Prachanda wins. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is dead, Maoism-Third Worldism lives
by Prairie Fire
(source: monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)
The big winner of the elections in Nepal is an organization calling itself the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) led by Prachanda. With roughly three quarters of the results in, Prachanda’s Party has won a simple majority of 56% of the seats in the constituent assembly elections so far. (1) For the first time since China, there is a political party upholding Mao as its main icon that has captured some degree of state power. Prachanda’s party will join the Communist Party of China under Hu Jintao as another Mao-inspired party with some degree of state power.
These election results are sending yet more shock waves throughout the various trends that identify with the Chinese Cultural Revolution. This latest storm within the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist orthodoxy comes at a time when big changes are already underway due to the collapse of the imperialist Fourth International, RIM. In addition, Bob Avakian’s cult, which headed the First Worldist RIM, appears to be falling apart after the cult made a series of doomsday predictions that failed to materialize. It is not uncommon, even after big defections of the membership, for doomsday cults to survive by resetting the time table for the end of the world. Currently, Avakian holds onto as much of his organization as he can by ramping up the ridiculous cult around himself. Avakian will go back to the drawing board, to reemerge at a later date with a new Chicken Little routine. Although, this may have been Avakian’s last big push for glory. After all, Avakian is in his 60s; he may be forced to retire soon. Chaos is good. Without chaos, no change. These factors contribute to a situation where we could see the emergence of a visible, global ideological pole of real Maoism, Maoism-Third Worldism, to revitalize the proletarian movement.
Many ideologically moribund organizations of the orthodoxy sit stupidly in silence, sucking their thumbs, as these events unfold. These opportunistic, brain dead groups will hope to wait out the brewing storms within the MLM orthodoxy. They will jump on board with whatever consensus forms amongst First Worldist, “left” parties. They will play it safe, then they will go which ever direction the wind blows. For the First Worldist “left,” the wind will blow in favor of Prachanda. Other organizations and individuals will beat their chests; they will blindly follow Prachanda over the abyss. (2) Maoist-Third Worldists are not afraid to hold the red flag high, even if we come under criticism in the short term from the First Worldists.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is dead.
Either Prachanda has found a new way to socialism or he hasn’t. If Prachanda’s fans had any courage,or brains, they would openly admit that Prachanda’s course contradicts what has heretofore been regarded as core, universal lessons of the 20th Century revolutionary experience. Rather than obfuscating in eclectics, the fans should admit that Lenin’s teachings on the state are not universal. They should admit to Prachanda’s novel contribution of extending the label “New Democracy” to cover everything under the sun. They should admit that they have abandoned the legacy of the Cultural Revolution in all but its “spirit.” They should admit that they have abandoned people’s war as the principal means to ascend to power. And, in practice, to abandon people’s war as a principal means is to abandon it as a means at all. Such is the logic of mobilization, of a war footing. People’s war must be carried through to the end, or it isn’t carried through at all.
If Prachanda’s way is a path to socialism, then Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is dead. It is dead because there is nothing left of 20th century socialism in Prachanda’s “21st century socialism.” Rather than being left with any concrete universal, core theory, socialism becomes anything and everything. If Prachanda, then why not Chavez? Why not Kim? Why not Castro? Why not Hu Jintao? Why not Obama? “21st century socialists” are nothing more than fans of various leaders.
If Prachanda’s way is really a trojan horse for an imperialist reorganization of Nepalese society under leftist rhetoric, then Marxism-Leninism-Maoism will be rendered worthless as an oppositional force for other reasons. Imperialist finance capital’s reorganization of the economy and political system of Nepal under a social reformist program and rhetoric may, in the short term, genuinely translate into concrete gains for the masses in Nepal. Political power in the form of a corrupt, traditionalist system run by a God King is hardly the best option in terms of creating a stable, modern political climate to best expedite the transfer of value from Nepal to the imperialists. An older comprador state is being replaced by a more modern one under a trojan horse, MLM.
Massive reorganization of Third World societies to remove fetters on the extraction of super-profits is one of the main aims of U.S. policy makers. It is not an accident that the neo-conservatives who dominate policy can trace their intellectual lineage back to Trotskyism. Both the neo-conservatives and the parties of the RIM put forward the idea that imperialism is not necessarily reactionary because imperialism can bring much needed social reorganization to the most backward, recalcitrant societies in the world. According to RIM, imperialism can bring a much-needed reorganization to the productive forces and much needed social relief to populations. The RIM showed its true nature in the Iran debacle, where a nominally Maoist organization was making itself useful, begging to be a leftist, comprador face of a new Iran reorganized by an imperialist occupation.
In our times, two anti-imperialist, oppositional ideological lineages could project onto the world stage as, rightly or wrongly, world historic: radical Islam, broadly speaking, and Mao-inspired people’s war. Prachanda’s victory undermines Maoist people’s wars worldwide. The people’s wars waged under Mao’s banner are often inadequate. Their leadership is often First Worldist. Even so, despite their First Worldism, these movements land blows against imperialism. The aftermath of Prachanda’s victory will be a strengthening of anti-people’s war forces everywhere. It will also boost, embolden anti-people’s war minority factions in Third World movements currently waging people’s wars. This could lead to splits or defections. Prachanda’s victory undermines the perception of people’s war as a viable tactic in the modern world. The Indian people’s war groups saw this immediately, as Prachanda teamed up with the social-fascist parliamentarians to undermine people’s war in India. Spokesperson of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) Azad sharply criticized Prachanda on this score. (3) Ganapathy, from the Communist Party of India (Maoist), correctly recognized the importance of opposing imperialist RIM’s line on the Islamic upsurge. (4) The imperialist RIM has sought to destroy the two main oppositional forces in the world: Islamic resistance and Mao-inspired people’s wars.
Long Live the victory of People’s War!
RIM is so discredited that the imperialists seem to be letting it wither away. RIM popularized the term “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,” now RIM has killed Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. In the process, RIM left a trail of destruction and betrayal, from Peru to Nepal. RIM’s MLM orthodoxy borrowed heavily from Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution, First World orientation and idealism. Rather than doing any real analysis, RIM criticized Stalin on liberal, opportunist grounds. They supported White chauvinism against the oppressed nations of North America. RIM upheld a disguised version of the Theory of Productive Forces. RIM lacked any serious analysis of the Cultural Revolution. RIM rejected the actual Cultural Revolution. They merely projected their own utopianism and liberalism onto the Cultural Revolution years.
This imperialist RIM project was established in direct opposition to the survival of “Lin Biaoism,” which was the RIM’s term for Maoism-Third Worldism. After the fall of the last remaining top leftist faction in China 1976 and the rise of Deng, there was a missed opportunity to recover the core of real Maoism, up to that point, articulated best in Long Live Victory of People’s War! by Lin Biao. With the fall of the last leftists in China, rebels should have freed themselves from factional obligations to particular leaders and dogmatic historical narratives. Instead, the imperialists were able to use the cult of the “Gang of Five,” to prevent the recovery of Long Live Victory of People’s War!, a step toward solid global class analysis. MIM was in an untenable position of upholding historical dogma that undermined its own line on global class and people’s war.
Maoism-Third Worldism rises.
With the death of MLM, what’s next? People’s movements need to dispense with the fan club approach. Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again anyway. People’s movements need to place Long Live the Victory of People’s War! at the heart of their revolutionary movements. From there, they need to get concrete. First Worldism is a tool of the imperialists. The masses can’t afford to learn this lesson again. The masses can’t afford 30 more years of darkness. Maoism-Third Worldism has a chance; it is an ascending revolutionary ideology. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West!
Notes.
1. http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/apr/apr14/news02.php
2. http://bowlingclubstaff.com/index.php/16974/message-of-communist-party-of-greece-marxist-leninist-to-cpn-maoist-on-the-ca-polls-results
3.http://peoplesmarch.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/exclusive-interview-with-cpimaoistspokesperson-on-nepal-developments/
4. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/excerpt-interview-with-ganapathy-general-secretary-cpimaoist/
Also see: Indian movements won’t connect the dots…yet, Simple questions by the numbers.. the majority in the United Snakes: revolutionary or not?, Amerikkkans rich, Indians poor, so-called “ICM” deaf and dumb, High cost of living in the Third World, Shubel Morgan’s video of Lin Biao’s Long Live The Victory of People’s War!, Interview with Ganapathy, General Secretary, CPI(Maoist) on Islam, Shubel Morgan: triple feature on Hating Amerikkka
In 1944 we made the same or a similar mistake.Prachanda knows about this and yet he refused to draw lessons from our example.But why should he?I see at your notes that some of those who know first hand of our mistake congratulate Prachanda.However, I am afraid that the Nepalese people are going to pay much more than we did.We eventually became the favorite children of the West.Their favorite bitches let’s say.Now, we have little national pride left.But it is possible that the people of Nepal will pay a heavier toll for Prachanda’s path.
I agree with your logic, but not your conclusion. We should give Prachanda a chance. Times have changed. Prachanda has abandoned the doctrines of Lenin and Mao in important ways, he has taken up key elements of revisionism. Everyone knows this to be the case. We should speak of this openly. But the one-sided socialist projects of the 20th century failed. Think hard about this. We should look for answers to this failure and not be dogmatic. Even if the answers lead us to revisionism.
Give peace a chance!
Monkey Smashing Heaven pointed correctly that, if Prachanda then why not Chaves, why not Fidel and why not any left leaning guy. Of course Prachanda will be more preferrable than anybody else, I guess. But the problem is – not following the principles and abandoning principles for temporarily effects and reliefs.
What if next few years Prachanda will lose an election. Just because he got in as elected the polls can change and he will lose. Orange revolutions techniques are already tried.. and they work fine.
Second part- “one sided socialisms”
were always somewhat developing socialisms. Of course they lacked some good analysis and were not always 100% scientific. So that that they failed doesn’t mean that they were incorrect. Mao pointed that making mistakes is good – it teaches us how to correct these mistakes. “One sided socialisms” failed, but “one sided capitalism” in its Victorian state also do not exist. Only “one sided socialisms” could bring such changes. Labour aristocracy creation owed to rising
Soviet Union. Imperialists could not allow growing communist parties
at their backs so they shared their profits, profits stolen from Third World, with their workers. It created a good union,an american society in its best. Quality of life was not always so high, please
remember this.
The answer to the failures of 20th century socialism is not to surrender to imperialism. It is not a creative application of New Democracy to place economic development in the hands of foreign capital. That simply isn’t new democracy.
New Democratic revolution is part of the the anti-imperial struggle. Prachanda’s path is to strike a deal between the state and the imperialists to reorganize Nepal’s economy. Prachanda’s path is a comprador reorganization of Nepal, not a New Democratic one.
You want to sell out? Fine. Don’t drag Mao through the mud to do it.
The article is exactly right. Has it really come to this? Is the International Communist Movement really so dead?
“It is not a creative application of New Democracy to place economic development in the hands of foreign capital. That simply isn’t new democracy.”
Also foreign(imperialist) capital is the stolen labout of the colonies. It is an opium trade, corvees, concessions, planations, slavery, monopolies on alcohol among the opressed etc. Just because it’s everybody’s “money do not smell” we gotta have a right marxist knowledge extended to few centuries back to trace the roots of this capital. Accept investments of this capital is unwillingly accept all imperialist deeds. There should not be such thing as buying freedom for one part of proletariat on expense of another part.