Carrol
P.S. I think Mao is given a bad rap by those who wrench his works out of
their context in the Chinese Revolution. In his use of the terms
"antagonistic" and "non-antagonistic" contradictions Mao (at least prior
to the fiasco of the Three-Worlds Theory) followed Marx's practice very
closely: the terminology came at the end of concrete analysis of ongoing
conflict in China. We can learn from his practice, but not if we
blithely ignore its context, as did those "Maoists" of the '70s who
attempted to impose the "United Front" strategy on the U.S., thus
requiring the proliferation of imaginary classes in the U.S. in order
to have the elements of which a united front consists.
I am one that have written concerning Chairman Mao usage of and application of the Marxist conception of antagonism in contradiction. My love - yes love which is visceral, for the "Great Chairman," is not excused for theoretical vigilance.
Comrade Mao presentation of antagonism does not allow the revolutionaries i the imperial centers to disclose the essence of the meaning of antagonism and apply it in their daily and extended activity. Yet our beloved Chairman Mao wrote in the context of Chinese society and the power of the Marx dialectic.
We are in a different boundary of the evolution of the decay of capital from Comrade Mao. The battle for Stalingrad and the horrific defeat enforced on the Japanese imperial capitalist allowed - was the space, in which the genius of Chairman Mao emerged.
Our Chairman memory will live forever. To this day I am inspired by not simply his "On Contradictions" and "On Practice," "The Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People," "Method of Work of Party Committees," "Combat Liberalism," or his military writings, specifically the "Encirclement and Suppression Campaign," but his being.
Nevertheless, the task of forging a new theotical clarity is important.
Melvin P.
