A Clarion Call To The Communists In India!!

[subham]

India is going through a political turmoil now-a- days. The Congress led UPA government at the centre has decided to sign the nuke deal with USA without considering the integrity & sovereignty of the nation. The Left parties, thus withdrew their support from the government at the centre & decided to launch nationwide protest against the nuclear deal. The time has come for all the Communists in India to join hands keeping the sectarianism aside to resist imperial machination. Think comarades!! Practice thinking!!

[Saorsa]

The "Communist" Party of India ("Marxist") is a capitalist party wearing a red mask. It mows down unarmed peasants whose only crime was to defend their homes from demolishment in order to make way for a foreign-owned chemical factory. The best way to oppose the Indian government, and to oppose capitalism and imperialism in India in general, is to support the People's War led by the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Here's a good place to start; http://www.peoples-march.blogspot.com/

[subham]

Communist Party of India(Maoist) follows the sectarian view & believes in the idea of annihilation. Without concentrating on the mass mobilization, building up of the People's Democratic Front uniting Left & Democratic forces, it depends merely on arms refuting the ideas of Mao Tse Tung. They, unfortunately strengthen the reactionary forces perhaps, without knowing it!:)

[subham]

It is the CPI(Maoist) which is distorting the lessons of Mao in his name. To me, it is nothing more than utter hypocrisy & sheer nonsense!!:)

[subham]

The severe economic shutdown in India, along with the emergence of communal and provincial violence in the country demands unification of communist forces in India. Come friends! share your views!

[Q]

The severe economic shutdown in India, along with the emergence of communal and provincial violence in the country demands unification of communist forces in India. Come friends! share your views!

Could you provide some background info for the less initiated?

[Charles Xavier]

The Maoists in India go around killing other communists. Maoism is bankrupt.

[red cat]

The Maoists in India go around killing other communists. Maoism is bankrupt.
You're cool. :thumbup1:

[red cat]

Communist Party of India(Maoist) follows the sectarian view & believes in the idea of annihilation. Without concentrating on the mass mobilization, building up of the People's Democratic Front uniting Left & Democratic forces, it depends merely on arms refuting the ideas of Mao Tse Tung. They, unfortunately strengthen the reactionary forces perhaps, without knowing it!:)


It is the CPI(Maoist) which is distorting the lessons of Mao in his name. To me, it is nothing more than utter hypocrisy & sheer nonsense!!:)

As soon as the peoples' war starts, all Mensheviks show their true colours. :)

[pranabjyoti]

Who are REAL upholders of the flags of communism in India? The CPI(M) and CPI and the other so called LEFT parties? Does building up peoples democratic front means abandoning all possibilities of armed struggle? How can you go along the revolutionary way and also OBEY THE GLORIOUS INDIAN CONSTITUTION. How can you continue revolutionary processes without annihilating the reactionary and counter revolutionary forces? How can you explain supporting of demonic laws like UAPA and its implementation in the name of "GUARDING NATIONAL INTEGRATION AND PROGRESS(!)".
Subham, can you explain?

[Delenda Carthago]

I dont have a clear picture about India,even though I believe its one of the biggest issues in today's world.

The Maoist guerillas have beef with the other left parties?And why the hell would a left party support the capitalist goverment?Especially when a guerilla warfare is going on on their country,making even USA and Israel troops go over there to support the capitalist goverment.

Other than that,can anyone tell me what's the deal with anarchists in India?

[red cat]

I dont have a clear picture about India,even though I believe its one of the biggest issues in today's world.

The Maoist guerillas have beef with the other left parties?And why the hell would a left party support the capitalist goverment?Especially when a guerilla warfare is going on on their country,making even USA and Israel troops go over there to support the capitalist goverment.

Other than that,can anyone tell me what's the deal with anarchists in India?

The biggest enemy of communist revolutions today is revisionism, or pseudo-communist capitalism. There are about a hundred and fifteen self-proclaimed leftist parties in India. Among them only the CPI(Maoist) conducts an armed struggle, supported by a few local Maoists parties like the CPI(ML)(NB).

The other leftist parties, while paying lip-service to Marxism(and even Maoism !), have only assisted the ruling class in oppressing the masses, and actively support the military operations launched by the Indian, US and Israeli governments against the Maoists.

There were anarchist organizations in India back in the 1930s, which later merged into the CPI. Presently secessionist national liberation movements are going on in north-eastern Indian provinces and Kashmir. There might be some anarchist elements in them.

[Delenda Carthago]

The biggest enemy of communist revolutions today is revisionism, or pseudo-communist capitalism. There are about a hundred and fifteen self-proclaimed leftist parties in India. Among them only the CPI(Maoist) conducts an armed struggle, supported by a few local Maoists parties like the CPI(ML)(NB).

The other leftist parties, while paying lip-service to Marxism(and even Maoism !), have only assisted the ruling class in oppressing the masses, and actively support the military operations launched by the Indian, US and Israeli governments against the Maoists.

There were anarchist organizations in India back in the 1930s, which later merged into the CPI. Presently secessionist national liberation movements are going on in north-eastern Indian provinces and Kashmir. There might be some anarchist elements in them.

I see.So other than CPI,are there any countable revolutionary forces?

PS.its funny cause in India "some elements" might be more anarchists than all the central europe!:lol:

[red cat]

I see.So other than CPI,are there any countable revolutionary forces?

PS.its funny cause in India "some elements" might be more anarchists than all the central europe!:lol:

The revolutionary forces have broken with CPI a long time ago, and split and merged finally to form the CPI(Maoist) today. The official CC of no Indian parliamentary leftist party was revolutionary ever.

There are some other Indian movements that I have heard of, but I don't know very well about how revolutionary all of them are:

1) Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front

2) Hurriyat Conference

3) National Socialist Council of Nagaland ( Issac Muivah)

4) National Socialist Council of Nagaland ( Khaplang)

5) Peoples' Liberation Army [ not of the CPI(Maoist), but a different one in North eastern India]

6) Kamtapur Liberation Organization

7) Kamtapur Peoples' Party

8) Bodoland Liberation Front

9) United Liberation Front of Assam

10) Peoples'Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak

There are probably many more of them.

[Delenda Carthago]

The revolutionary forces have broken with CPI a long time ago, and split and merged finally to form the CPI(Maoist) today. The official CC of no Indian parliamentary leftist party was revolutionary ever.



so its pretty much CPI against the world,right?

[red cat]

so its pretty much CPI against the world,right?

The CPI is not the main revisionist party in India. That position is currently held by the CPI(M) [ M for Marxist ]. CPI, RSP, FB, SUCI, CPI(ML), CPI(ML)ND, CPI(ML)(Liberation) are some of the smaller revisionist parties.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Communist Party of India(Maoist) follows the sectarian view & believes in the idea of annihilation. Without concentrating on the mass mobilization, building up of the People's Democratic Front uniting Left & Democratic forces, it depends merely on arms refuting the ideas of Mao Tse Tung. They, unfortunately strengthen the reactionary forces perhaps, without knowing it!:)

Wow, I'm not even a Maoist myself, & yet can see your false flawed visualization of who the Indian Maoists are & what they're representing. These Indian 'Marxists' are revisionist & will never gain mass power through the working class & peasants like the Maoists are doing.

[chegitz guevara]

only the CPI(Maoist) conducts an armed struggle, supported by a few local Maoists parties like the CPI(ML)(NB).

Armed struggle is not the be-all and end-all of communism. Most of the work Lenin and the Bolsheviks did in building for the revolution was peaceful. Armed struggle came only at the end.

My problem with your variant of Maoism is that you put the cart before the horse, and put the armed struggle ahead of building the mass movement.

[red cat]

Armed struggle is not the be-all and end-all of communism. Most of the work Lenin and the Bolsheviks did in building for the revolution was peaceful. Armed struggle came only at the end.

My problem with your variant of Maoism is that you put the cart before the horse, and put the armed struggle ahead of building the mass movement.

If you lived in the third world you would know exactly why armed struggle is necessary to even start a revolutionary movement here. You cannot imagine how imperialism maintains its dictatorship in colonies. Maoists start their movements with armed struggles not because they love to kill or die.

A revolutionary mass movement without guns cannot prevail for more than a few minutes in India or anywhere in the third world.

[chegitz guevara]

Russia was a third world country with a viscous dictatorship.

[red cat]

Russia was a third world country with a viscous dictatorship.

In Russia the national bourgeoisie was in power before the revolution. Capitalism was developed enough so that the country was successfully imperialist and even engaged in an imperialist war.

[Crux]

There is a national bourgeoisie in power in India.

[red cat]

There is a national bourgeoisie in power in India.

1) Then there must have been a revolution at some point, since India was previously a colony. When and how did this revolution happen ?

2) The static feudal power in India and the fact that in general Indian(?) companies are not found outside India contradicts the nature of capitalism.

[Crux]

1) Bourgeoisie power was consolidated during and after the liberation from great brittain
2) Rests of feudalism my well be left in a backwards capitalist state, much as it was in most parts of russia. Indias national bourgeoisie has been hold back by the fact that, though formally liberated, much like the rest of the third world india has suffered under superexploitation from the west. There is though without a doubt a growing bourgeoisie in India, the rmnants of feudalism will arguably not be swept aside by this, but rather requires the rise of the peasants and thew orking class. Again russia works as a fairly good analogy here.A socialist revolution in a neo-colonial country is not only possible, but necessary.

[red cat]

1) Bourgeoisie power was consolidated during and after the liberation from great brittain

Imperialists don't leave without a fight. A violent revolution is always required for national liberation. We hold that India was never really liberated from imperialism.



2) Rests of feudalism my well be left in a backwards capitalist state, much as it was in most parts of russia. Indias national bourgeoisie has been hold back by the fact that, though formally liberated, much like the rest of the third world india has suffered under superexploitation from the west. There is though without a doubt a growing bourgeoisie in India, the rmnants of feudalism will arguably not be swept aside by this, but rather requires the rise of the peasants and thew orking class. Again russia works as a fairly good analogy here.A socialist revolution in a neo-colonial country is not only possible, but necessary.

Sixty years of the bourgeoisie in power is supposed to result not only in feudal relations replaced by bourgeois ones, but also an imperialist state. This does not match with what India is now.

[RadioRaheem84]

Russia was a third world country with a viscous dictatorship.

Indian situation is a bit different.

I am not one for violent revolution unless it is totally necessary but in the Indian case, the people seem to have had enough of the utterly vile corruption.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am not a reactionary Maoist/ML type at all. I am very much a more Democratic Socialist by comparison to everyone else here, but I am also not blind to the situation in India, Nepal or Venezuela. I am not the least bit fazed by the media and it's rather liberal style of reporting which either pits both sides as the enemy of real 'democracy' or mostly sides with the bourgeoisie.

I think that the we get sidelined because of the liberal interpretation of the events surrounding the third world in the media and we're weary of siding with any movement that will be later turned into an enemy of "democracy" by the media and the establishment.

But if they're doing that to the relatively bloodless revolution happening in Venezuela, what do you think they're going to say about the outright violent revolutionary struggle happening in India?

[Crux]

Sixty years of the bourgeoisie in power is supposed to result not only in feudal relations replaced by bourgeois ones, but also an imperialist state. This does not match with what India is now.That is because of imperialism.

[Saorsa]

I think it's up to the Indian comrades to determine what methods will advance their struggle. The major advances of the Naxalite movement indicate that their methods are working.

I think people are drawing a false dichotomy between armed struggle and building a mass movement. Of course the Maoists prepare the ground for armed struggle before they initiate it, they could have cadres operating in an area for over a decade before the first shots are fired. The Maoists identify and seek to intensify the contradictions in their area of operation, and these contradictions have been heavily intensified they use violence to try and resolve them. So for example, after spending years working amongst the tribal people in Lalgarh, people who have been abandoned by the state and are frequently brutalised by the police. As the people's anger grew, the Maoists encouraged this and fed until something had to give, and the masses themselves (backed up and supported by the Maoists) went on a rampage, destroying offices of the ruling CPI ('Marxist') and killing it's cadre, and declaring the area an autonomous liberated zone. The Maoists have been defending the area ever since - for example, when some innocent tribal women were arrested and imprisoned, the Maoists kidnapped some police officers and offered them back in exchange not for arrested Maoist cadre, but in exchange for those tribal women.

There are two Indias. In the real India, the rural India that has in many ways barely changed since the middle ages, the landlords maintain absolute power through the police thugs who are loyal to them plus their own private armed men. The landlords resemble warlords. You can't do open revolutionary political work in the villages or the landlords men will fuck you up. And if you do underground work, they'll come after you once they find out, which they eventually will. And if they can't find the revolutionary cadres, they'll just rape a few women and/or murder a few Dalits. In a situation like that, it should be obvious that violence has to be met with violence.

Political organising and armed struggle aren't mutually exclusive. In India, you can't do one successfully without the other.

[Robocommie]

I think it's up to the Indian comrades to determine what methods will advance their struggle. The major advances of the Naxalite movement indicate that their methods are working.

I don't know a very great deal about Indian society or the economy, but this I agree with. Each national movement should be shaped by the unique historical situation facing each national movement, springing up organically from within the nation, not from without in accordance with a proscribed theory.

[red cat]

That is because of imperialism.

A country can have its national bourgeoisie in power only after it has overthrown imperialism. Moreover, in the middle of the last century, this could only happen if the national liberation movement was led by the proletariat.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually most here don't have the idea that WITHOUT ANY KIND OF POWER, YOU CAN NOT BUILD A PARTY IN INDIA. All the so called "mainstream" parties of India have "unofficial" armed wings to remain as a party. Maoists are different in just one point, while the others are doing so to maintain themselves, they are using it to overthrow the whole system. Raman Singh, a Congress (Big Brother of the present UPA Govt) is the father of the idea of Salwa Judum. BJP, the main opposition party is in power in the state of Gujarat by mass murder of Muslim women and children.
I am requesting anybody to come to India and try to build a movement in a peaceful way. Very soon he/she will understand that even the oppressed are staying away from him/her because he/she has no "power".

[Crux]

I have nowhere said that I oppose that a movement can defend itself by arms. Quite the opposite.

[Saorsa]

I have nowhere said that I oppose that a movement can defend itself by arms. Quite the opposite.

I don't think anyone specifically accused you of that...