Excerpt from "against avakianism" by Ajith, Secretary of the former Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) NAXALBARI, today merged in the CPI
TRUTH, CLASS INTERESTS AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The tendency to envision
or explain reality in a fashion suited to one’s views or immediate political,
organisational needs has been present in the ICM for long.[1] It became
particularly pronounced during the Comintern period and was compounded by
Stalin’s metaphysical errors. Mao broke away from this. He insisted on ‘Seeking
truth from facts’ and declared ‘No investigation, no right to speak’. Through
his philosophical works and practice, he reiterated the Marxist position on the
independent existence of objective reality. All ideas are ultimately derived from
it. And that is where they must be tested for their veracity.
In the course of
critiquing Avakianism we have repeatedly seen how its adherents ‘bend’ words so
that opposing views become amenable to their polemics. This is an acute
manifestation of the tendency to explain reality in a fashion suited to one’s
views. However, without the slightest of scruples, Avakian asserts that he is
digging out instrumentalism and that this is his unique contribution. Moreover,
Mao too is accused of the sin of sanctifying instrumentalism. The proof is
supposed to be seen in the May 16 circular issued during the Cultural
Revolution. According to Avakian it asserted that “…there is such a thing as
proletarian truth and bourgeois truth…”[2] Let’s take
a look at that circular.
This is what it said, “Just when we began the
counter-offensive against the wild attacks of the bourgeoisie, the authors of
the outline raised the slogan: 'everyone is equal before the truth'. This is a
bourgeois slogan. Completely negating the class nature of truth, they
use this slogan to protect the bourgeoisie and oppose the proletariat, oppose
Marxism-Leninism, and oppose Mao Tse-tung's thought. In the struggle between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the truth of Marxism and the
fallacies of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes, either the East
wind prevails over the West wind or the West wind prevails over the East wind,
and there is absolutely no such thing as equality.”[3]
The accusation of the Avakianists is centred on the words “class
nature of truth”. Objective reality is equally the same for the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie. Therefore, attributing a class nature to it opens the path
to instrumentalism. That is his argument. But is that all there is to it? The
May 16 circular was opposing the capitalist roaders’ argument that ‘everyone is
equal before the truth’. What exactly was being indicated by ‘truth’ in that
context? Reading down, one sees that this was not about objective reality. It
was about ideologies, thinking. When the bourgeoisie in the party said that
‘everyone is equal before the truth’ they were not debating the existence of
objective reality irrespective of class. They were demanding that the
proletarian state must allow equal space to bourgeois views. This is why the
circular insisted that there cannot be equality in the struggle between ‘the truth
of Marxism and the fallacies of the bourgeoisie’.[4]
This is plain enough. So why did Avakian resort to
misinterpretation in order to charge Mao of instrumentalism? There is of course the Avakianist urge to pull words out of
context. But that is not all. Avakian’s belaboured criticism of ‘class truth’
reflects a deep flaw in his conception of material reality and the process of
comprehending it. Earlier we saw how he reduced material necessity faced by
revolution solely to the economy. Even that was grasped in a partial manner.
What we will now see is how Avakianism labours to eliminate class from the
process of understanding social reality and conflates the natural and social
realms.
Not just the
‘fallacies of the bourgeoisie’, the ‘truth of Marxism’ too is not objective
reality as such. Through an ongoing process of ‘seeking truth from facts’ Marxism
can grasp this reality in a qualitatively deeper and more comprehensive manner as compared to the
bourgeoisie and other classes. The ‘truth of Marxism’ can stand the closest to
objective reality because of its class partisanship. Its quality of being
thoroughly scientific, of starting from objective reality and making that
reality the test of its understanding, is indissolubly bound up with its
partisanship. This is so because the
class it represents, the proletariat, is the only one that has a basic interest
in comprehending reality to the fullest extent possible. That derives from its being
the only class that must take the revolution all the way to the emancipation of
all humanity to achieve its own liberation.
Mao explained, “The Marxist philosophy of dialectical
materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it
openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat.
The other is its practicality: it emphasises the dependence of theory on
practice, emphasises that theory is based on practice and in turn serves
practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective
feelings, but by objective results in social practice.”[5] Note how Mao insists that
dialectical materialism has a class nature. As we know, Marxism’s scientific
approach and method flows from this philosophy. But the Avakianists do not
accept this intrinsic relation between the class partisanship of Marxism and
its scientific approach. In their view, “Marxism is a scientific understanding
of nature and society that reflects reality as best and as thoroughly as
mankind can do at this stage of history. And Marxism reveals the
possibility and the necessity of proletarian revolution – it is partisan.”[6]
According to this argument, mankind has a science known as
Marxism. It’s a science that, among other things, reveals the need for the
revolution of a specific class. And that is why it becomes partisan. In other
words, the class basis of the scientific approach of Marxism is denied. Its
scientific approach is separated from its class character.[7] This is clarified in their
statement, “Marxism is partisan and it is true; but one cannot say Marxism is
true because it is partisan.”[8] As we noted earlier, the
‘truth of Marxism’ is not objective reality as such. It isn’t endowed with
knowledge of this reality just by being partisan to the proletariat. But the
capacity of Marxism to grasp truth, and to do that far deeper than any other, is
inseparable from its partisan character. In that sense, it is true because
it is partisan. [9]
Further down in the same piece of writing the RCP accepts
that “Marx and Engels wanted to change the world; without that orientation
they would never have discovered the truths that they did discover.”[10] Here, the vague term
‘orientation’ replaces the proletarian class interest with which Marx and
Engels had identified. Without in the least diminishing the astounding
intellectual labour of Marx and Engels, it must be emphasised that they were
prompted by this partisanship and not some super heroic propensity for being
scientific. They arrived at this through a process of realising the inability
of existing theories to correctly grasp reality and learning from the class
struggles going on.[11] If not for that partisanship there would be
nothing propelling them to the discovery of the scientific principles and
method of Marxism. Conversely, if not for the development of this scientific
grasp, their partisanship would have remained utopian.
The Avakianists highlight Marx and Engels’s application of
scientific principles and the scientific method in separation from the class
partisanship that guided them. They then confuse the issue by dragging in the
matter of ‘constructing truth’ as opposed to ‘discovering’ it.[12] We must certainly discover
truth, not construct it. However, the point of debate here is the role of class
interests, partisanship, in enabling one in this task. Marxism emphatically
declares and upholds this relation. The Avakianists deny it. Where does this
lead them to?
This can be understood
by examining some of their arguments: “Comrade Ajith argues one of the
cornerstones of the CRC’s deviation was its departure from proletarian class
stand. The philosophy and method it applied for analysing categories such as
individual or democracy, its idealism, metaphysics and ahistorical treatment of
the issue, was a consequence.” (emphasis added) Here Ajith is clearly
separating “class stand” from philosophy and method. However, for Marxists
“philosophy and method” are central to the proletarian ideology, not something
that merely “results” from class stand. What does “proletarian class stand”
mean separated from the philosophy and method that together with class stand
make up proletarian ideology? Really it can only mean simple class feelings –
for example, identification with the masses, hatred of the exploiting classes,
and so forth.”[13]
Class stand, viewpoint and method no doubt make up the
proletarian world outlook. But that does not mean that they don’t have their
own specificities. Nor does it negate each one of them impacting in its own way
upon the others. In the history of the CRC’s deviation this was quite evident. A
document written by those who had ruptured from the CRC noted, “Though the CRC,
CPI(ML) played an important role in defending Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung
Thought, the tendency of the leadership to deny the universality of this
ideology was present from the very beginning.”[14] But the way it got
manifested was not directly centred on philosophy or method. It emerged as a tendency
that argued for seeking answers to new questions in views advanced from
non-proletarian stands on the plea that they have not been dealt with by the
leaders of the proletariat. The document criticised this and said, “New things
and knowledge are constantly emerging in this world. The proletariat must
grapple with them and continuously develop its ideology and practice. But it
cannot ignore the fact that all of these new things have a class character.
So the vanguard party should analyse them from its own class stand point and
outlook. It should carry out synthesis on the basis of the fundamentals of its
ideology. Otherwise it will become eclectic and liberal in its ideological
approach, opening the door to revisionism.”[15]
It could be argued that ignoring the class character of new
phenomena is already a deviation in philosophy and method. Yes, it certainly
is. But that does not mean that the particular features seen in the emergence and
subsequent course of development of a deviation cannot be separately
identified. In the specific instance of the CRC, the weakening of class stand
soon led to weakening and overturning the mainly correct views it had on
philosophy and method during its initial period. This was the experience being
cited in the writing criticised by the RCP. It does not in the least bit
suggest that primacy must be given to “proletarian class stand” as opposed to “proletarian
philosophy and method”. It was drawing lessons from a specific example of
deviation from proletarian ideology to stress the importance of class stand. There
was a reason for doing that. The arguments on developing ideology being raised
by the RCP were already pointing to the disastrous direction it was taking.
Having experienced the deviation of the CRC, indications of their attempt to
separate the scientific outlook and method of Marxism from its class nature were
all too apparent to us. Their response confirmed this. They accuse us of
separating class stand from philosophy and method precisely in order to
counterpose them and side-line the former.
More deeply, by minimising the role of “simple class feelings”
the RCP displays a dismissive attitude towards the foundational significance of
class position, the material position of the class. All the three components of
the proletarian world outlook - stand, viewpoint
and method - flow from this
material reality; they are ultimately determined by it. While class hatred or
feelings cannot substitute for class stand, there cannot be a class stand that
excludes them. All the members of a Maoist party, regardless of their class
origins, have to struggle to acquire a proletarian world outlook. But there is
a qualitative difference in this matter between those who come from the working
class and others. In the case of the latter, particularly those coming from the
ruling classes or middle classes, declassification is decisive. The lessons of
the erstwhile socialist countries amply prove that this is not just a matter of
learning Marxist theory. The class line of a Maoist party, building it
primarily among the basic classes, consciously tries to draw on the strengths
given by the class position. That is correct and necessary. It plays an
important role in retaining the proletarian character of the vanguard. The
RCP’s approach of one-sidedly highlighting the decisive role of theory in
ideology downplays this.
Chang Chun-chiao’s correct identification of theory being the
most dynamic factor in ideology is driven by the RCP’s logic to a
one-sided position that makes it the sole dynamic factor.[16] It observed, “… a theory
which departs from MLM will inevitably corrupt any genuine proletarian
feelings.”[17]
The converse, a weakening of class stand leading to theoretical deviations and
corruption of ideology, is practically denied. This is then taken to the next
level. The danger I had drawn attention to, “… reducing Marxism to a
methodology cut off from its proletarian stand and partisanship.” is attacked
as an example of insisting on the “… opposition between “stand and
partisanship” and methodology.”[18] Thus they deny even the
possibility of such an approach despite its being widely seen among
intellectuals.[19]
No, there is no opposition between Marxist methodology, its viewpoint
and stand. But there is a powerful tendency which portrays and tries to use the
philosophy of dialectical materialism and its methodology as tools that can be
employed by anyone, regardless of their class stand. This was seen in the CRC’s
positions.[20]
We see its repetition in a new form in Avakianism’s views on the scientific
nature of Marxism. It is further exposed in its positions on the ‘fundamentals
of Marxism.’
The RCP argued,
“… Ajith is raising the questions of “fundamentals of Marxism” as a special
category that somehow can escape from the realm of critical examination. In so
doing, Ajith presents Marxism, its “fundamental principles,” not as a
scientific method and approach, not as both a product as well as a tool of
social investigation, but essentially outside this process.”[21] Notice how the ‘fundamental
principles’ of Marxism are reduced to ‘method and approach’.
What was the
context in which this issue was raised? I wrote, “Leaps in the history of the
development of proletarian ideology are marked both by rupture and continuity.
One sees a dialectical interaction between the two. Continuity through rupture,
and rupture made possible by continuity. In terms of what was discussed above,
this can be described as standing firm on the basic principles (or
fundamentals) of Marxism by developing them through creative application to
correspond to contemporary social reality and tasks. Both revisionism and
dogmatism deny the dialectics of rupture and continuity. But what is it that
enables one to grasp this dialectics? The universal truth of Marxism, its class
stand, method and, above all, its revolutionary mission. If this is called into
question, then we lose our mooring.”[22] Evidently, the fundamentals
of Marxism are not being posed as something above critical examination. The
necessity to develop them by rupturing from views that do not correspond to
contemporary social reality is acknowledged. But if this is not done by
standing firm on the universal truth of Marxism it will deviate. Therefore,
the development of Marxism is not simply a matter of putting up its fundamental
principles for re-examination in a general sense. It demands the application of
the universal truth of Marxism in concrete situations which include the realm
of theoretical practice also. Mao wrote, “Marxism must necessarily advance;
it must develop along with practice and cannot stand still … However, the
basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, otherwise mistakes will
be made.” “It is revisionism to negate the basic principles of Marxism and to
negate its universal truth.”[23] This is indeed an exacting
task. How do we decide what constitutes the ‘basic principles’, the ‘universal
truth’ of Marxism? How do we differentiate them from others that are not so
essential?
I attempted a
definition by suggesting that such principles should be distinguished from the
models thrown up by their application. This approach is of use in some
contexts. Let’s take an important issue currently under debate, the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Its vital necessity during the period of
transition from capitalism to communism is an inviolable basic principle of
Marxism. Now, the specific way this was implemented in the Soviet Union was at
one point considered as THE application and sanctified as a fundamental. Yet,
its errors were later criticised and Mao developed a qualitatively different
application. The ‘fundamentals/models’ distinction can be of assistance to understand
this. But, even then, it is of limited value. The examples listed out by the RCP
of principles that were considered fundamental at one point and later abandoned
as mistaken or outmoded certainly shows this.[24] Yet, it remains a fact that
a satisfactory resolution of what constitutes the essential fundamental
principles of Marxism still remains unfulfilled. Its stand, viewpoint and
method no doubt lie at the core. But that is not all. Ideological positions too
are part of it.
Ideology, MLM, is
understood as the body of work and method of the great leaders of the
international proletariat. Over the course of its development through advances
and setbacks in application, as well as due to basic changes in the world, the
ICM has deepened its grasp and raised the level of its understanding. Some
parts of what were considered as essential parts of its ideology have been
discarded or transformed. The Maoist grasp is not the same as a Leninist or
Marxist one. But its advanced grasp is not merely a matter of rupture. The
insights and foundations of Marxism-Leninism are essential to it. Thus, the
question of the basic principles of Marxism directly relate to the
universality, the universal truth, of ideology. The RCP view of treating the
fundamentals as ‘method and approach’ in the name of being scientific tends to deny
this.
Hence they take
offence for saying that, “Though new advances in Marxism arise from concrete
application and verification through practice in a particular country they
contain universality precisely because they are guided by the fundamentals.”[25] The accusation is that “He
does not argue they are universal because they are universally true, but rather
because they correspond to, or were based upon, the “fundamentals” of Marxism.
Gone is the objective criteria of truth, that it corresponds to material
reality, and in flies another opposite criteria where the truth of some idea or
theory (its “universality”) is determined by its consistency with the premises
on which it was based.”[26]
When ‘concrete
application and verification through practice’ is specifically mentioned, it
should be obvious that the objective criterion of truth is not in any way
denied. So then what was be argued for?
The line of a Maoist party in a country is developed by creatively
applying the universality of MLM in the concrete conditions obtaining there.
That universality already corresponds, in an overall sense, to the material
reality existing there. This is so because the experiences of particular
applications from which it was derived (to a great extent) have given lessons
already validated by objective reality. It does not replace the particularities
of concrete conditions. But it can shed
light on them and be of guidance to grasp them.[27] A creative application of
MLM already contains universality precisely because of this guidance. Its
verification through practice in a particular material reality, the concrete
conditions of a country, in turn enriches the universality of Marxism.
The Avakianist’s
have as usual pulled words out of their context. And in that process they
revealed how their reduction of Marxist fundamentals to a matter of method
eliminates its universal truth. Let us repeat their words, “He does not argue
they are universal because they are universally true, but rather because they
correspond to, or were based upon, the “fundamentals” of Marxism.” This raises
the question of the content of Marxist fundamentals, of ideology. Do they, as
such, contain universality? Is that universality true? The logical conclusion
of the RCP’s arguments leads to a negative, on both counts. But they are wrong.
