great proletarian cultural revolution

anonymous asked:

I've got to admit I don't understand how Maoism differs from Marxism-Leninism tout court (apart from having a bit more of a focus on agrarian rebellion and national liberation) & I really can't find any decent resources

Alright, so you may have heard a Maoist explain it with this phrase: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is both a continuity and rupture from Marxism-Leninism. Now this is true, but it doesn’t really get into the “meat” of what MLM is. So let’s start with what is meant by “continuity and rupture"

Marxism is a totalizing world philosophical, analytical and scientific outlook based in a materialist world view and a dialectical method, and it develops based on class struggle. With new developments in class struggle comes new developments in Marxist theory. This is where continuity and rupture come in. We learn new things with each new development, but we don’t completely throw away everything else. MLM traces its theoretical and practical history through Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. ML served not only as the first significant rupture from orthodox Marxism, but as the first systematized and practical basis for communist organizing and built a strategy for actually seizing state power. As such, we are still Marxists and Marxist-Leninists in this sense. 

Marxism and ML serve as the basis of MLM historically, that’s why we call it a continuity; we still promote the ideas and achievements of these developments: dialectical materialism, Marxian political economy, the theory of imperialism, the vanguard party, national self-determination, democratic centralism, the history of the socialist USSR, the Paris Commune, etc. But we are also critical of these in many ways as well, and we try to learn from their failures, and this is where the “rupture” part starts to come into play.

Now, new developments of Marxism can’t (and don’t) just come out of people’s heads, they don’t “fall from the sky”, they come from social practice. They come from developments in class struggle. ML was itself itself a rupture from orthodox Marxism in the context of class struggles surrounding the Second International, development of Imperialism starting in the 1890s, and the Bolshevik Revolution and early years of Soviet power. Similarly, MLM is a rupture that is rooted in the anti-colonial revolutionary wave of 1945-1970s/80s, the capitalist restoration and victory of revisionism in the USSR and other nominally-socialist countries (including, eventually, China), the experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR), and the experience of the People’s War in Peru. Now let’s break each of these down a little. Each of these historical/social phenomena deserves its own essay, honestly, but for the sake of brevity in this ask I’ll try to just touch on the most important aspects, and show what experiences led to what theoretical developments of Maoism. (While I’ll try to talk about what each development means, a full explanation would be way too long. Anyone with further questions is free to send an ask or message though!)

First, the anti-colonial wave following WW2. Many countries rose up in this period to throw off the shackles of imperialism and colonialism. Some notable examples are Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, and Angola. These revolutions tore asunder the relations of imperialism that culminated in the previous two world wars. Africa, Asia, Latin America; all were witness to huge revolutionary changes. We can also see these movements shaking the foundations of settler colonies like the US and South Africa. China was also witness to anti-colonial revolution, and successfully pushed the People’s War of resistance forward and established a dictatorship of the proletariat. While many other revolutions were guided by Marxism-Leninism, they were ultimately unsuccessful at establishing their own independent DotPs, as the USSR transformed into a social-imperialist power (see next paragraph). Because of the dominance of the bourgeoisie in many of these revolutions, many, while they succeeded at becoming independent, became neo-colonies of either the Western imperialists or Soviet imperialists. These revolutionary experiences in part led to the formulation of the theory of New Democratic Revolution, which states that in situations of semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism (that is, in countries dominated by imperialism), the proletarian dictatorship led by the Communist Party must form a united front with several classes in order to adequately develop productive forces for socialist revolution, as to telescope the bourgeois revolution and “pave the road” for socialist construction.

So the second big event that led to the formulation of Maoism as a break from Marxism-Leninism is the rise of revisionism (that is to say, the victory of capitalism) in the USSR. While the bourgeois line in the CPSU had always existed (as MLMs recognize with the concept of two-line struggle), it began to gain dominance following WW2 and, following the disunity of the Party as a result of Stalin’s death, was able to seize political power of the Soviet state. The CPC criticized this trend of revisionism thoroughly, and ultimately came to the conclusion, based on the economic relations in the USSR and the USSR’s aggression towards China, that capitalism had been restored in the country. This is further proven by later acts of aggression by the USSR, such as in Afghanistan and Eritrea, and the neo-colonial relationship of the USSR with most COMECON nations. At the the same time as this split, Communists in China recognized the growing dominance of the bourgeois line in their own Party following the Great Leap Forward.

The Cultural Revolution was launched in a struggle against the bourgeois line in the Party. The GPCR was a huge movement in the economy, politics, and culture, and is probably the best example of revolutionizing the relations of production historically. In this social movement, which is considered by Maoists to be the closest we have gotten to communism, many theoretical developments were “crystallized” in a sense; among them is the Maoist conception of dialectical materialism which posits that the unity of opposites (Law of Contradiction) is the fundamental and only law of dialectics, with other “laws” simply being expressions of this one. This can be summed up by the phrase “one divides into two”, a break from the old conception of dialectics dominant among Marxists which said “two combine into one”. One divides into two recognizes that struggle is constant and unity is temporal, and recognizes the change and conflict in all things. The GPCR laid the groundwork of anti-revisionism in the ML movement worldwide. Because Maoists recognize that struggle is constant, we know that class struggle will continue to exist under a proletarian dictatorship and in the Party. As such we recognize the need of two-line struggle in the Party (breaking from the ML and otho Marxist view that the Party is wholly of the proletariat and any capitalists within it are just “wreckers” or “infiltrators”), as well as the need for cultural revolutions, that is, if we view socialist revolution and a revolution in the economic base, the cultural revolution is a revolution in the superstructure of society. We know that class politics have to be primary in all our work, which is how we maintain proletarian political lines. This is a huge break from Soviet revisionist theory which put economic production in command. This focus on the forces of production is a revisionist error that only encapsulates and expands extant capitalist relations in society, and played a large political role in capitalist restoration both in the USSR and China. Communists in China also brought back an emphasis of the Mass Line method of leadership, so as to keep Party cadre in touch with the masses. This was a method used by the Bolsheviks and the Chinese Communists, and it can be summed up with the slogan “from the masses, to the masses.” Essentially, Communists should gather the different ideas of the masses, analyze them under Marxist theory, and then bring back those conclusions to the masses in form of political work and propaganda.

After revisionism won out in the CPC and capitalism was restored in the late 70s in China, many Marxist-Leninists said Maoism was dead. At this point in history, self-proclaimed Maoists existed globally (the RCP in the US and the CPP in the Philippines are two very different examples) but this was before MLM was consolidated as a universal theory. The Maoists of the 60s and 70s were all anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists or followed “Mao Zedong Throught”. However, shortly after the end of socialist China, communists in Peru launched their Protracted People’s War. PPW was the method of warfare and revolution implemented by the Chinese Communists in their Revolution. In MLM theory, PPW is a 3 part mode of warfare (defensive, equilibrium, and offensive) which implements 3 “magic weapons”: The Party, The United Front, and the People’s Army, to build base areas of red dual power in preparation for a seizure of state power. This was a large break from the ML strategy, which advocated a prolonged legal struggle followed by an insurrection, as in Russia, and rejected the ability of coups as capable of making socialist revolution, as in Afghanistan or Burkina Faso. Peruvian Communists applied PPW to the conditions of Peru, worked with the Peruvian masses, and, despite their errors, came very close to actually seizing state power. Working with ML-MZT movements in other countries, these Maoists began to crystallize Marxism-Leninism-Maoism into a universally applicable theory, just as the CPSU had done with Marxism-Leninism in the 20s and 30s. Peruvian Maoists, working with others internationally, “officially” declared MLM a new development in 1993. Since then MLM has been the dominant ideology of Communists worldwide. The shortest i can put it is that Maoism (MLM) is Marxism adapted for the terrain of Neo-Colonialism.

So, TLDR, MLM principally differs from ML in its dialectical method, which leads to the conclusions of most of its theoretical breaks. The focus on national liberation and agrarian revolution isn’t a tenant of Maoism (altho we support natlib struggles), but most likely misunderstanding of the theory of New Democracy and of the concept of semi-feudalism. I wrote this post of readings and websites to learn more about maoism a while back: To it i would add Continuity and Rupture and The Communist Necessity by JMP, plus his website has loads of good shit: If you (or anyone for that matter) has other questions feel free to hit me up, my ask box is always open and i accept all PMs!

