otto's war room banner

otto's war room banner

Sunday, August 19, 2018

MASS LINE AND MAOISM

By Harsh Thakor
Today  in the International Communist Movement there is a sharp  ideological struggle within the Communist Movement between the line of the Red Guards Austin Group and that of Comrade Joshua Moufawad Paul (JMP) in his book ‘continuity and rupture.’ Both represent opposite poles of political trends of the RCP-Canada. Even if contradictory both trends make have  their positive and negative points which have to be synthesized. The genuine mass line to me lies in between these 2 deviationist currents within the maoist camp. Arguably the most balanced analysis is that of Scott Harrison of massline in America and Communist Party of Philippines.
VANGUARD OR MASS PARTY AND CONTINITY AND RUPTURE
A most important aspect today is the concept of the Leninist or Maoist vanguard party and whether Maoism as understood today is a rupture from Leninism. In this light a most outstanding work has been produced by Comrade Joshua Moufawad Paul (or JMP)in his book 'Continuity and Rupture.' Even if ecclectic in certain ways it enlivens the spirit of criticism and debate in Leninism or Maoism and throws light on the most important challenges or questions. It feels that the conventional vanguard party does not justify revolutionary democracy completely and a more democratic party must be developed which absorbed the masses. He also felt that every development of Marxism was a rupture from revisionism and that PCP and Gonzalo rejected this.
JMP emphasizes he rejects the Rosa Luxemburg concept of mass party but stil advocates a 'mass party ' of a different kind. I disagre with the 'mass party' concept but stil feel that even in the eras of the Soviets in Bolzhevik Russia and Revolutionary Commites in Maoist China sufficient revolutionary democracy did not exist and there were powerful tendencies of 'Commandism' by the party. The masses were not able to sufficiently check the vanguard communist party or have adequate voice. Remember the bureaucratization of the Soviets in Leninist period itself and the disbanding of revolutionary committees and mass organizations in Maoist China itself in the Cultural Revolution period. We have to critically study the experience of the Shanghai Commune turning into a revolutionary committee in 1968 during the cultural revolution. .An ideal critique of this is done by Jiang Honghshen where he feels greater autonomy should have been awarded to the mass organizations, revolutionary committees or independence from the party and masses should have been able to undertake greater supervision of the party.As far as rupture is concerned I disagree that Maoism was a rupture from Marxism-Leninism or errors of Stalin were a product of limitations of Leninism. Maoism as practiced was quite similar to Stalinism or Leninism earlier .In my view we have to go back to Marx and the experiences of the Paris Communes itself and then analyze whether Leninism or Maoism was a rupture from it. Without this pure rupture would destroy the backbone of MLM as understood day.
I feel JMP is over-critical of Stalin and the foreign policy of China and his view have post-modernist overtones. He is also over –critical of Lenin,Mao and the gang of 4 in the GPCR. Also harshly critical of Stalin alleging that it s is an absurd claim that he was 70% correct by CCP.I also feel he depicts a liberal tendency in his essay on 'Leninism beyond Lenin', 'Marxism beyond Marx' and 'Maoism  beyond Mao'. which dilutes the  ideological essence of the 3 giants. 
Still in general he upholds the line of Maoism ,particularly the role of the masses and democracy in a Socialist Society. I support his critique of concept of ‘jetafura’ or ‘great leadership ‘concept  'personality cult' ,’ principally Maoism”and militarization of the party .’ Moufawad critically admires the achievements of the Sendero Luminoso movement of Peru and credits the founding of modern Maoism to the Peruvian  party. He felt PCP were on the verge of  toppling the state before the serback and peace letters. He is also a strong supporter of the Communist Party of Philipines and the C.P.I.(Maoist) and of Universality of protracted peoples war.but with a more rational perspective than many.

In my view all upholders of genuine Marxism-Leninism-Maoism should treat Moufawad Paul as a genuine revolutionary or Maoist and not a Revisionist or Trotskyite. The Pro-Gonzalo Struggle Sessions blog of red guards Austin was most sectarian when describing  Moufadawd Paul as a revisionist  or Trotskyite. Recently they launched a vendetta on him in their struggle sessions blog calling him a liquidator. It is  is gross injustice to the his work. The attack they launched was against the spirit of Maoism and even Chairman Gonzalo may not have approved of it.We must combat the ecclectical ideas of ‘Continuity and Rupture’ but must respect debate. After all Comrade JMP in his writings defends so many positive aspects about Chairman Mao,Gonzalo and Cultural Revolution.
Quoting reader Nick Marlatte” Love continuity and rupture. It’s a great dialectical materialist piece that cuts through the anti-scientific trends that have taken hold, particularly in academia and the left. His points of a mass party are meant to not be against the vanguard but upholding the massline through an established party. While the ruptured point is philosophical that sciences advance beyond their incorrect points while presurving their core truths from previous understandings. Ie Einstein ruptured from Newtonian physics, but that doesn’t mean we throw newton out but simply advance what was correct and correct what was not.Newton was in many situations correct, given our current understanding, but the events his position could account for show a basis for correction.” 
Below reproducing a note of JMP on rupture from MLM Mayhem blog.. It has great importance in enlivening creative spirit of criticism and scientific analysis instead of dogma.
MAOISM-A RUPTURE FROM MARXISM-LENINISM?
“Acommunist who endorses the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism it is very important to insist that, whenever I refer to myself as a "Maoist" (as often happens when I find myself enmeshed in theoretical arguments), that what I mean by "maoism" is something that goes beyond Mao Zedong the person. Similarly, I believe in a leninism that stands over V.I. Lenin and a Marxism that stands over Karl Marx. Simply put, I treat marxism as a living science and not a set of religious texts codified by genius prophets whose words and actions are sacrosanct representations of a divine law of history. If we fail to have this understanding of a living science of revolution then we risk becoming dogmatic purists and will never be able to apply revolutionary theory to our concrete circumstances.  While I agree that it is dangerous to reject the universal developments of the theory for an "anything goes" movementist approach, it equally dangerous to imagine that we can safeguard a theory's purity as if it exists outside of time and space, beyond history and society, and are thus never able to comprehend our particular concrete circumstances.  The application of the universal requires and understanding of the concrete particular; the dialectic between universal and particular is vitally important––and this is what is meant by revolutionary communism as a living science.” A critical communist, however, needs to understand the names are nothing more than indicators of important theoretical ruptures, only named so to indicate those theorists who produced universal concrete analyses of concrete situations that further developed revolutionary science.  Similarly, when we speak of Einsteinian physics today we are not speaking of Einstein the person, nor are we even speaking of a science limited only to Einstein's theories and research; there is an Einsteinianism beyond Einstein since physicists who work within this paradigm have developed the science further within the theoretical boundaries he conceptualized, some even correcting mathematical errors.
Maoism developed through a dialectical process of continuity and rupture; it emerged ‘precisely at the point where Marxism-Leninism had reached its limits.’ Indeed, I  maintains that the general limits of Marxism-Leninism required ‘a theoretical rupture.’ Following the defeat of revolution in the Soviet Union, the revolutionaries in China theorized that class struggle continues under socialism: representatives of the bourgeoisie within socialist society––not external agents, as Stalinism would have it, but forces internal to socialism––would attempt to overthrow proletarian dictatorship, and replace it with bourgeois dictatorship. This understanding led the Chinese revolutionaries to develop the theory of the continuation of class struggle under socialism, and launch the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. While these were the lessons that the anti-revisionist communists employed in their struggles, under the name of ‘Maoism,’ in the 1970s, they still encountered the limitations of Marxism-Leninism that would make the Maoist theoretical rupture necessary. That is, all of the theoretical insights that were opened by the event of the Chinese revolution’s sequence (cultural revolution, mass line, line struggle, the party of the new type, etc.) were not treated as universal developments of Marxist theory, and, remained under-theorized. Hence, the New Communist Movement gave absolute loyalty to  ‘orthodox’ Marxism-Leninism, maintaining everything said by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, rather than grasping that a heterodox rupture was in possible emergence.

MY REFUTATION OF RUPTURE CONCEPT OF JMP
A polemicist defending fundamentals of massline and Maoism has to  refute at the very roots the statement of Moufawad Paul  on Maoism was a theoretical rupture from the limitations of Leninism.This reduces Maoism to an independent entity and not an integral part of Marxism-Leninism. It is like stating that Lenin rejected experience of Paris  Commune ,r Mao refused to aknowledge dictatorship of the proletariat in Bolshevik Russia. And today’s Maoists deny revolutionary mass democracy was created during the Cultural Revolution. If rupture took place at every juncture of development then the fundamental laws of Marxism would be thrown into the dustbin. All the heights Maoism reached in accomplishing protracted peoples War and Great proletarian Cultural  Revolution was a part of Leninism and a product of the Leninist era of imperialism and proletarian revolution.His reference of party of the new type is very much the idea of post-modernists.He wishes to give a new meaning to Maoism where rather than taking Marxism-Leninism to a new height  he attacks it’s very base.In his vew Chairman Mao or his followers did not do Justice to Maoism. Had Leninism had limitations Maoism would never have achieved the height it did during the Cultural Revolution nor would any post-Mao peoples war in Peru, Nepal or Philippines. The concept of continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat took Leninism to a higher stage but was till a part of Leninism .Without the struggles Marxism and  Leninism waged to combat revisionism Maoism would never have emerged. JMP virtually negates the very roots of revisionism.I greatly differ with JMP using Einstein's rupture from Newton in context of Marxism .Equivalent of stating that Einstein's theory of relativity is not valid today or Darwin's theory of Revolution.
MASS OR VANGUARD PARTY?
Reproducing an essay by Joshua Moufawad paul on ' Mass Party or Vanguard Party’, defending criticism from Struggle Sessions group. I do not agree with ‘mass ‘party or ‘Maoist ‘ party of a new type  but feel some points are valid on when party can become a true revolutionary vanguard and how greater debate can be invigorated.His point has great relevance in light of the final struggle in the GPCR when revolutionary committees were disbanded and earlier when inter factional rivalry occurred. Also touches difference between the party actually becoming the vanguard of the masses and not just superficially and how the contradiction could be resolved from within.
“I do not accept Luxemburg's theory of the Mass Party and never have. My position has always been that the Leninist theory of the Vanguard Party is one of the developments of the science, and in fact I claimed this in Continuity and Rupture. What I did argue in this book is that diffusion of the theory of the vanguard party through Maoism––or the Maoist Party of the New Type––means that the vanguard party is in fact a mass party because of the theory of the mass-line. The claim I made, in every instance where I used the term "mass party" was against the definite article of The Mass Party, which is the Luxemburgist and anti-Leninist definition of the party, because I intentionally used the indefinite article of a mass party. "The revolutionary party must also become a mass party." (15) And then: "The party seeds itself into the masses, trying to pull in those that are most aware of the need to end capitalism, and thus becomes a mass party." (199) And finally: "This theory is not about turning a party into an armed cabal that is forced to operate only clandestinely and divorced from the masses, but is about building a mass party that will develop in its ability to challenge state power without having to agitate and take hold of an insurrection." (211)
So only three points in the entire book where the two words "mass party" were used and, in each case, according to the indefinite article. The intention being, as anyone who is capable of honestly reading a text can and should attest, that the theory of the vanguard party, especially refracted through Maoism, is capable of becoming a party for the masses (i.e. a "mass party") thus undermining, implicitly, Luxemburg's theory of the mass party. Considering how much I have written on the necessity of the theory of the party of the avant-garde it is either dishonest or ignorant that three passages that used two words were represented as being opposed to Lenin's conception of the party. And yet entire erroneous critiques are written on this deletion of articles. The point of Maoism is the following: only the vanguard party attached to the theory of the mass-line can be properly mass. Theories of "the mass party" will never produce an actual mass party because, just like Draper's impoverished conception of "socialism from below", the can't succeed in engaging the masses.
During the early period of a party's existence, a party that understands itself as a process is also one that conceives of itself as a potential vanguard. That is, it is a party pursuing a politics of the advanced guard but will only become an actual vanguard when it proves itself at the revolutionary moment of strategic defensive––when it emerges as the prime force challenging the bourgeois state and other forces are demonstrably lagging behind. Even at this stage it might fail to complete its aims, its moment of being the vanguard might disintegrate.
So maybe it is better to have multiple potential vanguards, as long as they are willing to engage in principled line struggle and agree to liquidate themselves within the ranks of those parties moving closer to revolution––especially into the ranks of those parties that have become actual vanguards. In this process of multiple line struggle, ideological differences that only exist because different groups feel that their ideology will produce revolution might be solved. True, there will be those dogmatic sects whose members will never admit that they are wrong even if the world is being shaken around them–-but these sects were never even potential vanguards in the first place, no matter how hard they want to believe they are leading the revolution. But only the party that initiates the revolution and carries it through to the seizure of power will be justified as the vanguard in the crucible of class struggle… and those parties that, even at this point, would claim otherwise––they are lagging behind, are already proven to be dogmatic and sectarian, and are even perhaps moving towards what will become the camp of counter-revolution.
I am reproducing a note by Struggles session blog a supporter of the pro-Gonzalo thought Red Guards Austin group. Very significantly it dialectically  illustrates that even to implement Maoism or Gonzalo thought one has to respect the kernel of the principles of Leninism. Defends vanguard party and massline concept at the very roots  refuting with a  very dialectical refutation of ‘mass party’ concept of Moufawad Paul, classically upholding Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology.
CRITCISM OF STRUGGLES SESSIONS BLOG OF MASS PARTY CONCEPT OF JMP
“According to J. Moufawad-Paul, when highlighting what he considers the universal tenants of MLM in his book titled “Continuity and Rupture,” he claims that “the revolutionary party must also become a mass party and renew itself by being held to account by those it claims to represent (the mass line).”
Moufawad-Paul smuggles in two “ruptures” here which are not actually found in the works or teachings of MLM’s 6 greatest teachers, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Gonzalo. Those are 1) that the “party” must become a “mass party”, and 2) that the mass line is not so much a method of leadership, but a method of accountability in transforming the vanguard Party of professional revolutionaries into the a vast mass party. It should be noted that aspects of the mass line do in fact hold leadership accountable to the masses by basing itself on the masses, however, it is useful to examine Lenin on this question regarding the Party of the proletariat and not the “mass party.” Lenin states:
“I assert: (1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders maintaining continuity; (2) that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); (3) that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; (4) that in an autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organization to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to unearth the organization; and (5) the greater will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social classes who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.”
Here Lenin makes a clear demarcation between the Party work of the professional revolutionaries which form the stable core of leaders, those being Party cadres, and the masses drawn into the movement. He insists that having this core not only draws more masses into the struggle, but that the drawing of masses necessitates an even firmer core. As we know, the more advanced the resistance becomes, the more repressive the bourgeois state becomes (more autocratic). This nuanced and thoroughly dialectical materialist position put forward by Lenin is the exact opposite of a “mass party,” which this one distorter of the mass line claims is a characteristic of Maoism. Lenin, on the other hand, is actually relying on a nascent untheorized mass line when promoting the exact antithesis of a “mass party.” It is clear that through this nascent and untheorized mass line that Lenin is speaking of the Party’s role in leading the masses. By inserting the bad formula of the “mass party,” JMP is not making an iteration of the mass line but its negation. He is subverting the role of leadership by placing the masses into the party as a “mass party.” This is a prime example of right opportunism’s insistence on tailing the masses, and it speaks volumes about the theory of the “mass line” espoused by the party he supports. By seeing the mass line and mainly the way the masses hold the Party accountable and not as the principle means of leading the masses we can see the tailist thinking at play, which in turn feeds the ideas of rapid expansion at the expense of ideology and the insistence that the “Maoist party” is a “mass party”.
