Discuss the key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought || Why was Maoism not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America? || What was Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology

Using the lecture and readings, discuss the key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought.  In your own words, why was Maoism not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America?  What was Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology, and what led to this belief?  Make sure you note some specific examples and references from the readings.

Something that lead to one of the biggest differences between Maoism and Marxism is that Mao felt Marxism would not work in China. Marxism is all about the working class – the proletariat – protesting their unfair treatment from the upper class – the bourgeoisie. China didn’t have a working class though, they had rural farm workers, known as the popular masses. So, Mao ‘made Marxism Chinese’ (Kang, 15). He used two main strategies, guerrilla warfare and cultural revolution (Ning, 9), in order to achieve ‘revolution through the countryside’. An additional difference is that Marxism was mainly an economic theory, but Maoism expanded beyond that, eg. the cultural revolution. The two ideas shared similar emphasis on class struggle. 

Maoism was not the popular belief in most Latin American countries because they already had an example: the Soviet Union. The USSR’s relationship with Cuba demonstrated regional communism that lead the influence in the region. With this successful relationship, other countries were following the USSR’s version of communism not China’s. There were however small student groups all over the Americas that focused on communist thought including Maoism, but most of these were not prominent (except of course the Peruvian movement). (Gomez). 

Latin American went through a phase of enlightenment which featured mainly anti colonial or anti Spain ideas. (Martz, 60). There was a period of romantic liberalism that stemmed from the French and British, but it was short lived in Latin America. Martz writes, “The years of Romantic Liberalism in the hemisphere, in short, were characterized broadly by the search for a new basis to a truly American order of things. This meant different emphases from different men.” (Martz, 63). Privilege and elitism were still a main social problem. But the dominant ideology in the region for a period of time according to Martz was positivism. Positivism fixed economic, political, and social problems such as remaining colonial issues, and was described as the the most important philosophical movement in Hispanic America. (Martz, 64). This theory spread across the whole continent as ” a new instrument for the attainment of immediate national political goals.” (Martz, 68). At the beginning of the 20th century, many new theories developed in the region on either side of the political scale and with a range of impact and influence. There was a form of existentialism, Neo-Thomism, and humanism mixed into one, socialism and Marxism, and even far right fascism, individualism, and materialism. (Martz, 70).

The standard Marxist focus on industrial workers was not applicable to many parts of the world. Mao Zedong, a Chinese communist, developed a form of Marxism which was compatible with his country. The variant was called Maoism, though this term wasn’t used inside China. This is because Mao himself did not like it, rather preferring Mao Zedong Thought as Niang claims. His version focused on rural peasants rather than the factory proletariat. Furthermore, he attempts to make Marxism “non-western” and universal. He heavily romanticized the countryside and emphasized the revolution needs to be fought for even after a successful takeover due to the Bourgeois influence over culture, this led to giant mistakes later on such as both The Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution where millions perished. In fact, you can even see the impact of The Great Leap Forward on time series data of the word.

Although purposely constructed to fit a place like Latin America, it failed to initially gain ground in the region especially compared to the Soviet model. The Soviet model had the head start. It began earlier, had influence over Cuba, and was perceived as a success due to its industrialization. The industrialization and growth of the Soviets can be critiqued on numerous grounds however, such as the counterfactual and input accumulation. First, counterfactual estimations show the actual path of Russia to be lower. This makes sense due to industrialization not being particularly impressive compared to both the pre-1913 trend and Japanese occupied Korea. Second, growth theory literature suggests Soviet growth was purely based on input accumulation. Meaning it could not grow past a certain point. Anyways, Marxism already had made some marks on the region. Martz article “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought” names many Marxist Latin American authors who played a role like Juan Marinello, Blas Roca, and the Machado brothers of Venezuela. These authors were more on the Soviet spectrum. For Maoism, one author that would play a special role would be Jose Carlos Mariategui from Peru. This particular author’s writings were quite similar to Mao, focusing on the common worker who was not in a factory but rather the countryside. He additionally wrote about how the economy of Peru was set up, with a form of feudalism having a significant presence. Mariategui and Mao would eventually inspire the most well known maoist group in the region, Sendero Luminoso. At first, like Lewis Taylor describes in his article, Sendero was not expected to become huge even in Marxist circles: “I was further underwhelmed by my initial encounter with the PCP–SL when respected friends who had a detailed knowledge of the Peruvian left intimated that ‘Sendero’ was not a serious outfit. The prevailing view among activists was that a combination of dogmatism, unsophisticated social analysis and adherence to a maximalist program seemingly divorced from current realities placed the party firmly on the exotic margins of Marxist politics in Peru”. SL quickly rose and began planning both military operations and terrorist attacks. Taylor notes few people realized at the time, during their early meetings, the fate of millions of Peruvians would be decided. SL would commit atrocities like slaughtering infants (Lucanamarca massacre) and detonating car bombs (Tarata bombing), eventually being defeated by the Peruvian state and evolving into drug trafficking.

Mao Zedong formed the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) who supported Chinese nationalism and was an anti-imperialist. He was the founder of Maoism which is the guiding ideology for the Communist Party. He was of peasantry descendant and wanted China to focus on the people. He was determined to purge China of any remaining capitalism, so he came up with Maoism, which is a leftist political thought designed mainly for the Chinese, it is a revolution that thought of peasants as true rulers. When we speak of peasants we are thinking of farmers and Mao thought of them having the true power to the system. This revolution is of the countryside that focused on peasantry instead of the proletariat, a rural revolution versus an urban.

Marxism was founded by Karl Marx. This ideology is also a leftist political thought, a practice of socialism where a worker revolution will replace capitalism with a communist system. It’s a struggle between the Bourgeoisie (capitalists) and the Proletariat (working class). Maoism is derived from Marxism-Leninism but with a twist to it. There is a difference between Maoism and Marxism, in the sense that, Maoism is not about the proletariat but about the peasants. Proletariat is for the industrial working class and Maoism is about the farming peasantry class. With Marxism a working class is needed to sustain it.

Though Maoism was essentially for the Chinese people it spread to the west. Many different places adapted to this ideology like Peru for example, they had a Maoist organization. While Latin America was practicing leftist movements, it was not practicing Maoist. The majority of Latin America gravitated to Marxism. They gravitated to Marxism because of Cuba and how successful it was. Latin America was led to this belief in Marxism because of the increase in inequality between the rich and the poor. The famous problem of capitalism is inequality. The wealthier citizens benefited more than the poorer. “Oligarchical interest by large continued to monopolize public affairs, increase economic wealth was not accompanied by its equitable distribution, and individual interest remained narrowly selfish.” (Martz, pg. 69) While Latin America was struggling with this, they saw Cuba and how successful it was doing practicing Marxism. Cuba was the inspiration to Latin America because of its success and relationship with the Soviet Union, which influenced many countries in the Caribbean and Central America. Because of Cuba’s who is also a Latin country, was success with Marxism, Marxism was more practical to them versus Maoism.

Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America, most likely because of the surrounding ideas that were presented. Such ideas were how the Maoist political thought is certainly reflected amongst the world to a certain extent. Such extent  was important on the idea of how it had been portrayed within the world, and especially on what issues were surrounding it in many parts of the world that led to many differences.

Maoism had emphasized the approach from China as an idea of revolution which is a global idea of revolution (Kang 2015 ) ‘’Maoism was a global theory of revolution in both the developed western countries and the underdeveloped third world countries.’’ (Kang 2015)Maoism had the tendency to have an idea that approached a radical sense of view from point of Chairman Mao Zeong in where human rights are not humane to any extent which unfairly causes lot of inequality that leads to death of innocent people, and difficult living conditions just for multilateral purposes of society that was heavily relied on farmers.’’Latin America has always needed a unified Latin America in order to support one another’’ (Gomez 2023), due to how The United States of America has the correlation to support those countries in Latin America, due to the United States being able to support those countries that don’t support communism because it supports human rights.  ‘’North America has made Latin Americans in large measure dependent upon their distant neighbors for much of the method and content of that part of their social sciences which is not of indigenous origin.’’ (Martz 1966). The tendency of Latin America had evolved tremendously around the world with the involvement of Cuba and the Soviet Union that resulted to contradict China’s views due to Soviets success.

Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology was the idea of where it was related the period of positivism, according to Martz in where it focused on ‘’the failure of constitutional democratic forms, the absence of economic prosperity, the increasing social tensions arising among classes and in some cases among races, and the unending frustrations of church-state relations.’’ (Martz 1966) Positivism tends to relate to the living standards for many latin americans in which it can fix many economic, political, problems in their society. ‘’With its slogan of order and progress, would encourage a moderate and graduate approach to national problems.’ (Martz 1966) With the problematic issues that had been occurring, had correlated to the people from Latin America to focus on such issues in order to perceive new life beginnings.

Maoism was not a popular idea within the Latin American region due to what was entailed, and the influence of the United States, Soviet Union and its beliefs, as well the diffusion of the Cuban society that  took necessary action within the world that it had become influenced. As Well positivism was an idea in South America that was characterized within the dire need that it entailed for the people.

The key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought are different by nature. Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought are both rooted in the broader ideology of Marxism, which seeks to critique and transform capitalist societies to establish a classless and stateless society. However, there are key differences between Maoist political thought, which emerged as a specific branch of Marxism under Mao Zedong’s leadership in China, and general Marxist thought. Marxism is all about the working class – the proletariat – protesting their unfair treatment from the upper class – the bourgeoisie. China didn’t have a working class though, they had rural farm workers, known as the popular masses.

Maoism, as a revolutionary ideology, did not gain widespread popularity in Latin America for several reasons such as: contextual differences, focus on peasantry, geopolitical factors, pragmatic and tactical considerations, and political repression and state violence. A perfect example as to why the Maoism ideology did not gain widespread popularity in the Latin American region was because of the Soviet Union. In some Latin American countries, leftist movements faced severe repression, state violence, and human rights abuses by authoritarian regimes supported by the United States during the Cold War.

Latin America has seen various leftist revolutionary ideologies gaining prominence at different times in its history. Some of the dominant leftist revolutionary ideologies in Latin America include Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and various forms of nationalism. The history of exploitation, oppression, and marginalization of indigenous peoples, peasants, and workers in Latin America has led to the rise of revolutionary ideologies that aim to challenge and overthrow the existing socio-economic and political structures. Latin America has long been characterized by high levels of social and income inequality, making it the world’s worst region for income inequality. Social movements and popular uprisings play significant roles in establishing  these ideologies.

It’s important to note that revolutionary ideologies and movements are complex and multifaceted, influenced by a wide range of factors.

Maoism builds upon Marxist ideas, but diverges greatly from the ideology it has its roots in. Marxism was designed for industrialized societies with a large proletarian class, while Maoism sought to be the solution for communists in agricultural societies lacking a significant proletarian class. The ideology was conceptualized by and named after Mao Zedong during the Chinese Civil War. Mao was a communist influenced by Soviet communism and Leninism, but after the death of Stalin and changes enacted by Nikita Khrushchev, he felt a new system was needed. Mao argued that China, and many other countries, did not have a proletarian class to mobilize towards revolution, and instead must focus on the agricultural people to fuel the communist revolution. Mao’s system was also thought to help poor, feudal, and agricultural systems modernize. Aside from focusing on the agricultural working class rather than industrial working class, Maoism also differs from Marxism in its push towards cultural revolution rather than focusing just on economic and political revolution. Mao was successful in sparking the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China between 1966 and 1976, which caused deadly damage to human life and the Chinese economy, now known as a “ten-year turmoil” (Ning 2015).

Just as with most communist thinkers, Mao hoped for his ideology to spread worldwide. Mao believed his concept for a farmer-peasant led communist revolution would be more relevant to non-western poorer countries, especially those wishing to rid their society of imperialism, but unfortunately Maoism never spread too significantly outside of China. In the case of Latin America, some states were too industrialized to desire Maoism, but there were also many states that were not very industrialized, but had already been influenced by Soviet communism for so long. Long before Mao conceptualized his communist system, Soviet communism was already spreading and taking root around the world, and in Latin America in particular. Much of Latin America saw the success of the Cuban Revolution and its influences from Soviet Marxist Communism, and sought to follow that example. With there already being a successful communist uprising with Marxist and Soviet influences, that became the dominating influence rather than Maoism, which did not offer a successful regional example.

While Maoism did not overtake Marxism or Leninism in Latin America, it did have some influence, particularly in Peru. During the Sino-Soviet split, while much of Latin America leaned towards Soviet forms of communism, Peru saw a rise in significant political actors with influences from Maoism. Author and politician Jose Carlos Mariátegui sparked the shift towards communism in Peru. Mariátegui argued that capitalism will not work for Peru, but rather than supporting a communist revolution led by the proletarian class, he looked to Incan agrarian communism and felt support from agricultural workers in modern Peru would provide the best path to communist revolution. These ideas from Mariátegui laid the ground for Abimael Guzman to form the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) with deep influence from Maoism. Guzman and the Senderos saw Maoism as the best system for Peru, and rose to such prominence that they almost overtook the central government between 1989 and 1990. However, when Guzman was captured in 1992 the Sendero Luminoso lost its stability and ultimately deteriorated, marking the end of the largest Maoist movement in Latin America.

Maoism adopted the same base principles as Marxism and achieved a level of global significance that no other Chinese thought has (Ning, 3). Maoism sought to implement Marxist theory into China’s own cultural revolution and used such to overthrow the government and implement the People’s Republic of China. However, there are key differences between Maoism and Marxism. Marxism is the revolutionist language of the Western world, whereas Maoism adopts these ideas and applies them to the Third World. For instance, Marxism encourages the rise in class consciousness among the proletariat in order to revolt against capitalism and the inequalities among the classes. Maoism used this same idea, but because China did not have a capitalist society there was no proletariat to rise up. Instead, Maoism used guerilla warfare among the peasantry as their form of class rebellion (Kang, 15). Further, Marxism pushes for the dismantling of class hierarchy, where there is no singular job that is “better” than the other and there is no hierarchy to determine who fits into what class. Maoism claimed these same ideals, but instead when pushing the idea of class consciousness and ridding the hierarchy, Maoism implemented a hierarchy of its own with Maoist bureaucrats and army officials at the top (Kang, 16). Anyone who did not support this new system was to be persecuted for defying the peasantry proletariat. Maoism was definitely influenced by Marxism but did not value equality and harmony among the classes, and instead prioritized a shift in power to a new bureaucracy.

Maoism was the Marxism for the Third World, including Asia and Africa (Ning, 2). Parts of Latin America attempted to adopt Maoism, such as Peru. The Communist Party of Peru used Maoist policies in their own fight for peasantry revolution (Taylor, 15). However, this did not become widespread because most Latin American countries favored the communism coming from the USSR at the time and their path to proletariat revolution. In Latin America, the most favored leftist revolutionary ideology was positivism, which stemmed from the anticolonialism spread throughout the region (Martz, 63). Positivism highlighted the use of observation and the scientific method to create a society with rules of engagement and interaction. This ideology provided a logical response to confront the ills of Latin American society, such as the lack of democratic institutions and low economic prosperity. The way this would be achieved would be by ridding colonial heritage and then move into progress (Martz, 65). This was so popular because a widespread desire in Latin America was to remove the colonial presence and heritage and return back to the native and indigenous culture.

Marxism and Maoism are two distinct yet very similar political ideologies that tend to follow the same economic passage yet in different circumstances. In Marxism the proletariat are the workers who live in urban environments and are very poor working in factories and living in those conditions. In Maoism the revolutionary class were the producers of the society the rural peasants that worked in the fields and produced the food for the nation. China was a feudal system that had not had an industrial revolution like the western nations in Europe so the idea of an urban proletariat was never applicable to China. This leads to another large difference in the ideologies and that is that Maoism does not care much for industrialized technology because Mao thought that the new industrialized technologies would give means for workers to be further exploited by the managers. Finally, Maoism was heavily influenced by Chinese culture and their history such as Sun Tzu whereas Marxism was more heavily influenced by the writings of westerns thinkers of the enlightenment.

Latin America came from a history of colonial powers dominating the region and installing provincial governments that were similar to the western governments in mainland Europe. So, when political revolutions and fights for independence started to happen, they were more heavily influenced by European thought. Martz stated, “Marx, Spencer and Comte were intellectually dominant figures in Europe, the latter two also helped to set the tone for a kin of thought which received wide acceptance in Latin America” (Martz 64). Therefore, it was a natural progression for the Latin American nations to be influenced more by Marxism since they could relate and install the ideology much easier than Maoism. Latin America was no stranger to developed cities due to the European influence hence Marxism made more sense and caught on in their revolutions more often than Maoism. Marxist revolutions were also more successful in Latin America, and they became the model for example the Cuban revolution became the model revolution for all the communist revolutions in Latin America. Essentially the rest of the revolutions just followed in the footsteps of the Marxist revolution because it was deemed successful, so instead of deviating the rest followed suit. Therefore, Marxist revolution was a much more popular option in Latin America than the Maoist alternative.

On the other hand, while Marxism was the dominant leftist ideology in Latin Americas because of their European influence Maoism became the dominant left-wing ideology in Asia. This is due to culture being heavily influenced by China and life there being feudal. Taylor stated, “Rural society at this juncture remained dominated by a hacienda system that was ‘feudal’ in the Andes” (Taylor 20). Therefore, due to the difference in circumstances and the steps for revolution Maoism was much more popular in feudal Asian countries rather than the more developed Latin American countries with proletariat populations.

As we view the topic of communism from a collective point of view, we might find ourselves draping all historical “red” states as being of relatively similar mindsets, systems, and practices; however, at closer inspection, with the help of historiographical texts and sources, we can see that this is certainly not the case. When taking a dive into the broad context of communism, we find brands of its molded ideas that form the discussion around its erected distinctions such as traditional Marxism, Leninism, a combination of the two, and Maoism (Mao Zedong Thought) which acts as a “sinification” of the two previous indications.

When lining up these brands we find considerable differences in their structure, although they maintain similarities based on the writings of Marx, they nonetheless primarily diverge in their understanding of revolution and culture. Firstly, and most importantly, would be the belief as to where the revolution beings. In Marxism-Leninism, the thought resides in the belief that the proletariat middle class, oppressed by the Imperialists and Bourgeoisie, would rise up and lead the charge. However, in the case of China, there happened to be no significant body of a classical proletariat to fulfill the aforementioned process, and this led to an emphasis on the potential of the plebian population who could assume the revolutionary role. This is the cornerstone of “Mao Zedong thought” that distinctly separates itself from other brands of Marxism. By constructing a revolutionary base at the grassroots and rallying the masses in the countryside can the movement encircle the bourgeois cities and strangle out their defense. Moreover, the agrarian peasant populations control the means of production via food and wield with themselves the collective oppression and struggle that helps form the cultural identity required to build the foundation base necessary to launch the revolution. Secondly, with the triumph of the revolution, Mao Zedong Thought focuses on eradicating the remaining Bourgeoisie culture. Separate from Marxism-Leninism, which retains certain aspects of capitalism and its productive forces to maintain socialism, Maoism purges these inhibitors to the economic base by launching a “cultural revolution” that seeks to filter out any resemblance of capitalism, Bourgeoisie thought, imperialism, and any possible threats to the state that could reignite class struggle and oppression. In essence, it can best be explained as the erection of a new state devoid of any indication of precursors to separate itself from all others in order to form a new communist state.

As Maoism began solidified in China, it can be wondered why in other parts of the world it didn’t play such a critical role in the influence of other revolutions; particularly in Latin America. The reason for this outcome can be primarily seen in the shortcomings of Maoist movements, and the influence of the Cuban example built on a Marist-Leninist platform. In addition, the general mindset in Latin America leaned toward the Soviet ideology and this could have been due to the increased industrial and economic development which spurred questions of oppression and class. Furthermore, the decline of a positivist thought pattern that focused on a scientific method style with an emphasis on pragmatism without the need for theology could have fueled the communist minds who sought a planned approach towards economics and the political state.  Even when Maoism was adopted by groups such as the Peruvian “Shining Path”, they focused too heavily on the action aspect of revolution rather than nurturing a revolutionary base built on the masses. This had the possible adverse effect of drawing people away from the movement as it was seen as being detrimental to local stability as crops and food had been taken to fund campaigns. Moreover, the intricate abundance of diversity in Latin America made it difficult to establish a base as the culture surrounding ethnic class and status made the struggles of population groups varied. Unlike in China, the masses all had the collective struggle of oppression which made the formation of a national unity easier; as opposed to Peru which had a plethora of ethnicities that made this goal highly difficult. In addition, after the success of the Cubans, the example/benchmark had been set for other communist movements in Latin America who saw their method of success as the tried and tested method which succeeded. Moreover, the Cubans with the support of the Soviets were able to export their revolution to other nations which made their brand more popular than Maoism which was better suited to the specifics of the Chinese circumstances.

Maoist political ideology sought to implement Marxist theory into China’s own cultural revolution and used its ideology to overthrow the government. Maoist political thought emerged as a branch or extension of Marxist thought under Mao Zedong’s leadership. Both ideologies seek to critique and transform capitalist societies to establish a classless one in its place. However, despite Maoism sharing its base principles with Marxism (Ning, 3), there exist some key differences between the two ideologies. Marxism was the revolutionary ideology of the Western hemisphere, whereas Maoism sought to adopt Marxism’s ideals but intended to apply them to the Third World.

Marxist political thought argued for the working class – the proletariat – and the exploitation of this class under the bourgeoise – the wealthy upper class. One of the many issues with implementing these ideologies into real life – most specifically concerning Maoist thought was that China did not have a “working class” instead China had what they called the “popular masses” which were all the rural farmers.

The main difference however, between these two ideologies were their purpose. Marxism was designed for industrialized societies with a large proletariat class. Maoism was a twisted and corrupted ideal that was heavily influenced by Soviet communism and Leninism. For starters, China did not have a “working – or proletariat – class”, Maoism was designed to help the poor and agricultural systems modernize, unlike Marxism which sought to aid the industrial working class. Aside from this, Maoism focuses on pushing towards a cultural revolution, contrary to Marxism which pushed for an economic and political revolution.

In my opinion, despite Maoism sharing its political principles with Marxism, I think that the reason it was not a popular ideology in Latin America was because in Latin American countries, such as Cuba, there was more of a disparity between the rich and the poor than in agricultural matters – which was what Marxist thought directly argued, the “problem of capitalism” per sé. This idea of “the problem of capitalism” heavily influenced Latin American acceptance and inclusion and exclusion of Marxist and Maoism politics. When other Latin American countries saw the implementation and success of Cuba under Marxism, most followed in their practice and acceptance of this ideology.

Latin America’s popular leftist ideology – as previously stated – was Marxism as it was seen as the most practical of the two – given the success it had had in Cuba, despite later, like all Communism, it completely destroyed the country. Aside from this and to conclude, “Latin American thought [has continuously been accredited for having] many pensadores [that] prefer ‘not … the creative development of the content of philosophy [and political thought] but rather … support which philosophical positions could provide proponents of the status quo or reformers with a basis for justification of social, political, educational, economic or religious programs’” (Martz, 72). The statement made in Martz’ reading, reiterates the thought that Latin American countries typically seek to improve rather than change things, which aligns for so with Marxist political thought rather than Maoist.

John D. Martz’s “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought” and Wang Ning’s “Global Maoism and Cultural Revolutions in the Global Context” provide important insights into political thought and ideologies that have shaped the Latin American region. In the context of Maoism and Marxist thought, the two readings offer important distinctions between the two ideologies. Marxist thought emphasizes class struggle and the elimination of exploitation in society. On the other hand, Maoism emphasizes the role of the peasantry and the need for a cultural revolution. Maoism places great emphasis on mass mobilization and revolutionary violence. Maoist thought also emphasizes the need for a strong leader to guide the revolution.

However, Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America. One reason for this was the lack of a strong peasantry in the region. Maoism’s emphasis on the peasantry as a revolutionary class did not resonate with the Latin American context where urban working-class movements were more prominent. Additionally, Maoism’s emphasis on revolutionary violence and mass mobilization did not sit well with the prevailing Catholic values in the region. Instead, the dominant leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America was socialism, particularly the Marxist-Leninist variety. This was due to the influence of Soviet Union and Cuba, who provided support to socialist movements in the region. Martz notes that socialist movements in the region emphasized the need for national liberation and the establishment of a socialist state. This ideology resonated with the Latin American context, where the region had a long history of colonialism and exploitation.

One specific example of the influence of Marxism-Leninism in Latin America was the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas, who were influenced by the Cuban Revolution, overthrew the Somoza dictatorship and established a socialist government in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas emphasized the importance of national liberation and the establishment of a socialist state.

In conclusion, the readings by Martz and Wang Ning provide important insights into political thought and ideology in Latin America. While Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in the region, socialism, particularly the Marxist-Leninist variety, dominated the political discourse in the region. This was due to the influence of the Soviet Union and Cuba, who provided support to socialist movements in the region. The Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua is an example of the influence of Marxist-Leninist thought in the region.

From my understanding of this weeks readings I think the key differences that stand between Maoism and Marxism is that Maoism is more concerned with the lowest class, that being the rural workers as opposed to the Marxist view being concerned with the industrial workers. Maoism also seems to focus more on the domestic cultural aspects of revolution as a means to build an overall revolution party force that is prevalent in society while Marxist thinkers like Fredric Jameson thought it didn’t have a profound effect on the a cultural Revolution (Ning, 4) . Marxism seems to, at least prior to Stalin’s reformative policy of breaking trade unions in 1928 (Taylor, 13), be focused on presenting its ideology and propaganda to the industrial sector. With Marxism being focused on the industrial worker it also seems that any military based action would lead to a more direct action against the national bourgeoisie in contrast to Mao’s guerilla warfare tactic that would be of better use in rural areas where the population would be more sparse and less equipped to deal with a trained military force.

With these aspects in mind I think it’s easy to draw a line and see where Maoism took second place behind Marxism in Latin America. Mariátegui for example in Peru believed that it was necessary to unite the working class that in turn would help build a broader base for the Socialist Party (Taylor, 13). That being said in Latin America there was a distinct separation from the Bolshevik way of revolution and separation from the communist goals of Moscow. What gave popularity to more socialist ideals and made it more attractive than communism or Maoism is that from the example given by Peru is that it lacked a “dynamic bourgeois class” and was comprised of “four-fifths Indian and peasants” (Taylor, 11). This would render communism being ineffective as it would tend to focus more on the middle class which Mariátegui viewed as leaning towards the national bourgeoisie and ruling elite. Maoism would also be less effective if employed as the main ideology because it seemed to be more focused on the “second section” referred to by Mariátegui (Taylor, 14) with its focus on cultural influence. 

Mariátegui’s influence on Latin American revolutionary policies would allow socialism to gain popularity because of the common thread of economic disparity. Mariátegui with his focus on the peasantry as well as his formation of Frente Estudiantil Revolucionario por el Sendero Luminoso de Mariátegui which led to the Sendero Luminoso faction was a “marriage” of Marxist thinking and Maoism together. By borrowing from the two ideologies he was able to build a political concept unique to the region in a similar manner to Mao in China.

As we can gather from the lecture and readings, Maoism was indeed influenced by Marxism. Both of these cultural, leftist revolutionary ideologies; Maoism and Marxism had major impacts on the different regions of China for Maoism and Latin America/North America and Europe with Marxism. Maoism was more so centered on the peasant workers of China, whereas Marxism was focused on the proletariat, who were the urban working class against the bourgeoisie. This was reiterated in Maoism but with a different cultural context. According to the text from Wang Ning, “Global Maoism and Cultural Revolutions in the Global Context”, Ning regards that, “Thought is regarded as Maoism, equally important with Marxism as a global theoretical doctrine of universal significance. It is true that as Liu points out, ‘Beyond the confines of China proper, Maoism is an internationally widespread ideology of revolution. As a theory of global revolution in the 1960s, Maoism acquired a unique status as a universal form of philosophy and knowledge that no other Chinese thought has ever achieved.’” (Ning, 3) Furthermore giving credit by saying, “Just as Marxism is an ideology of modernity within the Western historical context, so Maoism constitutes an ideology of modernity within the Third World context.”(Ning, 4) In Kang’s revisitation of Maoism, he goes deeper into stating: “It aspires to not only rewrite Western values and ideas, Marxism in particular, by way of integrating the universal principles of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, but also to create an alternative vision of modernity, or a vision of alternative modernity, by way of transforming Marxism into a non-European, henceforth more universal, vision of modernity. Just as Marxism is an ideology of modernity within the Western historical context, so Maoism constitutes an ideology of modernity within the Third World context. The two contexts correlate historically, as the Western context always assumes the master subject of the modern, while the non-West, or the Third World, is always subjected to this First (and Second) World modernity as a political, economic, and conceptual object. In this regard, Maoism can be seen as an ideology of alternative modernity for the Third World peoples, in their struggle to assume their own subjectivities through revolution, opposition, and resistance to the hegemonic oppressions and dominations of the West. During the cold war era, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, Mao is vision of alternative modernity through revolution.” (Kang, 13)

This separation in distinct, specific political thought and culture of leftist revolutionary ideologies is what makes Maoism’s success in China so prevalent and the rejection of this particular thought in Latin America so evident. Lending hand to demonstrate why Marxism was more successful in the Latin American hemisphere. The key rejection of Maoism in North America and Latin America had to do with communism itself, more specifically the Cuban influence on communism. Although some areas of underdevelopment did side with some communist characteristics, many modern Latin American countries were rejecting any sort of relations with communist political theories. The key revolutionary ideologies for Latin America were liberalism, positivism, and socialism. According to Martz’s excerpt “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought,” he states, “no other philosophical movement has gained the importance that positivism has had in Hispanic America.”(Martz, 64) Moreover, he adds, “Positivism seemed to hold genuine promise for Latin America. Problems to be confronted included the failure of constitutional democratic forms, the absence of economic prosperity, the increasing social tensions arising among classes and in some cases among races, and the unending frustrations of Church-state relations. For Latin Americans, a response to these seemed both feasible and desirable through the scientific outlook of positivism as they understood it. And aside from its appeal to intellectuals, positivism was also viewed with approval by members of the ruling classes. They interpreted it as a justification of efforts to disrupt the activities of radical and impatient reform elements. Positivism, with its slogan of order and progress, would encourage a moderate and gradualistic approach to national problems.” (Martz,64) This all, making key distinctions in why Maoism was just not a feasible means to satisfying any ends for the Latin American people.

Coming from Venezuela, I have always wondered what are the similarities and differences between Russia, Cuba, and China’s influences in my own country. And after this week’s lecture and readings, I feel like I have it more clear. However different Marxism and Maoism are depicted in these scholars’ writings, I feel like the main idea of communism is still present. It’s just how they get there and the methods are very different in each country.

When I read Karl Marx in this class (and another class), I agreed with his criticisms of capitalism but not with his communism. Kang, the first scholar we read, he states that the main point of Maoism was “to create an alternative vision of modernity, or a vision of alternative modernity, by way of transforming Marxism into a non-European, henceforth more universal, vision of modernity” (Lang, 13).  If this statement is true then, it means that, in my words, more people saw Maoism as a realistic “ism” to apply to their own nations. Scholar Ning agrees with this concept, saying that Maoism “should be viewed as a unique, global Marxist revolutionary experience of Chinese characteristics which certainly helped to form a sort of ‘Sinicized’ Marxism” (Ning, 2). I am therefore seeing this pattern of scholars agreeing that Maoism was a “global view” of the more-known Marxism and Leninism that was popular at the moment. Marxism, however, based on what I have read, was targeted toward Western culture, mostly. With Marx being German and settling himself in London, his critiques were mainly to German capitalism. And if I am correct, communism in Marx’s world was to be applied to Western society but the ideal would be a worldwide revolution of workers. I believe, based on these scholars, that Maoism then opened the same opportunity to another kind of opportunity to another kind of society.

Despite Kang mentioning that Latin America was indeed inspired by Maoism (like Hugo Chavez’s example on page 23), and moreover, Taylor telling us the Maoism-inspired movement in Peru’s Andes, Maoism was not really the most popular “ism” for all countries in Latin America. Personally, I feel like Che Guevara’s influence in the Cuban Revolution was inspired by the Soviet Union, and we can see that perhaps the Chinese example came a little bit later. Chavez’ example is the end of 20th-beginning of the 21st century (and still Venezuela is in it). Cuba and all the communist movements of Latin America were at first inspired by the socialism-communism of the Soviet Union and then (much later), reinforced with Maoism. This is what I think! I could be wrong! I am eager to read everyone else’s comments!

The key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought were in the type of audience or people to whom they would be addressed. Because Marxism expected the proletarian revolution of the working class, while in Maoism he had to address the farmers, where the largest population of that country was. In other words, while Marxism focused on the struggle of the working class and the injustice that they experienced throughout history, Maoism focused on the peasant or farming population in China, since this country was a hugely agricultural community at the time. While Marxism was a theory, Maoism took the theory of Marcism and applied it in China.  Another important difference is that Marxism says that social change is driven by the economy and that everything that happens in society is related to the economy, while Maoism says that human nature can be changed by using only willpower and believes that everything that happens in society is related to the human will. The political thought of Maoism is against industrialization because it considers that it would provide means to further exploit people; however, Karl Marx always considered that industrialization was the important element for a proletarian revolution to exist, since it must undergo the suppression of a capitalist state to later rise up against such a system. Finally, Ning argues that “Mao Zedong Thought is a Sinicized Marxism, or a contemporary 

form of Marxism of Chinese characteristics. It has guided and will continue 

to guide China in its socialist revolution and socialist construction. Since 

it is of certain universal significance, it is all right also to call it Maoism on 

international occasions” (Ning, pg 10) It the authors says that this thought is an Marxism adaptation to China. 

Despite the fact that most of the Latin American countries during those times were mainly farmers, this political thought failed because there was another model that had already arrived and reached this part of the world. The relationship between the Soviet Union and Cuba influenced communism in the region. In addition, in Latin America, this political thought only reached Peru, which despite having Maoist movements did not manage to reach the entire region because of the impact of the Cold War, the schism of international communism, and the type of relations that were established between China and Latin America. Martz writes “the division between socialism and communism has  perceptible, while each has in turn shown a variety of indigenous adapt tions. Communism itself has had an exceedingly uneven developm through the years, notwithstanding certain unchanging features” (Martz, pg 69)

Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America because of several reasons. One of the reasons is that Maoism was not well suited to the Latin American context “ The impact of the European Enlightenment upon colonial Latin America on the eve of the Wars of Independence was diffuse in nature, reflecting the same diversity and dissimilarity perceivable in Europe itself” (Martz, pg 58). The history of Maoism in Latin America is determined by changing situations at the national, regional, and global levels. The impact of the Cuban revolution and, in particular, of foquismo, the conflict in Central America, and the fate of hikers in Peru also played a role.

Therefore, the turns of the Cold War also determined substantial differences in the actions of Latin American Maoism.

Finally, the dominant leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America was socialism. “Romantic or utopian socialism was imported from France by many who had studied there (Europe)” (Martz, pg 61) The left consisted of socialist parties of a generally moderate bent, inspired in large part by European social democracy; breakaway socialists who admired the Russian Revolution of 1917 and proceeded to found communist parties in their own countries; and, not least, such strictly Latin American expressions as the Mexican agrarian reform movement.

The main difference between Maoist political thought and Marxist thought is who is the true exploited class. In Marxist political thought, the working class especially factory workers were the exploited class. While in Maoism since China had mostly a population of farmers, he had to change the theory that would agree with the conditions of China making peasants/farmers the exploited class. “The Chinese revolution in Mao’s view had to rely on peasant guerrilla warfare rather on the urban proletarian insurgency because China lacked a capitalist infrastructure from which a strong urban proletariat was generated” (Kang, 15). Therefore, Mao’s focus was on the agrarian countryside rather than on factory workers. Additionally, Marxism was a theory created by Karl Marx while Maoism by Mao Zedong was adopted from the theory of Marxism and applied in China.

On the other hand, Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America because most Latin countries were influenced by the Soviet Union and Cuba. For Latin American countries Cuba had become the model revolution to follow and the system to adopt. Additionally, Latin America was industrialized unlike China therefore they couldn’t relate to the exploitation of farmers. Also, as I stated before Cuba implemented a Marxist Ideology after their revolution so other Latin American countries wanted to follow a similar revolution to Cuba because they deem it as successful. Almost all Latin American nations by the 1970s had their revolutionary leftist guerrilla influenced by Cuba. For example, the FARC from Colombia. There was also the FSLN in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador both heavily influenced by Cuba and the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, these countries could resonate with the idea of liberation. “The Latin Americans discoursed extensively on the continuation of colonial forms despite the departure of Europeans” (Martz, 60).  Since colonial issues were still so prevalent in Latin America, they could not resonate with Maoism.

While most of Latin America was influenced by Marxist theory, Peru was influenced by Maoism. They have the Partido Comunista del Perú–Sendero Luminoso (PCP–SL). The roots of this party came from the work of Jose Carlos Mariátegui. “Mariátegui maintained that in Peru in the 1920s three different types of economy coexisted: (i) a ‘feudal’ economy persisted in the sierra, structured around great estates (haciendas) that dated back to colonial times; (ii) a communal indigenous peasant economy with pre-Hispanic roots still managed to survive in the highlands; while (iii) on the coast, a bourgeois economy is growing in feudal soil’, which ‘gives every indication of being backward, at least in its mental outlook” (Taylor, 10). His work would impact Guzman and the Sendero Luminoso on how they perceived Maoism in Peru.

While reading the week’s material, I found some interesting differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought. Maoism promotes militarism, the power of popular war such as guerrilla war, and the maintaining of the battle of classes even during the communist government because of the capability of the bourgeoisie to reinstall capitalism. On the other hand, Marxism also promotes the struggle of classes (but not during a communist government), criticizes the capitalist economy (by the theft of human labor through capital gain-plus value), and sustains the ideology against mercantilism-consumerism. The creation of the communist society, beyond capitalism, abolishing the private property on the production means.

Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America because of its aggressive and belligerent agenda of taking power from the government by force (acts of sabotage, guerrilla actions), causing several deaths in many cases, such as the continuous confrontation of classes and civil war, if necessary. Even when it received acceptance at the beginning in rural areas, it was seen as an ideology of alternative modernity for the Developing Countries’ peoples in their struggle to assume their subjectivities through revolution, opposition, and resistance to the hegemonic oppression and dominations of the West (Kang, 2015, p.18) (Martz, 1966, p.54). It was also admired by Western Marxists who wanted to practice Marxism in their own social and cultural revolutions (Ning, 2015, p.2). It was eventually rejected, its support was removed, and arms expulsed it. Its detraction started in the late 1970s, with Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening up” (Kang, 2015, p.12). The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–76) resembled the cultural practices of the Third Reich and Stalinist Soviet Union, showing the discrepancy between the content of the Revolutionary Model Plays and their dissemination and interpretation (Kang, 2015, p.16), harming the Chinese economy badly and killing several people (Ning, 2015, p.1). Maoist strategies of revolution have been susceptible to populist “mass democracy” and brutal suppression of opposition (Kang, 2015, p.24).

Before Utopic Socialism and coexisting with Marxism, philosophers like Herbert Spencer and Auguste Comte settled the bases for the Utopic ideal. Spencer was a British who promoted, even before Darwin, a conception of Evolution in all the orders: Human mind, Human culture, Societies, Physical world, and biological organisms, and contributed to Politics, Philosophy, Ethics, Religion, and others. Comte was a French creator of the word “altruism”-to give without receiving anything in exchange, who promoted Sociology as science, scientific investigation, analytical study, positivism, opposing Theology, and metaphysics. They made important contributions widely accepted in Latin America (Martz, 1966, p. 64-65), conforming to Positivism, which unlocked the door to utopia.

The Marxist ideology was Latin America´s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology in most countries. What led to this belief, since the beginning of the 20th century (Martz, 1966, p.68), was the apparition of a rich variety of political ideas and approaches, ranging from communism and socialism to the polar extremes of fascism, always highlighting the role of the State, the economic problems and the class struggle, such as opportunist intellectual manipulation and the promotion of “Yankeephobia.” An example of this is the impact of the “fidelista” variant, which emerged in Cuba (Martz, 1966, p.69), or the humanist “indigenismo” in Brazil, Venezuela, etc. (Martz, 1966, p.72).

It is also remarkable the rejection by the Marxist leaders of armed struggle with the government for seizing power. An example of this is the rejection, inside and outside Peru, of the terrorist Maoist group “Sendero Luminoso” (Shining Path), which “set in motion one of the most sanguinary conflicts experienced in the recent history of Latin America” (Taylor, 2006, p. 7). Marxism also tries to join forces of the industrial workers and rural peasants with the leftist portions of the petty bourgeoisie, avoiding the continuous confrontations by outnumbering, despite the Maoism tendency that finally failed (Taylor, 2006, p.15).

First, the difference between Mao and Chinese marxism was that Mao interrupted revolution to relied on two (2) strategies, (i) which was to free the peasants from the middle class by using guerrilla warfare tactics, (ii) they would infiltrate and attack cities but China could not do this because they lacked a capitalist society and the western societies opposed guerrilla warfare as inhumane. More importantly, Mao wanted to relieve the peasants of their identity by fighting a cultural revolution. This cultural revolution included citizens who were shaped by society and their class status, by their talents, education and financial capacities. Mao believed that this western ideology oppressed those who could not reach a higher class structure and with this being the case, Mao believed that the first part of imposing the ideology was to first pursued the mind.  This approach did not necessary work for the Chinese since they did not have an infrastructure to provide weapons of destruction.  Mao’s ideological goal was to remove all working class from all exploration and oppression.  Mao like Hogel who agreed on a stateless, moneyless and classless society lacked one common similarity to Marxism’s political theory. Mao wanted to liberate the peasants while Marxism believed that it should be a proletariat who should be liberated and in power, Karl Marx believed that the working class holds the power.  Communism overall and at a glance solely depends on an authoritarian state to create an equal society that denies basic liberties.  Both Mao and socialism condemned capitalism because they believe that it oppressed the workers (middle class and the poor) should hold the power instead of the capitalist.  Moreover, the western civilizations like the U.S. and the Russian Federation could not adapt the third world ideology because they were considered the “greatest international oppressors and aggressors” (Kang 20) and the rest of the third world countries per Mao were considered places of revolution and liberation like Cuba.

Furthermore, Latin American per the article, Martz, Charateristics of Latin America Political Thought geared towards the pensadores during the enlightened period where Comte who believe in a scientific system where laws on social development and interaction susceptible to human analysis and understanding. Comte was convinced that the man and society were rational, the millennium seemed just around the corner and that rational study would unlock the door to a utopia unparalleled in human experience (Martz 64).   During this time, Latin American was very much influenced by European Enlightenment or the intellectual movement was considered to be a right reason (Martz 58) ultimately guiding to uncover true knowledge and guiding men to a greater happiness. As a result, Latin American tend to lean more on the progression of civilization where humanity and the Lockian argument that spirit and body together as a whole.  Another theory was positivism which became widely accepted in Latin America for an effort to be nothing if not systematic, positivism placed great reliance upon observation and because of Latin America choose to seek out the intellectual quest (Martz 64).

Unlike the general Marxism thought, Maoism structured its revolution to center around the agrarian class, which made up a majority of the Chinese population. There was also much emphasis on the importance of “…peasant guerilla warfare and cultural revolution…” (Kang 13) to the success of the Chinese Revolution. There was an emphasis on the agrarian peasant class as the main benefactors of this revolution in China. So much so, that to Mao established that literature and art should serve to help the “workers, peasants, and soldiers…[and] become a part of the entire revolutionary machine, functioning as a powerful weapon for uniting and educating the people, and beating and destroying the enemies…” (Ning 10). In addition, the purging of the bourgeoisie and overturning of the social order is an important distinction of Maoism, however, this eventually led to Maoism’s downfall. These components were the key to the ‘Sinification of Marxism’ and making a movement that was different from Western capitalism or Soviet socialism.

As Latin America advanced economically, industrially, and technologically diversification flourished and Marxism provided a framework to understand the socio-economic condition that plagued Latin America. Essentially, Marxism “…stressed the importance of the role of the state, while the emphasis on a planned approach to economic problems has been somewhat akin to that of the positivists earlier, although adding the element of class struggle to its analysis” (Martz 69). Many Latin American countries perceived the Soviet Communism in Cuba as a success and used Cuba as a blueprint, adopting its system. The dominance of the Soviet Union’s influence on Latin America didn’t give room for Maoism to be widely practiced.

Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology would be positivism. Historically, Latin America has been heavily influenced by colonialism and imperialism causing a damaging amount of exploitation. Latin America’s issues included “…the failure to constitutional democratic forms, the absence of economic prosperity, the increasing social tensions arising among classes and in some cases among races, and the unending frustrations of Church-state relations” (Martz 64). Positivism had a significant impact on the outlook of the future of Latin America, there was a sense of progress within communities. Steering away from generations of violence, political, social anarchy, oppressive rulers, etc. was the goal for many Latin American countries, which created a strong magnetic pull towards positivism.

Maoism and Marxism are two political ideologies that are both similar and different. The main differences between the two are related to the role of the proletariat, the concept of class struggle, and the strategy for revolution. In Maoism the peasantry is considered a more revolutionary force while Marxism emphasizes the role of the proletariat.

Moreover, Maoism emphasizes the importance of “continuous revolution” and the “mass line” as the way to ensure that the party remains rooted in the people. The idea of continuous revolution is that the revolution must be ongoing, and the masses must always be mobilized to carry out the revolutionary struggle. The mass line is the idea that the party must attend to the needs of the people rather than imposing its own agenda.

Maoism was not a popular Marxist revolutionary ideology in Latin America because it did not mesh with the social and economic circumstances of the region.  Latin America, according to John D. Martz in his book Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought, was predominately an urban civilization with a small and underdeveloped peasantry. This made it difficult to apply Maoist strategies, which were focused on mobilizing the peasantry for revolution. Additionally, Latin America, where many nations had already experienced protracted periods of political unrest and violence, made it challenging to implement the Maoist doctrine of continuous revolution.

In contrast, Marxism-Leninism was the preeminent leftist revolutionary doctrine in Latin America. This ideology emphasized the necessity of a vanguard party to lead the revolution as well as the significance of the urban working class as the revolutionary force. The social and economic circumstances in Latin America were more suited to this ideology. Moreover, the Cuban Revolution, which had successfully overthrown a dictator and enacted socialist policies, was a major source of inspiration for Marxist-Leninist parties in Latin America.

The success of the Cuban Revolution had a significant impact on the region and was a key factor in the dominance of Marxist-Leninist ideology in Latin America. Liu Kang notes in his article ‘Maoism Revolutionary Globalism for the Third World’ that Maoism had some influence in Latin America. More specifically, Kang wrote, “Maoism as a Third World ideology with undeniable impact in the Asian, Latin American, and African continents (Kang, 2015 pg. 18)”. However, it was overshadowed by the dominant Marxist-Leninist ideology. This was because Marxism-Leninism resonated more strongly with the region’s political and social realities, as it emphasized the importance of the party and the need for a socialist revolution.

In conclusion, Maoist political thought and Marxist thought to have some key differences, particularly regarding the role of the peasantry and the approach to political power. Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology due to the different economic and class structures of the region. The dominant leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America was Marxism-Leninism and it provided a framework for understanding the exploitation and oppression of the working class and the peasantry in the region.

Maoism in Latin America and the world represents an evolution of left political movements, Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism. These movements have evolved, and they don’t represent the same in all regions. Marxism and Leninism work well as a road to Communism, but they depend on the proletarian or working class, which is why Maoism gains importance in the international sphere. China is the perfect example of communism without the working class. Chinese more well-known political thought was based on the philosophy of Confucianism, which encourages devotion to family and social harmony, which is why during the Communist revolution the state would represent the family. Mao comes from a family of peasants. He studied at the Peking University and worked at the library, where he learned ideas form Marx, Stalin, and Lenin, which later he would re-shaped and applied during the agrarian revolution. Mao’s focus were the peasants and rural areas instead of urban developed regions, and this is a unique characteristic of him. He purged the cities of any western capitalistic influences and forced the people into the rural areas in what was known as the Great Leap Forward.

Maoism was the perfect model for less developed countries that didn’t have a working class, this was the case of Cambodia, Nepal, India, and South Africa. An agrarian communism worked well because of low levels of industrialization. After WWII there was a split in communist parties around the world and some follow Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviets, while other took Maoism as role model for their countries. Latin America was greatly influenced by the French and America revolution, there were some presidents and attempts of industrialization, but most countries are still not fully developed.

The most important political movement took place in Cuba in 1959, under the influence of the Soviet Union during the regime of Fidel Castro, who was also influenced by El Che Guevara from Argentina. Maoism was not as influenced in Latin America as it was on other regions because Cuba was perceived as the successful country and Cuba was controlled by the Soviets, who would use it as basis to control other countries in the area. By 1970 Nearly every Latin America country had its own guerrilla influenced by Cuba, like the FARC in Colombia and the MRTA in Perú. By 1970 some countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay were dominated by a radical right-wing military regime, often supported by United State, but the guerrillas were always present in each of these countries, influenced by Cuba, supporting communist movements and its leaders.

Maoist political thought and General Marxist thought share several similarities, such as their focus on the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist system. However, there are also significant differences between the two. One of the primary differences between Maoism and general Marxist thought is their approach to revolution. Maoism stresses the need for a continuous revolution, even after the establishment of a socialist government. Maoistbelieved that a constant revolution was necessary to prevent the emergence of a new ruling class and to ensure that the masses remained mobilized and engaged in the revolutionary process (Martz, 1966). In contrast, general Marxist thought tends to emphasize the need for a single revolution to overthrow the existing ruling class and establish a socialist system. Another significant difference between Maoism and general Marxist thought is their approach to the working class. Traditional Marxism places great emphasis on the industrial working class as the primary revolutionary force. Maoism, however, stresses the importance of the peasantry and rural areas in the revolutionary process. Mao believed that the peasantry had the potential to become a revolutionary force because they were oppressed by the feudal system in China and had a strong desire for land reform.

Despite the global appeal of Maoism, it did not gain much popularity in Latin America. One reason for this is that the Maoist approach to revolution conflicted with the realities of Latin American society. Maoism prioritized rural areas and peasants, while Latin America was predominantly urbanized, with a strong working class (Taylor, 1983). Furthermore, Maoism was associated with the Chinese Communist Party, which was viewed by many Latin American revolutionaries as being too closely aligned with the Soviet Union.

The dominant leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America was Marxism-Leninism. This belief system focused on the importance of the industrial working class and the need for a vanguard party to lead the revolution. One of the most prominent examples of Marxist-Leninist revolution in Latin America was the Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro in 1959. Castro’s revolutionary movement focused on the overthrow of the corrupt Batista regime, the nationalization of industries, and the establishment of a socialist system.

Another example of Marxist-Leninist revolution in Latin America was the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua in 1979. The Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) was a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement that overthrew the Somoza dictatorship and implemented a socialist government(Kang, 2015). The FSLN emphasized the importance of social justice, land reform, and the empowerment of the poor and working class.

In conclusion, Maoism and Marxism-Leninism differ in their approaches to revolution, and Maoism did not gain much traction in Latin America due to its emphasis on rural areas and the peasantry, as well as its association with China and the Soviet Union. Marxist-Leninist ideology, on the other hand, had a strong presence in Latin America and was implemented in revolutionary movements such as the Cuban and Sandinista Revolutions. These movements focused on the empowerment of the working class and the establishment of socialist systems based on principles of social justice and equality.

Maoism and Marxism are often confused as being one of the same or considered part of an evolutionary process of communism. While the latter can be true, these two forms of leftist political thought were quite different. Mao Zedong, which Maoism is named after (despite Mao himself disliking the name), felt Marxism would not work in China. Marxism revolved around the central ideas of the working class, otherwise referred to as the proletariat, protested the mistreatment imposed upon them by the upper class, also known as the bourgeoisie. Therefore, Mao believed Marxism/Leninism wouldn’t function in China due to their lack of a working class, but they did have a population of mostly rural farmworkers. With this realization, Mao “made Marxism Chinese” (Kang 15). He used two strategies that set it aside from Marxism/Leninism, which involved the use of guerilla warfare and Cultural Revolution (Ning 9). The most important difference however is that Marxism is a more economic ideology than political as it sought the equal distribution of wealth and unity of the proletariat, yet both shared the same idea of a class struggle and disregard for capitalism. However, the Cultural Revolution by Mao was the major difference due to its concept of not only converting people but to have a “transformation of minds” (Kang 15), and in the wake of this eradicating capitalism and anyone who follows it.

Maoism was and still is not prevalent in the Americas in its entirety, except for Peru’s Shining Path movement being the most significant use of Maoism in the Americas. As Gomez states in Module 5’s lecture, there were many student groups across various Latin America countries that practiced Maoism, yet it never rose to such prominence like Peru’s Shining Path. The Latin American ideology can be originated to a few important moments which Martz presents, “Ideologically, Spanish America has been influenced by the Enlightenment, by the American and French revolutions, by Existentialism, etc.” (Martz 21). Martz later adds that Latin American’s enlightenment was shaped by anti-colonial ideas, and that privilege and elitism still existed post-independence. In other words things stayed the same but under different leadership, and according to Martz the primary ideology was positivism as it fixed political, social, and economic problems and is described as the most important Latin American philosophical movement. (Martz 64).

According to Matthew Gomez, the primary leftist ideology in Latin America was Marxism/Leninism but also “Castroism” due to the success of the Cuban Revolution in overthrowing democracy or capitalism. He points to the various guerilla groups seen throughout Latin America like “FARC in Colombia, FSLN in Nicaragua, or FMLN in El Salvador”. (Gomez). All of which can tie their ideals to Marxism, Leninism, or the successes of Castro. This is also because of the vast amount of influence the Soviet Union had over the region at the time, even today many militaries have Soviet-era equipment or armaments. The same cannot be said for the Chinese, while Chinese influence is now growing, the future of this statement could be changed.

Meanwhile, while the Shining Path movement in Peru was probably the only time Maoism actually came to the forefront of governance and news headlines, it has been dying out ever since the imprisonment of its founder, Abimael Guzman in 1992 (Gomez). Thus showing that Maoism is not prevalent, and furthermore could be argued that many nations within the Latin America are not predominantly agrarian societies like China was when it began its path towards Maoism, therefore making it hard to achieve such Cultural Revolution as it relied on the countryside more than urban communities and rapid industrialization like Marxism or Leninism.

The primary distinction between Maoist and Marxist political thought is that in societies before industrialization, the working class, those who were not part of the working class, is used as the political force. He explained how it should not only be seen as a tragedy that has limited the Chinese people and their country socially, politically, economically, etc but also as a single, global Marxist revolutionary experience with Chinese characteristics that led to the formation of this. China is represented by this updating and adaptation of Marxism where revolutionary practice is the main focus and political ideology may come after.

In the reading Global Maoism and Cultural Revolutions in the Global Context by wang Ning it states, “It is now designated as a “ten-year turmoil”. (shining Dongguan) with numerous people killed during those years. And it caused deadly damage to the Chinese economy and people’s lives. But from today’s point of view, we have no difficulty finding the legacy of this sort of cultural revolution,”. This shows that before there were the Chinese economic reforms Maoism was the political and military ideology of the Chinese Communist Party and Maoist revolutionary movements worldwide. With Marxism, they were big on Communism as the struggle of the industrial workers and that they all should unite while with Maoism it was as if they don’t have a lot of industry just making it a struggle for the working class. Marxism was founded by Karl Marx and this ideology is also a leftist political thought which is a practice of socialism where a worker revolution will replace capitalism with a communist system. It’s a struggle between the middle class who were capitalists and the working class. There is a difference between Maoism and Marxism, in the sense that, Maoism is not about the middle class but about the working class which is why it wasn’t a popular leftist. The proletariat is for the industrial working class and Maoism is about the farm workers. With Marxism, a working class is needed to sustain it.

Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology was positivism. Martz believed Positivism appeared to have an actual future for Latin America. Most Latin American nations did not hold Maoism in importance because they utilized the Soviet Union. The failure of a democratic system was because of the lack of economic growth, the rising conflicts between classes especially within races, and the endless difficulties of Church-state relations. According to Martz, “In the early 1830s and after, the Latin Americans reacted sharply against Spain”. (Martz, 60). They had negative thoughts about spain. He felt that his country’s revolution had only eliminated the obvious forms of imperial power without genuinely replacing them.

What is the difference between Maoism and Marxism?

That Marxism argues starting the revolutionary movement from the city, and then eventually spreads to the rural area. He also believed in the working class, also known as the farm workers. As Maoism states revolution movement from rural and then spreading into the city.

This week reading starts by talking about two things of the Maoism. The first one cultural revolution and it talks about Prolectarian cultural revolution. The second refers to the revolution in the world. It talks about Chinese cultural revolution especially in the Western countries and Japan. Mao Zedong started the Great Proletarian cultural revolution that lasted 10 years so a decade “it was the most influential cultural revolution as well as social and political revolution in the 20th century” (pg.1). According to the reading should not be seen as a disaster to the Chinese people yes it did paralyze the country particularly socially culturally and economically, but this should also be viewed as a unique global Marxist revolutionary experience of Chinese characteristics which helped form a sort of sense Marxism. Or simply a Maoism. they also talk about the birth of Maoism in the Chinese context due to the coming of Marxism in China. thanks to the Cultural Revolution in China it brought transformation and politics economy cultural and society. It also mentions Maoism is an ideology of why they’re unity within the third world contact.

Someone by the name Yiju Huang’s wrote an essay that shared her views saying about Chinese culture revolution being “traumatic her focus is Alan Badiou, who is not only very influential in France but also in China and elsewhere, who first establishes the Cultural Revolution as the foundation of France own political movements of the 60s and 70s. Second, but due process the culture originates as a political experience that saturates the form of the party state (pg 4)”.

I agree with her position it must have been a very traumatic era image something like the revolution lasting 10 years. I mean an event as such brings a lot negative things. When you think about it I mean the revolution itself is large masses of people overturning or going against its current government, they do this because they lost hope or feel their current government is not working in their favor, and then it did last a decade so with the revolution it brings no money coming in, there’s no money, there’s no food, and so yes it must have been a very traumatic.

While Marxism and Maoism have a ton of similarities with one another, the two ideologies also have a lot of differences between the two of them. In a way Maoism is dependent on a lot of ideologies that Marxism brings to the table. But a key difference between Marxism and Maoism is Maoism relies a lot on poverty to continue the revolution. For Maoism to exist, a vast amount of poverty has to exist for the ideology to succeed. Maoism believed that the continuing issue of poverty would be a factor in driving the revolution. Marxism believed in the Overthrowing of oppressor’s. All the way to establishing a socialistic ideology throughout the target state. Maoism believed that revolution should be a process in which the masses are uses their reactions to drive the revolution. One more major difference according to the readings suggest that Maoism is major in producing the reactions of the individual with the supporting of a single leader of the movement. One reason that Maoism failed in Latin America is as stated in the reading with the example of the Iranian revolution of 1979 is “Revolutionary participants often lack access to key information while the revolution is occurring, making it difficult to access the next course of action.” In other words, If a Maoism revolution leader is lacking information for the true change of revolution, the revolutionists will always be fighting an uphill battle against the opposition.

Inequality in Latin America was a massive driving factor in the major Marxist movement throughout Latin America. Poverty being the most important factor when discussing why Marxism came to Latin America, offered a way out of the struggle for thousands of citizens in these nations. One major example of Marxism ideology in Latin America was the regime of Fidel Castro and how he basically based his entire revolution on the ideologies of Marxism. No matter what the opinion is of someone regarding the Marxist ideologies, we all have to agree that it succeed in a successful revolution for Cuba, but handed the power to an a lot more evil regime of the Castro family.

The circumstances in Latin America were a lot different than that of China during the Maoism ideologies and this led to the Marxist movement in Latin America rather than that of the Maoism movement from the CCP. Another reason I believe that Marxism was more the choice of movement was because how much more the Soviet Union was involved in Latin America decisions. The Soviet Union practically was ran on Marxist ideologies, so it is natural to assume that would be a massive driving factor in the Latin American region. Especially when you look at the History and relations between Brazil and Russia.

According to the readings, Maoism is distinct from general Marxist thought in several ways as Mao held the belief that traditional Marxist ideology would not “fit” and instead attempted to introduce a model that was more appropriate. Firstly, Maoism places greater emphasis on the role of the peasantry in the revolutionary struggle, rather than just the proletariat. Mao believed that the peasants, who constituted the majority of the population in China, could serve as a revolutionary force if mobilized effectively. Secondly, Maoism advocates for “protracted people’s war,” a strategy that involves building revolutionary forces in the countryside and gradually expanding into the cities, rather than attempting an immediate urban insurrection. Thirdly, Maoism stresses the importance of a revolutionary culture, which involves promoting revolutionary values and beliefs through propaganda and cultural practices.

Despite these differences, Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America. One reason for this was the strong influence of Soviet-style communism in the region, which emphasized the vanguard role of the proletariat, rather than the peasantry. Additionally, Maoism was associated with the Chinese Communist Party, which had been criticized by some Latin American leftist groups for its revisionism and abandonment of revolutionary principles. As Lewis Taylor notes in “Maoism in the Andes,” “most Latin American communists perceived Chinese communism as a threat to the Soviet-oriented Communist International” (p. 90).

Contrastingly, the dominant leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America was Marxism-Leninism, which drew heavily from Soviet-style communism. As John D. Martz notes in “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought,” “the dominant strains of Latin American political thought have been the Marxist-Leninist doctrines that have arisen out of the influence of the Soviet Union” (p. 169). This belief was influenced by several factors, including the success of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, which established a socialist state in the region and inspired many leftist groups. The Cuban Revolution showed that it was possible to successfully overthrow a corrupt and oppressive regime, and establish a socialist government in a Latin American country. The success of the Cuban Revolution also inspired revolutionary movements in other parts of Latin America, such as the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in El Salvador.

Additionally, the Soviet Union had significant influence in the region, providing ideological and material support to communist parties and leftist revolutionary movements. Soviet-style communism stressed the importance of the vanguard party, which would lead the working class in a revolution to overthrow the capitalist system. The Soviet Union also provided economic and military aid to leftist governments and movements in the region, such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

Furthermore, poverty and inequality in Latin America, coupled with political repression and human rights abuses, created fertile ground for leftist revolutionary movements. Marxist-Leninist theory provided a framework for understanding the root causes of poverty and inequality and offered a path to achieving a socialist transformation of society. This ideology also stressed the need for armed struggle and the establishment of a socialist state, with the ultimate goal of achieving a classless society.

Maoist political thought, which arose in China as a variation of Marxism-Leninism, differs from conventional Marxist thought in several significant aspects. Both ideologies are based on the idea that workers should take control of the means of production, but Maoism emphasizes the part that the peasantry plays in the revolution. Peasants, who made up most of the population in China at the time, could lead the revolution, according to Mao, and the urban proletariat should support and follow them.

Maoism also emphasizes the significance of mass mobilization and engagement in the revolutionary process. Kang states that Maoism’s focal point is to, “create an alternative vision of modernity, or a vision of alternative modernity, by way of transforming Marxism into a non-European, henceforth more universal, vision of modernity” (Kang, 13). To incorporate the masses in the process of creating and enacting revolutionary policies, Mao believed that the masses should be organized into “mass line” campaigns. Maoism also emphasizes the necessity of using revolutionary violence as a tool for bringing about social change.

One reason why Maoism did not become a popular leftist revolutionary philosophy in Latin America is that it arose from a specific historical setting in China and was tightly linked to Chinese culture and traditions. Furthermore, in Latin America, where the urban working class was more prevalent, Maoism’s emphasis on the peasantry’s involvement in the revolution may have seemed less pertinent.

Instead, Marxist-Leninism was Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary theory, emphasizing the significance of forming a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries to lead the working class in the fight against capitalism. The success of the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks’ model of party structure both had a significant impact on this strategy.

Several other reasons contribute to Marxist-Leninism’s popularity in Latin America. One is the history of colonialism and imperialism in the area, which led to pervasive inequality and stoked working-class anti-imperialist feelings. Another aspect is the influence of liberation theology, which developed in the area in the 1960s and 1970s and fused Catholic social teaching with Marxist critique.

Lastly, the decline of liberal democracy and the growth of military dictatorships across the continent can be linked to the popularity of Marxist-Leninism in Latin America. Marxism-Leninism was viewed as a strong alternative by many Latin Americans to the corrupt and oppressive regimes that ruled the continent during the Cold War.

In conclusion, the focus placed on the peasantry, mass mobilization, and revolutionary violence distinguishes Maoist political philosophy from general Marxist thought. Marxist-Leninism, propelled by elements like anti-imperialist emotion, liberation theology, and the shortcomings of liberal democracy, emerged as the dominant ideology in Latin America whereas Maoism did not become a well-known leftist revolutionary philosophy there.

The key differences between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought, is that Mao Zedong, a Chinese communist, developed a form of Marxism which was compatible with China. Due to the Bourgeois impact on culture, he strongly romanticized the countryside and stressed that the revolution must be fought for even after a successful takeover. Kang’s description states “The Chinese revolution in Mao’s view had to rely on peasant guerrilla warfare rather on the urban proletarian insurgency, because China lacked a capitalist infrastructure from which a strong urban proletariat was generated. “Encircling the cities
from the countryside” by guerrilla warfare was thus conceived by Mao as the principal strategy of the revolution.”(Kang, pg. 15). The goal of Moaism was to transform capital societies into a classless and stateless society, but because China didn’t have a working class they had to cater the revolution for the rural farm workers, known as the popular masses. Ning describes the Chinese revolution in that “Mao’s thought was increasingly admired by those Western Marxists who also wanted to practice Marxism in their own social and cultural revolutions.” (Ning, pg 2).

Maoism and Marxism differ philosophically in that an alliance of progressive forces in class society, as opposed to communist revolutionaries acting alone, would lead the revolutionary vanguard in pre-industrial societies. In addition, the key distinctions between Maoism and Marxism lie in the revolutionary approach and practicality of Marxist concepts.The intellectual difference between Maoism and Marxism is that an alliance of progressive forces in class society, as opposed to communist revolutionaries alone, would lead the revolutionary vanguard in pre-industrial nations. In conclusion, the key distinctions between Maoism and Marxism lie in the revolutionary approach and practicality of Marxist concepts.

Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology came from a period of romantic liberalism that stemmed from the French and British, but it was short lived in Latin America because they did not feel as it solved issues of social inequality. Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America, because the majority of Latin America gravitated to Marxism. As Martz explains it “Positivism seemed to hold genuine promise for Latin America.” (Martz, 64). Positivism aimed to solve problems such as “constitutional democratic forms, the absence of economic prosperity, the increasing social tensions arising among classes and in some cases among races, and the unending frustrations of Church-state relations.”  This gave the people of Latin America hope in attaining progress and was seen as a new instrument to accomplish those goals.

The Maoist political thought takes a more aggressive path to state capture and actualization of communism. Maoists believe in mass mobilization, strategic alliances, and envision alternative modernity through revolution (Kang, 2015). Maoism takes on a socialist approach to change and places a lot of belief in people’s power. An example can be seen in Peru, where the military seized power through a revolution to produce a re-ordering (Taylor, 2006). General Marxism, on the other hand, focuses on a materialistic approach to development. The general Marxism thought holds that the existence of an economic class struggle is what brings about any form of social change (Kang, 2015). Since both sides fight for change, the key difference is that Maoism looks at revolution within a third-world or peasant context, while Marxism takes on a Western historical or urban context (Kang, 2015).

Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America because it relied on the peasants to initiate the revolution (Ning, 2015). The majority of people in Latin America at the time were peasants and therefore looked out for their survival. Any chance at getting anything better was a welcome idea other than believing that a revolution would provide them with better material gains. Also, the middle-class members of society had a bigger say in political events, and therefore, it was easier for them to implement the change or organize a revolution as they pleased. Thus, since the middle class was in control, they would not support Maoism at all costs.

Latin America’s most dominant leftist revolutionary ideology was romantic liberalism (Martz, 1966). Due to the colonial injustices witnessed in many Latin American countries, the revolutions by Latin Americans focused on ending colonial rule and finding a new type of legitimacy. Later, the revolution focused on nation-building and political equality. Romantic liberalism was easier to adopt because it supported both struggles through the revolutions. For example, Mora in Mexico, through a romantic liberalist view, opposed unnecessary political discussions and promoted cultural and social development (Martz, 1966). Thus, in Latin America, there was an imminent appreciation of material accomplishments without putting unnecessary pressure on the political outfit. They believed that the attainment of political independence had not done much to change their lives and that perhaps the romantic liberalist approach would yield some form of development for them. The belief in the need for cultural and social development over political development was the driving force behind the adoption of romantic liberalism. 

Mao Zedong, a socialist and head of the Chinese Communist Party, was the source of the ideological philosophy known as Maoism. Despite having several distinctive elements, it is founded on Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Maoism, which dominated the Marxist innovative movement in China, spread to other nations, particularly those in Latin America like Ecuadorian and Peruvian regions. As mentioned by Taylor, Maoism in the Andes, “unsophisticated social analysis and adherence to a maximalist program seemingly divorced from current realities placed the party firmly on the exotic margins of Marxist politics in Peru”[1] There are some significant contrasts between conventional Marxist theory and Maoism, which is a separate political philosophy.

To begin with, Marxism is a universal philosophy, and Maoism is an ideological theory that was formed in the setting of China. China under Mao had quite distinct circumstances from other nations. Mao had to deal with a nation that was divided by societal classes and a feeble central leadership. Mao regarded the uprising in China as an opportunity to develop a powerful, cohesive country capable of opposing international imperialism.

Furthermore, Maoism placed a heavy emphasis on having a centrally controlled government that controls the financial sector to a larger extent. “I consider a genealogy of Maoism as a knowledge and a theory of modernity.”[2] Marxism promoted a fragmented administration and gave the lower classes a bigger say in how the financial system is governed. Maoism promoted a strong party system and saw the government as the primary instrument of transformation. This was significantly unlike to Marxists’ more representative strategy, which aimed to devolve authority and give workers economic authority. Maoism emphasized the enlistment of agricultural regions for insurrection. Marxists, on the contrary, paid more attention to the labor force and the conflict over the ownership of the tools of manufacture. Maoism attempted to organize the farming populations to establish a solid foundation for backing the uprising and establishing a powerful country. This was a strategy that was absent from Marxist theory.

To sum up, Marxist-Leninism, which was significantly shaped by the Cuban Revolution, was the predominant leftist rebel doctrine in Latin America. This philosophy stressed the necessity of a powerful concentrated authority as well as the use of violent conflict to further communist objectives. To promote equality in the community, it also aimed towards nationalizing enterprises and transferring income. The Revolution in Cuba was a huge accomplishment and encouraged other Latin American nations to follow suit. The Cuban Revolution served to propagate Marxism-Leninism in the area and was viewed as an effective illustration of a leftist rebellion.

In Liu Kang’s paper a point is made to express Mao’s divergent approach to revolutionary ideals from Marxism within Mao’s concept of ‘universalism’. “Mao revised the notion of universality in a crucial way, by eclipsing the ontological notion of universal essence and substituting the metaphysical question of ‘universality’ with ‘the particularity and absoluteness of contradiction.” (Pg24) Maoism made sure to look at the specific conditions of China, or the state in question, and it’s position within the grander global powers, Western imperialism. Maoism also attempted to rethink the concept of contradictions as distinct to what had been thought under Marxism. To Mao contradictions were mutable and challenged the modern idea of modernity as constructed by the Western ideals and norms that dominated international interactions. Maoism ultimately succeeded in positioning itself “as a Third World, anti-imperialist, counter-hegemonic ideology.” (Pg23)

In the essay written by John Martz we learn about the broadness of political thought in Latin America and it’s conception under the beginnings of decolonization. Although Maoism positioned itself as an ideology that meant to challenge hegemonic powers and was aimed at empowering Third World countries it ultimately fell short in the region. There are bouts of revolutionary movements and efforts in Latin America post Spanish rule; however, the leading political philosophy tended to be positivism and its bureaucratic approach to change. “Positivism […] would encourage a moderate and gradualistic approach to national problems.” (pg 64) Intellectuals and the ruling class both saw this as a substantial progress to achieve the reforming of the state. “[…] positivism permitted rationalization of the status quo.” (pg 65) Under perspective of positivism education and efficiency were considered the most important tenets of transformation. Since positivism and like minded ideologies were endorsed heavily by scholars and the ‘elites’ it ultimately took a foothold in political discourse but only for so long.

In twentieth century positivism became less important in Latin America and different political theories were able to make some kind of impression of the region. Concepts like: communism. Marxism, Justicialismo, and Indigenismo popped up here and there. However, John Martz makes it a point to state that Latin America has a “tendency to avoid close identification with or advocacy for ideas representing a particular political or philosophical school.” (pg 74)  Maoism never garnered much influence in the region because though it targeted itself for countries like those in Latin America it was unable to mold itself into the unique Latin American identity. Though Latin America did look to end colonial rule and Spanish power, its cultural influences and societal impact was still entrenched in the identity. Latin America would not be able to position itself as the opposite and challenge European modernity like China under Mao envisioned itself doing.

Both Maoists and Marxists share similarities, but they all possess different views. Mao highly appreciated the invention of his launching of a cultural revolution in socialist China, viewing it as his creative development of Marxism–Leninism: continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Ning pg 9) The key differences I see between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought are that Maoism is more focused on their Chinese constituencies and also categorizes the peasantry as a form of cultural revolution. They also believed that in order for peasants to be free, guerilla tactics would be pertinent. Mao was more focused on the violation of human rights toward peasants, which would call for a cultural revolution. Peasants were categorized based on things like education and finances. However, Marx was a firm believer that the proletariat were the true ones to be free. Marxists believed that the working class should be in control. Marxism believed humans would be able to obtain social change if they really wanted.

Maoism believed many people would be able to relate to its ideology. He believed countries that suffered from poverty would take into account how essential it would be to have a peasantry at the top. Due to the history and culture of Latin America, it would not be feasible. Typically, the Chinese only created ideologies based solely on their traditions and culture. Due to both being two completely different cultures, the ideology would not coincide with Latin America. He was not popular in Latin America because the country mostly focused on the uprising of peasants. Latin America was already influenced by industrialization, which would make it difficult to sway ideologies. Considering the fact that Mao was against industrialization,

Latin America’s more dominant leftist revolutionary ideology was Marxism-Leninism. “Among the more pervasive influences has been that of Marxism. It has stressed the importance the role of the state, while the emphasis on a planned approach economic problems has been somewhat akin to that of the positivists  earlier, although adding the element of class struggle”.  (Martz 69) They mostly focused on vanguard party-led revolutions. Due to Europe’s much greater influence on Latin America, it was bound to happen that they both shared the same ideologies. For example . The impact of the European Enlightenment upon colonial Latin America on the eve of the Wars of Independence was diffuse in nature, reflecting the same diversity and dissimilarity perceivable in Europe. (Martz 58)

Throughout the readings, the key differences I found between Maoism and Marxism were who these ideologies were meant to appeal to and how they planned to inspire a revolution in their believers. Kang wrote that Mao “had to rely on peasant guerrilla warfare rather on the urban proletarian insurgency, because China lacked a capitalist infrastructure from which a strong urban proletariat was generated” (Pg. 15). Since China did not have the proletarian masses that Marxism required, this was the first major departure since Mao had to appeal to the peasant farmers to begin his revolution. Mao also relied on a cultural revolution in order to inspire the peasants. He needed to make them class conscious in order for any revolution to be successful and he did so by “making literature and arts in China powerful political instruments to inculcate Maoist ideas of revolution into the minds of the millions of millions Chinese” (Pg. 16). The idea of a cultural revolution is not present in Marxism since the focus was on overthrowing the bourgeoisie by seizing the means of production.

Maoism has not been a popular leftist revolutionary theory in Latin America due to its ideological split with the Soviet Union. Martz describes this lack of Maoism in Latin American and abundance of Marxism as “reflecting both Sino-Soviet split and the impact of the fidelista variant which emerged in Cuba” (Pg. 69). The Soviet Union maintained a strong relationship with Cuba and also held many of their operations in the country. They used this proximity to quickly spread Marxism to much of Latin American and by the time Maoism had become a popular theory, most of Latin America was already heavily Marxist. This discrepancy was strengthened even more when the Sino-Soviet split happened and Maoism become somewhat of a competing theory to Marxism. Many Latin American countries were also developed which made Marxism’s idea of a proletarian revolution more aligning with them rather than Maoism’s farming peasantry,

The dominant leftist revolutionary theory in Latin American was by far Marxism. The main cause of this was influence from the Soviet Union who had used their friendly relationship with Cuba in order to enter these countries and convince people that Marxism was helpful. Peru was unique in that it was the only Latin American country in which Maoism found a strong foothold since the country described itself as “semi-feudal” meaning that there were “non-capitalist socio-economic arrangements and institutions” (Taylor, 19) that made it more suited for Maoism rather than Marxism. However, for the rest of Latin America, they saw the success of Marxism in Cuba and were easily convinced to adopt the revolutionary theory in the hopes of achieving similar success. Marxism was cemented as the dominant theory after the Sino-Soviet Split which made followers of Marxism distrustful of Maoism since the theory had become much more radical than Marxism was.

The distinction between Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought is significant. While both ideologies stem from the broader framework of Marxism, Maoism is rooted in the Chinese revolutionary experience. It diverges from general Marxism in its focus on the peasantry, guerrilla warfare, and the concept of protracted people’s war. On the other hand, general Marxist thought prioritizes the urban proletariat and the class struggle within industrial society. Furthermore, Maoism is characterized by its vehement opposition to imperialism and its aim of establishing a socialist society through continuous revolution (Kang, “Maoism, Revolutionary Globalism for the Third World Revisited”).
A critical difference between Maoism and general Marxism is the role assigned to the peasantry. While Maoism regards the peasantry as the leading revolutionary force, general Marxism emphasizes the urban proletariat as the primary agent for change (Kang). Moreover, Maoism underscores the importance of guerrilla warfare, with rural-based insurgencies acting as the catalyst for revolution (Taylor, “Maoism in the Andes”). This contrasts traditional Marxist thought, which envisions a more centralized and organized revolutionary movement.
Despite its potential appeal as a revolutionary ideology suited to developing countries, Maoism failed to gain popularity as a leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America. The primary reason for this was the absence of a strong and cohesive peasant class with the potential for revolutionary action. In “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought,” Martz explains that most Latin American countries possessed a weak and fragmented peasantry, with only a few regions where the rural population could engage in revolutionary struggle. Additionally, the Soviet Union’s backing of more conventional Marxist-Leninist movements in Latin America lessened the allure of Maoism in the area.

Throughout the 20th century, Latin America’s prevailing leftist revolutionary ideology was Marxism-Leninism, focusing on its Cuban iteration, as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro advocated. This ideology highlighted the significance of armed struggle and guerrilla warfare but focused on the urban working class and its alliance with the rural peasantry. Moreover, the Cuban model appealed to Latin American revolutionaries due to its regional roots and the successful example of the Cuban Revolution (Martz).
The preference for the Cuban model is evident in the case of the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua. The Cuban model heavily influenced this movement and aimed to replicate its success (Martz). In the Andean region, the Maoist Shining Path in Peru was a notable exception to the lack of Maoist influence in Latin America. However, the Shining Path encountered considerable challenges in garnering strong support among the peasantry and ultimately failed to achieve its revolutionary objectives (Taylor).
In summary, Maoist political thought and general Marxist thought differ mainly in their emphasis on the peasantry, guerrilla warfare, and protracted people’s war. While Maoism had the potential to be an attractive revolutionary ideology in Latin America, its lack of popularity can be attributed to the absence of a robust peasant class and the influence of the Soviet Union. Instead, Marxism-Leninism, with its Cuban variant, emerged as the leading leftist revolutionary ideology in the region. It resonated with the local context and was a successful Cuban Revolution example.

China’s Cultural Revolution has been perhaps the most influential source of Marxist thought that the West has taken note of, and such thought has absorbed itself, intentionally through its poststructuralist creation, into the language and societal culture of institutions, most notably academia. This influence of culture and language that has been brought to the West by Maoism has intent in its structure, Ning calls it the “Marxist revolutionary experience” (Ning, 2). Even though to many literary scholars like Ning, Maoism is an extension of Marxist political thought – as well as, through Badiou’s commitment as a “Marxist and Maoist” even as the “zeal of Marxism” has disappeared from “transient” Maoists and postmodernists like Foucault, Kristeva, and Defert- Marxism, as it is in its solely Marxist origin, is rather different than Maoism (Ning, 5).

Mao’s seizure of political power relies on “guerrilla wars and cultural revolution” for a one-party state to rule. Specifically, the Chinese Cultural Revolution ousted the Chinese Nationalist Party through forceful means, yes, but moreover, this transfer of power symbolized, especially to Ning, not only a transfer of power but one of “political, economic, cultural and societal” significance. This significance relays back to Maoism’s influence on the West; even though such influence is generally Marxist, it is wholly different. Marx believed seizure of political power to suddenly erupt from a widening and continually oppressed proletariat, and unlike Leninism -which believed this revolution not to be accomplished wholly through the will of the people but of qualified individuals capable of leading them- or Maoism, -which such political power is forcefully and propogandically seized- Marxism is more materialist, relying less on cultural and language shifts instead for eliminating existing structures of class inequality and exploitation. Additionally, Marxist political thought -once again, before Orthodox Marxism- believed class struggle to be international; the liberation of the worker can only be achieved through international means, with the nation, to Marx, as serving to maintain the capitalist structure of the bourgeoisie.

While the main differences between Maoist political thought and Marxist political thought have been examined, it is now interesting to examine the contrasts and similarities between Maoism towards Latin American political thought. As noted by Martz, Latin America, through its different periods of intellectual -or “pensador”– political thought, has continually yet unsuccessfully attempted to materialize “a distinctive, original, and uniquely indigenous set of ideas which will prove timeless in validity and constructive in hemispheric significance” (Martz, 54, 71). In other words, whether it was the deterrence of a “without exception” Spain-centric political thought that eventually led to their anti-colonial Romantic Liberalism or their positivist thinking which drew from fractioned Enlightenment ideals of North America and Europe, the unsolved problems of Latin America -such as economic inequality, comparatively lacking industrialization, flawed constitutional democracy- shown by Martz have yet to be anything but (Martz, 57). Compared against Maoism, an ideology that believes in hostile seizure and guerilla violence and a one-party state, coupled with its belief in agrarianism over large-scale industrialization, it can easily be inferred as to why any attempt to install Maoism in Latin America -a region “less well developed than those of Europe and North America”- would be “not popular” (Martz, 72).

Of course, as Martz notes, Latin America’s political thought went in many diverse directions after the collapse of positivist thinking. Mainly, somehow positivism’s collapse in Latin America brought on leftist ideology -namely communism- that was perpetuated through echoes of class struggle. A reason for this could be that despite the many intellectuals of positivism, and their factions of the intricacies of that mode of thought, the issues facing the common man in Latin America -economic inequality, elitism, flawed democracy- were not appropriately dealt with. Because of this, leftist ideologues could capitalize on these issues, and present them in the realm of Marxist class struggle, with revolution as the ultimate way for ineffective governmental structures to be dismantled.

In conclusion, exploring the differences between Maoism and Marxism and applying all of their particularities to the political thought of Latin America leads to one discovery: all of the struggle of the common man, intercontinentally shared, and espoused by Marx, are interconnected, whether or not they are similar in structure or object. It is fascinating to compare these modes of thought and their continuations today, most notably the breadth of influence of Marxism on Western academic institutions, which Maoism propelled. Examining further the interconnectedness of intercontinental political thought is certainly worthwhile, and there are many more comparisons to be made.

Maoism is developed upon Marxist ideas, but both are different in nature. Maoism, officially called Mao Zedong Thought by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after the Chinese Civil War, is a strain of Marxism that Mao Zedong developed to be the resolution for communists in societies with agriculture but absent from a sizeable proletariat class. Marxism was created for developed societies with a proletariat class. The philosophical difference between Maoism and Marxism is that an alliance of progressive forces in class society would lead the revolutionary vanguard in pre-industrial societies rather than communist revolutionaries alone. In sum, the differences between Maoism and Marxism have more to do with the revolutionary strategy and realistic applicability of Marxist ideas.

Mao Zedong was a Chinese communist revolutionary who founded the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and influenced by Leninism. He felt a new system was needed and all his theories, strategies, and policies came to be known as Maoism. This system was sought to help the lower class, primitive, and agriculture because China did not have a proletariat society in order to develop the society or move towards a revolution. Maoism focused on the agricultural working society rather than industrial working society. Mao was successful in sparking the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China but caused deadly damage to human life and the Chinese economy, “ten-year turmoil” (Ning 2015).

Maoism was not a popular leftist revolutionary ideology in Latin America and never really spread outside of China. A lot of this has to do with the fact that while in China the focus was on developing agriculture, Latin America was already industrialized in this. While not all of the countries in Latin America were industrialized, the other countries were already influenced by some other theory or country like the Soviets, seeing that Cuba was influenced by this and were successful in their revolution. All in all, there was already a huge influence in Latin America and Maoism was not that popular. Although Peru did try to adopt the Maoist policies for “peasantry revolution” (Taylor, 15). But Peru spoke and the examples given is that Maoism lacked a “dynamic bourgeois class” and was made up of “four-fifths Indian and peasants” (Taylor, 11).

Latin America’s dominant leftist revolutionary ideology was Marxism. As previously mentioned, the Soviet communism influence in Cuba and the success of the Cuban Revolution has a huge influence on this. “A student of Latin American philosophy has spoken of Latin American thought as being manifested by the proclivity of many pensadores to prefer “not the creative development of the content of philosophy but rather support which philosophical positions could provide proponents of the status quo or reformers with a basis for justification of social, political, educational, economic or religious program.” (Martz, 72). Martz’ is speaking on the thought that Latin American countries usually pursue to improve the country rather than change it which leads back to the Marxist political thought

Maoism is a subculture of Marxism – these two forms of leftist political thought are one of the same in terms of communism but remain divided by their geopolitical differences. While German philosopher Karl Marx established his revolutionary theory during 1848 towards Western countries, Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s ideology erupted in the 1940s with Third World nations in mind. As said in the paper detailing revolutionary globalism, Zedong cultivated “a vision of alternative modernity, by way of transforming Marxism into a non-European, henceforth more universal, vision of modernity” (Kang, 13). Zedong was influenced by a Leninist and Marxist lens which he remodeled to enable China’s agrarian population, differing from the Marxist industrial class struggle of bourgeoisie versus proletariat. Zedong fought for a revolution surrounding agriculture to strengthen Chinese communism, strategizing this throughout the Civil War before ultimately founding the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

 

Mao Zedong Thought didn’t grow as popular in Latin America as other leftist ideologies due to its farming specific context that couldn’t be applied to all modes of society. On the other hand, Marxist political theory swayed a variety of Latin American governments for the duration of the 19th and 20th centuries. Separating the workers from the means of production is most historically noted between Fidel Castro in Cuba and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Russia had more pull in these periods of political revolution which made Marxism far easier to adopt in Latin American countries than Maoism. In contrast, Zedong’s principles revolved around “peasants” and proletariat unity for countryside empowerment. Contrastingly, Marxism can be applied on the international scale because it’s the umbrella that encompasses all political and economic facets of communism. The leftist ideology with the greatest impact on Latin America is the modernized practice of Positivism. The use of this theory sought to apply science and justifiable reasoning by observation to forward meaningful socioeconomic progress. As Martz expressed, “problems to be confronted included the failure of constitutional democratic forms, the absence of economic prosperity, the increasing social tensions arising among classes and in some cases among races, and the unending frustrations of Church-state relations” (Martz, 64). Its adjustments revolved around the perspectives of intellectual elites to advise government affairs. Marxism gained immense popularity when Russia set the communist stage by successfully abolishing their monarchy in 1917. Seeking allies and searching for hegemony, the Cold War strategically spread to countries like Cuba, posing a threat to surrounding nations national security like America. The persuading offer of political and military assistance soon turned into catastrophe under Castro with the painful consequences of communism with effects seen to this day. Maoism remained pertinent to the Asian region but can be seen in Peru by the Maoist, Leninist, and Marxist motivated Shining Path guerrilla communist group

Marxism and Marxism are political thoughts with some difference between them. Marxism aims at establishing a state whereby there is equality between the rich and the poor. It is based on dogmas and coined by Karl Marx whereas Maoism was introduced by Mao Zedong a Chinese leader. He wanted his country to go after a proletariat revolution to transform the society during that time. Maoism is a form of communism that was started by Mao Tse Tung to revolutionize State power through armed revolt, mass militarization and carefully planned out alliances (D’ Mello, 2009, 43).

Maoists also utilize propaganda and disinformation against the State as other methods of insurgency (D’ Mello, 2009, 45). Although both aim at a proletariat revolution that would transform the society, Marxism focuses on urban workforce whereas Maoism has its focus on the peasant population(Gregor, 2019, 82). Mao Zedong wanted China to experience a proletariat revolution to transform the society during that time. However, he could not apply Marxism as it was already in China, a country that had many farmers therefore he made some changes to the Marxism theory that would suit the conditions in China thus: Maoism (D’ Mello, 2009, 46). Another difference is that Marxism is a theory while Maoism only applied Marxism in China.

Marxism upholds an economically strong State that is excelling in industrialization while Maoism does not uphold industrialization or technology. This is because Maoism thought that industrialization would provide more ways for owners to further exploit people to weaken the proletariat revolution (D’ Mello, 2009). In contrast, Marxism perceived industrialization as a crucial component for a proletariat revolution since it is only then, that the workers will realize how much they have been suppressed by the State. While Marxism valued industrialization, Maoism valued agriculture (Gregor, 2019, 83). In addition, Marxism argues that social change is fueled by the economy but Maoism stresses on “malleability of human nature”(Gregor, 2019, 83). Maoism argues that the human nature can be transformed by will power (Gregor, 2019, 86). Furthermore, Marxism viewed that all occurrences in a society are linked to the economy i.e. how people behave and how human nature changed. On the other hand, Maoism held that everything that occurs in a society is due to human will.

The most profound feature of Latin American political thought since the beginning of the 20th century was the impossibility of characterizing it in a convenient way since it adapted several political thoughts overtime. Martz (1966, 60) states that as positivism decreased, the coming of economic, industrial and technological developments brought about more diversity. According to Martz (1966) this century more than any other displays a rich variety of political ideas i.e., from communism, socialism to fascism. Martz (1966, 58) states that although The Enlightment was coming to an end in Europe, it started to greatly influence the Spanish and Portuguese colonies providing “a conviction in the general progress of civilization, a belief that intellectual and social advance was inevitable”. In addition, even though the Enlightment was deteriorating during the French Revolution, it provided the oldest beliefs in Western civilization to Latin American elites (Martz, 1966).

The lecture and readings suggest that Maoism, a revolutionary ideology, was influenced by Marxism. Both leftist ideologies had significant impacts on different regions – Maoism in China and Marxism in Latin America/North America and Europe. While Marxism focused on the urban working class against the bourgeoisie, Maoism was more centered on the peasant workers of China, albeit with a different cultural context. In the book “Global Maoism and Cultural Revolutions in the Global Context,” Wang Ning argues that Maoism is a globally significant theoretical doctrine, alongside Marxism. According to Ning, Maoism achieved a unique status as a universal form of philosophy and knowledge that no other Chinese thought has ever achieved. In addition, credit is given by stating that according to Ning, “Maoism constitutes an ideology of modernity within the Third World context, just as Marxism is an ideology of modernity within the Western historical context” (Ning, 4). Kang delves deeper into this idea of Maoism as a modern ideology and notes that it seeks to not only integrate universal principles of Marxism with Chinese revolutionary practice but also create an alternative vision of modernity that is non-European and more universal. The correlation between the two historical contexts, as Kang points out, is that the Western context assumes the position of the master subject of modernity while the Third World is subjected to this modernity as a political, economic, and conceptual object. According to Kang, Maoism can be perceived as an ideology that offers an alternative modernity to the people of the Third World, empowering them to establish their own identities through revolution, opposition, and resistance to the Western world’s dominant oppressions and dominations. Throughout the Cold War era, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, Mao’s perspective on revolution presented an alternative vision of modernity.

The difference in political ideology and cultural context between Maoism and Marxism explains why Maoism was successful in China but not embraced in Latin America. This is in contrast to Marxism which gained more traction in Latin America, as demonstrated by the rejection of Maoism in North and Latin America due to the association with communism. While some areas in Latin America were open to certain communist characteristics, many modern Latin American countries rejected communist political theories altogether. Instead, liberalism, positivism, and socialism were the key revolutionary ideologies in Latin America. Martz’s excerpt on “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought” highlights the importance of positivism in Hispanic America and notes that no other philosophical movement has had the same level of influence. (Martz, 64) The distinctive political thought and culture of leftist revolutionary ideologies separated Maoism’s success in China from its rejection in Latin America. This rejection largely stems from communism itself, particularly the Cuban influence on communism. While some underdeveloped areas embraced communist characteristics, many modern Latin American countries were averse to any form of communist political theories. Instead, liberalism, positivism, and socialism were the key revolutionary ideologies for Latin America. According to Martz’s excerpt on “Characteristics of Latin American Political Thought,” positivism held genuine promise for Latin America, as it seemed to offer a scientific outlook that could address problems such as the failure of constitutional democratic forms, economic prosperity, social tensions, and Church-state relations. The ruling classes saw positivism as a justification for disrupting the activities of radical reform elements, as it encouraged a moderate and gradualistic approach to national problems through its slogan of “order and progress.” These key distinctions demonstrate why Maoism was not a feasible means of achieving ends for the Latin American people.

 

Scroll Below to View Our Previous Reviews

Calculate the price of your order

Continue with Order
Continue with Order
Continue with Order
Continue with Order

Simple Order Process

Fill in the Order Form

Share all the assignment information. Including the instructions, provided reading materials, grading rubric, number of pages, the required formatting, deadline, and your academic level. Provide any information and announcements shared by the professor. Choose your preferred writer if you have one.

Get Your Order Assigned

Once we receive your order form, we will select the best writer from our pool of experts to fit your assignment.

Share More Data if Needed

You will receive a confirmation email when a writer has been assigned your task. The writer may contact you if they need any additional information or clarifications regarding your task

Let Our Essay Writer Do Their Job

Once you entrust us with your academic task, our skilled writers embark on creating your paper entirely from the ground up. Through rigorous research and unwavering commitment to your guidelines, our experts meticulously craft every aspect of your paper. Our process ensures that your essay is not only original but also aligned with your specific requirements, making certain that the final piece surpasses your expectations.

Quality Checks and Proofreading

Upon the completion of your paper, it undergoes a meticulous review by our dedicated Quality and Proofreading department. This crucial step ensures not only the originality of the content but also its alignment with the highest academic standards. Our seasoned experts conduct thorough checks, meticulously examining every facet of your paper, including grammar, structure, coherence, and proper citation. This comprehensive review process guarantees that the final product you receive not only meets our stringent quality benchmarks but also reflects your dedication to academic excellence.

Review and Download the Final Draft

If you find that any part of the paper does not meet the initial instructions, send it back to us with your feedback, and we will make the necessary adjustments.