Revolutionary Workers Headquartrs:
This last section of the US paper is an article written on the present dogmatist line of the RCP on the relationship between theory and practice.
In the past the Revolutionary Union, which grew into the RCP, correctly understood and developed theory as a guide to action—to serve the struggle to change the world. In the past period this correct orientation has been reversed, as evidenced by the Revolution article analyzed in this section of the paper.
While much more needs to be done on this question, this article has been reprinted to start the ball rolling and aid others in deepening the correct relationship between theory and practice in general and how this was reversed in the RCP.
One of the clearest areas where the RCP's qualitative leap backward can be seen is their deviation from the Marxist-Leninist view on the relationship between theory and practice. In the past the leading line of the RU and the RCP was to have theory serve as a guide to action and be linked with the practical movement. With this correct orientation the RU and the RCP were able to concentrate the demands and aspirations of the masses as well as make important contributions to the struggle against opportunism and dogmatism of all stripes.
The last part of this paper is devoted to a preliminary criticism of the present line of the RCP on the relationship between theory and practice. Their line today has more in common with Trotsky than with Marx. It is a line that proceeds from an upside down view of the relationship between theory and practice, a line that is no longer based primarily on the struggle to change the world but on the struggle to win the RCP cadre and the masses over to the same backward thinking as the present leaders of the RCP.
The Separation Of Theory From Practice
As was shown in the earlier sections of this paper the RCP has consolidated a line of retreat from the tasks of building the struggle in this stage of the movement in the US. Instead of standing with the working class and on that basis fusing the socialist movement with the workers movement, the RCP has slighted the task of integration with their calls for socialist "purity." Instead they wind up with a line of injecting the socialist movement into the struggle from the sidelines. This idealist flight to becoming a sideline sect was caused by the failure of the present leaders to handle the new tasks and contradictions that are arising in this stage of the struggle. In the face of these difficulties, the present leadership consolidated a line that not much could be done in this period. The main task was seen not as developing line to lead the struggle but as orientating the RCP towards correcting the backward, economist ideas of the cadre and the masses.
For example in the campaign to build the NUWO, line was not developed based on the actual needs of the struggle but on the basis of Avakian's need to get the working class to fight against all oppression. The actual contradictions in capitalist society demand that the working class cannot free itself unless it frees all of society. And in accomplishing this task, the working class, led by its Party, must consciously take up and lead the battle of the people against every manifestation of oppression that exists.
In accomplishing this task there is a contradiction between the struggles of the working class today which are mainly economic, and the need for a class conscious workers movement. But, as the case of the NUWO campaign shows, Avakian pitted the two aspects of this contradiction against each other and in fact made the primary aspect the ideological struggle to win the workers over to the idea, of the need to fight all oppression. With this approach, theory and the theoretical struggle became centered on winning people over to an idea: "Don't be economist." "There is more to the struggle than the battle you are now in." This replaces the correct orientation of using theory to guide the actual battles and illuminate the road forward. This is how theory helps bring the ideas of the workers into conformity with reality and the tasks of revolution, socialism and communism which flow from this reality.
The retreat to the struggle to win men's minds over to this nonsense became even more convoluted in the NUWO campaign (and in the whole recent period) because Avakian saw the struggle as one between revolution and counter-revolution. We don't disagree with this, we only want the hats to go on the right heads, the hat of a counter-revolutionary line has to be placed on his head. He earned it. Rather than proceeding from the needs of the movement, Avakian came to see his (wrong) ideas as the embodiment of the movement and its future. Following in the footsteps of the Gang of Four in China, the Avakian clique reduced the struggle to build the NUWO to an ideological struggle on all fronts. And both inside and out of the RCP, the struggle against the bourgeoisie became a struggle over concepts and ideas put in opposition to needs of the mass struggle.
This method of proceeding from general principles is not the method of Marxism-Leninism. It is the method of Trotskyism: "All his (Trotsky's) theses are based on 'general principle,' an approach which is in itself fundamentally wrong..." (1) It is the method of the Gang in China, it is the method of Avakian who is hell bent to gallop down the road in their dust.
For Marxists all theory comes from and is aimed at social practice. Ideas, in themselves, are not a material force, but as Mao says, "Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world." (2)
Avakian has indeed found a home in Gang of Four thought. Both he and the Gang reduced all class struggle against capitalism to ideological struggle. In his leadership of the political struggle (principally the NUWO campaign and work around the '76 presidential elections), Avakian was incapable of transforming general principles into a material force. The campaigns were principally conducted as campaigns to win over the minds of the working class with a few gimmicks tossed in. What should have been campaigns fought out on the political front, became ideological campaigns.
On the economic front, Avakian's line on struggle is that "the workers don't need communists to lead this struggle," that is, the workers spontaneously can figure out what to do. For Avakian, the role of communists is to "infuse" consciousness into the struggle, point out the revolutionary goal. This is not different from a Trotskyite view on "intervening" in the struggle: standing on the sidelines and preaching to the workers about the goal of their struggle. Again, reducing the economic struggle to ideological struggle - pitting the tasks of actively uniting with, building and leading the economic struggle against the tasks of developing the class consciousness and sense of unity of the workers. It is principally this line - Trotskyite to the core - which has led to the failure of the RCP to actively lead and sum up its work in the economic struggles as well as on the other fronts.
The line which reduces class struggle on the three fronts to ideological struggle is also incapable of developing a strategy for revolution in this country beyond the most general formulations. For the Avakianites the immediate battle is nothing more than an "example" of the general laws of capitalism. The role of communists is to show how this "example" points to the "revolutionary goal." For Avakian there is no need to analyze deeply the particular contradictions of any battle to build the struggle and to show how these particularities are part of the general contradictions of capitalism.
And even more, there is no need to show the road forward, beyond some general statements about the "revolutionary goal." That is, there is no development of strategy for any particular period of time. Avakian rests complacently at the RCP Programme. For him, it is not a living document that must be applied, tested in revolutionary practice and deepened. For him it is sufficient to recite "United Front Against Imperialism" enough times and the classes will automatically realign themselves - under Avakian's leadership, of course. For him, it's enough to conjure up "revolutionary goal" to instill revolution in people's hearts. This isn't Marxism-Leninism. It's an offshoot of Scientology. For Avakian's left idealist line, the development of strategy - of a battleplan for the realignment of class forces over a given period - is pragmatism. He has destroyed the microscope of Marxism-Leninism and has the telescope pointed to the next galaxy. For him, there is nothing in between.
By not moving beyond the stage of the RCP Programme, by not making this into a living weapon in the hands of the Party, Avakian has in fact moved backward. The nostalgia of the petty bourgeois radicals for the high tide of the struggle of the 60's (and especially on the part of some Avakian types who had a certain influence then) is one force that turned the RCP from a Marxist-Leninist organization into an opportunist sect under the guru Avakian. Instead of being a true vanguard for the working class, uniting with its struggles, persevering in the hard task of fusing socialism with the workers' movement, the Avakianites have taken a short cut: ride the workers' movement to make life a little easier for the petty bourgeoisie under capitalism.
Theoretical Struggle Crucial Part of Working Class Movement
Based on this wrong line and in an attempt to consolidate it on a higher level as well as to rain some blows on the "pragmatists" in the RCP, Avakian wrote an article entitled "Theoretical Struggle Crucial Part of the Working Class Movement" for the January 1977 issue of Revolution. The article is in fact out of kilter with the title, it should be renamed "Theoretical Struggle the Main Part of the Working Class Movement."
The article rehashes some of the general principles of the Marxist theory of knowledge as a cover for Avakian's desire to polemicize against the "revisionist" line in the Party. Since the "revisionist" line was not revisionist at all, the task Avakian has set for himself is not an easy job to complete. At least it isn't if you want to develop an analysis of the relationship between theory and practice that is consistent with Marxism. Avakian can put his ideas under the banner of any ideology, but it's what he says that counts. So true to form, the article has all the earmarks of Avakian's left idealist line: it metaphysically pits theory against practice, with a lot of "dialectical" wheeling and dealing to hide a pitiful lack of concrete analysis of concrete conditions, and absolutely no line on how to translate the "general principles into practice.
In his article, Avakian outlines three forms of theoretical struggle - "theory in its own right," studying theory with particular problems in mind, and combating reactionary bourgeois theories. Right now, says Avakian, "theory in its own right" is the main form of waging the theoretical struggle.
Theory In Its Own Right and Marxism Have Nothing In Common
To serve the struggle against what Avakian saw as the main problem in the RCP, "empiricism," he cooked up the phrase "theory in its own right." Since this is a new concept for him (and we should add for Marxism as well), Avakian has to surround his new "contribution" with more "theoretical" double talk to prove that his concept has nothing to do with ''theory for its own sake" - dogmatism. At least he senses the side on which he's going to have to cover himself.
What does theory in its own right mean? If it means stressing the need in the RCP to take up the study of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism then no would would disagree. Education in the fundamentals as well as in the finer points of Marxism is something the cadre are always asking for. Any communist organization must constantly find the ways to teach these fundamentals. In fact, the RU did more of this than the RCP.
But if this is the point of the article one would think that some kind of plan would be forthcoming. Instead of this what we got in the RCP was self-study on the Banner Press reprint of the Political Economy book for the cadre and an up in the air "leadership study class" with little guidance and no relationship to the political problems of the day.
Avakian, who headed these sessions, refused to take up the key question of Marxist strategy and tactics and raced through another go-round on philosophy. So if this is the point of the article then it would have been better to write up a self-criticism of the line developed in the center on internal study and political education.
There obviously must be more at stake here than simply the need for more attention to study. And of course, there is.
First off, "theory in its own right" is an anti-Marxist concept, because for Marxists things define themselves in terms of their opposites - in this case theory in terms of practice and vice versa.
Theory in its own right - theory for its own sake - what is the difference? - both of these formulations separate theory from practice and both elevate theory over practice. What meaning does theory in its own right have except when it is related to the tasks of the movement? In Avakian's case it has no meaning unless it is promoted as a task over the tasks of the movement.
The question to be answered is why? Avakian's analysis proceeded from the position that empiricism was the main danger in the Party and therefore to combat this a "special" emphasis had to be given to the importance of theory.
The real blockade to the development of the theoretical level was neither the "economism" of the cadre nor the "revisionism" of the bourgeois headquarters, but the line of Avakian and now of the RCP. As opposed to this nonsense, Mao lays out the correct way to raise the theoretical level of the cadre: "As for education for cadres whether at work or in schools for cadres, a policy should be established of focusing such education on the study of the practical problems of the Chinese revolution and using the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism as the guide, and the method of studying Marxism-Leninism statically and in isolation should be discarded." C3)
The difference between Avakian's approach and the Marxist-Leninist approach is the difference between making the books come alive and lifeless study of dogma. It's the difference between the peasant Chen Yung-kuei, the former leader of the Tachai Brigade, staying up night after night to master theory, and the practice in the RCP, where study was the last item on the agenda and there was hardly time for it.
This sad state of affairs was not because the cadre were empiricist or narrow, or as far as Avakian is concerned, stupid. The cadre feel very keenly the lack of theoretical development and constantly ask for guidance.
The problem was Avakian's left idealist line on theory. Avakian's plan to raise the theoretical level was by a self-study project of a textbook on political economy, published by Banner Books. Avakian opposed having guidelines for the study, it was beneath him. So the cadre had the book thrown at them like a drugstore novel. Without any guidance, without linking this text to any practical problems, cadre floundered and got demoralized.
Avakian's grand plan for carrying out the theoretical struggle in the form of "theory in its own right" was a disaster. What he did succeed in doing was turning many comrades - particularly those from the working class - away from theory in disgust. The self-study of political economy only served to widen the gap in theoretical development between those who are skilled at studying and have a relatively high level of theoretical development, and those who are less developed.
Once again Avakian spits on the lime of the RCP at its Founding Congress:
"In other words, Marxism-Leninism is not called PROLETARIAN IDEOLOGY for nothing; it is not revolutionary ideology 'up in the sky' or based on any social group that might profess it - especially intellectuals - but is rooted in the real, material struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. As one veteran Chinese worker beautifully summed it up to comrades visiting that country recently, 'When you take Marxism-Leninism to the working class, you are taking it HOME.'" 4)
Avakian's Secondary Task: Link Theory with Practice
For Marxists the world over the question of linking theory with practice is the key test of developing the revolutionary struggle. But here in the RCP this task takes a back seat to "theory in its own right." This again is nothing but a crystallization in words of Avakian's line In fact.
. Oh, but he is sure to scream - "We only meant it for a short time, we always meant to get back to linking theory with practice in the near future." They may even point out, "See, we have a whole paragraph about knowing concrete conditions in the theoretical articles."
This reminds us so much of the cadre that Mao had in mind when he said, "They talk constantly about linking (theory with practice) . but what they actually mean is separating, because they make no effort at linking. "(5)
Avakian has made no effort at linking and now with his theoretical article the task of linking is listed in the "proper order of things." The fact of the matter is that there was too little "linking" in the RCP as a whole, and less and less leadership in this crucial task from the heights of the Party Center.
In order to accomplish this task the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism must be applied to the concrete practice of the American revolution in the course of actively building the class struggle on the economic, political and theoretical fronts.
Can we honestly say that the RCP, under Avakian's leadership has made great strides in this direction? The founding of the Revolutionary Communist Party was based on collective struggle by many communists to apply Marxism-Leninism to making revolution in this country. The skeleton of the strategy and tactics for building the revolution was set in place. After the founding of the Party the task was to take the political and ideological line into revolutionary practice, to test the line in practice, to deepen it in the course of building the struggle of the masses, and to develop the line with changing conditions.
By and large this has not happened. Our line on major questions has not been summed up and deepened, primarily and increasingly more so because Avakian and his clique of self-styled theoreticians have stood as a roadblock to summing up and deepening. How much deeper is our understanding of work at the center of gravity, where have breakthroughs been made, on what basis, what can we learn from them? What is the mood of the masses, what are its characteristics, its contradictions, how much has been systematized about this beyond the brief passages in the Second CC report? What do we know about the reserve army of labor, the various strata? What forces are afloat in the trade union movement, what changes are taking place, what are the different forces among the monopoly capitalists, what role do various politicians play? How much more have we learned about the struggles of the oppressed nationalities? What are the main characteristics of the American working class today? Are they the same that Lenin indicated? (the absence of any big, nation-wide democratic tasks facing the proletariat; the proletariat's complete subordination to bourgeois politics; the sectarian isolation of groups of mere handfuls of socialists from the proletariat; not the slightest socialist success among the working masses at the elections.) (6)
Based on these and similar questions, have we developed strategy beyond the Programme and MPR for the American revolution, for work-in our cities, for work among the oppressed nationalities, or among the unemployed? Have we further developed strategy for work in the trade unions?
These are crucial questions. There is a rich and broad arena for waging the theoretical struggle - in closest connection with the concrete practice of making revolution in this country. This is not to say that we haven't learned anything, that individual Party members or bodies haven't struggled to deal with these questions.
Several facts stare us in the face: our line has not been significantly deepened, Avakian has not led the RCP in theoretical struggle around these very real questions, theory has seldom been linked in a living way to the actual contradictions that are the blood and guts of the class struggle and revolution in America.
Since the January 1977 "theoretical" article was printed, Avakian has increasingly opposed linking theory with practice. In the one article in Revolution summing up the lessons that cadre learned in taking up "theory in its own right," and the self-study of political economy, (7) Avakian deleted the only paragraph which talked about what the study meant in .changing the practical work, because he didn't want to cater to narrow practicalism of the cadre. As a result, this article, which couldn't have been salvaged by this paragraph in any case, doesn't illustrate how the study made a difference in the real world. Instead of showing how theory can become a weapon in the class struggle, the main lesson of the article "is how the cadre struggled to change their attitude toward study so they could get into the material. This is just where Avakian's line leads people. For those without the learning skills (and for many with them) and a certain theoretical development, you give up after several bouts with the book and feel backward, or you think your attitude is all wrong and you try to change it. The truth of the matter is that it's a set-up, because what's being changed isn't an attitude, but a line: "Overcoming11 the idea that theory and study should serve practice. Of course, our attitude toward study is tainted by the misery of bourgeois education and struggle has to be waged to take up study. But the lion's share of that struggle is waged as study begins to make sense as a powerful weapon in the class struggle. Reading this article you get a sense of how Avakian trains cadre in left idealism - behind their backs.
Another example of how Avakian opposed linking theory with practice was his opposition to a study outline developed in New York during the course of the Spring 1977 unemployment benefit cuts campaign. The readings were mostly from the by now infamous text on political economy. The Study went into the general laws governing the reserve army of labor and linked these general laws to the present situation both in terms of the downward spiral of capitalism and the immediate attack facing the unemployed. On the basis of this study the cadre got a deeper understanding of some basic features of the capitalists' attack: why the capitalists are attacking unemployment insurance; what is the material basis for unity between employed and unemployed; the various strata of the unemployed and how the capitalists exploit the contradictions here to get over, etc. In addition^ this study and the practice in building the campaign was the basis for developing overall strategy and tactics for the battle. At the same time other questions came to the fore: the inevitability of crisis, the relation between the struggle for reforms and revolution, etc. One more thing. For most comrades the book and the study came alive for the first time. When Avakian was confronted with these outlines, he could only say, in an off-handed way: this is New York's way of opposing theory in its own right, watch out for pragmatism!
The disgusting depths to which Avakian plummets to rid himself of the "stench" of practice is clear from his criticisms of the book, Tachai, The Red Banner. In the CC report on China, Avakian writes:
“...while it contains a number of good things, (the book) also has the line running through it that basically the peasants on their own (sort of 'automatically') can figure out the correct line and along with this it even promotes the idea that if you want to tell friends from enemies, look to see who lived in caves in the old society and who has callouses on their hands to tell who the revolutionaries are and then the counterrevolutionaries can be easily identified as those who attack such people.” (see p.127)
Discounting the fact that going by Avakian's practice he is more likely to judge revolutionaries by who has callouses on their asses, and in this sense, and this alone, he certainly deserves the title "Chairman," what incenses Avakian about this book is that it is full of the actual, day to day difficult task of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. What riles his left idealism is the close integration of theory and practice. For instance:
"A basic trait of the Tachai people's study is their persistent emphasis on the revolutionary style of integrating theory with practice as taught by Chairman Mao. Their judgement of how well or badly a person studies is not based on the number of books read, quotations recited, or notes taken. The bad habit of loud lip service is very unpopular here. What counts is whether one has grasped the essence of the theory studied, and is able to use the Marxist stand, viewpoint and method to solve even a few problems met in class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment, using theory as a guide to action."(8)
When Avakian slanders the peasants with callouses, he is reacting to a talk that Chen Yung-kuei- has with a youth who has recited by heart "The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountain," but who couldn't say a word about what it meant.
"Chen said, he could recommend the man in Tachai who had studied the article best of all. 'Who is he?' the youngster asked. 'Chia Chin-tsai,' replied Chen. 'He can't reel off the article like you. But he has learned a lot from the 'Foolish Old Man' and in fact became one himself. Over many years, he has persisted in splitting rocks for socialism. No matter how much class enemies mocked and wrong political lines interfered, he never swerved. Nothing could shake him. Every time he hits a rock with his hammer, it's a smashing blow at the conservatism and retrogression advocated by the 'Wise Old Man' in the story. Don't you see how well Chia Chin-tsai has studied 'The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains'?"(9) The point here isn't that Avakian is much more at home splitting hairs than rocks. What Avakian and his clique hate is "tainting" theory with practice. This is not Marxism. It goes dead against what Lenin says: "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality."(10)
An Ugly Self-Exposure: Avakian "Combats" Bourgeois Ideology
If Avakian pays only lip service to theory as a guide to action, when he talks about combatting reactionary bourgeois ideology he one-sidedly reduces this to a propaganda task. There's no doubt that a communist party must combat the constant onslaught of bourgeois ideology, and conducting propaganda is an important way of doing this. But Avakian tips his left idealist hand once again by focusing on propaganda apart from the tasks of combatting bourgeois ideology that arise in the course of building the struggle on the economic and political fronts, as well as the theoretical struggle that must be conducted in going from rational knowledge to revolutionary practice.
For Marxist-Leninists general principles aren't worth a damn if they can't be translated into revolutionary practice. For Trotskyites general principles don't have to be transformed into anything - they are already a material force. Mao shows that, in going from rational knowledge to practice there are two tasks: policy tasks and ideological tasks, plans for doing things and plans for changing people's world outlook based on struggle over line and policy. This latter point is a crucial part of class struggle on the theoretical front. It means practicing the mass line: propagating the line and policies among the masses, patiently explaining these policies, how they will move the struggle forward as well as being in the overall interests of the working class, both in the short and long run. It means seeking out and uniting with the advanced to raise the level of the intermediate and win over the backward.
In addition to the ideological task involved in going from rational knowledge to revolutionary practice, specific ideological questions are raised in the course of every battle; everything from the role of communists to the role of a god. These questions must be taken on, struggled around, and related to the concrete tasks of the particular struggle as well as the overall direction and goals of the struggle. To be sure, workers constantly raise questions about all kinds of broad social questions and communists must deal with these, and not wait until a struggle breaks out. But when these questions become issues in the heat of battle, workers can learn a lot more because the lines are drawn much more sharply in reality. This is in accordance with the Marxist theory of knowledge which says that workers learn from their experiences, as then summed up by Marxism.
For Avakian, the question of "in the course of practice" becomes irrelevant at best and pragmatism at worst. A sharp example of how his left idealist line looks in practice is a struggle that took place after the devastating floods in Johnstown, Pa., last year. The left idealist line said that the main task of communists is to do a lot of agitation and propaganda against the bourgeoisie's line that the floods were an act of God, a line the bourgeoisie was pushing to let itself off the hook of paying damages. The left idealists would have waged a big theoretical struggle around the question of God. The correct line said that the main task is to build the struggle for relief, to actively unite the masses to fight for their most immediate needs, and in the course of this, actively conduct ideological struggle around the reactionary ideas of the bourgeoisie as these ideas stood as actual roadblocks to the real needs of the masses.
By totally divorcing ideological struggle from the actual class struggle being waged, from the struggle to transform rational knowledge to revolutionary practice, and the struggle against specific ideological questions that arise in the course of battle, Avakian throws the mass line out the window.
The mass line is both a method of knowledge and a method of leadership. As a method of knowledge it means summing up from the masses, primarily in the course of class struggle, concentrating and systematizing correct ideas through the regular channels of the Party by applying Marxism-Leninism and on this basis developing lines and policies to lead the masses forward in struggle. As a method of leadership it means combining the general with the particular and leadership with the masses, that is, translating the general line into policies to change the world, propagating these policies (ideological task), and testing the line in reality, in actual battle.
In Summation
The article on the theoretical struggle is an example in “theory” of an incorrect line trying to justify and perpetuate itself. The real world and Marxism being what they are, both have to be thrown out the window to make the justification.
Incorrect lines that formed the basis for this article did perpetuate the problems in the RCP to a point where the entire line of the Party, including especially its evaluation of the Gang in China and the situation there now, went from Marxism to opportunism - hell bent on supporting counter-revolutionaries in China and retreating from the task of making revolution in the-US.
This all the more underlines the correctness of the three hallmarks of the Chinese Communist Party: 1) Close ties with the masses; 2) integration of theory and practice; and 3) practicing self and mutual criticism. We in the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters and other revolutionary-minded people in the US have to, in concert with our class brothers and sisters around the world, make these hallmarks part of our world outlook and our style of work.
(1) V.I.Lenin, "The Trade Unions, The Present Situation and Trotsky's Mistakes,"
(December 30, 1920), Collected Works,Progress Publishers, Moscow, vol.32, p.22
(2) Mao Tsetung, "Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?", Selected Readings, Foreign
Languages Press, Peking, p. 502
(3) Mao Tsetung, "Reform Our Study," (May, 1941) Selected Works, Foreign Languages
Press, Peking, vol.3, p.24
(4) "Main Political Report," from the Founding Congress of the RCP, p.4
(5) Mao Tsetung, "Rectify The Party's Style of Work," (February 1, 1942) Selected
Works, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, vol.3, p.42
(6) V.I.Lenin, "Preface to the Russian Translation of Letters From J.F.Becker,
J.Dietzgen, F.Engels, K.Marx, and Others to F.A.Sorge and Others," from Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels, Letters to Americans, International Publishers,
New York, 1953, p.275
(7) "Some Comrades' Experience—The Fight to Grasp Theory," Revolution (Organ of
the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA), vol.2, no.12,
November, 1977, p.4
(8) Wen Yin and Liang Hua, Tachai, The Red Banner, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, p.71
(9) ibid, p.72
(10) V.I.Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic," Collected Works. Moscow,
1958, vol.38, p.205. quoted by Mao Tsetung in "On Practice," Selected Readings,
Foreign Languages Press, Peking, p.67