I think Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is one of the most creative tendencies of Marxism. I say this with the full acknowledgement that Maoism is often put forward as a stock answer to complex questions. “Mass line” “cultural revolution” and so on. Theoretical ideas that, within their dictionary definitions, satisfy the questions they’re responding to in a way that seems almost too easy. And yet within those ideas there is a lot of tension and a lot of nuance that builds off of history in a more materialist way than you might think. 

I remember considering that the idea of cultural revolution, in theory, was abstracted from the actual events of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to a degree that was almost unhelpful or obscuring. I had thought that the idea of cultural revolution hinged so much on changing old ideas that it didn’t have a real plan of action to change these ideas. After all, in the abstract world of opinions or ideas, it isn’t always the correct one that wins out. And to me it was not a coherent strategy against the sheer power of a state apparatus set on revisionism. The mass line can’t be expected to be kept to by sheer benevolence on behalf of the communist party. That’s very clear idealism. 

That’s when I took a second look at what the productive manifestation of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was in history, and to me it was the idea of empowering people at a very direct, local level with the revolutionary committees. Only with a platform, with a tool of empowerment of all people in cooperation, can a truly communist ideology be created. Direct democracy, a realistic degree of local autonomy with regards to production, a culture not of complacency, of liberalism, but of justice for all, and furthermore of innovation in achieving that. 

Anarchists are completely correct in their assessment that a new hierarchy cannot dissolve the old hierarchies. That workers being alienated from production by local and national hierarchies is both disastrous (The Great Leap Forward) and un-socialist. Where they miss the mark is the rejection of the state. The state is a tool, and the most vital one in coordinating socialism across a large area, of consolidating it against the very real material force of capitalism. 

The communist party is in service to the people, but it is a service that must be kept in line, on a leash. The people make the mass line. The people make the cultural revolution. The communist party is the set of tools given to the masses, and as the communist party builds a communist consciousness among the people it soon becomes quite a bit more complex, and before long it is the people that keeps the party communist. This give and take is what defines the Maoist theory most vitally. 

In my mind it gets to the heart of socialism, the socialism that is often labeled libertarian or autonomist or so on to differentiate it from Marxism-Leninism. But it gets to that heart through a way that actually deals with the pragmatics of power. It isn’t about abolishing power. It is about creating people’s power. The people’s power that is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the people’s power that is the local institutions of direct democracy. 

You may draw connections to many other tendencies of Marxism from my evaluation but none of them have seemed to me quite so living and open, or for that matter, modernly relevant. If it seems to you that I’ve strayed too far from what is popularly considered Maoism than either you’re a dogmatist or I’m a revisionist, either way, studying the events of the Chinese Revolution (in a very amateur capacity) has showed me to this conclusion, and taking that my conclusion is very much supported within the theory, I am very much a Maoist, and in my life I hope I see Maoism thrive against imperialism and capitalism. I leave you with a relevant quote from Mao:

“Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, “Show me where it’s written in the book.” When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership” but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.” 

from Oppose Book Worship

Being a “Marxist” isn’t enough

It wasn’t until recently that radicals in bourgeois academic circles became bold enough to call themselves “communists” again. Before that, a trend emerged—which still continues today—of socialist academics calling themselves “Marxists,” but never daring to append the more dangerous names of Lenin and Mao to that title. They would declare fidelity to a critique of the current system they lived in, but continue to offer lukewarm, ineffective solutions to mitigate the ills of capitalism, indistinguishable from reformist solutions put forward by liberals. This allowed them to keep their jobs and ultimately become pet radicals for the bourgeoisie. The most prominent examples that immediately come to mind are Richard D. Wolff and Noam Chomsky—radicals in name, liberals in practice.

Recently I’ve become very skeptical of people who call themselves “Marxists” but don’t seem to be engaging in the kind of revolutionary activity that Maoist collectives in the US like the Red Guards or Revolutionary Collectives seem to. What do they mean by “Marxism” then?

