Come to real Islam. It offers the last revolution. Real Islam,not government controled Islam

Marxism is not in the business of a unity of contradiction. This is to confuse two distinct categories of philosophy, antinomy and dialectic. Trotsky, in two major works toward the end of his life, "The Revolution Betrayed" (1936) and "In Defence of Marxism" (1939), he devoted much valuable time to dispelling the political and philosophical myths building up around the socialist movement.
We sincerely hope that those not familiar with the details of the Trotsky- Stalin controversy are not misled by this type of article, but we are nonetheless glad that IMC UK has permitted it to stay up on the screen.
For Freedom of Debate !

A dialectic is a process of resolving two opposing points of view. It is true that opposition in political line is not persistent, i.e, antinomy, but is resolved through struggle. Antinimous contradiction is not persistent, but is resolved through dialectic.

--Majdur

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 pollitical 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?