Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

The Worker 11: Communist Party of India (Maoist)

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

Comrades,

First, on behalf of the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist), we would like to send our Revolutionary Greetings to this august gathering of Maoist Parties Camp; Organisations present here from all corners of the globe. This has been a long awaited meeting to seek to bring the genuine Maoist Parties of the world closer together. Our Party has given great importance to such meetings, aimed at building greater proximity amongst the genuine Maoist parties of the world. We are of the opinion that such multilateral as well as bilateral meetings between the genuine Maoist parties are fundamental stepping stones to build a stronger International Communist Movement. What is more, it is indeed an auspicious occasion to hold such an important gathering on the birth anniversary of Mao. It indicates our firm conviction to his teachings as a further development of the science of Marxism earlier established by the other great teachers Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

The two fundamental pillars of building the ICM are, on the one hand, greater ideological and political unity based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and, on the other, powerful movements in one’s own country aimed at the seizure of power by armed force. It is based on these two pillars alone that greater closeness can be forged and the ICM effectively built. Simultaneous to this, we are also of the opinion to forge a powerful unity of all democratic and progressive forces around the globe against imperialism, particularly US imperialism.

At the same time we do realize, that while the objective situation for advancing the revolution in all countries is excellent, and getting more so with each passing day, the subjective forces to lead this are weak — that is, the genuine (i.e. Maoist) communist forces and movements led by them are still very weak. Throughout the world there is great disorder, enormous unrest, but, because of the weakness of the Communist (Maoist) forces the leadership of these movements is falling into the hands of alien class forces with their ideologies — be it postmodernism, Islamic fundamentalism or narrow nationalism. The rise of these alien class views is primarily due to our failures in being able to effectively and militantly lead this rising discontent, particularly
against US imperialism. That is why in order to take maximum advantage of the present situation, the building of the forces of the ICM has become one of the most important and key tasks. Therein lies the significance of the present meet. We are confident that it will take us one step forward in the task we all deeply desire — greater unity of the genuine Maoist forces of the world.

One last point in the form of introduction is that the litmus test of genuineness can only be consistent revolutionary practice based on our ideological postulations. Here in India we have had (and still do have) many groups and parties swearing by MLM but their practice is in no way revolutionary — aimed at the seizure of power by armed force. Their practice is at best that of petti-bourgeois revolutionaries, at worst outright revisionist. The bulk of the genuine Maoist forces of the country over the past decade have been merging into the earlier two major revolutionary streams of the MCCI and the CPI(ML)[PW]. And now with the merger of these two streams and the formation of the CPI (Maoist) the bulk of the genuine revolutionary forces are under one banner, while the remaining sincere forces are in the process of joining. Besides, in the world today, particularly after 9/11 and the so-called ‘war against terror’ governments throughout the world, egged on by the imperialists, particularly the US (that is in the lead), are resorting to the worst forms of fascist terror against any and every people’s movement, targeting particularly the Maoists. As a result the lines of demarcation between revolution and counter-revolution, and between Marxism and revisionism, are getting more clearly drawn and the fence-sitters are forced to show their real colours.

Having said this now let us come to the topic of this meet, set by the CPN (Maoist), “Imperialism and proletarian revolution in the 21st century.” The topic is vast and encompasses a huge canvass, but here we wish to focus just on a few main points of this subject. Though the Approach Paper by the CPN (Maoist) asks that we “especially focus on defense, application and development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” we would like to give our party’s understanding on the varied issues linked to the topic, including the above. In this paper we will be brief as many of the issues we will present here in a nutshell, have already been presented at length in our Party’s magazines and resolutions. These are available for all comrades.

Estimation of the Objective World Situation

Though there may be different ways of defining it we do believe that basically this is the era of imperialism. The change of the century, by itself, does not hold any great significance as regards the character of the era and it is merely a change in the nomenclature and only indicates the beginning of another hundred year span in the history of mankind. Ever since imperialism, as defined by Lenin, came on the world stage at the beginning of the last century, the world has been dominated by the imperialist system, which is the highest stage of capitalism. It is moribund, parasitic and a decadent form of capitalism. It is this system that has continued into the 21st century. Though it may continue to survive for a long time, and will not collapse by itself until and unless it is smashed, there can be no more higher stages of evolution of this highest stage of capitalism. Its only alternative is the proletarian revolution. Though there may be many changes in its forms and methods its basic content has continued, and will continue, to remain the same.

Prior to WWII the main form of imperialist world domination was colonial and after WWII it evolved into a neo-colonial form of rule, domination and exploitation. Though this neo-colonial form continues till today it took on a more aggressive and ruthless form after the collapse of socialist China and the rival superpower, soviet social imperialism, going under the name of ‘globalisation’ from the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was necessitated also by the severe economic crisis that hit the imperialist economies since 1973 and was facilitated by the leaps made in technology — specifically the info-tech revolution.

The ruthless aggressive form of this imperialist globalization continues till today, but the imperialist crisis deepened in early 2001 pushing the US economy into depression six months before 9/11. The crisis in the US economy since 2001, though there have since been partial economic recoveries if measured in GDP growth rates, made the US take on a more aggressive, unilateral, fascist and war-mongering role going under the banner “war on terror”. But in the past five years all its attempts have failed miserably. Far from becoming a global state (it had its military bases and forces all over the world ever since WWII, here too there is nothing new in the 21st century), it has been facing problem after problem. In addition, and most important of all, there is a massive upsurge throughout the world against the policies of US imperialism, reflected in the increasing armed resistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other part of the world, the gigantic demonstrations in the West and the discontent in the entire Islamic world. Though it continues to be the sole superpower in the world and the number one enemy of all mankind, it is finding it more and more difficult to maintain its world hegemony.

At home after the IT bubble burst there was some recovery created by the housing bubble and the war economy. Now the housing bubble is about to burst and the US is bogged down in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The economy is again sliding into a depression. The dollar continues to weaken against the euro and it is facing stiff market competition not only from Europe but also from China. Its attempt to form the FTAA in Latin America, its own backyard, has miserably failed and even a ruler of a backward country, like Hugo Chavez, has dared to challenge the US might. Russia, with its new-found wealth from oil and gas sales, has once again begun to assert itself internationally, and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) has come as a major challenge to US domination in both Central Asia and East Asia. In Central Asia, Russia has to a large extent kicked the US out of most countries and it is even flexing its diplomatic muscle in West Asia. In East Asia, China has become a major economic player and its markets are spreading to
Africa, Latin America and even the US.

So, as far as the 21st Century is concerned, as in the 20th Century, it is imperialism that is the dominating factor, in this there is no qualitative change. The forms that have changed with imperialist globalization were also in no way linked to the turn of the century but began from the late 1980s itself. There is no change in the basic nature of imperialism, which even today meets the basic characteristics as outlined by Lenin. So, there is no necessity to consider it as some new stage of imperialism in the form of some globalised state, necessitating a new strategy. At the end of the 19th century, there was a significant change from laissez faire capitalism to monopoly capitalism; today, while moving into the 21st century there is no such basic change.

Even in the change in the methods of domination, if at all there was some, it was in the post WWII period (adoption of the neo-colonial form) and then again in the mid-1980s (with imperialist globalization). So, not even these changes in the form of imperialist domination were in any way linked to the change in the century. Yet, it is of fundamental importance for the ICM to have an in-depth knowledge and analysis of the way imperialism operates today, the nature of the huge speculative economy, the massive growth of the service sector, the info-tech changes, etc and the impact of all these on the class struggle worldwide and in the respective countries. This study is one of the tasks that should be taken up by the ICM. But one thing is clear: in this period of imperialist globalization the gap between the rich and the poor has reached levels never before seen in the history of humanity — this makes the class struggle sharper than ever before, creating the excellent situation for revolution (objective) that we keep talking about.

So, in short, today the world is still dominated by imperialism; and for the present it is the US superpower that is the main enemy of the world people and the number one target of the oppressed masses of the world. The imperialist system is in a severe economic crisis and though collusion amongst the imperialist powers is still principal, contention amongst them is also growing at a faster pace. The dollar is on the decline and new imperialist contenders are striking at US economic hegemony everywhere, but, as yet there is no alternative imperialist center that can any way match the US’s military might. The worst impact of imperialist globalization is on the backward countries of the world thereby intensifying the contradiction between imperialism and the people of the backward nations and countries of the world. It is this contradiction that continues to be the principal contradiction in the world arena with the backward countries being the storm centres of the world revolution. With the growing crisis in the major economies of the world all the contradictions are sharpening and the conditions are getting even more favourable for the onward march of the new democratic revolutions in the backward countries and the proletarian revolutions in the capitalist/imperialist countries. Hence it is necessary to keep in mind that imperialism has not undergone any qualitative change with the advent of the 21st century that would call for a fundamental change in the strategy and tactics of the proletarian revolution.

Developing our Subjective Forces

As already mentioned the genuine communist forces in the world are today weak. A change in this situation alone is the single major factor to change the balance of forces between imperialism and the people of the different countries of the world. So the strengthening of the proletarian forces of the world ideologically, politically, organizationally and militarily is the single most important task facing us today. Hence, the intensification of the revolutionary movement in one’s own country and deepening the unity of the genuine Maoist forces at both the national and international levels, are the twin tasks facing us today. Only while seeking to fulfill these twin tasks can the ICM be strengthened significantly to meet the challenges of the day. This meeting is part of the process to strengthen the process of unity of the Maoist forces of the world on a principled basis. And that principle can only be MLM and a revolutionary practice based on it.

Let us look at two essential factors for building the ICM in the present context:

The Question of Ideology

The ideological basis for the ICM can only be Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Today there is a tendency among some Maoist Parties to add some suffix to this in the form of a ‘thought’, ‘guiding thought of the party’, ‘path’, etc in the name of development of MLM. Also in the Approach Paper, the CPN(Maoist) says we must focus on the “defense, application and development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”. So, as suggested, then let us look into this deeply.

Firstly there can be no defence of the ideology without its application. If it is not in the concrete application of MLM the so-called defence will only result in abstract slogan-mongering. So we see many a group, in India, who claim to be staunch ‘defenders’ of MLM but their practice is in no way linked to the revolutionary theory of MLM. Worse still, there are groups that have little or no practice except bringing out some literature; this often results in dogmatic slogan-mongering. None of these can be said to ‘defend’ MLM. So, as Marxists any real defence of MLM has to be linked to its application. The history of the ICM has seen all sorts and assortments of revisionists who swear by Marx, Lenin and now even Mao, but their practice has been shown to be reformist or revisionist.

Now having seen the relationship between the first two let us turn to that between these and the question of development. In the natural sciences a theory is developed only after enormous amount of experimentation and also after it has been proved and tested through application. Even after mere experimentation it is not accepted as a development, even though the results achieved may be positive. This is a process applied in physics, chemistry, medicine or any other sphere of the natural sciences. The process is accepted and taken for granted and in fact if anyone tries to get acclamation just after a couple of successful experiments he/she will be the subject of ridicule.

Now let us turn to the science of society or Marxism. Here too the same law would apply. It was Marx and Engels who discovered the laws governing the development of society and this came to be known as Marxism only after they were seen to be correct in the crucible of practice, long after their writings appeared and put into practice. Then it was Lenin who further developed Marxist understanding of society in the era of imperialism and also the theories of the strategy and tactics of the proletariat to achieve revolutionary change. Also the elementary principles of socialist construction were postulated by Lenin and then Stalin. The victory of the revolution in the USSR and the development of socialism (notwithstanding all the limitations as the first ever experience and due to the massive imperialist/fascist attacks) established the teachings of Lenin and much of Stalin and so this came to be known as Leninism. Mao further developed the understanding of Marxism-Leninism particularly as applied to backward countries in the era of imperialism, and more particularly developed on a much more scientific basis the laws governing socialist construction in the GPCR. This developed into Maoism (earlier called Mao Tse-tung Thought).

Through these one-and-a-half centuries of communism there have been great communists with enormous writings — Rosa Luxemburg, William Liebnecht and numerous stalwarts of that period in Europe and Russia, Ho Chi Minh, Kaypakkaya, Charu Majumdar, Kanhai Chatterjee, and a host of other leaders — but no one even sought to give their writings a universal significance by attaching a suffix to it. All of them creatively applied the Marxist principles to the practice of revolution in their countries. If in the process new laws are discovered and these are proved to be correct while applying them in the practice of revolution, only then do they achieve a universal significance and can be seen as a development in the theory. Every successful application is not a development. And though all development (so also in the realm of ideas) will witness quantitative evolution before resulting in a qualitative leap, giving the labels ‘thought’, ‘path’ for this evolutionary process of development, is unnecessary. Besides, as the experience of Peru has shown, this was premature, notwithstanding the great contributions by comrade Gonzalo, as the movement has suffered a big set-back and there is even dispute regarding his present role. So also the same could happen to any other country. There need not be any undue haste in glorifying individuals by placing some suffix or the other just because some initial successes have been achieved in their countries concerned. Even more problematic would be the assertion by Maoist Parties that the Thought, Path etc of their leaders has universal significance. This would mean imposing one’s own assessment regarding the development of MLM on other fraternal Parties and the ICM. This could also increase the differences and might lead to disunity rather than promoting unity among the Maoist forces worldwide.

Correct ideas develop in the course of class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment. Only if in this process the existing laws governing society are further developed or new laws discovered, that have a universal significance, can we say that the science of Marxism has been further developed.

So, let the ICM adopt MLM as its ideological basis without any new suffixes and, more importantly, work steadfastly to apply this to our own countries, with modesty, perseverance, and creatively apply it to the highly complex and new situations emerging in the various countries of the world. This itself is a Herculean task; let us leave it to future generations to assess whether they want to add any suffix to our humble work.

Is Revisionism the Main Danger for the Advance of Communism or ‘Lack of Democracy’?

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the struggle against Khruschevite revisionism a number of Maoist parties gave a call to commemorate the year with a renewed struggle against all its manifestations. In India we have been following up that call by holding seminars, publishing literature, etc.

Today when we say that the subjective forces are so weak in spite of the objective conditionsbeing excellent, what is the reason for this? It is clear that the main reason is that revisionism has eaten into the vitals of the communist movement and weakened it from within. Imagine from a state of nearly a half of the world being within the socialist framework around the 1950s we today are in a state where there remains not a single socialist state and just a handful of powerful genuine communist parties — these too are fighting with their backs to the wall facing fascist terror. First the Soviet Union turned revisionist and with them scores of parties followed suit. Then at least China and the GPCR stood out as a shining star, inspiring all around the globe. But this too changed its colours after the death of Mao in 1976. This affected a host of other parties and movements as well. Later the great movement of Peru also faced a severe setback and now even the party seems to be in disarray. Many of the national liberation movements too got liquidated and joined the establishment, like those of Indo-China, the powerful movements of Africa and those of Central America. Many communist movements were ruthlessly crushed as in Kampuchea. Now, after over 150 years of the
communist movement we can count the number of genuine communist movements with some mass base on our finger-tips. Why has it faced such a state?

No doubt this issue needs to be studied more deeply. Again this is a task that needs to be taken up by the ICM, but we can say that it is basically revisionism that is the chief cause for this liquidation of communism. Comrade Mao made Herculean efforts to counter this menace, taking lessons from the set-back in the Soviet Union, by launching the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, where he unlocked the riddle of the causes for the reversal and the laws for continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. But finally that too was insufficient and the revolution was turned back with capitalist roaders seizing the party headquarters. Why has revisionism been able to so effectively liquidate the communist movements from within is an issue that urgently needs further study. We hope this too can be one of the tasks to be taken up by this gathering for the future.

But to reduce it to the question of the lack of democracy is far too simplistic. And to go so far as to make the question of ‘democracy’ as the main issue of the 21st century and virtually negating the great initiatives of the last century is merely to divert the issue. The main issue before the communist movement is revisionism and not ‘democracy’, and whether communism will advance or not in this century is dependent on whether it will be able to more effectively counter the revisionist danger and steer the party on the correct revolutionary path, both before the success of the revolution and also after its victory.

No doubt democracy is an issue and there is need for more effective democratic centralist functioning. But today we find that we are probably far behind in our methods of democratic centralist functioning even from what Mao devised, particularly during the GPCR. Multiparty democracy, multiparty competition etc are not the issue as this in no way helps contain the rot that develops from within. And we do not need to prove our ‘democratic’ credentials to the bourgeoisie. The issue is how the party can be better equipped to counter a bourgeoisie that develops in the Party particularly when it comes from the leadership. It is this that destroyed the CPSU, CPC, and numerous other parties in the world. And it is this revisionism that is the main danger. In this we can no doubt take many a lesson from the GPCR.

Drawing lessons from the experience of Soviet Union Com. Mao advanced to a qualitatively higher plane in solving the problems of socialist construction and preventing counter-revolution in China during his lifetime. He waged a bitter struggle against Liu Shao-chi’s notorious “theory of productive forces” which denied the conscious role of the subjective element, and against Yang’s theory of “two combining into one” which propagated the reconciliation of class contradictions and opposed the continuation of revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. He provided the proletariat with a suitable form and method to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Many creative methods were evolved during the GPCR in China such as rotation of the Party secretaries and other important functionaries at various levels from time to time; rotation of the managers and supervisors in factories, collective farms, cooperatives, communes, government departments etc; replacement of one-man management in the factories and other workplaces with revolutionary committees with three-in-one combination of rank-and-file workers, technicians and Communist Party members as introduced during the GPCR; involvement of the workers in management and managers in shop floor work i.e., the abolition of the permanent division of labour — such as manager, technical expert, shop floor worker — status and privileges based on hierarchy; universal military training, involvement of the army in production, in imparting continuous training to the masses and the militia, in integrating with the masses and not confining to barracks, and so on.

Moreover, is it possible for the Party of the proletariat to prevent the comeback of the defeated classes to power peacefully through such an opportunity provided to them to compete in a “democratic” manner? Would the Bolshevik Party have won the elections in Russia after the revolution had it organized such political competition given its near-total absence in the vast backward countryside where the most reactionary ideas ruled the roost? In fact, the Bolshevik Party had to even dissolve the constituent assembly immediately after it captured power despite the fact that it was only a minority in it as the constituent assembly acted as an instrument of the reactionaries and became an obstacle for carrying out revolutionary reforms and for exercising proletarian dictatorship as in the Soviets. It is not just the case of Russia, in many countries, particularly in semi-colonial semi-feudal countries, where petty commodity production and peasant economy predominate, the feudal ideology, culture, customs and the force of habit among the majority of the population will make it possible for other non-proletarian and even reactionary parties under the anti-feudal anti-imperialist cloak to come to power relatively easily. Hence it will not be surprising if we find that proposal like multiparty democracy and competition ultimately becomes a convenient tool in the hands of the capitalist-roaders to seize power.

Of course at the stage of the people’s democratic dictatorship after the new democratic revolution the government can be a coalition of anti-imperialist, anti-feudal parties (as was the case in China), under the leadership of the communist party. But this coalition is not for any supposed guarantee for preventing capitalist restoration or greater ‘democracy’, but a mere continuation of the four-class UF policy adopted throughout the stage of democratic revolution.

Equipped with these rich experiences and lessons, Maoist revolutionaries of today must explore all possible methods and organizational forms that will ensure the widest participation of the masses in the administration and management of government and industry, in the armed forces, etc., and make them the main actors in evolving the policies, plans and in all decision making. One of the main tasks of the Party should be to effectively lead the masses in class struggle against each and every non-proletarian trend and the emergence of the new bourgeois class. The lessons from the experience of the GPCR, which stalled the counterrevolution for almost a decade from 1966-1976 in China, must be imbibed by all Maoist revolutionaries, and further developed.

In order to prevent the degeneration in the Party functionaries, officials in the various state departments, particularly the armed forces, in the various units in the production sphere, and so on, it is necessary for a good section of the Party leadership to work among the masses and concentrate on building class struggle for a long period after the seizure of power. They must also directly participate in production. We have to encourage the masses to criticize the mistakes committed by the party and the party leaders even prior to the seizure of power.

All this and much more, the GPCR has already taught us. To what extent have we communists been able to imbibe even a fraction of this in our methods, particularly in our base areas where we wield power? No doubt we would have to even go beyond this but first let us at least make a start in the direction set by Mao and the GPCR. As the upholders of Maoism, while not being dogmatic, we need to creatively apply these lessons from past history to our present practice and then of course even advance further. To negate this past rich experience is tantamount to negating Maoism in the name of its creative development.

The great challenge of 21st century communism is to devise the wherewithal to more effectively counter revisionism so that the great victories of the 20th century can be once again be re-established, and that too at a higher plane. Though the 20th century witnessed earth-shaking victories of socialism, by the turn of the century these had been reversed. Let us vow to take lessons, more resolutely fight revisionism and thereby uphold the science of Marxism in a more effective and thoroughgoing way. The question of ‘democracy’ too must be linked to the class struggle, proletarian dictatorship and the facilitation of struggle against all alien views that arise in the Party of the proletariat.

Strengthen the Subjective Forces

Therefore one of the key tasks before the august gathering here is to strengthen the subjective force of world revolution. This is inconceivable without a consistent and continuous struggle against each and every manifestation of revisionism within us. It is only by doing so that we can more effectively take the movement forward towards victory; and after victory safeguard the fruits of revolution by continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this we have to counter both dogmatic (formula-type) and empiricist tendencies and creatively apply the science of revolution to our respective countries. Let us take lessons from history, not negate them. Let us always remember what Mao said during the GPCR: “never forget class struggle” and “take class struggle as the key link”. Strengthening the subjective forces ideologically, politically, organisationally and militarily is the key task of the ICM. All of us gathered here need to play a role, however small it may be. Hopefully we will get up from this meeting having achieved a higher level of unity. Thereby we can step-by-step work to rebuild the ICM into a force it once was in the last century.

Some Experiences of India

Finally, and briefly we would like to share some of our experiences from India.

Though the communist party was born in India in the 1920s, for over four decades it was revisionist politics that dominated it, except for brief interludes as during the great Telangana uprising. It was the great Naxalbari uprising that shattered the tranquility of the revisionist agenda and brought revolution on to the Indian political agenda. Naxalbari was, for the first time, able to make a clean break with revisionism. Comrades Charu Majumdar and Khanai Chatterjee were the great leaders who showed the path in those days where revisionism held a vice-like grip over the Indian communist movement. But due to ruthless state repression and a lack of maturity in our tactics the movement faced a severe set-back. The entire leadership was virtually decimated and about 6,000 cadres were martyred. What remained got splintered into numerous small groups. Some from the M-L stream continued with the left-sectarian line and soon got decimated; others from this stream swung to the right and went back to the revisionist camp, though they maintained the signboard of MLM.

It was only a few from the M-L stream that pursued the path of people’s war and armed struggle while correcting the errors of the earlier phase. On the other hand the MCC stream also grew steadily along the path of people’s war. By the 1990s it was these two streams that had grown into a significant force with their people’s armies working towards building Base Areas. After bitter experiences and even clashes finally these two streams merged and on Sept 21, 2004 the Communist Party of India (Maoist) was born. The ideological basis for this unity is provided by the five basic documents of the new party. These were: On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Party Programme, Party Constitution, Strategy & Tactics and Political Resolution (on the current domestic and international situation). In addition both parties prepared their detailed self-critical reviews of their past practice and specifically of the causes for the clashes between the two.

The significance of this merger can be understood from the approach of the state machinery to the new party immediately after the merger. They described, for the first time, the Maoists are the single biggest threat for their internal security, beefed up their intelligence mechanism, formed central and state commands, raised special anti-Naxal forces and turned much of the existing paramilitary away from other trouble spots to the Maoist areas, brought in the army for training and directing the anti-Naxal special forces, and while continuing the enormous repression in the armed struggle areas of AP, Jharkhand, Bihar, unleashed a Vietnam-style strategic hamlet operation in Dandakaranya under the banner of Salwa Judum, resorting to the scorched-earth policy of kill all, burn all, loot all. Ihe revisionist CPI and CPM were party to all this and the latter have acted as ruthlessly against us in the states they run. As I write this news is just coming in of three Maoists killed in an ‘encounter’ in West Bengal. Since its formation about two years ago, five of our central committee members have been arrested and are in jail, including two PB members, coms. Sunil Roy (alias Shome) and Narayan Sanyal (alias Vijay), both of whom are above 65. The CPM government has challenged the lower court decision granting a 5-year sentence to Sunil Roy in the High Court, demanding it be turned into a life imprisonment. Besides, in these two years about 600 comrades have been martyred.

Yet the party has effectively fought back and was able to successfully beat back the offensive in Dandakaranya. Today the Maoists are gaining credibility throughout the country and more and more people are seeing it as the only possible alternative to the vicious polices and fascist actions of the reactionary Indian ruling classes.

It must be remembered that the Indian ruling classes are a highly intelligent breed as they have faithfully served British imperialism and liquidated a powerful independence movement with a combination of ruthlessness and duplicity. Many, including the then CPI, were fooled by its duplicity. MK Gandhi supposedly led the freedom struggle but in fact was nothing but a British stooge planted in the movement to control it and divert it onto the non-violent path. Nehru posed as a great progressive while he was an outright stooge of the imperialists and feudal forces. India was declared a republic and a parliament was instituted but in essence there was little change in the existing semi-colonial semi-feudal order. They implemented limited land reforms, Indira Gandhi attacked the Monarchy, abolished the privy purses of the Rajas, nationalised banks, etc, but the semi-feudal system continued intact till today (no doubt with some changes). Feudal relics may go, but that does not mean the end of feudalism or semi-feudalism. Today few ruling classes of the world have bowed down so servilely before the imperialists, particularly the US, as the Indian rulers. And while speaking of brotherly relations with the neighbouring countries they have resorted to crude expansionist polices and even outright war against them. The Indian rulers are hated in all the countries of South Asia for their bullying and dominating methods.

So communists the world over should not get confused with the Indian ruling classes double talk. It pains us intensely when revolutionaries from fraternal parties come here and shower all type of praise on the Indian rulers, wax eloquent on Indian ‘democracy’ and the Indian ‘Republic’, and say not a word against their anti-people polices, their expansionist nature and even against the massacre of their fellow Maoists. It is undialectical to think that a ruling class that can be so reactionary and fascist (witness the Gujarat pogroms) within the country can adopt a progressive foreign policy. Their policy to Maoists, whether in India or abroad, will be the same: where possible co-opt them, or at least defang them; if not, crush them with an iron hand. Why communists, they are doing the same to the nationality movements; where entire populations have been decimated as in Kashmir and the North East; and they even turned their venom against the Tamil Eelam fighters and sought to sabotage the Bangladeshi movement.

However, the Maoists in India will continue the people’s war and not fall prey to enemy bullets, whether sugar-coated or real. The revisionists of the past in out country have come in all shapes and forms and we have therefore learnt much from the past bitter experiences. No doubt, till today we are still small force, given the huge size of the country with over one billion people. But we are a growing force gaining strength even in the face of enemy attacks and also credibility with the masses at large. We are confident to advance the people’s war till final victory.

Simultaneously we will firmly stand by proletarian internationalism and will never allow narrow interests to act against the interest of the ICM and of our fraternal parties in particular. We firmly and consistently oppose Indian expansionism which attacks most ruthlessly the people and nations of neighbouring countries and crushes the nationality movements with Hitlerite ruthlessness. We will always stand by the people of the neighbouring countries and the oppressed nationalities. We will contribute to the building of the ICM to the maximum of our ability and strength. Without the development of a powerful ICM victory of revolution in India too becomes much more difficult.

Comrades,

We hope this meeting can help deepen our understanding and take one step forward to cement our relations thereby strengthening the ICM. At this meeting we need to work out concrete steps to be taken for the future in this direction. We need to work step by step to build greater and greater understanding amongst us, get other Maoist forces into the fold, and in this way act to rebuild the International Communist Movement anew.

We wish to thank all the delegates present here and particularly our hosts the CPN(Maoist) for taking the initiative to host this meeting.

With Revolutionary greetings,

Central Committee
CPI(Maoist)

December 26, 2006

14 Responses to “The Worker 11: Communist Party of India (Maoist)”

  1. Amit Karmakar said

    I strongly support only those which can changes the system of india through either pen or bullet by whatever it mabe

  2. Paul said

    Dera Amit,

    This is what the revolutionaries need – people’s support.

    The following link would give us some more information on what the maoists are doing in Nepal and India to change the system.

    http://www.bannedthought.net/

  3. Paul said

    Sorry for the typing mistake, I mean ‘Dear Amit’. My apologies.

  4. Wadud Nawaz said

    The process of Imperialist Globalization has sharpened the contradiction between Sovereign Nation States and corporate capital. Mitigation of internal conflict for market and collusive distribution of world market amongst multinational and transnational corporates through UNO and WTO on one hand and financial control through WB and IMF on the other have given a new dimension to imperialist domination in the 21st century. Please let me know your views about the following newly emerging phenomenon of the 21st Century:
    a. Contradiction amongst Sovereign Nation states and Corporate Capital.
    b. Utilizing aid as principal tools for global domination.

    c. Role of NGOs as Fifth Columnists of economic aggression of corporate capital over poor third world countries.

  5. N.S.F(INDIA) said

    NATIONAL STUDENTS FEDERATION(NSF) INDIA IS A REVOLUTIONARY STUDENTS ORGANISATION. NSF LAUNCHED IN 1990 IN AMRITSAR CITY, THE STATE OF PUNJAB IN INDIA. REVOLUTIONARY STUDENTS OF AISSF,NSUI,SFI AND PSU ADOPED NEW REVOLUTIONARY LINE OF INDIAN NATIONALISM. WE SUPORTS LEFT DEMOCRATIC AND REVOLUTIONAY FORCES. WE THINK INDIA WILL BE PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC STATE. ONE DAY POLITICAL POWER OF INDIA WILL BE IN STUDENTS HAND. WE THINK INDIA IS ONE COUNTRY FROM SHRI LANKA TO AFGANISTAN. LETS JOIN HANDS FOR PEOPLES REVOLUTION IN INDIA. ALL LEFT, DEMOCRATIC,LEFT REVOLUTIONARY,REVOLUTIONARY NATIONALIST, SOCIAL AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONARY FORCES TO JOIN HANDS AT COMMOMN MINIMUM PROG. WE ARE LAUNCHING NSF AS A POLITICAL PARTY OF INDIAN STUDENTS AND YOUTHS IN SHORTY. LETS START DISCUSSION FOR REVOLUTION IN INDIA. WE THINK ALL THE PERSONS ON EARTH ARE STUDENTS.FROM THE BIRTH TO DEATH ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE STUDENTS. THEY STUDY EVERY DAY NEW THINGS.

    mail

    nsf@indiamail.com

  6. vidya chakrawarthi said

    I’m from sri lanka and my basic question is –

    Have you gone through a thorough study on the reasons which lead the USSR and PRC turn in to a revisionist/pro capitalist condition?Is is simply the fault of certain individuals (kruschev/deng xiapong etc.)
    How can you guarantee that after seizng power maoists will not become an authoritative force which brings down burden on people?As you see stalin is a great revolutionery how would you explain all the anti human behaviors of the stalin regime?Though there can be a certain degree of exaggeration We cannot simply reject them as imperialist propaganda.The problem is revolutiioneries have not focused on developing a check and balance system with in a socialist regime which controls extreme power.What I propose is this issue should be taken in to consideration in a serious manner.

  7. Ben said

    Individuals such as Deng Xiaoping represents the new bourgeois elements generated by the lingering legacy of commodity relations such as payment of differing level of wages according to a heirarchy of skills and positions and the centrally regulated use of the commodity market to distribute daily essentials through commodity exchanges which newly emerging socialist society cannot immediately do away with. Such individuals joined the party to achieve the completion of the new democratic revolution to overthrow imperialism, feudalism and comprador-bureacrat capitalism but during the subsequent stage of struggling against bourgeois rights under the dictatorship of the proletariat, they sided with the bourgeoisie.

    This is where Mao stood out as a proletariat revolutionary leader by pointing out the need to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat to not just prevent the restoration of capitalism by capitalist roaders in the party but also abolish bourgeois rights and other social relations based on commodity exchange, class, gender other exploitative forms of division of labor in society. He called it the line of taking the socialist road as opposed to those taking the capitalist road in the name of developing socialism which Deng had done. Mao even estimated that it may take a series of 10 to 20 proletariat cultural revolutions to be launched every 10 to 20 years before human society would arrive at the stage of communism whereby private property, the state and exploitation of the vast majority by a handful elite minority will be rendered unneccessary.

    Deng and his bourgeois social base rely on a handful of professional elites or experts to restore and develop capitalism but Mao and his proletarian social base rely on consciously arousing, mobilizing and organizing the ordinary working people to not only prevent capitalism from being restored but also to change society and humanity itself. Capitalist roaders such as Deng rely on a handful of professional elite elements or experts but communist revolutionaries such as Mao rely on the ordinary working people because for him, only the people in their consciously aroused, mobilized and organized millions are the real makers of history; leaders are just spokepersons for one class or another.

  8. Ka Frank said

    Vidya and Ben:

    Thanks for your comments about the important issue of capitalist restoration in formerly socialist countries such as the Soviet Union and China. The subject of Stalin and the roots of the capitalist restoration in the late 1930s and 1940s have not received enough attention by Maoists, but it is important to note that Mao had many critical comments about Stalin. These have been collected on http://www.massline.org/SingleSpark/Stalin/StalinMaoEval.htm.

    My own opinion is that Stalin was much more revolutionary in the 1920s and early 1930s in relying on the masses to build socialism in a single country, and that this changed for the worse with the embrace of the United Front against Fascism (which involved an alliance with the Western “democratic” states against Germany and Japan) and in reliance on Great Russian chauvinism during World War 2–all of which allowed newly generated bourgeois elements such as Khrushchev to develop a powerful base in the party and come to power after the death of Stalin.

    There is also a detailed description and evaluation of the Cultural Revolution in the article, “The Cultural Revolution in China and its Lessons for Today,” by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the U.S. at
    http://www.mlmrsg.com.

    I agree that this is unfinished business from the socialist revolutions in the 20th century and hope that comrades will continue to work on this subject.

  9. Ka Frank said

    Vidya: I didn’t mean to ignore your question about the “anti-human behaviors of the Stalin regime.” I don’t uphold the purges of 1937-38, in which leading party people who disagreed with Stalin and his followers on one or more subjects were targeted as “imperialist spies” and “saboteurs” and executed. As many people have pointed out, the roots of these serious errors were in the political line embraced by Stalin that antagonistic classes and class struggle in the Soviet Union had been eliminated–so therefore dissidents in the party and throughout Soviet society were traitors linked to the imperialist powers.

    This undoubtedly squashed healthy two-line political struggle within the CPSU, and may have taken a heavy toll on the more revolutionary elements in the Soviet party.

  10. Ben said

    Perhaps Stalin’s line on class struggle being purely external rather than being internal tend to make him resort to bureacratic measures in settling major party line struggle instead of using the mass line. The historically unprecedented grave financial crisis hitting every major capitalist country of the world during the late 1920s and much of the 1930s aka the great depression provided a very favorable historical opportunity for Stalin to launch a proletariat cultural revolution, which Lenin had called for just dying in 1924, to rely on the masses to prevent revisionist line from gaining currency in the party and among the masses and to to safeguard the collective gains of socialist construction in the fledgling USSR but he failed to see the need for it.

    Stalin’s lack of clarity on the continuation of class struggle under the dictatorship of proletariat also contributed to his tendecy to rely on the initiative of professional and technically well-trained elite elements rather than the conscientized initiative of the masses in developing production forces and changing social relation among the masses. This serves to concentrate socio-economic and political decision-making power in the hands of bureacratic managers and directors at the expense of damping the conscientized initiatives of the toiling masses thus reducing them to submissive nuts and bolts in the production process rather than arousing, mobilizing and organizing them to be master of the whole of society and not be slave to wages.

    During the sharp two-line struggle of the 1970s, Redflag magazine published an article by Zhang Chunqiao on how to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and on the need to suppress bourgeois rights from spontaneously influencing the masses on a daily basis through the need to continue using the media of commodity exchange in distributing daily essential and other consumer products. He was a key party leader of rebel workers in Shanghai, during the GPCR, who successfully rose up to seize power from pro-Liu Shaoqi supporters in the party and the incumbent Chinese Federation of Trade Unions. This article was recently republished on the Maoflag website in China.

    Zhang’s article helped Mao to heighten his theoretical understanding and his ideological vigilance on the danger of capitalist restoration in China in the aftermath of the cultural revolution. Together with Jiang Qing, Zhang defended the Maoist line of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat till he died in the mid-1990s after long years of life-term imprisonment under successive capitalist-roader regimes.

  11. Single Spark’s ‘analysis’ of Mao’s attitude to Stalin is absolutely worthless. I am not asking everyone to support everything Stalin did right or wrong but please look at history in an objective way. People shouldn’t turn Mao into some sort of Trotskyite or anarchist ‘anti-stalinist’ simply to suit their own subjective, revisionist viewpoint. Mao and the CCP did tail Khruschev after the ‘Secret Speech’ for a brief period. They then changed their mind and the line became that those who throw away the sword of Stalin, throw away the sword of Lenin. The whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to oppose those in the CCP who wanted to follow the line of Khruscheva and embrace revisionism. It wasn’t some ultra-democratic, anarchist upsurge. If people want to embrace Trotskyism there are plenty of Trotskyist sects for people to join (the ISO isn’t too choosy about who joins so maybe the ex-Single Spark people could join them). I really get fed up of Trotskyites masquerading as Maoists and then putting out a fabricated version of our history.

  12. dave said

    ‘If people want to embrace Trotskyism there are plenty of Trotskyist sects for people to join”’- Joseph Ball

    they could also join a crypto trotskysist sect such as the RCP USA….

  13. dave said

    neither stalin nor mao were particularly revolutionary when they got in power, and they both were more nationalist in power than out of it. it is also very hard to champion stalin, because the enormity of his mistakes is so well known and cant be covered up. ( telling the partisans in greece, italy, france and other places in europe to disarm and work with the imperialists etc) i think it is wrong to see the sino-soviet split as one between revisionism and revolution, but rather as the competing national interests of russia and china. ( make foreign things serve China- )

  14. “Many communist movements were ruthlessly crushed as in Kampuchea. Now, after over 150 years of the communist movement we can count the number of genuine communist movements with some mass base on our finger-tips. ” — Central Committee, CP India (Maoist), 2006

    It is interesting that the CP India (Maoist) not only considers the Khmer Rouge to be a communist organization, but singles them out specifically as noteworthy. It is interesting that they still hold this opinion, even in 2006. Presumably, they still hold this view today in 2010. It was reported in Dalit Voice (which is hostile to CP India (Maoist)) many years ago that one of the predecessor groups of the CP India (Maoist), perhaps People’s War Group, popularized images of Pol Pot in India, Pol Pot buttons specifically. It does not seem like the CP India (Maoist) is trying to hide its positive assessment of Democratic Kampuchea. In fact, they draw attention to it unnecessarily in this document.

    Most Maoists correctly point out that the US and USSR were the main enemies of the Kampuchean people. However, to uphold Democratic Kampuchea is very idiosyncratic today. Since the victory of revisionism in Nepal, many in the Maoist movement latching onto the CP India (Maoist). How widespread is this positive assessment of Democratic Kampuchea within the Maoist movement? Of course, Mao supported the Khmer Rouge. Do Maoists here share the CP India (Maoist)’s view of communism?

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

 
%d bloggers like this: