Indian movements won’t connect the dots…yet
Posted under: 
Indian movements won’t connect the dots…yet
by Prairie Fire
(llco.org)
An interview with G.N. Saibaba has been circulating the internet. According to a reactionary blog, Fire on the Mountain, “Saibaba is 40 years old. He was born in Andhra Pradesh, a Southern state in India. He lives in Delhi now. He is the Deputy Secretary of the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), an All Indian Federation of Revolutionary People’s Organisations.”(1)
This interview is typical of what we’ve read in documents by the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The orientations of such documents are generally closer to Leading Light Communism than documents by other parties on the international scene claiming to be Maoist. Perhaps the reason that “traditional Maoism” is popular in India is because Charu Mazumdar, one of the founders of the Naxalite movement, was a follower of Lin Biao. Even though various fakes have been circulating Indian documents in order to boost their own prestige, the views often expressed are closer to that of Lin Biao’s Long Live the Victory of People’s War! It is certain that the more discerning of the fakes are keen to the fact that most of their readers won’t see these disconnects. Such is the behavior of those who unite around a fan club approach. Contrary to this, we do not willy-nilly circulate Third World documents for opportunist reasons. We have several criticisms of this document.
In the interview, Saibaba places great emphasis on the role of bourgeois ideology and bourgeois infiltration in capitalist restoration.
Saibaba: “..The Maoists believe that the demise of socialist construction in Russia and China was mainly due to the revisionist line that developed within the respective Communist Parties of those countries. The capitalist-roaders in Russia and China captured power back from the working class because those parties could not guard against the infiltration of the bourgeoisie into the proletarian parties. The failure of the socialist projects have taught important lessons to the international proletariat in carrying forward the class struggle against the bourgeoisie in various countries and the monopoly bourgeoisie at the international level. In no country in the world has class struggle succeeded without armed struggle.” (2)
The police paradigm, connected to the “coup” non-explanation, of capitalist restoration is inadequate. It fails to grasp the structural inequalities in socialism that continually generate a new bourgeoisie within the party and state. Even if a Communist Party discovered a way to prevent bourgeois infiltration, the inequalities implied in socialism itself will continually generate bourgeois privileges and accompanying reactionary ideologies. If not addressed, the nature of the party and state transform from instruments of proletarian rule to instruments of bourgeois rule. The police paradigm is probably the least valuable tool in understanding the reversal of socialism. The best way to understand capitalist restoration is through understanding structural causes and ideological causes.
Saibaba: “..Unfortunately in many of the European countries as well as in some of the third world countries today, extraneous class ideologies have been creeping in, in the name of “21st century democracy,” “liberal organising principles” and acceptance of a “multiparty system.” Even within the policies of the Communist Parties, the need today is to drive them towards Bolshevisation, Leninist Parties which can lead the proletariat to victories in the process of which lessons can be drawn from the earlier failures which should be understood as temporary setback for the world proletariat in the long historical onward march.” (3)
In the above passage, a pure ideological account without a structural analysis ends up in pure metaphysics. Rather than attributing the European revolutionary “setbacks” to structural causes, the passage just assumes that the main problem is ideological. Thinking people are well aware that the main reason for the absolute lack of proletarian revolutions in the First World is because the vast majority in the First World is not exploited in any meaningful sense. The wretched of the Earth barely exist in the First World.
The failure by Third World movements to understand global class structure scientifically is itself a product of bourgeois ideology; it is a result of upholding a globalized version of the Theory of Productive Forces.
Saibaba: “30 percent of Indian population live in urban and semi-urban areas and 70 percent in the countryside. Overall, about 77% of the people live on Rs. 20/- a day i.e. half a US dollar a day on an average. Unemployment is rampant in every part of India..”(4)
Contrast Indian poverty to wealth in the United States. A rough figure for median personal income per workday for people (working and non-working) in the United States over 15 years of age is $119.03 (roughly Rs. 4,946.88). (5) Similar numbers can be found for European countries. The only way that one can see First Worlders as exploited is if one believes that First Worlders are entitled to more based not on their actual labor, but based on the supposed level of First World productive forces. Plus, such a false argument ignores the fact that productive labor hardly exists anymore in the United States. First World wage earners have more access to capital and a better standard of living than much of the Third World bourgeoisie. First World consumption is so decadent that it is not even sustainable ecologically. In the end, the First Worldist “argument” is that First Worlders are entitled to more simply because they are First Worlders. Pure chauvinism.
Ideology is not a main reason for First World “setbacks.” The First World is populated by social fascists, some even claiming to be Maoists. Even if all of these miniscule, social-fascist sects closed up shop in the United States, then joined the Obama campaign, there would be little change in the revolutionary situation on the ground. Hardly anyone in the United States would notice if PSL, WWP, ISO, CPUSA, RCPUSA, SL, etc. shut down their operations. The main damage being done by these social fascists is not in undermining a nonexistent revolutionary situation in the United States. Rather, the main damage done by these miniscule sects is their ideological impact on Third World movements, corrupting them with First Worldism. These miniscule sects have large resources because they are based in the First World; a social-fascist sect of 100 people can project onto the global stage an image of itself as a major party. Third World movements need to wise up; they need to realize that the vast majority in the First World has little interest in fake communists of any stripe. The vast majority in the First World has even less interest in actual proletarian movements, Leading Light movements.
The real reason for “setbacks” is understood by structural analysis, global class analysis. Individuals in the First World make many times more than individuals in Third World. Americans make hundreds of times more than Indians. Americans have a standard of living that is hardly imaginable in India. The reason there is no proletarian revolution in the First World is because there is no significant First World proletariat, no revolutionary class. Leading Lights have outgrown the moronic hype, utopianism, and dogmatism of the fakes. We reject their “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Ostrichism.” We admit that there is no great wave of First World revolutions on the horizon. Let’s get real. The burden is on revolutionaries in the First World to develop a viable revolutionary practice under these incredibly adverse conditions.
Saibaba: “There is an extremely favourable revolutionary situation in India and also in all the “third world” countries. In each of these countries, the domestic crisis is growing while international crisis is also growing. The “third world” countries need not wait for any third world war to accomplish their revolutions. There may not be a Third World War in the classical sense, even though Bush promises one. The conditions of war exist in different ways. The world is already in a type of war, but its shape is different now. For example, the US is fighting a military war against the people of Iraq and an economic war on the people of India, and both varieties of wars kill the people in the same magnitude. So why does the US need to declare war on India when the Indian ruling classes are willing to facilitate everything for the imperialists? The growing contradictions among the imperialist forces can quickly change from collusion to conflicts. The background is already prepared and the revolutionary situation is already ripe. It is the subjective forces of the communists that have to take advantage of the situation and strengthen their forces. The ruling class hegemony will be crushed in no time if the imperialists don’t come to their rescue in each of these countries when the revolutionary masses organise themselves. Similarly, a break in the imperialist chain anywhere will catch like wildfire and the irreversible collapses of the imperialist/monopoly bourgeois rule in the West will follow the suit. The proletarian parties in Europe and other parts of the West should prepare the ground before for this impending and indispensable eventuality soon.”(6)
What “break in the imperialist chain” does Saibaba envision? If he holds that world revolution begins in the weak links of imperialism, in the Third World, then we have no disagreement. The sun of world revolution rises in the East and sets in the West. What does Saibaba mean by the “collapse of the imperialist/monoply bourgeois rule in the West?” This is meaningful only if it includes nearly the entire West, the Western bourgeoisified populations as a whole.
Saibaba says that proletarian parties in the West should prepare the ground for the fall of the West. However, since there are no aboveground Leading Light parties in the West, Saibaba’s statement is meaningless or very misleading. Which “proletarian parties” are being referred to? Leading Lights are hoping to speed along the destruction of the First World. We believe that there are revolutionaries in India who will reject First Worldist ideology once and for all. We will see brave revolutionary movements dispense with the Theory of Productive Forces once and for all. “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Ostrichism” is the past. Leading Light Communism is the future.
Notes
1. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india.html
2. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india.html
3. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india_26.html
4. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india_26.html
5. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/amerikkkans-rich-indians-poor-so-called-icm-deaf-and-dumb/
6. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india_26.html
3 Comments + Add Comment
Deja un comentario / Leave a comment / Mag-iwan ng komento / Hinterlasse einen Kommentar / Αφήστε ένα σχόλιο
Leading Light Essentials
Hey, i am in regular contact with Communists in West Bengal that are members of the CPI (M), they have a very negative view of the Maoists and i have had many conversations with them concerning the movement as i was once convinced that the Naxalites were the best guerrilla movement in the 3rd world at the moment. I will paste what Indian Comrade told me concerning the “Maoists” (warning is it very long and sometimes uses bad English)
“Communist uprising started from the time before the Freedom struggle. Bose and Bhagat Singh were all communists. But before the freedom struggle, the INC felt that these communists were going through the wrong path. The INC were against the use of violence but the communists believed in the path of Violence. But they couldn’t succeed as because they were opposed by the congress.
The INC were anti-communists and till today, they are anti-communists. Now, in the 1960s, the communists were getting huge public support in 2 states (West Bengal and Tripura). I don’t know how they became popular in Tripura, but in WB, there was a famine in Bengal and at that time, the communist party got help from China and Bangladesh to feed the poor, thus the communists got huge support from the poor.. The congress was in an insecure position as another party called the BJP were gettong huge amount of votes and were about to kick off the congress from the perliament. But they were not much concerned about the communists, they were concerned to get public support by any means. They suddenly declared a war on China. There were 2 reason:
1> To stop china helping the CPI.
2> To make China attack India and then, win the war. thus they will get a chance to advertise the then PM and get votes in favor of them.
3> To get some chinese lands and then pretend to be generous to china by giving them the land .
But the outcome was worse. The Indian Army lost the war and some of the Indian lands was captured by the chinese army. Then the Indian government declared cease fire and pleaded the chinese government to return those lands to the Indian government. The Chinese government agreed to return the land. Thus it was sorted out.
But during the war, the Indian Communist Party in Bengal protested against the war. The INC government felt that if these protests continue, and if the Press highlight those protests, then the entire country will come to know about it. Thus they declared “President’s Rule” in West Bengal. President’s Rule means that the power of Administration and the 3 sections (Legislature, Executive and Judiciary) of the state goes to the hand of the army. The purposes of that president’s rule are:
1) To smash the communists and stop the uprising in WB.
2) To suppress the press and media.
I heard from my dad that more than 1200 communists were killed . But yesterday I went to a meeting where I’ve heard that it was more than 12,000. Now my dad says that he gave me the count of 1200 people killed in South 24 parganas Region . But the total exceeded 12,000. My dad lost his brother, he was shot infront of him. I’ll tell that story later.
Communists Students (SFIs) were dragged out of the bus and they were made to kneel down in a line with their hands tied and they were shot. People were killed and tied with a rope and hung from the lamp posts. Communism was declared Illegal. Eventually, a section of the communist party took up weapon to save them from the police and anti-socials of the INC. They killed the police, looted the police stations and got weapons and killed more police. The naxalite movement became so fierce that the Police started arresting people whoever they suspected. But it was useless. More and more police and armies were murdered and hung . The INC felt that they can’t hold down the communists any longer. Then, a certain section of the party stated that the INC should withdraw the “President’s Rule”. But the naxals opposed them as they felt that they were about to win the “war” against the INC in WB and force them to withdraw, they felt that it was un-necessary to request them to withdraw the army and “Presi’s Rule”. A clash started within the party. The CPI broke into 3 sections:
1) CPI
2) CPI(M)
3) CPI(ML)
the CPI(M) is the marxist wing which suggested that the party should Concentrate much in helping the poor by taking helps from foreign (china), to proceed the revolution in Non-Violence ways. They opposed the naxalite that if they should go on killing police and armies , then the poor people will not accept them. Poor people wants peace.
The CPI(ML) or the marxist leninist wing supported the naxal. Many people still feels that the naxal and CPI(ML) are same. But they are not same. They just supports each other.
The CPI party sheltered the naxals, the CPI was the first communist party of India., the CPI(M) and CPI(ML) just broke out. The CPI stated that killings was required. They stated—”sometimes we need to take up guns to bring down guns”…
But then eventually, the naxals lost support from all the 3 parties and they eventually stopped killings, they also started supporting the communists.
Then, the communist party won the election in 1977. The Right wing (INC) was still having the same objective, that it was necessary to destroy the communist party. They pushed their anti-socials and murderers to make a new association called the The Maoist Communist Party. The got some naxals to support them. their main purpose was “Revolution”. But still, I can’t understand what they means by “Revolution”.
The Maoist Communist Centre of India (MCC) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People’s War (also known as the People’s War Group or PWG) merged to form a new entity, the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) on September 21, 2004, somewhere in the projected ‘liberated zone’. Officially, the merger was announced on October 14, 2004, by the PWG Andhra Pradesh ‘state secretary’, Ramakrishna, at a news conference in Hyderabad, on the eve of peace talks between the PWG and the State Government.
Present condition:-
As already said, the maoists are basically the people who were appointed by the supporting the INC to kill the communists during the 60s and 70s. Although they are old maybe the maoists are new people with similar Ideologies. They are funded by the Right wing. But at present, they turned against the INC.
That’s About India. To be honest, I don’t know much about the mao of China. I’ve never read about him. I started reading communism from the beginning, from Hegel’s principl and philosophies, I’ve still not read mao. But I’ve heard from my dad that mao was a good and capable man. He killed people, but that was necessary to bring stability to the society. But he says that mao became corrupted during the last days of his political career and thus many of the communists hate him. But he was a capable comrade. But here, the maoists are not following mao.”"
I can’t respond to these claims. They look like little more than gossip, especially since the author says “I’ve still not read mao”. You cannot set much store by them.
What I can say is that many non-Maoist people and organizations, including some set up by the imperialists themselves, have claimed the mantle of Maoism. If some facially “Maoist” organization in India was a pig front that helped the state crush the left, obviously we would not endorse it or consider it Maoist.
India is home to today’s largest active revolutionary movement of Maoist inspiration. The Indian state has declared this movement to be its greatest threat. We cannot endorse any particular organizations in this mostly underground movement; we simply do not know enough facts. But we hope that they will adopt and apply Maoism-Third Worldism, the fourth and highest stage of communist science. Failure to do so will lead to revisionism and to the undoing of the movement, as has happened in Nepal and numerous other countries.
Yes, it seems to be bias gossip to me also – but i thought it would be worthwhile to post this information here to get a broader understanding of the opposition to the Maoists (the CPI(M) )…i have also had conversations with Indians whom are members of the CPI (M-L) which is an un-parliamentary party and mostly supports the Naxalites, this is what one had to say on the matter:
“”cpi(m) is communist only in name now. they make alliance with mainstream bourgeois parties and promote neo-liberal policies. their clash with cpi maoist began when they were trying to forcefully uproot poor villagers at singur and nandigram to establish automobile industries there. when the villagers resisted, cpi(m) used police and armed cadres to suppress them.many were killed and injured in the clashes. so then cpi maoist formed a mass organization of poor villagers. this resulted in further clashes in which there were casualities on both the sides”"
“”but we are very critical of cpi moist too, because of their anarchist behaviour and also their incorrect analysis of the india situation, priciple contradiction, mode of production analysis etc”"
I will investigate deeper into this situation, if not for anything other than to shed light on the real situation. West Bengal has had a very troubled history and its hard to get a clear picture of the truth of the Maoist movement there – i think one thing is clear that the CPI(M) are totally revisionist – whilst they protect the working class in places such as Bengal from certain neo-liberal policies they have mistakenly abandoned any notion of Scientific revolutionary discussion or ideology.