I think OP is just a genuine fucking idiot and the reason they can't answer seriously in a single conversation in this thread is because there's just nothing behind their eyes to respond with
I'm not particularly putting words in your mouth, I am giving an opinion on what you said (or, rather, the subgenre of statement). You could explain, if you were so inclined, how this characterization is inaccurate rather than merely saying that it is inaccurate, but then that would require something other than a listicle on Wikipedia.
Why should I argue "I'm not an elephant" as we say in my country? This is patently absurd. You erected a strawman and I called you out. As far as I'm concerned, case closed, unless you can point where in my words I acted like a marginalized class because of historical anarchists.
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. "oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don't stop them!"
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn't a counterargument anymore than saying "you're wrong" is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it's not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that's just me.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it's not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that's just me.
I applaud your Quixotic efforts to get them to argue about the topic instead of arguing about the meta argument in the most self aggrieved way.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it's not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that's just me.
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn't be like "Erm, guys, you haven't sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren't you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?" I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
There's a difference between opposing lesser evilism in the context of Western capitalist electoral politics between two bourgeois parties, and like, being anti-ML or anti-anarchist in actual revolutionary situations (and not stupid fucking hypothetical internet arguments) because "it's not doing communism right." Unless there were like, REALLY fucking big problems with what the group is doing, I would just shut up and not weaken the overall movement. As Awoo stated, this is literally what ML groups are doing in Palestine as we speak.
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn’t be like “Erm, guys, you haven’t sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren’t you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?” I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
That's exactly what happened in Spain though. The revolution was an anarchist affair, and while MLs fought with, they demanded anarchists become MLs if they wanted bullets.
To whom, under what conditions. We have plenty of evidence that Stalin wanted to crush the anarchists in spain. Again, I don't go into the debate here. There's plenty of other people who will happily debate you on this
They did the same thing in supporting the Kuomintang from the Japanese conquest of China right up until the Maoists pushed them out of the mainland. Do you think that perhaps inferior methods of military and industrial organization could have played a part in this, or should Mao have called Stalin red fash and given up?
It's very convenient when Stalinists betray anarchists and then blame them for the results of that betrayal. Every situation is not the same mate. China vs Japan is not half of spain VS Franco and Hitler.
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. “oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don’t stop them!”
No, it means "Don't trust tankies, don't believe their tales in leftist unity". Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it's still nowhere near claiming we're a marginalized class. That's just a very uncharitable reading of this meme.
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn’t a counterargument anymore than saying “you’re wrong” is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Yes it fucking is! I don't have the patience to argue every inane claim people are throwing in here. I got shit to do.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick
I wouldn't call them "counter-revolutionary" as there's nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it’s not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that’s just me.
We also agree. But typically it's the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they're not led by MLs hierarchically.
Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it's still nowhere near claiming we're a marginalized class.
"Sure, it claims anarchists were historically marginalized and will be marginalized in the future if we don't learn from lessons of the past, but your saying we are claiming to be marginalized is uncharitable."
Yes it fucking is!
"Nuh-uh" "Yuh-huh" "Nuh-uh" -- an argument, I guess
I wouldn't call them "counter-revolutionary" as there's nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
We also agree. But typically it's the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they're not led by MLs hierarchically.
I'll keep it simple since you're such a busy bee. You remember Mao-era China? You know, the thing you represent in the meme with a racial caricature killing Manchurian commune people and "intellectuals"? The PRC of that era was, every day, developing and bringing healthcare, land rights (mainly for food), and education to hundreds of millions of people. The CPC under Mao did more to uplift the poor and oppressed than every single little syndicate in the history of the fucking world combined, but here all it gets is to be tarred as butchers on the basis of some obscure commune project and the plight of actual fucking rightists arguing against socialism (or so I must conclude from history I am familiar with, since the accusation is very vague), over a claim that I am pretty sure Mao never actually made.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be -- at its most pointed -- on a maoist basis. But instead you're absorbed in this inexplicable factionalism over communes that has completely warped your historical perspective to the point that you don't seem to understand the absurd error of scale in your claims.
Nah mate. (No I am not going to argue uncharitable interpretations made up to make gotchas)
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
I accept that you understand tautologies.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be – at its most pointed – on a maoist basis.
Yawn. This shit is the same arguments Capitalists make every day about "the benefits of capitalism."
You are conflating generic progress and science with your chosen system. All that would have happened anyway whether they were State Capitalist as they are, or straight up Capitalist as they're becoming.
And now you are, in order to conflate me with capitalists, yourself regurgitating capitalist propaganda! Remember, I'm not talking about Deng and the "Chinese Miracle" (which I think is a mischaracterization by liberals), I am specifically talking about Mao-era China, where the use of things like agricultural collectives was a major element in the reduction of poverty that liberal economists had no interest in accounting for.
But to consider the progress that China has made merely the inevitable motion of science and capitalism is literally liberal revisionism! Inventions serve mainly to impoverish if the people who own and control those inventions are not the workers! Just look at the cotton gin if you need an easy example, and perhaps see that the Luddites had a point in their angle of economic self-defense (though this should by no means be conflated with primitivism).
People were fed who were not fed before, people could read who could not read before, peasants no longer had to surrender 90% of their harvest to landlords, childhood mortality plummeted. These are things you can say about China under Mao (and, to a more limited extent, later iterations as well) that you cannot say about, for example, nearby India because control is imperative and there is not some nebulous specter of "progress" overhanging the world like we live in a Real Time Strategy title, as much as modern "syndicalists" seem to think so. The people of China stood up while the people of India and many other countries were held down, and your liberal modernism has no way to account for that while preserving your philippics about the dang tankies.
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later). So obviously this progress is not a unique Maoist characteristic. It would have happened anyway. I can just as well argue that under an anarchist system, it would have happened better and not devolved into capitalism and the massive capitalist exploitation chinese workers are suffering right now.
There's no revisionism here. We can plainly see that the whole world progressed the same way. It's fucking racist to claim that China wouldn't have done it if it weren't for that one guy
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later). So obviously this progress is not a unique Maoist characteristic. It would have happened anyway.
This is such a bizarre claim, since many people in many places (India is the easiest example, but you can look at any third world country) still don't have what China achieved in a couple of decades. Even if your speed characterization wasn't absurd modernism, that doesn't make a speck of difference to the people dying in the meantime, but again societal change is not a linear scalar from "bad" to "good," the specific forms of society matter a great deal and, contrary to what you say, liberal systems demand a brutally exploited underclass. You are literally (however clumsily) making liberal arguments to own the tankies, some fucking "anarchist" you turned out to be.
I can just as well argue that under an anarchist system, it would have happened better
I can imagine that Lenin is actually just working on dragging heaven down to Earth and he'll be back any second, but like you, I would just be playing pretend based on information that I don't have.
There's no revisionism here. We can plainly see that the whole world progressed the same way
No it fucking didn't, and it still hasn't! Society is not an RTS game, development is a complex and highly-varied thing and imposing this sort of one-dimensional teleology on it is ridiculous. Please, read a single book about history that isn't about owning the tankies.
It's fucking racist
Rich coming from the guy who posted a squinting Mao . . .
to claim that China wouldn't have done it if it weren't for that one guy
Aside from this being a pathetic, pathetic deflection, look back again at what I actually said and you'll notice that I wasn't attributing things solely to him but merely used him as a marker for time, it was the party and the people who made these advancements, and he certainly helped but he couldn't have killed all those landlords on his own.
You are literally reaching for anything you can to say "tankie bad", it doesn't matter if it's anarchist or neoliberal, and I'm sure you'd have lots of fascist lies to tell me too if I had the stomach to discuss the USSR with you. You still haven't even explained about the "Manchurian communes" or the "intellectuals". I think that I generally know red scare myths better than you do, but I am not familiar with those stories.
This is such a bizarre claim, since many people in many places (India is the easiest example, but you can look at any third world country) still don’t have what China achieved in a couple of decades. Even if your speed characterization wasn’t absurd modernism, that doesn’t make a speck of difference to the people dying in the meantime, but again societal change is not a linear scalar from “bad” to “good,” the specific forms of society matter a great deal and, contrary to what you say, liberal systems demand a brutally exploited underclass.
And in some other countries it was faster. And China also demands a "demand a brutally exploited underclass.", or do you think that Capitalist systems turned to Chinese workers because they were less exploited?
You are literally (however clumsily) making liberal arguments to own the tankies, some fucking “anarchist” you turned out to be.
Lol, it's not liberal arguments mate. I counter the same arguments from libertarians all the time. I am not saying the Chinese would be better with (non-state) Capitalism. I am saying that Maoism isn't necessarily the only way they would have progressed. The only alternative to Maoism, isn't capitalism.
I can imagine that Lenin is actually just working on dragging heaven down to Earth and he’ll be back any second, but like you, I would just be playing pretend based on information that I don’t have.
So we agree, that to claim that the Chinese people would have turned necessarily worse if Mao wasn't there, is just fiction.
Aside from this being a pathetic, pathetic deflection, look back again at what I actually said and you’ll notice that I wasn’t attributing things solely to him but merely used him as a marker for time, it was the party and the people who made these advancements, and he certainly helped but he couldn’t have killed all those landlords on his own.
I think I hit a nerve. Anyway, you're clearly not agreeing that without Mao and Maoism, things would have progressed roughly the same way, so I don't know what you're whining about.
And China also demands a "demand a brutally exploited underclass.", or do you think that Capitalist systems turned to Chinese workers because they were less exploited?
Remember that I am talking about Mao-era China, not post-Reform China. Under Mao, with the notable exception of the period of the Great Famine, the quality of life by every conceivable metric was improving every day on a scale not seen before in the history of the world (yes, including the USSR and company, though the USSR helped China accomplish this).
Lol, it's not liberal arguments mate. I counter the same arguments from libertarians all the time. I am not saying the Chinese would be better with (non-state) Capitalism. I am saying that Maoism isn't necessarily the only way they would have progressed. The only alternative to Maoism, isn't capitalism.
You are such a moron. You are clearly saying that they would have gotten there just fine with liberalism, because that was typically the system of the countries you are nebulously comparing it against.
So we agree, that to claim that the Chinese people would have turned necessarily worse if Mao wasn't there, is just fiction.
It's a difficult question, because you one can trace very specific accomplishments Mao made in developing Party ideology prior to 1949, and those developments were critical to the success of the PRC. There is also the fact that we have observed that right opportunists were just waiting in the wings for him to croak and then swooped in under Deng and caused a catastrophic degree of mass-impoverishment through their forced privatization campaigns.
I think there had to be a Mao or a collective that did the work that he historically actually did prior to 49, but that even if Mao had a heart attack in like 1952, there were other competent Party members who might have filled in his role as head of state and done just fine.
It is conspicuous that you talk in an extremely nebulous way because you know nothing of the history.
I think I hit a nerve. Anyway, you're clearly not agreeing that without Mao and Maoism, things would have progressed roughly the same way, so I don't know what you're whining about.
That's the thing, you know nothing about Maoism because you are just equating it to "a cult of personality around Mao" instead of a historical permutation of communist ideology that was primarily authored by Mao, just as Leninism is not the worship of Lenin and Marxism is not the worship of Marx.
Without Mao-ism, though it would obviously be called something else had Mao not been the helm of it, there absolutely would be no new China. Without a clear Marxist analysis that guided the Party away from both liberalism and being a satellite of the Soviets, the PRC would not have succeeded as it did. It did not need to be written by nor named after Mao, but Mao did write it and it accordingly was named for him, so that is in large part why he gets credit for it.
Eh, it's for onlookers anyway. This piece of shit has no inclination to process what others say on a basic level, so obviously their mind won't change from its sordid state.
I hope to god these people are at the very bottom of the ladder at most if any revolution happens, they will kill it with their own ineptitude immediately
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later).
Those who did either did it on the back of the rest of the world and by plundering and colonizing billions (west and western protectorates) with China still managed to catch up with that in half a century or they just havent yet and wont in the forseeable future (most of the third world) and their progress marely amounts to the most generalized side effects of world wide medical and tech progress. China is bringing to 1.5 billion people the progress, QoL and modernity the former group achieved (and then some) without colonizing, imperializing or impovershing any other nation or people and in 1/5th of the time.No one else did that, no one else is doing that. Other than you know, the USSR (relative to era)
Nice strawman you erected there.
Slapping informal fallacy names on sentiments you dislike is not, in fact, a very good approach to almost anything.
That's the only response I can do to you putting words in my mouth. Don't know why you're complaining
You posted a meme. Use your words if you don't want people misconstruing whatever you're trying to say.
Fuck you, you're not my real dad!
you don't know that for sure, do you?
Posts words
words are read
"DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH TANKIE"
"okay then use your words to explain why me reading what you wrote misrepresents you"
No :3
I think OP is just a genuine fucking idiot and the reason they can't answer seriously in a single conversation in this thread is because there's just nothing behind their eyes to respond with
Don't argue with us idiots, we'll drag you down to our level and beat you with experience
The guy who needs to reply to every single comment but only to be snarky and obstinate
That's the guy who isn't angry
Isn't.
I'm not particularly putting words in your mouth, I am giving an opinion on what you said (or, rather, the subgenre of statement). You could explain, if you were so inclined, how this characterization is inaccurate rather than merely saying that it is inaccurate, but then that would require something other than a listicle on Wikipedia.
Why should I argue "I'm not an elephant" as we say in my country? This is patently absurd. You erected a strawman and I called you out. As far as I'm concerned, case closed, unless you can point where in my words I acted like a marginalized class because of historical anarchists.
Look again at the fucking meme in the OP. "oh, the tankies killed us anarchists in these historical conflicts, and they will kill us anarchists in future conflicts too if we don't stop them!"
Just saying a fucking fallacy name isn't a counterargument anymore than saying "you're wrong" is a counterargument. Actual arguments require making inferences, not just stating premises.
Personally, I think that someone leading insurrections against institutions that have overwhelming popular support due to actively working to give people healthcare, food, etc. is clearly a counterrevolutionary prick and an anarchist who opposes a project that feeds the children for the first time in centuries because it's not a syndicate is being myopic at best, but that's just me.
I applaud your Quixotic efforts to get them to argue about the topic instead of arguing about the meta argument in the most self aggrieved way.
If we were in a hypothetical revolutionary situation led by anarchists that was genuinely and successfully challenging state capitalist power here in the UK then I, as a Marxist-Leninist, wouldn't be like "Erm, guys, you haven't sufficiently considered Lenin! Aren't you aware that the hijacking and reconfiguration of the state for socialist purposes is a necessary transition period towards communism?" I would get behind the fucking barricades with them.
There's a difference between opposing lesser evilism in the context of Western capitalist electoral politics between two bourgeois parties, and like, being anti-ML or anti-anarchist in actual revolutionary situations (and not stupid fucking hypothetical internet arguments) because "it's not doing communism right." Unless there were like, REALLY fucking big problems with what the group is doing, I would just shut up and not weaken the overall movement. As Awoo stated, this is literally what ML groups are doing in Palestine as we speak.
Would it be a better idea to join the anarchists, or form a Marxist Leninist and Anarchist coalition?
That's exactly what happened in Spain though. The revolution was an anarchist affair, and while MLs fought with, they demanded anarchists become MLs if they wanted bullets.
Stalin literally gave them hundreds of tanks
To whom, under what conditions. We have plenty of evidence that Stalin wanted to crush the anarchists in spain. Again, I don't go into the debate here. There's plenty of other people who will happily debate you on this
They did the same thing in supporting the Kuomintang from the Japanese conquest of China right up until the Maoists pushed them out of the mainland. Do you think that perhaps inferior methods of military and industrial organization could have played a part in this, or should Mao have called Stalin red fash and given up?
It's very convenient when Stalinists betray anarchists and then blame them for the results of that betrayal. Every situation is not the same mate. China vs Japan is not half of spain VS Franco and Hitler.
No, it means "Don't trust tankies, don't believe their tales in leftist unity". Even if we just accept what you just wrote, it's still nowhere near claiming we're a marginalized class. That's just a very uncharitable reading of this meme.
Yes it fucking is! I don't have the patience to argue every inane claim people are throwing in here. I got shit to do.
I wouldn't call them "counter-revolutionary" as there's nothing revolutionary about supporting the status quo, but otherwise we agree.
We also agree. But typically it's the MLs who refuse to support such anarchist projects because they're not led by MLs hierarchically.
"Sure, it claims anarchists were historically marginalized and will be marginalized in the future if we don't learn from lessons of the past, but your saying we are claiming to be marginalized is uncharitable."
"Nuh-uh" "Yuh-huh" "Nuh-uh" -- an argument, I guess
If they are trying to reverse the revolution that put the institution in place, that is counterrevolutionary.
I'll keep it simple since you're such a busy bee. You remember Mao-era China? You know, the thing you represent in the meme with a racial caricature killing Manchurian commune people and "intellectuals"? The PRC of that era was, every day, developing and bringing healthcare, land rights (mainly for food), and education to hundreds of millions of people. The CPC under Mao did more to uplift the poor and oppressed than every single little syndicate in the history of the fucking world combined, but here all it gets is to be tarred as butchers on the basis of some obscure commune project and the plight of actual fucking rightists arguing against socialism (or so I must conclude from history I am familiar with, since the accusation is very vague), over a claim that I am pretty sure Mao never actually made.
If you were sincere in wanting to have the people fed and clothed first and foremost, your objection to MLs would be -- at its most pointed -- on a maoist basis. But instead you're absorbed in this inexplicable factionalism over communes that has completely warped your historical perspective to the point that you don't seem to understand the absurd error of scale in your claims.
Nah mate. (No I am not going to argue uncharitable interpretations made up to make gotchas)
I accept that you understand tautologies.
Yawn. This shit is the same arguments Capitalists make every day about "the benefits of capitalism."
You are conflating generic progress and science with your chosen system. All that would have happened anyway whether they were State Capitalist as they are, or straight up Capitalist as they're becoming.
And now you are, in order to conflate me with capitalists, yourself regurgitating capitalist propaganda! Remember, I'm not talking about Deng and the "Chinese Miracle" (which I think is a mischaracterization by liberals), I am specifically talking about Mao-era China, where the use of things like agricultural collectives was a major element in the reduction of poverty that liberal economists had no interest in accounting for.
But to consider the progress that China has made merely the inevitable motion of science and capitalism is literally liberal revisionism! Inventions serve mainly to impoverish if the people who own and control those inventions are not the workers! Just look at the cotton gin if you need an easy example, and perhaps see that the Luddites had a point in their angle of economic self-defense (though this should by no means be conflated with primitivism).
People were fed who were not fed before, people could read who could not read before, peasants no longer had to surrender 90% of their harvest to landlords, childhood mortality plummeted. These are things you can say about China under Mao (and, to a more limited extent, later iterations as well) that you cannot say about, for example, nearby India because control is imperative and there is not some nebulous specter of "progress" overhanging the world like we live in a Real Time Strategy title, as much as modern "syndicalists" seem to think so. The people of China stood up while the people of India and many other countries were held down, and your liberal modernism has no way to account for that while preserving your philippics about the dang tankies.
People who were not Chinese got the same progress like the Chinese did at different speeds (earlier or later). So obviously this progress is not a unique Maoist characteristic. It would have happened anyway. I can just as well argue that under an anarchist system, it would have happened better and not devolved into capitalism and the massive capitalist exploitation chinese workers are suffering right now.
There's no revisionism here. We can plainly see that the whole world progressed the same way. It's fucking racist to claim that China wouldn't have done it if it weren't for that one guy
This is such a bizarre claim, since many people in many places (India is the easiest example, but you can look at any third world country) still don't have what China achieved in a couple of decades. Even if your speed characterization wasn't absurd modernism, that doesn't make a speck of difference to the people dying in the meantime, but again societal change is not a linear scalar from "bad" to "good," the specific forms of society matter a great deal and, contrary to what you say, liberal systems demand a brutally exploited underclass. You are literally (however clumsily) making liberal arguments to own the tankies, some fucking "anarchist" you turned out to be.
I can imagine that Lenin is actually just working on dragging heaven down to Earth and he'll be back any second, but like you, I would just be playing pretend based on information that I don't have.
No it fucking didn't, and it still hasn't! Society is not an RTS game, development is a complex and highly-varied thing and imposing this sort of one-dimensional teleology on it is ridiculous. Please, read a single book about history that isn't about owning the tankies.
Rich coming from the guy who posted a squinting Mao . . .
Aside from this being a pathetic, pathetic deflection, look back again at what I actually said and you'll notice that I wasn't attributing things solely to him but merely used him as a marker for time, it was the party and the people who made these advancements, and he certainly helped but he couldn't have killed all those landlords on his own.
You are literally reaching for anything you can to say "tankie bad", it doesn't matter if it's anarchist or neoliberal, and I'm sure you'd have lots of fascist lies to tell me too if I had the stomach to discuss the USSR with you. You still haven't even explained about the "Manchurian communes" or the "intellectuals". I think that I generally know red scare myths better than you do, but I am not familiar with those stories.
And in some other countries it was faster. And China also demands a "demand a brutally exploited underclass.", or do you think that Capitalist systems turned to Chinese workers because they were less exploited?
Lol, it's not liberal arguments mate. I counter the same arguments from libertarians all the time. I am not saying the Chinese would be better with (non-state) Capitalism. I am saying that Maoism isn't necessarily the only way they would have progressed. The only alternative to Maoism, isn't capitalism.
So we agree, that to claim that the Chinese people would have turned necessarily worse if Mao wasn't there, is just fiction.
I think I hit a nerve. Anyway, you're clearly not agreeing that without Mao and Maoism, things would have progressed roughly the same way, so I don't know what you're whining about.
Where and when?
Remember that I am talking about Mao-era China, not post-Reform China. Under Mao, with the notable exception of the period of the Great Famine, the quality of life by every conceivable metric was improving every day on a scale not seen before in the history of the world (yes, including the USSR and company, though the USSR helped China accomplish this).
You are such a moron. You are clearly saying that they would have gotten there just fine with liberalism, because that was typically the system of the countries you are nebulously comparing it against.
It's a difficult question, because you one can trace very specific accomplishments Mao made in developing Party ideology prior to 1949, and those developments were critical to the success of the PRC. There is also the fact that we have observed that right opportunists were just waiting in the wings for him to croak and then swooped in under Deng and caused a catastrophic degree of mass-impoverishment through their forced privatization campaigns.
I think there had to be a Mao or a collective that did the work that he historically actually did prior to 49, but that even if Mao had a heart attack in like 1952, there were other competent Party members who might have filled in his role as head of state and done just fine.
It is conspicuous that you talk in an extremely nebulous way because you know nothing of the history.
That's the thing, you know nothing about Maoism because you are just equating it to "a cult of personality around Mao" instead of a historical permutation of communist ideology that was primarily authored by Mao, just as Leninism is not the worship of Lenin and Marxism is not the worship of Marx.
Without Mao-ism, though it would obviously be called something else had Mao not been the helm of it, there absolutely would be no new China. Without a clear Marxist analysis that guided the Party away from both liberalism and being a satellite of the Soviets, the PRC would not have succeeded as it did. It did not need to be written by nor named after Mao, but Mao did write it and it accordingly was named for him, so that is in large part why he gets credit for it.
ten bucks this moron hasn't even read your effortposts
Eh, it's for onlookers anyway. This piece of shit has no inclination to process what others say on a basic level, so obviously their mind won't change from its sordid state.
i haven't seen someone this blank in the brain since the SJW struggle sessions
The bit where OP didn't understand counter-revolutionary killed me
I hope to god these people are at the very bottom of the ladder at most if any revolution happens, they will kill it with their own ineptitude immediately
The CPC was massive, it is racist of you to claim it was all one guy
Also your meme literally depicts mao as a slanty eyed Asian.
Those who did either did it on the back of the rest of the world and by plundering and colonizing billions (west and western protectorates) with China still managed to catch up with that in half a century or they just havent yet and wont in the forseeable future (most of the third world) and their progress marely amounts to the most generalized side effects of world wide medical and tech progress. China is bringing to 1.5 billion people the progress, QoL and modernity the former group achieved (and then some) without colonizing, imperializing or impovershing any other nation or people and in 1/5th of the time.No one else did that, no one else is doing that. Other than you know, the USSR (relative to era)
you haven't done anything but bitch and moan at things you don't understand. No wonder you hate tankies! You have zero political literacy!