No.391157
>>390986
Hey, Palestanon back after some reading. I read both the lengthy struggle session critique of Sison, and the reply to that critique on Sison's blog. Now, to be quite frank, I am torn on the Gonzalo-Sison split. On the one hand, I agree with the pro-PCP argument that some of Sison's arguments are simplistic, such as that many countries have very restrictive gun laws and that keeping intentions secret is opportunistic. On the other hand, though, I can empathize with the core of Sison's argument. In cases where there is little potential for PPW, I can see where it would make sense to build up more institutional strength. I think this is most apparent when we look at some of the first-world MLM groups, who preach about people's war and go out acting revolutionary, only to see no broader growth or popular appeal beyond larping in the woods and playing revolutionary. I can see where it's important to build up your resources and popular base before taking such a drastic revolutionary step. So, if I were to take a side, although I do have quibbles with some aspects of Sison's argument, I think I have to side with him in that it may be better, depending on circumstances, to build power bases rather than immediately plunging into PPW. Of course, I'm sure that many pro-PCP MLMs will agree with at least this sentiment, and just simply consider the power-building as just the preliminary stage of the PPW. Perhaps, from that pov, a lot of this split is just a matter of theoretical misunderstanding and historical rivalry rather than some irresolvable theoretical contradiction. Still, let's put all that aside for now.
After considering the thread and what I've read, there is something I would like to discuss in good faith, as I think it is a major problem within Maoism that should be resolved. The sheer number of comparisons. just within this thread, between Maoism and Trotskyism/anarchism should be firmly resolved. There have been various left-oppositions that have formed against the Soviet Union since its founding: firstly from the left communists who rejected Lenin's leadership for his refusal to do things like instantly abolish commodity production and abstain from aiding "reactionary" anti-imperial struggles, then from the Trotskyists who rejected Stalin's leadership for his pragmatic refusal to embrace pipedreams of immediate global revolution when the Soviet Union was in such dire straits, and finally the Maoists who rejected Khrushchev's leadership for his revisionist policies of reaching detente with the West, liberalizing the Union, and other such reforms. Now, I won't try to draw a false equivalency between Maoism and the ultra-leftists of Trotskism and Left-communism. Obviously, Maoism (and broader anti-revisionism) actually saw successful revolutions in China, Albania, and Nepal, not to mention various major struggles still being waged. These accomplishments are far greater than anything Trotskyism and Left-communism could ever hope to accomplish, and this at least shows that Maoism isn't purely armchair. That being said, this still leaves a fundamental question to be considered. In each of these schisms, the opposition revolts against what it perceives as a rightward, opportunistic betrayal within the Soviet Union that abandons the true revolution. However, at least in the case of Lenin and Stalin, we know there was no evil clique of plotting revisionists salivating at the chance to destroy the revolution; these revisions were simply necessary changes for the sake of preserving the state against constant capitalist aggression. In the case of Maoism and its case against Khrushchev, I'd like to hear an answer to these two questions:
1. Was Khrushchev unique in being a closet reactionary plotter (as previous left oppositions had claimed of Lenin and Stalin), or was there genuinely a material basis for the USSR's 1956 shift in policy, as there had been a material basis for the policies of both Lenin and Stalin?
2. If the answer to the previous question is indeed that Khrushchev was indeed acting upon broader material forces rather than some personal malignancy, what are we to do to prevent such a thing from happening again? And I must be firm on this, don't just say things like "We will need an independent left made of TRUE revolutionaries who won't betray it this time", that's what leftcoms and Trots do and it has never, ever worked. I'd like to hear a real, scientific, material strategy for resolving the material basis of revision that doesn't rely on utopian conceptions of "Oh we'll just make our parties have the right theory and right revolutionary spirit, that way it won't happen again". Do we have to concentrate our revolution in regions that won't be culpable to social imperialism? Do we have to reconsider efforts at popular fronts and not allow liberal-communist alliances to manifest? I'd like to hear some material solution to this material cause of revisionism.