क्रान्तीकारी नेपाल

From Kasama
Posted by Mike E on March 27, 2008Maz calls attention to the following essay written by “A Circle of Revolutionaries in Canada.” It was originally posted on the Maoist Revolution List. It adds to the earlier discussion we have already over Maoism vs. Jihadism. I thought the following passage (which is the closing of this essay) have general importance (including to the discussion of Obama happening on our other threads.)
To go off on a little tangent, and at the risk of sounding trite, we’d like to recall a scene from the film Million Dollar Baby, in part about a woman boxer’s (Maggie, played by Hillary Swank) rise through the ranks and her relationship with her trainer (Frankie, played by Clint Eastwood). In one scene, Maggie is getting beat in the late rounds of one of her first bouts. Sitting between rounds, she asks Frankie why she’s losing. Frankie responds pithily: Cause she’s a better fighter than you, that’s why….Now, what are you gonna do about it? Maggie then proceeds to get up and knock out the other fighter. Of course, Maggie knew that her old skills weren’t working, and that she was going to have to adjust her game and get real better real fast if she was going to win that fight. We live in a time when even the possibility of universal emancipation is being questioned, where we’re being outmaneouvered by various political tendencies, and where we’re currently very weak, and other forces are very strong. The suggestion is even made that we should get behind whatever is out there now, or become legitimate targets ourselves. In short, it’s a nasty fight, and we’re behind on points. Now, what are we gonna do about it?
A Circle of Revolutionaries in Canada wrote:The comradely debate over the nature of the Islamic resistance seems to have reached a certain level, namely, the basic positions have been staked out and argued over, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals have been made. We have encouraged and participated in the debate, and have learned much from it. The differences in line being debated are manifestations of differences in approach and methodology, as is usually the case. These differences themselves are reflective of the varying directions revolutionary tendencies are heading right now, particularly various threads of Maoism, which are growing in often starkly different directions.Considering this, we would like to start to shift the direction towards method, first by answering some concerns raised by Harry Powell and Suresh Basker, both of whose latest contributions focused in large part on criticizing our position. We feel that basically our original position is correct, and we are including it following this letter for people’s reference. We assume people have access to Powell and Basker’s articles, if they do not, feel free to email us and we will forward them to you.Harry Powell argues that we should follow a Leninist approach by making a concrete analysis of the concrete conditions. This is good advice. Unfortunately, the rest of Powell’s line of reasoning fails to follow it. Powell’s argument is rooted in what he believes are the necessary implications of his view that the principal contradiction in the world today is between imperialism and the oppressed countries. We questioned this formulation in our past letter, and asked that proponents expand on their position. Powell notes our question, but then says in general it can be argued that this is the case. Well, if it can be argued, we encourage people to do so. Repeating it more doesn’t increase its veracity. Similarly, in place of an argument Basker says that everyone agrees that this contribution of Mao is as yet unsurpassable. To this we can only wonder just who is this everyone Basker is referring to.The bigger problem though, isn’t whether or not imperialism vs. the oppressed countries is the principal contradiction, but how people are employing the concept in their arguments. Here we’d like to use the term “formulaic dogmatism” to describe the problem, to distinguish between the “scriptural” dogmatism that Harry Powell correctly warns people against. The method sees revolutionary theory as a ready-made, neat and tidy formula to be applied to the world to prescribe strategy and tactics. So that, for example, in their discussions on Iran, this sort of formulaic Maoism is employed to argue that if the contradiction with imperialism reaches a certain point (we also don’t know how one could identify the point what does it look like?) then Maoists in Iran should begin calling for national unity with the Islamic Republic. What’s missing here is any kind of analysis of Iran and the line-up of objective and subjective conditions there. We frankly don’t know what the correct path for revolutionaries in Iran should be. Nor can we. To develop that correct path (which may or may not involve various tactical alliances with local reactionaries) requires a great deal of investigation, which we’re out of the necessary epistemelogical loop to do.Basker overemphasizes the universality of Mao’s specific prescriptions. For example, he complains that the Iranian comrades have not shown how the situation has changed and why we cannot apply the Maoist thesis in this context. Well, the situation has changed in many ways: different country, different time, different level of technology, different international situation, different strength of forces - there’s plenty of differences to consider. A theory that ceases development because it is simply assumed to be true has no value at all. Even theories we uphold need to be looked at critically and interrogated. How else could we know if they continue to represent our highest understanding of things? On this point, Basker even criticizes R. John for making a scientific, realistic etc. analysis of the object because it negates the universality of MLM. We say, if a scientific analysis of something negates an aspect of MLM, it is fine. Why should any theory take on a sacred untouchability? That said, we don’t necessarily think that Mao on the united front is being negated here, but rather what was correct for China in the 1930s may not be mechanically super-imposed on a very different situation today.Keeping with this theme, it’s worth revisiting what Engels had to say on this philosophical question in Anti-Duhring, in which he critiques the method of putting a new “twist” on the a priori approach:First the concept of the object is fabricated from the object; then the spit is turned round, and the object is measured by its reflexion, the