Excerpt from "against avakianism" by Ajith, Secretary of the former Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) NAXALBARI, today merged in the CPI
GUTTING MARXIST POLITICAL-ECONOMY Since the Comintern period, the General Crisis theory (GC) has dominated the ICM’s views on the dynamics of imperialism and its crises. There is no comprehensive explanation of this theory in the classics, similar to Marx’s analysis of capitalist crisis during its competitive period. Stalin’s brief explanation given in his report to the 16th Congress of the CPSU(B), starts out with correctly drawing attention to overproduction. But he treats it from an ‘underconsumptionist’ approach. Most importantly, the General Crisis theory’s understanding of an irrevocable, steady decline in imperialist economic growth has been upset by its spurts of growth. Lenin’s characterisation of the moribund nature of imperialism did not rule out its dynamism and potential for growth. Despite these basic flaws there are certain aspects of the GC theory that need to be synthesised. The most notable among them is its view on the change from cyclic crises seen during the competitive period (this was noted by Lenin also) to a situation where crisis is more prolonged. The GC theory tried to incorporate the impact of the October revolution in the analysis of imperialist crisis. This was another positive feature. But the matter was mechanically reduced to one of shrinkage of the capitalist market due the emergence of socialism in a large part of the world.
While the essentially underconsumptionist, linear approach of
the GC is to be rejected, its recognition of the role of revolution in giving
rise to crisis was a correct step forward. It must be synthesised to develop a
correct grasp of the dynamics of imperialism and crisis in the present world. For
example, the transition to neo-colonialism in the post-Second world war period
was mainly prompted and guided by political compulsions faced by imperialism. Imperialism
was threatened by the rise of the socialist camp, the spreading communist
movement and the powerful thrust of national liberation movements.
Neo-colonialism was favoured over direct colonial rule and exploitation since
it helped deflect and blunt the growth of a revolutionary thrust in anti-colonial
movements, while allowing continuation of imperialist exploitation and control.[1] Thus the weight of the
political factor, of class antagonisms, became more significant in the post 2nd
world war period.
In the 1980s the RCP put forward a critique of the GC. This
was mainly focussed on the theory’s projection of a linear decline of
imperialism, and its failure to grasp the dynamism of the imperialist system.
In opposition to this, a theory which sees inter-imperialist world wars as
nodal points, playing a role similar to the crises during the competitive
period of capitalism in the restructuring of capitalism, was advanced.[2] The RCP’s theory appeared to address
the dynamics of the imperialist system. But its basic premises were wrong. They
became an issue of struggle during the process leading to the 2nd
International Conference and in its deliberations. They were criticised by us
in the 2000 Extended Meeting and again in the Note we presented before the International
Seminar of 2006. Since the RCP complains about others not ‘engaging’ with its
views and positions it is necessary to point out that it has never responded to
these criticisms.
The contradiction between socialised production and private
appropriation is the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. In his
‘Anti-Duhring’ Engels wrote about how “The capitalistic mode of production
moves in … two forms of the antagonism immanent to it from its very origin.”[3] One of them was the class
struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.[4] The other was the contradiction
between organisation of production in the individual workshop, and the anarchy
of production in society generally. He also noted, “It is the compelling force
of anarchy in the production of society at large that more and more completely
turns the great majority of men into proletarians; and it is the masses of the
proletariat again who will finally put an end to anarchy in production. It is
the compelling force of anarchy in social production that turns the limitless
perfectibility of machinery under modern industry into a compulsory law by
which every individual industrial capitalist must perfect his machinery more
and more, under penalty of ruin.” Preceding this, he had already made it clear
that, “… the production of commodities, like every other form of production,
has its peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work,
despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in
the only persistent form of social interrelations, i.e., in exchange,
and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of
competition.” [5]
Evidently, these ‘laws’ lie in the very nature
of commodity production and are distinct from anarchy or competition. This is
why he stressed that they work “despite anarchy” and went on to say that the
compulsory laws of competition are a mode of manifestation, of how these
‘inherent laws’ reveal themselves in exchange. As we shall see, this entirely
accords with Marx’s analysis of the inner tendency of capital and competition.
But Avakian selectively quoted Engels to promote something
totally different. He declared that the anarchy/organisation contradiction is
overall the principal form of motion of capitalism’s fundamental contradiction.
This was then extended to argue that the inter-imperialist contradiction is
overall more determining, as compared to the other major contradictions of the
imperialist system. Not only that, the very “parameters and possibilities” of
class struggle were assumed to be ultimately determined by ‘movement compelled
by anarchy’, by the inter-imperialist contradiction.[6] Imperialist wars were posed
as the nodal points in the restructuring capital, playing a role similar to
crisis in competitive capitalism. Disregarding the concrete reality of neo-colonialism
in the post 2nd world war situation, the RCP mechanically parroted Lenin’s
thesis of ‘redivision of the world through war’ and arrived at the position
that a world war was imminent.
The elimination of class struggle from its central role was sought to be
justified with arguments that posed competition as the inner tendency of
capitalism. This was based on a distortion of Marx. Marx clearly says that the
inner, ‘necessary’ tendency of capital is to drive beyond the proportion. It
generates a limitless striving “… for surplus labour, surplus productivity,
surplus consumption etc.- to drive beyond proportion.” He went on to add that “In
competition this inner tendency of capital appears as compulsion
exercised over it by alien capital, which drives it forward beyond the
correct proportion with a constant march, march!”[7] In the
first volume of Capital he wrote, “It is not our intention to consider, here,
the ways in which the laws immanent in capitalist production manifest
themselves in the movements of individual masses of capital where they assert
themselves as coercive laws of competition, and are brought home to the mind
and consciousness of the individualist capitalist as the directive motives of
his operations. But this much is clear: a scientific analysis of competition
is not possible, before we have a conception of the inner nature of capital, just
as the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies are not intelligible to any but
him, who is acquainted with their real motions, motions which are not directly
perceptible by the senses. ”[8] Evidently,
the inner nature or tendency of capital is not competition but its ceaseless
striving for more surplus, emerging from its exploitative character. This
emerges from the very character of capital as an exploitative social relation
and process.[9]
For all capitalists their own ceaseless drive for more surplus is legitimate
while those of the others are not. Hence all capitalists experience the tendency
inherent in their capital as an external force, as the compulsion of competition
from other capitals. [10]
But Avakian argued that if there were not the pressure of competition
capitalists would not face the same compulsion to more deeply exploit the
proletariat. The exploitative character intrinsic to capital as a social
relation and a process is thereby made external and secondary. Departing from
Marxist analysis, competition is reduced to a matter of capital always existing
as ‘many capitals’. On the contrary, Marxism
shows how competition itself stems from capitalism’s specific mode of exploitation
through extraction of surplus value. The capitalists can acquire this only by
realising the value of their commodities through exchange in the market.[11] There
they are forced to confront each other as competitors. The inherent drive of
their own exploitative nature is now experienced by them as a compulsion to
make their capital more productive than those of the others. This leads them to
greater organisation of the productive process within their factory. Thus
competition is even more intensified and overall anarchy increased. In other
words, the anarchy of capitalism is ultimately rooted in its exploitation.
Moreover, not just competition, class struggle too is a major compulsion
faced by the capitalists. Exploitation inevitably calls up resistance from the
exploited. This induces the capitalists to increase mechanisation, the
organisation of the labour process, as a means to defeat the class struggle of
the proletariat and deepen exploitation.[12] The class
interest of the bourgeoisie and the antagonism it calls up is ultimately the
principal driving force behind the more intensive and extensive exploitation of
the proletariat. Both class struggle and anarchy/organisation have their roots
there. They continuously interact with each other and impact on each other with
one after the other getting foregrounded. This constitutes the process by which
these forms of motion of the fundamental contradiction work themselves out, a
ceaseless dynamic richly captured in Engels’ words. The Avakianist thesis of
anarchy/organisation as the principal form of motion delivers a truncated
conception of this dynamic. Flowing from a flawed view that makes competition
the inner nature of capital, it inevitably leads to undermining the determining
role of class struggle, of revolution. In fact, in its view, the chances of class
struggle becoming the main driving force in the working out of the fundamental
contradiction are rather low until “…three-quarters of the world were
socialist.”[13]
Thus, for all the talk about the greater role of politics, of the dynamic role
of the masses in the imperialist system, it’s theory actually goes back from
the factoring in of revolution in the analysis of imperialist crisis initiated
by the Comintern and later developed by Mao Tsetung.
Moreover, Avakian’s thesis reveals a serious flaw in outlook. According
to this theory the principal role of the driving force of anarchy sets the
primary stage and foundation for making revolution. Avakian claims that this was
a crucial breakthrough to really get a deeper materialist understanding of what
it is we're doing in setting out to make revolution.[14] What is
the truth? When anarchy/organisation is posed as the main driving force determining
the parameters and possibilities of class struggle, the necessity confronted by
revolutionary class struggle is reduced to the economic realm. The political and
other realms, class aspects (including the specific contours of class
relations, alliances, the advantages and disadvantages these give rise to)-all of this is excluded from the material
necessity faced by the proletariat in its struggle. The necessity imposed on
the ruling classes by revolutionary class struggle is similarly treated. Such
is the crude reductionism of Avakianism.
World events, like the diffusion of contention from the mid-1980s and
the collapse of the erstwhile social imperialist bloc, emphatically exposed the
folly of the RCP’s theory. It was hard put to account for this debacle. Finally
it came out with, ‘Notes on Political Economy’.[15] Though
this was presented as a review, it was more in the nature of a cover up.
Refusing to make a self-critical examination of its basic premises, the RCP
obstinately stuck to them. The only ‘error’ it admitted was in its application
of the theory it had concocted.
It accepted its error in ruling out options other than a world war as a
way out for imperialism.[16] This
one-sidedness was already contained in its theorising making inter-imperialist
contradictions as overall principal. But this was not accepted. Instead, the
failure to take into account two factors, the difficulty of achieving victory
in a recognizable and viable form in a nuclear war and the possibility of
carrying out ‘proxy wars’ through client states, were cited. This was another
lie. Worse than ignoring such new
particularities, the RCP had vehemently dismissed the erstwhile CRC, CPI (M-L)’s
citing them as Kautskist deviations. The
theoretical framework within which the CRC situated such factors was no doubt
wrong. But, even if the basis on which arguments that were earlier rejected are
now adopted is different, some explanation, some acknowledgement, is surely
called for. There is nothing of that sort in the review, an eminent example of
how not to make self-criticism.
With the crisis-like role of world war abandoned, the RCP’s theory limped.
World events have continued to batter it. Anarchy/organisation, and
consequently inter-imperialist contradiction, is still considered by it as the
overall principal driving force. But, collusion among imperialist powers has
been principal for nearly two decades. Their contention, though growing, remains
secondary. The course of world developments, including imperialist crises,
offers many more instances where the discord between its views and reality
stand out.
The new situation brought about by the collapse of the social
imperialist bloc allowed greater freedom to imperialist capital. This was
projected by the RCP as a partial resolution of the ‘conjecture’ posed by its
theory. Close examination would show that the construct of ‘partial resolution’
was both a means to salvage something from the remnants of its theory and
simultaneously appear to reflect contemporary reality. The implication was of a
resolution that allowed “…a stimulus to investment, growth, and further
reorganisation in the world economy”.[17] Though,
being partial, it was “… not creating the conditions for sustained and stable
global growth.”[18]
The conclusion was that, “… we do not think it is correct to characterise the overall
situation faced by the imperialists today as one of "crisis"…”,
though stable growth hasn’t been achieved. [19]
This whole analysis was way off the mark. For a brief period in the
early 1990s, the imperialist agenda, orchestrated by the USA, could be
pushed through. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was founded. Its strictures
universalised the structural adjustment programs of the IMF-WB. Consequently,
imperialist penetration in the oppressed countries was vastly increased. But
soon enough resistance to globalisation began to grow and became worldwide. The
currency crisis in South East Asian countries, Mexico
and Russia
forced a pullback in free currency convertibility and other measures sought to
be imposed by imperialism. A section of imperialist ideologues were obliged to start
arguing for ‘globalisation with a human face’. Many WTO treaties and policies
meant to further open up Third World countries
have been put on hold. Even while outsourcing and the globalisation of
production expanded, this period was also one of a rapid shift to
financialisation, precisely because profit rates were still down. That is,
there was no resolution, even partial, of the imperialist crisis that set in
from the mid-1970s. The expansion, briefly seen after the post-social
imperialist collapse, was an example of a partial recovery. Let us recollect
that such temporary recoveries were seen even during the prolonged crisis and
stagflation of 1970-89. Obviously, they cannot be taken as indices of crisis
resolution. Quite the contrary, bubbles of growth followed by their disastrous
bursts have been a consistent feature of recent years, all the way till the
present global financial crisis. The imperialist system as a whole has been
wrecked by a prolonged structural crisis, now in its fifth year with no sign of
resolution. And this is a world that is supposed to be free of structural
crisis according to the RCP!
The review of 2000 was the last we heard from the Avakianist’s on applying
their theory to contemporary reality. But, as we shall soon see, that theory
continues to misguide them in their assessment of the world situation.
THE WORLD SITUATION
In 2000, the RIM
finally adopted an overall correct Maoist position in its analysis of the world
situation. The Statement adopted by the Expanded Meeting of 2000 specified, “Between
the two trends of revolution and world war, revolution is the main trend in the
world today. The principal contradiction is between imperialism and the
oppressed peoples and nations.” It noted the “emerging new wave of world
revolution”.[20]
The RCP had accepted these positions. Even when it later expressed
disagreements about some of the content in the Statement, these positions on
the world situation were not challenged. But its flawed theory on the dynamics
of imperialism would not permit it to be consistent.
Barely a year had
passed before the inherent thrust of its theory regained predominance. The
trigger was the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre and George Bush’s
declaration of a ‘war on terror’. Since then, its vision of inter-imperialist
contradiction as ‘overall determining’ has once again started to direct its
evaluation of world events. In particular, US imperialism's ‘war on terror’ and
the specific strategy adopted by the Bush regime were analysed from this angle.[21] The obvious fact that the
WTC attack was being utilised to launch a worldwide attack in order to roll
back the growing mass resistance to globalisation, to throw back the ‘emerging
new wave of world revolution’, was reduced to a secondary aspect. Exposure of the
real content of the ‘war on terror’ as a ‘war against the people’ was handled
meagrely. The emphasis was on analysing US
manoeuvres vis-à-vis other imperialist powers, as seen in its policies on the 2nd
Iraq
war. But it never bothered to inform the RIM of its abandoning the 2000 EM’s
positions or the reasoning behind its retraction. [22]
However, the RCP
letter of May 2012 now charges that, “… some forces in RIM have continued to
insist on repeating empty exhortations about ''revolution is the main trend''
and ''Africa, Asia and Latin America remain the storm centres of the world
revolution'' when even the most cursory study of the actual conditions of
revolutionary struggle in the world today shows that in even the most viciously
exploited and oppressed countries the revolution is not only not surging ahead
but is confronting the same fundamental
questions facing the whole international communist movement …”.[23] Let us look at the logic
underlying this accusation. Their reasoning is simply this - revolution is not surging
ahead. But what about the wave of struggle and rebellions seen all over the
world, including the people’s wars? What about the momentous emergence of the
‘Arab Spring’ or the Occupation movement? How do we assess the fact that most
of these struggles are taking place in the oppressed countries? The RCP letter avoids
these questions by pulling in the issue of whether revolutions are ‘surging
ahead’ or not. There is a history to this. In the early 1980’s it was denying
the presence of a continuous revolutionary situation in the oppressed
countries. The logic was the same - if that were the situation why were
revolutions not surging ahead? Though it finally withdrew its opposition the
theoretical roots were never dug out.
We live in the
era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. War and revolution are the two
prominent features of the motion of the era.[24] They are not mutually
exclusive. They inter-penetrate. Both trends usually exist together. An
analysis of the imperialist era shows that revolution has been the main trend
overall. What does it mean to say that revolution or war is the main trend? An
evaluation of war as the main trend does not mean war has already broken out.
Similarly, revolution as the main trend does not mean revolutions are going on all
over the world. It shows the potential of the world situation. The sense of
such an evaluation is that, overall, the trend of revolution sets the
direction, the terms of the working out of the contradictions of the
imperialist system. In times of global crisis of the system, like the present,
this role is even more strengthened. The
dynamics of the imperialist system forms the basis for this. The logic of the RCP
eliminates this fundamental basis and replaces it with the immediate ups or
downs of revolutions.
The
RCP letter next accuses the 2011 and 2012 Joint May 1st statements of
‘instrumentalism’. It is said, “The instrumentalist method behind this kind of
“analysis” is that of highlighting and exaggerating positive aspects in the
situation and omitting or minimizing negative aspects, thus creating a
so-called “reality” in agreement with the desires and objectives of the
authors, which in turn it is hoped will motivate people to act in accordance
with these desires and objectives.” The reader is then invited to “… compare the idea that the Arab rebellions
have “paved the way” for the new democratic revolution with Avakian’s statement
on Egypt, which praises the very positive aspects of this uprising and extends
his “heartfelt support and encouragement to the millions who have risen up”,
while also pointing to the need for a communist vanguard guided by the most
advanced theory, without which the perspective can only be the substitution of
one regime by another while remaining inside “the overall framework of global
imperialist domination and exploitation.”[25]
One
couldn’t have asked for a better exposure of how the Avakianists’ ‘create a
so-called “reality” in agreement with their ‘desires and objectives’. In this
case it was done by quoting selectively. (But it would be gratuitous to term
this wretched chicanery ‘instrumentalism’!) The May Day statements attacked by
them, as well as the resolutions adopted by the Special Meeting of 2012, have
certainly highlighted manifestations of the main trend of revolution. But they
have not done this one-sidedly, ignoring contrary tendencies within them. They
have not yielded to spontaneity.
The
statement of 2010 noted: “These struggles must be coordinated, generalised and
raised in the framework of a revolutionary perspective of overthrowing the
reactionary governments and bourgeois states for the proletarian seizure of the
power. This will not occur spontaneously. We must build in all countries the
revolutionary tools, the new party of the working class, the new type communist
party, the Maoist Communist Party, based on the revolutionary
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory and the summing up of the historic experience of
the communist movement!”[26]
The
2011 statement stated, “The struggling and uprising proletarians and popular
masses demand the building of revolutionary parties at the height of the
current clash of classes; and that process of organisation is developing. We
need communist parties based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism …”[27]
The
2012 statement noted that “These proletarian struggles and rebellions are not
revolutionary in and of themselves but they are a first step in the realisation
by the masses of the necessity of revolution.”[28] It reiterated the need for
communist leadership.
Finally,
the Special Meeting resolution stated, “In this new wave of struggle and
resistance we must support and strengthen the struggle for the liberation of
peoples and for new democracy, towards socialism and communism, and oppose the
pro-Western and Islamist currents which ride the tiger of people’s struggles in
order to impose new chains and new subordination to the reactionary classes and
their masters of all time, imperialism, mainly of the U.S. and Europe.”[29]
Evidently,
the contention is not over contradictory tendencies in these rebellions. That
much is admitted by both sides. The difference lies in how they are seen within
the overall world situation. For the Avakianists these outbursts are simply another
example of ‘wasted opportunity’. To be hailed no doubt, but that’s all there is
to it. Since they deny the trend of
revolution they cannot situate these rebellions as manifestations of the
revolutionary potential existing in the world. They therefore cannot understand
the significance of new political openings created by the ferment caused by
these upheavals, the infusion of new energy into Maoist parties/circles in this
region. They cannot realise how they ‘pave the way’ for revolution, just like
all other momentous upheavals of the masses have, throughout history.
We
have already exposed the serious errors committed by the Avakianist’s in their
evaluation of the resistance going on in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Their letter opposes the SM resolution’s characterisation of the situation in
these countries as ‘a front in the battle between imperialism and the peoples’.
The reason given is that this approach “… ignores the problem that a large part
of the forces on the battlefield are reactionary Islamic forces (including Al
Qaeda and the Taliban) who do not represent the interests of the people’s
struggle against imperialism.”[30] Bound by its theoretical
blinkers, it continues to parrot the theme of ‘two reactionary poles
reinforcing each other, even while opposing each other’. But the hard reality
is that one has been badly bruised by the other. The political fallout of this
objective development is all too evident in the shift from Bush to Obama and the
recasting of US
strategy. This much is evident.
Therefore Avakian admits, “…what a mess, what a real debacle, the Iraq war has turned out to be for the U.S. ruling
class.”[31] But his mistaken views on
the dynamics of imperialism pull him away from properly assessing these
developments that have raised theoretical as well as practical questions before
the Maoist movement.[32] Instead of grappling with
them he buries them in a lot of Avakianese-‘the this and that, and then the
this, without forgetting the that, though it’s really all about this’.
SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY
A key
plank of Avakian’s claims is his writings on the dictatorship of the
proletariat. They are peddled as a “… whole different approach, founded on the
breakthroughs in communist world outlook and epistemology …”[33] A ‘solid core, with a lot of
elasticity’ is the central concept being put forward.[34] This is presented as a key
justification for the claim to a ‘new synthesis’. Let us start by examining the
facts.
Learning from the experiences of the Soviet
Union and rupturing from wrong thinking Mao developed the theory
of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. He
pointed out how ‘bourgeois right’ provides the soil for the emergence of new
capitalist elements. Putting politics in command and taking class struggle as
the key link the communists had to mobilise the masses in struggle to
revolutionise production relations and the superstructure and thus restrict and
gradually eliminate bourgeois right. This was the general approach put forward
for the advance towards communism. In close relation to this Mao also dealt
with the problems of socialist democracy.
A number of articles in the 5th volume of Mao’s
Selected Works demonstrate his approach on the problems of the dictatorship of
the proletariat and socialist democracy.[35] One of the most important mistakes
made in the Soviet Union was an approach that
tried to keep everything under administrative control and gave no room for
dissent. In contrast to this Mao was advancing a radically new approach. He
insisted on protecting the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading,
institutionalised, role of the party. But he also insisted on ‘great democracy’.
Mao wrote, “Two alternative methods of leading our country, or in other words
two alternative policies, can be adopted -- to "open wide" or to
"restrict". To "open wide" means to let all people express
their opinions freely, so that they dare to speak, dare to criticise and dare
to debate; it means not being afraid of wrong views or anything poisonous; it
means to encourage argument and criticism among people holding different views,
allowing freedom both for criticism and for counter-criticism; it means not
coercing people with wrong views into submission but convincing them by
reasoning. To "restrict" means to forbid people to air differing
opinions and express wrong ideas, and to "finish them off with a single
blow" if they do so. That is the way to aggravate rather than to resolve
contradictions. To "open wide", or to "restrict"? We must
choose one or the other of these two policies. We choose the former, because it
is the policy which will help to consolidate our country and develop our
culture.”[36]
‘Great democracy’, the right to dissent, was not restricted
to the people alone. Those from the bourgeoisie too were allowed this, so long
as they didn’t indulge in counter-revolutionary acts. During the Rectification
Campaign of 1957, their articles attacking the Communist party’s leading role
and socialism were published without censorship. Where correct, their
criticisms were accepted. Even when they were exposed of instigating
anti-socialist activities and branded as bourgeois Rightists they were not
arrested or deprived of their rights, except in exceptional cases.[37] The ‘Left’ was encouraged to
“…freely air views and hold debates not only with the middle but also openly
with the Rightists and, in the villages, with the landlords and rich peasants.”[38]
‘Great democracy’ was conceived as an important means of mass
supervision over the state and the party. As Mao explained, “Great democracy
can be directed against bureaucrats too … Now there are people who seem to
think that, as state power has been won, they can sleep soundly without any
worry and play the tyrant at will. The masses will oppose such persons, throw
stones at them and strike at them with their hoes, which will, I think, serve
them right and will please me immensely. Moreover, sometimes to fight is the
only way to solve a problem. The Communist Party needs to learn a lesson.
Whenever students and workers take to the streets, you comrades should regard
it as a good thing. The workers should be allowed to go on strike and the
masses to hold demonstrations. Processions and demonstrations are provided for
in our Constitution. In the future when the Constitution is revised, I suggest
that the freedom to strike be added, so that the workers shall be allowed to go
on strike. This will help resolve the contradictions between the state and the
factory director on the one hand and the masses of workers on the other. After
all they are nothing but contradictions.”[39]
Taking lessons from the Rectification Campaign, Mao observed,
“In the course of this year the masses have created a form of making
revolution, a form of waging mass struggle, namely, speaking out freely,
airing views fully, holding great debates and writing big-character posters. Our
revolution has now found a form well suited to its content.”[40]
This emphasised that ‘opening wide’ was a strategic orientation of the
proletarian state, not a temporary expedient to flush out Rightists. It took a
leap during the Cultural Revolution.
In view of this Maoist approach what is new in Bob Avakian,
other than a partial exposition of Maoist methods? The RCP’s letter states,
“Bob Avakian has recognised and emphasised the need for a greater role for
dissent, a greater fostering of intellectual ferment, and more scope for
initiative and creativity in the arts in socialist society.”[41] The claim is that Avakian is
talking about room for dissent and ferment on a far greater scale, with different
elements and dynamics to it. Well, he and his believers have certainly been
talking about all sorts and forms of dissent in socialist societies. But
in substance there is nothing there that’s qualitatively advanced compared to
Mao’s teachings and its practice in China, particularly during the
Cultural Revolution.[42]
The Avakianists unwittingly make this abundantly explicit when
they get on to elaborations. It is admitted that the solid core will set the
terms and the framework. Wasn’t that the essential thrust of the ‘six
criteria’[43]
put forward by Mao to distinguish what is right and wrong while ‘fostering free
discussion among the people’? On the matter of ‘elasticity’ the Avakianists
admit that, “Sometimes you’ll be able to open up pretty wide, and sometimes you
may have to pull in the reins.”[44] But, where does that differ
from what was being done in Maoist China? The argument could be that an
approach of mainly trying to encourage and work with the elasticity
(as opposed to mainly controlling it), even if the reins have to be tightened
at times, is the new factor. Very well, wasn’t that the whole thrust of Mao’s
advocacy of ‘opening wide’ as opposed to ‘restricting’? We know that this was a
strategic perspective, even though the opening up of debate and struggle had to
be curbed at times.[45]
While there is no new contribution, Avakian often slips into slander
and idealism in his desperate effort to look different. In discussion on how to
handle reactionary views and trends in a socialist society he declares, “If all
you do is mobilise the masses to crush this, it’s the same as state repression
in other forms.” This is being said in a context of claiming to have a “… different
vision … different than even the best of the GPCR…”. Thus the actual direction
and practice of the GPCR, where the masses were mobilised to struggle
against capitalist roaders and thus transform their world outlook is slandered as
a mere matter of ‘crushing’ them. The GPCR is reduced to nothing more than a
variety of state repression. And how does he propose to surpass this? His
argument that you shouldn’t rely on state repression as the way to deal with
opposition in every form is nothing more than a paraphrasing of Mao. The difference
in his position is this –coming up with new ways through which the masses
oppose reactionary thinking or practice is not always the way to do this. So it
is neither state repression nor mobilising the masses. According to Avakianism
the way is to let the reactionaries have a free run, even keeping away from
their event to ensure that they are really free… and then send in the political
police to spy on them![46] Could there be anything more
disgustingly manipulative than this hoax of a solution? Mao was emphatic on
‘opening up’ and allowing reactionaries to express their views. He was even
more insistent on facing up to this with open ideological struggle, involving
the masses in their millions. Avakian’s idealist elasticity where free space
for the reactionaries is something that can be willed in by avoiding struggle,
inevitably turns into its opposite. So who is seeking simple solutions in state
repression, that too in worn out methods resembling that infamous Hyde Park
democracy of Britain?
Desperate to sanctify Avakianism as something ‘new’ the RCP
has marshalled a number of criticisms about the ‘errors that were associated
with the GPCR and how Mao and the revolutionaries in China
were looking at the problems of carrying forward the socialist revolution in China’. It
wrote, “In China, it seems to be the case that the revolutionaries wrongly
attacked some mathematicians for working on theoretical problems (such as the
Goldbach conjecture) because they had no known practical application, thus
demonstrating a too narrowly constricted understanding of the relationship
between theory and practice and the need for the work of intellectuals to serve
the masses of people. It is correct and necessary to struggle to link
scientific and technical personnel with the masses and for their work to meet
the needs of the masses and society – broadly understood – but this dialectic
is complex, and it must not be treated in a linear or mechanical “one-to-one”
fashion.”[47]
No reference has been given to check this up. But let’s recollect Mao’s directive,
“… even in the absence of their deliberate suppression, the growth of new
things may be hindered simply through lack of discernment. It is therefore
necessary to be careful about questions of right and wrong in the arts and
sciences, to encourage free discussion and avoid hasty conclusions.” Evidently,
even if things happened as stated by the RCP, it didn’t have roots in some
error in Mao’s approach. It was an aberration. Beyond that, we must also
recognise that the dialectic of ‘opening up/curbing’ applies to the fields of
arts and science also. There will be times when the application of resources
and abilities will have to be prioritised in a socialist society, particularly
in a backward one. This could mean disallowing some things. However, that should
be exceptional. It shouldn’t be the general norm. And this, precisely, was the approach
of Mao. Though the RCP speaks a lot about tumult and debate etc. in a socialist
society, all said and done, it has a rather linear, simplistic, view of how
things actually will unfold through the twists and turns of class struggle.
Most
of the criticisms raised by the RCP fall in a similar category. Aberrations from Mao’s approach are attributed
to him. But that is not all. Some are also revealing instances of an idealistic
treatment of the issue at hand. For example, it wrote “… it is possible to see
in Breaking with Old Ideas … some of the one-sided understanding of what it
means for the proletariat to guide intellectual work, such as criticising the
teaching of anatomy of horses because none were present in the region where the
technical school, the subject of the film, was located.”[48] Let us recollect the thrust
of that movie – it was the struggle to rupture from an educational system and
methods divorced from the needs of socialist society. In the specific instance
mentioned here, students were taught about horses, for the sole reason that it
was prescribed by the syllabus. But they were not taught about buffaloes, which
was common there. Instead of serving the needs of the people, the syllabus was
wielded to trample on them. This was the
contrast being made in the movie.
Evidently, the issue was not whether those students should
learn about horses at all. Criticism was directed against the blind aping of
foreign syllabi and the refusal to root education in local reality. They were
manifestations of the capitalist road in education. That much is obvious. But
the obvious is now beyond the comprehension of the Avakianists. In their ideal
socialist society, teaching should be for the sake of teaching; the needs of
society must wait.
Before the Cultural Revolution the approach put forward by
Mao remained as guidance. But after that it was enshrined in the Constitution
of the People’s Republic of China.
New and rich forms of expressing dissent, mass supervision and participation in
running the state and party such as the ‘big character posters’ and recruitment
of new party members through mass meetings emerged and were institutionalised.
The right to dissent included the right to strike. Despite these advances, it
is certainly true that the stifling traditions of the earlier period were still
substantial. This was a carryover from the past, grounded in an outmoded
conception of socialist society. It didn’t have any basis in the new vision and
practice advanced by Mao through his writings and the Cultural Revolution. This
cannot be cited, as done by the Avakianists, as a lack in Maoism. It was lack
in the application of Maoism. Probing into the objective factors that underlay
this would lead us to address the continued transformation of the socialist
state system with the party at its core.
The
problem with the RCP’s false claim of having advanced something new is not just
a matter of petty pretensions. It does grave harm by diverting attention from
the real constraints of socialist democracy. These also relate to the
structures of the socialist state, including the institutionalised role of the
communist party. But before we get into that let’s examine the theoretical foundations
of Avakian’s ‘solid core, greater elasticity’ formulation in more detail. It
would allow us to have a better appreciation of Avakianist ‘elasticity’.
One
of the sources that went into this concept is the lesson he has taken from John
Stuart Mill. In his words, “Recently, I told some people that one of the key
things I have been grappling with is how to synthesize what's in the polemic
against K. Venu with a principle that is emphasised by John Stuart Mill. A
pivotal and essential point in the polemic against K. Venu is that, having
overthrown capitalism and abolished the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the
proletariat must establish and maintain its political rule in society, the
dictatorship of the proletariat, while continuing the revolution to transform
society toward the goal of communism and the abolition of class distinctions
and oppressive social relations, and with that the abolition of the state, of
any kind of dictatorship; and that, in order to make this possible, the
proletariat must have the leadership of its vanguard communist party throughout
this transition to communism. In continuing to grapple with these fundamental
questions, I have become convinced that this principle articulated by Mill—that
people should hear arguments presented not only as they are characterized by
those who oppose them, but as they are put forward by ardent advocates of those
positions—is something that needs to be incorporated and given expression in
the exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is one element—not
the entirety, but one element—of what I have been reaching for and wrangling
with in terms of what we have formulated as a new synthesis.”[49]
Avakian’s willingness to continue being engaged with these
issues and learn from others is no doubt commendable. Yet, when we go through
the polemic he refers to, there’s something that intrigues. Why did he turn to
Mill? After all, the same issue, as posed by Rosa Luxembourg, had a prominent
place in that polemic. One section of the erstwhile CRC, CPI(M-L)’s document
was devoted to the criticisms made by Rosa Luxembourg against the Bosheviks.[50] It quoted Rosa,
“"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members
of one party, however numerous they may be, is no freedom at all. Freedom is
always and exclusively freedom for one who thinks differently. Not because of
any fanatical concept of 'justice' but because all that is instructive,
wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential
characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when freedom becomes a
special privilege."[51] These views, as well as all
of her other positions, were rejected by Avakian in his critique of the CRC
document. He argued that her views were very similar to the formulations of
bourgeois ideologues like John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville.[52]
Yes, that’s right, the essence of her argument was identical
to what Mill spoke about: ‘people should hear arguments … as they are put
forward by ardent advocates of those positions’. Evidently, if he now accepts
this, he is actually correcting an error of one-sidedness he had committed in
that polemic. That mistake was no doubt committed within an overall correct
rebuttal of the CRC’s liquidationist approach. But, all the same, it was a
mistake. And Avakian’s so-called synthesis of the Mill principle turns out to
be nothing more than an unprincipled method of self-correction. It is an
extreme example of opportunist ‘elasticity’! Even more, it fails to examine Rosa’s views in the light of the advances made through
Maoism. If that were done, it would readily be accepted that “Rather than Mill,
it would be more profitable to go back to Rosa Luxembourg’s criticism against
the Bolsheviks for suppressing dissent. She certainly had a point in drawing
attention to the stifling of political life under conditions where opposition
is suppressed.” It would also be understood that in the given conditions then
existing in Russia,
“sticking to this as a matter of principle would have led to the destruction of
the new born proletarian state.”[53] Thus, instead of getting
infatuated over some abstract merging of principles as Avakian is, the issue
would be posed in the concreteness of a given situation in a socialist society.
