Maoist Resurgence in 2005: A Political and Military Assessment

[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.

Comments

[Rez]

WCW is a qualitatively different endeavor than No Business As Usual or October 22. This is not to say that the latter two were/are not important. They are, and should continue to be. I just went to my first O22 march this year and it was inspiring to see hundreds of proletarian youth, revolutionaries, and community leaders marching to a chorus of "NYPD you can't hide, we charge you with homicide!"

But the way I see it is, O22, Refuse and Resist, NION, and other coalitions that the Party has helped initiate or heavily participated in are more or less devoted to attacking particular outrages of the system (police brutality, imperialist war, suppression), whereas WCW is trying to do something essentially unprecedented in American history. Unprecedented, and profoundly necessary.

This isn't just a gimic or a cool slogan. We are very serious about doing exactly what we say we're going to do, and we're equally serious about what kind of moment we're in right now and the necessity of driving this hideous fascist regime from power.

'Questions' draws paralells between WCW and NBAU and 022, for example, in: how broadly they resonated among the general masses, prominent endorsers, turnouts, etc. And I don't think it's wrong or totally useless to examine those kinds of things, 'cause yeah, how many people turn out does affect how successful the whole endeavor is going to be in various ways. But you've also gotta examine the politics and objectives as well.

NBAU is not O22 is not WCW. World Can't Wait has the potential to polarize society and American politics in a way unseen since the 60's and to make unprecendented leaps and strides in the struggle against theocratic facsism - AND advancing the revolutionary movement in the United States. Imagine what kind of world we'd be living in tomorrow if Bush was forced to step down by an independant, bottom-up movement of the masses and he had to take his entire program packing - his endless war, theocratic program, and 1984 style police state. That would be a MUCH better world for the people, not to mention revolutionary movement here and around the globe.

Now imagine a world where that didn't happen, and the theocratic fascists were able to consolidate their hold on power and push through their program to its fullest extent. Then you get an idea of the kind of stakes we're looking at here.

So yeah, that's my two cents. Well, here's the last of it actually. First, the success of World Can't Wait, and the Party in promoting it, building it, and providing what perspective and leadership it can in this moment, will ULTIMATELY be decided by whether we drive out this irredeemably vile batch of modern-day brownshirts. And that ain't gonna happen unless people are willing to stand up and join the fight.

Jan. 31st, wherever you are. Join us in bringing the noise and drowning out Bush's lies. If you have disagreements or reservations about WCW's analysis and program, let's get into that (hell, even if you do we'd still be glad to have ya if you wanna see these bums thrown out!). But the State of the Union and Feb. 4th actions need to be a turning point.

(Regarding something not totally unrelated, I would actually love to see Gary Leupp doing a piece on revolutionary communism in the imperialist countries. And not just about the RCP: there's lots to talk about, including the new party in Italy and a new Maoist formation in Canada that seems to have real on the ground strength; albeit major and problematic line issues related to PW, revolution in imp. countries and the like.)

[Christopher Day]

I support WCW, just as I supported NBAU at one point. But I think its a fair question to ask how WCW is different from other mass initiatives the RCP has built/supported, if only to help us appreciate the changes.

On thing that stands out as very similar is the breathlessness and quasi-apocalyptic predictions about the future. In the 80s it was World War III. Now its a Christian fascist takeover.

I must admit that I am receptive to this sort of stuff, but I also distrust it. What I distrust is the kind of political culture that gets created around the urgency of the present moment. There is a pattern (not limited to the RCP by any means) of whipping ourselves up into a frenzy about the world historic importance of the NEXT BIG ACTION that becomes a way of avoiding facing the real complexities of being revolutionaries in a decidely non-revolutionary situation.

Of course there is always the possibility that things could heat up very fast and that it is precisely this sort of frenzied activity that is needed to push things over that edge. Thats what is seductive to me. The problem is I've been through it a few times (and put others through it) and it makes me a little cautious.

I say this not to discourage anybody from participating as energetically as they can, but really just to encourage a frank conversation. I think WCW is important even if the situation isn't exactly the one of incipient fascism or civil war that has been suggested. I think its at the very least putting pressure on a whole lot of other forces to get off their asses.

[peeping the scene]

Christopher, what do you thing fascism is? I don't mean to open a gigantic can of worms, but do you think the analysis is just a motivational device?

Or, was it during the 1980s? The 80s were when the left became "cool." There was a danger of nuclear war in the 80s that was pronounced. This country was crazy that it became normalized and the "craziness" of the RCP was in not joining the general malaisical malady.

I was very young and not too politically sophisticated in the days of No Business As Usual. I don't trust many of my memories, which are very fragmentary.

It seems to me that the RCP has made gains not just in their mass work, but also internally. This is really key, in particular Avakian's opening of "embraces not replaces." The implications of this on the practice of the organization are beginning to be felt.

There has been a small, Maoist-inspired parallel left in this country since the RCP formed. What is changing, as I see it, is the ability of that to play a broader catalyzing role. That's different, though the October 22 Coalition was the beginning of the "effectiveness" shift.

[uh just a point]

there WAS a real danger of world war 3 in the 1980s. That wasn't hype.

To imply otherwise is a major and mistaken rewrite of reality.

And there IS a real danger of fascism now. That isn't hype either.

[Rez]

Chris:

Hmm. I'm pretty sure I wasn't alive for most of the NBAU stuff, or at least I wasn't capable of cognitive thought beyond "feed me, dammit". So I can't say I had any on the ground experiance with that.

But I wouldn't say the party was mistaken in pointing to the danger of intra-imperialist nuclear war at that point in history. It was a very, very real possibility, not an apocalyptic fantasy - the party wasn't trying to predict the future through Bob's Crystal Ball of Dialectics or something - and it wasn't wrong to point out that possibility and mobilize people against it. You might fault them for not predicting the collapse of the Soviet imperial bloc, but to be fair not alotta other people saw that shit coming either till things came to a head.

And could something like that happen again? Maybe. The Bush regime could, I dunno, get vaporized by a big honkin' meteor tomorrow and we can pack up our acid green signs and breath a sigh of relief.

OK, that's me being a smartass about it, granted. But the facts are this, to paraphrase the Call: Bush and his crew are shaping up to radically remake society in a fascist way for generations to come. Alito and Roberts are dead set on overturning Roe and establishing a unitary executive with virtually unlimited power. They're on the bench for life. People in this country are disappearing into the dead of the night into ala Chile or El Salvador, in the name of prosecuting an imperial war that will never end and that the Democrats are themselves committed to fighting. Torture of the most heinous variety is being -openly- justified and people are being spied upon without even the vaguest pretense of the rule of law (even their own fascist laws like the PATRIOT act!)

If this shit isn't stopped, bad times are ahead. That's just how it's shaping up. And I'd rather rely on independant historical action from the people to stop it than just hope that by chance things get better on their own, which as far as I can see is rather bloody unlikely.

This is not normal. Things are not going to reverse by themselves, and like Sunsara's said, the old 'normalcy' we've become accustomed to may never be coming back. It wouldn't take Bush proclaiming himself president for life or an apocalyptic civil war for this madness to BECOME the new normalcy and be taken even further to lengths we can only darkly imagine today.

I see what you were saying here: "There is a pattern (not limited to the RCP by any means) of whipping ourselves up into a frenzy about the world historic importance of the NEXT BIG ACTION that becomes a way of avoiding facing the real complexities of being revolutionaries in a decidely non-revolutionary situation."

This is definitely a real contradiction to consider. We (and by that I mean communists and other revolutionary minded people involved in WCW) are doing our damndest to make sure that doesn't happen. At the same time as we help build WCW we are doing our own independant ideological and political work - not divorced from WCW, but above and beyond it so to speak - promoting our party's line, program, and leadership. We haven't stashed our newspaper in the cupboards or taken revolution off the table till this is finished. Quite the contrary. And the party has certainly considered the possibility this moment holds for a revolutionary situation, and its responsibility to the people to make the most of that - or whatever comes next, for that matter.

Again, I'm not sure I've answered all your concerns and I certainly haven't gotten into all the complexities, opportunities, and pitfalls this situation holds. To be honest, I'm grappling with alot of the issues and implications of all of this myself. But that's my piece for the moment.

[mark]

I just came across some lines from Lenin's 'What is to be done?' which I feel make the point here rather well:
"To maintain today that Iskra exaggerated (in 1901 and 1902!) the idea of an organization of professional revolutionaries is like reproaching the Japanese, after the Russo-Japanese War, for having exaggerated the strength of Russia’s armed forces, for having prior to the war exaggerated the need to prepare for fighting these forces. To win victory the Japanese had to marshal all their forces against the probable maximum of Russian forces ... [T]oday the idea of an organization of professional revolutionaries has already scored a complete victory. That victory would have been impossible if this idea had not been pushed to the forefront at the time, if we had not “exaggerated” so as to drive it home to people who were trying to prevent it from being realized."

[Lurigancho]

Now, exaggeration isn't exactly lying, but it isn't telling the truth either. So, can we read this passage as an example of 'class truth' in Lenin's practice?

Related to that, can rationalizations of exaggeration be reconciled with RCP's emphasis on the importance of truth?

On another note, related to this thread, in the new Maoist Information Bulletin #11 the CPN(M) does their own short round up of the state of the international revolutionary forces and of the RIM. The two most relevant passages are:

"From the resistance developing in Iraq, as a new Vietnam, and Afghanistan to the revolutionary movements in Nepal, India, Peru, Turkey and Philippines; to the chain of people’s protest and discontent rising from the masses of the people in America to those in Europe, the US imperialism and their agents, the domestic rulers, have been the only common enemy of the people everywhere."

and

"Certainly, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), which has come forward with a resolve of defending, applying and developing the basic principles of MLM, has played important role ideologically. But, extensive study, debate and struggle is necessary to make it reach at the role of a real leadership to the world revolution by developing it to the level of New Communist International capable to face challenges of the 21st century."

The link to the full bulletin, a very worthwhile read, is: http://cpnm.org/new/English/documents/bulletin-11.htm

[just another point]

mark: i don't think we should argue in favor of the utility of exaggeration. We should seek to actually have a correct and truthful analysis.

And there are some cardinal questions involved:

A utilitarian argument says: Well we got people to act in a positive way, even if in part by exaggerating and hyping (i.e. distorting) reality.

It is a kinda "ends justifies the means" argument.

But in fact (as BA is arguing) a key to the whole cause is to put reality before the people -- and have them grapple with its real contradictions, together with their vanguard.

And inherent in the utilitarian argument is a view that the people can't really do that -- that they need to be manipulated (essentially) for their own good.

This (like any pragmatic argument) MAY have some short-term benefit or positive results. But (if I understand him correctly) BA is arguing that such an approach to ideas is ultimately and fundamentally counterproductive -- and that we need to have a passion for truth (and, to all the instrumentalists reading this, not just because in politics it is useful to appear sincere and honest!) It has to do with who we are in fundamental ways, and what we are trying to accomplish, and where the (non-reified) proletariat stands and what it stands for in a sweeping historic sense.

Now, people make mistakes in analysis. Some of that is inevitable. Some of it is not.

The vanguard was not wrong to say that World War 3 was a looming possibility, and that politics needed to take into account that the world might be turned upside down in some shocking ways.

And they have analyzed in some depth how they WERE wrong -- in some reductionist ways. In their assumption that if revolution in large or strategic parts of the world didn't prevent it, then world war was inevitable. That was oversimplified (not "exaggerated"). And that reductionism has been struggled over

see here: http://rwor.org/a/special_postings/poleco_e.htm

"One thing that has become apparent, both in reviewing our past theoretical work and in analyzing the present situation, is the need to make further ruptures with 'Third International methodology.' By this we mean notions of linear and preordained, or what we have sometimes called 'typical,' development—that is, history obeying fixed or always recurring patterns. This methodology also involves notions of 'absolute thresholds'—development having a fixed end-point or reaching a point past which this or that has to happen. This methodology, which guided much of the theoretical work of the Third International of communist parties in the 1920s and 1930s, cuts against understanding the real dialectical process of social development and the dynamic role of conscious, revolutionary practice. In carrying forward with this investigation, we want to share results with others and learn from and get input from others, in and outside the party."

(and this struggle was, incidentally, one of the struggles that led to a reversal and deepening of their position on homosexuality -- see the chapter on this in the "conversations" book of BA and Bill Martin).

I also think that a somewhat-unspoken issue here is assessment of possibilities.

Chris Day writes "There is a pattern (not limited to the RCP by any means) of whipping ourselves up into a frenzy about the world historic importance of the NEXT BIG ACTION that becomes a way of avoiding facing the real complexities of being revolutionaries in a decidely non-revolutionary situation."

Well, this is a non-revolutonary situation. And there is not a revolutoinary situation "immediately on the horizon."

But I think that is where the agreement peters out. Because I think the vanguard is grappling with how to do REVOLUTIONARY work in a still-nonrevolutionary situation. And I suspect that Chris has a very different sense of what that means.

And (perhaps more important) I suspect that the vanguard sees a possibility (not a certainty or a likelyhood) of a constitutional crisis (and with it perhaps a revolutionary situation) emerging out of THESE moments -- including even the struggle over the actions of the Bush regime.

So this moment may be "decidedly non-revolutionary" -- but there are unspoken differences in how or whether that could change.

That's why Rez's tone and point is so different from Chris.... when Rez writes, "We haven't stashed our newspaper in the cupboards or taken revolution off the table till this is finished. Quite the contrary. And the party has certainly considered the possibility this moment holds for a revolutionary situation, and its responsibility to the people to make the most of that - or whatever comes next, for that matter."

Haven't some people "stashed" revolution in the cupboard under the assumption that it is not in the cards?

[just another point]

lurigancho writes: "Now, exaggeration isn't exactly lying, but it isn't telling the truth either."

Conscious exaggeration is in fact lying, and it is certainly (as you poiint out) "an example of 'class truth' in Lenin's practice."

I agree with your overal point here, including your question: "can rationalizations of exaggeration be reconciled with RCP's emphasis on the importance of truth?"

The answer is no.

On our posting from the "Maoist Information Bulletin #11.

You say "the CPN(M) does their own short round up of the state of the international revolutionary forces and of the RIM."

Actually the passages you quote are not a "short round up of the state of the international forces" the way you say.

The quote sketching the forces opposing the U.S. imperialism (which as we all know, includes in place like Iraq and elsewhere forces that are hardly even progressive, let alone revolutionary).

It is making a different point and should NOT be seen as some "short" summation of the revolutionary forces.

You give a second passage:
"Certainly, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), which has come forward with a resolve of defending, applying and developing the basic principles of MLM, has played important role ideologically. But, extensive study, debate and struggle is necessary to make it reach at the role of a real leadership to the world revolution by developing it to the level of New Communist International capable to face challenges of the 21st century."

I don't know if you think that this implies something new about the RIM. The Committee of the RIM's own assessment is that it is an "embryonic center" and that major leaps are needed to be an international. Who can dispute that "extensive study, debate and struggle is necessary"?

[Lurigancho]

First, off, I want to unite whole-heartedly with JAP's defense of the truth and the need for truth, not exaggeration (even while probably disagreeing about what the truth actually is in some important regards). And I think it is good to be bold and say where Lenin and other great leaders have made mistakes on this question.

On the two Info. Bulletin excerpts:

I posted the CPN(M)'s comments on the RIM because they were new and relevant to this discussion. If I had meant to imply something by it, I would have tried to spell out what it meant in my own words.

In the case of the 'revolutionary forces' except, I disagree. I think the resistance in Iraq contains significant progressive elements, and that overall their struggle against US imperialism is a revolutionary struggle. You are right, though, that the CPN(M)'s intention in that sentence was to round up the activity of forces opposed to US imperialism. However, the section of the sentence that reads "the revolutionary movements in Nepal, India, Peru, Turkey and Philippines" (which is set off from the Iraqi and Afghani resistance on the one hand, and from "the chain of people’s protest and discontent rising from the masses of the people in America to those in Europe" on the other hand) certainly appears to be a reference to what they see as the main MLM movements in the world today (if only by virtue of demonstrated strength and mass support). That is how I read the significance of the naming of those particular countries and struggles. Going back to the beginning of this thread, I don't think the significant overlap between those 5 countries and where Leupp focused on for his article is accidental.

[just a comment]

lurigancho writes, "However, the section of the sentence that reads "the revolutionary movements in Nepal, India, Peru, Turkey and Philippines" (which is set off from the Iraqi and Afghani resistance on the one hand, and from "the chain of people’s protest and discontent rising from the masses of the people in America to those in Europe" on the other hand) certainly appears to be a reference to what they see as the main MLM movements in the world today (if only by virtue of demonstrated strength and mass support)."

Maybe that is what they mean, maybe not.

They list struggles in the world (some of them armed struggles, some of them not). They do not say anything about what are the "main Maoist movements." (That is completely your insertion.)

Beware of circular reasoning -- where you might start with your own verdict (on what are the main MLM movements, and how that is determined) -- and then read that reasoning into someone else's brief almost telegraphic sentences.

[Lurigancho]

Hey, if you've got another way of thinking about why those 5 countries' struggles would be put together and set aside in that statement, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

That said, one certainly should not infer too much from short statements like that. Still, it is a statement pregnant with meaning.

[just a comment]

Someone has listed the world's main armed struggles led by Maoists. OK.

Does that mean this is a "reference to what they see as the main MLM movements..."

I don't know if they think that. But clearly it is your view.

They might just have been grouping the armed struggles together -- and the movements that are not armed separately.

[peeping the scene]

I can't really figure out where Lurigancho is coming from. There's this tension just below the words that we're supposed divine his (?) larger criticisms from -- but I can't.

What is it you are trying to say?

Where are you coming from?

[peeping the scene]

I can't really figure out where Lurigancho is coming from. There's this tension just below the words that we're supposed divine his (?) larger criticisms from -- but I can't.

What is it you are trying to say?

Where are you coming from?

What are you advocating?

[Lurigancho]

I've been trying to write clearly, I'm not trying to communicate some sort of sub-text.

If you have questions about particular things that I've said, things that you feel are especially filled with tension below the words, feel free to point them out and ask. It is not my intention to convey that sort of tension.

The last thing I wrote was just trying to say how I read the Nepal statement. Nothing more or less than that.

[mark]

What Lenin is saying here is not to advocate conscious exaggeration! Rather, he is saying that it is ridiculous to criticise things with hindsight as having been exaggerations.

I do not really believe that the Bush regime is fascist (though it certainly has tendencies), let alone 'Christian fascist'. And as for a coming civil war, forget it. But I do think BA believes this - he's not exaggerating, and I think this is fine.

Very simply, noone knows what will happen in the future. We can analyse reality in the present to our hearts' content and it won't tell us what will happen in the future. So we have to make tactical estimations. Lenin's point is that being cautious, preparing for worst case scenarios like fascism, is generally a sound strategy, better than the opposite error.

[fellow traveling]

I think the comparison is about those "tendencies."

Unrestrained and open terror of capitalism. If Bush still has a few constraints, I'm wondering what they are.

Not even the Nazis openly argued for torture. Their camps weren't on nightly news like Gitmo...

Bush has shock troops on the ground in the form of Christian fascists -- this is different than "conservatism."

[mope? nope. cope!]

mark writes: "And as for a coming civil war, forget it. But I do think BA believes this - he's not exaggerating, and I think this is fine."

hmmm. The headline of BA's article has "coming civil war" in quotes. Because it is a quote from Newt Gingrich.

Avakian is not literally saying that there is (for sure) a literal civil war on the horizon.

He is sayiing that some intension conflicts (inside the current society) are going to be be fought out now (in the period ahead) to a decision. That the CFs aren't going away, and aren't going to be molified.

The form that this "fight to a decision" takes depends on what we do (among other things.)

He specifically mentions (see the most recent articles run in Revolution) that this may happen "without a literal civil war" -- and that this would (in many ways) be the worst outcome. If they win, settle in, and transform the society without a powerful, unmistakalbe resistance from millions, if their victory seems to have the support/acquiences of pretty much everyone -- then so much more complete that victory is.

mark writes: "Very simply, noone knows what will happen in the future. We can analyse reality in the present to our hearts' content and it won't tell us what will happen in the future. So we have to make tactical estimations. Lenin's point is that being cautious, preparing for worst case scenarios like fascism, is generally a sound strategy, better than the opposite error."

I don't agree. The above is basically an argument against scientific thinking (or perhaps against the idea that it is possible to be scientific about social events and developments).

We can see powerful forces, tendencies, and conflicts in the present -- and analyze (on the basis of that) possible outcomes based on the emergence and resolution of contradictions.

"Prediction" is not a crystal ball. Avakian is not saying "this will happen, and that will happen" -- he is pointing to tendencies, forces and trajectories -- which actually have weight and necessity. The future emerges based on the present (just as the present emerged on the basis of the past) -- and that linkage is material.

Avakian is not "preparing for worst case scenarios" -- but rallyinig us all to wrench best case scenarios OUT OF THE SPECTRUM OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES. That, after all, is the point -- not just interpreting the world, but changing it.

[Harsh Thakor]

Just to recap Comrades I believe it is a premature stage to form aCommmunist International.There is lack of development of proletarian parties worldwide sufficiently.Remember the experience of the dissolution of the Soviet Comintern in 1943 and the fact that the Chinese Communist Party never called for the formation of one even in 1966-1976.Personally I admire Avakian's call for allowing greater dissidence in Socialist socierties particularly fee thought and ideas.The other factor to combat was the creatin of a personality cult which was created in Mao's era particularlty by Lin Biao.Howevere there have been wrong trends by the R.C.P.like it's assesment of the Chinsese International giving greater emphasis on combating the Soviet Union as well as on Stalin's International line in 1935 regarding the United Front.I questio whether a personality cult has been built around Comrade Bob Avakian.Another important aspect of the Chinese Communist Party was taht bthey never imposed their line on other Communist Parties and infact opposed that.In India there was aprinicipale struggle agaisnt the 3 Worlds theory of the 1978 C.C.P.which was led by the C.R.C C.P.I(M.L) and by Comrdae Harbhajan Sohi within the U.C.C.R.I.(M.L)in 1979.Infact the International line he propounded had outstanding theoretical clarity and was the basos of developinga correct Internatinal line.

[Harsh Thakor]

On the Maaoist Movement in India

In India it is avery complex study on the Maoist Movement.Basically,it is divided into 3 trends.The first of the C.P.I.(Maoist),the second of the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L) and the third of groups like The C.PI.(M.L)Kanu Sanyal and New Democracy Groups.The C.PI.(M.L)Liberation gtoup has already capitualted to the revisionsit Camp.
The C.PI.(Maoist)'s formation in 2004 (merging of Peoples War Group with the M.C C)is of historic importance and it is waging aheroic armed struggle in Bihar,Andhra Pradesh and Dandkaranya.However it is still implementing the line of annihilation of the class enemy and still does not adopt the correct policy of practice within mass organsiatios deploying them as major front organsations.Several of their armed actions are not based on the people's movements and infact substitute them.True there are heroic action slike Jehenabad jailbreak and Madhuban actio in Bihar but overall acorrect military line has not been developed.In Earlier phasr mass oragnsiation like the Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti in Bihar gave outsatnding practices of mass line.Work has alos been neglected in the trade Union Movement to link the working class Struggles with that of the peasantry.
The C.P.R.C.I.(M.L) foromed in 1994 is the most correct group in theory and practice and has led an outstanding movement in Orissa and Punjab.In Orissa it has led a great movement in the Malkangiri district where tribals have formed their own revolutinary mass organsation to defend their rights to their forsests and land and even resisted multinational companies.Outstanding struggles have been led in self -defence and for protection of rights over bamboo trees.It implemented the most outstanding agrarian revolutionary practice seen in India and democratic functioning.In Punjab it has formed a bigd revolutinaty political platform and led some outstanding peasnt struggles of both the landed and landless peasants. Historic struggles were led in Balahar Vinju in Bhatinda district of the landlesss labourers opposing their land being auctioed and of middle peasnts in Jethuke in Bhatinda district.The mass political platform with mass oragnsiations led 3 historic election campaigns opposing tactics of active boycott and participation and graetly aroused the masses.Earlier constitient oragisnatin sof the C.P.R.C.I.(M.l)namely the C.C.RI.and the C.T.(C.PI.M.L)Led a historic movement against Khalisatni terrorism where they developed a mass revolutionary front which gave outstanding mass revolutionary resistance against the Khalistani forces like in Moga on JUly 10th .The same trend i the 1970's led the hsitioric movement of the Punjab Students UNion and the Naujavan Bharat Sabha,one of the largest youth movements.A historic rally was led in protest agaisnt the murder of Prithipala Singh Randhawa in 1979.THere was alos a famousMoga Sangram rally led in 1974.The origin of this line is with the struggle for mass line of Tarimala Nagi Reddy and DV.Rao agaisnt the adventurist Charu Mazumdar lin,eventually forming the U.C.C.R.I.(M.L).Even the Central Team Group formed in 1977led by Mahendra Singh made a significant contribution.(Even Comrades like Darsha Singh Dosanj and Sunder Navalkar)Later through efforts of Comrades to struggles agaisnt the revisinist trends within the U.C.C.R.I.(M.L) the C.C.R I.was formed in 1988.Comrade Anand and Comrade Harbhajan Sohi made the biggest contribution in this formation mymerging their own U.C.C.RI.factins within the new organsiation.However a mass military line has not been built in startegic areas like Bihat ahnd Andhra Pradesh and an all India level movement has not been built.A sufficient protracted campaign has not been carried defending Mao Tse Tung Thought or Maoism.The greatset contribution of this trend is adopting the correct relationship of the party with mass organsiations which are indispensable in the movement.
In the 3rd trend at one time outstanding work was done by gtoups led by Chandra Pulla Redy and Vinod Mishra)Liberation group).THe Liberation group led ahuge mass peasnt movement in Bihar and form,ed arevolutionary mass front,However it adopted an erroneus tactic of using non revolutionaty parliamentary tactics and eventually succumbed to revisionism.The same was the case with Chandra Pulla Reddy(now mainly represnted by New DEmocracy Group) who led an ouitsatnding movement in Andhra Pradesh .Eventually when Janasshkati Group was fotrmed the revisinsit trend emerged.THe Erstwhile C.P.I.M.L.)Red Flag at one time did outsatnding work in Keral and in defending Mao Tse Tuing thought but succumbed to parliamentarism after adopting open functioning which was capitulatinsit.THey did not differentiate between Mass and Part Platforms.
No organsiatin is implementing Comrade Mao's mass line completely and today within the REvolutionary Camp there are only 3 major organsiatins namey the C.P.I.(Maoist),the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L) and the C.P.I.(M.L)New DEmocracy.Other regional organsations exist like C.P.I(M.L)Naxalbari in Keral,R.C.C.I.(M.L)in Punjab and faction sof Janashkati Group.(had split into 6 organsations)Of thes e the Communist Party RE-Organisation Cenre of India(Marxist Leninist) C.P.R.C.I.(M.L)is closest in Practice to Comrdae Mao's taechings.
Theoretically regarding the Internatinal line the greatset contribution has been made by Harbhajan Sohi which refuted the 3 word theory of Deng Xiaoping and the same treand today opposes the formation of a Communist International today.In the overall mass line Tarimal Nagi Reddy made the graetset contribution.In India we hace to study te line of the 1946-51 Telengana Armed Struggle where mass protracted armed struggle was carried out and genuine peoples democratic power was formed.

[santanu]

"Study Chairman Mao's writings, follow his teachings, act according to his instructions, and be a good soldier of his." - Foreword of The Little Red Book.

"Sailing the sea needs a helmsman; making a revolution needs Mao Zedong thought."

"Comrade Mao Zedong is the greatest Marxist and Leninist of our time. Comrade Mao Zedong ingeniously, creatively, and completely inherited, defended and developed Marxism and Leninism, and upgraded Marxism and Leninism to a brand-new stage."

[New Diet]

How to Control Hunger will assist you burn fat. Easy fat loss is an important part losing weight healthily. Mints to Control Hunger are key and an important way to control hunger cravings and live well.

[Appetite Suppression]

How to Control Hunger will assist you burn fat. Easy fat loss is an important part losing weight healthily. Mints to Control Hunger are key and an important way to control hunger cravings and live well.

[-=007_Smestebloms=-]

Good afternoon! interestingly you: Kamagra Oral Jelly review england or Kamagra 100mg tadalafil - There comes time in a man's life when he is just not able to perform sexually like he once did. Erectile dysfunction is a fairly common way of life as men age. Studies have shown that by 45 years of age most men have experienced some form of ED. Kamagra is a new drug available to men that will help bring back the sexual ability they experienced in their younger years. Kamagra is much more affordable than its predecessor, Viagra.
Kamagra is an effective treatment for ED made available by Ajanta Pharma. Kamagra is nothing more than a generic form Viagra. Both drugs contain the same basic ingredient, Sildenafil Citrate. The main difference between Viagra and Kamagra is the price. Kamagra can be sold at a much cheaper price because the manufacturers have very little money invested in advertising and promotion. - Kamagra Oral Jelly 100mg no prescription or no prescription Kamagra Oral Jelly usa ....Goodbye! http://buy-kamagra.blog.hr/