« 1 2345» Pages: ( 1/8 total )
本页主题: MIM Documents for record 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点

 MIM Documents for record

Maoist Internationalist Movement Documents for record

Maoist Internationalist Movement
A Call to the International Communist Movement Regarding the Birthday of W.E.B. Du Bois

[The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is seeking signatories for the following statement to be issued February 23rd, 2001. Current signatories so far are the RAIL-France, Russian Maoist Party, Ghetto Liberation Political Party (GLPP), Studies for the Liberation of Aztlán and Latin America(SLALA) in addition to MIM itself.

MIM plans to ask the Pan-Africanist organizations of the world, the AAPRP, the African People's Socialist Party, the Communist Party of the Philippines, Luis Arce Borja, the Turkish comrades of TKP/ML, any other Maoist party, the William Wallace Society, ASIAN!, Red Phoenix, USW, RAIL chapters, Dennis Brutus and any other interested organizations and individuals to sign the declaration. We will report back on our successes and failures. If you would like to be a signatory, please write to mim3@mim.org or to MIM, PO Box 29670, Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670.]

On this February 23rd, 2001, we mark the birthday in 1868 of W.E.B. Du Bois, pioneering Black leader, Pan-Africanist and communist. As W.E.B. Du Bois made use of his birthday and autobiography for the political issues of the day, it is fitting that we the undersigned signatories come together on an issue that Du Bois raised again and again in his lifetime.

In 1820, the largest gap between any two countries in per capita income was over 3:1, but by 1992 it had steadily increased to 72:1. So it is that what Du Bois called the "color line" has deepened in economic significance. The countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America continue to face brutal exploitation by the Western imperialist countries, even while openly colonial rule has been replaced with other forms of control in most Third World countries.

Since Du Bois died in 1963, Mao also died and the Soviet bloc fell apart. Despite these changes for communists to consider, more broadly, in the world, the class and national struggles of the people focus most sharply in the Third World and with an increasing intensity. All of this is known to the communists especially those most dedicated to rescuing Marx from scientific irrelevance.

What remains more controversial is why the white working class of the imperialist countries persists in its political quietude or outright support of imperialism. Like his contemporary Lenin, Du Bois put his finger on this question exactly. Echoing Engels before him, Du Bois in his 90th year of life said, "There is no European labor party ready to help emancipate the workers of Asia and Africa. On the contrary, all are willing to take higher wages based on colonial profits; and to fight wars waged to defend those profits. Back of this attitude of Western Europe is the United States: ready with funds to help Europe; ready to assist any European power to keep control of colonial peoples, or to supplant it as a colonial ruler."

Nor did this attitude reflect a treacherous leadership by the labor parties of the imperialist countries, because it extends to the masses of the white race oppressor nations. The leaders merely reflect the will of their white followers on this question. That is why, when he was 90, Du Bois said, "Western Europe hopes that without essential alteration in its way of life an accommodation can be made between their demands and the upsurging of the lower classes and peoples. They see this chance in four ways: home labor appeased by elementary education and some political power; with higher wages paid out of profit from investment in foreign lands, which the home labor makes sure by fighting in world wars."

This is not to say Du Bois believed that white people had some biological characteristic that forced them toward imperialism. Du Bois explicitly denied that race had any scientific meaning in that sense. Rather, the underlying basis of racist ideology backing up imperialism is economic.

Shortly before death, Du Bois said, "Today my resentment at the doctrine of race superiority, as preached and practiced by the white world for the last 250 years, has been pointed to with sharp criticism and contrasted with the charity of Gandhi and of the colored minister [Dr. Martin Luther King] who led the recent boycott in Alabama. I am quite frank: I do not pretend to 'love' white people. I think that as a race they are the most selfish of any on earth. . . . I refer to the white world as a whole. We are come to a time when the sins and mistakes of the whole group must be considered and judged, not simply small localities or single individuals."("Whites in Africa after Negro Autonomy," 1962)

Du Bois turned to analysis of national oppression because of the failure of the white man to accept integration, as Du Bois learned through strenuous struggle in his days with the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) until 1934. Today his analysis of national oppression and its underlying economic basis is even more relevant than when he wrote it.

For his analysis, he was attacked from various quarters that tried to claim that the white working class of the imperialist countries was as proletarian as the miner in Azania, and maybe more advanced. Today when the international communist movement has at least three different organizations trying to regroup in the name of Mao Zedong, who made Du Bois's birthday a national holiday, we cannot stand aside and let Marxism die because we did not heed Du Bois's teachings.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a central idea of Marxism, but the white workers of imperialism are not a proletariat. There are many claiming to work to overthrow imperialism, but few who know how to measure it. Surely those who believe that the white worker of the United $tates is qualitatively the same as the Third World proletariat have no plans to end the plunder of the Third World on the oppressor nation workers' behalf. They plan only to create social-imperialism, socialism in words and imperialism in deeds. They will continue to rob the Third World to assist with the living standards of the imperialist countries if they come to power, and we will have nothing to do with such alleged communists.

Du Bois criticized Norman Thomas in his day for ignoring the Black man in the call for socialism. Today with the deepening of the economic basis of the color line, there are those who still ignore the Third World worker when talking of socialism. We call on all true proletarian internationalists to criticize all Third World organizations covering for super-exploitation and destroy all imperialist country organizations covering for super-exploitation. Such organizations cannot be said to be opposing imperialism. The oppressed and exploited people on one side of the color line will prevail.

We the undersigned call to the active elements of the international proletariat not to capitulate to another round of unity with the white chauvinist line. It is not we who are isolated. It is the white chauvinists and their would-be comprador props of a new social-imperialist order who are isolated. Unity with them can only lead to more exploitation, national oppression and war. Let us struggle to overthrow imperialism, once and for all.

[Form letter follows] December 10, 2000

Dear Comrade(s)

At the moment, there is a situation of great fluidness in the international communist movement brought about by a wide range of forces who are reconsidering the history of communism in light of the definitive collapse of the Soviet Union. At the same time, Third World armed struggles continue to arise against U.$. imperialism.

However, all of the large scale organizational efforts and conferences are incorrectly uniting around the demands of the imperialist country so-called workers. It is time that we who take full account of the parasitism of imperialism stand up and be counted and try to influence and remold the youth taking a fresh look at communism. Otherwise, this period of opportunity and re-examination will be wasted for some new forces arising internationally, some of whom may reach political maturity without ever studying parasitism, the labor theory of value, super-exploitation and the economic basis of the "color line."

Whatever differences the signatories may have, it is important to show the entire world that these conferences--some of which include up to 136 parties--are not the only available alternative, and certainly not the correct one if they unite for labor aristocracy demands.

For this reason, we ask for your public signature to the enclosed "Call to the International Communist Movement Regarding the Birthday of W.E.B. Du Bois." We intend to print the call and its signatories in time for February the 23rd.

If possible, please email mim3@mim.org with your willingness to be a signatory. Alternatively, write to the address below.

In Unity and Struggle,

International Minister
Maoist Internationalist Movement
PO Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029

See also http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM

Contact MIM by writing mim@mim.org

Return to MIM Homepage

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 06:15 | [楼 主]
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


April, 1996 issue excerpts

Mao on the COMINTERN

The existence of the (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) RIM and now its way of looking at the People's War in Peru raises the question of what Mao thought about how to organize international solidarity amongst communist parties. Mao did not lead an international party organization like the COMINTERN (Communist International), which Stalin disbanded in 1943. Hence, in practice, Mao is quite clear in opposition to such an international party. Likewise, he published some line statements on the question of having an international party.

"The Comintern Has Long Ceased to Meddle in Our Internal Affairs" excerpt from speech in Chief-fang Jih-pao, May 28, 1943

Comrade Mao Tse-tung first pointed out that the dissolution of the Communist International was, exactly as the American press agency had reported, "a great event marking the dividing line between two epochs."

Comrade Mao Tse-tung asked: "Why should the Communist International be disbanded? Did it not devote all its efforts to the emancipation of the working class of the whole world and to the war against fascism?"

Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: "It is true that the Communist International was created by Lenin himself. During its entire existence it has rendered the greatest services in helping each country to organize a truly revolutionary workers' party, and it has also contributed enormously to the great cause of organizing the anti-fascist war." Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed particularly to the great services of the Communist International in aiding the cause of the Chinese revolution...

Comrade Mao Tse-tung further pointed out: "Revolutionary movements can be neither exported nor imported. Despite the fact that aid was accorded by the Communist International, the birth and development of the Chinese Communist Party resulted from the f act that China herself had a conscious working class. The Chinese working class created its own party--the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party, although it has a history of only twenty-two years, has already undertaken three great revolut ionary movements...

Since the Communist International has rendered such great services to China and to various other countries, why should it be necessary to proclaim its dissolution? To this question Comrade Mao Tse-tung replied: "It is a principle of Marxism-Leninism th at the forms of revolutionary organizations must be adapted to the necessities of the revolutionary struggle. If a form of organization is no longer adapted to the necessities of the struggle, then this form of organization must be abolished." Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that at present the form of revolutionary organization known as the Communist International is no longer adapted to the necessities of the struggle. To continue this organizational form would, on the contrary, hinder the development of the revolutionary struggle in each country. What is needed now is the strengthening of the national Communist Party [min-tsu Kung-ch'an-tang] of each country, and we no longer need this international leading center. There are three main reasons for thi s:(1) The internal situation in each country and the relations between the different countries are more complicated than they have been in the past and are changing more rapidly. It is no longer possible for a unified international organization to adapt i tself to these extremely complicated and rapidly changing circumstances. Correct leadership must grow out of a detailed analysis of these conditions, and this makes it even more necessary for the Communist Party of each country to undertake this itself. T he Communist International, which is far removed from the concrete struggle in each country, was adapted to the relatively simple conditions of the past, when changes took place rather slowly, but now it is no longer a suitable instrument. . . . (Stuart S chram, ed. The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (NY: Frederick Praeger, 1963),pp. 288-89.)

"We Are Not Going to Turn the Country Over to Moscow!" Question [from Edgar Snow]: In actual practice, if the Chinese revolution were victorious, would the economic and political relationship between Soviet China and Soviet Russia be maintained within the Third International or a similar organization, or would there probably be some kind of actual merger of governments? Would the Chinese Soviet Government be comparable in its relation to Moscow to the present government of Outer Mongolia?

Answer [from Mao]:I assume this is a purely hypothetical question. As I have told you, the Red Army is not now seeking the hegemony of power, but a united China against Japanese imperialism.

The Third International is an organization in which the vanguard of the world proletariat brings together its collective experience for the benefit of all revolutionary peoples through the world. It is not an administrative organization nor has it any political power beyond that of an advisory capacity. Structurally it is not very different from the Second International, though in content it is vastly different. But just as no one would say that in a country where the Cabinet is organized by the social -democrats the Second International is dictator, so it is ridiculous to say that the Third International is dictator in countries where there are Communist parties.

In the U.S.S.R., the Communist Party is in power, yet even there the Third International does not rule nor does it have any direct political power over the people at all. Similarly, it can be said that although the Communist Party of china is a member of the Comintern, still this in no sense means that Soviet china is ruled by Moscow or by the Comintern. We are certainly not fighting for an emancipated China in order to turn the country over to Moscow!

The Chinese Communist Party is only one party in China, and in its victory it will have to speak for the whole nation. It cannot speak for the Russian people or rule for the Third International, but only in the interests of the Chinese masses. Only whe re the Chinese masses coincide with the interests of the Russian masses can it be said to be 'obeying the will' of Moscow. But of course this basis of common benefit will be tremendously broadened, once the masses of China are in democratic power and soci ally and economically emancipated, like their brothers in Russia.

When Soviet governments have been established in many countries, the problem of an international union of soviets may arise, and it will be interesting to see how it will be solved. But today I cannot suggest the formula; it is a problem which has not been and cannot be solved in advance. In the world of today, with increasingly close economic and cultural intimacies between different states and peoples, such a union would seem to be highly desirable, if achieved on a voluntary basis.

Clearly, however, the last point is of utmost importance; such a world union could be successful only if every nation had the right to enter or leave the union according to the will of the people, and with its sovereignty intact, and certainly never at the 'command' of Moscow. No Communist ever thought otherwise, and the myth of 'world domination from Moscow' is an invention of the Fascists and counterrevolutionaries.

(Stuart Schram, ed. The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung (NY: Frederick Praeger, 1963), pp. 286-7.)

Return to Maoist Sojourner Page | Return to MIM Homepage

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 06:16 | 1 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


5th Anniversary of the September Speech:
Chairman Gonzalo's Historical Mandate
From El Diario International #41, Luis Arce Borja, ed.

The Communist Party of Peru calls to render homage to the leader of the Peruvian revolution. General Mobilisation in Peru and abroad.

Last September 24 was the fifth anniversary of the speech of Chairman Gonzalo. A memorable speech won in titanic combat over Fujimori's myrmidons who, like savage dogs, were barking and surrounding the cage from which the leader of the revolution addre ssed the people, the working class, and the communists of the entire world.

El Diario Internacional joins in these celebrations, and for that purpose, presents this special article that attempts a synthesis of the historical significance of Chairman Gonzalo's latest words.

We consider that the greatest homage that can be offered to the leader of the People's War is to defend his thought and the integrity of his exemplary condition as a communist. This means, to reject and fight against all those who attempted to portray Chairman Gonzalo as a vile fraudster and author of the purported "peace letters".

There is only one word to describe Chairman Gonzalo's speech. It was extraordinary and full of historical significance. It was a speech consistent with his condition as the leader who set in motion the revolutionary process that from 1980 is leading to wards the liberation of the oppressed masses of Peru.

These dramatically adverse conditions could not prevent the great Peruvian Maoist from delivering a message in which the most fundamental questions of the Peruvian revolution are contained. This memorable speech by Chairman Gonzalo constitutes a challe nge to the Fujimori regime, to US imperialism, and all reactionaries in the world.

As we know, on September 24 1992, Chairman Gonzalo, dressed by his captors in convict stripes, and from behind the bars of an iron cage, was presented in what was billed as a "press briefing". The event took place in the inner yard of the anti-terroris t police headquarters and was guarded by overflying helicopters and around 200 sharpshooters from the armed forces. The "briefing" was attended by police officers in plain clothes, agents of the National Intelligence Service, and several dozen mercenary j ournalists from Peru and abroad.

The Peruvian regime, implementing the advice received from the American CIA, organised this crass spectacle aiming to humiliate and ridicule the leader of the Communist Party of Peru (PCP).

The methodology and the behaviour used on that day against Chairman Gonzalo, would mark the beginning of a diabolic plan aimed at destroying the world wide prestige of the great Peruvian revolutionary. This plan reached it greatest level of sophisticat ion in October 1993, with the fraudulent plot that has become known as the "peace letters" fraud. A plot that the regime's propaganda attributed to Chairman Gonzalo himself.


The concise allocution of Chairman Gonzalo lasted barely a few minutes. However, it embodied and synthesized a whole series of political, ideological and military directives. In a single document, Chairman Gonzalo made a precise synthesis of the strate gy of the PCP for the seizure of power. These directives were delivered as a mandate for the leaders, cadres, combatants and masses of the Party, to take up responsibility in accomplishing.

As the leader of the Party and the revolution, Chairman Gonzalo correctly held that his arrest, although a blow for the revolutionary process, would not in the least impede the advance along the victorious road of the People's War.

In this message, Chairman Gonzalo sought a supreme objective: To address the Party and the oppressed people of Peru and express to them his firm conviction that the revolution should continue without the slightest interruption. That nothing, not even t he most brutal repression, should change the course of the process of the armed struggle.

The Chairman commanded that no one should deviate even a millimetre from the strategic (political and military) plans elaborated for advancing towards the seizure of power. He took advantage of the bizarre platform provided by the Fujimori regime, to p rovide guidance for the leaders and militants of the PCP. He delivered to them a complete blue print to deport themselves in a period in which he no longer would be physically present. He said:

"We are living historical moments, we all know this to be the case, let us not delude ourselves. In these moments we should bring all our strength to bear in confronting difficulties and continuing with our tasks. And we us to achieve our objectives! S core triumphs! Achieve victory! That is what we need to do.......We should continue with the tasks laid down at the III Plenum of the Central Committee. A glorious Plenum! These accords - you should be aware - are already being implemented and that shall continue to be the case".

"We shall continue to implement the IV Plan of Strategic Development for the People's War aimed at the Seizure of Power, we shall continue to develop the VI Military Plan to Build-up for the Seizure of Power. This will continue. It is a duty! We shall carry it out because we are what we are, and because we are bound in duty to do it with the proletariat and the people!"

A fact of enormous significance that we should emphasise in Chairman Gonzalo's speech, is his courageous reaffirmation of his condition as a communist and combatant of the revolution. The leader of the People's War did not even for an instant kowtow be fore his enemies. On the contrary, he demonstrated that a communist of his stature never ceases to be a communist. The Chairman gave an example of how a real communist should conduct him/herself when - as part of the risks and accidents that a liberation war entails - falling into the hands of the class enemy.

Chairman Gonzalo taught us with his vivid example on that occasion, that a communist -- in whatever circumstance or place he/she may find him/herself- must continue to fight for the people's interests. In that occasion, Chairman Gonzalo pointed out:

"Here we stand as flesh and blood of the people and fighting in these trenches, that are also trenches for combat. This we do, because we are Communists! Because here, we also defend the interests of the people, the principles of the Party, and the Peo ple's War. That is what we have done, what we are doing, and what we will continue to do!"


In Chairman Gonzalo's speech we also find embodied his ideological outlook. He misses nothing. In delivering this ideological legacy, Chairman Gonzalo refers to Maoism as the third and superior stage of Marxism. He points out that, at the international level, the main task is to build up Communist Parties based upon Maoism. That this task is one of fundamental importance to be able to confront the actions that will face us within the new wave of revolution we have already upon us. In that occasion, the Chairman said:

"........In our view of the world, Maoism is unceasingly marching forward to assuming the lead in the new wave of world proletarian revolution. Pay attention and understand this well!.......What do we see today unfolding in the world? What do we need? We need Maoism to become embodied in the masses, and Maoism now is being embodied. We need Maoism to generate Communist Parties that would advance and guide this new great wave of the world proletarian revolution that is already upon us".

Part II



If anything has been demonstrated in these 5 years, is that the People's War does not cease even for an instant. With its highs and lows, the armed struggle has retained its validity and political influence among the oppressed masses. This relevant fac tor confirms the strategic impact of Chairman Gonzalo's speech.

