Lin Biao will be remembered as a great revolutionary. He represented the most revolutionary trend within Chinese socialism in the 1960s. He, along with Chen Boda, were the ones who transformed Mao’s works and the experience of the Chinese revolution into the science of Maoism as a new stage.
The economic policies that his group advanced from 1968 up to his fall sought a flying leap to a higher level of socialism, toward communism. The high point on the road to communism is the Lin Biao era, a time when a quarter of humanity aspired to end centuries of oppression and remake their world as more just. He advocated those policies of mass mobilization, class struggle, greater egalitarianism and collectivization of life that makes Maoism distinct. And, Lin Biao’s model of global people’s war is as important today as when he penned it. The world revolution advances wave upon wave from the global countryside to the global city. Maoism, as advanced by Lin Biao, was, and still is, a guiding light for the proletariat and its allies. After Lin Biao’s fall, the Communist Party adopted the reactionary “Three Worlds Theory of the 1970s.” This latter theory aligned China with Western imperialism. The end of the Lin Biao era was a great victory for the emerging comprador bourgeoisie within the Chinese Communist Party.
It is an shameful and cowardly that the so-called “Maoist” movement continues to falsify history surrounding Lin Biao even after half a century. Thinking people within the revolutionary movement won’t accept the old, dogmatic approach. People who stick with the old way, so-called “Maoism” and First Worldism, will be left behind. The bell can’t be unrung. The Maoist-Third Worldist banner has be raised.
I generally agree with your point of view but have a two questions.Firstly about Lin Biao’s thesis on encircling the city from the countryside.While I do agree with it in its general from, is it correct to say the only “global cities” today are in North America and Europe?Does not a more accurate model for the contemporary world consist of more “global cites” for example those countries of the far-east which have recently rapidly industrialized.Wouldn’t Han China itself be considered a “global city” with an ethnic Uigher and Tibetan population as its “countryside”?I found your videos(Shubel Morgan) to be very interesting some of the best contemporary propoganda(in the positive sense) that I’ve seen.Yet I noticed that inevitabley the images of those in the contemporary world standing up to amerikkkan imperialism were inevitably were from the Muslim world which made sense as the practicle conditions(H(eightened contradiction due to direct imperialist attack existed for a united front of Muslim nations which I simply don’t see extending to the rest of the world.For example I dont see how you can form an effective united front between China and the Muslim world which though perhaps both suffering from some form of amerikkan imperialism simply are not experiencing the same effects of imperialism.One is suffering under direct military occupation while the other perhaps has some of its labour marginally exploited.So naturally to expect direct military confrontation between China and the U$ is utopian.Also there is always the potential friction between the two members of a potential united front over the Uigher issue. Secondly I take issue with you over your conception of socialism while I agree that to expect the first world “workers” to be the catalyst of progressive revolution at present is utopian and the victory of the peoples of the world over imperialism is the necessary next step in carrying forward the task of building a communist world.I find your conception of communism to be similar to a kind of crude levelling of the world which is fundementally different to Marx’s conception (see Alientation of the worker etc.) Would you at least grant that your conception of communism is fundementally different to Marx’s.In case your curious I consider myself to be an aethiest and a marxist and am from a third world muslim country
Mechanical Materialist - October 5, 2009 at 10:24 am
long live Lin Biao!
Lin Biao will be remembered as a great revolutionary. He represented the most revolutionary trend within Chinese socialism in the 1960s. He, along with Chen Boda, were the ones who transformed Mao’s works and the experience of the Chinese revolution into the science of Maoism as a new stage.
The economic policies that his group advanced from 1968 up to his fall sought a flying leap to a higher level of socialism, toward communism. The high point on the road to communism is the Lin Biao era, a time when a quarter of humanity aspired to end centuries of oppression and remake their world as more just. He advocated those policies of mass mobilization, class struggle, greater egalitarianism and collectivization of life that makes Maoism distinct. And, Lin Biao’s model of global people’s war is as important today as when he penned it. The world revolution advances wave upon wave from the global countryside to the global city. Maoism, as advanced by Lin Biao, was, and still is, a guiding light for the proletariat and its allies. After Lin Biao’s fall, the Communist Party adopted the reactionary “Three Worlds Theory of the 1970s.” This latter theory aligned China with Western imperialism. The end of the Lin Biao era was a great victory for the emerging comprador bourgeoisie within the Chinese Communist Party.
It is an shameful and cowardly that the so-called “Maoist” movement continues to falsify history surrounding Lin Biao even after half a century. Thinking people within the revolutionary movement won’t accept the old, dogmatic approach. People who stick with the old way, so-called “Maoism” and First Worldism, will be left behind. The bell can’t be unrung. The Maoist-Third Worldist banner has be raised.
I generally agree with your point of view but have a two questions.Firstly about Lin Biao’s thesis on encircling the city from the countryside.While I do agree with it in its general from, is it correct to say the only “global cities” today are in North America and Europe?Does not a more accurate model for the contemporary world consist of more “global cites” for example those countries of the far-east which have recently rapidly industrialized.Wouldn’t Han China itself be considered a “global city” with an ethnic Uigher and Tibetan population as its “countryside”?I found your videos(Shubel Morgan) to be very interesting some of the best contemporary propoganda(in the positive sense) that I’ve seen.Yet I noticed that inevitabley the images of those in the contemporary world standing up to amerikkkan imperialism were inevitably were from the Muslim world which made sense as the practicle conditions(H(eightened contradiction due to direct imperialist attack existed for a united front of Muslim nations which I simply don’t see extending to the rest of the world.For example I dont see how you can form an effective united front between China and the Muslim world which though perhaps both suffering from some form of amerikkan imperialism simply are not experiencing the same effects of imperialism.One is suffering under direct military occupation while the other perhaps has some of its labour marginally exploited.So naturally to expect direct military confrontation between China and the U$ is utopian.Also there is always the potential friction between the two members of a potential united front over the Uigher issue. Secondly I take issue with you over your conception of socialism while I agree that to expect the first world “workers” to be the catalyst of progressive revolution at present is utopian and the victory of the peoples of the world over imperialism is the necessary next step in carrying forward the task of building a communist world.I find your conception of communism to be similar to a kind of crude levelling of the world which is fundementally different to Marx’s conception (see Alientation of the worker etc.) Would you at least grant that your conception of communism is fundementally different to Marx’s.In case your curious I consider myself to be an aethiest and a marxist and am from a third world muslim country