- Com. Kiran
Part I
The history of Nepalese communist
movement is going ahead amid the process of intense contradiction
between progression and regression. Right in this course, the CPN
(Maoist Centre) has been dissolved into CPN (Unified Marxist-Leninist).
Having abandoned revolution, communism and Maoism, the Maoist Centre has
accepted parliamentarian theory based on peaceful multiparty
competition. This phenomenon should be regarded as a theoretical and
political degeneration, a culmination of right revisionism and a
backward journey of the Maoist Centre. Now, the relation of Maoist
Centre with Maoism and scientific socialism has broken. Given that
Maoist Centre has been dissolved into UML, the relation of the previous
Maoist leaders has ruptured with the history of Maoism and the people’s
war. It is a serious irony and a backward leap in the history of
communist movement and the Nepalese revolution.
In the course of great people’s war,
Prachanda the leader of erstwhile CPN (Maoist) had said, “The traitor
UML clique that has openly downgraded the great terminology,
Marxism-Leninism, into a trademark of parliamentary election by adopting
reactionary strategy of multiparty democracy has now appeared in the
most reactionary form. As an open agent of Indian expansionism, the
revisionist traitor UML clique that had shamelessly betrayed the nation
at Mahakali treaty to attain the chair of the reactionary state was most
actively involved in drafting the so-called anti-terrorist act and
mobilising army against people’s war as a partner of the reactionary
state.” (The problems of Nepalese revolution, part 3, pp. 168).
The UML has been strongly opposed and
repudiated in the excerpt above. In the excerpt it is said that the UML,
(1) has pursued the reactionary strategy of multiparty democracy, (2)
has downgraded Marxism-Leninism into a trademark of parliamentary
election, (3) as a reliable agent of Indian expansionism has shamelessly
betrayed nation at Mahakali treaty to get hold of the chair of
reactionary state, (4) has most actively involved in drafting the
so-called anti-terrorist act and mobilising army against people’s war,
(5) has been a revisionist traitor clique appeared in the most
reactionary form. But on the contrary, the Maoist Centre has been
dissolved into UML by taking an 1800 turn.
The letter of consensus signed jointly
by Oli, Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai regarding party unity writes,
“After bringing the monarchy to an end, writing of socialism-oriented
constitution with democratic republic, federalism, proportional
representation, secularism and social justice has been possible under
the leadership of CPN (UML) and CPN (Maoist Centre). In the course of
defending and putting into action the constitution adopted from the
constituent assembly, we have arrived at a common conclusion of
preparing ground of socialism through democratic method and peaceful
competition.” (Letter of consensus, October 3, 2017).
The letter of consensus issued by CPN
(UML) and CPN (Maoist Centre) has stated that they have reached to a
common conclusion of preparing base of socialism by means of (1)
democratic republic, (2) writing of socialism-oriented constitution, (3)
democratic method and (4) peaceful competition. This common conclusion
is the basis of theoretical and political unity between them. Based on
this, they decided to set up a party unity coordination committee and
unitedly participate in the parliamentary election.
Comparing the concept agreed in the
letter of consensus and the aforesaid statement made by Prachanda, there
is a difference of sky and earth in theoretical, political and
organisational fields. But that difference has now ended. They had tried
to eliminate that difference right from the last part of people’s war
period and that difference was getting finished till the writing of
constitution that re-established parliamentarian system. From this
perspective, this unity is going to take place, not all of a sudden, but
in a planned way and in the form of a leap from quantity to quality
towards opposite direction.
The meeting held on February 19 of the
party unity coordination committee between the UML and MC has reached a
7-point consensus. Accordingly, it has (1) decided to name the unified
party as Communist Party of Nepal, (2) agreed to accept the guiding
principle as Marxism-Leninism, (3) made sure that the multiparty
democracy of UML and the peaceful multiparty competition of Maoist
Centre had a common understanding, (4) decided to converge at one point
the multiparty democracy of UML and Maoism and the democracy in the
twenty-first century of Maoist Centre, (5) agreed to run a unified party
by preparing a political report and constitution on the aforesaid
basis, (6) decided to defend the achievements and then build socialism
and (7) taken decision to go to unity congress. (Party unity
coordination committee, Feb 19, 2018).
No later than the Chunwang CC Meeting
had adopted the slogan of democratic republic after abandoning new
democracy, the main leadership of the erstwhile CPN (Maoist), talking
about people’s insurrection, had again created a big confusion among
revolutionaries. After accepting regressive constitution, it has now
given a new slogan of socialism to create confusion among
revolutionaries. On around 1990/091, the UML used to create right this
type of delusion. The history is being replicated right in this manner
today. Nepali congress too accepts the abstract slogan of socialism.
Socialism is of many kinds. The Communist Manifesto has even talked
about a reactionary socialism. The socialism that UML and MC are now
taking about falls basically under the category of reactionary
socialism. After putting Maoism, class struggle, the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the theory of violence aside, the socialism via
reformism takes a form of reaction.
When the news of MC’s dissolution into
UML was being publicised, some of the comrades were saying that they
will not be dissolved in UML but will continue with their independent
revolutionary existence. I specially thank those comrades, who have
stood against this dissolution. It is now necessary to carry out serious
discussion and debate to unify the revolutionary communist movement and
firmly go ahead towards the preparation of revolution on the basis of
correct line guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. To raise the banner of
rebellion against opportunism and regression is a special duty of the
revolutionary communists.
Whatever be it, our ex-comrades do not
have any relation with Maoism and the history of people’s war anymore.
Notwithstanding their regressive path, the advanced motion and the
direction of revolution will continue. In the history of Nepalese
communist movement, the process of ending of one chapter and the
initiation of another one has been advancing. At the moment, opposing
and repudiating all sorts of right opportunism and regressive trends,
uniting the genuine revolutionary communist groups and individuals and
making preparation of new democratic revolution, we have to firmly go
ahead along the direction of attaining scientific socialism and
communism. None can stop the final victory of revolution.
February 25, 2018
Part II
Finally, the official unity between UML
and MC has taken place on May 17, 2018. Though they have named the
unified party as Communist Party of Nepal, however in essence, it is not
a unity but the dissolution of MC into UML. The joint statement issued
by them sheds light on it well.
The questions like Party’s name,
theoretical and political concept and guiding principle have been
briefly sketched in the statement issued as a joint declaration of UML
and MC. The joint statement signed by Oli and Prachanda writes:
- “Today we have reorganized the Communist Party of Nepal by formally uniting the CPN (UML) and CPN (Maoist Centre).”
- “The socialism-oriented people’s democracy will be carried forward in the new context by developing and amending the theoretical and political concept of People’s Multiparty Democracy followed by the CPN (UML) and Democracy in the 21st Century followed by the CPN (Maoist Centre).”
- “The Communist Party of Nepal is committed to the worldwide concept of modern democracy that includes attaining superiority through peaceful competition, supremacy of constitution, rule of law, independent judiciary, guarantee to human and fundamental rights, theory of separation of power, plural open society, periodic election with multiparty competition, formation of government from people-elected representatives, constitutional arrangement of opposition etc.”
- “Our guiding principle will be Marxism-Leninism.”
(Joint declaration of UML-MC unity, Naya Patrika, May 18, 2018)
Now it is necessary to explain the
essence of aforesaid statement. It is necessary to be additionally clear
on the theoretical and political deviation, the right revisionism
present in their party and the regressive trend of UML and MC, which
have been betraying to Nepalese revolution and the history of communist
movement. In this context, the following questions draw special
attention:
First: Vulgarization of Marxism.
Marxism is a guiding principle of the Communist Party. Today, it has
developed into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The revisionism is opposed to
and makes distortion of this guiding ideology. The revisionism has been
distorting and vulgarizing the theories of MLM including the dialectical
and historical materialism, class struggle, violence and the
dictatorship of the proletariat. UML does not agree with Maoism or Mao
thought. It pretends to agree with Marxism-Leninism. Now, the MC too has
arrived at Marxism-Leninism only by abandoning Maoism and it is said
that their united party’s guiding principle is Marxism-Leninism. In
fact, Marxism-Leninism is incomplete without Maoism, on the one hand,
and merely the pretension of one agreeing with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
does not make any sense, on the other. In the present context, in order
to become a genuine communist, it is unavoidably necessary to firmly
pursue the process of defence, application and development of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, follow the scientific theories like dialectical
and historical materialism, class struggle, violence, the dictatorship
of the proletariat, communism etc. The unity, which has taken place
between UML and MC, clarifies in its essence that it has abandoned MLM
and has followed revisionism.
Second: Abandonment of new democracy.
Subsequent to the abandonment of new democracy by UML yesterday and MC
today, they have now resorted to parliamentarianism. The parliamentarian
multiparty system has been acceptable to them today. They chant that
the bourgeois democratic or new democratic revolution has been
accomplished in Nepal. Evidently, the task of new democratic revolution
in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial and neo-colonial countries, like
Nepal, is targeted against both: the feudalism and
imperialism/expansionism. However, they say that feudalism has been
completely brought to an end after the monarchy has ended. They disprove
the necessity of opposing imperialism and expansionism for new
democratic revolution. They want to make the parliamentarianism
interminable in Nepal by maintaining the domination of comprador and
bureaucratic capitalism.
In their joint announcement, the
phraseology, socialism-oriented people’s democracy, has created another
illusion. They have made use of dualism, eclecticism and shameful
opportunism by simultaneously urging that the democratic revolution has
been accomplished in Nepal and the constitution of parliamentarian
democratic republic has to be implemented, on the one hand, and by
talking about socialism-oriented people’s democracy in an abstract
language, on the other. Hence, the misuse of definitive terminology has
become one of the main characteristics of revisionism.
Third: Endorsement of regressive state.
The form of revolution is based on class and it is related to the
question of attaining state power. Defining revolution and relating it
to state power, Lenin had said, “The passing of state power from one
class to another is the first, the principal, the basic sign of a
revolution.” (Volume 24, Lenin page 44). According to this statement the
main sign of revolution is to pass the state power from the hand of
oppressor class to the oppressed one. But, MC and UML do not agree with
this opinion of Lenin. Their party’s ideological and political objective
has been to implement the present constitution in order for maintaining
the current regressive state power and the parliamentarian system which
are based on comprador and bureaucratic capitalist and feudal class
dictatorship.
While talking about state power, one
must take note of the state machinery. Marx had said: destruction of old
machinery is unavoidably necessary for revolution. Nevertheless, the
right revisionists do not pay attention to it. The UML and MC both say
that revolution has been completed with the old state power unchanged
and it is their unified party’s concept as well. This concept is totally
against Marxism.
Fourth: Form of republic and the context of era.
The question of republic is related to the question of era. In the
course of bourgeois democratic revolution against feudalism yesterday,
the democratic republic was a progressive step. However, after the
episode of Paris Commune, the degeneration of bourgeoisie into reaction,
the experiences of bourgeois and socialist revolutions accomplished in
Russia in 1905 and 1917 and the emergence of the era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution, the democratic republic has taken a reactionary
form. But, the MC and UML did not want to understand it at all.
Lenin says, “The course of world events
and the bitter lessons derived from the alliance of all the Russian
monarchists with Anglo-French and American imperialism are proving in
practice that a democratic republic is a bourgeois democratic republic,
which is already out of date from the point of view of the problems
which imperialism has placed before history. They show that there is no
other alternative: either Soviet government triumphs in every advanced
country in the world, or the most reactionary imperialism triumphs, the
most savage imperialism, which is throttling the small and weak nations
and reinstating reaction all over the world — Anglo-American
imperialism, which has perfectly mastered the art of using the form of a
democratic republic.” (Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers,
Moscow, Volume 28, 1974, page 189-190). Here Lenin has clarified well
the fact that the democratic republic has become historically out of
date and the imperialist countries have been using it.
Taking into consideration of new era
developed after the First World War and 1917 October Revolution, Mao has
mentioned about three kinds of republics. They are: the republic under
the dictatorship of the bourgeois, the republic under the dictatorship
of the proletariat and the republic under the dictatorship of the
revolutionary classes. Here, Mao has mentioned the first type of
republic as the republic related to the old democratic state and it is
democratic republic. That is the republic of old era. Second type of
republic is the proletarian socialist republic established in Russia
whereas the third one is new democratic republic established in china.
From this angle, the UML and MC both and now their party, keeping aside
the new democratic and proletarian socialist republics of new era, have
started presenting the democratic republic of old era, being used by
imperialism, as the new concept of new era. It is a shameless
regression.
Fifth: Class capitulationism.
Abandoning the principle of class struggle and class dictatorship, to
talk only of pure democracy or democracy for all classes is to prostrate
theoretically and practically before the regressive class. It should be
taken as class capitulationism. The UML since before, MC later and the
new party formed of these two parties now have pursued the path of class
capitulation. Both of them have already accepted class collaboration
and the dictatorship of the regressive class, by leaving behind the
principle of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It
is class capitulationism and an ugly model of betrayal towards the
emancipation of proletariat and the oppressed classes.
Sixth: The principle of peaceful transition. Marxism
believes that the theory of violence is universal. To follow the path
of peaceful transition and the theory of parliamentarian electoral
competition against the theory of violence is right revisionism. The UML
yesterday and the MC today have followed right revisionism in the
context of means and path of revolution. This is the theory of their
unified party also.
Seventh: Millerandist thinking.
To participate in cabinet of the reactionary state power is
Millerandism. It is also known as cabinetism. Millerand was a leader of
opportunist trend in the French communist movement. Taking part in the
bourgeois reactionary government in 1899, he worked with the assassins
of Paris Commune. The UML had for long followed the path of
Millerandism. Today, MC has done the same. Both of them have become
Millerandist and their unified party is based on this concept now.
Eighth: The hallucination of socialism.
The UML and MC both are trying to create a big confusion among the
people by saying that they favour socialism. Can the forces, which work
for institutionalising parliamentarian republic and which have abandoned
class struggle and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
favour scientific socialism in the present era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution? Socialism is of many kinds: reactionary,
reformist, utopian and scientific. Do the UML and MC stand for
scientific socialism? It cannot be replied in positive. In fact, they
don’t favour scientific socialism. In the backdrop of October Socialist
Revolution Stalin, on democratic republic and Soviet Republic, says, “As
a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions,
Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion
that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was
not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets.”
[History of CPSU (Bolshevik), page 356, paragraph 3]. This statement of
Stalin is noteworthy.
Ninth: Left and communist hallucination.
The UML used to deceive masses by creating delusion of left, communist
and communism yesterday. In fact, neither their unified party is left,
nor is it communist and nor is it in favour of communism, nor both of
them were previously so as well. The unified party has presented itself
in left and communist label or appearance to confuse the people.
Tenth: brokerage of imperialism and expansionism. The
UML and MC have been pro-imperialist and pro-expansionist parties since
before and their unified party also at present has stood on this
legacy. The CPN (ML), the predecessor of CPN (UML), used to perceive, in
the later part of time, that the soviet social imperialism was a
socialist country. It used to call India hegemonist, not expansionist.
At the start of UML era, it had worked hard to approve the anti-national
Mahakali treaty. In the same manner, the opportunist section of the
erstwhile CPN (Maoist) had said in the political report of Chunwang
meeting that Lenin’s and Mao’s concept as regards the imperialism has
lagged behind. In the later part of people’s war, it had seriously
colluded with Indian expansionist ruling classes against the national
independence of Nepal and Nepalese revolution. In this course, the UML
and a part of the CPN (Maoist) had handed over Upper Karnali and Arun
III to India. The BIPPA was signed with India right in this process.
Pushpakamal Dahal, in the course of his visit to India in September
2016, had stamped on the entire treaties reached in the past through a
25-point anti-national agreement. Even though Prime Minister K. P. Oli
was seen to be positive towards national independence at the time of
blockade, his submission to India has increased after the last election
and it is clear to all that Oli got to stamp on the entire old treaties
and agreements through joint communiqués signed when Modi visited Nepal
and Oli visited India. Although the UML and MC used to confuse the
people by calling themselves left and communist in the past, nonetheless
they were compliant to the imperialist privatisation and
neo-liberalism. Their unified party’s thinking now is so as well. It is
an ugly model of their brokerage towards imperialism and expansionism
and of national capitulationism.
In total, the conclusion that can be
drawn from the aforesaid theoretical concepts and characteristics of
UML, MC and their unified party is that their unified party does not
remain now within right revisionism only and it has turned reactionary.
It is a big misfortune in the history of Nepalese communist movement.
The right revisionists, accusing
Marxists of dogmatists, talk of so-called creativity and abandon
Marxism. Right here, we must understand the difference between dogmatism
and revisionism. The dogmatism, in the name of defending theory, does
not pay attention to the experiences acquired during revolution. The
revisionism, keeping the theory aside, talks of creativity on the basis
of experience only. In the history of the Nepalese communist movement,
the UML had done this and for some time now MC has been doing right
this. Their party too has been erected right on this footing. Marxism
lays emphasis on the dialectical relation between theory and practice
and opposes dogmatism and revisionism both.
On dogmatism and revisionism Mao says,
“It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view
and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the
basic principles of Marxism and to negate its universal truth.
Revisionism is one form of bourgeois ideology. The revisionists deny the
differences between socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship
of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What they
advocate is in fact not the socialist line but the capitalist line. In
present circumstances, revisionism is more pernicious than dogmatism.”
(Mao: collected works, volume V, page, 434-435). These statements by Mao
are notable in the present context. The socialist line the right
opportunist party formed of UML and MC is talking about now is in the
real sense a capitalist line i.e. imperialist line not the socialist
one. In fact, in the name of opposing dogmatism they are attacking upon
Marxism from the imperialist angle.
Speaking at the time of party
unification i.e. the dissolution of MC into UML, the chairmen duos of
UML and MC had said that the party unity is not a mixture but a
compound. What should we understand here is that whatever – mixture or
compound – it be said, it is UMLisation of MC. During speech, Prachanda,
the chairman of erstwhile MC, had said that this event is a good
beginning and a qualitative leap of new era. In fact, it is nothing
other than a backward journey towards old era and a regressive leap.
At last, where we must lay emphasis on
is that in the present situation when the revolution has suffered a
serious setback and the right revisionism has taken a form of reaction
we, being enriched with revolutionary optimism, should proceed firmly
toward the preparation of new democratic revolution and the unity of
revolutionary communists. Our goal is to go towards communism via
socialism. The fall of reaction and revisionism and the victory of
revolution and Marxism are inevitable.
May 21, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment