Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:14:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Siddharth Chatterjee <siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: M-I: Chariman Mao answers L.Proyect




In reply to Louis Proyect's good analysis of the various factors operating
in Nicaragua and outside which ultimately derailed the Sandinista
revolution, I present the following two writings by Adolfo and Chairman
Mao. Louis P acknowledges the existence of internal and external factors
and the fine balance between them which decide the fate of revolutions.
But then he emphasizes, in the case of Nicaragua, the primacy of external
factors (imperialism) over the internal ones of the political line
and ideology of the Sandinista party. In fact, he goes so far as to
assert that it were these external factors (including Soviet betrayal)
that caused a change in the political line and ideology of the Sandinista
leadership and made them leap into the free-market wagon train.

He also, in his previous post angrily (angry at Louis Godena for
daring to ask some fundamental questions) mentions the bravery of
Guillermo Ungo for participating in elections in the semi-fascist climate
of El Salvador. Ungo is without doubt a brave man but so was Mahatma
Gandhi for challenging, in his own way, the British rulers of India in
some aspects. Today, the bourgeoise all over the world have made a
hero out of the non-violence propagated by the Mahatma (Great Soul)
and wave his picture in front of the unruly masses very much like the
Pope of Rome, wearing his Gold Crown, shakes his staff at the faithful.

Gandhi also, it should be recalled, was assassinated allegedly by a
Hindu fanatic. But there exists a devastating Marxist critique of
Gandhi by Suniti Kumar Ghosh (two volumes). And what was the political
line of Gandhi? Peaceful rule of the bourgeoise - that is the peace
for which he strived all his life. With regard to Nicaragua, one
question that  arises in the mind is: Is imperialism STILL to be held
responsible for the capitalist and ongoing metamorphosis of Daniel
Oretga and Tomas Borges (who was called "hard line" by the press lapdogs
in the west during the 1980s)? One is reminded of the prophetic remark
made by "Lady" Thatcher that "we can do business with Gorbachev". 

I do not want to get into a debate with Louis P about Nicaragua (about
which I also have some knowledge) due to lack of time and also because
it would not solve anything. Louis P has the habit of throwing words like
"dogmatic", "sectarian" "Maoist", "Stalinist", etc. which are to him
epithets to be hurled at people with whom he disagrees. Sometimes, he
is right on target but sometimes misses by a football field. He is
also unable to get rid of his hatred of Stalin and shed his Trotskyist
shell although he often castigates "Trotskyism". But he is a good
analyst and a intelligent writer. Those are my observations but no
matter.

Finally, the words of Chairman Mao reproduced below do not come from
an empty headed quack mouthing irrelevant nonsensical slogans. They
are the words of a leader of a great revoultion that involved hundreds
of millions of people and emerge out of the decades of experience of
the Chinese Revolution. I would rather listen to his voice than those
heroes of western liberals like Ortega, Villalobos, Borges, and even the 
remarkable Subcommandante from the Chiapas, who, it should be 
acknowledged, has a splendid talent for prose and poetry.

S. Chatterjee

     
------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Adolfo Olaechea (On Sun, 5 Jan 1997)

<snip>
> 
> The facts are that the objective conditions were not the only factors
> determining the rise and fall of the "Soviet Commune", but also - and at
> times decisively - the subjective factors, the adherence or not adherence to
> Marxist policies, the role and class stand of the Party, the qualities of
> the leaders and teachers of the working class, and, most importantly, the
> revolutionary temper of the masses themselves, a factor umbillically linked
> to the primacy of correct ideological guidance at decisive moments in the
> revolutionary process of the proletarian class.
> 

Mao Tse-Tung

"According to materialist dialectics, changes in nature are due chiefly
to the development of the internal contradictions in nature. Changes in
society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions
in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and
the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the
contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these
contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the
supersession of the old society by the new. Does materialist dialectics
exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are
the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and
that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a
suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature
can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.
There is constant interaction between the peoples of different countries.
In the era of capitalism, and especially in the era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution, the interaction and mutual impact of different
countries in the political, economic and cultural spheres are extremely
great. 

The October Socialist Revolution ushered in a new epoch in world history
as well as in Russian history. It exerted influence on internal changes
in the other countries in the world and, similarly and in a particularly
profound way, on internal changes in China. These changes, however, were
effected through the inner laws of development of these countries, China
included. In battle, one army is victorious and the other is defeated;
both the victory and the defeat are determined by internal causes. The
one is victorious either because it is strong or because of its
competent generalship, the other is vanquished either because it is
weak or because of its incompetent generalship; it is through internal
causes that external causes become operative. In China in 1927, the
defeat of the proletariat by the big bourgeoise came about through the
opportunism then to be found within the Chinese proletariat itself (inside
the Chinese Communist Party). When we liquidated this opportunism, the
Chinese revolution resumed its advance. Later, the Chinese revolution
again suffered severe setbacks at the hands of the enemy, because
adventurism had risen within our party. When we liquidated this
adventurism, our cause advanced again. Thus it can be seen that to lead
the revolution to victory, a political party must depend on the
correctness of its own political line and the solidity of its own
organization."

                                    From "On Contradiction"
					  Mao Tse-Tung





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