At work, I was having some casual political small-talk with a coworker I thought was a liberal, and I threw out the “maybe we should make everyone do a year or two of customer service or retail before they officially become citizens” take.
She responded with “That’s literally Maoism.” She then explained to me that the central pole holding up the umbrella of Maoist philosophies is that the government has the responsibility to create moral citizens by requiring them to directly serve their country, such as farming or millitary service.
This feels correct, but I also feel like I am missing a lot.
This is simply not a thing. “Moral citizens” are not a Marxist or Maoist concept. This is more of a liberal civic-nationalist thing if anything. French revolution type shit. Modern national conscription was invented there, not with Mao.
What your coworker is probably misremembering is the Down to the Countryside Movement, which was a response to the particular conditions in China after the Great Leap Forward. Maoism traditionally centered the peasantry as the main driver of revolution, but there’s nothing in Maoism like a person needs to go farm for awhile to become “moral”. Class struggle is the true central pole holding up Maoism (and Marxism); morals don’t come into marxist theory because morals are idealistic, not material.
I’m also not sure what your coworker means by the “umbrella” of Maoist philosophies, unless she just means like Chinese politics = Maoism or means Marxism (or she’s into some mega deep Gonzaloist Thought or something).
I think it was an awkward phrasing of “This is why we can say all these somewhat disparate approaches are all Maoist, because they have this unifying element.” That would be false, of course, but I think that’s what is meant.