Talk:Maoism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Pol Pot was not Maoist, let alone an "extreme Maoist". The Khmer Rouge ideologically sided against Maoism and against the Chinese Left. Maybe the KR wore Mao-type hats and borrowed various slogans, but that is about it. Unless you think Maoism is about clothing styles, please stop vandalizing this article with this uninformed view. Only sub-idiots think the KR were Maoists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.55 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 8 December 2006‎ (UTC)


Since when is CP India (Maoist) in a part of RIM's hold on SE Asia? The article was misleading. CP India (Maoist) is not part of the RIM. Update info about Nepal too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.146 (talkcontribs) 00:36, 5 December 2006‎ (UTC)


I took out the claim that RCP is the largest Maoist Party. This is pure point of view. RCP does not publish its membership numbers either do other parties. In addition, there is no basis for calling FRSO a movement of importance and not other similar groups. FRSO's webpage is hardly active compared to other groups claiming to be Maoist. If RCPers or FRSOers want to make these claims, they should back them up with verifiable proof. There are any number of similar groups, they are all tiny, including these two.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.234 (talkcontribs) 00:22, 5 December 2006‎ (UTC)

Contradiction Section[edit]

I agree that there does not seem to be a very in depth description of exactly what Maoism is about. I focused on the Contradiction section, and find it to not have much information. Mao believed that contradiction was the basis for life. Contradictions are always struggling and can sometimes become antagonistic. They are also always transforming and becoming one another. He uses references of social classes and war between countries. I think these valuable points could be added rather than the vague examples that are given in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobinson01 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But what IS it?[edit]

This article does a very good job tracing the history of Maoism, but doesn't talk very much about what it actually is. What are its defining features? How does it differ from Marxism, or Stalinism, or Trotskyism, or Marxism-Leninism, or Kimilsungism, or Revised Anarchistic Pseudo-Neo-Mostelism-Trotskyism, or any of the other myriad ideological varieties of Communism? —WikiMarshall (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I second this. I know very little about Communism or its variants. After reading this I know a little bit about the status of Maoist groups, but not what they claim to be fighting for. What is Maoism, and how does it differ from the original Marxist Communist model? Aasmith (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The article should include both the history of the Maoist movement as well as description of Maoism as an ideological tendency. However, this is easier said than done, although some things are quite basic (focus on peasantry, people's war, anti-revisionism). --Soman (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I actually came to the Talk Page raise a concern over the lack of definition. All the article says is "Marxist-Leninist ideals with a Chinese interpretation"? What is the Chinese interpretation?! Geosultan4 (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the single most important thing that should appear in this article: a definition of what IS maoism. I put this discussion thread on top. 76.10.182.247 (talk)
There's nothing to say what Maoism is, though there's something on the history of it. Autarch (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to have read all of Mao's work to really understand what "Maoism" incorporates. I came here expecting a good summary and see how Wikipedia addressed this issue. I was thoroughly dissapointed. This is a gaping hole that MUST be fixed. Colipon+(T) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

- In Chinese there is no such term called "Maoism", the correct translation should be Mao Ze Dong thought. Also, Mao-ism or Mao's ideological contributions should not claim a level above the original Marxism-Lenism, Mao's creation is guided by Communism and Mao's terminology is the Chinese application of the original Communism, not the new root founded by Mao. Check: Mao Zedong Thought Must Be Correctly Understood as an Integral Whole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.174.139.83 (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the most singularly defining feature of Maoism was its concept of using peasant armies to surround and capture cities to enable a revolutionary government to come to power with aims of industrialization. Mao's strategum is clearly different from Pol Pot, who simply emptied out the cities and turned everyone into countryside laborers. But it is also very different from the classical Marxist thesis which had argued that the industrial proletariat must be the social base for the revolution. Mao was willing to cheat on this so to speak and build a base of support predominantly around the peasants, without accepting the Khmer Rouge view that abolishing cities is the goal.

The issue of what is "Maoism" becomes more confused if you try to speak of parties in the industrial west. Realistically, no revolution along Maoist lines could ever be carried out in a predominantly industrialized nation. Many Leftists who became disillusioned with the Soviet leadership in the 1960s began grasping at slogans from Mao in the 1960s. But it's a bit ambiguous to call that "Maoism" in itself. Some of the Black Panther saw their aims as similar to Maoism, but it was never really possible for blacks alone to carry off their own "Maoist" revolution in a country as well-industrialized as the USA with the white working class not having accepted such a Maoist model.

But if one defines Maoism as a form of peasant revolutionary ideology which deliberately transcends the classic model of peasant revolution by adopting urban ideas in the form of Marxism as an ideology and using this to go beyond the older forms of anti-urban rebellion which peasants had traditionally carried on, then that's a fair first approximation to summing up what Maoism meant in China in 1949. From a strict Marxist view, this tendency to base the revolution on a social force outside of the urban working class is heresy. Peasant rebellion in strictly orthodox Marxist terms is inherently an attack on urban modernity and so can never be the social basis for revolution. Even Lenin had to encounter disputes among the Bolsheviks (as well as foreigners like Rosa Luxemburg) in 1917 when he declared that the seizure of land by the peasants should be endorsed by revolutionaries. Lenin's opponents argued that having the peasants seize the large landed estates was a reversal of progress. But even Lenin never went to the lengths which Mao did in building a movement directly on the peasantry while maintaining a formal hold on Marxist theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.164.139 (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maoist philosophical theory: Mao directly bases his teaching on the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Philosophically, his most important reflections emerge on the concept "contradiction". These are contained in two major essays: “On contradiction” and “Contradictions of the people”. He adopts therein the positivist-empiricist idea (shared by Engels) that contradiction is present in matter itself (and thus, also in the ideas of the brain). Matter always develops through a dialectical contradiction. Thanks to this unfolding, something that was subordinated in the past may become dominant in the present and the future. This should be directly read in the light of the principle of class struggle. Furthermore, each contradiction (let us say class struggle: the contradiction holding between relations of production and the concrete development of forces of production) expresses itself in a series of other contradictions, some of which are dominant, others not. The former should be tackled with priority when trying to make the basic contradiction develop, or rather dissolve.

His basic stand on contradiction is connected with Marxist epistemology, and also with politics. The two essays just quoted contain reflections on this issue, but we must add to it those developed in the essay “On practice”. “Practice” articulates "contradiction" with "class struggle" in the following way. Inside a mode of production, there are 3 realms where practice functions: economic production, scientific experimentation (which also takes place in economic production and shouldn't be radically disconnected from the former) and finally class struggle. These may be considered the proper objects of economy, scientific knowledge and politics. The three of them deal with matter in its various forms, socially mediated. As a result, they are the only realms where knowledge may arise (since truth and knowledge only make sense in relation to matter). Mao emphasizes –like Marx in trying to confront bourgeoisie idealism of his time- that knowledge must count with empirical evidence. Knowledge result from hypotheses verified in the contrast with a real object; this real object, despite being mediated by the subject’s theoretical frame, retains its materiality and will offer resistance to those ideas that do not conform to its truth. Thus, in each of these realms (economic, scientific and political practice), contradictions (principle and secondary) must be identified, explored and put to function to achieve the communist goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.122.251 (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I dis-agree with the statement "Mao directly bases his teaching on the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin." I think Maoism is defined more by its departures from Marxism/Leninism than by its similarities to them. I would postulate that Maoism can be seen more as a synthesis of Post-Imperial Chinese Iconoclastic Nationalism and Marxism/Leninism. Mao's sophomoric interpretation of the limited Marxist texts available to him, as he did not speak German, was altered so significantly from what Marx and Engels, even Lenin conceptualized that it can be seen as an entirely independent socialist ideology rather than an evolution of Marxism/Leninism. This is obviously muddied by continued contact between the CCP and ComIntern as well as with Moscow. I will be seriously re-organizing this article as well as inserting content tonight. Please feel free to discuss the changes made here, or on my talk site.ShadyBlueBear (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's questionable that anyone that freely discusses the subject's ideas as being "sophomoric" is capable of NPOV. Also, it's fallacious to say that because Mao couldn't read German that he couldn't have understood Marx or Lenin (Russian, naturally). Mao, after all, didn't translate the texts. Is there some kind of proof that the texts available in China were poor translations? Where is ShadyBlueBear getting this information? Whatever s/he edited is probably worth reexamining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.15.16 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Maoism", MLM and historically pro-Chinese parties[edit]

"Since the death of Mao and the reforms of Deng, most of the parties explicitly defining themselves as "Maoist" have disappeared...."

To my understanding, Maoism was not a general term of self-designation among revolutonary communists until the development of MLM, under the auspices of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. The text here seems to confuse pro-Chinese parties, who did not make a transformation to "Maoism" and used the ideological tag "Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought," as does the Chinese state to this day. "Maoism" is specifically "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," also known more colloquially as revolutionary communism, a whole set of ideas that are qualitatively distinct from other varieties of ML politics. This is a little jargon-laden, but I wanted to put it up and get responses before editing this text. Maoism has grown substantially over the last fifteen years as a distinct political trend. I also don't think getting "press" from the MSM is the measure of revolutions. What makes them important isn't that the Times occassional checks in, but that the only explicitly communist revolutions of the past twenty years have been "Maoist" in ideological color. In the Stacks 17:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Mao Tse-Tung vs. Mao Zedong[edit]

Just wondering why it still reads Mao Tse-Tung... I was under the impression that most modern academics refer to him as Mao Zedong now. Sasquatcht|c 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Civilian control of the military[edit]

Hello, I'm currently attempting to expand the Civilian control of the military article at the moment and in the process am trying to globalize the term beyond an exclusively American usage (though I think that is the context in which it is most frequently applied). To that end, I've recently attempted to add some material on Mao's political-military theories, which as I understand them emphasized the primacy of the Party and the politicization of the military. If any editors more knowledgeable in this subject than I would like to correct or expand my summary in the civilian control article, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip 09:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Maoism today[edit]

Should there be any mention of Maoism in Nepal and to a lesser extent Southern India (Andhra Pradesh). The militant side of both have been documented but are their interpretations of Maoist ideology different? Fkh82 16:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very open to interpretation and isolated at that. Colipon+(T) 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There's something very funny with this article. The Communist Party of New Zealand but no Khmers Rouges? Wow, that's informative!

Must be because they didn't consider themselves a Maoist or Mao Zedong Thought group. Comzero 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's news to me. According to Haing S. Ngor's "Surviving the Killing Fields", almost everything about the Khmers Rouges was Chinese-inspired, including some very badly dubbed Maoist propaganda songs.

Haing S. Ngor wasn't a scholar of Cambodian, nor Chinese, political history or philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.15.16 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Maoism in Democratic Kampuchea: a Cambodian writes[edit]

From Haing S. Ngor's Surviving the Killing Fields:

They wanted to eliminate everything that was not Cambodian. But they were hypocrites. Everything about the Khmer Rouge was alien, from China. They borrowed their ideology from Mao Tse-Tung, like the concept of the great leap forward. Sending the intellectuals to the countryside to learn from the peasants was an idea of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Their AK-47s and their olive-green caps and their trucks were Chinese. Even the music they played from the loudspeakers was Chinese with Khmer words. (p.216)

To me the fault didn't lie with an individual man but with an outside country: China. For four years I had been looking at Chinese trucks, Chinese-made weapons and Chinese-made uniforms. Almost everything about the Khmer Rouge from the jargon about "independence-sovereignty" to sending city people to learn from the peasants in the countryside was an imitation of Mao Tse-Tung's Cultural Revolution. Without China, the Khmer Rouge could never have come to power, or stayed in power as long as they did. (page 391)

--Folantin 10:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (no doubt a "bourgeois imperialist" or some such).


Link to Comunist Party of Japan (maoist)[edit]

Can someone link to this page. I cant find it now (i found it time ago). Its in japanese lenguage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.126.35 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism![edit]

The user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.105.83.212

has exchanged Mao Zedong thought with "leighton Cheng thought" throughout this article. This person should be blocked. Tronogrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2007-04-22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.140.40 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).


There is also someone else adding the following external links. They're not good or reliable information sources. I am very new to wikipedia, if someone knows how to block or intervene in some way to prevent this please let me know.

Peopleriseup (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger with "Anti-revisionism"[edit]

I am removing the template as per reasons on that page's talk page. Should you want to restore, please state your reasons.--Cerejota 05:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Neutral Point of View[edit]

The article opens with "The implementation of Maoist thought in China was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime,[2][3] with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. And is still popular in other parts of the world amongst communist groups still using violence to propagate revolution, including Peru and Nepal.[4][5]."

First, both of the first two articles reference the same source, one is simply a brief and largely uncritical non-academic review article. Second, the claim that "the implementation of Maoist thought was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime" is very controversial and represents the upper bounds of all claims. Third, other ideology-related articles typically do not attribute deaths to the philosophy. The article "Stalinism" has a box at the bottom, which actually attributes a range of 14 to 43 million deaths to the People's Republic of China. The article "Nazism" references deaths within the text of the article but does not open with a bold and extreme claim, and "Fascism" makes little reference at all to killings. Likewise, "Liberalism" does not make any reference at all to state-sponsored killings or engaging in policies predictably resulting in deaths. Finally, the paragraph is poorly written.

My suggestion would be a section towards the end titled "Criticisms of Maoism." The section could quote sources that directly attribute the deaths caused by particular state actions to the philosophy of Maoism. It could also contain a rough range, including how controversy over inclusion of Great Leap famine deaths can radically alter that number. Beyond this, these claims are not held against any sort of firm baseline. It may seem crude, but if the increase in the death rate is attributable to Mao (let alone Maoism) in some years, then presumably this would mean Mao(ism) "saved" tens of millions of lives over time given the overall fall in the rate during the rough period of his rule. Of course, Maoists would expand that number in suggesting that more years of war and exploitation were the alternative, and critics of his economic policies could rightly flip the number if they think liberal-capitalist development would have improved conditions more rapidly and evenly without the Great Leap famine. However, I think that giving a sense of all of this in a "Criticisms of Maoism" section would be sufficient.

Donald Hughes 11:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's an encyclopdedia, dude. So relax. Having critical perspectives here (and everywhere) is not up for negotiation. You think NPOV means "confirms my worldview", or it would if this is what you call NPOV. It is ironic, and unfortunate, that those who advocate for liberty find criticism such an imposition.[[User:In the Stacks|"

adding back the info that you want to sensor per your own view above. Hardyplants 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians play zero role in Maoist military strategy, which is a developed military science and political orientation. It is called, by it's technical name, People's War. The defining characteristics are devloping oragns of local political power among the rural lower classes while building mobile, positional warfare on that basis. The basic watchward, as articulated by Mao in the decades long struggle in China was "do not steal a single needle or piece of thread from the masses". Further, while the specifics of the Nepalese civil war are not to be debated out here on an entry regarding Maoism as a philosophy and global political movement, strikes at elite private schools in countries where the caste system was until recently enshrined in law are not the same thing as "attacks on civilians," nor does the decontexturalized quote from AI address that. Forbidding the poor from attending school is a human rights violation, which apparently you have no opinion about. As this is off-topic, and an attempt to stack this entry with nothing but propaganda, I will be removing your edits.In the Stacks 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
So Maoism teaches that children are not civilians, and are fair targets for bombing, if they have rich parents...gives me a better understanding why the Beatles didn't like Mao. Since most of the world does not see it that, and children are civilians, it goes back in as demonstrative of Maoism in action in the real world. Hardyplants 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hardyplants – if you can find any Maoist anywhere who upholds the things you attribute to it, then there will be no dispute. This is an entry on Maoism, not 20th Century Chinese history. There is a distinction between an idea system (Maoism) and disputed historical events (Chinese history in the post-colonial era) may be why you are so agitated. So – in short, this is not an argument about whether every person who got the flu in 1958 was a "victim of Maoism". It is about what Maoism is as a system of thinking. Since exactly zero Maoists promote or ascribe to the ideas you insist define it, I suspect your arguments would be better suited to an entry like "historical arguments regarding 20th Century China" – not "Maoism".In the Stacks (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Supple some sources and we can incorporate them into the article, this is not a page on what pro-maoist belive but what historians and other learned valid sources say. Go up above and again note your own quote. please. Hardyplants (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not – though this discussion neatly demonstrates your lack of scholarly interest here and intent to literally lay responsibility for every single death – by any cause – over several decades as the result of socialist policies in China. This is an entry on Maoism, which is related to 20th Century Chinese history. But there is not existent "Maoist" system of belief that upholds or even accepts the US/UK imperial history of the region. The Chang/Holliday book may (though not necessarily) merit a mention as a recent attempt to re-write all of Chinese history, though it is a highly contentious set of theses that are not accepted by most Sinologists, regardless of their political affiliations. In the Stacks (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As stated above the article is on Maoist ideology. I do not see how you disagree with the points being made Hardyplants. It seems you are the one who should read more on the theory and history, if you actually are under the impression Maosim teaches that "Children are not civilians and are fair targets for bombing". A rather ridiculous statement. And there is an article about peace time deaths due to famine/government policy/insert your reason during Mao's rule in Mainland China, it is called the Great Leap Forward. Try adding more death numbers there. (Majin Takeru (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

How about staying on topic Majin, the article is on Maoism. The diffrent plans implemented by Maoist thought impact directly on this topic. The results of Maoist ideology is a legitimate concern of historians , as the sources supplied attest. Hardyplants (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I assumed I was. My point is, that information belongs in the other articles. As well, if anything like it is included in any way, it needs to be done in a different manner. Also, Jung Chang is not the only historian in existence, which brings but another point. Most also do not exactly adhere to the belief that everything Mao did during his reign is an absolute example of Maoism. Maoism is Mao's theory, not every action he ever was remotely involved in during his lifetime. (Majin Takeru (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

So even when mao was the ruler of China, he could not use his ideas to govern the country? I relies that there are hold outs that still advance his form of communism and they believe that all the problems were caused by something else, this is Utopian wishful thinking, in the classical usage of the word (as a fantasy that can not happen). The real word has to live with cause and effect. Hardyplants (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Once more, you are not making sense. Everything Mao did in his life time was not a result of Maosim and his theory. Now you are just pandering. That is like saying if you are an advocate of Maosim you cant brush your teeth, because Mao never brushed his. (Majin Takeru (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

The brushing of teeth is a nonsensical argument, but lets run with it. Mao did not like to brush his teeth and he had some other grooming issues! so what? did he promulgate them as part of his ideological system, did any one else have to conform to the same practices to form the perfect socialist state? Lets try to stick with the idea and the implementation of the idea and the resulting effects of the idea we call Maoism. If Maoism is not a static belief system and has changed over time - lets point that out too, but that does not negate its past expression.Hardyplants (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


I do not see anyone advocating your addition, other then yourself, here on talk. So please, when trying to revert do not say "Issue has been settled via talk page" etc. (Majin Takeru (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Your argument is specious, please provide a dif for this quote of yours. Hardyplants (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Per talk page- this is a valid topic covering the resullts of Maoist thought." That is your exact quote when editing. This isn't the case, as you can see here it has yet to be decided how valid your points are with these additions. Also, I am suspicious of what exactly your goal here is. Looking at your edits to this article you are attempting to say that Mao is not widely recognized as a brilliant military tactician in regards to guerrilla warfare (Which he is WIDELY recognized as, maybe you were joking), and adding a quote which has been mentioned on this very discussion page in the past as not verified among other small issues not to mention basing Maosim in Theory on every action Mao made during his life time. (Majin Takeru (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC))


Every policy decision Mao ever made as Chairman, is not the basis for Maoism as theory. On top of that you are going against consensus with various points and additions you are trying to make, and I have addressed that through out this discussion. (Majin Takeru (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

general clean-up[edit]

This article is kind of all over the place. It needs clarification of the cardianl issues regarding Maoism, which at this point has little to do with the avowedly anti-Maoist government of China. In particular, Mao's military theories which are widely regarding as the defining texts of popular-based guerilla warfare, the issue of popular mobilization against capitalist restoration in nominally socialist countries, social issues of gender equality, his critique of Soviet economics (e.g. Grasp Revolution, Promote Production), the distinction between Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism today, a more comprehensive listing of self-declared Maoist organizations today and a greater all-around focus on "Maoism" outside of the simply Chinese context. As this communists are often involved in civil wars, strong feelings are no doubt involved with partisans on all sides of the issue. With that said, special care should be taken to avoid simply adding incendiary (and fundamentally disputed) claims of what "maoists" are. In other words, they are not simply what every would-be godking (either the Dalai Lama or Gyanendra in Nepal) would claim they are. That's sort of like asking the descendents of the French monarchy about the French revolution...In the Stacks 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)




One, this article is disorganized and uninformative. Two, the article name, in my opinion, should be formally named "Mao Zedong Thought" and in the article inform that it is sometimes called Maoism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.82.49 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I agree, this article is really all over the place. As a part of a class project I will be re-organizing this article into a scheme which makes more sense. I will also, be inserting a section on the origins of Maoism which will include some basic information on modern Chinese intellectual thought circa the New Culture Movement. Another section will be inserted by my associate on Maoist departures from Marxism. We will include further readings as well.ShadyBlueBear (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of Stalinism is NOT a formal component of Maoism but rather a coincidental part of Maoism which is only worth mentioning in the vein of comparison between to major communist leaders of the 20th century. As such, I will move but not delete the section.ShadyBlueBear (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

MIM[edit]

The article is about Maoism, not how big Maoist Parties are. Excluding MIM is POV. --Mista-X 16:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is in line with WP:UNDUE. MIM is an extremly marginal phenomenon, and gets undue attention mainly because its based in the englisg-speaking world and has heavy internet presence. My opinion, is that 'Maoism today' should focus on the two main international tendencies of international maoism, the one around CPP/MLPD and RIM, not mention every blog or website around. --Soman 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
MIM came out of the Students for Democratic Society, it is part of the Maoist trends in the west. WP:PAPER, there is room for one paragraph on MIM. It is notable enough for it's own wiki article, and should be mentioned. The article is about Maoism, not Maoist parties. Since their ideology has a shift from RCP(USA), it is worth mentioning to note. the article is about ideology/philosophy, so should not be judged on how big the org or party is. Also, PCR-RCP is very small outside of Quebec and is mentioned. If your justification is size, then they should be removed as well. --Mista-X 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
MIM's website has noted that they have fallen below the "critical" mass needed to maintain even the semblance of an organization. They have less than 5 members, and it appears that the person who upkeeps their website is deranged. In over 20 years of left-wing activism in several cities, I've never encountered an actual member of this so-called organization. Call that "POV" or original research, even a cursory glance at their website should clear up the issue of their non-existence as an organization.In the Stacks 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I would liek to know how you know they only have 5 members? Also, the current membership is irrelevant, even if the organization no longer exists anymore it should be mentioned. The article is about Maoism, not Maoist Parties. I have met people from RAIL on a few occasions, and have interacted with MIM supporters online, so none of your points are even relevant. --Mista-X 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
MIM's article on language also appeared in Harper's, I think this establishes some more interest/notability. --Mista-X 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
MIM is a) given far to much prominence in various webforums, mainly people whose knowledge of Maoism starts with a superficial google search, b) is not really representative of Maoism, but a fringe phenomena. --Soman 19:27, 17 September 2007

(UTC)

"fringe phenomena" is your POV. I don't need to be told what is Maoism, I've been studying Marxism for 6 years almost daily and am involved in a Marxist-Leninist party. Just because you don't like MIM, doesn't mean other people would not be interested in their interpretation of Marxism and contribution to the debate on modern questions of imperialism and the labour aristocracy. Whether MIM is small or not, they have established the ability to put forward theory and challenge other parties calling themselves Maoist. If they have made significant theoretical contribuitions to modern politics they deserve to be mentioned in an article about Maoism. --Mista-X 21:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect existing phenomena, not a site for promotion of individual interpretations. There are lots of internet forums, blogs, etc., making arguments heard. MIM has certainly put lots of energy, and constistently of a large period of time, in establishing web presence. The fact that a handfull of individuals in the US try reformulate Maoist doctrines does not change the essence of Maoism as it is exists as a political movement or ideology IRL. For example, if you want to discuss Maoism and the nation question, it is far more relevant to discuss attitudes of Indian, Nepali or Filipino maoists towards the issue, rather than the line of MIM. --Soman 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets take a break for a day or so- one edit war at a time. We do not have room for every splinter group out there, here on this page. Is this group promoting a different "form" of Maoism? if not it should not be here. And if it is, is it notable enough to include, does it have enough influence that other Maoist organizations respond to it and is it noticed by main stream sources? Hardyplants 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really promoting a different form of Maoism, and I don't dismiss everything it says on certain theoretical issues as deranged. But MIM is totally insane in regard to other Maoist parties or currents, for example it claims that Bob Avakian and the RCP USA are agents of the US State Dept! I don't think it's relevant enough to be included in the article.

ServeThePeople, 1/10/07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.116.200 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed without consensus[edit]

I like how MIM was completely purged from the article with no consensus. This is obviously by people with a certain agenda / perspective and should not be allowed to happen on wikipedia.--Mista-X (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup...This is what happens when you have a so-called "objective" on-line encyclopedia with self-congratulatory pretensions about presenting their narrow version of the facts. Whatever merit Wikipedia may have, it should be found in articles about protons and not current debates or political ideas. All the standard class and national prejudices you might find at any run of the mill liberal arts college can be found here. Go to an article about say... Andrew Jackson and his role in murdering First Nation people and you will not find the same vehemence directed against Stalin or Hitler. I give no support for Hitler, I'm just saying that Wikipedia has big problems with POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.77.20 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Maoism today? RIM?[edit]

The RIM is basically defunct is it not? The RIM hasn't been able to publish A World to Win in years and the various ex-RIM parties do not even consider each other Maoist anymore. The entire section "Maoism Today" is just a sectarian advertisement by supporters of the defunct or near defunct RIM and the ICMLPO. It also contains misinformation -- for example, the CPN (Maoist) no longer exists under that name. The whole section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.145.234 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge were Maoists[edit]

I know no ideological group or any group at all generally would want to be linked to them, but they were funded heavily by the Chinese Stalinists and the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia prompted the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, not to mention Pol Pot based his revolution on the peasnatry rather than the urban workers (partly a reason for the desertion of Pnom Penn). Maybe I'm wrong and the Communist Party of China funded them to have Cambodia side economically to China and the Invasion of Vietnam was a result of this bad investment, but as far as I have ever heard KR were Maoists and made no secret of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.17.47 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One has to separate between two things here. The Communist Party of Kampuchea (a.k.a. Khmer Rouge) was certainly on the Chinese side in the split between Soviet Union and China within the world communist movement. Notably, they borrowed some political concepts China, and had largely good relations with China. However, the internal sitaution in CPK was complex, there was a pro-Soviet group, a pro-Chinese (and Maoist oriented) group and an independent group. The latter was led by Pol Pot and was victorious in the inner-party struggle, and liquidated the Maoist nucleus of the pro-China group. --Soman (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of the DC-Cam website reveals lots of accounts in which the KR are described as the Maoists. Certainly if you visit Tuol Sleng or Choeung Ek you will see lots of references to Maoism. Who is Wikipedia to argue with the Cambodian people about their history? 210.9.140.64 (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And then there's the Google test: "1 - 50 of about 52,200 for khmer rouge maoist." I browsed briefly the first page of hits: most were real, fair dinkum references to the Khmer Rouge as Maoists. What ever happened to WP:OR? Wikipedians engaging in revisionist history? 210.9.140.64 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That is clearly a faulty methodology of research. There are various sources which portray KR as Maoists, like [1], but my reading of the top 50 doesn't really bring out a strong case for the point that KR would have been Maoists. Quite many of the sites that come up are comparisons between Nepali Maoists and KR. I base my understanding of the differentiations of factions inside the KR mainly upon Ben Kiernan's How Pol Pot came to Power. Fact remains, CPK never fully embraced MLMTT. --Soman (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Who finances DC-Cam? And what is the argument exactly about here? --Soman (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Who finances DC-Cam?" Well, that was an unexpected response, with its implication of partiality! As far as I can see, the argument is about whether the KR deserves a mention on a page on Maoism (which already refers to such high-profile organisations as the Communist Party of New Zealand!) 210.9.140.64 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And because you asked so nicely: [2] Primarily Cambodian, North American and European universities and governments, along with some Africans, Australians, et al. 210.9.140.64 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, its of course a rhetorical question. There was an obvious fallacy in the logic that we should 'argue with the Cambodian people', since the KRT and DC-Cam projects are, in essence, products of the wishes of Western powers to write history in a way that suits them. That doesn't accuse the Khmer Rouge, my comment from April 15 certainly would not seen as pro-KR. The tag 'Maoist' is problematic, since it has no clear definition in this case. In some way the Khmer Rouge were on the Chinese side in the Sino-Soviet dispute and utilized many Maoist political concepts, but it was not doctrinary Maoists in the sense of say, the Thai communists. --Soman (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realise I was in conspiracy theorist central.
WP:OR still applies. 210.9.140.64 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Khmer Rouge were not Maoist. But Pol-Pot did start to call himself a Maoist after Mao died. This was most likely to ally with China. See [3] and [4]. --Mista-X (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can not find the origina--Gary123 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)l Chinese words for "Progress is born in chaos. And originality comes from destruction"[edit]

The quote of "Progress is born in chaos. And originality comes from destruction." seems not reliable. The link is the only one page I can find by searching in google with these key words.

I guess "And originality comes from destruction" refers to 不破不立。The full sentence is "不破不立,不塞不流,不止不行。". "Progress is born in chaos" seems come from nowhere. Nextop (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more important than the particularities of this (apparently) fabricated quote is that no Maoist organization or ideological work makes reference to this quote. It only seems to appear in anti-Mao propaganda, and has no bearing on the ideology of Maoism. This is not an entry for Mao Zedong, but for Maoism.In the Stacks (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Split Chinese Marxism and Maoism[edit]

Perhaps we should have a separate article on Chinese Marxism that focuses on the pre-Mao and post-Mao Chinese theories and an article on Maoism focusing more on the 3rd world outside China. --Gary123 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

From GSE[edit]

entry in Great Soviet Encyclopedia, [5], translated through google:

"Maoism, Marxism-Leninism hostile petit bourgeois-nationalist Over in the Communist Party of China. Maoism is a conglomerate subektivistsko-volyuntaristicheskih, vulgar-materialist ideas opposed Marxist philosophy, political economy, scientific communism, proletarian strategy and tactics of the world communist movement. Maoism is designed to justify the adventurous policies "barracks communism". The cornerstone of Maoizm is antisovetizm.

In a separate platform Maoizm emerged in the late 50 - ies of the 20 century. The emergence Maoizm directly linked to the activities of Mao Tsze-dunum. At 9 - m congress of the CPC (1969) Maoizm, known officially in China "Mao's ideas Tsze-dunum", was declared a "theoretical basis for defining the idea of CPC", and proclaimed a "Marxism-Leninism modern era". These estimates were confirmed and 10 - m congress of the CPC (1973).

The process of forming Maoizm linked with the struggle of two major trends in the CPC - internatsionalistskoy and petit bourgeois-nationalist. The Maoists have put forward the idea of "national Marxism", "Chinese Communism", which was formalized in documents 7 - the first congress of CPC (1945). Under the signboard "universal truths compounds Marxism-Leninism with the practice of the Chinese revolution", "kitaizatsii Marxism-Leninism" petit bourgeois-natsionalistich. elements in the CPC started to attack the root of the provisions of international revolutionary nature of the teachings of the working class.

Maoism is highly eclecticism, subjectivity in theory and volyuntarizm in politics. Ideology Maoizm absorbed many traditional views of ancient Chinese political and philosophical thought, the principles of equalization primitive peasant movements, as well as a number of concepts kitaetsentristskih reformers end 19 - the start of 20 centuries: Tan Sy-tun, Kem YU-veh, Liang Qi-tea, gomindanovskuyu concept nationalism. At Maoizm much influenced by anarchism and revisionist tendencies in the communist movement, especially trotskyism. Do anarchists Mao Tsze-dunum borrowed principles such as absolute violence ( "rise to power rifle", "revolt - cause is just"), reliance on neproletarskie, d elements and politically immature youth segments for "organization" revolutions without taking into account the revolutionary situation. Maoism trotskistskuyu essentially borrowed the concept of "perpetual revolution" and believes that the victory of socialism without the complete destruction of imperialism is impossible. Maoism argues that under conditions of socialism, including its mature stage, is constantly struggle between socialist and capitalist ways of development, there is a threat to the restoration of capitalism and that in order to prevent this danger needed "revolution". Samples of such a "revolution" and declared so. Cultural Revolution, held under the leadership of Mao Tsze-dunum in the 2 - and half of 60 - ies. Such "revolution", is essentially a form of total cleansing and massacres with real and potential adversaries Maoizm should, on the statements Maoists, repeated periodically.

Maoism in fact denies the objective laws of building socialism and communism, teaching about the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist party as the vanguard working class, socialist democracy replaces dictatorship of the military-bureaucratic factions, fostered a personality cult, to minimize the role of the people. Maoism denies indigenous socialist principles of humanism.

In politics, instead of proletarian class lines Maoizm resorted to bonapartistskomu manoeuvring (see Bonapartizm) between different classes and social layers. Declarative Declaring that "the working class directs all", Mao Tsze-dunum actually holds line on the marginalization of the working class of China.

The Maoists are seeking to eliminate in practice methods and forms of organization and planning of the economy prevailing in the first decade of existence, the PRC under the influence of experience of world socialism and, above all, the Soviet Union. Contrary to Leninism, Maoizm sees poverty, backwardness of the country, deprivation of the masses as the inherent attributes of life under socialism, and even as factors favouring the alleged construction of a new society. Caring for the growing welfare of the people Maoizm announces "revisionism", "reactionary ekonomizmom", leading to the bourgeois "reincarnation". Conservation of poverty and backwardness Maoists to allow maximum development funds for military machine.

In the field of philosophy Maoizm declares commitment dialectical and historical materialism, but in fact the audit of all its principles from the perspective of subjectivism, vulgar materialism and primitive interpreted dialectics, turns into a means of utilitarian philosophy-pragmatic policy justification.

Recognizing the universality contradictions Maoizm however absolyutiziruet time and ignores the fight of opposites or extreme to minimize the role of the unity of opposites. At the same time Maoizm prohibitive expands the manifestations of antagonistic contradictions, treating them as general as well neantagonisticheskie contradictions - as a special case antagonistic. The law of unity and struggle of opposites boils down to their mechanical counter ( "Cap no bottom, no beauty without repugnant") and a change of seats between opposites ( "bad turns into good", and "proletariat - in the bourgeoisie", "turns into a world war, War - in the world "). In gnoseology Maoizm inherent Empiricism justifies uzkoutilitarny approach to understanding the practice as only direct physical participation in the productive individual or political activities. Maoism simplifies the problem of cognition, to minimize the theoretical thinking and his cognitive ability and simultaneously reduces the scope of social practices.

In understanding the criterion of truth Maoizm meshed with pragmatism, arguing: "generally speaking, that is completed successfully, correctly, but that fails, mistakenly" (Mao Tsze-dunum, Four work on philosophy, Beijing, 1968, pp. 195 ).

For the theory and practice Maoizm characterized by sharp fluctuations in the side very "left" extremism and volyuntarizma, the right reformizma. Subjectivity Maoizm clearly detected in the thesis on "the need to constantly create contradictions", which finds expression in politics in a continuous maintenance of a climate of tension within society, as well as in the quest to solve any economic, political and cultural problems through successive one another massive campaign of intimidation population "foreign threat ", purges and so on.

In 1958 Mao Tsze-dunum course put forward "three red banners" - the new "general line", "great leap" and "people's commune". These policies led the country to economic crisis. It took more quinquennium, to restore the level of the economy that existed before the start of "great leap". In foreign policy in this period, the Maoists began an open attack on the Soviet Union and seriously undermined the Soviet-Chinese relations, launched a divisive activities in the international communist movement, organized the military clashes with neighbouring countries and taken a number of other adventurous shares on the world stage. At 9 - and 10 m - m CPC congresses antisovetizm was raised to the level of Party and state doctrine, and slanderous USSR declared enemy mainly China. Maoism is trying to justify the evil policies antisovetizma false allegations about the existence of "irreconcilable fundamental differences" between the PRC and the USSR. In fact, is the real source antisovetizma ideology velikohanskogo chauvinism, which naturally comes in a clash with the principles of proletarian internationalism, uphold the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties. Anti-Sovietism and the Maoists used as a means to justify its policy of militarization and workers divert attention from serious internal difficulties and unresolved problems. Maoism circulate slander on the restoration of capitalism in socialist countries, denies the existence of the world socialist system.

Maoism seeks to preserve pockets of international tension, efforts to derail the socialist countries and all peace-loving forces to eliminate them, to block the struggle of peoples the world over the expansion of detente and disseminate it to all the continents, uphold the principles of peaceful coexistence of nations with different social system.

General through international communist movement on Indigenous issues of world development Maoizm contrasts their adventurous attitude. The Maoists emanate from the inevitability of World War II, seeing it as a means of "healing mankind", as a source of world revolution.

To bolster its hegemonic claims to leadership in "third world" Maoists are trying to prove that the center revolutionary movement shifted into a zone of the national liberation movement, as alleged socialist countries "reborn", a working class developed capitalist countries "oburzhuazilsya" and lost the Revolution.

Evidence of a complete break with the Maoists proletarian class approach in foreign policy and principles of socialist internationalism is propoveduemaya their theory of "the struggle against the hegemony of the two superpowers".

At the international meeting of communist and workers parties 1969, most delegations described as a dangerous Maoizm antimarksistskoe during which their subversive acts and policies antisovetizma objectively playing the role of facilitator and anti-imperialism.

Maoism creates serious obstacles construction of socialism, it leads to deformities and threatens the gains of China's socialist workers' decision prevents the underlying socio-economic problems, creates one after the other crises in the country, discredited scientific socialism.

Maoism is seeking to split the international communist movement, the anti-Front peoples. For these purposes, and used arisen in some countries, groups of adherents Maoizm However, these groups are virtually isolated from the revolutionary workers' movement and most often fall.

As antinauchnoe, contradicting laws during public development, Maoizm besperspektiven.

LTL.: Materials XXIV Congress of the CPSU, Maoizm, 1971; International Meeting of Communist and workers parties, Maoizm, 1969; ZH.-E. Vidal, Where China leads Group Mao Tsze-dunum, translated from French, Maoizm, 1967, Vladimir O. E., Ryazantsev VI, s political biography of Mao Tsze-dunum, 2 ed., Maoizm, 1973; dangerous course. Collected in. 1-4, Maoizm, 1969-73; Altai Maoizm, V. Georgiev, Antimarksistskaya essence of Mao's philosophical views Tsze-dunum, Maoizm, 1969; Maoizm eyes of the Communists. [Collection of articles], Maoizm, 1969: Maoizm without masks. Collection of articles, Maoizm, 1970; Criticism theoretical concepts Mao Tsze-dunum, Maoizm, 1970; Rumyantsev A. Maoizm, Origins and Evolution of "Mao's ideas Tsze-dunum". (On antimarksistskoy essence of Maoism), Maoizm, 1972; Criticism of the theoretical foundations of Maoism, Maoizm, 1973.

Maoism L. Altai." --Soman (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of focus on the ideological content?[edit]

So far as I can tell this piece is largely about the history of the Communist Part of China and its views on Maoism, with very little on what the ideology itself consists of. Perhaps that relationship deserves its own article and the *nature* of Maoism could be expanded upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sartre?[edit]

How come on the Maoism sidebar it says Jean-Paul Sartre is a prominent Maoist? I don't believe he had any relationship with Maoists at any point. I may be mistaken, but the article doesn't mention Maoism or his relationship with Maoist movements either, so it seems irrelevant to include that.

Sartre's most prominent political involvement was in Algeria, a Socialist movement, and he wrote most prominently about Marxism. There are only a few token similarities between Maoist theory and Sartre's interpretation of Marxism-Leninism. I think it's assuming a little much to refer to him as a Maoist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Sordo1 (talkcontribs) 01:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to query the same. If no-one can cite I will remove it myself. Urpunkt (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sartre was supportive of Maoists, and influential on Maoists, but was not in fact a Maoist. When a Maoist paper was banned in 1968, Sartre was invited to be the editor, and he took to the streets of Paris hawking editions. That doesn't make him a Maoist.In the Stacks (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Sartre's involvement with the Maoists came when the Gaullist government in France initiated a crackdown on the Maoists in 1970. Jean-Pierre Le Dantec, who was editor-in-chief of the newspaper, La Cause du peuple - published by the Maoist group Proletarian Left was arrested and his paper seized. He was immediately replaced by a new editor, Michel Le Bris, who was then arrested ten days later. In other words, the French government was most intent on suppressing the Maoist press at that time. Since the government had made it clear that it would arrest anybody who would take charge of the paper, the Maoists decided to turn to Sartre. So on April 28, 1970, Sartre after meeting with a number of leading Maoists including Benny Levy (then known as Pierre Victor) accepted the post of editor-in-chief. Later that year Sartre accepted the same position at several other Maoist papers that were also facing suppression by the French government. In the meantime,the French National Assembly passed legislation restricting demonstrations, which gave the minister of the interior the power to dissolve the Proletarian Left, which he ordered on May 27, 1970.

Sartre's acceptance of the post of editor-in-chief with several Maoist papers lent his name, his prestige and indeed his active participation to the campaign against the attempts by the government to suppress the Maoists. For this Sartre was attacked by most of the bourgeois press which charged him with grandstanding and self-promotion, while the Communist paper, L'Humanite attacked him for endorsing the "vulgar provocations" of the Maoists. Only Le Monde was in any way supportive.

When the cases of the two arrested editors of La Cause du peuple was taken to the courts, the decision to outlaw the paper was revoked but the editors were still found guilty of violating the law. That verdict was followed by outbreaks of violent demonstrations. In June, Sartre and his friends founded the Association of the Friends of "La Cause du peuple," with Simone de Beauvoir and Liliane Siegel as fronts. They organized public distributions of the paper in Paris with Sartre, Beauvoir, and many leading intellectuals and journalists publicly hawking the paper. Sartre, no stranger to publicity, made sure that there was a photographer from Gallimard to photograph the whole thing. Sartre was arrested, questioned by the police, then released.

Following that incident Sartre who had been called as a witness inthe trial of a Maoist leader, Alain Geismar, refused to come to the court. Instead, he harangued the workers at the Renault Billancourt plants where he called upon the workers to support Geismar's cause. Most of the workers ignored his speech.

Sartre was widely ridiculed in the French press.

Sartre's active involvement with the Maoists continued until 1973. His relations with them were often quite stormy but his involvement did help beat back the government's attempts to suppress or censor the radical press in France. JimFarm (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Maoism in the West?[edit]

I think something needs to be said about the vogue of Maoism that became apparent in at least several Western countries from the mid-1960s through the early 1970s, especially among students and intellectuals. France is particular saw the emergence of several Maoist parties in the late 1960s. And some of that country's leading intellectuals, including Sartre, De Beauvoir, Althusser, and Foucault, to varying degrees lent their support to the Maoists, especially when they came under repression by the French government.

In the United States, for a time, Maoism was quite fashionable in the student movement, while the Black Panther Party was strongly influenced by Maoist ideology.

JimFarm (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the Chinese Communists ever officially use the term Maoism?[edit]

Did the Chinese Communists ever officially use the term Maoism? --Gary123 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No. --Soman (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC

There seems to be a hierarchy of terms used in China for the various eras' "isms":

And for the modern times, just slogans with catchwords such as [和谐发展] ("harmonious development"), or, this year, 科学发展 ("scientific development"), but no "capital letter" general name that I can think of. Vmenkov (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The article overall is highly biased and looks like that written by a Maoist. It says nothing about mass Maoist terror in Asia and America, refusal of the right to self-determination of nations (see Tibet, East Turkistan etc.) by Maoists, Maoist totalitarian ideology under the slogan of a 'people's power', destruction of traditions and cultural heredity, export of terror and revolution abroad. Just the discussion about Maoism in current PR China is strange: they accepted important parts of Maoism which is clear from the CCP program, and current populism of the CCP, suppressions of democracy in China, brainwashing sessions in Tibet etc. are examples of Maoist methods broadly used in current China.//Observer83.149.228.70 (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The country you reside in, Russia, is committing severe human rights violations in Chechnya, killing thousands of Chechens, and continuing to use intimidation tactics including murder, forced dissapearances, and rigged elections, its best that if you came to wikipedia to rant your political agenda, you'd do it on your own country's articles, before you get a notice on your t alk page that wikipedia is NOT a SOAPBOX.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Jiang Qing is a Prominent Maoist ??[edit]

I felt puzzled when I found Jiang Qing in 'Prominent Maoists' list. In my opinion(maybe in most Chinese-mainlanders' opinion. I am a mainlander, too), Jiang is no more than a 'jester' who tried her best to grasp every bit of power and politics influence. After the notorious so-called Cultural Revolution, she was put into prison as a chief instigator of this civil strife, and she suicided in jail in 1991. She never believed Mao's thought. Keeping her name in the list is quite unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.86.119.147 (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob Avakian[edit]

Jiang Qing is a significant Maoist. Her contributions to the production and criticism of art, especially Chinese opera, was significant. She was one of the leaders of the Gang of Four, who in the 1970s represented the Maoist pole within the Chinese Communist Party.

Bob Avakian, however, is insignificant. He leads a tiny cult within the USA. While it is true that he has been an interesting character in the American far left, he is virtually unknown to most Americans and most people in the world. The only reason people take note of him at all is because he has build up a crazy cult around himself that spends most of its time proclaiming his greatness. Nobody outside of his cult cares about his theories. Calling Avakian a prominent Maoist is like calling L. Ron Hubbard a prominent philosopher or Lyndon LaRouche a prominent economist. To include him in the list is an act of pure sectarianism and reduces the quality of the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.145.234 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge[edit]

I find it fairly disturbing that no mention of the Khmer Rouge, whatsoever, is made on this page. I've noticed there seems to be some debate -- to my knowledge, Pol Pot was a Maoist and described himself as such, but perhaps I'm wrong. Nevertheless, the fact that the Khmer Rouge is so often associated with Maoism means that, regardless, they should appear on this page with something addressing that fact. That they do not seems pretty fishy to me . . . 113.22.54.197 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Before assuming that something "fishy" went on, you could always add the content yourself, if you feel it is warranted, or perhaps look through the page's history for "proof" that it went "missing". But it's useless to just come on here and complain. Be bold. Colipon+(Talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit about the Khmer Rouge, there seems to be a fair bit of dispute on this page about whether or not it was Maoist, but it should at least be referred to on the page, since they described themselves and are often described as Maoist.118.71.8.225 (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I will do some quick research on this. Homunculus (duihua) 00:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Khmer Rouge weren't formally Maoist but shared many attributes. They were significantly pro-China; especially since Vietnam was pro-Soviet. They adopted Mao's Three Worlds Theory, for instance, and in the 80's claimed to be waging a protracted people's war against the Vietnamese troops. Their four-year plan was entitled the "Super Great Leap Forward." They also seemed to regard the Soviet Union as revisionist and state-capitalist, which mirrored the Chinese. They publicly dropped much of their ideology after reforming into the Party of Democratic Kampuchea though. I think it's correct to mention them and note them as semi-Maoist, though their infamous domestic policies were not the sort of stuff Mao would have carried out. --Mrdie (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maoists In India[edit]

Everytime Indian maoists are attacking the poor farmers,teachers and police,But they are not using the industrial persons or capitalists or either the rich people and their excess money for the sake of poor peoples of India.Is this cruel procedure is the motto of the maoists to bring Revolution in India?(A common people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.204.111 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

The text looks like written by a Maoist: only the Maoist self-estimation with no alternative views.83.149.228.70 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems the opposite to me; it considers Mao Zedong Thought (which petered out in the late 70s) and the MLM tradition (which was only formally established in the 1990s) the same thing, even though they are considerably different, indicating that it's largely written or edited by someone not very familiar with MLM. 123.243.223.57 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"criticism" section[edit]

This is not a criticism section. stating mao was "70% good and 30% bad" is not a criticism. this is called a political comment. please actually create a decent criticism section of Maosim FROM a Marxist perspective and NON Marxist perspective. Currently this section is absolutely useless and filled with rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

two "who" problems fixed.[edit]

Suisheng Zhao is an excellent scholar so I took his opinion on re-assessing Maoism in Deng era. More citation problems are awaiting. Eliminate them!JiahuaYue (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, anyone read the book 中国共产党历史[edit]

It is edited by 中共中央党史研究室,which I believe is a good source of "official opinion".JiahuaYue (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Requested move 18 June 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's no consensus to back this move and the comments from the nominator towards the end show this request is past the point of being productive. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 07:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)



MaoismMao Zedong ThoughtThe evidence for why this move is required is available in the lead paragraph, the "Origins" and "Differences from Mao Zedong Thought" sections in the article Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Please do not comment until you have read those sections.

