Student Class Goal The Group Is Concerned About The Current Armed Conflict And Wants: Fill & Download for Free

I have been reviewing the literature about Mao Zedong in the West. Sadly, most of it is pure propaganda, lies, and exaggeration about the man. Even finding hard evidence about the fantastic claims made about him is not easy to find. Most of the narrative surrounding him has become the usual set of lies, that once repeated enough, become burned into the brains of the public. “Mao killed 75 million,” we hear. “Worse than Joseph Stalin,” say others. Nonsense. Much of this garbage comes from The Black Book of Communism, a discredited propaganda piece that came up with the “Communism killed 100 million” figure. Not to be outdone, the numbers are getting even higher. I heard 300 million earlier today. Alexander Finnegan's answer to What is the most biased book you’ve ever read?When I first googled “Mao Zedong” one of the first links was from Wikipedia. Scrolling down the initial biographical information about him, you then reaching a section where it states, with a straight face, that Mao killed 30–70 million people, according to Phillip Short, author of “Mao: A Life.” I started listening to interviews from Mr. Short and he takes great liberties to portray Mao in the worst possible light, without evidence. For example, he says that Mao was “ungrateful and treated his father terribly.” In reality the evidence we have shows that Mao did sometimes complain about his father, but this was common among the group of intellectuals with whom he would hang out. It was fashionable, but there is little evidence that he actually did treat his father poorly. This is just one example, but I have yet to find a Western accounting of Mao that hasn’t been a slurry of sensationalized exaggeration to sell books.The claims about Mao being responsible for 30–70 million deaths is fantastical and untrue. The evidence doesn’t support it. And those who have examined some of the supposed “proofs” based on census figures have been easily debunked. In fact, there were journalists and Western delegations that had visited during the Great Leap Forward and found there to be hunger but no evidence of mass starvation. Nevertheless, famines were a routine part of life in China going back for centuries. Many years ago there was a ridiculous book written about how Mao’s policy of killing sparrows was the substantial cause of the famine, that Mao had “violated the balance of nature.” While this had some effect, the author fails to mention that there were multiple causes for the famine, and that Mao was not the primary cause.Let’s assume there was a famine, for the sake of argument:Chinese history scholar Carl Riskin believes that a very serious famine took place but states “In general, it appears that the indications of hunger and hardship did not approach the kinds of qualitative evidence of mass famine that have accompanied other famines of comparable (if not equal) scale, including earlier famines in China.” He points out that much of the contemporary evidence presented in the West tended to be discounted at the time as it emanated from right-wing sources and was hardly conclusive. He considers whether repressive policies by the Chinese government prevented information about the famine getting out but states “whether it is a sufficient explanation is doubtful. There remains something of a mystery here.” 13Source: Monthly Review | Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?It therefore remains an open question why the accounts presented by these authors should be treated as certain fact in the west. In his famous 1965 book on China, A Curtain of Ignorance, Felix Greene says that he traveled through areas of China in 1960 where food rationing was very tight but he did not see mass starvation. He also cites other eyewitnesses who say the same kind of thing. It is likely, that in fact, famine did occur in some areas. However Greene’s observations indicate that it was not a nation-wide phenomenon on the apocalyptic scale suggested by Jasper Becker and others. Mass hunger was not occurring in the areas he traveled through, although famine may have been occurring elsewhere. Why are the accounts of people like Becker believed so readily when the account of Felix Greene and the others he cites is discounted? Of course, the sympathy of Greene for Mao’s regime may be raised in connection with this and it might be suggested he distorted the truth for political reasons. But Becker, MacFarquhar and Jung Chang have their own perspectives on the issue too. Could anyone seriously doubt that these authors are not fairly staunch anti-communists? Id.Most of the supposed claims about the famine were elaborated by Roderick MacFarquhar, who also happened to be a paid propagandist for the CCF, which is directly funded by the CIA. No surprise. Robert Conquest, the founder of the idea that Stalin killed 30 million intentionally during the Ukrainian Famine was also a paid propagandist for the IDF, which was funded directly the the British Intelligence Services. Both fed information to journalists, the media, and other institutions. These are the typical propagandists front groups. Id.Further, there is substantial evidence that the Deng Xiaoping regime falsified some evidence to make the Great Leap Forward and the famine seem much worse, to legitimize the move from Maoism to enacting capitalist reforms. Id.Mao enjoyed popular support by the peasants who desperately needed land reform. They lived lives of desperate hunger and poverty. Mao brought the nation together. He brought enormous economic growth and prepared China to become one of the leading economic powers in the world. Mao’s strength was in mobilizing the majority of farmers and peasants to support him. He guided them. He had less power than any U.S. President.The supposed terror of Mao’s rule is total propaganda. In fact the supposed “famine” that he caused turned out to be a period of hunger, and the numbers extolling his supposed 45 million killed are unsubstantiated lies. Most of it comes from bitter members of the CCP who found themselves purged for embracing capitalism and had to do some service work in the country to learn the value of not being antisocial. Mao did not execute his political enemies. He believed in rehabilitation and service work. That is why President Xi’s father and Deng Xiaoping himself were not killed and Deng would eventually become the leader of China.The only landlords that got hurt were the ones who took up arms and violently resisted the land reforms. Landlords that caused deaths or had collaborated with the Japanese invaders would face a trial and if found guilty could be executed.Source: How Mao Greatly Strengthened ChinaThis man has just been given land as part of the land redistribution.Land was given to peasants, who previously were essentially serfsOn collectives food was more abundant than beforePhotos: COMMUNES, LAND REFORM AND COLLECTIVISM IN CHINAMassive irrigation projects improved the landFantastic series of photos of everyday life in Maoist China: Everyday Life in Maoist ChinaWhen the land reforms were announced Mao anticipated there would be resistance from the landlord class, as any privileged class is unlikely to just happily give up their riches for the well being of others. But landlords had the option to abide by the law and be fine. Estimating resistance is not a death sentence. In fact landlords that complied were given land to till and welcomed into the community. They were not exterminated.Source: The Land Reform -- china.org.cnLand is redistributed more equitablyI double checked the Wikipedia account of Mao’s land reform measures, and the citations refer to rabid anti-communist books that are filled with lies. I shouldn’t be surprised. The story of Mao in the West is filled with outright lies.You rarely hear it but the reality was that even though slavery was officially abolished, the practice continued before Mao stopped it. The Dalai Lama had slaves up until 1959. But for Mao this would continue.Source: White Paper on Tibet's March Toward ModernizationSource: Gwydion Madawc Williams's answer to Is it true that landlords in China still owned slaves before Mao initiated land reform?The Mao as mass murderer lies began, interestingly, 20 years after his death with cooked numbers. But in the West these lies are entrenched.Monthly Review | On the Role of Mao Zedong Exploring the lies about Maocum monsterMonthly Review | Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?Gwydion Madawc Williams's answer to What happened to those who opposed Mao Zedong?Mao’s only screw up was during the Great Leap Forward, in which he tried to go too fast, causing a setback. But this in no way reduces his prior accomplishments. Further, the nation bounced back quickly.Graphs and sources charts from Gwydion Madawc Williams's answer to Considering that China has a great firewall, what level do Westerners know about China and Chinese people know about the West? Who knows more objectively and comprehensively? and Godfree Roberts's answer to Was failure of communism the reason China switched to capitalism?The Mao Zedong you never hear aboutMao was not a brutal dictator. He was someone who deeply believed in bettering his country but also bringing socialism to all around the world, because he hated capitalism and wanted the masses to lift themselves up and build a Marxist society. As a Marxist Leninist, Mao embraced the model of socialism working toward communism. The goal was communism, a society which is moneyless, stateless, and classless. The workers would own the means of production and manage themselves. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” That is why he was so horrified when Khrushchev backed down from international struggle, and why he was so angry about the capitalist reforms and the de-Stalinization of the USSR. He saw Khrushchev as a traitor to socialism, and this would cause an irreparable rift between the two major socialist powers.Khrushchev permitted some capitalist reforms, which led to the growth of the underground black market, which would ultimately do enormous harm to the official economy and lead to shortages, along with the refusal to adopt cybernetics, which was offered but declined. Cybernetics would have helped efficiently plan the planned economy and develop the consumer sector. He also ended the rotation of government officials to prevent corruption, which would ultimately destroy the Communist Party and the destruction of the entire USSR, as the corrupt elites would choose to dissolve the USSR and become oligarchs, to the detriment of everyone else.Khrushchev treated Mao Zedong poorly, and his de-Stalinization and abandonment of international world revolution horrified Mao. It would lead to a breakdown in relations with the two nations. Mao would later choose to form relations with the U.S., which proved fruitful because the sanctions were lifted, permitting the Chinese economy to blossom. Plus China was less likely to get invaded, meaning more money could be spent on the consumer economy and not the military.Stalin was against militarily invading other nations that might provoke a Western response. Insignificant countries, yes. So he would support conflicts in Korea, for example. The official position was still “Socialism in one country.” Lenin and Trotsky favored worldwide revolution for long term elimination of capitalism, thus making socialism safe from imperial attack. Mao still strongly favored worldwide revolution. He supported the Vietcong and Kim il Sung. When Khrushchev withdrew arms from Cuba Mao considered this a capitulation to the West. He believed that this would long term destroy the international communist movement. Mao also considered Khrushchev's rapprochement with Yugoslavia to be a capitulation that weakened the cause of international communism. Khrushchev's Human Dimensions Brought Him to Power and to His DownfallWhy people loved Mao ZedongMaoism appealed to the rural people and the young. It was anti-elitist. Most of Mao’s teachings were about mobilizing the rural proletariat, the peasants and common people. For what seemed an eternity the peasant farmers worked themselves to death while the landlords lived lives of relative comfort. Mao’s reforms improved the quality of their lives immensely. That is why the life expectancy doubled during his leadership. On the collective farms people could eat until they were full, which was unheard of previously. The communists also unified China and brought it into the modern era. The people loved Mao. After Deng Xiaoping’s rule in 1978 the official story about Mao became that Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong. But this was not the consensus in the 1960’s.Mao began to notice the infiltration of counter revolutionaries in the Communist Party. After 1953 when Stalin died Khrushchev began his de-Stalinization process, which was used to consolidate Khrushchev's power. He abandoned Stalinism and embraced some Western style reforms that would ultimately prove fatal to socialism. This disgusted Mao, first because the claims about Stalin were untrue, and because it was an attack on Marxism, and Mao was a firm believer in Marxism Leninism.Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the government, the army, and various spheres of culture are a bunch of counter-revolutionary revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will seize political power and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Some of them we have already seen through; others we have not. Some are still trusted by us and are being trained as our successors, persons like Khruschev for example, who are still nestling beside us.