The basic principles of MLM contain universal truth. In fact, that is why MLM
can be applied in diverse conditions and fields. However this universality is
not something static, some readymade answer explaining reality.
How is this to be
understood? As Lenin pointed out, every law ‘freezes’ reality. It is
incomplete, relative. Therefore, the application of MLM laws or principles to
chart out the course of revolution in any country also calls for enriching,
developing, the conceptual understanding of those laws. Otherwise it would be
cutting the feet to suit the ‘shoe’ of laws. This is the point about creative
application. In fact, creative application of MLM precisely calls for such
conceptual leaps in grasping the universal laws established by MLM. Thus,
through its application in unravelling and handling the specific laws of a
particular revolution, the universal laws of MLM themselves become more
complete, more capable of grasping the complex, contradictory, motion of the
whole human society.[28]
We will now
proceed to examine another consequence of the RCP’s approach. This is its
mechanical equation of the realms of natural sciences and social sciences. My
argument[29]
on the qualitative distinction between the natural sciences and social sciences
and the error of simply extending the methods of the former into the latter has
been contested by the Avakianists.[30]
Marxism takes
practice as the criterion of truth. It insists that social theory must be
verified by objective reality. This constitutes the foundation of its claim to
be scientific. It shares this scientific method in common with the natural
sciences. But if this is taken to the extreme of equating both and ignoring
their qualitative difference, it would amount to a form of mechanical thinking.
Marx was well aware of this danger. He insisted on the distinction between the
precision possible in the analysis of material economic conditions as compared
to that of ideological forms.[31] Later on, tendencies which
overlooked the importance of this insight emerged and became entrenched. Stalin’s
argument that the ‘science of history of society’ “…can become as precise a
science as, let us say, biology…” was an example.”[32] It is one thing to say that
Marxism has made the study of history scientific. But it’s quite another to
claim that Marxist historiography can attain as much precision as a
natural science. Apart from the paucity of factual material, historical study
of any society can never do without the study and interpretation of its
ideological forms.
The views of the
RCP display a repeat of Stalin’s error. It is rendered even grosser through
Avakian’s endorsement of Karl Popper’s criteria of ‘being scientific’. For
Popper, a theory is scientific only if can be challenged by testing for its
falsifiability. Avakian accepts this. Popper’s had asserted that Marxism is unscientific
because it isn’t falsifiable. Avakian replies by insisting that it is indeed
falsifiable ‘in a fundamental and essential sense’. He then enumerates examples
where Marxism has withstood the test of falsifiability.[33]At a first reading this would
appear as a valid refutation of Popper. But closer examination will show
something else. Recollect Mao’s observation that despite having correct ideas
representatives of the advanced class may still suffer defeat because of their
comparative weakness. By its very logic, the criterion of falsifiability can
never comprehend this paradox. For it, failure is simply failure and conclusive
proof of being unscientific.[34] Avakian’s defence of Marxism
is thus fatally flawed. Based as it is on an uncritical acceptance of Popper’s
criterion, it ultimately goes to undermine the claim of Marxism to truth. The
roots of this lie in his failure to properly grasp the qualitative distinction
between the natural sciences and social sciences. [35]
Avakian is quite
caught up with this confusion. He writes, “Communism, it could be said, is not simply
a science, in the sense that it does involve other elements, including
morality, which are, strictly speaking, outside of the province of science.
But all this cannot be divorced from science; and it all ultimately and
fundamentally rests on, as well as needing to be continually regrounded in,
what is actually true, as determined by a scientific approach and method, and
no other.”[36]
Astonishingly enough, this is said while claiming to present a correct
understanding on the relation between science and philosophy. Apart from
‘morality’, the ‘other elements’ mentioned by Avakian as constituting communist
philosophy are ‘outlook and method’. Among them ‘method’ obviously cannot be
‘strictly kept’ outside the province of science. The distinctly philosophical
is thereby reduced to ‘morality and outlook’. Thus what is advanced as the
defence of scientific methods in philosophy ends up as the pauperisation of
philosophy.
Philosophy is no
doubt indissolubly bound up with material reality and the sciences that unravel
it. But empirical sciences are only one of the sources of philosophy. It
emerges from all the realms of human existence, including art and culture, and
draws sustenance from them. Its roots lie not only in the human-nature
interaction but also in those of oneself with one’s own material and spiritual
existence. The greatness of Marxist philosophy lies in its unbound capacity to
comprehend and address this totality in all its dazzling particularities.
We must adopt
scientific methods in philosophy - “the science of thought and its laws—formal
logic and dialectics.” But philosophy cannot be treated as a natural science.
Avakian advocates this wrong view. Criticising the concept of ‘scientific
ideology’ he states, “It has been pointed out that this argument amounts to an
attempt to create ideology and philosophy which stand outside or above
science—ideology and philosophy which are, in the words of this criticism, "a
higher level of abstraction" than science.”[37] Avakian attributes all sorts
of deviations to the term ‘scientific ideology’. What he fails to examine is
the commonly understood meaning of this term – an ideology that is scientific
because it accords to reality. Ideology was taken to mean the body of
principles and method of Marxism from the 2nd international period onwards.
Earlier, for example in ‘German Ideology’, it was mostly understood as ‘false
consciousness’, an inverted grasp of reality. Current developments, including claims
about Thoughts, Paths and Syntheses, pose the necessity to re-examine the
present understanding on ideology as such and probe how far it can be
scientific and how much of it would be ‘false consciousness’. But let’s leave
that aside for now and get on with Avakian’s argument.
What is
scientific abstraction? Theoretical abstractions made in science are derived from
particular laws discovered in specific fields of scientific enquiry. Therefore,
it is meaningless to speak about an abstraction of ‘science as such’ and debate
its position. Compared to scientific abstractions in specific fields, the
abstractions of ideology and philosophy certainly do represent a higher level. This
is so because the universal categories they put forward are themselves derived from
a diverse set of universalities contained in laws governing specific fields of social
life and natural phenomena. An ideology or philosophy will be wrong in its
abstractions if they are not grounded in natural and social reality. But that
doesn’t change the fact that they represent a higher level of abstraction. [38] Avakian confuses the
scientific method for natural sciences and drains out the distinctiveness of
philosophy and ideology. This is a manifestation of scienticism, a variant of positivism.
The one to one equation of natural sciences and social sciences seen in the RCP
flows from just such mistaken thinking and in turn bolsters it. Avakian prides
to imagine himself and his supporters as a team of scientists setting out to
transform the world. Fortunately for us, the ‘green pastures’ of natural and
social reality readily provide the means, and Maoism the tools, to resist and
overturn this scienticist project.
A RATIONALIST
CRITIQUE OF RELIGION
With
scienticism as a prominent trait it shouldn’t be surprising to see Avakianism
indulge in crass rationalism while dealing with religion. He writes, “You pull
one little thread and it all unravels – that’s religion, religious absolutism.
This is the point I keep hammering at Christian Fascists: If one thing in the
Bible is wrong, then their whole case is sunk…”. Be cautioned! If you thought this
was the height of wishful thinking, the gem is yet to come: “I have some
strategic thinking about how the way you can get to the mass base of these
Christian Fascists is by hammering at the foundations of it…hammering in the
ideological sphere.”[39] Well,
there is already a long-standing, acknowledged, claimant for that. ‘Hammering
religion in the ideological sphere’ has been the ‘strategic thinking’ of
rationalism and its proponents for quite some centuries now. They have been literally
tearing at religion all over, not just pulling at one or the other thread. Not merely
one, a huge lot of things in the Bible and all those other religious texts have
been proven wrong. But religion and religious absolutism still remain to be “unravelled”
(whatever that may mean). If at all, they have been ‘ravelling up’ a lot of
things in recent times!
The
Marxist understanding on religion is well explained in these words of Marx, “Religion
is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in
popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral
sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and
justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the
human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion
is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma
is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression
of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of
the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of
soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”[40] These
words beautifully and scientifically grasp the material and spiritual
underpinnings of religion. It thus cautions against assuming that religious
faith can be controverted merely with rational argument. The scientific
understanding on the role played by religion has since been deepened through
studies in diverse fields. Its historical role in the creation and development
of morality and social ties and its imprint in the human brain are now better known.
All of this has surely confirmed the Marxist understanding on religion. But they
also demand that Marxists move beyond a simplistic description of religion as
something born of ignorance and secured by the interests of the ruling classes.
It
would seem that Avakian is at least engaged with the material grounding of
religion. Yet the few instances where he tries at a materialist explanation are
as mechanical as is his ideological approach on religion. One of these is his
equation between proletarianisation and the ‘decrease of religion’. The
reverse, de-proletarianisation under conditions of globalisation, is held to be
a prime cause leading to ‘gravitation toward religion, and in particular
religious fundamentalism’.[41] This simply flies against facts. One could give any
number of instances where overwhelming sections of a growing proletariat
remained religious even though they were unionised and involved in class
struggle. But, more than that, this Avakianist thesis blocks us off from
grasping the reasons for the decline of the secular among the proletariat, a
phenomenon that appeared well before the advent of globalisation. The secular,
the progressive, was not pushed out by religious trends in tandem with
de-proletarianisation. Rather, religious revivalism and fundamentalism grew up
in the space vacated by their weakening.
If
this is understood properly we will be drawn to a meaningful analysis of the
particularities of religious phenomena such as fundamentalism and revivalism. Whereas,
if the vulgar materialist thesis of ‘de-proletarianisation leading to growth of
religious fundamentalism’ is accepted, we will be lead away from this important
task. Specificities of ideological tasks in this field will be denied. The blanket
solution will be that of ‘hammering away’. Militant materialist exposure of
religious thought is certainly needed. But it can never stand in for a Marxist
critique of existing religious phenomena.
In
his discussion on the material grounds of religious fundamentalism, Avakian
points to the destabilising impact of globalisation in the Third World. This,
coupled with most people in urban areas ending up in the informal economy, is
seen as a major reason for “…many people … turning to religious fundamentalism
to try to give them an anchor, in the midst of all this dislocation and
upheaval.”[42] Let’s take
a closer look at this. The conditions he describes can explain why religious
faith is getting strengthened among the oppressed, in a context of weakening of
the Left. But why do they turn to fundamentalism? Why not to some other
religious trend? In Avakian’s scheme all this would be irrelevant. Earlier we had
seen how he casually places religion and religious absolutism in the same
bracket.
The
fall out of this rationalism is seen in his dismissal of Islamic resistance
movements in Iraq and Afghanistan as a “reactionary pole” representing a “historically
outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity”. The imperialist economism
contained in this position has already been dealt with in an earlier section.
Here we will examine some theoretical aspects. Islamic fundamentalism certainly
is a historically outmoded ideology. But does it represent historically
outmoded social strata? Not necessarily.
Islamic fundamentalism itself is not a single entity. Some of its
streams are quite petty bourgeois, rural and urban, even ‘modern’ in education.
The petty bourgeoisie of an oppressed country is an important national force. It
can play a reactionary role. But it is by no means historically outmoded. Such petty
bourgeois class composition of the core is one important reason why some
fundamentalist movements are able to connect with the broad masses and don the
mantle of legitimate resistance. If the Maoists are to challenge these forces
and assume leadership of the struggle it won’t do to merely expose the
reactionary content of their program. They must address and unravel the enigma
of a modern class, generally progressive, fiercely advocating an outmoded and
reactionary ideology and achieving representation of national resistance
through it. Instead of merely describing how these forces are “… returning
to, and enforcing with a vengeance, traditional relations, customs, ideas and
values …”[43],
they must seek out the particularities of this phenomenon which give it its
fascist character. [44]
Secondly, all the Islamic religious movements that
have emerged or strengthened in the Third World in recent times are neither
fundamentalist nor revivalist. A lot of ideological churning is going on among
Muslims, and that is true of the religious sphere too. Though liberation
theology trends are still practically non-existent, that is not the case with
reformist ones. Some among them are quite infatuated with Western democracy and
modernisation. This a reflection of the illusions created among a section of
the middle and lower classes by globalisation. They see in it a means to
economic elevation. This is another aspect of globalisation’s dynamics. The
pro-West political stance of some trends of Islamic reformism facilitates the
appropriation of anti-imperialism by fundamentalism. It in turn bolsters its
claims on being the true rendering of Islam and helps it block the democratisation
of Islamic belief. Maoist ideological intervention will have to address all of
these aspects if it is to make headway. Obviously, such complexities are simply
beyond Avakian’s thought.
Finally,
Avakian’s arguments totally fail to identify and locate the major role played
by national sentiments and culture in the growth of Third World fundamentalism.
He writes, “An additional factor in all this is that, in the Third World, these
massive and rapid changes and dislocations are occurring in the context of
domination and exploitation by foreign imperialists— and this is associated
with “local” ruling classes which are economically and politically dependent on
and subordinate to imperialism, and are broadly seen as the corrupt agents of
an alien power, who also promote the “decadent culture of the West.” This, in
the short run, can strengthen the hand of fundamentalist religious forces and
leaders who frame opposition to the “corruption” and “Western decadence” of the
local ruling classes, and the imperialists to which they are beholden, in terms
of returning to, and enforcing with a vengeance, traditional relations,
customs, ideas and values which themselves are rooted in the past and embody
extreme forms of exploitation and oppression.”[45] By this
logic, what is seen is nothing more than of a bunch of reactionaries making use
of popular anger against an alien power and its servitors. There is no effort
to grapple with why “traditional relations, customs, ideas and values … rooted
in the past” can be so readily promoted and made acceptable in this modern age by
the fundamentalists. Its articulation, spread and assimilation as a national
discourse is nowhere acknowledged. But that is precisely why the
fundamentalists are able to disseminate them without much resistance. For sure,
they embody extreme forms of exploitation and domination. However, this doesn’t
controvert their quality of being part of that culture. Here, the sources of
Avakian’s error extend beyond his rationalism to his economist views on the
national question. Be that as it is, we must go deeper into the implications of
what was said above.
Understanding
the ‘national’ claim of fundamentalism helps us locate the failure of Maoists
to uphold the national banner in oppressed countries coupled with a superficial
identification of comprador modernisation with secularisation of society as one
of the reasons for its strengthening. The latter is no less important than the
former. Its ambit of influence goes
beyond the boundaries of the Third World and encompasses significant sections
of progressive people in imperialist countries. It even extends to the Maoist
camp.[46]
Furthermore, awareness of the ‘national’ claim of fundamentalism
helps us grasp that “…unless the spiritual space occupied by fundamentalism is
retaken with the enlightening vision of an all-round liberation, a vibrant
national, secular culture and a new society free of exploitation, unless the
physical space now occupied by fundamentalist resistance is regained under the
revolutionary banners of a peoples’ war, the Maoists are not going to succeed.”[47] We must
add, unless they thoroughly repudiate Avakianism they will not even reach
anywhere near these tasks.
[1]Its baneful influence continues to prey on the movement. The term
‘instrumentalism’ is used by some to indicate this subjectivism.
[2]‘Epistemology’, op. cit.
[3]May 16 Circular of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
China on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, emphasis added. <http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/cc_gpcr.htm>
[4]A similar error is seen in the RCP’s reply to the ‘9 Letters to
Comrades’ put out by Mike Elly and others of the Kasama Project. (<http://revcom.us/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf>)
They wrote, “Quoting Mike Ely, “An article from Peking Review’s revolutionary
days writes, ‘Truth has a class character. There have never been truths commonly
regarded as “indisputable” by all classes in the field of social science.’
Why is that wrong?” …Yes, Mike Ely, the above statements are, in fact, wrong…the
existence of fierce class struggle over what is accepted as truth does not
imply that truth itself has a class character…Truth itself is objective, and
should be assessed by whether it corresponds to objective reality, as can be
known and understood in the most scientific and materialist way.” Where the
Peking Review article points to the dispute between classes over what is
true in the field of social sciences, the RCP evades it and speaks of
the objective character of truth. Is the objective world the same for the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie? Yes it is, there is only one material reality.
But each of these classes realise, grasp, this reality in different ways. The
RCP’s example, Mao’s statement on the existence of classes and the need for
continuing class struggle in socialist society, is illustrative. They ask, “How
is this “proletarian truth” untrue for the bourgeoisie?”. Well it certainly is.
To start with, the ‘new bourgeoisie’ simply refuses to acknowledge itself as
such. In its consciousness it is as proletarian, over even more so, than its
opponent. They do not suppress the fact because it doesn’t ‘benefit their fundamental interests’.
Those interests, their class character, prevent
them from realising it.
[7]In another instance they say, “Because the proletariat as a class
has no need to cover up the fundamental character of human society, dialectical
and historical materialism corresponds to its fundamental interests
…”, (What Is Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis?-Part 2, italicised in original, underlining added, op. cit.) Here,
what is inherent to dialectical materialism, its proletarian class nature, is
made into a matter of correspondence.
[8]Ibid.
[9]For the record, Avakian had a better position before he ventured to
break away from Maoism. In 1997 he wrote, “”MLM … recognises and deals with the
particularity of many different contradictions, but it does so from the
standpoint and with the methodology of the class-conscious proletariat, because
the stand, viewpoint, and method representing the proletariat is both partisan
and true. It reflects the interests of a particular class and it reflects
objective reality.” ‘MLM Is Partisan--And True’, Revolutionary Worker #908, May
25, 1997, emphasis added. <http://www.revcom.us/a/v19/905-09/908/bamlm2.htm>
[10]‘Response…’, emphasis added, op. cit.
[11]“… Marx and Engels, responding to the needs of the revolutionary
struggle of the proletariat, personally participated in the practice of the
revolutionary struggles of the time, summed up the experience of the workers'
movement, began a long and difficult programme of theoretical research, and,
critically absorbing what was rational in the cultural and scientific
achievements of humanity, created Marxism.” (Basic Understanding of the
Communist Party of China, Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto, 1976, page 28,
emphasis added. http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/china/basic-understanding.pdf)
This all-round account of the emergence
of Marxism stands in sharp contrast to the shrivelled up presentation of the
RCP, gutted of class struggle: “Marx and Engels developed their worldview not
mainly out of any specific practice they were engaged in and still less out of
the activities in “a particular country”. As Lenin emphasised in his well-known
article “The Three Component Parts of Marxism,” Marxism was forged from elements
of French socialism, British political economy and German philosophy.”,
‘Response...’, op. cit.
[12]“Had Marx
and Engels sought to construct rather than discover truth, however
well-intentioned and “partisan” they may have been, they would have succeeded
no further than the various utopian socialists and other reformers who decried
the injustice of class exploitation but were unable to understand wherein lay
the roots of class exploitation or by what process such society could be transcended.”, ibid.
[15]Ibid, emphasis added.
[16]This is a persistent position of
Avakianism. Avakian wrote, “Theory is the
dynamic factor in ideology.” (The Need For Communists To Be...Communists’, Bob Avakian, emphasis
added, henceforth ‘Need…’. www.revcom.us/a/038/avakian-need-for-communists.htm)
[18]Ibid, emphasis added.
[19]Karl Popper, for instance, declared, “Marxism is fundamentally a method.”,
quoted in ‘Karl Popper and the Social Sciences’, William A Gorton, State
University of New York, 2006, page 83.
[20]“The CRC,
CPI (ML) drew attention to the importance of grasping philosophy. But its
liberalism soon led to treating dialectical materialism merely as a methodology
which can equally serve any class. The proletarian bias of this philosophy was
in effect denied.”, ‘Critique…’,
3.1, April, 1997, op. cit.
[21]‘Response…’,
op. cit. Though it is also characterised as ‘… a product …’ this is already
circumscribed by ‘method and approach’.
[22]‘Socialist…’, emphasis added, op.
cit.
[23]‘Speech at National Conference on Propaganda Work’, SW Vol 5, page 434, emphasis added, op. cit.
[24]Avakian has suggested a different approach, “Of course, it is
possible that a scientific theory is true—correctly reflects reality—in its
main and essential aspects, but is shown to be incorrect in certain secondary
aspects—and, in accordance with that, some of its particular predictions prove
not to be true. And when that is the case, the application of the scientific method
leads to a further development of the theory—through the discarding, or
modifying, of certain aspects and the addition of new elements into the
theory.”(‘Making…’, Part 1, Marxism as a Science…’, Revolution #105, October
21, 2007, op. cit.) This is founded on
the assumption that the Popperist concept of ‘falsifiability’ is fully
applicable to Marxism. This is a problematic proposition. We will be examining
it later on.
[25]‘Socialist…’, op. cit.
[27]To give an example, the Communist International
pointed out that imperialism transforms and makes feudalism its social base in
an oppressed country. That lesson was derived from the social analyses of
numerous colonial and semi-colonial countries. As such it contains a universal
truth that helps communists in preparing their programs and guiding their
practice.
[28]‘The Fight to Establish Maoism’, Ajith, Naxalbari No: 2. <http://bannedthought.net/India/CPI-ML-Naxalbari/Naxalbari-Magazine/Naxalbari-02.pdf>
[29]“Marxism is also a science.
So the comparison is being made with natural sciences, where new
discoveries have led to re-examination of fundamental concepts. This comparison
overlooks the qualitative distinction between the natural and social
sciences. The distinct character of the latter is their class partisanship.
While social facts are part of objective reality, the process of identifying
them and seeking out truth, as well as the extent to which truth can be
synthesised, are intimately bound up with class stand. Whether something
claimed as new is really new is itself a matter of class struggle, in theory as
well as in practice. All of this rules out a simple extension of the methods
of natural sciences into the re-examining of Marxist positions.” (‘Socialist…’,
emphasis added, op. cit.) Lenin stated, “… in modern society the latter
[political economy] is as much a partisan science as is epistemology.”
(‘Materialism and Emperio-criticism’, Chapter 6.4, LCW 14, words in square
brackets added. <archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/six4.htm>) Further on, Mao
drew attention to the role of ideology in aiding or preventing the acquisition
of knowledge even in the natural sciences. He noted, “As for the natural
sciences, there are two aspects. The natural sciences as such have no class
nature, but the question of who studies and makes use of them does.”(‘Beat Back
the Attacks of the Bourgeois Rightists’, MSW 5, pages 460-1.<http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_65.htm>)
[30]As usual, it begins with a distortion. For instance, my views on the
methodological implications of the qualitative difference between the two
realms is twisted around to charge me with “refusing” the necessity of
re-examining fundamental principles in the social sciences. (‘Response…’, op.
cit.) In an even more vulgar display of Avakianist craft K.J.F writes, “Ajith
argues that because of Marxism's "proletarian stand and
partisanship", it cannot (and should not attempt to) conform to the
scientific method used in the natural sciences.”(‘Polemical…’, emphasis added,
op. cit.)
[31] “With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense
superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such
transformations a distinction should always be made between the material
transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be
determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal,
political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in
which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.” ‘Preface of a
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’, emphasis added.
<http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm>
It must be noted that what Marx is dealing with here is the comparative
differences in precision. The diverse fields of material reality studied by the
natural sciences themselves exhibit various levels of possible precision. But
this does not negate the qualitative difference in this matter between the natural
and social sciences.
[32]Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Stalin, emphasis added.
[33]“There are definitely things in Marxism that are falsifiable. For
example, dialectical materialism. If the world were made up of something other
than matter in motion—if that could be shown—then clearly Marxism in its
fundamentals, in its essence and at its core, would be falsified, proven wrong.
Or, if it could be shown that, yes, all reality consists of matter, but that
some forms of matter do not change, do not have internal contradiction and
motion and development—that too would be a fundamental refutation of
dialectical materialism. But none of that has been shown.” ‘Making…’, Part 1,
Marxism as a Science, op. cit.
[34]Despite his insistence on the test of falsifiability (i.e.
verification based on objective reality) Popper finally ended up posing
‘criticism of theory’ as the ultimate test. But that is another matter.
[35]Avakian’s arguments are the mirror opposite of those advanced by
Venu. In his criticism of Popper, Venu argued “…the law of dialectical
materialism which states that the unity and struggle of opposites is operating
in all the processes in the universe cannot be proved at the level of empirical
science. Whether this law of dialectical materialism operates in any particular
branch of science can be examined and found out by that particular branch. But,
no branch of science can say that it is a law applicable to the whole
universe...Thus, the law of the unity and struggle of opposites, the
cornerstone of Marxist world outlook, is never proved completely at the
level of science.”(‘Philosophical Problems of Revolution’, K. Venu, Vijayan
Book Stall, Kottayam, 1982, pages 107-08, emphasis added) As seen here, his
rebuttal was based on recognition of the qualitative difference between the
realms of philosophy and science. This is true. But it failed in its task
because the issue is not one of being ‘proved completely’. Failure to
pass the test of objectivity even in a single field of the natural sciences
would be sufficient to overturn the claims of dialectical materialism.
[36]‘Ruminations and Wranglings - A Correct Understanding Of The Relation Between Science And
Philosophy’, underlining in original, italics added, op. cit.
[38]In his biographical sketch of Marx Lenin wrote “Dialectical
materialism "does not need any philosophy standing above the other
sciences. "” (Selected Works, Volume1, emphasis added.
<http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch02.htm>)
This has been a consistent position of Marxism right from the very beginning.
It needs to be clarified that what is meant by ‘standing above’ in this quote
is the claim of pre-Marxian philosophies to be the all-embracing source of
knowledge for all domains, natural and social.
[39] ‘Observations...’, page 77, op. cit.
[41]In Avakian’s words, “Mike Davis, who has his limitations but also
has some important insights, wrote an article where he spoke about how in the
nineteenth and early twentieth century when people were driven off the land in
the countries where capitalism was rising, they were more or less—not evenly
and smoothly but more or less—integrated into the proletariat. And the
proletarianisation of these people led to a decrease in religion. But the
phenomenon in the world today is in significant measure the opposite: people
being driven from the countryside to the cities, or flushed out of the
proletariat, if you will, and being herded into these massive shantytowns,
existing in this “disarticulated” kind of situation—this has given rise to the
reverse phenomenon of the growth, the significant dramatic growth, of
gravitation toward religion, and in particular religious fundamentalism.”, (‘Basis…Changing
Material Conditions and the Growth of Religious Fundamentalism’, op. cit.
[42]Why Is Religious Fundamentalism Growing in Today’s World—And What Is
the Real Alternative?, henceforth ‘Religious Fundamentalism…’ <http://www.revcom.us/a/104/avakian-religion-en.html>
[43]Ibid.
[44]A preliminary attempt in this direction can be seen in ‘Islamic…’,
op. cit. Incidentally, this article, published in 2007, directly took on
Avakian’s thesis on ‘ the two outmodeds’. The Avakianists have yet to ‘engage’
with it.
[45]‘Religious Fundamentalism ... ‘, op. cit.
[46]Uncritical adulation of works of art with a ‘modern’ ethos originating
from the Westernised urban middle class or elite circles in the Third World as
expressions of progressive thought is an example of this tendency.
[47]‘Islamic…’, op. cit.
No comments:
Post a Comment