Marxism is much more than a critique of capitalism, it’s dialectical and historical materialism—a science that was initiated by Marx and Engels and is still being developed to this day. Crucially, it’s a science that can only be advanced through revolutionary practice. If these “Marxists” are really scientists the same way Marx and Engels were, people who were actively engaged in the revolutionary struggles of their day, then where is their experimentation? After all, chemists and physicists have their laboratories and observatories; they’re constantly learning and putting their science to the test.

Furthermore, the communist movement has advanced far beyond Marx and Engels; we have the experiences of the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution, and the experiences of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China, the latter giving us the invaluable experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. There have been two ruptures in the science of revolutionary communism since Marx and Engels, those of Lenin and Mao. Today being a “Marxist,” that is, adhering fidelity to the science that Marx and Engels developed (and not just their critique of capitalism), means being a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. This is exactly like how physicists recognize that their science has developed a lot since Newton, and today the rupture of Einstein is recognized as a fundamental component of their science.

While Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and physics may both be sciences in the same analogous way, physicists (thankfully) don’t append the names of the main theorists who produced ruptures in their science, probably for good reason. The name “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” may not be ideal, but since the class struggle is a particularly vicious one and developments of a science of revolution in a world where capitalist ideology is overwhelmingly hegemonic prove to be difficult, the distinction has become necessary. The word “socialism” today means a million different things depending on who you talk to, most of them a far cry from what the Bolsheviks used the term to mean. “Communism” is quickly starting to look that way too. Maybe the name “revolutionary communism” would better encompass every aspect of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but I could quickly see revisionist trends twisting it around as Maoism gains hegemony in the communist movement.

Regardless, there’s a point I want to stress here: you can’t just be a “Marxist.” You have to be a communist. That means you need to be engaged in the class struggle and you have to uphold the developments it’s made since Marx and Engels. You have to go one step further than recognizing that the proletariat is the grave-digger of capitalism; if you’re a scientist and your science is revolution, you need to be engaged in revolution and struggle alongside the proletariat. Otherwise you’re just another liberal appropriating radicalism you didn’t earn.

anonymous asked:

Do you have anything I can read about the "active struggle to increase workers’ control over society and revolutionise the relations of production" in China under Mao?

As we are not a blog that focuses on reading communist literature or literature on the history of communism, we feel it is not adequate to answer this question with a simple reading list. However, the question of how there was an active struggle to increase workers control and revolutionize the relations of production is a pressing one, and deserves a thorough response.

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) was a massive upheaval in social, economic, and political life in the People’s Republic. It was in this context that China saw a massive shift from the economic policies both capitalist states and the USSR (both in its socialist and capitalist periods).

In the factories, workers and local revolutionary committees maintained a strict political line and focused on the welfare of workers in their workplace. In Charles Bettelheim’s work, The Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China, textile workers interviewed on the changing of relations remarked on the welfare of workers achieved in the GPCR:

“We pay particular attention to working conditions and are guided in this by the Chinese Communist Party. We are concerned with the welfare of the workers and the preservation of human initiative. In the old society things were very different. The capitalists did not care about such matters. […] There are two additional fifteen minute breaks for physical exercises designed to prevent work-related disabilities. These are at the same time military exercises, for we must all be prepared in case of an imperialist invasion.

All doctors attached to the infirmary are required to make daily rounds of the shops. This reduces the need for a worker to consult a doctor elsewhere. […] There is no charge for consultation and medication. […] Of course, we do not claim that we have done enough to improve working conditions. We must make even greater efforts, for there are always new problems to be solved.”

Other factories in China operated on similar platforms, as well as paying wages regularly above the cost of living, providing special assistance to workers in extraordinary working conditions, and providing more assistance to working women and mothers. Many of the larger factories offered educational facilities for workers, teaching technical skills, engineering, and more. During the GPCR, workers struggled to replace the individualist idea of “professional advancement” with serving the people- using these more advanced skills and new responsibilities to be useful and for the benefit of the collective and the whole people.

Most industrial workplaces in China were attempting to “learn from Daqing,” a petroleum complex that, following the end of Soviet aid as a result of the Sino-Soviet split, necessitated massive effort of workers and administrators working together, not just to earn more money, but to expand China’s resources and provide for the revolution and the people. Daqing was upheld as a model to follow for the PRC because it ended the country’s reliance on foreign oil and maintained a proletarian political line.

In Daqing and other factories, problems were discussed collectively, and daily, and so solutions were formulated outside of a purely technical outlook. In the USSR and capitalist countries, factories had "economics in command”- meaning production was seen as primary, along with monetary incentives, specialists, profit, etc. The top-down method of Soviet leadership in the economy was abandoned as workers made a serious effort to include political cadre in production and themselves in management. Before the GPCR, the division between workers and management was stark, similar to the USSR. Management was appointed by central administration and the factory party committee, which focused almost entirely on production and technology without much (if any) conversation with the workers. The GPCR flipped this model, and put “politics in command.” Factory committees were completely dissolved and replaced with mass organizations such as management teams and revolutionary committees, with the revisionist line of management eliminated as the workers and masses rose up under the leadership of the Communist Party. Piece wage systems were abolished, individual and group bonuses were increasingly eliminated, and production teams took over much of the work of management. Some factories implemented yearly production goals after lengthy, factory-wide discussion, and production teams even deliberated on their own wages based on experience, skill, and attitude. Furthermore wages were set on a system that averaged wage differentials to 1:3. Management, political cadre, members of the revolutionary committees, and administrators all participated in production as the GPCR went on. “Triple combinations” of workers, administrators, and technicians were formed to solve technical problems and make innovations. Factory workers began focusing on the needs of the country as a whole, instead of just their workplace.

Political study of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other socialist thinkers was also common in factories, in order that workers would be more able to investigate and forge solutions to both economic and political issues.

When the Deng Xiaoping clique within the Party gained power, these achievements were all reversed, washed away and replaced with the all-too-familiar system where all authority was placed into the hands of factory managers.

This ask is already quite long, and we have really only touched on industrial production- but these achievements were deeply felt in the rural regions of China as well. During the GPCR, peasants in the countryside (who still made up 80% of the population) formed independent mass organizations in the People’s Communes, and directly confronted the bureaucratic methods of work by leadership and Party cadre. Production team leaders were elected and subject to recall. Village revolutionary committees were formed and exercised day-to-day leadership in villages and on Communes, similar to urban revolutionary committees did in city neighborhoods. Peasants began painting, writing, performing, and became involved with politics, and the expansion of education and healthcare brought immediate benefits to people who had never had access to it before. The rural Communes were advised to “learn from Dazhai,” which was a brigade of a Commune in Shanxi Province. Dazhai transformed its hills into fertile land, struggled against capitalist mentality in agriculture, and constructed new housing and community projects in villages. In the late 1970s, again with the rise of the Deng clique, the Communes were broken up, land was distributed to individual peasant households, and privatization brought an end to the collective healthcare system and “barefoot doctor” initiative.

The key achievement both in industry and agriculture towards revolutionizing social relations was in putting politics in command. By putting politics in command, the PRC was able to transform enterprises into interrelated political units, dramatically changing the relationship between workers and managers, between city and countryside, and further advancing the class struggle and demonstrating, especially considering the reversal of these achievements, that a proletarian political line is essential to the development of socialism and of communist transformation. 


“anti-authoritarian” leftists should read more “authoritarian” shit tbh. Maoism and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has a lot to say about opposing the new elite / attacking interpersonal hierarchies in a state socialist society. Mao writes about how in a socialist society the bourg is within the communist party itself and rails against state capitalism. Marxist-Leninists who follow Lenin’s line on imperialism write interesting shit too - ‘Labour: a party fit for imperialism’ is written by pretty “authoritarian” Leninists but most anarchos would sympathise with the analysis of how the TUC and Labour Party repress struggle and fail to represent the most oppressed workers.


“We Sing ‘The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution Is Fine’” and “China’s Climbers Have Reached The World’s Highest Peak”

by Pang Hsiao-Li, age 9

From the book “Pictures by Chinese children” (1976)

anonymous asked:

As someone who is quite unfamiliar with the history of modern China, what would you say are some critical points/events that led to its communism turning into this... thing that it is now

By the late 1950′s, early 1960′s, there were elements within the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) that more or less called for the restoration of capitalism within China, among these Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping who presented themselves as loyal supporters of Mao Tse-tung yet were considered more “moderate” in terms of policies.

The star of Liu Shaoqi was in the ascent during this period. Liu’s leadership of the ‘first line’ gave him the authority to convene conferences, select speakers, and thus secure passage of the measures he supported. For example, in an expanded CC meeting of January 21-27, 1962 (the ‘meeting of the 7,000’ cadres), Liu Shaoqi presided and gave a speech (on the twenty-sixth) in which he reported that Hunan peasants had told him that the failure of the Leap was only 30 percent due to natural catastrophes and 70 percent due to ‘human errors.’

At the same time, Liu called for the following reforms: (1) immediate cessation of work on projects from which no 'economically relevant results’ were expected; (2) shutting down enterprises that make no profit or operate on a loss; (3) reintroduction of free markets and higher prices for agricultural produce; and (4) use of the production team as the basic accounting unit. This conference was followed by the Xilou conference of the Politburo Standing Committee, which was held from February 21 to 26, 1966, and again chaired by Liu. At the meeting, Chen Yun submitted a report pointing to a deficit of two billion yuan. The report, which was accepted and distributed to local levels, justified retrenchment and increased reliance on local initiative to solve economic problems. At the Beidaiho Politburo Conference in August 1962, Liu Shaoqi again raised the questions to be discussed and dominated the meetings.
(Dittmer, L. Liu Shaoqi and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Rev Ed. England: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998. p. 42.)

Understanding that there was an urgent necessity to attack and remove capitalist roaders from the party, and to avoid what happened in the Soviet Union with the ascension of the Khrushchev clique, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was launched to address this pressing issue (among others).

While Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping were purged (forced to retire from their positions, and more or less barred from any party duty) during the GPCR, the latter would have the benefit of being Zhou Enlai’s protege, someone who had accumulated a lot of power within the CCP and held certain influence over Mao Tse-tung, especially after Lin Biao’s attempted coup (some argue that this coup was initiated because Mao Tse-tung had refused to follow Lin Biao’s suggestion of becoming head of state, thus displacing Zhou Enlai and allowing Lin Biao to later succeed as head of state and party chairman. It’s hard to say whether this was based on rivalry or genuine mistrust regarding Zhou Enlai, but the coup had catastrophic effects and affected the general opinion on the GPCR).

With Zhou Enlai’s death, Deng Xiaoping, who Zhou had appointed as his successor, saw himself being removed once again from any influential positions as the Gang of Four, with Mao Tse-tung’s support, launched a campaign against Deng. Hua Guofeng instead became the premier and vice chairman of the party.

Once Mao Tse-tung died, Hua Guofeng succeed as chairman of the CCP and the central military commission to much of the Gang of Four’s surprise. Thus they engaged in a political war to ensure the future of socialist China (which they unfortunately failed to win). Since Guofeng required support in dealing with the Gang of Four, he restored Deng Xiaoping to series of positions (Vice-Chairman of the Central Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Military Commission and Chief of the General Staff of the People’s Liberation Army). In reply to his rehabilitation, Deng would use his newly found influence to oust Guofeng, consolidate his power over the CCP, and a launch a series of campaigns to besmirch and “criticise” the GPCR (in a similar fashion to De-Stalinisation in the USSR) and to reform China’s economic model with pro-capitalist elements.

A real cowboy of revisionism

This, of course, is a very brief and simplified version of the events that transpired. If you’d like to read more the subject, we have a bunch of books in our library but we also recommend reading “The Political Economy of Counterrevolution in China: 1976-88“ by Henry Park, “The Capitalist Roaders Are Still on the Capitalist Road“ by China Study Group, “And Mao Makes 5″ by Raymond Lotta, and “Evaluating the Cultural Revolution in China and its Legacy for the Future“ by MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the U.S.


i think what a lot of celebrities and brands dont understand about social media, is that while there may be a lot of tumblr users who are excited to interact with and share content from their favorite celebrities and brands there are still a substantial number of tumblr users who uphold the principles of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution instead