Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:10:16 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: Reply to Chris F. on genuine Marxism ("Maoism")


Reply to Chris F. on genuine Marxism ("Maoism")
[Posted: 24.01.97]

You mailed me, Chris,  to ask for some replies to your questions 
put to me on newsgroup 'alt.politics.socialism.mao' - which I then
couldn't read. Now - in part thanks to you; goody! - I can read it 
and I'm posting my reply there and also to the Marxism-General 
mailing list managed by the Spoons Collective.

After having seen my posting "UNITE! Info #26en", you wrote, 
on 19.01:

(Chris Faatz:)
>Okay, Rolf, one reads the Maoist press in North America and on 
>the net, and one gets the view that you're all busily slashing away 
>at one another's hidden revisionism. So, what are the currents in 
>the world Maoist movement? Who's right, who's wrong? *Is* there 
>a two-line struggle in Peru? There certainly is in the Phillipines, 
>although the social democratic tendency seems to have been 
>isolated now, and relegated to the cities. What about CoRIM? 
>What about the MPPs? What about national formations like 
>MIM?

First of all: There hardly *is* any "Maoist press" in North America.   
Concerning that very term, "Maoism", btw, I'd like to state as my 
opinon that it's not a very good one. I'll not explain here more 
precisely why. What you mean, I'm certain, is a press that would 
adhere to Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. (That last 
term was the one that the Chinese communists and we other adherents 
of Mao Zedong used, in his lifetime, and is the one that I prefer 
today too). In other words, a press that would adhere to genuine 
Marxism. 

You referred to "the Maoist press in North America and on the Net", 
said it was your impression that "we" (that is, me, among others) 
"are all busy slashing away at one anothers' hidden revisionism",
and then asked "what are the currents in the world Maoist 
movement?"

The very way in which you're putting that question shows up a
misconception of yours, I think. It  sems that you believe that all
organizations or representatives that are calling themselves
"Maoist" (or adherents of Mao Zedong) genuinely are so. This
is not the case. (Proof? Shows up on various concrete questions.)

Nevertheless, your question is an important one. What you're
basically asking is, isn't it: Where are there genuinely Marxist
forces today? And what are the differences among those that
may be called such?

Here I shall try to reply to that question very roughly, in only a
few lines. I've already sent many long postings which entirely
or among other things deal with that matter. For a more complete
reply on my part, one showing the arguments I have on different
points, I shall have to refer you to those postings, which I'll list
below.  (Did I say "a few" lines above? Relatively, I mean.)

To your question "Who's right, who's wrong?", I shall give some
clear answers on those points where I have such answers,
without here however giving much proof of them. On those
points where I'm not certain, I shall say that I'm not certain.

Genuine Marxism today (or Maoism, as you're calling it) has
only very few representatives. You mentioned Peru and the
Philippines. That means the PCP and the CPPh (Communist
Party of the Philippines). Yes, *perhaps* those two are parties
today that have a basically genuine Marxist character. But I'm 
not certain on that point, concerning either of them. They both
are mass parties of course. But both at least have grave
weaknesses. I judge that in both cases, the struggle that those
parties are leading against the government of their respective
country is a just one, and so I support these liberation struggles.

But guidance to the international proletariat in its struggle against
the bourgeoisie - no, neither of those two parties today can
provide much of this.

There *was*, even after the overthrow of socialism in China in
1976-78, one party that to a great extent could provide such
guidance: The KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) in Germany. That was a party of 
a type and a quality which you, Chris, most certainly have never 
seen or heard of. It was an advanced, genuinely proletarian 
revolutionary party, on the level, in its understanding of the 
world, with the CPC led by Mao Zedong. And this despite the fact 
that it was always extremely small. It degenerated and became 
bourgeois approximately towards the end of the 1980s.

Because some of its leaders were forced into exile from 1972
on, I happened to get into contact with it here in Malmoe,
(Southern) Sweden, in 1974, and stayed in close contact with it
unltil 1990, when I found it necessary to criticize it as now
degenerated. Most of my political knowledge I have from my
16-years-long close cooperation with the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT). 
Its sorry remains today (sometimes) are posting under the address 
<klasber-AT-aol.com>. Even those remains do possess quite a lot of 
knowledge. But the thing is, they're not trying to represent the 
interests of the great majority of people - which is the most 
basic of all criteria for a party, of course.

