Maoism and El Salvador

Louis N Proyect lnp3 at
Wed Sep 13 16:01:17 MDT 1995

On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Matt D. wrote:
> Was Ungo in the government?  Was he funded by U.S. imperialism?

Louis: We have to define what it means to be "in the government". Ungo
ran for parliament several times but lost. If he had been elected, would he
have been fair game for a Salvadoran version of Sendero?

> Or by aligning themselves with putatlively reformist and practically
> impotent historically compromised organizations, they lose their credibility
> with the masses and put their eggs in the basket of potential reactionaries
> (ala China 1927).

What happened in China in 1927 was that the CP entered the Kuomingtang
and had no independent political identity. They operated under the
discipline of Chiang. Stalin led the Communists in China to believe that
Chiang was leading an anti-feudal struggle that they had to subordinate
themselves to. The Chinese CP should have operated in its own name and
mobilized the workers and peasants against the Chinese comprador
bourgeoisie. The Kuomingtang was the political expression of the Chinese
ruling class. That is not a "reformist" organization, it is the
organization of the enemy class. Unions are "reformist" organizations, so
are peasant organizations. Lenin argues in "Left-Wing Communism, an
Infantile Disorder" that is a big mistake to try to bypass such
"reformist" organizations.

My model for successful revolutionary struggles are those waged by the
Cubans, the Nicaraguans and the Salvadorans. In the post following my
critique of Trotskyism, I shall make crystal clear why I think the Cuban
experience is so important for those of us who are trying to achieve
socialism today.

Just a sneak-preview: I think Fidel Castro is the closest thing we have to
a Lenin in our lifetime and close study of the Cuban revolution is just as
important as a study of Lenin's writings.

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list