[Originally posted at: http://www.cpiml.in/050907.htm   For the benefit of American audiences I have added in brackets a few words of clarification and also some corrections of typos. —S.H.]

Unity of Communist Revolutionary forces is the need of the present critical, challenging phase when the Communist movement has suffered severe setbacks at [the] international and national level, when Marxist-Leninist theory and proletarian class positions are confronting unprecedentedly severe attacks by the enemy classes and alien trends, when revisionism, the main danger within the proletarian revolutionary movement, is rampant with most of the sections degenerating to social democratic and bourgeois positions, when sectarianism through anarchist practice is in effect serving the ruling class and alien stands, and when the toiling masses as a whole with the workers, peasantry, agricultural workers, the middle classes and all oppressed classes and sections, facing barbarous attacks and pauperisation under imperialist globalisation. It is this recognition that led to the unity of erstwhile CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag at the Vijayawada Unity Conference held during January-February this year in continuation to years of joint activities and unity talks that continued for three years. The enthusiasm this has created among the whole party membership to vigorously take up party building, development of class/mass organisations, and developing of people's struggles within this short time after unity is really inspiring. It has opened the way for further unity of the CR [Communist Revolutionary —S.H.] forces in India as well as for taking international initiative too. So it is quite natural that not only the enemy forces but also the alien trends feel disturbed and try to attack the CR forces and their unity efforts. Among these the fairly long critic [critique] "Polarisation within the ML camp: Maoists and Revisionists" published by the July issue of People's March, the open paper of CPI(Maoist), against the unity at Vijayawada Conference is note worthy for its ideological poverty, as well as the pragmatism it preaches.

     As far as the polemics against the sectarian trend is concerned, the erstwhile CPI(ML) Red Flag had published an in-depth reply in Red Star to the criticism raised by erstwhile People's War Group [which is presently part of CPI(Maoist)] in its May-June 1998 issue of Proletarian Vanguard. In this Red Flag had put forward a serious criticism against the ideological-political-organisational approaches of PWG. In response to this, [the] January-February 1999, issue of its new publication People's March had published a reply once again raising pragmatist issues trying to deviate the debate from the cardinal theoretical questions raised. In its rejoinder published in Red Star, Red Flag had once again tried to focus the polemics on the significance of putting the ideological-political line in command. As far as our information goes, the People's March did not come out with a reply.

     This history is re-called here in order to point out that the latest critic [critique] in the People's March has not changed a wee-bit from earlier mechanical and pragmatist positions while dealing with the serious ideological questions involved in the setbacks suffered by the international communist movement (ICM), in finding solutions to overcome them and evolving the revolutionary path to achieve a new leap of the movement. The world proletariat and oppressed peoples demand serious answers to questions concerning the degeneration of the former socialist countries and to the disintegration of Soviet Union. Simplistic answers like a Krushchov or a Deng caused the damage are not sufficient. There were basic problems, both 'internal' and 'external', involved in creating conditions for restoration.

     First take the 'internal' questions. Evaluating the ascendence of Krushchovian revisionism to power Mao had evaluated in continuation to Leninist teachings that with the seizure of political power by the proletariat and its allies in a country or in a number of countries the imperialist chain gets ruptured and it intensifies the class struggle at all levels. The overthrown enemy classes shall continuously try to stage a come back utilising all heinous methods including utilisation of assistance from the still powerful and dominating imperialist camp, as Lenin had cautioned much earlier. In line with this Mao taught that the class struggle should be intensified in the socialist countries under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Cultural Revolution was an attempt on his part to advance the theory and practice of developing class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat in China. In spite of this GPCR ["Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" —S.H.] how could the capitalist roaders usurp power? What were the factors involved? Lenin had thought clearly that seizure of political power in a country demands the transformation, politicalisation and mobilisation of the working class there in to a "class for itself". Extending this approach to socialist countries, defence of the dictatorship of proletariat there demands developing the "class for itself" consciousness of the working class as a class, to a higher stage. As the Marxist teachers repeatedly emphasised, it is possible only by developing the mass line approach. That is why the Unity conference Bulletin, the content of which is mainly targeted by the People's March for its criticism, "keep harping about mass struggle and mass line" rightly.