concept. The object is then to conform to the concept, not the concept to the object. With Herr Duhring the simplest elements, the ultimate abstractions he can reach, do service for the concept, which does not alter matters; these simplest elements are at best of a purely conceptual nature. The philosophy of reality, therefore, proves here again to be pure ideology, the deduction of reality not from itself but from a concept. (Engels, Anti-Duhring)It seems to us that too many people are currently deducing reality (our current situation 2008) from the concept (Mao’s united front strategy) even though Mao’s concept comes from an analysis of a different object (rural China 1930s). Whatever universality there is in Mao here must be gleaned by making a scientific analysis of the current object, not merely by appeal to authority.Basker accuses us of denying the right to self-determination merely by virtue that we discussed certain material obstacles that will be faced by any national movement (our point #3). These are obstacles that the Islamists cannot overcome owing to the limitations imposed on themselves by their ideology. Mao’s famous line that only socialism can save China is nothing but his particular answer to the set of universal problems were reminding people of. I doubt people are ready to accuse Mao of imperialist economism. The Irish revolutionary James Connolly also understood these problems very well. As he wrote over one hundred years ago,
“If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her finances, through the whole array of commercial and individual institutions she has planted in the country.” (Socialism and Nationalism, p25)
The point, it hardly needs to be stated, isn’t that people can’t get free, but rather that it is not just any spontaneous random ideology that can free them.As for some of the other criticisms, were unsure if they result from a genuine confusion of what we wrote or if they’re deliberately distortive. For the most part we’ll give people the benefit of the doubt. But to clarify: No one in this debate has suggested, as far as we’ve seen, that resistance to imperialism is wrong. That is a lie. Our disagreement rather, is with the panegyrical attitude some comrades have taken to the current leadership of some of the movements resisting. This line, as we explained in our article, especially point #6, is rooted in an economist outlook that downplays the importance of line and consciousness. The problem, as we see it, is that a failure to correctly explain the contradictory nature of the resistance to people will only lead to confusion, disorientation, and demoralization down the road. Here we are especially thinking of Ganapathy’s insistence that the Islamist forces are progressive. A quick reality check is in order: sometimes just causes are subverted to serve reactionary ends. This is nothing new.To go off on a little tangent, and at the risk of sounding trite, we’d like to recall a scene from the film Million Dollar Baby, in part about a woman boxer’s (Maggie, played by Hillary Swank) rise through the ranks and her relationship with her trainer (Frankie, played by Clint Eastwood). In one scene, Maggie is getting beat in the late rounds of one of her first bouts. Sitting between rounds, she asks Frankie why she’s losing. Frankie responds pithily: Cause she’s a better fighter than you, that’s why….Now, what are you gonna do about it? Maggie then proceeds to get up and knock out the other fighter. Of course, Maggie knew that her old skills weren’t working, and that she was going to have to adjust her game and get real better real fast if she was going to win that fight.We live in a time when even the possibility of universal emancipation is being questioned, where we’re being outmaneouvered by various political tendencies, and where we’re currently very weak, and other forces are very strong. The suggestion is even made that we should get behind whatever is out there now, or become legitimate targets ourselves. In short, it’s a nasty fight, and we’re behind on points. Now, what are we gonna do about it?This entry was posted on March 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm and is filed under Iran, Mao Zedong, afghanistan, communism, fundamentalism, iraq, iraq war, maoism, marxist theory, palestine, peoples war, war on terror. . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
18 Responses to “More Debate over Maoism vs. Jihadism”
Joseph Ball Says:
March 27, 2008 at 5:53 pm “If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her finances, through the whole array of commercial and individual institutions she has planted in the country.” (Socialism and Nationalism, p25)Yes, but if you did nothing to kick the English out and just kept telling Irish people how desirable socialism was and tried to sell them left-wing literature you wouldn’t achieve anything either.I would ask the Canadian comrades-if you don’t thing the contradiction betweeen imperialism and the oppressed peoples of the world is the principal contradiction, what is? Are they seriously saying that the contradiction between the US and feudal Fundamentalist reactionaries is the principal contradiction in the world? What would be the scientific basis for this? 70% of the Islamists in the world are fellow-travellers with US imperialism anyway. I really don’t know where this bizarre McWorld vs. Jihad line has sprung from. Frankly, it is seems very shallow and ill-thought out.
LikeARainbow Says:
March 27, 2008 at 6:34 pm I think that there is value in pointing out the way in which US Imperialist policy may fan the flames of Islamic fundamentalism– but this is such a simplistic view if you don’t include different degrees of ‘Islamist’ fervor, the political situations of different groups and different countries, alliances with US Imperialism, etc.How did the McWorld/Jihad line arise to such importance that it is published as a gem, stand-alone, in Revolution–almost weekly? Isn’t the phrase a reference to a book of a similar title? Which writing of Avakian’s expounds on this theory, if anyone can recall?Oops, sorry–it is from: the talk, “Why We’re in the Situation We’re in Today… And What to Do About It: A Thoroughly Rotten System and the Need for Revolution”. Hmm…
Mike E Says:
March 27, 2008 at 7:03 pm I think there may not be a “principal contradiction.” There have been times when there were clearly major contradictions that overall defined world events.Clearly (imho) in the midst of both world wars — the contradiction between the imperialist powers shaped dynamics on a world scale.
In many ways from 1950-1970, the unfolding of the anticolonial struggles (and the aftershocks of the breakdowns of the european empires) was very powerful and a “storm center” of struggle.But who says that in the world as a whole, in the blizzard of interconnected contradictions there is always one thing defining the others?And what is this “imperialism vs. the oppressed people of the world”? where is it expressed as a contradiction? Clearly in a number of public moods, sentiments, and political movements. But is that really DEFINING AND SHAPING the OTHER contradictions of the world (the inter-imperialist one? for example).I think the idea that there are only three (or sometimes four) main contradictions in the world, and the assumption that ONE OF THEM MUST BE a “principal contradiction” is a formula lifted from a time almost half a century ago when that was true. The world is much changed, and first we have to ask if this framework of analysis even applies anymore. And if so, how.I don’t see it.
Maz Says:
March 27, 2008 at 11:01 pm Joseph Ball asks about the Canadians: “Are they seriously saying that the contradiction between the US and feudal Fundamentalist reactionaries is the principal contradiction in the world?”It sure doesn’t seem like it. From where are you drawing this?Some people have come under the wrong impression that this debate has been two-sided, with one side represented by the Sunsara Taylor/RCP line. This has been implied by some of the summations, like the WPRM(Britain) documents. But any real look at the debate will reveal that there’s a whole lot more going on, lots of different approaches that reflect the many different trends in the world movement. It’s worth keeping in mind, rather than crudely lumping together clearly different lines.
Mike E Says:
March 28, 2008 at 9:19 am I want to underscore Maz’s point that the supporters of the McWorld vs. Jihad analysis (including specifically the RCP) don’t assume that this is the “principal contradiction on a world scale.” In fact the RCP has generally held (since the fall of the soviet union) that there is no principal contradiction in any clear way, and that the world is in “a period of transition with the potential for great upheaval.” What I have observed is that there is in some cases (not universally) a method in play that follows this logic (though often as unspoken assumptions) :1) Mao said there are four main contradictions on a world scale (proletariat- bourgeois, oppressed countries-imperiali sm, inter-imperialist, and socialism-imperiali sm).
2) The fourth contradiction doesn’t exist (since there are no socialist countries).
3) The contradiction between Jihadist and U.S. imperialism can’t be an example of prol-bourgeois contradiction, it is not interimperialist, therefore it must (simply) be a manifestation of the “oppressedcountries- imp.”This assumes that what Mao said (decades ago) still defines the main contradictions today. It assumes that ANY new phenomenon in the world MUST (somehow) fit into one of these four. And so on.But why couldn’t we have a major contradiction erupt that is NOT one of those four contradictions. And I believe that, in fact, contradictions between various comprador or bureaucratic- capitalist forces and existing imperialist powers have become quite acute again — and are not necessarily (or simply or mainly) a manifestation of one of those four. If anyone wants to argue that ANY contradiction between bureaucrat capitalist forces in the third world (say Iranian mullahs, or Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jung Il) MUST be (inherently) part of the “oppressedcountries- imperialism” contradiction — then they have shortcircuited the need for living analysis by solving it through “a priori” assertion. This casual identification of the bureaucratic- capitalist governments with the interests of oppressed nations (the very nations they plunder and pimp) is an error with a long history.

I think we need to criticize and avoid these methods:We cannot and should not assume that important analyses by previous communists are either automatically correct OR automatically applicable in todays world. We need to critically build on the analyses (and especially the method, not just the verdicts) that were developed in the past. Mao said “Study critically, test independently.” I think there is a lot to learn there.We can’t START our investigations by erecting a set array of boxes (silos of models drawn from the past), and then assume that every new shell we find on the beach “must” fit into one or another of the “types” we have posited. That is a method of taxonomy, not living materialist analysis of dynamic contradictions. It ignores that new things happen in the world. It ignores that complex things often don’t “fit” into simple boxes. And it ignores that all distinctions in nature and society are relative and conditional (i.e. there are gray areas, intermediate “types,” exceptions to the rules etc.)This is the whole problem with the RCP’s very apriori insistence on “two types of countries, two roads.” If we go back to the late twenties (the “third period” of the comintern) communists were told that there was one road (the October road) for ALL countries — Mao (looking deeply into China’s realities) thought that was dogmatic madness, and then carved a very different and distinctive path to revolution (full of stages and substages). Now we have people who look at that experience and say “Ok, Mao proved that there should be TWO roads in our worldview, not just one.” Is that really the lesson to draw from Mao? Are such people applying Mao’s method, or the dogmatic method of the “28 1/2 Bolsheviks.” In fact, each revolution (and the particularities of time and place) will imho carve out shockingly distinctive “roads” in each country that has a successful revolution (by the very nature of reality, revolution and the transition to communism.) And there are rather clearly not only two types of countries, or two roads posed by the diversity and complexity of countries today. (Do we really have to decide “is china imperialist or not?” It both exports capital in huge amounts, and yet the people there are heavily exploited by the foreign capital. Shouldn’t we start with a living description, not by trying to apply one-or-another pre-existing category?) And it is the problem with the method of “there are three main contradictions on a world scale, and one of them MUST BE the principal one.” Who says? How do we know that?It is also the problem with the argument that (almost this crudely) says “Mao once said ‘revolution is the main trend in the world today,’ and that the third world is the stormcenter of the worlds revolution, and what was true for him must be true for us.” The idea that “revolution is the main trend” is so contrary to reality, that those who assert it (wisely) avoid any attempt to analyze the world around us — but argue through assertions of orthodoxy.
Joseph Ball Says:
March 30, 2008 at 2:55 pm An invasion of an oppressed nation is not simply a contradiction between the ‘bureaucratic- comprador class’ running the country at the time (if such it be) and imperialism. It is an attack on the whole people of the country as the devastation and chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon at the time of the Israeli invasion of 2006 and Somalia shows. Therefore, if the US is on the strategic offensive and is invading oppressed nations or encouraging its proxies and puppets to do so then this is good evidence that this is the major contradiction in the world.Of course inter-imperialist rivalry could be another contender
for the main world contradiction but I think this it is actually secondary. After all, was the conflict between Russia and the US over the Iraqi invasion in any sense a determining factor? I see no real evidence of this, although I accept it was a real conflict between these two powers. On the ‘what is an oppressed nation?’ question-people have got very excited about the prospect of China and India becoming economic super-powers. Particularly in the case of the latter I think this is rather overdone. The former may be on stronger ground but the Americans do have ways of dealing with those that threaten their dominance-look at Japan’s long-term declining role.Exporting capital on its own does not make a country imperialist, as otherwise Senegal would be imperialist because some of its citizens run bars in Gambia. The question is who dominates the world financial system and who benefits? I’m sure the Americans are very glad that the Chinese are so willing to prop up their trade deficit with all those low interest paying treasury bills. However, more recent moves by the Chinese to actually make some money on their foreign investments and accumulate a bit seem to be running into resistance.We here a lot about the need to ‘Make It New!’ when it comes to Marxism. However, you have to have good reasons for discarding the old first. Many people discard the old because they have swallowed distorted bourgeois accounts of the history and practice of communism. The ‘new thing’ they create then ends up being a re-tread of revisionism, Euro-communism, trotskyism, anarchism etc.
Mike E Says:
March 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm Joseph writes:
“An invasion of an oppressed nation is not simply a contradiction between the ‘bureaucratic- comprador class’ running the country at the time (if such it be) and imperialism. It is an attack on the whole people of the country as the devastation and chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon at the time of the Israeli invasion of 2006 and Somalia shows.”
Here is a method where you can “know” about myriad situations without studying any of them. The nature of “an invasion” is determined on a universal basis — you can predict (using Joseph’s version of Marxism) the nature of future invasions (before they even happen), and deduce what people should do.And the logic is that we can also deduce what stand communists should take toward various forces opposing the U.S. — independent of the actual conditions, history, dynamics etc of the country, the region, that moment in time.I think this is the opposite of “concrete analysis of concrete conditions” — and, in fact, things can’t be determined that way. Not every situation is analagous to the U.S. invasion of Vietnam (in the 1960s), or the Japanese invasion of China (in the 1930s). History, society and nature are not made up of “classic forms” reproducing themselves in symmetrical ways already comprehended by an equally “classic Marxism.”
Joseph Ball Says:
March 30, 2008 at 4:54 pm I have studied the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Somalia. If Mike Ely can show that the misery and devastation these invasions have created are not the principal contradiction for the people of these countries, I would truly like to see the evidence!At the end of the day, you are either with the people or you are not. You either sympathise with their misery and you support their efforts to resist or you go off on your own subjective trajectory coming up with vacillations like ‘McWorld vs. Jihad’.Britain and America are Fascist states. They are the main enemy of humanity at the current time. Everywhere they go they
create oppression and spread destruction. Maoists can either get to where the people are and join in with the resistance or they can drift off into irrelevance. There is no other choice.
Mike E Says:
March 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm Joseph Ball writes:
“Therefore, if the US is on the strategic offensive and is invading oppressed nations or encouraging its proxies and puppets to do so then this is good evidence that this is the major contradiction in the world.”
That is, I suppose, good evidence. But not in the complete absence of analysis of other contradictions (the oppressed people of the world and feudalism, the inter-imperialist contradiction, the contradiction among people all over the world expressed as forms of civil strife and ethnic cleansing). And, further, I think it is quite possible for there to be major contradictions between U.S. imperialism and many countries — WITHOUT that defining a single “major contradiction” on a world scale.The very idea that there is one “major contradiction” is tied to a strategic notion that communists in all countries should adjust (or focus) their political work to take that single global dynamic into account. It emerged at a time when the Soviet Union was the only socialist country, and when it was asserted that the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union defined and contextualized all communist work. No one doubts that you have looked at various U.S. invasions. And I am not arguing that the U.S. invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Somalia are not unjust — or that they do not involve the oppression of whole nations by imperialism. They obviously do.Joseph Ball writes:
“Britain and America are Fascist states. They are the main enemy of humanity at the current time. Everywhere they go they create oppression and spread destruction. Maoists can either get to where the people are and join in with the resistance or they can drift off into irrelevance. There is no other choice.”
Everything here is stated by assertion. Are Britain and the U.S. REALLY “fascist states”? Not just imperialist, but literally fascist? Where is that analyzed and documented?They (both of them?) are the “main enemy of humanity at the current time”? Ok. Some people think the U.S. alone is the “main enemy” of a “world wide united front against the U.S.”? How did Britain get added (and where is the analysis that argues for that addition)?Now why would it be wrong to say “imperialism as a world system is the main enemy of the humanity”? Why MUST we focus the main enemy on one alliance or bloc operating within the imperialist system?Who can evaluate theories and verdicts announced without materialist analysis — and then posed in a moralist way. i.e. that you either get with this unexplained analysis and then “join in with the resistance” (”join in” how? Which particular flavor or current of “resistance”?) or “drift off into irrelevance”? Since presumably these verdicts are based on analysis, where is it? Stating your opinion very emphatically, with threats of “irrelevance” really doesn’t get closer to materialism or clarity.So I am arguing for challenging a form of self-satisfied and superficial Marxism that proceeds by formula and diktat — that perceives events as analogies or repeats of earlier events, and that announces its verdicts (without bothering to present any real analysis).In other words, the evidence you provide (while real and important) rests on a whole network of assumptions (about how Marxist analysis is done and about how the world works). And it is those assumptions that are the focus of this debate (not the horrific and widespread nature of U.S. attacks).
Joseph Ball Says:
March 30, 2008 at 5:29 pm Mike Ely wrote: ‘That is, I suppose, good evidence. But not in the complete absence of analysis of other contradictions (the oppressed people of the world and feudalism, the inter-imperialist contradiction, the contradiction among people all over the world expressed as forms of civil strife and ethnic cleansing).’I don’t see how the contradiction between the oppressed people and feudalism can be the central contradiction in the world. Feudal forces are too weak internationally and too dependent on imperialism, on the whole, to be the main contradiction in the world.As I said the inter-imperialist contradiction exists but is not so sharp at the moment. Where is the threat of war? Where is the sharp economic contradiction between the West and other up and coming imperialist powers? As I said, I don’t think China is imperialist so I don’t think there is an inter-imperialist conflict here.‘Civil strife and ethnic cleansing’ are not contradictions, they are the symptoms of contradictions. Ethnic conflict is about access to resources by different groups. When it seems impossible to gain access to resources by breaking the yoke of imperialist exploitation, then it can happen that some of the oppressed peoples can fall under the influence of a reactionary leadership and turn on each other and fight over what is left to them after the imperialists what they wish.
Mike E Says:
March 30, 2008 at 5:37 pm Again: My question is “what makes you think there is a single ‘central contradiction’ in the world?”It is a circular reasoning: you assume there is such a central contradiction, you eliminate several that can’t be it.It can’t be the “people vs. feudalism.” Interimperialist is “not so sharp at the moment”….. and so on. So then, what is left, but to assume that the contradiction you have left in your hands (which is a major one, without doubt) somehow must be “the central contradiction.”And similarly, the contradiction between the Jihadis and U.S. imperialism obviously can’t be an interimperialist contradiction, it obviously can’t be the bourgeois/proletari an contradiction, it obviously can’t be the contradiction between socialism and imperialism, so what is left? If you only think there can be 4 major contradictions on a world scale, and if you assume everything must be a manifestation of one of them — then the Jihadis “must be” seen in the context (and category) of the contradiction of the people of the oppressed countries and imperialism.It doesn’t seem like an analysis to me, but a fingering of impoverished apriori categories (lifted out of time and place from what-were-once living materialist analyses made by previous Marxists.)
Paul Says:
March 31, 2008 at 12:13 pm What are Jihadis? Do you mean mujahideen? All Islamists? Al-Qaeda? There are many Islamist
forces, some pro-US, some anti-US. And there obviously are and have been non-Islamists in conflict with the US - Saddam’s Iraq
might come to mind. Presenting the war against Afghanistan as fundamentally different from the
war against Iraq, or presenting the war against Iraq as a war against “Jihadis” means succumbing
to the ideology that supports US aggression.Confused fears about a clash of civilizations do not make an useful basis for a “main contradiction
in the world.”
Joseph Ball Says:
March 31, 2008 at 5:18 pm Why do I think there is a central contradiction in the world? Because I believe there is a basic contradiction between socialism and capitalism that will inevitably result in the replacement of capitalism with socialism. Therefore every other contradiction in the world ultimately is dependent on this central contradiction. This viewpoint is correct because it is objective and scientific. The proof of this position was provided in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital.Yes, the nature of the Jihadis must be seen in the context of the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations. Jihadis are essentially reactionary, essentially on the side of imperialism. However when an oppressed nation is invaded by an imperialist nation circumstances may force them to switch to the side of the people. This has also been the experience of other reactionaries. For example, after the US invasion, Saddam Hussein tried to organise resistance to US occupation.This doesn’t mean we should come under the leadership of reactionaries in such circumstances. As the crumbling of the Iraqi military in 2003 shows, they are not really capable of leading serious resistance. Maoists should take the leadership in wars of national resistance.
Mike E Says:
March 31, 2008 at 6:35 pm thanks for responding Joseph….My understanding of this is rather different:Marx wrote:
“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.”
This contradiction between the relations of production and the forces of production is the central, basic (or fundamental) contradiction of capitalism.Mao (with his usual humor) talked about how “tools suddenly talk through humans.” Ok, but there are levels of mediation through which that basic contradiction manifests itself (it manifests itself as the struggle between classes — between bourgeois and proletariat, between peasant and landlord, between slave and slavemaster, it manifests itself as the anarchy of capital and interimperialist war, it manifests itself as the contradiction between socialism and capitalism on a world scale…. and so one).But this Marxist view of a basic contradiction is not the same as YOUR assetion that there is a single main contradiction in the world (on a political plane) — i.e. that the contradiction between oppressed nations and imperialism is the main contradiction on the world scale.these are two separate matters.On a methodlogical point, you write:
“This viewpoint is correct because it is objective and scientific. The proof of this position was provided in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital.”
These formulations are a complete muddle, and at their core are idealist not materialist. A viewpoint is correct if it corresponds to reality. And this is never simply true (i.e. the correspondence is always imperfect and relative). So a viewpoint is more or less true — depending on the degree to which it corresponds to reality. We should separate this question of “objectivity” from the matter of our method (i.e. whether it is “scientific” or not.) Further Marx’s Kapital is a theory not a proof. The proof of the theory is in the real world. Practice is the ultimate criterion of truth. But in fact, this view that things are settled — proven, freezedried — in the past is precisely the basis on which people apply snippets of marxist analysis out of time and place. It is exactly the issue we are debating.On the political plane:There is a view that the resistance is happening, and the task is for communists to take leadership. (The Peruvian Maoists formulated that as “Put Maoism in command of the world revolution.”) In other words, it implies that it is already happening, and what is needed is simply new leadership. This is, I believe, basically wrong. The revolutions are not happening without communist leadership. And it is a profound overestimation of the spontaneous, and a misreading of the various conflicts around the world to think that you can unplug their current leadership (which is “not really capable of leading serious resistance”) and just plug in Maoists to “take the leadership in the wars of national resistance.”Objectively, in most places, this will lead to a situation where the communist forces don’t successfully establish themselves as an independent force (as was shown by the errors made in the early years of Khomenei in Iran, where the communist first “allied” with the Islamists and then were decimated.) The political content of the various forms of anti-U.S. struggle are highly contradictory and often rather reactionary. It is sometimes possible (and necessary) to unite with some vacillating allies IN THOSE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE COMMUNISTS LEADING REAL REVOLUTIONS — and in ways that unfold out of the concrete political life of that revolutionary struggle. But the correct ways of operating in these anti-u.s. wars (or anywhere for that matter) emerge from the actual situation, from the analysis of the contradictions, from the stages in the work of the communists, etc. not from mechanical application of formulas treated outside space or time.
Joseph Ball Says:
April 1, 2008 at 1:37 am All contradictions come down to the fact that, as Mike rightly says, there is a contradiction between the relations of production and the forces of production. This is the result of capitalism, the only way of ending the deepening contradiction is the establishment of socialism. A study of science and history shows that humanity adapts itself to new circumstances in order to survive and develop. Therefore the contradiction Mike says is fundamental does lead to a contradiction between capitalism and socialism. I prefer this formulation because it illustrates things more clearly and starkly, although it is not ‘idealist’ but scientific. Mike may feel it ‘leaps a stage’ from the contradiction between the productive forces and productive relations-but I am fine with that because I think it makes an important point and it is also logically and scientfically valid.Certainly, people may not identify this as the main contradiction. They may then engage in struggles that are objectively determined by this contradiction but misidentify what needs doing and end up fighting for reformism, racism, religion etc. This is not the same as saying that the contradiction between capitalism and the need for socialism is not primary.Mike points out that this contradiction manifests itself in class struggle. This is because there is a new class that emerges that is able to solve the contradiction by taking power and revolutionising production. This is the proletariat. Due to humanity’s adaptability and survival instinct it gathers power and allies over time and eventually is victorious. The proletariat’s power currently exists in the oppressed nations and it is weak in the imperialist nations. Hence my belief that the basic contradiction is between imperialist nations and oppressed peoples (lead by the proletariat of the oppressed nations). Karl Marx did prove his theory of the essential workings of capitalism. He studied empirical evidence and used this to demonstrate the truth of his theory. OK, we need to develop his theory as time has moved on and many have, e.g. Lenin’s theory of imperialism (which explains why world revolution has not occurred as quickly as Marx implied it would). Not everything is ‘just a theory’, although I know this may be hard to accept in our post-modernist world. Revolutions do not happen without communist leadership, Mike says. Agreed, no-one is saying that e.g. the Iraqi resistance is a socialist revolution. It is people defending their own country against imperialism. It can objectively weaken imperialism. Under Fundamentalist leadership this resistance can never unite all the people, as Fundamentalists will alienate women, people of different sects and ultimately alienate the whole people who do not want reactionary leadership. However, we have to ask whether the Iraqi resistance is under Fundamentalist leadership-have the McWorld vs. Jihad brigade actually demonstrated this?. I would contend that the fact that some marginally less reactionary elements that Al-Qaeda are still dominant in the resistance is what has sustained it through the set-back of the surge and the (Al-Qaeda provoked) emergence of ‘Awakening’ collaborator groups.The point is not whether there needs to be communist leadership of resistance struggles. Everyone agrees on this. I think the essential point is whether, as Mike said before, US attack can be seen as providing some sort of opportunity for revolution in places like Iran. Like I say I’ve heard this idea from many sources, it worries me a lot and it worries other people, if what’s being said on the internet is anything to go by. I became a Maoist because I opposed imperialism 100%. No-one in the world is going to argue me into a position where I end up tailing imperialism because I think it will provide some wonderful opportunity. This is not the first time in world history that all sorts of correct seeming Marxist arguments have been used to justify a position that is frankly very, very dubious.
