AvanteRedGarde
17th April 2009, 08:52
By Monkey Smashes Heaven
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com
The recent criticism of revisionism in Nepal is nothing spectacular or groundbreaking. Those who think that the criticism of the revisionists in Nepal is groundbreaking have no grasp of basic Marxism. 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 was 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. For years, Prachanda cozied up with the imperialists and their institutions such as the World Bank.
The split between the revisionists over Nepal is not a principled split. When the people’s war was raging in Nepal, RCP-USA used their affiliation with the revisionists there and in the RIM to generate political capital for themselves. They closely associated themselves with the movement in Nepal in order to make themselves out to be something other than just another First Worldist political micro-cult. So, as opportunists, they boarded Prachanda’s pirate ship of a movement. When Prachanda called-off the people’s war in 2006, RCP-USA adopted a policy of issuing no new significant statements on the Nepal question. However, they continued to allow their circles to exploit the Nepal relationship for their own ends.
RCP-USA adopted this policy in order to “cover their own asses” in case the movement in Nepal flopped, while still reaping the benefits of being able to project their organization as more important than it was. As the years went on, it became more and more apparent that the movement in Nepal was a big-time revisionist flop. Thus, RCP-USA was paralyzed by what to do about Nepal since they had been so closely associated with what was now an obvious sellout there. The problem of how to jump off the pirate ship was never solved by the RCP-USA. Rather, events beyond their control forced RCP-USA to disassociate themselves from the revisionists in Nepal. What forced the split between the Avakianists and the Prachandaists were correct comments made, in an otherwise problematic article, sharply criticizing the RCP-USA in Red Star no. 21 by Roshan Kisson:
“From tragedy we move to farce, and the strange behaviour of Chairman Bob Avakian, the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA. Even though Chairman Avakian has not led any kind of Peoples War or any major revolutionary struggle in the US, he has declared a ‘new synthesis’ that goes beyond Marx, Lenin and Mao. Chairman Avakian claims to have a made a ‘break in epistemology’, yet seems to have never studied the works of Russell, Wittgenstein, Husserl, Heidegger and other philosophers of the 20th century, or even distinguished Marxist philosophers such as Lukacs, Gramsci, Ilyenkov etc. RCP USA comrades describe Chairman Avakian as ‘the American Lenin’ (which, I presume, would make Lenin the Russian Avakian…) and sometimes even praise god for Chairman Avakian.
Needless to say, nobody outside of the RCP USA actually believes this nonsense, and the RCP USA resembles a strange cult rather than a real Communist party. Ground Control to Chairman Bob…” (2)
Since the zombies at RCP-USA adopted the line that upholding their guru, Bob Avakian, is a dividing line question globally between communists and revisionists, RCP-USA could no longer wallow in their opportunistic silence. It was only in 2009, after getting slighted by the Prachandaists publicly, that RCP-USA issued a series of documents that purport to record a two-line struggle within the so-called RIM. The RCP-USA documents state the obvious: the revisionists in Nepal have abandoned the ABCs of Marxism.
Not long after, several other revisionist lemmings with an online presence followed RCP-USA in distancing themselves from the revisionists in Nepal. What is laughable about all this is that had the revisionists in Nepal not poked fun at the ridiculous Avakian cult, then RCP-USA and the lemmings would, even today, be silent on or even supporting the revisionism in Nepal — just as they had been for years. This amazing hypocrisy indicates what an absolute joke the fake so-called Maoist movement is. These events dramatically demonstrate the pathetic ideological level of those in the orbit of the joke once known as the RIM. Some leadership. Some vanguard.
Early on, there were some waffling, disappointing statements out of India that criticized Prachanda but failed to fully callout the revisionism in Nepal. Even today, the organization known as the CP India (Maoist) cannot find the courage to fully expose Prachanda. (2) Such was left to the Maoist-Third Worldist movement. The Maoist-Third Worldist movement was virtually the only voice publicly challenging the obvious revisionism in Nepal for several years. During that time, the so-called Maoist movement was grossly misleading the proletariat on the Nepal question. They were actively criticizing our line on Nepal in various public forums. They were even criticizing our line that Prachanda had tossed the ABCs of Marxism even a few months ago! Where the so-called Maoist movement failed, Maoism-Third Worldism correctly led the international communist movement for years. Part of being the ideological vanguard is being able and willing to call out revisionism, even when doing so is unpopular. This only confirms what a joke the so-called Maoism of the RCP(USA) and their lemmings is. This only confirms the correctness of Maoism-Third Worldism as the fourth stage of Marxism.
Notes.
1. http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2009/01/negation-of-negation-by-roshan-kisson.html
2. Azad, Spokesperson, central committee, CPI(Maoist), on 2009 Lok Sabha elections
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com
The recent criticism of revisionism in Nepal is nothing spectacular or groundbreaking. Those who think that the criticism of the revisionists in Nepal is groundbreaking have no grasp of basic Marxism. 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 was 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. For years, Prachanda cozied up with the imperialists and their institutions such as the World Bank.
The split between the revisionists over Nepal is not a principled split. When the people’s war was raging in Nepal, RCP-USA used their affiliation with the revisionists there and in the RIM to generate political capital for themselves. They closely associated themselves with the movement in Nepal in order to make themselves out to be something other than just another First Worldist political micro-cult. So, as opportunists, they boarded Prachanda’s pirate ship of a movement. When Prachanda called-off the people’s war in 2006, RCP-USA adopted a policy of issuing no new significant statements on the Nepal question. However, they continued to allow their circles to exploit the Nepal relationship for their own ends.
RCP-USA adopted this policy in order to “cover their own asses” in case the movement in Nepal flopped, while still reaping the benefits of being able to project their organization as more important than it was. As the years went on, it became more and more apparent that the movement in Nepal was a big-time revisionist flop. Thus, RCP-USA was paralyzed by what to do about Nepal since they had been so closely associated with what was now an obvious sellout there. The problem of how to jump off the pirate ship was never solved by the RCP-USA. Rather, events beyond their control forced RCP-USA to disassociate themselves from the revisionists in Nepal. What forced the split between the Avakianists and the Prachandaists were correct comments made, in an otherwise problematic article, sharply criticizing the RCP-USA in Red Star no. 21 by Roshan Kisson:
“From tragedy we move to farce, and the strange behaviour of Chairman Bob Avakian, the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA. Even though Chairman Avakian has not led any kind of Peoples War or any major revolutionary struggle in the US, he has declared a ‘new synthesis’ that goes beyond Marx, Lenin and Mao. Chairman Avakian claims to have a made a ‘break in epistemology’, yet seems to have never studied the works of Russell, Wittgenstein, Husserl, Heidegger and other philosophers of the 20th century, or even distinguished Marxist philosophers such as Lukacs, Gramsci, Ilyenkov etc. RCP USA comrades describe Chairman Avakian as ‘the American Lenin’ (which, I presume, would make Lenin the Russian Avakian…) and sometimes even praise god for Chairman Avakian.
Needless to say, nobody outside of the RCP USA actually believes this nonsense, and the RCP USA resembles a strange cult rather than a real Communist party. Ground Control to Chairman Bob…” (2)
Since the zombies at RCP-USA adopted the line that upholding their guru, Bob Avakian, is a dividing line question globally between communists and revisionists, RCP-USA could no longer wallow in their opportunistic silence. It was only in 2009, after getting slighted by the Prachandaists publicly, that RCP-USA issued a series of documents that purport to record a two-line struggle within the so-called RIM. The RCP-USA documents state the obvious: the revisionists in Nepal have abandoned the ABCs of Marxism.
Not long after, several other revisionist lemmings with an online presence followed RCP-USA in distancing themselves from the revisionists in Nepal. What is laughable about all this is that had the revisionists in Nepal not poked fun at the ridiculous Avakian cult, then RCP-USA and the lemmings would, even today, be silent on or even supporting the revisionism in Nepal — just as they had been for years. This amazing hypocrisy indicates what an absolute joke the fake so-called Maoist movement is. These events dramatically demonstrate the pathetic ideological level of those in the orbit of the joke once known as the RIM. Some leadership. Some vanguard.
Early on, there were some waffling, disappointing statements out of India that criticized Prachanda but failed to fully callout the revisionism in Nepal. Even today, the organization known as the CP India (Maoist) cannot find the courage to fully expose Prachanda. (2) Such was left to the Maoist-Third Worldist movement. The Maoist-Third Worldist movement was virtually the only voice publicly challenging the obvious revisionism in Nepal for several years. During that time, the so-called Maoist movement was grossly misleading the proletariat on the Nepal question. They were actively criticizing our line on Nepal in various public forums. They were even criticizing our line that Prachanda had tossed the ABCs of Marxism even a few months ago! Where the so-called Maoist movement failed, Maoism-Third Worldism correctly led the international communist movement for years. Part of being the ideological vanguard is being able and willing to call out revisionism, even when doing so is unpopular. This only confirms what a joke the so-called Maoism of the RCP(USA) and their lemmings is. This only confirms the correctness of Maoism-Third Worldism as the fourth stage of Marxism.
Notes.
1. http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2009/01/negation-of-negation-by-roshan-kisson.html
2. Azad, Spokesperson, central committee, CPI(Maoist), on 2009 Lok Sabha elections