Reply to Swordsmiths by establishmentdisliker
Yankee and Cowboy war and split in American imperial politics. Yankees in present day more concerned with globalism and Atlanticism while cowboys more concerned with pacific economic strategy. Fair to say that Yankees created the institutions of the modern American empire.
Split reflected in communist movement as well potentially - anti-institutional telluric approach vs the “regime” institution approach. Maoism vs conventional Marxism-Leninism.
While a revolution can only occur with the support of the masses, the building of that revolution consists of institutionalizing it by building a state which can leverage the power of the society it controls.
The people without the institutionalization of power are disparate and cannot be organized into a force capable of victory. The masses are a political force, not a politics player in themselves.
Maoism’s transition from a rebel movement to a state and its “institutionalization” was marked by the cultural revolution which was required for those institutions to retain their populist base. The USSR never needed something like the cultural revolution because the Bolsheviks were already urban revolutionaries and essentially started off with a state rather than an insurgent movement and had state like structures (dual power) before the October revolution. They did not have to go through all the steps of building an urban state from basically nothing like Mao did.
The institutionalization of the Communist Party of China was also its transition from being rooted in the peasantry to being rooted in the urban population like most states are. While there has always been a rural populist base for the CPC they now govern from cities and recognize the cities as the basis of industrial and political strength. Urbanization has been essential to China’s development and the urban population being better educated and with direct access to power is more likely to join the CPC. This is neither good or bad, it’s just how states work.
The role of the revolutionary has always been to take the raw force of nature that is populism and turn it into a method of conquering state power and the rest of society. The masses alone do not win revolutions and a revolution does not even need to start with the support of the majority of the masses - it only needs to have a mass character. Mao did not start with the support of most peasants in China, he started with a small force in the interior of China. His revolution always had a mass character however.
Mass character is populism and supporting the peoples real interests, be they peasant or proletarian or some other part or ally of the working class. Revolutionary leadership is turning the raw energy of populism into revolutionary ideology and strategy.
Our role is actually to impose revolution from above because raw populist sentiment has never created any revolutions on its own and can often be manipulated by ruling class forces for their own goals. Revolutions are always imposed from above, and the masses have never led themselves.
“How the Steel was Tempered” is by communists going into the masses to assist them in their daily struggles for their class interests and making them fully aware of those interests. We are selling communism to the masses - it is not something that just spontaneously comes from the masses on its own.
The Soviet Union exported revolution in the sense that it aided revolutionary movements around the world. It did not create those movements, but provided them immensely important aid. This was a good thing and they should have been aggressive in doing it. Color revolutions by contrast manufacture elite coups by using a fake form of populism designed to undermine the state. Color revolutions do not have a mass character.
A revolution is a contest for hegemony between different classes. Even when one is won in one country this contest is taken to the next level of inter-state rivalry. We want communist hegemony, and to keep it after we win it in America requires communist internationalism.
Was the Soviet Union wrong to support communist governments in Eastern Europe after WWII? Was it wrong to support Vietnam against France and the US or Cuba against the US? Of course not. Export of revolution and communist world hegemony does not equal social imperialism.
China’s mostly passive international strategy is part of their overall development strategy. “Never seek hegemony” is what Deng Xiaoping said. It’s not necessary for China’s development. However, it was inevitable that China would become rivals to the US as its power grew. They have been drawn into a contest for hegemony even though they’d rather not be in one.
The USSR was fighting for hegemony from day one. China has avoided “foreign entanglements” because they don’t care about hegemony, but they are now being forced to care. Their rivalries with India and the west also force them to become entangled in Russia and Pakistan for example. The Belt and Road Initiative is itself a form of foreign entanglement and an economic war against American hegemony.
Revolution is not a dinner party, and the most revolutionary thing of all to do is to win. If America becomes communist there will immediately be a contest for world hegemony with remaining reactionary forces or new reactionary forces. This contest for hegemony must be won.
The USSR lost the Cold War in part because it could not establish communist hegemony around the world and it and its allies became islands of communism forced to engage with a hegemonic capitalist international system.
Communist hegemony and the obliteration of reactionary forces is a good thing. If the USSR attacked NATO and won by establishing communist world hegemony it would be good. NATO’s existence as a base of reaction was provocation enough. Revolution and reaction cannot exist in the same world in the long term. One must always win out, and history has shown that aggressive action builds empires while states which allow themselves to be agressed against are destroyed.
“The atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the U.S. imperialists will never cow those who refuse to be enslaved.” - Mao