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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005