The way that the Party is able to mobilize the broadest and deepest masses is found in its successful application and its correct grasp of the mass line. Gonzalo (Chairman of the Communist Party of Peru and leader of the Protracted People’s War in Peru) explained that in order for the Party to carry out its role as leader, the masses must sustain, support, and carry the Party forward. Here, Gonzalo is presenting the dialectical materialist understanding of the relationship between the Party and the masses and the way in which the former leads the later. He explains that the masses “would come to see that it is their Party, that it defends their interests. And it is the masses themselves who will settle accounts, giving a just punishment to those who for decades have sold out and who continue to sell out the proletariat’s basic interests, and they will also condemn and sanction those traitors who try to do so or begin to do so.” In this, we can ascertain how the Party uses its links with the masses to develop a mighty, unstoppable force, although it may be relatively small. Again, what is primary is the link between the masses and the Party, not the quantity of masses in the Party. In both the theorizations by Lenin and Gonzalo we see the fusion of quantity into quality and quality into quantity—the Party itself is viewed as a contradiction which is a focal point of the contradictions of the masses. The quantity and quality contradictions form a unity of opposites and its correct leadership. The mass line is one means in which the Party ensures this unity and replenishes itself with the most advanced and true children of the proletariat
In the article “The Mass Line and Communist Methods of Mass Work” the camp which embraces the ideas of Moufawad-Paul state:
“In short, there must be a constant dialogue between the party and mass organization, with neither overstepping the other in terms of importance”.
This is anti-Party rightism with little disguise.
Yet again we see the false flattening rejection of democratic centralism in the form of communist “leadership” or precisely the lack of leadership. The mass organization and the party are here placed as equals. Furthermore, the need for the Party to intervene on the masses and fully lead them is reduced and withered down to merely a vague “dialogue” — just a discussion between equals. This is tailism of mass organizations and a rejection of the leading role and responsibilities of the Party itself.  Tailist mis-leadership reduces the masses to their spontaneity and volunteerism and robs them of their political leadership. For Moufawad-Paul and his supporters leadership is only a question of discourse.
We can think of a practical scenario where the Party must “overstep” in order of importance. In cases of state repression mass organizations have and must at times be dissolved or re-launched; they remain fairly fluid as long as the Party itself remains protected. If a single mass organization is sacrificed this is no great loss, but if the Party itself is sacrificed this is concrete step back for the whole of the international Proletariat—the Party must be the priority. In this scenario it is easy enough to see how the Party itself is far more important than any of its numerous mass organizations and that the two things, Party and mass organization, are not to be regarded as equally important. There are most often a multitude of revolutionary mass organizations and Party generated organisms, opening and shutting according to necessity but there is only ever one singular Party which leads the multitude of mass organizations, organisms and fronts. The Party in every Communist sense is not just another organization; it is the most advanced organizational expression of the proletariat and its political-military vanguard (again the quality/quantity dialectic is at play here).
Maoists universally assert the leadership of the Party—itself a unity of opposites—over the mass movement as the correct formula. In this it is leadership which is decisive—the Party leads in all things, while the masses make history it is only with the leadership of the Party that they can accomplish the task of taking power. Power being central to MLM, it places the Party itself in the top position, a position above that of the mass movement or the Party’s own mass organizations.  Politics in command means the politics of the proletariat in command; the Party is the organized expression of the proletariat—its highest body and most advanced detachment.  
Image result for ​Maoism

No comments: