Editing Comrade:Charhapiti/sandbox

However, as Mao stated "Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world"[3], there will be Marxists who have a tendency to fall into dogma, as what Mao at the time called "Book Worship". Mao ruthlessly criticised those who fell into this trap, a trap which still plagues Marxist-Leninists to this day:

    When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ.[4]

It is not because we think a decision is right because a book says it, we think it is right because it directly applies to the material conditions. The material conditions demand something that cannot be just simply traced from characteristics posed by an author (however significant that author may be). There is a need for books, and there is a need for education, but there is no need for dogmatism within Marxism. 




After the death of Stalin, Khrushchev rose to power. I will not debate over whether the Soviet Union was socialist post-Stalin, as it is irrelevant to this discussion. Khrushchev may presented as an opportunist especially in the context of the 'Anti-revisionists' (whom I will get onto later), however, his opportunism doesn't overshadow the amount of dogmatism presented within the Khrushchev era of the Soviet Union. His analysis of the material conditions was flawed. Unlike Stalin with his five years plans, analysing the material conditions and allowing the nation to industrialise properly with the help of the peasantry, Khrushchev instead failed to analyse the material conditions and presented things dogmatically such as that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is no longer necessary, and that it should be replaced with a 'State of the Whole People'. This alone makes Khrushchev revisionist as he failed to analyse the material conditions, and doesn't realise that communism will not come about within a century, but rather, it will only come about when the vast majority (or even all) nations are under a socialist mode of production. Not to mention Khrushchev failed to introduce economic reforms to increase productivity, and instead decreased productivity. As a result of this, Khrushchev was ousted by the Soviet Congress and replaced with Leonid Brezhnev.

Why did Khrushchev get into power? Why didn't the Soviet Congress oust Khrushchev earlier? It can be traced back to Stalin. The Moscow Trials and the 'Great Purge' were mostly a success in hindsight, as it (mostly) ousted dogmatic and opportunistic party members from the CPSU. However, it clearly failed to get rid of any dogmatic leadership that was present but masqueraded. Khrushchev was still in power, and Stalin didn't purge Khrushchev. Ignoring all of the nuance afterwards, it was clear that Khrushchev got into power because dogmatism was still rampant with the CPSU congress, and it was amplified further once Khrushchev got into power. The CPSU congress only ousted Khrushchev once they realised the economic reforms were a failure. They looked into the material conditions, and ousted Khrushchev as a result, however as much big of a victory it is, it still failed to changed its own methods, and they still employed leaders like Brezhnev, which would he later put the USSR economy into stagnation in the 1980s.

Clearly, since the Soviet Union fallen into Dogmatism, it only took the Soviet Union a few decades for it to be withered into nothing but a state of unproductivity. It was only accelerated by Gorbachev, whom introduced Market Reforms which brought about only 'bread lines' as conservatives love to brag about the state of the Soviet Union. Shortages were rampant, and it was a result of dogmatism applied.


The Cultural Revolution

There is no clearer example of dogmatism being present within Marxism-Leninism than the Cultural Revolution. It was a revolution to introduce Marxism-Leninism into the Youth, a rapid change of the culture of the Chinese people in order to go against social imperialism and capitalism. There were some good things about the cultural revolution, and it was certainly needed. The workers were given more power within society, which is what socialism partly is. It was important for the workers to have some form of voice as it promotes the democratic values within Socialism. However, clearly their staunch hate against those who would be better for society rather than against (Scientists, Writers, Professor, etc.) resulted in many expats fleeing to nations such as the United States, many of whom still today have a high reactionary hatred towards China.[5] There is clear sense of dogmatism within the Cultural Revolution, not addressing the material conditions. It would certainly be better for scientists remain with China, but nonetheless, they were excluded and made an enemy against the nation for their profession.
The Gang of Four and Hua Guofeng

Of course, we need to talk about the crux of the matter, that is two things: Hua Guofeng and the Gang of Four.

Let us start with the Gang of Four first. The Gang of Four were one of the dogmatic groups during the Cultural Revolution (aside from Hua Guofeng himself), only following Mao's teachings and had a big presence within society. They even state that it is better to be 'poor under socialism, than rich under capitalism'[6], a justification which goes ignores the transitional nature of socialism and the dialectical nature of socialism as a whole. There is no justification for this, as it directly goes away with the evidence of socialism. The productive forces must be developed under socialism, it is not that 'someone must be rich under capitalism', it is that people should not live under poverty in socialism.

Hua Guofeng actually arrested the Gang of Four, but not for their sense of dogmatism. It was for the fact that the antagonistic contradiction between Guofeng and the Gang of Four that lead to them 'upholding Mao's principles' and attempting to stage a coup of sorts since the Gang of Four organised an urban militia:

    They planned the mobilization of troops. Mao Yuanxin was a deputy commissar of the Shenyang Military Region. Zhang Chunqiao was the director of the General Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army and deputy commissar of the Nanjing Military Region. Before the death of Mao, the Gang of Four arranged to have Mao Yuanxin made deputy commissar of Unit 8341 of the People’s Liberation Army. They believed they could mobilize some of the army when necessary. It was said that at the time of their abortive coup, part of the Shenyang troops had already been stationed near Beijing. But others have said they could not even mobilize a single soldier. The true picture has yet to come out. They exercised control over the militia. Most urban militia are workers who are normally engaged in production. When mobilized for action they take orders from their commander. Wang Hongwen served as one of the main commanders in the Beijing militia and also as commander-in-chief of the Shanghai militia. He had allegedly ordered the newest automatic rifles and machine guns to be distributed to the 100,000 Shanghai militia. The soldiers were secretly told to be on the alert in the event of disturbances following the death of Mao. In addition, a twenty-car train was said to have been made available for the transportation of the Shanghai militia to Beijing for combat.[7]

This does not mean Hua Guofeng addressed the material conditions. He was dogmatic himself, proposing a law called 'The Two Whatevers' which quoted as: "We will resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave." Hua Guofeng was eventually ousted by Deng Xiaoping, as he steered China towards a materialistic road. The CPC nowadays recognises the Cultural Revolution as mostly a failure as stated here:

    It is not possible for such a revolution to be repeated. The decade of calamity caused severe damage, leaving permanent pain for many Chinese. Entirely denying the values of the Cultural Revolution will help Chinese society remain vigilant against the danger of all kinds of disorder.

    China’s development in recent decades started from complete denial of the Cultural Revolution in theory and shifting the focus of the country to economic construction in practice. In the over 30 years, we strived to recover from the losses. The shared goal has provided strong momentum for the country’s progress. It also helped strengthen social solidarity. The principle of not straying onto the wrong path has been widely endorsed by the public.

    We have bid farewell to the Cultural Revolution. We can say it once again today that the Cultural Revolution cannot and will not come back. There is no place for it in today’s China
    

The Shining Path

Let us begin with the person who has contributed the most to Maoism, Abimael Guzman (also known as Chairman Gonzalo). It is clear from the very start that Gonzalo has started a cult of personality. From the very beginning, the people within the PCP (or Shining Path) have upheld Gonzalo as some sort of person that must be defended. This cult of personality means that the PCP basically follows a dogmatic nature, not willing to change or adapt their conditions (despite claiming to do so). I will admit that Gonzalo did have some success gaining the popularity of the peasantry, because the Peruvian government did not care about the rural areas around the time. However, their popularity quickly turned around, as they started to alienate the peasantry and made the peasantry go against them.[9] Once this happens, the Shining Path claims to be places like Lucanamarca to be reactionary, and that it needed to be cleansed from 'reactionary ideas'.[10] Gonzalo even admits that he openly accepted excesses, which showed his alienation between the peasantry and the party leadership. Let's not forget that his methods of educating of the proletariat were at least questionable. They utilised assassinations of leaders with some socialist sympathies, like the assassination of María Elena Moyano, a feminist who both criticised the Peruvian Government and the Shining Path.[11] This boils down to the anarchist term of the 'Propaganda of the Deed' where people commit bombings or assassinations of the ruling class, and the Shining Path uses very familiar tactics.

Nowadays, the Shining Path remains dormant, mostly because the Shining Path has lost its leader after Gonzalos' death. It had nowhere to go towards, therefore many people within the Shining Path either left it entirely or stayed but couldn't do anything about it. 

The Communist Party of the Philippines

The Communist Party of the Philippines (also known as CPP, CPP-NPA or CPP-NPA-NDF, the rest of the essay will denote it as CPP-NPA) has committed the same fate of utilising dogma. Before we move onto the CPP-NPA, we must look at the original filipino communist party, the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930 (also known as PKP-1930). The PKP-1930 launched an armed struggle in the 1950s, aimed with overthrowing the Filipino government and replacing it with a socialist mode of production. Due to a failure in analysing the material conditions, the armed struggle has failed. The PKP-1930 fortunately has learnt from those mistakes, and still continues to be materialistic. However, in the 1960s where the PKP-1930 abandoned the armed struggle, Jose Maria Sison (the founder of the CPP-NPA) completely ignores the reason behind the struggle, and splintered from the PKP-1930 to form the modern CPP-NPA. The CPP-NPA, regardless of material conditions, was part of the Manila bombings so that the Dictator Marcos has a justification to start martial law.[12] This is regardless of whether the proletariat wanted this, and whether the material conditions desired the bombings (which is almost never). This is another example of dogmatism.

Of course, they still continue this armed struggle, an armed struggle which the proletariat do not really want. 

The Naxals

I specifically put the Naxals, as they are not a united party, but rather a group which is of the Naxalbari ethnicity which have multiple communist parties. There is no unitary party because of the many splits and splinters between every party, for example one that is pro-Lin Biao and one that is Anti-Lin Biao. There is also more parties which accepts the CPC's ideas that the cultural revolution was a failure, and others which don't and straight up call the CPC counter-revolutionary.[13] Not to mention they constantly attack other groups like the CPI(M), calling the CPI(M) 'neo-revisionist' or 'social fascist'. 


LENIN: 

It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life. That change was reflected in profound disintegration and disunity, in every manner of vacillation, in short, in a very serious internal crisis of Marxism. Resolute resistance to this disintegration, a resolute and persistent struggle to up hold the fundamentals of Marxism, was again placed on the order of the day. In the preceding period, extremely wide sections of the classes that cannot avoid Marxism in formulating their aims had assimilated that doctrine in an extremely one-sided and mutilated fashion. They had learnt by rote certain “slogans”, certain answers to tactical questions, without having understood the Marxist criteria for these   answers.

All that remained of Marxism here was the phraseology used to clothe arguments about “hierarchy”, “hegemony” and so forth, that were thoroughly permeated with the spirit of liberalism. 

The purpose of this article is not to examine these arguments. A mere reference to them is sufficient to illustrate what has been said above regarding the depth of the crisis through which Marxism is passing and its connection with the whole social and economic situation in the present period. The questions raised by this crisis cannot be brushed aside. Nothing can be more pernicious or unprincipled than attempts to dismiss them by phrase-mongering. Nothing is more important than to rally all Marxists who have realised the profundity of the crisis and the necessity of combating it, for defence of the theoretical basis of Marxism and its fundamental propositions, that are being distorted from diametrically opposite sides by the spread of bourgeois influence to the various “fellow-travellers” of Marxism. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Certain_features_of_the_historical_development_of_Marxism


MAO:
People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Combat_liberalism

It was only in No. 2 of Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsti that the Socialist-Revolutionaries finally decided to come out with a theoretical statement of principle, in an unsigned editorial headed “The World Progress and Crisis of Socialism.” We strongly recommend this article to all who want to get a clear idea of utter unprincipledness and vacillation in matters of theory (as well as of the art of concealing this behind a spate of rhetoric). The entire content of this highly noteworthy article may be expressed in a few words. Socialism has grown into a world force, socialism (=Marxism) is now splitting as a result of the war of the revolutionaries (the “orthodox”) against the opportunists (the “critics”). We, Socialist-Revolutionaries, “of course” have never sympathised with opportunism, but we are over-joyed because of the “criticism” which has freed us from a dogma; we too are working for a revision of this dogma— and although we have as yet nothing at all to show by way of criticism (except bourgeois-opportunist criticism), although we have as yet revised absolutely nothing, it is nevertheless that freedom from theory which redounds to our credit. That redounds to our credit all the more because, as people free of theory, we stand firmly for general unity and vehemently condemn all theoretical disputes over principles. “A serious revolutionary organisation,” Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii (No. 2, p. 127) assures us in all seriousness, “would give up trying to settle disputed questions of social theory, which always lead to disunity, although this of course should not hinder theoreticians from seeking their solution”—or, more outspokenly: let the writers do the writing and the readers do the reading[3] and in the meantime, while they are busying themselves, we will rejoice at the blank left behind. 

There is no need, of course, to engage in a serious analysis of this theory of deviation from socialism (in the event of disputes proper). In our opinion, the crisis of socialism makes it incumbent upon any in the least serious socialists to devote redoubled attention to theory—to adopt more resolutely a strictly definite stand, to draw a sharper line of demarcation between themselves and wavering and unreliable elements. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, if such things as confusion and splits are possible “even among Germans,” then it is God’s will that we, Russians, should pride ourselves on our ignorance of whither we are drifting. In our opinion, the absence of theory deprives a revolutionary trend of the right to existence and inevitably condemns it, sooner or later, to political bankruptcy. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, the absence of theory is a most excellent thing, most favourable “for unity.” As you see, we cannot reach agreement with them, for the fact of the matter is that we even speak different languages. There is one hope: perhaps they will be made to see reason by Mr. Struve, who also (only more seriously) speaks about the elimination of dogma and says that “our” business (as is the, business of any bourgeoisie that appeals to the proletariat) is not to disunite, but to unite. Will not the Socialist-Revolutionaries ever see, with the help of Mr. Struve, what is really signified by their stand of liberation from socialism for the purpose of unity, and unity on the occasion of liberation from socialism? 

We shall always expose people who in word war against hackneyed dogmas and in practice hold exclusively to such moth-eaten and harmful commonplaces as the theory of the transference of strength, the difference between big work and petty work and, of course, the theory of single combat. “Just as in the days of yore the peoples’ battles were fought out by their leaders in single combat, so now the terrorists will win Russia’s freedom in single combat with the autocracy,” the April 3 leaflet concludes. The mere reprinting of such sentences provides their refutation. 

We have seen that the Socialist-Revolutionaries’ greatest “advantage” lies in their freedom from theory; their greatest skill consists in their ability to speak without saying anything. But in order to present a programme, one must nevertheless say something. It is necessary, for instance, to throw overboard the “dogma of the Russian Social-Democrats of the late eighties and early nineties to the effect that there is no revolutionary force save the urban proletariat.” What a handy little word “dogma” is! One need only slightly twist an opposing theory, cover up this twist with the bogy of “dogma”—and there you are! 

Let the agrarian programme of the Socialist-Revolutionaries serve as a lesson and a warning to all socialists, a glaring example of what results from an absence of ideology and principles, which some unthinking people call freedom from dogma. When it came to action, the Socialist-Revolutionaries did not reveal even a single of the three conditions essential for the elaboration of a consistent socialist programme: a clear idea of the ultimate aim; a correct understanding of the path leading to that aim; an accurate conception of the true state of affairs at the given moment or of the immediate tasks of that moment. They simply obscured the ultimate aim of socialism by con fusing socialisation of the land with bourgeois nationalisation and by confusing the primitive peasant idea about small-scale equalitarian land tenure with the doctrine of modern socialism on the conversion of all means of production into public property and the organisation of socialist production. Their conception of the path leading to socialism is peerlessly characterised by their substitution of the development of co-operatives for the class struggle. In their estimation of the present stage in the agrarian evolution of Russia, they have forgotten a trifle: the remnants of serf-ownership, which weigh so heavily on our country side. The famous trinity which reflects their theoretical views—the intelligentsia, the proletariat, and the peasantry—has its complement in the no less famous three-point “programme”—socialisation of the land, co-operatives, and attachment to the allotment. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Revolutionary_Adventurism

This is why Lenin said that "revolutionary theory is not a dogma," that it "assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement";[6]) for theory must serve practice, for "theory must answer the questions raised by practice",[7] for it must be tested by practical results. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:The_foundations_of_Leninism

By saying that the ideological work of our Party lacks in Juche, I do not mean, of course, that we have not made the revolution or that our revolutionary work was undertaken by passers-by. Nonetheless, Juche has not been firmly established in ideological work, which leads to dogmatic and formalistic errors and does much harm to our revolutionary cause.

To make revolution in Korea we must know Korean history and geography and know the customs of the Korean people. Only then is it possible to educate our people in a way that suits them and to inspire in them an ardent love for their native place and their motherland. 

It is of paramount importance to study, and widely publicize among the working people, the history of our country and of our people's struggle, before anything else.

This is not the first time we have raised this question. As far back as the autumn of 1945, that is, immediately after liberation, we emphasized the need to study the history of our nation's struggle and to inherit its fine traditions. Only when our people are educated in the history of their own struggle and its traditions, can their national pride be stimulated and the broad masses be aroused to the revolutionary struggle.

Yet, many of our functionaries are ignorant of our country's history, and so do not strive to discover and carry forward its fine traditions. Unless this is corrected, it will lead, in the long run, to the negation of Korean history. 

Just copying the forms used by others instead of learning Marxist-Leninist truth brings us no good, only harm.

Both in revolutionary struggle and in construction work, we should firmly adhere to Marxist-Leninist principles, applying them in a creative manner to suit the specific conditions of our country and our national characteristics.

If we mechanically apply foreign experience, disregarding the history of our country and the traditions of our people and without taking account of our own realities and level of preparedness of our people, dogmatic errors will result and much harm will be done to the revolutionary cause. To do so is not fidelity to Marxism-Leninism nor to internationalism; it runs counter to them.

Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, it is a guide to action and a creative theory. So, Marxism-Leninism can display its indestructible vitality only when it is applied creatively to suit the specific conditions of each country. The same applies to the experience of the fraternal parties. It will prove valuable to us only when we make a study of it, grasp its essence and properly apply it to our realities. Instead, if we just gulp it down and spoil our work, it will not only harm our work but also lead to discrediting the valuable experience of the fraternal parties. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:On_eliminating_dogmatism_and_formalism_and_establishing_Juche_in_ideological_work

METHOUGHT: Dogma is combatted via the testing of practical experience and of developing methods of accurate observation. Accurate observation is necessary in order to determine the correct tests. Meditation helps us to observe things with accuracy.


All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked. However, the criticism should be fully reasoned, analytical and convincing, and not rough, bureaucratic, metaphysical or dogmatic.

Both dogmatism and revisionism run counter to Marxism. Marxism must certainly advance; it must develop along with the development of practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it remained stagnant and stereotyped. However, the basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, or otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the basic principles of Marxism and to negate its universal truth. Revisionism is one form of bourgeois ideology.

Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too attack "dogmatism". But what they are really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the people's democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and socialist construction. After the basic victory of the socialist revolution in our country, there are still a number of people who vainly hope to restore the capitalist system and fight the working class on every front, including the ideological one. And their right-hand men in this struggle are the revisionists.

The reason why such evils as dogmatism, empiricism, commandism, tailism, sectarianism, bureaucracy and an arrogant attitude in work are definitely harmful and intolerable, and why anyone suffering from these maladies must overcome them, is that they alienate us from the masses.

To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail… There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.

Liberalism is extreme]y harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practise it or to practise it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well - they talk Marxism but practise liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Now, there are two different attitudes towards learning from others. One is the dogmatic attitude of transplanting everything, whether or not it is suited to our conditions. This is no good. The other attitude is to use our heads and learn those things which suit our conditions, that is, to absorb whatever experience is useful to us. That is the attitude we should adopt.

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao_Tse-tung

In a word, the “plan for an all-Russia political newspaper”, far from representing the fruits of the labour of armchair workers, infected with dogmatism and bookishness (as it seemed to those who gave but little thought to it), is the most practical plan for immediate and all-round preparation of the uprising, with, at the same time, no loss of sight for a moment of the pressing day-to-day work. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:What_is_to_be_done%3F

Only the careful study of the specific characteristics of a given aspect of reality can keep us from dogmatism, that is, from the mechanical application of a uniform framework to different situations. That is why Lenin recommended that revolutionaries exercise their brains in all circumstances. The true marxist is not one who, knowing his classics by heart, believes he can solve all problems by means of a few standard solutions, but an analyst capable of putting each problem concretely, without neglecting any of the data necessary for its solution. 

Only the careful study of the specific characteristics of a given aspect of reality can keep us from dogmatism, that is, from the mechanical application of a uniform framework to different situations. That is why Lenin recommended that revolutionaries exercise their brains in all circumstances. The true marxist is not one who, knowing his classics by heart, believes he can solve all problems by means of a few standard solutions, but an analyst capable of putting each problem concretely, without neglecting any of the data necessary for its solution.

To really know an object, it is necessary to embrace it, to study all its aspects, all the relations and "mediations". We will never quite get there, but by making it an obligation to consider objects in all their aspects, we will protect ourselves from errors and sclerosis. (Stalin: Again about the unions.)

The dogmatic is satisfied with generalities. For example, if a slogan is given by the union, it does not concern itself with appropriating it exactly to his company, to each workshop of his company. Likewise, it does not know how to take into account the demands specific to each category of workers.

This schematism always has serious consequences, because it cuts off activists from the mass of workers.

He who neglects theory gets bogged down in practicality, acts blind and walks in darkness. Whoever neglects practice freezes in dogmatism, he is no more than a doctrinaire whose reasoning rings hollow. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Fundamental_principles_of_philosophy

Dogmatism can be avoided by continuously studying and observing and analyzing Private subjects and taking any evidence which contradicts erroneous perceptions of “false commonalities” into consideration. This will simultaneously deepen our understanding of the Private while improving our understanding of the Common. For example: Sally might observe a few red apples and arrive at the conclusion: “all apples are red.” If Sally is then presented with a green apple, yet refuses to acknowledge it by continuing to insist that “all apples are red,” then Sally is engaging in dogmatism. 

According to Vietnam’s Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought, the opposite of Dogmatism is Revisionism. Revisionism occurs when we overestimate the Private and fail to recognize commonalities. In failing to recognize common attributes and features between and within things, phenomena, and ideas, the Revisionist faces confusion and disorientation whenever they encounter any new things, phenomena, and ideas, because they lack any insight into essential characteristics of the subject and its relations with other subjects.

For example: if Sally has spent a lot of time studying a red apple, she may start to become confident that she understands everything there is to know about apples. If she is then presented with a green apple, she might become confused and disoriented and draw the conclusion that she has to start all over again with her analysis, from scratch, thinking: “this can’t possibly be an apple because it’s not red. It must be something else entirely.” Sally can avoid this revisionist confusion by examining the other common features which the red and green apples share before making any conclusions. 

In Vietnamese political philosophy, “left-sided thinking” is a form of dogmatic idealism which upholds unrealistic conceptions of change and development. Left-sided thinkers don’t have the patience for quantity accumulation which are prerequisite to quality shifts, or expect to skip entire stages of development which are necessary to precipitate change in the real world. An example of left-sided thinking would be believing that a capitalist society can instantly transition into a stateless, classless, communist society, skipping over the transitions in quantity and quality which are required to bring such a massive transformation in human society to fruition.

“Right-sided thinking,” on the other hand, is conservate resistance to change.

Right-sided thinkers resist quality changes to human society; they either want to preserve society as it exists right now, or reverse development to some previous (real or imagined) stage of development. Right-sided thinkers also refuse to acknowledge quality shifts once they’ve occurred, idealistically pretending that changes in material conditions have not occurred. For example, right-sided thinkers may refuse to recognize advances which have been made in the liberation of women, or even attempt to reverse those advances in hopes of returning to previous stages of development when women had fewer freedoms. Here is a practical example of these concepts in use, from the Vietnam Encyclopedia, published by the Ministry of Culture and Information of Vietnam:

Opportunism is a system of political views that do not follow a clear direction nor a clear line, do not have a definite stance, and are inclined toward the immediate personal gain of the opportunist. In the proletarian revolutionary movement, opportunism is a politics of compromise, reform, and unprincipled collaboration with the enemy which run contrary to the basic interests of the working class and the working people. In practice, opportunism has two main trends, stemming from right-sided thinking and from left-sided thinking, respectively: Right-wing opportunism is reformist, favors undue compromise, and aims to peacefully “convert” capitalism into socialism while abandoning the struggle for meaningful victory of the working class. Right-wing opportunism, typified by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, has its origins in the Workers’ Parties of the Second International era and exists to this day.

