Two-line struggle and "the Rights" (horns and organizational line)

Rubyg580 at aol.com Rubyg580 at aol.com
Sun Apr 21 19:04:16 MDT 1996


In a message from Adolfo dated 96-04-20 he writes:

>... when Quispe and Axtell resorted to personal attacks without
>a shred of ideological content, you seem to think that is OK.
>When we use our horns in a Marxist response, without a single
>word out of order - all Marxist type polemics - you shout that we
>are like Avakian.  I think something there is not right Gina!

I don't care for arguements that center on personal questions, or that
leave out political line, regardless of who makes them.  I don't think it
is "OK". But often it is not the main question, so I don't put a lot of
energy into going on about it. (I didn't spend time commenting on
your BS about "calls to Peru" and "chums" either).

What political line is this "use our horns" business?  Where does Mao
say that in handling contradictions among the people we should
"use horns"? In fact he says:

"This democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people
was epitomized in 1942 in the formula "unity, criticism, unity." To
elaborate,
it means starting from the desire for unity, resolving contradictions through

criticism or struggle and arriving at a new unity on a new basis.... The
"Left"
dogmatists had resorted to the method of "ruthless struggle and merciless
blows" in inner party struggle.  This method was incorrect.... The essential
thing is to start from the desire for unity.  For without this desire for
unity,
the struggle is certain to get out of hand."  (On the Correct Handling of
Contradictions among the People, 1957)

He says nothing about using horns, and, comrade, what you describe as
"horns" looks a lot like "ruthless struggle and merciless blows" to me.
Later he says: "Learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones and cure
the sickness to save the patient."

Your "horns" are goring the patient, not helping to cure him. The concerns
comrades have raised about organizational questions (so what if at first
these were mixed up with wrong statements about ideological weakness?
Things develop and transform; issues become clearer thru the debate;
people's understanding increases) are due to having seen the consequences
of organizational forms being built on inadequate foundations. To have the
best ideological statement in the world is not enough. If the organizaitonal
form of mobilizing around it is not based firmly on relying on the masses,
it will not serve to advance the struggle.

>If you sincerely want unity, you should start for laying the blame where it
>belongs.   >Adolfo

"Blame" for what, Adolfo?  "Blame" is against an enemy.  If you're referring
to the question of the "peace talks" fraud, Ynakee intervention against the
People's War, the lies and disinformation campaign of the Yankee
imperialists and Yankee revisionists, then we don't have a quarrell.  But to
jump to "blame" when comrades raise questions and criticisms, EVEN
WHEN/ IF THOSE END UP TO BE WRONG is ultra-leftism, and does
not help the two-line struggle.

Mao says in "On Contradiction": Opposition and struggle between ideas
of different kinds constantly occur within the Party; this is a reflection
within
the Party of contradictions between classes and between the new and the
old in society.  If there were no contradictions in the party and no
ideological
struggles to resolve them, the Party's life would come to an end."

He also says,  "All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do
they coexist in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also
transform themselves into each other."    The purpose of two-line struggle,
therefore, is to transform the incorrect line into the correct line--or more
specifically to transform the thinking of those who hold the incorrect line
to where they grasp the correct line and can act on that.  An antagonistic
contradiction, on the other hand, is one that can only be resolved by one
aspect destroying the other.  That is the nature of the contradictions
between ourselves and the enemy.

Your methods of handling the contradictions around the WMC have not
helped to clarify the correctness and incorrectness of the lines.   You
write as if raising questions about how this WMC will be led, with what
line (organizational line) how will it be concretely implemented, etc.,
makes those who raise such questions enemies of the people.  Maybe
that is not in fact what you think, but to express it that way interferes
with clarifying the issues.  Acting as if the issues are crystal clear
because YOU think they're crystal clear is just egotism.

I can't find the quote, but Mao also says something about the correct
line develops in opposition to the incorrect line.  This means that
people who hold an incorrect line actually do a disservice to the
development of the correct line if they fail to argue as fully as they
can for their incorrect line.   Their thinking cannot be transformed
if they don't express it; if they are intimidated into keeping quiet
because of fear of being labled a "Rightist"or "Avakian lover".

It seems to me that you should answer the concerns that have been
raised about the organizational questions.  Who will appoint the
committee that will organize the world conference?  How will this
appointment take place? What criteria will be used to select the
committee? Where does one send suggestions, nominations,
concerns, criticisms, etc.?  And how will these things be responded
to?  And by whom?  Who will be welcome at this meeting?
Who will not?

You have said that it should be organized on principles of democratic
centralism.  How can democratic centralism function between a variety
of different types of organizations and individuals on a world level in
today's world?  The RCP claims to operate by democratic centralism
too, but I know from very direct and intimate experience over too many
years that declaring democratic centralism to be the organizational
principle and actually functioning by democratic centralism are two
very different things.

And, wouldn't this mean that only people who are willing to work in a
democratic centralist organization would be able to participate in the
World Mobilization?  That would exclude a lot of people who can and
should be active in supporting the People's War.

It's not enough to just dismiss these questions with comments about
"nothing stopping someone" from making suggestions about agenda,
etc. I have seen this type of organization in action and it does not in
fact rely on the masses.  Without clear leadership structure, leadership
is in fact in the hands of whoever can get in position, without having to
answer to the masses. Calls for suggestions don't change that. This is
based on dealing with such organizations IN PRACTICE, not on
speculation or conjecture.  You have not answered these concerns;
you need to do that.

In unity and struggle
Gina / Detroit




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list