—Mao ZedongTo prevent what happened in the USSR Mao instituted the Cultural Revolution. The rural people and students were expected to help renew the spirit of socialism. And they willingly did.The Cultural Revolution was indeed a revolution, just a non armed one. But it was a war for the soul of the Chinese people. And its outcome would determine whether China would become a post Soviet Russia or become the world’s largest economy and the next superpower under the leadership of President Xi and the CCP.Mao taught that socialism is not a goal you reach. Instead, it is a continuing process of breakdown and renewal.After 1978 the Deng government portrayed the Cultural Revolution in a negative light. Of course Western journalists and historians have exaggerated the violence (which was not endorsed), have only spoken about the negatives, and have failed to discuss the benefits of the Cultural Revolution.BenefitsIt called for the peasants and students to join the democratic process. It required elitists to answer for their antisocial actions.It enabled peasants and students to voice their grievances.It chased away the reactionary elements that were present and sought to abandon socialism to embrace Western style capitalism and democracy, which would have resulted in the rise of oligarchs and the destruction of the society as seen in post USSR Russia.It had an enormous uplifting effect to the regular people.It rooted out corruption, stopped the capitalist reactionaries, and strengthened the leadership of the CCP. This would ultimately save China from the same fate as the USSR.Western propagandists will have you believe that Mao was a egomaniac trying to remain relevant, that nothing good came from it, that it was a disaster, and that Deng Xiaoping was the hero that “saved China from communism and Mao.” Total rubbish. This is revisionism at its finest. Deng Xiaoping had been purged during this process but was rehabilitated. So after he took power the government condemned the Cultural Revolution as being bad. But the non elites didn’t feel that way.High school and college students organized the Red Guards, pro-communist student groups. Mao’s Little Red Book of quotations was the guide.The negativesSome people took it too far, as young people do. Some individuals became violent, and killed people.Some people were shamed undeservedly. This caused some to become very stressed and a few committed suicide.A few leaders became overzealous and would later need to be reigned in.Some overzealous students destroyed rare antiquities, which was horrendous.Mao believed in rehabilitation. He was not vindictive. And he criticized Stalin for being violent when rehabilitation could have worked better. Mao believed violence would lead to internal contradictions that would later greatly disrupt the entire society, and unravel the legacy of those who used it. Nevertheless, he stated that Stalin was 70% right and 30% wrong. Interestingly, Deng Xiaoping would later say the same thing about him.An example of Mao’s generosity of spirit:This letter was written to students during the Cultural Revolution. Notice the generosity of spirit and call for understanding at the end of the letter. This was Mao.[SOURCE: Long Live Mao Tse-tung Thought, a Red Guard Publication.]Red Guard comrades of Tsinghua University Middle School:I have received both the big-character posters which you sent on 28 July as well as the letter which you sent to me, asking for an answer. The two big-character posters which you wrote on 24 June and 4 July express your anger at, and denunciation of, all landlords, bourgeois, imperialists, revisionists, and their running dogs who exploit and oppress the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals and revolutionary parties and groupings. You say it is right to rebel against reactionaries; I enthusiastically support you. I also give enthusiastic support to the big-character poster of the Red Flag Combat Group of Peking University Middle School which said that it is right to rebel against the reactionaries; and to the very good revolutionary speech given by comrade P’eng Hsiao-meng representing their Red Flag Combat Group at the big meeting attended by all the teachers, students, administration and workers of Peking University on 25 July. Here I want to say that I myself as well as my revolutionary comrades-in-arms all take the same attitude. No matter where they are, in Peking or anywhere in China, I will give enthusiastic support to all who take an attitude similar to yours in the Cultural Revolution movement. Another thing, while supporting you, at the same time we ask you to pay attention to uniting with all who can be united with. As for those who have committed serious mistakes, after their mistakes have been pointed out you should offer them a way out of their difficulties by giving them work to do, and enabling them to correct their mistakes and become new men. Marx said: the proletariat must emancipate not only itself but all mankind. If it cannot emancipate all mankind, then the proletariat itself will not be able to achieve final emancipation. Will comrades please pay attention to this truth too.Source: The real Mao, not the Western caricature by Alexander Finnegan on PostsNotice the number of worldwide famines, most of which happened long before there was Stalin and Mao:Interestingly, Mao’s China was so enlightened that some black U.S. Korean War POW’s chose to stay in Red China instead of returning back to the U.S., where they faced lynchings, segregation, and other vile forms of racism.Black POW chooses Mao’s China over the U.S. by Alexander Finnegan on PostsDid people like living under Mao Zedong?Yes.The vast majority of the peasants loved Mao. They lived as serfs under an oppressive system. Landlords lived comfortable lives while the people could barely eke out a living. When Mao redistributed the land the people were given great hope. And landlords were welcomed to take part. But the elites hated him. The elites running China now hate Mao too, because they were made to work in rural areas to learn about the poor during the Cultural Revolution. Because some of them were shamed. Older people in China, the rural people, and many students love Mao. Sadly, there are many who were born after 1976. They only know about Mao what they have heard. In the West there is nothing good about Mao said. It is the usual anti-communist propaganda.I have read some Chinese Quorans who have said that some people have become so focused on making money that they have become superficial and materialistic, displaying their status and forgetting the importance of higher virtues. Mao’s life was a testament that we are not simply rats running on a spinning wheel, making money and thinking of nothing else:We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type.To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types.They are all manifestations of liberalism.Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.Source: Mao on Combating Liberalism by Alexander Finnegan on PostsFor a much more in depth analysis of Maoism and Neo-Maoism in China, click here.To understand the similarites and differences between the two giants of communism, Stalin and Mao, it helps to look at the question: “Why didn’t Mao and Stalin get on?”First, don’t read the secondary sources from the New York Times or other publications. These are inaccurate descriptions of the relationship between the two. There is an attempt to create a rivalry between the two that misrepresents their relationship. Were they best friends that went drinking together? No.However, Mao respected Stalin and after Mao proved himself Stalin trusted Mao. They also shared a common purpose—Marxism Leninism and socialism. Stalin helped Mao in many ways to develop China after 1949. As the more senior party controlling a more powerful nation, Stalin regarded himself as more of a senior figure. However, there is no indication of Stalin being especially rude to Mao or Mao being rude back to Stalin. But there were things Stalin did that Maowas angry about.Below is the transcript of their meeting in 1949. You see from it that Stalin is trying to consider the international implications of how the USSR and China get along, while trying to be of assistance to Mao to shore up some internal and external domestic matters. Stalin had more experience as a world leader and diplomat compared to Mao at this time. So naturally Stalin is going to take more of a lead.December 16, 1949Source: Cold War International History Project (Smithsonian Institution)Conversation between Stalin and Mao, Moscow, 16 December 1949[Classification level blacked out: "NOT SECRET" Stamped]RECORD OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN COMRADE I.V. STALIN AND CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRAL PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA MAO ZEDONG on 16 December 1949After an exchange of greetings and a discussion of general topics, the following conversation took place.Comrade Mao Zedong: The most important question at the present time is the question of establishing peace. China needs a period of 3-5 years of peace, which would be used to bring the economy back to pre-war levels and to stabilize the country in general. Decisions on the most important questions in China hinge on the prospects for a peaceful future. With this in mind the CC CPC [Central Committee of the Communist Party of China] entrusted me to ascertain from you, comr[ade]. Stalin, in what way and for how long will international peace be preserved.Comrade Stalin: In China a war for peace, as it were, is taking place. The question of peace greatly preoccupies the Soviet Union as well, though we have already had peace for the past four years. With regards to China, there is no immediate threat at the present time: Japan has yet to stand up on its feet and is thus not ready for war; America, though it screams war, is actually afraid of war more than anything; Europe is afraid of war; in essence, there is no one to fight with China, not unless Kim Il Sung decides to invade China?Peace will depend on our efforts. If we continue to be friendly, peace can last not only 5-10 years, but 20-25 years and perhaps even longer.Comrade Mao Zedong: Since Liu Shaoqi's return to China, CC CPC has been discussing the treaty of friendship, alliance and mutual assistance between China and the USSR.Comrade Stalin: This question we can discuss and decide. We must ascertain whether to declare the continuation of the current 1945 treaty of alliance and friendship between the USSR and China, to announce impending changes in the future, or to make these changes right now.As you know, this treaty was concluded between the USSR and China as a result of the Yalta Agreement, which provided for the main points of the treaty (the question of the Kurile Islands, South Sakhalin, Port Arthur, etc.). That is, the given treaty was concluded, so to speak, with the consent of America and England. Keeping in mind this circumstance, we, within our inner circle, have decided not to modify any of the points of this treaty for now, since a change in even one point could give America and England the legal grounds to raise questions about modifying also the treaty's provisions concerning the Kurile Islands, South Sakhalin, etc. This is why we searched to find a way to modify the current treaty in effect while formally maintaining its provisions, in this case by formally maintaining the Soviet Union's right to station its troops at Port Arthur while, at the request of the Chinese government, actually withdrawing the Soviet Armed forces currently stationed there. Such an operation could be carried out upon China's request.One could do the same with KChZhD [Chinese Changchun Railroad, which traverses Manchuria], that is, to effectively modify the corresponding points of the agreement while formally maintaining its provisions, upon China's request.If, on the other hand, the Chinese comrades are not satisfied with this strategy, they can present their own proposals.Comrade Mao Zedong: The present situation with regard to KChZhD and Port Arthur corresponds well with Chinese interests, as the Chinese forces are inadequate to effectively fight against imperialist aggression. In addition, KChZhD is a training school for the preparation of Chinese cadres in railroad and industry.Comrade Stalin: The withdrawal of troops does not mean that Soviet Union refuses to assist China, if such assistance is needed. The fact is that we, as communists, are not altogether comfortable with stationing our forces on foreign soil, especially on the soil of a friendly nation. Given this situation anyone could say that if Soviet forces can be stationed on Chinese territory, then why could not the British, for example, station their forces in Hong Kong, or the Americans in Tokyo?We would gain much in the arena of international relations if, with mutual agreement, the Soviet forces were to be withdrawn from Port Arthur. In addition, the withdrawal of Soviet forces would provide a serious boost to Chinese communists in their relations with the national bourgeoisie. Everyone would see that the communists have managed to achieve what [Nationalist Chinese leader] Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek] could not. The Chinese communists must take the national bourgeoisie into consideration.The treaty ensures the USSR's right to station its troops in Port Arthur. But the USSR is not obligated to exercise this right and can withdraw its troops upon Chinese request. However, if this is unsuitable, the troops in Port Arthur can remain there for 2, 5, or 10 years, whatever suits China best. Let them not misunderstand that we want to run away from China. We can stay there for 20 years even.Comrade Mao Zedong: In discussing the treaty in China we had not taken into account the American and English positions regarding the Yalta agreement. We must act in a way that is best for the common cause. This question merits further consideration. However, it is already becoming clear that the treaty should not be modified at the present time, nor should one rush to withdraw troops from Port Arthur.Should not Zhou Enlai visit Moscow in order to decide the treaty question?Comrade Stalin: No, this question you must decide for yourselves. Zhou may be needed in regard to other matters.Comrade Mao Zedong: We would like to decide on the question of Soviet credit to China, that is to draw up a credit agreement for 300.000.000 dollars between the governments of the USSR and China.Comrade Stalin: This can be done. If you would like to formalize this agreement now, we can.Comrade Mao Zedong: Yes, exactly now, as this would resonate well in China. At the same time it is necessary to resolve the question of trade, especially between the USSR and Xinjiang [Sinkiang], though at present we cannot present a specific trade operations plan for this region.Comrade Stalin: We must know right now what kind of equipment China will need, especially now, since we do not have equipment in