Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

India’s Naxalbari Group: New Polemic on Nepal and the RCPUSA

Posted by n3wday on April 18, 2009

Communist_Party_Nepal_Flag_FistThis article was sent out on the Maoist Revolution e-list and was published in the Indian journal Munnaniporali, which is associated with the Communist Party of India (ML) (Naxalbari).

The Line Struggle in Nepal

Ideology guides a Maoist party. This must be concretised through politics. For example, in an oppressed country the Maoists must carry out the task of new democratic revolution, destroying imperialist domination and the comprador, feudal forces. This is an ideological stand. It is concretised in different countries through political practice carried out by taking into account the situation and changes in it. Within this, protracted peoples war is the most important. But war is not the only political practice. In the present world, where the political realm has widened to a great extent, political intervention carried out through diverse forms of struggle has great importance. The recognition of this factor and its utilisation stand to the credit of the Maoists in Nepal.

Through the political tactics of ceasefire, participation in the interim ministry, and demand of constitutional assembly they succeeded in isolating the monarchy and ending it. This has led to a new situation. If new tactics are not adopted the party will deviate from the task of new democracy. Yet the leadership is not prepared for taking up this task. This is what has led to the present ideological struggle in the CPN(M).

Overall, this criticism is correct. But since the recent tactics have been justified in relation to the specificities of Nepal and its national needs, they should also be examined from the angle of the opposites patriotism/internationalism.

Mao said that in an oppressed country patriotism is applied internationalism. Some Maoist parties reject this as a nationalist deviation. We could, quite roughly, summarise their argument as patriotism=nationalism, nationalism X internationalism. This view leads to a denial of the national tasks of the proletariat of an oppressed country, and must be rejected.

Mao’s position is not just a legitimising of patriotism. There is something else we should pay attention to. This patriotism must be guided by internationalism, not by nationalism. This is a contradiction. Can we have a patriotism separated from nationalism? This can be answered only by relating the issue to the transformative moment of the revolutionary process in an oppressed country.

The struggle to destroy the imperialist yoke is decisive in this process. This addresses the interests of the nation. This is the sense in which Mao said that the proletariat in these countries should uphold the banner of the nation. This can be done from a nationalist stand. The last century was witness to national liberation struggles carried out under the leadership of militant nationalism. It also saw how the independence gained through such struggle quite quickly became formal and trapped in neo-colonialism. We have also seen how former oppressed countries like China and Vietnam were caught up in dependency to the imperialist system once again as soon as capitalist restoration took place.

Both the national and democratic tasks of new democratic revolution are bourgeois in their class essence. But in the final analysis this revolution has to mainly confront another bourgeois force. Therefore a nationalism, bourgeois in content, cannot complete even the national tasks of this revolution. Among them the building of a self reliant economy free from foreign domination has the greatest importance. This cannot be achieved without breaking away from the imperialist system. This calls for proletarian leadership and outlook that has new democracy, advance from there to socialism without delay, and continuing the revolution up till communism, as content. Today the self reliant existence of an oppressed nation is possible only by becoming part of the motion of the world towards communist internationalism. Because the energy for this can only come from the intense aspiration of the people to end exploitation. An outlook capable of unleashing this must lead. This is the particularity of the transformative moment of the revolutionary process.

The opening shot of the capitalist roaders in newly liberated China was their demand that the new democratic revolution stage should be consolidated. The rightism being criticised in Nepal today is one that, even before liberation is achieved, is demanding that the present interim setup should be accepted as an inevitable stage before advancing to new democracy. This deviation in essence is a nationalist day dream; the illusion that the backwardness of the country can be quickly ended while abandoning internationalism and the socialist transition.
(translated from Munnaniporali, No:125, January 2009)

Nepal: A Counter-revolutionary Move by the Army

The Nepal Army (NA) has completed its recruitment drive to appoint 2300 soldiers, including technical hands. This was done while the present army chief once again clarified that there is no question of agreeing to the integration of the two armies. The recruitment drive was carried out without consultations with the government. And the NA ignored the Defence Minister’s order to stop it. Having thus failed in blocking this move through applying government power, recourse was taken to a Public Interest Litigation and a consequent stay granted by the Supreme Court. Since the two judges of the division bench could not come to an agreement the writ has now been referred to a full bench. Meanwhile, the CPN(Maoist) leader and PLA chief comrade Nand Kishore Pun has declared that it will be taking in 11,000 recruits since the Nepal Army has violated the Peace Agreement.

This issue is indicative of the present balance of strength in the distribution of power relations in Nepal. The army, the most decisive instrument of power, is not under the control of the government. The government apparatus is itself under the control of the old bureaucracy. The declaration that the PLA will be strengthened in opposition to the steps taken by the NA indicates that the revolutionary camp is willing to take on the counter-revolutionary camp. But, instead of using the fact that the government doesn’t even have the power to take disciplinary action against the NA chief who violated his constitutional obligations, to educate the masses, rally them and thus breakout from the limitations of the constitution, the party leadership is seen to be more interested in strength posturing vis a vis with the enemy. The pull of constitutionalism has reached this point. The CPN(M) leadership had repeatedly said that the party would be struggling from the government, parliament and streets. Yet, on each occasion when counter-revolution raised a challenge, it hasn’t been able to do anything other than manoeuvring at the level of government, while the masses are reduced to being spectators. Revisionism manifested as constitutionalism prepares the road for counter-revolution by undermining the initiative of the revolutionary camp.
(translated from Munnaniporali, no:126, February 2009)

Nepal: When Class Struggle Becomes a Matter of Governmental Power Play

While the selection of new recruits to both the armies (NA and PLA) continues to be a point of contention, the role apportioned to the masses is still that of passive spectators. Recruitment to the PLA was stayed by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, it legitimized the recruitment of 3000 new cadets to the old Royal Army (at present Nepal Army). The writ petition that brought the whole issue before the court had requested an annulment of that recruitment since it was against the Comprehensive Peace Treaty. The strange logic of the court was that it couldn’t do this since that process had been completed before the writ was filed! No exception of this sort was allowed to the PLA. Prime Minister Prachanda is reported to have said that the PLA must abide by the court’s verdict and the instruction of the concerned government committee demanding its implementation. By refusing to carry out the Defense Minister’s directive to stop recruitment the ‘government’ army clarified which authority it obeys. The court has clarified which power it protects. This being the case, who would gain from an elaboration on the compulsions of the Peace Treaty and the need to act according to law?

The issue is still alive. Assuming that it too can have the benefit of the concession given to the old army, a General Staff meeting of the PLA has decided to continue with the recruitment process initiated before the court’s verdict came. It has also informed the Prime Minister that it too will recruit if the old army repeats this. Prachanda’s explanation that the PLA is presently controlled by the government committee formed to carry out the integration of the two armies and not the CPN(M) may perhaps be a tactical evasion. Whatever the interpretation, the manner in which such turns in class struggle are dealt with, keeping the masses on the sidelines, evidently reduces the issue to a mere power play. The masses, the sole backup of the CPN(M), will be politically disarmed. During this whole controversy we haven’t seen any statement from the party, or the struggle from the streets promised when the two line struggle recently sharpened up. If there is a freeze-up here, at the other end the reactionaries are slowly pushing forward. Eight generals of the old army retired by the Defense Ministry were reinstated by the Supreme Court.

(translated from Munnaniporali no:127, March 2009)

About these ads

39 Responses to “India’s Naxalbari Group: New Polemic on Nepal and the RCPUSA”

  1. red road said

    Two points of information on this: First, this essay is a product of the CPI(ML)(Naxalbari), which is indicated on the Maoist Revolution listserve, but not on this posting here. Second, there appears to be a typo in the final paragraph which refers to the CPN(M-L) but probably means CPN(M), now the UCPN(M).

  2. n3wday said

    edits have been made, quick posting mistake on my part. thank you for the comments.

  3. Jaroslav O. said

    …and for those unaware, CPI(ML)(NB) is part of RIM & unlike MCC did not merge into CPI(Mao.)

  4. oxygen destroyer said

    CPI (Maoist) isn’t part of RIM?

  5. Ka Frank said

    OD, The CPI (Maoist) was formed in about 2004 by the merger of the CPI (M-L) People’s War Group
    (not a part of RIM) and the MCCI (a part of RIM). Since then some other non-RIM Maoist forces have joined. This represents the overwhelming majority of the Maoist forces in India. The CPI (M-L) Naxalbari, based primarily in Kerala, is part of RIM.

  6. Ka Frank said

    Just to be clear the CPI (Maoist) is not a part of RIM.

  7. nando said

    There is more to unravel here…..At the 20th anniversary of the RIM (2004) two Indian groups were listed as signatories of the RIM declaration. (the RIM is the REvolutionary Internationalist Movement, a grouping of Maoist organizations around the world founded in 1984, that has been diminished by sharp internal disputes in recent years.)

    * Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Naxalbari)
    * Maoist Communist Centre of India

    Since then the MCC merged with the largest group waging armed struggle, the Peoples War Group (PWG) to form the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The PWG was never part of the RIM, for reasons of sharp political differences. And the merged CPI(Maoist) did not join the RIM either.

    This has left the relatively small and regional Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Naxalbari) as the sole known Indian Maoist group within the international formation called RIM.

    This “Naxalbari” group has been making sharpening polemics with the RCP and Bob Avakian’s new synthesis that have moved more and more into the public. (As a loose characterization, we can say that this group has views that seem far closer to the Shining Path of Peru in their ideological complextion than to the RCPUSA.)

    * * * * * *

    The first public documentation of this appeared in Worker 10 (of the Nepali Maoist Party) where the Naxalbari group submitted an “guest” essay by their leader Ajith called “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought Are Not the Same.” Like Avakian’s Epistemology piece in the same issue — it revealed the sharp disagreements emerging among Maoists. And around the RCPUSA, Ajith’s article was specifically criticized as a seriously wrong line within the international communist movement (ICM).

    Then, at the important international seminar held by the Nepali Maoists, Maoist parties and organizations were gathered from all over the world to present papers and debate. Some came from the former framework of the RIM, some had never been within the RIM. The RCP attended, but only as silent observors. It would be fair to say that people interested in the views and allignments of the international Maoist movement (in wake of the decline of previous formations like the RIM) shold look closely at the documents of this conference (published in Worker 11, and listed on the left column of this page).

    At this conference, the Naxalbari group again produced a prestention. Once again, this piece was sharply polemical (aimed both at AVakian’s views and those of the Nepali Maoists.)

    The Naxalbari group praised a 2000 RIM declaration that include key formulations anathema to the RCP view. (This Millenial declaration appears to have been the last common statement that the RIM has been able to write).

    The Naxalbari seminar presentation said:

    “In 2000, the RIM evaluated that a generally favourable international situation existed and that, though we are not experiencing the same kind of high tide of revolutionary struggle on a world scale that we have witnessed in the past and will surely see again, we can speak with confidence of an emerging new wave of the world proletarian revolution. It noted that revolution is the main trend in the world today. This is a correct evaluation that still holds true. A recent conference of CCOMPOSA had also noted that a new wave of great revolutionary struggles are appearing on the horizon. If the Maoists fail to recognise this ‘newwave’ and boldly strive to establish MLM as its leader by advancing revolutionary practice, People’s War, they will fail in carrying out their vanguard task.”

    This assertion of the “main trend,” and the hailing of an “emerging new wave,” and the call for establishing “MLM as its leader” — are political views and formulations associated with Chairman Gonzalo (the imprisoned leader of the PCP), and sets this Naxalbari group in a very sharply critical position vis a vis the RCP.

    (It also has to be said that the formulation that “revolution is the main trend in the world today” also sets such people sharply against the basic realities of our world.)

    They write:

    “….the immediate situation existing in the post-Second world war period, the political compulsion of containing the spreading of the communist movement and tackling the powerful thrust of national liberation movements, played a more determining role in the imperialist’s transition to neo-colonialism. The current U.S. offensive too is taking place in the context of, and mainly in response to, the emerging new wave of world revolution. In essence, it is a desperate attempt to throwback this wave.”

    The first part of this quote (on the post-WW2 period) is generally true. To claim that the U.S. “war on terror” is a desperate attempt to throw back an emerging new wave of communist revolutions replaces material reality with idealist fantasy.

    The Naxalbari group went on:

    “At present, one important task in the ideological and political struggle within the ICM is to firmly establish this evaluation of the world situation, generally more favourable for people than for imperialism and reactionaries, and of the emerging new wave. As part of this, we must resolutely struggle against the tendency that questions this evaluation. It bases itself on the argument that Maoist leadership is absent in most of the important regions of struggle and dismisses the national resistance in West Asia as a fight between two groups of reactionaries, i.e. between imperialists and reactionary feudal strata. This argument seemingly draws attention to the weak subjective forces of revolution. But it is actually an example of imperialist economism that minimises the vital role of national liberation struggles in the world socialist revolution, refuses to distinguish between the oppressor and the oppressed and insists on judging struggles solely by the class or ideology in leadership, excluding the objective role played by them in a concrete situation. It is a repetition in a new form of the tendency that tried to dismiss almost all the national liberation struggles taking place in the late 1970’s — early 1980’s, i.e. before the collapse of social imperialism, as nothing more than examples of inter-imperialist contention.”

    This is a direct polemic aganst Avakian’s view of “McWorld vs. Jihad.” Forces like the Naxalbari group, who see revolution as a main trend, accomplish this by saying that the forces of Islamic fundamentalism are objectively playing an anti-imperialist role, and that all these movements lack is a shift in ideology and leadership (to MLM as commander).

    This demarcates an important line of struggle among Maoist communists — over how to evaluate (strategically and politically) the movements against the U.S. that are led by ideologically reactionary forces. The Avakian forces see them as two evils. Others within the Maoist movement have different (and imho more nuanced) views: making different evaluations in different countries, not seeing the various anti-U.S. forces as a simple “Jihadist” unity. etc.

    Naxalbari continues with its pointed critique of the RCP and Avakian’s synthesis:

    “Rather than drawing attention to the need to intensify efforts to overcome the subjective weakness of Maoists so that they can seize the favourable opportunities existing in the present world situation to make the 21st century a century of People’s Wars, this tendency undermines such efforts by presenting a view that downplays favourable factors and exaggerates unfavourable ones. The struggle to achieve higher unity on the grasp of MLM, particularly Maoism, and develop it even move, is distorted by this tendency through its counterposing theoretical tasks to the task of initiating or developing People’s Wars. It thereby undermines the stress that should be given to the tasks of People’s War, by arguing that the present level of our ideology is insufficient. At any point of time our understanding of reality and grasp of our ideology will be incomplete. There can also be a lag in our ideology in keeping pace with objective developments. But this certainly is not the main reason for just a few People’s Wars in the world compared to the number of Maoist parties or the fact that most of the ongoing People’s Wars are yet to develop to a level of throwing up decisive challenges to the imperialist order. It mainly reflects on the grasp of MLM by different parties and extent to which they have succeeded in rupturing from right opportunism or dogmatism, apart from the specificities of the objective situation they face. The present level of our ideology is sufficient to initiate and develop People’s Wars. This is what needs to be stressed upon and the task of developing our ideology must be addressed in close relation to it.”

    Many controversial issues are raised here. Let us point to one in particular:

    the Naxalbari group is one of the groups who argue that MLM (as we have understood it by the late 1980s) is sufficient as the commanding ideology of the “next wave.” This is in sharp contrast to the RCP which puts forward its New Synthesis as a necessary break with previous MLM — and its claims that future revolution cannot be on a correct path without applying the innovations developed by Bob Avakian.

    This Naxalbari view is also rather sharply different than the views of the Kasama Project (in the U.S.) which holds that major leaps, changes and reconceptions are necessary in “inherited Marxism” (including breaks with formulaic assumptions in prevous forms of Maoism) in order to make political advances in revolution.

    And this view is also (while we are talking) rather different from the view of the Nepali Maoists on precisely this question.

    There is a whiff of stand-pat fundamentalism in the Naxalbari approach to their own form of Marxist theory. Again, their view is,

    “The present level of our ideology is sufficient to initiate and develop People’s Wars. This is what needs to be stressed upon and the task of developing our ideology must be addressed in close relation to it.”

    In other words, if the existing ideology is just fine, and if the world is filled with powerful objectively anti-imperialist movements — then the task (in their view, and in the view of some groups influenced by the Shining Path) is to get the ideology adopted by the movements. It is fundamentally a challenge of will and determination for the “subjective” factor (i.e. the communists — to build Maoists parties that can carry out that kind of insertion.

    On another point, the Naxalbari group directly challenged Avakian’s analysis from within the RIM:

    “…a more deeper and extensive, collective, summation of the experiences of People’s Wars, past and present, and preparations to initiate it, is urgently called for. This also involves developing and deepening the debate on the application of People’s War theory in imperialist countries.”

    The RCP view has been that there are two types of countries (imperialist and formerly colonial), and therefore two basic models of revolution (the October Road for imperialist countries, and Mao’s path of protracted peoples war for semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries.) While the RCP suggests various kinds of adaptations of these schema (“October Road, yes but…”) they basically adhere to them as models.

    Others in the Maoist movement (most notably Peru’s chairman Gonzalo in his 1988 interview) saw this as outdated (and quite possibly revisionist) — a shrinking away from grasping the “universality” of people war.

    Here the remarks by the Naxalbari suggest an agreement with Gonzalo’s implied views, and a critique of Avakian’s assumptions.

    This naxalbari document goes on to say that Mao’s insights into socialist society are sufficient, and mocking avakian’s claims to have made crucial new discoveries:

    “Characterising a restatement of those contributions [of Mao] as a new synthesis will only serve to hinder the task of going beyond the pinnacles achieved through the GPCR. We must also recognize that systematising and developing this approach is not the sole task. The institutional structures of socialist society also need to be summed up and developed. It is clear that the danger of capitalist restoration will be present for a fairly long period under socialism. Therefore we must not only seek ways of preventing it, but also strive to develop institutions that will better enable the socialist roaders and the masses to initiate and develop the struggle to seize back power, if it is lost. In this regard, the proposals on arming the masses, of gradually dissolving the standing army or taking steps to avoid its alienation from the masses in the name of professionalisation, are a welcome step forward. The institutionalised leading role of the party in socialism was a development brought about by the acute class contradictions existing in this period of transition, particularly in the context of imperialism. Any proposal for institutional change that fails to address this objective compulsion is sure to fail.”

    The naxalbari statement ends by situating the weakness of the RIM and international communist efforts in the uneven appreciation of Maoism as a distinct stage of communism. This is also aimed, sharply at Avakian:

    “It is also reflected in a hesitation to fully embrace Maoism, in the re-appearance of ideological wavering reflected in concepts like ‘Leninism as the bridge’, caused by the setback in China and the confusion sought to be created by the Hoxaites.”

    The concept “leninism as the bridge” is a formulation by Avakian from “Conquer the World.” In a recent talk (called “Ruminations”) Avakian quotes himself, quoting himself, praising his own idea from an earlier work:

    “As I have pointed out previously in correspondence to other leading comrades of our party—and this is very relevant to the situation today in the ICM:

    ‘The following from ‘Conquer the World’ and specifically the section ‘Leninism as the Bridge’ is indeed very relevant, insightful and incisive:

    “To put it somewhat provocatively, Marxism without Leninism is Eurocentric social-chauvinism and social democracy. Maoism without Leninism is nationalism (and also, in certain contexts, social-chauvinism) and bourgeois democracy.”‘”

    * * * * * *

    With this as background, it should not be a surprise that this new Naxalbari essay (posted above) on “The Line Struggle in Nepal” takes on Avakian’s new synthesis from yet another angle — specifically the issue related to “Leninism as the Bridge.”

    Speficically: Avakian’s view of internationalism (and of national liberation in oppressed countries) includes a rejection of Mao’s approach (labeling it as a nationalist error.) In particular Maos formulation “patriotism [in a colonial country] is applied internationalism.”

    In this essay above, the Naxalbari group take on Avakian’s rejection (without mentioning him by name):

    “Mao said that in an oppressed country patriotism is applied internationalism. Some Maoist parties reject this as a nationalist deviation. We could, quite roughly, summarise their argument as patriotism=nationalism, nationalism X internationalism. This view leads to a denial of the national tasks of the proletariat of an oppressed country, and must be rejected.

    “Mao’s position is not just a legitimising of patriotism. There is something else we should pay attention to. This patriotism must be guided by internationalism, not by nationalism. This is a contradiction. Can we have a patriotism separated from nationalism? This can be answered only by relating the issue to the transformative moment of the revolutionary process in an oppressed country.

    “The struggle to destroy the imperialist yoke is decisive in this process. This addresses the interests of the nation. This is the sense in which Mao said that the proletariat in these countries should uphold the banner of the nation. This can be done from a nationalist stand. The last century was witness to national liberation struggles carried out under the leadership of militant nationalism. It also saw how the independence gained through such struggle quite quickly became formal and trapped in neo-colonialism. We have also seen how former oppressed countries like China and Vietnam were caught up in dependency to the imperialist system once again as soon as capitalist restoration took place.”

    There is more to unravel, of course. but I will stop there — hoping to have left this particular polemic more clearly embedded in its context and the larger line struggles now raging among maoists.

  8. red road said

    This exchange provides some sense, if not a full picture or road map, of the debate threads within the ranks of RIM forces. As such, the diminution and demise of RIM becomes clarified in many ways.

    Naxalbari group is not insignificant, but neither is it the most influential force shaping such debates. The important growth of forces outside of RIM, and their views, polemical and otherwise, which shape the revolutionary struggles in a number of countries and regions, and their relations in various ways, is not addressed.

    In particular, the views of the CPI(Maoist), some of which have been posted elsewhere on the kasama/southasianrev/kasamathreads sites and elsewhere, deserve pressing consideration.

  9. oxygen destroyer said

    thank you to ka frank, nando and red road for the detailed responses.

    i have read CPI (M-L) (NB) essays where PWG/CPI (Maoist) is branded as “lin biaoist”. what does that mean, practically?

  10. red road said

    oxygen,

    it would help if you provided the source for the CPI (M-L) (NB) essays, so the reference is available to all before weighing in on what it means.

  11. oxygen destroyer said

    my mistake! the source wasn’t CPI (ML) (NB) but rather CPI (ML) (Red Flag/Sanyal). you can find it here: http://massline.info/India/CPI-MLpolemic.htm

    Right from the time the principles of scientific socialism was put forward by Marx and Engels and the international proletariat started getting organised based on them, the forces of reaction led by the capitalist forces had started launching brutal attacks against them in all fields. With the emergence of Soviet Union this attack intensified. When imperialist attack to destroy [the] Soviet Union failed, they launched plans to sabotage it through various means. After World War II when a powerful socialist camp emerged they had further intensified the class struggle at [the] international level to contain and destroy the new upsurge. Colonial plunder was replaced by neo-colonial forms of plunder. At the theoretical level, numerous new diversionary thoughts were manufactured and propagated.

    But the socialist forces did not face up to this challenge with the seriousness it demanded. The grave challenge posed by the imperialist camp led by US imperialism was minimised or neglected by both right opportunism led by [the] post-Stalin leadership in Soviet Union under the concept of “peaceful co-existence and peaceful competition with imperialism and peaceful transition to socialism”, and by the ‘left’ opportunism led by Lin Piao who dominated the CPC during the last years of [the] 1960s and put forward the new era concept in its 9th Congress in 1969. Both these deviations, in effect two sides of the same coin, caused irreparable damage to the ICM and speeded up the capitalist restoration in the socialist countries.

    In words, as a ritual, CPI(Maoist) also state that [a] fight against revisionism and sectarianism is required. At the same time, it has become the main headquarters of Lin Piaoism in India which is masqueraded as ‘Maoist’, basically deviating from the great contributions of Mao. In continuation to what Lin and company did earlier, it minimises the significance of the frenzied attacks launched by imperialism and world reaction against Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. It lives in a world of make-belief, asking others to join it, and attack all those who oppose its idealist positions. Nowhere in the critique has the People’s March tried to pose any of these theoretical challenges posed by world reaction against the forces of national liberation and socialism, against proletarian class positions.

  12. red road said

    The CPI(M-L) is one of several parties which adopted the parliamentary road some years back, and attacked those who developed the forces for the People’s War with terms such as “anarchist” and “Lin Piaoist.”

    These are not credible terms of analysis of either text or action by the Maoists. They do not reveal anything about the CPI(Maoists). But they speak clearly about the CPI(ML).

  13. nando said

    I don’t think it would be right to assume that the critique of “lin biaoist” would only ocme from those on the parliamentary road. (And when you are saying “The CPI(M-L) is one of several parties which adopted the parliamentary road some years back…,” are you sure this applies to the Naxalbari group we are discussing?)

    Lin Biao put forward a number of approaches and views that were very influential internationally — and very destructive. And their influence today remains a real problem (tied to all kinds of dogmatism, mechanical thinking, empty triumphalism, formulatic approaches to Marxism, militarism, etc.)

    Lin Biao stressed the univerality of Mao’s approach to peoples war in ways that downplayed particularity and exaggerated the ability to copy other revolutions. (Lin’s line even involve rewriting one key footnote in Mao’s own work to downplay previous discussions that Mao’s strategy was rooted in very particular conditions in china — its size, vast room for maneuver, break up into warlord states etc.).

    Lin Biao exaggerated the importance of the military side (in part because his own promotion of the military within the struggles of China.) So, in his view, the dividing line between marxism and revisionism was boiled down to whether you take up armed struggle or not. This approach was very one-sided. And it added to the confusion of many forces, when, in the 1970s, the pro-Soviet revisionist forces all over the world became more and more willing to take up arms (as the Soviets started fanning proxy wars with the U.S.) In other words, the dividing line between marxism and revisionism has never been (mainly or simply) over the question of armed struggle. And in fact, all class forces are willing to wage armed struggle in their interests.

    Lin Biao promoted a triumphalist view — that world revolution was approaching victory, while world capitalism was on its deathbed. Specifically he is associated with this formulation:

    “Mao Tse-tung’s thought is Marxism-Leninism of the era in which imperialism is heading for total collapse and socialism is advancing to world-wide victory.”

    The history of this formulation, the struggle over it, and so on is more than I want to dig into here. But I think we can say it is a basically wrong assessment. And could have been understood to be wrong at the time. And it is not just wrong in its assessment of that moment in history — but it rather mechanically assumes that you can’t have a new leap in Marxism unless you have a new era. And this assumption is tied to very dogmatic assumptions about the nature of such leaps (i.e. that they are rooted in new developments, not the explorations of flaws and shortcomings and “voids” in previous forms of Marxism….. etc.)

    In part it reflected a (perhaps natural) extrapolation from the high tide of struggle in 1968 — but it also involved a real fantasy world. Even then, you could only imagine such things IF you saw ALL kinds of diverse struggles as part of the “advance to victory” — and particularly if you tended to see the Soviet bloc as non-capitalist. There was a tendency to exaggerate the “objectively” anti-imperialist nature of diverse forces (in a way that some Lin Biaoist-type forces do today with the Islamic fundamentalists.) And in many ways, Lin Biaoism was associated with being “soft” on the Soviet Union theoretically (and ultimately represented within china a current that wanted to capitulate to the Soviet bloc and its military threats).

    Lin Biao was also associated with a number of mistaken and highly dogmatic approaches to Marxism — like the idea that “Mao Zedong Thought was the acme [ulitmate peak] of Marxism” — ie. implying that it was some final destination of communist theory. (This was criticized by Mao, as were a number of his related theories.)

    There is a certain kind of third world nationalism associated with Lin Biao that has considerable influence. If you read Lin’s major work (“Long Live the Victory of People’s WAr“) — one of its remarkable voids is the absense of any mention of revolutionary possibilities in the imperialist countries. He is rather explicit in his pessimism about revolution outside the formerly colonial countries (and put that in a typically formulaic assertion that just like Mao “encircled the countryside from the city” — so the colonial people’s war will encircle the imperialist countries from the world’s “countryside.”) This was announced at the very time that France’s May 1968 and phenom like the rise of Black Power in the U.S. were revealing actual revolutionary potential in the imperialist countries. This too is influential among people who see revolution as a response to the extreme poverty and lack of development in semi-feudal parts of the world, and who therefore can’t imagine how a revolutionary crisis could erupt in a place like Italy or the U.S. (And if you think about it, it also makes it hard to imagine how new revolutionary waves can develop under socialism — when some problems have been resolved, and new ones emerge under conditions of socialism.)

    Finally there is something militarist (in a creepy way) about lin biao and his view of the party. something almost fascistic about his view of subordination, order, discipline etc. You can get a flavor of that from Lin’s introduction to Mao’s Red Book — which captures a certain approach to ideas and Marxism — one that is both problematic and influential.

    So in short, this question of Lin Biaoism is real — and it captures something about some currents among Maoists. In particular, I think it captures something real about the line of the Shining Path (and its leader Gonzalo), and also (imho) about the writings of Ajit from the Naxalbari group.

  14. VRON said

    “This exchange provides some sense, if not a full picture or road map, of the debate threads within the ranks of RIM forces. As such, the diminution and demise of RIM becomes clarified in many ways.”

    Doesn’t that (the lack of a “full picture”) indicate a huge problem with the movement itself? The papers of the Bolsheviks and similar groups of their days (e.g. Social Democrats in Germany) were full of lively debate and discussion. The workers knew the positions and arguments being hashed out by different revolutionaries and participated in them and enriched them. Where has that sort of thing been since the 20’s?

    Comrades have taken the practices of a besieged and inexperienced leadership in the Russian empire in the early 20th century and “universalized” them and applied them in cases where they don’t have power yet, to the point where other people – even in their own trend, in this case Maoism – don’t have a full picture. Of course workers have even less of a picture!

    That’s a large problem that I haven’t seen the Kasama project dig into yet.

  15. red road said

    There is a disturbing sloppiness about this thread:

    1. The intital posting of the lead document, which mentioned its source as MAOIST REVOLUTION site, nevertheless failed to mention that it originated with the CPI(ML)(Naxalbari), and left the false impression for some that it came from the CPI(M). This is especially a problem when the audience of these posts has widely divergent levels of basic knowledge of the history of literally dozens of Indian “Marxist” and “Maoist” groups, so the confusion of one group with another, and the attribution of one line to another group than its source, is an all too common danger or problem.

    2. The CPI(ML)(Naxalbari) is not the CPI(M); it does not speak for it. When the failure of precise attribution was pointed out, it was corrected.

    3. But the piece, now correctly attributed, was given a new title: “India’s Naxalbari Group: New Polemic on Nepal and the RCPUSA”. But the piece had no reference to the RCPUSA, so the title was a clumsy and mis-appropriate attempt to connect this with the exchange between the CPN(M) and the RCPUSA.

    4. There followed some back and forth about clarifying the relations between several Indian parties and RIM.

    5. Then Nando presented some history on the exchanges by CPI(ML)(Naxalbari) and other RIM-affiliated parties over some of the issues involved in the political turn in Nepal. At this point, references to CPI(ML)(Naxalbari) taking on the RCPUSA and Avakian were raised for the first time in this thread.

    6. Then “Oxygen Destroyer” said he had heard that the CPI(ML)(Naxalbari) had called the CPI(Maoist) “lin piaoist” and asked what did this mean, practically.

    7. He was asked for the source of this charge, and he responded by saying he was in error, that the charge came not from the CPI(ML)(Naxalbari) but from the CPI(ML). He gave the source of this on the web.

    8. “Red road” said that this was a statement by one of the groups which had adopted the parliamentary road, and was not an insight into the CPI(Maoist) but was part of the dismissal of People’s War as “anarchist” and lin piaoist”, and could only provide insight to the CPI(ML).

    9. “Nando” responded with: “I don’t think it would be right to assume that the critique of “lin biaoist” would only come from those on the parliamentary road.” But “Red road” did not say, or assume that. The point is that the lexicon of revisionists is really helpful only in understanding the thread-bare argumentation of revisionists, and provides scant insight into the dialectical and materialist assessment of political lines within the revolutionary movement. The revisionist phrase-mongering is an unprincipled attack on revolution.

    10. “Nando” continued: “(And when you are saying ‘The CPI(M-L) is one of several parties which adopted the parliamentary road some years back…,’ are you sure this applies to the Naxalbari group we are discussing?)” No, “red road” was not thinking or applying the statement about CPI(ML)’s parliamentary road to the Naxalbari group. He was just stating the point that the revisionist lexicon is common to those on the parliamentary road. No implication regarding Naxalbari group was intended; the statement only meant what it said.

    11. From such a meandering and confusing thread, “Nando” then launched into an exposition on the RIM talking points vis-a-vis Lin Piao when the RCP was dueling (with Shining Path?) for supremacy in RIM. The relevance of this to events today was unclear throughout. Was this meant to endorse the parliamentary road of the CPI(ML)? Was it meant to attack the CPI(Maoist) line on People’s War? Or the People’s War line of the CPN(M) before the current parliamentary road? Or was it just meant to imply that any People’s War strategy was based not on Mao but on Lin Biao’s flawed conception? The problem with the entire “Lin Biaoism” comment was that it was ahistorical, and implied many possible (but unstated) intended targets for dismissal. It’s like picking up a book with some detailed research, but only reading the footnotes and never being able to connect the notes to the main points of the author, or the conclusion. Very confusing! It just creates an atmosphere for “expert” dismissal. All from the mention of the revisionist liturgical terms (“anarchism and lin biaoism”) used to denounce armed struggle and to bless the parliamentary road!

  16. Ka Frank said

    I think that Nando’s discussion of the core characteristics of Lin Biaoism is very useful and woth careful consideration. I also agree with Red Road’s urging that Nando identify those forces in the ICM and beyond who he thinks are influenced by Lin Biaoism and explain how this is expressed in their thinking and work.

    One of the ways this gets confusing is that the Naxalbari group and CPI (M-L) Red Flag are mentioned explicitly by Nando, whereas the CPI (Maoist) isn’t, even though the latter party agrees with Naxalbari on some points.

    For example, in an interview in April 2007, right after the CPI (Maoist)’s 9th Unity Congress, General Secretary Ganapathy says the party sees the “Islamic upsurge” in the contemporary world as a “progressive, anti-imperialist force.” This position hasn’t been repeated since in any public statements but it hasn’t been replaced by a different formulation.

    I think this is basicallly a wrong assessment of the various currents in the Islamic countries. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Al-Qaeda in all countries are reactionary forces. As for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, there is certainly a basis for cooperation with them in the struggle against Zionism, and likewise to the extent they stand against imperialism. However, communists must oppose their reactionary social planks, especially concerning women, and their anti-communism (especially pronounced in the case of Hamas). We cannot support the formation of another Islamic state–look at the horrors that the Islamic Republic has brought to the people of Iran since 1979.

    All the same, I think that the CPI (Maoist) is creatively applying MLM to India and is blazing a new path for revolution in India, and is playing a positive role in important struggles within the international communist movement.

  17. Mike E said

    Ka Frank writes:

    “I think that Nando’s discussion of the core characteristics of Lin Biaoism is very useful and woth careful consideration. I also agree with Red Road’s urging that Nando identify those forces in the ICM and beyond who he thinks are influenced by Lin Biaoism and explain how this is expressed in their thinking and work.”

    We can go more into this, though I thought I gave a great deal of detail.

    The characteristics of Lin Biaoism are (among other things):

    Acting as if the world is permanently frozen in the great anti-colonial struggle that defined the 1950s and 60s. As if the third world is permanently the “storm center” of revolution, and as if that contradiction is permanently the “principle” one. there is a great deal of nationalism involved in this — and a related lack of understanding of how revolution could even be possible (conjuncturally) in more developed countries.

    This is tied to a tendency (in the third world) to (understandably) equate revolution as a radical solution to problems of development — and so not understanding how revolution could become an imperetive in countries that already are developed.

    It is tied to a view that seems armed struggle (of a particular kind) as THE dividing line between revolution and non-revolution. It took the form (in the 1990s) of several attempts to define the world communist movement in terms of “who is waging peoples wars and who isnt” — in the assumption that those who have successfully launched such wars are clearly embracing correct politics, and those who haven’t yet clearly are shirking their duties and evidencing deeply wrong lines.

    There is a kind of dogmatic thinking that goes with this — not seeing dynamic change, assuming the world is continuing along fixed tracks, “trying to wage your granddaddy’s peoples war” — and for reasons that will be obvious to some, this is all tied to a “soft on stalin” line. The struggle over “three heads” (MLM) versus “five heads” (MELSM) is related to a softness on stalin, and an affection for a particular kind of mechanical marxism (and affection for a particularly heavy handed use of force and repression by revolutionary forces).

    On its appreciation of Mao: it mainly draws from mao his New Democracy and especially his articulation of protracted peoples war, but doesn’t get much into Mao’s work of his last two decades (which involved his grappling with both the contradictions of popular mobilizations during revolution and his engagement with contradictions of capitalist restoration.) Mao becomes the exemplary leader of Third World revolution, and his teaching on such revolutions are seen as universal (in a mechanical way).

    And this view is tied to overestimating the progressive and revolutionary character of non-communist forces waging armed struggle.

    As for who i’m talking about…. I really don’t feel the need to produce a personal checklist of opinions about movements that i have only fragmentary knowledge of. And I won’t do it.

    ******
    Let’s put it in a methodological context (and here I am not speaking about Ka Frank but about a method expressed by others):

    There is a method we should avoid: It is where we make a verdict on a kind of thinking, and then give it a label (lin biaoism, trotskyism, reformism, correct thinking, and so on) and make that label into a little bag (a category). And then as we go through the world we now compare new ideas (and movements, and people) to those accumulating categories and think we can have quick easy summations of people (and movements and ideas.)

    It is like we have sewn these little bags all over our costume, and when we meet a new idea we can simply compare it to our pre-existing checklist of verdicts and pop it into its appropriate bag. And bury it there. Quick disposal.

    Well, the world doesn’t actually work that way — because sometimes ideas are new, sometimes conditions change, and sometimes our old verdicts were wrong or partial. And so walking throughthe world with fixed categories and assumed verdicts is really dogmatism — it is a closed mindedness that will make the brain impervious to the new and the corrective and the innovative. (because everything is seen as an incarnation of the already-known).

    So, in my view, Lin Biaoism was a very particular set of ideas from a very particular time and place (a current within China and the Maoist movement between 1966-71). That particular current (that time and place) has influence today. that doesn’t mean that those influenced people are simply “lin biaoists” and we can then pop them into a small bag and be done with them.

    Gonzalo was trained in china at the height of the influence of this line. Combined that form of Maoism with the politics he came out of (which was stolidly the pro-Stalin faction of the existing communist movement resisting the de-stalinization of the pro-Krushchev forces). and then added his own creative views in great number and with great energy. Was Gonzalo a “lin biaoist”? That kind of facile categorization doesn’t help with much. Were his politics marked by the assumptions and verdicts of Lin Biaoism? certainly.

    There is the militarism, the triumphalism, heavy dogmatic vibe, the overappreciation of Stalin (the view of communists as iron men, stormers of strongholds, friends of a heavy harsh hand), the overwhelming emphasis on inevitabilism and necessity, and a political view that protracted peoples war applies universally.

    I mention Ajit because his writings also seem like a particularly sharp example of this.

    * * * * * *

    It is true, as you say that the CPI(Maoist)’s leader Ganapathy has said that the “Islamic upsurge” is “a progressive, anti-imperialist force.”

    I think the RCP’s view (McWorld vs. Jihad) is two-dimensional. It ignores the great particularity around Islamic movements in different countries — and (typically) combines shallow investigation with facile judgement. But doesn’t Ganapathy’s summation have a similar problem?

    Seeing Islamic movements worldwide as “anti-imperialist is (i believe) wishful thinking at best. It is the kind of wishful thinking that makes triumphalism possible.

    And there are reasons why that view is attractive in India. If you look close at the issue of Muslims in India, the need to oppose the anti-muslim frenzy, the way that muslim idenity is express (politically) in relation to reactionary trends in India…. etc. it is possible to see some of the reasons why Maoists in India might have such an assessment (quite apart from wishful thinking).

    So yes, i think Ganapathy has a wrong view of the Islamic movements around the world. And it sound like Ka Frank and I agree on that.

    * * * * ** *

    Then Ka Frank makes a tidy summation:

    “All the same, I think that the CPI (Maoist) is creatively applying MLM to India and is blazing a new path for revolution in India, and is playing a positive role in important struggles within the international communist movement.”

    And with that, Ka Frank is eager for me (and others presumably) to make verdicts on this or that group. I think this request is problematic. We can discuss various political orientations, and lines. But really many of these groups are rather dynamic and in motion. And the world does not demand of us facile and quick verdicts on them.

    i am not interested in running around the world putting little labels on the foreheads of various communists (this one is “lin biaoist,” and that one is “trapped in reformism,” and that one has my full unqualified endorsement). I’m not going to do that. And don’t see why you think that is important.

    Really what Ka Frank’s statement means is “this party dovetails with my own current views.”

    Well, this is not how i’m approaching these things. I am much less interested with using my current views as a basis to judge everyone in the world. I think no good could come of that.

    In particular, it is because I think that “the theoretical knife has to cut deeper than that.”

    Ka Frank says the Maoists of India are creative. Well perhaps. But I think that what passes as “creative” in the Maoist movement is often pretty timid stuff. The merest departure from doctrine, the slightest open mindedness, a faint breeze of creative thinking is felt as some big swooping change — because very narrow doctrine has been the currency for so long.

    But really, our work and our thought needs to be much more shaken up.

    And (speaking for myself) i’m going to do a lot more thinking and investigation and learning from others, before i start to trot around with such tidy (and I believe, premature) verdicts. And i’m not going to hail relatively minor adjustments in ideology and tactics as “creative” without a much deeper sense of what it all represents.

    And my lack of a tidy verdict (“this party is good, that one is not”) does not stop me from arguing, with some passion and partisanship, that we should step up our common work around the revolutions of Nepal and India — because of their strategic importance for the world today, and because of profound “dignity of immediate actuality” that comes with the existance of such revolutionary movements.

  18. Green Red said

    This discussion, last two sayings between Ka Frank and Mike E are the clearest discussion i have ever seen amongst the two fellows.

    Re Ka Frank pointing out the Chairperson of CPI Maoist, yes, he had said such a thing:
    – – – – – – – – – – – –
    On the Islamic Upsurge:
    Q: But globally the fight is now becoming pro-globalisation versus Islamic upsurge—in this scheme of things how do you see a classless society?
    A: Globalisation is a war on the people and on every value cherished by the people for centuries. Globalisation is the ideology of the market fundamentalists. The market fundamentalists are destroying everything a nation had possessed and preserved for centuries. They promote nothing but sheer greed and self-interest with the sole aim of global hegemony and the means to achieve it is a war on all fronts—military, economic, political, cultural, psychological. And to achieve this “lofty” goal, they think even the destruction of the world is collateral damage.
    There is a people’s upsurge against globalization all over the world and Islamic upsurge is an integral part of the worldwide people’s upsurge against imperialism, imperialist globalization and war.
    A classless society-Communism—is a conscious human project and has to be built through the transformation of human consciousness. And to achieve this, the first step is to destroy imperialism on a world scale and domestic reaction in every country. Islamic upsurge is a reaction to imperialist globalization and imperialist oppression and exploitation of the world people, and Muslim masses in particular. As long as imperialism exists, and as long as it bolsters up decadent reactionary comprador Islamic regimes in countries of Asia and Africa, it is impossible for the Muslim masses to come out of their fundamentalism. It is only after the destruction of imperialism on a world scale can the Islamic masses come out completely from their obscurantist ideology and values. This will pave the way for the establishment of a classless society.
    Q: What is your opinion about Islamic upsurge?
    A: The answer to this question is already contained in the above explanation. In essence, we see the Islamic upsurge as a progressive anti-imperialist force in the contemporary world. It is wrong to describe the struggle that is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestinian territory, Kashmir, Chechnya, and several other countries as a struggle by Islamic fundamentalists or as a “clash of civilizations” long back theorized by Samuel Huntington and which is being resurrected by all and sundry today. In essence all these are national liberation wars notwithstanding the role of Islamic fundamentalists too in these struggles. We oppose religious fundamentalism of every kind ideologically and politically as it obfuscates class distinctions and class struggle and keeps the masses under the yoke of class oppression. However, “Islamic fundamentalism”, in my opinion, is an ally of the people in their fight against market fundamentalism promoted by the US, EU, Japan and other imperialists.
    The upsurge is bound to raise the anti-imperialist democratic consciousness among the Muslim masses and bring them closer with all other secular, progressive and revolutionary forces. I see the Islamic upsurge as the beginning of the democratic awakening of the Muslim masses despite the domination of fundamentalist ideology and outlook in the Islamic movement at present. Our Party supports the Islamic upsurge and seeks a unity with all anti-imperialist forces.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    He did say such a thing, but the text of the statement of the party after Mumbai being attacked by some Pakistani guys was not an endorsement of such activities. True or false?

    And for example, of course, i hate the Islamic republic of Iran. And never been in Syria to like or dislike Assad dynasty, though enough’s been said about them as well.

    Nevertheless, when it comes to matter of Lebanon for example; i am quoting LA Times article. A Taxi Driver says that when he was young, he used to consider Che Guevara as an idol or hero of a sort. Right then thought, when Israel is tearing buildings, ways and means of a whole country and killing innocent people of all kind, Shiite, Sonnies, Armenian, Marionates, Druze, etc., the Taxi driver says he respects and would support Nasrullah of Hezbollah.

    I am well aware that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Mullahs are providing all those weapons to Lebanese people to justify and create opinion in favor of their reactionary regime that has taken country many years back. It is not a good source of weapon, Iran i mean, but shouldn’t a Lebanese human being defend her/himself while s/he and Red Cross / UN reps are getting bombed upon?

    Last year we had this discussion that a friend, Joseph Ball i think was his name, was alleging that Sarbedaran comrades (that are now called CPI MLM,) have this and that position about US intervention in Iran. His presumption, i have to admit that after seeing his articles in monthly review and his site i got more positive familiarity with him, was, on the experience of US attack to Afghanistan that was supported by Communist-Worker Party of Iran, a very peculiar dirty party whose activity spoiled lots of potentials in revolutionary left movement of Iran and, almost denied the existence of imperialism, often omitted Lenin and had taken the position that US attack was good for Afghanis to clean up Taliban that had been its own created pest.
    On such matters, be it Soviet Union, US or anybody, they should not enter a third world country so, their resistance in itself has a value. It is the people of Afghanistan, through their own time, to lead on their fatherland to a more progressive status.

    I even go further that that and dare to say, look at the history of exported revolutions. History of post second world war east Europe, was that really socialism? Did China do a great thing to side with the Khmer Rouge?

    So great comrade Frank, while your contributions are outstanding and great but, between Right and Wrong, there are a wide range of variations.

    Thus i take Ka Mike’s saying about verdicts and labels as the more fruitful way. Every attempt to reach socialism is a mutation; it is an attempt to evolve. And Nepal has its own conditions, and so does India. I wish the best for both but, what merits their experience bring our movement here? That is my question to both parties.

  19. Green Red said

    In addition, to understand the condition of the people in India who are Muslim one ought to look deeper into the Ghettoisation phenomenon of India. It must be understood that Muslims of India are not the same as Muslims of Pakistan (even if Al Qaeda tries to fabricate some) and have lived in very different atmosphere. For those who not necessarily have not known everything perfectly to grant their verdicts, the following has to be read. These are segments of an important document out of the CPI (Maoist)’s 9th Unity Congress (that has been mentioned above by Ka Frank).

    The – post many years of research and battle to synthesize – sum up of what is to be done in the cities was released as CPI (Maoist) Urban Perspective. How they shall strategize leading Islamic segments of India to escalate their struggle is their own buiz, for us only to be seen.

    *********************************************

    Ghettoisation…

    The main form of violence has however been the attacks and organized pogroms by the Hindu communalists and fascists, primarily against the Muslims, but also against the Sikhs and Christians. This has led to the sharp segregation of the Muslim community and the creation of Muslim mohallas in almost all towns and cities where they have any existence. However with the metropolitanisation of some cities there has been some small shift out of Muslims into other areas. This too is being sought to be drastically reversed by the Hindu fascists during the eighties and the nineties.
    – – –

    The eighties and the nineties have seen the largest number of anti- Muslim pogroms associated with the political ascent of the Hindu fascists of the Sangh parivar. The major centre for this has been the western corridor with massacres of Muslims in almost all the major cities in this belt – Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Mumbai and Surat, as well as other smaller cities like Bhiwandi, Malegaon and Bharuch. The major urban centres of the south too have been centres for communal riots – Coimbatore, Hydrabad, and Bangalore, besides other smaller cities like Mangalore, Bhadravati, etc. Some have also taken place in the cities of Central India and the Gangetic plain. Most of these attacks have been done with the full connivance and even participation of the state forces. Of all these, Gujarat is being taken up by the fascists as a laboratory for an experiment in ethnic cleansing, with systematic physical and economic annihilation of Muslims.

    – – –
    As the Hindu fascists’ campaign spreads in other parts of the country, ghettoisation is bound to sharply intensify in most cities. Purely Muslim areas, suspicious of all others, and organized for self-defence will become essential for the survival of the community. Sharpening of divisions on communal basis can become a serious barrier to building class unity. Our Party in the urban areas has to seriously take the ghettoisation process into account in all plans. Sharp ghettoisation leads to lack of jobs for Muslims and pushes larger sections of them into the semi-proletariat. Thus merely organizing within industry will not enable us to enter this oppressed community. Unless we base ourselves in the middle of the ghetto, we will not be able to gain entry into organizing the community, we will not also be able to build the united front against the Hindu fascists. Thus, in our planning, we have to clearly identify the ghettos of a city and draw up our plan for gaining entry into them. While doing this, we need to organize them on their basic needs and day-to-day problems too.

    – – – –

    The above UF (United Front it means) cannot be built merely by uniting some secular individuals on the basis of a political programme. In order to be effective it has to involve the masses, particularly the masses from the minorities. This therefore means that we must have substantial grassroots work among the minorities, particularly the Muslim masses who are the most numerous and the worst victims of the Hindu fascists’ atrocities. However due to extreme ghettoisation in almost all Indian cities, this is only possible if we take a conscious decision to shift out at least some forces from Hindu dominated areas and base them in the slums and localities inhabited by the Muslim poor. This would be the first step to building any united front.

    ********************************************

    To make it clearer, here’s an example. Comrade Iris Bright had posted a music piece of a revolutionary Indian music of the earlier times of struggle(,thank you comrade IrisBright). I forwarded it to a social democrat (tourist) friend, Pravin who is an art editor of Times of India, one of the papers that occasionally prints friendly tuned articles in regard to the Maoists and, at some point Pravin has promised me he’ll make one of his colleagues to answer few questions I have.
    Pravin wrote to me that I have to look at India practically as a continent similar to Europe and, he could not understand what the revolutionary artist was singing. There are many, many languages there.

    To get a better picture about India for example also, imagine that this friend Pravin, who is not a big capitalist of a kind and is a young editor, has this other person coming to clean his apartment, wash clothes and, he feels he is doing a favor to grant that ghetto soul some money for this service.

  20. arun star said

    I agree with the contribution of ka frank regarding Islamic upsurge.what is going on in afghanistan,pakistan&iran?.Their policy is to build a Islamic world .How communists can see them as just anti imperialists.Their anti democratic anti human rights anti development ideology can be justified.Is not our vision regardless skin color,cast ,religion,sex&money.

  21. Green Red said

    Hi Arun Star,

    What you say are absolutely true in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

    But same does not apply to Philippine, India or even for that matter Chechnya part of Russia.

    While Abu Sayaf force for example in Philippine and their associates in Malaysia and Indonesia are fed and bonded by Al Qada, but that doesn’t apply with say MORO Islamic organizations in Philippine that are members of New Democratic Front.
    And their condition in India along Dalits, Christians, original people of India, etc. vs fascist Hindus is in much dire conditions, sometimes life and death.

    Take a look at recent actions of fascist Hindus is state of Orissa. They pay people money to kill Christian pastors.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.ece

    They go and kill them in groups and so forth.

    On the other hand for example, the Hindus in north of Sri Lanka that for years have fought to gain their rights and right now are under severe attack cannot be compared with fascist Bharatiya Janata Party members. and from a trustworthy source i have heard that

    The Indian Maoists are working in Tamil Nadu and other parts of India to protest the
    massacres of the Sri Lankan army and to build support for the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

    So you see, Islam Christianity, etc. have their different potentials and conditions in different countries and regions.

  22. arun star said

    Hi green red,

    I agree with your statement But why revolutionary groups cannot influence minority people ? and cannot free them from the clutches of religious fundamentalists.

    As for srilanka. srilankan government get great support from China to genocide innocent Tamil civilians and Elam fighters.The past 3 moths alone 3000 people killed and 25000 were wounded. It is a matter of sorrow .How a communist republic can support oppressor?. And this put comrades ,activists in great dilemma.

  23. Jaroslav O. said

    Because China is not a communist republic. Is Sri Lanka a democratic socialist republic, as the official name states?

  24. emil said

    i dont like the radical islamicist ideology, but they are fighting in iraq and afghanistan, and are winning. this is a hell of a lot more than any communist or maoist forces are doing.

  25. PruneBelly said

    arun,

    to my knowledge, we are still living in the age of imperialism. so, it follows the principal contradiction is between imperialism and exploited and oppressed countries. US/western imperialism currently wears the biggest target on its back, hence it is necessary for all committed and correctly orientated revolutionaries to help build a united front against US imperialism. if this includes the muslim masses, that’s something you must either accept or go work for an NGO. revolution-making is a process rife with complexities and contradictions, it’s difficult enough as it is without your liberal red herrings.

    muslims are clearly an oppressed community within india. any progressive worth his/her salt will stand in their defense against the advance of saffron fascists.

    http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/sachar/sachar.asp

    http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?ID=543

  26. Green Red said

    Hi Arun,

    Ka Jaroslav is correct. It has been a long time that people’s republic of China has lost its socialist nature and besides, due to wrong soviet union’s policy, even earlier it took wrong positions for example supporting Pakistan against India, etc.

    Emil, i understand your feeling. However, the way Muslems (and Dalits becoming Christians) are severely mistreated and, sometimes killed in India.

    Communist Party of India – Maoist in one of their published documents state:

    Caste violence and caste riots are more numerous, with some towns and cities repeatedly witnessing attacks on dalits. Anti-reservation riots in many parts of the country are a constant form of caste attacks. Such upper caste violence has led to further sharpening the division of many towns and forcing all dalits to live in separate areas to better organize their self-defence.
    The main form of violence has however been the attacks and organized pogroms by the Hindu communalists and fascists, primarily against the Muslims, but also against the Sikhs and Christians. This has led to the sharp segregation of the Muslim community and the creation of Muslim mohallas in almost all towns and cities where they have any existence. However with the metropolitanisation of some cities there has been some small shift out of Muslims into other areas. This too is being sought to be drastically reversed by the Hindu fascists during the eighties and the nineties.
    The eighties and the nineties have seen the largest number of anti- Muslim pogroms associated with the political ascent of the Hindu fascists of the Sangh parivar. The major centre for this has been the western corridor with massacres of Muslims in almost all the major cities in this belt – Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Mumbai and Surat, as well as other smaller cities like Bhiwandi, Malegaon and Bharuch. The major urban centres of the south too have been centres for communal riots – Coimbatore, Hydrabad, and Bangalore, besides other smaller cities like Mangalore, Bhadravati, etc. Some have also taken place in the cities of Central India and the Gangetic plain. Most of these attacks have been done with the full connivance and even participation of the state forces. Of all these, Gujarat is being taken up by the fascists as a laboratory for an experiment in ethnic cleansing, with systematic physical and economic annihilation of Muslims.

    Associating Muslims in such dire conditions and treated as underclass and worse with, reactionary Islamic Fundamentalists who are themselves prodcuts of imperialists.

    See Devil’s Game written by Robert Dreyfus in which this author exposes the long history of British and later the US imperialist agencies producing, financing and empowering Islamic Brotherhood and such reactionary ogranizations to take away the Nationalist and Socialist nature out of the Arabic movements.

  27. emil said

    ‘See Devil’s Game written by Robert Dreyfus in which this author exposes the long history of British and later the US imperialist agencies producing, financing and empowering Islamic Brotherhood and such reactionary ogranizations to take away the Nationalist and Socialist nature out of the Arabic movements.’-green red

    i wonder if imperialists have ever backed and funded communist organisations? some people have claimed in the past that trotskyism is backed and funded by imperialism to split support for the USSR (in the past) some people have said that the rcp usa/rim is backed and funded by imperialism, and so forth. who knows? i see no reason why imperialism cannot use communism just as well as they use islamicism or anything else.

  28. Karl said

    Israel’s relationship with the erstwhile Palestinian Muslim Brothers (I’ve been advised that that is the most accurate translation of the Arab word, rather than Brotherhood) is very well documented. Do they qualify as an imperial power (or as an agent for one or more others)? I’ll leave that for others to judge. The Egyptian mother organization of all other MBs in the Arab world has at times received support from the Egyptian regime against its leftist opponets, and if I’m not mistaken, many other Arab regimes have done the same in the post-war period.

    The American role in Afghanistan both in the 1980s and today is also well-documented, and historically the British were perhaps the greatest masters of “divide and rule” of all-time (unless I’m mistaken the French and Dutch at least have plenty done plenty of this too). Many of the movements/organizations/elites the Brits backed were Islamic nationalist or otherwise. I think on balance, the historical record of western imperial powers in this regard speaks for itself.

    That said, the perhaps broader issue is more cloudy, factually, ethically and politically. I’ve found myself in the last 5 years moving from opposing the likes of HAMAS at least, to supporting them, to now drawing back to a more confused opinion. Some (in fact many) “people’s movements” are not structurally based (i.e. class-based), certainly not historically and even today. That said, I think if you’re looking at someone engaging in any sort of armed struggle, the vast majority of the time, you want some sort of socialist/Marxist/worker’s party in control of the arms. To defend the worker’s state against external agressors (this as most site visitors here probably know too well, is what Mao really meant by that famous quote). Otherwise, it’s usually just another militia or gang (too often reactionary).

  29. Green Red said

    Thanks Karl for improving the term. True, Akhvan means brothers and, Moslemeen is plural for Moslems. Moslem brothers is more precise.

    However that organization was formed though, it was Tamil Tigers who invented if i’m not mistaken the suicidal attacks that were taken by Islamic groups firstly and then, even a part of Al Fath took the procedure as well. Out of desperation or whatever, i am hoping for returning of PFLP / DFLP (DPFLP) fellows and Kibutz rejuvinations. And, most of the fighters for peace are Kibutz’s children.
    Combatants for peace though, and such groups are the realistic approach

    http://www.combatantsforpeace.org/default.asp?lng=eng

    But, getting back on mentioning Tamil Tigers. they weren’t much cared for, seems they are defeated but, since their leadership fellows remained in their ground till the end, most likely their hidden units in the southern islands will soon pop out badly…

    So while for example in Orissa the Hindus are the killers of Christians, in the south Hindus get killed. As said by a friend, western ones just are waiting to see the backfire, to probably finance and arm new Tigers… as long as there’s war they can sell weapons to one side or the other and keep on taking minerals and products.

  30. arun star said

    Green red,
    you are quiet right,As for Tamil tigers(LTTE). They have their roots every where. I think ,definitely they will rebuild their organization and retaliate.They started from guerrilla war fare and later established a conventional army with artillery unit ,navy and a tiny air force .
    so ,i think they have potential to rebuild organization.

  31. CPSA said

    I don’t know that LTTE actually invented suicide bombings as a tactic, but they were probably one of the pioneers though and, perhaps, had the greatest “demonstration effect,” in its adoption by other groups. And of course trained many in the use of said tactic.

    But I’m completely with you on the likes of the PFLP and DFLP. They’re probably the pre-eminent Arab examples of that. At least they’re still around, if much diminished. Remember, though, the PFLP was running around hijacking planes in the 70s (if not earlier) and blowing them up on a regular basis, albeit usually after they evacuated the passengers. In fact wasn’t such an incident the catalyst for the Jordanian “civil war”/black september, 1970? Well, that’s how the American establishment media portrayed it anyway, unless I’m mistaken.

  32. emil said

    i think a large reason for the popularity of islamicism is also because of the failure of the various communist parties to act as anything more than agents of russia in the past. there have been so many mistakes made by communist parties, that it does not surprise me if people do not trust them.

  33. arun star said

    hi emil,
    I think you are talking about revisionist communist parties. They have done this mistake .They also got a image of anti development & anti progressive.I remember when computer came to India they opposed it.Now you go to AKG bhavan……… You can see there comrades using laptop. people see them as reactionary that is what happened.next thing their anti religious image. It is a fact. definitely people will return to spirituality after attaining physical development. I think now they realize this .In Bengal that is what they accept durga pooja and in kerala “shabarimala”

    But, I think now days they are not communist parties or Marxist as their name states.They don’t adhere to communist or Marxist principles.

    How a communist party could behave to working class like “Ranveer sena”.There are examples (Nandigram,Singur,Chengara).

  34. arun star said

    India poll verdict :
    What’s new?
    The Election results in india,
    with the congress led-UPA winning haven’t heralded anything new.The same politicians are back again.So,expect another five years of lackluster management.
    None of the newly elected members of parliament are going to clean up the slums or even repair the roads and gutters.They are not going to ensure sensible balancing of farm production and prices- to stop farmer suicides.The capital, New Delhi will continue to have power cuts and black-outs in summer.
    Terrorism and hooliganism will continue to rule the streets.millions of Indians will continue to be deprived of clean drinking water;Beggars will still swarm cars at every traffic signal in the cities and there will be no plans to make education free for the poor in the villages.
    corruption will continue and public funds will be siphoned off in to private pockets and 25% of Indian citizens- nearly 300 million struggle on a daily income of only 2$.They have no dreams.
    Hopefully export and domestic demand will spur growth, and the trickle will reach the poor in the village ans slums.

    The fact that the congress party cannot muster a majority on its own strength and has to depend on coalition partners to form a government under scores its inability to hear the heart beat of the ordinary people and respond to them.

  35. emil said

    But, I think now days they are not communist parties or Marxist as their name states.They don’t adhere to communist or Marxist principles.-Arun

    but this is the thing that is the problem i believe. all marxist or communist parties claim that they and only they are the true communists and abide by the true marxist principles, while everyone else is ‘revisionist’ or ‘ultra leftist’ or god knows what. while if one is inside the movement, one may believe this, but for many people who do not know or care much for marxist theory, communist is communist, and there have been too many mistakes done in the name of communism, very big mistakes, that make it hard for people to trust or believe that any communist party would be much different if they get to power. (also it is easy to be true and perfect communists out of power, but in power, it is quite different, as the nepali maoist experience shows.this is a challenge.) also , how can we say to people in eastern europe, say in hungary or poland, that they did not live under ‘real’ communism but only under a revisionist distortion of communism. we can tell them, but it does not seem very convincing. it sounds too much like an excuse, a ‘please give us one more chance’. this is not a good or convincing argument for many people. ( and i have had this discussion with many friends from eastern europe who lived under ‘communism’) my question for arun is this- what is the real communism? would it somehow coincide with MLM? would this be because you already believe in MLM?

    as for durga pooja or other religious festivals, it is not clear to me what you are saying. if you could be clearer that would be good ( i dont know much about Hindu religion). but i do not have any problem with religion. i think it is ok if people celebrate religious festivals such as Durga pooja, eid, or whatever. we should not enforce atheism on people, because after all, maybe there is a god? who knows? in USSR and eastern europe they tried to destroy religion, ( i think a historic church in moscow was turned into a toilet), but they had nothing better to replace it with. i do not think that a religious person is automatically a reactionary, and let us not forget the first russian revolution ( the unsuccessful one) was led by a monk i think. i would be curious about what your thoughts or those of indian comrades are on religion.

    also, what are marxist principals which we all refer to all the time? what are these principals? at least with christianity or islam, we know what the principals they refer to are, but i do not know with marxism. if you could tell me what are marxist principals, or where they are found, that would be helpful.

  36. arun star said

    but this is the thing that is the problem i believe. all marxist or communist parties claim that they and only they are the true communists and abide by the true marxist principles, while everyone else is ‘revisionist’ or ‘ultra leftist-emil

    Yes, you are quite right .they all blame each other revisionist or ultra leftist.But, people know and realize the right thing .This is the very important thing.

    true and perfect communists out of power, but in power, it is quite different-emil
    I agree with this .Implementation of policies are very big challenge .It is not easy in this imperialist globalization.In china they say they accept good sides of globalization But,critics say they don’t adhere to communism .It is just label .
    as for NEPAL i think ,Maoists made big mistake came out of power .They had to show little patience.Implementation of policy is a long process.”Rome was not built in one day”.

    what is the real communism? would it somehow coincide with MLM?what are Marxist principals which we all refer to all the time? what are these principals?-emil
    Answers of these questions cannot explain you in one word or paragraph .There are lots of books regarding this also you can collect from this site’s KASAMA project.
    Marxism is a science theory developed in the basis of Darwinism.

  37. red road said

    Many documents of the Communist Party of India(Maoist) now available at http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/index.htm

    Communist Party of India (Maoist): Documents, Statements, and Interviews of Leaders (Documents Which are Banned in India)
    ————————————————
    ON ELECTIONS:
    “Crores on Propaganda Shows Rulers Desperate: Azad, CPI(Maoist)”, an interview with CPI(Maoist) spokesman Azad, from The Times of India on May 2, 2009.

    “Parliamentary Democracy is an Illusion for the Masses! Revolution is Their Reality!”, statement by Azad, Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) — March 12, 2009.
    ————————————————
    ON NEPAL:
    “Interview with Com. Ganapathy”, from The Worker, #11, July 2007, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

    “CPI(Maoist) Statement on Nepal Election”, a press release by Azad for the CPI(Maoist) Central Committee, April 24, 2008.

    “Paper Presented by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on the Occasion of the International Meeting of Maoist Parties & Organisations Held From December 26, 2006”, The Worker, No. 11, July 2007, pp. 39-47, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

    “A New Nepal Can Emerge Only by Smashing the Revolutionary State! Depositing Arms of the PLA under UN Supervision Would Lead to the Disarming of the Masses!!”, a press release by Azad for the CPI(Maoist) Central Committee, Nov. 13, 2006.

    “There is Need for Caution With Present Tactics”, an interview with CPI(Maoist) spokesman Azad by People’s March, end of June, 2006.
    ————————————————
    From the Unity Congress/9th Congress (Jan.-Feb. 2007):

    “Call of the Unity Congress — 9th Congress of the CPI(Maoist)”, Feb. 1, 2007.

    “Resolution on Farmers’ Suicides”

    “Resolution Against Hindu Fascism”

    “Resolution on Prisoners’ Struggles”

    “Resolution on State Violence Against Women”

    “Resolution on Nationality Struggles”

    “Resolution on the Killings of Dalits in Khairlanji”

    “Resolution on Peoples’ Struggles the World Over”

    “CPI(Maoist) Completes its Much-Awaited Historic Unity Congress-9th Congress: A Turning Point in Indian Revolution”, statement by Gen. Sec. Ganapathi, Feb. 19, 2007.
    ————————————————————–
    2006:
    “Salwa Judum: A ‘New Front’ of ‘Hidden War’, the Inside Story”, by the CPI(Maoist) Chhattisgarh State Committee, Nov. 30, 2006.

    “South Asia Is Indeed Becoming a Storm Centre of World Revolution”, an interview with Comrade Ganapathy, General Secretary of the CPI(Maoist), from The Worker, #10, May 2006, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
    ————————————————————–
    2005:

    “Declaring CPI(Maoist) as ‘terrorist’ by the US imperialists is direct intervention in the internal affairs of India!”, a press release by Prashant for the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), April 30, 2005.
    ————————————————————–
    Founding Documents (Sept. 2004):

    “Party Programme”, by the Central Committee (Provisional) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Political Resolution”, by the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”, by the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Strategy & Tactics of the Indian Revolution”, by the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Constitution of the CPI(Maoist)”. Not dated, but from the founding of the Party.

    “Joint Press Statement Upon the Merger of MCCI and CPI-ML(People’s War) and the Founding of the Communist Party of India (Maoist)”, Oct. 14, 2004.

    “Joint Interview of the General Secretaries of the Erstwhile CPI(ML)(PW) & the MCCI on the Occasion of the Merger of the Two Parties and the Formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist)”, Nov. 7, 2004. People’s March, Supplement Nov.-Dec. 2004.
    —————————————————————

    Dates Uncertain:

    “Our Work in Urban Areas”
    —————————————————————
    Documents of the CPI-ML (People’s War) Group:

    “Introduction to the Policy Programme of Janathana Sarkar”, June 1, 2004. On the setting up of People’s Governments.

  38. red road said

    Many documents from CPI(Maoist) now available at http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/index.htm

    Communist Party of India (Maoist):
    Documents, Statements, and Interviews of Leaders
    Documents Which are Banned in India
    ————————————————
    ON ELECTIONS:
    “Crores on Propaganda Shows Rulers Desperate: Azad, CPI(Maoist)”, an interview with CPI(Maoist) spokesman Azad, from The Times of India on May 2, 2009.

    “Parliamentary Democracy is an Illusion for the Masses! Revolution is Their Reality!”, statement by Azad, Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) — March 12, 2009.
    ————————————————
    ON NEPAL:
    “Interview with Com. Ganapathy”, from The Worker, #11, July 2007, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

    “CPI(Maoist) Statement on Nepal Election”, a press release by Azad for the CPI(Maoist) Central Committee, April 24, 2008.

    “Paper Presented by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on the Occasion of the International Meeting of Maoist Parties & Organisations Held From December 26, 2006”, The Worker, No. 11, July 2007, pp. 39-47, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

    “A New Nepal Can Emerge Only by Smashing the Revolutionary State! Depositing Arms of the PLA under UN Supervision Would Lead to the Disarming of the Masses!!”, a press release by Azad for the CPI(Maoist) Central Committee, Nov. 13, 2006.

    “There is Need for Caution With Present Tactics”, an interview with CPI(Maoist) spokesman Azad by People’s March, end of June, 2006.
    ————————————————
    From the Unity Congress/9th Congress (Jan.-Feb. 2007):

    “Call of the Unity Congress — 9th Congress of the CPI(Maoist)”, Feb. 1, 2007.

    “Resolution on Farmers’ Suicides”

    “Resolution Against Hindu Fascism”

    “Resolution on Prisoners’ Struggles”

    “Resolution on State Violence Against Women”

    “Resolution on Nationality Struggles”

    “Resolution on the Killings of Dalits in Khairlanji”

    “Resolution on Peoples’ Struggles the World Over”

    “CPI(Maoist) Completes its Much-Awaited Historic Unity Congress-9th Congress: A Turning Point in Indian Revolution”, statement by Gen. Sec. Ganapathi, Feb. 19, 2007.
    ————————————————————–
    2006:
    “Salwa Judum: A ‘New Front’ of ‘Hidden War’, the Inside Story”, by the CPI(Maoist) Chhattisgarh State Committee, Nov. 30, 2006.

    “South Asia Is Indeed Becoming a Storm Centre of World Revolution”, an interview with Comrade Ganapathy, General Secretary of the CPI(Maoist), from The Worker, #10, May 2006, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
    ————————————————————–
    2005:

    “Declaring CPI(Maoist) as ‘terrorist’ by the US imperialists is direct intervention in the internal affairs of India!”, a press release by Prashant for the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), April 30, 2005.
    ————————————————————–
    Founding Documents (Sept. 2004):

    “Party Programme”, by the Central Committee (Provisional) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Political Resolution”, by the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”, by the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Strategy & Tactics of the Indian Revolution”, by the Central Committee (P) of the CPI(Maoist), Sept. 21, 2004.

    “Constitution of the CPI(Maoist)”. Not dated, but from the founding of the Party.

    “Joint Press Statement Upon the Merger of MCCI and CPI-ML(People’s War) and the Founding of the Communist Party of India (Maoist)”, Oct. 14, 2004.

    “Joint Interview of the General Secretaries of the Erstwhile CPI(ML)(PW) & the MCCI on the Occasion of the Merger of the Two Parties and the Formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist)”, Nov. 7, 2004. People’s March, Supplement Nov.-Dec. 2004.
    —————————————————————

    Dates Uncertain:

    “Our Work in Urban Areas”
    —————————————————————
    Documents of the CPI-ML (People’s War) Group:

    “Introduction to the Policy Programme of Janathana Sarkar”, June 1, 2004. On the setting up of People’s Governments.

  39. emil said

    arun

    you have not given an answer. i have read Marx, Lenin and Mao, as well as trotsky, but i have never come across Marxist principals which everybody refers to. if it is so hard for you to tell me in simple terms what are marxist principals, is it because they do not actually exist? or are they so complex that only intellectuals or party members can understand. i understand the principals of christianity, islam etc, but not marxism. Lenin talked about how the end justifies the means, and useful idiots. are these marxist principals? if there are not actually any marxist principals whatsoever, then let us not fool people and pretend they are. if there are marxist principals, then please give me some examples.

    i do not believe MLM is really a science, nor that people understand the ‘right thing’ as you say. they may be convincing to you and others on this site, but i do not think they are generally convincing to people. is trotskyism also a science? what about revisionist communism? at least, i do not think these arguments are convincing to people not already involved in MLM. i think Nepal has shown that MLM is a dead end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers

%d bloggers like this: