Hi! Long time lurker, first time poster. Been discussing stuff with MLs of all stripes recently, and have come across a common statement used by a lot of Maoists which frustrates me.

They seem to always fall back on statements like “The CPC allows billionaires in their ranks, so they are revisionist.”

Maoists have often used this as a kind of “gotcha” argument against more traditional MLs, or “Dengists” as they love to label us.

It’s frustrating, because…I don’t disagree really, allowing members of the bourgeoisie to hold political power is pretty much the definition of revisionism. The problem is, this feels more like a way to silence dissent or discussion rather than facilitate it. Feels like an overly simplistic hard line that simplifies history into binary divisions. Often followed by an implied “China is revisionist, therefore Maoism is the only working form of socialism.”

I’m reaching out to people to see if anyone has any ways to combat this, in a way that encourages discussion rather than it just devolving into insults or truisms hurled back and forth without thought.

  • Munrock ☭@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    allowing members of the bourgeoisie to hold political power is pretty much the definition of revisionism.

    Here’s one of the holes.

    Being a member of the CPC doesn’t grant you political power any more than being a registered Democrat or Republican does. You get a vote in party matters just like Pubs and Dems get a vote in closed caucuses or primaries, and that’s the extent of ‘power’ you get it at basic membership.

    Being a wealthy party member gets you less advantage in the CPC because of the strict regulations on how money can be used in politics, i.e. you can’t influence through donation. You also get excluded from considerstion for promotion. You get the same voice as every other member, and put on committees that match your area of expertise, but you’re not on the promotion track toward the Central Committee if you’re a billionaire.

    Jack Ma built up Ant Group in the private sector and got rich but not promoted, Jiang Zemin built up First Auto Works in the state-owned sector and got promoted but not rich. They are not the same.

    • qwename@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      allowing members of the bourgeoisie to hold political power is pretty much the definition of revisionism

      I’m also curious as to where this is defined.