In consequence, the events that have taken place from September 24, 1992 to September 1997, have completely confirmed that the mandate issued by the leader of the revolution was correct, and that this mandate complied with a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ana lysis and political line.

We should remember that the capture of Chairman Gonzalo (September 12, 1992) was portrayed by the Peruvian regime as the end of the road for the PCP and the armed struggle. To this end, both in Peru and abroad, the regime developed a wide mis-informati on campaign aimed at portraying the PCP as an organisation, that without the presence of its principal leader, would end up rolling into the abyss of oblivion.

In this manner, Fujimori and the top leaders of his Armed Forces, promoted the idea that the Maoist guerillas would be completely and definitely smashed by July 1995. As everyone can see, July 1995 has gone by, and the guerillas led by the PCP continue to act in full swing and constant development.


The continuation of the People's War has not only meant the defeat of the strategic plans for repression of the regime, but also the consolidation of the PCP and all its apparatuses taking part in the revolution.

The counter-insurgency propaganda of the regime portrayed the PCP as some sort of Mesianic sect, an organisation that exclusively depended on Chairman Gonzalo. The "analysts" and "Senderologists" of the regime based themselves upon this premise to loud ly assert that "Shining Path without Gonzalo is finished". However, the concrete facts show that not only has been the PCP able to recover from the blow it suffered with the capture of Chairman Gonzalo, but that it has now completely recovered, and is, mo reover, advancing full steam ahead.


And what is the concrete situation in Peru today?

The first thing we should mention is that the People's war continues to be the number one problem facing the Peruvian state.

This fact expresses itself in the growing militarization of the country. In this respect, the repressive apparatus of the state has a total personnel of 627.000. Of this total, 400.000 are members of the paramilitary organisations (rondas campesinas (p easant reactionary militias), civil defence groups, armed gangs of the municipal authorities, etc). Another 135.000 correspond to the Armed Forces (Army, Navy and Air Force), while 92.000 make up the personnel in the various police forces and agencies of repression. This total does not take into account foreign military advisors present in Peru, coming from the US, Russia, Israel and other countries.


The militarisation of the State, the government's crisis, the growth of hunger and immiseration, and also the generalised corruption in the highest official spheres, are providing a rich compost for the ground upon which the People's War continues to d evelop.

As Chairman Gonzalo has pointed out, the rotting away of the bureaucratic-landlord state, will inevitably lead to the seizure of power. As part and parcel of this same phenomena, the PCP is now ready to overcome the bend along the road and to complete its general reorganisation. These twin objectives, that are about to culminate successfully, will provide greater political and military force for this Party, steeled as it is, in the example and the teachings of Chairman Gonzalo.
Return to Maoist Sojourner Homepage | Return to MIM Homepage

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 06:18 | 2 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


Materialism: A discussion including Satanists

    * V.I. Lenin on premises of materialist philosophy

    * Huey Newton fought idealism and solipsism

    * Marx and Engels against the "private science" of intellectuals

    * Go to Discussion of Lenin's book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

Popular opposition to materialism

    * MIM: Trotskyists don't see practice as the criterion of truth
    * MIM offers 12 step program for avoiding idealism
    * MIM: Most "leftism" is pipe-dreaming not science

Psychological well-being

    * Tani of Red Ray Grotto on dualism

Causes of rejection of materialism

    * Brain damage: Vad from the Red Ray Grotto on Damasio
    * Ruling class manipulation: Maoist Peking Review on the rise of religion in the USSR

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 12:56 | 3 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


    Maoist Internationalist Movement    

V. I. Lenin

   Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing
   House, no year given)
   "The fundamental premise of materialism is the recognition of the
   external world, of the existence of things outside and independent of
   our mind." (p. 78)
   "Did Nature Exist Prior to Man? We have already seen that this
   question is particularly repugnant to the philosophy of Mach and
   Avenarius. Natural science positively asserts that the earth once
   existed in such a state that no man or any other creature existed or
   could have existed on it. Organic matter is a later phenomenon, the
   fruit of a long evolution. It follows that there was no sentient
   matter, no 'complexes of sensations,' no self that was supposedly
   'indissolubly' connected with the environment in accordance with
   Avenarius' doctrine.. Matter is primary, and thought, consciousness,
   sensation are products of a very high development. Such is the
   materialist theory of knowledge, to which natural science
   instinctively subscribes." (p. 69)
   "We have seen that the starting point and the fundamental premise of
   the philosophy of empirio-criticism is subjective idealism. The world
   is our sensation--this is the fundamental premise. . . .The absurdity
   of this philosophy lies in the fact that it leads to solipsism, to the
   recognition of the existence of the philosophising individual only."
   (p. 89)
   "Yesterday we did not know that coal tar contained alizarin. Today we
   learned that it does. The question is, did coal tar contain alizarin
   "Of course it did. To doubt it would be to make a mockery of modern
   "And if that is so, three important epistemological conclusions
   "1)Things exist independently of our consciousness, independently of
   our perceptions, outside of us, for it is beyond doubt that alizarin
   existed in coal tar yesterday and it is equally beyond doubt that
   yesterday we knew nothing of the existence of this alizarin and
   received no sensations from it.
   "2) There is definitely no difference in principle between the
   phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such
   difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is
   not yet known. And philosophical inventions of specific boundaries
   between the one and the other, inventions to the effect that the
   thing-in-itself is "beyond" phenomena (Kant), or that we can or must
   fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from the problem
   of a world which in one part or another is still unknown but which
   exists outside us (hume)--all this is the sheerest nonsense, Schrulle,
   crotchet, invention.
   "3)In the theory of knowledge, as in every other branch of science, we
   must think dialectically, that is, we must not regard our knowledge as
   ready-made and unalterable, but must determine how knowledge emerges
   from ignorance, how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes more
   complete and more exact."
   (p. 98)

[About]     [Contact]     [Home]     [News]     [RAIL]

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 12:57 | 4 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


