communism in india?

[velmurugan]

Am new to communism and i seek the help of some indian comrade to clarify my doubt...

1) what is happening between cpi and mao followers in bengal? what is basically difference between them...

2)what is naturally wrong with these media... i dont see any large media supporting the communist theory (i have seen some local books and authors who support revolutionary communism) but not in general.

3) am student from a very low class family and why it took so many years for me (20) years to know about Marx theory (am saying these because our society, media, school and even some of my elder friends keeping communism hidden)

4) Marx on anarchy or Utopian society?

[pranabjyoti]

Am new to communism and i seek the help of some indian comrade to clarify my doubt...

1) what is happening between cpi and mao followers in bengal? what is basically difference between them...

2)what is naturally wrong with these media... i dont see any large media supporting the communist theory (i have seen some local books and authors who support revolutionary communism) but not in general.

3) am student from a very low class family and why it took so many years for me (20) years to know about Marx theory (am saying these because our society, media, school and even some of my elder friends keeping communism hidden)

4) Marx on anarchy or Utopian society?
The answers are simple:
1) CPI(M) and the Maoists are representing two different classes. Once, CPI(M) was representative of city and village petty-bourgeoisie class, now they on the normal course of history degraded themselves as representative of capitalists and Kleinbourgeoise (most reactionary petty-bourgeoisie), while Maoists at present represent the most oppressed part of peasants and the aboriginal people, the most oppressed and exploited and humiliated people throughout the history of India after the invasion of the Aryans in India. So, certainly there should be conflict between them.
2) Who runs media i.e. what is money sources behind those medias. Certainly big capitalist and other reactionary class, therefore it would be very unlikely and unnatural if they SUPPORT communist ideology.
3) Very natural.
4) I suggest you to read Marx's writings and letters on Bakunin.

[Red Saxon]

By the way, Maoists tend to be more Pro-Chinese for obvious reasons.

[pranabjyoti]

By the way, Maoists tend to be more Pro-Chinese for obvious reasons.
How do yo know that? Do you any idea about Maoists in India?

[Red Saxon]

How do yo know that? Do you any idea about Maoists in India?Maoists are all traditionally supportive of Communist China, (not of the husk that exists today). I didn't say all Maoists are supportive of the Chinese government, but a large percentage are. Maoism in itself stems from European Marxism in that it focuses more on Agrarianism rather than Industrialism.

[cyu]

what is naturally wrong with these media... i dont see any large media supporting the communist theory


In just about every capitalist nation, the mass media is structured as a capitalist dictatorship. There is a CEO at the top, put in place by the board of directors, to ensure the company is run in the interest of those who "own" the company (as opposed to those who do the work).

The CEO is basically a dictator. He issues commands to everyone below him in the corporate pyramid. He is also paid more than everyone else in the corporate pyramid. This ensures he sides with the capitalist class.

Obviously, when the person in control sides with the capitalist class, the news stories put out by their media organization would also side with the capitalist class. Until the employees in these media companies can vote out / ignore their higher ups, the companies will always be biased in favor of capitalism, even when they pretend not to be.

[pranabjyoti]

Maoists are all traditionally supportive of Communist China, (not of the husk that exists today). I didn't say all Maoists are supportive of the Chinese government, but a large percentage are. Maoism in itself stems from European Marxism in that it focuses more on Agrarianism rather than Industrialism.
Maybe you can say that the socio-economic conditions of India are pretty similar with pro-revolution China. Because both have a tradition of very long feudal past and premature capitalism. Like China before 1949, India also have a very huge population of peasants and ignoring the fact, you can not expect any kind of revolution in India at least. This is the strongest point behind the so-called closeness between "China" and Indian Maoists.

[Saorsa]

Red Saxon really doesn't know anything about Maoism.

[Red Saxon]

Red Saxon really doesn't know anything about Maoism.Marxism teachers a proletarian revolution being sparked from class conflicts led by the working class. Maoism teaches revolution by purging a society of class enemies (i.e. extreme violence only way to seize power). Where traditional Marxism views the world through an industrial proletariat lens, Maoism focuses more on the agrarian, uneducated peasant (as China at the time of the Chinese Revolution had a very small proletarian class, the majority being peasant-farmers).

Marx states that capitalism itself will be the means of it's own destruction. Marx saw the coming death of nations based on capitalism and the institution of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin built upon this thinking by the thought that revolution would not happen without a "revolutionary elite", coming of course from the Communist party. Going back to the original Marxist belief that there will come a time when no nations exist, a "revolutionary elite" would no longer be necessary.

Mao and other Asian/African/S. American leaders found Marxist-Leninism troubling because there was no industrial proletariat or working class in most of those countries (the majority being, as said before, peasant-farmers). Mao transformed Marxist-Leninism by dropping the idea of urban working classes leading the oncoming revolution and switching to the peasant-farmer class.

Anything else you want to challenge me on?

[Saorsa]

Maoism teaches revolution by purging a society of class enemies (i.e. extreme violence only way to seize power).

No it doesn't.

[Saorsa]

It's not so much your lack of knowledge that annoys me, that's totally ok and I'm happy to help someone learn. It's the fact that your pretending you know what your talking about, and talking in absolutes 'Maoism IS extreme violence. Lo, I have spoken!'

[scarletghoul]

Red Saxon: Your definition of Marxism is correct but you are wrong about Maoism.

Anyway, to answer the OP:

1) what is happening between cpi and mao followers in bengal? what is basically difference between them...The CPI(Marxist) is extremely revisionist and Communist in name only. In practice, they serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, the imperialists, and the landlords. Rather than standing for revolution they have been more or less absorbed into the capitalist system and are siding with the oppressors against the oppressed.
The CPI(Maoist) on the other hand are fighting for the oppressed people, for the tribals, peasants, workers, lower castes, etc. They are true communists, in the revolutionary tradition of Marx Lenin and Mao.
So the "basic differance between them" is simply the differance between a revolutionary party and a reactionary party, the oppressed and the oppressor.

2)what is naturally wrong with these media... i dont see any large media supporting the communist theory (i have seen some local books and authors who support revolutionary communism) but not in general.As has been pointed out, this is because in this capitaist society the bourgeois capitalists control the media, so they make sure to put forward only views that support their class interests.

3) am student from a very low class family and why it took so many years for me (20) years to know about Marx theory (am saying these because our society, media, school and even some of my elder friends keeping communism hidden)Same as above. Bourgeois capitalists rule society, so they are able to limit information and views that challenge their rule.

4) Marx on anarchy or Utopian society? All communists strive ultimately for a classless stateless society. Marx recognised that this utopia, the highest stage of communism, anarchy, is impossible to achieve overnight. This is the main differance between Marxism and Anarchism. Marx/Marxists still want humanity to reach a stage of anarchy eventually, but to reach this stage we must first pass through a stage of state socialism, where the working class controls the state. Without the working class seizing state power and building state socialism, the bourgeoisie will surely take over again and the revolution will fail. So the workers, using state power, must eliminate class differances and oppression before letting go of the state. Only then can classless stateless society (the highest stage of communism, anarchy) be truly established.

[cyu]

talking in absolutes 'Maoism IS extreme violence. Lo, I have spoken!'


The best line I've seen all week :D

[scarletghoul]

Hehe. I used to think that Maoism was an extreme form of communism where everyone had to be exactly the same or they would be executed, and that it was based on the model of the beehive.

[Red Saxon]

Didn't Mao believe the only way for revolution to happen was through violence, and not through Democratic means? (But we all agree on that anyways?)

[Saorsa]

Mao and other Asian/African/S. American leaders found Marxist-Leninism troubling because there was no industrial proletariat or working class in most of those countries (the majority being, as said before, peasant-farmers). Mao transformed Marxist-Leninism by dropping the idea of urban working classes leading the oncoming revolution and switching to the peasant-farmer class.


Firstly, while it was small, there was an industrial proletariat in China. Mao was a union organiser for a few years after he first joined the CPC. The urban workers movement got fucked up by the KMT (and it didn't help that under Stalin's instructions the CPC gave away all it's membership details to the KMT...), and this led to a strategic shift to the countryside.

However, Mao, Maoists and Maoism has always been clear that the proletariat remains the most important class and the revolution is led by he proletariat. There is an alliance between all classes that can be united against imperialism and domestic reaction, but the proletariat and proletarian ideology has to be in charge. This idea was never 'dropped'.

[scarletghoul]

Mao and other leaders of the Chinese Revolution adapted Marxism-Leninism to fit the Chinese conditions at the time, but that's not all there is to Mao and his ism. There are many ideas that have developed and enriched Marxism-Leninism, and which revolutionaries should pay attention to even in industrially developed countries, like cultural revolution, mass line etc.

[the last donut of the night]

There is an alliance between all classes that can be united against imperialism and domestic reaction, but the proletariat and proletarian ideology has to be in charge. This idea was never 'dropped'.

Not to be a prick, but how can you have class alliances but still want the proletarian ideology to be on top? Siding with the national bourgeoisie is inevitable political society. I'm honestly trying to learn; explain your position.

[Saorsa]

It all depends what the alliance is striving towards. If certain elements of the national bourgeoisie can be won over to cooperation with the new order without bloodshed or forcible expropriation, I don't think this is a bad thing.

Revolutions have always been based on class alliances, and the interweaving of various seperate demands into one package. The worker-peasant alliance is the basis of all succesful revolutions so far, along with things like linking national liberation or regional autonomy with the greater struggle against the ruling class.

The Maoist approach can be summed up as 'uniting all who can be united'. You identify the main enemy of the day, and try to mobilise as many forces against this enemy as possible, isolating them and eventually bringing them down. Then the situation changes, alliances tear apart and new allegiances are formed. A good example of this in practice is how the Nepali Maoists toppled the monarchy, by uniting with the bourgeois parties they went to war against and even building a cordial relationship with India. Three years later, the situation has changed, the Maoists have been struggling in the streets with the bourgeois parties for months and are currently forming a 'nationalist and republican' coalition to combat Indian expansionism.

[the last donut of the night]

It all depends what the alliance is striving towards. If certain elements of the national bourgeoisie can be won over to cooperation with the new order without bloodshed or forcible expropriation, I don't think this is a bad thing.

Revolutions have always been based on class alliances, and the interweaving of various seperate demands into one package. The worker-peasant alliance is the basis of all succesful revolutions so far, along with things like linking national liberation or regional autonomy with the greater struggle against the ruling class.

The Maoist approach can be summed up as 'uniting all who can be united'. You identify the main enemy of the day, and try to mobilise as many forces against this enemy as possible, isolating them and eventually bringing them down. Then the situation changes, alliances tear apart and new allegiances are formed. A good example of this in practice is how the Nepali Maoists toppled the monarchy, by uniting with the bourgeois parties they went to war against and even building a cordial relationship with India. Three years later, the situation has changed, the Maoists have been struggling in the streets with the bourgeois parties for months and are currently forming a 'nationalist and republican' coalition to combat Indian expansionism.


I can't see how you could ally yourself with the national bourgeoisie for any progressive goals. Is this method only used for nations subservient to international imperialism?

Also, wouldn't alliances with the national bourgeoisie derail workers' influence in these parties?

[Saorsa]

Is this method only used for nations subservient to international imperialism?

Yes. It applies in the specific context of a nation subjugated and developmentally retarded by imperialism, where certain elements of the bourgeoisie can be won over to supporting the anti-imperialist struggle. Although that said, I do believe that in the New Zealand revolution or in a revolution in a county like NZ, there will be individual capitalists and even groups of capitalists that can be peacefully won over to supporting, or at least agreeing to cooperate with, the new way of life.


Also, wouldn't alliances with the national bourgeoisie derail workers' influence in these parties?

That depends how much power they have, and under the circumstances of a revolutionary society that would be very little.

[the last donut of the night]

Yes. It applies in the specific context of a nation subjugated and developmentally retarded by imperialism, where certain elements of the bourgeoisie can be won over to supporting the anti-imperialist struggle. Although that said, I do believe that in the New Zealand revolution or in a revolution in a county like NZ, there will be individual capitalists and even groups of capitalists that can be peacefully won over to supporting, or at least agreeing to cooperate with, the new way of life.

But the bourgeoisie's goals are diametrically opposed to the proletariat's, even in a subjugated nation. I'm not sure how Maoists can defend this position.



That depends how much power they have, and under the circumstances of a revolutionary society that would be very little.

Well, seeing that according to Maoists, you would have to collaborate with the bourgeoisie before a revolutionary society is reached, how would collaboration would work before the revolution?

[Saorsa]

But the bourgeoisie's goals are diametrically opposed to the proletariat's, even in a subjugated nation. I'm not sure how Maoists can defend this position.

It's in the interests of both the proletariat and elements of the national bourgeoisie to get rid of foreign imperialism and build and independent and prosperous national economy. Revolution is not and never has been as simple as workers vs bosses. And the bourgeoisie are not a coherent, united class putting forward a united front against the masses. Particularly in backward, oppressed countries, the bourgeoisie is divided and fragmented, and as the Lenin quote in my sig points out revolutionaries need to make use of these divisions.


Well, seeing that according to Maoists, you would have to collaborate with the bourgeoisie before a revolutionary society is reached, how would collaboration would work before the revolution?

It would vary according to the circumstances, but for example there would be opposition to the mass import of cheap foreign goods that destroy national industry. It's crazy that in so many mostly agricultural nations, huge amounts of food are imported and exported rather than being used to feed the people. As another example, in Nepal the Maoists have an 'entrepeneur' wing of merchants and traders who support their party, during the last wave of protests the entepeneurs gheraod customs offices across Nepal calling on people not to pay taxes to the puppet government. Unite everyone who can be united against the main enemy of the day.

[the last donut of the night]

It's in the interests of both the proletariat and elements of the national bourgeoisie to get rid of foreign imperialism and build and independent and prosperous national economy. Revolution is not and never has been as simple as workers vs bosses. And the bourgeoisie are not a coherent, united class putting forward a united front against the masses. Particularly in backward, oppressed countries, the bourgeoisie is divided and fragmented, and as the Lenin quote in my sig points out revolutionaries need to make use of these divisions.

Yes, I know. However, how the bourgeoisie reaches that prosperous national economy is through the exploitation of the proletariat. Is there any other way to it?