|
The Fight to Establish Maoism
By Ajit
It
is now more than 20 years since the Communist Party of Peru adopted
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) and almost 10 years since it was adopted by
the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM). The initial decade was
one of struggle and steady advance within the ranks of the RIM. Following
the adoption of MLM by the RIM in 1993, the worldwide struggle to establish
it acquired a powerful thrust. Since then, Maoist Parties engaged in
People’s War, but outside the ranks of the RIM, have also adopted MLM.
This has further sharpened the lines of ideological demarcation and
strengthened the struggle to establish Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the
commander and guide of the world proletarian revolution. In a related
development, the RIM was further strengthened when the Maoist Communist
Centre [at present Maoist Communist Centre, India (MCCI)], a party with a
decades long history of waging People’s War, joined it.
The
adoption of MLM has further propelled its participant members to make leaps.
The most significant among them was the historic initiation of the
People’s War in Nepal by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [CPN(M)]
and its rapid advance. New leaps were also seen through the foundation of
the Maoist Communist Party, Italy and the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) as
well as in the successful First Congress of the Maoist Communist Party (of
Turkey and North Kurdistan, earlier TKP[ML]), which has made significant
progress in the line of the party. The advance made by our party in summing
up the past, developing an outline perspective on the military line and
tackling the tasks of completing preparations is also a direct product of
the struggle to uphold, defend and apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
particularly Maoism.
MLM
emerged through struggle and continues to advance through struggle against
various rightist trends. In India, the CPI(ML)Red Flag tried to brand
RIM’s position on MLM as Lin Piaoism.
Unable to put up any substantial argument, it tried to confuse the
issue by raising the false charge that RIM was defining Maoism as the
Marxism-Leninism of the new era. The fact is that RIM’s document ‘Long
Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism’ clearly states: “...Lenin described the
era in which we live as the era of imperialism and proletarian
revolution”. (A World To Win, No: 20, page 6, emphasis added.) This
fraudulent attack of the RF was quite in keeping with the fraudulent tactics
it employed to justify the slide to parliamentarism. It will be useful to
examine the ideological approach guiding these tactics.
The
essence of the tactics employed by the RF consists in pitting the initial
positions of the international communist movement (ICM) against its advanced
grasp achieved later on. Thus the RF tried to hide its parliamentarist
revisionism by taking refuge in one sentence of the 1963 General Line
Proposal, which speaks about mastering all forms of struggle. (The explicit
stand of this document on the necessity of waging armed struggle to seize
political power was conveniently kept aside.) More importantly, the RF went
on to reject the clarity achieved later on by the Maoist movement, when it
firmly established the path of protracted People’s War (or the Chinese
Path) as the sole path of revolution in semi-colonial, semi-feudal
countries. For the RF this was yet another Lin Piaoist sectarian deviation.
What we see here is how revisionism handles the development of ideology. It
studies the past not to shed light on the present ideological tasks, but to
negate the advance of ideology. This approach often appears in various forms
in the struggle to establish the new and it is worth paying attention to.
The
RF was well on its way to abandoning the revolutionary road when it tried to
attack Maoism. But, significantly enough, we see a similarity between its
conclusions and those of the Nepal Communist Party(Mashal) [NCP(Mashal)] or
of the section which was expelled from the MCCI in 2001. In both these cases
the era question was sought to be used to obstruct the adoption of Maoism.
The argument was that since the era had not changed there could not be any
new ‘ism’, or overall development of proletarian ideology, after
Leninism. One can speak of an overall development of proletarian ideology
when it is developed in all the three components of philosophy, political
economy and scientific socialism. But, as Mao pointed out, “The basis
is social science, class struggle.” (‘Talks on Philosophy’,1964)
That is, developments in all the three components have taken place through
the continuing role of Marxism in guiding class struggle. If one keeps in
mind the complexities of class struggle, the ups and downs and the advances
made by the ICM since Lenin’s time, one would have no difficulty in
grasping that this reality had thrown up the necessity of an overall
ideological leap. This is what Mao Tsetung achieved.
Refuting
the NCP(Mashal) the Committee of the RIM pointed out, “To maintain that
Leninism covers all the contradictions of the era of imperialism and the
building of socialism is to ignore reality and replace it with some
preconceived idea in one’s brain. It proceeds from formal definitions, not
material developments, and as a result earth-shaking events are treated as
trivial and not requiring major efforts to develop our understanding. This
is subjective idealism, not Leninism.” (A World To Win, No:24, pages
46-47)
This
qualification is equally applicable to the section expelled from the MCCI.
They argued that, “As there are two stages of developments of
capitalism, no third stage is there, so in case of Marxism there cannot be
any third stage of its development.” (Quoted in the MCCI’s article
‘Take a Correct Position in the Debate on Maoism’, page 1) In this case,
the development of ideology is linked solely to economic stages!
Yet
another common feature of both the NCP(Mashal) and this section is their
so-called defense of Stalin. Both of them reject Mao’s criticisms on
Stalin. They argue that his contributions are nothing more than a
continuation of Stalin’s positions. Finally, both of them conclude that
Mao’s contributions are only equal to Stalin’s. Thus, they have ended up
negating their own previous position of considering Mao Tsetung Thought as a
new stage! Or rather, they have only succeeded in exposing that their
earlier adherence to Mao Tsetung Thought was really covering up deep- rooted
revisionism. One sees here yet another variant of the revisionist tactics of
pitting the old against the new. Beyond that, their attack on Maoism, quite
close to Enver Hoxha’s attack, raises an important question. How should we
grasp the rupture/continuity dialectic in the development of proletarian
ideology?
Mao
Tsetung no doubt inherited and applied the contributions of Stalin. We may
particularly stress Stalin’s contributions in the struggle against
anti-Leninist currents on international questions, building socialism and
specific questions of the Chinese revolution. Moreover, he played a leading
role in the ICM in the struggle to defend Stalin form the vile attacks of
Khrushchevite revisionists. But, and this was the key aspect, he did
this by rupturing from outmoded ideas as well as real errors of Stalin. The
continuity with Stalin’s revolutionary legacy, or more broadly the
Marxist-Leninist legacy, was possible precisely because of this rupture.
This is what paved the way for the development of the new, higher and third
stage of proletarian ideology. On the other hand, in the name of defending
Stalin, Enver Hoxha clung to his errors and ended up as a renegade. This has
also been inevitable trajectory followed by the NCP(Mashal). The section
expelled from the MCCI can be expected to trail it, especially since they
have taken to slandering the People’s Wars in Peru and Nepal as ‘left’
adventurism; a regular refrain of the RF and the NCP(Mashal). This
discussion helps us to understand how their metaphysics complements their
idealism in the question of ideology.
For
a long time before its expulsion from the RIM, while claiming to uphold Mao
Tsetung Thought, the NCP(Mashal) had nursed a line that was essentially
rightist. Maoists accept the theory of People’s War as an all round
development of proletarian military science. But, for the NCP(Mashal) it was
a mere tactics. While Mao talks about continuous revolutionary situation
existing in semi-colonial countries, the NCP(Mashal) was keen to impose
Lenin’s analysis of revolutionary situation related to capitalist
countries. All of this was for long essential aspects of the NCP(Mashal)’s
line. Sharp exposure of these rightist positions took place only after the
CPN(Maoist) [then NCP (Unity Centre)] adopted MLM and developed the
revolutionary line. In fact, this rupture from the long-standing rightism
within the Maoist movement of Nepal paved the way for the People’s War and
its rapid advance. On the other hand, despite its legacy of standing up
against Deng revisionism, the NCP(Mashal)’s attack on Maoism rapidly
opened the door to its degeneration into a tool of the reactionaries.
These
experiences bring us to an important question raised by the struggle to
establish Maoism. Apparently, the adoption of Maoism is only a matter of
terminology. Yet, in the two instances seen above, it led to much stirring
up and brought out the revisionist sludge hiding behind the banner of
Maoism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. It revealed sharp differences, within
the RIM, the Nepali movement and the MCCI, over what exactly is understood
as the universality of Mao’s contributions. It posed sharp questions over
what is grasped by claiming them to be a new or higher stage. Inevitably,
these differences were of a vital nature affecting all aspects of a
Party’s line and practice. What was apparently a mere question of
change in terminology turned out to be something of great ideological
significance. If this is not grasped as such the adoption of Maoism will
remain a mere formality. Let us not forget that the sharpening of the battle
against revisionism can never be the automatic product of a new term by
itself.
It
is true that a formal checklist comparing Mao Tsetung Thought with Maoism
will not reveal anything new. But that is hardly the point and we must be
alert to avoid this trap of formalism held out by the opponents of Maoism. Mao
Tsetung Thought and Maoism are not the same. There is something new here.
