Yogendra Dhakal (2016) Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement.  New Delhi: Aakar Books

Product of the Nepali communist movement (known by his pen name Ajay Sharma) Yogendra Dhakal’s political career began in the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal), where he actively worked for over twenty-five years. In 2006 Dhakal joined the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). He has also served as the Nepalese Ambassador to Australia, New Zealand, and the Fiji Islands from February 2008-December 2011.  After the split in 2012, he supported the Mohan Baidya-led faction. He has resigned from the party, and joined his previous party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal).

————————————

There is much to disagree with in this compilation of articles mainly written in the 1990s as its basic purpose is to reject the adoption of the term Maoism.

This aged critique has some familiar well-rehearsed lines of thinking expressed in its pages. It covers issues that were central to the rupture of the old anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists, and concerns that were/are addressed in the development of the contemporary self-identifying Maoist international groupings.

A central core to the arguments, even if described from the losing perspective, lies in its ideological appraisal of the revisionist, anti-communist and metaphysical thinking of Bob Avakian of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA (RCP, USA). In the present International Communist Movement (ICM) Avakian’s ideas are almost defunct and they have little impact. Back then they had influence.

 Amongst many of the communist parties that adopted (old style) ‘Mao Tse-tung Thought’ in the past, the use of Maoism become generalized among the participants and supporters of RIM, and wider adherents of Mao Zedong Thought in the International Communist Movement. The previous designation of Marxist-Leninist in the organisational title has been retained by some, however nowadays more identified with those upholding the legacy of the Albanian leader, Enver Hoxha.

What is clear is that for the participants in the debate the question of Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought is not a simple or a technical issue; it is a question related to principle, and those who wanted to retain the existing frame of reference to Mao’s Thought, advocates of retaining the existing formulation, argue:

“/the justification of Maoism are the arguments that state it is the third and superior stage, difference between era and stage, and the fundamental principles propounded by Mao. The point is that many parties are positive to all those, and then equally accept the contributions of Mao as done by the supporters of Mao Tse-tung Thought, who are still firm in their analysis that in spite of all these contributions, it is not correct to use the term Maoism.”

Whether there is disagreement or confirmation with the positions expressed by the Communist Party of Nepal(Mashal) /CPN(Mashal), their collection, Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement, contributes to studying and evaluating the history in the context of the disintegration of the world socialist system and the weak position of the international communist movement.  A process that began within a year of Mao’s death in 1976 as former Albanian ally openly attacked not just the new leadership in China, but its previous revolutionary leadership and the achievements of the Chinese Revolution.

Unity and Polemic  livesup to its title and covers the expansive canvas of the experience of the international communist movement, the nature of the second world war, the united front, Stalin and the Comintern, the tactics and strategy of the Chinese Revolution and the degeneration of the socialist system in the world .

 The question of Stalin, and the mistakes made by Stalin.

The CPN (Mashal) took the evaluation of Stalin made by the CPC under the leadership of Mao as basically correct. However, ii regarded the type of mistakes and weaknesses of Stalin to be the natural outcome of the historical situations in the building of socialism in the Soviet Union under the then world situation, and not the personal outcome of “a fair amount of metaphysics” in Stalin’s approach and actions. When Stalin had to respond to these questions, there wasn’t a ready made answer in the Marxist treasury.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) approached their job as defending  Stalin in their analysing and evaluating the historical experience. The emphasis given by these communists is reflected as at every turn there is a defence of Stalin against the observations and comments critical of his leadership, the baseline being that Stalin’s line was a correct one; the exception is acknowledgement of the singular weakness of Stalin.

He could not make a concrete analysis of the new situation. He could not understand that a new exploiting class could come into existence after the end of old exploiting class because of the social grounds for this to rise were present in society after the the socialist transformation of the instruments and the means of production.

“The credit of understanding this problem dialectically goes to Mao, first of all, in the history of the international communist movement. He raised the fact that a new exploiting class could come into existence after the end of the old exploiting class, and that the social bases for their rise were present in society itself.”

On Maoism,  resolution adopted by the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) held from September 17-19, 1992, stated,

“The CPN (Mashal) fundamentally differs from a criticism made against Stalin by Chairman Mao. We hold the view that the main cause behind Stalin’s mistake, i.e. Stalin’s inability to grasp the nature of class struggle within socialism, was not due to a fair amount of metaphysics in him or his failure to apply dialectics in all spheres of life and his failure to analyse socialist society as pointed out by Mao, but it was due to a particular historical situation of the Soviet Union.”

“On Maoism” seemingly  accepts that Stalin could not understand the issue of class struggle in socialism and the issue of the restoration of capitalism in the socialist period, the CPN (Mashal) has clarified that Mao, on that point, was right.

However, the knife is still twisted,

“Mao’s great contribution to this field was not any wonder of his mind, but the product of social practice. It was the experience of the restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union and the direct experience of a transitional period running through the struggle between the capitalist road and the socialist road in China itself, of which Stalin had no experience at all and in the absence of which it would not have been possible for Mao to analyse the new situation correctly.” Unity and Polemic  p175

With that exception, Stalin certainly, without citing examples, made many mistakes about the revolutionary struggle in China and in Eastern Europe. If a lesson is not learnt from these unspecified mistakes of Stalin, the result will be indeed revisionism.

In the evaluation of Stalin that was raised towards the end of the last century (and continues to have repeat airings) there was the concerned that coloured the approach of some, that some parties and organizations have adopted an antagonistic attitude to Stalin, raising the charge that a Trotskyite evaluation was being revived in the present Marxist-Leninist international communist movement over the question of the world communist movement and formation of socialist system under Stalin’s leadership. They point to Bob Avakian, “Conquer the World? The International Proletariat Must and Will” [Revolution, Special Issue No. 50] as well as practically any summation of the international communist movement undertaken by the RCP, USA.

The RCP, USA and its Chairman Bob Avakian were bringing forward their “new thinking” publicly on some historical issues about four years before the commencement of RIM’s Second International Conference adoption of MLMZT in 1984. Regarding this, the negative view of an antagonistic level on the formation of a united front against fascism, the civil war of Spain, the role of the Comintern in the Second World War and the question of Stalin are especially remarkable.

Bob Avakian declared the policy of Stalin and the Comintern on the front against fascism to be “absolutely wrong in principle”, “the subordination of everything to the defence of the Soviet Union”, including the subordination of Marxism to nationalism in the form of the defence of the Soviet Union – Revolution, June, 1981, pp. 14-15

There is Stalin’s line that the defence of the USSR and the world revolution were identical, and that the world revolution, in order to progress should everywhere be subordinate to the defence of the USSR. … Stalin and the Comintern opposed revolution in Spain.” In Spain, to be blunt, the possibilities for big revolutionary advances in that country and worldwide were sacrificed to the defence—on a state-to-state level-of the Soviet Union.” “The line of the Comintern on the Civil War in Spain”, Revolution, June 1981

Stalin’s fundamental weakness about proletarian dictatorship lies with his saying that after 1936, its need continued not because of internal causes but because of external reasons, i.e. imperialist enclosure. At that time, proletarian dictatorship was necessary for both internal as well as external reasons, and not only external reasons.

In sum: the Second World War, from beginning to end, was the second world inter-imperialist war-this was its principal aspect and overall character even after the Soviet Union was invaded and became involved in the war.” -Bob Avakian, “Outline of Views on the Historical Experience of the International Communist Movement and the Lessons for Today”, Revolution, June 1981, pp. 5-6, 8-9

No wonder the CPN (Mashal) regarded Avakian’s writings as riddled with an antagonistic attitude to Stalin, and charged that a Trotskyite evaluation was being revived in the international communist movement over the question of the world communist movement and formation of socialist system under Stalin’s leadership. The CPN(M) identified the central point of the whole criticism by Bob Avakian and the RCP, USA as Stalin.

Attitude towards Maoism

Simply put: The supporters of Maoism think that the term ‘thought’ cannot reflect the contributions of Mao Zedong adequately. Accordingly only the term ‘ism’ can represent the contributions of Mao Zedong as the third, newest and highest stage of the ideology of the international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This formulation reflects that contributions of Mao related to theory and use of proletarian revolution and communism are equal-potential to those of Marx and Lenin. The popularity of the term attributed to the Communist Party of Peru led by Chairman Gonzalo .

see: Documents from PCP First Congress, “On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and On Gonzalo Thought”, A World to Win, 1988/11, pp. 59-61; Collected Works of the Communist Party of Peru , Volume 1 ~1968-1987. FLP 2016

The most obvious differencesbetween Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought were the positions that Maoism is considered to be a higher stage of Marxism–Leninism by its supporters, Maoism is considered by some supporters, especially those today who adhere to a Gonzaloist formulation, to be universally applicable. whilst, Mao Zedong Thought is considered to be Marxism–Leninism applied to the particularities of the Chinese communist revolution.

From these baseline position arose contending consideration of principle, strategy and tactics that involved:
i.   Imperialism and the world proletarian revolution;
ii.  Leninism and the characteristics of the present world;
iii. Imperialism and the strategy and tactics of the proletarian revolution;
iv. Solution of the fundamental problem of Leninism, i.e. seizure of
      power, and consolidating it and moving towards communism;
V. Organizing a new type of party in the era of imperialism and the
     world proletarian revolution; and
vi. Objective evaluation of contributions of Mao Tse-tung in the
      international communist movement.”

“In examining the three component parts of Marxism, it is clearly evident that Chairman Mao Tse-tung has developed each one of these three parts. Let’s enumerate them: in Marxist philosophy no one can deny his great contribution to the development of dialectics, focusing on the law of contradiction, establishing that it is the only fundamental law. On political economy, it will suffice to highlight two things. The first, of immediate and concrete importance for us, is bureaucratic capitalism, and second, the development of the political economy of socialism, since in synthesis we can say that it is Mao who really established and developed the political economy of socialism. With regard to scientific socialism, it is enough to point to the People’s War, since it is with Chairman Mao Tse-tung that the international proletariat has attained a fully developed military theory, giving us then the military theory of our class, the proletariat, applicable everywhere. We believe that these three questions demonstrate a development of universal character. Looked at in this way what we have is a new stage—and we call it the third one, because Marxism has two preceding stages, that of Marx and that of Lenin, which is why we speak of Marxism-Leninism. A higher stage, because with Maoism the ideology of the worldwide proletariat attains its highest development up
to now,” “Interview with Chairman Gonzalo”, A World to Win, No.18 1992 p. 39

What CPN(M) argued is cemented in the analysis that Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and the world proletarian revolution. Hence any contribution enhances that understanding and application of Leninism,

“Thus, in the imperialist epoch, the character of revolution in colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries is peasant revolution, and the internationalization of capital. Such a revolution takes a long time because of the imperative of fighting with the imperialists and the neo-colonialists too. So, revolution starts in the rural areas and spreads towards cities, and the armed revolutions will be of a protracted nature in such countries.”

“What is self-evident here is that the principle of new democratic revolution by Mao answers a new sphere of the general problem of imperialism and proletarian revolution. So, this development has enriched Leninism, but it does not represent the superior stage in the process of development of scientific socialism.”

“The success of the great Chinese revolution was possible through Mao’s correct analysis of the Chinese society and world situation, and also the political line accordingly. It should be regarded as the development within the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. It can be considered as the development of the creative application of Lenin and Stalin’s theory. However, the particular strategy and tactics that Mao adopted in the course of the Chinese revolution cannot be seen as a universal law of revolution”

THUS  Mao’s contribution certainly deepened and broadened the Marxist-Leninist thinking but to use the term Maoism on this ground is not reasonable. Afterall, the evaluation is framed as Mao’s working period falls under the Leninist era. In that situation it is unreasonable to present thinking of Mao as a base for Maoism. The integration of Marxism in the national context of the Chinese Revolution is regarded, not as a new contribution but a continuation, if refinement of work laid down by others.

“Mao’s ideas of surrounding the cities from the countryside and protracted armed struggle, the whole theory, strategy and tactics of new democratic revolution, etc., are not taking place in the new world situation different from the time of Lenin. Lenin put forward the theory, strategy and tactics of proletarian revolution in a specifically new world situations from the period of Marx and Engels in the process of the development of capitalism. Therefore, the theory, strategy and tactics of Mao regarding the new democratic revolution is simply a creative use and development of Lenin’s thinking and not a “new, third and superior stage” in the process of the development of scientific socialism.”

Whereas the PCP argue, in the documents from the First Congress,

“What is Maoism? Maoism is the raising of Marxism-Leninism to a new third stage in the proletariat’s struggle to lead the democratic revolution, the development and building of socialism and continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through the proletarian cultural revolution”

Even in the struggle against modern revisionism, opponents of the concept of “Maoism” will point out that “The struggle against modern revisionism is possible only through the guidance from the struggle conducted by Lenin against the old revisionists (Bernstein, Kautsky, etc.).
Mao continued that struggle, marching ahead on the way as guided by Lenin. Mao neither considered the struggle against modern revisionism as any episode different from the Leninist era, nor did he consider any need to establish any other new and original principle to lead the struggle ahead.”

Time and time again, the CPN(M) bottom line is stated that “This is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and Leninism is Marxism of this era.”

“If it is agreed that Mao’s thinking that revolution should be continued under proletarian dictatorship represents a third stage in the process of the development of scientific socialism, Leninism can neither be accepted as the Marxism of the era of proletarian revolution, nor the question such as “under which conditions it can be consolidated”, be accepted as the basic question of Leninism. If the analysis of Stalin and Mao about Leninism is true, then the thinking of Mao on continuing the revolution under proletarian dictatorship should be seen as a creative development under Leninism.”

It may be concede that

“Both Stalin and Mao, and especially Mao, raised understanding on this basic question of Leninism to a new level. Learning from the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and in China, attempts were being made to replace proletarian dictatorship with the bourgeois dictatorship by the rightists, and Mao developed his ideas of “under which conditions, proletarian dictatorship can be consolidated.”

However, the contributions of Mao Zedong cannot be elevated to higher stage produced during the process of development of scientific socialism. Essentially, the analysis presented throughout is that “Mao’s achievements are gained in the course of creative application of the Marxism-Leninism. They do not represent a fundamentally new and higher stage in the development process of scientific socialism. So, it is not correct to use the term Maoism on that ground.”

“True” followers of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, in avoiding the designation of MLM and focusing on the concept of Maoism, their argument is distorted in the belief that in justify Maoism, it is bound to push Leninism back. Hence it becomes wrong to replace Leninism with Maoism as representing the Marxism of the present era.

Remarks on the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement /RIM

RIM’s Joint Communiqué of the First International Conference (in Autumn 1980), framed  the context: “The crisis of the imperialist system is rapidly bringing about the danger of the outbreak of a new, third, world war as well as the real perspective for revolution in countries throughout the world”

Revolutionary Internationalist Movement /RIM had its roots in the agitation of two principle parties – the Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States of America (RCP, USA) and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile, put forward some new conclusions in the name of the study, evaluation and re-evaluation of the dissolution of the world socialist system.

In contrast to the perspective and analysis of RIM, the Communist Party of Nepal(Mashal) /CPN(Mashal), put forward the argument that the path outlined by the great teachers – colloquially “the five heads” – Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong  was basically sufficient for tackling the problems in the contemporary  international communist movement.

The RIM was badly influenced by the view of the RCP, USA and its Chairman Bob Avakian. The Communist Party of Nepal(Mashal) /CPN(Mashal) emphasises this in its contributions. Scepticism is rightly expressed at the claim that “Avakian “played a crucial role in establishing the ideological and political basis for the regrouping of the remaining communists after the loss of China.”  A narrative that sidelines  the actions and activities of communists in Chile, Peru, Philippines, Italy and elsewhere throughout the world.

The RCP, USA and its Chairman Bob Avakian have blamed Stalin, the Comintern, Mao Tse-tung, and to a certain extent Lenin too, viewing the revolution in one country as separate from the world revolution. The RCP, USA and its Chairman Bob Avakian have been saying regularly and publicly that Stalin and the Comintern adopted a policy of national chauvinism, and isolated the question of world revolution over the question of defence of the Soviet Union at the time of the Second World War. Regarding this, CPN(M) asserts the fact is that policies adopted by Stalin and the Comintern were correct.

Problems with CoRIM

Having been a member party of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, CPN(M) regarded the structure of the CoRIM as a hindrance to resolving the issues they raised. As far as they were concerned the coordinating “managerial authority” was lacking; CoRIM was not an elected body from the founding Conference of 1984. The target of criticism includes how RIM acted in the line struggle. The views expressed in ‘On Proletarian Democracy’ are mainly related to the proletarian dictatorship, the role of the communist party during the period of proletarian dictatorship, class struggle, proletarian democracy, democratic-centralism and the capitalist restoration. Spoiler alert: They conclude the analysis was “totally wrong”.

After the Communist Party of Turkey (ML) and CRC, CPI (ML) left the CoRIM, only the RCP, USA remained of the original elected body. The present CoRIM was then constituted with the nomination by the minority RCP, USA. The activities of the CoRIM after this development were seen as compromised: the RCP, USA constituted CoRIM in its interest, an attempt was made to establish the non-Marxist-Leninist line of the RCP, USA, as an official line of the RIM. The CPN (Mashal) has stated that the working style of the CoRIM had adopted a non-Marxist-Leninist working style on important issues in relation to making decisions.

Furthermore, “we should reject uncompromisingly Bob Avakian’s metaphysical, mechanical materialistic and idealistic interpretation of the history of the international communist movement and lessons based on that.”

The breaking point saw “Avakian brought forward a Trotskyite line and tried to capture the leadership of the international communist movement.” The CPN(M) raised charges that:

the CoRIM replaced Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought established as the guiding principle at the founding Conference of the RIM, in 1984 quite arbitrarily.

It has adopted a wrong practice to influence parties and organizations that firmly oppose its non-Marxist-Leninist thinking and working style within the RIM, to the extent of a split in a CIA style and this has been successful in some situations.

It has been plotting a conspiracy to oust the parties and organizations that go against its non-Marxist thinking and working procedure. The CPN (Mashal) has been victim of the wrath of the CoRIM. It quotes the Letter of CoRIM to CPN (Mashal)[ 21 August 1996] THAT “If your party continues to maintain its opposition to the ideological foundation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement the correct and principled response on your part would be your voluntary resignation from our movement.”

See: On the Expulsion of the Nepal Communist Party (Marshal) from RIM.  A World to Win No.24 1998 pp46-49 & 85-88 wherein CoRIM addresses the criticisms raised and argued of similarities between the CPN(M)’s logic and that of a Right Opportunist Line in Peru.

Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement (2016) , in its ideological appraisal of the revisionist, anti-communist and metaphysical thinking of Bob Avakian, the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) of the USA, provides a critical study from a different paradigm. It is worth mentioning here that in the long history of the struggle of Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) within the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) founded in 1984. Its opposition to the initiatives of RCP, USA are highlighted in these pages, and whilst incorrect in their characterisations of Mao Zedongs contributions, valid points were made.

The main author, Yogendra Dhakal, known by his pen name Ajay Sharma, had a long history of ideological struggle in the struggle of Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) against the “revisionist line of the RCP, USA” described as little more than “a petty-bourgeois, intellectualist opportunism.” Whereas other Nepalese communists thought CPN(M) at fault:

NEO – REVISIONIST TIRADE AGAINST RIM

From The Worker, Organ of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Number 3 (February 1997)

The neo-revisionist ‘Mashal’ group has for some time launched a vituperative campaign against the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and its participating member Parties to hide Its degeneration into open reformism and parliamentarism. Through its legal publications and open press statements it has not only sought to smear RIM as a ‘Trotskyite’ formation, but has done honorary service to the reactionaries and imperialists by making public sensitive informations about this important international body.

It is well-known that some time back the Committee of the RIM (CORIM) had in a very polite manner suggested the ‘Mashal’ group to voluntarily opt out of the international body because of its (i.e. Mashal’s) deviation beyond redemption from the ideological – political foundations of the RIM. However, instead of attempting to rectify its deviations or withdrawing gracefully from the international body it shamelessly mounted a public mud – slinging campaign against the RIM to the delight of the reactionaries and opportunists the world over.

Even a mere literate of revolutionary Marxism and the international communist movement should easily discern the essence of neo-revisionism practiced by the ‘Mashal’ group In the spheres of ideology, politics and organisation and its irreconcilable contradictions with the RIM and other participating member Parties. In the sphere of ideology, its blind opposition to ‘Maoism’ is virtually turning into its abandonment of ‘Mao Thought’ as well. To argue that ‘Maoism’ downgrades or negates ‘Leninism’ is mere sophistry. To pit one authority of the proletarian class against the other has been an old trademark of the opportunists. Similarly in the sphere of politics its aversion to all kinds of people’s wars or armed struggles, its never-ending obsession with legalism and parliamentarism and its tailing behind the neo-reactionary UML clique in Nepal, is an open secret. Organisationally, its legalistic form and ever decreasing size is known to all. Against this naked reality its insistence neither to mend its ways nor to leave the company of revolutionaries at the world level is just ridiculous.

It is really amusing to note that rather than to look inside oneself to locate the causes of one’s degeneration the ‘Mashal’ group has sought to denigrate RIM and its participating Parties as taking to ‘Trotskyism’. Doesn’t it remind everybody of the proverbial ‘fox’ cursing the ‘sour grapes’? If at all the RIM has turned ‘Trotskyite’, then why should a self-professed ‘revolutionary’ organisation like ‘Mashal’ be wishing to be glued with it?

In the context of the increased importance and revolutionary role of the RIM In the international communist movement it is hightime that it is cleared of neo-revisionist pests like ‘Mashal’ and its revolutionary base widened steadily.

———————————————

Some additional material from this period available at Marxism & Anti-Imperialism in India & the Banned Thought website.

Neo – Revisionist tirade against RIM | The Worker, Organ of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Number 3 (February 1997)

On Maoism. | Resolution adopted by the National Unity Congress of the C.P.N. (Unity Centre), December 1991.  The Worker, #1, February 1993

RIM: How and why?  The Worker, #1, February 1993
Ajith –  CPI (ML) Naxalbari | Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought are not the same. The Worker, #10, May 2006

OCML Voie Prolétarienne [The Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization The Way of the Proletariat] | Stalin / Mao: what differences are there? Partisan Magazine N°5, 2016

Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India   [1988-1994]“In Defence of Marxism Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought and General Line of International Communist Movement”. This document was upheld by the Special Conference of the UCCRI (ML), Feb. 25-27, 1982, and reaffirmed by the Central Committee of the newly formed CCRI in this pamphlet published in February 1989, 108 pages. Includes criticism of the “Three Worlds” Theory, Deng Xiaoping [Teng Hsiao-ping] and also of Enver Hoxha   Searchable PDF format 

Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought is Our World Outlook, a compilation of articles by D.V. Rao. This was originally a publication to mark the centenary of Mao’s birth on December 26, 1993. (Hyderabad, India: Proletarian Line Publications), 212 pages. [Included in this volume are articles in support of the capitalist roaders who seized power in China after Mao’s death.] Searchable PDF format  

Hold Alot the Invincible Banner of Mao Tsetung Thought by Harbhajan Singh Sohi (1980)

Hold High The Banner of Mao Tse-tung Thought! by the Central Committee, UCCRI (ML) (1980)

Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (M-L)   [1975-1992]“In Defense of Mao Tse-tung Thought”, by Harbhajan Singh Sohi, (Bathinda, Punjab, India: Mohinder Kaur, 2023), 290 pages. Searchable PDF format  

Rahul Foundation Publications

Why Maoism? by Shashi Prakash, 52 pages. Originally published in the Hindi magazine Dayitvabodh in 1994; this first English publication is from January 2008.   Searchable PDF format

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

Communist Party of India (M-L) [People’s War]

“Uphold Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought! Fight Against the Modern Revisionist Deng Clique”, Resolution adopted by the Central Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) [People’s War], on February 19, 1983, 67 pages.   Searchable PDF format ]

———————————————————-

The promotion and demand to adopt Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis of Communism saw the disintegration of RIM. Read Ajith Against Avakianism  ( FLP 2019) which covers the open initiated struggle in 2009 to resist the liquidation of RIM and attacks the cultish degeneration of the RCP USA.

Avakian has said that a “whole stage of the communist revolution has ended, and it ended with defeat”, “and the beginning of—and the need to launch, in fact—a new stage of the communist revolution.” 

What Humanity Needs Revolution, and the New Synthesis of Communism, An Interview with Boh Avakian, By A. Brook, pp. 37, 106.

In concluding the polemical argument, Unity and Polemic states the “New Synthesis”, “it has emerged negating the experiences and the lessons of the international communist movement and practices of the socialist transformation and advance to communism in the past.” Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement p296

The fine detail of refuting Bob’s observations can be explore at one’s own pace , however at base level it involved basically rupturing with the past understanding and practices of the international communist movement.

The criticisms of the CPN(M)

“want to emphasize that our method of summation and apprehension should be dialectical, not idealistic, while its conception of history, its theory should be materialistic, not metaphysical-that is, historical materialistic. Being historical materialists, we must oppose historical idealism”

Qualities concededly lacking in Bob’s approach. Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement p240

“ in the study of the international communist movement and socialist movements in the context of the degeneration of socialism in the USSR. In the present context too, I mean after the degeneration of socialism in China, we should follow the same way which was chartered by Mao Tse-tung in the historical struggle against modern revisionism.” Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement p240

Mao upheld and developed Marxist philosophy in the course of socialist construction in China, basing himself on the experience of the new process (degeneration of socialism and restoration of capitalism in the USSR). He developed Marxist philosophical thinking on the character of socialist society. To argue that modern revisionism is basically a new version of the old revisionism necessitates removing the specific peculiarities that modern revision arose within communist parties in power, developed under the dictatorship of the proletariat as well as in parties striving for revolutionary advance. Despite the assertions and analogies used, modern revisionism was not a repeat of the issues and forms that inflicted the international communist movement in an earlier time. Opponents of Maoism undervalue the new conditions and content in the anti-revisionist struggle.

The CPN (Mashal) accepted the contributions of Mao in the form of Mao Tse-tung Thought.: we can say with certainty that Mao’s thought is further development of Marxism-Leninism. We cannot defeat imperialism, revisionism and reactionary forces without adopting Mao’s Thought. Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement p185

However, the analysis has put forward in the international communist movement a few years after the demise of Mao, associated with the Communist Party of Peru (PCP) under the leadership of Gonzalo, asserted the contributions of Mao to be the same as the contributions of Lenin in terms of representing a new qualitative stage in the development of Marxism. RIM proceeded on the established recognition in relation to contributions of Mao (Mao Tse-tung Thought) by the Second International Conference (1984).

CPN (Mashal) thought that the Cultural Revolution represents the most advanced experience of the proletarian dictatorship and the revolutionizing of society… The Cultural Revolution was waged as part of the international struggle of the proletariat and was a training ground in proletarian internationalism, manifested not only by the support given to revolutionary struggles throughout the world but also by the real sacrifices made by the Chinese people to render this support. Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement p196

The CPN (Mashal) accepts the analysis and evaluations of Mao by the Communist Party of China (CPC) during the leadership of Mao himself. It accepts the contributions of Mao in the form of Mao Zedong Thought, and was part of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) that sought to define ‘Maoists’ since the late 1970s partly by their opposition to changes in China. Taking their analysis from the regenerative class theses expounded during the Cultural Revolution, they argue that the process of capitalist restoration emerges from a protracted class struggle within the ruling Communist Party under socialism. The arrest of ‘the Gang of Four’ in October 1976 was regarded as a decisive moment when those wanting to restore capitalism in China seized power.

In the attempt to rally self-declared Maoists, Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] was formed in March 1984 by 17 organisations and associated with the magazine A World To Win. RIM was self-proclaimed as “the embryonic centre of the World’s Maoists” “On the Struggle to Unite the Genuine Communist Forces” A World to Win No 30 2004 pp34-43     

In December 1993 RIM adopted the formation ‘Maoism’ in its declaration, ‘Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!’ a political statement on the nature of Mao’s contribution. This followed a period, in the years after the demise of Mao Zedong, when the Communist Party of Peru (PCP) under the leadership of Comrade Gonzalo promoted Maoism as the correct description, representing a new qualitative stage in the development of Marxism. http://www.awtw.org/rim/llmlm.htm

This went beyond the recognition of Mao Tse-tung Thought by at RIM’s Second International Conference (1984). On December 26, 1993 on the occasion of the Mao Tse-tung Centenary the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement took the historic step of adopting Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its theoretical foundation to replace Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought. See: A World to Win No.20 1995 pp4-9

However, the adoption of “Maoism” is going too far for the CPN(M); their objection is that “The decision of the CoRIM and the PCP, along with some other parties and organizations to bring forward Mao’s contributions in the form of Maoism and to replace Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought established in the form of guiding principles in the international communist movement is wrong. Mao is a great Marxist-Leninist. His contributions to international communist movement in theoretical and practical fields are things in the Leninist era, i.e. the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Certainly, Mao has developed Lenin’s theory, strategy and tactics, which were just in embryo. He has enriched Marxism- Leninism in the course of the struggle against imperialism, feudalism, comprador and bureaucratic capitalism, modern revisionism, and wrong thinking and trend seen within the party. However, having made this objective reality as the base, to put the contributions of Mao on an equal footing with the contributions of Lenin is completely non-objective.  Because the thought of Lenin represents a specifically different world situation—imperialist—from the competitive capitalist world situation of Marx and Engels, while Mao’s thinking does not represent any new world situation specifically different from that of Lenin.”

Mao’s contribution is elated to the development of science to the solution of particular problems of revolution. But as far as they argue the contributions of Mao do not represent the third stage of Maoism in the development of Marxism-Leninism. The CPN (Mashal) has made it clear “we should clearly understand that the present era, as defined by Stalin is still an era of imperialism, socialist revolution, and Leninism. Athough in Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, the science of Marxism-Leninism has reached its highest stage of development, it should not be taken as something outside the Lenin era but within it.”

– “On Maoism”, A Resolution Adopted by the CPN (Mashal) September 17-19,1992

The CPN(M) argued that that the contributions of Mao do not represent the third stage of Maoism in the development of Marxism-Leninism and raised the criticism that Mao “was unable to understand properly the importance of the struggle against centrist opportunism”.  The Nepalese organisation was not alone in resisting the replacement of “Mao Zedong Thought” as the ideological signifier for their politics and in their polemical contributions firmly framed their analysis “in the Leninist era”.

 “Mao is a great Marxist-Leninist. His contributions to international communist movement in theoretical and practical fields are things in the Leninist era, i.e. the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Certainly, Mao has developed Lenin’s theory, strategy and tactics, which were just in embryo. He has enriched Marxism-Leninism in the course of the struggle against imperialism, feudalism,
comprador and bureaucratic capitalism, modern revisionism, and wrong thinking and trend seen within the party. However, having made this objective reality as the base, to put the contributions of Mao on an equal footing with the contributions of Lenin is completely non-objective.
Because the thought of Lenin represents a specifically different world situation—imperialist—from the competitive capitalist world situation of Marx and Engels, while Mao’s thinking does not represent any new world situation specifically different from that of Lenin.”

Furthermore, they argued this position was not without precedent “Such an extremist view in relation to the contribution of Mao is not new in the international communist movement. In the life of Mao
himself, the conspirator Lin Piao and his clique in the CPC had presented Mao Tse-tung’s Thought as: “Marxism-Leninism at its highest in the present era.”—“Hail the Mass Publication of Chairman Mao’s Works”, Chinese Literature, No. 3, 1968, p. 11. Quoted, Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement p221

Why Mao?

 The dispute between RIM and the CPN (Mashal) was by no means limited to a question of terminology. The debate has revealed that the dispute over Marxism-Leninism-Maoism concentrates a whole series of political and ideological questions. These questions involve but are not limited to the applicability of the path of the protracted people’s war, Mao’s summation of the experience of building socialism in the Soviet Union, the lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and other vital questions

Interestingly, Unity and Polemic excludes the succeeding stage in the fallout from Avakian’s deviation and departure from the MLM sphere. Its problematic is the differences between Marxism–Leninism–Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought.

In the transitional period that saw Maoism adopted as the preferred term there were the argument over whether to use Mao Zedong Thought or Maoism – particularly engaging were the contending views expressed by Indian communists. However even when adopted, the concept of Maoism was described in the following terms by CPI (ML) (People’s War),

“Marxism, Leninism and Maoism are thus not separate ideologies, but merely represent the constant growth and advancement of an integral ideology. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the universally applicable and scientific ideology of the proletariat.”

History of Marxism Leninism Maoism (2002) New Delhi : New Vistas Publication : 4

Mao Zedong Thought had gained universal significance long before Gonzalo called it Maoism. This particular stream of contention had not achieved the significance until the early decades of the new century; hence its absence in Unity and Polemic. However, its contemporary relevance is partly rooted in those earlier ideological confrontations, especially the evaluation of Mao’s contributions.

An emerging element in the polemical mix was the dilemma for opponents of “Maoism” that not all MLMs were in defense of the formulation of MLM by Chairman Gonzalo, or what quickly followed, some promoting Gonzalo Thought as the higher stage of Maoism. What constituted the understanding of what was Maoism was the next contested issue that divided the international communist movement.

The standard position was that Mao built upon ML foundations, and in those revolutionary struggles, enriched and developed revolutionary science.

Some supporters of “Maoism”, like the (nuovo) Partito comunista italiano, argue that: “ the exposition of Maoism is not the exposition of the whole Mao’s conception of the world. It is the exposition of what is new and particular in Mao’s work, what Mao brought to the common treasure of Marxism-Leninism and that is tied to his name. This is a discriminating factor between us and all those “Maoists” who present Maoism as a conception apart, absolutely new and independent from Marxism-Leninism, as a break with the old communist movement “

It would have to wait until after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China for Mao Zedong to more fully theorize the intense class struggle in the socialist transition period, how a new bourgeoisie was generated within the communist vanguard, especially “capitalist roaders” in its leading levels, and the methods for exposing and defeating capitalist roaders and bringing the masses more deeply into the process of ruling and transforming society—namely the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. This is the principal reason why to be a communist in the present day, you cannot stop at Lenin’s teachings on the state; you must also study the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the former socialist orientated states and especially Mao’s teachings on the class struggle under socialism.

 The five main contributions of Maoism to communist thought as argued in the The Voice – organ of the CP of the (new) Communist Party of Italy, n. 9, November 2001 and No. 10, March 2002) by Nicolas P. whom also states that  Maoism is the third higher stage of communist thought, after Marxism and Leninism, and that new communist parties must be Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and not only Marxist-Leninist. The (n)CPI is part of the opposition to the analysis of the ICL grouping that is accepting of the only definition of Maoism based on Gonzalo’s writings.

• The long lasting revolutionary popular war
• The new democracy revolutions
• The class’ struggle in the socialist society
• The mass line
• The struggle between the two lines in the communist party

Whereas there is a current who underline the importance of Gonzalo in their communist identity, there is within the broader movement those who question Gonzalo as the theoretician of Maoism, let alone that Gonzalo Thought would be a new stage of Marxism, a fourth sword. Those who do believe that the international line, Democratic line, mass line and military line of Communist Party of Peru which has been authored by Chairman Gonzalo, have international importance and great significance for world proletarian revolution. That Gonzalo incarnates the ideological leap to Maoism. The question of Gonzalo is precisely what separates us from new revisionism pretending to be “maoist”.

The judgement of Sison

 [Drawn from On The Philosophy Of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.  Book Review by Harsh Thakor 16/07/2021. https://countercurrents.org/2021/07/on-the-philosophy-of-marxism-leninism-maoism/

December 15 2024 saw a commemoration of the second death anniversary of Jose Maria Sison that introduce the project of the JMS Legacy Foundation. Dan Borjal, Executive Director designate, explained the main mission of the Foundation: to preserve and continue Ka Joma’s revolutionary legacy by acting as a resource center for providing Ka Joma’s works to add to the rich arsenal of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist works from which current and future generations of revolutionaries can draw and use as weapons to bring down the enemies of the people, build a socialist future and bring about a new and better world for humankind.]

Sison was critical of the Gonzaloites who propagate that protracted peoples war is universal and applicable even to developed countries and in ‘Gonzalo Thought’ being classified as a higher stage of Maoism. Sison praised the Peruvian movement but felt that after 1988 it prematurely resorted to urban insurrections after making wrong assessment of movement being in stage of strategic equilibrium.

‘It is to the credit of Gonzalo that he took the initiative in 1983 to use the term Maoism, instead of Mao Zedong Thought, by way of posthumously showing a higher appreciation of Mao at least for some of his great accomplishments and for acclaiming Mao’s theory and practice as third stage in the development of Marxist theory and practice. But it is absurd to assert that because of Gonzalo’s “synthesis” he is responsible for making Maoism “universal” or that the universality of Maoism is reduced to the “universality of protracted people’s war” and the prescription for a “militarized party.”

‘As I have earlier pointed out, Mao himself constituted in his own lifetime Mao Zedong Thought or Maoism by making great contributions to the development of Marxism-Leninism in philosophy, political economy, party building (especially the rectification movement), the people’s war and the proletarian Cultural Revolution in socialist society. Mao Zedong Thought has gained universal significance long before Gonzalo called it Maoism. The universal significance of Mao Zedong Thought or Maoism does not depend in any way on Gonzalo who has not really summed up all the great achievements of the great Mao.’

‘It is to the credit of the CP of Peru and the RIM that they were ahead of all other entities in using the label Maoism to supplant Mao Zedong Thought. But they were not only for the symmetry of Maoism in relation to Marxism and Leninism. They claimed that in adopting the label of Maoism they were determining and defining its content to shame all other CPs for being off the line by not using the term Maoism. Worst of all, Gonzalo or the CP of Peru adopted the phrase, Gonzalo Thought, with the immodest claim that the phrase signified his own definition of Maoism as the third stage of Marxism-Leninism and his Thought as the brilliant further development, despite the fact that he had not yet won total victory in the Peruvian revolution.

“Like those who were called infantile communists by Lenin, there are infantile Maoists whose main activity is to prance around and preach dogmatically that protracted people’s war is doable at all times in all kinds of countries irrespective of the actual state of domestic social conditions and inter-imperialist conflicts. But if you look at the biographies of these infantilists in imperialist countries, they have been babbling about people’s war for at least two decades to make themselves look superior to the real Maoists who are actually waging protracted people’s wars.”

‘These pseudo-Maoists do not do any serious mass work and do not set up any self-defence organization among the people for possible armed resistance. They are little chicks in comparison to the fascist gangs. These infantile Maoists are a fringe phenomenon and do not involve or cause any serious crisis of Maoism. Neither is it a crisis that certain genuine Maoist parties are still in the process of trying to reach the level of armed struggle and prominence already achieved by the CPP and the CPI (Maoist).’

Sison’s summary of the achievements of  MAO

‘I had the good fortune of being in China in August 1966, when the GPCR was just beginning and Mao was being evaluated, appreciated and defended against his detractors and in relation to his great Marxist-Leninist predecessors. I had very enlightening conversations with members of the CPC Central Committee and members of the CPC Higher Party School. They summed up the great achievements of Mao under the term Mao Zedong Thought, such as the following:

The theory and practice of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through the GPCR was regarded as the greatest epoch-making contribution of Mao. It was aimed at combating modern revisionism, preventing capitalist restoration and consolidating socialism.’
In philosophy, Mao elaborated on and developed Lenin’s identification of the unity of opposites (divide into two) as the most fundamental law of materialist dialectics. He did so in such essays as On Contradiction, On Practice, Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? and On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People. He applied materialist dialectics in gaining higher knowledge from the dialectics of theory and practice, in carrying out the new democratic revolution through people’s war and undertaking socialist revolution and construction.

In political economy, Mao had the advantage of learning positive and negative lessons from Stalin’s policy of socialist industrialization and agricultural cooperation, the revisionist reversal of socialist revolution and construction and leading self-reliant socialist revolution and construction by using the basic and heavy industries as the lead factor, agriculture as the base ofthe economy and light industry as the bridging factor under conditions of imperialist blockade, revisionist betrayal and other adversities.

In social science, Mao developed further the theory and practice of the new democratic and socialist stages of the Chinese revolution. But his most important achievement in social science was in recognizing the problem of modern revisionism and the continuing fact of classes and class struggle in socialist society and in adopting solutions. He put forward a series of campaigns to uphold, defend and advance socialism, such as the anti-Rightist campaign, the Great Leap Forward. the socialist education movement and ultimately the cultural revolution as he faced greater resistance of the revisionists and capitalist roaders.

In party building, Mao adopted and developed further Leninist teaching on building the proletarian vanguard party. He excelled at developing the rectification movement as the campaign for educating the Party cadres and members in Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, as the method for identifying the errors and weaknesses and for saving the patient from the disease and and as the way for the Party to better serve the masses, mobilize them, let them acquire power and come under their supervision.

In people’s war, Mao had already demonstrated how the toiling masses of workers and peasants could defeat an enemy that was superior in military equipment and trained personnel through the strategic line of protracted people’s war by encircling the cities from the countryside in semicolonial and semifeudal countries. By winning the new democratic revolution through people’s war, the revolutionary proletariat and the people gain the power to proceed to socialist revolution.

‘Regarded as Mao’s most important achievement to constitute the third stage of the development of Marxist theory and practice was not his theory and practice of protracted people’s war but that of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through cultural revolution to combat revisionism, prevent capitalist restoration and consolidate socialism.’

For another survey of the Mao’s contributions to the communist thought see the following sources provided by (nuovo)Partito comunista italiano.

– The article For Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. For Maoism, in Rapporti Sociali, n. 9/10, pages 7 onwards (September 1991). There are illustrated 10 contributions of Mao related to the following themes: the analysis of the classes in which the society is divided, the developing revolutionary situation, the theory of knowledge and the style of work of the party, the leading methods of the party in the revolutionary war, the attitude towards the enemy, the people as a field of forces not hostile to the revolution, the socialist society, the modern revisionism in the socialist countries, the modern revisionism in the imperialist countries, the dialectical materialism.

– The pamphlet On Maoism, Third Stage of the Communist Thought, Editions Rapporti Sociali (1993) There are illustrated in detail 5 contributions (the theory of the revolutionary process as theory of the contradiction as motive-power of the process, the class struggle in the socialist society, the developing revolutionary situation, the united front of the classes and of the revolutionary peoples, the mass line as principal method of work and direction of the communist party). There are indicated 17 other contributions and precisely: 2 in the field of philosophy (theory of the contradiction and theory of the knowledge), 3 in the field of political economy (bureaucratic capitalism, semi colonial and semi feudal countries, political economy of socialism), and 12 in the field of socialism (class analysis in the bourgeois society, developing revolutionary situation, united front of the revolutionary classes under the direction of the working class, distinction between the contradiction among us and the enemy and contradictions within the people [antagonistic and not antagonistic contradictions], the long lasting popular revolutionary war as universal form of the proletarian revolution, the military theory of the proletariat, the struggle between two lines as law of development of the communist party, the mass line as principal method of direction of the communist party, the theory of the class struggle in socialism and the class analysis [where bourgeoisie is in the socialist countries; the three aspects of the production relations, the second aspect and the State), the sources of modern revisionism, the cultural proletarian revolution).

---

Appendum 1

Contents:   Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement

Preface vii
Introduction xi

Part I: Serious Differences with the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA 1-39
1 Single Country Advancing Towards Communism 2
2 United Front Against Fascism 5
3 Civil War in Spain 11
4 The Soviet Union’s Involvement in the 1941 War 15
5 Character of the Second World War 20
6 Dissolution of the Comintern 24
7 Proletarian Internationalism and Patriotism 27
8 Principal Contradiction in the Present World 31
9 Conclusion 35

Part II: Hoxha on Mao Tse-tung Thought 41-63
1 Communist Party and its Role 42
2 Two-Line Struggle Within the Party 47
3 The Communist Party’s Policy Towards Democratic Parties in the Socialist Period 51
4 Struggle and Unity with Different Thinking in the Socialist Period 52
5 Party Discipline 54
6 Using Contradictions Amongst Opportunist Trends in the Communist Party 56
7 Choosing Successor and Marxism-Leninism 57
8 Action and Reinstatement 58
9 Process of Social Development 58
10 Relationship Between Bourgeois-Democratic and Socialist Revolution 61

Part III: Long Live Leninism 65-109
1 General 66
2 Proletarian Dictatorship 69
3 The Communist Party and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat 84
4 Class Struggle 96
5 Proletarian Democracy 99
6 Democratic-Centralism 103
7 Capitalist Restoration 105

Part IV : One Step Forward, Two Steps Back 111-146
1 Introduction 111
2 Maoism and its “Historical Roots” 118
3 Explanation of Maoism on the Bases of Leninism 122
a Imperialism and the World Proletarian Revolution 122
b Revolution in Semi-Colonial and Semi-Feudal Countries 123
c Military Line 124
d Communist Party 127
e Political Power 129
f Struggle Against Modern Revisionism 131
g Continuation of Revolution Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat 132
4 Marxist-Leninist Principles, Contributions of Mao Tse-tung and Maoism 134

VI . Unity and Polemic in the International Communist Movement
5 Contributions of Mao Tse-tung for a “New, Third and Superior Stage” 139
6 One Revolution or Two Revolutions 141
7 “Principle of Era” and Invention of “Principle of Stage” 142
8 Maoism and the Two “Swords” of Mao 143

Part V : Agreement and Disagreement 147-177
1 Mao and the Communist Party of China on Stalin 148
2 Disagreement Over Stalin’s Evaluation by Mao and the Communist Party of China 156
a Dialectics and Stalin 158
b Personality cult and Stalin 166
c Chinese Revolution and Stalin 172
d Fundamental Principles of Marxism and Stalin 173

Part VI: Remarks on the RIM Declaration 179-198

Part VII: Mao’s Comment on Stalin’s ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the Soviet Union’ 199-217
1 Economic Laws Under Socialism 201
2 Commodity Production Under Socialism 206
3 Law of Value Under Socialism. 210
4 Antithesis Between Town and Countryside and Mental and Physical Labour 212
5 Relation Between Productive Forces and Relations of Production Under Socialism 214

Part VIII: Serious Accusation and Serious Situation 219-236
1 Evaluation of the Contribution of Mao Tse-tung 219
2 Evaluation of Stalin 223
3 Mao’s Military Line 224
4 Mao’s Struggle Against Opportunism 226
5 Election Under the Reactionary System 233
6 On Working Style 234

Part IX : On Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis of Communism 237-310
1 New Synthesis of Communism 237
2 Communist Philosophy 240
3 Bob Avakian on the International Communist Movement and the Socialist Transformation of Society 254
3.1 Nation, National Struggle and the World Revolution 254
3.2 Making Use of Contradictions Among the Imperialists 266
3.3 Industry and Agriculture in the Course of Socialist Transformation of Society 275
3.4 Bob Avakian on Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism : An Infantile Disorder 276
4 Conclusion 296

---

APPENDUM 2
From the introduction by Mohan Bikram Singh
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal)

The collapse of the world socialist system before us is an example. It suffered a setback not only because of the attacks by the external enemies, but because of the weaknesses of Marxist-Leninists to fight successfully against the revisionism within their parties and the socialist system. Because of the deviations from the Marxist-Leninist ideals, anti-people or petty bourgeoisie trends were dominant in the communist parties or former socialist parties.

After the counter-revolution in China in 1976, Bob Avakian appeared on the scene of ICM raising high the banner of Mao Zedong thought. At that time, his contributions were praiseworthy. But soon it became obvious that Mao’s high handed advocacy was only a rehearsal to prepare the ground to attack the whole communist movement, Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought was also not spared.

In 1984, the Founding Conference of the RIM (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) took place in a remote rural area of France, and our party presented a document, “Resolution on International Communist Movement” .

Opposition to the line of travel by RIM members from the CPN(M) came to a head over the adoption of  Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the organisation’s ideology, which the CPN(M) had repeatedly and vociferously argued against this position. The dispute between RIM and the Mashal is by no means limited to a question of terminology. Too often CPN(M) were seen to referred to CORIM position’s as ultra ‘left’ deviation”. In the first half of 1988 the CPN(M) was expelled from the RIM.

“A key argument the Mashal raises against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) is that Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and that since the era has not changed, speaking of MLM as a new and higher stage of our science means negating Leninism” (A World to Win, winter 1998).

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) were clearly on strong ground in arguing the RIM “is not an authoritative organization as the Communist International was. It is only a platform or forum for exchange of views, experiences and for consultation. According to the Declaration, the RIM is an ‘embryonic political centre’ of the international communist movement…. So the Committee has no power more than a consultative one and any policy or decision of Committee is subject to approval of respective parties”,

Marshals not alone?  ~~  People’s War in Nepal: Left Perspectives edited by Arjun Karki and David Seddon ( 2003): “The period from 1984 to 1998 was … a period in which the RCP, USA was trying to change the RIM into a pro-Trotsky organization, whereas the Marxist-Leninists tried to struggle against this pressure. During the conference of 1984, and after it, the communist parties of Sri Lanka, Turkey, Greece, India and Nepal struggled against this direction. But soon they resigned or left the RIM, due to their differences with the CoRIM, or they were liquidated in their respective countries. Only the CPN (Mashal) continued their single-handed struggle within the RIM against the attempt of RCP, USA to turn it into a Trotskyite organization” (Ibid., p. 189).

It emerged that there were Serious Differences with the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA

A letter of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in June 2006 to the RCP “raised serious criticism on the ideological and political line and tactics”. The CPN (Maoist) also could not remain there longer. Soon, the CPN (Maoist) came out of the RIM. Many other participants of the RIM also in one or another way left the organization.

At a time when there is no recognized leadership at the world level for advancing a struggle against revisionism effectively, there is no other alternative except through the joint efforts of all the genuine Marxist-Leninists of the world. The International Conferences of 1980 and 1984, and the formation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) are right steps in this direction.

It is true that to a certain extent, the mistakes of Stalin and Mao Zedong are also responsible for the degeneration of the socialist system. To deny the class struggle after the completion of the socialist transformation of the means of instruments and the means of production was Stalin’s mistake. Such a thinking on his part overlooked the possibility of the existence of national and international bases that could give birth to a new exploiting class and the possibility of laying trap by the capitalists in the party, government and other sectors of structure, which could trigger the danger of restoration of capitalism in future even after having passed through the period of socialist transformation of the means of instruments and the means of production. This mistake, to a certain extent, allowed for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. But, if we hold this line of Stalin primarily responsible for the degeneration of socialism in the Soviet Union, then how did the socialist system degenerate in China even when Mao Zedong correctly followed the theory of class struggle? In the process of building socialism, certainly, Mao Zedong had also made some mistakes.

---