Maz Says:
April 1, 2008 at 8:53 am x-posted from Maoist Revolution:
(By Harry Powell)In their latest contribution to the debate on current resistance to imperialism (15/03/08) the Circle of Canadian Revolutionaries question wheter or not the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations is the principal one in the world today. They criticise Harry Powell for not concretely arguing that this is in fact the case and lapsing into what they call “formulaic dogmatism”. Also they criticise contributors to the debate for being too ready to see direct parallels between the United Front Against Japanese Imperialism in 1930’s China and contemporary resistance to imperialist invasion There does seem to be a certain strain of agnosticism underlying these comments. It is almost as if we communists must put aside the lessons of theory and practice learned from the past of our movement and start afresh with a clean slate. This is not possible nor desirable. Our starting point in approaching any political problem is to begin analysing it by using our knowledge of past revolutionary theory and practice in order to understand the matter. As the struggle develops, both theoretical and practical, it may prove necessary to develop new concepts and methods to make sense of and concretely handle the particular problem. Yes, we do need to go forward, beyond Maoism, in order to regenerate the revolutionary communist movement. Unfortunately, for the last thirty years or so this has not been happening on the whole - with the notable exception of the Nepalese comrades - and we must strive to make a qualitative breakthrough.MAIN CONTRADICTIONS IN THE WORLDIn the 1960’s the Communist Party of China identified four fundamental contradictions in the world:1. Between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp.
2. Between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries.
3. Between the oppressed nations and imperialism.
4. Among imperialist countries and among monopoly capitalist groups.The CPC identified the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism as the principal one, i.e. the one mainly determing and influencing the development of the other three contradictions. This was at the time when national liberation struggles were on the upsurge in many parts of the world, e.g. Vietnam, and so the Chinese comrades claimed that the principal aspect of this contradiction was the oppressed nations. This analysis did conform with objective reality at that time but clearly the world situation has changed. In particular the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp no longer exists.I suggest that the main contradictions in the world today include:1. Between imperialism and oppressed nations.
For example, between US and British imperialism and the people of Iraq.2. Between imperialist ruling classes.
For example, between the US and European monopoly capitalist classes.3. Between ruling and subordinate classes.
For example, between the British monopoly capitalist class and the working class in Britain.4. Between reaction and revolution.
For example, between revolutionary socialism and Islamic fundamentalism.It is more than ever necessary to analyse the concrete conditions revolutionaries are faced with in any particular place with reference to the world situation because the process whereby capitalism tends towards one world system (sometimes referred to as “globalisation” ) has gone that much further since the Chinese comrades made their analysis. Here are some brief comments on each contradiction:Between imperialist ruling classes. These are sharpening. Only a few years ago some commentators claimed that following the collapse of the Soviet bloc US imperialism would establish a world-wide hegemony. But the anatagonism between rival imperialist ruling classes is sharpening, e.g. the USA and Europe, and emergent monopoly capitalist classes are making bids for foreign spheres of dominance, e.g. Chinese, Indian and Russian. Even so, the increasing imperialist rivalry in places such as Central Asia and Africa has not yet broken out into armed conflict or developed into some new type of Cold War. However in the future war between rival imperialist powers, perhaps over scarce natural resources, cannot be ruled out. Lenin’s general analysis of imperialist rivalry inevitably leading to war unless prevented by revolution is probably still correct.Between ruling and subordinate classes. Here we must distinguish between this contradiction as it applies to the advanced capitalist countries and as it applies to the less developed countries.Although the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat remains antagonistic in countries such as America and Britain it is not very intense at present and the bourgeoisie constitute the principal aspect. The decline of social democracy means that many of the reforms achieved by the working class have been wittled away. None the less, the absence of revolutionary parties and the relative economic stability and prosperity in these countries, at least partly the result of unequal exchange with the less developed countries, determine that this contradiction is not very sharp at present.In the less developed countries the class contradictions are more complex and varied. For example, in Nepal the main class contradiction is between the ruling feudal landlord/comprador bourgeois alliance and the great mass of the people (peasants, workers, petit bourgeois) and clearly it is very intense and sharp. In China it is between the state bourgeoisie and the great mass of the peasants and workers and is probably intensifying. On the whole it is pretty clear that the class contradictions within these countries are sharper than in the developed capitalist countries and this is at least partly related to the role of imperialism in these countries bringing about uneven development. Unfortunately due to the weakness of the communist movement in many less developed countries the political struugle of the oppressed is at a relatively low level but there are exceptions, e.g. India.Between reaction and revolution. Revolution might have been the main trend in the world during the 1960’s but clearly this is not the case today. In the imperialist countries Marxism of all varieties is rapidly disappearing. As we are only too aware, the main resistance to imperialist invasion and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq is led by Islamists, fascists and nationalists. Any remaining communists in these countries barely dare to show their faces. This is hardly surprising given the lamentable behaviour of many of those who called themselves Marxists in these countries in the past. However we have to recognise that the growth in the strength of these reactionary elements is a response to imperialism in its various forms: economic, political-military and cultural and not a response to developing revolutionary movements inthose countries. In other words this development has been determined by the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations.Between imperialism and the oppressed nations. This contradiction is very sharp in its different aspects. One economic aspect is the unfavourable economic relations forced on the imperialistically- dominated countries by organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organisation. This both inhibits all-round economic growth and creates widening material inequalities within these countries thus sharpening class antagonisms. Political and military offensives by US imperialism and its allies have become much bolder since the demise of Soviet social imperialism and the end of the Cold War, e.g. the invasion of Iraq. Cultural imperialism has also strengthened as a result of the greatly increased penetrative power of media developments such as satellite television and the internet. Islamic fundamentalism is as much a response to this aspect of imperialism as it is to the other two mentioned here. People have their pride and dignity and they react strongly to being told that their whole way of life is a load of shit and the sooner they start eating Big Macs (ug!) and watching porno videos the better for them. (We comrades in the imperialist countries often overlook or minimise the significance of this aspect of imperialism. )This contradiction currently is the sharpest of these four as is indicated by its manifestation in the major wars of national resistance being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is this contradiction that is conditioning the development of the other three contradictions rather than vice versa. Thus it is correct to state that the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations is the principal contradiction in the world today. In the main imperialism remains the principal aspect of this contradiction because it is still on the offensive rather than the defensive. Also the principal contradiction in a particular country can be one of the other three. For example, in Nepal at the present time it is the class contradiction between the ruling class and the mass of the people that is principal. This could change very rapidly if, for example, a Maoist-led new democratic regime comes to power and the imperialists try to crush it.So, Canadian comrades, I have tied to briefly state the case for asserting that the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations is the principal one in the world today. Of course, a more substantial analysis would fill many books. But Marxism-Leninism- Maoism is a very practical politics and communists need to respond to major world developments as they happen and not ponder over them for years before arriving at a position. It is possible to do this if we critically draw upon the accumulated knowledge of our movement and apply it to the flows of contemporary information information coming to us from various sources. If you consider that the above analysis is deficient in any way then please say so and explain why. It certainly needs further development. We should seek the truth to serve the people and this can only be done on a collective basis.There is another contradiction which is becoming stronger and could even become the principal contradiction. This is between capitalism and the natural environment, what some people call the “environmental crisis”. It is increasingly obvious that the underlying economic dynamic of capitalism, as pointed out by Marx, determines that it continually grows or dies. It is the spread of capitalism across the world driven by the need to make profits which is bringing about the exhaustion of natural resources such as oil and unanticipated side effects such as planetary warming. ( What better example of this process that the effects of capitalist restoration in China!) This contradiction is certainly conditioning to an increasing extent the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nationsand it should be included in the list of main contradictions in the world today. If unchecked the growing contradiction between capitalism and the natural environment could lead to the collapse and disintegration of the existing world order, throwing the survivors back into earlier forms of social organisation such as feudalism. Yes, capitalism is killing the planet and it is about time communists took this issue seriously instead of leaving it to the environmentalists with their liberal political solutions.
Paul Says:
April 1, 2008 at 10:09 pm Contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, contradictions among the imperialists,
and contradictions between imperialism and the oppressed nations are fundamental to Lenin’s
analysis of imperialism. Lenin’s analysis remains valid because imperialism remains central to the
world system: capitalism is still a “world system of [neo-]colonial oppression and financial
strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’
countries.” There also may be contradictions among other classes, for example, between the proletariat and
semi-feudalism. Which contradiction is primary in a given circumstance can only be discerned by
concrete analysis. It is important to emphasize that these contradictions are among material categories and forces.
Contradictions in the superstructure ought not be elevated to the status of main
contradictions in the world. The Chinese CP did not for example include the contradiction
between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism or between Marxism-Leninism and other bourgeois ideologies
among the main contradictions in the world, since these contradictions are conditioned
by the material contradictions already mentioned.Moreover, these contradictions are interdependent: the development of one is conditioned
on the development of the other.The claim that the contradiction between McWorld and Jihadis is a main contradiction in the world
is erroneous because it seems to imply incorrectly that imperialism has been replaced by a
globalist system (McWorld) and confuses an ideological category (Jihadis) with a material category.
It exaggerates and elevates in importance the role of Islamism and incorrectly amalgamates disparate
movements. The premise that the development of imperialism or globalism is interdependent with
development of Islamism is also highly questionable. It reinforces the dominant, misleading and
harmful bourgeois ideology that the imperialist countries are in fundamental conflict with Islam and
that Islam is a primary cause of the conflicts in western Asia. On the contrary the conflicts are
primarily struggles for control of oil and other resources.Ideologies, including religious ideology, can be a material force, and religion arguably has
been a determining factor, for example in feudal Europe. However, asserting that a religious
ideology constitutes part of a main contradiction in the world amounts to an assertion that it
is essentially autonomous and not primarily determined by material contradictions.
Anton Says:
April 2, 2008 at 2:12 am i think we need to assess broad categories of contradiction in the particulars. For instance whatever the principal contradiction on a world scale is, the imperialist vs oppressed nation contradiction is certainly principal in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the form of intense occupation vs resistance warfare. This in turn raises the intensity of the imps vs the oppressed contradiction on a global scale. These wars occupation have raised the level of contradiction especially betwwen the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. setbacks in the Middle East have also likely raised the level of open opposition to the U.S. in Latin America and elsewhere.In the event of a U.S. war on Iran– the imperialist vs oppressed nation contradiction will immediately become the principal contradiction facing the people of Iran in an extremely sharp and massively violent way.