Indian RIM group Criticizes Avakian and Nepal Maoists
Posted by D and I Consulting on December 14, 2010
The new issue of the Theoretical Journal of the CPI(M-L) Naxalbari, No. 3 is available as a PDF here.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari is one of several Maoist groups in India — one which has previously expressed a political and ideological line close to that of the Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path).
Unlike the larger Communist Party of India (Maoist), this group has been part of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement — an international grouping of communist organizations and parties — together with the RCP,USA and the UCP of Nepal(Maoist) which are targeted polemically in this issue..
Thanks to BannedThought.net for making this available. Posting these essays here does not imply endorsement.
Wranglism Is Fine, But… 2
On The Line and Tactics of the UCPN (Maoist) 6
Letter to CC, CPN (Maoist), 2006 45
Letter to CC, CPN (Maoist), 2007 62
Excerpt from inner circular, 2008 67
Against keeping communists on info diets over major ideological differences
“Mao Tsetung said that ‘Marxism is wrangling-ism.’ It is often quoted by Maoists. But just how good are they in wrangling?
“Do they energetically jump into ‘the ring’ when issues come up? Do they stir up wrangles when they think that vital questions are at stake?…
“How much of this ideological struggle is opened up? In the current practice within the broad Maoist movement, as well as the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), opening up of differences, going public, is reserved for the very end, when the differences have arrived at the level of a denunciation or split. Extreme examples where ideological differences at the leadership level or between parties are known to only a few at the top most level for a long period can also be seen…”
On cult of personality and the mistaken idea of “monolithic party”
“Digging deeper into this we come up against another bad thing carried over from our past, the contrived exaltation of leadership. This came in after Lenin. It is an inseparable part of the monolithic party concept package, along with the norms discussed earlier. And it directly impinges on these norms.
“Lenin’s authority was derived from his words and deeds which accorded with the needs of the party and the international proletariat. It was not created with a string of adjectives, oaths, name dropping or propping him up to be on par with his illustrious predecessors. In fact Lenin sharply fought against such tendencies, even to the extent of insisting on a public denunciation by the Central Committee. Precisely because of this approach the danger of being accused of irreverence to the ‘Great Leader’ was eliminated and that opened up space for critical debate.
“Once you have this style of employing add-ons to embellish a leader, rather than relying on the authority that will necessarily emerge through that person’s role in leadership, it will invariably create a feudal mentality of reverence within the party and the masses. Its corollary is hostility to criticism.
“For all the fervent talk on being scientific and critical the mood will be, to paraphrase one of Mao’s comments on Stalin, ‘Wrangle on, but don’t touch my ancestor’s ass.’”