Results 1 to 20 of 22
Now they have Maoist Communist Party, Manipur
Now they have Maoist Communist Party, Manipur.
It is a matter of pleasure for us that the oppressed people of Manipur have raised the flag of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. We express our strong solidarity with them, who are fighting against the Indian reactionaries for their national sovereignty and liberation. Now they have their own party–Maoist Communist Party Manipur. Recently they have concluded the first political conference of the party.
We have the document of Maoist Communist Party, Manipur. This document has focused on many issues regarding to the national as well as international communist movement. There are some questions to be discussed, but we appreciate the main spirit of this document. Thanks to [email protected] making this Historical Document available. Here is an extract from the document:
Maoist Communist Party, Manipur
Program
The first political conference of the Kangleipak Communist Party (Maoist) has concluded with a historical success. The Conference unanimously adopted the party program.
That, the 1st political conference resolved to change the name of the Party as Maoist Communist Party of Manipur. Maoist Communist Party, Manipur bases itself on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism with the creative application of this universal truth to the concrete conditions of the Manipur revolution under the collective leadership of the Party.
Maoist Communist Party-Manipur will be the vanguard of the proletariat in Manipur, which is part of the world proletariat, sworn the basic principles:
• The masses are the makers of history, and “It is right to rebel;”
• Contradiction, the sole and fundamental law of the incessant transformation of eternal matter;
• Class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and proletarian internationalism;
• The necessity of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist Party which applies with firmness its independence, independent decision, and self reliance;
• Smash Colonialism, imperialism, revisionism and reaction implacably and relentlessly;
• Conquer and defend power through the People’s War;
• Militarization of the Party and the concentric construction of the three instruments of the revolution;
• Two-line struggle as the motive force of the Party’s development;
• Constant ideological transformation and always putting politics in command;
• Serve the people and the world proletarian revolution;
The Maoist Communist Party, Manipur is the consolidated political vanguard of the Manipur proletariat. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the ideological basis guiding its thinking in all the spheres of its activities. Immediate aim or program of the Party is to carry on and complete the new democratic revolution in Manipur as a part of the world proletarian revolution by overthrowing the colonial, semi-feudal system and the three targets of the revolution—Colonialism, imperialism and Comprador-Bureaucratic-Bourgeoisie (CBB). The ultimate aim of the party is the establishment of communist society. This New Democratic Revolution will be carried out and completed through armed agrarian revolutionary war i.e. the Protracted People’s War with area wise seizure of power remaining as its central task.
The Protracted People’s War will be carried out by encircling the cities from the countryside and thereby finally capturing them. Hence the countryside as well as the Protracted People’s War will remain as the center of gravity of the party’s work from the very beginning. During the whole process of this revolution the party, army and the united front will play the role of three magic weapons. The party will play the primary role; where as the army and the united front will be two important weapons in the hands of the party. Because the armed struggle will remain the highest and main form of struggle and army as the highest form of organization of this revolution, hence armed struggle will play a decisive role. Whereas the united front will be built in the course of advancing armed struggle and for armed struggle. Mass organizations and mass struggles are necessary and indispensable but their purpose is to serve the war. The immediate and most urgent task of the party is to establish full-fledged people’s Army (PA) and base areas by developing and transforming the guerilla zones and guerrilla bases.
Just after completing the NDR the party will advance towards establishing socialism without any delay or interception. Because the NDR will already lay the basis for socialism and hence there will be no pause. Thereafter, the party will continue to advance towards realizing communism by continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Socialist society covers a considerable long historical period. Throughout this historical period, there will be classes, class contradictions and class struggle. The struggle between socialist road and capitalist road will also continue to exist. Only depending on and carrying forward the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat can correctly resolve all these contradictions. In this context the GPCR initiated and led by Mao Tse-tung was a great political revolution carried out under the conditions of socialism by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and there by fighting against the danger of capitalist restoration.
Party will also continue to hold high the proletarian internationalism and will continue to firmly contribute more forcefully in uniting the genuine M-L-M forces at the international level. While uniting the M-L-M forces, it will also establish unity with oppressed people and nations of the whole world and continue its fight together with them in advancing towards completing the world proletarian revolution against imperialism and all reaction, thereby paving the way towards realizing communism on a world scale.
To this end we proclaim the following objectives:
1. Destruction of the colonial Manipur State which rule by the Indian colonialist.
2. Demolitions of the present State apparatus, the dictatorship of the exploiters led by the Manipur Comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie that make sustain and develop the Indian colonialism in Manipur.
3. Sweep away colonial oppression, general confiscation of its monopolies, banks and all forms of its property.
4. Destroy bureaucratic capitalism, both private and state; confiscate all of its economic properties, possessions and rights, along with those of imperialism, for the benefit of the new state.
5. Liquidation of semi-feudal property and all of its subsistent modes, confiscating it to give the lands to the peasantry, primarily the poor peasantry, applying the principle of “Land to those who work it.”
6. Fight to establish the People’s Republic of Manipur as a united front of classes based on the alliance of the working class and peasantry led its Communist Party; this is the formation of the New Democracy which will carry forward a new economy, a new politics, and a new culture.
7. Develop the people’s war which, through a revolutionary army of a new type under the absolute leadership of the Party, destroys part by part the old power, principally its armed and repressive forces, and serves to construct the new power for the proletariat and people.
8. Foster the development of the Manipur proletariat as part of the world proletarian class, the formation and strengthening of communist parties and their unification in a revived international communist movement guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; all of this so that the proletariat can fulfill its great and historic mission as the final class.
9. Defend the liberties, rights, benefits and conquests that the working class and masses have achieved at the cost of their own blood, recognizing these and guaranteeing that they are really in force through a “Declaration of the Rights of the People.” Respect particularly the right to religious conscience, but in its exact dimensions, to believe as well as not to believe.
10. Real equality for women; a better future for the youth; protection for mothers and children; respect and support for the aged.
11. A new culture as a fighting weapon to concretize the new nationality that serves the popular masses and is guided by the scientific ideology of the proletariat. Give special importance to education.
12. Support the struggles of the international proletariat, of the oppressed nations and peoples of the world; fighting against the superpowers, the United States and imperialism in general, international reaction and revisionism of every form; understanding the Manipuri revolution as part of the world proletarian revolution.
13. Struggle tenaciously and heroically for the full and complete victory of the democratic revolution throughout the country, and, this stage completed, immediately and without any transition period, go over to the socialist revolution in order to, together with the international proletariat, the oppressed nations and the peoples of the world, through cultural revolutions, continue humanity’s march to its final goal, communism.
http://indianvanguard.wordpress.com/...party-manipur/
Not really related but why do Maoists feel the urge to put "people's" in front of everything.
People's War, People's Republic, People's March, People's Truth, People's Square, etc.
And as far as I know India already has a Maoist Party.
How is this program different from the Maoist program in Nepal, which resulted in a complete sell-out and the Maoist party being part of a bourgeois government?
RED DAVE
Sorry, but unless you can somehow connect A (Maoist document) to B (bureaucracy), then I'd like to point out, myself, that you're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy on your part.
Sorry, but we're dealing politics here, not a priori logical categories.
Maoists raised the same point a few months ago: how could we predict that the Maoists entry into a bourgeois government was a sell-out?
Maoist politics contains within it several fatal flaws: the block of four classes is one. Another is rhetorical allegiance to the working class as the leading party of a revolution, but, in fact, relying on an alliance of the peasantry, sections of the petit-bourgeosie, and the so-called national bourgeoisie, with the working class in, at best, a subordinate role if it has any real role at all. Their entire concept of the party is, in addition, flawed, but that's another discussion.
An examinaion of the program of the Manipur Maoists shows the same elements present.
Okay, but what kind of state is to replace it? Certainly not a workers state as we'll see below.
Notice the emphasis on the foreign bourgeoisie as opposed to the local bourgeoisie which are, as usual, up to their necks in cooperation with the foreign bourgeoisie.
Note the mention of foreign ("colonial") oppression, which, implicity, sets a foreign bourgeoisie against the national bourgeoisie, which is nonsense.
This is, I believe, a veiled critique of state capitalism; however, it is extremely vague. Again, no mention of the national bourgeoisie. To divide up foreign, state-owned and national capitalism into three entities when, in fact, they are part of one system, is a fantasy.
Okay. But this is exactly why the Nepalese Maoists promised. In practice, the old forms were never liquidated and exist to this day.
Same nonsense as it Nepal, with results were predicted in the case of Nepal and can be predicted with this: the block of fur classes, leading to capitalism. This branch of Maoism has learned nothing.
One more time, the Chinese model. We know where this goes: to capitalism.
Great rhetoric. Note that both the Naxalbari Maoists and the Nepalese Maoists, as far as we know, ignored the struggles of the textile workers in Bangladesh, next door. People in Egypt sent greeting to demonstrators in Wisconsin, but Maoists next door to Bangladesh said nothing.
Great but, again, no mention of the establishment of a workers state.
Who in their right mind can argue with this.
Rhetoric.
See 8 above.
Stageism. This is exactly the rhetoric Maoists use to form an alliance with the so-called national bourgeoisie, with results we know.
Good luck to the people of Manpur. However, if their revolution is under Maoist leadership we, unfortunately, know where it's going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipur
RED DAVE
Last edited by RED DAVE; 31st August 2011 at 09:39. Reason: added 12 and 13
Class collaboration. This way "the national bourgeoisie," peasants and workers all have one common cause -- "the people's cause" -- you see.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
Several occupied nations are a part of India, such as Assam, Kashmir, Manipur, Telangana, etc. If these nations desire self-determination then I think that they have every right to form their own Party and not be subjugated to the CPI(Maoist), though they will most likely maintain fraternal nations as is the tendency in South Asia. CPI(Maoist) activity is also generally low west of Bengal, where Manipur is.
I also think that there may be ideological differences between these two, and a Maoist principle is that you can't just unite two without struggle. You can take a look at their entire program and see they put much more emphasis on the Peruvian and Nepali experience than the CPI(Maoist) does and that they are much more RIM-like than them.
Great news ,thanks for posting this.
It's a clear way of distinguishing the institutions/actions/etc that serve the masses of people from those that serve the reactionary classes.
As Mosfeld already said, Manipur is a separate and oppressed national community (same goes for all the north eastern states of india, and the people there have been at war against the indian government since the 60s. the insurgencies of the north east are a separate movement from the naxalite movement, though they appear to be expanding cooperation lately)
how is this post different to all your other posts in the south asia subforum, which result in every thread becoming a stupid circular repetition of the same worn out opportunist shite
Formerly zenga zenga !
Actually, what it is is a way of covering up class collaboration. The Maoist block of four classes, obscured by the various terms prefaced by "People's," is a forced marriage between the working class and its enemy the bourgeoisie, with the Maoist party as the presiding clergy. We have just seen in Nepal the fruit of this. Maoists were bullshitting for years about New Democracy and People's Republic. And what we see is a Capitalist Democracy and a Capitalist Republic.
So what you are saying is that the Maoists are such provincials that after decades of struggle, they can't even project an all-India Maoist party. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Maoists in India, Nepal and even in Bangladesh ignored the massive labor struggles in Bangladesh last year.
Originally Posted by RED DAVEOriginally Posted by Zena Zenga !
The Nepalese Maoists have just assumed the prime ministership of a wholly capitalist government, and a Maoist is calling someone an opportunist.
Look to your comrades if you want to study opportunism.
RED DAVE
As always, anti-Maoists distorting everything. What do you think the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was, then? Collaboration between Nazis and Soviets? LOL
In a country suffering imperialist colonization, there is a contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the bureaucratic, imperialist bourgeoisie. Just because it's non-antagonistic doesn't mean there's not a contradiction. Contradiction and antagonism are different concepts.
Why not trying to "fire" anti-imperialism in the minds and actions of the national bourgeoisie? That's tactical, not strategic, and is always made clear that the contradiction between communists and capitalists are antagonistic and is of extreme importance that the Communist Party has to be in the lead. In other case, no alliance would be possible, obviously.
This alliance is not intended to be on the building of the new country and new State, but on the fight against imperialism and colonialism. Mao Zedong always said that New Democracy is just temporary, for a short period of time. But New Democracy is only coherent to happen in some countries; it's not a general law of Maoism.
Another view of Stalin, by Ludo Martens (RIP)
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/
Trotskyism, Counter-Revolution In Disguise, by Moissaye J. Olgin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi...yism/index.htm
The Red Comrades Documentation Project
http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/red.../articles.html
uhh, yes.As always, anti-Maoists distorting everything. What do you think the Molotov-Ribbentrop [Stalin-Hitler] Pact was, then? Collaboration between Nazis and Soviets? LOL
Sort of like the richer and poorer members of a wealthy family.
This is fantasy. Show me in the work of a Marxist theoretician other than Mao, a formulation like this. You are inventing philosophy to cover a sell-out.
Because, like a pet rattlesnake, sooner or later the bourgeoisie will turn around and bite you. And the bourgeoisie, in a block of four classes is stronger than the proletariat.
That's like saying putting sugar in coffee is reversible.
Of course the CP is in the lead: it's the author of the sell-out.
And it is an alliance that is deadly to the working class.
The author of this bullshit and the architect of state capitalism in China.
He was right: it becomes, quite shortly, full-fledged capitalism.
Yeah. it worked so well in China. And it's just terrific in Nepal. Ask the workers there.
RED DAVE
Do you really believe in this anticommunist propaganda?Originally Posted by RED DAVE
That's it. SORT OF the same but not exactly the same.Originally Posted by RED DAVE
“Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same. Under socialism, the first will disappear, the second will remain. That is to say antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites; the formula of antagonism cannot be arbitrarily applied everywhere.” (LENIN, ‘Remarks on N I Bukharin’s Economics of the Transitional Period’, Selected Works , Vol 11)Originally Posted by RED DAVE
It doesn't happen if the proletariat is the leading political force, not if the Communist Party controls the situation, not if the proletariat (urban workers and agrarian workers) is in favorable political condition. Plus, the bourgeoisie is only one part of this block, and the weaker one. In a semi-feudal country in struggle with imperialism, of course.Originally Posted by RED DAVE
The proletariat ideals inside the party has to be always the leading political force, always struggling with the revisionists and rightists, but that's a hard struggle if we look to the history of communism.
Of course the CP is in the lead: that was what actually and concretely happened during the Chinese Revolution --> led by the CCP and, of course, the Chinese proletariat.Originally Posted by RED DAVE
If you read Mao's text on New Democracy (you probably didn't, or didn't understand), you will see why viewing only the alliance aspect of the situation is terribly wrong.Originally Posted by RED DAVE
Mao?! What about Deng Xiaoping's coup, then???Originally Posted by RED DAVE
Nepal is not the same as China; Prachanda is not the same as Mao, or any other Nepalese communist. There are Maoists in (e.g. Matrika Yadav) and out (e.g. Indian Maoists) of Nepal against the official stands of UCPN.Originally Posted by RED DAVE
Another view of Stalin, by Ludo Martens (RIP)
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/
Trotskyism, Counter-Revolution In Disguise, by Moissaye J. Olgin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi...yism/index.htm
The Red Comrades Documentation Project
http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/red.../articles.html
Originally Posted by RodrigoOriginally Posted by RED DAVEi could say, "Do you really believe that Stalinist crap?" but obviously you do, and such a question wouldn't help. So let me say that screeching out "anticommunist propaganda" is not an argument around here anymore than posting long quotes. There is no consensus on Stalinism or Maoism for you to fall back on.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Originally Posted by RED DAVENo but substantially the same and on the same side of the class line.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Originally Posted by RED DAVE"... cannot be arbitrarily applied everywhere." And the way Maoists apply it is bogus. And, yes, congratulations, you found a quote. Too bad it doesn't apply.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Originally Posted by RED DAVEWe have seen in Nepal exactly what that means. The issue is not of the CP "controls the situation," but if the working class "controls the situation." This is the essence of Stalinism/Maoism: the supremacy of the party, not the working class.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
"... in favorable political condition." What the fuck does that mean? How about if they're in a revolutionary alliance with the working class as the leading class, which, Maoist falsification of history notwithstanding, has never happened in a Maoist-led revolution. Their rhetoric proclaims proletarian leadership. Their practice is party leadership, which means a section of the bourgeoisie is running the show, as in Nepal.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Actually, it' not the weaker one. Both the Chinese and the Nepalese revolutions show clearly that the bourgeoisie, in a block of four classes, is the strongest class.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
But, once again, as we know from experience, this is not true. The bourgeois elements in China and Nepal, for example, have defeated whatever proletarian (and peasant) elements there were. And, the same thing happened in Vietnam, and is happening now in Cuba and North Korea, without a Maoist party, which demonstrates that we are dealing with classes in motion, not the betrayal of "revisionists."Originally Posted by Rodrigo
I love it: ideals and not politics. Idealism is almost always a cover for a practice far from the ideals. Maoist rhetoric is proletarian; Maoist politics is class collaboration.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Especially when they're part of your own party by your political invitation.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Originally Posted by RED DAVEShow us how the Chinese proletariat was the leading class in the Chinese Revolution. Hint: Quotes from Mao are not evidence. Show us concrete actions. (And get read to answer for why the Maoists told the striking workers, in the last days of the revolution, not to seize control of their workplaces but to go back to work and obey their bosses or Red Army officers.)Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Originally Posted by RED DAVEI don't care what aspect you consider: such an alliance is deadly to the working class. We have seen this clearly in China and now Nepal.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Originally Posted by RED DAVEState capitalism had been established in China with the revolution in 1949. What Deng did was put the icing on the cake and start the short walk to private capitalism. All this is demonstrated quite clearly by Mao making kjssy-nice with Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Originally Posted by RED DAVENo shit, SherlockOriginally Posted by Rodrigo
He's much better looking.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Prachanda is, as we post now, the leader of the Nepalese Maoists.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Yadev is not a member of the UCPN(M) as far as I know. Have you jumped ship to another party?Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Sure. But two years ago or so, when Prachanda was the prime minister of the bourgeois government of Nepal, every Maoist I know, on and off this board, was kissing his ass as the next Great Leader. Criticisms of the Prachanda Path by other tendencies, describing and predicting what was happening, were dismissed as racist, purist, etc. The Prachanda Path was justified over and over again.Originally Posted by Rodrigo
The Maoist party in Nepal, using Maoist theory, has engaged in a major sell-out. One more time, those pesky revisionists, those pro-capitalists, have taken oveer a Maoist party. Could it be that making an alliance with the bourgeoisie and letting pro-bourgeois elements into the Maoist party had anything to do with this?
RED DAVE
The Rise of the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur
The Rise of the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur
A couple of years ago I asked Tariq Ali at a public event to speak about Indian imperialism and the role that it played in the region. Tariq Ali balked at the question and did not answer it, and thus one of the most articulate Leftist and well-known commentators from South-Asia missed an opportunity to explain to his North American audiences some of the most important, yet underreported and under-discussed, trends in the last 50 years i.e. the rise and shape of Indian expansionism and imperialism. Indian expansion and imperialism has taken shape in two forms, the production of a classical political-economic dependency on the Indian State and economy by surrounding countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh (with Pakistan as a perennial “external threat”) and the construction of internal colonies like Manipur, Nagaland and Kashmir. The Nepalese revolutionary Left has recognized this relationship for many years, even Dr. Baburam Bhattarai has penned papers on the question and has referred to the process as the “Bhutanization of Nepal”, and has emphasized the need to resist it, especially in economic matters like the unfair allocation of power from Nepalese dam projects or political matters like the influence the Indian government has over the Nepalese Army.
Similarly, the Kashmiri independence movement, which is perhaps the best known national liberation movement in the region (which is not saying much as most of the international Left neither knows much about their struggle nor seems to care, despite the tireless work of public intellectuals like Arundhati Roy to publicize the issue) and is one of the world’s longest military occupations has similarly highlighted the issue of Indian imperialism/expansion for over 60 years. The Manipuri people, despite their heroic struggle against Indian internal colonialism, unfortunately have gotten nearly no press in international circles and remain largely an invisible people with an invisible movement. Thus, it was with great surprise and joy that anti-imperialists around the world came to know of the 1st political conference of the the Kangleipak Communist Party (Maoist) and the adoption of a new party program (available here). The Party also decided, in order to reflect its new political program, to rename itself the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur, and has almost immediately worried security officials in India (see “KCP’s Ultra-left Turn Worries Manipur” copied below). Indeed, in a short period of time the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur has been able to emerge as a significant force and was able to enforce a peaceful 12 hour general strike to protest the disappearance of a RPF/PLA comrade today. The general strike saw cars and buses off the streets, and many public and private offices closed (see “KCP general strike ends peacefully, paralyses normal life in state” copied below).
However, I feel it is important to place these development in Manipur in an historical context. In 1949 the Indian government annexed the princely state of Manipur (Manipur had been declared an independent state in 1947, like Kashmir) and declared it part and parcel of an unified India. Interestingly it was on October 29th 1948 that Com. Irabot, a communist who had won a seat in the independent Manipur Assembly, formed the first Manipur Communist Party and its armed wing the Manipur Red Guards, rather than join the Communist Party of India – Manipur State committee (indeed, the KCP(Maoist) identifies itself as being part of this tradition in the Manipur communist movement, rather than being part of the traditional Indian communist tradition that has largely emphasized electoral activity and has underemphasized the right of self-determination for oppressed nationalities). In 1956 Manipur was “granted” the status of a “union territory” and was only given “statehood” in 1972 as a means to placate the Manipuri people. However, like the people of Kashmir, the people of Manipur have never recognized the central Indian government as their true representatives and have consistently fought against Indian imperialism.
The movement for Manipuri national liberation first took a clear political shape in 1964 with the formation of the United National Liberation Front, but the UNLF at this time did not place much emphasis on the armed movement. In the early 1970′s because of the Bangladesh war for independence a number of Manipuri activists and leaders, including UNLF leader N. Bisheswar Singh and his associates, ended up prison especially in Tripura, where they came into contact with Naxalite prisoners who also were being arrested at the time. This had a profound influence on the movement as a number of key leaders were released from prison in the mid 1970′s with a new ideology, Mao Zedong Thought and the military strategy of Protracted People’s War. On September 25th, 1978 N. Bisheswar Singh and his associates formed the People’s Liberation Army, although it must be noted that unlike other Mao-inspired organizations it did not form a political wing, the Revolutionary People’s Front, until 1989 (N. Bishewar Singh has now been declared an enemy of the people for his anti-people activities in recent years). Almost a year earlier, on October 9th 1977, R.K. Tulachandra along with S. Wanglen, Achamba, Tajila, Meiraba, Meipaksana, Y. Ibohanbi and Paliba formed the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK). Com. Y. Ibohanbi however led a split from PREPAK to form the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) on April 13th, 1980. Yet, it must be noted that until 1992 the PLA was regarded to be the largest armed left-wing organization and overshadowed both the PREPAK and the KCP. Indeed, the death of Tulacandra in 1985 resulted in the fracturing of PREPAK into numerous smaller factions, some of which merged with the UNLF and the PLA/RPF. It was only with the formation of the Revolutionary Joint Committee by the PLA, a then recently reunified PREPAK and KCP in 1992 did the PREPAK and KCP become significant forces in the armed movement. In 1995 the death of Com. Ibohanbi, during a military encounter, resulted in the fracturing of the KCP into a number of competing factions. Many of these factions would unify in 2006 to form the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) due to the fact that their factional strife in the preceding years had caused them to lose support from the mass majority of the people, although several other factions remained outside their fold.
In 2009 a group of Manipuri comrades unified to form the Kangleipak Communist Party (Maoist). This new organization argued that it was not part of the KCP, although it did identify itself as being part of the revolutionary tradition that began in 1948 and the Manipur Communist Party and was reignited in 1980 with the formation of the KCP, but rather was a completely new organization that represented a new Manipuri communist movement. The KCP(Maoist)/Maoist Communist Party, Manipur in the past 2 years has been involved in a number of ambushes and attacks on police and military forces and has quickly become one of the most important armed groups in Manipur, as can be seen from the fact that they were able to hold this successful general strike. Since 2009 the KCP(Maoist)/Maoist Communist Party, Manipur has allied itself with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in the armed struggle against Indian imperialism and semi-feudalism.
http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpre...party-manipur/
MCPM's ultra-Left turn worries Manipur
Note: KCP(Maoist) is now Maoist Communist Party, Manipur
KCP's ultra-Left turn worries Manipur
KOLKATA: Since the Eighties, the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) has been waging a bloody struggle for a sovereign Manipur. Of late, a faction of the outfit has embraced Maoist ideology to carry on its armed movement like the ultra-Left wing guerrillas are doing in states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal.
A faction of the outfit, known as KCP (Maoist), has not only rechristened itself as the Maoist Communist Party of Manipur, but has also revised its "constitution" on the lines of the Marixist-Leninist-Maoist school of thoughts. In a statement issued recently, the outfit said the decision was taken during its first conference at some unidentified location in the northeastern state.
During its formative years, the KCP under the leadership of Ibohanbi and Ibopishak had decided to follow the communist ideology. But with the passage of time and the death of the two leaders, the outfit split into many factions. Police sources in Imphal indicated the existence of about dozen of them - the KCP-City Meitei, the KCP-Prithvi, the KCP-Mangang, the KCP- Military Council, the KCP-Maoist, the KCP-Lamphel, the KCP - Sunil Meitei, the KCP-Mobile Task Force, the KCP-Lamyanba Khuman, the KCP-Loyallakpa and the KCP-Noyon.
The KCP (Lalumba) has already signed an agreement on the suspension of operations with the Manipur government for starting peace talks.
In a signed document, W Malemnganba Meitei, spokesperson of the newly-floated Maoist Communist Party of Manipur, said, "Our immediate aim is to carry on a new democratic revolution in Manipur to establish a communist society through armed revolutionary war. We will carry out the Protracted People's War by joining hands with other Maoist revolutionary parties."
Security forces, though, said the group was floated to protect the Meiteis and its activities would be confined mainly in the valleys of the state.
Owing to the factional feuds, the KCP lost its stronghold in Imphal valley. This prompted leaders of KCP factions going for unification drive. Some KCP cadres got unified and held a convention in 2009. It was during this convention that the outfit reconstituted its central committee. While Marx Ningshen was made its president, the charge of the outfit's publicity wing was given to W Malemnganba Meitei. Immediately after this, they called itself the KCP (Maoist) and denied any relationship with other KCP splinter groups.
Documents and press statements issued by the KCP (Maoist) suggested that since 2009, the outfit started maintaining close links with the banned CPI (Maoist). In November 2010, KCP (Maoists) issued a statement pledging support to the Indian Maoists like some other Manipuri outfits.
"The Maoists are now closely associated with two Manipur-based outfits - the Peoples Liberation Army (Manipur) and the now-disbanded KCP (Maoists)," said an intelligence officer.
Security agencies believe that a senior CPI (Maoist) politburo member -probably somebody in the second in command - has been assigned to maintain liason with the Maoist Communist Party of Manipur. The apparent aim is to set up base in this part of the country. The senior Maoist is also reportedly in charge of maintaining relations with Bangladesh-based Maoist outfits.
Sources in security agencies said "Following this development, Indian Maoists might now find it easy to set up bases in the northeast, a region that has always been in the news for insurgency and cessationist movements. They might also use the northeast as a conduit to move on to Bangladesh, Myanmar and other South-East Asian countries," a source said.
http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/art...w/10016542.cms
MCPM - Program
The full program of the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur is too long for one thread on RevLeft. There has been made one thread with excerpts from the program.
Download the full program (56 pages)
Thanks mosfled !
Maoism is spreading fast all across South East Asia . I am sure that negative events in Nepal will not make a dent
Ignore list [Red Dave] and [Majakovskij]
You are "sure"! What kind of political analysis is that? And given that there is no coherent Maoist criticism of what happened in Nepal, what is to prevent it from reoccurring?
RED DAVE
It's hypocritical that Maoists argue in favor of "national liberation struggles" against imperialism in India but they are apologists for PRC nationalist, colonialist and capitalist oppression of Tibet, East Turkestan and Inner Mongolia. They want to chop India up into little bits but hey, if you dare challenge the supremacy of Chinese nationalist hegemony over their part of Asia, you are a revisionist or a liberal who supports "feudalism" and "American Imperialism". If Manipuris, Kashmiris, Assamese etc deserve national separation from colonialist India, then so do all of the repressed minorities in "capitalist-road" colonialist China. At the very least, they deserve the political, economic and cultural autonomy from Central China which many of these groups are rioting for and protesting for today.Originally Posted by mosfeld
Maoists seem to be beyond opportunistic in the policy positions they take and that is a perfect example.
When the fuck has that ever happened? The Proletariat was obviously not the leading political force in the PRC, this is obvious because if they ever were the "leading force" the so-called "Capitalist roaders" would have never taken over China. In particular this part:Originally Posted by Rodrigo
If the bourgeois was so weak, then how did they become the dominant class in China again? Perhaps this was for the same reason that Mao met with Nixon and sold out the North Vietnamese, and the reason why the PRC supported the genocidal Khmer Rouge. Their government was "Working class in name only" and Chinese national interests took preference over worker's rights well before Mao died.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
You're simply putting words in my mouth. Also, nice attempt to derail the thread man, I've noticed you're quite adapt at trolling and flaming elsewhere as well.
Btw I cant even be bothered to answer reactionary crap on this forum anymore, but don't be too upset that nobody took your bait.
COMMUNISM !
