Criticism and Self-Criticism

[John Dory]

The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side.

Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957), 1st pocket ed., p. 14.

Thoroughgoing materialists are fearless; we hope that all our fellow fighters will courageously shoulder their responsibilities and overcome all difficulties, fearing no setbacks or gibes, nor hesitating to criticize us Communists and give us their suggestions. "He who is not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares to unhorse the emperor" - this is the indomitable spirit needed in our struggle to build socialism and communism.

Ibid., p. 16.

We have the Marxist-Leninist weapon of criticism and self-criticism. We can get rid of a bad style and keep the good.

"Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the ommunist Party of China (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_58.htm)" (March 5, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 374.

Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing our Party from all other political parties. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our comrades' minds and our Party's work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing. The proverb "Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten" means that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms. To check up regularly on our work and in the process develop a democratic style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular Chinese maxims as "Say all you know and say it without reserve", "Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words" and "Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you have not" - this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds of our comrades and the body of our Party.

"On Coalition Government (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm)" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, pp. 316-17.

Opposition and struggle between ideas of different kinds constantly occur within the Party; this is a reflection within the Party of contradictions between classes and between the new and the old in society. If there were no contradictions in the Party and no ideological struggles to resolve them, the Party's life would come to an end.

"On Contradiction (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm)" (August 1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 317.

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

"Combat Liberalism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm)" (September 7, 1937), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 31.

In opposing subjectivism, sectarianism and stereotyped Party writing we must have in mind two purposes: first, "learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones", and second, "cure the sickness to save the patient". The mistakes of the past must be exposed without sparing anyone's sensibilities; it is necessary to analyse and criticize what was bad in the past with a scientific attitude so that work in the future will be done more carefully and done better. This is what is meant by "learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones". But our aim in exposing errors and criticizing shortcomings, like that of a doctor curing a sickness, is solely to save the patient and not to doctor him to death. A person with appendicitis is saved when the surgeon removes his appendix. So long as a person who has made mistakes does not hide his sickness for fear of treatment or persist in his mistakes until he is beyond cure, so long as he honestly and sincerely wishes to be cured and to mend his ways, we should welcome him and cure his sickness so that he can become a good comrade. We can never succeed if we just let ourselves go and lash out at him. In treating an ideological or a political malady, one must never be rough and rash but must adopt the approach of "curing the sickness to save the patient", which is the only correct and effective method.

"Rectify the Party's Style of Work (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_06.htm)" (February 1, 1942), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 50.*

Another point that should be mentioned in connection with inner-Party criticism is that some comrades ignore the major issues and confine their attention to minor points when they make their criticism. They do not understand that the main task of criticism is to point out political and organizational mistakes. As to personal shortcomings, unless they are related to political and organizational mistakes, there is no need to be overcritical or the comrades concerned will be at a loss as to what to do. Moreover, once such criticism develops, there is the great danger that within the Party attention will be concentrated exclusively on minor faults, and everyone will become timid and overcautious and forget the Party's political tasks.

"On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm)" (December 1929), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 111-12.*

In inner-Party criticism, guard against subjectivism, arbitrariness and the vulgarization of criticism; statements should be based on facts and criticism should stress the political side.

Ibid., p. 112.*

Inner-Party criticism is a weapon for strengthening the Party organization and increasing its fighting capacity. In the Party organization of the Red Army, however, criticism is not always of this character, and sometimes turns into personal attack. As a result, it damages the Party organization as well as individuals. This is a manifestation of petty-bourgeois individualism. The method of correction is to help Party members understand that the purpose of criticism is to increase the Party's fighting capacity in order to achieve victory in the class struggle and that it should not be used as a means of personal attack.

Ibid., p. 110.

If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it.

"Serve The People (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_19.htm)" (September 8, 1941), Selected Works, Vol. III, P. 227.

As we Chinese Communists, who base all our actions on the highest interests of the broadest masses of the Chinese people and who are fully convinced of the justice of our cause, never balk at any personal sacrifice and are ready at all times to give our lives for the cause, can we be reluctant to discard any idea, viewpoint, opinion or method which is not suited to the needs of the people? Can we be willing to allow political dust and germs to dirty our clean faces or eat into our healthy organisms? Countless revolutionary martyrs have laid down their lives in the interests of the people, and our hearts are filled with pain as we the living think of them - can there be any personal interest, then, that we would not sacrifice or any error that we would not discard?

"On Coalition Government (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm)" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 317.*

We must not become complacent over any success. We should check our complacency and constantly criticize our shortcomings, just as we should wash our faces or sweep the floor every day to remove the dirt and keep them clean.

"Get Organized! (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_17.htm)" (November 29, 1943), Selected Works, Vol. III. p. 160.*

As for criticism, do it in good time; don't get into the habit of criticizing only after the event.

On the Question of Agricultural Co-operation (July 31, 1955), 3rd ed., p. 25.

Taught by mistakes and setbacks, we have become wiser and handle our affairs better. It is hard for any political party or person to avoid mistakes, but we should make as few as possible. Once a mistake is made, we should correct it, and the more quickly and thoroughly the better.

"On the People's Democratic Dictatorship (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm)" (June 30, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 422.

[redstar2000]

We sure seem to be getting a ton of Mao's blather being posted here lately.

What did we do to deserve that? :o

This one, at least, is easily disposed of.


Originally posted by Mao
We have the Marxist-Leninist weapon of criticism and self-criticism.

Neither Marx nor Lenin ever heard of such a thing and probably would have doubled over in laughter had anyone suggested it.

I don't remember now if it was an idea borrowed from Stalin or if it was one of "Mao's historic contributions" to "revolutionary" theory.

In any event, it's horseshit!

The Maoist ritual of self-criticism works like this...

Someone gets up in front of a group and says "I made some mistakes as follows..." and "I made those mistakes because I didn't follow the great leader's ideas properly..." and concludes with "I promise to pay closer and more serious attention to the great leader's ideas so I won't make those mistakes in the future".

This was also the practice of early Christianity, of course. The identified sinner would have to stand up in front of the congregation and publicly confess his sins and formally promise to "sin no more". Private confessions (inside a little booth) were a later innovation.

Indeed, if Mao didn't get this idea from Stalin, then he might well have borrowed it from the practices of Christian congregations in China itself. I don't know that this was true, but I think it's a plausible hypothesis. Mao was an inquisitive youth and might well have been curious about Christian practices in early 20th century China.

But, as I've noted, the whole idea is as foreign to both Marx and Lenin as Christianity itself. Marx and even Lenin were both harshly critical of capitalist society and of those whom they thought were collaborating with it while trying to pass themselves off as "revolutionary". But neither of them ever expected people to get up in public and "confess their sins" and "promise repentance".

It would have struck them as medieval.

I think it is a good illustration of how backward Maoism really is...that is, how much it "shows the marks" of the pre-capitalist society in which it emerged.

In a modern capitalist (much less post-capitalist) society, it would be merely laughable...like a skit on Saturday Night Live. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Le People]

Firstly, I'ev been out awhile and I am glad to see redstar 2000 is alive. I have read the above metioned Mao Tse Tung articles. Mao talked a good game, but at the end of the day, he was a murdering stalinist dictator. Never listen to Mao, for he is liar.

[Hiero]

Indeed, if Mao didn't get this idea from Stalin, then he might well have borrowed it from the practices of Christian congregations in China itself. I don't know that this was true, but I think it's a plausible hypothesis. Mao was an inquisitive youth and might well have been curious about Christian practices in early 20th century China.

Yeah nice try, no it's not a plausible hypothesis. I'm beginning to realise that you make up alot of stuff based on nothing more then your own guessing or maybe what you wish is true.

[red_che]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 10 2005, 04:26 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 10 2005, 04:26 PM) We sure seem to be getting a ton of Mao's blather being posted here lately.

What did we do to deserve that? :o

This one, at least, is easily disposed of.


Mao
We have the Marxist-Leninist weapon of criticism and self-criticism.

Neither Marx nor Lenin ever heard of such a thing and probably would have doubled over in laughter had anyone suggested it.

I don't remember now if it was an idea borrowed from Stalin or if it was one of "Mao's historic contributions" to "revolutionary" theory.

In any event, it's horseshit!

The Maoist ritual of self-criticism works like this...

Someone gets up in front of a group and says "I made some mistakes as follows..." and "I made those mistakes because I didn't follow the great leader's ideas properly..." and concludes with "I promise to pay closer and more serious attention to the great leader's ideas so I won't make those mistakes in the future".

This was also the practice of early Christianity, of course. The identified sinner would have to stand up in front of the congregation and publicly confess his sins and formally promise to "sin no more". Private confessions (inside a little booth) were a later innovation.

Indeed, if Mao didn't get this idea from Stalin, then he might well have borrowed it from the practices of Christian congregations in China itself. I don't know that this was true, but I think it's a plausible hypothesis. Mao was an inquisitive youth and might well have been curious about Christian practices in early 20th century China.

But, as I've noted, the whole idea is as foreign to both Marx and Lenin as Christianity itself. Marx and even Lenin were both harshly critical of capitalist society and of those whom they thought were collaborating with it while trying to pass themselves off as "revolutionary". But neither of them ever expected people to get up in public and "confess their sins" and "promise repentance".

It would have struck them as medieval.

I think it is a good illustration of how backward Maoism really is...that is, how much it "shows the marks" of the pre-capitalist society in which it emerged.

In a modern capitalist (much less post-capitalist) society, it would be merely laughable...like a skit on Saturday Night Live. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
You are the horseshit. As you have said, this is one of his major practical and theoretical contribution to Marxism-Leninism. It is this characteristic of criticism and self-criticism that makes the Marxist-Leninist parties differ with the revisionists. And through criticism and self-criticism, the entire party and its membership can immediately correct mistakes and get lessons from our experiences.

Through Criticism and Self-Criticism, the party can guard itself from revisionist thoughts that might penetrate it. And through Criticism and Self-Criticism, we are able to identify the revisionists who would try to inject poison thoughts within the party and the revolutionary movement.

Mao is great, you are an asshole! :angry:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Mao is great, you are an asshole! :angry:[/b]

The reader should take this as a warning. If you ever even hint that the sun doesn't really shine out of Mao's ass, expect nothing but verbal abuse from the Maoist faithful.

Contemporary western Maoists like to say that they "won't be like Stalin".

Don't bet the rent money on it! :lol:


Hiero
Yeah, nice try, no, it's not a plausible hypothesis. I'm beginning to realise that you make up a lot of stuff based on nothing more then your own guessing or maybe what you wish is true.

As you wish. I always make it clear to the reader when I am offering a hypothesis and when I am speaking instead of documented fact.

Believe it or not, only two people have ever drawn my attention to errors of fact on my site...both of which were promptly corrected.

Keep in mind that when I do speculate, I do so in the context of historical materialism...something that western Maoists have already abandoned.

Thus the "response" that I quoted from red_che above...as if I had urinated in his fountain of "holy water". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Red Powers]

we are able to identify the revisionists who would try to inject poison thoughts within the party and the revolutionary movement.

Are Maoists so idealist that they really believe in poison thoughts? Sounds like that bullshit the nuns were pushing way back when. Gimme a break!!

[TheLiberal]

Maosim's idea of perpetual revolution is a grand form of ongoing self criticism is it not? - the idea that people, organisations and systems of government must always be overhauled and improved to further society. (apoligies for the off topic-ness, comrades)

[anomaly]

Mao made good contributions to military ideas, namely, his ideas on guerrilla warfare (later added to by Che). However, the rest of Maoist doctrine is, as Redstar notes, horseshit.

[Hiero]

Keep in mind that when I do speculate, I do so in the context of historical materialism...something that western Maoists have already abandoned.

Historical materialism? Please tell us how you came to this conclusion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:34 AM

Keep in mind that when I do speculate, I do so in the context of historical materialism...something that western Maoists have already abandoned.

Historical materialism? Please tell us how you came to this conclusion.
Mao himself described his efforts to "search for truth" as a youth. For example, he enrolled himself in several different schools and then dropped out when he didn't find what he was looking for. He spent many hours in the local library reading "at random" whatever "western" books (translated into Chinese) that he could locate.

Christian missionary churches (mostly Protestant) were known as a "source" of "western ideas" in early 20th century China...they were visible.

Is it so "far out", then, to suggest that Mao might have "checked them out"? Not because Mao had any interest in Christianity as such...but rather because he might have been curious about what else they might have had to say.

And even if he personally never saw the inside of a Christian church in China, he could easily have learned about Christian practice from other Chinese youth like himself.

Then the question becomes: did Protestant churches in early 20th century China actually practice "public confession of sin"? And, guess what? I don't know!

But it seems to me entirely possible that they did...it's a common feature of "primitive" churches. The "new faith" must be "reinforced" against the social pressure of the surrounding public indifference.

Thus my speculation about the source of the Maoist ritual of "self-criticism" is based on specific historical circumstances.

Something which, as I've already noted, "western" Maoists have entirely abandoned.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

(redstar)

The reader should take this as a warning. If you ever even hint that the sun doesn't really shine out of Mao's ass, expect nothing but verbal abuse from the Maoist faithful.

Stop that crap, redstar. You abused Mao by belittling him as only a someone who came the "middle peasant" class who cannot comprehend things. Now you act like you&#39;re the one&#39;s being abused. Well, I&#39;m only reacting at your arrogance. Stop insulting others (not just Mao) and you&#39;ll not get these "verbal abuse" from "Maoists" like me. <_<



Mao himself described his efforts to "search for truth" as a youth. For example, he enrolled himself in several different schools and then dropped out when he didn&#39;t find what he was looking for. He spent many hours in the local library reading "at random" whatever "western" books (translated into Chinese) that he could locate.

Christian missionary churches (mostly Protestant) were known as a "source" of "western ideas" in early 20th century China...they were visible.

Is it so "far out", then, to suggest that Mao might have "checked them out"? Not because Mao had any interest in Christianity as such...but rather because he might have been curious about what else they might have had to say.

And even if he personally never saw the inside of a Christian church in China, he could easily have learned about Christian practice from other Chinese youth like himself.

Then the question becomes: did Protestant churches in early 20th century China actually practice "public confession of sin"? And, guess what? I don&#39;t know&#33;

But it seems to me entirely possible that they did...it&#39;s a common feature of "primitive" churches. The "new faith" must be "reinforced" against the social pressure of the surrounding public indifference.

Thus my speculation about the source of the Maoist ritual of "self-criticism" is based on specific historical circumstances.



Are you implying here that Mao got this idea of criticism and self-criticism from the Christian Church? If you have been a lawyer, you would have been a great one. You were good at spinning things around in order to arrive at a conclusion that you wanted.

Well, this principle of Criticism and Self-Criticism arose out of the CCP&#39;s several rectification movements. It came out of the Party&#39;s (CCP) assessments and summings-up of experiences. This example you stated above were mere products of your mental masturbations. :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
You abused Mao by belittling him as only someone who came the "middle peasant" class who cannot comprehend things.

Why is it "abuse" to point out that Mao was a "middle peasant" and saw the world through the eyes of one?

I certainly never suggested that he "could not comprehend things" (or, in other words, that he was "stupid"). I simply pointed out a Marxist commonplace observation: your class origins have a very strong influence on how you will "comprehend things".

The RCP&#39;s Bob Avakian, for example, grew up as the privileged son of a federal judge...do you think it "impossible" that this has not strongly influenced his political views?

He really believes, for example, that some people are "fit to rule" and most people must be ruled "for their own good."

Is this not a lesson taught in a million ways to every upper-class child?

I don&#39;t mean by this that we are all "helpless prisoners" of our class origins. We can, with strenuous efforts, sometimes overcome some of those limitations. And sometimes our class position itself changes dramatically...which leads to changes in the way we look at the whole world and everything in it.

I suspect that the children of many "middle class" workers are now finding themselves "drifting downwards" in the social "food chain"...beginning to realize that they will never be able to live as well as their parents did. The "American Dream" is starting to "come apart" around the edges...and I expect the young working class to become considerably more radical as time passes.

Think what Mao saw around him when he was growing up -- the desperate struggle of middle peasants to hold onto their class positions and avoid sinking into the misery of the poor peasantry.

What lessons did he learn from this? One of them was certainly part of the Chinese tradition of his era: go to the city and become "an educated man" and you will never be reduced to the misery of the poor peasantry.

And that is what he did&#33; Only after he went to a city and began to be exposed to "western" ideas did he realize that "individual solutions" made no sense and that one had to critically examine one&#39;s entire society.

Not only was Mao not "stupid", he was probably one of the brightest and most perceptive kids in early 20th century China.

But, like all of us, he was shaped by his social environment.

No one stands "outside of history" or "above one&#39;s personal historical experience".

To suggest otherwise simply reveals, once again, the idealism at the core of "western" Maoism.


Are you implying here that Mao got this idea of criticism and self-criticism from the Christian Church?

Yeah...that it&#39;s possible that he got the idea from them.

The ritual of "self-criticism" has a religious character.

It&#39;s like the "public confession of sin and repentance" that Christians used to do before the invention of the "confessional booth".

Or maybe he got the idea from Stalin.

I don&#39;t think he just "made it up on his own".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

(redstar)

Why is it "abuse" to point out that Mao was a "middle peasant" and saw the world through the eyes of one?

I certainly never suggested that he "could not comprehend things" (or, in other words, that he was "stupid"). I simply pointed out a Marxist commonplace observation: your class origins have a very strong influence on how you will "comprehend things".

What are trying to conclude then? While he came from the peasant class, or anybody, they can become true revolutionaries and communists. Unlike you whose thoughts are unfounded.


The RCP&#39;s Bob Avakian, for example, grew up as the privileged son of a federal judge...do you think it "impossible" that this has not strongly influenced his political views?

He really believes, for example, that some people are "fit to rule" and most people must be ruled "for their own good."


Don&#39;t know this one, although I am well aware of the RCP&#39;s opportunisms, I can&#39;t react on Avakian&#39;s personality &#39;cause I don&#39;t know him.


Think what Mao saw around him when he was growing up -- the desperate struggle of middle peasants to hold onto their class positions and avoid sinking into the misery of the poor peasantry.

What lessons did he learn from this? One of them was certainly part of the Chinese tradition of his era: go to the city and become "an educated man" and you will never be reduced to the misery of the poor peasantry.

And that is what he did&#33; Only after he went to a city and began to be exposed to "western" ideas did he realize that "individual solutions" made no sense and that one had to critically examine one&#39;s entire society.


No, not that. What he learned was not to hold onto their class positions but to liberate the entire Chinese society from the claws of Imperialism, Feudalism and Bureaucrat Capitalism through socialist revolution.


The ritual of "self-criticism" has a religious character.

Criticism and Self-Criticism is a collective evaluation of performance.

In Marxist organizations, it is not a ritual. It is a natural action in severing one&#39;s self from bourgeois influences.

[chilcru]

The MLM practice of CSC was not developed by Mao alone. It&#39;s development could be traced to Marx&#39;s praxis of "merciless criticism of everything existing" which they applied even to themselves. Marx also started the communist practice of summing up the experiences of workers&#39; struggle to determine if experience has been guided by theory and theory has been validated by experience. His periodic addresses to the First Internationale were of this nature but the singular work epitomizing such practice is his Civil War in France. Lenin contributed his own with his concept of "struggle-unity-struggle" within the Party organization. Mao, picking up from Marx and Lenin, developed the concept of rectification movement and CSC as part of "remolding the individual while in the process of revolutionizing society".

From what I read, the CCP practice of CSC evolved from the "pass the gate" exercise which peasant villages used to practice in pre-revolutionary China.

[chilcru]

In the practice of CPP, the CSC is definitely not a ritual of confession of one&#39;s "sins". It is an IPO assessment of one&#39;s performance so that it includes praises and commendations for positive attitudes and work done, not just errors and weaknesses.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by RS2K
The Maoist ritual of self-criticism works like this...

Someone gets up in front of a group and says "I made some mistakes as follows..." and "I made those mistakes because I didn&#39;t follow the great leader&#39;s ideas properly..." and concludes with "I promise to pay closer and more serious attention to the great leader&#39;s ideas so I won&#39;t make those mistakes in the future".

While within narrow, authoritarian, Maoist parties self-criticism may be a rediculous ritual, I see no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think the idea of self-criticism is a useful one if carried out meaningfully in the spirit of really pushing ideas forward and developing them.

In an authentically democratic context, where people can speak freely without undue influence "from above" I think the ideal of "Criticism and Self-Criticism [as] a collective evaluation of performance" could be realized.

[redstar2000]

A reader of my site has offered another plausible hypothesis for the source of the Maoist ritual of "self-criticism"...namely, Buddhism.

Methods for Practicing Dwelling Apart, Beginning Anew and Purifying the Offences (http://www.plumvillage.org/MindfulnessTrainings/RevisedBhikshu/RevisedBhikshuBeginningAnewAndPurify.htm)

Was there a Buddhist temple in Mao&#39;s "home town"? Once again, I do not know.

But it would certainly make sense that he would "steal" what he thought was "a good idea" from people he might otherwise want nothing to do with. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:41 PM
A reader of my site has offered another plausible hypothesis for the source of the Maoist ritual of "self-criticism"...namely, Buddhism.

Methods for Practicing Dwelling Apart, Beginning Anew and Purifying the Offences (http://www.plumvillage.org/MindfulnessTrainings/RevisedBhikshu/RevisedBhikshuBeginningAnewAndPurify.htm)

Was there a Buddhist temple in Mao&#39;s "home town"? Once again, I do not know.

But it would certainly make sense that he would "steal" what he thought was "a good idea" from people he might otherwise want nothing to do with. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Maybe, it&#39;s hard for you to accept that self-criticism is an important aspect in remolding one&#39;s self to become a true revolutionary. Nobody was born a communist. Hence, it is needed to guard one&#39;s self and the entire organization&#39;s (Marxist) against bourgeois influences as we are still living in an era where the bourgeoisie rules and its influences strong. Unless you really are a bourgeois ideologue redstar, you really can&#39;t accept the necessity and practicality of criticism and self-criticism. As chilcru said, in the CPP, criticism and self-criticism is a way of ideological, political and organizational assessment of the party and each indvidual member. It is an integral part of its every meetings and assesments.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Maybe, it&#39;s hard for you to accept that self-criticism is an important aspect in remolding one&#39;s self to become a true revolutionary.

No more than that confession of sin and sincere repentance is "an important aspect" of "remolding oneself" to become "a true Christian".

Where did you get the idea, by the way, that you could "remold yourself"? Are you made of clay?

Is anyone? :lol:

Perhaps you think that there is such a thing as a "communist personality" that one can "make oneself into".

I think that&#39;s an imaginary concept.

A communist is defined by what s/he thinks, says, and does...not by some mental image of communist "sainthood" who is, by definition, "free of bourgeois sin".

Communism is not about "virtue"...self-cultivated or imposed. It&#39;s about something much more objective: the abolition of wage-slavery.

We certainly will be "different people" than we are now. But this will be a consequence of our different material circumstances -- not because we "changed ourselves" in accordance with some kind of "ideal".

Much as you "hate to hear it", the latter is just more Maoist idealism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Maybe, it&#39;s hard for you to accept that self-criticism is an important aspect in remolding one&#39;s self to become a true revolutionary. Nobody was born a communist. Hence, it is needed to guard one&#39;s self and the entire organization&#39;s (Marxist) against bourgeois influences as we are still living in an era where the bourgeoisie rules and its influences strong. Unless you really are a bourgeois ideologue redstar, you really can&#39;t accept the necessity and practicality of criticism and self-criticism. As chilcru said, in the CPP, criticism and self-criticism is a way of ideological, political and organizational assessment of the party and each indvidual member. It is an integral part of its every meetings and assesments.

The idea of "confessing" ones "sins" in the ritual of "criticism and self-criticism" seems totally absurd.

In a proletarian democracy there would be no need to allocate a specific period of time where everyone could "confess" their failures, because in a real proletarian democracy there would be a tremendous amount of political debate, argument and squabbling where everyones failings would be brought to light.

The idea of "criticism and self-criticism" seems to be that if we don&#39;t make the effort of evaluating our and everyones performance it won&#39;t be done. May I suggest that in an actual proletarian democracy the day to day happenings of self rule would ensure that everyones failings and successes would be common knowledge. Heck even bourgeois democracy manages to criticise itself without making a special time to do it in.

[red_che]

Where did you get the idea, by the way, that you could "remold yourself"? Are you made of clay?

Were your thoughts readily made when you were born? Where they that way now, since the day of your birth? I don&#39;t think so. Were your mentality unchangeable?


Perhaps you think that there is such a thing as a "communist personality" that one can "make oneself into".

Yeah, anything opposite your personality :lol:


A communist is defined by what s/he thinks, says, and does...

No one is born communist. Not even Marx. He became a communist when he started to rid himself of bourgeois thinking and attitudes.

Oh, this is getting far from the topic.


In a proletarian democracy there would be no need to allocate a specific period of time where everyone could "confess" their failures, because in a real proletarian democracy there would be a tremendous amount of political debate, argument and squabbling where everyones failings would be brought to light.

As of now, proletarian democracy does not yet exist. Criticism and self-criticism is not simply a confession of one&#39;s failures, rather, it is an evaluation of one&#39;s performance and development in ideological, political and organizational fields. And it is done systematically, not by your description of proletarian democracy which looks like an anarchy. Not even that is a characteristic of proletarian democracy.

[DisIllusion]

As of now, proletarian democracy does not yet exist. Criticism and self-criticism is not simply a confession of one&#39;s failures, rather, it is an evaluation of one&#39;s performance and development in ideological, political and organizational fields. And it is done systematically, not by your description of proletarian democracy which looks like an anarchy. Not even that is a characteristic of proletarian democracy.

True, a proletarian democracy doesn&#39;t and seemingly hasn&#39;t existed yet, but don&#39;t be too freaked out by the idea of a proletarian democracy being anarchist. Many famous Anarchist thinkers believed that orderly Anarchism would follow the establishment of free Communism. I don&#39;t know if Communist thinkers thought the same though. Examples please?

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:57 AM

As of now, proletarian democracy does not yet exist. Criticism and self-criticism is not simply a confession of one&#39;s failures, rather, it is an evaluation of one&#39;s performance and development in ideological, political and organizational fields. And it is done systematically, not by your description of proletarian democracy which looks like an anarchy. Not even that is a characteristic of proletarian democracy.

True, a proletarian democracy doesn&#39;t and seemingly hasn&#39;t existed yet, but don&#39;t be too freaked out by the idea of a proletarian democracy being anarchist. Many famous Anarchist thinkers believed that orderly Anarchism would follow the establishment of free Communism. I don&#39;t know if Communist thinkers thought the same though. Examples please?

This issue is being discussed in a different sub-topic, however, let me answer it here just for now. Armchairsocialism&#39;s description is anarchy, not proletarian democracy. Prolatarian democracy is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Follow the the threads on the discussion on proletarian democracy in this forum.

[Amusing Scrotum]

As of now, proletarian democracy does not yet exist. Criticism and self-criticism is not simply a confession of one&#39;s failures, rather, it is an evaluation of one&#39;s performance and development in ideological, political and organizational fields. And it is done systematically, not by your description of proletarian democracy which looks like an anarchy. Not even that is a characteristic of proletarian democracy.

Yet why does there need to be a specific time period set out for this evaluation?

If we take this board as an example, members often post about marches, events, lectures etc. that they have attended. Then other members debate this subject with them and this can then provide an adequate evaluation.

Even in this thread we have seen an evaluation of the principle of "criticism and self-criticism."


This issue is being discussed in a different sub-topic, however, let me answer it here just for now. Armchairsocialism&#39;s description is anarchy, not proletarian democracy. Prolatarian democracy is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Follow the the threads on the discussion on proletarian democracy in this forum.

Actually I have not made a post in the The principle of proletarian dictatorship, how do you think about it? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42974) thread. So I fail to see how you could ascertain my views on proletarian democracy from that thread, it would be impossible.

Perhaps you should take a "self-criticism" for that blatant error. :lol:

[red_che]

Yet why does there need to be a specific time period set out for this evaluation?

If we take this board as an example, members often post about marches, events, lectures etc. that they have attended. Then other members debate this subject with them and this can then provide an adequate evaluation.

Even in this thread we have seen an evaluation of the principle of "criticism and self-criticism."

I never mentioned of a specific time. My intention was to say that it is integral in every meeting and assessments that criticism and self-criticism is done. Everywhere and anytime there is a criticism, every Marxist must take it. If the criticism is right, then accept it and correct it, but if the criticism is wrong then it must be debated. As is the case in this thread.


QUOTE
This issue is being discussed in a different sub-topic, however, let me answer it here just for now. Armchairsocialism&#39;s description is anarchy, not proletarian democracy. Prolatarian democracy is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Follow the the threads on the discussion on proletarian democracy in this forum.



Actually I have not made a post in the The principle of proletarian dictatorship, how do you think about it? thread. So I fail to see how you could ascertain my views on proletarian democracy from that thread, it would be impossible.

Actually, it is my reply to disillusion&#39;s post. Here is your quote from which I told that your description of proletarian democracy is anarchy:


In a proletarian democracy there would be no need to allocate a specific period of time where everyone could "confess" their failures, because in a real proletarian democracy there would be a tremendous amount of political debate, argument and squabbling where everyones failings would be brought to light.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I never mentioned of a specific time. My intention was to say that it is integral in every meeting and assessments that criticism and self-criticism is done. Everywhere and anytime there is a criticism, every Marxist must take it. If the criticism is right, then accept it and correct it, but if the criticism is wrong then it must be debated. As is the case in this thread.

Okay my mistake, you didn&#39;t mention that the "criticism and self criticism" should happen in a specific period of time.

However what I don&#39;t get is that "we" need it at all.

As anyone who has ever been to a meeting or assessment can testify, the process where suggestions and performances are criticised already happens.

Therefore why do "Maoists" consider this process to be an "innovation" made by Mao? ....do they seriously think that active and decent debate was not something which people did before Mao suggested it.

The whole concept of "criticism and self criticism" being an improvement on basic Marxist theory, quite frankly baffles me.


Actually, it is my reply to disillusion&#39;s post. Here is your quote from which I told that your description of proletarian democracy is anarchy:



In a proletarian democracy there would be no need to allocate a specific period of time where everyone could "confess" their failures, because in a real proletarian democracy there would be a tremendous amount of political debate, argument and squabbling where everyones failings would be brought to light.


Why do you think this is "anarchy?" ....do you think that in proletarian democracy there would be no political debate?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Were your thoughts ready made when you were born? Were they that way now, since the day of your birth? I don&#39;t think so. Was your mentality unchangeable?...

No one is born communist. Not even Marx. He became a communist when he started to rid himself of bourgeois thinking and attitudes.

Of course our views change over time...who would ever argue otherwise?

But it&#39;s hardly a matter of consciously "ridding oneself of bourgeois thinking and attitudes"...as if one were trying to lose weight or quit smoking or some other wacky "self-improvement" fad.

Instead, it&#39;s developing a scientific attitude towards social reality. Instead of just "accepting" everything around us as "given", we start to ask "what&#39;s really going on here?".

The superstitions of bourgeois ideology cannot withstand critical examination...as soon as anyone shines the harsh light of science on them, they start to crumble.

The boss knows more than you do. It&#39;s an honor to die for your country. Our leaders have our best interests at heart. People would never do any work unless they were given economic incentives. You are what you buy. And so on.

Becoming a communist is the process of constantly subjecting all of this crap to ruthless criticism.

It&#39;s something that anyone can do...and is far more relevant than participating in some superstitious ritual.

Mao forgive me for I have sinned. I am guilty of having bourgeois thoughts.

For penance, you will read the Little Red Book five times over the next week.

Go and sin no more.

I&#39;m amazed that anyone can&#39;t see at once how damn silly this crap is.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Of course our views change over time...who would ever argue otherwise?

Nobody; I think, though, the idea of structured criticism/self-criticism is to ensure that this happens "in step" with material realities. Rather than "waiting" for everyone to come around, by having members of an organization enguage in critique of the group&#39;s theory/practice openly, safely, and consistently we can keep "in step" as much as posible.
Why set aside a time for criticism? I suggest digging "The Tyranny Of Structurelessness" (certainly a work with flaws, but none the less . . .).

[red_che]

The superstitions of bourgeois ideology cannot withstand critical examination...as soon as anyone shines the harsh light of science on them, they start to crumble.

You really are confused. You cannot differentiate bourgeois practice of this "ritual" that you&#39;re saying from the criticism and self-criticism being discussed. Obviously, you are not inclined to rectifying your own errors even if you know you are wrong. You can&#39;t accept criticism from others, and quite obviously, you don&#39;t know how to criticize yourself, as if everything you&#39;re doing is right and that you&#39;re perfect.


However what I don&#39;t get is that "we" need it at all.

Okay, so you don&#39;t want to be criticized? And you don&#39;t want to assesss your own practices? You know, Mao just wanted to make us conscious of criticism and self-criticism. It&#39;s like, hey why did we fail in implementing this program? Where have we gone wrong? It&#39;s that simple. Nothing ritualistic.

Actually, this thing has been done since Marx&#39;s time. He even said that everything must be subjected to merciless criticism. So, what we are doing is just that. Even ourselves must be criticized.

The thing that differentiates Marxist criticism from bourgeois "ritual" of repentance is Marxism itself, the objective criticism of everything and directing it to the attainment of communism.


Why do you think this is "anarchy?" ....do you think that in proletarian democracy there would be no political debate?

Not in the way you described political debate. I don&#39;t think that comrades should squabble over themselves in an unprincipled manner of debate. When you debate with a bourgeois, it is understood to be antagonistic, but when you debate with another comrade, would it need to be that same way too? In my view, when you engage in a debate with another comrade, the end-result should be unity, not in a bourgeois manner of "hey, I&#39;m better than you." Got it?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Okay, so you don&#39;t want to be criticized? And you don&#39;t want to assesss your own practices? You know, Mao just wanted to make us conscious of criticism and self-criticism. It&#39;s like, hey why did we fail in implementing this program? Where have we gone wrong? It&#39;s that simple. Nothing ritualistic.

Yet any revolutionary movement "worth its salt" would do this.

It is one of the major criticisms of the Paris Commune that too much time was spent "discussing" and "criticising" the situation. Likewise, there was plenty of political discussion in the Republican controlled areas of Spain.

Political discussion and criticism naturally arises out of a revolutionary movement and I think it gives a certain insight into "Mao&#39;s China" that political discussion had to be encouraged.


Actually, this thing has been done since Marx&#39;s time. He even said that everything must be subjected to merciless criticism. So, what we are doing is just that. Even ourselves must be criticized.

Yet in any Socialist country one would expect there to be plenty of political debate. Quite why it needed to be encouraged, leaves me very suspicious of the purpose of the process.


The thing that differentiates Marxist criticism from bourgeois "ritual" of repentance is Marxism itself, the objective criticism of everything and directing it to the attainment of communism.

Though, I guess the "Maoists" leave the Marxist principle of historical materialism out of the process of "criticism and self criticism."


Not in the way you described political debate. I don&#39;t think that comrades should squabble over themselves in an unprincipled manner of debate. When you debate with a bourgeois, it is understood to be antagonistic, but when you debate with another comrade, would it need to be that same way too? In my view, when you engage in a debate with another comrade, the end-result should be unity, not in a bourgeois manner of "hey, I&#39;m better than you." Got it?

Debates on how best to achieve Communism, should be raucous and unprincipled.

It would be absurd to think a debate on such an important topic could observe "formal niceties." Communism will never be achieved if we all "hold hands" and sing hallelujah. If an idea is crap, we should say so.

[black magick hustla]

I don&#39;t know how the hell can people like Mao.

The only thing that happened in China resembling "true socialism" was the Shanghai commune, and was crushed recklessly by Mao.

Maybe he wasn&#39;t after the proletariat controlling the means of production&#33; :o