From: concrete-AT-netcom.com (Bradley Mayer)
Subject: Re: China and Trotskyism
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 03:48:58 -0800 (PST)


>From Mr. Axtell:

>As for Maoism being in sorry shape, well, Maoists are playing a key role
>in the armed struggle in Peru and the Philippines, and to a lesser
>extent in India and Turkey.  The Maoist theory of people's war is a
>viable strategy in semi-colonial countries with a proven track record.
>Trotskyism has nothing to show for itself after 70 years except a lot of
>books.

At last, a "bookish"-sounding Maoist.  Please, explain to us how the 
Maoist theory of "people's war" is a viable STRATEGY for socialist 
revolution where we need it the most, in the imperialist homelands of 
international capitalism - North America, Western Europe and East Asia.  
There can never be the abolition of capitalism and the construction of 
socialism on a world scale unless the working class takes state power in 
at least one of these imperialist regions.  After all, it is in these 
countries that the large majority of the productive forces and 
proletariat are concentrated and, - if you consult the "bookish" Marx on 
this, instead of the "practical" Mao - the expropiation of these is key 
to the victory of socialism and the prerequisite for the development of a 
classless, communist society. Without the achievement of this strategic 
goal, the victory of the working class in Peru will ultimately share the 
fate of the former Soviet Union, Cuba or China today.  Hasn't history 
proven Trotsky right on this score? This is not meant rhetorically at all 
- an answer to this question would be most appreciated. 

"Trotskyism", as with any honest revolutionary movement, ultimately has 
itself to blame for any of its failures (and not only Trotskyism, I might 
add).  But the Trotskyists have at least adhered to the strategy of 
revolutionay Marxism outlined above, and that means they have directed 
their revolutionary energies against a class enemy a thousand times more 
powerful than the marginal comprador bourgeoisie of Peru, hinged on the 
prospect of the mobilization of a proletariat ten thousand times stronger 
than that of Peru.  This is a "cold hard fact" that makes simple common 
sense of the most "practical" sort.  Adherence to the historical strategy 
of Marxism must be placed in the balance when weighing the relative failures
of Trotskyism. How does the strategy of Maoism address these cold hard 
facts of life?

So Maoism is "70% Stalinism".  Apparently that 70% includes a hatred of 
"books".  Perhaps you need to reread what Lenin had to say about the role 
of the bourgeois intellegensia in the development of the socialist 
consciousness of the working class, or perhaps you think that 
consciousness or the understanding of revolutionary Marxism is an already 
finished piece of work? To look at the world today, I hardly think so - 
but it is easier to "bookishly" dwell on 60 year old arguments than to 
face up to these revolutionary responsibilities.

			-Brad Mayer


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

     ------------------