Re: FAATZ: Re: maoism vs the permanent revolution..

[Chris Faatz <cfaatz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 Rubyg580@xxxxxxx wrote:

Gina, I'd like to thank you for the comradely tone of your reply to me.
It's refreshing, and, believe it or not, much appreciated. We can enter
into the road of real discussion of our differences if we can maintain
this atmosphere.

One thing: I don't thing the subject line chosen is at all apropo. I
don't believe I mentioned "permanent revolution" anywhere in any of
my posts, and I'm not even a Trot :-). Also, the theory itself doesn't
underlie the basic message that I'm trying to portray--while I *do*
believe that successful revolution in Peru (as elsewhere) will have
to move forward from what you might call New Democratic to socialist,
I don't think that it's one million percent necessary for it to be
pushed to the international level to survive--or even prosper--although,
needless to say, that would help.

> In a message dated 96-04-02Chris Faatz writes:
>
> >And I follow that by suggesting, mildly enough, that if anyone has any
> >doubts about Maoism as presented by the PCP, they should try and
> > read some Mao.
>
> Definitely a good idea.  I suggest starting with "On Contradiction" and
> "On Practice".

Agreed. Also, material on the mass line, on serving the people, on Stalin,
and on democratic centralism, the functioning of the Party, and its
relation to the people. Much of this can be found in Schram's _The
Political Thought of Mao Tse Tung_; you may harbor some grievances against
Schram (such as his pointing out that a personality cult started to
build up around Mao in around '45--something that I'd concur with), and
wish to point out other primary sources (although I don't suggest the
five volume _Selected Works_ for the beginner :-)).

[clip my material regarding the nature of the PCP]
>
> I don't know where you get this picture of the PCP.  They don't say
> there is no two-line struggle within the party, in fact two-line struggle
> is what they promote and practice as the very cornerstone of party
> functioning.  What they deny is that the current two-line struggle is
> over whether to heed the fake "peace letters from Chairman Gonzalo"
> which are really from the regime itself with a little help from the CIA.

Okay. I'd be willing to say that the CIA is probably up to its ears in
what you describe above. But....
>
> It is the RCP-USA and its international affiliates, the CoRIM (committee
> of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) and IEC (International
> Emergency Committee to Defend the Life of Abimael Guzman) who
> are promoting the lie that there is a two-line struggle over whether to
> negotiate peace or continue the people's war.  THAT two-line struggle
> was decided two years ago--in favor of continuing to advance the People's
> War. There are other things being debated now--like most likely, when
> and how to go over to the final siezure of power thruout the country.

...I don't believe that this two-line struggle *has* been definitively
resolved. There is, again, no evidence for it that I can see. It wouldn't
surprise me at all, nor would it derogate the essential nature of the PCP
whether you're fer or agin 'em, if such a struggle *were* being carried
out--they are in a crucial period, and under immense pressure. I'd be
very surprised were such a debate not raging in the Party, especially
with Guzman out of the picture for the moment.

As to a discussion regarding the final seizure of power, I think that,
>from all evidence outside of the PCP's own material, such a move would be,
to say the least, premature. Words like "adventurism," and "left
opportunism" leap to mind in this regards.
>
> It's the RCP-USA that has no two-line struggle within it, except perhaps
> at the highest level.  For rank and file members, "two-line struggle" means
> that the big shots lecture you about the "party's correct line" until you
> either agree with them or quit--or if you don't do either, they just kick you
> out.  As far as I can see, there's no similarity at all between the PCP
> and RCP-USA, but there's plenty of similarity between PCP and the
> CP of China under Mao's leadership.

Sounds like the RCP's an unpleasant place. But, most of us have had that
figured out for a long time (although their bookstores are an *excellent*
example of weapons to be used in the struggle).

My view of the PCP is that it's what has been termed "bureaucratic
centralism" that rules. I.e., the Party's highest bodies make the
decisions, and the cadre base carries them out. Sure, info flows from the
base to the top, but *decision-making* is made without the input of the
base. That's not Leninism, imho. If I'm incorrect, I invite your reply.

C2



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---