    Maoist Internationalist Movement    

   "The Black Panther Party has chosen materialist assumptions on which
   to ground its ideology. This is a purely arbitrary choice. Idealism
   might be the real happening; we might not be here at all. We don't
   really know whether we are in Connecticut or in San Francisco, whether
   we are dreaming and in a dream state, or whether we are awake and in a
   dream state. Perhaps we are just somewhere in a void; we simply can't
   be sure. But because the members of the Black Panther Party are
   materialists, we believe that some day scientists will be able to
   deliver the information that will give us not only the evidence but
   the proof that there is a material world and that its genesis was
   material --motion and matter--not spiritual.
   "Until that time, however, and for the purposes of this discussion, I
   merely ask that we agree on the stipulation that a material world
   exists and develops externally and independently of us all. With this
   stipulation, we have the foundation for an intelligent dialogue. We
   assume that there is a material world and that it exists and develops
   independently of us; and we assume that the human organism, through
   its sensory system, has the ability to observe and analyze the
   material world. . .
   "The dialectical method is essentially an ideology, yet we believe
   that it is superior to other ideologies because it puts us more in
   contact with what we believe to be the real world; it increases our
   ability to deal with that world and shape its development and change.
   "You could easily say, 'Well, this method may be successfully applied
   in one particular instance, but how do you know that it is an
   infallible guide in all cases?' The answer is that we don't know. We
   don't say 'all cases' or 'infallible guide' because we try not to
   speak in such absolute and inclusive terms. We only say that we have
   to analyze each instance, that we have found this method the best
   available in the course of our analyses, and that we think the method
   will continue to prove itself in the future.
   "We sometimes have a problem because people do not understand the
   ideology that Marx and Engels began to develop. People say, 'You claim
   to be Marxists, but did you know that Marx was a racist?' . . .
   "If you are a dialectical materialist, however, Marx's racism does not
   matter. You do not believe in the conclusions of one person but in the
   validity of a mode of thought; and we in the Party, as dialectical
   materialists, recognize Karl Marx as one of the great contributors to
   that mode of thought. Whether or not Marx was a racist is irrelevant
   and immaterial to whether or not the system of thinking he helped
   develop delivers truths about processes in the material world. . . .
   John B. Watson once stated that his favorite pastime was hunting and
   hanging niggers, yet he made great forward strides in the analysis and
   investigation of conditioned responses."
   Huey P. Newton in In Search of Common Ground: Conversations with Erik
   H. Erikson and Huey P. Newton, Kai T. Erikson intro. (NY: W.W. Norton
   & Co., 1973, pp. 24-7.

[About]     [Contact]     [Home]     [News]     [RAIL]

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 12:57 | 5 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


    Maoist Internationalist Movement    

   Marx and Engels said:
   It is an unavoidable phenomenon, well established in the course of
   development, that people from the ruling class also join the
   proletariat and supply it with educated elements. This we have already
   clearly stated in the Manifesto. Here, however, two remarks are to be
   First, such people, in order to be useful to the proletarian movement,
   must bring with them really educated elements. This, however, is not
   the case with the great majority of German bourgeois converts. . .
   .They are completely deficient in real, factual, or theoretical
   material. Instead, there are efforts to bring superficial socialist
   ideas into harmony with the various theoretical viewpoints which the
   gentlemen from the universities, or from wherever, bring with them,
   and among whom one is more confused than the other, thanks to the
   process of decomposition in which German philosophy finds itself
   today. Instead of first studying the new science [scientific
   socialism] thoroughly, everyone relies rather on the viewpoint he
   brought with him, makes a short cut toward it with his own private
   science, and immediately steps forth with pretensions of wanting to
   teach it. Hence, there are among those gentlemen as many viewpoints as
   there are heads; instead of clarifying anything, they only produce
   arrant confusion -- fortunately, almost always only among themselves.
   Such educated elements, whose guiding principle is to teach what they
   have not learned, the party can well dispense with.
   Second, when such people from other classes join the proletarian
   movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring
   with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc.,
   prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian
   viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere
   overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. In so petty-bourgeois a
   country as Germany, such conceptions certainly have their
   justification, but only outside the Social-Democratic Labor party. If
   the gentlemen want to build a social-democratic petty-bourgeois party,
   they have a full right to do so; one could then negotiate with them,
   conclude agreements, etc., according to circumstances. But in a labor
   party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which
   necessitates tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to
   allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that
   a break with them is only a matter of time.
   FREDERICK ENGELS September 17-18 1879
   A Private Circulation Letter from Marx and Engels (First drafted by
   Engels) to Germany's Social-Democratic leadership

[About]     [Contact]     [Home]     [News]     [RAIL]

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 12:57 | 6 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


    Maoist Internationalist Movement    

  /* Written 4:14 pm Nov 5, 1992 by dwalters@igc.apc.org in igc:gen.socialism
   /* ---------- "More on Lies re Maoism & Pol Pot/MI" ---------- */
   So...................the fact of the matter is that China UNDER Mao
   supported PIcnochet in Chile after this murdering dictator seized
   power. Did Mao support this...cetainly HIS government did!!!! In
   addition it was MAOs failed and very flakey policy in Indonesia that
   led to the death of over 1/2 million communists an Chinese. Maoism is
   just another varient of COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY Stalinism that has
   stabbed the workers of the world in back for over 60 years. The
   ideology is the antithesis of Bolshevism and socialism. Of course
   there is always room for a NOSTALIGC tendency like the Maoist
   Internationalist Movement to make serious Marxists grin.
  Maoist Internationalist Movement replies:
   If there is an "ABC" of Marxism, dialectical materialism is part of
   it. The above criticism is not materialist.
   Why? The critic merely provides us with his/her principles (ideas) of
   what is right and wrong. No where does s/he show us where a
   revolutionary ideology has had a better track record in practice than
   Maoism. The reason is simple: there is no revolutionary ideology with
   a better track record in action. There are a lot of critics, whose
   records are worse than the Maoists'. But Mao led revolution in China
   and influenced revolutions throughout the world. In those societies
   where "Stalinist" and "Maoist" revolution succeeded, the people lived
   much better and longer than before. In the case of our critics, they
   can point to no action on their part because they have failed
   everywhere to change the status quo.
   Our critic wants to blame Mao for the Indonesian communists' failed
   strategy. It's sort of like saying that the movement in the United
   States is a failure or its members in prison or shot dead because
   Comrade Gonzalo in Peru has had too much influence. Yet it was
   precisely Mao who told admirers, "you fight your way; I'll fight
   mine." He repeatedly instructed admirers that it was incorrect to copy
   China's experience as universal. Mao and the "Stalinists" were much
   more intelligent on this point than the Trotskyists, who have brought
   about no revolution anywhere in the world after Trotsky split from
   Lenin and Stalin. Trotskyism and "back-to-Marxism-Leninism" hence bear
   the burden of being ideologies with no track record in the real world
   for success. That means they are idealist pseudo-Marxisms which amount
   to criticism of real-world revolutionaries and a fig-leaf for the
   status quo.
   The same is true of the point on Pinochet. The born-again Christians
   with a Marxist veneer recoil in disgust when they learn that Mao
   conducted diplomacy with Pinochet (or gasp, shook hands with Nixon.)
   It were as if these idealists hoped to find an all-powerful God in Mao
   Zedong and when he couldn't command events in Chile and Indonesia,
   they blamed Mao for not being the God they were looking for.
   It is well-beyond moralizing Christians that Third World government
   leaders actually had some interests that set them in contradiction
   with the imperialists. These Christians can't understand any of the
   real-world things needed to conduct successful revolutionary movements
   or how to line up the forces necessary for progressive change. All
   this kind of Christian (a.k.a. Trotskyists, anarchists and back-
   to-Marxist-Leninists) can understand is principles written in the Ten
   Commandments or the equivalent. They don't recognize the difference
   between real-world progress and the status quo of imperialism when
   they see it.
   Many people in our ranks are former Christians, er, Trotskyists or
   other idealists. We are confident that anyone seeking classless,
   boundary-less, patriarchy-less society and who believes like Mao that
   "practice is principal" will eventually join our trend. When people
   look around to see who has accomplished the most in taking the world
   toward communism (in practice), they will realize that "Stalinism" and
   Maoism are the answer. We welcome any attempt to prove that other
   ideologies have been more progressive in practice, but we assert that
   people who know some history of the international communist movement
   will quickly find that Trotskyism and anarchism have brought not one
   successful revolution anywhere in the world. We think that alone makes
   the choice between Trotskyist-anarchist idealism on the one hand and
   Maoism on the other hand very clear.
   Those who have failed to make revolution are all the more to blame for
   the massacre in Indonesia and Pinochet in Chile. It is the
   Maoists--the materialists--who threaten the "world order" while it is
   the idealists who prop it up, consciously or unconsciously.

[About]     [Contact]     [Home]     [News]     [RAIL]

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 12:58 | 7 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


    Maoist Internationalist Movement    

12-Step Young Hegelian Recovery Therapy

1. Recognize your addiction to ideas for their own sake and unattached to
meaningful action. Therapy can only work for those who wish to be cured.

2. Give up your daytime job, if you've been getting paid to have
"original" ideas at the expense of a relationship to reality AND the
ability to change that reality.

3. Examine the Marxist pharmaceutical lab. Pick the "Holy Family" cure.

4. Re-read and try really hard to figure out why Marx said:

"Ideas can never lead beyond an old-world system but only beyond the ideas
of the old-world system. Ideas cannot carry anything out at all. In order
to carry out ideas men are needed who dispose of a certain practical
force." ("The French Revolution" *The Holy Family* David McLellan ed.,
Karl Marx: Selected Writings (Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 147.)

5. Now figure out if Marx thought "Absolute Criticism" was a good thing
or not and why not:

"Absolute Criticism has declared the 'mass' to be the true enemy of the
spirit. This it develops as follows:

"'The spirit now knows where to look for its only adversary--in the
self-deception and the pithlessness of the mass.' [Go forward five
steps if you can figure out if Marx was for the overuse of the concept
of false consciousness or not.]

"Absolute Criticism proceeds from the dogma of the absolute competency of
the 'spirit'. Furthermore, it proceeds from the dogma of the extramundane
existence of the spirit, i.e. of its existence outside the mass of
humanity. Finally it transforms 'the spirit', 'progress', on the one
hand, and the 'mass', on the other, into fixed beings, into concepts,
and relates them one to the other in that form as given invariable
extremes. It does not occur to Absolute Criticism to investigate the
'spirit' itself, to find out whether it is not its own spiritualistic
nature, its airy pretensions that justify 'the phrase', 'self-deception'
and 'pithlessness'. The spirit, on the contrary, is absolute, but
unfortunately at the same time it continually falls into spiritlessness;
it continually calculates without the master, hence it must necessarily
have an adversary that intrigues against it. That adversary is the mass."

("The Idealist View of History," *The Holy Family* David McLellan ed.,
Karl Marx: Selected Writings (Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 142.)

6. Realize you must give up your misanthropic intellectualism and now
defend existing or historically existing social movements.

7. Did you just say Trotsky in 1917? If all you can say is Trotsky in
1917, then welcome to the movement for socialism in one and only one
country. Deposit your internationalist credentials in the nearest outdoor
latrine. Mr. Zhironovsky will escort you out of this program for a more
suitable one.

8. If you were a Trotskyist once, and if you only picked one more country
that happens to be led by another great speech-maker, military leader
and otherwise lucky devil who made it to power without painstaking
party-building, go forward one step for picking Castro anyway. (We know
it was a lot of work for you to pick TWO countries' revolutions existing
in reality that you actually have something positive to say about.)

9. Ask yourself why you are now defending social-democratic, bourgeois
religious and other watery movements if you are still criticizing all
the original "Stalinist" movements in China, Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea,
Albania, World War II Yugoslavia, Peru, the Philippines etc. Choose
between bourgeois pragmatism and Marxist materialism. Exit therapy
immediately if you realize you no longer wish to be a Marxist, if for
instance you don't think revolutions are necessary. Side effects of this
program may be hazardous to the health of social-democrats.

10. If your name is Proyect or Dumain, return to step 1.  [These names
in reference to participants on the "Marxism Space.]

11. We can reach a peaceful world, classlessness and economic harmony
without violence!

12. Go back to step 1 if you believed number 11.

13. Did you just say we promised only 12 steps? We could have done it in
11? Go back to step 1 with the other baby-kissing opportunist campaigners
who speak "of 'truths which are understood of themselves from the start.'"

("The Idealist View of History," *The Holy Family* David McLellan ed.,
Karl Marx: Selected Writings (Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 139.)

[About]     [Contact]     [Home]     [News]     [RAIL]

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 12:58 | 8 楼
级别: 精灵王

精华: 1
发帖: 4253
威望: 4265 点
红花: 42550 朵
贡献值: 0 点


    Maoist Internationalist Movement    

Why MIM's attitude toward "leftist" groups

  by the Maoist Internationalist Movement
   Hank Roth recently commented that MIM incorrectly stresses that there
   is one road into socialism and hence does not "work" with other
   "leftists." Indeed, the plethora of "socialist" organizations out
   there is daunting to the inexperienced. Why are there so many? "Why
   don't they work together?" ask many people.
   As MIM has said in previous postings, MIM in fact does work with other
   people who are not Maoists. In fact, most of the people MIM works with
   are not Maoists. Furthermore, MIM also has a history of working with
   organizations that we believe have incorrectly revised Marxism. Yet,
   despite these disclaimers, it is true that MIM aims to find the best
   road into socialism. That is not the same thing as saying there is one
   road into socialism, which is what our critics usually say when they
   are simplifying matters.
   MIM's basic problem with most "leftist" organizations is very simple:
   Their ideologies and strategies have led no where toward the abolition
   of class, national or gender oppression.
   We would like to think more highly of the many people calling
   themselves "leftists," "Trotskyists," "DeLeonists" etc., but alas it
   is not possible. Of course, we ourselves were often Trotskyists,
   anarchists and so on, but there is a difference between an
   inexperienced fool and a calculated one. We are all fools, but some of
   us learn from history, both recent and more distant.
   It turns out in history that "unity" and "working together" in mushy
   "leftist" coalitions DOES NOT WORK. Splitting opportunist
   mush-collections for the benefit of theoretical clarity DOES WORK to
   promote revolution and the abolition of oppression. It is
   unfortunately--for our esteem for most Amerikan "leftists"-- that
   simple. We invite our readers to study this carefully with us.
   Lenin split the international "socialist" movement, and thank goodness
   because most of the other fools (a.k.a. leftists) of his day lined up
   for the World War. It was not the mushy Mensheviks who pulled the
   Russians out of World War I. It was the mushy socialists who joined in
   large majorities the imperialist war on the sides of their governments
   throughout Europe. They failed to end World War I. Strike one against
   opportunism this century.
   Today the same thing is happening on the issue of the white working
   class. The vast majority of "socialists" are doing something with
   proven results--in South Africa: They USED oppressed Black workers to
   whatever extent they could for the benefit of white workers' demands.
   MIM cannot work with people to bolster the international apartheid
   system known as u.s. imperialism. Just as in World War I, a majority
   of "leftists" think they are doing fine, but in reality they are
   fools, either inexperienced or calculated.
   For every 1000 attempts at opportunist unity of "socialists" that end
   up no where or supporting fascism (as with the United Left in Peru
   today), there is one case of a well-disciplined and scientifically
   guided organization actually leading change.
   It was not the Trotskyists who have led a revolution anywhere since
   1925. Not one country. Strike two against opportunism that would give
   quarter to Trotskyism.
   Meanwhile it was the revolutionary vanguard parties in the traditions
   of Stalin and Mao (not just Marx and Lenin) who led successful
   revolutions repeatedly throughout this century--USSR, China, Albania,
   North Korea, Vietnam etc. It was also the Black Panthers, the New
   People's Army in the Philippines etc. that started in the tradition of
   Stalin and Mao (gasp, gasp). We could go on and on. Committed
   communists who COMPARE the success of movements in various traditions
   will inevitably come to MIM's conclusion.
   It is very hard for us who follow in the traditions of Marx, Lenin,
   Stalin and Mao to take Trotskyism, DeLeonism etc. seriously except in
   the cases of the politically inexperienced. If we were in the business
   of publishing poetry or writing academic journals then certainly we
   would adopt the "coalition" and unity of "leftists" approach, because
   certainly there are many, many "leftists" good at wasting time talking
   about certain aspects of revolution.
   When it comes to reality however, we at MIM have a duty to point out
   the difference between poetry and action. People who study carefully
   will find that the all too few successes this century have been in the
   traditions of Stalin and Mao.
   We at MIM believe people committed to ending oppression will look
   seriously into history and what works and what doesn't. We can't take
   seriously people who aren't able to do that after a certain point.
   What follows is a MIM review of an article that was a feeble attempt
   by Jim O'Brien to criticize "American Leninism in the 1970s." This
   article concluded that building parties and achieving theoretical
   clarity was a waste of time, mostly because none of the Maoist parties
   or others surpassed the old Communist Party in size.
   Many leftists have an inordinate obsession with size. However, as the
   United Left in Peru has discovered, having a large number of prattling
   intellectuals and even a portion of the electorate behind you is no
   guarantee of having a political line with any semblance of long-run
   sanity. The United Left has crashed as have countless opportunist
   groups that simply could not focus on reality and a scientific
   analysis of it.
   In the end the Russian masses lined up with Lenin; although months
   earlier many thought of him as "crazy." It just goes to show that the
   truth often resides with the unpopular, especially in imperialist and
   semi-imperialist countries.
   August 7, 1990
   by MC5
   A xerox copy of the article by O'Brien is available for $3
   cash. MIM, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-3576
   The first thing to point out about this is that it is a historical
   essay already because "American Leninism" is now in the Gorbachev era.
   The pro-Moscow parties across the world are dropping their insistence
   on upholding Lenin's What Is To Be Done? For example, the British
   Communist Party has really dropped any semblance of communism; others
   have dissolved
   Still the essay is valuable because to understand where things come
   from in the United States, you need to know this history. The recent
   diatribes I wrote against revisionism in the United States and its
   strangling of internationalism is much related to this past. (See MIM
   Notes 42)
   Soon however, we can hope that the CP will dissolve. Surely it cannot
   avoid a period of even greater confusion and change very revealing to
   people who follow things over a long period of time.
   Anyway, about O'Brien's article: the main thing O'Brien wants to do is
   piss on the idea of building a real communist party in this country.
   The main thing that the author seeks to prove is that the parties that
   arose out of SDS in the 1960s do not have the size or other kinds of
   visible success of the Communist Party, which he did not imagine
   having the kind of problems it has today. Therefore, if you look at
   these efforts "objectively" in O'Brien's mind, you should give up on
   revolution. Nothing even surpasses the CP.
   O'Brien's ideology is what will be labelled "sizeism" and
   "pragmatism." Really, this is an invidious comparisons game applied on
   the organizational level.
   Anyway, O'Brien goes through the history of the splinters since SDS.
   This is the only reason to read his article. It's good sectarian
   It's just that none of this history can really prove the point O'Brien
   wants to make. At a larger comparative historical level, O'Brien's
   argument falls apart. It is really quite interesting that O'Brien
   notices this without addressing it. "Second, the existence of more
   than a dozen countries governed by Leninist parties offered a prospect
   of apparent success." (p. 10)
   In the United States, he also should have started with the CP in the
   1930s. He would have noticed all the actual gains it won with its
   He should have noticed that the Maoist-inspired Black Panthers (before
   they were smashed and degenerated) organized more Blacks for
   revolutionary change than any previous group in post-World War II
   history. Yet, this gets passed over in the discussion as the essay
   focuses on other groups. O'Brien clearly does not take the Panthers
   seriously, while he takes semi-Trotskyist groups like Workers Power or
   the Socialist Worker Party that dropped its Leninism more seriously.
   (There appear to be more noises about Marx and Lenin in the SWP paper
   Anybody who takes Trotskyism more seriously than the Black Panthers
   clearly hasn't thought too much about history. Even by O'Brien's own
   measuring rod of numbers, the Trotskyists have been a failure, even in
   this land of the bought-off white working class that according to the
   Spartacist League in classic Trotskyist industrialized-is-better-form
   "is amongst the most advanced in the world."
   Another point is that the article proceeds without an analysis of
   goals and talks vaguely about the "left" as most "leftists" are apt to
   do. So for "O'Brien," organizing white workers is a success and with
   that as a measuring rod he not surprisingly concludes that the
   revolutionaries have been a failure.
   Finally, it is this kind of unspecified measuring rod of the movement
   that leads O'Brien to conclude that party organization itself is a
   waste of time. "Even at best, a tremendous amount of time, for members
   of nearly all the Leninist groups, is spent in activities whose chief
   purpose is to build the organization itself rather than to spur
   working class activity more directly." (p. 33) This implies that
   O'Brien thinks that people should dissolve their parties and just join
   the working class, something he also implies by saying that the
   Leninist who were students who took up blue- collar work are doing the
   best work. (p. 32)
   In the closing pages of the article, O'Brien hammers the issue of size
   and concludes that the plan to build a genuine communist party is a
   failure. Then he throws in that the SWP degenerated into reformism (no
   surprise to those who never took the Trotskyists seriously.) For the
   rest he attacks each group with one anecdote each and thinks that is a
   serious evaluation of their revolutionary coherence. And while MIM
   does not agree with any of the groups O'Brien cites, MIM would not use
   that kind of empiricist method to attack them.
   So whenever O'Brien intends to lead people, he ends up taking them
   into anarchism, sizeism and pragmatism. No where does he take his own
   measuring rods and examine them from a comparative historical
   perspective to see if they have any meaning.
   Yet, MIM has already done this. Size of an organization says nothing
   about its eventual historical impact as the Bolshevik party and the
   Chinese Communist Party have both already proved in comparison with
   larger organizations--mush-collections without a scientific class
   And like it or not, organization is necessary to get things done. It
   is not an accident that the Communist Party of the 1930s accomplished
   what it did in putting together the CIO and the whole deal for labor
   at the time. On the reverse side of things, while disciplined
   organizations have seized power again and again in the world,
   mush-collections and individualist organizers have failed again and
   again in the world in creating social change.
   The best historical example to the contrary is the FSLN of Nicaragua,
   which is pretty mushy although not totally devoid of organization or a
   line. To a large extent, the FSLN led part of a bourgeois revolution,
   and much of what is said above does not apply to bourgeois
   revolutions. Yet even to the extent that the FSLN seemed to be for
   something more, the FSLN still proves the weaknesses of pluralist
   approaches in an imperialist-dominated world. The FSLN took on a
   battle within the rules of the pluralist game and lost. In the end,
   the legacy that the FSLN leaves in the struggle toward ending
   oppression is smaller than that of Albania, another small agricultural
   country with a population of 3 million. Nicaragua seems "heavier" in
   many deluded people's minds, but in actuality, the revolution in
   Albania went further. If the FSLN is to have success in the future, it
   will be to the degree it ignores its own pluralistic rhetoric and
   takes up Maoism.
   In conclusion, O'Brien's whole problem is the measuring rods of
   success that he chose. Size, pluralism of views and white working
   class roots have no proven track record of being important in the
   battle against oppression. Where steps toward the ending of oppression
   have been made, these factors were not relevant.
   Some concluding notes for p.news
   Although influenced by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, Castro and the
   FSLN in Nicaragua we must recognize as "their own thing." There is at
   least something to talk about in their cases, as opposed to the cases
   of Trotskyism, anarchism or DeLeonism.
   Perhaps we could make allowances for no revolutionary movements in a
   country over a period of 70 years. But a whole planet? Unless we are
   pure dogmatists or poets, rejection by the whole planet over a 70 year
   period of time should be a clue. Unfortunately, most of our
   intellectual-nihilist critics are not able to get that clue.
   Why don't they get a clue? Why do intellectuals make useless
   criticisms of real world progress? Why don't they get on board and try
   to improve successful movements from within? The reason is that they
   were trained by the ruling class to get their acclaim for picking
   apart intellectual ideas. Create an intellectual fad and make yourself
   famous the bourgeoisie has trained intellectuals to think. Hence,
   intellectuals are willing to destroy what is beautiful in the real
   world for the benefit of what is beautiful in their heads --and that
   is in the best case scenarios. (By the way, for the same reasons many
   intellectuals reject democratic centralism; they uphold their
   individual ideas as more important than practical unity and capacity
   to strike at the reactionaries.)
   Many intellectuals and activists are consciously opposed to the goals
   of abolishing class, nation and gender oppression. Some work
   professionally for the white nation labor aristocracy. It's a way to
   make a living. Others are paid to serve bourgeois interests more
   directly. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect a "unity" of the
   "left." First we have to define "left" and then we have to agree on
   what success is.

[About]     [Contact]     [Home]     [News]     [RAIL]

顶端 Posted: 2009-02-17 12:59 | 9 楼
« 1 2345» Pages: ( 1/8 total )
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR STUDIES

Total 0.016784(s) query 4, Time now is:05-23 16:52, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk