The struggle against centrism has shown difficulties, for two reasons that have the same origin.
The first reason is that the centrists quite never take position on the fields of political economy.
The second reason is that they never answer to the content of the criticism made of them.
Those two reasons have the same orign: the sorelian way. Georges Sorel (1847-1922) is an “intellectual” of importance, as he negated marxism in favor of revolutionary syndicalism, putting forward two things:
a)in his “Reflections on Violence” he expresses the necessity of violence as a transcending act;
b)he thinks that “myths” are necessary so that there is determination in acting.
The centrists are sorelian; they don't think in an ideological way; for them, maoism is a style of work.
Because of this, centrists think practice is the only thing that counts; that is why, on the fields of political economy or classical marxist analysis, they don't work; here also the explanation of their insults : those who criticize have no practice, are intellectuals, this is criticism from internet café, etc.
And so, centrists think they are above criticism: for them, they uphold people's war and that is enough. Here, people's war is a “powerful myth”, any criticism to any people's war (or what should be people's war) is for them “against the trend.”
This use of a political myth is itself a romantic conception, where there is no science in general, but only a “science of revolution”, that would be mastered only by parties practicing people's war.
This anti-theoretical and totally militarist conception – in a romantic way, as centrists want everybody to follow them, in the name of others fighting! - has a good expression in this excerpt of the second congress of the “Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada”, from this mid-november 2011:
“After the discussion on the political report, the Congress passed several motions related to the development of a new international revolutionary movement.
It reaffirmed our will “to contribute to such a regrouping of forces although we think it must be ruled by Maoist parties leading PW or seriously engaged in it.
We think that such a movement must recognize: a) Peoples’ War as being universal; b) MLM as the current stage in the science of revolution; c) The idea of the pursuing of class struggle under socialism and the fact [in the french version: “probability”] that the bourgeoisie could use the party in order to reinstall capitalism; d) The need for the two-line struggle so the revolutionary proletariat can triumph.””
If these Canadian revisionists – that reject Stalin – really thought that people's war is universal, then they would uphold the dialectic of nature. Of course, they don't. That's why they say the bourgeoisie “could” use the party – when in fact it is a law of socialism that the bourgeoisie will try everything it can to control the Communist Party.
In the same way, they say there is a need of the two-line struggle – when in fact the two line struggle is a law.
But the most interesting aspect here is the following: “a regrouping of forces although we think it must be ruled by Maoist parties leading PW or seriously engaged in it.”
“Ruled”? What does this mean? That there is a avant-garde of an avant-garde? That the communist parties are a “working class” producing an avant-garde?
It is merely non-sense.
And it is militarism. Science is science, no matter if it is the expression of a tiny party in a small country or a strong party in a big country; one can be marxist in a wheelchair like in the guerrilla in a forest. What counts is science.
Of course, a revolutionary party in a revolutionary process will produce more science than a small party in a country where few things happen yet for historical reasons (like some imperialist countries, like Canada by the way).
But it doesn't mean that some parties must “rule” some others, it is even in contradiction with the law that say that a Communist Party is the expression of the working-class in a nation (nation as defined by Stalin).
Why does the RCP Canada upholds such a militarist vision? Because it uses people's war as a myth, and maoism as a “style of work.”
That's why these people can say: Stalin? Well we don't like him, and one day when we got time, we'll work to see what to think about it.
This is just not marxist.
In the same sense, the fact of saying, like the maoist communist party of Italy, that only counts the forging of the party in the “fire of the class struggle”, is merely revolutionary syndicalist.
This is undialectic. Centrists use a sorelian approach of all these questions.