Excerpt from "against avakianism" by Ajith, Secretary of the former Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) NAXALBAR, today merged in the CPI
THE ARBITRARY STAGES OF AVAKIANISM
Avakianism
claims that a stage of communist revolution has ended. This is also referred to
as the first wave. It presents itself as the theoretical framework for a new
stage, a second wave.[1] There is agreement among the
Avakianists on this. But they seem to differ on what exactly they mean by
‘stage’. The RCP and Revolutionary Communist Organisation, Mexico [RCOM]
argue that the stages they speak about have nothing to do with the stages in
the development of communist ideology or the era. But the Communist Party of
Iran (MLM) [CPI (MLM)] has a different view. It says that the crisis in the
communist movement that has necessitated a new theoretical framework “… is the
definite sign of an era's ending and, beginning of another era."[2] We must wait for more details
before commenting on this. For the present let us note that this has major
implications.[3]
What
is the argument for this demarcation of stages? It is the defeat of socialism. “With
the reversal of socialism in China after 1976, coming a couple of decades after
that had happened in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, the first wave of socialist
revolutions was ended and, today the world is left without any socialist
states.”[4] No doubt, the setback suffered
in China
with the capitalist coup of 1976 and the betrayal of the Albanian Labour Party
brought about a qualitatively new situation in the international communist
movement (ICM). It was, in a certain sense, thrown back to the pre-October
revolution period. But, in a limited sense only. The ICM was now enriched with
the lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the ideological
advance to MLM. The objective condition noted by Mao remained, “Imperialism has
prepared the conditions for its own doom. These conditions are the awakening of
the great masses of the people in the colonies and semi-colonies and in the
imperialist countries themselves. Imperialism has pushed the great masses of
the people throughout the world into the historical epoch of the great struggle
to abolish imperialism. Imperialism has prepared the material as well as the
moral conditions for the struggle of the great masses of the people.”[5] Yet the setback was
undeniable. It demanded summation of the experiences of building socialism and
restudying/examining/critiquing the whole theoretical and practical heritage of
the world communist movement. This much was understood by the Maoists, more so among
the constituents of the RIM. In varying degrees, within their capacities and
circumstances of work, most of these parties (and some outside the RIM) have
been addressing this task. They continue to do so. Their efforts and the
insights this has given were clearly seen in their interventions in various
forums and writings. This task of summation was (and is) being approached from
various angles. It is unfinished. The lessons distilled out remain to be
synthesised. There was a high degree of agreement within the RIM on the
importance of this work. But, even though the RCP had been proposing since 1990
that the setback of socialism in China signifies the end of a stage,
this was not accepted; except in a figurative manner. The reasoning was simple - it was too vague to satisfy the scientific demands of
Marxism.
If the setback of socialism
as witnessed in the capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union and China is the criterion of stage division, why
should the whole period from the Communist Manifesto (or the First International
as Avakian had first put it in 1990) till the setback in China be
considered a single stage? By this criterion it would be more logical to speak
of the period from the October revolution to the setback in China as a
single stage. Unlike the period preceding it, extending all the way back to the
Communist Manifesto, this period saw the existence of relatively stable
socialist societies and their destruction. But then, why not divide the whole
history of the communist movement into three stages? The first stage could be from
the Communist Manifesto till the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871. The
second from the formation of the 2nd International till its collapse
in 1914. (This period did have its particularities for the ICM, including the
establishment of Marxism within the proletarian movement and the growth of mass
parties.) Finally, the third one would be from the establishment of the first
socialist state in the era of imperialism till the setback in 1976 that brought
about a condition where there is no socialist state. Perhaps this could also be
divided into two: the first finishing with the 1956 restoration of capitalism
in the Soviet Union that ended the existence
of a socialist camp. If world decisive events of victory/defeat,
advance/setback in world revolution are taken as the criteria for stage
division, each of those outlined above would qualify. Each of them, both in
advance and defeat, were truly epochal in their resonance on world
developments.
The C(m)PA has exposed the arbitrariness of the RCP’s stage
division quite well.[6] Therefore we will proceed to
examine the defence put up by the Avakianists. The RCOM demands, “Is it true or
not true that the temporary defeat of socialism mentioned above represented
a profound, qualitative change in the process of the communist revolution that
separates one stage in this process from another? The CPA(M) avoids this
question instead of answering it.”[7] This is indeed amusing. Who
is doing the avoiding here? Weren’t the Avakianists supposed to be explaining why
this marks off a single stage? No one disagrees about the qualitative
change that was caused by the capitalist coup in China. But how does that
necessarily imply that all that went before it constitutes a single
stage? The only explanation given by the RCOM is this: “…what in reality has
happened is a period of more than three decades in which there are no socialist
countries or communist international. Talking about past victories doesn’t
answer the question of whether or not this big setback represents the end of a
stage.”[8] So now it’s the big setback
concretised by the ‘more than three decades’ without a socialist country that
marks off a stage. But, as the C(m)PA notes, a longer period, 46 years to be
exact, had passed between the defeat of the Paris Commune and the victory of
the Russian revolution. And this was a period without a single proletarian
revolution. In contrast, the period after the setback in China has been
vibrant with people’s wars and revolutionary struggles. Despite ups and downs,
revolutionary struggles led by Maoist parties have been a constant feature of
this period. They continue to be so.
The stage division made by the Avakianist’s could be
dismissed as shallow theorisation, if not for its lethal implications. They arbitrarily
chop up the process of communist revolution into stages so that MLM can be pictured
as a theoretical framework solely limited to one of them, the so-called first
stage. This is done to argue that a new stage needs a new theoretical framework.
Avakianism’s stage division is a
device by which it appears to acknowledge MLM, only to shut it off as
antiquated. While doing this it also liquidates the powerful contributions
of communist revolutionary struggles, including the people’s wars, in the
post-1976 world.[9]
The overthrow of the Paris Commune and the restoration of capitalism
in the socialist countries were all defeats suffered by the proletariat. Yet
each was unique in its significance and implication for the future course of
world revolution. In particular the setbacks in the Soviet Union and China were of
far greater qualitative import than the others. The former held out the promise
of finally succeeding in building a stable socialist society. The latter,
mainly through the Cultural Revolution, seemed to provide the answers to the
problems thrown up by the experience of socialist construction and capitalist
restoration in the Soviet Union. Therefore
both these setbacks had added significance. Most importantly, lessons of the
class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat in China,
including the building of socialism and its defeat, have an altogether
different qualitative significance. The great complexity of this class
struggle, its various dimensions and implications, was revealed and grasped in
its main features for the first time in the history of the ICM through the
teachings of Mao Tsetung. The heights of this theory and practice is
concentrated in Maoism, the cutting edge of MLM. It arms the communists to
re-examine, re-evaluate the whole of the communist endeavour till now, its
theory and practice. It is not the final word. But this is the basis, the reference
point, the opening, for this ongoing, unfinished task. The problem with
Avakianism is not just that it tries to deny this basis in order to usurp that
position. In important aspects of ideology it pulls the ICM back from the
advanced insights and important corrections achieved through Maoism. We will
now examine some of them in detail. Let us start with the very question of
ideology itself, of MLM.
MIS-RENDERING MAO
Within RIM forums, we have all along criticised the RCP on errors
in its ideological orientation, focussed on its position of “Leninism as the
bridge”, first put forward in an article written by Avakian. [10] This is what he wrote, “… in
today’s situation Leninism is the key link in upholding and applying
Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought. To put it somewhat provocatively,
Marxism without Leninism is Eurocentric social-chauvinism and social democracy.
Maoism without Leninism is nationalism (and also, in certain contexts,
social-chauvinism) and bourgeois democracy.” “… Leninism … is precisely the
bridge between Marxism and Mao Tsetung Thought, what today is the key link
giving Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought its overall integral character and
synthesis as the science of revolution and the revolutionary ideology of
the proletariat.”[11]
Since MLM is an integral whole, one could think up various
combinations - Marxism without Leninism or Maoism without Marxism etc. - and
attack them of manifesting one or the other deviation. One can just as well
argue, correctly, that without being supplemented, informed, by the insights of
one or the other each would be incomplete. But there is the even more important
matter of the qualitative development of this ideology and the heights it has
attained. Because once such a leap has taken place then that becomes the
vantage point.[12]
This leap comes from rupture and synthesis. They give Marxist ideology its basic
continuity, its overall integral character. For instance, the comprehensiveness
and depth in outlook presently possible through MLM is precisely given by the leap
and synthesis achieved through Maoism. This would not be possible today with
Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Charu Majumdar put this in a focussed manner when
he wrote “...today, when we have got the brilliant Thought of Chairman Mao
Tsetung, the highest stage of the development of Marxism-Leninism, to guide us,
it is imperative for us to judge
everything anew in the light of Mao Tsetung Thought and build a completely new
road along which to press ahead.”[13]
Avakianism’s demand to take Leninism as the key link in
upholding and applying MLM, his understanding that Leninism is what makes the
synthesis of MLM possible today, denied Maoism its position as the cutting edge.
Thus it laid the basis for undermining MLM itself. This could already be seen
in the arguments made in that article.
Two issues were presented by Avakian to substantiate his
assertion of Leninism as key link. One of them relates to nationalism, which we
will deal with later. The other is the party. To prove his assertion Avakian writes
about “…so-called and pretended “Maoists” who think that because of the
experience of the Cultural Revolution in China the basic principle of the
Leninist party, of democratic centralism and so on, has been superseded and
surpassed …”[14]
But how on earth can distortions manufactured by ‘so-called Maoists’ be summoned
to indicate some lack in Maoism that justifies Leninism being the key link? In
fact there is no explanation, just assertion. And, in this seeming infatuation
with Leninism, the actual advance made by Mao in the Leninist party concept,
which makes it right today to speak about a Maoist party concept, is abandoned.[15] This is how Avakianism
dilutes the ideological advance achieved through MLM.
Some may protest that Avakian’s writings on the party contain
more quotes from Mao than Lenin. Or it may be pointed out that the RCP
Constitution even repeats some of Mao’s words on the party. We haven’t counted,
but there’s no quarrel. We do see a lot of Mao quotes in the writings of the RCP
and its Chair. But is this Mao from a Maoist understanding? Or is it from a
self-assumed Leninist one? One can’t dodge this question by appealing to MLM
being an integral whole. Yes, it is an integral whole. There is continuity from
Marx, to Lenin, to Mao (and that includes the contributions of Engels and
Stalin). But the understanding of this ideology was not the same in each stage.
The party concept of Marx’s, Lenin’s and Mao’s times were not the same. In
fact, to speak of a Leninist party without imbibing the advance achieved by
Mao, including his correction of some of the aberrations that had crept in,
would be going backward. This is why we must today speak of the Maoist party. Today
the key link is Maoism, not Leninism, not just on the party but on all aspects
of communist theory and practice. This can be recognised by those who firmly
grasp Maoism. Those who insist that Leninism be made the basis of synthesis and
the key link will not be able to grasp this, no matter what their subjective
desire is.
Earlier we wrote about
the RCP ‘seeming infatuation with Leninism’. Well, this is so because in some
aspects of party concept it is completely taken up with the aberrations that
came in later through Stalin, rather than the views of Lenin. The leadership
cult unremittingly being built up over the years by the RCP is a case in point.
The necessary emergence of authoritative leaders of the party is altogether
different from leadership cults. We well
know that Lenin was completely opposed to such cult building. This began with
Stalin and was taken to ludicrous proportions. While Mao corrected some of
this, he didn’t totally break off from this negative tradition passed on by the
Comintern. “Personality cults can never be justified in Marxism. But instead of
totally rejecting them, Mao limited himself to criticising their extreme
manifestations. Though this is sought to be justified by appealing to the
complex situation of the class struggle in China, it is unacceptable in principle
itself. The issue is not the extent of praise, or even whether somebody
deserves to be praised. Such cults foster a consciousness of infallibility of
an individual, a leadership and indirectly of that party; something rejected by
the Maoist party concept but seen in the Chinese party’s adjective, “always
correct”. Contemporary examples, of Maoist parties justifying their leadership
cults by citing Mao, draw attention to the need to achieve clarity in this
matter.”[16]
It would do well to remind ourselves of Marx’s words, “… such was my aversion
to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by
numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public
honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did
I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first
joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything
conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.”[17]
Within the RIM, this disease was abundantly visible in the
case of the Communist Party of Peru (PCP) and the RCP. It was taken to the
extreme with PCP members swearing subordination to their Chair. The RCP used to
criticise this. It now demands of its members “allegiance to leadership”!
Either way the error is compounded towards reification of leadership. This
inevitably generates the systematic effort to build the cult, to manufacture an
account that will serve to promote it.
In the recent period
this has been a more or less permanent feature of the Avakianists’ writings.
The RCP letter tells us, “The work of Bob Avakian was decisive and central
in this process [leading to the formation of the RIM], in particular in
formulating a penetrating criticism of the revisionist coup-makers in China
(along with their 'centrist' obfuscators), systematizing, popularizing and
defending Mao Tsetung's contributions to the science of revolutionary
communism.” There is more of this further on. Was that the truth? The coup in China and
betrayal of the Albanian party triggered off widespread ideological struggle
against Teng-Hua revisionism and the dogmato-revisionism of Enver Hoxha. It was
spearheaded by the few parties, organisations and individuals who stood firm on
MLM. The RCP led by its Chair was one among them. The line struggle in the RCP,
its re-publication of important texts of the line struggle in the CPC and the
writings of Avakian during this period were significant contributions to the
international struggle. As one of the initiators of the First Conference of
Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations and the major efforts it made to
mobilise support for this, the RCP played a notable role.
But to qualify the role of Bob Avakian as “decisive and
central” would be a gross lie and great disservice to the world Maoist
movement. First of all, it robs this historical struggle of its richness, generated
by contributions of Maoist forces from all over the world. Most of them worked
in extreme conditions and with little resources. Yet despite those limits they
contributed much. A lot of it is unknown, purely because it hasn’t been
translated. But, as we noted earlier, that richness and depth were quite
evident in their interventions.
Secondly, and even more importantly, in the period leading up
to the First Conference the ideological role of Avakian and the RCP had serious
negative implications. Left unchecked it would have derailed the whole process.
Along with the RCP, Chile leadership it was refusing to acknowledge Mao Tsetung
Thought as a qualitative new stage of
proletarian ideology in the proposed draft resolution of the Conference. It accepted
the “contributions” of Mao Tsetung,
but not as a new stage. A close look
at Avakian’s ‘Mao Tsetung’s Immortal Contributions’ will reveal that this had
deep roots. This book gives a fairly exhaustive account of Mao’s contributions
in various fields. They are at times accepted to have ‘advanced’
Marxism-Leninism. But while it carefully
records how Lenin developed Marxism to a “new and higher stage”, it never
acknowledges Mao Tsetung Thought (as it was then termed) as a qualitatively new
and higher stage.[18]
The ‘question of Mao Tsetung thought as a new stage’ became a
key issue of struggle in the First Conference. The Maoist position prevailed
and the Joint Communiqué issued by the Conference clearly recorded “We are
still living in the era of Leninism, of imperialism and proletarian revolution;
at the same time we affirm that Mao Tsetung Thought is a new stage in the
development of Marxism-Leninism.”[19] Evidently, in this crucial
matter of ideology, it was not Avakian’s views (and of the RCP, Chile
leadership) but their defeat that was “decisive and central” in the
advance to the Second Conference of 1984 and the formation of the RIM as a
Maoist movement.
This example is quite instructive for two reasons. It shows
us how cult building inevitably promotes the opposite of dialectics. Once you decide
that you must have a canonised leader then a history of absolute correctness becomes
a must. Political untruths must be manufactured and propagated. The RCP has
recently decided that “a culture of appreciation, promotion, and popularisation
around the leadership, the body of work and the method and approach of Bob
Avakian.” is one of the principal tasks of the party. Cult building has since
been taken to vulgar proportions, so profusely seen in their publications.
This whole episode gives us a better footing to locate and
understand a long standing lack in the RCP’s ideological outlook. It was
recognising and trying to learn and apply Mao Tsetung’s contributions in
diverse fields. But it could never make the leap to grasping this as the
vantage point, new height. It was, as noted earlier, a case of a lot of correct
things, but fundamentally based on a wrong ideological orientation concretised
in Avakian’s formulation of ‘Leninism as the bridge, the key link’. This was
both an element ultimately undermining its Maoist character as well as one
encapsulating some amount of ideological backwardness at its very core. Over
the years, this negative aspect has grown and overwhelmed it.
An opportunity was available to break out when the RCP adopted
MLM. But the new grasp of Maoism was never employed to interrogate its previous
understanding. The erroneous position of ‘Leninism as bridge’ was never corrected.
It just went out of circulation. At the time of the Extended Meeting of the
RIM, which adopted MLM, it was explained that this position was merely a
‘tactical’ slogan, relevant for that particular juncture when it was put out. But
in the early half of 2000 it made a re-entry. Following the auto-coup of
Avakianism it was hailed by the author as ‘incisive’.[20] The RCP letter states, “Bob
Avakian's work Conquer the World, the Proletariat Must and Will represented a
particular nodal point in this process.” That it certainly was - it formally laid down the basis for the slide to liquidationism
we see today. [21]
A PERVERSION OF INTERNATIONALISM
One argument advanced by Avakian for replacing Maoism with
Leninsm as “key link” is his charge of nationalism against Mao. This has been a
permanent theme of his writings. He sees manifestations of this in the way Mao
viewed the prospects of world revolution, his analysis of the world situation,
his policy on united front and his philosophical positions. (On occasions Lenin
was also criticised of nationalism.) Most of these were first raised in the ‘Conquer
the World’ article. Some of them were openly criticised and rejected during the
debate leading up to the 2nd International Conference of Marxist-Leninist
parties and organisations, convened in 1984. This was a topic of sharp struggle
in the Conference. The Declaration of the RIM adopted by that Conference
recorded this in its correction of some of the grosser errors of Avakianism in
this matter. But the Avakianists have persisted on their damaging path. The
more the RCP diverged from MLM the more this tendency has been rigidified as a
deviation. In recent years it has
acquired the monstrous form of imperialist economism and, even worse,
expansionism. The root of this lies in Avakian’s perverted version of
proletarian internationalism.
In Avakian’s view “…in fact, in the era of
imperialism in particular, the international arena, and changes and developments
on that level, are more decisive and determining of what happens in particular
countries than the "internal conditions" in the particular countries,
taken by themselves.”[22] This was first advanced and
elaborated in his article ‘On the Philosophical Basis of Proletarian
Internationalism’ (1981). Let us try to follow his logic. Avakian starts of by
admitting the correctness of Mao’s observation that “… external causes are the
condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external
causes become operative through internal causes.”[23] He even admits that this was
a blow to metaphysical thinking which saw external factors as decisive. But
then he changes tack and declares, “But to
a certain extent, there was the tendency to conceive and apply this principle
itself metaphysically, which was linked to a certain amount of nationalism in
the Chinese party, including among the genuine Marxist- Leninists, even Mao.”[24] Avakian’s charge is that
Mao’s view of considering factors internal to China as the basis of its
revolutionary change represented a nationalist view. He contrasts this to what
he claims to be the correct internationalist view. The argument is as follows –
since what is universal in one context becomes particular in another, and vice
versa, what is internal in one context becomes external in another. When viewed
from the angle of a country the world situation is external to it. “But it is
also true that, in another context, China, the U.S. and the rest of the
countries in the world form parts of the world (of human society) as a whole,
with its internal contradiction and change, determined in an overall way by the
fundamental contradiction of the bourgeois epoch, between socialized
production/private appropriation. This means that in an overall sense the
development of the class (and national) struggle, the development of
revolutionary situations, etc., in particular countries are more determined
by developments in the world as a whole than by developments in the
particular countries—determined not only as a condition of change (external
cause) but as a basis of change (internal cause).”[25]
The contradictions of the world
situation ‘as a whole’ are certainly internal to it. And yes, the world
is certainly made up of ‘parts of the world’ (different countries). But ‘the
world as a whole’ is distinctly different from ‘parts of the world’.
We can analyse and speak of the contradictions seen in the world as a whole
only at a level distinctly different from that of the countries - even though
they make up the world, are influenced by the world situation and in turn
influence it. The world situation is neither the sum total of the situations of
different countries, nor is the situation in any country a fragment of the
world situation. Avakian juggles with the word ‘context’ when he states that
‘what is internal in one context becomes external in another.’ In the specific
instance examined here, the change of ‘context’ (from the situation in a
country to the world situation as a whole) signifies a totally new,
qualitatively different, dimension. Therefore, appealing to the relative nature
of internal and external does not in any way substantiate the conclusion
Avakian arrives at. His arguments in fact only go to expose the logical contortions
he indulges in (a matter of criticism at the 2nd Conference).
Let us now examine the matter of
the fundamental contradiction of the bourgeois epoch. This contradiction,
between socialised production and private appropriation, sets the basis, the
broad parameters, of the world situation. This has become even more explicit
and influential in the imperialist era, particularly under globalisation. It
will last throughout this epoch, till it is resolved through the world
socialist revolution. But, though the fundamental contradiction of a process
will not disappear until the process is completed, “… in a lengthy process the
conditions usually differ at each stage. … among the numerous major and minor
contradictions which are determined or influenced by the fundamental
contradiction, some become intensified, some are temporarily or partially
resolved or mitigated, and some new ones emerge …” Further, “There are many
contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one of
them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development
determine or influence the existence and development of the other
contradictions.”[26]
This immediately indicates that
Avakian’s bland statement on internal contradiction and changes in the world as
a whole “determined in an overall way by the fundamental contradiction of the
bourgeois epoch” is a rather shallow treatment of the issue. At any particular
period, one or the other major contradiction will be principal. No doubt, all
of these contradictions, including the principal contradiction, are overall
determined and influenced by the fundamental contradiction. But at any specific
period the principal contradiction, not the fundamental contradiction as such,
will determine or influence the existence and development of the other
contradictions. This guides us to probe the specific ways by which the
principal contradiction at the world level influence the situation within
specific countries. In the present world the contradiction between imperialism
and the oppressed nations and peoples is principal. But though India, or an
occupied country like Afghanistan or Iraq, are all oppressed countries, the
influence exerted by the principal contradiction on the situation in each country
is distinctly different. This is obviously determined by the
socio-political-cultural-economic particularities of these countries. If these
internal specificities are not grasped, the Maoist forces will never succeed in
their tasks. And they will never grasp them if they fail to understand that
they emerge from the particularities internal to their country and are more
determined by them. Avakianism’s distorted version of internationalism denies
this. It is a recipe for getting isolated from the people. Even worse, it
provides an excuse for marking time on the plea of waiting for the
revolutionary situation to get ‘determined by world events’.[27] We will conclude this matter
with Mao’s words, “In the era of capitalism, and especially in the era of
imperialism and proletarian revolution, the interaction and mutual impact of
different countries in the political, economic and cultural spheres are
extremely great. The October Socialist Revolution ushered in a new epoch in
world history as well as in Russian history. It exerted influence on internal
changes in the other countries in the world and, similarly and in a
particularly profound way, on internal changes in China. These changes, however,
were effected through the inner laws of development of these countries, China included.”[28]
The internationalist character of the proletariat is born of
the objective fact that it can nowhere have a particular emancipation from its wage-slavery,
neither as a class on its own nor within the confines of a nation. Its emancipation can only be universal. It must liberate the whole of humanity to liberate itself. This does not deny the real historical process of emergence of this class
from within distinct national contexts. Nor does it eliminate the distinctly
different tasks confronting it in the imperialist countries and the oppressed
ones. The proletariat in all countries are commonly exploited by capital
through the extraction of surplus in the form of surplus value. The essential relation
is that between capital and wage-labour. But this is actualised through
distinctly different relations in the imperialist countries and oppressed
nations. In the former it is overwhelmingly represented in its direct form. In
the latter, more often than not, it is mediated through bureaucrat capitalism.[29] This form of capitalism is
fostered by imperialism in the oppressed countries. It serves both imperialism
and feudalism. Thus the specificity of the exploitative relation encountered by
the proletariat in these countries immediately brings up before it a set of
tasks, different from those faced by this class in the imperialist countries.[30] It must struggle against
imperialism, bureaucrat capitalism and feudalism. This emerges from the
particularity of its class existence. Unless it takes up the national and
democratic tasks, it cannot confront the exploitative and oppressive conditions
governing its very existence, let alone play the role of vanguard and unite and
lead the peasantry and other revolutionary classes in the new democratic
revolution.
The
Avakianists have no time for such complexities. They imagine up an ‘ideal’
internationalist proletariat and then make that the basis of their analysis. This
inevitably leads them to an absolutist, purist concept of proletarian
internationalism. Thus, self-anointed as the true guardians of the Faith, they
launch into righteous battle against a host of attributed “nationalistic”
tendencies. If it were a matter of quixotic windmills we could have dismissed
this as a curious pastime. But, in the real world and for the real tasks of
revolution, it has disastrous implications. Therefore it must be trashed
[1]“The revolutionary communist movement began in 1848, when Marx and
Engels brought forth the basic theory and vision in the Communist Manifesto.
The first stage of this movement included three epic revolutions: the Paris
Commune; the Soviet Revolution; and the Chinese Revolution, which included the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as its high point.” - Constitution of the RCP, USA. <http://revcom.us/Constitution/constitution.html>
[2] CPI (MLM) document "Call for All
Iranian Communists: Two roads for Communism", as quoted by C(m)PA, op.
cit.
[3]If this casual treatment of a decisive issue like the change in era
is a sample of how the CPI (MLM)’s theory ‘steps ahead’, we shudder to think
about when it will finally deign to guide practice!
[4]‘Communism as a Science’, Appendix to the Constitution of RCP, USA,
op. cit.
[5]Cast Away Illusions, Prepare For Struggle, MSW 4. <http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_66.htm>
[6]“The Communist Party of Iran (MLM) has Fallen into the Lost Road of
‘Post MLM’”, op. cit.
[7]‘Residues’, emphasis added, op. cit.
[8]Ibid.
[9]While on the topic of stages it will be worthwhile to examine a
different, but closely related, argument made by the French philosopher Alain
Badiou in his work ‘The Meaning of Sarkowsky’. (translated David Fernbach,
Verso, London, 2008, pages 106-107) He repeats the often heard view that the
institutionalised leading role of the party in the hitherto existed models of
the socialist state was the main reason for the setback of the communist
project. This is taken as the basis to divide the communist movement into two
stages: one uptil the end of the Commune, and the other till the setback in
China. The criterion of differentiation is the state system. The failure of the
Commune to withstand the enemy’s attack (due to lack of centralisation) was
sought to be addressed through the party’s institutionalised role in the second
stage. This separates the stages. As a possible resolution Badiou insists on
dismantling the institutionalised role of the party, even doing away with the
vanguard party. Though he claims this to be different from Toni Negri’s
‘multitude’ theses, it squarely fails to address the material reality of acute
class struggle that made the vanguard party and its institutionalised role
necessary. Thus, despite his professed desire to “revive the communist
hypothesis”, Badiou’s utopian solutions reflect a bourgeois democratic
viewpoint. Ultimately, these and similar arguments of ‘stage-division’ are
grounded in the view that we need something other than MLM to advance in the
‘communist project’. (Not a development of MLM but something else.) Yet,
Badiou’s differentiation, based on the state systems tried out till now,
directly touches on the challenges faced by the ICM. It’s criterion of
‘stage-division’ has its logic; unlike the arbitrary one of Avakianism.
[10]This criticism was made open in our Note to the 2006 International
Seminar, “While the last decade saw struggle over the question of adopting
Maoism, it has since become weak following the adoption of MLM by most of the
genuine Maoist parties. But the fact is that there is still a lot of unevenness
in what is understood as Maoism as well as the significance of adopting it.
This is not limited to the debate whether adoption of Maoism is just a matter
of change in terminology or the Stalin question. It is also reflected in a hesitation
to fully embrace Maoism, in the re-appearance of ideological wavering reflected
in concepts like ‘Leninism as the bridge’ which emerged in the context of the
setback in China and the confusion sought to be created by the Hoxaites.” Op. cit.
[11]‘‘Conquer The World? The International Proletariat Must and Will’, emphasis
added, henceforth ‘Conquer…’. <http://revcom.us/bob_avakian/conquerworld/>
[12]The RIM’s document ‘Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism’ notes, “From
the higher plane of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism the revolutionary communists could
grasp the teachings of the previous great leaders even more profoundly and
indeed even Mao Tsetung's earlier contributions took on deeper significance.”
[13]‘Party’s Call to Students and Youth,’ from The Historic Turning
Point, Volume 2, page 36, emphasis added. In our party’s formulation of
ideology we specifically add ‘particularly Maoism’ precisely to highlight this.
[14]‘Conquer’, op. cit.
[15]An initial exploration of this less discussed aspect of Maoism can
be seen in the article ‘The Maoist Party’ <http://thenaxalbari.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-maoist-party.html>
[17]Letter to Wilhelm Blos, November 10, 1877. <http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/letters/77_11_10.htm>
[18]‘Mao Tsetung’s Immortal Contributions’, Bob Avakian, RCP
Publications, Chicago, 1979. The Avakianists are now actively propagating this
work as THE definitive summation of Mao’s contributions. As we noted, it is
fairly exhaustive in its account. But, apart from the severe ideological flaw
we have pointed out, it is also marred by some conspicuous silences. To give
some examples, Avakian fails to deal with Mao’s conceptualisation of bureaucrat
capitalism, so crucial in understanding the political economy of oppressed
nations. Nor does he deal with Mao’s positions on the nature and dynamics of
the revolutionary situation in these type of countries. Just for the record,
the contributions of comrade Gonzalo, Chair of the PCP, were ‘decisive and
central’ in reasserting these Maoist positions and placing them firmly within
the theoretical and practical discourses of the RIM.
[19]The struggles [of which we are aware] waged by the erstwhile Ceylon
Communist Party led by comrade N. Shanmugathasan and the CRC, CPI(M-L) were
of great importance in this victory. In
this struggle, the CRC, CPI(M-L) [led by K. Venu who later deserted the Maoist
movement] made an important contribution by exposing and criticising the
mechanical materialism that underpinned views which refused to accept Mao’s
ideological contributions as a new stage under the plea that the era had not
changed. Comparing Mao’s analyses of the contradictions and complexities of
socialist transition with those of Stalin, it pointed out how ideological
development was necessitated by these conditions and how Mao fulfilled this
need, thus raising proletarian ideology to a new stage.
[20]‘Ruminations and Wranglings’, Bob Avakian, April 2009. The liquidationist core of that formulation
was well exposed by Avakian himself when he wrote, “…Along with this, we should
clearly understand … that today Maoism without Bob Avakian's new synthesis will
turn into its opposite." <http://revcom.us/avakian/ruminations/BA-ruminations-en.html>
[21]RCP Letter. Considering the fact that the grosser manifestations of
Avakianist tendencies were held in check and partially reversed for nearly two
decades after the formation of the RIM, the negative impact of certain
developments like the setbacks in Peru and Nepal should also be factored in
while assessing this.
[22]‘On Internationalism’, Revolutionary Worker #1263, December 26,
2004. <http://www.revcom.us/a/1263/avakian-internationalism.htm>
[24]‘On the Philosophical Basis of Proletarian Internationalism’,
Revolutionary Worker, January 2, 2005 (First published in 1981) <http://www.revcom.us/bob_avakian/philbasis-intlism.htm>
[26]‘On Contradiction’, Mao Tsetung, op. cit.
[27]In a later piece (Revolutionary Worker #1263, December 26, 2004, op.
cit.) Avakian tried to respond to such criticism by arguing that his view
doesn’t mean that “nobody can make revolution anywhere, in any particular
country, because the international arena is ultimately and fundamentally
decisive.” That’s true, he hasn’t said that. But his logic inescapably leads to
it. A continuous revolutionary situation with its ebbs and flows is a notable
feature of oppressed countries. This objective situation places armed struggle
on the agenda. But if a party considers that the revolutionary situation is
‘more determined’ by the world situation it will inevitably fail to grasp this
dynamics and task pointed to by Mao.
[29]The exception is in the small and medium industries owned by
national capital.
[30]Given the times that they lived in, such complexities were
inevitably outside the range of the analysis made by Marx and Engels on the
proletariat as a single class. Furthermore, the manner in which the bourgeoisie
actually created ‘its own image’ in the oppressed countries turned out to be a
heavily disarticulated one, instead of the more or less replication of
capitalism that they had expected. This precluded the fairly rapid vanishing of
‘national differences and antagonism between peoples’ optimistically expected
by them.
No comments:
Post a Comment