Skip to main content

"Maoism or Trotskyism" – Free Download!

After my recent rant regarding Goldner's hatchet-job on maoist theory, a friend/comrade emailed me to suggest that I should a prolonged polemic about the actual (rather than imagined) differences between maoism and trotskyism in order to demonstrate why some of us believe that the former is a better marxist avenue than the latter.  And since I've also spent some time on this blog discussing the hegemony of the trotskyist discourse in academia, as well as arguing out the historical differences between maoism and trotskyism on numerous comment strings, I figured that it made sense to provide a much more thorough engagement with this problematic.

As some commenters have occasionally pointed out, I tend to give summations of certain issues and often fail to provide the historical and theoretical depth necessary to understand them in a thorough manner.  Generally, this is a limitation of the blog medium; I have indicated that MLM Mayhem tends to be a place where either the germ form of my academic work goes to discover itself or where half-baked and not entirely academic ideas go to die.  Those posts that are more thorough than most of the entries on this site are simply random success that happen despite the medium's limitations.  And a sustained polemical engagement between Maoism and Trotskyism, though not necessarily an academic paper, turned out to be something that was too much for a single blog post: an hour into this attempt I realized that it was going to end up being the size of a small chapter in a dissertation because, if I was going to do the subject any justice and not, a la Goldner, lapse into erroneous and sectarian ramblings that utterly missed the theoretical mark, I would have to write far more than a single post.

Initially I contemplated turning this polemic into a series as I have done with other subjects.  I figured, about a quarter of the way through the first draft, that the size of the project was such that I could milk at least ten posts out of this topic.  But then I decided that my readership might not be interested in spending the rest of this month, and maybe a good part of the next month, reading about the same issue; those readers who come from a trotskyist and/or post-trotskyist tradition might feel like I've been spending too much time attacking them, or those readers who think that is somehow taboo to exchange polemics with other anti-capitalist traditions (and who confuse principled theoretical difference with sectarianism), might get frustrated and choose to never read this blog ever again.  Or worse, as long time readers will be aware, if I broke this topic up into multiple posts I might never complete it, or might take forever to get to the next part of the series and thus readers might end up forgetting the preceding entries, losing the logic of the argument, and end up becoming extremely bored by the whole business.

At the same time, however, I didn't want to stop writing the polemic––not only because I had already spent hours beginning a draft, but because I agreed with the friend/comrade who had suggested the project in the first place.  The question of Maoism or Trotskyism is important from a maoist perspective partially because, as the Goldner essay demonstrated, the trotskyist discourse of maoism has become predominant amongst certain sectors of the mainstream left at the centres of global capitalism.  And though Goldner's analysis, though influenced by a trotskyist narrative, was ultimately a "left communist" [non-]engagement with maoism, there have been a lot of other trotskyist and post-trotskyist attempts to dismiss maoism as some sort of pseudo-marxism.  These dismissals might all be grounded in some great misreading of maoism, but the fact that they exist is something worth taking seriously and, since I grow tired of constantly having to point out how these engagements don't even seem to understand the bare-bones of the theory they claim to examine, it is probably useful to respond in a similar, but hopefully a more honest and respectful, manner.

Thus, I have decided to make the entire sustained polemic, Maoism or Trotskyism?, available here as a downloadable PDF.  [If you're already bored by this long-winded explanation, feel free to scroll down to the bottom of this post where the download link is available.]  Better just to offer all 25 pages as a single file, and let people who are interested read it at their own leisure, rather than try to hammer it into the confines of the blog medium.  Yes: twenty-five pages!  So if you plan to respond to this document, please read the entire thing before deciding what you think it says and firing of an irate comment.

Although this sustained polemic is already rather large, it is still only the bare-bones of a critical comparison.  An entire book could be written on this issue––indeed there have been books written on this issue that, due to the time period in which they were written, were not very good––but I limited myself to the basics.  More can always be written, but I didn't want to spend months focusing on a topic that, while important, could become too much of a distraction.

I am not trying to reproduce this book that was written before Maoism really emerged as Maoism.

The point was to produce, to borrow from the terminology of Alain Badiou, a "philosophical situation" where the reader would be confronted with a choice between two competing terms.  Special thanks must go to regular reader and occasional commenter, "Red Traveller", who suggested that I write this polemic and even provided some kind edits and suggestions.

Download Maoism or Trotskyism? [PDF]

[Since I am not being paid by word, or even by page, faithful readers who have expendable cash and appreciate the effort it takes to write a 25 page political intervention are encouraged to donate to MLM Mayhem! through paypal.]


  1. Thank for taking time to create this pamphlet!

  2. Great and honest work. I don't think most of the critiques of trotskyism from the 30's or 70's serve the revolutionary cause, they mostly only say that trots are fascists and/or wreckers, like some evil conspiracy. Is it ok to translate to other languages?

    1. Thanks! I have no problem with you translating this to other languages as long as it's sourced (i.e. my author initials and site are mentioned).

  3. Do you think this should go in your header bar?

    I loved it. Taught me a lot about what Trotskyism is, and how it contrasts that sort of Anarchist-Who-Likes-Marx characterization that exists only among internet student leftists.

    1. At some point in the near future I will fix the header bar to account for this sort of thing.

  4. Hey JMP,

    Great polemic! I really like the way you break down the differences between the concept of combined and uneven development and world-systems theory in a clear, relatively jargon-free manner. It does illuminate some of the central theoretical differences between Trotskyism and Maoism, especially for someone like me who is not familiar with the details of the controversies involved.

    I had a couple of friendly questions or criticisms if that’s ok. They mainly concern the manner in which you define some key terms. One confusion I had was with your assertion that “Maoism” proper didn’t come into being until the very specific date of 1993. I understand that you’re trying to counter anachronistic critiques of contemporary Maoism that conflate the positions of existing parties with those of earlier parties and organizations, many of which had a less than systematic understanding of what they meant by their own “Maoism.” That’s totally reasonable, but I don’t think you can plausibly claim that a statement by a particular organization made several decades after the Chinese revolutionary period is _the_ birth of Maoism. Clearly many groups called themselves “Maoist” prior to 1993, and while you (and I) might disagree with some of their ideas or their lack of theoretical rigor, you can’t really say they weren’t Maoist because of that disagreement. The term “Maoist” is a very broad category that includes many different smaller currents that are often at odds with each other. You can’t really reduce Maoism to a statement by the RIM. At one point you use the language of “declaration” and “proclamation” to describe this coming-into-being, and this rhetoric comes across as somewhat doctrinaire, even though I would argue that the content and substance of your main arguments are by no means dogmatic. I guess what I’m suggesting is that it is not necessary to claim that “Maoism” is coeval with a statement by the RIM in order to counter anachronistic critiques of Maoism. Clearly Maoism, like communism generally, is a broad concept that is also evolving with historical developments. You don’t have to claim that it comes into being only with “our generation” or “our party” in order to defend your particular (and interesting) interpretation of the concept.


    1. Hi Jude,

      I'll reply to your confusion of Maoism and the RIM here before replying to your second comment. I wrote about this earlier on this blog and, since it was not entirely the point (but a presupposed point) to this polemic, I only touched upon it... the damn thing was getting too big.

      First of all, all the groups that called themselves "maoist" or were called "maoist" prior to the PCP's first formulation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the 80s did not see maoism as a new stage in revolutionary science but used the term "maoist" as a short hand for "Mao Zedong Thought". So when these Maoist groups defined their theoretical basis in the long form they would say "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought". This is because none of them, until the late 80s and most importantly 1993, saw Maoism as a new stage in revolutionary science as important, universally, as Leninism. Indeed, when the RIM defended the PCP's formulation there was massive controversy throughout all of the "maoist" parties about accepting "Maoism" instead of "Mao Zedong Thought". This is why I speak of the birth of "Maoism-proper" or "Maoism-qua-Maoism" instead of "Maoism qua Mao Zedong Thought". Hence, I trace the birth of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism", which all of the revolutionary groups who call themselves "Maoist" [except for the Communist Party Philippines which flatly rejects that there can be such a thing as "maoism"] now have adopted because of the RIM. We also must remember that the RIM was responsible for launching the people's wars, as well as uniting a lot of Mao Zedong Thought groups into Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups because of their influence. The statement was seen as utterly heterodox at the time and those groups that saw themselves as "maoist" rejected maoism-qua-maoism for this reason. So when I use Maoism I use it as it was founded in 1993, as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and that is what I am defending because that is the Maoism of the revolutionary and most pre-eminent maoist groups in the world today.

    2. Edit: I meant to add here...

      The reason I defend this Maoism (which is the prime form it takes today – and again note that the [now defunct] RIM was really a group that contained all of the parties minus the CPP [because they rejected the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line] that were involved in revolution at that point in history and also produced the parties, by holding unifying meetings in places where violent sectarianism was preventing cooperation, that are currently carrying out Peoples Wars or are about to) is also based on my previous post, which was a response to the Goldner article. The point here is that whenever Trotskyists or people whose analysis comes from a Trotskyist analysis write critiques about Maoism, they ignore the theoretical meaning of the most significant "Maoism" of today, even though they mean these critiques to be against *the very groups that uphold this type of Maoism*, and instead talk about what most of us now refer to as "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought". It is also important to note that the remaining ML-MZT groups in the late 80s would become the first MLM groups of the 1990s.

    3. Sorry for the delay replying. Alright, I agree with most of your arguments here—I think it’s certainly true that Maoism was not considered “a new stage of revolutionary science” analogous to Marxism-Leninism prior to the 80s, and theoretical formulations of the universal principles arising out of the Chinese Revolution and Cultural Revolution were not well developed. I also agree that the RIM document was of historical significance, giving many active revolutionary communist parties around the world a common organizational and theoretical basis. My point was simply that “Maoism” is a term that has a more general meaning than “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.” Maoism, both as a term and as a political tendency, has a history prior to the 80s; one can assert that MLM emerges in the 80s and 90s and that this transforms the meaning of contemporary Maoism, but one can’t really say that Maoism emerges for the first time only then. It comes across as unnecessarily defensive—as though one would like to erase all memory of earlier, less theoretically and organizationally unified groups that still nevertheless identified as Maoist.

    4. Hi Jude: no problem with the delay… All of this proves that the polemic could have been much longer than it already was (even book sized, lol) due to the fact that my short-handing for various issues could easily be expanded due to the obvious vagueness of certain areas. Like last time, I will respond to each of your points separately.

      I do not claim that "maoism" as a label/moniker/etc. did not exist prior to the late 80s and early 90s and indeed talk at points about the feeding tradition of the maoisms. I begin by referring to these as the great anti-revisionist movements in the first paragraph. I was careful to say that when we talk about maoism now we are not talking about extremely heterogeneous maoisms of yester-year when I qualified that I meant maoism as MLM and used the term maoism-qua-maoism. None of this is to say the previous traditions aren't important (clearly the emergence of MLM wouldn't have happened without these traditions) just that the worldwide maoist movement now declares fidelity to a very specific form of maoism. I don't see why you read that I would want to erase all memory of the earlier ur-maoisms; my only point that definitions of an ideology are important and now the essential definition of maoism worldwide is the one that comes from the RIM statement (unless you're a third worldist who thinks maoism means just waiting for a global people's war led by the third world but only a small handful of inactive people in the first world, ironically, are third worldists)––definitions are important, and I was focusing on this definition for the sake of clarity. Apparently I wasnt' as clear as I thought I was, lol.

  5. cont.

    My second confusion had to do with how you characterized the contradictions of Stalinism. My general impression is that while a few naive people might believe that “the failure of the Soviet Union [was] the result of an evil individual who possessed the power to produce a bureaucracy devoted to his nefarious plans,” I doubt very many Trotskyites would actually claim this. I think many leftists of all stripes would agree with you when you say that the purges and mass incarcerations of the Stalinist period occurred because “the party itself [was] host to an organic line struggle that would [reflect] the … class struggle under socialism,” and because “the party’s leadership would often preserve bourgeois ideology,” which would infect all sides in the conflict. I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t quite understand why you claim this idea—class struggle after socialism—is unique to Maoism. It seems to be almost a truism that class struggle will continue beyond the seizure of state power. Even Stalin had some notion that he was involved in a class struggle, and not just a struggle to stamp out foreign infiltrators, even if he misconstrued the nature of this struggle. The question, then, is not whether class struggle continues following the seizure of state power and the institution of socialism, but _how_ it would continue and how to continue the struggle without allowing it to degenerate into blind terror or revisionism. That is not an easy question to answer, and this impasse is probably part of the reason for the proliferation of movementist and decentralized forms of organization, which of course have their own organizational and structural contradictions as you know better than I.

    Anyway, please excuse the long rambling response, and please take it in the comradely manner in which it was intended, notwithstanding the unavoidable tone of internet exchanges.

    1. I don't know why you think that theory that socialism is class struggle is in any other tradition than Maoism. Trotskyism flat out rejects this with its theory of Stalinist bureaucracy: the most orthodox Trotskyists claim that the failure of Democratic Centralism allowed Stalin to come into power otherwise Trotsky would have saved the party; less orthodox Trotskyists don't have a coherent theory of socialism as a class society––indeed, they would argue that if it is a class society it is not socialism because socialism is where the bourgeoisie are thoroughly under the command of the proletariat. If they aren't, it's a deformed workers state. Maoism claims that the party WILL always become a place where bourgeois ideology is preserved and that in this context class struggle continues because the super-structure obstructs the base: this theorization of socialism as a class struggle reached its fully articulate form in Mao's theory, later systematized by the theory of MLM. And having argued with marxists of all types online about this issue, I can pretty confidently say that all other traditions reject this position for a variety of reasons that I will list briefly: i) the claim that once you speak of a class society you are no longer speaking of "socialism"; ii) the claim that the Soviet Union (or China) for that matter was never socialist but something else [Bonapartism, deformed workers state, "state capitalist" even before Khruschev]; iii) the argument that the superstructure cannot obstruct the base so it is useless to speak of class struggle in this manner––there was just a failure for some nebulously untheorized reasons (most likely "authoritarianism" and the idea that Lenin's theory of the state is wrong); iv) the failure to theorize socialism as a transitionary period, like mercantilism, between capitalism and communism that can always fail (note that those who did start thinking about this ahead of time did belong to the "maoist" tradition that would feed into the emergence of MLM where this concept was systematized––and here i"m talking about folks like Samir Amin and Charles Bettelheim who thought Mao's analysis was correct).

      Yes, Stalin did have some notion of class struggle under socialism, as did Lenin, but neither of them theorized it beyond the argument that capitalist restoration is a threat brought about by bourgeois agents (Stalin is pretty clear about this in "Foundations of Leninism*). Marx also had a notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it is not until Lenin arrives that you have that theory fully articulated––indeed, anti-Leninist marxists have spent a lot of time and paper pointing out that Marx and Engels' didn't develop that theory, they only used the term theoretically, and that Lenin took that term and turned it into something else [that they don't like and claim Marx and Engels wouldn't have liked].


    2. [cont. from above]

      So in some ways you are quite right that the emphasis is on the *how* and the *why* but this is precisely why the Maoist theory that class struggle continues under the dictatorship of the proletariat is *the* theory about class struggle continuing under the DoP––this is what a new theoretical innovation in any tradition is, something that systematizes germ understandings of its forebearers as well as allowing us to understand that these understandings existed in germ form in the first place. (This has been made a lot of in terms of Leninism, where some theorists have used the example of Paul and Jesus as an analogy of Lenin and Marx––the militant theorist who produces clarity through a mixture of continuity-rupture in the moment of systematizing and applying the previous theory in a new context.)

      In any case, thanks for the comments: if anything they help reveal the fact that I often presuppose certain things that I see as tangental that might not be that tangental, or assume people get what I'm saying, and those places where my lack of specification leads to a fuzziness in categories.

    3. The second point regarding the persistence of class-struggle following the emergence of socialism is also in many ways an issue that gets confused by terminology. You say, for instance that “Trotskyists don't have a coherent theory of socialism as a class society––indeed, they would argue that if it is a class society it is not socialism because socialism is where the bourgeoisie are thoroughly under the command of the proletariat. If they aren't, it's a deformed workers state.” That seems to me to be simply a matter of semantics. For them socialism is defined by the end of class conflict. That sounds something like what I would call “communism,” but if they want to call it “socialism,” fine, I don’t care. What you and I call “socialism,” they call “a deformed worker’s state.” Whatever they want to call it, it still implies a basic recognition that classes and class struggle persist following the revolutionary seizure of state power. They call this condition a “deformed” workers’ state simply because they define socialism as a further stage of development that can be blocked and distorted by internal class struggle. I think, as I said earlier, that the main question is not whether class struggle continues following the revolutionary seizure of state power—that has pretty well been proven by numerous historical examples, and semantics aside, everyone agrees that this struggle occurs. Rather, the real questions are: what form does this struggle take? How can we learn from the impasses and disasters of the past? Is the “seizure of state power” by a party-organization a dead end? If not how should the party be organized to anticipate this struggle without becoming rigid, paranoid, anti-democratic and self-destructive? I would like to read a longer take on the Maoist perspective, preferably one that sets aside semantic wrangling like the definition of “socialism” (which sounds like a theological dispute), and instead focuses on empirical analysis of revolutionary parties and states at a moment of crisis.

    4. First of all, this is more than a semantic difference because it communicates to praxis and how to organize and make revolution. After arguing with a lot of Trotskyists about this essay on r/socialism––the most honest and well-read of whom (that is, those who actually read the essay and didn't say "this is stalinist"!)––accepted my characterization of their ideology and responded by saying the notion that there can be class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to bring about communism is ludicrous and "anti-marxist."

      Trotskyism rejects the notion that a functional dictatorship of the proletariat will ever preserve bourgeois ideology in the party itself––if this happens it is just Stalinist bureaucracy and not revolutionary to begin with and the way this wouldn't happen is because (as one Trotskyist told me once) if "democratic centralism functions properly everything will be okay and there is no such thing as line struggle in proper revolutionary parties." That is, they deny that a revolutionary party can be affected by bourgeois ideology and that if this happens then "it wasn't revolutionary in the first place." Such an idea, of course, leads to writing off every failure as something that wouldn't happen if the proper elements were in place but the thing is, these elements can never be in place because they're a magical formula that is anti-materialist. Line struggle happens in a party, the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a site of class struggle––and yes, your questions are important but they aren't separate from the initial characterization of the dictatorship of the proletariat or socialism as a site of class struggle. For if we say that socialism is not still a class society, and instead say that what we thought was socialism was something else (it must be because classes still exist there!), then we don't have a praxis for making communism: that is, if Trotskyists and Maoists agree that the dictatorship of the proletariat is where the state is seized and turned into a weapon against the bourgeoisie in order to eventually produce revolution (and they do agree, generally, on this principle) then if the former say that something is not a proper dictatorship of the proletariat because it is still a class society then they are also saying it is impossible to produce full communism in this context or get any closer to communism. Upon this fundamental differences are built the questions you ask; conceptually they are interlinked.

      [continued below]

    5. I would also argue that figuring out proper definitions are not "theological disputes" but the essence of doing philosophy. If definitions are shoddy then theoretical shoddiness follows: Marx understood this in *Capital*, obviously, as did Engels when he thought it was very necessary to combat what seemed like some hair-splitting differences between what would come to be called "marxism" and the utopian garbage Duhring was feeding the working class movement. But I agree that the polemic opens up to larger issues and if it is just about defining Maoism against other theoretical marxist perspectives, then it can't be much than only that. This had a specific aim, which was to respond to all the Trotskyist screeds that are appearing these days about how stupid and "third worldist" and peasant-based maoism is, and provide a response that also opens up the question of the philosophical circumstances indicated by this debate. Obviously this is another reason why I didn't want to keep expanding and expanding the damn thing because there is a point that even an honest exchange of polemics can become sectarian (and here I mean "sectarian" in the real sense not in the way it is mindlessly used by people who think any political disagreement over theoretical principles is "sectarianism").

      I tried to provide some footnotes to some work on "what is Maoism?" [like Prakash's piece]. I was also working on a prolonged interblog exchange with a comrade that was attempting to think this out in further detail but that got forestalled due to the medium...

      In truth, however, I think party programmes are the best sources for understanding MLM because these are attempts to apply the theory in particular social contexts and usually following concrete analyses of concrete situations. A growing revolutionary movement that has been able to theorize concrete application after an analysis of the past successes/failures––both globally and nationally––in concrete circumstances an answer these questions in better detail. Which is why (as you would guess I would say) I was drawn to the PCR-RCP in the first place; its concrete analysis of a concrete situation, its ability to deal with many issues that other organizations and collapsing parties in Canada hadn't really thought through. When I read *How We Intend To Fight?* [one of the documents preceding the party's formation and thus the programme, available in english as the "People's War Digest* #3 on their website], for example, I was struck by an attempt to place theory in the empirical context of Canada while looking at the failures of past approaches, the upcoming crisis, etc.

  6. Hello! I am interested in the source in this text of yours, on matter of Chen Duxiu tendency to work inside KMT, since I was under an impression that the opposite was the case. I wasn't really interested in him, to be honest, but from time to time some Trotskyist accuse me of Stalinism (since for them Maoism is Stalinism), and they revoke the glorious days when Chen Duxiu had the power, and only if they have listened to him (same as Trotsky), all would go well. So I just read some online resource, and it says Komintern made him follow that path, not that he alone wished to collaborate with KMT. So im asking where from you get that information that he was pursuing the goal of collaborating?

    Second question, why do you think capitalists modes on production don't exist in peripheral countries? If I am correct in understanding the term (not native English speaker), you want to say it is not capitalism, but some half-capitalism, or even feudalism in some backwards countries or at least in some areas of them? But I don't see how that is possible when law itself, and the real situation tells us that there is capitalism there, that it is not serfdom, even in villages in backwards country, but all work according to bourgeois ideology. People work for someone, they are not tied for land. I know they might be in big debts, then they have to work forever to repay it on their own lands that was expropriated by capitalists, but still, theoretically, they can leave that land, they are not serfs.I would argue that is actual social formations that are pre-capitalist, like caste system, etc. and that mode of production is capitalists, and also that their products are meant to serve the market.

    1. In answer to your first question: it's been a while since I was reading historiographies of that period in China, so I can't recall the precise references. I do recall that a long discussion about Chen's position appeared as an historical excursus in the second volume of Han Suyin's historical memoirs (or maybe it was the third), also discussing his position prior the revolution.

      As for your second question the answer comes from the political economy of Samir Amin. Yes there is capitalism in those countries but it is not precisely a capitalist mode of production because it lacks the autonomy of a native bourgeois-proletariat base. He refers to this as a capitalist social formation since it is capitalist relations determined by imperialism that preserve other pre-capitalist elements so as to lock these countries into dependency. I would question your claim that these countries "all work according to bourgeois ideology" because, if you actually study these places, you find that other ideologies might be more dominant, but end up being mixed with bourgeois ideology. Of course the products produced in these contexts are intended for the market but what precisely is the class make-up of these places? Do they have their own homegrown bourgeoisie or a is the primary bourgeois force a comprador bourgeoisie? All in all, this is a pretty large question to answer in a single comment but if you're interested in pursuing this line of reasoning I'd suggest you look at two of Amin's classics in this regard: a) Unequal Development; b) Class and Nation.

    2. Thanks for great answers, I start to grasp what you want to say now, since I showed that thesis to someone else who had the answer that my question was based upon partially. I am starting for some time to read Amin's works, problem is I have this some obsession to read in some order, in which, after all the major and "secondary" classics, Charles Bettelheim was first, now comes Amin. Then, of course, there are distractions where I find one term or concept that I can't understand completely, so I digress and read few books on that: need to be more systematic. Problem is I have the will to learn, and I do spend most of time on that and breathing, just sometimes, some authors overcomplicate things, and that is beyond my intellectual level, so I need to ask questions like this for clarifications. Cheers!

  7. The whole thrust of the arguments here is on personality. I remember Hillel Ticktin once arguing that had Trotsky used his position of power in the early 1920s to remove Stalin (presumably by using his position as head of the Red Army) things would have been much better for world revolution, Germany, Spain etc. Trotsky had answered when this was put to him that to defeat Stalin in that way he would have to become Stalin
    And thus is the point. Socialism in a single country was a rationalisation of international defeats of revolutions, particularly Germany 1918-23.

    Because Of isolation, devastation in WWI and the civil war and terrible poverty there was great disappointment in the masses in the outcome of the revolution.

    Whether you called it a deformed workers state or actually existing socialism it didn't seem great in the midst of appalling inequalities poverty imposed.

    Equally of opportunity is the goal of liberal capitalism, never achieved. Socialism is the achievement of that in a workers state, where international cooperation will produce sufficient capital resources to begin to achieve achieve actual economic and material equality. That cannot be defended and developed in a single country but requires the combined efforts of several advanced countries. Neither the USSR nor China could achieve that on their one and never came close.

    And it's not defeatism to face reality and seek to achieve the goals of Lenin’s April Theses, which expressed the same internationalist perspectives as Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution.

    So it was not lack of theoretical understanding but brutal poverty which gave rise to bureaucracy, those who have the job of distributing scarce resources never forget themselves.

    So it was not a question of abandoning the gains of the revolution in 1917 or 1949 but how to defend them in those adverse circumstances and how to fight to overcome those problems if universal poverty by spreading the revolution.

    Neither Stalin nor Mao had that perspective; they already had sufficient to build 'socialism', which was redefined as the relatively good welcome states typical in all workers states that meant they were ruled in the benefits of the working class and Not capitalist profits.

    It is good that modern Maoism tackles the imperialist nations and rejects third worldism. It is good that a serious assessment of Trotskyism is attempted without the Trotsky was a fascist stuff. Mutual respect is the first prerequisite for serious debate.


Post a Comment