Left-wing opportunism is a mixture of extremism and adventurism, dogmatism, arrogance, subjectivity, cults of violence, and disregard for the objective situation.

Both “right” and “left” opportunism push the workers’ movement to futile sacrifice and failure. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Curriculum_of_the_Basic_Principles_of_Marxism-Leninism_Part_1

We think that the worker activist needs a method of analysis and reasoning that is just in order to be able to carry out a just revolutionary action. That he needs a method that is not a dogma giving him ready-made solutions, but a method that takes into account facts and circumstances that are never the same, a method that never separates theory from practice, reasoning from life. Now this method is contained in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, the basis of Marxism, which we propose to explain. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Elementary_principles_of_philosophy

 We anticipate a flood of accusations for these words; the shouts will rise that we want to convert the socialist party into an order of "true believers" that persecutes "heretics" for deviations from "dogma," for every independent opinion, and so forth. We know about all these fashionable and trenchant phrases. Only there is not a grain of truth or sense in them. There can be no strong socialist party without a revolutionary theory which unites all socialists, from which they draw all their convictions, and which they apply in their methods of struggle and means of action. To defend such a theory, which to the best of your knowledge you consider to be true, against unfounded attacks and attempts to corrupt it is not to imply that you are an enemy of all criticism. We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life. 
 
 http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/ARG99.html
 
 In modern politics, the firm maintenance of independence leads to national prosperity, materializing the people's independence but flunkeyism and dogmatism lead to national ruin. 
 
 It is necessary to consider the foreign experience, because it is easier to consider it than to take the untrodden path.

The question is how to consider the foreign experience.

The foreign experience was made according to the situation of the country. Although it is good experience that proved vitality and validity in that country, it can not fit other's situation. The foreign experience has both positive and negative aspects.

Therefore, it is important to approach foreign experience in a critical and creative way.

Normally, people taste first and then take food and if they do not like the food, they do not take it. Like this, when we approach the foreign experience, we take it if it is good but do not take it if it is bad.

We can not score success if we accept the foreign experience as a whole, without considering our own situation.

It was proved by the fact that some countries that dogmatically accepted imperialists' "globalization" without considering their concrete situation.

The goal of "globalization" is to make the US the "only leader" of the world and establish the neo- colonialist international order in which the US and its subordinate imperialist countries control the world. As it is the US strategy for hegemony, it cannot be "good prescription" for other countries, especially for the developing countries.

More so is the economic "globalization" vociferated loudly by the imperialists.

The imperialists demand other countries to open their markets for free investment, export, and import. This will crush only the developing countries.

Each country has its own economic structure and mode of management and according to them, it sets its economic development strategy and goal. This is the only way to develop economy relying on the strength and wisdom of its people.

The developing countries need their own economic structure, economic order and trade circumstances. If they neglect them, following "globalization," they will be complete economic colony of the West. In the open markets and in the "globalization" the developing countries can not compete with the developed countries, eventually falling down.

The advanced industrial states build tariff and non-tariff barriers against the export items of the developing countries and put political and economic strings, under the pretext of "exempt of debt" and "technical aid." They turn their faces away from the interests of the developing countries, claiming "liberalism" only in the sectors of making their profit.

The financial "globalization" pushed Southeast Asian countries to destructive economic crisis in the late 1990s.

Talking of "aid" or "cooperation," the US tried to dominate them, after trapping them. This is just like giving disease and then cure.

"Globalization" is neither a good prescription nor a cure. "Globalization" will bring about only unemployment and the grave destruction in the social fields like finance, trade, culture, and public health. It will increase the gap between the developed and developing countries in the development level and material wealth, obliterating national traditions and custom.

If those countries that are engulfed in "globalization" do not find out their own ways before the difficulties but follow others, they can not escape from setbacks in the struggle to shape their destiny. It is better to find out the concrete method that suits our own situation and overcome all political and economic difficulties in our own way.

Our own way—this is the best way out.

We must build politics, economy, culture, and munitions industry in our own way.

Only then can we achieve prosperity, without suffering from each other's diseases. 

In the late 20th century occurred was the tragedy that socialism ended in the former Soviet Union and the East European countries that treated Marxism dogmatically and even negated its revolutionary essence, following revisionist policies. 

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Exposition_of_the_Principles_of_Juche_Idea