The big CPC in China and the very small NE (its "official" 
abbreviation) in Germany, those were parties of a cathegory
by themselves. That's the kind of parties that's really needed
today. But it will be extremely difficult to create such parties.

Each miniscule group, each individual even, which (who) is
really following the line of Mao Zedong, today must be 
considered a rather important asset, and has a corresponding
responsibility too.  On the other hand, the contradiction
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie today has become 
so extremely acute, and the whole imperialist system rests on 
such clay feet, that really consistent forces, not least because 
of those means of communication which exist today and the level 
of knowledge of people in general in many parts of the world, 
have rather good prospects at achieveing something.

Genuine Marxism (="Maoism"), that's what the imperialists fear 
most of all. That's why they're making such enormous efforts
at subverting it and at diverting the Marxists off the correct 
track. (They are, you know. Most people don't know anything about
the enormity of these efforts, but they are *BIG*, let me tell you.)

On the PCP in Peru: While, on the one hand, the people's war
it's leading against the reactionary regime is a just struggle and
is *helping* the international proletariat, that party, on the other
hand, is helping some main reactionaries in the world (the CIA,
you could say, approximately) *combat* the international
proletariat too. This because of its continued support of the
reactionary "Declaration of the RIM" of 1984, which massively
attacks and vilifies Mao Zedong's correct line. On *this* point,
the leaders of the PCP must be informed. Concerning *this*
point, a two-line struggle with the PCP leaders is necessary.
The CIA has managed to fool them for a long time, thereby
being able to *misuse* the just people's war for their own 
purposes too. 

Such tactics are an important part of the whole strivings of the 
imperialists today. "Pure puppets" of theirs, such as the "RCP", 
are comparatively easy to see through. They need to fool some 
people who by their just actions have some prestige 
internationally. And precisely because of this it's important that
the Marxists in other countries establish contact with the PCP 
leaders, for mutual support. The cutting-off of people from each 
other of course is another thing that's vital for the imperialists .

You did ask about two-line struggle in Peru. But you probably
meant something else, namely the "CoRIM":s saying that the
struggle against the "peace letters" hoax was a "two-line struggle".

Of course, generally speaking, a two-line struggle always is
taking place within a Marxist-Leninist party, a struggle between
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But in this case, the "CoRIM"
crooks - who more or less directly are agents of the CIA, in
whichever way they more precisely are being controlled by that
agency, which I don't know - have been using this *pretence* of
a "two-line struggle" in order to try to justify their own covering-up
of that police plot which that "peace letters" hoax in reality is;
they said that "since it's a two-line struggle we don't want to
interfere and support either of the sides". Actually, they 
*supported* the hoax, by suppressing, above all, the vital 
declaration of the CC of the PCP of 07.10.93 against it for more
than a year. The PCP itself has said that there was *no* two-line
struggle in the party over that question, which it said was merely
that of a police plot. I too hold that it was essentially a police plot.

Concerning the CPPh in the Philippines I know somewhat less.
I've read a speech held on 01.05.1995 by its founding chairman,
Jose Maria Sison, and found it to be a good speech in the main,
though showing up some rather big errors too. Apparently, the
CPPh during a long time supported the reactionary Deng 
Xiaoping clique in China - in a similar manner to that in which the
PCP has been supporting, and still is supporting, another
reactionary clique and tendency there, that of the 4-Gang. It 
seems that today the CPPh has stopped doing this. You wrote 
about a social-democratic deviation having been overcome in the CPPh. 
I don't know much about that; I hope it's true.

The MPP:s? Some of them of course have become openly
counter-revolutionary, supporting the "CoRIM" gangsters and the
phoney "RCP" in the USA. Some are combating the "peace letters" 
hoax. This in itself is a good thing. But it isn't sufficient.
Since the MPP:s by their statutes and/or by the directives given 
to them by the PCP are obliged to *follow the line of the PCP*,
they are supporting the reactionary "Declaration of the RIM" too,
and on this point are *combating* the international proletariat.

