Why Marxism-Leninism-Maoism cannot work: a response to DashRendar

NOTE: Please do not go out and attack or harass @DashRendar@lemmygrad.ml for writing this essay. This is meant to be a civil exchange of ideas, not a witch hunt. Thank you.

Well comrades, I’m back at it again for another response post. Last time we had fun clowning on Enigma’s attempt to portray Russia as socialist, but this time around things are a bit more serious. So serious, in fact, that I made a Medium account just for it! Because recently Dash the Internet Marxist, a well-respected comrade in our community known for his long, comprehensive essays, has gone down the hill a bit.

Recently Dash published a 46-minute long essay on Medium titled “Yo dawg, the Maoists have a point”. In this appropriately-titled essay, Dash essentially argues that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the only correct ideological path, that Marxism-Leninism itself is outdated and useless, and that only anti-revisionist Maoism can save us.

Here is a link to the original essay: https://dashthered.medium.com/yo-dawg-the-maoists-have-a-point-9024983ee56a

I want to start by saying I have a lot of respect for Dash and I have enjoyed many of his articles, which makes it all the more unfortunate to see him adopt such an unrealistic position as this. Therefore I see it as my civic duty to respond to this essay and refute its points to the best of my ability. Unlike last time I’m not gonna just go through the article dissecting every point I can — otherwise we’d be here all day — rather I’m going to organise Dash’s main points into a numbered list and scrutinise them that way.

As Stalin would say, let us get down to business.

Claim #1 — “Maoists have accomplished way more than Marxist-Leninists in the past 40 years”

A recurring theme you will see in this essay is Dash being adamant about the fact that regular old Leninists have not achieved anything significant revolutionary-wise in the past 40 years, as compared to the several Maoist revolutions happening around the world today. While I do agree with this point in the sense that Leninists have made no real revolutionary gains since the fall of the USSR, I do find this criticism rather unfair.

What Dash doesn’t seem to recognise is just how devastated the left was with the fall of the USSR, the most powerful socialist country in the world which funded and exported revolutions to numerous countries for decades, and also funded many international communist parties. When the USSR collapsed, it was like the heart being removed from the human body. Many communist parties completely fell off due to the loss of support, and many were even outright banned as a preemptive measure, as was the case with the Communist Party of Canada.

If anything, what China is doing today is arguably for the better by not trying to export revolution like the USSR did. As communists we cannot rely on a single state or a single central power to basically fund all our revolutions for us, tactically it’s just incredibly prone to failure as the USSR’s collapse perfectly demonstrated.

This is why, as Leninists, we have instead dedicated much of our time since the fall of the USSR to learning about the structure of AES like China, Cuba, the DPRK and Vietnam, countries that have not only survived in a post-Soviet world, but continue to thrive in it. It is our duty to learn about what these countries did that the USSR didn’t do, which can provide something of a framework for our revolutions so that we don’t fall into the same trap as the USSR.

Of course Dash doesn’t see it that way. This is what he thinks of MLs supporting AES:

Where, even, is the [Marxist-Leninist] theoretical debate? It always defaults back to some form of shut up and critically support ‘Actually Existing Socialist states,’ with no theory or formula for bringing new socialisms into a state of actually existing.

I wonder why Dash is so hostile to AES states… oh yeah, I forgot. This is anti-SWCC, pro-Mao hit piece. Of course! Dash thinks all current AES states are revisionist.

Well, what does Dash suggest we do about preventing revisionism/eradicating bourgeois elements in our socialist society?

Claim #2 — “The Cultural Revolution was good for China”

Hoo boy.

That’s right folks. Dash tries to argue that Mao successfully curbed revisionism and bourgeois elements of the Communist Party in China by launching the Cultural Revolution. Worse yet, Dash goes so far as to claim that the Cultural Revolution wasn’t even about culture:

Part of the problem of understanding the Cultural Revolution (usually called the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, or GPCR by Maoists) is that “Marxist-Leninists” think it was either like Mao trying to do-over China’s culture […] Cultural Revolution is the continuation of Civil War — the fight to the death between the now dominant proletariat and the remnants of the bourgeoisie and their allies. The Cultural Revolution is the process of grinding down the bourgeoisie, taking away everything from them (their expertise, their wealth, their accumulation, their power, their institutions, and all the gates they keep) and distributing it to the masses and crushing all the capitalists and counter-revolutionaries that attempt to stop or impede this process.

Right, because it’s not like cultural elements such as Buddhism became under heavy persecution during this time period, or anything else.

But even by your own definition of a so-called Cultural Revolution, all these attempts to “give back” to the proletariat were clearly a failure, as the Chinese economy continued to suffer from a short food supply and widespread poverty, especially among the peasantry, during the 1960s and 70s. Only when Deng assumed office did things begin to improve; so much so that China became one of the fastest-growing countries in the world as a result of market reforms and the introduction of the Chinese labour force to the global market. Only then did absolute poverty in China finally begin to take a nosedive.

This is because the Cultural Revolution was quite unabashedly about ideology over materialism. For all it emphasised the importance of taking everything away from the bourgeoisie and what have you, it was quite obviously a movement that prioritised ideology over material reality; it was about instilling a communist mentality into as many people in all sectors of China as possible, and it was the assumption of Mao that once this process was completed and the “communised” workers had all the means of production, then everything would suddenly work out. Somehow this would suddenly cure all the widespread poverty most peasants were still experiencing as a result of the failures of the Great Leap Forward.

This is pure idealism. And for someone like Dash who goes on and on about how Marx and Engels argued for scientific socialism in the face of revisionists of their time, this doesn’t seem like a very scientific thought process to be advocating for.

I think @juchebot88@lemmygrad.ml said it best in his comment underneath Dash’s original post:

One can argue that Deng went to far, and ultimately fell into right deviation. But we should not allow this to obscure the fact that Gang of Four were massively left-deviant, and that Deng’s occasional rightism was simply the inevitable reaction. Thus, if China during the 1990s came dangerously close to neoliberalism, it was ultimately the fault, not of Deng, but of the Gang of Four.

The reason Marxist-Leninists are either ambivalent or outright opposing of the Cultural Revolution is because it is pure left-deviant idealism that ignores material reality. And if you’re a communist who rejects or ignores materialism, then, well, are you even a communist?

This is why you see fucking bourgeois assholes getting yelled at en masse by fifty thousand people waving red books at them in all these photos. They said or did something reactionary and the masses shamed and berated the shit out of them for it. It was fucking awesome.

Sorry Dash, but edgy internet quotes like these aren’t going to eliminate absolute poverty in China.

Which brings us to our next claim…

Claim #3 — “China isn’t socialist anymore”

This is the one you’ve all been waiting for folks! This is what you might call the crux of Dash’s whole argument, that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism must be revived to save China from the evil Dengist takeover!

After all, what the hell have market reforms ever done for China? What good has ever come out of the development of Socialism With Chinese Characteristics? The complete elimination of absolute poverty? The dramatic increase in life expectancy? The overall skyrocketing of living standards for Chinese people everywhere that never truly materialised under Mao? Well throw all that shit away, because Dash has got you covered!

Shortly after Deng came to power, women and workers — especially those of the lower classes — were overwhelmingly removed from the People’s Congress. Something like half of the seats disappeared. The poorest areas of China had new schools built and new education opportunities provided during the Cultural Revolution, and Deng Xiaoping’s clique took that away. Once again, the schools became exclusive, for the wealthy upper stratas of Chinese society — the same privileged little shits that got to go to college under Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime.

1. Deng did indeed purge a lot of hardline Maoists, some of whom were women and workers. That doesn’t make him a misogynist

2. We already went over why the Cultural Revolution was useless, so I can imagine why Deng would want to replace these schools with more standard gones (by the way, you offer no evidence to support the idea that these “little shits” from Taiwan actually attended these schools).

The collective farms were de-collectivized and then privatized. This was especially ironic because the collective farms were far more efficient

Not true. As a few Chinese people in your own thread told you, those who still owned their own farms produced the majority of agricultural output. And evidently, a majority of peasants remained extremely poor right up to the end of Mao’s leadership.

Mao’s policy of “the Iron Rice Bowl” (one of Mao’s crowing achievements: a collection of rights and guarantees for workers, including lifetime employment, guaranteed work, healthcare, access to education, accommodation, and holidays) was terminated immediately. There was a mass privatization of state-owned enterprises, and capitalist policies were introduced everywhere. Revolutionary committees were smashed, the Cultural Revolution was denounced, and whatever gains were made by the workers during it were all rolled back and taken away.

My god, is this is ever a loaded statement. A serious load of misleading information here. We have a lot to go through with this one.

Indeed, the Iron Rice Bowl was terminated, but it’s not nothing was left in its place. Quite the opposite, in fact. Let’s start with how it affected the peasant farming. You know, the ones who still remained in absolute poverty as a result of the failed collective farms of the Great Leap Forward.

Deng’s reforms in the countryside — known as the Rural Revolution — included the replacement of the collective farming system with a “household responsibility system,” under which households could contract land, machinery, and facilities from collective organizations in order to make independent operating decisions without losing the value of unified, collective management. This meant that farmers were able to personally benefit financially from their own crops, as households were able to get rid of surpluses in production as long as they were able to fulfill the collective quotas. The adoption of the contract system in rural China increased productivity and food supplies in those areas.

Deng pretty much gave the peasants the self-determining liberation they had expected from Mao since the establishment of the People’s Republic. The number one demand for peasants had always been to own their own cooperative farms, free from the hands of the landowning and noble elite, and trade goods in a socialised economy with each other. Deng gave them exactly this. Dash is just upset at the implication of a free market economy, it would seem.

Next, Deng introduced reforms that made prices more flexible and allowed them to rise above the government-mandated price floors. In 1980, the government sought to end the system of lifelong employment for workers in state-owned enterprises by using fixed-term contracts to hire new labor, which they hoped would allow companies to refrain from renewing workers’ contracts if they were not qualified, efficient, or capable enough. This is not “rolling back” on the rights of workers. This is literally “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, to each according to his contribution” applied. This is strict Marxian ethics applied to a socialist market economy. This is an advancement of workers’ rights.

This is what is so reprehensible about the pro-Deng line today, and why it must be repudiated. There’s a narrative that “China had to do all of this in order to participate in the global economy,” but what is especially strange is that this line exists only for Westerners — it is not a position that the CPC itself or China takes or has stated.

I mean… do they really need to explicitly say something like that? Almost every country is to some degree trying to participate in the global economy, because it’s quite unrealistic in this day and age to try and be completely self-sustaining; you cut yourself off from a lot of key resources if you go the route of complete isolationism. There’s a reason other socialist countries like Cuba and the DPRK have so suffered so greatly as a result of being cast of the global trade with embargoes, etc. China is trying to circumvent this by developing a socialist market economy that allows them to export their labour, keeping their own socialist system afloat with the resources and funds that they clearly need. Again, under Mao’s isolationist policies, much of the population remained poor. Only under Deng did Chinese standard of living finally begin to drastically improve. Even the USSR had to rely on Western imports of grain etc., in order to get through hard times.

Moreover, the goal of communists is not to be a good little participant in the global capitalist economy; the goal of communists is to overturn the whole fucking global capitalist economy and replace it with a socialist one.

I find it funny that you align yourself so much with Stalin, yet have completely forgotten about the policy of Socialism In One Country.

Whatever advances or improvement to conditions of existence you imagine to be possible within capitalism are necessarily surpassed and advanced further and faster with socialism, and transforming your concern from the global proletariat to “I want this nation’s people, specifically, to do well,” is replacing internationalism with nationalism. And in suggesting that their good example will promote global communism, they are reviving and regurgitating Khrushchev’s whole line of ‘peaceful coexistence.’

Jesus christ dude. How did you ever call yourself a Marxist-Leninist?

First off, literally nobody is saying China is promoting global communism. You essentially say MLs shill for China’s one-nation socialism, and now you’re saying that MLs think China will promote global communism. Pick one, my man!

Also, you seem to have completely forgotten the fact that China itself has acknowledge that it is nowhere near full socialism, let alone communism. China’s strategy is to allow the market to play its role in resource allocation and developing the productive forces needed for a strong socialist state. This is accomplished through the resources generated by foreign enterprises entering the country. Once these aims are achieved, China will have the resources to develop into a fully socialist state and economy, and the need for foreign enterprises will be no more. They will therefore have the means to govern China as a fully socialist country without the need to be doing what they’re doing right now.

Of course MLMs and Maoists will argue that this development towards socialism is just a coverup for a capitalist economy, but need I remind you that China is incredibly strict on those elite Chinese in the CPC and who help to govern the country, to the point that billionaires are executed on a regular basis. It’s pretty clear that China isn’t screwing around, they know exactly what they’re doing with the elites and billionaires they allow to play a role in government, and if they step out of line, they face the consequences.

As Deng himself said:

We mustn’t fear to adopt the advanced management methods applied in capitalist countries … The very essence of socialism is the liberation and development of the productive systems … Socialism and market economy are not incompatible … We should be concerned about right-wing deviations, but most of all, we must be concerned about left-wing deviations.

Also, the fact you’re so hostile to the idea of a nation focusing on its own people before anything else is just ridiculous. Ever heard of the concept of national liberation? You know, the thing that most communist revolutions, including the Maoist ones today such as in the Philippines, are all about? If you’re for decolonisation and the national liberation of oppressed groups (which I assume you are given your previous essays) then you should recognise the difference between saying “we want our people to do better” and “we want to prop our country up at the expense of everyone else”. Seems a bit elementary for someone as experienced as you, Dash.

Oh, wait, that brings us to our next chapter…

Claim #5 — “Actually Existing Socialist states are a farce”

Of course, if AES states today were in fact doing well, then Dash’s whole argument for the necessity of anti-revisionist Maoism would instantly fall apart, because none of the current AES states follow this ideology. Therefore, as you might expect, Dash tries to paint them — Cuba and Vietnam in particular — as revisionist. Let’s debunk it.

But understand the argument that the Maoists are trying to actually make here, not just the presentation of it. The whole point of being this antagonistic and confrontational over this issue is to try and actually get you to engage with and understand why Maoists don’t consider these places to be socialist, not an attack on the place itself, and most certainly not on the people there, who have had endure great hardship and suffering that almost any Maoist is sympathetic toward, and whose suffering they want to see ended.

Fair enough. Let’s hear your points then.

I’m less concerned with the assigning of the label of ‘socialism’ and more concerned with the concrete material question, “is Cuba/Vietnam/etc., in its current configuration, capable of helping to produce or advance socialist revolution in the world?”

…Okay? You just said you don’t consider these places socialist, now you’re saying you don’t care about the label “socialist”. Whatever, let’s just address your point.

And it’s a pretty easy one to address. I’ve just spent a good deal of time explaining why China’s model of self-preservation is perfectly legitimate in conjunction with the Marxist-Leninist path to socialism, so no, whether Cuba/Vietnam/Laos/DPRK/etc. are funding revolutions internationally doesn’t really have any bearing on whether they can be considered socialist. All that matters, truly, is that their own domestic system is socialist or socialistic.

we must admit to ourselves the truth, that the answer is no. Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea, for whatever resiliency they have shown in the face of imperialism to still exist as they are in the present (an impressive feat of the people!), can do nothing to further socialist revolution, as they exist in the present, nor even bring real conflict against their own bourgeoisie.

Nice use of “North Korea” there.

There is a sort of thinking that emerges from the modern “Marxist-Leninist” left that NATO is the final boss of all capitalism (simply by being the largest and most powerful of the capitalist organizations) when that is by no means a certainty. The idea if NATO is just rolled back, no more imperialism will exist or emerge.

Literally nobody is saying NATO is the ultimate enemy of capitalism. It is a huge detriment to socialist movements in Europe and elsewhere, yes, but obviously it’s not based on all the world’s countries “longing to be communist”. I don’t think anyone would argue the White Army was the one and only factor hindering the USSR from becoming socialist.

It’s nice that the old socialist healthcare system, or housing program or whatever still exists and is up and running in some of these places, but that offers no one anything useful to topple capitalism in the world today.

Gee wiz, maybe if Cuba hadn’t been placed on catastrophic embargoes by basically the whole international fucking community, they may actually be getting somewhere by now. This is what we mean by “critical support”. Of course Cuba is not fully socialist, nor is Vietnam, nor is the DPRK, nor is Bolivia or anywhere else. You yourself later say this:

Socialism is a process — a transition towards communism.

You yourself seem to acknowledge that the path towards communism is extremely long and tedious, just as Karl Marx said it would be. It can and will take hundreds of years. So I don’t know why you’re so insistent that because Cuba and Vietnam and the DPRK have yet to make more essential stages — after having been in existent for all but a few decades — that this automatically means they are “socialism on life support” or that they just flat out aren’t socialist anymore. Then again, considering you’re now a Cultural Revolution-supporting Maoist, I guess your definition of socialism is quite a bit more narrow and idealistic than my own; is would be compared to most educated Marxist-Leninists.

but ‘being like Cuba’ (and how Cuba exists now) isn’t how socialism is going to be achieved and advanced forward again.

Of course not. Cuba has its own specific material conditions to account for. We in the West have material conditions completely separate from Cuba, or China, or any other socialist/socialistic country around the world. You’re just making false claims about what Marxist-Leninists claim to believe. Maybe some newbie MLs say things like this, but the vast majority of Leninists do not advocate to be exactly like another country.

Which is funny, because if anything, you’re the one saying we need to be like other countries. Seriously, how is a protracted people’s war supposed to take place in the country of Luxembourg? How is it supposed to take place in any country that is highly urbanised? This is something that, interestingly, no Maoist I’ve encountered has ever really been able to explain.

Other miscellaneous stuff

So there’s some other points here that Dash tries to make. He tries to argue that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is basically an “advanced” version of Marxism-Leninism. He tries to argue that Marxist-Leninists have no rebuttal to Maoism (see this very essay). He even goes so far as to glorify violence and Gonzalo, claiming that communist revolution is built on violence or that violence is a necessity or whatever. Which is just ridiculous. Any actual communist is principally anti-war and anti-violence; it’s just that the conditions we live under make a peaceful revolution impossible. Nobody actually wants that, trust me.

But yeah, I think I’ve said enough here. In short, Dash’s whole transition towards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism could not be more unfortunate. This just seems like a regression in education rather than a production. We got some arguments here that any educated Marxist-Leninist could easily refute. It’s just kind of sad, seeing a comrade I respected (and still do respect) going down a path like this.

Let this be a lesson, comrades: don’t let impatience and idealist thinking cloud your brain. The path towards communism is a long and arduous one, and many, many mistakes will be made, because we’re humans and humans make mistakes. Maoists (and MLMs by proxy) do not recognise this inherent humanism to communism, and instead advocate for extremely utopian societies that also fall apart when practised in real life, as is the case with Maoist China and the situation in Peru. Are Maoists wrong about everything? No, they’re still revolutionary socialists who follow many of the essential principles of Marxism-Leninism. But being a Maoist before anything else simply cannot work.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism cannot work.