It is to this concreteness that we now turn to get a fuller
picture of Avakianism’s specific proposals. They can be summarised as follows:
there needs to be a Constitution and the Communist party should abide by it; even
while it's being led by the party the army should not be able to be mobilised
to go against the Constitution; a certain element of contested elections must
be instituted within the framework of whatever the Constitution of the
socialist society is at the time. (These
proposals have been incorporated in the Draft Constitution for the New Socialist
Republic in North
America put out by the RCP.)
Avakian writes, “ …the
army, and also in a fundamental sense the courts, especially courts that have a
more societal-wide impact, and the essential administrative bodies, should be
particularly responsible to the vanguard party in socialist society. But,
here's where the contradiction comes in. I also believe they should be
responsible to the Constitution. And here you can see a potentially roaring
tension. But if the party can lead the armed forces to go outside of and above
and beyond the Constitution, then the Constitution is meaningless. And then, in
effect, you do have an arbitrary rule whereby it's merely the party and
whatever the party is deciding at a given time—those are the rules, and that's
how they'll be enforced.” “… you can't simply run society in such a way that
whoever gets control of the party at a given time sets and enforces the rules
according to whatever they think the rules should be at a given time.” “… if you allow the party to simply and
arbitrarily decide what the rules are, what the law is, how the judiciary
should operate, whether or not constitutional provisions should be extended or
whether rights should be taken away, without any due process of law; if you
allow that, you are increasing the potential and strengthening the basis for
the rise of a bourgeois clique to power and for the restoration of capitalism.”[54]
Just what does this really boil down to? The leadership of
the party is sanctioned by the Constitution. And the Constitution states, quite
emphatically, that “in matters concerning the role and functioning of the armed
forces, militia and other organs of public defense and security, the Party
shall have the final say.” [55] In that case, the army’s
following the directives of the party would be perfectly constitutional. Nothing
arbitrary there! Now, as experiences of socialist countries readily remind us,
whether those directives “go outside of and above and beyond the Constitution”
will always be a matter of struggle and interpretation between the socialist
and capitalist roads. Similarly, every Constitution (bourgeois or proletarian)
also provides for the suspension of some of its provisions in a situation of
emergency. And history once again tells us that instances of “arbitrary” denial
of constitutional rights were usually justified by appealing to such
provisions. Thus, after wading through several paragraphs of Avakian’s imagined
“controversies” what we are finally left as a solution is some tautology. Delivered
in the true Avakianist style it tries to give an impression of bringing in
something new while things actually remain as they were.
In both the Soviet Union and China capitalism was restored
through coups. They were justified as emergency measures carried out to ‘save
socialism’. They were organised by exercising the constitutionally legitimate
‘leading role’ of the party. Instead of addressing this core issue squarely
Avakianism shies away from it. As a result, its claims over the newness of specific
proposals presented by it are just as vacuous as those on its ‘new synthesis’
in theory.
We saw the duplicity of Avakian’s ‘elasticity’. What about
his ‘solid core’? There is nothing wrong in conceiving the leading core as something
more than the party. But the lessons of
hitherto existed socialist societies show us that the solid core mainly advances
through continuing the class struggle. This process inevitably brings out the
contradictions within it. More and more
masses must be drawn into the running of the state through this process of ‘one
divides into two’, the struggle against the capitalist roaders. Invariably a
section of the core will become hostile and separate out. Avakian handles this
dialectic in an extremely mechanical manner as a matter of quantitative
addition or subtraction (sometimes integrate more people, sometimes restrict).
The institutionalised role of the Communist party wasn’t a
part of the Marxist theory on proletarian state. This is clear from reading
Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’. In 1918, speaking about the superiority of
Soviet power he had said: “... if the working people are dissatisfied with
their party they can elect other delegates, hand power to another party and
change the government without any revolution at all ...”[56] But, the fierce experiences
of the revolutionary civil war in Russia later led him to acknowledge, “After
two and a half years of the Soviet power we came out in the Communist
International and told the world that the dictatorship of the proletariat would
not work except through the Communist Party.”[57] His explanation was centred
on the concrete situation existing in Russia: “…our proletariat has been
largely declassed; the terrible crises and the closing down of the factories
have compelled people to flee from starvation. The workers have simply
abandoned their factories; they have had to settle down in the country and have
ceased to be workers.”[58] Does this mean that the
institutionalised leading role of the communist party in the socialist state
system is a matter solely related to specific conditions? No. It emerges from
the particular nature of this state form, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the state of the
socialist transition period. It should have a structure corresponding to the
transition towards communism, where the state itself withers away. This
differentiates it from the exploitative classes’ states. Yet, since it is a
state, it also shares some common features with them. The most important of
these is that of being the instrument of a specific class, charged with the
task of implementing this class’s political and socio-economic interests by
suppressing opposing classes. The state must necessarily have some institution
that guarantees the continuous exercise and safeguarding of the interests of
the class in power. The political function of the state itself makes this a
necessity. The monarchy during feudalism and the permanent army and bureaucracy
of capitalism are some examples of this. While governments can change in a
capitalist democracy, these permanent institutes, kept out of the ambit of
elections, safeguard the basic interests of the capitalist class. But the
proletarian state cannot adopt such institutions, which ‘stand above’ society
as an alienated force, to ensure the continuity of its class interests. It has
the task of ensuring that this alienated force is returned to the people. Yet
it still must have some institution that guarantees (or strives to guarantee)
the continuity of proletarian class interests. The overall role of the
communist party as the commanding centre in the socialist state system, the
institutionalised leading role of the party in the dictatorship of the
proletariat, was the resolution. It was necessitated by circumstances and later
theorised.[59]
There is no point in blinding oneself to this hard fact or evading this lesson
of history. The socialist constitution cannot replace the institutionalised
leading role of the party; it is not an institution. Capitalist roaders are
never going to stay within the bounds of a socialist constitution once they get
into power.
The challenge before the Maoists is to deal with the problems
caused by the institutionalised leading role of party, while fully realising
the class reality that makes such an institutionalisation necessary. Under the
leadership of a correct line, that role helps to advance socialism. It helps to
unleash the initiative of the masses and allows their greater role in running
the state. But “The commanding position of the communist party is indeed a
decisive control over political power, in the sense that other parties are
excluded from control over decisive instruments of the state. This is
true even when power is exercised by drawing more and more of the masses into
running the state and conditions for its final withering away are being
promoted.”[60]
Hence, simultaneously, as a secondary aspect, the structure given by
institutionalisation is a material ground conducive to the growth of
bureaucratisation causing alienation of the masses from the party. It thus aids
the capitalist roaders.[61] Under a wrong line, a
revisionist line, the party’s leading role is subverted. In that situation,
institutionalisation quickly lends itself to the degeneration of the party into
a fascistic instrument of capitalist restoration. The Maoists must grasp and
grapple with this contradictory character of the institutionalised leading role
of the Communist party in socialism.
The constitutionally guaranteed position of the party is a
privilege. Like all other privileges it creates room for tendencies of abusing
it and perpetuating it. Arbitrary exercise of power aggravates this. But the
key aspect to be kept in mind is that while the institutionalised leading role
of the party provides space for such aberration, it provides an even more solid
and wider ground for limiting and eliminating it. The central issue is the
party and its position in the state structure. Checks and balances must address
this.
Both Lenin and Mao were aware of this and tried to develop structures
and methods to tackle it. We must make further advance in this direction for
two reasons. One of them is to limit the inevitable rigidity and
bureaucratisation caused by the institutionalised role of the party. For this,
the development of a political culture, forms and institutions that will enable
a greater role for mass supervision of the party and its activities will be
decisive. To the extent possible at each period, the party itself must ‘open
up’ and organise greater involvement of the masses in its functioning. The
method of making mass approval mandatory for new party membership applicants
was a contribution of the Cultural Revolution. Similar practices need to be
further developed as part of continuing the revolution in socialism. The second
task is to prepare the most favourable conditions for the communists and the
revolutionary masses to struggle for the restoration of socialism in the event
of capitalist roaders seizing power. We will come back to this later.
