otto's war room banner

otto's war room banner

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

CRUSHING REVISIONISM AND OPPORTUNISM! LONG LIVE THE GERMAN RED FLAG COMMITTEE!

Translated to English from Google:

The proletariat and people of Ecuador stand in solidarity with the comrades of the Red Flag Committee of Germany, who, in the march of May 1, were cowardly assaulted by opportunists and revisionists in collusion with the repressive apparatus of the state.

Something that the Communists have learned in Ecuador is that faithful to the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought, the construction of the instruments for the revolution must, necessarily, have that character of concentric and simultaneous construction of the party, front and back. army, the party being the center. That is to say, we can not build the Party first and then the army and the front, simply because we will not have the mass support and the armed support that will guarantee and consolidate every position gained in the construction and preparation of the people's war.

This concentric and simultaneous construction allows us to go, in the middle of the process, generating spaces and actions that in one way or another compromise the destruction of the scenarios and political arsenal that counts imperialism, the old state and its strategic ally, revisionism . So, here the consolidation of this process can only take place by building militarized parties, and subjects of our particular experience, to militarize also the work scenarios of the front.

In any case, the aggression suffered by the comrades of Germany is also an aggression against the international proletariat and we assume it in that way, with all the responsibilities that our militancy and its tasks in this regard commits.

The cowardly and hartera aggression of these miserable aligned not only with the old revisionism and opportunism, but with the ROL, which is expressed as the neo-revisionism, also suggests to the communists two important elements that must be considered: that the members of the Red Flag Committee, are waging, applying and defending the correct ideological line, then the reaction, the opportunists and the revisionists operate, act, bare their true purposes and at the same time show that we are transiting the way that the class and the people must walk to the conquest of power. President Mao said it well, "for us, it is bad if a person, party, army or school is not attacked by the enemy, because that means that it has descended to the level of the enemy. It is good if the enemy attacks us, because that proves that we have demarcated the fields with him. And even better if the enemy attacks us with fury and paints us black and devoid of any virtue, because it shows that not only have we delimited the fields with him, but we have achieved remarkable successes in our work "and that is the truth comrades, and before this attacks will multiply, and each time will be more treacherous and bloody, then here operates the other aspect, the other element, the response, the necessary reaction, letting the enemy of the class know that we are not tame and faint-hearted lambs, that we are not willing to turn the other cheek, that we will return word for word, blow for blow, blood for blood, and in the end we will drown them in their own blood, with all their ideological filth, because we are clear that "to make the revolution is not to offer a banquet, or write a work, or paint a picture or make an embroidery; it can not be so elegant, so slow and fine, so peaceful, kind, polite, moderate and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, it is an act of violence through which one class overthrows another. "

Our solidarity, support and recognition of the brilliant work being done by the proletariat of Germany today supported by the Red Flag Committee, standard bearer of the correct ideological line, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; of Gonzalo thought, and that on the facts, they are demonstrating that the possibility of forging communists of new lineage in the bowels of imperialism is a palpable reality and that it fits the interests of the international proletariat and its final goal: communism.

LONG LIVE THE GERMAN RED FLAG COMMITTEE!

LONG LIVE MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM!

LONG LIVE THE GONZALO THOUGHT!

UNEMPLOYING AND CRUSHING REVISIONISM AS A SERVANT OF IMPERIALISM AND A STRATEGIC ALLIANCE OF REACTION!

DEATH TO IMPERIALISM, DEATH TO REVISIONISM!

¡DESENMASCARAR Y APLASTAR AL REVISIONISMO Y AL OPORTUNISMO! ¡VIVA EL COMITÉ BANDERA ROJA DE ALEMANIA!


El proletariado y pueblo del Ecuador, se solidariza con los camaradas del Comité Bandera Roja, de Alemania, quienes, en la marcha del 1 de mayo, fueron cobardemente agredidos por oportunistas y revisionistas coludidos con los aparatos represivos del estado.

Algo que hemos aprendido los comunistas en el Ecuador es que fieles a los principios del marxismo-leninismo-maoísmo, pensamiento gonzalo, la construcción de los instrumentos para la revolución debe, necesariamente, tener aquel carácter de construcción concéntrica y simultánea del partido, frente y ejército, siendo el partido el centro. Es decir, no podemos construir primero el Partido y después el ejército y el frente, sencillamente porque no tendremos el sustento de masas y el respaldo armado que vaya garantizando y consolidando cada posición ganada en la construcción y preparación de la guerra popular.

Esta construcción concéntrica y simultánea nos permite ir, en medio del proceso, generando espacios y acciones que de una u otra manera comprometen la destrucción de los escenarios y arsenal político con el que cuenta el imperialismo, el viejo estado y su aliado estratégico, el revisionismo. Entonces, aquí la consolidación de este proceso solo puede darse construyendo partidos militarizados, y sujetos de nuestra experiencia en particular, militarizar también los escenarios de trabajo del frente.

De todas maneras, la agresión que han sufrido los camaradas de Alemania, es también una agresión al proletariado internacional y la asumimos de esa manera, con todas las responsabilidades que compromete a nuestra militancia y sus tareas al respecto.

La cobarde y hartera agresión de estos miserables alineados no solo con el viejo revisionismo y el oportunismo, sino con la LOD, que se expresa como el neo revisionismo, también sugiere a los comunistas dos elementos de importancia que deben ser considerados: que los miembros del Comité Bandera Roja, están enarbolando, aplicando y defendiendo la línea ideológica correcta, entonces la reacción, los oportunistas y los revisionistas operan, actúan, desnudan sus verdaderos propósitos y a la vez evidencian que estamos transitando el camino que la clase y el pueblo deben caminar para la conquista del poder. Bien lo decía el presidente Mao, “para nosotros, es malo si una persona, partido, ejército o escuela no es atacado por el enemigo, porque eso significa que ha descendido al nivel del enemigo. Es bueno si el enemigo nos ataca, porque eso prueba que hemos deslindado los campos con él. Y mejor aún si el enemigo nos ataca con furia y nos pinta de negro y carentes de toda virtud, porque eso demuestra que no sólo hemos deslindado los campos con él, sino que hemos alcanzado notables éxitos en nuestro trabajo” y esa es la verdad camaradas, y ante esto los ataques se multiplicarán, y cada vez serán más alevosos y cruentos, entonces aquí opera el otro aspecto, el otro elemento, la respuesta, la necesaria reacción, hacerle saber al enemigo de la clase que no somos mansos y pusilánimes corderos, que no estamos dispuestos a poner la otra mejilla, que devolveremos palabra por palabra, golpe por golpe, sangre por sangre, y a la final los ahogaremos en su propia sangre, con toda su inmundicia ideológica, pues estamos claros que ”hacer la revolución no es ofrecer un banquete, ni escribir una obra, ni pintar un cuadro o hacer un bordado; no puede ser tan elegante, tan pausada y fina, tan apacible, amable, cortés, moderada y magnánima. Una revolución es una insurrección, es un acto de violencia mediante el cual una clase derroca a otra”.

Nuestra solidaridad, respaldo y reconocimiento al brillante trabajo que viene realizando el proletariado de Alemania hoy aupado en el Comité Bandera Roja, portaestandartes de la línea ideológica correcta, el marxismo-leninismo-maoísmo; del pensamiento Gonzalo, y que sobre los hechos, van demostrando que la posibilidad de forjar comunistas de nueva estirpe en las entrañas del imperialismo es una realidad palpable y que se ajusta a los intereses del proletariado internacional y su meta final: el comunismo.

¡VIVA EL COMITÉ BANDERA ROJA DE ALEMANIA!

¡VIVA EL MARXISMO-LENINISMO-MAOÍSMO!

¡VIVA EL PENSAMIENTO GONZALO!

¡DESENMASCARAR Y APLASTAR AL REVISIONISMO COMO SIRVIENTE DEL IMPERIALISMO Y ALIADO ESTRATÉGICO DE LA REACCIÓN!

¡MUERTE AL IMPERIALISMO, MUERTE AL REVISIONISMO!

Monday, May 21, 2018

DSA warned to Combat anti-communism

By  សតិវ ​អតុ
Many of the people who read this blog have nothing but contempt for Democratic Socialist of America, or any democratic socialist group. Some hate democratic socialist as much as I hate the Republican Party. I attended a camp out for DSA, this weekend and listened to some speakers they had on Saturday. I liked this speech and found it very relevant. This attitude should be adopted by most of the DSA chapters around the country.

Combating anti-communism

Report on Phil Brown's, Omaha, Nebraska speech.
"Anti-communism is part of the US ideology," Brown said. "At every level of our culture anti-communism is pervasive. It's Orthodox American ideology. Communism is featured as an evil force. A threat to the American way of life, to the American dream."
Brown explained how the US created this climate of anti-communism which was obvious during the red scare years, but also pushed in more subtle ways.
" Leftist Groups have distanced themselves from communism," Brown continued. "They stress they are not communist. None of those attempts worked. If you challenge the bourgeoisie they will label you a communist.  A democratic socialist runs for office, he is labelled a communist. Red baiting doesn't help us. "
Much of Brown's speech was about all the ways the corporate leaders of this country have associated any challenge to their authority as communism.
"Even Medicaid could be labelled communism," Brown added.
He pointed out some of the absurdities of anti-communism.
"Many Americans see themselves as millionaires who are temporarily removed from that class by the fact that they just don't have their money yet," he added.
All of this creates the kind of class confusion that has protected the wealthy classes from the working class. It has created a kind of hostility to working class ideas while not being hostile to the upper classes.
Brown said that  anti-communism is a form of intervention and some leftists take part in it.
" Intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Central America, regardless of what we think of these other countries some progress is made," he added.
Brown pointed out that most of the countries that have been labelled as authoritarian, un-democratic and anti-freedom, (common catch phrases) may fall short of the progressive values moderate leftists wanted to see, yet they  began as movements that people supported for legitimate reasons. He used the fall of the Soviet Union as an example of a cause that many leftist supported, but in the end that support worked against a lot of them.
" If we are pressing for social change it doesn't help us too be red baiting," Brown added. "It makes a liberal or progressive agenda easy to shoot down."

Red Salute on the 38th Anniversary of the People's War In Peru - Red Salute to Chairman Gonzalo

Chairman Gonzalo[1] has proven himself to be a major Maoist theoretician. Unlike other great ones, such as Marx, Mao and Ho Chi Minh etc. Gonzalo is still living. Gonzalo's leadership of the Communist Party of Peru (PCP or as the press called them, Shining Path) has proven to be one of the most successful revolutionary movements of the later half of the 20th Century. -សតិវ ​អតុ

Hail Chairman Gonzalo on 38th anniversary of peoples war in Peru who is the ,the greatest living Marxist-Leninist-Maoist of our times. Before 1992 the PCP were almost on the verge of toppling the state. The greatest people's war after the Chinese revolution. Chairman Gonzalo was the founder of Maoism as a higher stage. -
Harsh Thakor
Image result for Chairman Gonzalo

SOME THOUGHTS ON CHAIRMAN GONZALO AND MARXISM LENINISM MAOISM:

From Democracy and Class Struggle:

I. ON MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM


In the furnace of class struggle, the ideology of the international proletariat emerged as Marxism, afterwards developed into Marxism-Leninism and later Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Therefore, the scientific ideology of the proletariat, all-powerful because it is true, has three stages or landmarks in its dialectical process of development: 1) Marxism, 2) Leninism, and 3) Maoism. These three stages are part of the same unity which began with the Communist Manifesto one hundred and forty years ago, with the heroic epic of the class struggle, in fierce and fruitful two-line struggles within the communist parties themselves and in the titanic work of thought and action that only the working class could generate. Today, three unfading lights are outstanding: Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-tung who, through three grand leaps have armed us with the invincible ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which today is principally Maoism.

Nevertheless, while Marxism-Leninism has obtained an acknowledgment of its universal validity, Maoism is not completely acknowledged as the third stage. Some simply deny its condition as such, while others only accept it as “Mao Tse-tung Thought.” In essence, both positions, with the obvious differences between them, deny the general development of Marxism made by Chairman Mao Tse-tung. The denial of the “ism” character of Maoism denies its universal validity and, consequently, its condition as the third, new, and superior stage of the ideology of the international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, that we uphold, defend, and apply.

As an INTRODUCTION, in order to better understand Maoism and the necessity to struggle for it, let us remember Lenin. He taught us that as the revolution advanced to the East it expressed specific conditions that, while they did not negate principles or laws, were new situations that Marxism could not ignore, upon the risk of putting the revolution in danger of a defeat. Notwithstanding the uproar against what is new by pedantic and bookish intellectuals, who are stuffed with liberalism and false Marxism, the only just and correct thing to do is to apply Marxism to the concrete conditions and to solve the new situations and problems that every revolution necessarily faces. In the face of the horrified and pharisaic “defenses of the ideology, the class, and of the people” that revisionists, opportunists and renegades proclaim, or the furious attacks against Marxism by brutalized academicians and hacks of the old order who are debased by the rotten bourgeois ideology and blindly defend the old society on which they are parasites. Lenin also said clearly that the revolution in the East would present new and great surprises to the greater amazement of the worshipers of following only the well-trodden paths who are incapable of seeing the new; and, as we all know, he trusted the Eastern comrades to resolve the problems that Marxism had not yet resolved.

Furthermore, we must keep well in mind that when Comrade Stalin justly and correctly stated that we had entered the stage of Leninism as the development of Marxism, there was also opposition by those who rend their garments in a supposed defense of Marxism. There were also those who said that Leninism was only applicable to the backward countries. But, in the midst of struggle, practice has consecrated Leninism as a great development of Marxism, and thus the proletarian ideology shone victoriously in the face of the world as Marxism-Leninism.

Today, Maoism faces similar situations. All new things, like Marxism, have always advanced through struggle, and similarly, Maoism will impose itself and be acknowledged.

As for the CONTEXT in which Chairman Mao Tse-tung developed and Maoism was forged, on an international level it was on the basis of imperialism, world wars, the international proletarian movement, the national liberation movement, the struggle between Marxism and revisionism, and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Three big historical landmarks must be emphasized in the present century: first, the October Revolution of 1917, which opened the era of the world proletarian revolution; second, the triumph of the Chinese Revolution, in 1949, which changed the correlation of forces in favor of socialism; and third, the great proletarian cultural revolution, which began in 1966 as the continuation of the revolution under the proletarian dictatorship in order to maintain the revolutionary course towards Communism. It is enough to emphasize that Chairman Mao led two of these glorious historical feats.

In China, as the center of world revolution, Maoism was concretely expressed within the most complex convergence of contradictions, and the intense and ruthless class struggle which was marked by the pretensions of the imperialist powers of tearing and dividing up China after the collapse of the Manchurian Empire (1911), the anti-imperialist movement of 1919, the revolts of the great peasant masses, the twenty-two years of armed struggle of the democratic revolution, the great contest for the building and development of socialism and the ten years of revolutionary storms for carrying forward the Cultural Revolution, as well as the sharpest two-line struggle within the Communist Party of China, especially against revisionism. All this was framed within the international situation described above. It is out of this aggregate of historical deeds that we have to extract four events of extraordinary importance: The founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1921; the Autumn Harvest uprising which initiated the path from the countryside to the city, in 1925; the founding of the People’s Republic, 1949; and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR), from 1966-1976; in all of which Chairman Mao was a protagonist and the acknowledged leader of the Chinese Revolution.

