A New Book on Maoist Movement

mao coverBhakta Bahadur Pratisthan is going to publish another book entitled Maoist Movement Dynamics and Orientation. Its first publication was Marxism and Identity Politics, which has gained a huge popularity among the genuine Marxists. Bhakta Bahadur Memorial Academy is the institute, established in the name of Bhakta Bahadur Shrestha the third General Secretary of Communist Party of Nepal (Forth Convention). He was the Chairman of Central Advisory Council of then UCPN (Maoist).
This new book Maoist Movement Dynamics and Orientation includes some Historical Documents and writings, concerning the Maoist Revolution and the People’s War. It includes: ”On correcting mistaken ideas in the Party” and ”Resolution on certain questions in the history of our Party” by Comrade Mao tse-Tung, Two historical documents: ”A Call To the People of India” and ”Message to the Milan International Conference in Solidarity with the People’s War in India : by CPI (Maoist), published in the occasion of 10 years of CPI(Maoist) . ”Mao tse-Tung’s theory of People’s War is he military strategy of the Proletariat and oppressed People’s of Semi-Colonies”, by TKP/ML, ”Categories of Revolutionary Military Policy by T. Derbent, Guevara, Debray and Armed Revisionism” by Lenny Wolf, RCP, USA and ”International Communist Movement and the question of building a new embryonic center” by Rishi Raj Baral, and more other articles. These all articles are translated in Nepalese vernacular. These are the articles of great significance. The editors of this collection are Rishi Raj Baral and Nandish Adhikari
These days Nepalese Maoist Movement is facing some unexpected obstacles. Prachanda-Baburam have abandoned the path of New Democratic Revolution and they are exercising ”peaceful transformation”. Netra Bikram Chanda ‘Biplav’, with his band, has left the CPN-Maoist, and has formed another party. He is pleading the ”Theory of Unified Revolution”. He has abandoned the path of New Democratic Revolution and has taken the path of Che and Debray that is Focoism. He use to take the name of armed struggle, but not the Maoist People’s War. He has lost his faith in Proletarian class and pleads —that the role of urban Middle Class will be vital for the Nepalese revolution. In fact, Biplav has abandoned the Maoist Road and has taken the road to ”Cuban Revolution”. Now he is bargaining for the power sharing in the reactionary government. No matter, in the name of the revolution, Biplav band has taken the road to Armed Revisionism. We urge our well wishers and Fraternal Party and Organisations to study the role and activities of Biplav minutely.
We think the documents and articles included in this book will enable their abilities and will power, who are misguided and who are still at the “cross roads”.
000

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “A New Book on Maoist Movement”

  1. MLM, PM says:

    Are avakianism and prachandism the same? The error of the MPP
    The MPP is the Peru’s People’s Movement, organism generated by the Communist Party of Peru for the work abroad. It organized a conference in Madrid a couple of days ago, and took a firm position against what is called new revisionism.

    It looks like the come back to the “good old” MPP, who demolishes ideologically the revisionists, calling to the People’s War in each country, like we saw it in the 1990’s.
    But as each thing has two aspects, a question must be risen here. Because the problem is the following and easy to understand: the MPP did not produce an ideological criticism of prachandism.
    During the period where Prachanda and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) took the lead of the maoist international structure, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), the MPP did not react openly.
    The MPP rejected open criticism as a method which would not be correct. Moreover, the MPP produced numerous common documents with Rossoperaio / Maoist Communist Party of Italy, which became the central organizer of centrism.
    Because of the lack of open criticism of Prachanda, it has been others revolutionary structures which opened the fire. The CPMLM [France] criticized Prachanda as early as September 2005, but anyway numerous others organisations criticized prachandism, like the Union of Revolutionary Communists (MLM) of Chile and of course the UOC (MLM) (Communist Worker Union) of Colombia.
    The UOC (MLM) took the lead, at the international level, of the rejection of prachandism. Expressions of this were the first of May appeal in 2011, or of course the call of December 2011: THE INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF THE COMMUNISTS REQUIRES THE DEFEAT OF REVISIONISM AND CENTRISM!
    The MPP has totally miss this, and it has to accept this. The line of not making a public criticism to prachandism did not help at all. The fact of “forgetting” the existence of a criticism of prachandism openly made is not correct neither.
    And because of this, the MPP makes the mistake nowadays of explaining that avakianism and prachandism are, finally, the same thing. This is not true and ideologically wrong.
    The Avakian faction – RCP, USA; Sarbedaran; TKP/ML Maoist Merkezi – led the Committee of the RIM, but was replaced by the pro-Prachanda faction (Rossoperaio that became Maoist Communist Party of Italy, TKP(ML) that became MKP of Turkey – North Kurdistan, RCP of Canada).
    Then, the Prachandists just gave up the RIM, and the Maoist Communist Party of Italy decided to rebuild it.
    There never was an avakianist-prachandist unified faction. There was a major change in the RIM due to the hegemony of the CPN (Maoist) and Prachanda.
    But the MPP does not recognize this. The MPP, in fact, has the same line about the RIM as in 1992, as the Communist Party of Peru considered itself as the red fraction in the RIM, whereas the RCP USA and Avakian were considered as the black line.
    But things changed totally: the avakianist faction lost its position, and in the process of prachandist hegemony, there was anyway no RIM anymore.
    Of course, avakianism and prachandism looks quite the same, and forms both what must be called New Revisionism. The MPP has certainly right: once that the question of Direction – Jefatura – is understood, there is no place for New Revisionism, and prachandism is quite the same as avakianism: ideological eclecticism, ultra-democratism, etc. etc.
    But there are differences, and we have to see them, what the MPP does not and there is a political reason for that: the MPP focuses unilaterally on avakianism, because it missed the struggle against prachandism.
    And because it missed the struggle against prachandism, it misses the struggle against centrism, i.e. the faction that did not break in a complete manner with prachandism, that refused to denounce Prachandism until the last moment, that has spread illusion on a “red faction” in the revisionist Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
    But how can something new be born without a proper historical materialist approach? Is it scientific to “forget” the UOC MLM, to “forget” the numerous attacks endured by the Odio de Clase Collective, because of its rejection of prachandism?
    Is it correct to make as if the 2011 call THE INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF THE COMMUNISTS REQUIRES THE DEFEAT OF REVISIONISM AND CENTRISM! never existed?
    No, this is not correct.
    And during the hegemony of Prachandism and the time just after, those who refused Centrism were sharply under attack. The MPP did not defend them, and now it is “forgetting” this period of history of the International Communist Movement.
    So, what can we do? We can have the same fear like before: in the past, the MPP tolerated centrism, so that it can be in a Maoist international centre, as a “red fraction”, like before in the RIM.
    That is why, whereas the RIM was already dead in the 2000’s, the MPP called to a conference of the RIM, two line struggle in the RIM, etc. The RIM was like a fetish.
    But life always triumphs. The RIM divided in a post-Maoist pro-Avakian faction and in a faction organized around the Maoist Communist Party of Italy (the “Maoist Road” project).
    Either the “Maoist Road” project is correct, and then their call to an international Maoist Conference, without a base determined in advance, is what is needed, to unify all Maoist currents and structures.
    Or, there is the need first to refuse centrism in the question of prachandism. But it is the position of the 2011 call THE INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF THE COMMUNISTS REQUIRES THE DEFEAT OF REVISIONISM AND CENTRISM! which was useful, and this need to be say.
    Of course, it is possible that the MPP brings much more than that. But to exist ideologically, this proposal must be slot in political reality.

Leave a Reply

See real websites hosted and built by iPage customers.