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 Shanghai
I feel JMP is over-critical
of Stalin and the foreign policy of China
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
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
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 Peru ,
Nepal or Philippines
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
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment