Zuzak , 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

I don’t think I’ve seen this position before and it sounds pretty wild ngl. Let me just lay out my understanding.

Mao disagreed with the party on the basis that he felt the peasants had more revolutionary potential than the small, new proletariat working in what few factories existed in China. Mao’s arguments were rejected, and the party’s commitment to rigid ideology over analysis of the specific material conditions of China led to them being crushed by the Nationalists and massacred. It’s the whole reason that the Long March happened.

The few surviving members of the party regrouped, though they were hunted to the ends of the earth and had extremely little manpower or resources. Despite this, because they used Mao’s approach of appealing to the peasants, who reflected the majority of the working poor, the communist revolution spread like wildfire, gaining more and more supporters everywhere it went.

:::spoiler Once the communists gained power under Mao’s leadership, this happened.

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/1549ccb1-3d6d-4390-962e-a10b8f898fd3.webp

:::

I don’t deny that the party before Mao had good intentions, but it seems to me that history has proven their approach wrong in an incredibly decisive way. They tried their approach when the party was in a better position and failed miserably, they tried Mao’s approach after that miserable failure and it succeeded on an enormous scale. I’m pretty curious to know where you disagree with that.