Prachanda's Own Party Accuses Him of Selling Out Completely

There are many people out there, including those who claim to be communists and "Maoists" today, who are fakes. Leading Lights have called out these fakes for years. Among those fakes is the leadership of the so-called Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) that is led by Prachanda (informally Pushpa Dahal) which, after a decade of fighting an authentic people's war and liberating some 70 to 80% of that country, in late 2006 reached a peace agreement with the reactionary parties wherein they agreed to shut down the popular governments of the liberated areas and dismantle the People's Liberation Army in exchange for the opportunity to gain representation in a new capitalist republic. Leading Lights were the first to call out this sell out as such. We have been leading the way in highlighting what real communism is and what it is not. Accordingly, I have decided to re-print a relevant article from My Republica that came out recently. Therein, Senior UCPN(M) Vice Chairman Kiran (informally Mohan Baidya) sharply criticizes the revisionist line of the party chairman. I will bold certain sections to highlight the sharpness of the criticism and also the fundamental deviations from basic Marxist principles that the UCPN(M) party leadership is indeed undertaking. The reader should note that re-printing this article does not imply absolute agreement with all its contents or with Kiran's political line. Kiran has certain shortcomings as well. In particular, Kiran's view of the principal enemy, which he names squarely as India, is limited and does not truly account for global class analysis. But they are not nearly so problematic as those of party leader Prachanda. This is, in other words, food for thought:

18 'deviations' of Chairman Dahal
	POST B BASNET KATHMANDU, June 11: In a clear manifestation of the widening intra-party rifts, the hard-line faction of the UCPN (Maoist) has accused Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal of serious ideological and moral “deviations” and launched a campaign against him inside the party. The hard-line faction, led by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya, has recently circulated a document among the party rank and file, which outlines 18 “deviations” of Dahal. The document, a copy of which has been obtained by Republica, is being circulated among the cadres of the party´s hard-line faction down to district level committees and also the party´s chapters in various countries. “On the political front, [Dahal] is seen moving toward rightist reformism and national capitulationism from his centrist oppertunitism,” states the second point of the document. The relations between Baidya and Dahal have soured after the latter defected to the line of peace and constitution last June, deferring the official line of revolt and state capture. The document, entitled “Problems of deviations in chairman comrade”, has charged Dahal with financial irregularities and misuse of resources. “On the issue of financial discipline, [Dahal] is seen tilted toward corruption. [Dahal] is seen having the tendency of doing anything -- both moral and immoral -- for the sake of power, money and prestige.[Dahal] has deliberately left the party without an accounting system and misused financial means and resources in an individualistic way,” states point no 18 of the document. [i.e. Prachanda is enriching himself at the expense of the masses, demonstrating capitalist mentality. -- Monkey Queen] On the front of party organization, the party hard-line faction has accused Dahal of “self-centric individualistic tendency”, intolerance toward those holding dissent and using his power to silence their voices. The document alleges that the chairman has developed a “fascist tendency” The party hard-line faction has also accused Dahal of extending relations with the Indian intelligence agencies. On the peace process, the hard-line faction has launched lacerating criticism against Dahal for bringing the PLA under the control of the Special Committee and accused him of disarming the PLA and emptying the cantonments in the name of “regrouping” without forging a national security policy, controlling the open border and setting up a border security force. The circular states Dahal deviated from the party´s ideological goals by not launching appropriate programs to counter the party´s “principal enemy” -- India -- and accused Dahal of extending relations with the sympathizers of “Indian expansionism and its comprador class”. The Baidya faction has also come down heavily on Dahal´s moves on the constitution drafting front as well. “Despite being said that we would go for a federal system with autonomy to ethnicities, [Dahal] has emphasized unitary and centralized system,” states the document. According to the document, Dahal has agreed to go for bicameral legislature succumbing to the “bourgeois theory of separation of power, and to minimize the participation of people in the judiciary under the pretext of judicial independence, instead of empowering the People´s Assembly. The document also criticizes Dahal for agreeing to make appointments of judges by a commission, not by the federal assembly as demanded by the party. The document also expresses dissatisfaction over the party´s move to go for “federal democratic republic” instead of the party´s line of “People´s Federal Democratic Republic.” [i.e. The party is accepting a bourgeois republic rather than fighting for a people's republic; for New Power. -- Monkey Queen] The Baidya faction has lately launched vitriolic polemics against Dahal and has been registering a series of notes of dissent against the party´s decision. The relations between the hard-line faction and the moderators have strained further after the party establishment decided to end security being provided by PLA personnel to the senior party leaders. Over two dozen PLA guards deployed for the security of the leaders from the hard-line faction have not yet submitted their weapons and returned to the cantonments, despite the party´s official decision to this effect. The faction is currently holding a series of meetings and working to strengthen its position in the party.
Published on 2011-06-11 00:00:01 Source: http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32221

Some Good Points on Pan-Third Worldism

Just thought I'd go ahead and promote this article as food for my readers' thought: Six Points on Third World Unity.

What is Maoism?

Earlier I sought to lay out some basics of Marxism and Leninism, and I have already, in many posts, begun introducing the reader to the fourth stage of the communist science, Leading Light Communism. But it occurs to me that I never completed my previously-announced task fully. I have not yet introduced the reader to the basics of classical Maoism. This post will be dedicated to that subject. I will break its distinctive aspects down.

THE TWO "ROOTS" OF MAOIST THEORY:

1. Continual Revolution. Maoists rejected the concept of the "negation of the negation", thus embracing the reality of endless contradictions. Even communist society features contradictions, just not antagonistic ones. Getting from here to a communist world means making revolution, both immediately and at every stage between here and there. It does not mean something else.

2. The Mass Line. This entails two principles that operate simultaneously in a back-and-forth relationship: leading the people in revolution and learning from the people. Communists bring to the oppressed and exploited masses of the world the scientific perspective of communism (authentic communism, that is) in order to give their progressive struggles against oppression and exploitation a radical direction. But it is also not simply a matter of bringing the masses 'our views' from without. It is also a matter of being among the masses in their struggles against oppression and exploitation, listening to their demands, and orienting our strategies to meet their needs. The important thing of the mass line is the understanding that the people are the principal revolutionary weapon in your arsenal. You must depend on the masses to make their revolution. You cannot make it for them or simply wield them as instruments. You instead must guide the masses in their struggles in an overall sense, while learning their needs and genuinely listening to their perspectives. You synthesize the resultant lessons in an ongoing way, thereby continually refining the communist science itself. This orientation, if applied correctly, yields continual advances in both communist theory and revolutionary practice. The purpose of communist revolution is to service the needs of the world's oppressed and exploited masses. (Leading Light Communists understand that this means the Third World masses, not the exploiter First World populations.)

These two principles are the most elementary to Maoism. All other aspects of Maoist theory are built on the above two foundations: the foundations of ongoing revolutionary struggle through mass mobilization for the purpose of meeting the needs of the oppressed and exploited. These two principles are concentrated in many other Maoist formulations, such as "people's war", "cultural revolution", etc.

THE MAOIST PATH TO COMMUNISM BROADLY:

Mao described the path to communism as the process of abolishing the 4 Alls: 1) all class distinctions, 2) all exploitative economic relations, 3) all oppressive social relations, and 4) all corresponding ideas. The Maoist principle of continual revolution holds that these are all actionable principles (as in not just the natural result of economic development), and the mass line concept contends that the masses must be mobilized to accomplish all these objectives for themselves.

THE THREE "BRANCHES" (i.e. SPECIFICS) OF MAOIST THEORY:

1. People's War and New Democratic Revolution. People's war is a revolutionary war led by a proletarian vanguard party that operates according to the principles of the mass line. Its objective is democratic revolution of a new sort; a revolution that establishes proletarian democracy, not capitalist democracy. Maoists have conceived of this as being concentrated in the objective of establishing a people's republic as the first objective in the struggle to get to a communist world. A people's republic is a coalition government consisting of parties corresponding to all the progressive sections of society (all the oppressed and exploited masses), led by the vanguard party of the proletariat: the most oppressed class in society. Accordingly, succeeding in people's war entails working in a nuanced way with a block of 4 progressive classes: 1) the proletariat, 2) the peasantry, 3) the various middle strata, and 4) the anti-imperialist Third World bourgeoisie. This block of classes unites around the common objective of achieving Third World development. The contradictions within this block of classes may be apparent, but they are also non-antagonistic ones that can be resolved in peaceful ways. Accordingly, the Maoist conception of the transition to socialism entails, for example, buying out the Third World anti-imperialist bourgeoisie and integrating them into the regular workforce rather than treating them in a hostile way, like by forcibly expropriating them and shipping them off to forced work camps. Traditionally, Maoists were in agreement that this path was appropriate at least for Third World nations, while some held that people's war was a universally applicable principle. Among the Chinese Maoists, Lin Biao went as far as to theorize that the world proletarian revolution should take the form of a single, worldwide people's war fought by the oppressed peoples of the Third World against the First World. Leading Light Communists embrace a strategy essentially similar to Lin Biao's. New democratic revolution opens the door to socialism by sweeping away imperialism and feudalism.

2. Collectivization of Life as the Path to Communism. Maoists do not embrace the Soviet model of socialist development, which centered on the state-ification of society and a developmental focus on heavy industry. Maoists instead embrace a balanced, all-around approach to economic development (i.e. simultaneous development of light and heavy industry, of city and countryside) achieved through the collectivization of life. Continual collectivization is understood as being compatible with the eventual abolition of the state altogether. It is the bridge between socialism and communism. The masses must come to run society for themselves directly, and this must be an actionable principle (not simply 'the natural result of economic development').

3. Cultural Revolution. The cultural life of society must be transformed through mass mobilization as well. This is particularly essential to prevent counterrevolution. A proletarian culture must flourish under socialism.

The Global Slum and the Mall Economy: New Challenges Communist Revolutionaries Face Today

Prairie Fire has authored a very good article on the sorts of new challenges that we face today in terms of how to radically change the world for the better. It is good enough (and short enough) to be worth re-posting in its entirety here:

Prairie Fire: New world, new challenges, new science

Posted on April 24, 2011 by MSH

New world, new challenges, new science
by Prairie Fire
(llco.org)

In 1965, as wars of liberation waged around the world, Lin Biao wrote of the great divide between the global city versus the global countryside, the rich countries versus the poor countries, the First World versus the Third World. This continues to be the principal contradiction today. Lin Biao saw the world revolution through the lenses of people’s war. Just as Mao’s people’s war in China advanced from the countryside to surround, then conquer, China’s cities, so too would global people’s war advance from the global countryside to surround, then conquer, the global city. This basic outlook continues to be correct today, as it was in 1965. However, the world has changed greatly in the last half century. Our political economy, our concepts of underdevelopment, class, revolutionary agency, and practice must all be updated to meet these challenges. Here are some basic points that need to be understood by revolutionaries:

1. Underdevelopment has taken new forms. Imperialism has created a lopsided world. Development has been, and continues to be, uneven from country to country. In the past, those countries that were considered to be developed were industrialized and also had diversified economies. Some of these developed countries were imperialist ones, others were socialist. The socialist ones built themselves up and sustained themselves through their own labor and resources. By contrast, the imperialist countries became developed on the backs of their colonies and neo-colonies. The imperialist countries built up their economies at the expense of others. For example, the industrial-revolution economies of Western Europe and North America were made possible and given a boost by the value created by slavery and value transfers from colonies. Cheap labor and raw materials, plunder of land through genocide, and the opening of new colonial markets aided in the modernization of the West. This process continues in various forms today. However, underdevelopment today differs in some respects than past underdevelopment. In the past, underdevelopment was often linked to both lack of industrialization and lack of diversification of production. In the past, an underdeveloped economy was usually a poor economy that was mainly geared toward production of one or two cash crops or mineral or other resource extraction. These products would then be processed, or refined, or enter into a larger production process in the imperialist developed countries. In other words, in the past, industrialization and diversification was almost always associated with development. And, lack of industrialization and lack of diversification was almost always associated with underdevelopment. Even though this old pattern continues in some places, in other places new patterns are emerging. Today, the wealthy, imperialist countries are no longer industrialized as they once were. Today, in many parts of the First World, fewer and fewer people are employed in factories. Rather, more and more people are employed in distribution, commerce, management, and the public sector. In many parts of the First World, populations consume more and more, but produces less and less. This is the rise of the mall economy of the First World. At the same time, factories are moved to the Third World. Many Third World economies have become industrialized and diversified, yet the primary beneficiaries of this are not Third World populations, but the imperial populations of the First World. In other words, even though the Third World countries are producing, the value is mainly directed outward to the First World. The surplus is not directed into the Third World economies in a way that benefits the population, aids self-determination, or produces truly national capital. Instead, the benefactors are the imperialists and the imperial populations. Thus healthy development is not simply a matter of industrialization and diversification. And underdevelopment is not simply a lack of these qualities. Today both the First World and Third World are increasingly mal-developed. The First World, producing less and consuming more, is increasingly parasitic on the Third World.

2. New Democracy will take new forms. In the past, imperialism divided the world, for the most part, into traditionally developed and traditionally underdeveloped countries. Traditionally underdeveloped countries were described in various ways: “semi-feudalism,” “comprador capitalism,” “bureaucrat capitalism,” etc. These descriptions emphasized various aspects of mal-development in the Third World. One implication of this was that revolution in the Third World could be described as a two stage process. The first stage is the New Democratic stage. The New Democratic revolution unites much of the peasantry, workers, petty bourgeoisie, and even some of the patriotic capitalists of the Third World against imperialism, for land reform, national development and basic democratic reforms. New Democratic revolution lays the basis for the second stage. The second stage is socialism, where the proletariat further reorganizes society in its interest. This lays the basis for communism, the end of all oppression. The changing nature of underdevelopment in the Third World today will affect the revolutionary process. The New Democracy of the future may not necessarily be an agricultural affair based on “land to the tiller.” It may not be based on land struggles at all. It may not be centered on the countryside. The slum dwelling classes and their concerns for shelter, to have their own small trade and businesses, and survival generally, may become a greater and greater part of the early revolutionary process, and of New Democracy. Or, this may lay the basis for a whole new kind of socialist revolution in the Third World: New Socialism.

3. The revolutionary agent will take ever new forms. The world economy has created vast reservoirs of impoverished people in the Third World who do not add to the total social product, but, rather, survive on the edges. Many of these people barely survive in the megaslums of the Third World. Many of them live in refugee camps or survive on aid. At the same time, in some parts of the Third World, the unionized industrial working class has become a relatively privileged strata among the population with less immediate interest in radical social transformation. This working class is sometimes more privileged than the numerous street vendors and small traders who reside in Third World slums. The concept of the proletariat need not be tied exclusively to a role within production per se, but can be tied to overall social position and impoverishment. In some places in the world, those who match Marx’s famous description of having “nothing to lose but their chains” are not always those who sell their labor to capitalists. Thus there is a rise of new proletarians.

4. Just as the class structure of the Third World has changed, so has the class structure of the First World. In the First World, the revolutionary class has passed from the scene. In the 1960s, there was some basis for thinking that a revolutionary social base existed within the ghettos and captive nations of the First World. Such a base is nonexistent today. There is no significant First World revolutionary class, no significant First World proletariat. There is no significant stand-in First World revolutionary class. This means that we must look beyond the First World for a revolutionary social base. This means global people’s war is the primary means of bringing the New Power of the proletariat to the First World.

5. With the growth of the global slum and new proletarians, the shape of future people’s wars will change. In some parts of the Third World, people’s war will follow the traditional Maoist pattern. It will be mostly peasant movement led by the communist line that establishes ever greater base areas and red zones, the new society in miniature, in those places where the state is weakest. It will be tied to New Democratic demands, especially the demand for land. It will be a protracted advance from the countryside to city. However, the changing world will make this pattern not viable everywhere. Some geographies make the traditional Maoist model problematic. Also, the growth in imperialist air power will affect the ability to set up traditional base areas and red zones. Most importantly, the growth of the urban population will make the urban slum more and more important in the people’s war.

6. There is a growing ecological crisis. The capitalist system is based on infinite expansion beyond our means. Yet our Earthly resources are finite. Thus capitalism is incompatible with the continued survival of the planetary ecosystem. First World consumption is out of proportion; it is leading us toward ecological catastrophe. Environments are rapidly changing due to human intervention. Revolutionaries of the future are going to have to adopt strategies that take this into account. Revolutionaries need to examine not just the forces of production and social relations, but also the conditions of production themselves. Revolutionaries need to take the natural world into account. Socialist development cannot treat nature as a never ending resource to be consumed. The New Power of the future will need to be ecologically sustainable. The survival of all life on Earth is on the line.

7. New technology and greater mobility open up new paths for revolution. Greater communication and mobility mean that revolutions may be increasingly dynamic in important ways. Subjective and objective conditions can change in explosive ways, very rapidly. Tempos can accelerate seemingly out of nowhere. Events in one location can quickly influence events and conditions around the world. Revolution will become more globalized in important ways. New technologies will have a profound on impact on how revolutions are made. New technologies will open up new possibilities during socialist construction.

Leading Light Communism has advanced revolutionary science in almost every way. This is a big part of why Leading Light Communism is a whole new stage of revolutionary science. It is the pinnacle of revolutionary science today. Political economy is key to making revolution. However, it is not enough to limit these advances to the realm of theory. To match our advances in theory, we must also advance our organizational forms to meet today’s challenges. We must strike out in ever new, bold ways. We must not be afraid to lead not only in the ideological realm, but also on the ground. We have the plan, the organization, the leadership. Follow the Leading Light. Be the Leading Light.

Al Qaeda's Opposition to Qaddafi: Are There Two Outmodeds?

As some are probably aware, Bob Avakian (Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA) has, for many years now, been putting out a theory on America's global war of terror that he calls the two outmodeds theory. He sums it up this way:

“What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both.”

A compelling response to this formulation was provided a couple years back in the Monkey Smashes Heaven theoretical journal. The entire article is worth reading. It was in large part a polemic on the RCP's line provided in response to their position on the U.S.-backed late-2008/early-2009 Israeli attack on the people of Gaza. Below I'll provide some of the key highlights from that article that really sum up its main point on the two outmodeds theory:

According to the RCP (USA), supporting Hamas, who are the main force resisting this latest escalation of the genocidal violence against Palestinians, is tantamount to supporting the United States. To support Hamas, according to Bob Afakean, is to support the imperialist system. For the RCP (USA), Hamas and Amerikan Imperialism are two sides of the same coin. What this amounts to is a call for the Palestinian people to abandon their resistance, which happens to be often led by Islamic forces. The RIM-line, in the concrete, is a call to abandon any real resistance.

...

Maoist-Third Worldists recognize that the principal contradiction in the world is between imperialism and exploited nations. Maoist-Third Worldists support the broad united front against the principal enemy: imperialism, especially Amerikan Imperialism. Maoist-Third Worldists support the oppressed in their struggles against imperialism, even when the resistance against imperialism is not led by the proletariat.

As you can see, it is an excellent polemical response! It clearly shows that, at best, Bob Avakian's formulation is overly simplistic. In fact, in an overall sense, that MSH article is persuasive as a counterpoint to me. In the past, I had not really even thought much about what the practical alternative was for the oppressed if you opposed all their real resistance to imperialism. Back when I first read it, that article got me thinking more deeply about the real world implications of the RCP's line both regarding the two outmodeds theory and more broadly. But what I will call into question here though is whether the two outmodeds theory should be totally disregarded. Is it really accurate to say that there is absolutely no truth to the two outmodeds formulation?

Consider the present situation in Libya. We know that government leader Muammar Qaddafi for much of the last decade has supported and joined his country to America's global war of terror as part of a general rapprochement with the United States and the global Northwest more broadly. Yet when the imperialists began moving toward a direct military attack on his country, Qaddafi retreated from all this and put forward that he would be willing to forge an alliance with Al Qaeda against the U.S. and the West if attacked by his erstwhile patrons. And...

Gaddafi also indicated that certain oil and gas contracts involving Libya and several Western companies, such as Italy's state-controlled energy giant ENI, would be reviewed once the rebellion had been quashed.

'I think and I hope that the Libyan people will reconsider the economic, financial and security ties with the West,' Gaddafi said.

By contrast, what is Al Qaeda's orientation in this situation of actual U.S. and Western military attack on the legitimate government of Libya, that of Qaddafi, in support of their stooge regime in Benghazi? While Qaddafi's claims that Al Qaeda is running the rebellion are obviously untrue exaggerations, they ARE fully supporting it. They claim to be fighting against both the U.S. and the West on the one hand and against the Qaddafi government on the other. Qaddafi offers an alliance against the U.S. and the West and Al Qaeda rejects it and opts to go their own road alone. Thus which side, in Al Qaeda's view, is really the greater enemy? They are willing to support the stooge regime in Benghazi that is also embraced by the United States, after all. Thus we see how, even as they are fighting the American occupation of Afghanistan, they are effectively helping to foster one in Libya. In the latter scenario, is it not indeed transparently the case that "If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both” since they are on the same side of the battle lines, even if in an uneasy way?

Well let's dig deeper and get to the real root of this question. What do we mean by "outmoded"? I sought to clarify that matter in this earlier entry. At one point I made the statement that...

The consistent historical meaning of "left" and "right" is that "left wing" refers to those who support a new and historically more advanced mode of production, whereas "right wing" refers to those who uphold the old order, whatever it may be in the given situation (feudalism, capitalism, or whatever).

The immediate objective of authentic communist revolutionaries in the modern era, the era of capitalist imperialism, is the accomplishment of democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat. And while we demand communist leadership of democratic revolutionary struggles against imperialism, it is not always immediately possible to affect that said leadership. But we unite with anti-imperialist democratic forces regardless because they are progressive relative to the principal contradiction. From the time of Lenin we have understood that imperialism stunts and warps the development of the global countryside, the Third World, such that major remnants of feudalism remain permanently intact. Thus, in the era of capitalist imperialism, even the bourgeoisie themselves are incapable of actually rupturing with feudalism in a complete way. That is why imperialism in the main enemy of the proletariat in the contemporary world. But what if you have patriotic, or even more internationalist, feudal forces who are willing to put up a fight against imperialism to an extent, but are, at the same time and in the main, unwilling to support democratic transformation in society? How are you to treat those kinds of forces? After all, they oppose even the very first step that communist revolutionaries insist on: anti-imperialist revolution that is of a democratic quality. That is the essence of what the two outmodeds theory seeks to get at.

While my comrades have made it clear to me that many of the forces BA lumps together in his clumsy theory are, in fact, patriotic bourgeois forces -- forces essentially both against imperialism and for democracy, that is -- such as the government of Iran, as well as Hezbullah, Hamas, and some others...I still tend to see forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda in a qualitatively different way. Let's get down to the nitty gritty: what is the most basic aspect of democratic revolution? It is the economic dimension, of course. That is, kicking out the foreign capitalists and democratically redistributing agricultural land to tillers. Forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda tend to support the former key task while opposing the latter. By contrast, the Iranian government, Hezbullah, Hamas, etc. all support these democratic tasks broadly. The likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply oppose imperialism because they see it as an impediment to retrograde national and regional traditions and/or to the spreading of those traditions worldwide. With the patriotic bourgeoisie of the Third World the international proletariat at least has in common the objective of national development. That is the basis for their inclusion as part of the block of four progressive classes. But the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda broadly oppose national development. So do they still qualify as part of the block of four progressive classes with whom you can unite? Is not the whole point of our revolution to advance, not to retreat, through the historical modes of production up to communism? What has the proletariat in common with monstrous feudal oppression, even if it is motivated in part by a sense of patriotism or broader Third World unity? There is only one thing I can think of and that is a circumstantially common enemy in imperialism. (And, as I have sought to highlight above, we do not even consistently have that in common in reality.) But that is only the basis for a purely tactical, low-level, temporary united front, not for their inclusion as part of the permanent four-class alliance of progressive classes. I simply cannot imagine non-antagonistically reconciling forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to socialism. They are viscerally hostile toward it and toward everything it stands for.

What I am saying is that we should treat Islamic (and other Third World patriotic) forces with nuance rather than adopting these overly generalizing stances toward them, whether they be complete opposition or complete support. Some are qualitatively more progressive than others. Some are essentially bourgeois. Others are essentially feudal. This is grounds for differentiation in our orientation. Some we can ultimately form a grand alliance with. Others we can only ally with on a purely tactical, temporary basis. I hope the reader gets my point.

A New Breakthrough on the Topic of People's War!

Not a long post today. I just couldn't resist linking my readers up to this article because it has truly historic implications! Check it out.

The Failure of the Second United Front: Incidental or the Result of an Incorrect Perspective?

Some groups out there today are able to recognize the obvious about the so-called Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) -- that they are a revisionist and comprador party that, after a decade of heroic struggle for liberation that nearly succeeded, has now abandoned people's war, dismantled the popular government they had established in the liberated areas, jailed the People's Liberation Army in cantonments, and which is working vigorously, with the full support of the imperialists (including the United States) to disband the PLA altogether and integrate its fighters into the nation's regular army in exchange for a seat in the country's bourgeois parliament -- while others prefer to champion their path as some sort of major ideological breakthrough. It is painfully obvious that the Nepali "Maoists" are surrendering, not advancing in their revolution. One thing I have noticed though about those who champion the Prachanda Path to nowhere is that they usually come back to a certain particular comparison: the Second United Front in the Chinese people's war. Comparison is regularly drawn between the Second United Front on the one hand and the 2006 peace agreement between the then-CPN(M) and the Nepali parliamentary parties on the other. (After all, wasn't it Mao who had the revolutionary soldiers remove the red stars from their caps, etc.?) What these fools somehow don't realize is that the Second United Front was a failure!

The idea of the Maoist block of 4 progressive classes is that you can not only establish a temporary unity toward a particular set of objectives (as the various revisionist groups tell us the Nepali "Maoists" are doing), but also that you can ultimately resolve the contradictions therein non-antagonistically. The block of 4 classes is, in that way, a permanent alliance.

Going back to the historical case of China, if one actually reads the contents of the Maoists' writings throughout the Second United Front period, one sees that they saw Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang as a relatively unified whole. They believed the entire organization to be essentially patriotic and thus part of the block of 4 progressive classes. That's why during the said period they sought to form a coalition government with the Kuomintang as the expression of people's democracy applicable to China. Yes, they wanted to include even Chiang and his group within the KMT as part of that coalition government. It wasn't that they recognized Chiang and those around him within the KMT to be reactionary foreign puppets and were just seeing them as sort of a "lesser evil"next to Japan; they genuinely believed that Chiang and Co. were patriots with serious progressive potential.

However, tt was not factually the case that the Kuomintang as a whole was a nationalist bourgeois party. The KMT government was a one-party state. That doesn't mean the contradictions of bourgeois economic interests...the differing political positions resulting from market competitions, etc....disappeared in the KMT-ruled part of China because they had that political set-up. Rather, it meant that these differing political perspectives, including both patriotic and comprador ones, were basically suppressed into one party organization in their political expression. In other words, the KMT always featured both patriotic sections and comprador sections. So there was always a sort of good side and a bad side to them. Looking back historically, we can identify, for example, that Sun Yat-Sen was a patriotic KMT element, whereas Chiang Kai-Shek was really a foreign puppet.

That the theory of the Maoists on Chiang and his group of compradors was wrong is borne out in events. While the Chinese Maoists sought to maintain this united front with the KMT under Chiang's leadership, in reality Chiang, really from 1939, had dissolved it in practice by resuming the civil war on a low level and approaching that, rather than the war of resistance against Japan, as their primary war effort. (We'll recall that, at a certain point, Chiang had even threatened to surrender to Japan if Amerika didn't step up its assistance to the Kuomintang government.) So the 8th Route Army was fighting a more or less offensive war against Japan while simultaneously being forced to fight a more or less defensive, low-level war against Chiang Kai-Shek's forces. After World War 2's conclusion (which the Chinese Communists hadn't expected would come as soon as it did), they attempted a rapprochement with the KMT in earnest that very much resembled what the Nepali "Maoists" are doing right now: they reached an agreement in January 1946 to form a coalition government with the KMT under Chiang's leadership and to unify their armies. This is a topic most "Maoists" I know carefully dodge because frankly it was obviously a huge mistake!! And no, it wasn't an agreement reached in cynicism, as our media insists. It was sincere. Mao was submitting to the Soviet Union's new 30-year trade agreement with the KMT-led government. The breaking point of the agreement was Manchuria. The Soviet Union basically handed the Chinese Communists the manufacturing center of Manchuria on a silver platter and this stirred up the ire of Chiang, who in turn responded by sending in 1.6 million troops to conquer the liberated areas and destroy the Communists. At that point, the Chinese Communists hardly had any alternative but to jettison the Second United Front and shift the strategic focus from from the maintaining of world "peace" under imperialist domination to that of liberation against the new, Western-backed puppet government.

None of this is to say that the concept of the strategic 4-class alliance was wrong. On the contrary, I would particularly highlight the emergence of the Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang in 1948, which, in betrayal of their former party, joined up with the Communist-led side. This was an organization of political representatives of China's genuinely patriotic bourgeoisie. It became an important party in the revolutionary united front led by Communists. When they established a people's republic, the loyal KMT elements were not treated in a hostile way, but rather were given a position in the government alongside other loyal parties. In the mid-50s, China transitioned into socialism in earnest. This was done in a mainly non-antagonistic way wherein the assets of the remaining bourgeois elements generally were bought by the socialist state, rather than seized aggressively. Ongoing ideological struggle was a crucial part of that mixture. They had to and basically did win over even these native bourgeois elements to the idea of giving up their private capital holdings and becoming part of the workforce in a socialist economy. In that way, it can be said that the bulk of the class contradictions between the Chinese proletariat and the Chinese bourgeoisie were actually resolved in favor of the proletarian perspective in a primarily non-antagonistic way. That is a historical expression of what the progressive block of 4 democratic classes is all about. It was ultimately a successful idea.

We have to remember that all of the 4 Alls are factors in terms of who you can work with. Maoists seek the abolition of 1) all class distinctions, 2) all exploitative production relations, 3) all oppressive social relations, and 4) all the corresponding, reactionary ideas. Many would-be communists focus in only on the first two of those 4 Alls and forget about the relevance of the latter two. The native bourgeoisie of the third world is (obviously) not exploited, but it is oppressed, and this oppression can form the basis for a strategic alliance with them. Through that alliance, you can win them over more decisively to the side of the proletariat through ideological struggle with them over such matters as morality questions. Now that's not going to plausibly be as rock solid a unity as you could have between various working classes (e.g. between the proletariat and the peasantry)...these bourgeois forces do, after all, have some investment in the capitalist system and thus will tend to waver a lot more...but that is why you "lean to one side" of this united front: the side of the working classes, under the leadership of the proletariat. Yes, the third world 4-class alliance concept differs qualitatively from Lenin's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. it is a different form of proletarian rule): it's more fully mass-based and more strategic. It's better, in my view.

My point though for this post is that the Chinese people's war wasn't all just some smooth, 2-stage operation that all went perfectly according to plan, as so many convey it. There were major, unexpected twists and turns along the way that very easily could have led them in the wrong direction on a lasting basis. It was a complex process. And I would argue that they did not completely learn the lesson. The Second United Front was a failure for real, not incidental, reasons. It failed not because it was a bad idea, but because of the form it took. The Chinese Communists didn't seem to really much appreciate the dynamics that existed within the KMT and approach the KMT with the according nuance. Rather, they, at least initially, treated it as a unified, all-patriotic body. The Communists' petitions for the establishment of a united front with the genuine KMT patriots was a good thing, and it ultimately resulted in Chiang's arrest, precisely for treason. Sending in Zhou Enlai to negotiate Chiang's release was the mistake. As soon as he got back into safe territory, Chiang immediately placed the coup leaders under arrest. He was always insincere about the united front. (As another observation, pretty much anything "special" like this that Zhou Enlai did had basic, opportunist flaws, much like Zhou himself did.)

Now if we exclusively look back at the historical record through the narrow lenses of official history, such as recorded in Lin Biao's Long Live the Victory of People's War!, then we may fail to see these mistakes as mistakes. After all, if the principal contradiction in the world was, as the Chinese Maoists themselves concurred with the Comintern (under clear Soviet leadership) that it was at the time, between fascistic forces on the one hand and democratic forces on the other, then uniting with "democratic" comprador elements and working with "democratic" imperialists like the United States and the other imperialist Allies makes sense. On the other hand, if the principal contradiction throughout the whole imperialist era has been between the first world on the one hand and the third world on the other, then uniting with imperialists and compradors of any stripe made no sense. I would argue that the latter perspective seems to be a closer match for the historical record. It clarifies the record on this matter that has been so difficult for so many people to flesh out.

Now that we have this clearer view of the Second United Front and the actual historical implications thereof, it becomes much easier for us to see how the Prachanda Path is indeed revisionist and capitulationist: they are following the path of forming a "national" united front with traitors to their nation. All compradors are reactionaries and principal class enemies, just like the imperialists they're shielded by.

History is dynamic. We should study it that way, rather than just adopting the mindset in advance that "side X was always right and my task is to figure out how".

People's War of the Future

As has occasionally been pointed out (example), the shape of the globe is changing significantly in terms of what proportion is rural and what proportion is urban, and the shape of people's war will have to change at least somewhat in the future to match these changing world conditions. I'd like to provide some general views on what type of shape this might tend to and need to take.

People often believe that people's war is necessarily a protracted effort. Not necessarily. In essence, a people's war is any communist-led revolutionary war that applies the guiding principles of the mass line: go to the masses (especially at the point of (net) production), learn what their conditions and demands are, learn from the masses, serve the masses, rely on the masses, and, while doing all these things, guide the masses to revolution, socialism, and communism. Protracted war is the expression this has taken thus far because thus far authentic proletarian revolutions basically have taken place in countries that were mostly rural, consisting primarily of peasants. As populations become more concentrated and more fully proletarian with the natural protracted urbanization that comes with the ongoing consolidation of capitalism worldwide, the necessity of protracted revolutionary efforts likely tends to diminish.

We should remember, at the same time, that while the majority of the world now lives in urban areas, a majority of the third world does not. Thus protracted guerilla wars basing themselves mainly in peasant masses will have to continue to be the rule for some time yet. But there will increasingly also need to be a complex mixture of this type of revolutionary struggle with more urban and possibly faster-paced forms. How do these forms mix in any given case? It's difficult to say and will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the peoples of the given nation, I believe. The mixture, however, must involve a people's army, warfare, and the full application of the mass line.

In today's China, for example, we can see that nearly half the population is urban, while a fairly slim and diminishing majority is still rural. How does a new communist revolution proceed under such conditions? Does it begin in the countryside or is it strategically initiated in the cities, where theoretically some quicker victories might be won? How does it proceed from the one to the other? Or are both of these things done simultaneously? These are some of the new and emerging types of questions to which I'm referring.

If the current trends continue, eventually the world will actually eventually be polarized into the two great hostile camps to which Marx originally referred: the proletariat (concentrated in the third world here in the era of imperialism) and the bourgeoisie (concentrated in the first world here in the era of imperialism). World revolution in a world of that shape could be theoretically much quicker than the protracted approach we have gotten used to. But that's a distant outlook. At present, most of the world is not yet even objectively proletarian in the sense to which Marx referred. It has the possibility of proletarian revolution already, however, as evidenced by the historical record. In any event, we should pay attention to the way in which the shape of the world is changing and accordingly not be terribly dogmatic in terms of how we understand people's war.