Jump to content

Talk:Maoism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Remsense (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 11 April 2024 (→Potential Renaming?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

Pol Pot was not Maoist, let alone an "extreme Maoist". The Khmer Rouge ideologically sided against Maoism and against the Chinese Left. Maybe the KR wore Mao-type hats and borrowed various slogans, but that is about it. Unless you think Maoism is about clothing styles, please stop vandalizing this article with this uninformed view. Only sub-idiots think the KR were Maoists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.55 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 December 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Since when is CP India (Maoist) in a part of RIM's hold on SE Asia? The article was misleading. CP India (Maoist) is not part of the RIM. Update info about Nepal too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.146 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 December 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

I took out the claim that RCP is the largest Maoist Party. This is pure point of view. RCP does not publish its membership numbers either do other parties. In addition, there is no basis for calling FRSO a movement of importance and not other similar groups. FRSO's webpage is hardly active compared to other groups claiming to be Maoist. If RCPers or FRSOers want to make these claims, they should back them up with verifiable proof. There are any number of similar groups, they are all tiny, including these two.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.83.234 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 5 December 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tjohns35 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tjohns35 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge the articles. FropFrop (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Marxism–Leninism–Maoism into Maoism.

Everything Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and more is covered in Maoism (WP:Overlap).

Maoism states in its introduction that "This ideology is often referred to as Marxism–Leninism–Maoism to distinguish it from the original ideas of Mao." But little info is provided on what the distinguishing details are.

Marxism–Leninism– Maoism states in its introduction that "Its proponents refer to Marxism–Leninism–Maoism as Maoism and Maoism as Mao Zedong Thought (MZT) or Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought." Which just adds to the lack of clarity.

The only thing which Marxism–Leninism–Maoism doesn't cover is "Differences from Mao Zedong Thought", which is only 138 words long. I think it should be included in Maoism as a subsection and noted that them being distinct is a minority viewpoint (WP:Minority Opinions).

I think that Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought redirecting to Maoism is a little detail that argues in favor of this merge.

I've only ever seen the distinction between Maoism and Marxism–Leninism–Maoism made by:

*Fans of Abimael Guzmán and the Shining Path

*Fans of Mao who dislike the current Chinese Communist Party

Either way, the idea that these two things are distinct is again a minority opinion. FropFrop (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge: There are many ideo-political distinctions between Mao Zedong Thought (purportedly Marxism–Leninism applied to Chinese conditions) and Marxism–Leninism–Maoism. Although there is some overlap, the topics covered in the page on MLM document (or should document) how these ideological concepts are understood by followers of MLM. It would make little sense to treat the notion of, for example, protracted people's war as being exactly the same both in Mao Zedong Thought and MLM.
Additionally, just because the current length of an article is short does not mean that the topic is unimportant; that's Wikipedia's issue. There are countless texts by Maoists (MLM) which discuss their ideology, like those published by the Shining Path.
An article shouldn't be determined by your personal interactions. The distinction between Mao Zedong Thought (incorrectly known as "Maoism") and MLM has been made by more than just "Gonzalo fans", and your lack of understanding shouldn't result in more misinformation and conflations about this topic. SociusMono1976 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. I'm afraid these articles are in rather poor shape. While I can understand the reaction, the solution here is for editors to spend more time developing the articles on these conceptually distinct topics. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support. Obviously there are major differences between the "Maoism" espoused by the Shining Path, by the modern CPC, and by the CPC during the life of Mao. But a single article could do a better job of explaining these differences than two separate articles. I propose having this article describe both the ideas expressed by Mao during his life as well as each of the attempts to systematize and adapt Mao's ideas after his death. Trying to split everything into two articles creates a number of problems.
They give the impression that "Marxism–Leninism–Maoism" and "Maoism" have consistent, specific meanings. Depending on who you're talking to (and what time in history you're talking to them) those terms could refer to any number of ideological systems. Pretending they have consistent definitions might create more problems than it solves: take a look at the first paragraph of the MLM article for examples. We can still explain that MLM most often refers to the Maoist ideas synthesized by the Shining Path without proclaiming that as the definitive definition with it's own article.
A single article would also give us a better platform to explain the evolution of Maoist ideas. To borrow SociusMono1976's example of the People's War, in a single article we could explain first the ideas expressed by Mao and then the way those ideas have been interpreted differently by different groups applying them under different conditions. This will allow us to clarify all the differences without repeating ourselves. SilverStar54 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JArthur1984 @SociusMono1976 Could either of you link and/or name some sources which differentiates between the two? I'd be happy to fix the articles myself.
Everything from party-sources that I've read has differentiated the terms in a vague manner and often borders on sophistry. Additionally, I would often count them as unreliable sources under point 2 of WP:SELFSOURCE, that being "It does not involve claims about third parties..." Because of that, would either of you be able to name or link academic sources on the topic that are written in a neutral POV?
@SilverStar54 Thank you for that, you've put it much better than I could. In particular when it comes to the fact that these terms haven't had a consistent meaning overtime or between different groups.
FropFrop (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to that, I feel it would firstly be more meaningful for you to reference academic, non-partisan sources which explicitly state that Mao Zedong Thought ("Maoism") and Marxism–Leninism–Maoism represent the same ideology (or bear, at most, trivial distinctions). As far as I am aware, most Western coverage of "Maoism" in China and Maoists in countries such as Peru do not actually understand the differences between Mao Zedong Thought (Mao Zedong himself rejected the notion that his "thought" represented "Maoism") or MLM, and incorrectly conflate those groups on the basis of their shared support for Mao, despite their differences.
According to author K. N. Ramachandran:
Ramchandran, Krishnan Narayansamy (1966), Maoism
The source above later highlights that "Maoism" (as in the Western exonym, not MLM) is simply Marxism–Leninism applied to Chinese conditions, and was regarded by the Chinese communists as such. Whereas Maoism (MLM) is regarded as a distinct, higher, and universal ideology from ML.
Additionally, to address the arguments presented by @SilverStar54, expanding the scope of this article (which should have ideally been named "Mao Zedong Thought", but is instead named "Maoism" to comply with the aforementioned popular Western exonym) to include all "Maoisms" would simply make the topic unclear and distract the reader. If we consider the Maoism of the Shining Path to be the same "Maoism" of Mao Zedong, why then should we not include the "Maoism" of Xi Jinping and Deng Xiaoping? They both claim or claimed to follow Mao Zedong Thought, which this article refers to as "Maoism". Yet, clearly, both of those figures have radically different views from Mao, and including their views in this article would simply excessively elongate it.
I reiterate my point, merely because the present article on MLM is relatively meager does not mean the topic is trivial. That simply means editors on Wikipedia have yet to incorporate more notable information on the topic. If we have both an article on Leninism as well as Marxism–Leninism concurrently, that is indicative of the fact that we can reasonably have an article on Mao Zedong Thought ("Maoism") and MLM at the same time as well.
Thank you. SociusMono1976 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a start based on what comes to my mind-- On the notion of Mao Zedong Thought, see An Ideological History of the Communist Party of China. For the Maoism of Shining Path, Degregori's How Difficult it is to be God. Probably Meisner's seminal text on Mao era China, I'm forgetting the name at the moment. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger as Mao Zedong Thought is the strain of Marxism-Leninism formulated by Mao Zedong, while Marxism–Leninism–Maoism was formulated by the Shining Path in 1982 with inspiration from Maoism. The section Marxism–Leninism–Maoism#Differences_from_Mao_Zedong_Thought explains the major differences. Maoism and Marxism–Leninism–Maoism should also be distinguished from Marxism–Leninism–Maoism–Gonzalo Thought which is a further strain according to the specific views of Abimael Guzmán inspired by Marxism–Leninism–Maoism.
You might think it's ridiculous and confusing, but that's how the sources in each of these articles distinguish them. Even if the differences appear minor, these characteristics make them distinct, if related, topics. LaborHorizontal (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SociusMono1976 Do you have anything that is more recent? I'll check out that book in any case, I hope that it details their differences.

I've found the following:

From: "Au, W. W. S. (2016). Reclaiming communist philosophy: marx, lenin, mao, and the dialectics of nature. Information Age Publishing." Page xxv: "Maoism represents a continuation and leap in Marxism-Leninism"[42]

Page xxxii: "[42] See the RIM document, Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, http://bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/1995-20/ll_mlm_20_eng.htm"

In the RIM document (RIM being a "...the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), a formation that proclaims Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its guiding ideology) (1995): "But Maoism is not just the sum total of Mao's great contributions. It is the comprehensive and all-round development of Marxism-Leninism to a new and higher stage. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an integral whole; it is the ideology of the proletariat synthesized and developed to new stages, from Marxism to Marxism-Leninism to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism..."

From: "Devakoṭā Khimalāla. (2012). A perspective on the maoist movement in nepal (Edition first). D.R. Khanal."

This one uses MLM mostly but will use 'maoism' occasionally without differentiating between the terms. It's written by a party spokesperson.

Page 107: "There is not even a single socialist state in the world. Genuine revolutionaries have upheld Maoism as higher stage of Marxism-Leninism. New wave of revolution appears in the horizon. Now, Marxism- Leninism-Maoism is there as an ideological foundation for the creation of a new Communist International."

From the Communist Party of India (Maoist) which is banned in India: “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”, by the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

They describe mao zedong thought, maosim and MLM as the same thing.

Page 39: "The CPC led by Com. Mao made historic and comprehensive analysis of the development of Mao Thought (now Maoism), through its 9th Congress, held in 1969. It summed up Mao Tse-tung Thought as a completely new and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism. Thus Mao Tse-tung Thought, whose historic significance began to be recognized by the Marxist Leninist forces worldwide ever since The Great Debate, became established as a qualitatively higher stage in the development of the proletarian ideology by the time of the 9th Congress of the CPC. Maoism is not just the sum total of Mao’s great contributions. It is the most comprehensive and all-round development of the science of Marxism-Leninism that had taken shape in the period of the tremendous changes and great upheavals that had occurred in the world since the time of Com. Lenin, namely, the emergence of the Socialist camp following WW II; the upsurge of the national liberation struggles throughout the world leading to a new phase of neo-colonial control and exploitation; and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe with the usurpation of power by the modern revisionist Khrushchov clique. Marxism- Leninism-Maoism is an integrated whole. Maoism is Marxism Leninism of the present-day. To negate Maoism is to negate Marxism Leninism itself."

FropFrop (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although rather old, the source I referenced is still relevant in that it's describing the nature of Mao Zedong Thought, which is the subject of this article.
Please note that MLM is commonly known by its followers and observers as Maoism, whereas Mao Zedong Thought was never regarded as "Maoism" by most of its historic and present followers. This article, in its second sentence, notes that it is documenting Mao Zedong Thought, and is only titled "Maoism" because that term is often used (largely incorrectly) in Western discourse. Therefore, should the article on MLM be merged with this one, it would be unduly conflating Mao Zedong Thought with MLM/Maoism. Ideally, this article should be named "Mao Zedong Thought" and the article on MLM be named simply "Maoism" as those are the terms used by each respective groups to refer to their ideology.
I am unsure how this proves your point. Yes, MLMs call themselves Maoists and the name of this article is "Maoism", but it's clearly established in the opening of this article that it is documenting a different topic (Mao Zedong Thought). That is, MLMs and this article are using the term "Maoism" in different ways. SociusMono1976 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If no one uses the term 'Maoism' and 'Marxism-Leninism-Maoism' to mean different things in the modern day, even within Maoist parties and academic work on the subject, shouldn't wikipedia reflect that? Anyone interested to learn what a self-proclaimed Maoist party thinks is going to be needlessly confused or mislead if 'Maoism' is meant to only include Mao's thought (which isn't even the case currently).
If folks want an article about the thought of Mao, surely folks should make an article that is titled 'Thought of Mao Zedong'? You say that the article is incorrectly titled, surely then an article that is correctly titled would be best to contain that info? FropFrop (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I suggested the article on Marxism–Leninism–Maoism should have ideally been titled Maoism. Even in its current condition, this article clarifies it is documenting Mao Zedong Thought and includes a "Not to be confused with Marxism–Leninism–Maoism" note on the very top of the page. Even if the article on MLM were to be merged into this one, it would only occupy a small "subsection" as you suggested, which would still make this article confusing to the reader.
What you describe are issues with this current article, not the article on MLM. I have already articulated enough and do not feel like restating my arguments. SociusMono1976 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — For the same reasons as SociusMono1976. Amongst socialist / communist circles, Mao Zedong Thought is referred to as such, and Marxism–Leninism–Maoism is referred to as such or as Maoism. The issue is that outside of those circles, people who do not understand the differences between Mao Zedong Thought (application of Marxism–Leninism to Chinese conditions) and Marxism–Leninism–Maoism (an attempt to universalise Mao's concepts and ideas) commonly refer to them both as "Maoism". My opinion is that neither article should be named Maoism, and it should disambiguate to both articles. A merger would not be the appropriate choice, unless the scope was split in two, which is not a desired outcome for anyone or per site guidelines. Yue🌙 08:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paragraph potentially out of article's scope

The following is the last paragraph under the 'International Influence' section:

"Another effort at regrouping the international communist movement is the International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organisations (ICMLPO). Three notable parties participating in the ICMLPO are the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD), the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization – Proletarian Way. The ICMLPO seeks to unify around Marxism–Leninism, not Maoism. However, some parties and organisations within the ICMLPO identify as Mao Zedong Thought or Maoist."

I think this should be removed as it is not within the article's scope and it is unreferenced. I'm putting this here for discussion first as I wouldn't be surprised if folks disagree. FropFrop (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted. Unsourced and arguably outside the scope. Without sourcing, it's unclear that this sort of material is encyclopedically significant. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Renaming?

I know that Maoism is somewhat of a more common name, but Mao Zedong Thought is the actual, correct term for the ideology, Maoism is somewhat of an incorrect term, as parties supporting "Maoism" properly use the term Mao Zedong Thought. 342rfawrfarefarwf (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Maoism is somewhat of a more common name, but

Stop right there, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't usually care about what comes next. But since I dislike leaving things at that:

somewhat of an incorrect term

In public English, "X person's thought" is synonymous with "Xism", I'm sorry. Any further quibbling is based on ideological aesthetics. Remsense诉 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maoism&oldid=1218431924"