Facing dialectics

Martin Glaberman was a member of Facing Reality, a small leftist group in Detroit which supported the political perspectives of legendary Afro-Caribbean Marxist C. L. R. James. This short pamphlet, "Mao as Dialectician" is an attempt to criticize Mao Zedong's particular version of Marxist philosophy. This is, of course, a pretty meaningless enterprise since Mao *wasn't* a philosopher at all. The popularity of Maoism in leftist circles at the time (late 1960's to early 1970's) probably forced Glaberman's hand. "Mao as Dialectician" argues that Mao is empiricist rather than dialectical. No big deal, unless you happen to believe in dialectics. Worse, however, is that Mao makes "practice" the criterion of truth. The only way to learn the truth about revolutions, is to actually make a revolution. Since to Mao, "practice" and "revolution" are only possible through the guidance of the Communist Party, the party becomes the sole arbiter of "truth". Glaberman could have added, that since Mao himself is the undisputed leader of the Party, it's really *his* practice that becomes the "truth". Mao becomes god to the Chinese masses. He teaches us how to swim, too.

To Glaberman, dialectics are an independent method for ascertaining the truth, i.e. independent of whatever whims the party leadership might have at the moment. This may be obvious to a relatively non-dogmatic Marxist as Glaberman, but it's far from obvious to readers of, say, Trotsky's "In Defence of Marxism", where the *political conclusions* are an integral part of the dialectical "method". Trotsky would have regarded any other programmatic conclusions than his own as "undialectical". Glaberman and James, who broke with Trotsky, presumably thought the opposite! So who is right? On the basis of "dialectics", nobody can tell. The "method" is either vacuous, or just a philosophical fig leaf for a political program arrived at on other grounds. Empirical grounds, perhaps? Or moral grounds? Or admiration for the great mind of C. L. R. James?

It's interesting to note that Glaberman criticized Mao for his ideas about "class struggle under socialism", or his claim that the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie is, in some contexts, non-antagonistic. But in what sense is this *not* dialectical? Sure thing, Marx never thought of that, but so what? Maybe the situation really has changed, and maybe Mao - using the "method" of dialectics - really has analyzed it properly. How is Glaberman to tell, without an *empirical* investigation of class struggle, socialism or the Chinese national bourgeoisie?

I have a Swedish translation of "Mao as Dialectician", published by an anarchist or anarchistic group. It introduces the text by saying that while Glaberman's critique of Maoism is excellent, his break with "the movement as a whole" (the traditional Marxist left) is incomplete.

I share that assessment.