"Maoism" can refer to either Mao Zedong Thought or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism depending on the speaker and context. Currently the Maoism article confuses MZT with MLM (calling them both "Maoism" and not making the distinction between the two), but mostly covers MZT, so a move is appropriate, after which I will edit the article and make things consistent. I propose making Maoism into a disambiguation page pointing to both Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Another option is to move the Maoism page to MZT and the MLM page to Maoism, as MZT is mostly politically irrelevant nowadays (and more of interest to those studying Chinese or MLM history than anything else), and MLM is what most people really mean in the modern context when they talk about "Maoism". Alyxr (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
I did not write "formally known as Mao Zedong Thought" in the Maoism article. That was somebody else. If you had read and comprehended even the most rudimentary aspects of my arguments you would have seen that the sentence written there was in contradiction to all of my other statements. I'm still awaiting a criticism of the move that actually addresses one of my points. Alyxr (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Approve I dont know why the requester is being so abrasive but this article does actually mostly cover zedong thought rather than mlm. the article on the CPC goes into the origins of mao zedong thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China#Marxism.E2.80.93Leninism_and_Mao_Zedong_Thought
  • Comment – There is a substantial body of scholarship on "Mao Zedong Thought", and tons of sources speak of "Maoism". The key question is not whether we (WP editors) can make plausible conceptual distinctions between them, but whether a large number of reliable sources treat them as different. (Indeed, WP:NAMING states that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.") The current move proposal is not only about choosing between two names (this is why I don't think Google or JSTOR hits can clinch the argument): it's also about apportioning content. So far, however, I haven't seen enough evidence from a large number of reliable sources that the two differ. The evidence cited in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is insufficient, as all the sources cited are internal to the Communist movement (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, "Parti Communiste Révolutionnaire", anti-imperialism.com, and the Communist parties of India and Italy). If we are to rename this article and reshuffle the content of several articles as proposed, the nominator should show that the usage proposed by the RIM has been widely adopted by independent, third-party reliable sources. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • I might add, Mao Zedong Thought is an incredibly well-established term, and not at all "obscure" or a "non-gramatical and non-english word" as someone objected to me once. Alyxr (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Readers may want to note that Alyxr refers to something I said, quoting project standards, in response to which he repeatedly failed to assume good faith, made ad homines, etc., all because I attempted to explain what he was doing wrongly. Apparently explanations of our procedures, against his wishes, deserve to be told "How dare you even offer an opinion on the subject". See Talk:Mao Zedong Thought for what I'm talking about. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The malice started with you, deliberately choosing to not read a single word in the article where I presented all the evidence explaining my position. Also, please note that I so very deeply appreciate the misogyny inherent in your choice of "generic" masculine pronouns for me. Certainly no malice there :) Alyxr (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE The separate article on MLM was created on 15 June 2014 -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. I have yet to see anyone (I've had a past discussion on this matter) offer even the remotest hint of a refutation of my central point, only trite subjectivism and obnoxious misunderstandings of everything I say. The question of the relative popularity of "maoism" and "mao zedong thought" is irrelevant because they are different terms. Maoism, by its very nature, will inevitably be a more popular term because it's a more general term that can refer to the two more specific terms "Mao Zedong Thought" and "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism". You all smugly tell me that "Maoism" is more popular than "Mao Zedong Thought", thinking that it's a fact I don't embrace. In reality, embracement of this fact (an unsurprising result given that they're different terms), was an inevitable outcome of my acknowledgement of the prerequisite fact for making this move request in the first place. Alyxr (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I just realised there was a discussion at the top of the page, from 2006(!) airing exactly the same concerns as me -- Talk:Maoism#.22Maoism.22.2C_MLM_and_historically_pro-Chinese_parties. Alyxr (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alyxr's initiative to raise this discussion. The term 'Maoism' is problematic since it is a term used differently by different people. The predominant use in the Western world, by non-communists, is a vague label for how they perceive communist politics to have been applied in PR China under Mao. The CPC referred to its line as MLMTT, which is quite distinct from from this broader concept (the former refers to a practice, the latter to a school of thought). In Soviet discourse, 'Maoism' was used as a pejorative. Adherents of MLMTT have often been labelled as 'Maoists'. Generally, they have rejected the label, albeit this hasn't been 100% consistent (see for example Maoist Youth Union). With RIM, MLM was developed as a new school of thought, distinct from MLMTT. In some countries, like Nepal and India, this is a relevant issue, as there are both MLMTT and MLM parties active. In my opinion, Maoism should be a disamb page; with links to Mao, MLMTT and MLM. It is a bit like Catholicism, for most Westerners Catholicism = Roman Catholic Church, but Wikipedia is still capable for maintaining a degree of academic accuracy there rather than redirecting to Roman Catholicism. --Soman (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. There's definitely a western bias against a proper understanding of the nuances surrounding Mao and his intellectual legacy. MZT and MLM are primary phenomena from the global south, and the combined barriers and degrees of separation created by language, distance, politics and ideology in general do a fantastic job of homogenising complex topics. Alyxr (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This makes sense, yes. But as WP editors we can't stabilize definitions on our own. We need to do so in light of reliable sources, and without doing original research. We could tackle the complexities in usage raised by Soman simply by discussing them in the article, perhaps by explaining (in an encyclopedic tone and without taking sides, of course) how different reliable sources have defined this topic. I'm sure we can find sources saying that "Maoism" was a pejorative term for the Soviets, how CPC language doesn't have a term for "Maoism" (apart from the odd "Mao zhuyi" 毛主义 that they use when translating western news feeds on revolutionary movements outside China), and that "Maoist" could nonetheless be used as a term of self-identification in western countries, as in France in the 1960s. That way, we can make all these distinctions without having to move or rename this article, and without giving ourselves the impossible task of finding squeaky-clean definitions that stabilize usage and leave no ambiguity whatsoever. Madalibi (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • fucking lol. you fucking idiotic misogynistic piece of shit. go fuck yourself. didn't fucking know what "global south" meant, and you fucking link me to "geography of china" ahahahaha. I hope you enjoy banning me just as much as I enjoy telling you that you're fucking human scum. "conservative christian" go die in a fucking fire. go fucking slit your wrists. kill yourself, do the word a favour. reactionary pig shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyxr (talkcontribs) 03:05, 21 June 2014‎ (UTC)
A side-note, 'Global South' is a broader term, an alternative to 'Third World'. These labels are not exactly geographical. For example Australia (one of the most eastern countries in the world) is part of the Western world. --Soman (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mao Zedong Thought internationally[edit]

This seems to be nothing more than a collection of organizations whose importance varies and nor is the list comprehensive or very informative. I suggest that it be removed or at the very least just keep the organizations with notability. xcuref1endx (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)