Migliaia di attivisti maoisti nepalesi stanno manifestando da stamattina dinanzi al distretto amministrativo di Kathmandu, la cittadella nella quale ci sono gli uffici governativi. Lo riferisce la stampa nepalese. Guidati dal leader del partito maoista del Nepal, l’ex primula rossa ed ex primo ministro Puhpa Kamal Dahal detto Prachanda, il terribile, ex ministri, esponenti ed attivisti arrivati da tutto il Nepal sono impegnati in un ‘gherao’ la protesta con la quale si circonda il luogo nel quale si vuole manifestare, impedendo ai dipendenti della struttura di entrare. La polizia ha schierato centinaia di agenti in stato antisommossa. La manifestazione di oggi fa parte di una serie di proteste che da giorni i maoisti, ex guide del primo governo repubblicano nepalese, stanno tenendo nel paese e soprattutto a Kathmandu, provocando disagi alla popolazione. Al centro delle loro proteste, lo stallo politico e le azioni del presidente nepalese Ram Baran Yadav, accusato di agire contro il paese. I maoisti hanno vinto le elezioni l’hanno scorso, risultando il partito di maggioranza e formarono il governo. Ma alcuni segnali di crollo arrivarono gia’ in tempi brevi, che portarono all’elezione del presidente nepalese nella persona di uno dei leader del partito che si oppone ai maoisti. Yadav, in uno dei suoi primi atti, decise di revocare la decisione del governo di Prachanda di rimuovere il capo dell’esercito che non voleva fare entrare i membri dell’ex esercito irregolare maoista nelle fila di quello regolare nepalese. Questa decisione porto’ alle dimissioni di Prachanda e all’uscita dei maoisti dal governo. Lo stesso leader maoista, intervistato stamattina mentre guidava la protesta, ha detto di sperare che il problema si possa risolvere nel giro di una settimana e che il Nepal possa riprendere la via intrapresa con la caduta della monarchia e l’inizio della repubblica.

Il governo nepalese e’ pronto a tenere una riunione dell’esecutivo sul campo base dell’Everest per attirare l’attenzione degli altri paesi sui pericoli legati al cambiamento climatico, in previsione della conferenza internazionale di Copenaghen di dicembre prossimo. Lo ha detto ai giornalisti a Kathmandu il ministro dell’ambiente e delle foreste del Nepal Deepaak Bohara. ”Ci riuniremo sul Sagarmatha (nome nepalese dell’Everest, ndr), per attirare l’attenzione sull’impatto che i cambiamenti climatici stanno avendo sull’Himalaya”, ha detto Bohara. non e’ stata ancora decisa la data del consiglio dei ministri a quota 5300 metri, 3500 metri sotto alla vetta della montagna piu’ alta del mondo ai confini tra Nepal e Cina (Tibet). L’idea di Bohara e’ di catalizzare l’attenzione dell’opinione pubblica internazionale cosi’ come ha fatto durante il mese scorso il governo maldiviano che si e’ riunito sott’acqua. Bohara ha sottolineato come il suo paese, patria di otto delle 14 montagne piu’ alte del mondo, sia molto vulnerabile ai cambiamenti climatici, anche se e’ responsabile del rilascio di solo lo 0,025% delle emissioni gassose, tra le piu’ basse al mondo. Ma a causa dei cambiamenti climatici che hanno portato all’innalzamento delle temperature, i ghiacciai himalayani, che servono diversi paesi asiatici, stanno sciogliendosi.

Comprador Indian State Gears Up for Massive War on its Own People

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

For some months now the comprador Indian state, already up to its neck in extreme and bloody paramilitary and pig repression – police as well as government-backed Salwa Judum death squads have been running amok in rural areas – has been about to engage over 100,000 troops against lower-caste adivasi (indigeneous or “tribal” people)-populated regions of Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Orissa and West Bengal states. Its aim is to combat the Maoist Naxalite movement’s armed resistance to superexploitation.

A brief reprieve for the Indian masses was announced on Monday October 12, 2009 when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that armed forces would not be deployed just yet. True Maoists and serious analysts of Indian affairs agree that this is but a respite for the downtrodden Indian peasantry and rural proletariat. The Indian state has and will continue to use brute force against any challenge to imperialist control of India’s economy and polity. Make no mistake: it is the imperialists in the U$ military who are pulling the strings of the Indian army in this latest “counter-insurgency” operation, part of the ongoing Third World War against the people of the Third World. It is the same experts and advisers running torture camps in Iraq, bombing missions in Pakistan and death squads in Colombia who are responsible for Indian state aggression against some of the world’s poorest and most downtrodden people.

India’s rural population is being bled dry by Indian comprador capitalism linked to western mining, forestry, industrial and financial interests. In recent decades, the precious little security India’s rural poor had in the form of forests, land, rivers, privately-held land and common pastures have been taken away as the Indian state scrapped the very few protectionist measures intended to safeguard its own economic growth and opened the economy up to imperialist “neo-liberal” restructuring.

Since India achieved formal independence from the Brutish Empire, it has not sought to develop its economy in the interests of its own people, but has continued in new forms the old colonial policy of enriching an elite bourgeoisie with ties to western business interests at the expense of its superexploited workforce. As a result of the cynical subservience of the Indian ruling class to imperialism,

“77% of the Indian population in 2004-2005 had a per capita daily consumption expenditure of less than Rs. 20; that is less than 50 cents by the current nominal exchange rate between the rupee and the US dollar and about $2 in purchasing power parity terms. According to the 2001 Census, even 62 years after political independence, only about 42 percent of Indian households have access to electricity. About 80 percent of the households do not have access to safe drinking water; that is a staggering 800 million people lacking access to potable water… 93 percent of the workforce, the overwhelming majority of the working people in India, are what the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) called “informal workers”; these workers lack any employment security, work security and social security. About 58 percent of them work in the agricultural sector and the rest is engaged in manufacturing and services. Wages are very low and working conditions extremely onerous, leading to persistent and deep poverty, which has been increasing over the last decade and a half in absolute terms: the number of what the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) called the “poor and vulnerable” increased from 811 million in 1999-00 to 836 million in 2004-05. Since majority of the working people still work in the agricultural sector, the economic stagnation in agriculture is a major cause for the continued poverty of the vast majority of the people. Since the Indian state did not undertake land reforms in any meaningful sense, the distribution of land remains extremely skewed to this day. Close to 60 percent of rural households are effectively landless; and extreme economic vulnerability and despair among the small and marginal peasantry has resulted in the largest wave of suicides in history: between 1997 and 2007, 182,936 farmers committed suicide. This is the economic setting of the current conflict.” (2)

Naturally, many of India’s rural people have fought back, bravely and heroically, against the comprador state. The Maoist movement that has grown as a response to the onerous depredations imposed by force upon the Indian masses has struck a blow for freedom and has therefore been targeted by freedom’s natural enemies: the imperialists and their lackeys. Since it is not in their class interests to provide effective political power and a decent standard of living for their poorest “citizens”, the Indian state has responded in the most reactionary way. It believes that popular resistance to comprador capitalism can be quelled using repression. As a recent statement of concern and protest signed by Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky and others correctly notes: “Kill the poor and not the poverty, seems to be the implicit slogan of the Indian government”. (2)

Maoist-Third Worldists consider that the Indian government is pursuing a policy of divide and rule in its propaganda. It seeks to whip up religious and caste-based chauvinism against the adivasis so as to distract from the miserable and eminently transformable conditions of the exploited majority in the country. Meanwhile, some Indian “Marxist-Leninist” groups describing the renegade Prachanda’s leadership as “statesmanlike” and lambasting the CPI(M) critique of Nepalese revisionism, have complained that this latest government offensive plays right into the hands of India’s Maoist/Naxalite movement. They accuse the latter of engaging in petty acts of individual terrorism, rejecting mass struggle and making zero inroads into state power in four decades. We cannot take these criticisms seriously, considering the reformist economism of at least sizeable sections of India’s “Marxist-Leninist” left.

In contrast, Maoist-Third Worldists call for maximum solidarity with the oppressed Indian proletariat in their righteous armed struggle against imperialist terror. Indian state oppression must be resisted through a united front of the downtrodden masses against Indian comprador capitalism and semi-feudalism.

Victory to the Indian Workers and Peasants!
Death To Imperialism!
Lal salaam!

Notes

(1) (2) Monthly Review, ‘The Impending Indian Government Offensive against the Adivasi Inhabited Hilly Regions: Statement of Concern and Protest by Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky and Others’, October 14 2009, http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/india141009.html

We told you so: crypto-Trotskyism in Nepal, and elsewhere

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

For years, our movement has been exposing the Trotskyism within the onetime Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) organizations. And, before us, the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) had thoroughly exposed the RCP USA, affiliated with the RIM, as crypto-Trotskyist. However, these criticisms were often met with blank stares from the majority of those claiming to be Marxist-Leninist or even Maoist. The lack of outcry over such blatant revisionism is because the ideological level is so low within the so-called international communist movement. It is so low that very few understand the main differences between Trotskyism and Marxism, or Kautskyism and Marxism for that matter. Not one peep from all the self-styled “anti-revisionists,” “Marxist-Leninists,” “Stalinists,” “Hoxhaists,” and “Maoists.” Besides ourselves, and a recent criticism from the Communist Party of India (Maoist) (CPI (Maoist)), only one other group noticed the Trotskyism within the RIM: the Trotskyists. The Trotskyists themselves, or, at least some of them, have taken an interest in the Trotskyism of the RIM affiliated organization in Nepal. An article from the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) states:

“Now in Nepal there is a growing interest in the theory of the Permanent Revolution. The fact that a Maoist leader has recognised that ‘in the current context of globalised capitalist domination, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism’ is an extremely interesting development. With this debate there is also a clear step towards building links with other movements and organisations that challenge capitalism globally. It is in fact the duty of Marxists everywhere to debate and discuss the correct tactics and strategy for the revolution internationally.” (1)

The article quotes Baburam Bhattarai approvingly.  Baburam Bhattarai is second only to Prachanda in the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN(M)):

“Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the period of the October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to the unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism this has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat”.  (2)

None of this is too surprising to the very few paying attention. In the early 1980s, for example, Bob Avakian of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA (RCP (USA)), a founder of the RIM, openly abandoned the global people’s war outlook of Lin Biao and replaced it with Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution. (2) (3) These movements dress themselves up with Mao. They beat their chests claiming to support the Cultural Revolution. Yet, in reality, they oppose both. They are “Maoist” at the most superficial level. By contrast, at every turn, only the Maoist- Third Worldist movement has correctly led the international communist movement. We told you so.

Sources

1. http://www.marxist.com/communist-party-nepal-recognises-role-of-trotsky.htm

2. http://www.marxist.com/communist-party-nepal-recognises-role-of-trotsky.htm Quote originally from The Red Spark. July 2009, Issue 1, Page-10. Translated by the IMT.

3. Bob Avakian. For a Harvest of Dragons. RCP Publications. USA:1983. p 150-151. . Avakain rejected the people’s war view in For a Harvest of Dragons:

4. Bob Avakian. Conquer the World. http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/conquerworld/#section_II In Conquer the World, Avakian plagerizes Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution.

Ganapathi on Jihadists, revisionists in Nepal, Amerikkkans*

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

In a recent interview, Ganapathi, General Secretary of the CPI (Maoist) elaborates his positions on key issues. Ganapathi correctly describes the revolutionary position on Islamic anti-imperialist movements. It is important to note that Ganapathi’s line is the same as our own and differs from the position of the crypto-Trotskyist RCP USA. Ganapathi on Jihadist movements:

“Q What is your party’s stand regarding Islamist jihadist movements?

A Islamic jihadist movements of today are a product of imperialist—particularly US imperialist—aggression, intervention, bullying, exploitation and suppression of the oil-rich Islamic and Arab countries of West Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etcetera, and the persecution of the entire Muslim religious community. As part of their designs for global hegemony, the imperialists, particularly US imperialists, have encouraged and endorsed every war of brazen aggression and brutal attacks by their surrogate state of Israel.

Our party unequivocally opposes every attack on Arab and Muslim countries and the Muslim community at large in the name of ‘war on global terror’. In fact, Muslim religious fundamentalism is encouraged and fostered by imperialists as long as it serves their interests—such as in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, and Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan.

Q But what about attacks perpetrated by the so-called ‘Jihadis’ on innocent people like it happened on 26/11?

A See, Islamic jihadist movements have two aspects: one is their anti-imperialist aspect, and the other their reactionary aspect in social and cultural matters. Our party supports the struggle of Muslim countries and people against imperialism, while criticising and struggling against the reactionary ideology and social outlook of Muslim fundamentalism. It is only Maoist leadership that can provide correct anti-imperialist orientation and achieve class unity among Muslims as well as people of other religious persuasions. The influence of Muslim fundamentalist ideology and leadership will diminish as communist revolutionaries and other democratic-secular forces increase their ideological influence over the Muslim masses. As communist revolutionaries, we always strive to reduce the influence of the obscurantist reactionary ideology and outlook of the mullahs and maulvis on the Muslim masses, while uniting with all those fighting against the common enemy of the world people—that is, imperialism, particularly American imperialism.” (1)

MSH on Islamic anti-imperialist movements and the united front:

“Monkey Smashes Heaven’s (monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com) position is to strengthen the broad united front against imperialism, especially U$ imperialism, while at the same time trying to assert as much Maoist influence within the united front as possible. In other words, we unite on a tactical basis with Islamists, revisionists and others in the oppressed nations, but only when such forces are objectively anti-imperialist. We should strengthen the broad anti-imperialist united front, even when it is organizationally led by non-proletarian forces in the oppressed nations.

At the same time, we should not liquidate into the united front. We should remain organizationally distinct and try to increase our leadership within the united front. We should defend ourselves physically and ideologically within the united front.

We should craft our agitation and propaganda such that it points out the progressive role being played by non-proletarian led anti-imperialist forces. However, we should assert a hard proletarian line within the broad united front. In other words, we should always point out the progressive role of anti-imperialist forces, but we should also point out that they are not capable in the long term of leading the masses to socialism and communism. Establish a hardline true Maoist pole within the broad united front.” (2)

MSH:

“It is more important than ever to uphold the broad united front against imperialism, especially U.S. imperialism. At the same time, it is important to establish an independent, ideologically pure pole within the global resistance movements. The united front is pivotal to achieving communist breakthroughs in the Third World. Currently, only the Islamic resistance has been able to project itself onto the world stage as a regional alternative to imperialism. And, this Islamic resistance should be supported. However, communists must work to put the Maoist-Third Worldist movement on the world stage as a living alternative to imperialism. However, upholding the united front often leads to the watering down of revolutionary science. To combat this, proletarian movements must solidly understand and implement Maoism-Third Worldism. We cannot afford to be wishy-washey ideologically if a proletarian alternative to capitalism is ever to emerge on the world stage.

Imperialists have demonstrated that they are not beyond buying off entire resistance movements in order to defeat them. The so-called ‘Sunni awakening’ in Iraq is an example of this. This imperialist bribery may become more pervasive under the Democratic administration in the U.S. In order to combat this, science is more important than ever to the global proletarian movement. Ideological solidity is more important than ever. The proletarian movements will have to rely on science to counter such wholesale bribery.  This underscores that proletarian movements will be established on a solid, pure Maoism-Third Worldist basis. Not only is such key to seizing power, it is also key to defeating counter-revolution after seizure of power.”  (3)

Ganapathi on the revisionists in Nepal:

“Q How do you look at the current developments in Nepal?

A As soon as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [CPN(M)] came to power in alliance with the comprador-feudal parties through the parliamentary route in Nepal, we had pointed out the grave danger of imperialist and Indian expansionist intervention in Nepal and how they would leave no stone unturned to overthrow the government led by CPN(M). As long as Prachanda did not defy the directives of the Indian Government, it was allowed to continue, but when it began to go against Indian hegemony, it was immediately pulled down. CPN-UML withdrew support to the Prachanda-led government upon the advice of American imperialists and Indian expansionists. We disagreed with the line of peaceful transition pursued by the UCPN(M) in the name of tactics. We decided to send an open letter to the UCPN(M). It was released in July 2009.

We made our party’s stand clear in the letter. We pointed out that the UCPN(M) chose to reform the existing State through an elected constituent assembly and a bourgeois democratic republic instead of adhering to the Marxist-Leninist understanding on the imperative to smash the old State and establish a proletarian State. This would have been the first step towards the goal of achieving socialism through the radical transformation of society and all oppressive class relations. It is indeed a great tragedy that the UCPN(M) has chosen to abandon the path of protracted people’s war and pursue a parliamentary path in spite of having de facto power in most of the countryside.

It is heartening to hear that a section of the leadership of the UCPN(M) has begun to struggle against the revisionist positions taken by Comrade Prachanda and others. Given the great revolutionary traditions of the UCPN(M), we hope that the inner-party struggle will repudiate the right opportunist line pursued by its leadership, give up revisionist stands and practices, and apply minds creatively to the concrete conditions of Nepal.” (4)

MSH on revisionism in Nepal:

“Prachanda’s organization flaunted their tossing of the ABCs of Marxism for years. It would be one thing had Prachanda developed the ABCs of Marxism in a revolutionary way. However, this is not the case. Prachanda’s revisionists tossed Lenin’s teaching on the state, dual power and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They embraced the theory of productive forces. They tossed the Maoist teaching on people’s war. They rejected Lin Biao’s global people’s war line; instead, they sought a settlement with the imperialists. They tossed cultural revolution for multi-party democracy. Prachanda’s organization put forward run-of-the-mill revisionisms of almost every variety. Prachanda advanced well known reactionary lines that are associated with revisionists like Kautsky, Liu Shaoqi, and even Trotsky.” (5)

MSH is happy that we continue to have a large degree of unity with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on these issues. However, the populist and First Worldist tone that Ganapathi takes in the following passage is troubling:

“Q How do you look at the changes in US policy after Barack Obama took over from George Bush?

A Firstly, one would be living in a fool’s paradise if one imagines that there is going to be any qualitative change in American policy—whether internal or external—after Barack Obama took over from George Bush. In fact, the policies on national security and foreign affairs pursued by Obama over the past eight months have shown the essential continuity with those of his predecessor. The ideological and political justification for these regressive policies at home and aggressive policies abroad is the same trash put forth by the Bush administration—the so-called ‘global war on terror’, based on outright lies and slander. Worse still, the policies have become even more aggressive under Obama with his planned expansion of the US-led war of aggression in Afghanistan into the territory of Pakistan. The hands of this new killer-in-chief of the pack of imperialist wolves are already stained with the blood of hundreds of women and children who are cruelly murdered in relentless missile attacks from Predator drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, within the US itself, bail-outs for the tiny corporate elite and attacks on democratic and human rights of US citizens continue without any change.

The oppressed people and nations of the world are now confronting an even more formidable and dangerous enemy in the form of an African-American president of the most powerful military machine and world gendarme. The world people should unite to wage a more relentless, more militant and more consistent struggle against the American marauders led by Barack Obama and pledge to defeat them to usher in a world of peace, stability and genuine democracy.” (6)

MSH states:

“Obama’s regime represents a more effective imperialism. Obama represents turn away from the the unilateral, cowboy approach of the George W. Bush administration. Obama is the new-age imperialist, sensitive and sophisticated. If George W. Bush was the bad cop of modern imperialism, Obama is the good cop.

Obama more than any other recent US president represents a globalist turn in imperialism. The Obama administration seeks a world order where the Europeans and other imperialists have a say and cooperate alongside the US. Obama represents an imperialism that is both globalist, but still with the US at its center. Obama is the imperialist for an age without significant inter-imperialist rivalry. Obama is the imperialist antagonist of Lin Biao’s Long Live the Victory of People’s War! Obama is the imperialist in a world where inter-imperialist rivalries have been replaced, for the moment, by inter-imperialist cooperation against Third World peoples. Obama represents a more mature and stable imperialist system.

The imperialists learn from their mistakes just as people’s movements do. A lesson that imperialists have learned from the last century is that to let inter-imperialist rivalry get out of hand threatens the capitalist order itself. World War 1 led to the Bolshevik revolution, the first sustained socialist state in history. After Europe destroyed itself in World War 2, Europe was unable to hold onto its colonies. A wave of decolonization, national liberation and socialist movements, swept across the world. And, the inter-imperialist nuclear rivalry between the US and social imperialists, at times, threatened all life on Earth. Obama’s globalist path is the one that imperialism will most likely follow in the next decades. Thus it is important that people’s movements adapt. In the struggle against imperialism in the decades to come, it will be important to  emphasize the unity of people’s forces and anti-imperialist forces in the Third World over largely futile attempts to divide the imperialist camp. In this respect, people’s movements should take their cue from Lin Biao’s global people’s war strategy.” (7)

Communists agree with Ganapathi that the nature of imperialism is the same despite who is president in the US. Ganapathi’s populist tone, his targeting of “corporate elites” juxtaposed to “US citizens,” is the same old social imperialism that is promulgated by the entire First Worldist “left.” Corporate elites and Amerikan workers do not have antagonistic class interests. Overall, their relationship is one of unity, not disunity. Whatever contradictions that may exist between them are non-antagonistic and easily dealt with within the system. If Ganapathi is looking for revolution, he is barking up the wrong tree by pandering to First World peoples. Even though Ganapathi is careful not to commit himself overtly to First Worldism, his tone is a fence-sitter one that panders to First Worldists and it undermines genuine proletarian forces. Contrary to Ganapathi’s fence sitting, communists know that virtually the entire First World should be considered bourgeoisie. The minor ups and downs of various sectors of the US bourgeoisie matter little to the people’s movements in the Third World. The proletariat, concentrated in the Third World, cares nothing about the housing bubble bursting in the US. Who cares if the richest people in the world lose some of their wealth? Do we really need yet another Chicken Little yelping that the sky is falling? Do we need another Jose Maria Sison to bore us to death?

Instead of “see no, speak no, hear no evil,” dare to be Marxist. Prairie Fire of MSH:

“A global, socialist distribution of the world’s wealth implies a distribution that approaches egalitarianism or a distribution where the only inequalities that exist are ones that benefit the proletariat and most oppressed segments of the global population. These distribution principles, taken together, can be described as roughly, reasonably egalitarian vis a vis the current world economy. The question that every serious Marxist must ask is whether Amerikans, and First World peoples generally, benefit or lose out under a socialist distribution of the world’s income. If the incomes of the First World working class, like the imperialist bourgeoisie, are so inflated that they need to be lowered under a socialist distribution, then there is no meaningful sense in which the First World working class is exploited. And, if, like the capitalists of the imperialist countries, the First World working class do not benefit under such a distribution, then there is no reason to consider them part of the revolutionary subject, as part of the proletariat.” (8)

There is no reasonable sense in which First World peoples are exploited.  (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) First World peoples are not a social base for revolution; they are a social base for reaction, for fascism. To suggest otherwise is social imperialism and social fascism. Ganapathi is correct that there are important struggles for civil liberties being waged in the US. Maoist-Third Worldist forces and their allies were central to campaigns to defend Ward Churchill from fascist attack, for example. However, Ganapathi is incorrect if he is suggesting that such struggles in the First World represent acute class contradictions between the imperialists and the masses. There are no masses in the First World, only asses.

Unfortunately, Ganapathi incorrectly implies that the principal contradiction is between the “oppressed nations and peoples” verses imperialism, especially US imperialism. Rather, Maoist-Third Worldists maintain that the principal contradiction is between the exploiter countries as a whole/the First World/the global city versus the exploited countries as a whole/the Third World/the global countryside. This is no minor point, as any real Maoist should know.

What should we make of the CPI(Maoist)? On the one hand, they have taken the Maoist line on many important global issues. On the other hand, the CPI(Maoist) cannot bring itself to speak plainly and honestly on issues of global class. The most obvious and important feature of our world today is the relationship between the First and Third World. Those in the First World, with very few exceptions, live lives of luxury and leisure at the expense of the vast majority of humanity in the Third World. It is truly shameful that “Marxists” cannot speak about this elephant in the room.

All kinds of movements traffic in the name of the CPI(Maoist) even though such movements have next to nothing in common with the CPI(Maoist) except for a shared reverence for Mao. It is pathetic and sad that liberalism, not politics, is in command, but that has always been the M.O. of Avakian and his school. By contrast, communists state their unity and disunity openly. Let’s hope that Ganapathi moves in the correct direction and embraces Maoism-Third Worldism. The bell has been run. Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again. The false paths are endless. There is only one real path, one communism: Maoism-Third Worldism. We welcome all with the courage to take these first steps with us.

Sources:

1. http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/we-shall-certainly-defeat-the-government

2. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/iron-five-productions-video-its-right-to-rebel-msh-on-the-united-front/

3. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/may-day-thoughts/

4. http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/we-shall-certainly-defeat-the-government

5. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/excerpt-interview-with-ganapathy-general-secretary-cpimaoist/

6. http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/we-shall-certainly-defeat-the-government

7. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/obama-wins-nobel-%E2%80%9Cpeace%E2%80%9D-prize-gives-imperialism-a-facelift-for-the-21st-century/

8. Real versus Fake Marxism on Socialist Distribution http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/real-versus-fake-marxism-on-socialist-distribution/

9. ibid.

10. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/global-inequality-and-socialist-equality/

11. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/blast-of-the-past-from-irtr-a-rough-estimate-of-the-value-of-labor/

12. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/the-average-joe-amerikan/

13. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/some-tentative-thoughts-on-%E2%80%9Cthe-social-factory%E2%80%9D/

* This post has been significantly updated since its original appearance a day ago.

Oppsigelsen av rundt 4000 soldater i Folkets frigjøringshær i Nepal har begynt. Siden slutten på folkekrigen har omtrent 19.000 soldater i folkehæren blitt plassert i det som de indiske maoistene kaller ”FN-overvåka brakker, som er så godt som fengsler for soldatene.”

Denne ytterligere nedtrappingen av folkehæren vil være en nedgang i 20 prosent av slagkraften. Avsluttingen av folkekrigen, avvæpning av soldatene i Folkets frigjøringshær og plasseringen av dem i leire med dårlige levevilkår, ble utført av Nepals kommunistiske parti (maoistene), en rekke andre partier og FN.

Soldatene har blitt tatt ut av folkehæren fordi de er ikke er kvalifisert den nye utgaven av ”Folkets” frigjøringshær. Noe av begrunnelsene er at de ”er for unge” eller at de ble rekruttert etter fredsavtalen i 2006. De skal etter planen tilbake i samfunnet.

Mao sa at ”uten folkets hær, så har folket ingenting.” I sosialistiske Kina ble Folkets frigjøringshær sett på som en milepæl i proletariatets diktatur. Den gradvise nedleggelsen av folkehæren i Nepal, er en gradvis ødeleggelse av folkets mulighet til å gripe makta.

It seems Prachanda wanted little to do with Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s first visit to Nepal, choosing instead to hie himself and CPN(M)’s new foreign policy chief, Krishna Bahadur Mahara to Hong Kong.  His contributions to bringing normalcy to the new republic have been largely negligible.  On the occasions where he has made his presence felt, one was left with no doubt that the intent to bring stability in the nation was subservient to the desire to consolidate power and eliminate democratic due process.

However, while Prachanda may not be interested in dialog with India’s bureaucrats, there is dialog between him and Sitaram Yechury.  It’s no surprise then that Prachanda is able to arrive at very innovative election models for Nepal, including a demand for indirect elections of the President by the Parliament, and a unicameral legislature, with no opposition.

Despite the deadlock in Nepal, Sitaram Yechury’s involvement in political reconciliation, at the behest of New Delhi, is a step in wrong direction. The CPI(M) has done precious little in the areas of governance and social and economic upliftment.  They exist to stymie progress and satisfy their own inflated egos.  But once given the opportunity to lead, they fail, rather spectacularly. One only has to look at the state of affairs in West Bengal and Kerala — bastions of CPI(M) rule in India — and gauge the impact of the decades of their rule on their social and economic development.

And Yechury’s protégés behave no different in Nepal.  Prachanda’s response to PM Madhav Nepal’s recently concluded 34-point agreement with India on areas including trade imbalance, infrastructure, development and military aid, was to complain that the PM’s visit was “humiliating” because it lacked adequate press coverage from the Indian media!

To be sure, there are several issues that confront Nepal today — rehabilitation of the PLA within the armed forces, framing a constitutional framework by May 2010, linguistic reconciliation and quelling ethnic unrest in southern Nepal.  Today, the fate of the new republic is precariously perched; the challenges that confront it are significant, but by no means are they as insurmountable as depicted by Indian and international media.

With all its faults, the UML-led government has endured, quite inexplicably, and no one is more shocked about this than Prachanda.  Unhappy about his self-inflicted irrelevance to the policital process (especially given CPN(M)’s popular support), he has wasted no opportunity to try and bring the government down, even threatening a third installment of the Jana Andolan (People’s Movement) to achieve his goals.

If the UML government continues to hold fort, CPN(M)’s disruptive position will inevitably soften, allowing for a possible “face-saving” compromise on core divergent issues confronting the State.  The modalities of the compromise can be effectively worked out if the CPN(M) is convinced of the relative durability of the government and the futility in trying to lead a united front with several individually insignificant, conflicting opposition members. For now, India’s primary focus today should be to assist the government to hold fort.  Political reconciliation will come naturally when the futility of CPN(M)’s shenanigans is effectively demonstrated.

Av Klassekamp og Revolusjon

“Maoistlederen” Prachanda fjerner seg enda lengre fra marxismen. “Jeg er ikke en ateist,” sier han.

I et nylig intervju med Prachanda, lederen for Nepals kommunistiske parti (maoistene), kommer hans og partiets syn på religion frem. Han sa: ”Jeg er ikke en ateist,” og legger til ”(…) ikke ta det maoistiske partiet som et ateistisk parti.” I tillegg til å være et revisjonistisk parti, så er det ikke et parti av ateister. Men uansett, Prachanda er ikke den første ledende revisjonisten som har et slikt syn. For eksempel, Fidel Castro avvæpnet de cubanske massene fra vitenskapen og satte prester i ledelsen for proletariatet.

Med disse siste kommentarene, så har Prachanda og hans parti gått enda lengre i å forlate den tradisjonelle marxismen. Marx oppfattet religion som et eksempel på falst bevvisthet. Marx kalte religion opium for folket. Og sist men ikke minst, i tiden av Lenin har kommunistiske partier vært ateistiske partier. Stalin og Mao fortsatte denne tradisjonen av ateismen. Religion er ikke forenlig med den dialektiske og historiske materialismen.

Prachanda har også forlatt Lenins angrep på Kautsky sin parlamentarisme og reformisme. Prachanda har forlatt Maos linje om nydemokrati og folkekrig. Og sist, men ikke minst, han har sveket den nepalske revolusjonen.

I anledning Prachandas besøk i Norge tidligere i år, skrev vi en lengre tekst om linja til Nepals kommunistiske parti (maoistene). Den gir en mer utvidet og gjennomgående kritikk, dersom det skulle være ønskelig.

Prachanda gave a speech at a book launching ceremony yesterday which from all accounts was pretty damn fiery. According to Telegraph Nepal, he stressed that the “The Constituent Assembly and the Peace Process are the offspring of the decade long revolt undertaken by the Maoists’ Party”, and stated that “if the constitution drafting process and the peace process were blocked, there will be yet another fierce revolt.”

The TN article was entitled “Fresh Nepal revolt may take toll of One Million”, a rather suspect move on their part. They obviously lifted a single line from his speech (quoted in the article) in which he noted that a revolutionary seizure of power by the masses would result in many deaths. The way the title is worded implies that Prachanda is callously playing with the lives of people and indeed delights in their possible deaths, but his actual words tell a different story.

What he actually said was “If there is another revolt at least one million people may lose their precious lives”, and therefore “we need to be very careful at this juncture, to stop the casualties”. However, this should not be read as displaying an unwillingness to go ahead with a people’s revolt in the future – he went on to say, according to Telegraph Nepal, that “people want peace not war however, there is the limit to everything, people go at war when their limit of tolerance is broken… when the people revolt they obliterate everything” and that “if the mandate of the Constituent Assembly election is further ridiculed we will declare war”.

Interestingly, TN claims that he also said “this time the war will be a peaceful one.” A strange remark considering how he supposedly also mentioned that the revolt could easily result in a million deaths. Most likely this remark was made with the intention of stressing the Maoist’s commitment to the peace process, and trying to make it harder for the reactionary forces to make out that the UCPN (M) forced their hand if they move against the revolutionaries.

Kantipur Online reported on the same speech, saying that Prachanda blamed current President Yadav and his actions past and present for the “precarious situation”. Apparently he stated that “a land mine from the President’s office has already ambushed the constitution drafting and peace process”.

According to this report, Prachanda said that only under the leadership of him and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) can a constitution be written and the peace process taken to it’s conclusion. He charged the government with “trying to invite a war”, and reminded them that “peace-seeking people will not tolerate any oppression” and “none can prevent people from revolting.”

Some pretty heavy rhetoric! The past few weeks have been red hot in Nepal, and it just keeps getting hotter.

Den heter Prachanda Path Jindabad. Ordet ”Jindabad” (som er refrenget i sangen) betyr feiring og støtte (også oversatt enkelte ganger til ”lenge leve”). Prachandas vei er strategien utviklet av de nepalske maoistene i sin nåværende revolusjon.

Selvsagt, en del av det som er fascinerende med denne videoen er dens form, dvs. bruken av typer sang og dans som er “typisk Bollywood” (den indiske filmindustrien).

Ex-Nepal PM urges anti-US unity

By Rajesh Joshi
BBC News

Former Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda says Asian countries should develop a unified security strategy to combat US influence in South Asia.

In an interview with the BBC, he said India, China and Nepal should work together to counter American power.

The Maoist, who was a rebel leader before becoming prime minister, was speaking during a visit to Britain.

Prachanda resigned in May over the Nepalese president’s decision to reinstate the army chief he had sacked.

Speaking at the Nepalese embassy in London, Prachanda said the emerging Asian economies should rely less on the West, especially the United States.

He said being the sole super power, the US was trying to have a greater influence in Asia, but India and China should come together to provide security and prosperity to their people.

New constitution

Prachanda, who became prime minister in 2008, said Delhi was wrong to think that he was closer to communist China than to India.

He said he wanted a good relationship with both neighbouring countries.

Prachanda acknowledged that India supported the dialogue between his Maoists and other political parties, after the Nepalese King Gyandendra assumed direct power in 2005.

But then, he said, Delhi lost its warmth towards the Maoists when historic elections resulted in him becoming prime minister.

On the domestic front, he said his party was striving to change the basic structure of Nepal through the Constituent Assembly, which would authorise a new constitution for Nepal.

He rejected any possibility of the restoration of monarchy, which was abolished in May 2008 after 240 years.

He said that over 90% of people were opposed to it.

The following article made it’s way to Social Revolution via Democracy and Class Struggle via the World People’s Resistance Movement via Open Magazine.  Another reprinting of this story can also be found at the Kasama Project, the introduction of which is used here.

We Shall Certainly Defeat the Government

In this interview, taken from the October 17, 2009 issue of Open, Ganapathi, General Secretary of the CPI (Maoist), talks about the party’s work in Lalgarh, its response to the government’s upcoming military offensive, the political situation in Nepal, the defeat of the LTTE, the contradictory nature of Islamist movements in the world today, and the role of the new chieftain of US imperialism.

Comrade Ganapathi

At first sight, Mupalla Laxman Rao, who is about to turn 60, looks like a school teacher. In fact, he was one in the early 1970s in Andhra Pradesh’s Karimnagar district. In 2009, however, the bespectacled, soft-spoken figure is India’s Most Wanted Man. He runs one of the world’s largest Left insurgencies—a man known in Home Ministry dossiers as Ganapathi; a man whose writ runs large through 15 states. The supreme commander of CPI (Maoist) is a science graduate and holds a B Ed degree as well. He still conducts classes, but now they are on guerrilla warfare for other senior Maoists. He replaced the founder of the People’s War Group, Kondapalli Seetharaamiah, as the party’s general-secretary in 1991. Ganapathi is known to change his location frequently, and intelligence reports say he has been spotted in cities like Hyderabad, Kolkata and Kochi. After months of attempts, Ganapathi agreed to give his first-ever interview. Somewhere in the impregnable jungles of Dandakaranya, he spoke to RAHUL PANDITA on issues ranging from the Government’s proposed anti-Naxal offensive to Islamist Jihadist movements.

Q: Lalgarh has been described as the New Naxalbari by the CPI (Maoist). How has it become so significant for you?

A: The Lalgarh mass uprising has, no doubt, raised new hopes among the oppressed people and the entire revolutionary camp in West Bengal. It has great positive impact not only on the people of West Bengal but also on the people all over the country. It has emerged as a new model of mass movement in the country. We had seen similar types of movements earlier in Manipur, directed against Army atrocities and Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), in Kashmir, in Dandakaranya and to some extent in Orissa, after the Kalinganagar massacre perpetrated by the Naveen Patnaik government.

Then there have been mass movements in Singur and Nandigram but there the role of a section of the ruling classes is also significant. These movements were utilised by the ruling class parties for their own electoral interests. But Lalgarh is a more widespread and more sustained mass political movement that has spurned the leadership of all the parliamentary political parties, thereby rendering them completely irrelevant. The people of Lalgarh had even boycotted the recent Lok Sabha polls, thereby unequivocally demonstrating their anger and frustration with all the reactionary ruling class parties. Lalgarh also has some distinctive features such as a high degree of participation of women, a genuinely democratic character and a wider mobilisation of Adivasis. No wonder, it has become a rallying point for the revolutionary-democratic forces in West Bengal.

Q: If it is a people’s movement, how did Maoists get involved in Lalgarh?

A: As far as our party’s role is concerned, we have been working in Paschim Midnapur, Bankura and Purulia, in what is popularly known as Jangalmahal since the 1980s. We fought against the local feudal forces, against the exploitation and oppression by the forest officials, contractors, unscrupulous usurers and the goondaism of both the CPM and Trinamool Congress. The ruling CPM, in particular, has become the chief exploiter and oppressor of the Adivasis of the region, and it has unleashed its notorious vigilanté gangs called Harmad Vahini on whoever questions its authority. With the State authority in its hands, and with the aid of the police, it is playing a role worse than that of the cruel landlords in other regions of the country.

Given this background, anyone who dares to fight against oppression and exploitation by the CPM can win the respect and confidence of the people. Since our party has been fighting uncompromisingly against the atrocities of the CPM goons, it naturally gained the confidence and respect of the people of the region.

The police atrocities in the wake of the landmine blast on 2 November [in 2008, from which West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee had a narrow escape] acted as the trigger that brought the pent-up anger of the masses into the open. This assumed the form of a long-drawn mass movement, and our party played the role of a catalyst.

Q: But not so long ago, the CPM was your friend. You even took arms and ammunition from it to fight the Trinamool Congress. This has been confirmed by a Politburo member of CPI (Maoist) in certain interviews. And now you are fighting the CPM with the help of the Trinamool. How did a friend turn into a foe and vice-versa?

A: This is only partially true. We came to know earlier that some ammunition was taken by our local cadre from the CPM unit in the area. There was, however, no understanding with the leadership of the CPM in this regard. Our approach was to unite all sections of the oppressed masses at the lower levels against the goondaism and oppression of Trinamool goons in the area at that time. And since a section of the oppressed masses were in the fold of the CPM at that time, we fought together with them against Trinamool. Still, taking into consideration the overall situation in West Bengal, it was not a wise step to take arms and ammunition from the CPM even at the local level when the contradiction was basically between two sections of the reactionary ruling classes.

Our central committee discussed this, criticised the comrade responsible for taking such a decision, and directed the concerned comrades to stop this immediately. As regards taking ammunition from the Trinamool Congress, I remember that we had actually purchased it not directly from the Trinamool but from someone who had links with the Trinamool. There will never be any conditions or agreements with those selling us arms. That has been our understanding all along. As regards the said interview by our Politburo member, we will verify what he had actually said.

Q: What are your tactics now in Lalgarh after the massive offensive by the Central and state forces?

A: First of all, I wish to make it crystal clear that our party will spearhead and stand firmly by the side of the people of Lalgarh and entire Jangalmahal, and draw up tactics in accordance with the people’s interests and

Parading Maoists

mandate. We shall spread the struggle against the State everywhere and strive to win over the broad masses to the side of the people’s cause. We shall fight the State offensive by mobilising the masses more militantly against the police, Harmad Vahini and CPM goons. The course of the development of the movement, of course, will depend on the level of consciousness and preparedness of the people of the region. The party will take this into consideration while formulating its tactics. The initiative of the masses will be released fully.

Q: The Government has termed Lalgarh a ‘laboratory’ for anti-Naxal operations. Has your party also learnt any lessons from Lalgarh?

A: Yes, our party too has a lot to learn from the masses of Lalgarh. Their upsurge was beyond our expectations. In fact, it was the common people, with the assistance of advanced elements influenced by revolutionary politics, who played a crucial role in the formulation of tactics. They formed their own organisation, put forth their charter of demands, worked out various novel forms of struggle, and stood steadfast in the struggle despite the brutal attacks by the police and the social-fascist Harmad gangs. The Lalgarh movement has the support of revolutionary and democratic forces not only in West Bengal but in the entire country. We are appealing to all revolutionary and democratic forces in the country to unite to fight back the fascist offensive by the Buddhadeb government in West Bengal and the UPA Government at the Centre. By building the broadest fighting front, and by adopting appropriate tactics of combining the militant mass political movement with armed resistance of the people and our PLGA (People’s Liberation Guerilla Army), we will defeat the massive offensive by the Central-state forces. I cannot say more than this at the present juncture.

Q: The Centre has declared an all-out war against Maoists by branding the CPI (Maoist) a terrorist organisation and imposing an all-India ban on the party. How has it affected your party?

A : Our party has already been banned in several states of India. By imposing the ban throughout the country, the Government now wants to curb all our open activities in West Bengal and a few other states where legal opportunities exist to some extent. The Government wants to use this draconian UAPA [Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act] to harass whoever dares to raise a voice against fake encounters, rapes and other police atrocities on the people residing in Maoist-dominated regions. Anyone questioning the State’s brutalities will now be branded a terrorist.

The real terrorists and biggest threats to the country’s security are none other than Manmohan Singh, Chidambaram, Buddhadeb, other ruling class leaders and feudal forces who terrorise the people on a daily basis.

The UPA Government had declared, as soon as it assumed power for the second time, that it would crush the Maoist ‘menace’ and began pouring in huge funds to the states for this purpose. The immediate reason behind this move is the pressure exerted by the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the imperialists, particularly US imperialists, who want to plunder the resources of our country without any hindrance. These sharks aspire to swallow the rich abundant mineral and forest wealth in the vast contiguous region stretching from Jangalmahal to north Andhra. This region is the wealthiest as well as the most underdeveloped part of our country. These sharks want to loot the wealth and drive the Adivasi people of the region to further impoverishment.

Another major reason for the current offensive by the ruling classes is the fear of the rapid growth of the Maoist movement and its increasing influence over a significant proportion of the Indian population. The Janatana Sarkars in Dandakaranya and the revolutionary people’s committees in Jharkhand, Orissa and parts of some other states have become new models of genuine people’s democracy and development. The rulers want to crush these new models of development and genuine democracy, as these are emerging as the real alternative before the people of the country at large.

Q: The Home Ministry has made preparations for launching a long-term battle against Maoists. A huge force will be soon trying to wrest away areas from your control. How do you plan to confront this offensive?

"From two to three states, the movement has now spread to over 15 states, giving jitters to the ruling classes."