Question of Mass Line

     A study of Marxism-Leninism and experience of the ICM so far clearly shows that not only for the seizure of political power but also for defending the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the working class as a class should be established over the revolutionary movement. In countries in the stage of the democratic revolution it involves establishing the leadership of the working class and forging its alliance with the main force of revolution, the peasantry, along with developing the four-class alliance with the middle class and national bourgeoisie also. The most cardinal question before a Bolshevik Party is how to politicalise, organise and mobilise the leading class, main force and allies towards seizure of political power, and, in [the] present situation after the setback in the socialist countries, towards protection — and development — of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In its critic [critique] of CPI(ML), the People's March has put forward its own approach towards mass line, or how it views the development of mass line. The vital question is: whether the CPI(Maoist) position on mass line is the Bolshevik approach towards it, or is it an idealist position.

     To understand what CPI(Maoist) mean[s] by mass line, we have to quote at length from their critic [critique]. It says:

".... the mass line is an ideological approach to be adopted in our style and method of work. It is an attitude that should be adopted in all work, whether amongst the masses or in the party or even in the army. It demands of all cadres and leaders to be attentive to the needs and views of the masses with whom they are working and is diametrically opposite to a bureaucratic style of work. ...... Amongst the masses the mass line entails the approach "from the masses to the masses". In the Party the mass line entails taking in to consideration the views of all cadres and not lording it over them, and being concerned with their well being. In the army it entails mobilising the entire masses for the people's war and building vast militias in addition to the regular forces. ....... To ensure that the line really comes from the masses and particularly that it goes back to the masses, there must be close ties not only between the party and the masses outside the Party (between the class and the people), but above all between the Party's leading bodies and the masses within the Party (between cadres and the rank and file); in other words there must be a correct organisational line" (emphasis added —K).

     This is beating round the bush. How can a correct organisational line to develop mass line be developed by simply having an approach, an attitude and all other generalisations mentioned? Nobody will have any objection to accept these generalisations. But without a proletarian class stand and the correct approach towards Bolshevik party building and developing organised class and mass organisations all these generalisations will have no real meaning. One should not forget that the movement fell in the morass of sectarianism when under erroneous ideological-political positions it was announced in 1969-'70 that "all class and mass organisations are highways to revisionism". Its impact was so much in the movement, as a whole, that even after decades the CR [Communist Revolutionary] forces have still not succeeded to become leaders of a significant section of the Indian proletariat or to build up other sizable class/mass organisations at the all India level. At the same time, in spite of decades of exposure by the CR forces, the CPI(M), CPI forces still continue to lead sizable class/mass organisations. When the real problem faced by the CR forces is this, the above long quote exposes that the CPI(Maoist) lives in an idealist world and is thoroughly ignorant about what mass line really means. It has replaced mass organisations with the 'front' organisations' concept, and mass line with squad line.

     Lenin emphasised that the Party should form the vanguard of the working class, that it should be the guiding force of the working class movement, co-ordinating and directing the class struggle of the proletariat. Just calling itself a proletarian party is not sufficient, "we must win the support precisely of the class" (Lenin). "The Party is an embodiment of the connection of the vanguard of the working class with the working class millions" [CPSU (B) history]. Though the strength of the working class was insignificant in pre-revolutionary China compared to its strength in present day India, the CPC gave much importance to the trade union movement with top cadres deputed for it. Starting from [the] workers' uprising in 1927 the trade union movement led by the party played a significant role in the revolutionary movement. Similarly, starting with the organised agrarian uprising in Hunan, support of tens of millions of peasantry to the revolutionary movement was ensured through organised agrarian movements based on an agrarian programme. Thus [the] CPC was pursuing the line of [the] Comintern in building class/mass organisations according to the conditions of China. Compared to these experiences, nobody, except its diehard followers, will gave any credence to the hollow claims of the People's March that "Maoist have built large mass organisations amongst the peasantry and tribals, and to some extent amongst workers, students and also various other sections of the masses". The CPI(Maoist) has only front organisations which have no democratic programme, democratic organisational setup or programme for mass struggles. They are mere appendages to its squads and labels to be used openly.

     In a country of tens of millions of organised and unorganised working class with glorious history of numerous struggles, if it is not having a working class movement, it is not an accident. It is its basic line responsible for it, which is not different from the Narodniks line. The Narodniks in Russia did not recognise the revolutionary role of the working class and did not realise that the peasants alone were capable [incapable? —S.H.] of vanquishing Tsardom and the landlords without the alliance with the working class and without its guidance. "Young revolutionary intellectuals donned peasant garb and flocked to the countryside — "to the people", as it used to be called ..... But they found no backing among peasantry, for they did not have a proper knowledge or understanding of the peasants either. The majority of them were arrested by the police. There upon the Narodniks decided to continue the struggle against the tsarist autocracy single-handed, without the people, and this led to even more serious mistakes.

     It added:

     From what the People's March has narrated about [the] CPI(Maoist) approach towards mass line, from its well known approach towards building working class movement, from its practice in the name of waging people's war, and from the elucidation of the Narodnik line by the CPSU(B) History, it is crystal clear that what it is following is not a Bolshevik mass line in any way. If one wants it can be called a Narodnik mass line. As the People's March critique explains, to it mass line means its cadres and squads correctly implementing mass contacts and consulting the masses. It is fundamentally different or quite contrary to the Marxist-Leninist method of organising and preparing the masses to become capable of seizing political power to make them creators of history. It does not understand the meaning of [the] Leninist teaching: "Revolution is the festival of the masses", at all. For its squads are the liberators, and mass line means just to follow the style and method of consulting the masses! From this stand point if the explanation of mass line and mass struggles by the CPI(ML) looks strange or one which is not leading to people's war and seizure of political power to CPI(Maoist), it is not at all strange. What is explicit is that the sectarian leadership of it is not ready to take any lessons either from the setback and disintegration suffered by the Naxalbari movement due to the sectarian line pursued, or from the severe reverses suffered by the ICM, or from the recent setbacks to the so-called Maoist movements in Kampuchea, Philippines or Peru. By repeatedly asking others, "what is your approach towards armed struggle" and by depicting its own anarchist actions as people's war, it is living in a Ripwan Winklian world, in a Narodnik delirium.

     On the contrary, the Unity Conference at Vijayawada subjected various questions regarding the experience of the ICM and communist movement in India to serious discussion and has explained in the Outline Party Programme adopted by the Conference that:

Challenge from Outside

     Right from the time the principles of scientific socialism was put forward by Marx and Engels and the international proletariat started getting organised based on them, the forces of reaction led by the capitalist forces had started launching brutal attacks against them in all fields. With the emergence of Soviet Union this attack intensified. When imperialist attack to destroy [the] Soviet Union failed, they launched plans to sabotage it through various means. After World War II when a powerful socialist camp emerged they had further intensified the class struggle at [the] international level to contain and destroy the new upsurge. Colonial plunder was replaced by neo-colonial forms of plunder. At the theoretical level, numerous new diversionary thoughts were manufactured and propagated.

     But the socialist forces did not face up to this challenge with the seriousness it demanded. The grave challenge posed by the imperialist camp led by US imperialism was minimised or neglected by both right opportunism led by [the] post-Stalin leadership in Soviet Union under the concept of "peaceful co-existence and peaceful competition with imperialism and peaceful transition to socialism", and by the 'left' opportunism led by Lin Piao who dominated the CPC during the last years of [the] 1960s and put forward the new era concept in its 9th Congress in 1969. Both these deviations, in effect two sides of the same coin, caused irreparable damage to the ICM and speeded up the capitalist restoration in the socialist countries.

     In words, as a ritual, CPI(Maoist) also state that [a] fight against revisionism and sectarianism is required. At the same time, it has become the main headquarters of Lin Piaoism in India which is masqueraded as 'Maoist', basically deviating from the great contributions of Mao. In continuation to what Lin and company did earlier, it minimises the significance of the frenzied attacks launched by imperialism and world reaction against Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. It lives in a world of make-belief, asking others to join it, and attack all those who oppose its idealist positions. Nowhere in the critique has the People's March tried to pose any of these theoretical challenges posed by world reaction against the forces of national liberation and socialism, against proletarian class positions.

