International or Internet

Chris, London 100423.2040 at compuserve.com
Fri May 10 07:00:34 MDT 1996


The problems that the Maoists are enacting in front of our eyes
about the creation of an International, are instructive.

They confirm my impression that the Internet is very undermining
of disciplined democratic centralist organisational unity.

The more various Maoists have participated in discussions on this
l'st the more issues have arisen that are likely to divide them.

It has emerged that early on, Quispe was uneasy about the wisdom of
Olachaea's handling of the possible assassination of Aczueta, but
kept a disciplined silence, even though subsequent remarks by Ccoromina
that Olachaea was psychotic on this issue, could at best only be
interpreted in the broader psychoanalytic use of the term "psychotic" rather
than as a strict clinical definition.

The interpretation of the Cultural Revolution alone, gives plenty of
principles for Maoists to disagree about.

Whether to remain with the PCP within RIM in opposition to Avakian, or
whether to pull out now with a call for an international movement, which
may not be constituted as the PCP would wish, is another source of potential
conflict.

As is the question of whether to have an international at all.

MIM's reappearance to quote Mao Zedong at the time of the liquidation of
Lenin and Stalin's Comintern, is particularly interesting, historically
and as a thought experiment. How does a "Maoist International Movement"
come to present Mao's arguments against a Communist International?
This could be the source of more conflict.

And merely how to interpret the state of development of a revolutionary
movement in Nepal was the occasion of a warm exchange between Godena and C.

And all this before checking whether there is an agreed line on nuclear
power stations (it is not impossible that some Maoists might secretly
sympathise with Malecki's criticisms of Rolf in this respect) and
the proletarian policy on gun control, (C did not comment on this
topical issue.)

And when all these are solved, there is room for debate
on the Maoist line on homosexuality - Mao's doctor came to the
opinion after interesting deliberation that Mao was not homosexual but there
is countervailing evidence that Mao's doctor's book was itself
"doctored" between for its sexual highlights between the Chinese and
the American edition.

So how can all this debate lead to a unified Maoist international, when
internet alone, allows endlessly more detailed discussion of detailed
questions?

If Trotskyists were to resume the attempt to polemicise into being a
single International, I suspect they would run into similar difficulties
soon enough again. The harder the polemic, the faster the fragmentation.

So what we are observing is the dynamics of networks, not of
democratic centralist hierarchies.

It is a medium that is arguably inherently Menshevik, that does not
easily permit the thrashing out of Lenin's desired "granite" like
theoretical unity.

Those who do not undersand this may do themselves a mischief, whatever harm
they inflict on others on the way.

Chris

London.


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




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list