MIM Notes 224   December 15, 2000

Personal practice reflects political line

Revolutionary Greetinz of Solidarity and Power!

I am somewhat intrigued by the article titled "Repudiate sub-
reformism; fight revisionism!" (MIM Notes 213, July 1, 2000), 
particularly the parts on lifestyle. Now, I understand that Mao 
focused on life or on practice quite emphatically, as must all 
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and dialectical materialists. My question 
is: Does not one's lifestyle directly reflect one's line? How can 
one teach and preach against capitalism and its superstructure 
(gross materialism, consumerism, gluttonous private consumption, 
etc.) yet practice these very ills in his/her daily life? As 
dialectical materialists it is not merely one's theory that is 
evaluated but the efficacy of this or that theory in achieving the 
goals of which it speaks. 

I do agree that for the masses who may just be coming into 
political consciousness it may be too strenuous or taxing to 
demand of them living by a primer. But once one begins work, and 
building for revolution, the daily practice (or "lifestyle") 
should reflect a communist mentality. "Theory becomes purposeless 
if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as 
practice gropes in the dark if it is not connected with 
revolutionary theory." Mao so quoted Stalin in "On Practice." 

As with Wen, his practice was a direct reflection of his line. MIM 
asked what his line was on factory policy and where he wanted the 
provinces to go. All these seem to be rather rhetorical. Obviously 
his position on these issues reflected his "lifestyle" so much so 
that Chairman Mao saw fit to imprison him! What would a Maoist 
look like owning an Indonesian sweatshop, while writing and 
rallying against the evils and ills of the capitalist mode of 
production? 

I also think that MIM contradicts itself when it states that 
extravagant living of high party members is irrelevant so long as 
their line is correct (theoretically, anyway). So, would MIM 
condone Partly members living in expensive mansions driving 
expensive cars and wearing excessive jewelry, while peasants still 
starve and struggle to maintain with the economic transformation? 
What happened to "to each according to need, from each according 
to ability"?

Mao stated, "Man's social practice is not confined to activity in 
production, but takes many other forms -- class struggle, 
political life, scientific and artistic pursuit; in short, as a 
social being, man participates in all spheres of the practical 
life of society. Thus man, in varying degrees, comes to know the 
different relations between man and man, not only through his 
material life but also through his political and cultural life 
(both of which are intimately bound up with material life). Of 
these other types of social practice, class struggle in 
particular, in all its various forms, exerts a profound influence 
on the development of man's knowledge. In class society everyone 
lives as a member of a particular class, and every kind of 
thinking, without exception, is stamped with the brand of a 
class." 

So, what does that say for those whose political line is 
revolutionary but whose social practice is bourgeois? By MIM 
overemphasizing on NOT focusing on aspects of society that are not 
activity in production you negate the fact that although 
production relations have the biggest influences on one's 
mentality that is not the only influence. At what point does one 
draw the line of demarcation about individuals' lifestyles who 
claim to be staunch revolutionaries and communists yet exploit the 
distortions within the capitalist society to their own personal 
benefit and gratification. It is one thing to use the effects 
(negative ones) that the capitalist mode of production has on 
society against it; it is another to do so for personal gain. 

Like you stated, "Socialism is not a lifestyle. It is a mode of 
production that underlies propensities to make lifestyle choices." 
The same can be said for capitalism, yet do we not speak of a 
capitalist (and communist) mentality? Because that mode of 
production has the largest influence upon the mind state of that 
society's people. Capitalism flourishes off of the people's 
ignorance, their complacency, and their opulence-induced apathy. 
Internationally it relies on fascist forms of suppression, 
repression and counterinsurgency in order to bolster and protect 
the multinationals that extract the superprofits. As Mao states, 
"every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with the 
brand of a class." This "thinking" is directly reflected in 
people's practice (individually and collectively). I agree that to 
waste time going through individuals' lives with a fine-tooth comb 
is rather useless and like cutting off the limbs of a tree 
thinking that you are gong to kill the tree, but at some point if 
a limb becomes so callused that it is only in the way it must be 
done away with. If Party members live a bourgeois lifestyle, yet 
preach to the masses about sacrifice and unity, it will not be 
long before the masses see the hypocrisy. Why, may I ask, does MIM 
have a Primer for members of the Central Committee?

Certain illustrations of certain people's lives may be useful to 
illustrate points about that particular class and thus be an 
effective tool in analyzing the class. Again, knowledge goes from 
perceptual (individual) to collective (logical or rational). 
Recognizing the capitalist leanings of Deng (exactly how he was a 
capitalist roader) may have allowed Mao to recognize other 
capitalist roaders who showed the same leanings.

I largely agree with MIM's analysis of lifestyle, I just do not 
agree that it is so irrelevant when it comes to party members and 
others who are thoroughly politicized. Lifestyle reflects 
mentality which reflects theoretical belief which reflects the 
conditions under which one lives, right? Well, at what point does 
one's lifestyle change to reflect one's theoretical belief? At 
what point in a person's life does he/she being to apply or 
practice what he/she is studying? If the idea is to "let 
individuals draw their own conclusions about themselves" and a 
person's mentality is stamped with the brand of a class then a 
logical conclusion would be that no individual would ever change 
his/her mentality. No, waiting on an individual to change his/her 
mind without constructive criticism is contrary to the saying 
"unity, struggle, unity" that Mao put forth for the masses, 
effectively I must add. Again, criticizing individual lifestyles 
is a poor substitute for real revolutionary struggle of the Maoist 
sort, but within the communist movement there must be a degree of 
criticism about the cultural practices of party members and other 
progressive people. ...

I leave with a clenched fist salute and a call for Power to the 
People!

--A Texas Prisoner, September 2000

MIM responds: We are very glad to see readers taking this issue 
seriously.

This particular comrade makes a common mistake: S/he equates 
political practice with lifestyle in general, and then holds 
comrades up to an idealist standard. By the standards of communist 
society -- where the principle "to each according to need, from 
each according to ability" holds -- all people living in the 
imperialist countries fall short. Anybody with a minimum wage job 
or above, anybody with a car, with electricity, with clothes and 
food they did not produce themselves -- or with the resources and 
leisure time to produce their own food -- any such persyn is 
benefiting from the exploitation of the Third World. The point is 
to change this situation. Trying to live "exploitation free" in 
the middle of an exploiting society is Quixotic.

The author seems to have gotten the impression that when we say 
"line is decisive" we mean it's O.K. to sit at home and play video 
games as long as you think like a Maoist. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. For one thing, you're not thinking like a Maoist 
if you're content to sit on your ass. We do evaluate our comrades' 
practice, based on their participation in class struggle. Some 
people like what MIM says on some issues but do not do any 
political work, instead pursuing the latest bourgeois fashion or 
entertainment trends. These people are not MIM Comrade material.

We do not say lifestyle is irrelevant, or that bad lifestyle 
choices are not related to political line questions. In the 
article this comrade is responding to, we said, "The weapon of 
lifestyle criticism must be removed from the hands of those who 
claim to be in our movement against class, nation and gender 
oppression. We should rely on voluntary efforts in lifestyle 
questions while vigorously making known the statistical truths 
about where certain lifestyle choices lead politically. Criticism 
of comrades should be restricted to questions of the general line, 
never to lifestyle."

The point is that it is the ITAL line END that should be 
criticized, not the lifestyle itself. When it comes to lifestyle, 
we must be scientific. For example, we know that doing a lot of 
drugs and devoting oneself to child-raising are proven 
revolutionary-practice killers in the imperialist countries. So we 
make special rules about some such practices and apply them to our 
leaders, while advising others to avoid them and giving them the 
evidence that they are harmful to political progress. We must let 
the party members and masses considering becoming revolutionaries 
know what is most likely to promote their revolutionary 
consciousness.

We emphasize: It is important to take a clear stand of right and 
wrong on all lifestyle questions -- not case-by-case but in 
general. Failure to do so only results in more endless relativist 
and ultraleftist conflicts, often through the informal channels of 
gossip favoring the oppressor.