AnarchoMaoist Theory.

88 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
#1
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 14:19
AnarchoMaoist Theory.

OK, so I am an AnarchoMaoist. That is to say that I believe the workers should control the means of production through independent councils. I believe workers should be armed and form regional and local Militias to guard against a revolutionary government betraying their gains and should form civil guards to police and help the people in their community rather than having government forces interfering with civillian affairs.

However I see the need for a strong Military to defend from imperialism and repel invasion, as Militias could only fight a protracted war of attrition against a profesional occupation force. A Red Army would also be a vital tool to spread revolution by aiding, training and fighting with revolutionary struggles around the globe, as unless socialism spreads, it dies.

The Military would have no influence in civillian matters and would not be allowed to be deployed amongst its own population.

While I see the need for government to be used by the councils as a kind of logistical infrastructure, I do not think we will need any politicians and leaders, just the councils to use the government to link up all regions and for example, coordinate production timetables and arranging public transport, housing and food distribution on a large scale, which would be needed, especially during the first years.

However this government would not be a state and would have no leader or factions, It would be subserviant to the councils.

Councils would either be set up regionally or in a way that is most efficient, The councils would be made up of the entire workforce of that particular area and would have votes on everything to ensure true democracy.

What do you think, is this a form of councilism or leninism or anarchist communist?

Basically I see the need for a military for defence and to spread revolution, yet I see a state as always betraying the workers.

Would you be down with this?

#2
Top
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 15 2011 14:23
Quote:
The Military would have no influence in civillian matters and would not be allowed to be deployed amongst its own population.

How would you stop them when they have all the heavy weapons?

#3
Top
Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Feb 15 2011 14:30

what about the "70%-30%"-theory of Mao?

#4
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 14:32
Rob Ray wrote:
Quote:
The Military would have no influence in civillian matters and would not be allowed to be deployed amongst its own population.

How would you stop them when they have all the heavy weapons?

Well the whole population would be armed and have its own autonomous militias, so it would be able to resist and win over a extended period of time. The reason for the Armed forces is without it, militias might be able to fight an American occupation and wear them down over an extended period, but an army could fight and if they were defeated, we would then have the whole populations militias to carry on, rather than just Militias from the start.

Of course to best avoid tyranical generals rising up etc, the armed forces would have an elected leadership, which would have a maximum term of two years and the whole Military would be comprised of volunteers anyway, who would I am sure be for workers democracy and follow the orders of their commanders only for revolutionary activity, not for counter revolution.

(Reply to #2)
#5
Top
Indigo's picture
Indigo
Offline
Joined: 12-01-11
Feb 15 2011 14:53

I think anarcho-maoism is retarded, and this is the first I've heard of it.

#6
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 14:56
Indigo wrote:
I think anarcho-maoism is retarded, and this is the first I've heard of it.

No yeah thanks for that mate, fucking balls to the wall badass answer.

(Reply to #5)
#7
Top
Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Feb 15 2011 15:14

groups like Gauche prolétarienne or Vive la révolution were sometimes labelled "anarcho-maoiste" ... many of their leading members became right-wingers

#8
Top
Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Feb 15 2011 15:29

Did you design that logo?

#9
Top
flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Feb 15 2011 16:11

Is this a wind up?

#10
Top
Ellar's picture
Ellar
Offline
Joined: 1-11-09
Feb 15 2011 16:38

It sounds to me like your just really confused about stuff and allot of what you have said doesn't really make sense. First of all you use the word government but then explain that practically there actually won't be any government, just workers councils coordinating things together.
Secondly you say a army is needed to defend against invasion and so on but then explain that there should also be armed, autonomous and highly organised workers councils, why can't they defend against invasion, or why not just make that the responsability of the entire community.

I don't think your idea's could be called Anarchist in any sense really, the idea of sending a army out to create revolution in other places runs completely against Anarchist idea's. i don't think anybody on Libcom will be "down with this".

Anarchism isn't just a blanket term you can apply to any vague idea of non-traditional marxism, it has specific principles and practices which come from a long political and social tradition. If your going to apply terms to things in this manner then you might aswell call yourself a Maoist-conservative-Buddhist. It doesn't mean you are a conserative or a buddhist.

#11
Top
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 15 2011 16:39

"Anarcho-Maoist"...... I don't think most of the posters here would agree with the concept.
On a seperate note, your ideas seem to be quite military oriented. Councils would tend to be mass oriented. But I have no real desire to debate here or elsewhere the military aspect of stuff.

How do you see anarchism and maoism fusing? They both have their own histories and one is steeped in stalinism, the other completely opposed to such forms of "socialism".

#12
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 16:58

When I use the term Maoist, it just means that I see the need for armed warfare with ranks and see the need for a party and tactics such as the mass line.

I think we would need a government but not a state, to act as a link and a logistic and transport model, as no anarchist can give me a detailed account of how for example, an anarchist society would feed all its people, distribute goods evenly and go about fighting invasion and sanctions with some losse federation of militias.

Seems no anarchist ever wants to debate, they just insult or ignore the pressing questions, it seems to be more about middle class lifestylism than actually trying to end the system that robs us all and starves thousands everyday.

#13
Top
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 15 2011 17:07
AnarchoMaoist1992 wrote:
When I use the term Maoist, it just means that I see the need for armed warfare with ranks and see the need for a party and tactics such as the mass line.
....

Seems no anarchist ever wants to debate, they just insult or ignore the pressing questions, it seems to be more about middle class lifestylism than actually trying to end the system that robs us all and starves thousands everyday.

Comrade, I think most don't want to "debate" tha above simply because we do not agree with the position laid forth.

So, you've described your Maoism, how do you see Anarchism fitting into this scenario?

(Reply to #12)
#14
Top
Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Feb 15 2011 17:08
AnarchoMaoist1992 wrote:
I think we would need a government but not a state,

thats neither a marxist or an anarchist concept

(Reply to #12)
#15
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 17:12

Basically we would need to have government and Military defence capabilities until we see socialism spread throughout the world, one liberated territory at a time.

Once that happens, we can let all formal institutions apart from the councils wither away.

However I do think we should get rid of money and police straight away and make sure the society is controlled by workers.

I do not support a state like we saw in the PRC or the USSR.

Also I denounce Stalin for his illegalisation of Abortion, homosexuality, alcohol and strikes. For his genocide in Chechneya and for being an absolute scumbag non communist.

#16
Top
Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Feb 15 2011 17:12

Amazing.

#17
Top
radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Feb 15 2011 17:13
Entdinglichung wrote:
AnarchoMaoist1992 wrote:
I think we would need a government but not a state,

thats neither a marxist or an anarchist concept

it sounds like something from revleft, where a few anarchists have accepted there opponents definition of a government as being any large scale social organisation and so started to claim that anarchists support a government and not a state.

(Reply to #14)
#18
Top
Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Feb 15 2011 17:14
Quote:
Basically we would need to have government and Military defence capabilities until we see socialism spread throughout the world, one liberated territory at a time.

Once that happens, we can let all formal institutions apart from the councils wither away.

However I do think we should get rid of money and police straight away and make sure the society is controlled by workers.

I do not support a state like we saw in the PRC or the USSR.

Also I denounce Stalin for his illegalisation of Abortion, homosexuality, alcohol and strikes. For his genocide in Chechneya and for being an absolute scumbag non communist.

This is pretty much standard Trotskyism, nothing Anarchist or Maoist there.

#19
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 17:23

How is there nothing maoist?
I uphold the mass line, the formation of peoples army to liberate territory.

I see the Maoists way of building up a base of support and expanding their forces as the way to bring about and win a revolution, however i see the need to abolish the state and rather have a government ran by the people through councils and commitees, no politicians or leaders.

I also say that if we are being realistic, how the fuck could we survive without an army, the Americans will just crush any gains without one, and if we only had militias maybe we could defend the liberated territory from them, but they would have destroyed our infrastructure and imposed a decades long occupation.

Why leave ourselves for obvious downfall?

#20
Top
red and black riot
Offline
Joined: 15-04-08
Feb 15 2011 17:29

Maoism isn't really going to be that appealing is it?

#21
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 17:31

Then other capitalist places like China, Russia, Japan, Britain would attack America and we would see another cold war, unless the revolution spread, but if its the PSL or RCP or some anarchist grouping who siezes power, then there is no chance of that.

PS I fucking hate Bob Avakian smile

(Reply to #20)
#22
Top
JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 15 2011 17:32

Anarchism means abolishing the state as an immediate objective. There is nothing anarchist about what you have written above, it just sounds like ill-thought out posturing which has no material basis.

#23
Top
Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Feb 15 2011 17:35

On a serious note, I do find it rather depressing how the prefix "anarcho-" has become basically just a tool for sexing up your half-understood ideology of choice with a bit of radical posturing. "I'm an ANARCHO maoist, you know, like regular maoism but with more ANARCHY."

#24
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 17:39

Like thinking once we abolish the state everything will become great?

That is what concerns the working class in my area, wether we will abolish the state straight away, not if conditions will go up, if we see a radical change in societies rigid mentality, not the removal of racism sexism and transphobia, but rather if we abolish the state right away.

Are any of you actually working class, or all middle class students?, Serious question.

#25
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 17:42
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
AnarchoMaoist1992 wrote:
Then other capitalist places like China, Russia, Japan, Britain would attack America and we would see another cold war, unless the revolution spread, but if its the PSL or RCP or some anarchist grouping who siezes power, then there is no chance of that.

I think most people here are already aware of the problems of a revolution being isolated and only happening in once place, which is why most of us think it has to happen everywhere at roughly the same time for it to actually work. Why do you think it would only happen in one country at a time?

Because I am not totally deluded and utopian.

This is why anarchists will never be able to end capitalism, they cant see that you need to build your forces and spread revolution and defend your gains.

It is ridiculous to think that revolutions will occur everywhere at the same time, what next, say no to one planet socialism, we need simultanious revolutions in the galaxy smile

(Reply to #25)
#26
Top
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 15 2011 17:43

down my local on the council estate, the formation of peoples army to liberate territory is the word on everybody's lips. what are you middle class poseurs doing?

#27
Top
Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Feb 15 2011 17:43
Quote:
Are any of you actually working class, or all middle class students?, Serious question.

Classic.

#28
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 17:45

Lol I am serious, you talk as if working class people are opposed to a workers state, pending worldwide classless egalitarian communist society.

Where do you get this attitude of defending the workers from the nasty leninists/anyone who isnt utopian grin

#29
Top
Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Feb 15 2011 17:46
Quote:
you talk as if working class people are opposed to a workers state, pending worldwide classless egalitarian communist society.

He's going to be so disappointed when he finds out sad.

#30
Top
AnarchoMaoist1992's picture
AnarchoMaoist1992
Offline
Joined: 15-02-11
Feb 15 2011 17:49

Shouldnt we analyse conditions and draw conclusions, rather than have concrete conclusions based on dogmatic sticking to a train of thought?

#31
Top
Awesome Dude's picture
Awesome Dude
Offline
Joined: 31-07-07
Feb 15 2011 17:50
AnarchoMaoist1992 wrote:
Basically we would need to have government and Military defence capabilities until we see socialism spread throughout the world, one liberated territory at a time.

Well this is just the problem with your outlook. You see revolution as a linear process that centres on the working class physically expropriating territory and therefore improving its' position of command in class society. In other words the workers just have to self-manage capitalism in one territory at a time until such a time the whole world is self-managed by the workers. At that point institutions workers use to manage society and hold out against counter-revolution will wither away and the golden age of communism will emerge.

(Reply to #15)