We can say from Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s biography that he was born on December 26th 1893, opening his eyes to an agitated world scorched by the flames of war; son of peasants, he was seven years old when “Boxer Rebellions” began; a student at a Teachers’ Training College, he was in his eighteenth year when the empire collapsed and he enlisted himself as a soldier, later to become a great organizer of peasants and of the youth in Hunan, his native province. Founder of the Communist Party and of the Red Army of workers and peasants, he established the path of surrounding the cities from the countryside developing People’s War as the military theory of the proletariat. He was the theoretician of New Democracy and founder of the People’s Republic; a promoter of the Great Leap Forward and of the development of socialism; the leader of the struggle against the contemporary revisionism of Khrushchev and his henchmen, leader and head of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. These are landmarks of a life devoted thoroughly and solely to the revolution. The proletariat has seen three gigantic triumphs in this century: Two of them belong to Chairman Mao, and if one is glory enough, two are even more.

On the CONTENT of Maoism, of its substance, we must point out the following basic issues:

1. Theory. Marxism has three parts: Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. The development of all these three components gives rise to a great qualitative leap of Marxism as a whole, as a unity on a superior level, which implies a new stage. Consequently, the essential thing is to show that Chairman Mao, as can be seen in theory and practice, has generated such a great qualitative leap. Let us highlight this with the following points:

In Marxist philosophy he developed the essence of dialectics, the law of contradiction, establishing it as the only fundamental law; and besides his profound dialectical understanding of the theory of knowledge, whose center are the two leaps that make up its law (from practice to knowledge and vice versa, but with knowledge to practice being the main one). We emphasize that he masterfully applied the law of contradiction in politics; and moreover he brought philosophy to the masses of people, fulfilling the task that Marx left.

In Marxist political economy, Chairman Mao applied dialectics to analyze the relationship between the base and superstructure, and, continuing the struggle of Marxism-Leninism against the revisionist thesis of the “productive forces”, he concluded that the superstructure, consciousness, can modify the base, and that with political power the productive forces can be developed. By developing the Leninist idea that politics is the concentrated expression of economics, he established that politics must be in command, (applicable on all levels) and that political work is the life-line of economic work; which takes us to the true handling of political economy, not just a simple economic policy.

Despite its importance, an issue which is often sidestepped, especially by those who face democratic revolutions, is the Maoist thesis of bureaucratic capitalism; that is, the capitalism which is being developed in the oppressed nations by imperialism along with different degrees of underlying feudalism, or even pre-feudal stages. This is a vital problem, mainly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, since a good revolutionary leadership derives from its understanding, especially when the confiscation of bureaucratic capital forms the economic basis for carrying forward the socialist revolution as the second stage.

But the main thing is that Chairman Mao Tse-tung has developed the political economy of socialism. Of the utmost importance is his criticism of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, as well as his theses on how to develop socialism in China: Taking agriculture as the base and industry as the leading economic force, promoting industrialization guided by the relationship between heavy industry, light industry and agriculture; taking heavy industry as the center of economic construction and simultaneously paying full attention to light industry and agriculture. The Great Leap Forward and the conditions for its execution should be highlighted: One, the political line that gives it a just and correct course; two, small, medium, and large organizational forms in a greater to lesser quantity, respectively; three, a great drive, a gigantic effort of the masses of people in order to put it in motion and to take it through to success, a leap forward whose results are valued more for the new process set in motion and its historical perspective than its immediate achievements, and its linkage with agricultural collectivization and the people’s communes. Finally, we must bear well in mind his teachings on the objectivity and the subjectivity in understanding and handling the laws of socialism, that because the few decades of socialism have not permitted it to see its complete development, and therefore a better understanding of its laws and its specification, and principally the relationship that exists between revolution and the economic process, embodied in the slogan “grasp revolution and promote production”. Despite its transcendental importance, this development of Marxist political economy has received scant attention.

In scientific socialism, Chairman Mao further developed the theory of social classes analyzing them on economic, political, and ideological planes. He upheld revolutionary violence as a universal law without any exception whatsoever; revolution as a violent displacement of one class by another, thus establishing the great thesis that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. He resolved the question of the conquest of political power in the oppressed nations through the path of surrounding the cities from the countryside, establishing its general laws. He defined and developed the theory of the class struggle within socialism in which he brilliantly demonstrated that the antagonistic struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the socialist road and the capitalist road, and between socialism and capitalism continues. That in socialism it was not concretely determined who would defeat whom, that it was a problem whose solution demands time, the unfolding of a process of restoration and counter-restoration, in order for the proletariat to strongly hold political power definitely through the proletarian dictatorship; and, finally and principally, the grandiose solution of historical transcendence, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as the continuation of the socialist revolution under the proletarian dictatorship.

These basic questions, simply and plainly stated but known and undeniable, show the Chairman’s development of the integral parts of Marxism, and the evident raising of Marxism-Leninism to a new, third and superior stage: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism.

Continuing with this brief synthesis, let us look at other specific points which, although deriving from the above, should be considered even if only enumeratively, to emphasize and pay due attention to them.

2. The New Democratic Revolution. Firstly, it is a development of the Marxist theory of the State, establishing three types of dictatorships:

1) Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in the old bourgeois democracies like the United States, a type in which the dictatorships of the oppressed nations such as the Latin American ones can be assimilated;

2) Proletarian dictatorships, like the ones in the Soviet Union or in China before the usurpation of power by the revisionists; and

3) New Democracy, as a joint dictatorship based on the worker-peasant alliance, led by the proletariat headed up by the Communist Party, which was formed in China during its democratic revolution, and which is concretely expressed in Perú today through the People’s Committees, in the base areas and in the People’s Republic of New Democracy in formation. It is fundamental to emphasize, within this development of the theory of the state, the key differentiation between a state system as a dictatorship of a class or classes that hold political power, which is principal, and a system of government, which is understood as an organization for the exercise of political power.

On the other hand, New Democracy, one of the extraordinary developments made by Chairman Mao, masterfully materializes for us the bourgeois revolution of a new type, which only the proletariat can lead. In synthesis, it is the democratic revolution within the new era of world proletarian revolution in which we evolve. The New Democratic Revolution implies a new economy, a new politics, and a new culture, obviously overthrowing the old order and upholding the new one with arms, the only way to transform the world.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that New Democracy is a democratic revolution. Although it mainly fulfills the democratic tasks, it also complementarily advances in some socialist tasks, so that the question of two stages, democratic and socialist, which corresponds to countries like ours, is thoroughly solved by guaranteeing that once the democratic stage is concluded, it will be continued as a socialist revolution, without any intermissions or interruptions.

3. The three instruments. The problem of the construction of the instruments of the revolution presents the Party with the problem of understanding the interrelationship between the Party, the army and the united front; and to understand and correctly handle the interconnected construction of the three instruments in the midst of war or in the defense of the new State based on the power of the armed people, expressing in that way a just and correct task of leadership. Their construction is guided by the principle that a just and correct ideological line decides everything, and it is on this ideological-political basis that the organizational construction is simultaneously developed in the midst of the struggle between the proletarian line and the bourgeois line and within the storm of the class struggle, mainly in war, as the principal form of current or potential struggle.

Regarding the Party, Chairman Mao starts from the necessity of the Communist Party, a new type of party, a party of the proletariat. Today, we would say a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Party: a party whose aim is to conquer political power and to defend it, and therefore it is inextricably bound to people’s war in order to initiate it, develop it or wage it to defend itself. A party sustained by the masses of people, be it by way of people’s war which is a war of the masses, or by the united front which, being a front of classes, is based on the broad masses. The Party develops and changes itself according to the stages of the revolution and the periods that these stages may have. The driving of its development is the contradiction which materializes in its heart as the two-line struggle, the proletarian line and the bourgeois or in general non-proletarian line, which is in essence and mainly a struggle against revisionism. This leads to the decisive importance of ideology in the life of the party and to the development of rectification campaigns that serve a greater adjustment of all the systems of party organizations and the membership to the just and correct ideological and political lines, guaranteeing the predominance of the proletarian line and keeping the Party leadership in its iron grip. The Party serves the establishment of political power for the proletariat as the leading class of the New Democracy, and principally for the establishment, strengthening and development of the proletarian dictatorship, and through cultural revolutions the conquest of the great, final goal: Communism. Because of this, the Party must lead everything in an all-around way.

The revolutionary army is of a new type. It is an army for the fulfillment of the political tasks that the Party establishes in accordance with the interests of the proletariat and the people. This characteristic is concretely expressed in three tasks: To combat, to produce in order to pose no parasitical burden, and to mobilize the masses. It is an army based on the political development of the proletariat’s ideology, from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (today), and from the general political line as well as the military one that the Party may establish. It is an army based on people and not on weapons, an army that surged from the masses with whom it has always been linked, serving them wholeheartedly, which allows it to move among the people like fish in the water. Without a people’s army the people have nothing, said Chairman Mao, at the same time he taught us the necessity of the Party’s absolute leadership over the army and his great principle: The Party commands the gun and we will never permit it to be otherwise. Besides having thoroughly established the principles and norms for the construction of a new type of army, the Chairman himself called for preventing the use of the army for the restoration of capitalism by usurping the leadership through a counterrevolutionary coup d’etat and, developing Lenin’s thesis on the people’s militia, he carried out farther than anyone the general policy of arming the people, thus opening a breach and pointing out the path towards the armed sea of masses that will lead us to the definite emancipation of the people and the proletariat.

It was Chairman Mao who for the first time developed a complete theory on the united front and established its laws. A front of social classes based on the worker-peasant alliance as a guarantee of the proletariat’s hegemony in the revolution, which is led by the proletariat represented by the Communist Party; in synthesis, a united front under the leadership of the Communist Party, a united front for the people’s war, for the revolution, for the conquest of power for the proletariat and the people. In synthesis, the united front is the grouping of the revolutionary forces against the counter-revolutionary forces in order to wage the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution mainly through the armed people’s war. The united front, obviously, is not the same in every stage of the revolution and, furthermore, it has its specifications according to the various historical periods of each stage; likewise, the united front in a concrete revolution does not equal the one on a world level, although both follow the same general laws. Apart from this, it is important to emphasize the relation between the front and the State that Chairman Mao established when the war of resistance against Japan was evolving, setting forth that the united front is a form of joint dictatorship, a question that deserves to be especially studied by those who face democratic revolutions.

4. The People’s War is the military theory of the international proletariat; in it are summarized, for the first time in a systematic and complete form, the theoretical and practical experience of the struggles, military actions, and wars waged by the proletariat, and the prolonged experience of the people’s armed struggle and especially of the incessant wars in China. It is with Chairman Mao that the proletariat attains its military theory; nevertheless, there is much confusion and misunderstanding on this issue. And much of it springs from how the People’s War in China is seen. Generally, it is considered derisively and contemptuously simply as a guerrilla war; this alone denotes a lack of understanding. Chairman Mao pointed out that guerrilla warfare achieves a strategic feature; but due to its essential fluidity, the development of guerrilla warfare is not understood as it exists, how it develops mobility, a war of movements, of positions, how it unfolds great plans of the strategic offensive and the seizure of small, mid-sized, and big cities, with millions of inhabitants, combining the attack from outside with the insurrection from within. Thus, in conclusion, the four periods of the Chinese revolution, and mainly from the agrarian war until the people’s war of liberation, considering the anti-Japanese war of resistance between both, shows the various aspects and complexities of the revolutionary war waged during more than twenty years amidst a huge population and an immense mobilization and participation of the masses. In that war there are examples of every kind; and what is principal has been extraordinarily studied and its principles, laws, strategy, tactics, rules, etc. masterfully established. It is, therefore, in this fabulous crucible and on what was established by Marxism-Leninism that Chairman Mao developed the military theory of the proletariat: The People’s War.

We must fully bear in mind that subsequently, Chairman Mao himself, aware of the existence of atomic bombs and missiles and with China already having them, sustained and developed people’s war in order to wage it under the new conditions of atomic weapons and of war against powers and super-powers. In synthesis, people’s war is the weapon of the proletariat and of the people, even to confront atomic wars.

A key and decisive question is the understanding of the universal validity of people’s war and its subsequent application taking into account the different types of revolution and the specific conditions of each revolution. To clarify this key issue it is important to consider that no insurrection like that of Petrograd, the anti-fascist resistance, or the European guerrilla movements in the Second World War have been repeated, as well as considering the armed struggles that are presently being waged in Europe. In the final analysis, the October Revolution was not only an insurrection but a revolutionary war that lasted for several years. Consequently, in the imperialist countries the revolution can only be conceived as a revolutionary war which today is simply people’s war.

Finally, today more than ever, we Communists and revolutionaries, the proletariat and the people, need to forge ourselves in: “Yes. We are adherents to the theory of the omnipotence of the revolutionary war. That it is not bad thing; it is good thing. It is Marxist”; which means adhering to the invincibility of people’s war.

5. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in a historical perspective is the most transcendental development of Marxism-Leninism made by Chairman Mao; it is the solution to the great pending problem of the continuation of the revolution under the proletarian dictatorship: “It represents a more profound and wider new stage in the development of the socialist revolution in our country.”

What was the situation that presented itself? As stated in the Decision of the Communist Party of China on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution states: “Although overthrown, the bourgeoisie still tries to avail itself of the old ideas, culture, habits and ways of the exploiting classes in order to corrupt the masses and to conquer the minds of the people in its endeavors to restore its power. The proletariat must do exactly the opposite: It must deal merciless, frontal blows to all the challenges by the bourgeoisie in the ideological arena and change the spiritual composition of the whole society using its own new ideas, culture, habits and ways. Our present aim is to crush, through struggle, those who occupy leading posts and follow the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois ‘authorities’ in the academic fields, to criticize and repudiate the ideology of the bourgeoisie and other exploiting classes, and to transform education, literature, and art and the rest of areas of the superstructure that do not correspond to the economic base of socialism, in order to facilitate the consolidation and the development of the socialist system.”

It was in these conditions that the most Earth-shaking political process and the greatest mass mobilization the world has ever seen broke out, and whose objectives were thus outlined by Chairman Mao: “The present GPCR is completely necessary and very timely to consolidate the proletarian dictatorship, to prevent the restoration of capitalism, and to build socialism.”

We also emphasize two questions:

1) The GPCR implies a landmark in the development of the proletarian dictatorship towards the proletariat’s securing political power, concretely expressed in the Revolutionary Committees; and

2) The restoration of capitalism in China after the 1976 counter-revolutionary coup is not a negation of the GPCR but is plainly part of the contention between restoration and counter-restoration, and, on the contrary, it shows us the transcendental historical importance of the GPCR in the inexorable march of mankind towards Communism.

6. World Revolution. Chairman Mao emphasizes the importance of the world revolution as a unity, on the basis that revolution is the main trend while the decomposition of imperialism is greater each day, and the role played by the masses grows more immense each year, masses that make and shall make their transforming and unstoppable strength be felt, and reiterates the great truth: Either we all reach Communism or nobody does. Within this specific perspective in the era of imperialism, the great historical moment of the “next 50 to 100 years”, and within this context the opening period of struggle against Yankee imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, paper tigers that contend for hegemony and threaten the world with an atomic war, in the face of which, firstly we must condemn it, and secondly, we must prepare ourselves beforehand in order to oppose it with people’s war and make the revolution. On the other hand, starting from the historical importance of the oppressed nations and, furthermore, from their perspective both in the economic and political relationships that are evolving on account of the process of decomposition of imperialism, Chairman Mao stated his thesis that “three worlds delineate themselves”. All of which leads to the necessity of developing the strategy and tactics of world revolution. Regrettably, we know little or almost nothing about Chairman Mao’s writings and statements on these transcendental questions; nevertheless, the very little that is known shows the grand perspectives which he watched closely and the great outlines that we must follow in order to understand and serve the proletarian world revolution

7. Superstructure, ideology, culture, and education. These and other related issues have been subtly and deeply studied by Chairman Mao. For that reason, this is also another basic question that deserves attention.

In conclusion, the contents seen in these fundamental issues show clearly to whoever wants to see and understand that we have, therefore, a new, third, and superior stage of Marxism: Maoism; and that to be a Marxist in these days demands to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and mainly Maoist.

All that has been explained in the contents leads us to two questions:

What is fundamental in Maoism? Political Power is fundamental in Maoism. Political power for the proletariat, power for the dictatorship of the proletariat, power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party. More explicitly:

1) Political power under the leadership of the proletariat in the democratic revolution;

2) Political power for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the socialist and cultural revolutions;

3) Political power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party, conquered and defended through people’s war.

And, what is Maoism? Maoism is the elevation of Marxism-Leninism to a new, third, and superior stage in the struggle for proletarian leadership of the democratic revolution, the development of the construction of socialism and the continuation of the revolution under the proletarian dictatorship as a proletarian cultural revolution; when imperialism deepens its decomposition and revolution has become the main tendency of history, amidst the most complex and largest wars seen to date and the implacable struggle against contemporary revisionism.

On the STRUGGLE AROUND MAOISM. Briefly, the struggle in China for establishing Mao Tse-tung Thought began in 1935 at the Tsunyi Meeting, when Chairman Mao assumed the leadership of the Communist Party of China. In 1945 the VII Congress agreed that the CPC was guided by Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought, a specification suppressed by the VIII Congress, since a rightist line prevailed in it. The IX Congress in 1969 resumed the GPCR and ratified that the CPC is guided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought; that was as far as it advanced.

On an international level, it acquired influence from the 1950s onwards; but it is with the GPCR that it intensely spread out and its prestige rose powerfully and Chairman Mao was acknowledged as the leader of the world revolution and originator of a new stage in Marxism-Leninism; thus, a great number of Communist Parties assumed the denomination of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought. On the world level, Maoism confronted contemporary revisionism openly unmasking it profoundly and forcefully, and likewise it did so in the CPC’s own ranks, all of which raised the Chairman’s great red banner still more: The new, third, and superior stage of the ideology of the international proletariat. At present (1988), Maoism confronts the triple attack of Soviet, Chinese and Albanian revisionism. But today, even among those who acknowledge the Chairman’s great contributions, including the development of Marxism, there are some who believe that we are still in the stage of Marxism-Leninism, and others who only accept Mao Tse-tung Thought but by no means Maoism.

In this country, obviously, the revisionists who follow the baton of their diverse masters, Gorbachev, Teng, Alia or Castro have continuously attacked Maoism; among them one must condemn, unmask, and implacably combat Del Prado’s callous revisionism and his gang, the so called “Peruvian Communist Party”; the abject deviousness of the self-proclaimed “Communist Party of Peru, Patria Roja” who, after raising themselves up as “great Maoists” became Teng’s servants, after having condemned him when he was defenestrated in 1976, as well as the anti-Maoism of the so called “Izquierda Unida” (United Left), in whose heart swarmed all the revisionist and even anti-Marxist positions passed off by false Marxists and opportunists of many kinds. We must raise Maoism as a revealing mirror for revisionists in order to combat them implacably, working for the development of the People’s War and the triumph of the democratic revolution underway, which is an unavoidable and unrenounceable task of a strategic character.

The Communist Party of Peru, through the fraction led by President Gonzalo, who propelled its reconstitution, took up Marxism-Leninism- Mao Tse-tung Thought in 1966; in 1979 the slogan “Uphold, defend, and apply Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought!”; in 1981: “Towards Maoism!”; and, in 1982, took Maoism as an integral part and superior development of the ideology of the international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is with the People’s War that we have understood more deeply what Maoism implies and we have taken up the solemn pledge to “Uphold, defend, and apply Marxism-Leninism- Maoism, principally Maoism!” and to work relentlessly in helping to place it as leader and guide of the world revolution, the always red and unfading banner that is the guarantee of triumph for the proletariat, the oppressed nations, and peoples of the world in their inexorable, combative march of iron legions towards the golden and always brilliant goal of Communism.



[1] Also known as Abimael Guzmán.

Friday, May 18, 2018

India- Red Salute to Comrade Arvind


By Harsh Thakor
DIP OUR BLOOD IN MEMORY OF IMMORTAL LEADER OF C.P.I. (MAOIST) COMRADE ARVIND OR DEVKUMAR WHO EXUDED IDEOLOGY OF MARXISM-LENISM -MAOISM AND WAS A CRUSADER FOR LIBERATION OF MANKIND TILL HIS LAST BREATH.

UNFLINCHINGLY DEFENDED THE CUTTING EDGE OF PROTRACTED PEOPLES WAR AND FOUGHT AGAINST ALL RIGHTIST AND REVISIONIST DEVIATIONS WITH SHARPNESS OF A SWORD OR A BOULDER WITHSTANDING A GALE.

MAY NEW RED ROSES BLOOM TO CONTINUE HIS LEGACY AND MAY HIS SPIRIT BE RESSURRECTED WHEN HINDU FASCISM HAS PUT THE NATION IN THE DEPTHS OF DESPAIR.

On April 22nd the birthday of Comrade Lenin, Comrade Arvind or Devkumar departed from us. His death was major loss to the revolutionary movement being the foremost leader of the C.P.I.(Maoist) in Bihar-Jharkhand.

Testimony that he departed so close to the birth bicentennial of Immortal Karl Marx.

A public meeting was held by the Comrade Arvind or Devkumar memorial Commitee comprising about 300 persons in Sulucheka village in Jehenabad.

It was presided by Comrade Arjun Prasad Singh ,formerly an important activist of the erstwhile Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti and associated with erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.)Party Unity group.

He summed up the political life of Comrade Arvind .
Other speakers were Rajballam Das (convenor of the memorial committee,)  Advocate Uday Pratap ,Prabhavati Devi (wife of com. Devkumar), Achidanand Prabhat (former secretary of Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Parishad) , Ramnivas Sharma of C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation,Tapeshwar Singh of Communist Party of India and democratic activists Manoj Sharma, Sunita Devi, Krishna Prasad .

They all praised his contribution highlighting that he forfeited a lucrative career for devotion to revolutionary cause. Comrade Dev Kumar's wife was also present.

He was born in 1950 on 24th November in Sukuchalak village in Jehanabad district. His father was an office karmachari and his mother a housewife. From his school days he was inspired by struggle for liberation.

He gained his baptism in the Lohaite movement that had it's inception in 1967-68 .Later in 1974 he came in touch with Dr.Vinayan, a leader of the Jayaprakash Narayan Movement of 1974 ,and played a major role in the JP students and youth movement in Bihar in that year.

In 1977 in the period of the regime of the newly elected Janata party he came into contact with Comrade Narayan Sanyal which was the turning point in his political life giving him an inception to Maoist movement. He realized the futility of the compromising or class collaborationist line of Jayprakash Narayan.

He played a major role in directing the peasant organization, Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti from it's inception in 1978 playing major role in it's inaugural conference in 1981 and the 2nd conference in 1983.

With great determination he defended the line of armed agrarian revolutionary resistance and played a major role for sowing the seeds of the historic peasant movement built. An unforgettable joint front resistance was organized in a rally with C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation.

With great determination and skill he organized landless Dalits to confront the tyranny of landlord armies or senas.

He played a complementary role the MKSS secretary Krishna Singh and deputy Dr..Vinayan and took m ore responsibility after the assassination of the leader Krishna Singh in June 1984.On April 19th a massacre took place of dalit labourers in Arwal for which a major statewide protest comprising 40000 people was organized in Patna.Comrade Arvind played the role of an architect in making the protest a success deploying every ounce of his energy in mobilizing activists.

He had great insight in the subjective strengths of the enemy and the revolutionary forces.

In the period from 1978-86 of the practice of C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity guiding Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti was a vivid illustration of practice of mass line in armed agrarian revolutionary movement.

A new chapter can be written in the history of revolutionary movement of India with the peasant upsurge of the MKSS spreading like wildfire particularly in Jehanbad, Aurangabad, Daltangonj areas.

I can't help recounting how intellectuals were so impressed with the work from so many streams .

In 1987 he staunchly opposed the trend within the Mazdoor Kisan Sangram Samiti that leaned towards reformism and armed struggle advocated by erstwhile secretary Dr Vinayan.Dr.Vinayan opposed the formation and resistance of armed squads and his line bent towards that of Jayprakash Narayan.

Like a boulder withstanding a gale in the 1987 Comrade Arvind defended line of armed agrarian revolutionary struggle and in 1987 became the Bihar state secretary of the C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity group and was apponted the general secretary of the Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti,which was officially banned in 1986 after the Arwal massacre.

From the early 1990's he played a vanguard role in the consolidation of the agrarian movement in Jenahabad and Palamau districts with Koel region becoming a guerilla Zone.

With dialectical precision he mantained the balance between the mass struggles and armed movements.

With great craft and relentlessness he revived the MKSS which was earlier banned into the Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Parishad .Still there were several regions where mass struggles were developing like Khagaria,Aurangbad and Jehanbad.

New mass fronts were founded like the Bharat Naujwan Sabha and the democratic students Union. Sadly in 1996 group clashes occurred between the Party Unity group and the Maoist Communist Centre squads.

With great skill he planned the armed resistance against the landlord senas who were blessed by the administration.

Morally he was one of the pioneers of the Jehanabad movement.

He was arrested 3 times in his career and was amongst the most hunted leaders in the country with tag of one crore on his head. He was arrested in 1992.Singh was arrested for the first time in 1992 by Bihar Police and kept as a political prisoner in Bankipur Central Jail, Patna. After 3 years, he was released on bail.

On 12 June 2003, he was again arrested in Patna by Special Task Force and was held as a political prisoner in Beur Central Jail, Patna, Jehanabad Jail and Bhagalpur Central Jail for more than 2 years. He mobilised the inmates and went on hunger strike several times against the corruption involved in Indian prisons and to fulfill the basic demands of innocent prisoners.

In 1998 the C.P.I.(M.L.)Party Unity and C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity merged in which Comrade Arvind had played an important role. The unity consolidated the eventual re-organization of the Communist party .Group clashes continued with MCCI till 2001 which were stopped after bilateral talks and mutual self-criticism. In 2004 the Maoist Communist Centre merged with the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War group to form the C.P.I.(Maoist).Comrade Arvind played a major role in stopping the inter-group clashes earlier with M.C.C.I. .His non-sectarian approach played an important role in the mergers with Peoples War group and the MCCI.

After the formation of Maoist party Comrade Arvind was inducted as a member of the he became a member of the Central Committee and Central Military Commission. In 2013 he was elected to the politburo of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). He played a major role in formulating the military line in accordance with the subjective situation prevailing. With meticulous skill he handled the problems and contradictions and stood up like a thorn bad flesh to critiques who claimed that the party was implementing terrorist line of functioning as separate functions.

From a mere embryo 44 years ago he evolved into one of India's greatest revolutionaries. Starting as a mass peasant organizer and cadre of the Party Unity Group in 1980 he went on to become a central committee member of the C.P.I(Maoist) which is a tribute to his perseverance and dedication. Till the very end Comrade Arvind defended the Leninist-Maoist party concept and line of protracted peoples war. Inspite of setbacks facing the party and movement and failing health Arvind kept the torch burning, never yielding under any circumstances. His practice is an example that the the movement of Maoist party is not a terrorist one and even if mistakes in massline has it's roots in the oppressed masses. In the end he succumbed to a heart attack.

He may have departed but his spirit still shimmers to extinguish the darkness of fascism or imperialism. Arvind is an ideal illustration that still the spirit of defending line of Maoism exists in the densest of forests or the most turbulent of rivers.

He blended the heart of a poet with the skill of an architect .Let us hope his spirit is ressurected with new seeds planted to enable many new roses to bloom.

I owe a lot of gratitude to comrade Arjun Prasad Singh for information on comrade Arvind's life history.

It was invaluable.

This was also posted in Democracy and Class Struggle.

US-Brittian- Over 1,000 years of stupid divine rights governments and we are still obsessed with royalty

It is ridiculous that Europeans put up with the divine rights theory for more than 1,000 years, and that took place after several centuries of republican and quasi democratic rule in Rome. And even today people in the US and Europe obsess over the royal family and their weddings. The royals get a lot of money and a job where all they really have to do is stand around, wave and allow the paparazzi to photograph them. And how did they get this important job? They were born into it. the idea was that a person is chosen by God to rule over a country based on their birth. Hundreds of years ago these people were bloody tyrants. They were cruel and got their wealth from taxing the poor peasants who they abused.  -សតិវ ​អតុ

From the Huffington Post:
They grace our tabloid covers and drive page views for websites. The sartorial choices of the Duchess of Cambridge ― and now Meghan Markle ― are seemingly endless fashion blog fodder.
And then, of course, there are the big events. Nearly 23 million U.S. viewers watched the coverage of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s 2011 wedding. An estimated 33.2 million people in the U.S. watched Princess Diana’s funeral in 1997, and around 17 million tuned in to see her 1981 wedding to Prince Charles.
“I think it’s fair to say that the American people are quite fond of the royal family,” then-President Barack Obama remarked during a 2015 Oval Office meeting with Prince Charles. “They like them much better than they like their own politicians.”
The interest extends all the way to Queen Elizabeth. Season two, episode one of Netflix’s “The Crown” attracted three million viewers in the U.S., according to Nielsen.
But why are Americans so fascinated with British monarchs and their relatives? We spoke to psychologists and royal family experts to find out.

A fascination from childhood
The first explanation may seem fairly obvious, but it’s meaningful: “We are fascinated and obsessed with fairy tales. They have been a part of our society’s fabric since childhood. They help us escape from the everyday mundane,” Dr. Sudeepta Varma, a psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor at NYU’s Langone Medical Center, told HuffPost.

For the rest click here.


Monday, May 14, 2018

Charu Mazumdar, a major theoretician of the Indian left!

By Harsh Thakor 
TODAY ON MAY 14TH IS THE BIRTH CENTENARY OF IMMORTAL COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARY LEADER CHARU MAZUMDAR WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THE EVENT THAT SHAPED OR TURNED THE DESTINY OF THE NATION THAN ANY-THE EPIC NAXALBARI STRUGGLE. HE MADE GROSS ERRORS THROUGH PROPAGATING INDIVIDUAL ANIHILATION OF CLASS ENEMY, OPPOSING MASS ORGANIZATIONS, CALLING CHINA'S CHAIRMAN THAT OF INDIA'S, OVERESTIMATING THE ERA, ADVOCATING 'BOYCOTT OF ELECTIONS AS A STRATEGY ETC. BUT STILL MADE AN IMMORTAL CONTRIBUTION. HIS LINE WAS MORALLY THE PERCUSOR OF THE PRACTICE OF THE ERSTWHILE C.P.I(M.L.) PEOPLES WAR GROUP AND NOW THE C.P.I(MAOIST). THROUGH COC AND A.P. STATE COMMITEE MADE A SELF-CRITICISM REVIEW OF MISTAKES OF CHARU BUT WITHOUT HIM THE MOVEMENT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE SKELETON TO ADD THE MEAT TO. SAD WE HAVE NO MEMORIAL MEETING ORGANIZED TODAY IN ANY PART OF THE COUNTRY. CM WAS THE PIONEER OF THE DEMARCATION FROM CPM REVISIONISM. LET US ALL DIP OUR BLOD IN HIS MEMORY.



Today on birth centenary revolutionary comrades dip their blood in memory of legendary comrade Charu Mazumdar who even with important aberrations, was the architect of Naxalbari armed peasant struggle. CM made gross errors but neverthless was the pioneer in giving birth to genuine Maoism in India. Today morally stil the C.P.I.(MAOIST) morally upholds Charu Mazumdar as the most important revolutionary leader even if formally Kanhai Chaterjee is placed on the same pedestal. Today sadly groups wiithin the revisionist or rightist camp also uphold CM villifying his actual line and practice.The best example is the C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation which formally upholds India as capitalist and having attained status of true independence in 1947. In practice it has violated every important aspect propogated by comrade Mazumdar, C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Star has totaly revised the path upholding India as neo-colonial and agricultural relations as capitalist. C.P.I(M.L.) of the Kanu Sanyal trend have deviated from true practice of protracted peoples war through parliamentary practice.

Today the roots of protracted peoples war practice in India have it's roots in CM's 8 documents. Here he has elaborated the concept of agrarian revolution and how the parliament is a pigsty. He also upheld the Cultural Revolution in China. Upholding feudalism as the principal contradiction as against capitalism, imperialism and comprador bureaucratic bourgeoise is a major part of the ppw line. His inclination to arm was with modification the percursor of the later movements led by the erstwhile CPI(M.L.). People's War group and now the C.P.I.(Maoist) have had great corrections made from 1980 after the review but at every juncture the basic line of Charu Mazumdar was upheld. Whatever the mistakes it was incorrect to term CM as practising 'terrrorist' line. Studying his 8 documents is a must for every revolutionary cadre, the equivalent of a bible for Indian maoists.


Charu mazumdar's writings and practice have all the more relevance when a tide of fascism is encompassing the whole nation and ideology of Maoism is attacked at it's very roots like poison being planted in fields to stop growth of new roses from emerging. The numerous spits, non-proletarian trends too are obstacles particularly that of revisionist and New Left variety. Cadres must meticulously study Charu Mazumdar's writings on party building in light of re-organizing the proletarian party in India. Comrade Mazumdar attacked revisionism like cutting a plant from it's very roots. We must remember how leaders like even Kondapali Seetharamiah immortalized CM even if he founded the PWG in Andhra Pradesh and intellectuals like Amit Bhattacharya. Professor Amit Bhattacharya felt that Charu Mazumdar made a much greater contribution than Kanhai Chaterjee historically in the movement and historically the C.P.I.(Maoist) was incorrect to place him on the same pedestal. Infact the 2007 C.P.I.(Maoist) unity congress was analyzed as a continuation of the 8th 1970 C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Congress, as well as the 2001 C.P.I.(M.L) Peoples War Unity Congress. String rectification was made of the original Charu Mazumdar C.P.I.(M.L.) Line by the COC in 1975 and the AP State Committee in 1977. However the line of Charu Mazumdar still formed the backbone of the struggles started by the PWG in Jagatiyal in Karimnagar and the Party Unity group in Jehanabad-Palamau. CM line gave those struggles the armed inclination. Leaders like Kondapali Settharamiah, founder of PWG and Narayan Sanyal even if critical tooth and nail defended Charu Mazumdar. The most accurate analysis in my view was made by the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.).

Quoting 1983 Liberation organ of C.T.C.P.I.(M.L.) “Proper evaluation of Comrade C.M. has not yet been done on the basis of dialectics of historical materialism, which requires a thorough study of his writings and deeds. It requires time for such research of his writings and deeds. Thus we do no deem it proper to make any irresponsible comment on C.M., even if a rectification of his errors is necessary. Comrade C.M.’s main line of thinking was not isolated but evolved through the process and development of 2-line struggle inside the C.P.I. and C.P.M., who were concurrent with the 2 line struggle in the international arena, particularly the great debate. Comrade C.M. tirelessly fought against class collaborationist line of the revisionists and waged bitter fight not only in theoretical field but practical field. True Charu Mazumdar was wrong in calling the entire bourgeoisie as comprador’, abandoning mass organizations and movements, calling ‘China’s chairman, our chairman’, advocating ‘annihilation of the class enemy’, considering ‘boycott of election’ as a strategic slogan, ‘Guerrilla warfare’ as the only means of struggle, ‘that a revolutionary situation existed in every nook and corner of India’ etc. Such slogans reflected doctrinarism and not Marxism.

Authoritarianism, bureaucratism or egoism was prevalent and mass line was violated. However it was C.M’s very efforts that sowed the seeds of the demarcation of revisionism and the upholding of Mao Tse Tung thought in India. Quoting 1983 Liberation organ of C.T.C.P.I.(M.L.) “Proper evaluation of Comrade C.M. has not yet been done on the basis of dialectics of historical materialism, which requires a thorough study of his writings and deeds. It requires time for such research of his writings and deeds. Thus we do no deem it proper to make any irresponsible comment on C.M., even if a rectification of his errors is necessary. Comrade C.M.’s main line of thinking was not isolated but evolved through the process and development of 2-line struggle inside the C.P.I. and C.P.M., who were concurrent with the 2 line struggle in the international arena ,particularly the great debate. Comrade C.M. tirelessly fought against class collaborationist line of the revisionists and waged bitter fight not only in theoretical field but practical field.


Quoting journal A World to Win in 1999 "Much has been said about the so-called “sectarianism” and “adventurism” of Charu Mazumdar which supposedly “isolated” the party from the masses and caused setbacks. Yes, elements of one-sidedness, spontaneity and subjectivism which run counter to Charu Mazumdar̓s overall Marxist-Leninist-Maoist stand, viewpoint and method are evident in his works. But what strikes one most forcefully while reading them now is the resolute clarity in his criticism of revisionism, a keen grasp of the key question of seizing power, deep faith in the masses and robust revolutionary optimism. Far from isolation, his leadership deeply entrenched the party among the masses and created a vast reservoir of support which is still being tapped by genuine revolutionaries. His name continues to haunt the ruling classes and inspires revolutionaries. "

Quoting one of the founding members of C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity, Bhabani Roy Choudhary "It was wrong to quote any international communiqué like 'China's chairman is our chairman. 'In Presidency jail in Bhabani Roy's view Charu Mazumdar made a self-criticism of that statement, claiming he was going to withdraw it. Bhnabi even stated that basically Charu was correct in propagating line of agrarian armed struggle.

Suniti Kumar Ghosh was critical of CM for his long silence regarding CPC's criticism of the C.P.I.(M.L.) agenda .In his view although the criticisms were known to Charu for a long time he did not act upon it. Charu got avail of the C.P.C. criticisms by 1970 party Congress. Another criticism was that Charu was changing his party line gradually so that the line changed remained in conformity with the line of that of the C.P.C. Essays quoted were 'On Party's work in the rural areas: a note, 'March forward by Building up people's Liberation Army'. However it was not done on basis of sufficient self-criticism and summing up experiences of past struggles. Suniti Ghosh felt it was unfair to blame Charu Mazumdar for the mistakes attributing the errors to the entire C.P.I.(M.L.) Party. Gosh never openly criticized Charu Mazumdar for his errors but attributed it to party leadership as a whole. He was critical of many leaders and intellectuals for solely putting the blame on Charu. Sushital Roy Choudhary was very critical of the party's line terming it 'left-adventurist' and 'neglecting class and economic struggles."

Charu Mazumdar himself admitted in his speech in the rally at Shaheed Minar on 11 November 1967, the leader of Naxalbari was not him but the local organizers including Kanu Sanyal, Jangal Santhal, Kadam Mallik and Khokan Mazumdar etc. We have discussed above that Naxalbari was built by rejecting the proposal which was put forward by Charu Mazumdar in his eight document series in which he began his agrarian revolution not through mass line, rather on “left” adventurist basis. Naxalbari peasant-uprising was in fact a proof of the success of revolutionary mass line and concrete rejection of “leftist” deviation. But it would be wrong to say that there was no role of Charu and his eight documents in it, because there were two aspects of the ‘eight documents’. Its important aspect was that it brought the clear proposal of the re-formation and re-building of an All-India Revolutionary Party in the agenda by making a decisive blow on revisionism and parliamentary dogmatism. Its negative aspect was that instead of determining the strategy and general tactics of Indian revolution through the study of Indian economic-social-political structure, it not only gave the slogan of blindly following the program and path of Chinese revolution, but it also made the guerrilla peasant struggle as synonym of ‘action’ of armed secret squads by denying the importance of political education and propaganda along with economic struggle and by rejecting the importance of all kinds of mass activities and mass organizations. The leadership of Naxalbari rejected the second aspect, but the first aspect became its ideological-political basis. The organizers like Kanu Sanyal etc. too had prepared themselves politically against the revisionism of the CPM leadership during their stay in prison but it was Charu who wrote the series of documents against it, made an attempt to take it to the cadre and after coming out of prison of Kanu, etc, to provide theoretical basis for the act of rebellion against the CPM leadership in the form of the ‘eight documents’. Hence, while on the one hand it is incorrect to say that Charu was the leader and architect of the Naxalbari peasant uprising, on the other hand it must be admitted that he played a fundamentally important role in preparing its ideological basis. It can be said that Charu Mazumdar played a decisive role in undertaking radical rupture from CPM politics. Had it not been for Charu, perhaps the Naxalbari struggle would remain as merely the next episode of various radical economic and democratic (or political to a limited extent) demands under the communist leadership in that area in the decade of sixties. Behind the decisiveness of anti-revisionist struggle, there could be a petty-bourgeois impatience of a “left” adventurist (as his “left” adventurist line was consistent from the beginning to the end), but at that time it was the aspect of decisiveness which was dominant. It can be said that it was Charu’s line which became responsible for the impasse, fall and disintegration of the Revolutionary Left politics, but on the other hand, it is also true that had it not been for Charu, perhaps the Naxalbari peasant-revolt could not become a point of departure and a symbol of Revolutionary Left politics.

India- Students meet to honour Karl Marx- bicentennial

By Harsh Thakor
HAIL THIS GREAT INITIATIVE OF BHAGAT SINGH CHATRA MORCHA TO REKINDLE THE SACRED FLAME OF KARL MARX ON BICENTENARY IN GORAKHPUR. MARXISM IS NOT DEAD AS PORTRAYED BY THE WORLD BOURGEOISIE AND IS BEING RESSURECTED IN A FORM RELEVANT TO THE MODERN TIMES.  SUCH MEETINGS EVEN IF QUANTITATIVELY SMALL HAVE GREAT QUALITATIVE SIGNIFICANCE.THE SPARK BEING LIT WITHIN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM MAY TURN INTO A PRIARIE FIRE.

On 5th May the Bhagat Singh Chatra Morcha, the Bhagat Singh Ambedkar manch and the Inquilabi Naujwan Sabha staged a seminar commemorating the bicentenary of Karl Marx in Majhita Bhavan in Gorakhpur college campus in state of Uttar Pradesh. All the groups adhere to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Comrade shailesh Kumar gave the introductory note summing up the significance of the work of Karl Marx to today in context of the crisis India is facing today.

Chutaranan Ojha explained that Marx was the pioneer of formulating a scientific philosophy for the working class from the -pre-feudal era to the capitalist epoch. He elaborated how dialectical materialism defined a new epoch in philosophy. The resources of the world today are controlled by only a very small handful and today even the capitalist forces who wish to suppress class struggle have to recognize Marx's laws on class struggle to survive.

J.N. Shah explained how the capitalist crisis was accentuating day by day. He summed up the attacks on minorities dalits, unemployment, contract labour system ,steep price rise etc. He advocated the formation of class organization for workers peasants, youth, women and all oppressed sections. He also spoke about how Marx was the first to build a proletarian ideology.

Rajesh Sahni spoke about that with a financial crisis prevailing in the world, Marx was equally relevant to the Capitalists and the Socialists. He explained how Marx analyzed that class struggle would be a continuous path till the victory of communism, which was realistic and not utopian.

Socialist thinker Krupashankar spoke about the great sacrifice and personal struggle in the life of Karl Marx narrating the story of the sufferings of his family, losing 3 sons. He summed up how Marx survived against all odds surviving like a boulder withstanding the most hazardous thunderstorm. The state continuously was threatened with his writings and did everything to destroy him. He concluding narrating the struggles and miserable state of adivasis in India.

Sandhya Pandey touched the topic of fascism and resistance of Stalin towards it applying Marxism. She explained how on Marxist ideology could combat fascism and how fascism was sharpening it's tentacles today. In her view property was the source of all social evil and was a precursor to castism and patriarchy.

Anand Pandey explained that a revolution did not take place in India because the masses did not understand Marxism and were brainwashed with feudal, religious or brahmanical thinking. He gave examples of how feudal thinking was embedded in the minds of the broad masses in India.

Professor Mahesh elaborated how Marx was the first who gave man a path to guide his own destiny and not be controlled by anyone.

Chief speaker Assem Styadaev spoke about how morally the Indian republic was hardly a democracy and violated all he rights of the people. He summed up how all free expression was curbed in university campuses. He praised the courage of the public to confront the oppression nationwide and condemned the murder of tribals by police in forests. He praised the Kashmiri masses for retaliating against the tormentation they were facing. He explained how this state repression would never end in an imperialist system and it is an illusion to believe that democracy can triumph in capitalist society. Imperialism had no choice but to plunder the resources of the oppressed masses like tribal's with the crisis reaching the very limit.

Madan Mohanji concluded the event that the ideology of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Ambedkar were under attack but would never be buried in the grave and would still glimmer. He praised the workers for the success of the event.

In the end a resolution was passed condemning the massacre of tribal sin Gadricholi and attacks by corporates who were looting the wealth of tribals in all regions of the nation.

The gathering was not more than around 150 but I was impressed with the quality of the event. It lit a spark of the ideology of Karl Marx within a university classroom which may turn into a prairie fire. Such determined comrades ensure that the thoughts of Comrade Karl Marx are not burned in the grave 200 ears ago but resurrected to extinguish the suffering perpetrated on the broad masses by fascism and imperialism. Very significant that the students and youth were at the forefront of organizing his programme thus echoing words of Chairma Mao that 'the youth are the future of tomorrow.'


Image may contain: one or more people and people sitting