Arguably No Marxist thinker or leader today in the World or in the last few decades has had such a profound grasp of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as Professor Joma Sison. Formally he was the Chairman of the Communist party of Phillipines who laid the base for the re-organisation of the party and the launching of the 2 line struggle against the revisionist line from 1968.Sison resurrected the peoples War In Phillipines and later even in exile guided the Communist Party of Phillipines.Some years ago I even had a personal interview of his in Utrecht. In the last 2 decades he was leader of the National Democratic Front of Phillipines

Professor Joma Sison’s work on ‘Philosophy of Marxism Leninism Maoism’ which is part of the Joma Sison reader series is a classic in it’s own right. Few writings on ideology of Marxism-Leninism -Maoism have ever been as symmetrical, dialectical, incisive or in the total package exhibited more mastery of Leninist ideology. At the very heart Sison touches on how Marxism-Leninism and Maoism have continuity and at no point is there a rupture.Joma reflects the superficiality of Post-Modernism and Post-Modernists and defends the concept of the vanguard party tooth and nail. This book at the very backbone or root summarises why Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a path to liberation and an anti-thesis to all reactionary ideologies. It could be used a s major weapon to confront revisionism and neo-fascism which is entangling our globe at its helm. To cap it all he rekindles the flame of Marxism, in an era when counter revolutionaries project that Socialism has met its doom and imperialism and globalisation has reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Overall I recommend every cadre to painstakingly read this book, which I maintain is a stepping stone in shimmering the spark of Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought to turn it into a prairie Fire. It gives a reader a firm grasp of the essence of the teachings of Marx lenin,and Mao and the very symmetry of their teachings. A cadre guages how economics and politics is inseparable from each other in Marxism and how historical and dialectic materialism are not just abstract concepts. A reader gets a clear picture of how Trotskyism, revisionism and post-modernism are counterposed to Marxism-Leninism Maoism and why Maoism is an integral part of Leninism or Marxism.  Joma illustrates that Marxism-Leninism -Maoism is not all about peoples war or armed struggle but also about mass movements and building of people’s organisations. Notable that Sison makes no distinction between what was known as Mao Tse Tung Thought of CPC in 1966 and Maoism today, claiming it is only change in terminology.

All his book reviewers have praised Sison’s great insight into class struggle and Leninist ideology and his deep penetration of the concrete world situation. They firmly feel his writings make the contribution of an architect towards enriching Marxism-Leninism Maoism.Irena Malenko narrates how cadres in Eastern Europe and Russia were oblivious of Maoism in it’s time and what service the book rendered in enlivening developments of Marxism to cadres. In her view it was an invaluable work in instilling consciousness sin cadres who were told horrifying lies about the Cultural Revolution. In no uncertain terms she praised Sison’s firm grasp of polemics and his summary of the rectification movement n the Communist Party.Professor  Ramon Guillermo praised  Sison’s emphasis on Socialist morality and Marxist-Leninist methods of resolving contradictions. He feels Sison makes major contribution in giving proletarian ethics it’s place in Marxist-Leninist ideology or people’ revolution, bridging the gap between Science of political economy and proletarian ethics.

Sison  summarizes the critical stages of Marxism developing from its embryo into Leninism, summing up experience of Paris Commune and how earthlier Marxism crystallized into a concrete shape, from Hegelian ideology.Sison covered how Lenin dialectically developed Marxism in every aspect and sphere and how the concept of the Leninist party and imperialism emerged from the very womb of Marxism. He described how in different junctures the Bolshevik party had to vary its tactics, but at no point did they compromise with the Mensheviks.Sison explained the counter revolutionary essence of Trotskyism with light to internal and external situation. Later he made an appraisal of Achievements of Socialist Russia under Stalin, but not without highlighting the gross errors of Stalin.Sison applying Leninist criteria praised the great achievements of Stalin like collectivization, literacy medicine etc.Sison rebuked intellectuals who accused Stalin and Mao of fostering personality cult, narrating instances of how they took major steps to combat or eradicate it. In a most lucid manner he explains how both Lenin and Moa enriched Marx’s philosophy of Dialectical and Historical materialism.

