Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote (edited )

In fact, let us go further back and somewhat briefly take from this text - An investigation into the peasant movement in Hunan by Mao

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm#s8

the methods used by the peasants to hit the landlords politically are as follows:

....

"Crowning" the landlords and parading them through the villages..

Locking up the landlords in the county jail..

"Banishment". The peasants have no desire to banish the most notorious criminals among the local tyrants and evil gentry, but would rather arrest or execute them. Afraid of being arrested or executed, they run away. In counties where the peasant movement is well developed, almost all the important local tyrants and evil gentry have fled, and this amounts to banishment...

Execution. This is confined to the worst local tyrants and evil gentry and is carried out by the peasants jointly with other sections of the people.

Taking over these old armed forces is one way in which the peasants are building up their own armed forces. A new way is through the setting up of spear corps under the peasant associations. The spears have pointed, double-edged blades mounted on long shafts, and there are now 100,000 of these weapons in the county of Hsianghsiang alone. Other counties like Hsiangtan, ... have 70,000-80,000, or 50,000-60.000. or 30,000-40,000 each. Every county where there is a peasant movement has a rapidly growing spear corps. These peasants thus armed form an "irregular household militia". This multitude equipped with spears, which is larger than the old armed forces mentioned above, is a new-born armed power the mere sight of which makes the local tyrants and evil gentry tremble. The revolutionary authorities in Hunan should see to it that it is built up on a really extensive scale among the more than twenty million peasants in the seventy-five counties of the province, that every peasant, whether young or in his prime, possesses a spear, and that no restrictions are imposed as though a spear were something dreadful. Anyone who is scared at the sight of the spear corps is indeed a weakling! Only the local tyrants and evil gentry are frightened of them, but no revolutionaries should take fright.

This all sounds terribly like a dictatorship of the exploited over the exploiters, does it not? What is your opposition to this? Who is being ruled here? Who's rule are you opposing?

also here on the work of the communists in the philippines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBpGU9ykl9c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zgs6y8JS98

far from ML(M)s "wanting" to be ruled - the aim is to make the entirety of the oppressed classes into rulers to eliminate the rulers, to take up the gun to abolish the gun.

2

LostYonder wrote

The idea that "the aim is to make the entirety of the oppressed classes into rulers to eliminate the rulers" is utterly nonsensical - create rulers to get rid of rulers??? how can that make any logical sense?

As far as I know about Chinese history, Maoist China was extremely oppressive to everyone - peasant and bourgeoisie alike. Even party members lived in such a state of fear and surveillance, that one could hardly call it revolutionary.

With a large leap into the abyss one might argue, as you seem to, that such oppression was required to do away with the bourgeois tendencies in society and was perhaps a better alternative than had things continued under the KMT, but given the nature of China today it obviously failed in doing away with the bourgeoisie. The rule of the oppressed became just another system of oppressive rulers that did not do away with capitalism.

In short, the failure of Maoist China was its reproduction of the bourgeois state, not its erasure, it just created new rulers/oppressors.

I was in Maoist China, I've seen it first hand. There was nothing communist about it.

Like the liberal state, the ML(M) state is a mechanism of advancing and protecting the interests of a few over the many. Both imagine anarchy is their antithesis, their greatest fear. Liberalism counters it by meaningless reforms to foster greater "inclusion", making people believe they have a stake in the state. ML(M)ism counters it through enforced conversion, surveillance, and fear.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

Don't confuse direct action by the people for the Lenin/Stalin/Mao dictatorship personality cult.

Those 3 were rulers. Peasants killing their rulers does not make the peasants rulers.

That's like saying we're rulers for fighting back when cops beat us.

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

Don't confuse your great man theory with communism, a society based on the rule of the masses.

What does that make the peasants if not masters of their own society?

If you do infact, enforce your rule over cops, you do become a ruler - no longer do the police have authority over you, you have authority over them. The aim is to eliminate the police so that there is no need for authority. But eliminating police is not as simple as throwing rocks at them and declaring communism.

4

Defasher wrote

I'm not critiquing communism, I'm critiquing vertical hierarchy.

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

this does not even necessarily exist in maoist oriented mass organizations such as those run by peasants in revolutionary communist movements today - the organisations themselves are autonomous except for being under the political leadership of the communist party - which itself must keep itself and be kept at the level, guidance, oversight, i.e proletarian outlook of the broad masses

certainly a certain amount of hierarchy exists, but ultimately to be entirely against hierarchy is nothing more than petit-bourgeois individualism and wastes more time than it saves, and will not result in better decisions 9/10 times. This shit is time-sensitive and what we do is proven to work efficiently and is being improved upon constantly.

Of note here is the mass-line and cultural revolution and the overall focus of Maoism on the masses - we have learned from the commandist style of the past and attempted to rectify this.

2

Defasher wrote

If there are no rulers in your ideology then idk what you're defending exactly.

1

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

defending society from the capitalists who would seek to reassert themselves, is what. they still exist and will not vanish of their own accord.

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

You don't need rulers to organise militias to kill capitalist counterrevs. Anarchists don't oppose organisations, we just arrange them so that no one is all powerful.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

If you drive police out of an area - you have enforced your dominance over said police - How is there not authority involved if the police are not allowed, are not able to enter the neighborhood in question?

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

But you must necessarily whether explicitly in writing or non-verbally set laws against fascism, against racism, against rapists, etc. Otherwise nothing has really improved.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

mabuhayangrebolusyon wrote

it's the same thing, lol. whether the death penalty against rapists is a rule or a law makes no difference, in both cases the rapist ends up dead