portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

Marxist-Leninist Theory and Practice

The two line struggle developed in 1995 after the infamous SIN chief Vladimiro Montesinos faked an "interview" on video tape which ostensibly "proved" that Chairman Gonzolo, President of the PCP(SL), who had been imprisoned in solitary confinement for over three years already, had called for an end to the peoples war.

homepage: homepage: http://majdur.globalredirect.com

marxism and dogmatism 13.Jan.2001 20:38

any marxist

Dear Majdur, Your work is an example of the type of thinking that led Marx to write to a group of French 'followers', "I am not a Marxist". While I admire your energy - who else is posting on almost every IMC site around the U.S. - and agree that it is necessary for activists,progressives,radicals and revolutionaries in the U.S. to be concerned about Peru and every country that the U.S. is militarily or economically involved in, I wish you would get a clue. Marxism is neither science nor religion. Go read some Luxemburg or Gramsci or even a little Lenin - not the usual texts, try his notes on dialectics and Hegel or State and Revolution - and perhaps you'll not be so eager to lecture us on the inevitability of victory. We have much work to do. But your mind-numbing rants are just wasting time.

reply 14.Jan.2001 13:38

Majdur

I am well versed in Marxism and Leninism. You deign to criticize with out supporting your viewpoint. If you had, I would find your remarks more interesting.

--Majdur

on being well versed 15.Jan.2001 15:40

any marxist

Majdur, Being well versed in marxism or leninism doesn't have anything much to do with revolution. You want an example? The late professor Sidney Hook could have talked and written circles around you or me when it came to knowledge of Marx's writings and, to a lesser extent, Lenin. But he stopped being a revolutionary in the late 1930s and later became an apologist for U.S.foreign policy. I don't profess to have read any of professor Gonzolo's writings nor am I aware of anything he had to say on either the world situation or the U.S. Nor would I takenything that Bob Avakian wrote or said seriously since perhaps 1971. You are welcome to comment at length about the RCP, after all, this is the IMC where anyone can write just about anything. But whatever happened to 'concrete analysis of concrete conditions'? My respect for Mao as a revolutionary stems in part from his writing of "A Report on the Peasant Uprisings in Hunan Province" where he analysed what was actually happening at that time and why the peasantry (over 98% of the Chinese population then) had to be the leading force in China. But who in the U.S. has written an equivalent work? So, let me suggest that you read some U.S. marxists and leninists, not because of my narrow nationalism, but because if you think revolution here is possible (not inevitable, don't be silly. Lenin didn't write when thermonuclear warfare existed), then you might want to refer to people who have been waging the struggle here, not from their grave or from France. Study marx's and lenin's method, reread Capital if you must, but substituting slogans for political debate doesn't convince anyone.

More Childishness From the Maoist Nursery 16.Jan.2001 10:56

W.B. Reeves wbreeves@hotmail.com

First things first. The IMC is a news source for activists struggling against Corporate Globalization and corporate exploitation in general. It is not an arena for theological pissing contests between microscopic organizations vying for the role of "vanguard of the proletariat". While some of the groups mentioned, in particular Sendero Luminoso(Shining Path), may aspire to the status of guerrilla insurgency, this status is a confession of political weakness and marginality, not strength.

Nothing could underline this weakness and political triviality more than the above piece. That anyone could imagine that the bickering between the RCP and its fraternal maoist micro-organisms would interest a significant portion of the IMC readership is mind boggling. It would be hardly worth reading much less responding to were it not for the danger that some unwitting soul might actually mistake it for a marxist analysis.

In the interest of saving time and avoiding tedium I'll strive for brevity. The "two line struggle" as presented above is an absurdity that will be found no where in Marx's writings. Nor, for that matter, will you find this formulation in Lenin (though he says much that is equally absurd). This particular jewel of vulgarization is Chairman Mao's contribution to the con game of vanguardism.

It's certainly true that Marx said that all social institutions and groups contain contradictions and that these contradictions have a class character. But Marx never asserted that all such contradictions could be reduced to a single " pair of contradictions"(sic). Marx didn't like opposition to his point of view but he also didn't go around denouncing his opponents as counter revolutionaries.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks did prepare the ground for this sort nonsense with their assaults on all non Bolshevik revolutionaries. In the end their sheer bloody mindedness rebounded against them when they were liquidated by Stalin. Here you find the true origins of the "two-lines" scam.

The "two line struggle" has nothing to do with any real class analysis. Rather, it is a club that competing factions can brandish at one another in the power struggles which naturally arise in any political leadership dedicated to the conquest of power. If there are only two lines then by definition all other positions can be liquidated by lumping them on one side or the other. Never mind that the individual proponents may say that they are not in agreement with whatever political label has been slapped on them. It doesn't matter what their professed opinions are. The two line struggle dictates that they are objectively on one side or the other.

To sum up, those who do not agree with whatever lunacy is spouted by the dominate faction are "objectively" counter revolutionary, bourgeois, etc. Mao made great use of this fable during the purges of the "Cultural Revolution", which came hard on the heels of the "hundred flowers" campaign.

One last thought. Complaining that Bob Avakian and Co. are undemocratic begs a question. Did you notice this before or only after you fell out with him?