![]() Some comrades still do not understand that inner-Party struggle is essentially an ideological struggle. In On Inner-Party Struggle, the Communist Party of China theorist Liu Shao-Chi explains why even if the ideas the struggle session participants were promoting had been correct, the way in which they went about trying to bring others to these ideas was counterproductive: China wasn’t able to implement the market reforms that sufficiently built up its productive forces, and therefore allowed it to be no longer a poor country, until Deng restored democratic centralism within the party and put an end to the struggle sessions. ![]() They momentarily sabotaged the potential for rigorous debate over what China’s next direction should be, preventing ideas which opposed Mao’s anti-market stance from receiving their fair hearing. They harmed the integrity of the party, normalizing the practice of waging ideologically focused warfare on behalf of one’s own strain rather than exercising the restraint which was in the party’s best interests. Struggle sessions are a big part of why the members of the modern Communist Party of China colloquially regard Mao as “70 percent right, 30 percent wrong.” They acted as a way for the participants in the Cultural Revolution to subvert democratic centralism, carrying out aggressive ideological interventions when the ideas they sought to impose had not even been definitively decided as part of the party’s agenda. What’s given Maoism great effectiveness at causing destruction for the American communist movement, especially in the social media age, is its use of struggle sessions-the tactic where ideological crusaders force themselves upon a target and shame them into complying. These were the early types of wrecker tactics when it came to weaponizing Maoism. ![]() Which makes it easy to see why the FBI created publications and organizations under the Maoist label, with the goal of discrediting Marxism-Leninism using the angle of “anti-revisionism.” ![]() It combines the individualism of anarchism with the sectarianism of Trotskyism. The type of Maoism the FBI has promoted is nothing more than a red rebranding of anarchism. American Maoism is not like the Maoism within places like the Philippines, which can have strong anti-imperialist components despite their theoretical differences from the Marxist-Leninist ruling parties. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |