[Leninist]

No. I have to get in with this before it goes off course. The USSR disagreed in thought and action with the things that went on with China. The revolution in the USSR actually did rely on the proletariat to take it forward. They did not present a narrative of having to bring peasants in to 'take the towns'. It simply did not go that that way. Instead, the USSR manifested in the towns and went to 'take the countryside'. Its a very big difference.

Furthermore, Marxism-Leninism - as far as I'm aware - only became a codified ideology under the rule of Joseph Stalin. So for all intents and purposes, Marxism-Leninism is not orthogonal to the moniker 'Stalinism', it's actually synonymous with 'Stalinism'.

Naturally, in any case, if you have to choose one, Stalinism seemed to export much better results to the third world than Maoism did.

I wasn't saying that Maoism and Marxist-Leninism are the same thing, or that the USSR and China were, the were only even allies for a short time. And Stalinism being better exported may have more to do with the fact that it had been established longer before its destruction. Maoism only existed for about twenty years (in power), Stalinism for about 70. And yes, Marxist-Leninism is more or less a way of saying Stalinism. But I am not advocating Marxist-Leninism, as I do not agree with Stalinist thought, but rather Leninism, because I feel it contributes much in the way of organizing a revolution and socialist leadership. You may say Lenin influenced Stalinist thought, but Leninism and Stalinism are not the same thing.

[nnoommaaoo]

You are Chinese, living in China?

yes

[fuser]

Welcome aboard, good to have you here. This forum certainly needs real Asians.*



*No offence to anyone.

[nnoommaaoo]

That I didn't know. However, I don't know who Pugachev is, so one of you will have to explain that to me.

Wow , you are quite a voluble writer. Pugachev was a famous leader of peasant's uprising in Russia. Stalin for a long time did not think Mao was a true communist. Nor did he think the CCP was really a communist party. Stalin once was not even confident about the CCP coming to power at all. Some researchers say that is one reason Mao went into the Korean War eager to show he was ,contrary to Stalin's bias , a true revolutionary. And by some accounts, Stalin was moved and radically changed his view about Mao after learning Mao would enter the war anyway. But in my opinion Stalin was at least right in making the judgement that Mao was not a true communist. He got a smattering knowledge of Leninism and esp. Stalinism and perhaps read some rudimentary works on Marxism. But as I have said, Mao actually just scratched the surface of Marxism at best. He was more like a Chinese feudal emperor ,always dreaming a utopian dream.

[nnoommaaoo]

Welcome aboard, good to have you here. This forum certainly needs real Asians.*



*No offence to anyone.

Thanks!

[fuser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemelyan_Pugachev

I strongly disagree with your assessment and frankly disappointed in China if Chinese Public's opinion on Mao is something like this (whether true or not is irrelevant).

CCP chances were obviously slim in 20s and hence Stalin was right at that time period and he urged for a common front with the nationalist against foreign imperialism/Fascism as it was the common line of Comintern under USSR, it didn't meant that Stalin though Mao as a Pseudo Commie or didn't believed CCP to be revolutionary. Basically you are wrong to think that Stalin thought of Mao as pseudo Commie.

As per feudal emperor, feudal emperors don't destroy Landlords and feudal lords irreversibly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

[nnoommaaoo]

I would be lying if I said I were that well versed in Mao. So this has been pretty interesting. My issue has been the peasant issue which I tended to crudely tell my classes was something like:

The Russians demanded that the peasants do what the proletarians said; the Chinese that the peasants and the proletarians were partners; the Cambodians that the proletarians had to be turned into peasants.

Which, as I mentioned, is crude and simplistic.

Regardless, I might venture that Maoism may have the slant it does because it is a modernist tendency. In China, as I understand it, there was always a tension with the west inso far as China was one of history's great civilizations and then these bug-eyes hairy brutes come in and start running trade and opium rackets through it. You had the Boxer Rebellion which tried to get the old Chinese ways to overpower the West, and since the bullets didn't turn to water upon hitting the Boxers (incidentally, the Maji Maji Rebellion and portions of the Ghost Dance - all within a few years of each other - all tried to use native mysticism to defeat bullets), the old Chinese system was done. So the end result was that China had to be abandoned and the West had to be used as a foundation for the new society if China was to last.

Marxism is, after all, Western. It would not surprise me if the tendency to go back to the Chinese well were still there to change things around, especially since a generally "Socialism in One Country," model was taken which validated some of the old Chinese things to some extent. This would seem to generally match up with Mao's conflict with Chen Duxiu. Regardless, Mao—at least from my understanding in light of this thread—seems to have taken the westernization for technological and other advancement pretty damned seriously.

The cruel irony here is that both Russia's and China's communist revolutions relied heavily on peasants, esp. in the case of China. But after taking power into their hands ,both of them "betrayed" peasants so to speak. The so-called partnership between peasants and proletarians was veiled by the fact that peasants were economically and politically discriminated against under Mao's rule. Collectivization once implemented with sheer force by Stalin and later also preached by Mao led to the harrowing Great Famine when an estimated 30 million of peasants starved to death in China.

[nnoommaaoo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemelyan_Pugachev

I strongly disagree with your assessment and frankly disappointed in China if Chinese Public's opinion on Mao is something like this (whether true or not is irrelevant).

CCP chances were obviously slim in 20s and hence Stalin was right at that time period and he urged for a common front with the nationalist against foreign imperialism/Fascism as it was the common line of Comintern under USSR, it didn't meant that Stalin though Mao as a Pseudo Commie or didn't believed CCP to be revolutionary. Basically you are wrong to think that Stalin thought of Mao as pseudo Commie.

As per feudal emperor, feudal emperors don't destroy Landlords and feudal lords irreversibly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Well ,some opinions in my posts are mine of course but most of my claims are actually from some prominent experts on Mao and the Cold War here in China. I think you can refer to the latest findings based on the declassified achives of the former USSR.

When I say Mao was more like a feudal emperor , I am not suggesting he wanted to maintain a feudal agarian system. I mean the way he handled political affairs and governed the country. He did not trust rule of law or democracy ( although he once sang high and cloying praise for the US democracy in order to woo the latter's support and make the Kuomintang Regime look bad.). Instead he was obsessed with so-called mass movements which just threw the country into great unrest. He claimed to be a communist revolutionary and I believe he indeed strived for the goal of becoming one. But as any common person, the era he was in and his education, personality , experiences etc. determined that his way of doing things was actually that of a feudal Chinese dictator.