reserve and the request for industrial goods must be submitted ahead of time.Comrade Mao Zedong: We are having difficulties in putting together a request for equipment, as the industrial picture is as yet unclear.Comrade Stalin: It is desirable to expedite the preparation of this request, as requests for equipment are submitted to our industry at least a year in advance.Comrade Mao Zedong: We would very much like to receive assistance from the USSR in creating air transportation routes.Comrade Stalin: We are ready to render such assistance. Air routes can be established over Xinjiang and the MPR [Mongolian People's Republic]. We have specialists. We will give you assistance.Comrade Mao Zedong: We would also like to receive your assistance in creating a naval force.Comrade Stalin: Cadres for Chinese navy could be prepared at Port Arthur. You give us people, and we will give you ships. Trained cadres of the Chinese navy could then return to China on these ships.Comrade Mao Zedong: Guomindang [Kuomintang] supporters have built a naval and air base on the island of Formosa [Taiwan]. Our lack of naval forces and aviation makes the occupation of the island by the People's Liberation Army [PLA] more difficult. With regard to this, some of our generals have been voicing opinions that we should request assistance from the Soviet Union, which could send volunteer pilots or secret military detachments to speed up the conquest of Formosa.Comrade Stalin: Assistance has not been ruled out, though one ought to consider the form of such assistance. What is most important here is not to give Americans a pretext to intervene. With regard to headquarters staff and instructors we can give them to you anytime. The rest we will have to think about.Do you have any assault landing units?Comrade Mao Zedong: We have one former Guomindang assault landing regiment unit which came over to join our side.Comrade Stalin: One could select a company of landing forces, train them in propaganda, send them over to Formosa, and through them organize an uprising on the isle.Comrade Mao Zedong: Our troops have approached the borders of Burma and Indo-China. As a result, the Americans and the British are alarmed, not knowing whether we will cross the border or whether our troops will halt their movement.Comrade Stalin: One could create a rumor that you are preparing to cross the border and in this way frighten the imperialists a bit.Comrade Mao Zedong: Several countries, especially Britain, are actively campaigning to recognize the People's Republic of China. However, we believe that we should not rush to be recognized. We must first bring about order to the country, strengthen our position, and then we can talk to foreign imperialists.Comrade Stalin: That is a good policy. In addition, there is no need for you to create conflicts with the British and the Americans. If, for example, there will be a need to put pressure on the British, this can be done by resorting to a conflict between the Guangdong province and Hong Kong. And to resolve this conflict, Mao Zedong could come forward as the mediator. The main point is not to rush and to avoid conflicts.Are there foreign banks operating in Shanghai?Comrade Mao Zedong: Yes.Comrade Stalin: And whom are they serving?Comrade Mao Zedong: The Chinese national bourgeoisie and foreign enterprises which so far we have not touched. As for the foreigners' spheres of influence, the British predominate in investments in the economic and commercial sectors, while the Americans lead in the sector of cultural-educational organizations.Comrade Stalin: What is the situation regarding Japanese enterprises?Comrade Mao Zedong: They have been nationalized.Comrade Stalin: In whose hands is the customs agency?Comrade Mao Zedong: In the hands of the government.Comrade Stalin: It is important to focus attention on the customs agency as it is usually a good source of government revenue.Comrade Mao Zedong: In the military and political sectors we have already achieved complete success; as for cultural and economic sectors, we have as yet not freed ourselves from foreign influence there.Comrade Stalin: Do you have inspectors and agents overseeing foreign enterprises, banks, etc.?Comrade Mao Zedong: Yes, we have. We are carrying out such work in the study and oversight of foreign enterprises (the Kailan [?] mines, electric power plants and aqueducts in Shanghai, etc.).Comrade Stalin: One should have government inspectors who must operate legally. The foreigners should also be taxed at higher levels than the Chinese.Who owns the enterprises mining wolfram [tungsten], molybdenum, and petroleum?Comrade Mao Zedong: The government.Comrade Stalin: It is important to increase the mining of minerals and especially of petroleum. You could build an oil pipeline from western Lanzhou to Chengdu [?], and then transport fuel by ship.Comrade Mao Zedong: So far we have not decided which districts of China we should strive to develop first - the coastal areas or those inland, since we were unsure of the prospects for peace.Comrade Stalin: Petroleum, coal, and metal are always needed, regardless of whether there be war or not.Comrade Stalin: Can rubber-bearing trees be grown in southern China?Comrade Mao Zedong: So far it has not been possible.Comrade Stalin: Is there a meteorological service in China?Comrade Mao Zedong: No, it has not been established yet.Comrade Stalin: It should be established.Comrade Stalin: We would like to receive from you a list of your works which could be translated into Russian.Comrade Mao Zedong: I am currently reviewing my works which were published in various local publishing houses and which contain a mass of errors and misrepresentations. I plan to complete this review by spring of 1950. However, I would like to receive help from Soviet comrades: first of all, to work on the texts with Russian translators and, secondly, to receive help in editing the Chinese original.Comrade Stalin: This can be done. However, do you need your works edited?Comrade Mao Zedong: Yes, and I ask you to select a comrade suitable for such a task, say, for example, someone from CC VKP/b/ [All-Union Communist Party of bolsheviks].Comrade Stalin: It can be arranged, if indeed there is such a need.Also present at the meeting: comrs. Molotov, Malenkov, Bulganin, Vyshinskii, [Soviet translator N.T.] Fedorenko and [Chinese translator] Shi Zhe /Karskii/.Recorded by comr. Fedorenko.[signature illegible 31/XII][Source: Archive of the President, Russian Federation (APRF), fond (f.) 45, opis (op.) 1, delo (d.) 329, listy (ll.) 9-17; translation by Danny Rozas.]https://digitalarchive.wilsoncen... This link provides the transcript of another meeting between Stalin and Mao, along with Molotov and Zhou En lai“December 21 of this year is Comrade Stalin’s sixtieth birthday. It can be anticipated that this birthday will call forth warm and affectionate congratulations in the hearts of all those people in the world who are aware of this event and who know suffering.“To congratulate Stalin is not merely doing something to observe the occasion. To congratulate Stalin means to support him, to support his cause, to support the cause of the Soviet Union, to support the victory of socialism, to support the orientation he points out for humanity, and to support our own close friend. Today in the world the great majority of humanity is suffering and only by following the orientation pointed out by Stalin, and with Stalin’s aid, can humanity be rescued from disaster.“We Chinese people are now living in a time of profound calamity unprecedented in history, a time when help from others is most urgently needed. The Book of Poetry says, ‘Ying goes its cry, seeking with its voice its companion.’ We are precisely at such a juncture.“But who are our friends?“There is one kind of so-called friends who style themselves our friends, and some among us also unthinkingly call them friends. But such friends can only be classed with Li Linfu of the Tang dynasty. Li Linfu was a prime minister of the Tang dynasty, a notorious man who was described as having ‘honey dripping from his tongue and a sword concealed in his heart.’ These friends today are precisely friends with ‘honey dripping from their tongues and swords concealed in their hearts.’ Who are these people? Part of those imperialists who say that they sympathize with China.“There is another kind of friends who are different; they have real sympathy for us, and regard us as brothers. Who are these people? They are the Soviet Union, and Stalin.“Not a single country has renounced its special rights and privileges in China; only the Soviet Union has done this.“At the time of the Northern Expedition, all the imperialists opposed us, and the Soviet Union alone assisted us.“Since the beginning of the anti-Japanese war, not a single government of any imperialist country has really helped us. The Soviet Union alone has helped us with its great resources in men, materiel, and money.“Is this not clear enough?“To the cause of the liberation of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people, only the socialist country, the socialist leaders, the socialist people, and socialist thinkers, statesmen, and toilers are truly giving assistance. Without their help, it is impossible to win final victory.“Stalin is the true friend of the Chinese nation and of the cause of the liberation of the Chinese people. The Chinese people’s love and respect for Stalin, and our friendship for the Soviet Union, are wholly sincere. Any attempt, from whatever quarter, to sow dissension by rumor-mongering and slander will be of no avail in the end.”—“Stalin Is the Friend of the Chinese People” (Dec. 20, 1939), MRP7, pp. 307-308, in full. A different translation is available in SW2, pp. 335-6.Source: Mao's Evaluations of StalinIn the above paragraph Mao shows his thanks to Stalin for the support given to China, and how the USSR has been a good friend to China, while others have sought to take advantage.“I believe we should do things honestly, for without an honest attitude it is absolutely impossible to accomplish anything in this world. Which are the honest people? Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin are honest, men of science are honest. Which are the dishonest people? Trotsky, Bukharin, Chen Tu-hsiu and Chang Kuo-tao are extremely dishonest…”—“Rectify the Party’s Style of Work” (Feb. 1, 1942), SW3, p. 44. Id.Mao continued his respect for Stalin, and considered him a partner who had acted in good faith.[Excerpt from Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War quoting Mao’s private reaction to the first of two telegrams Stalin sent him urging him to personally go to Chongqing (Chungking) for negotiations with Chiang Kai-shek.]“In the first cable (dated August 22 [1945]), Stalin said that China must hold to the road of peaceful development, that he believed the Nationalists and the Communists should reach a peace accord because a civil war would destroy the Chinese nation, and that, accordingly, he thought both Zhou [Enlai] and Maoshould go to Chongqing. After receiving Stalin’s cable, an angry Maoremarked, ‘I simply don’t believe that the nation will perish if the people stand up and struggle [against the Nationalist government].’”—UP, p. 7. Ed. note: Later on (in early 1948) Stalin admitted that he was wrong in initially opposing the Chinese revolution in the period after World War II. Milovan Djilas reports him as saying: “True, we, too, can make a mistake! Here, when the war with Japan ended, we invited the Chinese comrades to reach an agreement as to how a modus vivendi with Chiang Kai-shek might be found. They agreed with us in word, but in deed they did it their own way when they got home: they mustered their forces and struck. It has been shown that they were right, and not we.” [Djilas, Conversations with Stalin, p. 182.] Later still, on July 27, 1949, as the Chinese revolution was on the verge of complete victory, the authors of Uncertain Partners say that while speaking to a CPC delegation in Moscow Stalin“admitted that he was not ‘too well versed’ in Chinese affairs and may have caused obstacles in the Chinese revolution.” [UP, p. 73.] Id.Stalin and Mao had disagreements about strategy sometimes. When Stalin recognized he had been mistaken he admitted he was wrong. He was not acting in bad faith or to play games with Mao.[The authors of UP writing:] “In the late 1940s and well into the 1950s, Mao and other Chinese Party leaders repeatedly contended that Mikoyan [in his secret visit on Stalin’s behalf to Mao in early 1949] had recommended that the PLA not cross the Yangtze. That advice they charged up primarily to three reasons. First of all, the Soviets had simply erred in their estimate of the PLA and believed it could not defeat the Nationalists. Marshal Nie Rong-zhen comments that Stalin, lacking confidence in the military power of the Chinese Communists, ‘was somewhat like the ancient man of Qi who was worried that the sky might fall anytime.’ Fear that the crossing would raise the danger of U.S. armed intervention was the second reason, and, third, Stalin wanted to split China in half, creating conflicting ‘Northern and Southern Dynasties,’ the better to control the Communist half. [UP, p. 42. The UP authors go on to suggest that they have doubts about the truth of this story, but provide the following references in support of it:][The UP authors continuing in a footnote on p. 306:] “Mao’s first known statement on the ‘Northern and Southern Dynasties’ was made in the spring of 1949, when he said: ‘Some friends abroad half believe and half disbelieve in our victory. [They are] persuading us to stop here and make the Yangtze River a border with Chiang, to create the “Northern and Southern Dynasties.”’ … In 1954, Zhou Enlai told Liu Xiao, the new ambassador to the Soviet Union, that Stalin had ‘sent a representative to Xibaipo [i.e., Mikoyan’s secret visit in Jan.-Feb. 1949 —Ed.] principally for the purpose of understanding the situation in the Chinese revolution and the points of view from our side…. The Soviet Union was dissatisfied [with our intention to liberate all China] and demanded that we “stop the civil war.” In fact the Soviet Union attempted to create the “Northern and Southern Dynasties,” namely two Chinas.’ … Mao referred to this same issue on April 11, 1957.”[However, a cable from Stalin to Mao in April, 1949, just before the PLA crossed the Yangtze, shows that Stalin did not at that time oppose the crossing, though he still urged caution. On the other hand, not long before sending that cable Stalin was apparently still trying to mediate an end to the civil war and keep China divided. See UP, pp. 43-44.] Id.“We must not put on bureaucratic airs. If we dig into a subject for several months, for a year or two, for three or five years, we shall eventually master it. At first some of the Soviet Communists also were not very good at handling economic matters and the imperialists awaited their failure too. But the Communist Party of the Soviet Union emerged victorious and, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, it learned not only how to make the revolution but also how to carry on construction. It has built a great and splendid socialist state. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is our best teacher and we must learn from it.”—Ibid., p. 423. Id.Mao was a very wise person. He was not arrogant and he knew there were things he simply did not know. Instead of putting on airs he devoted himself to learning from Stalin as China was the little brother to the USSR, its socialist older brother who had collectivized and industrialized first.Differences between the two“They [the Soviets] did not permit China to make revolution: that was in 1945. Stalin wanted to prevent China from making a revolution, saying that we should not have a civil war and should cooperate with Chiang Kai-shek, otherwise the Chinese nation would perish. But we did not do what he said. The revolution was victorious. After the victory of the revolution he next suspected China of being a Yugoslavia, and that I would become a second Tito. Later, when I went to Moscow to sign the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance, we had to go through another struggle. He was not willing to sign a treaty. After two months of negotiations he at last signed. When did Stalin begin to have confidence in us? It was the time of the Resist America, Aid Korea campaign, from the winter of 1950. He then came to believe that we were not Tito, not Yugoslavia.”—Speech at the Tenth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the CPC (Sept. 24, 1962), CMTTP, p. 191. (Most of this passage is also in TMT, pp. 146-7.) Id.Stalin was a very anxious person. He suffered from many fears, including flying, dying in his sleep, being poisoned, and being betrayed. Stalin was eventually betrayed by Tito of Yugoslavia, who became independent of the USSR in many ways and Stalin was unable to reign him in. Stalin had his reservations about Mao Zedong and China. He didn’t know which way Mao was going to go. Stalinpreferred a divided China with Chiang Kai Sheik still keeping part of mainland China. Stalin figured this would be geopolitically more stable and safer for the USSR as the power would be more divided. Stalin was also nervous about irritating the imperial powers and causing another war, so he was reticent to do things that might provoke the West. Mao went ahead conquered the mainland anyway. Later Stalin would agree to assist China with different things like industrialization, technology, etc. But Stalin also imposed some terms that Maofelt were unfriendly, and more like something an imperialist nation would impose. This angered him. Mao had his differences with Stalin that he would later vocalize, such as disagreeing with Stalin’s use of repression against fellow comrades. Mao was not one to use repression against his own people. He believed in rehabilitating people. When Mao would have someone purged they would be given an opportunity to learn about the error of their ways, work with the proletariat, learn self-criticism and then rejoin the party. He felt this was part of the process of Marxism Leninism. This was the embrace of contradictions, of trying to understand the never ending role of class struggle within already socialist nations. He believed that Stalin had failed in engaging the masses of the people to fight counterrevolutionaries and capitalist roaders within the party. Mao demonstrated this later with the Cultural Revolution. This was to be done by the people themselves, the students and the peasants, not by the leadership itself. Mao believed that Stalin relied too heavily on cadres within the party to deal with these elements instead of relying on the people.Khrushchev gave his “Secret Speech” in which he denounced Stalin and scapegoated him for all the problems in the past. He had the statutes of Stalin removed, had his body buried, and moved away from Stalinism, trying to embrace more reforms. The effect of these changes would pave the way for the eventual demise of the USSR. It had a huge demoralizing effect on the public and the members of the Party. Mao discussed this frequently. It destroyed the narrative that held together the Soviet society. Mao was disgusted by this. Mao said that Stalin was 70 to 80% right. Mao saw the scandal and negative effects within the CCP as well. Many comrades were disturbed by Khrushchev's actions. Mao continued to honor Stalin and refused to remove the giant portrait of him in Tienanmen Square. Khrushchev's arrogant and condescending attitude toward Mao would also lead to a rift between the USSR and China that would change the course of the future. Eventually Mao would agree to an alliance with the U.S., and this led China to a level of stability against invasion from the US. and the removal of sanctions, which helped China develop economically compared to Cuba and North Korea, which have been subject to crippling sanctions for decades.“This Comrade Stalin of ours had something of the flavor of the mandarins of old… In the past, the relations between us and the Soviet Union were those between father and son, cat and mouse.”—April, 1958. Quoted in TMT, p. 154. Id.Stalin died in 1953. Mao discusses the sometimes paternal, and sometimes difficult relationship between the two. Reading the conversations between them you get that sense, too.“When Stalin was criticized in 1956, we were on the one hand happy, but on the other hand apprehensive. It was completely necessary to remove the lid, to break down blind faith, to release the pressure, and to emancipate thought. But we did not agree with demolishing him at one blow. They do not hang up his picture, but we do. In 1950 I argued with Stalin in Moscow for two months. On the questions of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, the Chinese Eastern Railway, the joint-stock companies and the border we adopted two attitudes: one was to argue when the other side made proposals we did not agree with, and the other was to accept their proposal if they absolutely insisted. This was out of consideration for the interests of socialism. Then there were the two ‘colonies’, that is the North-East and Sinkiang [Xinjiang], where people of any third country were not allowed to reside. Now this has been rescinded. After the criticism of Stalin, the victims of blind faith had their eyes opened a bit. In order that our comrades recognize that the old ancestor [Stalin] also had his faults, we should apply analysis to him, and not have blind faith in him. We should accept everything good in Soviet experience, and reject what is bad. Now we are a bit more skilful in this, and understand the Soviet Union a bit better, and understand ourselves.—Ibid., p. 101. In the 1950 treaty Stalin insisted on the creation of joint-stock companies in Xinjiang to develop oil and metal production. This continued the Soviet economic exploitation of the area that had already begun under the Nationalist regime. The USSR also kept control, for a time, of two important military bases in Manchuria and de facto control of the Chinese Eastern Railway which (among other things) was used to transport military supplies to those bases. A secret protocol to the 1950 treaty prohibited the Chinese from allowing citizens of any third country to participate in trade or industry in Xinjiang or Manchuria. —Ed. Id.Further, Mao felt that there were times when he had been treated poorly by Stalin.[Stuart Schram writing:] “When he [Mao] visited Moscow for the second time, in November 1957 to attend the conference of Communist and workers’ parties, Mao remarked that he still had a ‘belly full of pent-up anger, mainly directed against Stalin’, though he would not elaborate on the reasons, because it was all in the past. He then proceeded, in characteristic fashion, to do precisely that: ‘During the Stalin era, nobody dared to speak up. I have come to Moscow twice and the first time was depressing. Despite all the talk about ‘fraternal parties’ there was really no equality.’ Now, he said, we ‘must admit that our Soviet comrades’ style of work has changed a lot.’”—Nov. 1957. Quoted in TMT, p. 152. Id.Mao had many deep reservations about how Stalin’s legacy was handled.“Incidentally, let me talk a bit here about where our opinions differ from those of the Soviet Union. First of all, on the question of Stalin, we have contradictions with Khrushchev. He made Stalin appear so terrible! We do not agree with that, because he was made to appear so ugly! This is not a matter for their country alone; it is a matter that concerns all countries. We hang Stalin’s portrait outside our Tiananmen; this is in accord with the wishes of the laboring people of the whole world, and it demonstrates our basic differences with Khrushchev. As for Stalin himself, you should also give him [an evaluation of] 30 per cent [bad] and 70 per cent [good]. Stalin’s achievements count for 70 per cent; his mistakes count for 30 per cent. Even this may not be accurate; [his] mistakes may only be 20 per cent or perhaps only 10 per cent, or perhaps a little more than [20 per cent]. In any case, Stalin’s achievements are primary while his shortcomings and mistakes are secondary. On this point we and Khrushchev hold differing opinions.”—Speech at the Conclusion of the Third Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee (Oct. 9, 1957), version I, WMZ2, p. 707.Mao was more democratic minded than Stalin. He disagreed with Stalin’s inability to accept criticism. He also felt that Stalin was too conservative at times and needed to be more bold.“To affirm everything we did, without analyzing it—this thing is wrong. The dogmatists of the past were just like that. Rákosi was like that, and so was Stalin. Can you say Stalin was entirely dogmatist? No, you can’t say that. This man, he did a lot of things, but he did have [some] dogmatism. This dogmatism of his influenced China, making us fail in our revolution during a certain period. If we were to do things as he bade us, we would not have been able to carry out the revolution in the later stage, and we wouldn’t be holding a meeting here. Who built the building? Not us. We wouldn’t have had the opportunity [to hold this meeting] because it would still be the government of the Kuomintang [and the] imperialists [running things in China]. Stalin had [things on] both sides; he also had [some] dogmatism—[wanting us to] transplant the [experience of the] Soviet Union in everything. We must learn from the Soviet Union. The things of the Soviet Union, both the mistakes and the achievements, are very worthy of being learned from. The slogan that we propose now is to learn from the Soviet Union’s advanced experiences. We didn’t say that we should learn from their backward experiences. When did we ever propose such a slogan? However, even though it was not proposed, some things like that came over with the [good ones] all the same, [especially] in the last seven years. Nonetheless, in general, we can’t say that we weren’t selective at all … because we have been critical of dogmatism, and the source of dogmatism comes from Stalin.”—Ibid., p. 401. Mátyás Rákosi was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Hungary at the time of Hungarian Uprising in 1956. For another translation, see SSCM, pp. 287-8.“It is good to have criticism. It would not be good to have no criticism, or to suppress criticism. It is this mistake that Stalin committed. Stalin did a lot of good things, but he also did some bad things. He confused the two; he used the methods that are for dealing with the enemy to deal with the people, with contradictions among the people. He wouldn’t let people say bad things about the government, or about the Communist Party; if you said anything bad or if there were any rustling in the air, any movement in the grass, he would say that you were a spy and have you arrested.”—Speech at [a] Conference of Members and Cadres of Provincial-Level Organizations of [the] CPC in Shandong (March 18, 1957), WMZ2, pp. 419-420. For a different translation, see SSCM, p. 308. Id.“Stalin was 70 percent a Marxist, 30 percent not a Marxist. [He] was 30 percent bourgeois, 70 percent Marxist.”—Ibid., SSCM, p. 173.“How [should we] look on the criticism of Stalin? We [humans] are also commodities of dual character. [This is an allusion to Marx’s comments about how commodities have the dual characteristics of use value and exchange value. –Ed.] The criticism of Stalin has a two-sided nature. One side has real benefit; one side is not good. To expose the cult of Stalin, to tear off the lid, to liberate people, this is a liberation movement; but his [i.e., Khrushchev’s] method of exposing [Stalin] is incorrect; [he] hasn’t made a good analysis, clubbing [him] to death with a single blow. On the one hand, this provoked the worldwide currents of the latter half of last year; on the other hand, it later also provoked the Hungarian and Polish incidents. But he [Stalin] had his incorrect side; although our published articles have not pointed at the [CPSU] Twentieth Congress, in fact [we’ve] talked about it. What have we discussed with the Soviet comrades face to face? About how the Stalinproblem has not been handled appropriately; [we] discussed our great-nation chauvinism….”—Ibid., SSCM, p. 178. Id.Mao was much more compassionate to counterrevolutionaries than the USSR:“The problem of eliminating counterrevolutionaries is a problem of the first type of contradiction [i.e., between the enemy and ourselves]. Speaking comparatively, in the last analysis how has our country handled the work of eliminating counterrevolutionaries? Poorly or well? In my view there have been shortcomings, but in comparison with other countries we have done relatively well. Better than the Soviet Union, better than Hungary. The Soviet Union was too leftist, Hungary was too rightist. We have drawn a lesson from this; it’s not that we’re especially clever. Because the Soviet Union has been too left, we have learned something from that experience. We ourselves have committed leftist excesses, too. During the period of the southern base areas, when we were still rather ignorant, we suffered losses and every base area without exception used the same Soviet method. Later [we] put things right, and only then did we gain experience. In Yan’an [we] finally enacted some rules. Not a single person was to be killed and the bulk [of offenders] were not to be arrested. Once in Beijing [i.e., after the 1949 Communist victory] there were some improvements, though naturally there are still shortcomings, errors. Still, by now progress has been made. Compared with the Soviet Union, it is two lines [i.e., two different lines on this were followed. –Ed.] (this refers to the past, not the present, namely the time when Stalin was in power; he did things badly). There were two sides to him. One side was the elimination of true counterrevolutionaries; that was the correct side. The other side was the incorrect killing of numerous people, important people.”—“On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People” (Speaking Notes), (Feb. 27, 1957), SSCM, pp. 141-2, and footnote 11. An alternate translation of some of this passage is given above. Id.

