2.5K
shares
Preliminary
It is commonly known that the revolutionary movement in Nepal has faced major setbacks. The principal cause of this being, of course, betrayal by the very leadership of the movement. However, such setbacks are natural and inevitable in the course of development of the revolutionary movement; things never progress linearly with one success leading to another and so on, but, rather, dialectically. Therefore, we must never lose hope: the success of our movement is a historical inevitability. This has been vindicated by the history of the revolutionary movement across the globe. The 1905 revolution in Russia was a failure — nevertheless, the 1917 revolutions led to, not just the overthrow of the monarchy, but also the creation of the first socialist state. Likewise, our revolution was aborted by the renegade leaders of the time, yet our movement continues.
Despite the setbacks we have faced, the movement in Nepal continues to grow — though it is currently in tactical retreat. The question, thus, is not so much if the revolutionary movement can be rectified and reconstituted (as this is a historic inevitability — for the proletariat is the rising class), but, rather, how it is to be rectified. The question of “how” looms over every Nepali communist like the sword of Damocles. This is precisely the question we shall investigate in this article.
In general, the reconstitution must take two forms, both, mutually dependent on the other. These are: theoretical reconstitution and rectification; and political rectification and reconstitution. After this rectification and reconstitution, the Nepali Communist movement shall rise like a phoenix from the ashes of its old self. It shall engulf present society in flames, remolding it like glass.
Why are these two rectifications necessary? Because these are precisely the areas, that determine the strength of the subjective factor of revolution. The other, objective factor is the result of the very contradictions of society and is, thus, more-or-less, beyond our control. The subjective factor consists of class consciousness and organization, and, thus, comprises those factors that are, more-or-less, within our control. To develop the subjective factor, ultimately, these things are necessary, and history proves their necessity.
First is the correct line and program. This is necessary for the proper direction of the revolutionary movement, unless we have a correct line we can never strengthen the revolutionary movement or carry it to victory. In Germany, despite the political and organizational strength of the social democrats, they were never able to carry out the revolution. This is because, theoretically, they had degenerated into what Enver Hoxha called “bourgeois parties of the working class.” The Mensheviks had similar organizational strength to the Bolsheviks, yet did not carry out the Great October Socialist Revolution, because of their theoretical impotence. Marx was well aware of the importance of line and program, which is why he famously ruthlessly criticized The Gotha Program.
Second is strong political organization. If the program and line are the energy and soul of the revolutionary movement, then the political organization are the bones, muscles, and nerves by which it can exert its revolutionary energy. These are, as Mao called them, the “three magic wands of revolution” — those being: the vanguard party, the United Front and the New Liberation Army. It is with these three essential and fundamental arms of political organization that the revolutionary energy embedded in the theoretical will of the movement achieves a practical, material basis. In Germany, the KPD failed to complete the revolutionary goals they set out to achieve, precisely because of the lack of strong political organization. This was the fatal error of comrades Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.
The current sad state of the revolutionary movement in Nepal is the result of certain erroneous aspects of theory and weak political organization. If these three backbones of the revolutionary movement can be strengthened, our victory is inevitable! The choice before us is socialism or barbarism. If these erroneous aspects of the whole movement can be rectified, our position solidified, then we shall achieve socialism; else, we shall decay into barbarism.
Theoretical reconstitution:
There are questions of utmost theoretical importance, which must, as a movement, be tackled collectively. The pertinence of such theoretical questions cannot be understated. Without confronting these questions of supreme importance, a correct, clear theoretical vision cannot be ascertained. It must, however, be stated that the questions, confronted, here are but the tip of the iceberg. There are many erroneous views that continue to drag the movement down, and, in order to break free from the shackles that these views impose, we must resolve these questions. Though, in all these questions, the essence is this: Marxism or revisionism? Such questions shall continue to arise: for as long as class struggle exists, so will line struggle, and, even then, the question boils down to the proletarian line or bourgeois line; Marxism or revisionism.
All the major questions of modern Nepali communism can be resolved into the basic form of Marxism or revisionism. Though, we must understand the nuance of this statement; for Marxism is a living science. Science is not an immutable dogma; it is constantly subject to change. Resistance to change is undialectical, unscientific and, therefore, not Marxist. Dogmatism is wholly unwelcome in the discipline of Marxism. Dogmatism, by being undialectical, ironically, revises a fundamental core of Marxism and is, therefore, revisionist. Today, Marxism means Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM); we must adhere to the core principles of this science, yet, as a science, we must understand that it is constantly evolving. Marxism has itself evolved into MLM. Dogmatic revisionism of MLM thus becomes a rejection of Marxism itself!
The science of Marxism treads the ground between unprincipled revision and dogmatism. Though both are dangerous, the former is more dangerous than the latter. In examining some of the pertinent questions that face every genuine communist in Nepal, we must make sure to tread the line between unprincipled revision and dogmatism.
- Prachanda Path
In the course of the Nepali people’s war, an erroneous view developed amongst many in the party. The view that MLM applied to the conditions of Nepal had achieved a new scientific expression. This expression was the so-called ‘Prachanda Path.’ Though many have since renounced such a view, others still cling to it — especially those in the CPN(MC). It was said that this scientific advancement was born out of the experience of the people’s war. However, many of the advocates of this ‘theory’ fail to properly elaborate on what these advancements were.
The three component parts of MLM: dialectical materialism, political economy and scientific socialism remained wholly stagnant. Nothing new was put forth. As a result, the advocates of this theory stated that it was ‘MLM applied to the conditions of Nepal.’ Yet that would be MLM itself! Without any theoretical additions to the treasure trove of MLM, how can such a claim be made?! It is then that this ‘theoretical advancement’ revealed its true, ugly nature: adherence not to the science of MLM, but to one man, Prachanda.
The grotesque reality of the distortion of MLM revealed its true nature, as Prachanda and Babburam Bhattarai, along with various senior leaders of the revolutionary movement, degenerated into opportunist extensions of the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie. These Judas’ of Nepali communism put forth a new theory that completely negated the basic tenets of MLM: that being the so-called ‘Democratic Republic.’ A stage of social development apparently preceding the People’s Democratic Dictatorship.
The question then arises: what theoretical justification do the Prachanda-clique provide for such a ‘theory’? The people’s democratic dictatorship is a dictatorship of the national and petit bourgeoisie, the peasants and, chiefly, the proletariat, over the remnants of the landlord class and the haute bourgeoisie. The state is born out of class antagonisms; there is necessarily a ruling class and an oppressed class. Which class rules under this ‘new theoretical expression?’ The former oppressed classes? Of course not! If that were the case, it would be a people’s democratic dictatorship! What is sold to us by the Prachanda-clique is oppression disguised under the superficial veneer of ‘liberation.’
We have already seen what Prachanda path entails in practice: complete and total betrayal of MLM and the revolutionary movement. These Judas’ halted the war of liberation, joined hands with the old, reactionary powers, and then, ultimately, liquidated the movement and merged with the old powers. The CPN(MC) is a bourgeois party of the working class; it is a social fascist party of capitulation, qualitatively no different from, say, The Nepali Congress. Prachanda path means a rejection of MLM. To be an MLM means to reject Prachanda path.
Another area where Prachanda path spits on the grave of comrade Mao is on the question of peaceful transition. It is a fact that peaceful transition to socialism is completely impossible. The pre-existing state apparatus must first be smashed and, then, replaced with a new state on the wane. Mao criticized, at length, the revisionist degeneration by Khrushchev et al. This is a question clarified by Lenin and Mao. They both made crystal clear the ludicrous impossibility of ‘peaceful transition’ that reared its ugly head first in Bernstein’s revision, then in the works of the theoreticians of the second international such as K. Kautsky and, ultimately, Khrushchev. Yet, still, despite the clear and loud pronouncements by every major theoretician of MLM, that ‘peaceful transition’ is a petit bourgeois pipe dream, these renegades openly — and proudly — declare their distortion to be gospel!
It is clear that those who do not wish to hear, hear less than the deaf! Every revisionist in Nepal from the Prime Minister to the vice mayor of Kathmandu are the lapdogs of imperialism and bureaucrat capitalism. Prachanda path, along with all such ‘paths’ and ‘thoughts’ and ‘ism’s’, is completely inapplicable to Nepal. Our guiding principle is, as it ought to be, the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. In the name of the scientific development of Marxism, these renegades wish to tear our movement to smithereens; to weaken it so that it is easier for the imperialists to gobble us up! It is commonly known that Mussolini’s descent into fascism began with a renunciation of class struggle in favor of class collaboration. Yet it is precisely this class collaboration that is preached by the missionaries of Prachanda path! The traitor and ex-Marxist Prachanda along with his disciples in the CPN(MC) have undergone such a degeneration that they sit content with the constitutional line “socialist-oriented economy.” — As if socialism were merely nationalization of key industries! (which we don’t even have!!!)
Prachanda path is the most grotesque distortion that has dialectically emerged from the Marxist movement. The right honorable Prime Minister (this was written when Prachanda was Prime Minister) is the newly-crowned king of the kingdom of revision; founded by Bernstein and expanded by Kautsky, Khrushchev, Deng Xiaoping… Ultimately, Prachanda is to us what Kautsky was to Lenin: a renegade; a fallen star.
Maoism or Mao Zedong Thought?
Are Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) and Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought (ML-MZT) the same thing? To ask this question is, in essence, to ask whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) are the same. They are qualitatively different! Confounding the two as one and the same is to distort the achievements and advancements made by comrade Mao Zedong. Since the constitution of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and the struggle of Gonzalo in Peru, Charu Mazumdar in India, Ibrahim Kaypakayya in Türkiye and Jose Maria Sison in the Philippines, we have known the two to be different. Maoism arose as the result of a bitter two-line struggle against deviationists and liquidationists in these various revolutionary movements. These struggles led to the culmination of MLM, as the third, higher stage of Marxism.
The difference between MLM and ML-MZT is not merely superficial; it is not simply two separate names to refer to the same thing. MLM and ML-MZT are, today, two different things. It is both continuity and rupture. It is the continuity of the revolutionary essence of Leninism, the continuity of revolutionary theories under the banner of Leninism, viz. Vanguardism, the theory of imperialism, the theory of hegemony etc., All produced by Lenin and/or elaborated on by Leninists. However, it is also a rupture from the degeneration of Leninism during the latter half of the 20th century. A degeneration witnessed everywhere, amongst the now revisionist Communist parties, but witnessed most profoundly in the Soviet Union.
In the same way, Lenin was a Marxist and his polemics, a defence of Marxism, Mao was a Leninist and his polemics, a defence of Leninism. However, today, to be a Leninist means to be a Maoist. Maoism is the continuity of the revolutionary essence found in the heart of Leninism; it is, however, a rupture from the opportunism that today goes by the name ‘Leninism.’ An opportunism we, in Nepal, are only too familiar with.
MLM developed out of ML-MZT. As a result, various characteristics between the two are similar. These similarities include: The primacy of the law of contradiction, the Theory of New Democracy, the Theory of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, etc. These are the additions, by Chairman Mao, to the treasure trove of Marxism. Yet, Maoism is not identical to the thoughts of Mao Zedong — though it bears close resemblance to the latter, it is not the same. The Maoist tradition is one currently and constantly evolving; Mao’s thought is what ultimately grew into Maoism.
It does not suffice to ipso facto state that Maoism and Mao Thought are qualitatively different. It, like every other scientific principle, must be proven. Lenin’s thought was Marxism applied to the material conditions of Russia, this germ was later universalized by Stalin and the Communist International. Mao’s thought was Leninism applied to the material conditions of China. Later, Mao Zedong thought became Leninism applied to the global south generally. This, however, was later universalized due to the efforts of comrade Gonzalo, comrade Sison, The Peruvian, Indian, Philippine, Turkish comrades and even the struggles of the former Nepali Maoists (who have unfortunately since abandoned the communist road). In short, it was universalized due to the efforts of RIM. They established Maoism as the higher phase of Marxism. The difference, simply put, is universalization. Mao Zedong thought is not universalized; it is applicable only to the global south; the theoreticians of this tradition have not developed a universal system. Maoism, on the other hand, is universal.
Today, the Leninist parties everywhere have degenerated into social fascism; they have become bourgeois parties of the working class (the efforts of the Hoxhaists notwithstanding). Leninism is dead, long live Leninism; Leninism has today assumed a new shape; its revolutionary essence has taken a new form — i.e., Maoism. Everywhere the genuinely revolutionary Leninist parties are shedding their old exterior and, like a butterfly, from the chrysalis, emerging as new revolutionary Maoist parties. The question of Maoism or Mao thought boils down to revolution or revisionism.
This could not be expressed better than in the difference between the CCP and CPP. One, a social imperialist party, and another, a revolutionary party. One, adhering to ML-MZT, the other, to MLM. This is why we cannot — we must not — compromise on such a fundamental point. This is not merely a question of name but of the very revolutionary essence of the movement.
However, some caveats! Particularly those pertaining to questions of practical significance! Names are merely the terms used to describe things. They are purely social, purely ideal. Things have an existence separate from their names. One thing does not become another simply by name: Prachanda can call himself a Maoist as much as he wants, but that does not change the fact that he is, in fact, a social fascist. India can call itself ‘socialist’ but that does not alter the fact that it is, in reality, a capitalist, expansionist power. The term ‘Maoist’ by itself means nothing! It matters only insofar as it distinguishes revolutionary Marxism from what Lenin called “Legal Marxism” — the CPP from the CCP. One can be a Maoist without calling oneself a Maoist, just as much as one can call oneself a Maoist yet be a traitor (just like our Prime Minister). Names matter insofar as they provide recognition of things. They are mutable; therefore, what matters is the revolutionary essence, not — as some in our movement tend to do — to proclaim “I am an MLM therefore I am holier than thou!” We defend MLM in so far as we defend this revolutionary essence, nothing else.
The Character of our revolution
The form that the Nepali revolution will take depends largely on what the material conditions of Nepal are. What are the conditions of Nepal, and how do we ameliorate them for a better tomorrow? This is precisely what concerns the Nepali progressive movement. It is high time the party faces the concrete conditions of Nepal rather than — like a schoolchild — memorizing dusty old tomes. It has become an uncritical dogma to say that Nepal is ‘semi-feudal and semi-colonial.’ However, we must examine this dogma more closely; we must engage in concrete analysis of concrete conditions!
What are the conditions of Nepal? This is the question which determines the character of our revolution. There have been bitter struggles, in the past, regarding this question: does Nepal need a new democratic revolution or a scientific socialist revolution? This arises from two different analyses of Nepal’s conditions: either Nepal is semi-feudal or capitalist. We must analyze the material conditions of Nepal carefully. We must truly investigate whether Nepal truly is semi-feudal or capitalist.
To do this, we must investigate two things: first, the form in which products are distributed in society and, second, the way in which surplus labor is extracted. These are the two defining characteristics of all modes of production, which are based on the extraction of surplus labor from the toiling classes. Are the products of labor use-values pure and simple? In the Nepali context, no, they are not. Almost all products in Nepal are commodities, i.e., containing use-value, exchange-value and value. Are there some remote villages in Nepal where generalized commodity production is not dominant? There, almost undeniably, are, as Nepal is a highly mountainous and hilly nation with scattered villages; however, as Maoists, we understand that the primary aspect determines the character of the whole. Thus, we see that the law of value and the commodity form: in other words, unfettered bourgeois right dominates the Nepali economy. Next, it is obvious that the Nepali economic base, be it semi-feudal or capitalist, is based on the extraction of surplus labor from the toiling masses. The question, however, is, how is this surplus labor extracted. Does the corvée system still persist in Nepal? It, clearly, does not; what remnants of the corvée system that existed in Nepal were washed away by the revolutionary tide of the people’s war. Although it remains true that one and a half million households are landless farmers, it is necessary to ask: how is their surplus labor extracted? It is extracted as surplus-value by the bourgeois (not feudal) landlords, who pay them wages. They have been converted into wage-slaves en masse.
“Clearly, then we require a socialist revolution!” Hold on, I am not finished! I have no doubt that Nepali capital is on the verge of vanquishing feudal relations of production; there are almost no economic remnants of feudalism in the Nepali economy, however! — and there is a however — this has not yet translated to a transformation in the superstructure. This change has particularly not been effective in the state, which is a laggard behind the immense transformation that the economic base has gone through. The state apparatus remains semi-feudal, and that is an undeniable fact: the bureaucrats and politicians have all been in cahoots with the semi-feudal status quo. The bourgeois-democratic revolution has not yet smashed the semi-feudal state machinery and replaced it with the capitalist state machinery.
Moreover, we must understand that Nepali capitalism has not undergone a natural development. Nepali capitalism is today a grotesque comprador capitalism. A capitalism that can in no way lead to the development of our forces of production; it can in no way emancipate great sections of the masses, as has been done in the global north. Instead, this comprador capitalism crushes under its heel the spirit and productive power of the social labor power of Nepali society. The national capital of the global south, as observed by comrade Sison, is fused with foreign monopoly finance capital. This hinders the development of genuine national capital and, in turn, hinders the development of the forces of production. Therefore, we must not only smash the remaining semi-feudal state apparatus, but, also, we must smash comprador capitalism. We must do this and let our national capital flourish, then we must make concerted efforts to build socialism. We must construct a People’s Republic of Nepal.
It is clear, therefore, that the character of the Nepali revolution, of our revolution, is not socialist but instead new democratic. Saying that because Nepal is no longer economically semi-feudal that we do not require a new democratic revolution is metaphysical. It is a revisionist pseudo-Marxist conclusion based on a pseudo-Marxist analysis (an analysis in the realm of anti-Marxist splitters).
Political Reconstitution:
Theory is the essence, the soul, of the revolutionary movement. Ideas, however, do not by themselves alter material reality; ideas must be summoned into material reality by a material force. It is only by using this material force that ideas shape material reality. Though, in truth, even these ideas are only reflections of pre-existing material reality; a full exposition of Marxian ontology is far beyond the scope of this article, yet this basic premise ought to be understood.
The theory of Marxism — revolutionary science — is inert unless it is activated in material reality by a material force. This material force is a political force. Like the working class struggle, which begins with small skirmishes between wage labor and capital but becomes more organized: into cooperatives and trade unions, then, ultimately, into the vanguard party. Likewise — and parallel to this development — Marxism, as a political force, becomes increasingly more organized. This increasing organization is necessary for the success of our movement.
This was firmly understood by Mao, who laid out the revolutionary party, the united front and the People’s Liberation Army, as the three magic wands of the revolution. They are the highest expression of the working class struggle; the highest expression of the national class struggle. In order for our movement, as a political force, to succeed, it is necessary to develop these three instruments of revolution.
Practically, politically, what are the measures that can be adopted for the development of these instruments of revolution; how can they be developed? That is what we aim to answer. Though, again, the questions here are limited; the true scope of the challenges our movement faces — and possible resolutions — are as varied as material reality and the class struggle manifest.
- Unite around the Revolutionary Communist Party, Nepal
The highest expression of the revolutionary political will of the masses is the vanguard party. There are today many so-called ‘communist’ parties of Nepal. Only one is truly revolutionary. That party is the Revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal (RCPN).
The major communist parties of Nepal, namely, the CPN(UML), CPN(MC) and CPN(US) have degenerated into social fascist bourgeois parties of the working class. They have, in the face of imperialism, surrendered their principles and become bootlickers. These parties have become degenerate and counter-revolutionary. If we communists are to have any hope of achieving socialism, we must abandon these parties. These social fascist parasites, who have made a mockery of socialism, must be crushed and cut down by the mighty hammer-and-sickle. It is right to use every means of opposing the current parasites in power, as it is right to rebel against reactionaries! All the communists in these parties must abandon the black of fascism and embrace the communist crimson of the RCPN.
The small groups of genuine communists outside the RCPN, including the likes of the Dialectical Society, must join hands with the revolutionary parties, and old splitters must put aside their sectarianism. Division will only weaken our movement; the party enables us to form a cohesive political platform through which actions for the creation of socialism can be undertaken. The minor ideological and other political divisions between these groups can be resolved through line-struggle. The goals and aspirations of these separate groups can be achieved under the banner of the RCPN; all genuine communists should unite around it.
It does not suffice to simply claim that the RCPN is the most revolutionary party in the Nepali communist movement. Prachanda can claim the same thing and call us all “splitters” and “wreckers”; claiming something does not prove its validity. The most important thing is to prove the claim, or, in other words: “Hic rhodus! Hic salta!” What validates the claim of the RCPN? What validates its claim to be revolutionary and not Prachanda’s? The matter resolves itself into three parts: MLM, The Program and anti-electoralism.
Firstly, the party, which is an offshoot of the erstwhile CPN-Maoist, has, since the beginning, been firmly committed to MLM as its guiding revolutionary light. Scientific socialism in its highest stage, viz. MLM, has, from the onset, been the modus operandi of the party. The party’s origins in the aftermath of the people’s war show the firm dedication of the leadership to the revolutionary path. The party split from Prachanda because they were keenly aware of his retrogression. They were aware that the Prachanda-clique had dissolved the revolution and united with the reactionaries, thus betraying the masses. As a result, they had no option but to break with democratic centralism and split. This shows their commitment to the revolutionary path.
Second, the party program shows the correct revolutionary stance. That statement then raises the question, “how so?” Essentially, the party program is correct in three critical areas concerning pertinent questions in the Nepali movement. The first point is New Democracy; the party rightly identifies the conditions of Nepal as being neocolonial, in nature, which necessitates the new democratic, i.e., bourgeois-nationalist revolution. The second point is that the party rightly ascertains Nepal as a country comprised of various internal nations. It correctly holds the stance of the right of nations to self-determination. As a country composed of varied nationalities, this question is of supreme importance. The third point is in terms of political economy. It rightly argues that Nepali capital is fettered by foreign monopoly finance-capital and must go through a phase of capitalist (new democratic) development before it can transition to socialism. It also rightly calls for autarky to the greatest possible extent.
Lastly, the party has taken a correct anti-electoralist stance. This abstentionism is not out of some ultra-leftist position against the electoral tactic, but out of understanding of the particular conditions of Nepal today. An understanding that partaking in elections means partaking in bourgeois filth! Electoralism serves two purposes for the communists: to deduce the political maturity of the masses and as a platform for agitation. However, in Nepal today, the masses have completely lost faith in bourgeois electoralist nonsense; any electoralist policy would only discredit the party. The slogan “electoral preparation or revolutionary preparation” has, today, been realized in Nepal. There are, in fact, only a handful of countries where an electoralist policy would help, rather than hinder, the communists. By rejecting electoralism, the RCPN has affirmed its stance to attain political power by the barrel of a gun.
- Reinvigorate the United Front
The United Front(UF) consists of various organizations loosely associated with the revolutionary party; a coalition of broadly progressive groups in alliance with the revolutionary party. Though, all these organizations — which include: nationalist organizations, trade union organizations, student organizations etc. — have their own goals. The party is bound into a UF because the interests of the party and the front organizations coincide at certain points. For instance, the party and a trade union are broadly united in terms of the goals of the labor movement; or a historical example is the anti-Japanese united front in China between the CCP and Kuomintang.
However, despite being broadly united into a common front, each organization still has their own independent goals, motives, and tactics. The goals, motives, and tactics of these organizations, though generally progressive and coinciding at times with the party, will also necessarily diverge at times from that of the party. For instance, a front organization may be electoralist whilst the party maintains an anti-electoralist stance; this happens quite often in the Philippines, for instance. These differences should be welcomed in the spirit of democracy within the front.
Yet, ultimately, these differences denote a contradiction between the party and the front organizations. If these contradictions did not exist, neither would the united front. This is however, for the time being, a secondary contradiction. The united front is always necessarily a front for or against something; for instance, a united front against fascism or a united front for the decrease of the working day. Thus, the primary contradiction is the contradiction between the front and the other (reactionary) groups. Once this contradiction is resolved, the united front may either remain or dissolve; this depends on the particular character of the contradiction in question.
Undoubtedly, the continued existence of the front is of importance to the party. As the united front gives the party strength and helps mobilize the masses. How then can we ensure the continued existence of the alliance once the point of mutual contention, i.e., the point of coincidence, has been resolved? The contradiction between the party and the organizations contains two antithetical poles with two antithetical goals: the party, which tends to centralize the surrounding organizations, in a concentric manner around itself; the various organizations also wish to centralize power within themselves and thus, from the point of view of the party, decentralize power. This contradiction plays out in the background whilst the primary struggle between the front and reactionaries plays out. But, if we are to hope for the continued existence of the front, then understanding this secondary contradiction is crucial.
This contradiction, if it is to be resolved in a revolutionary manner, must reconcile the two opposing poles for the sake of the continued existence of the front. Moreover, this reconciliation strengthens the front and enables us to defeat our reactionary enemies. The way to resolve this contradiction is united action, independent organization.
United action means that at all times the organizations and the party must act in tandem. There must be a consensus between the party and the organizations before any common action is taken; any individual organizational action notwithstanding, of course. In these, the actions must be common and united; there is strength in united action; divided, disorganized action, where each group acts independently, leads to weakness that could be exploited by reactionaries. United actions and united decisions are therefore critical in areas of common interest.
However, the organizations must remain independent. The independent identity and organizational sovereignty of each organization ought to be maintained. When the organizations are independent, they are strong; when corrupted by outside influence, they are weak. We require strong front organizations so that the aggregate of their strengths during united action may shine through.
The front organizations can, in general, be categorized into three broad groups. These are: highly revolutionary organizations, generally progressive organizations, and relatively backward organizations. The highly revolutionary organizations are the most well-versed theoretically, are very revolutionary, and oppose the system of imperialism, comprador capitalism and patriarchy. These organizations are our closest allies. The generally progressive organizations are those who are progressive, yet are ambiguous about the revolution and, thus, vacillating; they may be reformist and seek only an amelioration of present conditions. These can be advanced by educating them and through propaganda work. The relatively backward organizations are those with whom we only cooperate on certain issues. They are fully reformist and want little change in present conditions. These will capitulate as soon as the struggle intensifies; they will shed away like the dead skin of a snake and must be allowed to, since they only hinder the united front.
We must align closely with the revolutionary organizations and even try to bring them into the revolutionary fold. The progressive organizations are in a vacillating position, and we must try to educate them. The backward organizations will abandon us as soon as the struggle intensifies.
These measures are necessary in order to strengthen the united front. The united front enables us to vigorously combat the reactionaries, more so than if we were to tackle them alone. Thus, we must strengthen it. Strengthen it and march firmly towards revolution!
- Militancy
The public body is the repressive apparatus of the state. It includes, as Lenin noted, special bodies of armed men and prisons, etc. This public body, the armed wing of the ruling class, comprises particularly of two groups from which emanates oppression. These are the sword-and-shield of the ruling classes: the police and the army. These are the running dogs with which the pigs in power enforce their class dictatorship. The revolution must meet force with force and crush this public body; and we easily will, as we have the masses on our side.
However, an erroneous view has now arisen in the movement. A view that holds that the army is a progressive force; yes, the hammer with wish the ruling classes pummel the oppressed to the ground is a ‘progressive force.’ This reminds us of the famous quote from The State and Revolution: “all the social chauvinists are now ‘Marxists’ (don’t laugh!).” Calling the army progressive amounts to calling the landlords the “saviors of the peasants”; it is complete ridiculousness!
They argue that the soldiers are progressive for two reasons: first, the soldiers’ class origin is typically peasant, working-class; second, the first people’s liberation army (PLA) has now been merged into the Nepali army. Yet this neglects the unique character of the institution of the military. The military washes away the class-character of the individual soldiers and breaks them into abstract, uniform drones. The ‘individual’ as such is negated, and all that remains is clay that is molded simply into the armed wing of the ruling class — their minions.
The proponents of the “military is progressive” line will of course point to two examples of the military being progressive. They however, as I intend to show, neglect the concrete conditions of that time and mechanistically use it as an example. The first example being that Russian soldiers mutinied and formed Soviets in 1917. This further solidified the Bolshevik position during the Great October Socialist Revolution. The second example they give us is the Kiel sailors mutiny, which started the German revolution of 1919.
The issue with these examples is that they both occurred during times of war. Those same soldiers that mutinied in 1917 are the same soldiers that shot at protestors in 1905. War is the apogee of the class struggle; a crisis in imperialism. War strips bare — lays naked — the actual reality of mankind. The military discipline of 1905 was wrecked in 1917 because of war. War, and only war, revealed the class character of the soldiers, intensified the contradiction between the soldiers and the officers, and erupted in mutiny. These conditions are not present in Nepal. Calling the military — the repressive arm of the class dictatorship — “progressive” is a bourgeois line. Hoping that soldiers will defect to the revolutionaries is highly erroneous, especially since, in the final analysis, they are our first enemies. We have to fight them first to undo the present class dictatorship.
This view is dangerous because it leads to aspirations of mutiny — to hoping the soldiers will defect to our side. It is possible many will, but relying on it is dangerous to the revolutionary movement. It also leads to deficiencies in the formation of the new liberation army.
Regarding the new liberation army, it is the third instrument of revolution. It is the weapon that enables us to combat the force of the class dictatorship. It gives birth to the midwife of change. The party must now prepare for a revolutionary struggle; it must teach its members the art of war and strategy. These two disciplines are indispensable in the revolutionary movement. It enables us to direct the power of the masses to shatter their chains.
No revolutionary communist denies the role and necessity of violence. The communist party must be a militant party. It must be both able and willing to militarily enforce its will. Direct action is one of the best ways of agitation; direct action is strengthened by militancy. The possession of arms and its premature usage, however, are two different things. Nevertheless, arms are necessary for the party.
The party needs to start the creation and development of a new liberation army. These must be trained and a stern Maoist discipline must be applied. Physical training of the party must generally also commence. These initiatives, though still nascent, will lay the groundwork for a new democratic revolution. Labelling such initiatives as adventurist, premature and deviationist are incorrect. This is since we are merely laying the groundwork and developing a militant organization. This does not mean advocating for the wreckless, adventurist use of these, irrespective of subjective and objective conditions. Conditions which must be accounted for prior to an armed struggle. It is right-deviationist to oppose such initiatives, and it is “left”-deviationist to use militant force irrespective of objective and subjective conditions. It is necessary to be neither tailist nor commandist. The political situation allows for clandestine activity; for the development of militancy, this must be utilized.
Conclusion
Thus, we see that to have a strong revolutionary movement we must engage in bitter interparty struggle and progress according to the unity-struggle-transformation dialectic. We must reject revisionist theories, whilst, at the same time, adapting MLM to Nepali conditions, by concretely analyzing the material conditions of Nepal. We must build the political forces which enable us to engage in the revolutionary movement. Only after this can we build toward continuous revolution until communism!
No comments:
Post a Comment