Before addressing the specific content of anti-gay arguments, we will outline our understanding of Marxist methodology which communists utilize to arrive at a correct analysis of a problem.
Marxist methodology is first and foremost a world outlook, the essence of Marxism-Leninism. It is dialectical materialism: the way by which communists understand and change the world. It is a tool, a guide to action in the service of the proletariat. It is not neutral, and teaches that it is not enough to simply understand the world, but that an understanding must be put to use to change the world according to the class interests of the proletariat. Using Marxist methodology means having, and putting to use, a proletarian world outlook.
The science of Marxism begins with the thorough investigation of concrete conditions; we proceed from objective and historical reality, rather than subjective wishes or preconceived notions.
We cannot know something superficially and expect to arrive at a proper analysis; we must deal with phenomena in both the general and the particular; we must know the basic characteristics, trends and development of a thing in its particular historical period, and must not look at a thing in isolation. We cannot come to rash conclusions when a situation is still unclear; we must oppose carelessness and stress meticulousness; we cannot be satisfied with an one-sided approach. We cannot merely outline the appearance of a thing, but must get to its essence by grasping its principal contradiction.
We must “appropriate the material in detail, analyze its different forms of development and trace out their inner connections. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described.”[1] Marxism, then, is a science, and the scientific method means an honest seeking of truth from concrete facts, not the raising of one’s personal feelings to the level of theory or line.
To arrive at a correct analysis, a communist must derive theory from practice, using the tools of dialectical and historical materialism. We must not be content to formulate and act upon hypotheses that fit our notion of what should be, but by doing work among the masses, learn what is. Out of many experiences general ideas and calls to action can be found, using the Marxist-Leninist method of investigation to pick out contradictions and tendencies of development. These generalizations must be tested in practice and what is learned from that must again be summed up to form the basis for new directions which will push our practice even further.
To combat subjectivism we must propagate materialism and dialectics...Communists must always go into the whys and wherefores of anything, use their own heads and carefully think over whether or not it corresponds to reality and is really well founded; on no account should they follow blindly and encourage slavishness.[2]
We must remember that in developing political line, a correct ideological approach is key. ”The Marxist line of cognition is the ideological foundation of the political line of the proletarian party. At the same time, it serves the political line. Without a correct line of cognition, therefore, it would be impossible to formulate and implement a correct political line.”[3]
It is imperative that we learn to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to all questions and problems that confront us. To fail to learn and utilize this scientific method will cause us to lose our bearings, become adrift, and retard the development of the revolutionary struggle led by the working class.
We must remember the fundamental insight that society is changed through the development and resolution of its own internal contradictions at any historical period. The primary contradiction, that which controls the resolution of all others, is that between the socialized forces of production and the private appropriation of wealth, the contradiction between classes.
It is with this methodology and world outlook that we read and assess the RU and other anti-gay analyses. We ask: where is their investigation and study? Where is their historical and material evidence? Such questions should be kept in mind throughout the rest of this paper. We have found that the RU has systematically abandoned Marxist methodology and proletarian ideology throughout their analysis, and that their line is consequently incorrect.
[1] Marx, Capital, “Afterward to the Second German Edition,” Moscow, Vol I, p. 19.
[2] Mao, “Rectify the Party’s Style of Work,” Selected Works, Vol. III, p.49.
[3] Chiang Han, “Great Benefits Derive From a Good Analysis,” Peking Review #50.