afterimage

4y

Okay thank you, also I’ve noticed that Marx talks about urban industrial centers being the center of protelariat revolution but then the little I’ve read about Maoism and how the emphasis was placed on specifically the peasants rather than workers. I know technically the former can be considered part of the latter but why was there the distinction between peasants and proletariat between Marx and Maoism.

Also there seemed to be disagreement over which was supposed to play a more pivotal role in revolution?

Womanpuncher69

4y

I know Marx later on his life actually started getting interested in a revolution happening in Russia. The Peasants role in Maoism is inherited from Leninism. The idea is an alliance between the Proles and peasants lead by the proles. In Russia you had feudal exploitation in the countryside and capitalist exploitation in the cities, Petrograd during the early 1900s had the largest factories in the world despite how behind Russia was. The two classes unite in an alliance to end their exploitation by the Capitalist and Landlords thats where the peasants role comes to play. In China during the early part of CPC life they tried the "traditonal" marxist attempt of having the proles do city uprisings but these keep ended up getting crushed, which lead to the development of surround the city by the countryside by Mao due to the success of guerilla warfare compared to the uprisings.

The peasants played a role in China and Russia due to their still being large feudal exploitation and colonial in the case of China which made a the peasants a revolutionary subject in the same vein of bourgeois where the bourgeois allied with the peasants cause they shared the same goal of ending feudal relations, but lead by the bourgeois, and in Russia and China lead by the prole

I wouldn't say theres a distinction between peasants and proles between Marxism and Maoism, more so Maoism develops on how the Proles and Peasants can work together.

afterimage

4y

Okay I was more asking what was the difference between the two but you answered that as well 👍🏾. The just differ in the method of exploitation . With the peasant being exploited by the lord/landowner and prol by the bourgeois.

Sir Real

4y

Mao never negated the leading role of the proletariat in favor of the peasantry. In fact he would repeatedly assert just how critical it was the the proletariat join and lead the peasant struggles. Him focusing on the peasantry was not him saying they take over the central leading role of the proletariat, it was a matter of circumstances. He was forced to the countryside due to the political circumstances at the time, so it was the peasants there that he had to organize. Additionally, the industrialized proletariat in China was quite small, and their movement had not yet developed the level of intensity that the peasant struggle had. Even when Mao would say that the peasantry was the “main” force in the revolution at certain times, he would always follow that up by saying the proletariat was the leading force. Thus while the peasantry may have been quantitatively greater, Mao always correctly identified the proletariat as being qualitatively the more revolutionary and ultimately important class. Mao also repeatedly criticized the party at times for not doing enough to place the proletariat at leading positions, and would note how the fact that they had a higher proportion of peasants needed to be rectified as soon as possible because he correctly identified the political shortcomings of the peasants, and their erroneous ideological tendencies. He always maintained that the proletariat alone was capable of leading the revolution to socialism.

Hopefully that makes sense, writing quickly over my lunch break. Lmk if you have any questions or would like examples of Mao’s proletarian orientation. Also Highly recommend Nick Knights chapter on this in Rethinking Mao for a detailed examination of this problem.

afterimage

4y

Okay that cleared up a lot

Parenti started getting into some Marx towards the ends of Blackshirts and Reds and started getting into historical materialism so I had to read a bit to on that as well last night. That sxn was where the prols/peasants q came up.

Planning on reading VPP after this w/ notes so I can get a firm grasp on theory now.

.. also went to public library over break back home didn’t realize Capital wasn’t like a one and done or two in some type thing or was that dense highkey intimated but I guess it’s not meant to be a “read once and I retain everything” type thing ofc

krishna bound

4y

Mods got @frolein ???

Womanpuncher69

4y

the ktt counterrevolution has been on full swing

Womanpuncher69

4y

is this dialectics

krishna bound

4y

Hegelian philosophy

krishna bound

4y

Hegelian philosophy

Womanpuncher69

4y

whole world seems to been getting increasingly reactionary recently

krishna bound

4y

Mods got @frolein ???

Lein

4y

I was merely muted

space0cadet

4y

Lets just all go no-avi like @frolein and @cloud_rap to signify our belonging to a secret group of KTT communists
It's a very mysterious avatar

Womanpuncher69

4y

Aoc voted to end the railway strike?