Otto's War Room (毛派): Of Concepts and Methods—K. Murali’s (Ajith) new book (review) Part 1

OF CONCEPTS AND METHODS BY K. MURALI(AJITH) IS A CREATIVE AND LANDMARK WORK PENETRATING UNEXPLORED SPHERES BUT STILL VITIATED WITH POST-MODERNIST OUTLOOK-A MUST FOR EVERY CADRE’S LIBRARY BUT MUST BE CRITICALLY ASSESSED.

By Harsh Thakor

I may have important disagreements but feel this book merits to be a part of every cadres library. In its own right Ajith's book is one of the classic writings. Very boldly it challenges the conventional approach of Indian Communist parties and in detail elaborates how they dumped issue of caste into the graveyard.

The book is divided into seven chapters constituting 11 chapters in addition to an introduction and preface. They comprise On Postisms’ Concepts and Methods, For a Materialist Ethics, On the Laws of History. The Vanguard in the 21st Century, The Working of the Neo-Colonial Mind, If Not Reservation, Then What?, On the Specificities of Brahmanist Hindu Fascism ‘Some Semi-Feudal Traits of the Indian Parliamentary System, The Maoist Party
Re-Reading Marx on British India, the Politics of Liberation.

The writer does not reveal a classical Marxist-Leninist touch but still reveals great spirit to traverse unexplored regions, taking inventive approach.

The book projects the characteristics of Brahmanical fascism and how it infiltrated every sphere of Indian society Delving into the deepest depth it exposes the fascistic aspects of Indian Culture and the connection between Brahmanism and political fascism.

Ajith sets the tone for how intellectuals should approach study of Marxism and extricate it from mechanical tendencies.

The author narrates that in essence leaders like MK Gandhi were apologists of the Brahamanical system, endorsing many traditional values. It illustrates that there is dialectical connection between the semi-feudal economic order and the hegemony of higher castes. He narrates how Brahamnaical philosophy was rooted in the practice of Gandhi and in essence the Congress endorsed it.

With outstanding insight and originality he exposes Vedanta or Advaita. The book most illustratively encompasses how traditional Hindu philosophy was interwoven with authoritarian rule and how colonialism absorbed the reactionary elements of it to assert its hegemony. In chapter on Materialist ethics he deals with how materialism rejects idealism or their fundamental dichotomy.

Most vividly the book touches on idealist philosophers like Lokmanya Tilak and how they negated material progress. An effective ideological whip is lashed on the idealist school who diluted any radical philosophy.

Very methodically or dialectically Ajith summarises the contribution of Lenin towards building the party concept, giving full justice to his efforts to create the first Socialist state.

Very positively Ajith projects the people’s wars undertaken in the world as well as the achievements of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. .\Most emphatically he asserts how in important ways Mao ruptured from the practice of Stalin, traversing zones Lenin did not penetrate. A new dimension of the vanguard party too was projected, rejecting the traditional mechanical approach. Ajith portrayed instances of how new revolutionary democratic methods were cultivated to challenge bureaucratic tendencies within the party. In a most balanced manner he illustrates the CCP’s great strides towards taking revolutionary democracy to unexplored regions, taking path breaking steps.

The writer does not reveal a classical Marxist-Leninist touch but still reveals great spirit to traverse unexplored regions, taking inventive approach.

In spite of being critical of post -modernist tendencies he writes about Euro-Centric tendencies with writings of Marx and Engels. and positive elements in writers of the New Left. Ajith delves into how Marx in his writings made no mention of penetration of caste with the economic superstructure. He is even critical of Kosambi's analysis.

In great detail he describes the fascistic ideology of the Savarna philosophy down the ages to the present times, to give a crushing blow to any anti-caste movement. great depth he probes into the historical conflict of contending philosophies. The author throws light on the importance of the struggle for reservations.

Ajith most vividly analyses the descendancy of neo-fascism of the Brahmanical Hindutva variety and how Independence of 1947 was a mere transfer of power. ‘In the Specifities of Brahmanical Fascism he writes about how, as a political ideology, it has its origins in the crisis-ridden monopoly capitalism of imperialist countries.

Most fairly he is critical of the dogmatic path of the erstwhile Central Re-Organsiation Committee in Kerala in the 1970’s and 80’s on aspect of subjective factors.

In most lucid style he projected the link between the repressive socio-economic order or semi-feudalism with the philosophy of Brahmanical fascism. Most analytically he explains that there is virtually no dichotomy between the Brahamanical ideology and the semi-feudal system.

Boldly he is critical of tendencies of personality cult within leadership like 'Gonzalo Thought and Prachanda Thought as well as that of Bob Avakian. At the same time he has positively portrayed contribution of Charu Mazumdar and Kanhai Chaterjee, upholding their touching the very roots of society.

Ajith probes into the sectarian aspects of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution with great foresight. He delves into the regions of mechanical, subjective and idealist approach by the Chinese party and over idolisation. The weakness of the masses to supervise the party was highlighted and dogmatic methods. The author was critical of Chairman Mao for not sufficiently countering trend of personality cult and promoting adulation of ideology.

Ajith touches on the reactionary aspects of Western Marxism, which in his view negated ground reality.

The author inspired the writings of Joshua Moufawad Paul and in many ways “Critique of Maoist Reason” is a sequel to Ajith's work.

I must mention that Chairman Joma Sison was most impressed with Ajith's writings on Brahmanical fascism and India, treating them as a major contribution as well as late Nicholas Glais of Democracy and Class Struggle, Cristopher Kistler of Red Spark, Canadian Marxist Joshua Moufawad Paul Towards a New Dawn journal and Intellectual Bhaskar Vishwanathan Muthu. However Sison and Bhaskar Vishwanathan Muthu and even Comrade Peter Tobin were critical of Ajith’s views on Stalin and the Communist Party. In my view Ajith in important ways duplicates the views of Joshua Moufawad Paul in “Maoism-A Continuity and Rupture.”

A sound review of this book has been written by Joshua Moufawad Paul. He delves on the style of writing and the aspect of originality. In his view the work should have been divided.

The introductory appraisal written of the book by Saroj Giri, is creative but virtually deid of any Leninist criteria and finding fault with important Indian communist leaders. No doubt he brilliantly illustrates historical background and social factors but attributes the writer of being lenient towards leaders like Charu Mazumdar or Kanhai Chaterjee. His criteria is similar to that of the New Left variety. However a most lively writing, asking important questions. Saroj covers the subjectivity from the range of the October Revolution to Naxalbari. His reference to the idea of “object of the comrade” reflects post-modernist tendency. It is also illustrated how he refers to Mazumdar’s ‘new man’ and his description of de classing and de-personification and giving credibility to Loius Althusser.

The interview with K.P. Sethunath in the appendix is one of the most insightful in terms of understanding the Neo-fascist modus operandi of the Saffron Brigade, the roots of revisionism in the Communist movement, the semi-feudal mode of production with important changes and highlighting how Communist parties gave no respect to important aspects of Indian culture that confronted feudal and unscientific values. Most intrinsically he illustrates how Brahamical Hindu culture has penetrated into the very fabric of Indian society. I love his forthrightness in expressing how a vanguard party should be democratized and not be the absolute say. With great clarity he defends the peoples towards encompassing the entire globe, giving a striking example of how Vietnam averted America. Wholeheartedly he defends the people’s wars staged in India and Philippines, summing up the variance of the characteristics. There is also a most interesting part on Keralam dealing with the situation prevailing in Kerala and whether subjective conditions existed for armed struggle. He also summarizes how in essence leaders like Gandhi and Nehru were apologists of the ruling classes, dancing to their very tune. Rarely has there, in recent times, been an interview of any Marxist leader, which gave the revolutionary movement more positivity and creativity.

FLAWS OF THE BOOK

The main flaw of this book is it's negating the proletarian essence of Leninism in junctures. It negates Stalin's role in the Comintern as well as approach to party building completely. It projects that there are weaknesses within Leninism itself and that Maoism is in many ways a rupture or dichotomy from it. Negating Stalin or ascribing Leninist or Leninism from having limitations sows the seeds of revisionism. The author in a subtle way reveals the same weaknesses of Bob Avakian in approach towards Stalin and Communist Party.

It undermines the essence of the Leninist or Bolshevik party and treats the Maoist party as that of a different type. It does not delve into the aspect of the mass line sufficiently, internationally or in India and places over emphasis on creation of personality cult.

When projecting Brahmanical fascism it divorces from class struggle or proletarian angle and virtually projects it as the precursor of all economic exploitation. In Marxist-Leninist light Ajith does not propagate that only sustained class movements can overturn casteism.

Ajith does not sufficiently defend the practice of the CCP in Cultural Revolution, by attributing idealism or dogmatic methods, failing to completely respect the situation it faced at that time.

He is over critical of tendency of personality cult but does not sufficiently deal with aspect of mass line.

Ajith derides the Leninist teachings of leaders on the cutting Leninist edge of the Communist Party like Charu Mazumdar and Kanhai Chaterjee or even Kondapalli Seetharamiah.

Ajith throws no light on the subjective trends within the history of Indian Maoist movement, like that of ‘Individual annihilation of class enemy’ in the Charu Mazumdar era, or even later mistakes.

The author still endorses the line of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, which prematurely called for forming a Communist International.