Let us celebrate the fiftieth
anniversary of the founding of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and new
democratic movement of Afghanistan
From Maoist_Revolution/ the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan :
With the formation of
the Progressive Youth Organization [PYO] on October 4, 1965, on the basis of a
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (that time Mao Zedong Thought) line and
anti-imperialist, anti-social-imperialist, anti-reactionary and
anti-revisionist orientation, under the leadership of comrade Akram Yari, the
communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan came into being. Due to
the principled political line of the PYO and the national and international
environment, the new democratic movement under the leadership of the PYO turned
into the most extensive political movement of the country, mobilizing tens of
thousands of revolutionary men and women, students, teachers, writers, workers,
and other toiling masses from all nationalities in struggles against
reactionaries, imperialists, social-imperialists; it was thus that the Maoist
communist movement flourished in the country.
Sholajawid was the name of the journal which was propagating new
democratic ideas; it was initiated by the PYO and two other progressive groups,
starting its publication two years after the formation of the PYO in
1967. Due to the crucial role this journal played in the expansion and
spread of the movement, the movement itself became known as Sholajawid. Although only 11 issues of the
journal were published, and subsequently censored by the reactionary monarchy
of Zahir Shah, even the limited publication played an important historical role
in the extensive and widespread formation of the new democratic movement.
Definitely the PYO and
the Sholajawid movement,
being young and inexperienced, was not without its shortcomings and weaknesses;
it definitely needed improvement and evolution. Unfortunately, the internal
weaknesses of the PYO, along with an increasingly national and international
unfavorable situation, resulted into the fact that its movement could not
continue to develop and evolve. After a short period following its initial
prosperity, it moved towards collapse and dispersion.
The banning of the Sholajawid journal and the suppression of the
demonstrations in 1968 by the repressive forces of the reactionary state under
Zahir Shah – as well as the arrest and imprisonment of a large number of the
leaders of the PYO and the movement – not only resulted in the first split in
the Sholajawid movement,
but generated larger negative effects. Political-ideological lines other than
the line of its founder (Akram Yari) emerged within PYO, and consequently two
line struggles emerged within the organization. These were not line struggles
that strengthened and expanded the organization but were ones that resulted in
its collapse, negatively impacting the entire movement.
After comrade Akram Yari's
withdrawal from active political struggle due to serious illness, deviationist
political lines took over the organization. These deviationist political lines
not only provided the basis of splits within the PYO but also greatly
facilitated the splits within the broader movement. Thus, the main deviationist
line, which later negatively evolved into full fledged revisionism and
capitulationism (and there are those who are still following this path), led to
a significant split from the initial organization and movement, forcing the
entire communist and new democratic movement towards dissipation – a drive
towards revisionist, national and class capitulationist lines.
The dominance of the
deviationist and revisionist capitulationist lines over the dispersed body of
the communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan
As a result – and
despite the fact that the communist and new democratic movement sacrificed tens
of thousands of its leaders, cadre, organizers, and masses under its leadership
in its confrontation with reactionary forces dependent on the western
imperialists and reactionary regional powers –this movement could not employ
these resistance struggles to expand, evolve, and progress on the path of new
democratic revolution. Rather, it suffered bitter defeats. The negative effects
of those bitter defeats are still strongly felt and remain distressful.
During this decade and
a half, the principled communist and new democratic line did not have a clear
expression and presence; it was not considered a challenge to the deviationist,
collaborationist, and revisionist political lines. Severe ideological,
political and organizational weaknesses, along with a low level of theoretical
understanding, of the remnants and proponents of the principled communist and
new democratic movement in the mid-1980s was apparent, facilitating the
dominance of the collaborationist and revisionist lines over the dispersed body
of the movement.
Based on the defeat of
the deviationist, revisionist, and class and national collaborationist lines –
and the relative growth of the communist movement in the newly international
favorable circumstances, with efforts of parties and organizations in the ranks
of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] – the first groupings of the principled
communist movement emerged in Afghanistan
Deviationists,
revisionists, and capitulationists who believed their dominance to be permanent
and without challenge over different sections of the movement – who assumed
that the principled line of the founder of the movement to have been buried –
considered the new slogans, and position of the new communist movement as
throwing old hay in the air. However, this new initiative grew and expanded,
becoming the expression of the principled stance and slogans against the
social-imperialist occupiers and their satraps, against the power of the
reactionary Jihadists and their brutal civil war, and the reactionary
repressive and archaic Taliban’s Emirate. Moreover, this movement stood against
invasion and occupation of American imperialists from the beginning, opposing its
allies throughout Afghanistan and the formation of its puppet regime; this was
the only communist formation– the only non-reactionary representative of the
revolutionary peoples – that advocated national resistance against occupiers
and the puppet regime.
Although the old
revisionists – pressured by the subjective and objective conditions of the
country, world opinion, and the expansion of mass struggles and resistance
against the occupiers and the puppet regime –would gradually distanced
themselves from the open capitulationism they previously displayed– and would
sometimes, to a limited extent, take a stance against the imperialist occupiers
and their puppet government – it is the reinitiated Maoist movement in the
country that remains the solid defender of the struggle and principled
resistance against the occupation and its puppet regime.
The new initiative of
the communist and new democratic line from its inception and until now has been
the theoretical and practical banner of the principled unity within our broader
movement. By following this path of unity it has struggled against dispersion
and sectarianism. Therefore, not only qualitatively but also quantitatively,
the movement has continued to grow. Currently, C(M)PA and other Maoist
organizations and individuals outside of the party represent this new
initiative.
Celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the Maoist movement in Afghanistan is an occasion that invites
us all to move towards unity based on a principled proletarian and new
democratic line, to collectively struggle, in a strong and organized manner,
against the occupiers and their satraps as the principal enemy of the country
and its people, moving forward on the path of preparing for the revolutionary
peoples and national war of resistance.
Certainly, the
national resistance struggle against the principal enemies of our country does
not mean suspending the new democratic struggles against them, or also against
anti-democratic feudal-bourgeois comprador forces opposed to occupiers and the
puppet regime. Nor can this national struggle ignore the struggles against
other imperialist and reactionary expansionist powers.
The experience of
struggle internationally and also in Afghanistan has continually proven that
one-sided emphasis on the national resistance against the current principal
enemy, and forgetting the new democratic struggles against non-principal
current enemies, will, in the last analysis, harm the national resistance as a
whole. This kind of one-dimensional national resistance struggle, because it
ignores the democratic demands of the masses, will limit and reduce the
participation of the masses in the national resistance against the occupiers
and the puppet regime; it may even eliminate the possibility of their
participation and thus will strongly expand and prepare the ground for the
maneuvers of the reactionary and anti-democratic armed opposition to the
occupiers and the puppet regime.
Therefore, based on
the interest of the masses of Afghanistan
Resistance because we are the victims of aggression and occupation of
imperialists –of a foreign reactionary power – and under the domination of a
puppet regime. Our struggle against these principal enemies of the people is
characterized by resistance: self-defense, defense of the independence of the
country, and defense of the freedom of the country and its people. This
struggle is the just struggle of the victims of occupation and against
invaders, occupiers and their puppets.
National because the resistance struggle for defending the
independence of the country and the independence of its people is fundamentally
based on the struggle and resistance, on our national interests, and against
the interests of invaders, imperialist occupiers, their national traitor
satraps – not a limited religious and non-religious ideological struggle and
resistance. Any kind of attempt to impose such a limitation will limit the
scope of struggle against occupiers and their puppet regime, eventually
benefitting the imperialist occupation. Thus, the secular character of this
struggle and resistance is an unavoidable necessity.
National because this resistance struggle must consider the defense
and independence of the country as a whole; it should not kick the wolves out
the door so that the hyenas enter from the windows. In the current epoch, the
global domination of the world capitalist imperialist system is marred by serious
contradictions and tensions between imperialists and reactionary powers, and
these powers are eager to employ any political movement and initiative as an
instrument for their interests against their imperialist and reactionary
rivals. The communist and the new democratic movement of the country, while
accepting the necessities of struggle against American imperialism and its
satrap regime, should also pay attention to the necessities of this national
responsibility.
It is obvious that
struggle and resistance has its material base and also its ideological and
political superstructure. At the same time, however, it is also true that in a
multi-national class society where there is diverse class and national
interests, and diverse thoughts and political world-views, a broad-based
resistance against occupiers and national traitors will be multifarious and
diverse and will have a democratic character. Naturally, different forces
engaged in this struggle will compete with each other over the leadership of
this resistance, and it cannot be otherwise. If the communist and new
democratic forces do not pay attention to this reality, this could lead to
political-ideological and eventually organizational liquidationism, resulting
in capitulationism, the weakening of the struggle, and the inability to
consolidate revolutionary and progressive leadership over the resistance.
However, this struggle
should be carried out under the overall interest of the resistance against the
occupying forces and the puppet regime, not in contention with the general
interests of the resistance. Ignoring this issue, by any force including ours,
will ultimately result in replacing the principal contradiction with
non-principal contradictions, only benefitting the puppet regime and the
occupying forces.
We should emphasize
that a resistance that is only male cannot be an authentic national resistance.
Women form half of society and a national resistance in the real sense of word
cannot happen without their inclusion. Any kind of attempt to limit women,
based on any kind of religious and cultural excuse that would deprive them of
their basic personal and social rights, including the right to participate in
the resistance against occupiers and their satraps, is an attempt to distance
half of the population from the active national resistance, at the same time
consciously or unconsciously forcing them into the ideological and political
trap of the occupiers and the national traitor satraps who often wield
deceptive slogans about women’s rights or freedom. It is obvious that such
attempts are also extremely anti-democratic.
Peoples because a national resistance struggle can only be an
unrelenting and solid struggle if it possesses a mass character, based on the
superior interests of the masses – that is, the revolutionary masses struggling
against the occupiers and the puppet regime – and not on the interests of the
exploiting and oppressive feudal comprador bourgeois classes. The latter
faction of the masses are classes whose interests are in line with imperialism,
particularly with the invading and occupying imperialists, as well as the
land-holding and bourgeois comprador classes who are always prepared to collude
with the occupiers and the puppet regime. Giving mass character to the national
resistance against the occupiers and their puppets does not merely mean
involving the masses in the resistance: such involvement should mean the
conscious participation in national resistance based on their superior,
revolutionary interests rather than the interests of the exploiting classes.
From this perspective, giving mass character to the national resistance against
occupiers and national traitors requires the spread of revolutionary
consciousness among the masses of people, particularly the lower layers of the
toiling masses, workers, peasants, and the poor petty-bourgeoisie. Enlightening
the masses with revolutionary consciousness requires prolonged and continuous
efforts, but we should acknowledge that, without a certain level of progress in
this regard, national resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime
cannot develop, expand, and deepen a popular/mass character.
Revolutionary because the peoples national resistance against occupiers
and the puppet regime should be armed with a scientific revolutionary worldview
so that it can direct the resistance against the capitalist-imperialist system,
and the reactionary system in the country. Otherwise, the resistance runs the
risk of being cut short, either in the middle of the national resistance itself
or after achieving its goal of partial independence – the country could still
remain in the shackles of the oppressive and exploiting world system and the
masses, despite heroic and selfless sacrifices, would remain under the
capitalist-imperialist world system with the semi-feudal/semi-colonial classes
in control. More importantly, the revolutionary strategic orientation of the
resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime, guarantees continuous
progression of the national and popular characteristics of the resistance.
Since the resistance
against the soviet social-imperialist occupiers and their puppet regime was
carried out under the leadership of reactionary forces dependent on western
imperialists, and was thus totally lacked revolutionary strategic orientation,
that resistance prepared the ground for the invasion of American imperialism
and its allies and the subsequent occupation and formation of the current
puppet regime. However, since the contemporary resistance against the current
occupiers and their satraps has not yet led to the total withdrawal of the
occupying forces and the collapse of their puppet regime, the monopolistic
dominance of the armed reactionary resistance has resulted in the
materialization of another foreign invasion and occupation – that is, the
invasion and occupation that considers the entire country a province of a
reactionary Arab “caliphate.”
The forces that have
raised the black flags of the Islamic State [ISIS] in Afghanistan Afghanistan ISIS ) have also been raised in the
lap of the past reactionary resistance against the soviet social-imperialists
and their puppet regime. Despite the fact that the “Arab Caliph” openly
declares the leader of the Islamic Emirate of Taliban an illiterate servant of
Al-Qaeda, and calls the Emirate itself “expired medicine”, the reactionary
Taliban leadership are sending ISIS messages of “Islamic brotherhood”, humbly
and submissively asking them not to become the reason of friction in the
“Islamic resistance of Afghanistan.” Have they not understood that ISIS does
not accept Afghanistan
If we suppose that the resistance against social imperialist invaders and occupiers and their puppets leads to the invasion and occupation of American imperialists and their allies, and then the resistance against the current occupiers and their puppets in the middle of journey prepares the ground for the invasion and occupation of a reactionary Arab caliphate, and that this is the destiny of Afghanistan, then we should be very worried.
If we suppose that the resistance against social imperialist invaders and occupiers and their puppets leads to the invasion and occupation of American imperialists and their allies, and then the resistance against the current occupiers and their puppets in the middle of journey prepares the ground for the invasion and occupation of a reactionary Arab caliphate, and that this is the destiny of Afghanistan, then we should be very worried.
With the spread of the
influence of ISIS in Afghanistan Afghanistan , all foreign jihadists in the region
are now possible ISIS soldiers and should be
considered potential or active invading forces of that foreign power, the
target of revolutionary peoples and national resistance.
Mullah Muhammad Omar
Akhund, who was the uniting factor behind the Taliban’s fractured movement
(which was divided along ethnic, tribal, regional, and political lines), is
dead. In his absence, maintaining the unity of such an army, if not impossible,
is extremely difficult. Furthermore, his mysterious death in Pakistan ISIS . Therefore,
these forces should potentially be considered as either capitulating to the
regime or part of the invading army of ISIS .
Moreover, the death of
Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund and the outbreak of friction within the Taliban
over appointing his successor has resulted in the close cooperation between its
new leadership and their Pakistani “friends”. Indeed, in consolidating his
position, Akhtar Mansur has held public meetings throughout Pakistan Pakistan as the patron
of peace in Afghanistan by
the American imperialists and the puppet regime has also significantly
increased the control of Pakistan
All of these issues
illustrate the fact that the scope of aggression of foreign occupying powers
over Afghanistan has increased: at a time when the aggression and occupation of
the American imperialists and their allies has not ended, other reactionary
aggressive occupying forces, ISIS, have emerged in certain pockets of the
country and are dominating the lives of its people. At the same time, the
interventions of the Pakistani state, that are constantly being carried out
with cross border military incursions, as well as the interventions of Iran
Despite Obama’s verbal
commitment to withdraw all of America ’s
combat troops (except for the 1000 that would remain to protect the American
embassy in Kabul Afghanistan
In fact, the
crisis-stricken and corrupt puppet regime's continued existence is premised on
the hope of future support from its occupying imperialist masters rather than
its own constitution. However, the results of the longest war of American
imperialism (the war in Afghanistan )
is clearly indicating that American occupiers and their allies and puppets are
unable to impose the total subjugation of Afghanistan
Hence, the American
imperialist state, in alignment with the expansionist Indian state, is putting
pressure on Pakistan Pakistan so as to assert political pressure –
that might intensify in the near future – is being carried out by the US Pakistan
regarding the control of Kashmir, and prolonged military engagement between
both sides, is a partial war that is being carried forward for the negotiations
for peace in Afghanistan
The revisionist and
the expansionist rulers of China China 's
plan to invest 50 Billion dollars in Pakistan
is not only a sign of their expansionist political and economic tendencies, but
is also an appeasing tactic to persuade Pakistan Afghanistan
If this American,
Indian, and Chinese tripartite politics of carrot and stick towards Pakistan
continues, and even intensifies so that it becomes unbearable for Pakistan, it
is all too likely that sooner or later the Taliban under the leadership of
Mullah Akhtar Mansur, now firmly in their grip, will be forced to resume
negotiations with the puppet regime under the supervision of Pakistan, the US,
and China. In this case, the intense and widespread military confrontation in
the current season of war – that we can certainly say is unfavorable to
everyone involved – would be employed as a negotiating chip for scoring
political concessions.
Indeed, the
reactionary resistance of Taliban is not, in its essence, a total and
relentless anti-imperialist resistance. Even in the case of a military victory
– which it has now proven it cannot achieve – the Taliban cannot free the
country from the orbit of the reactionary world imperialist system.
Moreover, even if the
negotiations resume and move forward, in the final analysis everyone's share
would be determined based on their political and economic weight, and our
people would thus continue to suffer under an archaic system of exploitation
and oppression – the country will lack true independence. The process of
carrying these negotiations forward will also not be smooth and easy; it will
cause our people to provide immense sacrifices and experience serious
difficulties.
We called for
celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)
and the new democratic movement in Afghanistan to loudly announce the long
fifty year presence of this movement in the arena of the revolutionary
political struggle in Afghanistan so as to state the fact that: the fiftieth
anniversary of the founding of the Maoist movement is an occasion that invites
us all to consider five decades of the ups and downs of revolutionary struggle
and reaffirm our commitment to strongly carry forward our patriotic, national,
democratic, and revolutionary responsibilities.
The Communist (Maoist)
Party of Afghanistan has repeatedly announced that the biggest flaw and
weakness of the current communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan
For correct, principled,
timely and effective conduct of these efforts, the Communist (Maoist) Party of
Afghanistan has to constantly mobilize and expand all of its members,
supporters, and the masses under its leadership. Moreover, the Communist
(Maoist) Party of Afghanistan and other Maoist forces and individuals in the
current situation need to establish stronger unity amongst themselves, on the
one hand, and carry forward polemics and discussions for solving theoretical
disagreements, on the other, so as to expand their practical cooperation
amongst themselves, and ideologically and practically move towards cooperation,
coordination, and unity.
Forward on the path
towards initiating and carrying forward the revolutionary people’s national war
of resistance against imperialist occupiers, the puppet regime, and reactionary
ISIS occupiers!
Forward on the path of
struggle against other reactionaries aligned with imperialist and reactionary
powers!
Communist (Maoist)
Party of Afghanistan
No comments:
Post a Comment