Rules of the road

Kasama

On the Shelf

« "I had court today. Fuck this country." | Main | FMLN leader Jorge Schafik Hándal dies at 75 »

January 25, 2006

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/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Hot Shots