The whole idea (by the PCP) of those MPP:s is a bad one - at least 
with those directives that they're given: "follow the line of the 
PCP". The MPP:s, as far as I understand, have no way of influencing 
the line of the PCP and thus must act as a kind of puppets to it. 
That's not a proletarian way of organising things. If an 
organiszation is to be given obligations, it should be given 
corresponding rights too. That is, the MPP:s should have had the 
right to criticize the line of the PCP. Here in Sweden, for instance,
I on my part (who am not in any MPP) know very well that the
"RIM Declaration" is a reactionary hoax. And I can prove that to
the MPP here. (I mean, the MPP that isn't openly supporting the
"CoRIM" reactionaries.)  But that body is obliged to do and say 
what the PCP "back home" tells it to, and so in practice is 
interfering with the Marxist-Leninist movement here too, trying to 
sell the line of that "Declaration" to it.

Did emigree Russian or Chinese revolutionaries found "people's
movements Russia" or "people's movements China" in those other 
countries where they were? Of course not. They had exile party 
committees, and/or participated in those organizations which 
existed in the countries in question. The whole concept of
"MPP:s" is a very doubtful one. Emigree organising should be
done otherwise. (I haven't written about this before. Bust since
you asked, Chris, I'm taking the opportunity of doing so now.)

The "MIM" too, in addition to the "RIM", is a hoax. Among other 
things, it supported the aquittal of O.J. Simpson, just because 
he's black, it says *all* workers in the advanced capitalist/
imperialist countries are bribed, and even that one should wait 
with sex until socialism - which makes it even more rabid than 
Empress Hilary. *She* "only" said people should wait until they're 
21. If the "MIM" did get its way, not only would life for most people 
become somewhat boring, but unfortunately humanity itself would die 
out before there could be any talk of socialism at all. 

On some points, "MIM" has supported some correct things. But 
basically, it's just one more construction made by the reactionaries 
in order to combat Marxism, just as is the "RCP", USA, and the
entire "RIM" - which is *the* most important vessel of subversion
against Marxism-Leninism today. I've called the "RIM" a "big
"aircraft carrier of subversion", which it is, too. Fortunately, it
already has received some important hits and has started
sinking. But the "RIMitz" isn't completely under water yet,
and neither is the "MIMitz".

To improve one's knowledge, one should read that good stuff written 
above all by: Marx, Lenin, Mao Zedong, the former CPC and the 
former NE (in Germany). That so-called "Maoist press" isn't much 
good for anything, since its paper isn't even as soft as real toilet 
paper. (I don't mean to say you shouldn't read it for info.)

Before I made contact with the NE people, in 1974, I knew very 
little about what Marxism really means, and thought that those 
phoney organizations that existed in Sweden at that time - I was 
a member of one of them - were what Marxism somehow, approximately, 
was about. That was a mistake. Similarly, one today absolutely 
should not orientate oneself after the style, level or line of the 
"RCP", the "RIM" or the "MIM", etc, etc.

I don't know how clear I've managed to make my views on this.
I'll be glad to answer any follow-up questions too that you may
have, Chris.

Here's a list of "in-depth reading" I'd recommend. You can find
the postings by means of dejanews. Some of them I shall probably 
post to 'alt.politics.socialism.mao' later. They're all in my 
series "UNITE! Info": 

1.	#1en:  A Basic Statement of Oct 1978     	23.12.95
2.	#3en:  '94 art. on Mao, RIM, US, PCP		01.01.96
               (3 parts)
3.	#8en:  The sinking of the "RIMitz"	        25.04.96
               (5 parts)
4.	#12en: China - NE (Germany), '75-'77		08.07.96
               (6 parts)
5.	#15en: Debate needed, M-L gen. line		22.07.96
               (2 parts)
6.	#21en: Debate with Olaechea, '96 VII		27.10.96
               (5 parts)

Rolf M.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---