We have got an
article entitled ''Against Avakianism" by Com Ajith, General
Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari. It is
long, but a readable article, which was introduced in August 2013.
It is a matter of surprise that
even the newly formed CPN-Maoist also has not publicized
his official view on ''New Synthesis". They have not made
their position clear in this issue. It had come to know that the Central
Committee meeting of CPN–Maoist, which was held in Pokhara, had
discarded the notion of "New Synthesis" as the liquidationist deviation. Party
members have expressed their views on "New Synthesis",
but officially CPN-Maoist has not
publicized the decision on this issue. While the most of
the Maoist parties inside the defunct RIM and outside, have made their positions
clear.
We can't
say exactly, whether the Comrades of CPN-Maoist have
studied the article of Com,Ajith or not. We have not gone
through any comment from them, on this article. We
think they are still at the cross roads. As we think, now the time
has come to make concrete decision on this issue. It is clear that there is no
any possibility of rebuilding or restructuring the new International Center on
the basis of 'New Synthesis'. Here we would like to
stress that while rebuilding a new embryonic Center, the role of
the CPI(Maoist) and the Communist Party of the
Philippines
will be decisive.
If we are the real
follower of Marxism-Leninism -Maoism, if we are dedicated to the world
proletarian revolution, we must have to create a
common meeting point to reunite. We have got lesson already from
Peru and Nepal–''Gonzalo thought" and ''Prachanda Path". Now no need of another
'ism' like Avakianism. It has been clear that RCP,
America is imposing its liquidationist views on other parties .
And there is no another way to move forward without RCP, America.
Being a Maoist no one can accept the view of ''New Synthesis",
no one can declare his own
death. We urge the Maoist Parties to make concrete decision on this issue.
Tomorrow is the 26 December –''The Mao- Day" and the May Day also
is coming near.
In Nepalese context, there is no
any confusion on this issue. Now we have some writings on 'New
Synthesis'. Com. Baral in an article entitled "International Communist Movement,
Current Debate and New Synthesis", has explained clearly about
''New Synthesis" . Though it is in Nepali vernacular, but it has
made clear that Avakian's ''New Synthesis" is the notion of liquidation, a
pessimistic view on current communist movement. Likewise in a Nepalese magazine
Com. Basanta also has expressed his view that ''New Synthesis" can't be the
common point for the restructuring the new Center. In fact, those who have gone
through 'New Synthesis', have the same conclusion that Bov Avakian is
misinterpreting and misleading the communist movement-a liquidative approach.
Then what about ''Against Avakianism " ? We know Communist party of Italy(Maoist) (PCM-Italy), has expressed his support on Com Ajith 's article, already. Basically we also support this article . But there are some points to be noted. Particularly on the issue of Post-modernism and Frankfurt School. These issues need some clarification.
The view expressed
on post-modern theories has made some confusions. As he has
mentioned in the subtitle–''Some 'Postist' traits of Avakianism"
Today, compared to
even Mao’s time, we are enriched with a new awareness of the contradictory
essence of Enlightenment and its scientific consciousness. Post-modernist trends
have made significant contributions in this matter. Though their relativism led
them to an ahistorical rejection of the Enlightenment and modernisation, the
critical insights they offer must be synthesised by
Marxism.
We can't accept
and appreciate the post-theories like post-modernism and
post- Marxism. We disagree with the above mentioned views by Com. Ajith.
Post-modernism has not made any significant contribution to
understand Enlightenment as well as the Communist movement.
Post-modernists have waged war against Enlightenment and Marxism. Postmodernism
discards the whole achievement, achieved in the past, particularly the Communist
Movement–addressing it ''end of the grand narratives". We would like to mention
the article ''Post-modern Condition" by J. Lyotard, the prominent
figure of Post-modernism. As Lyotard has
mentioned in his article:
The nineteenth and twentieth
centuries have given us as much terror as we can take. We have paid a high
enough price for the nostalgia of the whole and the one, for the reconciliation
of the concept and the sensible, of the transparent and the communicable
experience. Under the general demand for slackening and for appeasement, we can
hear the mutterings of the desire for a return of terror, for the realization of
the fantasy to seize reality. The answer is: Let us wage a war on totality; let
us be witnesses to the unpresentable; let us activate the differences and save
the honor of the name.
It is clear, he is against the
Communist Movement of nineteenth and twentieth century and he does not want to
see this type of "terror" also in future.
Here I want to quote some words from
Siraj's book ''Post-Modern Today":
Post-modernism is a trend of thought opposed to modernism
(i.e. ideas emanating in the post-feudal era) and is therefore not only opposed
to Marxism, but the entire leaps in thinking and values that came with the birth
of capitalism — i.e. the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, Reason and even
science.
Post-modernism,
though it can trace its roots to over a century back, in its present garb, it
draws extensively from the philosophies of Nietzche, the philosophical
farther-figure of Hitler’s fascism.
While criticizing
the postist view of Bov Avakian , Com Ajith himself has been
trapped in a postist view.
Not only this, Com
Ajith has admired the contribution of Frankfurt School with highly enthusiasm.
He mentions: ''The
contributions made by theoreticians of the Frankfurt school are also to be
acknowledged."
It needs some clarification. What
for it is to be acknowledged–negatively or positively ?
What for Com Ajith admires the Frankfurt
School, the founder organ of neo-Marxism ? There are various
trends within neo–Marxism . Among them, Frankfurt School is more devious and dangerous.
Their ''critical theory " discards Marxism as deterministic view and they prefer
Nietzsche and Freudian Psychology . The neo–Marxist trend
particularly the 'critical theory" of Frankfurt School has vulgarized
Marxism very badly. It is the matter to be cleared that we must
criticize the concept of neo-Marxism. There is no
any space to admire for Frankfurt School's ''critical
theory". How Com. Ajith urges us to acknowledge the
contributions of Frankfurt
School. It is a matter of surprise!
We have lot of
writings against the Hegelian notion of this school. Mikhail
Lifshits, the Marxist literary critic has said Frankfurt School as
"the reactionary sophisms of liberal intellectuals
negatively inspired by the ''dialectics of enlightenment". Pleaders of
''critical theory" have borrowed some words from Marxist
dictionary, but in fact, they are the follower of Nietzsche and Freud. We must observe things
critically, but that must be based on dialectical materialism—that means not
going beyond Marxism.
Regarding the ''New
synthesis", we have remarkable
articles from Communist ( Maoist)
Party of Afghanistan ...Now we have another an excellent writing
from Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari. These articles have
laid down the foundation for the new journey–to build a new
International Center. Here we would like to cite some words from the article
Against Avakianism.
After all, one of the ideological
criteria laid down by the SM is the rejection of Avakianism aka ‘new synthesis’
(the other being the rejection of Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism). Now that
should certainly qualify as a precise demarcation!
000
No comments:
Post a Comment