Statement from the Communist Party of Afganistan

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

We must be ready for a prolonged and tough resistance against the occupiers and their national traitor satraps

It has now become apparent that announcing the withdrawal of the occupying imperialist forces from Afghanistan at the end of 2014 is nothing more than a ludicrous drama that masks the continuation of the occupation and the rule of the national traitor puppet regime in a different form and shape. What is of essential and strategic importance here is the condition of the imperialist occupation and the rule of the puppet regime, not the formal changes in the legal aspects of this occupation. To a certain extent, these formal changes can only have tactical and sometimes operational significance.
It should not be forgotten that in the current epoch, and particularly in twenty first century, the legal forms and appearance of the past era of imperialism is over; therefore, imperialist occupations cannot have legal formality. It is based on this formal legal appearance that the imperialist occupiers, the puppet regime, and the international organizations serving the imperialists, deny the condition of the occupation and the puppet character of the regime. Therefore, instead of accepting the deceit of the legal appearance of the current condition we should see the bitter reality of the colonial condition of the country, concealed behind the deceptive legal masks, with realistic and open eyes and should be prepared for a prolonged and difficult fight.
The occupiers' and satraps' brawling and jangling over legal appearances play an important role, at least partially: the print and electronic media at their service immensely amplifies these tumults out of proportion, creating widespread hullabaloo for the purpose of shaping public opinion in their favor.
The current uproar around providing or not providing legal immunity to the imperialist occupying forces, particularly the American forces, that would remain in Afghanistan after 2014 are the latest attempts of the imperialist occupiers and the national traitors towards this end.
What is of principal importance is maintaining the strategic military bases of the occupiers in the country after 2014. Regardless of the legal appearance of these bases, it would not mean anything other than the continuation of the condition of occupation in Afghanistan. This objective reality will impose its laws despite all legal appearances, even if it happens that the occupying forces are not granted judicial immunity. For many years, after all, night operations and house searches were being conducted by the occupying forces despite the apparent opposition of the puppet regime.
If the occupiers are unable to find so-called legal venues for maintaining strategic military bases in the country, in collaboration with their satraps, they can employ other cunning political methods. In Iraq, for example, when the American imperialist occupiers could not reach an agreement regarding the judicial immunity of the American forces with their Iraqi satraps, the Americans were able to continue their occupation of the country through leaving 15000 of their military personnel under the auspices of protecting their embassy. Recently they were able to utilize their strategic agreement with the Iraqi regime for the purpose of intervening in the Syrian conflict, deploying new forces in that country.
But now it has become apparent that the capitulation of the puppet regime in Afghanistan knows no limit. Unlike the puppet regime in Iraq, the regime in this country barely struggles against the possibility of the judicial immunity of the American occupying forces; it is despicably disgraceful to the extent that it does not worry about legal appearances and is getting ready to openly grant such immunity to the American occupying forces. Bargaining that is going on for a while now between the masters and their servants, and which would possibly continue for a few months, is not over the real issue but it is over the price these political prostitutes will attach to the motherland.
This is an illusion to say that the occupiers have been defeat in the country. Raising such illusions will seriously harm the entire resistance against the occupiers and their satraps and will create and strengthen caputulationist attitudes among the resistance––indeed, such attitudes are already emerging.
There is no doubt that the imperialist occupiers will withdraw a big section of their forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 in order to transform their war into an "inter-afghan" war. A concrete examination of the concrete situation––of the country, the region and the world––should demonstrate that the Yankees are far from being defeated in Afghanistan. This fact is clear if we examine the situation of the American imperialists and their allies, according to these central three elements: i) the profound and extensive readiness of the puppet regime and its social basis for accepting the most open and shameless servitude, capitulation and treason; ii) the extreme social, gender and national limitations of the reactionary Islamist resistance and the hopefulness of the occupiers and their satraps in finally dragging this partial and historically ineffectual resistance towards compromise and capitulation; iii) the excessive weakness of the revolutionary peoples' national resistance in the country.
Therefore, the battlefield should not be surrendered and we should get ready to carry forward a prolonged and difficult resistance, centered on preparing to launch a revolutionary people’s war of national resistance. The excessive weakness of the revolutionary and people’s national resistance against the imperialist occupiers and national traitor satraps can only— and must—be eliminated and transformed into strength. All other endeavors and methods of struggle would be incorrect, ineffective and doomed to failure.

The reason why this is significant is because in the Communist Party of Afghanistan has been preparing for an armed struggle for a while now and originally they said that they were going to do it when the Americans withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014. However with the wavering support for the Taliban and with the threat of an indefinite American presence it looks like they are going to start a more immediate course. I've been following them for a little bit now and recently they've developed more ties with the Naxals and they've established a network of international supporters, and on top of that they've been at the forefront in the effort to re-establish the RIM. So it looks like we might have a revolution in Afghanistan. Or at the very least the beginning of a communist presence in that region, which can only result in positive things in an area stricken by Islamism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

How big is the CPA? my first concern is that it could possibly be a party-in-exile. though from the sound of the article, it seems to be firmly rooted and existing in Afghanistan.

[DROSL]

I really don't have any hope for middle eastern countries. I hope they just leave them alone. Maybe, they'll change things.

[l'Enfermé]

Wait there are Maoist still left in Afghanistan? The vast majority of them turned into hard-line Mujaheddin...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Wait there are Maoist still left in Afghanistan? The vast majority of them turned into hard-line Mujaheddin...

Yep, that was the Afghanistan Liberation Organization. The Communist Party of Afganistan was formed by the merger of 8 smaller collectives in 2004 and generally has nothing but disdain for that group


How big is the CPA? my first concern is that it could possibly be a party-in-exile. though from the sound of the article, it seems to be firmly rooted and existing in Afghanistan.

Well this is a fair concern but I have many acquaintances in Canada who have come into contact with them (The Canadian and Afganistani Maoists are tight) and they can vouch for their legitimacy. I'm not really sure how big they are, the problem is that in that part of the world there isn't much internet so there is little need to build a large internet presence. Heck, the Communist Party of India(Maoist) that controls about 1/5th of the country doesn't even have a website yet! So there is no way to tell. However one of my Canadian comrades who I talked to about them said that they were involved in some trade union work. It's very difficult for them to operate since they are illegal so they can't brag about their actions like some groups do.


If anyone is interested I can post more information about them.

[Manulearning]

Who runs the website Shola Jawid then ?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Who runs the website Shola Jawid then ?

They do, I was just trying to explain why they don't have a good web presence. Since that site isn't very well maintained.

[The Idler]

Yeah, because if there's one thing Afghanistan hasn't seen enough of already its armed conflict.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yeah, because if there's one thing Afghanistan hasn't seen enough of already its armed conflict.

I understand that many comrades of this site have been disrespectful of your tendency and on their behalf and my behalf I sincerely apologize.

And I will go even further to say that it is perfectly understandable that you would vent a similar level of hostility towards other tendencies. This is forgivable.

However that gives you no right to disrespect our comrades in Afghanistan who are willing to take up arms and give their lives for our cause. Insulting a parliamentary formation is a far different animal than disrespecting the heroic men and woman who are willing to lay down their lives for socialism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I did a bit of browsing and found this article by the C(M)PA criticizing the RCP (http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/A_respose_to_the_rcp_USA_sh28.html)USA for its actions in the RIM and its new constitution and manifesto.

one of the more shocking things was how strongly interconnected the RCP here was with other Maoist parties at the time.


Moreover, the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism belongs in the 18th century––in that it is doing no more than demanding a bourgeois revolution––while the Avakianite post-MLM revisionism is a form of post-modern 21st century revisionism. The former type of revisionism is influenced by the Nepalese and oppressed nations' sense of inferiority and presents its universal claims with shyness and timidity; the latter revisionism is contaminated by the crude hegemony of an imperialist super-power and is thus heady, reckless in its hegemonic universal claims.

“Prachanda path” has even been cast aside and forgotten within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist); and the newly formed party, the Communist party of Nepal-Maoist, has even announced its struggle against this “path”. Therefore, the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionists do not see themselves as standing against the historical waves of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist struggles for the formation of a new communist international organization––nor do they oppose it theoretically––but the post-MLM Avakianite revisionists lay claim to such a position and this is why they have written and published the current document under discussion.

The crisis in the RIM actually began before the clear and explicit emergence of the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism; it started with the undermining of the overall politico-ideological line of the RIM by the committee of RIM––and the RCP-USA was the primary force behind this development. While it is true that the politico-ideological expression of the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism (in different realms of practical and theoretical struggles) further intensified and expanded the crisis of RIM, in the final analysis it was the RCP-USA that––due to its leadership role in the committee, through raising a profound and far-reaching revisionist, post-modernist line, and by violating all of its political, ideological and organizational commitments towards the RIM and all of its members––decimated the committee of RIM and thus led to the collapse of the entire RIM, and all of this in order to recast and remold the RIM according to the “new synthesis”. Thus, despite the fact that the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism played an important role in the collapse of the RIM, the principal responsibility lies with Avakianite post-MLM revisionism. Thus, in response to this question "which line effectively turned its back on the revolutionary masses?” we can honestly say it was the Avakianite post-MLM revisionist line.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I did a bit of browsing and found this article by the C(M)PA criticizing the RCP (http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/A_respose_to_the_rcp_USA_sh28.html)USA for its actions in the RIM and its new constitution and manifesto.

one of the more shocking things was how strongly interconnected the RCP here was with other Maoist parties at the time.



Yea, we Maoists have a tendency to create large waves of international corespondance without forming centralized international "lines" in the way that some international organizations do. This is partly for ideological reasons, since we don't consider MLM to be a strict tendency but rather a methodological frame work to apply to one's concrete conditions. Due to this lack of ideological rigidity there is alot more debate in MLM circles and very rarely do MLM parties suffer splits, this is why you see the interconectedness because MLM parties are more willing to openly correspond with each other, this is why smaller MLM formations in the first world are able to keep in such good contact with their larger third world counterparts. The communication goes even to the point that when the Workersdreadnaught (A small MLM blog) posted a 5 part critique of the New Synthesis, the chairmen of the Communist Party of Ceylon felt the need to respond to it. (I can post the corespondance if you are interested).

However the problem with this is the fact that when we did decide to create an international network, the RIM, this meant that there were a wide range of ideological divergences and that the over-centralization of the RIM combined with the reluctance of most MLM formations to split, meant that when Bob Avakian tried to increase centralization and tried to force the New Synthesis on the RIM, there was no option left but a complete collapse.

[The Idler]

Sorry that my original comment sounds flippant or disrespectful. In principle I have political reservations about use of force. In general I believe it healthy to criticise tendencies including my own.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sorry that my original comment sounds flippant or disrespectful. In principle I have political reservations about use of force. In general I believe it healthy to criticise tendencies including my own.

That's better. Thank you

[billydan225]

lets hope it works out

[Paul Pott]

I'd be careful about saying much about this kind of stuff in the west.

[LewisQ]

Insulting a parliamentary formation is a far different animal than disrespecting the heroic men and woman who are willing to lay down their lives for socialism.
Hi, can you point me towards the references to socialism in the statement you posted?

[Sidagma]

I'd be careful about saying much about this kind of stuff in the west.

Holla. These folks are fighting in resistance to us and our imperialism. Not just the war proper, but also the Cold War efforts to eradicate the Left in the middle east and south asia which led to the existence of the taliban in the first place. There's absolutely no way we have anything to contribute, considering what a joke the American anti-war movement is. Like that guy up there thought Afghanistan was a middle-eastern country apparently? Yeah, there's work to do here.

[Devrim]

However that gives you no right to disrespect our comrades in Afghanistan who are willing to take up arms and give their lives for our cause. Insulting a parliamentary formation is a far different animal than disrespecting the heroic men and woman who are willing to lay down their lives for socialism.

I don't think that Maoist formations have anything to do with socialism. I agree with 'the Idler's' original statement. I don't think that another armed gang has anything to offer the working class in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Devrim

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't think that Maoist formations have anything to do with socialism. I agree with 'the Idler's' original statement. I don't think that another armed gang has anything to offer the working class in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Devrim

Oh great this argument again

This is why I omitted Maoism from the original post, I even went as far to omit it from the name of the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan in the title. Because I assumed that since we are all Communists, we could still celebrate class struggle despite our ideological orientations. But of course, sectarians are going to be sectarian.

I love the "armed gang" comment because it perfectly fits the anarcho-liberal framework used for rejecting concrete analysis. Because by that logic, we can group both capitalist states, the forces that seek to abolish them, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, into the same group of "armed gangs". Because hey, you oppose the armed gangs of the bourgeois invading Iraq right? Then you must oppose the armed gangs that are attempting to overthrow the bourgeois because to do otherwise would be inconsistent with your opposition to the "armed gangs" of the state. So I thank you for using this category against the CmPA, because now I demand ideological consistency from you. You oppose the CmPA because of it's Maoist ideology, fine. I demand that you oppose the Russian Revolution because of it's Leninist orientation. I will go further than that, I demand that you oppose every class struggle in the world that does not have the ideological outlook that you have. Go ahead, find one of the other threads about some working class fellows protesting austerity and tell everyone there how stupid the working class is and how you oppose them. You oppose "armed gangs"? Be consistent! Oppose the working class in all of their armed struggle.

If you insist on making such remarks, then be consistent with them. Choose a side, the side of the working class, or your ideal of what the working class should be. There is no middle ground.

Edit: To clarify, you may disagree with Maoism, after all, let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand schools of thought contend. You may oppose Maoist formations based on a class anaysis of them. But you have not provided a class analysis, you have rejected the struggle of the C(m)PA based on it's ideological orientation. So all that I am saying is that if you were to take the logic that you have employed here and applied it everywhere applicable, then you would find yourself in a logically absurd position. So don't oppose them because of their Maoism, oppose them on errors in their tactics or their class composition. Because when Idler put his comment in a more respectful form, It was a valid comment and it was not disrespectful because he honestly disagrees with the tactics used.

2nd edit: Sorry if that came off a bit rude, but you did dismiss an act of class struggle based on tendency and that is pretty messed up. Still, that doesn't excuse any possible overeaction on my behalf.

3rd edit: And yes, I would support any class struggle with communist involvement regardless of their tendency, so that's a moot point. And the fact that the theoretical rift has been articifically inflated so much that I have to clarify that is absolutely pathetic

[Crixus]

However with the wavering support for the Taliban and with the threat of an indefinite American presence it looks like they are going to start a more immediate course. I've been following them for a little bit now and recently they've developed more ties with the Naxals and they've established a network of international supporters, and on top of that they've been at the forefront in the effort to re-establish the RIM. So it looks like we might have a revolution in Afghanistan.
A squashed revolution. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound contrarian or trite or negative but the last thing the US is going to let happen is communists take over Afghanistan. Even if they somehow succeeded how would they maintain a socialist state in Afghanistan? The entire purpose of the US military is to keep that from happening. Same with NATO (both of which have troops all over the middle east). I commend these people for being extremely brave but I find it hard to support, what I see will be, another failed attempt at socialism.

Like I said, even if by some miracle they're able to push back Islamic fundamentalism, the US military and NATO in order to establish a socialist state how would a socialist state be maintained in the region? Would US/NATO and Islamic efforts to destroy that socialist state just fade away? What sort of environment would these communists have to create in order to hold onto power? Would that environment help or hurt the cause of communism? What major industrial nations are supporting them? Would Russia/China REALLY want to restart the cold war because if they support Afghan communists it's essentially whats happening. Are you a Maoist by any chance?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

A squashed revolution. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound contrarian or trite or negative but the last thing the US is going to let happen is communists take over Afghanistan. Even if they somehow succeeded how would they maintain a socialist state in Afghanistan? The entire purpose of the US military is to keep that from happening. Same with NATO (both of which have troops all over the middle east). I commend these people for being extremely brave but I find it hard to support, what I see will be, another failed attempt at socialism.

Like I said, even if by some miracle they're able to push back Islamic fundamentalism, the US military and NATO in order to establish a socialist state how would a socialist state be maintained in the region? Would US/NATO and Islamic efforts to destroy that socialist state just fade away? What sort of environment would these communists have to create in order to hold onto power? Would that environment help or hurt the cause of communism? What major industrial nations are supporting them? Would Russia/China REALLY want to restart the cold war because if they support Afghan communists it's essentially whats happening. Are you a Maoist by any chance?
These are all good points. But you have to remember that there was a 14 country intervention to squash the Russian Revolution that failed. Now the times have changed, their weapons are stronger but their system is weaker. If the people of Afghanistan were to be joined by the people of the world then they would be unstoppable. There are already uprisings in India and the philipines. If the American occupation in Afganistan was strained then perhaps the occupation of the Philipines would weaken and that would strengthen the movement over there. Over all, the more resistance there is to imperialism the better chance there is that one of these million movements just might make it.

And yes I am a Maoist, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist to be more specific.

[Crixus]

These are all good points. But you have to remember that there was a 14 country intervention to squash the Russian Revolution that failed. Now the times have changed, their weapons are stronger but their system is weaker.

1917 Russia and 2013 Afghanistan are no comparison. The system of imperialism isn't weaker nor is the overall capitalist system weaker now then it was in 1917. In fact, it's hooks are so deep into every facet of life around the globe I'd say it's ten times stronger, organized and united than in 1917, even in this recession. Is there better chance now of the system imploding in on itself than there was in 1917? I'd say yes seeing that only now the system has spread across the globe making the ever worsening various capitalist crisis' affect every nook of the globe which makes recovering from the crisis' harder and harder with each one that hits. In that sense the system s weaker but not in it's ability to fight communism. The entire reason the US is in the region is to stabilize it for capitalist commerce. Would they just "let that go"?




If the people of Afghanistan were to be joined by the people of the world then they would be unstoppable. And yet! As Orwell would say, "but if the proles if somehow they could become conscious of their own strength would have no need to conspire.They need only rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies....surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it...and yet!". What was it many people thought about the Russian revolution; if only the workers of the world supported them they could have succeeded!. We're not at that point right now. How the hell we get to that point I do not know but we can see what hasn't worked.



There are already uprisings in India and the philipines. If the American occupation in Afganistan was strained then perhaps the occupation of the Philipines would weaken and that would strengthen the movement over there. Over all, the more resistance there is to imperialism the better chance there is that one of these million movements just might make it. India could defend itself but not the Philippines. I'd support a revolution in India but the old Leninist/Maoist goal of spreading "socialist" revolutions in isolated backwards nations doesn't sit well with me. That path is never going to work and will continue to pervert communism at every turn which makes revolution in advanced nations much harder. I don't think communism will arise by spreading "socialism" from one undeveloped nation to the next which is why I'm not a Maoist or Leninist. I put "just might make it" in bold to ask what that entails. If the Philippines or Afghanistan "made it" how would that trigger revolution in the advanced nations and if it did not how would they maintain their socialist states in the middle of a sea of capitalism whilst being attacked on all sides? Have we not been here before?

[Devrim]

Oh great this argument again

This is why I omitted Maoism from the original post, I even went as far to omit it from the name of the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan in the title. Because I assumed that since we are all Communists, we could still celebrate class struggle despite our ideological orientations. But of course, sectarians are going to be sectarian.

We are not all communists. I am sure we all consider ourselves to be communists, but I wouldn't consider you one, and I presume you wouldn't consider me to be one.

My point is that this isn't working class struggle. The fact that people have a red flag when they set up their armed group does not make their struggle a class struggle.


Then you must oppose the armed gangs that are attempting to overthrow the bourgeois because to do otherwise would be inconsistent with your opposition to the "armed gangs" of the state. So I thank you for using this category against the CmPA, because now I demand ideological consistency from you. You oppose the CmPA because of it's Maoist ideology, fine. I demand that you oppose the Russian Revolution because of it's Leninist orientation. I will go further than that, I demand that you oppose every class struggle in the world that does not have the ideological outlook that you have. Go ahead, find one of the other threads about some working class fellows protesting austerity and tell everyone there how stupid the working class is and how you oppose them. You oppose "armed gangs"? Be consistent! Oppose the working class in all of their armed struggle.

I don't oppose the CmPA because of its ideological orientation. I don't think that these organisations have anything at all to do with working class struggle. I don't believe that at present the working class is involved in armed struggle, as you see it, anywhere in the world.


If you insist on making such remarks, then be consistent with them. Choose a side, the side of the working class, or your ideal of what the working class should be. There is no middle ground.

Yes, I do choose a side. I choose the side of the working class, and its struggle as a class, at the point of production, and in the places where it lives, against all sorts of bourgeois politics, which includes Maoist armed groups.


or their class composition.

My experience of Maoist groups, based on living in a country where they are 'strong', is that their class composition is middle class intellectuals leading peasants, or other middle class intellectuals. Where they have support within the working class, they use it, not to support class struggle, but to channel people into 'people's war' in the countryside.


3rd edit: And yes, I would support any class struggle with communist involvement regardless of their tendency, so that's a moot point. And the fact that the theoretical rift has been articifically inflated so much that I have to clarify that is absolutely pathetic

It is nothing about an ideological divide. It is more a question of what class struggle actually is. Running around in the mountains with guns and waving a red flag is not class struggle.

Devrim

[Anti-Traditional]

Originally Posted by Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis
However that gives you no right to disrespect our soldiers in Afghanistan who are willing to take up arms and give their lives for our freedom. Insulting a parliamentary formation is a far different animal than disrespecting the heroic men and woman who are willing to lay down their lives for their country.

See the problem here? Whilst armed struggle is undoubtedly brave it is not virtuous in and of itself regardless of the motivations of the individual combatant.

''This is why I omitted Maoism from the original post, I even went as far to omit it from the name of the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan in the title. Because I assumed that since we are all Communists, we could still celebrate class struggle despite our ideological orientations. But of course, sectarians are going to be sectarian.''

I don't think Devrim is being sectarian here. The word sectarian, in communist terms essentially means devoting an excessive amount of time and energy to denouncing other proletarian groups rather than their common foes. Based on the fact that Devrim is a Left Communist it is obvious his political positions are far enough disparate from Maoism to lead him to believe Maoism isn't a proletarian ideology.

[Paul Pott]

An Afghan national liberation struggle would be justified against Chinese or Russian imperialism and would be something every revolutionary should support. Its military viability in the short term, as if it would eject the invaders tomorrow and establish a revolutionary state, is totally besides the point, but that's exactly the mentality that left communism and other leftist defeatisms invariably fall into due to their counter-productive nature. Let's be generous and say they lack imagination.

But no, NATO has brought democracy and freedom to Afghanistan. I think Communists should run for office or something if they want change instead of being terrorists and forming armed gangs. That has nothing to offer the working class.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But no, NATO has brought democracy and freedom to Afghanistan. I think Communists should run for office or something if they want change instead of being terrorists and forming armed gangs. That has nothing to offer the working class.

Are you having a bloody laugh here? I'm not good with this whole reading sarcasm thing on the internet, but are you serious? I'm quite having a laugh over what you said thou', democracy, freedom, ha! I'm going to go with it being a joke, makes me feel better and then I won't have to despair about the stupidity of what you said.

Don't even know what you're saying in the rest--

[Paul Pott]

Stfu bro im not a terrorist

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

We are not all communists. I am sure we all consider ourselves to be communists, but I wouldn't consider you one, and I presume you wouldn't consider me to be one.


Now we get to the meet of it. I think this idea that tendency is the basis for whether one is a real communist or not is based on a flawed conception of Marxism that holds that Marxism consists of Marx quotes. Marxism is a scientific metholodgy that, while not scientific in a literal sense, is scientific in the sense that it ought to be approached as a scientific methodology rather than a collection of opinions and ideals. So with this in mind, the correctness of a tendency is not based on the amount of Marx quotes it adheres or the extent at which a tendency adheers to Marx's notion of Marxism, to but rather the degree to which it is capable of developing and applying the scientific framework of Marx. So it's not that I don't believe that you aren't a real Communist, It's just that I believe that Left-Communism isn't the appropriate theoretical development of the scientific methodology of Marxism at this junction.


My point is that this isn't working class struggle. The fact that people have a red flag when they set up their armed group does not make their struggle a class struggle.

I don't oppose the CmPA because of its ideological orientation. I don't think that these organisations have anything at all to do with working class struggle. I don't believe that at present the working class is involved in armed struggle, as you see it, anywhere in the world.



Well then what class is struggling? The Communist Party of the Philippines has a large trade union attached to it that it draws soligers from so in a literal sense, the working class is engaged in armed struggle against the bourgeois. Similarly, I don't think it is that illogical to say that the struggle in India is a class struggle because they have a large military branch and obviously you can conclude that those solidgers are not abstracted from society and represent real proletarians. Plus the fact that their ability to call successful General Strikes adds to their proletarian criteria.



Yes, I do choose a side. I choose the side of the working class, and its struggle as a class, at the point of production, and in the places where it lives, against all sorts of bourgeois politics, which includes Maoist armed groups.


And yet, this is an abstract view of the working class. The working class are engaged in armed struggle against the state and they are being led by Maoist armed groups. The idea that Maoism is "bourgeois politics" again goes back to what I said earlier about the difference between the tendencies not being one of "real" communist or not, but rather a different theoretical development of the Marxist framework.



My experience of Maoist groups, based on living in a country where they are 'strong', is that their class composition is middle class intellectuals leading peasants, or other middle class intellectuals. Where they have support within the working class, they use it, not to support class struggle, but to channel people into 'people's war' in the countryside.


Well your location says central Europe so I assume that you have encountered the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany. They are a ML-MZT group and although I don't expect you to keep up with the various tendencies within Maoism, in short they are quite different than MLM. In Canada for example, the RCP deliberately neglects student activism because it views university students as petty-bourgeois and has instead formed a front group in high schools and regularly rejects members that it sees as non-proletarian, which is why it is often called a "lumpen" orginization there by it's opponents. So generally speaking we have a very high standard on what we consider proletarian.

And on your other comment. How is armed struggle against the state, an instrument of class rule, not class struggle? The reason for the focus on PPW is not to distract from class struggle but rather it is from a belief that given the objective circumstances, this is the form of class struggle that is most capable of overthrowing capitalism in certain circumstances.



It is nothing about an ideological divide. It is more a question of what class struggle actually is. Running around in the mountains with guns and waving a red flag is not class struggle.


AS I said before, it's absurd to say that armed struggle against an instrument of class rule is not class struggle. If anything armed struggle should be proof of the degree to which these groups are devoted to class struggle.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Are you having a bloody laugh here? I'm not good with this whole reading sarcasm thing on the internet, but are you serious? I'm quite having a laugh over what you said thou', democracy, freedom, ha! I'm going to go with it being a joke, makes me feel better and then I won't have to despair about the stupidity of what you said.

Don't even know what you're saying in the rest--

It's even more funny because the CPA has been banned by the state so literally the only thing they can do is wage armed struggle. Rendering his "run for election" argument absurd.

[Crixus]

An Afghan national liberation struggle would be justified against Chinese or Russian imperialism and would be something every revolutionary should support. Its military viability in the short term, as if it would eject the invaders tomorrow and establish a revolutionary state, is totally besides the point, but that's exactly the mentality that left communism and other leftist defeatisms invariably fall into due to their counter-productive nature. Let's be generous and say they lack imagination.

But no, NATO has brought democracy and freedom to Afghanistan. I think Communists should run for office or something if they want change instead of being terrorists and forming armed gangs. That has nothing to offer the working class.

There's already a national liberation struggle going on and sorry to say it's not being waged by communists. How many people in Afghanistan support communism? 5%? 15%? Any data on just who is fighting to expel western forces/influence? If Marxists join the mess they'll have enemies on both sides. They would need MASSIVE support from the Afghan population and I simply don't see it but that's never stopped a Maoist before :) I would be hard pressed to believe even 10% of Afghans support communism.

No one said NATO and the US brought democracy (I'm aware you were being sarcastic) what I said was they're stabilizing the region for regular capitalist commerce, to secure resources for western market allocation and geopolitical strategy concerning Iran. They're doing the same thing in Africa as well. Should people fight it? Yes. Should it be done in the name of communism by minority groups without support of the broader populations within said country or even better worldwide community? I don't think so. Even so what if smaller backwards nations succeed and expel western interests the next step WILL be to set up a "socialist" state in a backwards region with no material support from larger advanced nations.

Communists around the globe in less advanced nations don't have the numbers OR resources to combat capitalism in a global gorilla war. We've already been there during the cold war and that was when Russia/China gave material support around the globe. Right now, in any non advanced arena, it would be a slaughter if they actually threatened the capitalist order. Take FARC for instance. If they somehow managed to win and take over the state what do you think would happen? The full might of the global capitalist order would come down upon Columbia. As it stands now they're little flies on the back of the capitalist beast same goes with communists in Afghanistan. We simply don't have the numbers right now for any sort of revolutionary situation. Especially in smaller underdeveloped nations.

Is there even a majority proletariat class in Afghanistan? Maybe western investment will create one as happened in India. See where I'm going. Do we really want a bunch of Maoists/Leninist's using socialism to once again try to do capitalism's job? How'd that work out for Mao? These "anti-revisionists" sure are big on revising Marx's work. besides, there's no Soviet Union around to prop up a socialist state as they did in the 1970's. It would be a bloody mess.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Stfu bro im not a terrorist

Peaceful parliamentarism practiced by the western CPs since the late 30s has led to their downfall. Look at the CP-USA, or the PCF.

Im not advocating 'terrorism.' I surely am not advocating parliamentarism.

[Paul Pott]

Crixus, you're officially the brightest bulb in the thread.

[Devrim]

AS I said before, it's absurd to say that armed struggle against an instrument of class rule is not class struggle. If anything armed struggle should be proof of the degree to which these groups are devoted to class struggle.

There are lots of organisations that are conducting armed struggles against states. Many of them are things that even you would not see as class struggle. The Taliban in Afghanistan would be just one example.

Obviously then an armed struggle against the state is not by necessity a class struggle. I also believe that an armed struggle against the state is not necessarily a class struggle even if the participants in it call themselves communists.

I think you have very little idea what class struggle actually means.


Well your location says central Europe so I assume that you have encountered the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany. They are a ML-MZT group and although I don't expect you to keep up with the various tendencies within Maoism, in short they are quite different than MLM.

I have lived here for just over a year, and not in Germany. I was actually referring to Turkey, which is one of what the Maoists call the 'big five'. Turkey has all sorts of different Maoist groups. None of them have much to do with the working class.


In Canada for example,...

In some parts of the world I think Maoist Parties are dangerous anti-working class organisations. However, the existence of Maoist groups in North America is probably more of a reflection of the lack of class struggle in that region.

Devrim

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

There are lots of organisations that are conducting armed struggles against states. Many of them are things that even you would not see as class struggle. The Taliban in Afghanistan would be just one example.

Obviously then an armed struggle against the state is not by necessity a class struggle. I also believe that an armed struggle against the state is not necessarily a class struggle even if the participants in it call themselves communists.

Well let's look at it this way, a reformist union calls a strike to meet it's demands. Now, there is nothing revolutionary in that, but it's a class struggle because a section of the working class is struggling against capital to lessen exploitation. So in a sense, yes whenever the working class take up arms I do consider it class struggle. The reason why I don't consider the Taliban to be an instrument of class struggle is because they lack the class composition of the class oriented outlook that is necessary for class struggle. However, I do believe that the Taliban does have a progressive aspect because as Franz Fahon noted, the lumpen are the natural vanguards of Anti-imperialism, however since the Taliban was created by foreign imperialism and wants to enshrine the semi-feudal relations in Afghanistan. So when I weigh the progressive aspects against the reactionary aspects in what makes up the Taliban, I can say without much doubt that they are reactionary.



I think you have very little idea what class struggle actually means.


A wee bit of an Ad Hominen. But nonetheless I know what a class struggle is.


I have lived here for just over a year, and not in Germany. I was actually referring to Turkey, which is one of what the Maoists call the 'big five'. Turkey has all sorts of different Maoist groups. None of them have much to do with the working class.


In all fairness you do make a good point here. Our Turkish comrades have focused too much on terrorism and propaganda of the deed when they should be focusing on legitimate guerrilla warfare. Plus when Bob Avakian was head of the RIM he forced an expulsion of the Hoxhaists from the party there and caused a major split which I imagine hasn't been good for the movement there

But, you say we don't have a major working class presence there? Compared to what? There are a million splinters in your country. They all claim to be Communist but who should I believe, the one the adheres to Marx the best in their internet propaganda, or the ones that are accumulating arms to prepare to overthrow the state? I think the second one. We have a concept in Maoism known as the dialectical unity between theory and practice. Quite frankly, I don't care about how much your party says it is opposing capitalism in theory, if a party actually makes concrete efforts towards preparing for a revolution then it can be called Communist in terms of it's relationship to the ruling class, whether they call themselves Maoist/Left-Communist/Trotskyist/Marxist-Leninist. It doesn't matter in the slightest, theoretical differences are worthless if they don't translate into praxis, and when you look at the praxis of Maoist groups I think you can say that they are indeed devoted to the Communist project since they are giving their lives for it, rather than your adverge senile sect that claims legitimacy from theological interpretations of Marxism. But again I will concede that the praxis of my Turkish comrades is pretty shitty so you have a point there.


In some parts of the world I think Maoist Parties are dangerous anti-working class organisations.
No doubt that the Chinese Party and the Nepalese ruling party are anti-working class. But in both places Maoists are on the forefront of overthrowing them. So again I feel like you are displaying more of a knee-jerk Anti-Maoism than a coherent reason to dislike them.


However, the existence of Maoist groups in North America is probably more of a reflection of the lack of class struggle in that region.


Demonstrably false my good sir, it is proof of the high degree of class struggle in North America. In Canada in particular there was the 2012 student uprising against tuition hikes that over 500,000 people participated in. There is alot written about this event and I can link to multiple communist documents about this event if your interested. I think I am already pushing the word count so have a picture.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Gr%C3%A8ve_%C3%A9tudiante_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise.jpg/689px-Gr%C3%A8ve_%C3%A9tudiante_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise.jpg

BARRICADES APPEAR AGAINST EI CHANGES IN TRACADIE-SHEILA
It Is Right to Rebel!
Partisan #34 • February 22 - March 7, 2013

http://theredflag.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/Article/tracadie-s_2.jpg

The fight against the changes to Employment Insurance (EI) intensified recently in eastern Quebec and the Maritimes, with demonstrations taking place in several regions including Saguenay/Lac-Saint-Jean, Haute-Côte-Nord, Charlevoix and Gaspésie. In areas where many jobs are seasonal, people are already feeling the impact of the EI changes. Many people are facing what they call the “black hole” —the period during which employment insurance benefits are exhausted while they continue to wait to be recalled to their regular but seasonal jobs. The challenge now is to show that these changes will affect all workers across the whole country, and to mobilize accordingly.

Monday, February 11 was a day in like no other in Tracadie-Sheila, New Brunswick —a municipality of approximately 5,000 inhabitants in the heart of the Acadian Peninsula. At 6am, some 300 people, mostly seasonal workers who are currently unemployed, blocked the streets of the downtown district and the bridge that provides access to Main Street. They were determined to show that with the EI changes, it would no longer be “business as usual” in Acadia. Their numbers rose rapidly to over a thousand in the late morning.

Businesses located downtown remained deserted. Demonstrators began erecting barricades using tires and pieces of wood found in the area. Around 11:15 am, the RCMP unsuccessfully tried to stop the siege, which continued until mid-afternoon despite intense cold. For many, it became clear that “quiet demonstrations” are insufficient and there is a need to shake things much more seriously if we ever want the Harper government to retreat.

The action of February 11 brought a lot of debate among the struggling workers and unemployed. The Action Committee in Defense of EI that was set up last summer by people working in fish plants was somewhat shaken by what appeared to some as a “violent” action. It is normal and healthy that a debate takes place on the kind of action we need if we want to force the Harper governement to retreat. At the same time, we must recognize that the people’s anger is real. Such anger is based both on the despair that currently affects thousands of people facing the “black hole,” and on the perfectly lucid perception that the challenges at stake are enormous and the Harper government will not back down easily.

Let us be clear: the anger of the unemployed and the working masses is not only legitimate, but without it there won’t be such thing as a people’s movement against the EI changes.

We’ve written it a few times already, but here we repeat it again: the changes to Employment Insurance are central to the austerity measures being put forward by the Canadian bourgeoisie who are aiming to load the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the working class. It certainly targets precarious workers —including seasonal workers— but in the end, it is the wage conditions and working conditions of all workers that are targeted by this reform.

The strategy of the big bourgeoisie and the Harper government is clearly to divide people between “Working Westerners” and “Lazy Easterners;” they want workers less likely to become unemployed to turn their anger against precarious workers. They even want those they consider as “good unemployed” to dissociate themselves from the others —the so-called “bad guys,” as Minister Diane Finley likes to say.

The challenge for us proletarians is to understand that contrary to what the enemy is saying, changes in EI concern us all. We need to build on what our brothers and sisters are doing in Acadia and eastern Quebec: we should expand and increase the number of militant mass actions and ensure that there will no longer be “business as usual” anywhere for the big capitalists who expect that the changes in EI will exert downward pressure on our wages.

So all together, let’s fight to win! —that is, to force the Harper government to swallow its rotten project. Let’s take part en masse in all the actions that are spreading right now in Quebec and the Maritime provinces. Let’s force the trade unions elsewhere in Canada to join the movement. We should shake the cage of the ruling class strong enough to force it to backtrack!

Counter-Insurgency “Community Policing” Coming to Kitchener
March 10, 2013 Ontario, Police & Prisons



Community to fight back with protest march and people’s report

Police are taking lessons from the British occupation of Northern Ireland, and applying them to poor communities in Southern Ontario. This is the chilling conclusion of BASICS Kitchener-Waterloo’s research into the new PAVIS (Provincial Anti-Violence Strategy) model being deployed in Kitchener.

PAVIS supposedly focuses on crime prevention and building relationships with youth and mobilizing communities, however, it is actually about using counter-insurgency tactics to police communities in Canada.

In November, Kitchener community activist Julian Ichim attended a conference held by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD)—a body which is supposed to investigate complaints about police. Yet, the main purpose of the meeting was for OIPRD to promote a community policing model based on counter-insurgency techniques. Expert speaker, Dr. Webb, claimed that this model of policing is effective in Northern Ireland.

At a conference that was supposed to ‘consult’ with the community, Ichim says “Half the delegates walked out in disgust at their voices being silenced.”

The OIPRD is an allegedly independent body from the police force. But the board doesn’t seem to have much independence: “It’s funded by the government, and one out of every two people who works there is an ex-cop,” Ichim said.

New police strategy similar to Toronto’s Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy

Kitchener’s PAVIS is basically the same as Toronto’s Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS). This is a model of intensive police repression on targetted poor and racialized communities which has been used for the past few years in Toronto. It also resembles the model of counter-insurgency policing that Dr. Webb was referring to at the OIPRD conference.

Last year, a Toronto a police superintendent attended a Jane and Finch Crisis Support Network meeting to intimidate the community. The group’s purpose is to discuss police brutality and safety in Jane and Finch—a working-class area in Toronto and designated TAVIS area. At the meeting, the police officer verbally attacked the group’s chair, Sabrina ‘Butterfly’ Gopaul, and many community members were forced to leave the meeting visibly upset.

Similar encounters have started to occur during meetings on police brutality in Kitchener. Dianne, an activist, recounted: “We had a call-out for people to go to the Queen Street Commons [generally a safe haven for organisers] for people to talk about their experience with police brutality. The Police came right in, tried to chat people up, and took our fliers.”

March Against Police Brutality

Kitchener-Waterloo is not taking PAVIS laying down: fighting back is the priority for this year’s annual day against police brutality.

Joey, a coordinator of the March Against Police Brutality, said, “Our focus this year is to release a People’s Report in response to the OIPRD report.”

The people’s report will be a consultation not run by OIPRD police sympathizers. The community is also planning a protest on March 15—the 16th annual International Day Against Police Brutality.

“Our main mission is to raise awareness of how much police brutality there is and how very little is done about it,” Dianne, one of the coordinators said.

At last year’s anti-police brutality demonstration in Kitchener, police used horses to push the crowd, including young children, off the public road.

Kitchener-Waterloo’s 3rd annual March Against Police Brutality will take place on March 15, 5pm at City Hall. All are welcome.

Political Arrests in Montreal
Posted on July 13, 2011
Update – July 18

The four defendants appeared again this morning at the Montreal Palais de Justice. As expected, the prosecution has requested —and won— a hardening of their release conditions. The defendants will have to abstain to take part in any ‘non-peaceful’ demonstration or leave any demonstration that would become illegal. They will also have to refrain from carrying placards, flags or sticks. Two of them will also have to refrain from wearing a scarf, a mask or carrying a backpack if they participate in a demonstration. The next court date was set for Tuesday, September 20.

Montreal, July the 5th – On June 29th, 2011, the Anti-Gang section of the Police Service of Montreal’s Organized Crime Division arrested four political activists – including Patrice Legendre, a communist worker and supporter of the PCR-RCP. The police searched their homes and arrested them in connection with the most recent May First demonstration, organised by the Convergences des Luttes Anti-Capitalistes (CLAC) de Montreal. Nearly 30 officers were involved in the operation, which occurred early in the day.

According to the investigator who headed the whole operation, nine officers were injured, some seriously, during an altercation at the May First demonstration. More on the demonstration is available in issue 3 of the communist newspaper Partisan.

The four activists who were arrested were detained and then released on a promise to appear on July 13 at 9AM at the courthouse in Montreal. They have been charged with a number of offenses, from “assault with a weapon” to “assaulting a police officer,” “obstruction of justice” and “possession of a weapon with intent to cause harm.”

During the May First demonstration in the streets of Montreal, at which nearly 1,500 people were in attendance, the police provoked an altercation by trying to arrest, for reasons unknown, a militant who was widely known as the photographer for Partisan newspaper. As one would expect, dozens of protesters responded by confronting the police, telling them to release the activist they were trying to arrest. Obviously unprepared, the police chose to retreat.

The operation on June 29th was clearly carried out with very little basis. The content of the interrogation to which the arrested activists were subjected as well as the presence of an investigator from the “National Security Integrated Team” suggests that there were other motives behind the operation.

First, we can assume the arrests were motivated by revenge, as the police will always want to “get back” at those who cause them to suffer a defeat – as was the case at the May First demonstration, where demonstrators stopped them from arbitrarily and inexcusably arresting one of the activists involved. The cops had egg on their faces and somebody needed to pay for it. Without any evidence to go on, the police decided to go after a few well-known activists, some of whom express their views openly. The demonstration was used as a pretext to criminalize their political involvement and, what’s more, the communist views they defend. Recall that in recent weeks, the PCR-RCP began publishing a bilingual, biweekly newspaper, Partisan, and has been distributing it in major cities in Ontario and Quebec, and has also started organizing workers in the Revolutionary Workers Movement (RWM). its struggle against capitalism and exploitation is taking new forms and is moving forward, and the police, we can assume, are not fond of that.

Investigators also said they had started monitoring Maison Norman Bethune – a bookstore run by the Information Bureau of the PCR-RCP – the day after the May First demonstration. Many activists frequent the bookstore, attending events and getting involved in the cause of revolution. It seems as though the police wanted to “go on a fishing expedition” to find somebody guilty of something so they could draw attention away from their own petty and provocative behaviour at the May First Demonstration.

Furthermore, information collected by the PCR-RCP Information Bureau suggests the police who carried out these arrests tried to implicate the PCR-RCP, and Patrice Legendre in particular, in three previous incidents, including one that happened a year ago in Trois-Rivieres, where an explosive device shattered the doors of a recruitment office for the Canadian Forces. A group calling itself “Resistance Internationalist” claimed responsibility for this act and since it happened the police have not solved the case.

Curiously, the day after the arrests in Montreal, the National Security Integrated Team installed a command post for three days in Trois-Rivieres across from the recruiting office in order, they said, “to collect new information and validate some leads described as “very serious.” The police then presented pictures of the four arrested activists to the people of Trois-Rivieres, hoping somebody could implicate them in one way or another.

The operation on June 29th was no accident. It comes at a time when the bourgeois state in Canada is on the offensive in criminalizing political struggle and the activists who are involved in it. We need only look at the G20 summit in June 2010 in Toronto, where over a thousand people were illegally arrested, to verify this. In recent years, dozens of activists, among them some from the RCP, have been harassed at home and work by the infamous “NS Integrated Team.”

The Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada harshly condemns this cowardly operation which was politically motivated. It is doomed to failure and will backfire on those who planned it. The PCR-RCP is actively campaigning to denounce the arrests and obtain full and unconditional release of those arrested. We thank the many individuals and groups who have already expressed their outrage and solidarity following the June 29th arrests.

So indeed, I don't see why you think the presence of Maoist groups is an indicator of a low level of class struggle when indeed the RCP-Canada has played a significant role in developing the student strikes and is definitely one of the biggest Communist groups in the Canadian scene. This seems to go back to your knee-jerk disdain for Maoism which seems based in sectarian rather than in coherent reasoning.

I hate to convert what should be an expression of proletarian internationalism with our Afgani comrades into yet another Maoism thread, but what gives? Why all the Maoism hate?

[ind_com]

I think you have very little idea what class struggle actually means.

Would you take the trouble of elaborating what it means?


I have lived here for just over a year, and not in Germany. I was actually referring to Turkey, which is one of what the Maoists call the 'big five'. Turkey has all sorts of different Maoist groups. None of them have much to do with the working class.

Apart from the liberal anti-communist stand coming from a supposed leftist, what surprises me is the usage of the exclusively Naxalite phrase 'big five'. Where did you hear this, if you don't mind telling?

[xvzc]

The complaints over the size of the party are ludicrous. In countries such as Afghanistan, the only thing necessary to launch people's war is a group of dedicated communists who are ready to make preparations for launching said armed struggle and leading it to the end.

Maoists in Afghanistan are no joke either and the term Sholaites (from Shola Jawid, Eternal Flame) is a household name which has become nearly synonymous with democratic, secular and people's oriented politics due to the legacy of Maoists in that country.

In Nepal, the Maoists started with two antique rifles or something and eventually grew into a sizable army.

"The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it may lose. The line is a net rope. When it is pulled, the whole net opens out." (Source (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_88.htm))

[goalkeeper]

"The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it may lose. The line is a net rope. When it is pulled, the whole net opens out." (Source (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_88.htm))

It this sort of belief mystical belief that if only you have the right ideas and persevere you shall win that lead middle class students to take to the mountains and get slaughtered. Of course sometimes they come of successful like in Nepal.

[ind_com]

It this sort of belief mystical belief that if only you have the right ideas and persevere you shall win that lead middle class students to take to the mountains and get slaughtered. Of course sometimes they come of successful like in Nepal.

Maoists don't rely on middle class college students to spread their movement. Most Maoists come from the working classes.

[Devrim]

Would you take the trouble of elaborating what it means?

I think what class struggle means is pretty self evident. It is connected to the struggle between different classes, and is more often than not directly related to their relationship to the means of production. I don't think the idea of perople's war has anything to do with working class struggle.



what surprises me is the usage of the exclusively Naxalite phrase 'big five'. Where did you hear this, if you don't mind telling?

To be honest I am not sure. I am pretty sure that I have heard it used in Turkey, but I have just searched for it on the internet in Turkish, and didn't come up with much. It is possible I picked it up speaking with ex-Naxilites in West Bengal.


Maoists don't rely on middle class college students to spread their movement. Most Maoists come from the working classes.

My experience of Indian Maoists, which is very limited, is exactly the opposite. The people who I met who were ex-Maoists, some of whom were well known, at least locally, and had spent long terms in prison for political activities, were certainly not from the working class. They also said that very few Maoists in India were.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Demonstrably false my good sir, it is proof of the high degree of class struggle in North America. In Canada in particular there was the 2012 student uprising against tuition hikes that over 500,000 people participated in.

I think the fact that you think that this shows there is a high level of class struggle in North America speaks volumes.

Devrim

[ind_com]

I think what class struggle means is pretty self evident. It is connected to the struggle between different classes, and is more often than not directly related to their relationship to the means of production. I don't think the idea of perople's war has anything to do with working class struggle.

Is that because of the Maoist class programme or do you find something inherently wrong with people's war strategy in general? Theoretically, is a left communist party open to conducting guerrila war or militia movement or mobile war?


To be honest I am not sure. I am pretty sure that I have heard it used in Turkey, but I have just searched for it on the internet in Turkish, and didn't come up with much. It is possible I picked it up speaking with ex-Naxilites in West Bengal.I think that's the case.



My experience of Indian Maoists, which is very limited, is exactly the opposite. The people who I met who were ex-Maoists, some of whom were well known, at least locally, and had spent long terms in prison for political activities, were certainly not from the working class. They also said that very few Maoists in India were.

Devrim

Well it's nice to see that you actually visited India. But to know how many Maoists are from the working classes, you're most welcome to visit practicing Maoists the next time you visit. :)

[Leo]

To be honest I am not sure. I am pretty sure that I have heard it used in Turkey, but I have just searched for it on the internet in Turkish, and didn't come up with much. It is possible I picked it up speaking with ex-Naxilites in West Bengal.

To my knowledge, Turkish maoists don't use a phrase such as the big five.

A similar phenomenon exists, although it is always four in Turkey rather than five. To my knowledge, most commonly it goes like Peru - Philippines - Nepal - Turkey (where Turkey is listed often changes although the order of the others tends not to). While I have heard India mentioned in this unnamed big four replacing the Philippines, I haven't seen it listed in any of the official texts or documents of any of the Turkish maoist groups among the others, replacing one or not. One can find a news article about or a translation from some Indian maoist group in Maoist press every now and then but that's about it.

In any case, given the fact that Turkish maoism is absolutely tiny compared any of the other tendencies counted among the big five, it is ironic that Turkish maoists always omit one from the list but never themselves.

[melvin]

An Afghan national liberation struggle would be justified against Chinese or Russian imperialism and would be something every revolutionary should support.The Afghan national liberation struggle from Russia?

You mean the Soviet war in Afghanistan? As in, you have a positive view of the Mujahideen?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Some of the Afghan Maoists supported the mujahadeen against the Soviets. This stemmed from Mao's "Three Worlds Theory", not one of the Chairman's better ideas. Interestingly the US Reagan Administration during the 1980s used Maoist phraseology in fighting the contra war in Nicaragua and supporting death squads in Central America. They were "aiding workers and peasants resisting Soviet social hegemony", Chomsky talks about this in one of his books.Presumably much of this came from a group of "State Department socialists" right Shachtmanites and YPSL grouped arpund Jean Fitzpatrick, one of the odder products of the US left.

[Devrim]

Is that because of the Maoist class programme or do you find something inherently wrong with people's war strategy in general? Theoretically, is a left communist party open to conducting guerrila war or militia movement or mobile war?

Left Communists don't think that the people's war strategy has any connection whatsoever to the working class. It is not a problem of those leading the people's war having bad programme or politics. It is linked to the entire strategy.


Well it's nice to see that you actually visited India. But to know how many Maoists are from the working classes, you're most welcome to visit practicing Maoists the next time you visit. :)

OF course even having visited the impression you get is not very accurate. What I say was based on the statements to that effect made by our comrades there, some of whom were ex-Maoists, and were certainly not working class.

I went there on a trip paid for by a political organisation I was at the time a member of. I doubt that I will ever go there again.

Devrim

[ind_com]

Left Communists don't think that the people's war strategy has any connection whatsoever to the working class. It is not a problem of those leading the people's war having bad programme or politics. It is linked to the entire strategy.

Can you please explain why you think that the people's war strategy cannot connect with the working class? Also, what political-military model do you propose for a proletarian revolution today?