     On the contrary, based on prolonged in-depth discussions and studies, in the Political Resolution adopted by the Vijayawada Unity Conference, the CPI(ML) has clearly stated this question as follows:

     This clear cut ideological-political declaration by CPI(ML) is in continuation to organising the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations at Mumbai with the slogan 'Socialism is the only alternative to imperialism' by erstwhile CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag against the carnival of NGOs, the WSF, at Mumbai, while the erstwhile constituents of CPI(Maoist) were satisfied with organising a much smaller carnival with the participation of a number of NGOs across the road at Goregaon in the name of opposing the WSF. When [a] fierce ideological offensive against all alien trends is the need of the hour, the idealists go for pragmatist solutions like MR-2004, without trying to draw a line of demarcation with the NGOs and such other alien forces. So it is better if the doctor treat himself first before setting out to treat others.

Distortions Cannot Help to Establish an Erroneous Line

     Great Naxalbari struggle was a massive uprising of the poor and landless peasantry and the plantation workers in continuation to the great Telengana struggle, which brought back agrarian revolution and New Democratic Revolution to the agenda of [the] Communist movement. It once again emphasised that organising and politicalising the vast masses of working class, peasantry and other revolutionary classes and sections under the leadership of the working class is a pre-condition to seize political power. Since CPI(Maoist) has abandoned this path and continues the line of annihilation and individual terrorism, the CPI(ML) leaders have stated that the Maoists are not the inheritors of Naxalbari. At the same time [the] argument of the People's March that CPI(ML) has put "revisionism and 'left' sectarianism on equal plane" is totally baseless. Any one who goes through the documents adopted by the Unity Conference and the pages of Red Star can clearly see that CPI(ML) puts revisionism as the main danger in the proletarian revolutionary movement. At the same time, it considers that sectarianism hampers the development of the revolutionary initiative and activity of the working class and the peasantry and that without combating it the revolutionary movement cannot be developed as explained by Stalin in CPSU(B) History. And the hitherto experience teaches that the revisionism cannot be combated effectively and defeated without uncompromisingly struggling against sectarianism of all hues.

War of Annihilation and Individual Annihilation

     The People's March complaints that all armed struggle (i.e., of Maoists —K) is clubbed as "individual annihilation". What else can one do when the squad actions of the Maoists are evaluated? In its comments on the practice of CPI(ML) during its formative years, conveyed through com. Souren Basu, the authenticity of which is not denied by any one, the CPC had clearly stated that the 'annihilation' pursued in India by CPI(ML) then basically differed from the war of annihilation pursued in China during liberation struggle. In his "On Protected [Protracted —S.H.] War" Mao wrote:

     It is clear as day light that the annihilations committed by Maoists have nothing in common with the battles or wars of annihilation Mao is talking about. From Sircila to present days, during these 31 years of annihilation how many enemy forces were destroyed and to what extent enemy forces are weakened? How much attrition of enemy forces? On the contrary, utilising the isolated squad actions of sectarian groups as a pretext the enemy has increased the strength of its police and special police forces many times. Their fire power and quantity of equipments developed significantly. The burnt [brunt? —S.H.] of their attacks fall on people. That is why one has to emphasise repeatedly that what the Maoists are doing in nothing but individual annihilations, and they have got nothing in common with the war of annihilation in China. Instead of weakening the enemy forces they are only contributing towards strengthening them as the experience teaches in India and elsewhere where the so-called Maoists are active.

Mobilisation Style of Maoists

     The People's March critic [critique] asks: "..... Did not the CPI(Maoist) in AP [Andhra Pradesh state —S.H.] indicate the massive mass support through the lakhs [a 'lakh' is 100,000 —S.H.] that attended their meetings". Yes, lakhs may have attended this time also. But many more lakhs had participated in the mobilisation during Chenna Reddy rule by erstwhile PWG. The question is not whether one organisation is capable of mobilising few lakhs or not. As for [far? —S.H.] as the Communist movement is concerned, it talks about mass support in terms of organised masses. The membership of the party can be kept secret if one likes. But, what is the membership of class/mass organisations of the Maoists, is the cardinal question one likes to raise. This is of vital importance. That any organisation can mobilise lakhs if you have the money power is being proved in Indian cities hundreds of times every year. If money and muscle power along with vote-bank is also there, elections also can be won. Communist understanding about mass support is basically different, it is not just a question of strength of occasional mobilisations.