Yes, it will in 2 … 3 generations. Here I’m showing it with example of Europe. In the world things are not shaping well for western civilization, but China and India change it all.And it is really easy to find out how it will be done in 2–3 generations.And it is really easy to find out why so many politicians are “ignoring” it. It’s pure economy and geopolitics.But first a disclaimer.I am not an Islamophobe. I’m not far right winger. And I’m not a Christian fighter. I learned Fusha - classical Arabic, so the language of Islam holy texts, for couple of years and I love their culture and History. But their history is a continuous Christian civilization bloodbath because from civilization battle only one can come out standing.For Muslims their tradition and culture IS Islam. So what European establishment requires of them is to abandon all the things that constitute their identity. And surrender it to supposedly non Judeo-Christian law despite the obvious conflicts coming from religion. For instance marriage with more than one woman is a crime of polygamy. Is it? And those “barbarians” do not understand most simple “obvious” truths and human rights? So who it is exactly that makes valid judgements about what are exact characteristics of “human” and his “rights”? Well it's the civilization of majority in society. Majority. And then it can claim it's “universal”. ;)So to answer the question, two factors:fertility rates“Genius” leftists policies (feminism, Multiculti, gender equality, greens) that are against having childrenFor those who don’t know. The minimum fertility rate to sustain population AND civilization of course is 2.0 children per woman.Here are fertility rates for Europe (data from 2016). Couple of months ago EU published fertility rate for 2018 for EU. It’s 1,49. So it already dropped a lot but at the same time we have witnessed increased Muslim immigration since then. So it’s not hard to imagine that it’s not Muslim fertility rate that dropped the most since it is set to be +1.0 to non-Muslim fertility rates. So it may even be today as low for non-Muslims as 1,2–1.3 and as high for Muslims as 3.0 considering their still lower absolute numbers.Other point that we need to take into account is that our non-Muslim societies are getting old, so not only the fertility rate factor must be taken seriously but the death rate as well. Muslim population is much younger and they have their children earlier in life. So the argument of still lower absolute numbers of Muslims isn't working for western civilization. Time works against us, because we will be dead sooner cause we're older. So our fertility rates dropping will only accelerate as more and more of us will pass the threshold of biological ability to have children, which we don’t want to have anymore.And this is rarely the case in estimations.https://www.theguardian.com/worl...But nevertheless obviously we take this seriously:“We strongly advocate the peaceful coexistence of representatives of different religions and nations. And the opportunity to learn Islam in German schools certainly favors our vision of society“ Freie Demokratische ParteiSo here’s a little quiz…how long did it take for Byzantium to stop being a 100% Christian country and become 100% Muslim country?correct answer - A 100 years.Is there European culture left?correct answer - No.How did it happened?correct answer - uhhhh … can I call a friend?Sure, why not?So here is a clip from Egyptian television with a pretty clear explanation. This guy understands what this is all about. And most enlightened Muslim thinkers today agree with him.And to put it in comparison with other countries that were supposed to become Multiculti aka. soviet socialist - India - became Pakistan and India both dominated not by Marxist idea of Multiculti but by ORIGINAL civilizations of … again the majority of their population. And European Muslim population is replacing (former) Christian population. Simple as that.“The National Police has launched an operation on Wednesday to defuse the plans of a jihadist from the Islamic State who planned to commit a massacre in Seville. According to El Confidencial sources confirmed in the fight against terrorism, the man was prepared to attempt imminently against the processions of Holy Week that cover these days the main streets of the capital of Seville gathering thousands of people. The police operation is coordinated by the Central Court of Instruction number 4 and the Prosecutor's Office of the National Court.” El ConfidencialAnd if we look at history of our both civilizations it is really no surprise that the battle of civilizations continues. Only with different strategy and weapons. Are we supposed to fight with swords rather than bombs and driving trucks into crowds to make that historical connection finally?Below is the comparison between:Jihad (548 battles between year 632 and 1920) 1920!!!Crusades (16 battles between year 1090 and 1260)So what the younger than us generation thinks about it statistically?“Criminologist Christian Pfeiffer conducted research among Muslim students in Germany. One in five believes that it is necessary to fight infidels and bring Islam to the world. Research among Muslim students was conducted in the German Land of Lower Saxony. As many as 30% of them imagine that they would fight armed in the name of Islam. Almost the same number consider that sharia is better than the law in Germany. 8% of students consider the ISIS establishment and operation to be right, and 4% think that terror is a good way to achieve ISIS goals - to bring Muslim orders to the world. Every fifth student also believes that the Muslim's task is to fight infidels and bring about the domination of Islam throughout the world.”“According to research, 76 percent in 2008 Muslims over 16 were of the opinion that Islam should be taught in schools. Currently, in Germany, in over 800 institutions for religion classes for Muslims, about 55 thousand. people. The authorities recorded a large increase in the number of volunteers compared to previous years.”Other research done in UK shows that worldwide 80% of all religion motivated murders are committed to harm Christians.https://twitter.com/BreakingNAlerts/status/1119972049953415168/photo/1But suicide bombers will not lower westerners’ fertility rates obviously, the other side of the barricade will… so our dear leftists:So I remember couple of years ago when the Ozone layer was at the top (what happened to it btw? do we all have skin cancer yet?) I had a conversation with an ecologist about how we need to care about it because we’ll all die. It was hot as hell and we had a beer… I threw in the thick air … “what would we do without a cool beer in the summer?” And he replied without noticing the obvious “fridge provocation” … “Last summer in the mountains I would kill for one.” and we laughed…So here is a Rosling video… about ecology - apart from children… the biggest problem of the first world… or as I call it since then - the world of cool beers in the summer.And Multiculti… so we have an European Refugee Crisis… because Angela Merkel thought it would be easy to get some people from Syria to work in Germany shrinking in population, and she miscalculated obviously. It’s because of Multiculti. I don’t think any explanation about leftists policy Multiculti is necessary. What is necessary I think is to look at Chemnitz and those “far-right” haters and racists as Angela Merkel herself called them as a clear synonym to Nazi used by leftist propaganda. Suddenly to manifest in democratic way… just as feminists and eco fighters do … became the tool of hatred. So let me say that again - really? Hatred? I know… I know only the left has a mandate for absolute moral superiority over anyone. So let us look at these “Nazis” and try to figure out what do they want? Hitler back? Really?So where this arrogant moral superiority to judge anyone that is not a leftist as inhuman is coming from? From the topest top of all the tops of humanitarianism of the left?We can ask ourselves a question what Muslims think of the basic human rights of the west such as abortion and euthanasia? But it's a rhetoric question. It is only us that are convinced that having a suicidal society is a good thing and shows development. In 2–3 generations there will be only dust left of our “development”. Not because of the sea level rise of 13mm since the 70s but because of 1.3 fertility rates in Europe among non-Muslims. And dropping. And at what cost? Is it necessary?Here is an upgraded version of Rosling’s famous toilet paper demonstration to show my point.As an economist I have one more thing thou to add to Rosling’s presentation above. When the pyramid is upside down remember? Fewer children than adults because of forced policy of one child.One question. Who is going to work for our pensions? ??? Where all the money to pay for our bread will come from when there is half of the workforce required to sustain our present situation? And the answer is the left knows about all these problems. They are not idiots. It's just ecology is not the goal… it is a tool…. Not to achieve balance but to gain political influence for Marxism to rule the world as Lenin commanded. It won't work. Instead we'll die and someone else will take our place and land.Someone who do not care about the left policy to have fewer children. Remember the Romans? One of the greatest empires on earth and without a doubt most advanced to date. Who made them disappear? How many of them are left?The key for understanding social change in Europe is:proportion (increase of Muslim population being also younger, difference in fertility rates and earlier parenthood - so faster generation replacement)Where the baby boom is going to happen in the next 100 years according to Rosling? In Africa. Where would they go to ensure their children’s survival? To Europe. And Europe will take them because there will be less and less people able to work.Subject of leftists propaganda. It’s not Asia. It’s not Africa. There is 10 times more children there… (?) It’s not Arabia.It’s Western Europe and US. It is Christian Europe that is not populating the world for many many years now because of high income. Wanna make it even less? Shouldn't they go to Asia? (again) Or Muslim Arabia? No? Why?Because only Christians are not fighting back because it is the religion of the second cheek, right?Or because it was already done? In the LEFT ruled China and unfortunately everyone wanted to have a boy child because boys are stronger and survive more often in poor provinces of west China?They did it in Asia already. And obviously they already start to have the same problems as Europe has. Disproportion between the workforce and pensioners. And at what cost? Let’s look.So in China they have now 40.000.000 more men than women. And it was only done through extreme violence performed on the society and those poor mothers to have multiple abortions. God only knows what these women came through being obliged by the law to kill their WANTED kids.Who made them do it? You know that don’t you? … we all know..It’s our genocide and mass murder ideologists. Marx, Engels, Mao and Lenin.Yes… the same great idealists that lead our western youth to a bright, better future of equality and better wealth distribution. To socialism (as Marx defined it) - the dictatorship of the Proletariat. The left made those poor mothers decide which child to kill. Wanna swap places with them for a moment and make such a decision? Noooo… I’m kidding… you wont have to… we already made it. :)))) And those who have concerns about it are just “scumbags”…Well, I’m a scumbag… I would really have a problem facing pregnant Chinese woman to tell her that it’s over…. because we need… I need… less CO2, but it’s ok because it’s not her child… it’s …. just…. something that has less rights than animals in the west today…. Right?…One has to really think of himself as equal to God to do such things to other human beings. One has to feel endless moral superiority. And it is and always was the case of the left. It is their opponents that are supposedly scumbags, monsters, thieves, murderers, conspirators and oppressors of the better people. Because they are just evil beings. It’s a question of morality… they say… Really? Who defined such morality? The most notorious mass murderers in the world?And yes, it’s capitalist part of China that contributed the most to enormous decrease in world poverty, just because they are most populous. But how many died along the way just to make this number smaller? Let’s assume that these poor mothers wanted to have 3 kids like most women do. And China has now 40 milion more men because all the girls were “aborted”. So easily you can add another 80.000.000 killed to great humanitarian contribution of the left to universal morality.So we pretend that it is humanitarian and necessary for the benefit of the society and the planet to “abort”. The left is renown expert in genocides… it was aaaalways cheaper than feeding. Google up Ukrainian Holodomor… fabulous achievement… no one knows about - how many died? About the same as in Holocaust. But it’s just a tiny little fraction of the capability of the LEFT.They have killed more than 100 million people. Count those 80 million and you have 180.000.000 people dead for the greater good.So yes they have already a great method of population reduction. And that ideology is a religion now. Who needs Crusades to compare to Jihad? Just compare it to the comrades. Crusades … phew… Jihad … phew … Nazis phew… again…. kindergarten.Sure … the left is the best advocate for humanity and human rights we have… hahahahahahWanna tell me that’s a different thing? Modern left is different. It's… good…. It's just different… Like…. How?Let me take you then on the little excursion in European Parliament to headquarters of the United Left - greens, womens rights etc. It’s in Polish but don’t mind the voice. Just watch. :))))))))))))))))))))Korytarzem w "lewo"Is it more clear now? ;DDDDBoth Mao Zedong who killed the most and the western left are following Marx and Lenin. The same philosophy… even political procedures are the same… like censorship that we witness in UK universities now…. is just like we had in Poland during communist rule. First it was censorship and in no time those who opposed were killed you know.To rough? Have you seen the face of this AfD guy cut in half by Antifa golden boyzzzzz? zzzzzzz? :) Well, you should…. And all for the greater good, just like before… :) The west just didn't have the privilege to live in this greater good… and to be terrorized by it. yet. Maybe that’s why no left party needs protection, but AfD does. And they need to do their convents in Poland(?) And maybe that’s why so many people call the left terrorists. And it’s sooo…. innocent … in appearance… and compassionate… just look at the phrase below. It’s because of suoposed hate speech of the supposed “far-right”.“The freedom of speech doesn't come with freedom from consequence.”Yes, I know how it goes thank you… people from my family were slain because of that… PRECISELY because of that…. by good innocent people working for the benefit of all mankind.People that survived Cultural Revolution and escaped to US say they have a deja vu now.Even Hitler was socialist inspired by Marx… because I’m sure you don’t know the debate about the great question - was he a right winger or a left winger…. Remember the name of his party? National-socialists? How come the second part was forgotten? And now Nation = Hitler. Sure… In Poland there were only two times when abortion was on demand. Our feminists cheered this year the 74th anniversary. First time it was Hitler and second time it was Stalin. Both great advocates of (Polish) womens rights as we all know.Need I say more? ;DAnd the leftists atmosphere around religion… I mean Christianity… obviously… is getting dense beside leftists propaganda that the hate speech is coming only from “white Christian males”. Is it? Really? I would say it is the opposite and enormously opposite. But they feel they have moral superiority for violence… just like Stalin and Mao and Hitler. It is always moral superiority that makes people commit the worst atrocities in the world… they just “clean up the scumbags” and the world would be a better place right? It's really not hard to believe in that. Being compassionate. 80%… 80 damn percent of perfectly normal people have elected Hitler as chancellor. And again you may say that's different. Really? Have you read “Mein Kampf”? I have. Do you know what it is about? No?So let me tell you then. It's about discrimination of Germans by evil elusive conspirers that created the system of oppression and slavery preventing good people of Germany from living their lives in dignity. You know who where these supposed “oppressors”? The Jews.Change some actors and you'll have Patriarchy and good people of modern Proletariat.But wait, it’s getting better…This year some scientists did it. And published some of “upgraded” original text of Mein Kampf in feminist periodics. Just changing names… from Jews to men and from Germans to women. The ideology and all the phrases remained the same. They were published and promoted. They even received prizes for it. Hahahahaha…. Text was even republished in 100 edition of one of the periodics.Are we really BLIND? Or just stupid? What is wrong with us?Remember NSDAP destroying Jewish shops in Nazi Germany?Today we have Antifa.I mean just look at this video: Prawa strona on Twitter. Not only tolerance, peace and love, but a triumph of development, humanism and high culture - our dear left. Just look at it. All these violent, hateful, and primitive Christians … drinking blood… facing the new human leftist... The Police needs to protect these kind beings from the left from the hateful aggressive Christian mob… hahaha. They are known for beating up everyone that disagrees with them. They even have their armed wing called Chistifa… hahahahahaEnough… about them… human brain is clearly obsolete in any battle with Marxism.But Muslims and leftists have one thing in common - the enemy - Christianity and western civilization. It’s not a surprise because in the meantime in 2018 there was almost a 1000 attacks on Churches in France alone.I mean there were only two groups celebrating Notre Dame. Muslims and Antifa. Just check the video below to see it on TwitterDamien Rieu on TwitterObviously it's not “mandatory” for a Muslim to hate Christians :) Most of Muslims I know are peaceful just as I am, nevertheless it is not Christians driving lorries into crowds.Renaud Girard : «Mais que veulent donc les islamistes ?» here Renaud Girard from Le Figaro even claims that the Holy Week teases Muslims.The whole point is for us toBE AWARE and BE RESPONSIBLE for your children’s future. Today not tomorrow. Defend the family.Read. Think. Ask questions instead of buying everything they sell. Buy a ticket to Chemnitz for Christs sake or Upsalla…. Stop voting for communists in new cloths. And above all… don’t remain silent… even in your own house. You have argument above… I gave it to you. Do something about it.But all the above is very… very pessimistic. For Muslims too. I mean there is a growing number of conversions to Christianity as well after all amazing achievements of ISIS… and I have no doubt soon it will be Islam’s turn to be elevated to higher moral standards of the left.So if You would asked me what is the lesson from it for the Muslim world it would be the same as self critique of Muslim thinkers. And that is:Stop teaching and start learning.Islam seems to have this notion of correcting people. The below video shows it clearly.Unfortunately, and I don't want to insult Muslims in any way here, but the left has the same approach. Different methods thou.Who knows who would win of these two? ;) hard to say.The battle between civilizations is always rough…. till the last man standing.

Thanks for the A2A. This will be a pretty long answer, because I will be trying to present multiple perspectives on Naxals/Maoists and Naxalism/Maoism.I would add one thing though to the point added for the answer which is collapsed: yes, you can get answers on Wikipedia, but the advantage of asking such a question on Quora is that one can get different perspectives on the same issue, which Wikipedia may or may not offer.So let's answer the questions in a systematic manner:Naxals or Naxalites (or Maoists) are terms used to refer to militants who believe in the ideology of Communism (or Maoism) and operate in various parts of India, mostly in those having large forest cover. The term "Naxalite" or "Naxals" comes from the village named "Naxalbari" which is in West Bengal (Siliguri subdivision of Darjeeling district), which is where a violent uprising of laborers was organized by a section of the then Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M) under the leadership of mostly three people: Kanu Sanyal, Charu Mazumdar and Jangal Santhal. This uprising took place in the year 1967.The reason why this particular uprising started, is of course hardly discussed or looked at among Indian politicians or even the other organs of the Indian state, be it the police (especially in West Bengal) or among the Congress party or rulers who then ruled the state. The violent uprising though was not against the Indian state. Because of the Permanent Settlement revenue system introduced by the Britishers once the East India Company established its rule in West Bengal, a large number of zamindars/landlords were created who owned large tracts of land, but were hardly involved in cultivation of crops and agricultural activities themselves. They instead employed a large number of laborers and also tenant farmers/sharecroppers (i.e. people who didn't own your land but who would organize agricultural activity on your land, in lieu of which he/she will get a part of the total produce). The sharecroppers would in turn employ agricultural laborers in many cases, who would be paid a pittance because in most cases the sharecropper would hardly get much of the total agricultural produce from the land, and whose own tenure was not secure. Moreover, the sharecropper could be evicted at any moment from the land, because he/she did not own the land. This happened both under the Britishers, and continued once India became independent using the loophole present in the Land Reforms Act of India (1955), which stated that sharecroppers had permanent use rights on land leased out to them under certain conditions, but these rights could not be claimed if the landlord wanted to take the land back for personal cultivation. Using this route, many landlords used to evict sharecroppers/tenant farmers regularly and keep them on a leash, with the local administration working to the benefit of the landlords themselves.The Naxalbari violent uprising was thus directed at ensuring land reforms, which in simple terms, meant re-distribution of agricultural land equally among all those engaged in agricultural production, particularly among the landless (both sharecroppers and also agricultural laborers), since land was seen as the basis of wealth of the zamindars who in most cases were absentee landlords-cum-goondas who controlled the local machinery of the state (local administration and also local police).One should also try and read on the conditions under which the local people (and a substantial section among them were tribals) functioned as laborers and sharecroppers. There were regular complaints of women being molested and even raped by landlords or relatives/family members of landlords. Another issue was that the sharecroppers had to take loans from landlords at exorbitant rates of interest and forgery had been done in many cases so as to ensure that sharecroppers were always in debt and were thus hardly getting any share of the total agricultural produce which almost always went entirely to the landlord. Combined with all this, any protest by the sharecropper against the "injustice" being unleashed by the landlord was met with violent counter-reaction by the landlord using local thugs, also combined with local police which almost always acted at the landlord's behest.However, one should remember that this was not necessarily a fight against the existence of the Indian state, it was a movement more to ensure equal distribution of land (in a way, wealth) among all. So it was a Communist movement, but not necessarily directed against the Indian state or to overthrow it. The slogan of the Naxalbari uprising was "land to the tiller".However, the Naxalbari rising was met with a strong reaction by the police. The trigger was on 25 May 1967 when in Naxalbari, 9 adults and 2 children were killed when police fired on a group of protesters who were demanding their right to crops grown on a particular piece of land. In another case, a sharecropper was killed by landlord's men when he was making a similar demand as well. Once the police was seen as supporting the landlord, the local tribals and also other people decided to counter-attack the police along with the landlords, with one such attempt on 24 May 1967 leading to a police inspector being killed by tribal arrows.And this changed the direction of the movement in many ways.i) First, Mao Zedong, the major leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC), became the ideological powerhouse of the movement as it was alleged that he asked Indian peasants and also tribals and the landless to revolt against the Indian state and the Indian governments which were only acting for the upper class.ii) Second, a section of India's urban elites started getting attracted to the movement rapidly, particularly in West Bengal where it later emerged that not only were college students joining Naxalism or even supporting it (both in violent and non-violent ways) but also arms for Naxals were supposedly being manufactured in workshops of Jadavpur University, a famous university in West Bengal. Charu Mazumdar's writings, left a deep impression on students both in schools and even in colleges which led to many students leaving their education behind and joining Naxals in their violent uprising. In fact, Presidency College in Kolkata was considered the hotbed of Naxalism and even St. Stephen's College was alleged to one such hotbed in Delhi.iii) Third, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) split, with a faction going with Sanyal and Mazumdar believing that violence and a revolution led by peasants is the only way to tackle the upper-class/bourgeoisie, and since the entire Indian state was one which worked only to protect the interests of the upper class, it was high time that a revolution was organized to overthrow not just the local police but the very foundations of the Indian state also and change its very nature from being "capitalist" to "socialist" or "communist", a state for the Indian proletariat. It worked as an underground group working towards a violent revolution which killed individual members of upper classes in the attempt of establishing a socialist/communist Indian state.The reaction by the then Congress government, led by Siddhartha Shankar Ray as Chief Minister of West Bengal, was horrendous. Torture was the route employed by police all across Bengal. Anybody suspected of being a Naxal was just tortured, irrespective of whether the person practiced violence or not, irrespective of whether the person was male or female (females, both Naxal cadres or even innocent women, were raped in many cases multiple times and tortured by males, arrested by male policemen in many cases which today is considered a violation of fundamental rights thanks to Supreme Court strictures), irrespective of whether there was evidence against the person concerned or not, and irrespective of whether the person had links with Naxals or not. Many innocents, and even the cadres of CPI(M) who had split from Mazumdar-Sanyal faction and worked alone, had been arrested and tortured. The torture was even more extreme during the period of Emergency declared in 1975 which continued till 1977. Several activists who opposed the Emergency, be it of whichever ideology (Naxals, RSS activists, even non-violent political activists of the stable of People's Union of Civil Liberties and various others who were not part of any formal organizations) were arrested and either lost their lives or tortured so severely that they became physically disable or mentally disabled in many cases. Fundamental rights of protest and speech were thrown to the winds allegedly in the name of countering Naxalism.The Naxals thus suffered severe losses during the Emergency period in particular, due to the repression unleashed. When Naxals and other political activists alleged that human rights of Naxals and many political prisoners had been violated repeatedly, the state's response was that when it was fighting an enemy who had no norms of democracy or civility, then human rights and moral science could not be the basis of tackling the enemy. Later, the Naxals apparently split and that led to fragmentation of the movement just before the Emergency as well. Also, the violent uprising also failed because the people being recruited as Naxals were not necessarily those committed to its ideology but in many cases those who had a motive of revenge in personal life and used the guns acquired to achieve personal goals and ambitions, showing one of the possible reasons why Gandhi always discarded the use of gun in fighting those whose injustice is to be resisted. Another issue was that spies were recruited mistakenly in many cases by Naxals as workers, who in turn collaborated with governments to finish off the movement. Mazumdar was himself arrested and died apparently of a heart attack, although it has been alleged repeatedly that he died on account of state torture. Also, many of the so-called upper class people who joined Naxalism also suffered torture and then surrendered or gave up before the authorities, either because they were not themselves as committed as Sanyal and Mazumdar were, or because of the extent of torture suffered which made them useless combined with the anxieties of their parents who had sufficient political reach to protect their children. The local tribals and innocents though, did not have such power so as to save them.Once the Left government came to power in Bengal in 1977 and land reform (at least partially) was initiated as "Operation Barga" in 1978, a major grouse or reason for why Naxalism originated, was partially solved. But Naxalism was to return, if not in Bengal, then in Andhra Pradesh.One of the major issues during the Naxal movement was that with Mazumdar gaining upper hand and forming the All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR) in May 1968 along with other units of Naxals in states like Orissa (today Odisha), Bihar (includes today's Bihar and Jharkhand) and even to an extent in Punjab, some other major such groups or factions were alienated, not just those in Bengal, but also those outside Bengal, such as those in Andhra Pradesh. In fact, the issues were initially mostly regarding the strategy to be pursued: while Mazumdar believed that the best strategy was to have the revolution by identifying the enemies within upper class and eliminating them individually, the faction in Andhra Pradesh led by T. Nagi Reddy and that in West Bengal led by Kanhai Chatterjee is said to have said that mass agitations should be used as the precursor and only once these have attained a level, should any uprising, violent or non-violent, be employed against the upper classes. The result was that while AICCCR rejected this and formed Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) or CPI(M-L), CPI(M) from which this was formed rejected this ideal of violent uprising of the split faction and also did take to violent repression of the Naxals if required. The Chatterjee faction then went on to form the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) from where came the use of the word "Maoists" to represent Naxals also, although they did represent different factions.Mazumdar's death led to huge factionalism within the group, with splinters and re-splinters forming, much to the delight of historians of India like Ramachandra Guha, all justified in the name of course-corrections and being true to Communist/Marxist/Maoist ideologies. For example, as Guha pointed out in his later lectures, there were all kinds of groups: one being pro-Marx, pro-Trostky and pro-Mao while another being anti-Mao, anti-Marx but pro-Trotsky and pro-Lenin. And one could try out all such types of permutations and combinations, with many of the ground soldiers associated with such groups possibly having no idea of the similarities and differences in views of Marx, Trotsky, Mao, Lenin and others considered as father-figures in Communism or Marxism. In fact, Kanu Sanyal even said that parliamentary democracy is the best way to fight the bourgeoisie and hence joined the mainstream democratic politics of India.The splits continued during the 70s end and 80s, with a major faction under the leadership of Kondapalli Seetharamiah forming the People's War Group (PWG) in Andhra Pradesh and another major faction under N. Prasad in Bihar forming CPI(M-L) (Unity Organization). All of these did have differences in ideology but more closely, they had differences in strategies of how to supposedly establish a proletarian state in India. While PWG believed that mass action was required, both violent and non-violent and building mass organizations in that regard, Seetharamiah himself believed in restricting the work to "annihilation of class enemies", the group under N. Prasad wanted to wage "people's war against the government", and this later led to splinters and re-splinters of all kinds within Bihar along with existence of MCC.What all this meant at the strategic level was that while CPI(M-L) joined parliamentary democracy and even won in Bihar, others like PWG and MCC (the two major Maoist/Naxal groups) were out there to undertake violent crimes against both police (particularly in Andhra Pradesh where PWG used to massacre police officers, and in return the police used to torture both Naxal cadres and suspected Naxal sympathizers, many of whom may also have been innocent and not guilty as well as fake encounters of suspected and confirmed Naxals, thereby violating human rights) and also against landlords (particularly in Bihar where unlike in other states, it was not so much tribals but Dalits who were foot soldiers of Maoists and had been oppressed by upper castes under the caste system which has prevailed in India for centuries). While PWG and police were therefore involved in gang-wars and fake encounters and vicious murders of each other's supposed leaders in Andhra Pradesh, the Maoists were involved in murders of upper castes which in turn led to renegade groups of upper castes like the Ranvir Sena taking shape in Bihar, which used to massacre Dalits in the name of revenge against the Maoists. And one should remember the rulers of Andhra and Bihar at this point. While Lalu was known for legendary disorder and lack of rule of law in Bihar, Chandrababu Naidu and his party Telugu Desam Party (TDP) was regularly accused of using Naxals to first come to political power in Andhra Pradesh legislature and then dumping or discarding them once they came to power.This was going on for quite some time. The Naxals and Maoists then turned into one in the year 2004, precisely September 2004, when attempts being made since the past to combine all existing splinter groups into a single formation finally bore fruit and the People's War Group and Maoist Communist Centre, along with other formations, joined together to form one single organization: the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) or CPI(M), and this is different from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which fights parliamentary elections in India.An important feature of the multiple groups had been that while the groups claimed to fight in particular for sections considered the most downtrodden within the Indian society, namely the Dalits/Scheduled Castes and the tribals/Scheduled Tribes, the leadership of these groups mostly consisted of upper class, and mostly upper caste who had in many cases, left away possible lives of luxury and better lifestyle to live among the very poor and undertake mass insurrection against Indian state. Therefore, there was a substantial difference in the demography of the foot soldiers who were mostly Dalits and tribals, and the composition of the leadership of the Naxals. This has been used by Indian state and also those opposing Naxals for their violence, though Naxals have always rejected this by stating that they all support equality and have never discriminated against the Indian state.The 2004 merger led to an escalation of violence and also in regions where violence was being unleashed. A favorite strategy of both PWG and MCC was to develop two kinds of centres or areas: areas which were liberated from the Indian state through continuous acts of violence fighting the Indian state, and areas where Maoists or Naxals escaped to and which were islands of peace, to be used for congregations or meetings but not attacked by them. So for example, regions in undivided Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh + Chhattisgarh) were to be used for secret meetings and congregations, while Andhra Pradesh and Bihar witnessed violence. (Bihar was then undivided as Bihar + Jharkhand).With the merging of all Naxal and Maoist factions into one group, this led to a major change: while continuous attacks by Andhra police along with attacks by a specialized anti-Naxal force called the Greyhound formed by Andhra government led to alleged fake encounters and deaths of Naxal leaders, substantial developmental activities led to people of the region dumping Naxals to an extent as well, which led to a demise of Naxal activity in most of Andhra Pradesh, especially Telangana. It is alleged that Naxals today support the formation of Telangana only because their experience in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh suggests that it is far difficult for smaller states to organize enough financial resources and muscle power to tackle Naxals, and so they can be successful in a smaller state like Telangana as opposed to a larger state like Andhra Pradesh. Telangana supporters though have refused such reasons and termed them as excuses used by anti-Telangana activists and politicians who don't want to give justice to Telangana.The reason why I bring this is because PWG was certainly strong in Telangana where its leadership and cadre was substantially wiped out (and most surprisingly considering that the YSR government of Andhra in 2004 had used Naxals to win elections and then called them for a peace process, which was suddenly cancelled in 2005 and their leaders and many cadres were killed in the open, which led to a substantial loss in strength of PWG). It has also been alleged repeatedly that at least in Andhra Pradesh, local politicians used Maoists as goons or local thugs to regularly win elections in return for financially supporting Maoists, either out of fear or also out of the need to win elections continuously and thereby get chance to seek more rents through other activities.Once PWG and MCC were merged, the stage shifted from Andhra to Dantewada district in Chhattisgarh, which had seen Naxal activity but not to the extent seen since 2006. Naxals had been present in Chhattisgarh region for quite long and also were responsible for ensuring that tendu-leave collectors were able to get decent wages and female tendu-leave collectors were not harassed by their managers or contractors, by ensuring mass agitations. However, the threat of violence escalated sharply, considering that Naxals had now gained substantial strength in regions of Chhattisgarh which were not only densely forested and had a high concentration of tribals, but were also rich in mines of major minerals: iron ore, manganese, magnesium, coal and aluminium in particular.The Naxals alleged that the central and state governments were only interested in treating tribals as a use-and-throw substance who would be kicked out of the forest land they have lived on since generations, in the name of developing the entire country, and they would not get any share of the profits earned but would instead lose the lone source of livelihood they possess. The Naxals also stated that considering the history of the Indian state which has been oppressive of tribals and has always stopped tribals from having any sort of control over resources which they have owned and lived with since long, and how tribals were never given education or proper health facilities but always used and thrown away when the work got over, the Indian state would never be interested in their development but instead, the so-called Indian developmental model would even lead to the extinction of tribal culture and tribals themselves. A similar sort of situation was also seen in Orissa where the Biju Janata Dal state government was accused by Naxals of helping industrialists and bourgeoisie while tramping on the rights of the downtrodden tribal community who have only suffered since independence. The Naxals also pointed out that tribals in many places which had mines of minerals below them, had been thrown out of their land in the name of development and had been never rehabilitated or compensated adequately. Worse, many tribal regions had never seen a properly functioning school or any government project. Moreover, any non-violent protest of tribals was met with violence by the Indian state in the name of fighting Naxalism and acting in the interest of the nation, thereby suggesting that the existence of the Indian state was itself not in the interest of the tribals and they should join the fight in overthrowing the state structure itself.Meanwhile Manmohan Singh in 2006 declared Left-Wing Extremism (LWE), a new formal term for Maoists, as the single biggest challenge to the existence of the Indian state. And in Chhattisgarh, the Leader of Opposition from Congress party, Mahendra Karma, introduced "Salwa Judum" (meaning: Purification Hunt in Gondi language), where tribals armed with guns were engaged as Special Protection Officers (SPOs) to tackle the foot soldiers of Naxalism, who were also tribals. The Salwa Judum movement led to a major escalation of violence and increase in casualties in Dantewada district in Chhattisgarh, which the Naxals claimed as the major centre of their liberated area in India, which the Indian government refers to as the "Red Corridor". The Chhattisgarh government supported Salwa Judum, but SPOs, most of whom were not adults but around 16-18 years old (who could never become policemen as per police rules), combined with Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), were supposed to target Naxals. The reality though turned out to be far grim: villages were looted, villagers were treated as suspected Naxals and beaten and tortured in the name of extracting information and "teaching a proper lesson", women were raped and some forced to undertake prostitution and worse, cattle and poultry farms were looted and eaten up. Many villagers, particularly in liberated areas, had been forced to hide in the forests to escape the raids of Salwa Judum activists and SPOs, even though neither they supported Naxals nor the state action being perpetrated onto them. As one such villager confessed to Ramachandra Guha "Hum dono ke beech me pis gaye hain" (or in English: We are stuck in the middle of two forces: Naxals and the Indian states, and in deep shit).The Naxals and Salwa Judum used to attack each other with even more ferocity, with several Salwa Judum SPOs having lost not only their lives but some with their bodies cut to pieces as well. Not only this, Naxals further introduced terror in areas controlled by them so that nobody dare become a spy for the government. Many people were assassinated by Naxals and even by Salwa Judum in the name of being a spy for the "enemy".The Salwa Judum was finally banned by the Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in 2011, for violating human rights and the Constitution itself. It still continues as the state government has employed the same SPOs and formed an army in the name of Maa Danteshwari (a famous temple in Chhattisgarh), All these are strategic blunders because those who lost their lives at the hands of Salwa Judum activists and were uprooted from their own villages to declare themselves as being anti-Maoist, were far more likely to become Maoists than if their lives had remained untouched in the first place, and morever, these were not well-equipped in the first place to tackle Naxals, nor were they an ideological buffer to Naxalism also.But meanwhile, the government unofficially introduced "Operation Greenhunt", a coordinated operation across several states (Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal among others), to tackle Naxalism using the idea of first conquering an area and then making it a peace island which would be developed properly. This strategy was thoroughly criticized by Ajai Sahni who said that Maoists would easily target a place which was supposed to be conquered by CRPF and then developed, and the forces would be sitting ducks unless the entire region was sought to be cleaned. He also questioned the strategy since it was extremely difficult to separate the innocent villagers from the Naxals in Naxal-controlled areas, particularly since there was no Naxal army in uniform and the foot soldiers were as poor and similar looking as the innocent native tribals. Also, not all tribals were Maoists, and since the forces would be operating in areas with a lot of pressure and the threat of death looming large in their own minds, it was quite likely that they may kill innocent tribals out of suspicion or fear which will only trigger anger and generate sympathy or possible support for Maoists. Deeper psychological problems in the minds of CRPF would further lead to even rapes of women being justified in the name of controlling "Red Terror" as Naxalism is often referred to as, which would be useful for Maoists to further their own propaganda. Moreover, CRPF batallions are never trained to tackle Naxal violence but to instead tackle riot situations, which are quite different and difficult circumstances, and to re-train them would not be so easy. Plus the fact that it was quite difficult to follow Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in many areas simply because it was not plausible, that the terrain was inhospitable and in addition to Maoists malaria and other insect-caused diseases were also major problems, and that Maoists had a better knowledge of the terrain and ground support which CRPF did not have at all, as well as poor administrative capabilities of the state and dubious functioning of the state authorities which had a role to play in the building up of the problem to begin with, were all issues which CRPF could not tackle on their own.The hopeless exercise of fighting Naxals through the idea of Salwa Judum and/or Operation Greenhunt has been shown to all through continuous massacres by Naxals of CRPF jawans, almost as if CRPF men were sitting ducks for Naxals. If it was not the Chintanalar massacre of 76 CRPF men in 2010, it was the capture of Collector of Sukma District in Chhattisgarh in 2012, or even the murder of Mahendra Karma who initiated Salwa Judum, in our current year, 2013.And not to forget, when an attempt was being made to have peace talks between Maoists and the Central government, the man supposed to talk peace from the Maoist side, named Azad, was killed in a suspicious encounter by the Andhra police and the Maoists declared that they are not interested in a peace process any more. Azad interestingly wanted peace (or so he claimed) not because the Maoists wanted peace, but because the tribals deserved peace from the conflict between them and the Indian state, accusing the Indian government and its forces of treating the Indian Constitution like a toilet paper and not respecting it at all.Kidnappings and ambushes are all a part to declare the intent of war on the Indian state or to get their own supporters released. But the real idea is to actually overthrow the Indian state.Now let me add a few more paragraphs on my own views.Firstly, not all tribals are Naxals, nor are all Naxals necessarily tribals, though there is a substantial part of intersection among the two, ie.. many Naxals are tribals and a substantial section among tribals is Naxal.Secondly, most foot soldiers of Naxal groups are tribals, but they may not know what we mean by the Indian state. For them, the oppressive part of state structure is the patwari or the forest guard who does not allow them to cut branches of trees in forests, to live with forests, or to collect forest produce and sell them at reasonable wage rates, which they had been doing before the British came to India to regulate forests and which Indian government has been doing since Independence. They want their control over the forests while ensuring the sustainability of these forests, which they have been doing since generations. The tribals may not care about the Indian parliament, they may not care about their development or presence/absence of schools, hospitals or even others, but they do care about their dignity.In other words, they have joined Naxalism not because they may want development but haven't got it (otherwise, most parts of the country which don't have Naxalism but remain underdeveloped would also have seen Naxalism or some such movement in the last 60 years). It is because they feel their dignity has been attacked or under threat due to actors belonging to Indian state. But they don't know what a state is, leave alone what the Indian state is. They attack the local police and landlords and also the forest guard or arms of the Indian state who oppress them in their day-to-day lives. If the Indian state just boycotts their development, they may not really go to war with the state. But because the Indian state wants the ores and mineral resources, the tribals feel their dignity and livelihood is in trouble and they are not going to be involved in the process of development, and so it's important for them to resist these projects because they will lose everything and gain nothing, while others talking of development will gain everything.Many people who join Naxals may be doing so not necessarily because they believe in Naxal ideology or Maoism, but because they have suffered at the hands of the government or the police (fake encounters of Naxal cadres or loss of livelihood or family members in various ways or even loss of land etc. due to land being given away in the name of development) and so they think Naxalism is the only way to get justice. Many may have taken up guns to satisfy their own personal ambitions and motives which may be totally irrelevant to the ideology and motives of the whole movement/group. And there may be others who may be spies. So everyone may not be joining the movement for the same motive or believing in the same thing.Third, the Indian state has certainly failed in solving basic issues of the tribals. Tribals have been living on forests for generations. Moreover, we have failed in addressing core issues for Dalits also: caste discrimination and treating Dalits as not being equal to upper castes in our society. Our state actors have unleashed atrocities or not fought against atrocities unleashed on these sections of the society, and these sections have perceived an attack on their dignity and violence as a way to counter it. We have not implemented the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act since long. Even the Forest Rights Act meant to give legal rights to tribals over forest land has seen very tardy implementation since its time of passage in 2006. And the idea of taking approval from gram sabha in tribal areas prior to construction of any development project in the area has been thrown to the winds both by the public and private sector in the name of development and high growth rates.Fourth, the state of institutions (public in particular) and their functioning in the areas dominated by Naxalism, both before and after the emergence of Naxalism, has been nothing short of a disaster. Not only are those functioning on behalf of the state seen as supporting the rich and acting against the interests of the poor and the downtrodden, many a times they are themselves seen as unleashing atrocities in the name of personal vendetta on the downtrodden as well, particularly those indulging in non-violent protests either through fake encounters or sustained torture. Many institutions like schools and primary health centres have hardly functioned, with doctors not reporting at all. It's not that Naxals have not at all allowed schools and hospitals to functions, but they do want Naxal ideology to be taught in schools and also Naxal cadres to be treated in PHCs. Naxals have not stopped functioning of MGNREGA or Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in areas controlled by them either. However, the central government has accused Naxals of stopping developmental activity, which for the government somehow almost always means building of roads, which Naxals have stopped so as to make it difficult for Central forces to tackle the Naxals.So while one can understand why roads are not being built, it is difficult to explain why schools, primary health centres and MGNREGA can't function properly if it can reduce problems of Naxal areas. This is also helping Naxals to gain tribals' trust more and more by themselves indulging in development schemes of various kinds.One should however remember that Naxals are not some friends of the poor or Robin Hoods who are fighting against the rich. The Naxals believe like Mao that power flows from the barrel of the gun and so they can keep killing their enemies, which is against democratic culture which is the most important for the poor's voice to be heard, as opposed to a communist dictatorship which was there in USSR and hit the poor the most. Moreover, the Naxals have been known to brook no dissent and even kill dissenters in their kangaroo courts termed "people's courts" or Jan Adalat. Also, Naxals have been known as extortionists who have extorted money from rich industrialists so as to allow them to conduct mining or manufacturing against whom they claim to fight on behalf of the tribals. And moreover, Naxals have also formed alliances with political parties of all kinds and hues to help them win elections and gain favors such as reduced operations against them or money bags at other times.So Naxals are not as evil as the state shows them to be, nor as great as they want themselves to be seen. They are somewhere in the middle. Both parts combine to form the entire truth.Solution to Naxalism is something I would rather say somewhere else though, considering that this answer is way long in itself.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalbarihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salwa_Judumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2010_Maoist_attack_in_Dantewadahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_Shankar_Rayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Settlementhttp://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280741http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?277727http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dantewada_districthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naxalite_and_Maoist_groups_in_Indiahttp://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/848082154RP15-Kujur-Naxal.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bargahttp://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280448One can also read Rahul Pandita's famous book "Hello, Bastar" for a better history on the topic.