File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1998/marxism-international.9803, message 227


From: "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: On Che & the PCP (fwd from moderator)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:14:26 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)


Lou,
     I probably shouldn't ask this question, but do your
remarks below mean that you now reject the idea that Quispe
was/is a police agent/spy?  You can answer offlist as I
know there are rules on this list against making such
accusations, rules with which I am in full agreement.
Barkley Rosser
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:57:40 -0500 Louis Proyect
<lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> wrote:

> >Che was committed to humane ideals.  He had enormous force of personality.
> >He was not particularly wise or practical.  Or successful.
> >Yet, I doubt that even Che would have found edifying the Pope's visit, nor,
> >especially, Fidel's *reapproachment* with those forces of dark obscurantism,
> >which Che struggled against throughout his life.  Fortunately, he was spared
> >the sight of this final abasement of the revolutionary genre he loved so
> well.
> >
> >The rest of us have not been so lucky.
> >
> >Louis Godena
>
> This is an example of what Mark Jones refers to as the liability of
> current-day Maoist thought. It is basically criticism of "sell out"
> leaders. There is nothing to distinguish it from the bankruptcy of
> Trotskyism of the Spart variety, which also consists of sideline carping of
> the most sterile nature.
>
> What is interesting is to look at Quispe's PCP Web Pages, which contains
> lots of speeches and articles by Gonzalo. I have been doing this to help
> prepare a report on the Shining Path. There is virtually nothing there
> about "sell outs" and fake leftists. It is mostly a critique of Peruvian
> social reality, with an emphasis on the sort of problems that Mariategui
> wrote about. The same thing is true of Mao's writings, which are focused on
> the problems of the peasantry and people's war.
>
> I find very little to distinguish Louis Godena from Hugh Rodwell or Bob
> Malecki politically, except on historical matters. They part company on how
> to evaluate Stalin, but on Castro, the labor movement, the black movement,
> etc., it is basically the same methodology, that of ultraleft sectarianism.
> They think that if bad leaders are exposed relentlessly, good leaders will
> emerge. Unfortunately, good leaders only emerge when human beings make the
> right decisions theoretically and act on them in an intelligent manner.
> This is where true politics begins. What Louis Godena and the Trotskyists
> are involved in is criticism, a poor substitute for the real thing.
>
> All ultraleft sectarians have the same "profound" insight. Only communism
> is capable of making things right. Communist parties with genuine communist
> programs are necessary. Everything that stops short of these solutions is a
> diversion and a trap.
>
> The problem is that the gap in consciousness between where the masses are
> today and these communist goals is enormous. To say that the masses must
> become communist is useless. Any fool understands this. The role of
> communists is to find ways to move consciousness forward. The reason that
> democratic struggles are important is that they allow such motion to take
> place, as long as the communist movement is skillful in the use of
> propaganda, strategy and tactics.
>
> For example, Louis Godena and Bob Malecki both sneer at the ecology
> movement, but real communists understand that there are enormous
> possibilities for raising consciousness in this arena. When a generalized
> problem of corporate pollution exists, communists have an obligation to
> explain that the cause is systemic. Liberals and social democrats argue
> that palliatives, such as taxes or pollution credits can provide a solution
> in the framework of capitalism.
>
> Where I part company with my comrade and friend Mark Jones on the Maoism
> question is that I view it as a bankrupt political current in the advanced
> capitalist countries, where our struggles are taking place. The Maoist
> movement in the USA and Great Britain attracts the same sort of uncreative,
> dogmatic material as does the Trotskyist movement.
>
> Genuine Marxism has to be reconstituted. I certainly think that study of
> Mao is useful, as is study of Trotsky, Mariategui and Gramsci. But at a
> certain point, you have to put the classics aside (this will be different
> for everybody) and apply the Marxist method directly to social reality. If
> you read Mariategui's "Seven Interpretative Essays on Peruvian Reality" you
> will discover zero quotes from Marx, Engels or Lenin. It is mostly an
> attempt to come to grips with class relationships in Peru, using Peruvian
> social and political research. In Mariategui's case, the writings of
> Varc=E1rcel on the Incas loom important.
>
> Louis Godena is fundamentally too unschooled in Marxism to begin to develop
> a critique of American society. Rather than taking steps to educate himself
> in Marxism, he wastes his time studying bourgeois critiques of Marxism such
> as Richard Pipes. This is a shame. I understand why people like the
> Morenoites and the Sparts avoid coming to terms with the Marxism method. It
> is much easier for them to read their party newspaper and parrot the line> It is easy on the brain cells. But Louis Godena is an independent thinker,
> defiantly so. That is why it is so disappointing to see him voluntarily
> adopt the same sort of sterile, infantile leftism of the Trotskyists.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005