Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.