Something new of great ideological importance is achieved by adopting
Maoism. And this newness is not so much in the word as such. It resides in
the rupture from an incomplete or fractured understanding of the
universality of Mao’s contributions taken as a whole and in the leap to a
qualitatively higher, better, deeper grasp of our ideology. Evidently, any
reasoning that harps on emphasising that nothing new is added will fail to
mobilise the whole party and lead it in carrying out this rupture. The task
of actualising this grand potential for a vigorous ideological
rectification, for achieving a better grasp of MLM, will be done in a
partial manner. Even worse, it will be left to spontaneity.
One
of the strengths of the RIM’s 1993 document on MLM is that it addresses
this squarely. The RIM had
emerged form the consistent worldwide
ideological struggle against
Deng-Hua revisionism and Enver Hoxha’s dogmato-revisionism. It’s 1984
declaration had correctly stressed Mao Tsetung’s qualitative development
of Marxism-Leninism and affirmed that he had raised it to a new stage. Yet
despite these advanced ideological positions, it was quite clear that the
adoption of MLM was not a mere matter of changing terms. The experience of
parties in the RIM, which had adopted MLM, clearly pointed out the
ideological significance of this change. This was summed up in the following
words: “...the use
of the term ‘ Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought’ in our Declaration
reflected a still incomplete understanding of this new stage. In the
last nine years our Movement has been engaged in a long, rich and
thoroughgoing discussion and struggle to more fully grasp Mao Tsetung’s
development of Marxism. During this same period the parties and
organisations of our Movement and RIM as a whole have been engaged in
revolutionary struggle against imperialism and reaction. Most important has
been the advanced experience of the People’s War led by the Communist
Party of Peru which has succeeded in mobilising the masses in their
millions, sweeping aside the state in many parts of the country and
establishing the power of the workers and peasants in these areas. These
advances, in theory and practice, have enabled us
to further deepen our grasp of proletarian ideology and on that basis
take a far-reaching step, the recognition of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the
new, third and higher stage of Marxism.”(A
World To Win, No: 20, page 4,emphasis added) Yes, this further deepening of
our grasp of proletarian ideology is exactly the key issue in adopting
Maoism. It must be adopted on that basis, and on that basis alone if
it is to illuminate the way forward and defeat revisionism.
The
struggle for Maoism has once again thrown up sharply a longstanding issue
within the ICM. Are ‘ism’ and Thought one and the same? Is the
difference between them merely a matter of better expression? And how do
they relate to line and the lessons of a specific revolution? The debate on
such questions is only shaping up. So the views offered below are
necessarily preliminary.
The
7th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), held in 1945,
stated that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the Thought of Mao Tsetung was its
guiding ideology. It also said that this Thought is specific to China. But
even a quick survey shows us that many contributions of what is now
established as Maoism had already been developed and tested over long years
of revolutionary practice. The theory of New Democratic revolution,
People’s War, concept of bureaucrat capitalism, mass line, development of
party concept, united front theory and ideological rectification, apart from
Mao’s philosophical contributions, are some among them. All of these were
developed through struggle against right and ‘left’ opportunism,
Trotskyism and dogmatism. In particular, Mao’s creative application of
Marxism-Leninism was closely related to a bitter struggle against mechanical
copying of Russian experiences. And we know that the international sources
of this deviation were the Comintern and Stalin. This raised a complex
problem. Quite rightly, Stalin was considered as the authoritative
international leader in that historical period. Some of the basic views put
forward by this leadership on the world revolution in general and the
Chinese revolution in particular were correct and had to be upheld. At the
same time, there were also some wrong thinking and views, which had to be
rectified. Hence, it wouldn’t be wrong to assume that the term ‘Thought
of Mao Tsetung’ emerged from the necessity faced by the CPC to draw
attention to and clearly establish the distinct ideas guiding it, as
compared to the prevailing, accepted, thinking dominant in the ICM. Whatever
that may be, what is more important is the nature of Mao’s contributions
at that time itself. They were already having a universal character. In
fact, they represented, and still represent, the one and only correct
Marxist understanding about the path of revolution in colonial,
semi-colonial countries. (The ICM acknowledged this only 4 years later.)
Moreover, Mao’s contributions already represented an advance in the
Marxist-Leninist understanding on party, party building, united front and
mass line. All of these are
valid for both types of countries, that is imperialist and oppressed
nations. (As we know, this was established in the ICM only after the Maoist
revolt against Krushchevite revisionism in the 1960’s.) Thus, when the CPC
used ‘Thought’ in 1945, this already represented a substantial
qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism, tested through practice and
having universal significance.
However,
its further development was not mere addition. In the course of leading
socialist revolution and the struggle against modern revisionism Mao Tsetung
took proletarian ideology to new heights. In particular, it achieved an
all-round development and made a grand leap through the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution (GPCR). The GPCR itself gave a powerful push and paved
the way for declaring this through the 9th Congress of the CPC. A
major part of the Congress report is a systematic exposition explaining what
is new in Mao Tsetung’s theory of continuing the revolution under the
dictatorship of the proletariat. The term ‘Thought’ was retained. But
its universality, it’s role in achieving the third milestone in the
development of proletarian ideology, had to be proclaimed and established.
The 9th Congress report declared that Mao Tsetung had brought
Marxism- Leninism to “a higher and completely new stage.” It
sanctioned the term Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. The process by
which the ‘Thought’ of 1945 attained the heights of a completely new
stage by 1969 is clear enough. Also clear is the difference between the
‘Thought’ of 1945 and that of 1969. Even though Mao Tsetung’s
contributions had achieved a universal character by 1945, this was far
surpassed by the heights attained through the GPCR. It really merited the
term Maoism. This much is evident from its contents and the role it played
in advancing the ICM. One can only surmise that the CPC refrained from
adopting Maoism due to the particular situation existing in the ICM at that
time. Some have tried to use the 1973 10th Congress report’s
clarifications on the era and Leninism to argue that the term ‘Thought’
was retained precisely for these reasons. But this logic goes against the
recognition of the completely new stage sanctioned by the 9th
Congress and maintained later on.
This
review leads us to conclude that ‘ism’ and ‘Thought’ must be
distinguished from each other. While ‘Thought’ is also universal,
‘ism’ should be understood as an all round development of ideology,
which takes it to a new stage. The difference is not one of more or less
universality, but of more or less all round development that marks the leap
to a new stage. Aided by this understanding we can proceed to examine the
process by which the application of a revolutionary line gives rise to
development of proletarian ideology.
‘Line’
is specific to a country and party. It is a particularity. But, if it is
formulated through creative and correct application of MLM, this
particularity contains the universality of MLM. It reflects this
universality. In the course of its formulation, application, testing through
practice and development it will give rise to a new grasp of MLM. It may
also generate new concepts or contributions. The laws of revolution
expressed by MLM are universal. But, as Lenin pointed out, every law
‘freezes’ reality. It is incomplete, relative. Therefore, the
application of MLM laws or principles to chart out the course of revolution
in any country also calls for enriching, developing, the conceptual
understanding of those laws. Otherwise it would be cutting the feet to suit
the ‘shoe’ of laws. This is the point about creative application. In
fact, creative application of MLM precisely calls for such conceptual leaps
in grasping the universal laws established by MLM. And thus, through its
application in unraveling and handling the specific laws of a particular
revolution, the universal laws of MLM themselves become more complete, more
capable of grasping the complex, contradictory, motion of the whole human
society. Even if the development of a revolution only gives rise to a new
grasp of MLM, this still would be a qualitative development.
It would still hold out lessons for every contingent of the ICM. Some
revolutions may achieve even more and generate new concepts or
contributions. But, the point to stress, is that all of this is possible
even while there is only a ‘line’ and not yet a ‘Thought’. Or, in
other words, a new ‘Thought’ is not a necessary condition for new
contributions that enrich our ideology.
As
stated at the beginning of this discussion on ‘ism’, ‘Thought’ and
line, these views are quite preliminary. More study and debate is necessary
to clinch the issue. At any rate, this whole debate holds out the promise of
the ICM arriving at a deeper grasp of the whole process of development of
proletarian ideology. This won’t be merely a matter of definitions or
criteria to judge ‘ism’ from ‘Thought’ or line. It will give a
tremendous boost to the contingents of the ICM in carrying out their tasks
through a creative application of MLM.
Earlier,
we had mentioned the all round development and grand leap achieved through
the GPCR. To be more precise, “...it was in the crucible of the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution
that our ideology took a leap and the third great milestone,
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, fully emerged.” (Quoted from RIM’s document
on MLM, A World To Win, No:20, page 9) This is worth stressing and grasping
deeply, especially in the context of vicious revisionist attacks on the GPCR.
It is also necessary in view of the continuing confusion spread by
neo-revisionists like the NCP(Mashal) who present the GPCR as nothing more
than a matter of continuing class struggle in socialist society, go on to
argue that this was already conceived by the great leaders of the
proletariat and thus negate the ‘new’ in the GPCR. In the quotation
cited above the key words are ‘leap’ and ‘fully emerged’. The GPCR
was no doubt a continuation of class struggle in socialist society. But more
than that it was the highest pinnacle achieved by world proletarian
revolution. And this came out of some new, path breaking, study made by Mao
Tsetung on the contradictory character of socialist society. Taking lessons
from the experiences of the Soviet Union, he came to the clear conclusion
that the question of ‘who has won’ (the proletariat or the bourgeoisie)
has not yet been settled. He went on to identify who the bourgeoisie is in
socialist society, their roots and the centre of their power. He also worked
out how to fight them and uproot them. This was the cutting edge of the leap
in ideology in all its three components. A comparison of the summation made
in the 9th Congress report with further heights attained through
the struggle against Lin Piao and Teng’s rightist wind makes it amply
evident that this leap took shape over the whole course of the GPCR,
right up till the death of Mao Tsetung and the capitalist coup. This is why
it is necessary and correct to say that this leap ‘fully emerged’
through the GPCR. It reminds us of the need to take up a deep study of the
whole of Maoism as it developed through the GPCR and warns us against
lowering our sights.
In
this context it is necessary to insist that this leap also contains the
outstanding analysis of the diverse aspects of class struggle in socialist
China, made by Mao Tsetung’s genuine followers. Among them, the sharp
exposition of the material roots of capitalist restoration seen in the works
of Chang Chun Chiao and Yao Wen Yuan merit special attention. (‘On
Exercising All-round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie’ by Chang Chun
Chiao and ‘On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique’
by Yao Wen Yuan. Though Yao later capitulated his
work remains as an important contritribution.) Mao Tse tung had
observed, “...China is a socialist country. Before liberation, she was
much the same as a capitalist country. Even now she practices an eight-grade
wage system, distribution according to work and exchange through money, and
in all this differs very little from the old society. What is different is
that the system of ownership has changed.”(‘And Mao Makes Five’,
Banner Press, Chicago,page 211). He also said, “Our country at present
practices a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the
eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the
proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like
Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the
capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist
works.” (Ibid, page 209). Starting from this, Chang Chun Chiao
and Yao Wen Yuan went on to pinpoint how the continued existence of
bourgeois right provides the soil for engendering the new bourgeoisie, why
this soil has to be continuously dug away and why this has to continue all
the way up to communism since bourgeois right can only be restricted during
socialism. These expositions armed the Maoists with a deep insight into the
danger of capitalist restoration and were of immense help in quickly
understanding what was happening in China after the coup. Furthermore, the
struggle led by comrade Chiang Ching against Hua Kua Feng’s line of
pushing modernisation (as opposed to class struggle) as the key to advance
the socialisation of agriculture also needs mention, since Hua is still
considered by some as a genuine, if weak, element.
In
the ‘60s, comrade Charu Mazumdar wrote, “…today, when we have got
the brilliant Thought of Chairman Mao Tsetung, the highest stage of the
development of Marxism-Leninism, to guide us, it is imperative for us to
judge everything anew in the light of Mao Tsetung Thought and build a
completely new road along which to press ahead.” (‘Party’s Call
to Students and Youth’, from ‘The Historic Turning Point’,
Volume 2, ed. S.K.Gosh, Kolkata, page 36, emphasis added)
This
crucial direction is again seen in the 1993 document of the RIM where it
says: “From the higher plane of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism the
revolutionary communists could grasp the teachings of the previous great
leaders even more powerfully and even Mao Tsetung’s earlier contributions
took on a deeper significance. Today, without Maoism there can be no
Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, to negate Maoism is to negate Marxism-Leninism
itself.” (A World To Win, No: 20, page 9, emphasis added)
Yes,
today the key to grasping proletarian ideology is grasping Maoism firmly. To
say this does not in anyway separate it from the integral whole of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Rather, it is imperative to put stress on Maoism in
order to sharpen the struggle against revisionism and all other alien
thinking. We must uphold, defend and apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
particularly Maoism.
--
[from
‘NAXALBARI’, No:2, June 2003, Journal of CPI(ML)Naxalbari]
e-mail:
naxalbari_in@yahoo.co.in
|