     Mass support is determined by the organised masses under its leadership, the strength of the class/mass organisations. When it is the question of an all India party claiming to lead [the] Indian revolution, the party and class/mass organisations' strength in different states, the capability to mobilise at a short notice at all India level on various issues like, for example, the recent attack on Honda workers etc. are of vital importance. The Maoists reject such tasks as revisionist. Without such regular effective political interventions, campaigns, protest actions, resistance actions like the one erstwhile Red Flag had mobilised against privatisation of Shivnath River in Chhattisgarh, presently Anti-Hati Gold Mine privatisation movement in Karnataka, resistance struggles against Coco-Cola plant, Express Highway, etc. in Kerala led by CPI(ML) how can the people be brought forward to participate in the anti-imperialist, anti-state movements? Take the question of agrarian revolutionary movement. Without organised landless and poor peasants organisations how can they be led to confiscation of land and other revolutionary anti-feudal actions without which, as Mao repeatedly explained, the peasantry cannot be aroused to join the democratic revolution? The concept of [the] Maoists goes diametrically opposed to this as they do not consider that "it is the people, people alone who can become creators of history".

The Maoist Label

     The People's March is criticising CPI(ML) for "using the Maoist label to dupe the people". How can one be so ignorant about this subject? CPI(ML) does not uphold [the] Maoist label, on the contrary it attacks Maoism and the new era theory [that] goes with it. [The] Maoism of CPI(Maoist) and its likes everywhere is nothing but Lin Piaoism which undermined Mao's Thought and weakened the socialist forces in China which ultimately led to the usurpation of power by the capitalist roaders led by Deng. Lin Piao clique deified Mao, always carried Mao's Quotations or Red Book, wore Mao Buttons only to overthrow his great teachings and to replace them with the Lin's teachings. It underestimated imperialism and advanced the theory of quick victory, under whose influence almost all newly emerging Marxist-Leninist parties became extremely sectarian and soon faced serious setbacks.

     The People's March has complained that in the Unity Conference "there was not a word of condemnation against the state government's actions". Another complaint is that "the Conference was held in AP just at the time when the state government had began to launch massive killing spree ..... against the Maoists......". Whoever has prepared this critic [critique] in People's March has gone further away from the facts. The Co-ordination Committee for Unity of CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag had prepared draft documents for unity and decided the programme for district and state level plenums in July 2004. At that time a great bonhomie was taking place between CPI(Maoist) AP committee and the Congress government in the state which as claimed by the Maoists had come to power because of their assistance in the assembly elections. Talk-teams were received in five star hotels and the 'great mobilisations' as they claim were taking place in some centres. Maoist propagandists were repeating that land distribution which did not take place for five decades is going to take place. If the talks failed, the honeymoon turned into estrangement and 'great' expectations belied by the Congress government, what can others do[?] The CR [Communist Revolutionary] forces had gone ahead with their own agenda. It is not determined by whether the Maoists are having [a] honeymoon or estrangement with the Congress government. Regarding uncompromisingly condemning and standing against state terror is concerned, CPI(ML) has a consistent position which is clear from its day to day statements and actions.

Conclusion

     The main content of [the] Maoists argument is that there is a great divide between the Maoists and revisionists, between those who pursue armed struggle and those who are not. The arguments are repetitive, exposing eclectical positions extending from idealism to pragmatism. They once again expose themselves as worshippers of arms. They are so impatient and sectarian that they refuse to concretely analyse the world situation, Indian situation, experience of the ICM and Indian movement, and the balance of forces both internationally and nationally, and embark upon an anarchist path or tactical line for quick victory. They are persisting in the line of individual annihilation which was proved extremely suicidal in the formative years of CPI(ML). The so-called 'red terror' they create in the name of combating 'white terror' is estranging them from the masses as proved at many places earlier and now in a larger scale in the Bastar tribal region. It also leads to increasing number of desertions from their ranks. They are nothing but modern day Narodniks who persist in refusing to take lessons from history or their own experience.

     These are consequences of their refusal to put politics in command, to take class struggle as the key link. To understand this approach, it will be worthwhile to quote here from Lenin's critic [critique] against the different opportunist trends. He wrote:

     [The] CPI(ML) has emerged through consistent struggle against revisionism and sectarianism. It has opened up the path for unity of genuine CR [Communist Revolutionary] forces in to a single Bolshevik style party. Distorting its Marxist-Leninist positions and creating illusions that armed upsurge is just around the corner the Maoists cannot fool anybody, rather they are only fooling themselves.