Dong Pinghan’s observations made in his work ‘The Unknown
Cultural Revolution’[62] are useful to appreciate the
contradictory aspects of the issues involved in promoting mass supervision of
the party. He highlights the impact of the Cultural Revolution in undermining
and overturning the culture of subservience to people in authority. This is well
comprehended in Mao’s explanation of the aim of the Cultural Revolution –
changing the world view.[63] The culture of kowtowing to
power will be particularly strong in a backward country, given the carryover of
feudal culture. Yet, advanced countries too won’t be free from it. This
indicates an important area where the Maoists must focus on. They must
consciously instil and foster an attitude of challenging such subservience
among the masses. Dong has pointed out how Mao’s quotations became a de facto
Constitution, enabling the masses to judge and supervise the activities of
leaders and cadres. This is the emancipatory power of proletarian ideology. We
must build on this experience by making the party itself, not just individuals
in it, open to criticism and supervision. Maoism broke away from the hitherto
existed approach of considering the party as something sacrosanct. It
acknowledges the necessity of making it an object of criticism. As Mao once put
it, sometimes “The Communist Party needs to learn a lesson.”[64] He was contradicting an
outlook that absolutised the party’s leading role and made the masses and ranks
into disciples, passive instruments. To advance from the lessons of the Cultural
Revolution, the Maoists must consciously fight against tendencies that reify
the party, its leadership and role in revolution. Mao made an important
distinction, “The state is an instrument of class struggle. A class is not to
be equated with the state which is formed by a number of people (a small
number) from the class in the dominant position.”[65]
This is not to deny the vanguard role of the party or to belittle
the political importance of the regard the masses will develop towards a
genuine Maoist party. It is to insist that any absolutisation of the Marxist
understanding of proletarian leadership would certainly lead to reification. Current
practices (abundant in Avakianism but not restricted to it) of glorifying the
party and the cult of leadership are examples of such absolutisation. It will
reinforce, rather than weaken, a political culture of subservience to power. In
a socialist society the danger is amplified because the ‘bourgeoisie is right
within the party’.[66]
Armed with this approach we can properly place another of
Dong’s observations. He argues that the May 16 Circular ‘empowered’ the masses.[67] The authority of the local
party was held in check, enabling the emergence of new mass collectives and the
deepening of struggle. This is contrasted with the earlier situation where
everything was strictly controlled by the local party and criticism was
suppressed. The negative tendency inherent to an institutionalised leading
position and the ‘opening up’ made possible by its overturning are all too
apparent here. Even then, it is equally true that such ‘opening up’ was
possible because of the overall institutionalised leadership of the Communist
party and the control this gave it over the main instruments of the state. It
could be done because the political power existing in China was, on
the whole, already of the people. In other words what happened was not the ‘empowerment’
of people who didn’t have political power. It was a revolution led by the
Maoists to make the people capable of wielding power through overthrowing those
capitalist roaders who had usurped parts of that power.
Earlier we wrote about the need to prepare the most
favourable conditions for the communists and the revolutionary masses to
struggle for the restoration of socialism in the event of capitalist roaders
seizing power. In this regard, the views put forward by the PCP and the UCPN (M)
on arming the masses were a correct and sound step forward, even if it won’t be
the only solution. In the present world situation, and for a long time ahead,
the proletarian state won’t be able to do without a standing army. But
experiences up till now have shown us the importance of creating the best
conditions to resist or wage a fresh armed revolution against a capitalist
takeover. Similarly, developing better methods to retain the Red colour of the
People’s Army, such as keeping it among the masses, is another important
lesson. It is not without reason that such steps were bitterly opposed by the
capitalist roaders in China.
The contrast between the Soviet Red Army, particularly after the 1930s, and the
model Mao was trying to develop by drawing on the Yenan experience is also
known. This warns us against depreciating the importance of such policies by
overemphasising the necessity of perfecting the professionalism of a standing army.[68] The PCP had correctly stated
that the transition to communism will involve a lengthy process of
‘restoration/counter-restoration’. The bourgeoisie will try to seize back power.
If they succeed, the proletariat will be faced with the task of
counter-restoring its power. Thus the whole period of transition to communism
will proceed through Cultural Revolutions as well as people’s wars. The Maoists
must take lessons from the past in order to wage both of them successfully.
Finally, in the matter of political culture, we must touch on
something fundamental to it, the issue of human rights under socialism. All socialist
constitutions had statutes on the fundamental rights of citizens. But the
record of their implementation was not all that good. It was somewhat better in
China.
Mao could learn from the Soviet experience and develop a qualitatively advanced
approach to issues of socialist democracy. But there is a need to go further.
At the level of outlook, it calls for some deep re-examination of current
understanding on the question of individual in relation to class and society.
Marx pointed out how the individual is subsumed by class. No one exists outside
one or the other class. “Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses
the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”[69] But that was not all. He also
drew attention to the division of the individual into the ‘personal’ and ‘class’
individual. That offers a deep insight into the problem of individuality in
class society. It shows that the advent of a classless society is also the
freeing of the ‘personal’ individual from the subsumption of class. This is
further emphasised by his observation that the “With the community of revolutionary
proletarians … who take their conditions of existence and those of all members
of society under their control, it is just the reverse; it is as individuals
that the individuals participate in it.”[70] This was contrasted to how
the capitalist system (bourgeois democracy) reduces individuals to average
individuals. The continued importance Marx attached to this matter can be
further seen in the following words from ‘Grundrisse’ written 10 years
later, “Relations of personal dependence are the first social forms in which
human productive capacity develops only to a slight extent and at isolated
points. Personal independence founded on objective dependence is the second
great form, in which a system of general social metabolism, of universal
relations, of all-round needs and universal capacities is formed for the first
time. Free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and
on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social
wealth, is the third stage.”[71]
These insights of Marx allow us to appreciate the historical
advance as well as rude limits of bourgeois democracy as regards the
individual. Coupled with his observations on bourgeois right, they give a solid
theoretical basis to properly place the issue of human rights in conditions of
continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.[72] Class is primary and class
struggle is the key link. Even in the matter of going beyond an existence as
‘average individuals’ enjoying equality, class struggle is principal. But it
wouldn’t do to employ this primacy to ignore questions affecting the individual
as such or bury them within the ambit of class. The communist society we are
aiming at cannot be realised without enabling the participation of ‘individuals
as individuals’. An important part of the political culture mentioned earlier
should be the inculcation of this perspective and the conscious creation of
space for its application.[73] A thorough grounding of ‘opening
wide’ in Mao’s theory of continuing the revolution needs this perspective as
one of its foundational principle.
[1]US imperialism’s dominating position, and its
moves to utilise the anti-colonial tide as a means of weakening other
imperialist powers and advancing its own interests had no doubt shaped neo-colonial
imperialist relations and institutions. But, in
the absence of the political factors mentioned here, the changeover from
colonialism would not have been systemic.
[2] ‘America
in Decline’, Raymond Lotta with Frank Shannon, Banner Press, Chicago, 1984.
[3]Anti-Dühring, Part III: Socialism, Theoretical. <http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm>
[4]In the imperialist stage this includes the contradictions between
oppressed nations and imperialism, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,
and between socialism and imperialism (when socialist states exist).
[5]Anti-Dühring, emphasis added, op. cit.
[6]“… it is movement compelled by anarchy that sets the overall terms
for these other contradictions [ie class antagonisms-NB] and ultimately
determines the parameters and possibilities of class struggle … [M]ovement
compelled by anarchy … - the qualitative impact of the contradictions of world
accumulation and the consequent role of wars of redivision - is more
determining of the overall process by which these other contradictions unfold,
at least so long as the bourgeois mode of production is dominant in the world.”
‘America
in Decline’, page 125, emphasis added.
[7]Karl, Marx, ‘The Grundrisse’, Pelican,
London, page 413, italics in original, underlining added.
[8]Chapter 1, Capital Volume 1, page 300, emphasis added. <http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm>
[9]“It must never be forgotten that the production of this
surplus-value — and the reconversion of a portion of it into capital, or the
accumulation, forms an integrate part of this production of surplus-value — is
the immediate purpose and compelling motive of capitalist production.”,
Capital, Volume 3, Chapter 15, Section 1, page 244, emphasis added, Visalandhra
Vignyana Samthi, Hyderabad, 2009. <http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm>
[10]“Conceptually, competition is
nothing other than the inner nature of capital, its essential character,
appearing in and realized as the reciprocal interaction of many capitals
with one another, the inner tendency as external necessity. (Capital exists
and can only exist as many capitals, and its self-determination therefore appears
as their reciprocal interaction with one another.) The Grundrisse, page
414, italics in original, underlining added.
[11]This is also why capital can only
exist as ‘many capitals’.
[12]“So soon as
the growing revolt of the working class compelled Parliament to shorten
compulsorily the hours of labour…from that moment capital threw itself with all
its might into the production of relative surplus value, by hastening on the
further improvement of machinery.” Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 15, page 386, op. cit.
[13]‘The Two Forms of Motion of the Fundamental Contradiction’, <http://revcom.us/a/040/Avakian-views-on-communism-pt3.htm>
[14]‘Birds Cannot Give Birth to Crocodiles, Part 1, A Crucial
Breakthrough...’, Revolution, 218, November 28, 2010. <http://revcom.us/avakian/birds/birds01-en.html>
[15]‘Notes on Political Economy’, henceforth ‘Notes’. <http://revcom.us/a/special_postings/poleco_e.htm>
[16]The RCP’s scheme did admit
revolution as the alternate resolution but this was a token gesture. All
emphasis was on a 3rd world war.
[17]More on the New Spiral and the World Economy, ‘Notes’, op.cit.
[18]Some Summing-Up Points, ibid.
[19]More on the New Spiral and the World Economy, ibid, emphasis added. Further on it was
explained, “The world system is not, as a whole, in crisis—nor is there a
single world crisis gripping that system. But this is an "intensely
mixed" state of affairs. There is some expansion and there are areas of
high growth; there are new patterns of capital investment; there is greater
economic integration; and there has been recovery in the U.S. But there
is crisis in significant parts of the world. There is deepening immiseration
and suffering throughout much of the world. Overall, class and national
contradictions are intensifying in the world.” Some Summing-Up Points, ibid.
The facile nature of this view can readily be judged by observing the
relatively high growth that was seen in some Third World powers like China and
India, right in the midst of the global financial crisis, ‘a single world
crisis’! Additionally, the omission of any mention of growing resistance to
globalisation, a notable feature from the mid-1990s, is glaring.
[20]‘For A Century of People’s Wars, For
Socialism and Communism’.
[21]“But the point is that what they are
doing is not primarily or essentially in response to September 11 but is part
of a whole program they have--what we call their wild ambitions for recasting
the whole world and taking down the Iraqi regime as one part of that ...Trying
to force even other imperialists and powerful states like Russia or other
imperialists in Europe or Japan to fall in line with the new restructured way
in which the sole superpower in the world, the U.S., is going to be running
roughshod over everything else, even more--this is all at the essence of what
they're doing ... It has to do with their own needs and interests and designs
as an imperialist power, which is seeking to follow up on its political victory
in the Cold War to further recast the world under its domination.”, Bob Avakian
Speaks Out, Interviewed by Carl Dix, Part 1, Revolutionary Worker #1155, June
16, 2002. <http://www.revcom.us/a/v24/1151-1160/1155/bainterview.htm>
[22]The first formal indication of
retraction from the 2000 EM positions was seen in the RCP’s response to my
article, written 5 years later. The Avakianists negated the RIM’s position by
arguing, “It is not true that “revolution is the main trend in the world today”
in the sense that it was put forward by Mao at the height of the worldwide
upsurge of the 1960s.” (‘Response to the article The Current Debate on the
Socialist State System’, henceforth ‘Response…’, emphasis added. <http://demarcations-journal.org/issue02/demarcations-ajith_reply.htm>l
It was first published in Struggle No: 8.) But this was clear enough, right in
2000 itself, when the EM adopted this position. As explained by a
representative of the CoRIM, “We believe that the international situation is
generally favourable for the advance of the revolutionary struggle. While we
are not yet experiencing the same kind of high tide of revolutionary struggle
on a world scale that we have witnessed in the past and will surely see again,
we can speak with confidence of an emerging new wave of the world proletarian
revolution.” (<http://bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/2000-26/interviewcoRIM_eng26.htm>).
[23]RCP letter, emphasis added, op. cit.
[24]War includes not only inter-imperialist wars, but also imperialist
wars of aggression and proxy wars where imperialist powers wage war through one
or the other neo-colonial regime.
[25]Ibid.
[30]RCP Letter, op. cit.
[31]‘Making Revolution And Emancipating Humanity’-Part 2, Revolution #105, October 21, 2007, henceforth ‘Making…’ <http://revcom.us/avakian/makingrevolution2/>
[32]“It is
indeed a unique feature of the present situation that the US is being forced to
search for a different strategy mainly because of the armed resistance in West
Asia led by Islamic groups that are either revivalist or fundamentalist in
their outlook and not even consistent in their anti-imperialism. This brings up
two things. First, the intensity of the oppressed people/imperialism
contradiction and the real weaknesses of imperialism that make it possible for
even such forces to tie down a sole super power. Second, the subjective
weakness of the Maoist movement and a reminder of the need to overcome it as soon as
possible. A part of this subjective weakness is its analysis of Islamic
fundamentalism, which still remains at a preliminary stage. While the
propagation of militant materialism has its role, rationalist critiques of
religion cannot replace a Maoist approach on Islamic fundamentalism.”- ‘Note for the Seminar’, op. cit.
[33]What Is Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis?-Part 4, Revolution #129, May 18,
2008.
[34]This has been explained as follows: “The solid core will set the
terms and the framework. But within that, it’s going to unleash and allow the
maximum possible elasticity at any given time while still maintaining power—and
maintaining it as a power that is going to communism, advancing toward the achievement
of the “4 alls,” and together with the whole world struggle. Now there’s going
to be constraints on the solid core at any time in doing that, including what
kinds of threats you’re facing from imperialism. Sometimes you’ll be able to
open up pretty wide, and sometimes you may have to pull in the reins; but
strategically, overall, you’re mainly going to be trying to encourage and work with
the elasticity, trying to learn from it and trying to figure out how you lead
things so that it all becomes a motive force that is actually contributing—even
if not so directly or immediately, in the short run—but overall
contributing to where you want to go.”, italicised in original, ibid.
[35]The following works are essential
reading for their guidance on this question: ‘On the Draft Constitution of the
People's Republic of China’, ‘Letter Concerning the Study of The Dream of the
Red Chamber’, ‘In Refutation of "Uniformity of Public Opinion"’, ‘On
the Co-Operative Transformation of Agriculture’, ‘On the Ten Major Relationships’,
‘Strengthen Party Unity and Carry Forward Party Traditions’, ‘Speech at the
Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party
of China’, ‘Talks at a Conference of Secretaries of Provincial, Municipal and
Autonomous Region Party Committees’, ‘On the Correct Handling of Contradictions
Among the People’, ‘Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference
on Propaganda Work’, ‘Things Are Beginning to Change’, ‘Beat Back the Attacks
of the Bourgeois Rightists’, ‘The Situation in the Summer of 1957’, ‘Be
Activists in Promoting the Revolution’, ‘Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the
People’.
[36]‘Speech at
the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work’, MSW 5, page 432. <http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_59.htm>
[37]Given Mao’s writings on the
importance of following the rule of law even in the matter of suppressing counter-revolutionaries,
it takes some conceit to claim, as Avakian does, that he is raising something
controversial in the ICM by arguing “the importance of not subjecting
individuals, even individuals of the former ruling class (and other
counterrevolutionaries being dictated over), to arbitrary suppression and
curtailment of their individual rights, expressions, etc.” (The Basis, The
Goals, And the Methods of the Communist Revolution’, henceforth ‘Basis…’
[38]‘Be Activists in Promoting the
Revolution’, MSW 5, page 484. <http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_67.htm>
[39]‘Speech at the Second Plenary
Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China’,
Section 4, MSW 5, page 344.<http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_56.htm>
Mao simultaneously debunks the reified view of the Communist party with his
cryptic statement “The Communist Party needs to learn a lesson.”. <http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm#v5_96>
[40]‘Be Activists in Promoting the
Revolution’, op. cit.
[41] RCP Letter, op. cit.
[42]The following are some quotes from
Mao that readily prove this:
“Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a
hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the
arts and sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land. Different
forms and styles in art should develop freely and different schools in science
should contend freely. We think that it is harmful to the growth of art and
science if administrative measures are used to impose one particular style of
art or school of thought and to ban another. Questions of right and wrong in
the arts and science should be settled through free discussion in artistic and
scientific circles and through practical work in these fields.” ‘On the Correct
Handling of Contradictions Among the People’ Section 8, MSW 5, page 408. <http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm#v5_96>
“In a socialist society, the conditions for
the growth of the new are radically different from and far superior to those in
the old society. Nevertheless, it often happens that new, rising forces are
held back and sound ideas stifled. Besides even in the absence of their
deliberate suppression, the growth of new things may be hindered simply through
lack of discernment. It is therefore necessary to be careful about questions of
right and wrong in the arts and sciences, to encourage free discussion and
avoid hasty conclusions. We believe that such an attitude will help ensure a
relatively smooth development of the arts and sciences.” Ibid, pages 408-09.
“People may ask, since Marxism is accepted
as the guiding ideology by the majority of the people in our country, can it be
criticized? Certainly it can. Marxism is scientific truth and fears no
criticism. If it did, and if it could be overthrown by criticism, it would be
worthless.” Ibid, page 410.
“It is inevitable that the bourgeoisie and
petty bourgeoisie will give expression to their own ideologies. It is
inevitable that they will stubbornly assert themselves on political and
ideological questions by every possible means. You cannot expect them to do
otherwise. We should not use the method of suppression and prevent them from expressing
themselves, but should allow them to do so and at the same time argue with them
and direct appropriate criticism at them.” Ibid, page 411.
“Some actually disagree with Marxism,
although they do not openly say so. There will be people like this for a long
time to come, and we should allow them to disagree. Take some of the idealists
for example. They may support the socialist political and economic system but
disagree with the Marxist world outlook. The same holds true for the patriotic
people in religious circles. They are theists and we are atheists. We cannot
force them to accept the Marxist world outlook.” ‘Speech at the Chinese
Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work’, SW 5, page 424, op.
cit.
[43]The ‘six criteria’ were: Words and deeds should help to unite, and
not divide, the people of all our nationalities; They should be beneficial, and
not harmful, to socialist transformation and socialist construction; They
should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, the people's
democratic dictatorship; They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or
weaken, democratic centralism; They should help to strengthen, and not shake
off or weaken, the leadership of the Communist Party; They should be
beneficial, and not harmful, to international socialist unity and the unity of
the peace-loving people of the world. “Of these six criteria, the most
important are the two about the socialist path and the leadership of the Party.”
Section 8, ‘On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People’, MSW 5,
page 412, op. cit.
[44]What Is Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis?-Part 4, op. cit.
[45]Citing some historical examples from
socialist societies shedding light on the material constraints in ‘opening up’
I had pointed out, “This indicates a real
contradiction a communist party in power will have to face, the contradiction
between its orientation and its concrete application in different
circumstances. It emerges from the contradiction between the unique task
the proletarian state has of creating conditions for its own extinction and
what it has in common with all states as an instrument of coercion. Both
these aspects must be addressed.” (‘Socialist…’,
emphasis added, op. cit.) In its response the RCP accused us of arguing that “…real
world contradictions make it impossible to envision a different way to handle
the problems of the proletarian dictatorship.”(‘Response…’, op. cit.) K.J.A’s ‘Polemical
Reflections on Bernard D’Mello…’ (henceforth ‘Polemical…’) vulgarises the
matter even more by raising the absurd charge that I had claimed the ‘hundred
flowers policy’ impossible to implement in the actual conditions of socialism.
(<http://demarcations-journal.org/issue02/demarcations-polemical_reflections.html>
) As we will soon see, the real issue is not whether it’s possible to ‘envision
a different way’ but whether that can be done in any meaningful way by those
who avoid addressing such material constraints. Furthermore, the RCP reduces
the matter to the general question of “… contradiction between a party’s
“orientation” (overall ideological and political line) and the concrete
application of this line…” The particularity of the issue being addressed is thus
avoided. The purpose is to serve up this vulgarisation: “What Ajith is
proposing is something different – we may have a communist “orientation” but
the “concrete application” cannot avoid using methods that run in opposition
to this “orientation”. Instead of dialectics we have dualism”. (‘Response …’,
emphasis added, op. cit.) The reply to this is given by the example of
Socialist China. The orientation was that of continuing the revolution under
the dictatorship of the proletariat. ‘Opening wide’ and allowing the bourgeois
rightists to publicise their views was to serve this. When this threatened to
undermine socialism it had to be curtailed. It was not ‘in opposition’ to the
overall orientation but a different application in a different situation.
[46]“If all you do is mobilise the masses to crush this, it’s the same
as state repression in other forms. You can’t let misogyny run rampant and not
challenge it and not suppress it in certain ways— but on the other hand, even
just coming up with ways that masses oppose this is not always the way to do
this…Let them go on in a certain way? Or shut them down? We have to know what
they’re doing. … you need a political police—you need to know about plots, real
plots that will go on, to overthrow socialism—but you shouldn’t rely on state
repression as the way to deal with opposition in every form, and sometimes you
don’t even want your own people to go into these things, because then it’s not
really a free university because you’ve got your people in there and it can be
chilling, so we have to think about it.”(‘Everything That Is Actually True Is
Good For The Proletariat, All Truths Can Help Us Get To Communism’, Revolutionary Worker #1262,
December 19, 2004, henceforth ‘Epistemology’. <http://www.revcom.us/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm>.)
[47]‘Response…’, op. cit.
[48]Ibid.
[49] Bob
Avakian, ‘A Materialist Understanding of the State and Its Relation to the Underlying
Economic Base’, Part 2, henceforth ‘Materialist…’. <http://revcom.us/a/074/ba-materialistpt2-en.html>
[50] ‘On
Proletarian Democracy’, <http://www.revcom.us/bob_avakian/democracy/crc-document.htm>
[51] ‘Rosa Luxemburg Speaks’, New
York, 1970, pages 389-390, emphasis added.
[52] ‘Democracy:
More Than Ever We can and Must Do Better Than That’. <http://revcom.us/bob_avakian/democracy/>
[53]‘Socialist…’, op. cit.
[54]‘Materialist…’, emphasis added, op.
cit.
[55]‘Constitution…’, page 25, op. cit.
[56]‘Extraordinary All- Russia Railwaymen’s Congress ‘, Part 2, LCW 26, Moscow, page 498.
[57]‘Part II: Tenth Congress of the R.C.P. (B.), LCW 32, page 199.
[58]Ibid.
[59]Proposals for a system of multi-party elections such as those made
by the UCPN (Maoist) simply avoided this material factor. Though some
correction was made in the paper it submitted for the International Seminar of
2006, the fundamental flaw in its analysis remained uncorrected. See <http://bannedthought.net/Nepal/Worker/Worker-11/w11-a08.htm>
[60]‘Socialist…’, emphasis added, op. cit. The Avakianists responded to
this by first hacking off the words ‘control over decisive instruments of the
state’. They then went on to declare, “There is no reason to argue, as Ajith
does, that under socialism all “other parties are excluded” if some
parties are willing to work together in a state apparatus whose
nature is in a fundamental sense determined by the leadership of the
party of the proletariat.” (‘Response…’, op. cit.) They just can’t resist the
temptation to hack, it’s almost like a compulsive disorder.
[61]The RCP has argued that “Ajith … tends to locate the problem
incorrectly, mainly in the sphere of “bureaucracy”, which leads him to
underestimate the real depth of the problem and to look in the wrong place for
solutions. The concept of ‘bureaucracy’ has limited value because it tends to
obscure the class nature of the struggle under socialism, focused to a large
degree on whether to expand or reduce ‘bourgeois right’.”(‘Response…’)
‘Bureaucratisation’ has been posed by Rightists as the source of capitalist
restoration in order to minimise or deny the role of bourgeois right in forming
the soil that engenders new capitalist elements in socialism. However, the RCP
goes to the opposite one-sidedness when it minimises the danger of
bureaucratisation. Through their shared enjoyment of privilege, bourgeois right
and bureaucratisation interact and reinforce each other. Incidentally, ‘to set
the record straight’, what I wrote was, “Apart from the new and old bourgeois
elements that will make their way into the ruling communist party, the rotten
baggage and bureaucratism inevitably engendered by any institutionalised role
will also push away from the goal of advancing to communism.”(‘Socialist…’, op.
cit.)
[62]See Chapter
4 of ‘The Unknown Cultural Revolution’, Dong Pinghan, Cornerstone Publication, Kharagpur, India,
2007. Originally published by Garland,
New York
[63]“To struggle against power holders who take the capitalist road is
the main task, but it is by no means the goal. The goal is to solve the problem
of world outlook: it is the question of eradicating the roots of revisionism.”- ‘Speech To The Albanian
Military Delegation’, MSW 9. <http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_74.htm>
[64]Speech at 2nd Session of
8th CC, pages 344-5, MSW 5, op. cit.
[65]Ibid, page 378.
[66]We refer readers to the article ‘The
Maoist Party’ for a more complete presentation on the matter of the party, op.
cit.
[67]“The Cultural Revolution …differed
from all the previous political campaigns because for the first time in the
CCP’s history it circumvented the local party bosses and stressed the principle
of letting the masses empower themselves and educate themselves.” ‘The
Unknown Cultural Revolution’, italicised in original, page 49.
[68]One persistent question raised by the RCP to depreciate the
importance of the People’s Militia in the struggle of
‘restoration/counter-restoration’ is that of who leads it. Their May 1, 2012
letter repeats this, “… even if there are armed militias (as Mao's followers in
China
sought to develop) who leads them? How can it be assured that these forces will
be used to support a genuine proletarian line?” (‘Response…’, Section 8,
op.cit.) The implication is that this form would be useless without a correct central
leadership and line to guide it. Leadership and line are no doubt decisive. But
why can’t this be provided by those in the lower ranks, in the localities? Besides,
even spontaneous armed uprisings against the bourgeois seizure of power will
also be of great significance. The RCP’s argument counterposing the question of
leadership to the task of militia formation practically amounts to belittling
the political significance of arming the people.
[69]The Chapter on Capital, Notebook II, The Grundrisse, page 239.
[70]German Ideology, Part I, D. Proletarians and Communism, Individuals,
Class, and Community.
[71]The Chapter on Money, Part II, Notebook 1. <http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm>
[72]This has been dealt with in detail in ‘Socialist…’, op. cit.
[73]Though not given in a worked out form, Mao’s writings offer many
insights and observations of great assistance in addressing this task.
No comments:
Post a Comment