Dialectics and Maoist class struggle via national question

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Mon May 27 12:58:18 MDT 1996


>At 2:30 AM 5/27/96, hariette spierings wrote:
>
>>Of course Arch!  IF you start by considering who pays the workers better,
>>multinationals do!  That is why we say National Bourgeoisie! Not petty
>>bourgeoisie. Because they are the class enemy of the working class but
>>WITHIN the nation!
>
>Whatever the merits of this argument - and I'm far from convinced of them -
>it sure isn't Marxist. Not that that necessarily matters, but doesn't the
>PCP consider itself fairly orthodox?
>
>Doug
>

Hi Doug!

What is Marxism?  Abstract Marism does not exist as such - that is the
premise upon which we started this whole thread, remember?

So Marxism has to be applied to a concrete reality.  What has you confused
is the term "orthodox marxism". You equate with dogmatism.  However,
orthodox means just that it is in complete correspondence with the method of
Marxism.

Chairman Mao said:  "The combination of the utmost flexibility with the
utmost faithfullness to principle is one of the principles of Marxism".
Flexible in application, rigid in principles, it is an apparent
contradiction, but, just the slightest acquaintance of the way the leaders
of Marxism always approached the concrete problems of each revolution will
give you an idea that such is the method of marxism (Marxism itself is a
contradiction, like every other existing thing, ideology, etc.).

I do not know of any other method to convince you of the feasibility and
Marxist character of this policy but to undertake investigation in Peru, in
China - to see how Maoist economics actually worked out in practice.  But
that requires an open mind, an open mind not for giving up on Marxism just
because Karl Marx, Engels or even Lenin did not have to deal with these kind
of concrete problems since they did not face them in practice.

No, what I mean, and it has been my guiding thought from the very beginning
of my participation in this list, is to demonstrate that, yes, we need a
"new and fresh approach" to the revolution including in the ideological
department.  But that such a fresh approach does not in any way need to
depart from the basic principles of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, etc.  On the
contrary, it can only be really fresh and revolutionary if in developing a
new approach each and everyone of such PRINCIPLES is confirmed and validated
anew!  That is what I mean by "Orthodox Marxism"!

I see that Zeynep has also taken issue with this thesis of maoism alleging
there are no longer any progressive sections of the bourgeoisie anywhere in
the world.

Just from the standpoint of science, this is untrue since wherever there
exist feudal conditions - which do exist today in the world - bourgeois
relations are always a superior stage advancing history in the Marxist sense.

But I think Zeynep is confusing a bit her understanding by applying her
perception of the Turkish situation TODAY with what is happening in Peru
where other conditions - political and military prevail.

In Peru, unlike in Turkey - or Kurdistan for example where some sections of
the national bourgeoisie and even the old feudal clans play a progressive
role vis-a- vis national oppression - there are today existing side by side
two states and two armed forces.  The situation is different for the
national bourgeoisie.  In Turkey they are, like at the beginning of the
revolutionary developments in Peru, quite content with existing conditions
as not to want revolution but merely to lobby for policies that would
benefit them as a class.  That is whay they possible follow the bourgeois
and even the Islamic parties.

In peru that stage has been already superceeded by the People's War.  ALL
bourgeois parties, except Fujimori's (who is the reactionary army in
civilian politician clothes) have already collapsed.  There is no
alternative for the national bourgeoisie but either to be smashed by the
pro-imperialist big bourgeoisie and its corrup armed forces and police, or
to come to the side of the people for a New Democratic Republic in which
they can play their role.  Obviously, the national bourgeoisie, as a class
enemy of the proletariat is not going to enter this kind of arrangement
under any other conditions except by the compulsion of events.

That is why no one is saying that the National bourgeoisie is a reliable
ally of the revolution and why unity and struggle towards that class is
necessary, not only in this period of the revolution - the seizure of power
for the people and the establishment of popular democratic government, but
throughout all the period of socialist transformation that is bound to begin
with the seizure of power itself.

The proletariat cannot renounce its class aims nor rely upon the national
bourgeoisie for the necessary SOCIAL transformation.  But it certainly can
come to an accomodation for "buying it off".  This course of action is of
course also full of dangers for the proletariat - rightist dangers - but
such was also the problem with NEP too.  To renounce a course of action
because of the dangers implied in it is to chose the Nevsky Prospect all
over again. The only difference is that this "Nevsky Prospect" is the
easiest one in the world.  It is Hugh Rodwell Nevsky Prospekt+  Just wait
around with your ideology poor until the whole historical process develops
before our eyes, and then jump for the Rose.  Except of course, that at that
time, the whole class will have jumped for the Rose and Hugh and his
leadership will be left with nothing to do except look foolish!


Adolfo Olaechea



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list