However he was critical of how Stalin undertook the purges, forgetting to apply Marxist-Leninist method or democratic methods.Sison felt Stalin replaced mass mobilizations against class enemies by mere execution. Nevertheless he justified Stalin’s stand against Bukharin and Trotsky, who plotted against the Socialist state.Sison makes one understand how Maoism is not just about armed struggle but about developing forms of mass mobilisation and creating subjective forces or people’s organisations. Above all he painstakingly dwells upon how Marx, Lenin and Mao penetrated mass line or how massline was an integral part of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

In most balanced appraisal he evaluated the achievements of the Chinese Communist Party led by Chairman Mao in the New Democratic Revolution, the Socialist Revolution, the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.Sison illustrated the essence of the 2 line struggle chairman Mao undertook challenging capitalist roaders like Liu Shao Chi .Most methodically Sison illustrated the symmetry and continuity of all the stages from 1949-76. In China.At its very root Sison explained the necessity of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and why it was the third stage of Marxism-Leninism. He had great praise for the mass movements undertaken in the first revolutionary movement of its kind. The great complexities or twists and turns of this revolution were touched upon, as well as the sincerity of the CCP in depending on the will of the broad masses.Sison firmly upheld the view that from 1966-76 a major 2 line struggle was waged against the revisionists and capitalist roaders and Socialist Society had traversed unparalleled regions. The revolutionary democratic mass political natures of the rallies were highlighted and the revolutionary transformation within the army.Sison explained the aspect of the contradiction of approach towards productive forces. He brilliantly embarked upon how the vanguard role of a Communist party as propounded by Lenin was imperative of the survival and development of a Socialist society or state and without the leadership of a party it’s very backbone would be broken

Sison described in detail how Lenin was the architect of the 1st ever proletarian party and his tactics to take Marxism to a new stage, after discovering the era of Imperialism. Vividly the history was covered whereby so many groups or a variety of forces worked together, in the earlier stages.Sison illustrates how Leninism took Marxism to another stage in every sphere, discussing Lenin’s writings on dialectical materialism and historical materialism. as well as writings on State and Revolution.

Sison also highlighted the factors that nullified or reverted the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and led to the victory of the capitalist roaders.Sison narrated how establishing relations with America and becoming part of the United Nations China weakened its Socialist base and paved the way for imperialist economic infiltration. He highlighted how the united front was not properly established by the Maoist forces and how splittism was dominant.Sison was critical of Zhou En Lai re -instating capitalist-roader Deng Xiapoing in 1974,who in his view was a centrist.Sison still was not too harsh on criticism of Lin Biao who revolted against Mao and died in an air crash in 1971.Unlike many Maoists Sison did not condemn Lin Biao openly and felt the facts still had to be properly proven

Sison in many spheres highlights how Chairman Mao developed Leninism whether in philosophy, whether in military line, whether in mass line or even on the economic front. Mao’s formulation of a military line based on Leninist strategy and for the people of the third world was described in detail.Sison credited Mao for developing a new military strategy but firmly defended it as apart of the Leninist doctrine. Chairman Mao’s writing s ‘On Contradiction’ were also discussed in detail as well as on ‘dialectics’ .Sison explained ho win the Peoples war Chairman Mao developed revolutionary democracy concept even further .

Sison speaks very positively about the armed struggles and mass movements worldwide be it in Phillipines, Turkey, India or Latin America. It is noticeable that even held Cuba in great esteem, but still outright condemns Chin as an imperialist country today. Most methodically Sison sums up why China today is a capitalist country .Sison at the very root probes into how from 1978 itself every policy initiated was contrary to that of Marx, Lenin or Mao.Sison is critical of the Gonzaloites who propagate that protracted peoples war is universal and applicable even to developed countries and in ‘Gonzalo Thought’ being classified as a higher stage of Maoism.Sison praised the Peruvian movement but felt that after 1988 it prematurely resorted to urban insurrections after making wrong assessment of movement being in stage of strategic equilibrium. Nevertheless he vehemently praised the armed struggle led by the C,.P.I.(Maoist) in India ,claiming that it leads the strongest revolutionary army and armed movement in the world.Sison also had positive words for Hugo Chavez if Venezuela .He also devoted a chapter on how the Church was and can become a future ally of the revolution. He narrates how so many priests have become supporters of the struggle in Philipines.In detail Sison discusses the nature of fascism in third world countries and the mode of production. Tooth and nail he defends the thesis of semi-feudalism still being prevalent .Sison hits out at the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, who win his view very prematurely called for a communist International.

A most important subject analyzed is the 2 line struggle within the Communist party of Philipines from 1987-92 which resembled a major surgical operation. It critically undertook self -criticism adopting the methodology of a scientist, to confront the urban , putchsist insurrectionist line.

Most analytically Sison summarised how China since 1978 has transformed itself into capitalist and imperialist power. To illustrate this he narrates transformation in all spheres, be it in agriculture, education .health, banks or the army. He sums up China’s global expansionist policies and its imperialist trade with third world nations and the emergence of billionare,taking us back to the days when American capital infiltrated China.

No Leninist writer in the world has defended the centenary of the Russian Revolution, fifty years of the Cultural revolution,150th birthday of Lenin and bi-centenary of Karl Marx as astutely or with as outstanding Marxist Leninist dialectical clarity as Sison.I recommend his writings to be read and preserved in a treasure hose for cadres more than the Maoist groups that formulate’Gonzalo Thought.’I praise Joma for classifying Maoism as the very ideology the CPC upheld in 1966 and no new idea formulated by the Peruvian Communist party or Gonzalo.Sison’s writings are like lashing a whip on all counter revolutionary trends be it of the Revisionists ,Trotskyites or postmodernists .No Marxist writer today so sharply or dialectically refutes post modernists like Alan Badiou and defends the concept of the Leninist vanguard party.

With striking Leninist understanding Sison analyses the crisis of world capitalism and how it is germinating turbulent storms worldwide. On Lenin’s 150th anniversary he illustrated how Leninist analysis was as relevant as ever .in taking imperialism at its gravest point. He stressed on how the proletariat of the capitalist counties were allies of people of the 3rd world.Sison dissected all the important aspects of Leninism like The importance of building a strong working class movement ‘, ‘The importance of Revolutionary theory in a Revolutionary movement.  ‘The value and strategy of tactics appropriate to current condition s in each country’. Sison highlighted significance of Lenin’s ‘What is to be Done ‘ to clarify role of the vanguard party and discussed how Martov challenged the line of Lenin advocating  that trade unions should comprise the proletarian party. He touched upon how Lenin how the working class movement would spontaneously move towards the direction of Socialism.Sison also discussed the importance of Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’ which exposed the class character of a bourgeois state.and ‘Imperialism, the highest Stage of Capitalism highlighting decadent and moribund character of monopoly finance capitalism and the struggle for a redivision of the world among the imperialist powers.Sison elaborated how ‘State and Revolution’ was a masterpiece for future generations to master the essence of class struggle to seize revolutionary political power  and build Socialism.

Most illustratively when paying tribute to Lenin on 150th anniversary Sison exposed the farce of the pandemic “The pandemic is regrettable but serves us well as a subject for study in connection with Lenin’s teachings on imperialism and the proletarian revolution. It coincides with, exposes further and aggravates the rapidly worsening crisis of the ruling system. It underscores the total bankruptcy of unbridled private greed under neoliberalism against the public good.’

Even before the pandemic occurred, the world capitalist system was already on the verge of a big financial and economic crash. The pandemic has considerably contributed to the worsening of the crisis of the world capitalist system. And it has exposed how the neoliberal economic policy has escalated the exploitation of the working people, how it has deprived them of sufficient public health systems by eroding these with privatization and how it has led to repressive measures and further loss of income and social services during a severe health crisis.

The forces of fascism are also using the pandemic, general lockdowns and business disruptions as pretext to take center stage, push for and impose emergency powers and military takeovers of civilian functions, heighten repressive measures and jostle for diminishing resources, thus creating a more explosive mix that could lead to more violent inter-imperialist rivalries and internal political wrangling among ruling class factions.

But the increasingly intolerable conditions of oppression and exploitation drive the proletariat and the broad masses of the people to wage the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and all reaction. In most countries affected by the pandemic, daily difficulties of the people in coping with the fast-developing health crisis, socio-economic crisis,

Sison also in intrinsic detail describes the specific nature of the People’s War in Phillipines.Most illustratively he summarised how the Philippines Communist Party underwent 2 line struggle in 1968 and later 1988 and the creativity or originality with which t applied the Chinese path of Peoples War.He portrayed how the CCP worked in urban and rural areas .The strategy of the New People’s army in terms of launching the required tactical offensives was highlighted and how  mobile guerrilla warfare conditions would finally be crystallized or the path paved to undertake it…Sison touched upon the dialectical relationship between the New Peoples Army and the Communist Party of Philippines. He dwelled on the stress on building the people’s mass organisations and how the New People’s army comprised of people from the vey heart of the masses.Sison wrote about how similar to the Chinese red army the New Peoples Army integrated into the agricultural production of the rural poor .He summed up how both the CPP and NPA had deep roots in the workers and peasants.Sison explained the evolution of the strategic stages from one to the other. He explained how today subjective forces permuted the CPP to remain in the zone of a strategic defensive .Sison summed up how over decades the NPA survived like a fish in water confronting every possible hurdle. Most lucidly Sison contrasted the stages of strategic stalemate, strategic offensive and strategic equilibrium in the peoples war and its distinctive aspects from that of China and Vietnam when fighting revolutionary wars. In detail Sison reflected how the CPP initiated self criticism and sharpened practice of mass line.

Quoting Joma Sison ‘In general, as it has already done, the NPA has to wage extensive and intensive guerrilla warfare for a long period of time because of the elongated archipelagic character of the Philippines and the narrow fighting fronts. The Filipinos do not have the the advantage of the Chinese such as having a large expanse of land and common borders with the Soviet Union; and the Indochinese such as having common borders with China.’

‘The NPA has already achieved a great victory in self-reliantly building its nationwide strength without any significant military assistance from abroad even under conditions when the revisionist betrayal of socialism in the Soviet Union and then in China resulted in strategic setbacks for the world proletarian revolution. Deng Xiao ping also liquidated the armed struggles in Thailand, Burma and other Southeast Asian countries and withdrew support from that in the Philippines.’

‘Remember that the New People’s Army started with only nine automatic rifles and 26 inferior firearms for 60 fighters. Over a protracted period of time, the NPA has grown to thousands of Red fighters with high-powered weapons, with reserve and auxiliary forces such as the people’s militia with tens of thousands of members and self-defense units of the revolutionary mass organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.’

WEAKNESSES OF WRITINGS OF SISON

To me arguably where Sison could have been more self -critical was on the aspect of the vanguard concept party and concept of dictatorship of the proletariat. He did not highlight the need to create greater need or scope for debate or dissent within a socialist state itself and develop the concept of revolutionary democracy within a party further. I wish he could have discussed the aspect of whether 2 line struggle within a Communist party was sufficient within a Communist party itself, and referred to the classical Marxist model of Socialism.

Perhaps I feel he also did not touch upon why stage of strategic equilibrium or offensive has not been still reached in Philippines and why the Socialist struggles have received such a setback worldwide. No doubt his analysis of non feasibility of peoples war in capitalist countries is praiseworthy and his staunch defence of armed revolutions. With resolute courage he calls for confronting the fascist regime of dictator Duterte,

I would also have liked Sison to touch upon how characteristics of Peoples Wars in countries differed to that of pre 1949 China, and how that form of strategy should be developed to incorporate other types of struggle in era of globalisation.

Personally I would have liked Joma to dwell into why Socialism was overturned in the erstwhile USSR in 1956 and why the Socialist lost power in China in 1976.To me he has not sufficiently probed into the weakness in establishing sufficient revolutionary democracy to check the administration or excesses of the party and why the army was infiltrated by rightist forces in China.Infact I would have liked Sison to even touch upon weaknesses of the very Boshevik or Leninist party itself, in relation to the Soviets or the CPC with the revolutionary Commitees.

Sison does not have a clear cut analysis of Lin Biao or the struggle waged by the CPC to combat his ideas.He does not give sufficient space to the contribution of Comrade Chang Chun Chiao or even Chiang Ching, who were members of the group of 4 in the Cultural Revolution who spearheaded the final struggle against the capitalist roaders.

I also wish Sison could have reviewed more comprehensively why the Communist Party of Philipines could not launch a strategic offensive and was compelled to make tactical negotiations with President Duterte.

Sison also to me did not delve into the spiritual aspect of Marxism like Che Guevera or into Psychology like Frantz Fanon.In my view Sison’s classing Cuba as a Socialist country is ecclectical.

Surprisingly in stages Sison saw no defect in forging alliance with Social Imperialist Russia of Brezhnev era or East European pseudo Socialist states before the 1990’s.

IMPORTANT NOTES OF JOMA SISON ON MAOISM

DEVELOPMENT OF MAOISM

.Most lucidly and dialectically Sison projects the crystallisation of Maoism in every aspect, be it on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, vanguard party or peoples War. Below I am quoting extracts of his important writings.

‘The adoption of the word Maoism, instead of Mao Zedong Thought, by the Communist Party of the Philippines is a matter of transcription and symmetry alongside the terms Marxism and Leninism. In the course of his leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese revolution, Mao together with his Chinese comrades had the modesty of being averse to glorifying himself by the term Maoism.’

‘By that time, the CPC had already acclaimed Mao Zedong Thought as representing the third stage in the development of the universal revolutionary theory of the proletariat. Thus, it is false to say that Gonzalo was the first to sum up or synthesize the teachings of Mao or his theory and practice as constituting the third stage in the development of Marxist theory and practice. The foundation for the Marxist theory and practice of people’s war was already established in the Leninist stage when the October revolution of 1917 shifted from the cities to the countryside in the civil war and war against foreign intervention.’

‘Regarded as Mao’s most important achievement to constitute the third stage of the development of Marxist theory and practice was not his theory and practice of protracted people’s war but that of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through cultural revolution to combat revisionism, prevent capitalist restoration and consolidate socialism.’ ‘(Considered as the first stage in the development of Marxism was the formulation of its fundamental principles and critique of free competition capitalism by Marx and Engels. And the second stage of Leninism was the further development of Marxism by Lenin in the era of modern imperialism and proletarian revolution).’

‘Before Mao died, he had achieved all theoretical and practical contributions that he was capable of in order to achieve the third stage in the development of Marxism. But the CPC called this the stage of Mao Zedong Thought. In the early years of the GPCR there was even an overenthusiastic notion within the CPC that after the solution of the problem of modern revisionism “imperialism was heading towards total collapse and socialism was marching towards world victory. But Mao himself cautioned in 1969 that it would take another 50 to 100 years to reach that desired goal.’

‘Soon after Mao’s death in 1976, the Dengist counterrevolution overthrew the proletariat in China. The Chinese state and CPC changed their class character. But they have continued to refer to Mao Zedong Thought formally and ritualistically, despite the official condemnation of the GPCR as a total catastrophe and the full-blast capitalist restoration and teaming up of China with US imperialism in promoting neoliberal globalization’.

REFUTING GONZALOITES

‘It is to the credit of Gonzalo that he took the initiative in 1983 to use the term Maoism, instead of Mao Zedong Thought, by way of posthumously showing a higher appreciation of Mao at least for some of his great accomplishments and for acclaiming Mao’s theory and practice as third stage in the development of Marxist theory and practice. But it is absurd to assert that because of Gonzalo’s “synthesis” he is responsible for making Maoism “universal” or that the universality of Maoism is reduced to the “universality of protracted people’s war” and the prescription for a “militarized party.”

‘As I have earlier pointed out, Mao himself constituted in his own lifetime Mao Zedong Thought or Maoism by making great contributions to the development of Marxism-Leninism in philosophy, political economy, party building (especially the rectification movement), the people’s war and the proletarian Cultural Revolution in socialist society. Mao Zedong Thought has gained universal significance long before Gonzalo called it Maoism. The universal significance of Mao Zedong Thought or Maoism does not depend in any way on Gonzalo who has not really summed up all the great achievements of the great Mao.’

‘It is to the credit of the CP of Peru and the RIM that they were ahead of all other entities in using the label Maoism to supplant Mao Zedong Thought. But they were not only for the symmetry of Maoism in relation to Marxism and Leninism. They claimed that in adopting the label of Maoism they were determining and defining its content to shame all other CPs for being off the line by not using the term Maoism. Worst of all, Gonzalo or the CP of Peru adopted the phrase, Gonzalo Thought, with the immodest claim that the phrase signified his own definition of Maoism as the third stage of Marxism-Leninism and his Thought as the brilliant further development, despite the fact that he had not yet won total victory in the Peruvian revolutio

“Like those who were called infantile communists by Lenin, there are infantile Maoists whose main activity is to prance around and preach dogmatically that protracted people’s war is doable at all times in all kinds of countries irrespective of the actual state of domestic social conditions and inter-imperialist conflicts. But if you look at the biographies of these infantilists in imperialist countries, they have been babbling about people’s war for at least two decades to make themselves look superior to the real Maoists who are actually waging protracted people’s wars.”

‘These pseudo-Maoists do not do any serious mass work and do not set up any self-defence organization among the people for possible armed resistance. They are little chicks in comparison to the fascist gangs. These infantile Maoists are a fringe phenomenon and do not involve or cause any serious crisis of Maoism. Neither is it a crisis that certain genuine Maoist parties are still in the process of trying to reach the level of armed struggle and prominence already achieved by the CPP and the CPI (Maoist).’

DEFENDING VANGUARD PARTY CONCEPT

At the very core Joma defended the vanguard role of the Communist Party and refuted intellectuals like Alan Badiou to the very core, who rejected the Leninist party concept or method.

‘It is absurd for Badiou to argue for “politics without a party”. He is intellectually and practically a subjectivist and anarchist who seeks to disorganize the masses and lead them to the predominance of bourgeois parties and the bourgeois state. He is out of the world of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Definitely, he is not a Maoist even if he proclaims himself to be a Maoist.’

‘There would have been no GPCR as a “novelty” for Badiou had there been no CPC that established a socialist society that was being subverted by the capitalist roaders and that needed the GPCR to combat the capitalist roaders and consolidate socialism. The Dengist counterrevolution defeated the GPCR precisely because the revisionist or capitalist roaders were able to retain and eventually enlarge their power and authority within both the Party and state.’

The first great socialist state would not have been established had there been no Bolshevik party to lead the toiling masses of workers and peasants in overthrowing the reactionaries and seizing political power. Without the CPC, the Chinese proletariat and people would not have succeeded in winning the new democratic and socialist stages of the Chinese revolution.

‘During the GPCR, the most extensive kind of democracy arose, with Mao rallying the masses of Red Guards and the people to bombard the bourgeois headquarters in the Party and state and calling on the Party and the People’s Liberation Army to support the Left. Under the leadership of the CPC, revolutionary committees arose to lead the masses in communities, factories and farms. But in the course of the class struggle, the Rightists and the ultra-Leftists also generated an anarchy of factions behind which the capitalist roaders manoeuvred to retain their positions in the CPC and state in collaboration with the Centrists in order to defeat the GPCR ultimately.’

SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS OF MAO

‘I had the good fortune of being in China in August 1966, when the GPCR was just beginning and Mao was being evaluated, appreciated and defended against his detractors and in relation to his great Marxist-Leninist predecessors. I had very enlightening conversations with members of the CPC Central Committee and members of the CPC Higher Party School. They summed up the great achievements of Mao under the term Mao Zedong Thought, such as the following:

  1. In philosophy, Mao elaborated on and developed Lenin’s identification of the unity of opposites (divide into two) as the most fundamental law of materialist dialectics. He did so in such essays as On Contradiction, On Practice, Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? and On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People. He applied materialist dialectics in gaining higher knowledge from the dialectics of theory and practice, in carrying out the new democratic revolution through people’s war and undertaking socialist revolution and construction.
  2. In political economy, Mao had the advantage of learning positive and negative lessons from Stalin’s policy of socialist industrialization and agricultural cooperation, the revisionist reversal of socialist revolution and construction and leading self-reliant socialist revolution and construction by using the basic and heavy industries as the lead factor, agriculture as the base ofthe economy and light industry as the bridging factor under conditions of imperialist blockade, revisionist betrayal and other adversities.
  3. In social science, Mao developed further the theory and practice of the new democratic and socialist stages of the Chinese revolution. But his most important achievement in social science was in recognizing the problem of modern revisionism and the continuing fact of classes and class struggle in socialist society and in adopting solutions. He put forward a series of campaigns to uphold, defend and advance socialism, such as the anti-Rightist campaign, the Great Leap Forward. the socialist education movement and ultimately the cultural revolution as he faced greater resistance of the revisionists and capitalist roaders.
  4. In party building, Mao adopted and developed further Leninist teaching on building the proletarian vanguard party. He excelled at developing the rectification movement as the campaign for educating the Party cadres and members in Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, as the method for identifying the errors and weaknesses and for saving the patient from the disease and and as the way for the Party to better serve the masses, mobilize them, let them acquire power and come under their supervision.
  5. In people’s war, Mao had already demonstrated how the toiling masses of workers and peasants could defeat an enemy that was superior in military equipment and trained personnel through the strategic line of protracted people’s war by encircling the cities from the countryside in semicolonial and semifeudal countries. By winning the new democratic revolution through people’s war, the revolutionary proletariat and the people gain the power to proceed to socialist revolution.
  6. The theory and practice of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through the GPCR was regarded as the greatest epoch-making contribution of Mao. It was aimed at combatting modern revisionism, preventing capitalist restoration and consolidating socialism.’

JOMA ON DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

“Dialectical materialism is a precise expression for the Marxist materialist philosophy as opposed to both idealism (objective and subjective) and to mechanical materialism. Materialist dialectics takes into account the materiality of the universe as well as the contradictory factors in the balances and transformations within nature and society and in the interactions of society and nature. The dialectical materialist adopts the materialist and scientific outlook and the mode of cognition and practice that gives due attention to the dialectical or interactive relation of human consciousness and material reality, especially in the process of social transformation, and debunks the supernatural as well as the subjectivist as the sole or main determinant of reality and the transformation of social reality. It appreciates the basic laws of motion in various types of natural phenomena as an explanation and confirmation of the materiality of the universe. In the dialectical materialist explanation of Mao, a piece of stone cannot take the place of the egg and bring forth a chicken, no matter the amount of temperature applied and no matter how much praying by the objective idealist and wishing by the subjective idealist.”

“The great Mao made no rupture from dialectical materialism when he answered the question, Where do correct ideas come from? His answer is a brilliant summation and amounts to an enrichment or development of Marxist philosophy, particularly in the epistemology of dialectical materialism. He declares and explains that the source of knowledge is social practice, consisting of production, class struggle and scientific experiment. The three terms are well sequenced historically: primitive and more advanced societies exist and develop on the basis of production as human activity, class struggle impels and propels the maintenance and change of class-divided societies and scientific experiment enables the scientific and technological development that leads to social development.”

SISON ON CHINA TODAY

Most profusely Sison exposed how CPC adopted the revisionist road from 1978.He summed up the forces of the CPC first led by Hua Guofeng and then Deng Xiaping to brutally suppress or execute the genuine Maoist forces and revert all the formulations of CPC under Mao. He recounted how communes were dismantled, Special Economic zones inducted, education and health privatise, rank re-introduced into the army ,state banks were opened to former comprador capitalists and how billionaires gained control over the party.

“The distinctive character of Chinese imperialism that is different from the traditional imperialist countries in the West is that China has used its large population, the industrial foundation of the former socialist economy, the combination of state and private monopoly capitalism, state planning and the use of state resources and the rapid transfer and development of high technology to accelerate the growth of the economy and military forces. State and private monopoly corporations in industry, commerce, finance and investment work together and coordinate.

There are state monopoly corporations in all major parts of China’s economy. State monopoly corporations have always been associated with private monopoly corporations and even sell shares to big capitalists. Take a look at the list of the 500 largest Chinese private corporations. Let me just mention the 10 with the largest capital: Huawei (in electronics), Pacific Construction Group, Amer International Group (metals), Hengli Group (chemicals), Country Garden Holdings (real estate), Evergrande Group (real estate), Legend Holdings Ltd (electronics), Gome Holdings Group (retail), China Vanke Co Ltd (real estate) and Geely Holding Group (motoring). Huawei’s largest capital is 858 billion yuan or USD 126 billion and Geely’s is 330 billion yuan.”

Harsh Thakor is a freelance journalist. Toured India, particularly Punjab .Written on Mass movements ,,Massline,Maoism on blogs like Democracy and Class Struggle and frontier. An avid cricket lover too who has posted writings on blogs like Pakpassion Indian Cricket Fans and Sulekha.com.

Email-thakor.harsh5@gmail.com


Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B. Subscribe to our Telegram channel


GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX


Tags:

Comments are closed.