Lessons from the Maoist wars

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If I understand him correctly, I think I also agree with Hans Ehrbar.

I have already posted a question about negotiations, because I think
the political content of this dispute is one which the opposing sides
consider so serious that it is regarded by at least one side as a question
of revisionism - even the thought that that the leader of the revolution
might negotiate under duress, or take part in some disussions that
could be misrepresented by the regime, is so unthinkable as to be
a sign of revisionism.

While this is obviously a difficult situation for a
revolutionary movement to handle, the idealist undialectical
approach to its disussion does not help.

The one sided attacks on Avakian are  blows aimed at the sack but
intended for the ass - any members of the PCP or its supporters who
might consider that Gonzalo was in favour of talks at this stage.

It seems clear that the PCP leadership is determined to press ahead with
armed struggle, but it may have inside knowedge that the situation is
more complicated than it wishes to admit in public.  If his channels of
communication are good, this could explain Quispe insisting that the party
wishes to continue to work in RIM despite its criticsisms of Avakian, and
his intemperate criticisms of Arce Borja.

A more dialectical approach would not treat the contradictions within a
party about peace talks as antagonistic, but the Maoist Wars clearly
demonstrate that they are.

Luis, Adolfo and Marcellina have indulged in personal abuse and ridicule.

More systematically, Adolfo has insisted  not just that criticism should
be sharp to wake the person up, but that there is a place for "merciless"
criticism because this is a struggle against revisionism. The heartlessness
of this is disturbing. Even Jay who has strong criticisms of Luis,
waited until he was sure that Luis was out of police danger.

Considering that marxists are supposed to be concerned with the emancipation
of humanity, the ill treatment of a fellow marxist even though he has  insulted
you repeatedly and you believe is concealing a capitulationist line,
still looks bad. Such ruthlessness looks "Stalinist".

Adolfo commended a "merciless" approach to Matt. Lenin also uses the word
"merciless" approvingly in a comment on Engels' writings against
opportunism:

"Such opinions, and extremely interesting ones at that, also abound
in the published correspondence. And what runs like a red thread
through all these opinions is something quite different, namely,
a warning against the "Right wing" of the workers party, a merciless
(sometimes a *furious*) war upon *opportunism* in social democracy."
(emphasis as original) April 6 1907 "Preface to the Russian Translation
of Letters ..."

Mao however *cautions* about "merciless" struggle. In Oppose Stereotyped
Party Writing (Feb 1942): "Two terms used to appear in the articles
and speeches of many comrades, one being 'ruthless struggle' and the
other 'merciless blows'. Measures of that kind are entirely necessary
against the enemy, or against enemy ideology, but to use them against our
own comrades is wrong."


So I would suggest an undialectical tendency to treat complicated political
contradictions as contradictions with enemies, and the rapid,
amplificatory effect of internet, have led to one merciless blow falling
on another. Fujimori would be pleased.


Adolfo, IMO also misattributed Mao's remark about knowing who
are you enemies and who are your friends, as an argument for treating
people in serious error as political enemies. The reverse is the thrust
of Mao's argument. The opening paragraph of the opening
article of the Selected Works  goes:

"Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first
importance for the revolution. The basic reason why all previous
revolutionary struggles in China achieved so little was their failure
to unite with real friends in order to attack real enemies. A revolutionary
party is the guide of the masses, and no revolution ever succeeds when
the revolutionary party leads them astray. To ensure that we will
definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses
astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friens in order to
attack our real enemies. To distinguish real friends from real enemies,
we must make a general analysis of the economic status of the
various classes in Chinese society and of their respective
attitudes towards the revolution."

Clearly this is nothing to do with personal attacks even if you have decided
that the other person is a revisionist.

Maybe other marxist sources support merciless blows in that situation
but not this passage of Mao.

Chris
London.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---