The structure of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

1. Method
2. Theories
3. Strategies
4. Tactics

The structure of idealism

1. Ideological goals
2. Tactics

Discussion and comparison

Most people do not appreciate Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and those who argue with MIM usually have a simpler approach we refer to as idealism above. Our critics usually see only what "should be" (ideological goals). Then they utilize "pragmatic means" (tactics) to achieve what "should be." The distinction between "is" and "ought" captivates most of our critics and makes it difficult for them to engage MIM.

The problem is not just any idea that occurs to humyns is possible. The good life comes in packages of things that go together simultaneously and in a certain chronological order.

For us scientific communists, the order of importance goes from higher to lower. Tactics should be most flexible and the place where most mistakes are made. Strategies are patterns of tactics for medium-range timeframes.

Pragmatism

When the tail of tactics or strategy wags the dog of theory or method, we speak of the evil of "pragmatism." There are three underlying reasons for pragmatism:

1. Empiricism by which we toss our methods and theories easily from a single setback or minority of setbacks.
2. Subjectivism by which we toss our methods and theories because it does not fit our individual life and we don't care about others.
3. Systematic tail-wagging-the-dog, usually for dogmatic reasons.
4. Another way to end up in pragmatism is not having the capability to conceive cause and effect and hence theory.

On this fourth cause of pragmatism, people who do not examine matters for factual patterns connected to cause and effect we call "atheoretical." If there is no theory in one's thought, chances are pragmatism rules. People carrying out this approach in any of the above four points do not belong with Marxism. Their man is William James.

Often times an encounter with Marx or a live Maoist makes one realize that one is interested in philosophical and political questions. Nonetheless, just because a live Maoist may have started one on one's journey does not mean one should call oneself a Maoist for life. In fact, most Amerikans who encounter Marx thoroughly are post-Marxist or anti-Marxist. They may feel a strange debt, but they should not make the mistake of calling themselves Marxist, because they are not.

Praxis

Rejection of pragmatism speaks to Marxist "praxis," which is how we conceive the relationship among 1 through 4 of the "structure of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," method, theories, strategy & tactics. 1&2 are more important to Marxism than 3&4. We have to get 1&2 first and reject those who quit on us while engaged in work on 1&2.

In pragmatist praxis, there is nothing wrong with the tail's wagging the dog for the slightest reason or frustration. In Marxist praxis, only all dogs' tails can wag the dog. In other words, if we have knowledge of all tactics used from all of history, then we can "sum up for strategy." If we have knowledge of all 3&4 from all history, then we can sum up for 1&2.

Science

Strictly speaking, there is no 2.5 in the above for "political line" or ideology. Rather ideology should be replaced with an observation on a group's natural goals. MIM has stressed that with more science, the less we need approximations of ideology.

One could ask then why the ruling class cannot use 1-4 above in the "structure of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" if there is no 2.5 for ideology. Actually, the ruling class can use 1 to 4 above, but it will lose if it does so, unless it happens to be the proletariat, the class with history's most universal goals for the humyn being. The class destined to success benefits most from the scientific method. Another way to put that is that the social groups with the least self- interest in opposing science will take over and put their predominant stamp on history, so there is a sociology behind any method, including Marxism-Leninism- Maoism.

Getting a job for life, voting conservatively to preserve one's pension--such ideas have nothing in common with Marxism, even if the supposed workers are involved. Marxists have argued that those with no self-interests to lose are the least opposed to science and truth.

Contemporary examples

At the moment, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism looks bankrupt in the united $tates, because the last three generations and more than three organizations capitulated and joined the Democrats. To recognize this as it occurs is vitally important for us behind enemy lines.

Certain lines of attack are obvious for leading to the Democratic Party.
1. Gotta have 51% in the united $tates. Says who? The Democrats.
2. Gun control is a good thing. Says who? Inner-city Democrats.
3. "Trotskyite" is just a Stalinist insult crushing "dissent." Says who? Democrats who don't care about the substance of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
4. People who support the war on Afghanistan are proletariat, good people. Says who? Democrats.

In this last case the entire war on Afghanistan is a matter of "tactics" for pragmatists calling themselves Maoist. Where one stands on the war on Afghanistan or wimmin and Iran does not matter that much to these people, because their goal is a strategy to support Democrats while calling it something else in order to broaden the appeal of the Democratic Party using as many rubrics as possible, including secret rubrics.

In arguing with idealists, the most we can hope to do is argue that the global exploited are principal over the domestic base that Democrats seek to mobilize. Those who argue that the U.$. social base is principal are Amerikan nationalists, no matter what they call themselves.

Being that sort of nationalist is only permissible in oppressed nations, not imperialist countries as Mao explained.

Can the Democratic Party use 1-4 above? Yes, but again it will lose, because the international proletariat is decisive and concretely oppressed by the Democratic Party, which is composed of about 60 million exploiters. Democrats come in Maoist guises periodically for the same reason that pornography films come up with so many variations on sex--to maintain interest.

In the final analysis understanding that the Democratic Party cannot do 1 to 4 is not a matter of "stand" on Afghanistan or Iran. Rather the question is one of the natural goals of the world's majority of people. It's not a matter of some Maoist imposing a will for sovereignty on the oppressed nations. The world's majority of people take such a stand naturally and observably in polls. At most they need a coach to better achieve their natural goals. Amerikans and their imperialist population partners in the EU, Australia etc. take measurably different stands on Iraq, Afghanistan etc. More importantly, action by imperialist exploiters goes beyond merely taking a stand to carrying out multiple wars and occupations simultaneously.