Talk:Mass line

Lack of clarity

This article completely fails to define what exactly the Mass Line is, instead talking in circles and quoting people on how great the Mass Line is, and how this or that cool leftist has been a Mass Liner. The reason why no real definition exists is that the "Mass Line" concept is sophistry, plain and simple.

When the CCP was almost destroyed in 1927, its survivors fled to the countryside the party became highly militarized. Slowly but surely, due to the constraints of guerrilla warfare, the Communist tradition of voting on issues came to an end, and all decisions had to come from the top.

Given these changes in the CCP, its new leaders, particularly Mao, had to rectify the Party's "democratic centralism" (the tradition of open discussion and voting) with the new social makeup of the Chinese Red Army and base areas, which were effectively military dictatorships run by Communists. Thus he came up with the "Mass Line." This idea is basically a substitute for inter-party democracy, a way for the CCP to keep its popular support and democratic image, while actually turning into a military clique.

The Mass Line is the idea that democracy isn't necessary for a working-class party, instead, all that's necessary is that the Party leader "checks up" on the poor sometimes to make sure they are not starving and they still support the Party.

I have the feeling that if I edit the page, some Maoists will strike me down and fill the article with even more mystical claptrap. Hopefully we can sort it all out with a debate here. I have edited out one part, though, and that is the claim that the Mass Line - a revision of Leninism - has its origins with Marx and Lenin. Ahuitzotl (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of edits, a source, some refs, some deletions

I looked at it and felt the same way as Ahuitzotl. I had this book here and flipped to Teiwes' chapter, and decided to get some stuff down. The article is written from the perspective of Maoism (I assume), so it's hard to understand. It would be good if the writing was not in the voice of the advocate, but instead simply describing these theories to someone who hadn't heard of them. Ahuitzotl, where did you get the information you said above? If there's a source, it can go in the article. I'm not sure if all my edits are helpful, but please take a look (whoever's watching) and check that out. --Asdfg12345 13:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

I'm going to delete most or everything that doesn't have references if no one pipes up about why it should be kept. It reads a bit like a communist pamphlet, making insider references that no one else would really get. I have some neutral sources on this here, I'm going to start adding them. Tagged for now. There should be many different perspectives on the page, including the official Maoist dogma (identified as such), but atm it's kinda unclear. If you are watching this page and can clear that up, please jump in. --Asdfg12345 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added a lot of material from a guy named Steiner. I will supplement this and keep adding things from other sources in the time to come, breaking it up by theme etc.. Greetings. --Asdfg12345 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Per above, I'm now deleting most of the "outside influence" section as unsourced. --Asdfg12345 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I deleted all of it. originally was gonna leave the first graf, but what's the point? no source, plus not even useful for getting a grip of the subject. going to clean up the external links etc. too --Asdfg12345 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for deletions

PCPP, please explain why you reverted to an old version of the article with no discussion, including deleting a bunch of good material.[1] Thanks. I've warned you and will open an RfC about your conduct later. --Asdfg12345 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? You added a bunch of material derived from one source, placing a further undue weight on Steiner's claims, while deleting material from first hand Maoist sources and the section on outside influences just because you didn't like it. Thanks to your changes, this article now consists of a blalant attack article instead of explaining what mass line is.--PCPP (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources should be avoided. I found some scholarly material and added it to the page. All you have done, in fact, is delete a lot of sourced material and add a lot of unsourced material. Is this what wiki is about? I really don't understand this. I will update the RfC to reflect these latest events. I'm actually, sincerely just trying to improve the pages. They aren't a forum for Maoist propaganda, but informed discussion. Please find some good material which, in your view, explains what the Mass line is, rather than belittling my contributions based on reliable sources. --Asdfg12345 03:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If no sources are found for the section you reinserted, I will remove it again. I am not saying that the way I left the page was perfect. Wiki is a work in progress. But why not help build it rather than just criticising me, deleting my contributions, and re-adding unsourced material? --Asdfg12345 03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is adding primary sources from Chairman Mao, who was actually involved with the mass line concept, "propaganda"? You are displaying the same editing patterns that got you banned from editing FLG articles in the first place.--PCPP (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)