Otto's War Room (毛派): Some thoughts on M-L-M dialectics Part 1

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Some thoughts on M-L-M dialectics Part 1

THERE MAYBE INHERENT FLAWS OR LOOPHOLES IN PRACTICE OF MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM AND STILL QUESTIONS ON THEORY BUT LIKE A BOULDER RESISTING A GALE WE MUST DEFEND ITS VERY BACKBONE OR ESSENCE. REFUTE ALL DEVIATIONIST, IDEALIST OR METAPHYSICAL TRENDS LIKE POST-MODERNISM, MARXIST-LENINIST-MAOIST DIALECTICS IS STILL INVINCIBLE AND HAS NO REPLACEMENT IN SOLVING PROBLEMS OF MANKIND.

I do not endorse the viewpoint below of Kenny Lake in article in Kites blog on 'Infantile Internet disorder and strategy of revolution' that detaches Marxist -Leninist[1] dialectics but posting it as a debate. It does throw light on the spiritual essence of MLM (Marx, Lenin, Mao) by reflecting on development and role of consciousness but deeply falls into the quagmire of idealism in approach. It gives Maoism[2] the scope to rupture and sees positive elements in post modernism. It tries to combat mechanical materialism and feels even Mao was dogmatic to an extent. It is a great lesson for Marxist-Leninist-Maoists of today to more thoroughly defend the backbone of MLM and also the correct questions that have to be asked. Certain regions of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism have not been completely untapped like the sub-conscious mind, mutation in evolution, individual freedom or inner consciousness in man. The essay is open minded and broad based delving into very relevant regions but lacks clarity on the dialectical materialist philosophy of all the great teachers and arguably veers into regions of idealism, subjectivism or metaphysics. In one statement it pushes Leninism into the museum by stating "The standard communist reflection theory of truth and reality, as enunciated in Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, is thus called into question (and in my mind over matter, is something that needs to be discarded)." Postmodernist philosophy has to be confronted at its very roots. In this regard the Gonzolaite[3] sections of today, like Struggle Sessions, have produced positive writings in exposing Post-modernism at its very base. Even Chairman Joma Sison with lucid writings and razor sharp clarity refuted the idealist approach. Very important to understand that Mao made no rupture from dialectical materialism—and that Engels was no idealist as portrayed in certain circles. Kenny Lake wrongly gives credibility to philosophy of the Renaissance period of enlightenment. Pertinent that Chairman Gonzalo, tooth and nail, even defended Stalin on dialectical materialism. Even if he was the pioneer in synthesizing Maoism in none of his writings did he reveal any idealist approach of finding dogmatism in Mao or Lenin's writings or highlighting rupture. This viewpoint of Lake demonstrates the flaws inherent in the Maoist streams who although not dogmatist on important aspects like universality of Protracted People’s War, (ppw) still are affected by idealism. We must remember that a new discovery or leap is not a radical break from the old order in context of Marxist ideology Such idealist deviations make it all the more important for cadres to re-study the essence of Stalin's[4] writings on Marxist-Leninist dialectics, critically. We have to assert the fundamental continuity thread between Marx, (Friedrich) Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. We must study Mao “On Philosophy" and “On Contradiction” to understand phenomena of discovery with Continuity from Leninism. We must remember the huge strides made in Science interpreting Darwinian[5] or Einsteinian[6] concepts in USSR and China who combated idealistic or metaphysical approach towards study of biological laws. The great strides in Socialist building in Maoist China and former USSR occurred because of mastery of Marxist-Leninist dialectics in dealing with problems with concrete solutions.