[Burningman writes: Well, Gary beat me to writing this one. I have to whole-heartedly agree. This was originally posted to Dissident Voice.]
By Gary Leupp
The year 2005 was a good one for the Maoist movement, the most vigorous trend within what remains of the communist movement that transformed the globe in the twentieth century. Four episodes in the four countries most affected by Maoist organizations should suffice to establish that Marxism-Leninism in its Maoist form not only remains a factor in global affairs, but also is rapidly gaining in strength and significance.
Nepal
(1) In Nepal, in a single 11-hour battle on August 7 against the Royal Nepali Army (RNA), guerrillas of the People’s Liberation Army, the military wing of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), killed 159 soldiers at a road construction site at Kalikot, capturing about 50 prisoners. This stunning feat followed battles with security forces resulting in 12 security forces killed on Jan. 1, 23 on Jan. 19, 14 on June 7, and 19 on June 25. Increasingly the PLA deploys hundreds of troops in confronting the police or even the RNA. Attacks on police stations, often the only bastions of state authority in the criminally neglected countryside, on banks and land offices, produce a power vacuum readily filled by the Maoists and newly recruited local cadre attracted to the party’s concrete measures to end arranged marriages, wife-beating, class and gender inequities in education, debt slavery and other “feudal” practices, caste discrimination and unchecked crime.
The CPM (Maoist) controls about 80% of the country, and makes inroads into the Katmandu Valley where one-tenth of the Nepali population lives. The Feb. 1 assumption of absolute power by the unpopular king alienated the residents of the capital, who have relentlessly defied the law to demonstrate support for democracy and, increasingly, for the republic long demanded by the Maoists. Soon after their Kalikot triumph, the Maoists announced a unilateral cease-fire, which the regime did not match and indeed dismissed as a ploy. But it was popular with the mainstream opposition, and in November the “seven agitating parties” (the legal, parliamentary parties represented in the last legislature) signed a pact with the Maoists to coordinate actions against the absolutist monarchy.
CPN (Maoist) leader Prachanda declared over a year ago that the People’s War in Nepal had reached the stage of “strategic offensive” and implied that from now on, the guerrilla struggle surrounding the cities will work in tandem with an urban insurrection to bring about first a “new democracy” and later a socialist state. This is not at all a fanciful scenario, however horrifying it may seem to the rulers of India, facing their own Naxalite challenge; the rulers of China, facing social turmoil and uncomfortable with the revolutionary egalitarian legacy of the Mao they have long since repudiated; and to the rulers of the U.S. who fervently wish to believe that “communism is dead.”
India
(2) It was a good year for the Maoists of India too. Their most sensational achievement of 2005 was the attack by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on the prison in Jehanabad in Bihar, 50 kilometers from the state capital of Patna, on the evening of November 12. Biking around the town around 8:30, the Maoists announced “a militant action of revolutionary character” and warned people to remain indoors. Immediately cutting power lines, they continued to make announcements through a public address system for the next two and a half hours, as they attacked police lines, the offices of the district administration, and the jail simultaneously. Using conventional rather than guerrilla military tactics, they overwhelmed the police, who simply surrendered.
While freeing 341 inmates from the prison, including senior local Maoist leader Ajay Kanu, they took the opportunity to assassinate at least two leaders of an upper-caste militia. The CPI (Maoist) lost only two fighters. “It was perhaps the most audacious operation ever launched by Maoists in India,” observed one horrified journalist.
In September 2004, two large Maoist parties merged to form the CPI (Maoist) and to coordinate actions throughout West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra states. Meanwhile, as a member of the Coordinating Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCMPOSA) the CPI (Maoist) has developed ties with other like-minded parties, including the CPN (Maoist).
On September 2, the Nepali party chairman, Prachanda, and the General Secretary of the Indian party, Ganapathy, issued a joint statement confirming the long Red Corridor of armed struggle stretching from the Base Areas in Nepal up to the guerrilla zones of Andhra Pradesh. This is sometimes called the “Compact Revolutionary Zone” and its establishment terrifies the Indian status quo.
As of October 2005, the Indian Home Ministry estimated that the Maoists had “9,300 hardcore underground cadre and they hold around 6,500 regular weapons besides a large number of unlicensed country-made arms.” It declared that the sphere of influence of the “Naxalites” (Maoists) had rapidly spread during the previous 18 months from 76 districts across nine states to 118 districts in 12 states. “[T]he battle between naxalites and the state apparatus,” predicted a Frontline journalist, “will acquire more intense proportions in the days to come.”
Philippines
(3) Meanwhile in the Philippines, a Maoist insurgency dating back to 1969 has revived significantly in recent years. On November 20, the New People’s Army, the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines, killed at least nine soldiers and wounded 20 in an ambush near Canilog town on Mindoro island. In a separate attack several hours later, one policeman was killed and three wounded in Quezon province. This was the heaviest daily battle toll since June 26, 2003, when the NPA killed 16 soldiers. But between March 27 and May 15, the NPA responded to an Armed Forces of the Philippines offensive in Surigao Del Sur, designed to clear the way for logging and mining, by killing over 60 AFP troops. In 116 tactical offensives from Sept. 13 to Nov. 23, including ambushes, raids, “sparrow operations” (quick attacks in population centers), and sniping incidents, the NPA killed 128 government troops and acquired 54 high-powered firearms.
According to Pacific Strategies and Assessments, a security consultancy, NPA attacks averaged fewer than 30 per month through June, but the figure rose from July, reaching 50 or more in November and December. The Manila government acknowledged 458 soldiers killed in clashes with Maoists in 2005. The Maoist guerrillas number around 10,000 at this point, and are active throughout the archipelago. On March 29 (the NPA’s 36th anniversary), the organization reported, “The NPA has significantly increased the number of its full-time Red fighters and its automatic rifles and other high-powered weapons. It has organized and trained the people’s militia for police work or internal security in the localities and the self-defense in the mass organizations. It is now operating in more than 130 guerrilla fronts covering significant portions of nearly 70 provinces, in around 800 municipalities and more than 9,000 barrios.” With an array of legal aligned organizations, and even supporters in the Congress, the Filipino Maoists are well-positioned to take advantage of the political crisis enveloping the Macapagal-Arroyo administration and the nationalist backlash occasioned by the deployment of U.S. troops in the country after 9-11.
Peru
(4) Finally, the Maoists of Peru. It was really the Communist Party of Peru (popularly known as Sendero Luminoso or the Shining Path) led by Dr. Abimael Guzman (President Gonzalo) that insisted, from the 1970s, the “Mao Zedong Thought” inspiring many communists and leftwing radicals throughout the world was not merely a body of ideas applicable to the Chinese experience but a third stage of Marxist thought (after Leninism) of universal relevance. They took the term “Maoism” -- hitherto largely a derogative _expression used by Soviet critics of China -- and used it to connote the Marxism appropriate to the era of capitalist restoration. Mao had emphasized that even under socialism, class struggle continues and can result in great leaps backwards as well as forwards. With this point in mind, some pro-China Marxists were able to assess and reject the restoration of capitalism in China under Deng Xiaoping, face the reality of a new period without any socialist country to serve as revolutionary headquarters, and struggle to re-establish socialism based on accumulated positive and negative historical experience. The Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) played an important role in upholding Mao’s legacy, although it lagged behind the Peruvian party in concluding that Maoism represents a third stage in the history of Marxism.
As communism was in most quarters pronounced dead, the Maoist movement in Peru spread like a prairie fire, acquiring control over maybe one-third of the country when Guzman and other members of the Central Committee were captured in September 1992. This event, despite Guzman’s heroic “speech from the cage” when presented to the press under the most humiliating circumstances, was an enormous setback to the Peruvian movement. When it was reported that Guzman had agreed to call for an end to the armed struggle (a claim that still cannot be verified since Guzman has been unable to talk to the press) a two-line struggle erupted within the party. Many, demoralized and disillusioned, renounced the People’s war. But a small component, numbering, according to the mainstream press, in the hundreds, persisted in the armed struggle and has occasionally shocked the Peruvian state with its audacity. In February 2001, the Maoists shot down a military helicopter in the Viscatán area, Huanta province, Ayacucho, killing a sergeant and wounding a lieutenant. Since 2002, occasional attacks on military outposts, ambushes of soldiers, temporary seizure of villages whose residents are assembled to hear political speeches, and bomb attacks on government offices have produced much talk of a “Sendero revival.”
In March 2002, Newsweek reported, “After 10 years of steady decline, the Shining Path is stirring again. An estimated 150 guerrillas lurk in the verdant hills above the Ene and Apurimac river valleys, occasionally venturing from their redoubts in search of new recruits and easy targets like Mario Ayala.” In June, the Washington Post reported that the Maoists had regrouped in the remote eastern Huallaga and Apurimac valleys, and stepped up recruitment on college campuses.” “The Shining Path,” one of its sources averred, “is at the very least maintaining its size and expanding its presence.” On July 10, 2003, Maoist guerrillas ambushed a 30-man marine patrol in Ayacucho, killing seven, including a marine captain, and wounding 10. It was the Peruvian military’s worst loss to rebels in at least four years. On December 22, 2005, the Maoists again attacked a Peruvian security forces helicopter, wounding two special operations police during a counter-insurgency operation near the town of Mazamari, 290 kilometers east of Lima. Guerrillas also ambushed a police patrol in the Huánuco region near town of Aucayacu, killing eight.
According to the Peruvian government, the Communist Party of Peru committed 151 acts of violence in 2005. The official line is that the revival of the movement is the product of an alliance with cocaine traffickers, or at least coca growers: “These sporadic attacks, when taken as a whole, represent a clear ability to use force to protect the coca-growing regions of Peru.” The Maoists’ opponents have always smeared them as narco-traffickers, so this statement is unsurprising. The point of interest is that the Peruvian state must acknowledge that the movement inaugurated by Guzman (who at his trial on November 5, 2004 faced the media’s cameras and shouted, “Glory to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!” and “Long Live the People’s Heroes of the People’s War!”) remains alive in the twenty-first century, from the Andes to the Himalayas to the South China Sea.
Bhutan
Since April 2002, there has been a Bhutan Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) rooted among the 100,000 ethnic Nepali refugees from Bhutan who reside in camps in Nepal. It has circulated leaflets throughout Bhutan demanding a republic. In June 24, 2004 Nepali security forces arrested six refugees from Bhutan on charges of involvement with the Maoist movement; the following month the Speaker of the Bhutan Assembly claimed (somewhat implausibly) that 2,000 Nepali-Bhutanese refugees in Nepal had joined the “Maoists’ Army.”
Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, as recently as January 2003, Maoists captured 20 weapons from government forces in Daulatpur of Khulna. This occasioned the anti-Maoist “Operation Clean Heart,” involving 10,000 soldiers and helicopters, and set back plans for a People’s War in Bangladesh.
Turkey and Kurdistan
In Turkey, Maoists are involved in some fighting both in Kurdistan and in the Black Sea region, and in 2005 activists of the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML) destroyed five offices of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), the ruling party, in support of striking workers, in protest of government effort to privatize state-owned paper factory, and in protest of the suppression of Women’s Day observances. In response, on June 16 the regime slaughtered 17 delegates to the second congress of the Maoist Communist Party in Dersim as they traveled to take part in the gathering. In June the military arm of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, whose armed struggle receives some support from Turkish Maoists, ended the five-year ceasefire it had observed since the capture of its leader Abdullah Ocalan. Its thousands of militants now operate mostly out of northern Iraq.
Iraq
In Iraq itself, a RIM-aligned organization called Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries of Iraq was formed last year.
--------------
Maoist military action so far in 2006
Here is an incomplete list of Maoist actions in India, Nepal, the Philippines and Peru so far this month as reported by the mainstream press:
Jan.1, India: about 100 Maoists attack residence of Rabindranath Kar, longtime leader of West Bengal’s ruling (anti-Maoist) Communist Party (Marxist) in Bandowan in Purulia. Seize security men’s weapons, bomb house killing Kar and wife. Also attack nearby Kuchia police camp.
Jan. 2, India: To punish railroad construction contractor for non-payment of revolutionary taxes, Maoists raid laborers’ camp at village Patritand, in Hazaribag Upendra Kumar, destroy half a dozen dumpers and other railway properties worth over two million rupees.
Jan. 2, Nepal: CPN (Maoist) ends unilateral four-month ceasefire, explodes bombs damaging government building in Bhairahawa city (on border with Uttar Pradesh), city council office in Butwal, and police station in Pokhara (both about 150 miles west of Katmandu). No casualties reported.
Jan. 4, Philippines: NPA ambush kills 3 (Matnog Municipal Police Station chief, soldier and Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units [CAFGU] member), injure police officer and another soldier in Sorsogon (southern Luzon).
Jan. 5, Nepal: Maoists attack police checkpoint near Nepalgunj Airport (on Indian border), kill 3 policemen, seriously injure 2.
Jan. 6, Philippines: NPA raid police stations in Albuera town, Leyte, seize 32 firearms without firing a single shot.
Jan. 6, Philippines: Using a command-detonated landmine, NPA ambush National Police at Sitio San Jose, Barangay Canumay, Claveria town, killing 8s. Maoists seize one cal.30 machine gun, two M-14, four M-16 and one 9mm pistol.
Jan. 8, Nepal: About 25 Maoist cadres detonate two powerful pressure cooker bombs in the office of the Nepalgunj Municipality.
Jan. 9, Nepal: Eight Maoists storm state-run Rastriya Banijya Bank branch in Surkhet district in western Nepal, take away at least 3.5 million rupees.
Jan. 11, Nepal: Maoist guerrillas attack at least five targets. Large contingent storms Dhangadi, headquarters of Kailali district in far-western Nepal, attacking the district, town and municipal police offices as well as the district prison and Royal Nepalese Army barracks. Seize some weapons from police office. At least 7 policemen killed. Maoists also explode two powerful bombs in the district development committee building at Bardiya.
[Jan. 13, India: Following the 19th meeting of the Coordination Committee on Naxalite violence in New Delhi, Union Home Secretary V.K. Duggal discloses “the level of incidents has gone up by four per cent in 2005. I don’t want to go into the reasons but the challenge in 2006 will be to contain it with an integrated approach.”]
Jan. 14, Nepal: Maoists again attack a government office of the Nepalgunj Municipality, the Number 2 Survey Office. Damage estimated at 1.5 million rupees.
Jan. 14, Nepal: 16 Maoist rebels and one soldier killed in Syangja in biggest battle since ceasefire ended.
Jan. 14, Nepal: At least 16 policemen killed in Maoist attacks at Thankot (dozens) and Dadhikot (about 20) in Bhaktapur district. (Thankot is major road entry point into the Katmandu Valley with two million people.) Rebels seize guns and ammunition, flee into hills shouting revolutionary slogans. Also an explosion at the office of ward no. 9 of Lalitpur municipality, and bombing of family house of Chief of Army Staff Pyar Jung Thapa.
Jan. 15, Philippines: about 40 NPA guerillas disguised as army and police officers sprang nine comrades from a jail in Batangas City, south of Manila. Eight firearms confiscated from prison guards.
Jan. 15, Philippines: About 30 NPA rebels kill 4 801st Brigade soldiers and wound 8 in San Jose de Buan in Samar province, southeast of Manila.
Jan. 15, Nepal: Maoists bomb a recently built city council building overnight at Lekhnath town, about 200 kilometers (125 miles) west of Katmandu.
Jan. 16, Philippines: NPA burn ten-wheel hauler truck owned by a town mayor in Davao in Barangay Maratagas after the mayor refused to pay revolutionary taxes.
Jan. 16, India: 24-hour bandh called for by CPI (Maoist) to protest police firing resulting in death of 12 “tribals” and against evictions to allow for construction of foreign-owned industrial township paralyzes Jhargram sub-division in Midnapore West, Bengal. Bus service, schools suspended; shops closed; no visits to public offices. No reported deaths.
Jan. 16, Peru: Peruvian guerrillas kill 5 policemen and wound an officer and a prosecutor in an ambush in town of San Francisco in southern jungle. PCP takes responsibility in a communiqué, says action intended to “break the siege of annihilation against the popular war.”
[Jan. 15, Nepal: 9 PM-4 AM curfew imposed in Katmandu, other cities. Phone lines cut, internet services cut, and about 200 politicians and activists arrested in effort to limit turnout in Friday anti-king demonstration.]
Jan. 16, Peru: Peruvian guerrillas kill 5 policemen and wound an officer and a prosecutor in an ambush in town of San Francisco in southern jungle. PCP takes responsibility in a communiqué, says action intended to “break the siege of annihilation against the popular war.”
Jan. 17, Philippines: NPA squad from a unit of the Agustin Begnalen Command clashes with a 54-man contingent of the 41st IB in a pastureland in Apao, Tineg. Firefight lasts for more than two hours, as the outnumbered NPA guerillas maneuver in the open pastureland. 5 soldiers killed.
Jan. 18, Nepal: 3 Maoists arriving on bicycle bombed and destroy television repeater tower in Heated, about 80 kilometers south of Katmandu, preventing the reception of Nepal Television signals in many parts of south-central Nepal. Lone employee overpowered; no casualties.
Jan. 20, Nepal: Maoists attack two security checkpoints in Napalgunj 310 miles west of Katmandu, killing at least 6 policemen and obtaining weapons and ammunition.
This list focuses on the violent aspect: military attacks, ambushes, targeted assassinations, seizures of weapons and money, destruction of property. These are ongoing wars . The catalog does not record the activities of revolutionary courts, the construction of roads and bridges, land reform, moves against caste ethnic and sexual discrimination, and the provisioning where possible of free education and basic medical care. These constructive enterprises provide people with a stake in the revolution; they generate the popular support necessary to sustain People’s Wars.
“The Red Army fights not merely for the sake of fighting,” Mao wrote in 1929, “but in order to conduct propaganda among the masses, organize them, arm them, and help them to establish revolutionary political power. Without these objectives, fighting loses its meaning and the Red Army loses the reason for its existence.”
“The people are like water,” he wrote two decades later, following the defeat of Japan and as the Communist triumphed over the Guomindang, “and the army is like fish.” Today’s Maoist revolutionaries take such words seriously as they strive to replicate the People’s War that produced the revolution of 1949. So too do their enemies.
The U.S. ambassador to Nepal declared last August, “With a violent, ideological Maoist insurgency desiring to take over the state and then to export its revolution to peaceful neighbors, there is much to worry about.” But those who have nothing to lose but their chains respond, today as always, with enthusiasm to calls for radical change. Their hope is the flipside of the official dread greeting the resurgence of Maoism in the new millennium.
------------------
Gary Leupp is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, at Tufts University and author of numerous works on Japanese history.
I might have more comments on this later. In general, the spirit of Gary Leupp's writing has been great, but he has a tendency to make easy to correct errors, some significant, in the spate of articles he has written on international Maoism over the past year or two.
In this one, for example, he lists the CPI (Maoist) as a RIM party, which it is not.
Posted by: Lurigancho | January 25, 2006 at 01:14 AM
The list of current RIM signatories is at the A World To Win site:
http://www.awtw.org/rim/index.htm
One of the parties that merged into the Indian unified Indian party was in the RIM, one was not.
The only exchange that's been made public was regarding Mumbai Resistance and the World Social Forum, where there were disagreements -- but engaged discussion.
Following these currents -- the proper place for discussion between parties is, well, between parties. Considering the amount of dubious polemics that float around the internet written by who knows who -- I'd suggest caution regarding speculation without public documentation.
Gary's right. It's been a good year.
The last few years haven't been so bad either. Parties formed in Italy, Afghanistan, Iran and as he mentioned, something is happening in Iraq.
The bad news was the horrible massacre of leading comrades in the Turkish movement. This was a horrible blow. I believe the picture at the top of the website with all the flags on the mountain is from a memorial service for the killed.
http://rwor.org/a/008/mkp-massacre-turkey.htm
Posted by: fact checker | January 25, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Yes, the massacre of the MKP leadership should have been mentioned. As should have been the bomb the TKP/ML put on the US military base in Turkey (or was that in late 2004?).
Actually, the status of the CPI(Maoist)'s non-membership in the RIM is not speculation, it is well-known, just as the CPP's non-membership is. You are right, Party to Party discussion should take place in that realm. The RIM is not a Party, though, and the issue of who does and doesn't support it is a major issue in determining whether or not it is in fact the 'embryonic center of the world's Maoists' or just what exactly it is.
This isn't meant as a jab at the RIM. After all, the CPN(M), with clearly the most advanced experience and struggle in the world, seems to aggressively promote the RIM.
In grappling over how to move forward the Maoist forces in this country, it is necessary to grapple with the state of the international movement. Now, that should be done responsibly and not in a speculative fashion. But just because AWTW or the RCP has not publicized something, doesn't mean it isn't public knowledge (and not speculation).
Posted by: Lurigancho | January 25, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Actually, I submitted a second version of the piece on the 22nd asking that it be substituted for the first one (sent on the 20th). It made reference to the Turkish massacre and some other matters.
As for the CPI (Maoist) not being in RIM, the last print-copy AWTW (31/2005)lists the MCCI as a RIM member, and this has now merged with PW to form CPI (Maoist). If the new organization has decided not to join, and this is well-known, then I have indeed made a significant error.
If anyone has additional info, please contact me with it.
Posted by: Gary Leupp | January 25, 2006 at 12:27 PM
These discussions are difficult, and I'm sure some of the participants here have noticed that there are no open comment boards (anywhere on earth) about the international Maoist movement. Red Flags aims to change that... but it also means everybody has to be on their very best behavior. Thanks to those who are trying.
Avakian's critical writings on Stalin.. and on the essential nature of socialism are provocative and very unorthodox. I know they are controversial internationally -- and all the more essential for that reason.
Socialism 2.0 better have more to offer -- and a renewed centrality for popular agency than in the past. This is taking the best of what we've done and building from it, not just finding a lowest common denomenator of using MLM rhetoric to bring a "heavy state" that doesn't have an organic connection to the proletariat and peasantry.
As I understand it, this is the essence of what Avakian is arguing -- and why even (relatively) small parties can make disproportionate contributions that aren't just based on their ability (or inability) to field military forces.
The RIM is certainly AN embryonic center of the world's communist movement -- and compared to the other really-existing international formations, it is on the best basis of unity I've seen. We don't need to ally with revisionsists, or those who mush it all up. Among those who can be struggled with as comrades, such as the CPP and the CPI (Maoist) -- there is much to be done.
I also think the social model offered by the Philippines movement has much to teach, and that if the RIM is to really be that center, then we can see who the forces on the ground are who will make that happen. Better to take time and really work it out than to cobble some patchwork together just to do it... and have it fragment shortly because the unity was superficial.
Posted by: the burningman | January 25, 2006 at 02:27 PM
What stands out to me is the simple silence on the RCP,USA.
Why would anyone assess Maoism in the world and not mention the impact of the RCP in the heartland of imperialism?
What does this imply? That only the third world matters? that really there are no prospects for revolution in imperialist countries? That the only measure of advance is directly military?
Revolutionaries prepare for the seizure of countrywide power in accordance with their conditions. In some countries it is possible to wage a protracted war. In other countries the preparations are political, but also real.
Not only has the RCP made some real, and quite visible strides over the last year -- but objectively (from the position of the international revolutionary movement) these kinds of advances within the U.S. are highly significant and promising.
I also think there are some important theoretical breakthroughs that have been made in the last year -- associated with the work of Bob Avakian. Maoists hold that ideological and political line is key -- and so (from that perspective) such things are also important (and not a small side issue) for any assessment of the international Maoist movement -- its consolidation and advance.
Posted by: other kinds of check | January 25, 2006 at 02:36 PM
No doubt.
Maybe you'd like to write up a short piece that ties that all together? There is certainly enough to comment on. It's been the best year for the RCP in recent memory. They're in the game and on the ball.
Posted by: the burningman | January 25, 2006 at 02:59 PM
Yeah. This article has a lot of good information.
But i do wonder what the line is that leaves out a party that clearly *rates* as both influential and active.
This article bends over backwards to discuss the parties of Bengladesh and Bhutan (even though it can't find any actions in 2005 to list or describe) -- but then there is a black hole where the activity and contributions of the RCP should be mentioned.
Posted by: an observer | January 25, 2006 at 03:03 PM
My "simple silence" on the RCP results from the topic on which I wrote the DV piece--people's wars. An assessment of Maoism globally in 2005 would be a different, more time-consuming project. But I quite agree that the RCP has made impressive strides over the past year, and that the party deserves support.
Posted by: Gary Leupp | January 25, 2006 at 03:06 PM
The last year seems to have really been good for the RCP. If anything, and aside from obvious growth, they are definitely the pole of attraction (or argument) for people seeking communist organization. There are other Marxish groups, but the RCP is about fighting for communism, not using it as a vocabulary to hold "activists" together.
Posted by: peeping the scene | January 25, 2006 at 03:40 PM
Lurigancho -- I would say that more important than who or what supports the RIM (or doesn't), is the basis on which unity is reached. Obviously success in the field wins prestige, but as the South African movement, Evo Morales and parties like the German Left Party show -- it's not just numbers, but line.
How the ICM is re-established, on what basis, has everything to do with whether this here thing is going to happen.
Posted by: the burningman | January 25, 2006 at 04:30 PM
I agree whole-heartedly that the basis on which unity is reached is a key factor. There is no point in getting people united on a basis that is not going to lead to liberation.
But what is the basis of unity of the RIM? Is that the best basis of unity on which to bring together the ICM?
On the one hand, obviously the basis of unity of the RIM consists in the two documents that RIM groups sign on to. However, clearly there is more involved than just signing onto documents.
The fact that the CPP and, at least for the time being the CPI(Maoist) are not signing onto the RIM, for me at least, raises more questions about the RIM than it does about the international line of those two parties.
It is not clear to me that the RIM is particularly united on any number of important issues, so I am not entirely sure if it is useful to talk about the positions of the RIM parties as opposed to the non-RIM parties.
Posted by: Lurigancho | January 25, 2006 at 05:31 PM
I hope the discussion here isn't just about the basis of unity of the RIM, though that's definitely in the mix. GL could have included a description of what it is, but here are the link to their basis of unity:
http://www.awtw.org/rim/index.htm
A contradiction raises the question of what's its nature is, which I wouldn't assume is the same regarding the Indian party and the CPP.
Whatever the particulars, this is not an antagonistic contradiction and, if anything, is moving towards a an eventual unity. That's the spirt I see and certainly the one I'd like to promote.
The Nepalese have been a real inspiration on this. They had disputes and have resolved to allow for freedom of criticism. Having a scientific approach means, among other things, interrogating ideas for their truth -- not just what they say about who proposes them.
If a revolutionary party has wrong positions, it's not a reason to write them off and say "see!"
No.
Struggle with the ideas -- with a real eye towards how these ideas will take on the "dignity of immediate actuality."
Posted by: peeping the scene | January 25, 2006 at 06:20 PM
I raised this, not mainly as some criticism of Gary's informative article, but to sharpen our understanding of line.
Gary wrote: "My 'simple silence' on the RCP results from the topic on which I wrote the DV piece--people's wars. An assessment of Maoism globally in 2005 would be a different, more time-consuming project. "
I did not see a title on "peoples wars" but "2005: A Year of Maoist Resurgence."
It doesn't mention peoples wars as its topic, but Maoism.
And the implication is that this "resurgence" is limited to, defined by, the armed struggle and it alone.
There is a view that the armed struggle is (simply and directly) the measure and essense of maoism. That you can tell who is revisionist and who is not by "who is waging peoples war."
And this is connected to a view that Mao's MAIN contribution to theory and practice was his development of the theory of peoples war.
Historically this view is associated with Lin Biao... and connected with a third world nationalism that is sometimes not particularly lofty or revolutionary.
Lin held that armed struggle was THE dividing line between revisionism and Maoism -- a basically wrong view that led him and similar thinkers to embrace "armed revisionism" (including the Soviet Union itself) as progressive and anti-imperialist.
It is also a theory that downgrades the question of WHAT KIND OF POWER we are going for -- Lin Biao himself had a very revisionist and oppressive view of what socialism should be.
Avakian by contrast talks about the importance of going for power -- but also grappling deeply with how we are "going to do something good with it" when we get it.
This recognision, that it is possible to seize power and do something bad with it, is a rather burning question -- on a world scale and at every stage of the struggle.
In addition isn't it true that not all the armed struggles waged by Maoists (even genuine Maoists) have, in fact, been people's wars.
For example, there is a long history in India of armed struggles by various Mao-identified groups that are criticized as "armed economism" -- where the revolutionaries don't establish political base areas and go for power, but used armed squads to pressure landlords to make concessions. (Similar to the roving rebel band line of Mao's day).
There are other cases in the world where armed groups "settle in" and establish a FARC-like defacto modus vivendi with the central government.
And there have been cases where Maoist groups have unleashed armed struggles that are really quite foco-like -- more like guevarism than protracted peoples war.
In short, armed struggle even if led by self-proclaimed Maoists is not inherently or automatically a peoples war.
There is a sharp line struggle in all revolutions about whether "we fight to seize power, or we fight to negotiate major reforms from a powerful position."
This is a struggle that is not simply or definitively settled, but gets reposed by real life.
So gary's article (intentionally or not) suggests that the "resurgence of Maoism" is defined by the armed struggles he lists. And implies that these armed struggles are all by definition "peoples wars."
And the article gives the impression (intentionally or not) that the RCP does not figure into the 2005 Resurgence of Maoism.
All i can say is "Why not?"
Gary writes: "An assessment of Maoism globally in 2005 would be a different, more time-consuming project."
I think there is a view implied here -- that you don't need to assess the armed struggles.
Or, to put it another way, if summing up the RCP's work in 2005 would take some real analysis (which I can't differ with) -- what makes you think that summing up the work of the Indian or Philippine maoists is any easier?
Why is it possible to assume that you can report on, assess, that struggle merely by plopped down a list of actions?
Gary writes: "I quite agree that the RCP has made impressive strides over the past year, and that the party deserves support."
Ok, then why leave it out. And what message does that send?
Posted by: an observor | January 25, 2006 at 06:24 PM
I don't think it sends any message at all.
There are several countries where Maoism has become the dominant form of popular resistance. There are different strands of this movement.
Gary said it pretty straight why he made that choice. It's been suggested that someone can write that missing piece -- I'd love to read it.
Posted by: peeping the scene | January 25, 2006 at 06:30 PM
I wasn't responding to your points, peeping (sorry for the confusion).
Was precisely responding to Gary when he said "pretty straight why he made that choice."
And i was precisely trying to dig into the implications and assumptions in making that choice that way.
Posted by: an observor | January 25, 2006 at 06:34 PM
This is in response to "an observor" who asks "why leave [the RCP] out"and "What message does that send?"
The limited intent of the piece is clear from the opening paragraph which indicates I will focus on "the four countries most affected by Maoist organizations."
I'm certainly open to struggle on this, but I do not think that in 2005 the US was as affected by Maoist organizations (the RCP plus any others) as were Nepal, India, the Philippines and Peru. This is not because Maoist movements in countries without PWs are less important, or that at some point the RCP might not influence the course of events in the US to the same extent that Maoists are doing in the countries I discussed (the tangential references to Bhutan and Bangladesh obviously with reference to developments in Nepal and India). But had I decided to discuss the RCP, then I'd feel inclined to do some research on the Maoist Communist Party of Italy and non-RIM European Maoist parties etc. Seems to me one can do a piece on countries with Maoist PWs; one on Maoism as a whole; or one that awkwardly joins the former with discussion of the RCP not because this makes a lot of sense but in order to avoid criticism that one is dissing the RCP by omission.
The DV title, "2005: A Year of Maoist Resurgence" was appended after I finished the piece. The subtitle, "A Political and Military Assessment" was added by this site, and perhaps implies a more encyclopedic project than I undertook. Anyway, the implication by "an observor" that any talk of Maoist resurgence that leaves out the RCP's 2005 advances is somehow an Lin Biao-like overvaluation of Maoist parties currently waging armed struggle strikes me as dogmatic and unfair.
Posted by: Gary Leupp | January 26, 2006 at 08:30 AM
Thanks for your reply and clarifications, Gary.
Let me add a few clarifications of meaning to my own post.
Gary wrote: "I'm certainly open to struggle on this, but I do not think that in 2005 the US was as affected by Maoist organizations (the RCP plus any others) as were Nepal, India, the Philippines and Peru."
This is hard to dispute.
Gary wrote: "This is not because Maoist movements in countries without PWs are less important, or that at some point the RCP might not influence the course of events in the US to the same extent that Maoists are doing in the countries I discussed."
Noted and agreed.
Gary writes, "Had I decided to discuss the RCP, then I'd feel inclined to do some research on the Maoist Communist Party of Italy and non-RIM European Maoist parties etc."
I don't see the logic here.
Gary argues against doing something "in order to avoid criticism that one is dissing the RCP by omission."
I certainly agree that it would b e wrong to do something merely to "avoid criticism" -- especially if that criticism is unjust.
However, as i wrote, my point was not to criticize you at all, but to suggest that there has been a rather one-sided assumption (around and about, perhaps not including you) that the defining thing about maoi
Gary writes: "The DV title, '2005: A Year of Maoist Resurgence' was appended after I finished the piece. The subtitle, 'A Political and Military Assessment' was added by this site, and perhaps implies a more encyclopedic project than I undertook."
Anyway, the implication by "an observor" that any talk of Maoist resurgence that leaves out the RCP's 2005 advances is somehow an Lin Biao-like overvaluation of Maoist parties currently waging armed struggle strikes me as dogmatic and unfair.
Posted by: an observer | January 26, 2006 at 02:17 PM
I accidentally hit "post" on the preceding remarks -- without finishing them (or worse, without editing them.) Sorry folks.
However, the point I wanted to make was that i had not intended a criticism of Gary.
Perhaps his last paragraph gets at this most.
Gary writes: "Anyway, the implication by 'an observor' that any talk of Maoist resurgence that leaves out the RCP's 2005 advances is somehow an Lin Biao-like overvaluation of Maoist parties currently waging armed struggle strikes me as dogmatic and unfair."
I certainly did not mean to imply that. And in particular, did not mean to imply that about Gary's piece.
First: this is hardly a time to talk about "overvaluing" struggles like the revolution in Nepal -- which are, to put it mildly, INvaluable. (Including on a world scale.)
i was describing and criticizing a Lin Biaoist view as part of the political landscape -- not ascribing it to gary or his piece. And I thought that was clear in context.
Posted by: an observer | January 26, 2006 at 02:26 PM
Just so people know the lingo being used, Lin Biao was the leader of the People's Liberation Army and tended to believe that People's Wars in the third world would surround the "city" of the imperialist countries. He was an advocate of armed struggle, but was also deeply "commandist" in his political orientation.
He was the editor of the Red Book, which was originally used as a political education tool inside the PLA before it spread to mass popularity. For many years, Lin Biao was considered the likely successor to Mao.
There was a major campaign in the Cultural Revolution against dogmatism and commandism called "Criticize Lin Biao and Confucious" that I'm studying right now.
How Biao died is a matter of speculation, but the most widely accepted variation is that he attempted to flee to the Soviet Union and that his plane was shot down in transit. Almost like Trotsky, he wanted to militarize socialism and deeply failed to grasp how popular agency was the core of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Why did someone need to understand what Mao was saying when they could just memorize aphorisms and do what they were told?
In this discussion, Lin Biaoism refers to "third worldism," or writing off revolution in the imperialist countries. Or using the force of arms to make political arguments.
I think the post criticizing Gary for not including the RCP was a little quick. But the essence of it is correct. The RCP's role both within the United States and internationally is disproportionate to its physical size.
Maoism isn't just "third world Marxism." It's revolutionary communism. Including the RCP, USA is a way of showing the depth of this movement and its global aspirations.
As of now, there are no other Maoist parties in the United States. There are post-Maoist groups such as (the two) Freedom Roads, and a couple of non-entitities that mainly exist online (with highly dubious politrix).
In Europe, there is a real push happening now. A RIM-associated Maoist party recently formed in Italy, and a continental speaking tour regarding the situation in Nepal is hitting most major centers.
For many years, Maoism in Europe has been concentrated in immigrant communities, most notably the Turks in Germany. This is changing, too -- and is great news to be cheered.
Should a party form in France or Britain, or Spain -- the possibility of speaking to the very particular crisis of Europe is there. So far, much of the discontent has been swept up by social movements which are largely re-articulations of failed social-democracy. See the German Party of the Left, Communist Refoundation in Italy and the Trots who get the big electoral numbers in France.
With the uprisings in the French suburbs (immigrant ghettos), we can see the lines that the next left will be built off of. Maoism speaks directly to this situation, and the sooner it articulates itself instead of existing in the breach, the better for the whole world.
So, Gary -- investigate that European scene, and also note that the while the RCP isn't governing any part of the USA, it certainly is helping change the game in a way that is surprising just about everyone.
Maoism is a world movement. It is revolutonary communism. It is the specter that haunts not just Europe, as Marx said, but the world.
Posted by: the burningman | January 26, 2006 at 02:47 PM
another element of this is the mistaken notion that "all we need is the will to do it."
There is a false implication in the Lin Biaoist view that the conditions are fairly uniformily and continually ripe for revolution (pretty much anywhere in the world) and that launching revolution is therefore mainly a matter of will (courage, subjective desire, and "class stand").
In fact, important as subjective factors are (including line in the first place, not mainly gut "will") -- there are also major objective consideration involved. Hence the importance of the approach of "hasten and await" (raised and advocated by Avakian).
And it also implies that theory is a settled matter -- that all that is needed now is "application" of what has already "been laid down."
As if the world hasn't changed in very major ways since Mao led the long march -- including in ways that impact strategy and tactics.
Posted by: an observor | January 26, 2006 at 03:06 PM
Don't sleep on "gut will."
That's why the people love Che. Whatever other mistakes he made, the motherF went to the mat.
Posted by: Hey hey | January 26, 2006 at 03:33 PM
Well, one big change since the days of the Long March is the F-16.
What's interesting about Iraq militarily is that the insurgency is based in the cities, not the "mountains." It's certainly not a people's war, though.
There is some dispute about the issue of "base areas" -- in particular in India. Here's a situation where a very powerful central state can bring such a magnitude of force to bear on any locale in the country that there is really no possibility of a Yenan... except, perhaps, a little further north in "the mountains."
These are heady days.
Posted by: hey hey | January 26, 2006 at 03:46 PM
"Observor" -- The sharpest knives get dull the fastest. The rigid board breaks because it can't bend. Water beats rock.
Posted by: handy dandy | January 26, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Some of the comments here raise a question for me. A couple of commenters say that the RCP-USA deserves to be included in an article such as Leupp's about the resurgence of Maoism in 2005.
Underlying this view is the belief that the RCP has made significant advances over the last year. I don't mean to ask this in a nay-saying kind of way, but I'm genuinely curious what that view of the RCP's advances is based on. The RCP doesn't exist in my city, so I don't directly see their work on the ground. I'd like to know what it looks like to people who see them on the ground and have seen them over a longer period of time to have something to compare to.
The RCP doesn't report membership numbers, so there's no way to verify if they are growing numerically. Of course, seeing more people selling Revolution newspaper and seeing more people in their contingents at demos would be a good way to guess that they are growing. So I'm curious, does it look like they're growing?
And, more importantly, I have some questions in terms of their political work. They have clearly kicked off a number of new initiatives over the past few years. World Can't Wait is the most visible of those, and seems to have met some success in resonating somewhat broadly among a layer of progressives and even angry liberals, and has succeeded in mobilizing some folks beyond just the RCP and their supporters. That is an accomplishment and is a good thing.
But the RCP has had various initiatives over the years that seem to me to have had success comparable to WCW. For example, is WCW much different than No Business As Usual in the 80s? From my experience (and hazy memory), the number of people mobilized at the protests is about the same; dozens to hundreds in smaller cities and maybe a thousand or two in a couple of their strongest cities. Both NBAU and WCW were endorsed by some big-name leftists; both succeeded in mobilizing mainly high school students and youth that other groups hadn't even tried to mobilize. Maybe WCW has reached deeper into the 'disaffected liberal' folks, even including some elected Democratic Party politicians.
For another example, the Oct 22 Coalition against police brutality, in the first couple years at least, was picked up more broadly than the RCP and their supporters, and there were mobilizations in many cities where the RCP didn't have a presence. They got a decent sized turnout to the demos in their strongest cities. They succeeded in getting endorsement from some prominent leftists and prominent family members of well-known police brutality victims.
All of this is not to poo-poo the RCP's work with World Can't Wait or to say that I disagree that the RCP is in the midst of a resurgence. Honestly I don't know the answer to that. I just wanted to try to put it in a historical context of the RCP's initiatives and activity over the years and see what people think. My disagreements with the RCP aside, I have been interested to see how WCW goes and have been somewhat impressed. These types of sweeping, broad-call actions are the RCP's strength.
Any thoughts or comments?
Posted by: Questions About RCP's 'Resurgence' | January 26, 2006 at 05:58 PM