The Communist Controversy over “Class Truth”
Posted by Mike E on May 19, 2008
Someone recently wrote Mike Ely:
Hey Mike!
I recently attended a presentation by Ray Lotta on the Cultural Rev. There wasn’t much unusual about it. It was based 95% around the print version of STRS. But one thing that did stick out to me was that he cited “class truth” as a one of the shortcomings of the cultural revolution. The thing that was interesting about this was he defined it different than Mao meant it (as far as I can tell). Lotta defined class truth as people of a certain class origin naturally holding more truth than those of bourgeois background. The tendency in the revolution for people to judge each other based on their parents class, and this was what he was criticizing wihle assigning it the name “class truth”. Now I am pretty new at this, but I am fairly confident that when Mao was talking about “class truth” he did not mean Ray’s definition. Have you had any experience with that specific definition being assigned to “class truth” within the RCP?
Mike E’s Response:
Mao writes (in one of his most famous and provocative quotes in the Red Book):
“The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.”
I think that alone gives a clear sense of why the RCP (with its genius theory and posture of preaching to everyone) has to break with Mao. Anyone with passing acquaintance with the RCP (these days, not always!) has a sense of why this thread running through Mao’s thinking…
It is tied to their abandonment of any serious application of the mass line…
I am going to post a series of things here in this thread.
1) Excerpts from our discussion of “class truth” in Letter 4.
2) An excerpt from Mao’s discussion of these questions ( from Rectify the Party’s Style of Work)
3) Video from the communist film “Breaking with Old Ideas” which brings out sharply how such things were viewed by the Maoists during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
* * * * * *
Letter 4: Truth, Practice and a Confession of Poverty
About the Class Struggle Over Truth
Avakian describes how he views truth entering the class struggle:
“…so long as society is divided into classes, anything that is learned will become part of the class struggle in many different ways… The truth doesn’t have a social content in that sense. It just objectively exists. But knowing the truth (or approximating the truth) is important in the same way beauty is important (even while people’s differing class viewpoints will lead them to have different conceptions, or notions, about what beauty is and what is and is not beautiful). And there is this process, as I was speaking to earlier — how truths enter into the class struggle in a very non-reductionist way.”
Let’s deal with how this describes the way truths “enter into the class struggle.”
This view underestimates the ways class struggle is involved in how relative truth is learned. Truth doesn’t suddenly “enter” the class struggle — because we discover truth through a social process, our knowledge of truth never exists in a realm unmarked by class struggle. Avakian’s comments display a lack of appreciation (actually a denial) of the problem of observer (and of human observers’ inherent limitations and subjectivities).
The real existing social process of uncovering and refining relative truths does not start with a classless inventory of data or a classless connecting of dots to make concepts. There is not a moment when we all watch those new truths cruise into the choppy waters of social controversy.
Complex truths (and in particular complex social truths) are marked by struggle at each point in their existence: including in their whole process of conception and elaboration, in their struggle for acceptance, in the ways they are popularized, in the way their social implications are portrayed, and in the struggle over their eventual replacement by newer and more correct concepts. And such struggle — which takes philosophical, ideological and political forms — is inherently entwined with the larger class struggle raging over the direction and nature of society itself.
I can think of three ways Avakian’s error manifests itself:
First, there is the marked lack of appreciation by Avakian of his own subjective limitations and of the relative nature of his attempts at truth.
Second, there is a one-sided overestimation by the RCP of the degree to which scientific work in bourgeois society spontaneously approximates materialist dialectics. [54] The RCP has downplayed the differences that separate materialist dialectics from the many shades of positivism and empiricism in modern science. This overestimation of spontaneous materialist dialectics has both political and philosophical implications for the RCP — especially given the new strategic prominence the RCP now gives those strata who “work with ideas.” [55]
A third manifestation is Avakian’s rejection of “class truth.” Some of this is hard to unravel since Avakian’s sketchy polemics treat the concepts of “class truth,” “political truth” and “truth as an organizing principle”– as virtually equivalent, and implies that they all imply a denial (or deceitful ignoring) of objective reality. Avakian makes no critical references to Lenin’s Materialism and Empiro-Criticism or Mao’s On Practice or Engels’ Anti-Duhring — so we are left without any clear sense of what, precisely, his break is.
However, in fact, the communist notion of class truth is not “whatever we believe is true, whatever the bourgeoisie believes is not.” Nor is it “we create our reality by declaring our truths, while the bourgeoisie creates its reality through its truths.” Nor is it “whatever serves our cause is true, whatever doesn’t serve our cause should be treated as untrue.”
Avakian criticizes the May 16th circular, which was an opening shot of the GPCR. It says:
“Just when we began the counter-offensive against the wild attacks of the bourgeoisie, the authors of the Report 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 Tsetung Thought.” [56]
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.” [57]
Why is that wrong?
Is Lenin so wrong when he writes,
“It is one of our basic tasks to contrapose our own truth to bourgeois ‘truth,’ and win its recognition.” [58]
Or Alain Badiou, when he writes,
“Ultimately, we should affirm that the same abstract description of facts by no means leads to the same mode of thinking, when it operates under different political axioms.” [59]
Footnotes:
[53] Here is the full quote so the reader can see these points in context:
“Truth is good for the proletariat. I don’t mean that in a narrow way. Truth is good for the political struggle, yes — the more that is understood about reality, the more favorable it will be strategically for the proletariat and its revolutionary objectives. But there is a whole thing being missed if truth is approached in a narrow and utilitarian way. If somebody discovers something about the big bang, that will be interesting and exciting. Truths are important just for what they are, because that’s the kind of world we want to get to. For what they are. Human beings do need to be amazed. You don’t need religion to realize or appreciate that. In the motion of the material world and the interaction of human beings with the rest of reality, mysteries get resolved and new mysteries emerge. Why wouldn’t someone with broadness of mind be interested in questions of cosmology in their own right? (Cosmology refers to the science and philosophy of the origins and development of the universe.) On the other hand, in another dimension, so long as society is divided into classes, anything that is learned will become part of the class struggle in many different ways, including in the dimension of the proletariat knowing the world more profoundly to change it more profoundly…. The truth is important to the proletariat in two senses — or should be. One, it is important in the same way that beauty is important, or should be important. Yes, as opposed to the truth, different people do have different social viewpoints on what is beautiful. The truth doesn’t have a social content in that sense. It just objectively exists. But knowing the truth (or approximating the truth) is important in the same way beauty is important (even while people’s differing class viewpoints will lead them to have different conceptions, or notions, about what beauty is and what is and is not beautiful). And there is this process, as I was speaking to earlier — how truths enter into the class struggle in a very non-reductionist way.” (“Intoxicated with the Truth,” Revolution 9, July 24, 2005, revcom.us)
[54] Ardea Skybreak’s recent book on evolution and creationism presents the RCP’s current thinking on science. In one significant footnote she wrote:
“In fact, the method of dialectical and historical materialism is just as applicable to the natural sciences as to the social sciences. While most working scientists today would not acknowledge this, either because of a lack of familiarity with some of the terms involved (dialectics in particular) and/or prejudice against dialectical and historical materialism’s Marxist-communist connotations, it is objectively the case that what most groundbreaking scientists actually do — the way they pose questions, structure research projects and analyze data — especially in the historical sciences (such as evolutionary biology, paleontology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.), reflects, of necessity, important aspects of dialectical and historical materialism, even though most scientists today apply this somewhat unconsciously, and not consistently and systematically, and in general think of what they are doing as simply applying ‘the modern scientific method.’” (The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism – Knowing What’s Real and Why It Matters, Chapter 8, footnote 13, 2006,insight-press.com.)
Scientists are clearly dealing with material reality in their work, and generally apply forms of materialism (at least in their narrow areas of expertise). But this highly qualified statement by Skybreak avoids the fact that there is sharp class struggle over philosophy and ideology raging around all scientific processes of discovery – and there always has been. Many “ground breaking” scientists (the names Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Stephen Jay Gould come to mind) have real and important differences with materialist dialectics. It is wrong (and more than a little condescending) to chalk this up to “lack of familiarity” or “prejudice” (including for the three I just mentioned, who were quite acquainted with communist thinking). In fact there are real controversies and differences here, including philosophical insights uncovered by non-communist scientists that communists should learn from. Gould’s work, for example, raises important challenges to entrenched linear assumptions about progress in nature and society.
[55] If there is anything we can learn from what Stephen Jay Gould exposes in his historical writings, like The Mismeasure of Man, it is the degree to which ideological blinders and struggle mark the methods, theories and discoveries of scientists – just like they do for everyone else (including communist leaders).
[56] This document is believed to have been written by Mao directly or collectively under his close supervision. Circular of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, May 16, 1966. included in the collection Important Documents on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, Foreign Language Press, Peking 1970, marxists.org
[57] Shanghai Revolutionary Mass Criticism Writing Group, “Who Transforms Whom? A comment on Kairov’s ‘Pedagogy’,” Peking Review, March 6, 1970, p. 11
[58] V. I. Lenin, Speech Delivered At An All-Russia Conference Of Political Education Workers Of Gubernia and Uyezd Education Departments, November 3, 1920; marxists.org
[59] Alain Badiou, “The Cultural Revolution: the Last Revolution?” positions 13:3, Winter 2005, page 485
Mao Zedong:
RECTIFY THE PARTY’S STYLE OF WORK
February 1, 1942
[This speech was delivered by Comrade Mao Tse-tung at the opening of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.]
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_06.htm
It is entirely right for us to esteem intellectuals, for without revolutionary intellectuals the revolution cannot triumph. But we all know there are many intellectuals who fancy themselves very learned and assume airs of erudition without realizing that such airs are bad and harmful and hinder their own progress. They ought to be aware of the truth that actually many so-called intellectuals are, relatively speaking, most ignorant and the workers and peasants sometimes know more than they do. Here some will say, “Ha! You are turning things upside down and talking nonsense.” (Laughter.) But, comrades, don’t get excited; there is some sense in what I am saying.
What is knowledge? Ever since class society came into being the world has had only two kinds of knowledge, knowledge of the struggle for production and knowledge of the class struggle. Natural science and social science are the crystallization of these two kinds of knowledge, and philosophy is the generalization and summation of the knowledge of nature and the knowledge of society. Is there any other kind of knowledge? No. Now let us take a look at certain students, those brought up in schools that are completely cut off from the practical activities of society. What about them? A person goes from a primary school of this kind all the way through to a university of the same kind, graduates and is reckoned to have a stock of learning. But all he has is book-learning; he has not yet taken part in any practical activities or applied what he has learned to any field of life. Can such a person be regarded as a completely developed intellectual? Hardly so, in my opinion, because his knowledge is still incomplete. What then is relatively complete knowledge? All relatively complete knowledge is formed in two stages: the first stage is perceptual knowledge, the second is rational knowledge, the latter being the development of the former to a higher stage. What sort of knowledge is the students’ book-learning? Even supposing all their knowledge is truth, it is still not knowledge acquired through their own personal experience, but consists of theories set down by their predecessors in summarizing experience of the struggle for production and of the class struggle. It is entirely necessary that students should acquire this kind of knowledge, but it must be understood that as far as they are concerned such knowledge is in a sense still one-sided, something which has been verified by others but not yet by themselves. What is most important is to be good at applying this knowledge in life and in practice. Therefore, I advise those who have only book-learning but as yet no contact with reality, and also those with little practical experience, to realize their own shortcomings and become a little more modest.
How can those who have only book-learning be turned into intellectuals in the true sense? The only way is to get them to take part in practical work and become practical workers, to get those engaged in theoretical work to study important practical problems. In this way our aim can be attained.
What I have said will probably make some people angry. They will say, “According to your explanation, even Marx would not be regarded as an intellectual.” I say they are wrong. Marx took part in the practice of the revolutionary movement and also created revolutionary theory. Beginning with the commodity, the simplest element of capitalism, he made a thorough study of the economic structure of capitalist society. Millions of people saw and handled commodities every day but were so used to them that they took no notice. Marx alone studied commodities scientifically. He carried out a tremendous work of research into their actual development and derived a thoroughly scientific theory from what existed universally. He studied nature, history and proletarian revolution and created dialectical materialism, historical materialism and the theory of proletarian revolution. Thus Marx became a most completely developed intellectual, representing the acme of human wisdom; he was fundamentally different from those who have only book-learning. Marx undertook detailed investigations and studies in the course of practical struggles, formed generalizations and then verified his conclusions by testing them in practical struggles–this is what we call theoretical work. Our Party needs a large number of comrades who will learn how to do such work. In our Party there are many comrades who can learn to do this kind of theoretical research; most of them are intelligent and promising and we should value them. But they must follow correct principles and not repeat the mistake of the past. They must discard dogmatism and not confine themselves to ready-made phrases in books.
Breaking with Old Ideas:
It is worth watching the scene early in this movie (found in the last half of Part 2, and then Part 3) when the communist Principal Lung arrives to observe the examination of students to determine who can attend the new college in a remote rural region in China. Struggle breaks ot about the class nature of entrance exams, and how the knowledge of the people should be viewed.
(Thanks to Comrade Zero for telling us about this RevMedia site)
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 2
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 3
The other parts of this movie are also interesting:
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 4
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 5
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 6
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 7
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 8
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 9
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 10
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 11
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 12
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 13
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 14
Breaking With Old Ideas – Part 15
Linda D. said
Dear Mike and “Someone”,
Just went back and reread Letter 4. Not quite finished with rereading Mao’s “Rectify the Party’s Style of Work”–something I haven’t read in ages. But a couple of things already:
I find it hard to believe that Lotta was so crass and think it would be a good idea to try and get a hold of the transcript of what he said…then we can compare and contrast.
But one thing jumped out from Letter 4: the RCP’s “brainstorms”…
“but his [Avakian]expositions are often brainstorms masquerading as science.”
I don’t think anyone who has been in or around the RCP could deny this. Even if Bob was correct in some of his summations or theoretical work, the way the line changed more often than not, and with that, the RCP’s new “brainstorms” and brainstorming practice, without much explanation to the cadre, ends up rendering his theoretical work less profound.
But “I read the news today oh boy…” and “I just had to laugh….” Wish I could remember who keeps talking about “wruggling.” Still receive announcements from Rev. Books and here was the latest announcement meant as an enticement:
Opening salvo: “Come and wrangle…”
After that, couldn’t take much more seriously, EXCEPT–Here’s what they went onto say:
“Presentation and Discussion based on “Making Revolution and Emancipating Humanity” by Bob Avakian: “We need a revolution. Anything else, in the final analysis, is bullshit.” What is meaningful revolutionary work today when there is not yet a revolutionary situation? Is spreading revolution and communism a part of that meaningful revolutionary work?”
I can’t help but think–even though the RCP would undoubtedly deny this– that this was an indirect slap at Kasama. In other words–anyone else trying to do rev. work in a non-rev. situation, is full of mierda, and if you want to really have an impact, you better “come and wrangle.” Talk about breaking with old ideas…how about breaking with old and worn-out jargon. It’s like we’re supposed to attend some rev. “hayride/rodeo.” Wonder if W was invited?
JJM+ said
Wow,
excuse my language, but this is a fucking awesome post, I cant wait to really “wrangle” with it lol.
Anyway, I wanted to add something (I’m doing this slowly because i fractured two fingers today playing volleyball). I have read a lot of Avakian’s works and listened to most of his talks as well.
When it comes to class truth, I recall Avakian saying that “all truth is good in the hands of the proletariat”, and criticized the ICM for straying away from certain inconvenient truths, and said that we should always go for truth regardless whether it goes against us or not, because eventually it will help or something along those lines.
Anyways, I do agree with Mao’s original conception of class truth. Some Maoists, namely the fervent Red Guards, would beat, rob, and many times humiliate people who had reactionary class backgrounds, even though they might not have necessarily been reactionaries themselves. While it needs to be noted to those who write all those sad stories about families in the USSR and China, that a “revolution is not a dinner party”, we also need to see that the thinking and actions those Red Guards displayed were wrong and displayed a sort of feudal thinking (I think I talked with Mike about this).
Linda D. said
Okay…so I went online and looked for Raymond Lotta’s speech re “class truth.” So far couldn’t find anything in “Revolution” specifically; HOWEVER…holy vaca…
Probably most of you have already read this but me no. But think that “1995 Leadership Resolutions on Leaders and Leadership:
Part II: Some Points on the Question of Revolutionary Leadership and Individual Leaders” AND “On Bob Avakian, the Chair of the Central Committee of our Party:…” posted in the last issue of Rev. is definitely worth revisiting or reading for the first time.
I think what the RCP says here dovetails with this particular post about “class truth,” etc. Needless to say–people can compare and contrast and figure out the line differences (even with Mao) for themselves.
And one thing that stood out to me was the comparison between what Mao said about Marx vs. how the RCP views Bob A. and the criteria and yardsticks used for making him “the” revolutionary leader.
They even say–hope you’re all sitting down for this one–”Nobody does this better than Comrade Avakian.” in ref. to leading two line struggle, and basically why he is to be revered–i.e. worshipped, etc. And obviously, Comrade Avakian has a monopoly on truth, class truth, et al.
This piece in Rev. blew my mind. TBH–as a opposed to IMHO–when I first read Mike’s reply to “Someone”,
“I think that alone gives a clear sense of why the RCP (with its genius theory and posture of preaching to everyone) has to break with Mao,”
appeared to have been a little over-the-top. BUT after reading what the RCP (and from the horse’s mouth) actually had to say–at least this week (and harkening back to 1995), I think Mike is correct.
Will keep looking for the speech by Lotta…
Sean S. said
That’s an exceptionally crass way of looking at it. I myself was disturbed by equally suspect language in Hinton’s Fanshen, when after done describing a sequence of rapes perpetuated by militiamen, and an absolute keen taste for the highlife of pilfering public goods, he describes them as merely “petty transgressions and excesses”, words he did not use for equally wrong behavior from the landlords and gentry earlier in book. In fact, the consistent theme is one of “wrongs” and “corrections” for those who clothe themselves in the mantle of communism, and a sharp tongue for those who commit similar things, but have a different ideology.
This is even more so apparent after posting a video showing the frame up that was the Philadelphia cops beating of three suspects; beating the tar out of people for ostensible “reactionary character” is never a good idea, especially in a circumstance where it is based on unaccountable snap judgments. Tit for tat violence, as evidenced in the Cultural Revolution, has a sort of delirious logic that helps spin itself quickly out of control.
Sean S. said
And note I do realize that I’m pretty sure everyone here agrees that the the behavior of some of the Red Guards was wrong; my argument is that it was not merely overzealous actions or a product of incorrect thinking, but the result of the shoving of the monopoly of violence into the hands of those not only unprepared to wield the responsibility, but the construction of a system that encouraged its use for tenuous and amazingly unaccountable charges.
Nando said
If I understand their argument around class truth is boils down to (one form or another of) saying:
“All truth serves the proletariat, however difficult they may be.”
it is an argument (supposedly) against “political truth” and “instrumentalist truth” — both of which (by definition) shave reality to serve various short-term interests (avoiding embarassment, hiding errors, increasing enthusiasm and hope etc.)
Two things stand out to me on this:
a) It is an argument with no one. Who argues that we should lie? Who argues that hiding difficult truths is better than exploring them? At least, who argues that as a serious theoretical proposition? Where are the quotes? Where does Lenin or Mao argue that truth doesn’t serve the prol? Where is the serious counter-essay that they are polemicizing against?
I suspect they haven’t produced one because there isn’t one.
b) There are tons of examples of the RCP making summations riddled with their own “political truth” and “instrumentalist truth.” Their whole theory of “keeping the advanced element tense” by stressing that revolution may be around the corner, is (and has been for thirty years) highly instrumentalist. The latest example has been the hyped frenzy of announcing that a literal Christian fascist theocracy was not just possible but likely (unless prevented by huge upheaval and/or rev). Or take the RCP’s discussion of the 1930s purges… it is “political truth” where the events are discussed (almost tangentially) and criticized — but without ever being described. So Stalin widened the target in a bad way, he used antagonistic methods where non-antagonist would be better, he used police when mass campaigns would have been better etc…. but it is all done without every making a real analysis of the actual events (who WAS targetted, what DID Stalin do and know, how many were arrested on political charges, how many were killed for political charges, were the opposition leaders really tied to fascism or not, was there a network of party oppositionalists conducting sabotage, etc.)
Or take the discussion of the RCP’s mass work (over decades) — the lack of real discussion (as pointed out in the 9 Letters) is a real sign of intrumentalist shaving of truths: what happened to the attempts to build political base areas? What is the summation of Refuse and Resist? What happened in the Mumia movement and why did the RCP pull out?
One of the RCP’s key methods for avoiding “difficult truths” is silence (often done in the name of security or “need to know”). And it results in a situation where party members and supporters often have little sense of the problems, context, trends, dynamics, fiascos, controversies, even sharp international line struggles that their own movement is engaged in.
No one disputes that all kinds of things need to be handled with care and privacy. But just as clearly, the RCP handles crucial matters (key questions of its own work and decline) in ways that precisely avoid difficult truths — and for exactly the same reasons that everyone else (in the universe) is sometimes tempted to avoid difficult truths — because there is a price to pay for honesty, candor, “facing up to reality.”
What you get is a party without accountability — where the participants of this particular movement have neither the information nor the structural moment to engage in a discussion of key questions (until after the tidy verdict “comes down” riddled with selfserving gaps and ommissions).
Here is the point:
The 9 Letters points out (in letter 4) that since the enlightenment (i.e. the 1700s) it has been commonly understood among most serious, scientific and secular people that reality and truth are entwined and that “we must go for truth.”
That is not the controversy, at least in the realm of theory. (Though it is often the controversy with the “faith based community.)
Now there are problems within the ICM of people acting “faith-based.” (Just the assertion by some that “revolution is the main trend in the world today” strikes me as a glaring example that basic “reality based” materialism has an uphill fight for survival even in the ICM.)
But the real controversies come in two ways:
1) What is in fact the truth? There is a lot of struggle over what is true and what is not.
2) Will we actually fight for the truth, and fight to bring it out in the open?
And here the RCP’s leadership is not a positive example. They shuck and weave and shade the facts with the best. They use security as a cover for their own shortcomings, and they have created a movement with lifetime tenures and almost zero accountability to the membership.
There are real issues about transparency that need to be discussed in their own right — and that flow from these issues. And they are tied to a much needed discussion of democracy which this site has not y et dug into.
How can people take responsibility for the “whole within the part” if so much is shrouded from them? How can we both serious protect our movement from attack, and yet be as open as possible about its challenges, questions, errors and problems?
Nando said
On the question of wruggling: I have a very different hit from LindaD. I genuinely like and embrace the idea of struggling and wrangling over ideas. I think that it was and is a very positive thing to say that “MLM is a wrangling ism.” Often it ISN’T a wrangling ism… and for some people, that very notion of wrangling ism was a shock and a sacrelege. Some think it is a “cling and persevere ism” or a “stick to the text ism.”
In other words, the promotion of “wrangling” was initially a critique of a religious approach (where things are known and accepted).
My problem is that there is a huge disconnect between the RCP’s call for a “wrangling ism” and what their method has now become.
To me wrangling implies that the final answers are not known and we should all collectively take responsibility for the critical thinking and explorations needed.
To them, clearly, wrangling has more and more been a call to “engage in order to adopt.” Once you say that “it is there for the taking” and that your new synthesis “is the cardinal question” — then the only thing to “wrangle over” is why you may not agree with this or that.
To me: It is not the concept of “wrangling ism” that is the problem. The problem is the twisted way it has been hollowed out, subverted, and reversed — all tied to the rise of “the culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization.”
Words like struggle and wrangle have become pillars of an exhausted jargon, stripped of life by genuine doublethink, within a movement that in theory proclaims truth and critical thinking and then seems to despise (and even suppress) so many manifestations around them.
Look at how they dealt with the 9 letters (which bristle with difficult truths! The problem is not that they wanted to “wrangle” with these challenges. No, just the opposite. Almost all of their supporters EXPECTED them to seriously “wrangle” with the 9 Letters — i was told by quite a few, “just wait.” And then when their response came out (which was a rant rooted in such crude distortion and over reaching) many of these same people were either hushed or shocked — because it was the opposite of “wrangling” — their response was a parade of political truths that refused to deal with (or even mount a defense) on any of the key matters at hand (how this movement deals with its decades of failure, its retreat from internationalism, its shift away from mass line toward preaching and so on.)
Renbolusyonista said
I’m sorry to post a comment totally out of line with the topic. Militant labour leader activist for national liberation and democracy in the Philippines Comrade Crispin Beltran of the Anakpawis (Toiling Masses)and Chairperson of the International Coordinating Group (ICG)of the International League of People’s Struggle (ILPS) just passed away this morning May 20th 2008 after sustaining severe head injuries. I am re-posting this press statement from the militant trade union center Kilusang Mayo Uno (May One Movement)where he once served as chairman. Ka Bel your memories will forever remain in the hearts of millions of proletariat whom you have unselfishly served.
Working Class Hero Crispin “Ka Bel” Beltran Leaves a Living Legacy
Contributed by administrator
Today, Rep. Crispin B. Beltran, ANAKPAWIS Party list representative on his 3rd term in Congress, a great labor
leader, an incorruptible parliamentarian, staunch fighter for national freedom, democracy and international working
class solidarity, died at 11:48am at the FEU hospital in Quezon City due to severe head injuries. He was 75. We
mourn with his family and friends, comrades and colleagues. Yet, in his passing, he left a distinctive and brilliant
legacy of fighting for the interest of the workers and oppressed peoples. Rep. Beltran is scheduled to file a bill to
remove the e-vat on electric power to lower the rates affecting his constituents. Rep. Beltran’s study of his
legislative measures are for the protection of the underprivileged and other marginalized sectors.
Crispin Beltran, more endeared to the masses as “Ka Bel”, is a living legend and epitome of militancy and
progressive lawmaking in the country. He is currently the Chairman of the national political party Anakpawis
(Toiling Masses) Partylist and is its re-elected Representative in the Philippine Congress.
Having been an activist for over fifty long years, Ka Bel is esteemed by laborers, peasants, urban poor and other
marginalized sectors as a true defender of the toiling masses and staunch critic of privatization, deregulation and
other destructive policies of globalization.
Ka Bel also stands against the United States’ war of aggression on Iraq and its war on terror. He also is steadfast in
his call for respect for national sovereignty and international unity against foreign intervention.
During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, at an early age, Ka Bel volunteered as a courier for the
guerillas. After the war, he worked as a farm hand and janitor to support his studies. He then worked as a gasoline
boy, messenger, bus driver and later on, a taxi driver. At age 20, he joined his fellow drivers in a strike against
unfair labor practices. The police attacked their picket line, injured many and claimed the lives of three protesting
workers. Since then, Ka Bel vowed to fight alongside the working class.
He organized the Amalgamated Taxi Drivers Association, for which he served as President from 1955 up to 1963.
Together with Felixberto ‘Ka Bert’ Olalia and Feliciano Reyes, leaders of the Filipino labor movement’s militant
tradition, he organized the Confederation of Labor of the Philippines (CLP). He was CLP’s Vice-President from
1963 to 1972. Ka Bel also helped found the Philippine Workers Congress and other labor organizations such as
KASAMA and PACMAP, which de facto asserted their recognition during Martial Law.
Under the repressive martial law, Ka Bel helped establish the Federation of Unions in Rizal and the Philippine
Nationalist Labor Organization (PANALO) until KMU was founded in 1980. From 100,000, KMU’s membership
soared to 500,000 in the 1980s. The establishment of KMU united and strengthened the people in its fight against
the fascism of the Marcos dictatorship.
When Marcos launched a crackdown in August 1982, Ka Bel was one of those arrested and detained. In
November 1984, he was able to escape, and went back to organizing workers and peasant s in the countryside.
When Ka Rolando “Lando” Olalia was brutally murdered in 1987, Ka Bel took over the presidency of KMU. He ran
for senator under the banner of Partido ng Bayan that same year and garnered 1.52 mi llion votes but lost due to
massive “dagdag bawas” (ballot and vote switching) scheme of elect ion fraud. He remained a leader of the
militant union until March 2003.
He also became a National Council Member of multi-sectoral alliance Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN)
which means New Patriotic Alliance) in 1985 and also served as its national chairperson from 1993 to 1999.
Ka Bel became the chairman of the International League for People’s Struggles in 2002. He is also considered as
one of the pillars of international working class solidarity in the era of globalization.
>From February 2001 to November 2003, he served as Vice President and
one of the three representatives of Bayan Muna (People First) Partylist to Congress, where he introduced
legislations imbued with his high sense of patriotism and advocacy of the rights and welfare of the marginalized
sectors.
In 2004, he became the representative for Anakpawis Partylist as a sectoral representative of workers, peasants,
urban poor and other toiling masses.
1 / 2
Working Class Hero Crispin “Ka Bel” Beltran Leaves a Living Legacy
Contributed by administrator
Ka Bel was cited by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism as the partylist representative in the 13th
Congress with the most number of bills and resolutions filed, totaling to 130, and with a nearly perfect attendance
before his arrest in February 2006.
His three-term stint in the House of Representatives has garnered him awards such as Filipino of the Year and
Most Outstanding Congressman for four consecutive years from 2002 – 2005, and in 2006, was adjudged part of
the Congressional Hal l of Fame – all these and the respect of the public he reaped even as the Arroyo regime
continues to persecute him and his fellow activists.
After his arrest and year-and-a-half long arbitrary and illegal detention initiated by the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
administration, Ka Bel was proven innocent of the rebellion charges against him.
Persecution, however, persists through the fabricated inciting to sedition case that the Metropolitan Court of
Quezon City refuses to dismiss until now, despite legal prohibit ions for duly-elected officials to be charged with
crimes punishable by not more than s ix years of imprisonment such as inciting to sedition.
In October 2007, Ka Bel exposed bribery attempts by administration allies, particularly by KAMPI member Francis
Ver. He was offered P2 million in exchange for his support to the weak impeachment complaint against President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Ka Bel is survived by 11 children, 29 grandchildren and 5 great-grand children. His remains will be interred at his
home, May 20, at Lot 16, Blk. 30 Francisco, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, and transferred to the UP Catholic
Chapel starting May 21. ###
Anakpawis Rep. Crispin B. Beltran
Rm.602 South Wing, House of Representatives Commonwealth, Quezon City
an hero said
One thing that seems missing from all this discussion is, to my knowledge, the only historical instance when “class truth” was politically put forward by communists in China. What is interesting about this is that the bloodline theory of “class truth” was not generally accepted and was mainly consigned to middle school students in the GPCR. Moreover, I believe that Mao explicitly repudiated the line, and was certainly not the author of it.
A Critique: The Origins and Divisions of the Red Guard Movement, 1966-1968
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/chinesehistory/cr/xiaowei.htm
Renegade Eye said
This is all new to me.
Carl Davidson said
If you’re going to discuss the ‘instrumental theory of truth,’ which is the one I try to use, at least get it right.
‘In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that concepts and theories are merely useful instruments whose worth is measured not by whether the concepts and theories are true or false (or correctly depict reality), but by how effective they are in explaining and predicting phenomena.’
–Wikipedia, making a fair intro to the topic.
The process of inquiry begins with a problem. You pose different ways of conceiving, examining and testing to solve the problem. When you arrive at an effective solution, you’ve arrived at or found a truth. Note that I said ‘a truth,’ because the instrumentalist approach acknowledges more than one solution to a complex problem, hence more than one truth. It doesn’t hold much truck with ‘The Truth’, passing that on to theologians. It’s doesn’t go for ’subjective’ truth or ‘objective’ truth, but finds a third way, settling for reliable and effective working hypotheses that solve problems, and an open universe, always subject to further inquiry. It’s what scientists actually do.
N3wDay said
Refer to letter four for a document released at the beginning of the cultural revolution saying truth has “class character”, and what the RCP says about that. Then going to “on practice” to the section where Mao states that all thinking is “stamped with the brand of class”, is helpful in knowing what is actually meant by the document from the GPCR.
I think the contention is the RCP has a assigned a definition to “class truth” that was not something upheld officially by anyone, and attributed it to Mao, Lenin, etc, because they use language that could be confused with the RCP definition.
This is from the recent document released on the New Synthesis. In this the only example they site is Lysenko as is usual, but this definition of class truth is attributed to Mao as well (as something he upheld I believe), quite mysteriously in Avakian’s essay on epistemology. I think he says something along the lines (paraphrasing) of… Mao was a lot better but there was a little bit of that class truth in there.
“In fact, people who do not use that method—indeed, people who detest that method—can, as it turns out, discover important truths. There are NOT separate realities for different classes and there are not separate “truths” for different classes—it’s not, “it’s a proletarian thang…you wouldn’t understand.” There is one reality. 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; but to reduce this rather sweeping point to “truth has a class character” can lead to refusing to learn anything from bourgeois thinkers, or even thinkers who are neither bourgeois nor in the Marxist framework. It can even lead to thinking that just because someone is from the proletariat they have some sort of special purchase on the truth.
Here too we have to learn from the negative experience of Lysenko. The view took hold that because Lysenko hailed from the working masses and because he supported Soviet power…and because those who opposed him in large measure came from what had been privileged classes in the old society and did not support Soviet power…well, this was just further proof of the rightness of Lysenko’s theories. But class origin has nothing to do with—or should have nothing to do with—evaluating whether your ideas are right or wrong.
Nor is it the case that the truthfulness of ideas is determined by whether they are “useful” in some immediate sense. This pragmatist approach has led to, to be blunt, “spinning” or even twisting reality—in the case of Lysenko, again, his theory was deemed true because it seemed immediately useful.
Now, it’s not a question of “going for the truth” divorced from the struggle to change the world. And it’s not that the “truth will set you free.” It won’t, without struggle. But if you don’t more or less correctly understand the world—if you don’t know what’s true—you won’t get free either. You’ll do things that don’t correspond to the actual dynamics and contradictions of reality and you won’t be able to transform that reality—at least not in a direction that’s going to get you closer to revolution and communism.
There’s a tremendous richness involved in this process. The insights of non-Marxists or even anti-communists can neither be dismissed nor just adopted whole; they have to be critically sifted and synthesized and often recast. But if you cut yourself off from this—which became the “tradition” in the communist movement—how can you hope to have a sense of this world we live in, which is constantly changing and generating new and unprecedented things? You actually need the clash of ideas, you need debate and contention and ferment and people pursuing paths that may not apparently “contribute to things” and which may turn out to be dead ends…but which may, on the other hand, yield new insights into reality. The view that “truth has a class character” short-circuits and distorts this vitally necessary process.”
N3wDay said
Sorry the quote I was referring to above is “Just when we began the counter-offensive against the wild attacks of the bourgeoisie, the authors of the Report 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 Tsetung Thought.”
It says “class nature” not character (which was from the Peking Review quote).
onehundredflowers said
Carl -
I thin you inadvertently highlighted a conceptual confusion here. When we speak of “instrumentalism” we don’t mean it in the natural scientific sense, but in the social theoretical sense of instrumental reason [which I don't believe wikipedia gives a good account of].
Carl Davidson said
First, pragmatism or instrumentalism is interested in solving problems in effective ways in relation to tasks at hand. It has no interest in ’spinning reality’ because it sets aside both the coherence and correspondence theories of truth.
To the degree that its solutions to problems–physical, social or whatever, adds to human knowledge, it indirectly ‘pushes back the Veil of Maya’ and helps us appreciate the universe more fully. But this is always contingent and conditional, and subject to revision. Our understanding of the universe and all of its subsets is always a work in progress.
The universe does have a natural hierarchy, and least our corner of it. The solar system first had to form as inorganic for the organic to emerge. The organic had to emerge for the biological, then the social, then the intellectual. While each level is connected to the lower level, its laws or patterns are not necessarily the same. Social science is quite different from physical science, and has more ‘wild cards’ or chaotic factors in how it operates–not that there aren’t surprises on the inorganic level as well.
In short, if your dia-mat notion of the universe is one of chunks of something called ‘matter’ swirling around in some logical way, you’re really missing out.
NSPF said
So, Carl,
Asside from trading insults, what is the purpose of your intervention in this thread?
Is it a defense of “science and scientific methods” and “scientists” as opposed to “vulgar Maoists” who believe in “chunks of something swirling”, or something else?
I think I understand the reason why Mike started this thread, but surely as a self professed instrumentalist, whatever that encompasses, you wouldn’t be that interested in what place “truth” occupies in other theories except to prove those theories ineffectice.
Linda D. said
Nando and Sean S.’s comments have spurred me on to try and understand all this better…which doesn’t at all mean I understand it anywhere near how they (or most) understand “class truth,” etc. To requote Nando at length:
Re “All truth serves the proletariat, however difficult they may be.”
It is an argument (supposedly) against “political truth” and “instrumentalist truth” — both of which (by definition) shave reality to serve various short-term interests (avoiding embarassment, hiding errors, increasing enthusiasm and hope etc.)
“Two things stand out to me on this:
a) It is an argument with no one. Who argues that we should lie? Who argues that hiding difficult truths is better than exploring them? At least, who argues that as a serious theoretical proposition? Where are the quotes? Where does Lenin or Mao argue that truth doesn’t serve the prol? Where is the serious counter-essay that they are polemicizing against?
I suspect they haven’t produced one because there isn’t one.
b) There are tons of examples of the RCP making summations riddled with their OWN [L.D.’s emphasis] “political truth” and “instrumentalist truth.” Their whole theory of “keeping the advanced element tense” by stressing that revolution may be around the corner, is (and has been for thirty years) highly instrumentalist. The latest example has been the hyped frenzy of announcing that a literal Christian fascist theocracy was not just possible but likely (unless prevented by huge upheaval and/or rev). Or take the RCP’s discussion of the 1930s purges… it is “political truth” where the events are discussed (almost tangentially) and criticized — but without ever being described. So Stalin widened the target in a bad way, he used antagonistic methods where non-antagonist would be better, he used police when mass campaigns would have been better etc…. but it is all done without every making a real analysis of the actual events (who WAS targetted, what DID Stalin do and know, how many were arrested on political charges, how many were killed for political charges, were the opposition leaders really tied to fascism or not, was there a network of party oppositionalists conducting sabotage, etc.)
“Or take the discussion of the RCP’s mass work (over decades) — the lack of real discussion (as pointed out in the 9 Letters) is a real sign of instrumentalist shaving of truths: what happened to the attempts to build political base areas? What is the summation of Refuse and Resist? What happened in the Mumia movement and why did the RCP pull out?
“One of the RCP’s key methods for avoiding “difficult truths” is silence (often done in the name of security or “need to know”). And it results in a situation where party members and supporters often have little sense of the problems, context, trends, dynamics, fiascos, controversies, even sharp international line struggles that their own movement is engaged in.
What you get is a party without accountability — where the participants of this particular movement have neither the information nor the structural moment to engage in a discussion of key questions (until after the tidy verdict “comes down” riddled with selfserving gaps and ommissions).”
To start with, I have a question—which I think is missing from some of the comments on Kasama. Maybe wrong on this because it gets difficult to sift through all the back and forths. My question is: isn’t class truth very much determined by actual class struggle? In other words, struggle not just in the theoretical realm but in actual practice, and the relationship between theory and practice in determining class truth? Is it just a matter of discussion, or openness from the revolutionary party or rev. forces, that helps determine truth, class truth, etc.?
Besides the examples that Nando gave, when talking about the RCP’s avoidance of “difficult truths,” etc. I immediately thought of their line on homosexuality. I went back and reread this part in the “New Draft Programme.” While it proposes to be a criticism of their former line, and also very weakly criticizes, but mainly upholds, the outright reactionary article in Rev. Mag. from 1988 (?), I think they pretty much end up in the same place as before with some sugar-coated self-criticisms (with a little more investigation).
But they basically, after a lengthy explanation and some historical digging, are still calling homosexuality a “phenomenon.” (Before it seemed like “faith-based truth” (?) but now—while on the one hand poo pooing some biological explanation for homosexuality, they’re not real keen on “choice” either. Por fin, they are still “studying” the question…but end up with their own reality and “truth” on the subject. E.G., If you scratch the surface of what they’re now saying, would homosexuality wither away after communism or socialism? Still a question in the minds of the RCP.)
And in all of this, I couldn’t find anything about Stonewall, or the years’ long struggle of the gay community that actually was the force that made even the RCP have to deal with this “question” in the first place.
What I found further aggravating was—the RCP trying to reassure people that no, they aren’t going to lock homosexuals away under their tutelage and yes, homosexuals can join the “party,” and are capable of doing revolutionary work, etc. but that the RCP is going to have the final determination on the “phenomena” of homosexuality. Leaving aside their criticism that lesbianism will not ultimately abolish women’s oppression, they pretty much let lesbians off the(ir) hook, because in their view, it is almost understandable why lesbians would be (or become) lesbians in the face of male dominance, abuse, etc. Except to me, through the back door, this feeds the idea that male homosexuality is inherently misogynist. In talking about their old programme, the RCP says about their old line:
“And this characterization was disheartening to some of the advanced politically because it could be interpreted as saying that the only way to fully break with misogyny and a bourgeois outlook would be to adopt a heterosexual orientation.”
“Disheartening”? to “some of the advanced politically”? Hey not just disheartening nor to the politically advanced. Disgusting and outrageous perhaps to anyone who stands for the liberation of humankind and is against discrimination in all its forms.
Furthermore, the RCP adds: “To those who would argue that we took too long to review this question, we would say: while there may be some truth to this, it takes time to unravel what is right from what is wrong, and also to recognize aspects about which too little is known to take a clear position. And it wouldn’t do any good if we simply catered to fashion and scrambled to try to “correct” an old position by simply adopting whatever has become popular at any given time, and without being pretty confident that a new position actually better corresponds to material reality and represents an improvement over the old. Searching for the truth with any real integrity of purpose and method is a process which has to be done right, and this takes time and resources. And the process of forging a new Draft Programme served as an important juncture for stepping back to carry on serious re-examination.”
And I would ask…if you really examine the New Programme on the question of homosexuality, what is all that different? I would even go so far as to say that the RCP is catering to the progressive and rev. minded forces within the gay community, who through a real movement and great struggle and sacrifice, called the RCP’s “previous” line out for what it was—reactionary shit.
The RCP says: “Our Party’s Chair, over the recent years, has written extensively on the strategic importance of working to continually improve the way all these kinds of contradictions are handled–not only now, but after the seizure of power and throughout the socialist period. These same writings have also emphasized the crucial importance of the party cultivating a genuine and ongoing openness to new ideas and a certain non-dogmatic flexibility in dealing with dissent or other forms of disagreement among the masses.(20) All this is very relevant to the search for the truth in general and including in relation to the issue at hand. In fact, the application of just such a methodological approach has been important in allowing us to critically re-examine our past work on the question of homosexuality and to be willing and able to recognize some important mistakes, while at the same time recognizing some core aspects of truth to be preserved and some essential aspects of correct methodology that are crucial to grasp and apply even more fully.”
¿De veras? ¿En serio? I don’t believe it. I think that the RCP’s “new” line on homosexuality, is more of an expedient “political truth” for them than anything else. Even after presenting what appears to be a relatively correct historical view of homosexuality, they’re still calling it a phenomenon—which by innuendo makes it a deviation.
AS far as the concept of “wrangling” “wrangling-ism” goes…Well Nando, I guess way back when you make a good point. But for those of us who have been hearing about “wrangling” from RCP quarters for over 25 years, this means little if anything. Just a bunch of words, with little substance. And to get real, who outside of the RCP or “our forces” talks like that? This is not to say that we can’t popularize the concept of “wrangling”—in fact, I think that is very much what Kasama has done in practice. But a lot of us are bloody-ass sick of the pat phrases and jargon that are supposed to automatically explain or deal with extremely complex issues, contradictions, etc.
Carl Davidson said
Why did I intervene? Perhaps because of my philosophical training; I couldn’t resist, LOL.
Actually, I’m an instrumentalist of sorts, and when I saw it being discussed, somewhat incorrectly, I thought I’d put in my two cents. But another reason is spending a decade or two thinking deeply about the subtext of philosophical errors we accepted as dogma that kept us imprisoned in the ultraleft cul-de-sac for so long–when I see them crop up, I try to lend a hand, and, hopefully, learn something new from the exchange in the process.
R said
what i drew most from this post mostly has to do with conception of truth. altho im still confused over the differences between social/class/political truths. when i think of objective truth, i think of “the world unfolding outside the confines of human subjective nature.” i must say based on ‘On Practice’ and the articles above (i’ve yet to read earlier works), Mao had a grasp of practice and realizing rational knowledge,the higher stage after perception through a real understanding of class divisions and a deep respect for the oppressed. The question of objective conditions do seem to have an important role in tbe pursuit of truth tho. In a way, it seems it might be voluntarist/idealist to suggest people volunteer themselves to put practice before truth in this stage in history, as opposed to the GPCR. At the same time, I can understand Ely’s position of creating organic roots in a comprensive method. I’m not sure how to proceed in analyzing this further, except to read other suggested texts.
In regards to the excesses of the guards in gpcr. I think, not to discount and needless pain that can be avoided, but people do not change overnight. People should not forget the conditions that Maoist China came from. These is a real difference between systemic crimes and insensitive behavior that are birthmarks of previous systems.
R said
i just wanted to elaborate on putting “truth above practice.” what i meant more was more the importance of theory in relation to practice at this stage in history as opposed to under socialist conditions. it just seems natural that theory has more importance, so i can kind of see where ba is coming from.