be isolated, and the CPC members are often able to communicate properly as a result. There was no easy fast travel at the time which could efficiently get rid of the communist supporters. This means that nowadays it is extremely unlikely to find something like this nowadays, as train travel and long distance communication exists.
3. The CPC already had a large amount of support from the very beginning thanks to the peasantry. They decided that it was the right time to start the armed struggle, and people joined in as a result, it was not merely something that can be done from thin air.
4. The CPC also didn't practice guerrilla warfare in regions where there was little to no class consciousness. At first they educated them as to why it's necessary. They didn't forcefully push the masses into the armed struggle until they were committed to it.

As Mao stated when it came to the masses:

All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail.

Let us see how Gonzalo sees that it is universally applicable:

People's war is universally applicable, in accordance with the character of the revolution and adapted to the specific conditions of each country. Otherwise, it cannot be carried out. In our case, the particularities are very dear. It is a struggle that is waged in the countryside and in the city, as was established as far back as I968 in the plan for the people's war. Here we have a difference, a particularity: it is waged in the countryside and the city. This, we believe, has to do with our own specific conditions. Latin America, for instance, has cities which are proportionately larger than those on other continents. It is a reality of Latin America that can't be ignored. Just look at the capital of Peru, for example, which has a high percentage of the country's population. So, for us, the city could not be left aside, and the war had to be developed there as well. But the struggle in the countryside is principal, the struggle in the city a necessary complement. This is one particularity, there's another.

So according to Gonzalo, it has to be adapted to the specific conditions of a nation. That is fair. Marxism-Leninism has to applied to every nation (hence why we have ideologies such as Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Ho Chi Minh Thought, etc). We will take a look later into the praxis section to see if the PPW is truly applicable.

The Praxis of Maoism

Now that we eliminated the theory matter of Maoism, let us analyse the praxis of Maoism. The theory already demonstrates some oddities and deviations from typical Marxist-Leninist theory. Let us take a look onto the Maoist Praxis of 3 different regions: Peru, The Philippines, and India. This will begin in order.

Peru and the Peruvian Communist Party

The Party

Let us start from the Peruvian Communist Party (will be referred at the Shining Path) itself. The party was formed with a distinct cult of personality. Unlike Stalin (or even Mao) who denounced those cultists, Gonzalo embraced them, and nowadays it remains to this day:

Our Party has defined that leadership is key and it is the duty of all militants to constantly work to defend and preserve the leadership of the Party and very especially the leadership of Chairman Gonzalo, our Great Leadership, against any attack inside or outside the Party and to subject ourselves to his personal leadership and command by raising the slogans of “Learn From Chairman Gonzalo” and “Embody Gonzalo Thought.”

So it was very clear that the Communist Party of Peru wasn't only "overcentralised" (I'm looking at the PCP article) but rather it had a cult of personality. Gonzalo was the leader, and people followed him mostly because of his thought. The party also retained sectarian positions (a position which is very common with Maoist organisations) and were against other marxist or socialist groups:

For the rest of Peru's Marxist left, the dogmatic sectarianism of Shining Path is an especially serious error. The left believes that Shining Path's dogmatism transforms it into a type of fundamentalist religious sect, where absolute truth is opposed by absolute falsehood. This sectarianism is so extreme that other Marxists are frequent targets of Shining Path.

National

When the party was formed, the Shining Path did gain popular support, particularly from the peasantry, as the Peruvian government avoided them. There was indeed popular support behind them. However, their methods were indeed questionable: