Re: marxism & (under)development

[zodiac@xxxxxxxxxxxx (zodiac)]

I am increasingly forced to side with Adolfo, and against my friends, on
this issue of the PCP. I'm sure that makes Adolfo smile, as it is part of
Mao's strategy of confrontation in certain ripe environments. Smile away.
But I cannot sit by idly while people trash the PCP as some sort of backward
organization of "dumb illiterates."

What I don't understand about the few people in here who like to slag the
PCP is: What is your point? Your intent? Is it just coz Adolfo peed on your
shoes? Or are you trying to extrapolate some "universal" series of
organizational principles from this particular application of Mao? I'm
serious, if you could explain the root of your hostility to the civil war in
Peru, I'd be appreciative because I still haven't heard a cogent
counterargument. Instead, I regularly read Gary M.'s interweaving of the
personality of Adolfo with the entire movement. That movement existed long
before he appeared on the list.

>The exchanges with the PCP crowd, and about Peru, Maoism, and sex, should
>lead to some serious discussion about the relation of Marxism to the level
>of economic and social development.

I agree.

But what do you think "Marxism" is, Doug? Specifically, is it revolutionary
or evolutionary? If you think it's evolutionary, then there is no comparing
Peru et al with western Marxism.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, you agree that Marxism is revolutionary,
then the next question is what kind of "discipline" you favor in the pursuit
of success in revolution (otherwise why bother, better to just shoot
yourself in the head and save some innocent lives). Some form of unity is
essential.

"Western Marxism," when divorced from the intellectual pot-banging and
preening, is a sorry chronology of splits and defeats and defeats and
splits. It's bankrupt in terms of _doing_ something. It has no unity about
absolutely anything. Small wonder it has adopted an "evolutionary" theory,
wherein all we have to do is wait for the "inevitable" fall of capitalism.

That theory is a product of the atomization of the proletariat, which often
prefers to kid itself it is the sons and daughters of "rugged
individualists." They refuse combinations like unions, forget anything
militant or revolutionary. This is exceptionally so in the US, where I think
union membership in the workforce has plummetted to something like 16 per
cent (Doug undoubtedly has far better figures on this than I).

How can any degree of lateral unity be attained via any western strain of
Marxism? You sure don't see it from the Trotskyists who split faster than
fruit flies multiply -- as Lou P. recently noted.

Without some situation-specific form of unity, can there be any success
against a much more materially powerful enemy? In peasant cultures, this
takes the form of community activity and support bases, actually helping
people, and often exacting brutal justice against brutal oppressors.

I understand if you don't like those tactics in a First World context. They
aren't intended to be used there. But, what form do you imagine this "unity"
could take in developed countries? Is there even one at all?

>Maybe all the attempts to revise
>Marxism to apply to semi-literate, semi-industrialized agrarian-rural
>societies - and the enthusiasm of First World radical intellectuals for
>such a project - have been mistakes after all.

"Mistakes?"

I think that, say, what the Vietnamese people accomplished was historic and
should never be thought of as a "mistake," nor the millions who died
forgotten. KM himself commented at least twice that he was "no Marxist" --
and today he might recognize even less the many forms of theory attributed
to his name. But one thing I do know: he would have supported the actual
attempts of the oppressed to liberate themselves -- as he did the Paris
Commune, despite warning against it, and despite it being full of various
"ideological enemies."

>Educated aristocrats like AO
>nominate themselves as the vanguard of a people with an understanding of
>their own misery, but not much more, which makes it easy for the leadership
>to hijack the revolution in their own interests - they become a kind of
>hothouse bourgeoisie who (would) promote a distorted and undemocratic
>development that is unable to cope, except through repression, with the
>strains coming from within their own societies and from imperial
>hostilities from without.

This is a good point. But it assumes Adolfo seriously thinks he can apply
the specific tactics of Peru to New York City. Does he? Maybe he does. I
don't know. Adolpho is far less clear-cut on those questions about the First
World proles, like Boddhi is posing currently.

But even granting (again for the sake of argument) that he is trying to
apply peasant tactics to a proletarian environment, I don't think he (or
anyone else trying to do that) are in anyway "hijacking" the Peruvian
revolution... I ain't pretending to be an expert on Peru. With that caveat,
let me state that I think the leadership of the PCP is completely homegrown
-- and _extremely_ progressive when compared to the environment out of which
it grew. I also believe the PCP is popular because it simply does more good
than harm. It helps make the lives of most people better (and gives them
actual hope, of course, it will get better still). I also believe that PCP
is as lateral as you can get and as deeply rooted in the populous as
possible. The only way to surgically remove the PCP from the populous would
be to genocidally exterminate that populous. Rather like the USA tried
against the Viet Cong...

Would that all western socialist "movements" were so lateral, thereby
preventing their collapse with a police raid or two... or the activities of
whatever intellectuals think they can "hijack" the revolution.

Ken.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---