Essay:Dogmatism, An Anti-Marxist Tendency

Every Marxist-Leninist is aware of Dogma at this point, and the consensus is that dogma has no place in Marxist theory. Let us analyse closer as to why that is. Dogmatism is this word, mostly used in the context of insulting others, who accuse them of being as such. But what is Dogma? And why should we oppose it? Also a bigger question to pose is, do Marxist-Leninists have a tendency to go towards Dogma, and are they aware of when it happens?

Dogma in its essence

Dogma may be described liberally as "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts", but this doesn't fully describe Dogma in its full nature. Sure people may view that some opinions are 'facts', but this definition is lost amongst Marxists as a result of using it, as we can describe that no one within Marxism (apart from a few,) are dogmatic. Dogmatism must be carefully understood, and a simple liberal definition will not outline the conditions of Dogma, and the premises of Dogma.

Dogma Historically

Dogma has been around for long before there was a conception of science to begin with, as the humans had to adapt within nature in some form. This form can be best described into having beliefs, but not yet a religion. They view the nature as something of mysticism, that humans wouldn't be able to grasp its foundations. As a result, Dogma was introduced. This is was the first premise of humans to form some form of logic of what is happening around. This dogma may come from a product of the mind, or the analysis of material conditions. Nonetheless, Dogma was the most common form of reason for many people (and even is to this day albeit less so). During the current mode of production (primitive communism), the product of Dogma is more or less from the product of the mind, and people believe in it as an explanation of nature as a whole. As primitive communism began to regress, as the productive forces were developing in a primitive way, people are beginning to collect their thoughts in order to make sense of the world. The premise built on, eventually collecting into the concept of a 'spiritual being' or multiple of them, which is a 'God' or multiple 'Gods'. This is the creation of Theism and Religion.

There was split between dogmas, but all of them were collected into bigger clusters of religions. The religions antagonised each other, as they fought barbarically, and cannot stray from the foundation of their dogma. The original premise still remains and the religions were founded upon more than two different premises. These premises were in contradiction, antagonistic with each other, and one needed to be superior to another. The productive forces let it develop more weapons, in order to carry out wars and battles. Materialism may not have been conceived fully until the ancient greeks. The Greeks had a long standing battle in philosophy, a philosophy (which still continues to this day) between Materialism and Idealism. There may have been people who conceived of the material conditions or nature, and thus utilised it to a better capacity than the idealists, but the Greeks viewpoint of Materialism was first negation of the idealist philosophy.

The productive forces which are developed, the relations to the means of production changing, however, the negation of idealism has been impacted on the productive forces, as they seem to increase as a rate faster than the mode of production preceding it. This is in result to the view that people perceive, that the people increasingly analyse nature, and are able to develop products such as Swords instead of Spears, Castles with stone rather than Huts with wood. Despite this, Dogma was still dominant, as the Dictatorship of the Aristocracy had been taken over. The productive forces were more subservient to the aristocracy rather than the peasants or serfs who produced the means of production.

In modern times, materialism (however in the metaphysical sense) had replaced Dogma. Dogma was mostly a product of Idealism, and those who followed Idealism were mostly ridiculed with the exception of those who believe in religion. Religion is still prominent, albeit not much so in the Western world.

Describing Dogma

Dogma is not just viewing statements as fact regardless of materialist analysis. It is rather a combination of the previous statement and another. That other is that of "false premises". The dogma that is proposed has a premise, that premise being what ever the person desires. That desire may be a product of the mind or it may come from material conditions. Regardless, if the foundation is material but the way in the person speak it is dogmatic (e.g. argument from authority or argument from popularity), it is a false premise. The original foundation is disconnected from the premise brought on by the person. An example may be arguing about evolution. If a person is arguing about how people evolved, and they do not bring up any evidence to show it is the case, but rather argue from an Authority, it is a false premise. The foundation (Evolution) is scientific, but the person has essentially disconnected themselves from evidence, and instead relies on authority figures as a sort of 'shield' to protect their ideas. Of course we do not analyse every specific detail, we do not need to analyse how the atoms bond together to form molecules, and those molecules form amino acids, and therefore proteins, etc etc. There is no need for unnecessary detail, because it completely deviates from the point originally stated. But rather, we show evidence that correlates with this theory (such as primates having human features), and as such that is applying materialism. As a result of this, dogmatic people have a tendency to remain ignorant about the material conditions, they just say their statement then no further analysis proceeds, there is no analysis of material conditions. Whilst the statement may be true, their source of evidence is null, despite claiming to be 'materialistic'. As such, the people who have dogmatic beliefs (even if they claim otherwise), are idealist.

Dogma may also describe someone following as what I'd like to describe as 'purity fetishism', that is, striving for purity. This 'purity' does not always mean striving for the full substance of it, and leaving any deviations aside, as in having 100% socialism for example (which is a stupid phrase to begin with), but rather something which only denies slight deviations, anomalies. It would be only considered a 'necessary evil' of sorts in order to achieve a goal. For example, having 90% 'socialism' is tolerable, whilst 50% socialism is not. Of course these fetishists accept some other forms of deviation (such as the NEP), but become hypocritical eventually as their sense of purity becomes more paramount.

As such, we can describe Dogma with these characteristics:

1. Regarding statements as 'fact' without evidence
2. Utilising a false premise in order to justify their statement
3. (Typically but not always) striving for purity fetishism.

Dogma in the context of Marxism

Should Marxists oppose Dogmatism? Most certainly. Dogmatism is not only a regression towards Marxism, but it impacts the scientific background of Marxism as a whole. Dogmatism is inherently antagonistic to the 'Scientific Socialism' discovered by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. An example is in the preface to the 1872 German Edition of the Communist Manifesto, where Engels states that some parts need to be improved:

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today.

So as we can see here, Marxists should be aware of dogmatism and oppose it as well. However, as Mao stated "Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world", 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.

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. Just because it is stated, does not automatically mean it's fact. However, regardless of the material conditions, those who are part of a position of higher power, and those who apply what ever is desired, despite from suffering the fate of alienating yourself from the masses. Let us examine the praxis of those marxists who clearly utilised dogmatism.

Khrushchevite Dogmatism

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.

Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four

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. 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', 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.

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.

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Dogmatism

This is the final talking point. I may write an essay later on describing my issues with Maoism, but as so far, Maoists fall into the same trap as those who follow the Gang of Four (Most maoists typically support the Gang of Four).

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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. Not to mention they constantly attack other groups like the CPI(M), calling the CPI(M) 'neo-revisionist' or 'social fascist'.