Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Indian RIM group Criticizes Avakian and Nepal Maoists

Posted by celticfire84 on December 14, 2010

Symbol of the disfunctional Revolutionary Internationalist Movement

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 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.’”


2 Responses to “Indian RIM group Criticizes Avakian and Nepal Maoists”

  1. Harsh Thakor said

    The concept of the Leninist Party is vital for the revolution and a multi-party concept would lead to revisionism.Comrade Mao built up his party as a development of Leninism and his theory was a development of Leninism and not seperate from it.Infact there is a strong tendency to call Maoism as something different from Leninism.While agreeing with Mao’s concept of continuous Revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat we have to defend the monolothic party concept.Stalin violated democratic centralism considerably which made Mao Tse Tung call for mass movements within a Socialist Society itself to democraticize the Communist Party.A great personality cult was created particualarly under the era of Lin Biao which needs to be studied as well as the phenomena which led to the rise of Lin Biao.An Important contribution has been made by Co.Bob Avakian on dissent within aSocialist Society which has immense significance in light of repression on artists and intellectuals and lack of sufficient criticisms within a Socialsit Society itself.However still the foundations of the theories of Marx-Lenin -Mao have to be upheld and in this light the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement has played a major role in the promoting of revisonism.Most eclectic stands have been taken on Stalin.

    However such forces are forgetting the important contribution of Lenin on the dictatorship of the Proletariat and the revisionist character of parliamentary democracy.Infact it was Trotsky who promoted the multi-party system and the institutions of bourgeois parliamentary democracy. By promoting multi-party system the proletarian revolutionary centre of power is denied and infact a Socialist State can be toppled. Let us remember the experiences of the Communist Movement in Nazi Germany or worldwide. It was the Leninist Party that promoted the building and consolidation of Socialist Societies in Soviet Union and China. Whether the Bolshevik Revolution,the civil War, the collectivization era, the Soviet World War Victory: all these achievements were the result of the foundation of the Leninist Party. Similarly in China although Mao called for continuous Revolution under the dictatorship of the Proletariat he called for a revolt within a proletarian party Structure. The sweeping victories of the Socialist Revolution,The Great Leap Forward, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution were unprecedented in history and can be attribute to Comrade Mao’s persistence with upholding the Leninist Principles of the Dicatatorship of the Proletariat. True there were opposing factions of revisionist nature like Lin Biao ,Liu Shao –Chi Etc ,but the struggle against them through mass campaigns was led by the proletarian party. It was the revolutionary trend within the proletarian party that fought the Lin Biaost forces politically and the rise of Lin Biao or Liu Shao Chi cannot be attributed to the lack of a multiparty System. True ,it was defeated by Deng Xiaoping’s rightist forces, but a multi-party Sustem may have promoted such forces much earlier. In Soviet Union Comrade Stalin violated democratic Centralism to a considerable extent and any dissent was put down .Comrade Mao, tried to correct this by initiating a broad mass Movement of the Chinese masses against the reactionary Forces, and got several members of the party to go through self-criticism and reform. It was historic that a mass Movement was led within the very Communist Party ,unlike in the Soviet Union. Mao had learnt from the Stalin era that a revolutionary Movement was required even within a socialist System.

    Since the fall of proletarian power in the C.C.P. there is no Socialist base in the World. History remembers that despite the achievement of C.P.C under Mao ,the party did not go towards establishing he Communist International or establishing an International Organisation. Instead it stressed for he Communist Parties of the camp to apply he universal truths of Marxism-Leninism in the concrete situation of their country. It emphasized that other countries should not copy the Chinese Experience to-to but apply the Chinese experience in accordance to their own condition.

    Some of the most important and valuable writings on the correct International Line and Mao Tse Tung Thought have been written by the late Com.Harbhajan Sohi in 1980 in the “Proletarian Path’It makes an incisive and lucid analysis of the Teng -Hua clique and the wrong trends in the Communist Movement projected by the ‘mass line’ group in India and the R.C.P,U.S.A.Internationally.In recent times Joseph Ball has also contributed some valuable writings defending the monolithic party.

  2. maitri said

    Harsh- who has the correct line anywhere in the world today? for instance, the GPCR. was Mao’s fourth wife and the gang of four really ever convincing leaders of China? I dont think so. Also, is there not something in Mao of the Chinese Emperor when he got into power? who invited Nixon to China? it is hard to say which trend is reactionary or revolutionary when it is just on the basis of names. One suspects very much that much of the struggle in the cultural revolution was over power, and less over revolutionary line.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: