Images of Nepal People's Liberation Army

Nepal People's Liberation Army soldiers are the people's heroes!



Nepalese villagers happily greet members of the people’s army.








PLA Soldiers stand ready…





…always fighting for a democratic republic.





They look forward to New Nepal.

Socialist Planning vs. Market Economy, and the Question of the Destruction of Soviet Socialism

The question of how to distinguish socialism from capitalism is one that has been central to the struggles within the international communist movement since before the split in the Second International nearly one hundred years ago. Focusing upon the question of the nature of the Soviet Union over the period of its existence, in order to make a determination of its socialist character is primarily a political matter rather than a technical one. Juridical ownership is not the main criterion for determining the social system; rather, the criterion is which social class wields state power.

Few would doubt that capitalism has now been restored within the former Soviet Union. But of more importance is how and when this occurred. Pro-capitalist economists suppose that this occurred when state ownership of the major means of production was ended and ownership became concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. However, many communists propose a different story as to how and when capitalism was restored. The anti-revisionist communist movement of which the Communist Party of China was a part during the leadership of Mao Zedong holds that the crucial date in the timeline of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union is 1956, the year that Nikita Khrushchev consolidated his grip on the state power and repudiated much of the socialist experience of the country. As to how this occurred, many communists propose that the internal social force motivating the destruction of the Soviet Union was in fact that country’s exploitative ruling class. While ownership of the vast preponderance of the means of production remained in the hands of the Soviet state until the end of the Soviet Union, socialism had long since been replaced by state monopoly capitalism, with the leadership of the Communist Party forming the nucleus of the ruling class exercising dictatorship over the proletariat.

The new leading group in the Soviet Union qualitatively deepened some of the existing errors in the Soviet Union. Earlier, during the war against fascism, Stalin conciliated with nationalist and reactionary Orthodox sentiment in order to forge the broadest unity against the invaders possible. But after the war, he turned his attention to strengthening the socialist foundations of the country. Notable is his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, in which he proscribes the operation of the law of value under socialism. However, after Stalin’s death, the leading group returned to a policy of appeasing Great Russian sentiment and gave greater play to the law of value in the workings of the economy.

The new leading group headed by Khrushchev deepened the bureaucratic tendencies within the party, government, and within the state and collective economy, reducing the active role of the working people in running the society. “Corruption” among party and state officials ran rampant and became an institutional hallmark to the extent that a new class formation took form, a state capitalist bourgeoisie. It is not difficult to understand why capitalist restorationists would continue to wave the red flag and proclaim communism instead of openly changing the state power. In the Soviet Union in 1956, there were still powerful forces that were loyal to the socialism and who were communists committed to the historical cause of the working class. The pretense of communism kept many of them politically disarmed.

The Soviet leadership repudiated the dictatorship of the proletariat and insisted that class struggle no longer drove social development in the country. Instead, the “dictatorship of the whole people” was declared, and the category of Soviet “working people” was declared to include manual workers, the intelligentsia, managers, as well as Party and state officials. In this way, the role played by the Soviet ruling class as an exploitative force was obscured.

With regard to capitalist restoration, it is important to point to the relationship between the economic base and its political and cultural superstructure, and the relationship between the forces of production and the relations of production. Many have argued that the qualitative leap presaging the restoration of capitalism in a socialist society takes place in the realm of the superstructure; specifically, the state power of the working class is overthrown and replaced by the power of the exploiting classes, as opposed to changes in the economic base (say, the area of ownership of the means of production) being crucial in this regard. In line with this analysis, mere public ownership of the means of production does not in any way mean that an exploiting class does not rule society. It would, in this case, be only a matter of time before such a class fully imposed its political and economic program on the formerly socialist society. Conversely, when the working class seizes political power, socialist relations of production do not immediately spring forth. This is impossible, and so it took time for the socialist economy to be transformed into a state capitalist economy.

Later, party figures emerged advocating the restructuring of the economy along lines more consistent with capitalism. An economist, Yevsei Liberman, provided many of the theoretical bases for a number of proposed reforms during the mid-1960s. Liberman made an argument that the role of the law of value was wrongly denigrated and must be fully recognized in order to develop the productive forces.

At the core of the 1965 Soviet reform proposals was a policy of self-financing of state enterprises: the government would provide the original funding, but thereafter, enterprises were to survive on their own resources. Profitability was officially declared the main criterion by which enterprises were to be judged. In practice, profitability was weighed along with a number of factors; however, profit was retained as a criterion of success. The Soviet state capitalist bourgeoisie appropriated the surplus value of labor not in order to serve the social needs of the formerly ruling working class, but instead to serve the material interest of the new exploiting ruling class. It is precisely out of this party and state leadership that today’s “oligarchs” and other private capitalist emerged.

Socialist Planning Versus Market Economy

Especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the much-heralded “death of communism,” the question of socialist planning versus various “market socialist” schemes is of critical importance to the future of socialist development. The remaining self-proclaimed socialist states each in varying ways proclaim adherence to “market socialism.” An ideological offensive against the concept of central planning and in favor of the concept of allowing market forces to determine prices and production has occurred, creating a broad consensus that central planning is inferior to market forces in terms of economic output.

But the question must first be asked: What is the objective of economic activity? This is first and foremost a class question rather than one of comparing raw figures on the production of this or that commodity. In a capitalist society, the goal of production is to make money, to obtain profit, while in a socialist society the goal is to lay the basis for the realization of communism and create common abundance, in line with the political needs of the continuing transformation of society.

The socialist calculation debate of the 1930s was sparked by an attack on socialist economic planning by liberal, pro-“free market” economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Stepping up to defend planning were social democrats like Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner. Even today, the writings of Hayek and Mises serve as the ideological basis of proponents of capitalist austerity and the supremacy of private property generally.

It must be pointed out that what was missing in this debate is a voice defending the position of genuine, revolutionary communism. Lange, for instance, succumbs to the ideological framework of the liberals in trying to prove that socialist planning can “out-compete” free markets by mimicking their operation. What he leaves out is what distinguishes socialism from capitalism. That distinctive quality is not planning versus free markets as such; rather, that question must be viewed as an aspect of the broader issue of what social class rules society and shapes society in its interest.

The fallacies of the liberals’ position on planning are built into its assumptions which flow directly from liberal ideology. While many pro-capitalist economists deny that their methods of analysis are based upon ideological presuppositions, in fact all economic theory is a subsumed part of class ideology in general and cannot be viewed separately from that context.

It is important to note that the historical value of the socialist experience cannot be assessed merely by looking at the leading economic indicators of the socialist countries. The materialist conception of history holds that social development is marked by a succession of modes of production, those being slave-owning aristocracy, feudalism, capitalism, and finally socialism and communism. Communists recognize that progress toward new forms of social organization takes place in a spiral rather than linear trajectory, and that the validity of socialist transformation cannot be judged through a simple quantitative comparison of advanced capitalist versus newly-emerging socialist economies. The consolidation of new social systems is an arduous process spanning generations, and progressive forces are locked in constant battle with powerful forces of counterrevolution.

Assessing the socialist calculation debate, two questions have come forward as most pertinent; that is, the issue of the rate of capital accumulation, and also the question of distribution (of income, wages being one component). The liberals see no independent, dynamic role for distribution in relation to the composition of consumer market demand. It is as if, to them, the actual existing incomes, which are inseparable from “demand” as understood in the market, are given by a sort of natural law, as if they are a natural product of entrepreneurial ability.

For a socialist state engaged in economic planning, the question of transforming people’s ideological standpoint is crucial and tied to its broader political objectives for the society. The participants in the socialist calculation debate, whether Mises or Lange, take as given consumer’s demand for various goods. But, the truth is that within either a socialist or capitalist framework, people’s wants are shaped by ruling class ideology. For instance, professional marketing and other messages in capitalist society inculcate the demand for consumption of a relatively private nature; for example, as with the Internet or home entertainment, broadly speaking. On the other hand, in socialist societies, ruling party “marketing” of a different sort encourages demand for a relatively public type of consumption, as with palaces of culture, public entertainment and so forth. And so, consumer demand is not a self-contained entity, but interacts with and is shaped by the ideology permeating the superstructure.

If the labor power is hired according to market forces, it is inevitable that class differentiation will be reinforced, not broken down. While Lange posits the rule of labor market forces as being a matter of “free choice of occupation,” in actuality this free choice is the same one permeating all capitalist relations of production. It is the same free choice of exchanging land and capital and the product of such at a price determined by the capitalist.

Under capitalism, price acts as a signal for market demand. But pro-capitalist economics does not critically analyze what is the basis of such demand. First, the question of distribution cannot be separated from market demand. The shape of the distribution of income determines precisely the shape of market demand. A relative increase in the polarization of incomes in society, all else the same, will lead to most of society increasing its relative demand for necessity goods, while the more affluent minority increases its relative demand for luxury goods. Further, market demand in no way corresponds to social need or utility. It is entirely a function of monetary demand, as opposed to social demand.

Socialist planning enables the state to make decisions about the short-term and long-term needs of society, and to balance them against each other. While the capitalist views monetary profit as the signal of success, this type of efficiency criterion does not account for long-term needs, which could for instance be met by increasing the rate of capital investment so as to expand the future productive forces. Through planning, calculation for many variables can be devised that are not addressed by the market.

One argument raised by more “libertarian”-minded socialist sympathizers is that central planning, by appropriating the product of labor, is engaging in a form of exploitation akin to that of the capitalist. Profit must be understood as being equal to (Surplus Value/[Fixed Capital+Variable Capital]) (for an explanation of this, see: This ), and as such it exists in either a capitalist or a socialist society. If “worker control” is devolved to the level of workplace units such as individual factories or groups of factories, instead of collaborating in a planned way to meet mutually understood social needs, the separate units will become atomized and behave as competing capitals. Such competition mimics that of capitalism, resulting in an inefficient allocation of resources—especially if the goal of production is not monetary profit but instead, broadly speaking, meeting of the people’s material needs as determined by the socialist state.

As for the question of capital accumulation, Preobrazhensky and other Soviet figures make the case for deferring, say, increases in consumer welfare, so as to instead produce the means of production. The liberals instead are focused on immediacy and do not see the value of an increased rate of accumulation. Marxist economist Maurice Dobb’s claims regarding the nature of the Soviet “stagnation” in the post-war period are related to this. Dobbs said that in the earlier periods, planning was mainly focused on a few, key products that were determined to be of importance not to the consumer market, but to what he called the “primary sector,” which would include production of the means of production. Later, he claims, Soviet planning did not successfully guide the “intensive growth” of the economy as a whole, that is, the transition by Soviet planning from relatively few products, with the “production campaigns” including Stakhanovism playing a key role in the earlier period, to the post-war period when planning took on a comprehensive form, with an increasing focus on complex mathematical relationships needing to be determined, and also what Dobbs would call the necessary transition from extensive to intensive growth.

Two constraints upon the development of the higher phase of communism in a society under the leadership of the working class are, first, encirclement by hostile countries ruled by class exploiters and second, an insufficient development of the level of the productive forces. The socialist state must engage in extended reproduction (production of the means of production) in order to defend its sovereignty through national defense and also to lay the groundwork for transcending the existing, less-than-communist productive relations.

Conclusion: The Necessity of Economic Planning and Restricting the Operation of the Law of Value In Socialist Society

Marx’s treatment of labor as a special kind of commodity is a key distinction from capitalist economics. Specifically, he addresses the matter with the labor theory of value. The Manifesto proclaims that the socialist distribution principle is “to each according to work,” which is distinct from that of capitalism, which is determined by a subsistence wage plus a certain cultural minimum requisite for the type of work involved, and is further modified by political need to maintain social cohesion and maintain its class dictatorship. But socialism cannot follow such a dictate and simultaneously carry out social planning. The socialist state must appropriate a surplus in order to accumulate capital and build the material foundations for communism and in order to use science and technology to improve the living standards of the population. Doing this requires conscious, systematic economic planning on the part of the socialist state, and minimizing the operation of the law of value rather than attempting to replicate the capitalist market.

Letter From a 14-Year-Old (1989): Importance of Outreach

The following was written in early 1989:

"The American flag to me is an ugly representation of everything bad in the world. It represents the CIA agents working around the clock to oppress the proletariat, it represents the skinheads at my school who act as a more dangerously military KKK. It represents the police, full of corruption.

"The American flag makes me sick to my stomach, because it represents death. The death of a family in Mozambique, a little boy in El Salvador, a village in Nicaragua, the endless slaughter by the rebels, death squads and governments the government supports.

"I have never burned an American flag, I have never had the opportunity. The best way for the Revolutionary Communist Party to attack the fascist intrigues of the right concerning flag-burning would be to burn the flag some more. A nationwide burn-a-thon is my idea. Please send me information on RCP demonstrations in XXX.

"I think the RCP is one of the few organizations that really threatens and scares the capitalists…"

I think the above letter shows the importance of finding ways to connect with youth and others in areas in which there is no presence of revolutionary organization. In regard to the above letter, in 1989 RCP came into the national media spotlight in connection with the case of the RCYB member who was arrested for burning the U.S. flag at the 1984 GOP convention. This legal case had worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the politicians were agitating for action to be taken against those who would burn the banner of imperialism. But something else happened as well. As shown in the letter above, those who truly hated the existing system were moved by the raw and powerful expression of internationalism and anti-imperialism shown by the RCP supporters. It shined a light on a sharp dividing line between liberals and social democrats like those in the CPUSA (or the other various left groups which around that time were dedicated to the presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson) on the one hand, and revolutionary forces on the other hand. The same is true today. The rebels who hate the system will be drawn to those who promote the necessity and justice of revolution. The revolutionary organization must develop relations with those in small and mid-sized cities, and those living in rural environments as well, and especially in the case of youth. The experiences of those rebels must also be analyzed and shared in order to help them conduct political work in their own locales.

Nepal: Returning Parliament Is Not Enough

Gyanendra, the autocratic king of Nepal, has proclaimed that he has allegedly reinstated the elected parliament which himself dissolved last year, imprisoning and banning its members. Now, when confronted with the fury of the people's movement, the king has winced and apparently retreated. But this is only a small tactic. Gyanendra has proven time and again that he is willing to kill to maintain his position and power. He must be removed from his throne, either through his abdication or his forcible overthrow. This is well within grasp of the people's movement. He is an albatross around the neck of the Nepal nation.

If Gyanendra will not step down, he must be held to account for the blood that has been spilled by the royalist security forces, at his orders. The convocation of a constituent assembly, that can forge a new basis for a Nepali state, is a basic, just, and minimum demand of the eight allied parties (seven parliamentary, plus Maoist party). The people should be given the decision as to whether or not they wish to maintain the rancid, feudal monarchy, or if they wish to embark upon a popular democratic path.

Reviewing Two Anti-Communist “Documentaries”

This weekend I watched two anti-communist documentaries from the early 1960s. One of these documentaries, entitled "Only the Brave Are Free," is an outright pro-fascist film, seeking to justify the 1936 fascist coup in Spain which led to a three-year civil war, and ultimately to fascist victory and the massacre of all Spanish progressive forces.

The pre-republican Spain, before 1931, when Spain was ruled by monarchs, feudal landlords, and reactionary and obscurantist clergy, is described by the film as being an idyllic, lovefilled place in which everyone happily knew their place and revered backward and oppressive traditions. When a republic was declared, the narrator tells us, these allegedly wonderful traditions and social and productive relationships started crumbling. Workers started agitating for rights and even for political power. Atheists challenged the dictatorship of the Catholic clergy and demanded a secular state. There were people demonstrating in the streets and everyone was becoming politicized. This is all horrible and dangerous to reactionaries and fascists. They do not want the masses to become politically conscious or to reflect on their own worldview. They prefer working people and oppressed people in general to take comfort in myths and fairy tales rather than to live and act in the real, material world.

The film showed wonderful footage of women communist soldiers parading and training to protect to republic. The narrator used ominous tones, in the belief that surely good people will be utterly repulsed and shocked at the very sight of women fighters who are prepared to wage war for the people. Of course, according to fascists and other reactionaries, women’s place is in the home, in which their greatest glory can be to produce sons and to serve their husbands in the role of veritable maid and concubine.

The film, instead of acknowledging the large level of support for Communist Party of Spain, alleges that its political work is subversive, and any workers supporting it are in fact duped and led astray from Spain’s fine, feudal, Catholic traditions. To "restore" backward Spain it would take a true "champion," a man in the image of Hitler and especially of Mussolini, and that man was Francisco Franco, the man who headed the fascist coup against the elected progressive government of the republic. Later, in power, after the second world war ended, Franco attempted to present himself as some sort of religious conservative nationalist, but early on, Franco was openly a fascist. He never did abandon the Nazi-fascist salute, which was used on Spain under Franco until his death in 1975. This film, being aimed at English-speaking anti-communist audiences, does its best to avoid any footage with the Nazi-fascist salute, which is nearly impossible. One notices that the film continuously cuts away right as the assembled clergy or other fascists are beginning to raise their arms in the salute of evil.

The documentary dwells at length on the role played by the International Brigades, the groups composed of volunteers from around the world organized to come to Spain to fight the fascists and to protect the democratic republic. They are slandered and presented as interlopers preventing Spain’s "rescue" by the fascists. Meanwhile, the film only passingly mentions that Franco’s fascists obtained massive assistance from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Of course, the assistance was given because the Spanish fascists were Italy and Germany’s ideological soulmates. The film makes no mention of the fact that whole divisions of Italian troops fought on the side of the Franco fascists. German air force planes bombed anti-fascist positions.

The end of film presents scenes of reactionaries celebrating the victory of the fascists, again careful to avoid showing the ever present fascist salute. Spain is now presented as allegedly free and at peace. It is the peace of the cemetary. The freedom is for the capitalists, feudal landlords, the oppressive clergy and others who maintained a rule of terror until Franco died.

I recommend those interested in the struggle of the Spanish progressive forces during the civil war to read the Autobiography of Dolores Ibarruri: They Shall Not Pass. Ibarruri was known as La Pasionaria, and was the most important woman leader of the Communist Party of Spain. It is a moving account of the class struggle in Spain from the beginning of the 20th century through the loss in the civil war.

The other documentary, called The Truth About Communism, was narrated by Ronald Reagan, who was then being groomed by CEOs for his later political career.

One of the recurring themes in this documentary is that communists are dangerous because they seek to incite so-called "hatred" in different groups of people, specifically in working people and in the oppressed nations and nationalities. Of course the bourgeoisie is against so-called "hate." They have no reason to hate, being the ruling class and having strategic control of the society. It is only the propertied classes who are rightly contented under the current setup. Others are simply deluded by escapism, religion, drugs, or some other intoxicant of mind or body.

Reagan decries the danger of the communists in socialist countries educating children in communism, and allegedly turning them against their parents. Part of what this complaint reflects is the belief of the reactionaries that children are the property of their parents. They fear their children rejecting their worldview and asserting themselves independently of the patriarchal family. They fear new forms of social organization becoming more spiritually important than the traditional family (in the materialist sense). Likewise, the film rails against atheists asserting their worldview. The film shows good footage of a Soviet street theater group mocking Orthodox clergy and other medieval characters, the presentation of the footage being meant to shock the sensibilities of the audience.

The documentary details the Soviet-German nonaggression treaty of 1939, and the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland when Germany invaded from the west. Reagan bitterly reviews these details, as he should. The non-aggression treaty between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was a brilliant stroke of Soviet diplomacy, that in one blow smashed the machinations of British imperialism, which sought to goad Nazi Germany eastward. British Prime Minister Chamberlain, the man who engineered the 1938 Munich agreement, allegedly in the attempt to appease German imperialism by giving away Czechoslovakian sovereignty, always fondly thought of the Nazi regime as a good anti-communist force that could be used as a battering ram against the Soviet Union. Stalin and the Soviet communists knew this, and took the appropriate diplomatic measures to bide their time to prepare for the ultimately inevitable German invasion.

Reagan quotes Lenin talking about the false and deceiful nature of diplomacy, insinuating that Lenin was referring to the diplomacy of socialist states. Of course, Lenin was talking about the secret treaties and other deceitful diplomatic measures of imperialism, of those seeking a greater share of the world’s markets. On the other hand, it is indeed up to the socialist state to take all measures to frustrate the ambitions of imperialism, such measures like the treaties employed by the Soviet Union during the 1930s. There’s nothing wrong in that.

The two films are filled with bombast, syrupy sentimental music, and crude propaganda techniques that render them ineffectual for a modern audience. But the ideological threads are still present within the anti-communism of today. Therefore, they are a worthy teacher by negative example.

Addressing Heterosexism Among Communists

The Revolutionary Communist Party presented an excellent position paper on homosexuality in 2001, which presented a correct line on the issue. See:

http://rwor.org/margorp/homosexuality.htm

Though most of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces in the world have corrected their position on homosexuality, and now fully support lesbian and gay social rights, there remain elements that cling to discredited ideas about homosexuality, alleging that its roots lie in misogyny, in bourgeois individualism, and so forth. These ideas seem to stem from a rather conservative understanding of human sexuality and gender liberation which was conceived during the leadership of Stalin.

Below is a rather backward critique of homosexuality presented by the Progressive Labor Party in its newspaper in a 1998 article. It encapsulates everything wrong with old, incorrect understanding about homosexuality among communists:

Lynching of Gay Student Reveals Two Sides of Rulers' Fascist Coin (Challenge 11/4/98)

The torture-murder of Matthew Shepard, an openly homosexual Wyoming student, has thrown a spotlight on two apparently opposing movements-gaybashing and gay rights. Both movements are growing with the encouragement and support of conflicting sections of the U.S. capitalist class. And both movements are dangerous to the working class.

...the liberal politicians who publicly mourn Matthew's death are no friends of the working class, either. The mass vigils, marches, and memorials attended by tens of thousands across the country were not simply "spontaneous outpourings of grief" as the media would have us believe. They were organized and coordinated by the same band of clergy and other so-called "progressives" who have built the "gay rights" movement for years.

This pro-gay movement ignores the social roots of homosexuality, which lie in the sexism built into class society. Instead it brings the "free market-place" ideology of capitalism into the sphere of human relations: "Buy or sell whatever you like, do whatever you want, it's all individual choice," this line goes.

The "free-to-be-me, be-all-you-can-be" ideology is very appealing to many, especially youth, who hate the divisiveness and inequality of capitalism. But to see what it means in the real world, look at Sri Lanka, Thailand and other Asian countries impoverished by the imperialist bosses. There, tens of thousands of young boys (according to UNICEF estimates) have been forced into prostitution for the use of wealthy homosexual sex tourists from the West. And tens of thousands of young girls are also forced into prostitution to serve rich heterosexual Western tourists. Where are the marches and vigils for these boys and girls?

...(t)he New Money-inspired gay-bashing movement and the Old Money-inspired gay-rights movement only seem to be opposites. They are both faces of fascism, of capitalism in crisis, of a deadly and dehumanizing system that the working class can and must destroy.

The crux of the argument presented in Challenge is that homosexuality is a phenomenon rooted in sexism, and that therefore it is a component of patriarchy. However, simply put, all expressions of human sexuality in present society, being a type of social relation, coexist with the sexism built in to class society. The transformation of all social relations beginning with the overthrow of the bourgeoisie will be a complex and tortuous process.

Moreover, not only must communists reject incorrect, heterosexist opposition to homosexuality, but they must also unite with and give leadership to the most revolutionary and radical sections of lesbians and gay men in the society, those who gain little from the mainstream gay rights movement.

Indian Maoists Scaling New Heights

India’s Maoists are advancing their people’s war to new heights.

The Book Fatherland and the Communist Party of Germany Under Hitler

I just read the book Fatherland, which is the story of a Communist Party of Germany (KPD) member and his ordeals during the year following Hitlers elevation to power in January, 1933. This is a timeless tale though, and also reminds me of the situation faced by many members of the Communist Party of Indonesia members after the rightwing, CIA-supported coup of 1965, which led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of party members and progressives. Specifically, the book illuminates the danger faced by revolutionaries when their organizing center fails to prepare for conditions in which legal existence are impossible.

During so-called normal times, it is very difficult for many people to foresee the possibility of severe repression. Many people tend to grow complacent because they imagine that events will only slowly develop, and that, if today looks like yesterday, then of course tomorrow will look like today. Of course, Marxist dialectics teaches that social development isnt linear; rather, quantity transforms into quality. That is, development takes place in leaps, after the underlying bases have been transformed over time.

As the books author makes clear, the lack of preparedness and complacency on the part of the KPD membership cost the lives of many Party members, and seriously compromised the fighting capacity of the organization. His tale is not for its own sake, but is a warning to the revolutionaries of the future generations to learn from this experience and not to repeat the same mistakes.

This book may be read at:

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/holbein/439/fathtoc.html

Cult of “Leadership” Is Anti-Marxist

Communists must protect and respect their leading cadres. In particular, there are times that a single individual is in a key position leading a communist party, and that leadership is of a decisive nature. Mao Zedong, for instance, gained leadership in 1935 over the Communist Party of China, and corrected the left and right errors of the Party, and laid the basis for nationwide victory. Lenin led the decisive split with the Second International which enabled the foundation of the international communist movement in opposition to the pro-imperialist social democrats. Stalin defended the revolution against subversion by defeatist Trotskyites and the right-wing Bukharinites who would restore capitalism.

On the other hand, there have also been moments in which reactionary, rightwing, and counterrevolutionary leadership has been of key importance, transforming socialist countries and communist parties into their opposites. Khrushchev eliminated the revolutionary forces in the Soviet Communist Party, for instance. Though capitalism had already been restored, Gorbachev had a key role in the liquidation of the socialist veneer of the systems in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

Every communist must have a correct understanding of the principle of leadership. The most striking example of an error in this regard is found among certain forces supporting the Communist Party of Peru (PCP). Numerous PCP documents refer to its Chairman Gonzalo as the guarantee of victory. This is unscientific in two levels. First, there cannot be such a thing as a so-called guarantee in class warfare. That is counter to Marxism. Second, one individual may provide the correct and necessary leadership in a revolutionary struggle, but a party and its forces must as an entity uphold and defend this line, or it is not meaningful. If anything, it is the party which must be a so-called guarantee. The problem with the slogan of Gonzalo being the so-called victory guarantee, is that when he was taken prisoner of war, the PCP was indeed deprived of its so-called guarantee. If there is no guarantee, and one had but lost such a guarantee, by what principle are further lives to be lost in the peoples war? One wrong conception leads to another, which is capitulation.

Mao Zedong himself spoke against unscientific views of leadership in the aftermath of Lin Biaos death in 1971. Lin had formulated the ridiculous notion, for instance, that one sentence of Maos was worth ten thousand sentences of any other individual. That is nonsense, and Mao said so.

This question is closely related to the question of training revolutionary successors, inter-generational transfer of leadership, and also of preventing capitalist restoration. One individual must never, ever be understood to be the guarantee of revolution and continued dictatorship of the proletariat. The whole party must be a training ground for true revolutionary leaders. If a whole central committee is wiped out through enemy attacks, there must be another prepared to come forward. And if these are wiped out, yet more leaders must be brought forth. The organizational structures and security measures must be in place to allow for such contingencies, but at least as important as these are the Marxist view of leadership and the full political development of the leadership qualities of all constituent members of the vanguard working class political party.

Trotskyism Is a Reactionary Ideology in the Service of Imperialism

Perhaps the most widely-read source exposing the Trotskyite feature of various neo-conservatives and their worldview is the website antiwar.com which is, to my knowledge, run by rightists opposed to the neo-conservative project. Justin Raimondo (sp?) in particular has exposed these Trotskyite characteristics. Interestingly, his defense of national sovereignty puts him in the company of those sections of the left that stand opposed to imperialist aggression.

In the 1930s, the Trotskyites congealed into a fifth column within the political left, standing in resolute opposition to communism and revolution, both of the proletarian-socialist and national-democratic types. Instead, Trotskyites constantly sought to disorient and divert the mass struggles with the deceitful tactic of the so-called transitional demand, whereby Trotskyites deliberately seek to destroy any political work not in the service of their useless agenda.

Bourgeois individualism runs deep in Trotskyism. They abhor the Leninist principle of democratic centralism applied by the party of the working class. Trotsky and his followers provided the most useful ammunition for the imperialist drive against Marxism and communism. George Orwell, fellow traveler of Trotskyites, wrote Animal Farm and 1984 in order to pump up the bourgeois theory of so-called totalitarianism, and to slander Lenin, Stalin and the Soviet Union, and to equate communists with fascists and Nazis.

The kernel of liberalism and extreme anti-communist in Trotskyism was bound to lead to the stripping away of its socialist veneer in order to more fully be of service to the imperialist bourgeoisie. The rightist group Social Democrats USA is directly descended from Trotskys closest disciples. It moved from pseudo-socialist liberalism, to Cold War liberalism in support of the anti-Vietnam war of aggression, to neo-conservatism in support of big reactionaries like Ronald Reagan. Jean Kirkpatrick, Reagans UN ambassador, was one member of this group.

Now, the neo-conservative cabal promotes the conception of so-called global democratic revolution, in which the U.S. will allegedly lead the way through various pre-emptive wars, subversion, and all available forms of aggression to an order based on Western-style government and neo-liberal economic systems. The aim, of course, is for the consolidation of a unipolar world order in which there are no impediments to political control and market control by U.S. imperialism.

Trotskyism and neo-conservatism are close ideological cousins. The outer shell is different but the content is the same. They view bourgeois democracy as the highest pinnacle of human achievement. They are resolutely opposed to national liberation, socialism and revolution.

The Collapse of the Communist Parties in Burma, Thailand, and Malaysia

During the 1970s, in Thailand, Burma, and Malaysia, there were vigorous protracted peoples wars being fought under the leadership of anti-revisionist communist parties. By the end of the 1980s, these parties had basically ceased to exist. How could such a thing come to pass, while in the nearby Philippines, there is still today a mighty communist party leading such a peoples war? A World to Win magazine addressed this question, specifically with regard to the case of Malaysia, in its most recent issue. But the general conclusions of the article can be applied to each of these three cases.

The basic political problem was subordination to Chinese revisionism. These parties upheld the Deng Xiaoping groups positions on international affairs. And, during the 1980s, that position mainly consisted of seeking to act in alliance with U.S. imperialism against the Soviet Union and its allies such as Vietnam. China had tossed aside the position of opposing both superpowers as the greatest enemies of the people of the world, and sought a strategic unity with the U.S. in what was at first dressed up as a united front against hegemonism. The Chinese revisionists pointed to the 1930s united front against fascism (UFAF) as a political forerunner of this service to U.S. imperialism. However, the UFAF, formulated by the Communist International in 1935, never meant that the communists abandoned proletarian internationalism. While there were some problems with the UFAF position in practice, and perhaps some revolutionary opportunities were missed, there is no doubt that during the 1930s, there were great gains for communists prestige and influence across the globe. But during the late 1970s and 1980s, the Chinese leaders sought to everywhere oppose, demobilize and liquidate the communist parties over which they had influence.*

China expelled Thai, Burmese and Malaysian revolutionary radio stations from the country. China gave important, active political support to the old states of those countries. The Chinese authorities made clear to the communist parties leadership that they must wind up their armed struggles if they are to please China by joining the anti-Soviet united front against Soviet imperialism, in league with the bureaucrat-capitalist ruling classes of their respective countries. Those revolutionaries to whom China, while led by the working class, had given asylum, became veritable prisoners to Chinas new policy, and were instructed to cease political activities. Even today, there are many Burmese Communist Party activists in south China living under this restrictive arrangement.

So these communist parties did not really follow Mao Zedongs instructions to go against the tide and to fearlessly engage in criticism and self-criticism in the spirit of seeking to constantly rejuvenate the revolutionary forces. Instead, they engaged in whatever politics the Chinese party instructed them to follow. They were as slavish to China as, say, the East German Socialist Unity Party was to the Soviet Union. Wheres the Marxism in that? Their sense of discipline in supporting the center of the international communist movement led them straight off a cliff. These tendencies did not suddenly emerge in 1976 when Mao died and China changed course. They were rooted in a problem in applying Marxism to their own countries conditions. This ties in to what I was mentioning in a previous entry about whether or not there should be a new communist international. There is a real danger that in such an international organization, there would be a tendency to foster such slavishness.

These countries are still semi-feudal, neo-colonial countries. The peasantry is still the main force for revolution in those countries. But communists, and the left as a whole, are demobilized in these countries. In some cases, political Islam has filled the void. In others, nationalism has come forward. The conditions, however, call for a communist party to lead the masses in revolution. The ideological key in reforging these parties is anti-revisionism and reasserting the importance of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. There are many thousands of former cadres who have become apolitical and have not overtly disavowed communism who are a potential resource for such a reconstruction. The communists of those countries must be the ones to conduct such a struggle. But for foreign communists, conducting a thorough examination of the history of the communist movements in those countries, and disseminating the findings, would be a service in such an effort, in the spirit of proletarian internationalism. The article in A World to Win is a good starting point, and is hopefully the beginning of many other related exposures and efforts on the part of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces.

* Incidentally, the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), referred to in Western media as Khmer Rouge, suffered from the same malady as these other southeast Asian parties, albeit with a nationalist cover. Without dealing with the specific nature of the CPK-led state of Democratic Kampuchea, it is clear that it was under Chinese influence that, after the Vietnamese invasion, the CPK dissolved itself and renounced socialism and communism in order to gain favor from Western imperialism. Additionally, it seems likely that the national-chauvinist Pol Pot group eliminated the revolutionary forces in the CPK during 1976-1977, most notably with the execution of Hu Nim and Hou Youn.

CPUSA Lamely Asserts Republican Party Is “Vanguard of U.S. Capitalism”

The old Communist Party USA, (CPUSA), the one that was the official fraternal party of the Soviet Communist Party until its dissolution, has for decades advocated conducting political work in the Democratic Party. It used to run its own presidential candidate, but has not done so since 1984, instead opting to endorse the Democratic candidate in each case. Its latest article promoting the Democratic Party is entitled Capitalisms ruthless vanguard party and is available at:

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8853/1/315

In it, CPUSA official Terrie Albano argues that it is the Republican Party that is the vanguard of the bourgeoisie, and not the Democratic Party. Albano writes, To those on the left who say, Its the capitalist system that has to be fought. The Democrats also support capitalism, I ask, How can you defeat capitalism if you cant defeat its vanguard the Bush administration? On the one hand, Albano would be right if this argument were aimed at those who refuse to see important political differences between the far right forces in the Republican Party and, for instance, the relatively progressive forces of the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus. On the other hand, it is certainly not the case that there is something about the Republican Party that makes it inherently the bourgeois general staff. Indeed, wasn't the Democratic Party leading the capitalist state and even directing the general strategy of the ruling class at various junctures? The New Deal, the Great Society... these were reforms that were welcomed by working people, but they were certainly part and parcel of the bourgeoisies attempt to consolidate its class dictatorship.

The Democratic and Republican brands of bourgeois class rule allow the ruling class to employ dual counterrevolutionary tactics. In common lingo, its good cop, bad cop. A most striking example of this is in the area of foreign policy. The Republican Party is now associated with a policy of relatively open pursuit of monopolarity (U.S. being the only pole of power) in international relations and U.S. hegemony in every realm, earning deserved enmity from all quarters. On the other hand, during the 1990s, the Democratic Clinton administration employed human rights imperialist policies, subverting states and committed aggression everywhere, but with a softer and gentler accompanying line of propaganda. Indeed, it is almost certain that if a President Gore had taken the same action as Bush in invading and occupying Iraq, which is a very real possibility, many segments of liberals would support this action and be hoodwinked by the sort of human rights propaganda that sought to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.

In short, the imperialist bourgeoisie maintains and benefits from a system of multi-party rule. It has two vanguard parties in this country.

Nepal Seven-Party Alliance Learning Lessons Paid in Blood

The Maoist-Seven Party Alliance (SPA) coalition is the union of revolutionary and democrats opposing Nepal's autocratic King Gyanendra's absolute rule. The SPA, being grounded in parliamentary politics, has constantly encouraged the Maoists to rein in their military forces and to aim toward integrating with with a reestablished "democratic order" that Gyanendra overthrew in February 2005.

The Maoists have proposed that the SPA join with the Maoist People's Liberation Army in forming a new Nepal National Army to seize nationwide power, and unite with the Maoists in convening a constitutional convention to decide key questions about the country's fate. So far, the SPA has resisted. Now, during the current SPA program of protests and general strike that has shut down the country, Gyanendra has ordered his royal army to "shoot protesters on sight." Indeed, the first blood has been spilled:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/08/world/main1482944.shtml

The SPA must learn the lesson the king has taught, and must unite with the revolutionaries to ensure that blood debts are repaid. The masses of activists in the SPA organizations increasingly demand that the old state be repudiated and struggled against at all costs. The SPA must invite the Maoists have protect the democratic masses from the king's rampaging army.

Should Communists Support New Communist International?

There is some divergence among Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces over the question of the correctness of pursuing a "new communist international" strategy. On the one hand, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) aims to politically coordinate communists internationally. RIM's founding declaration of 1984 states: "The communist movement is, and can only be, an international movement. Indeed the very launching of scientific socialism, the Communist Manifesto, declared 'Workers of all countries, unite!' With the success of the October Revolution, the formation of the Communist International and the subsequent spreading of Marxism-Leninism to every corner of the globe, the international unity of the working class took on an even more profound meaning. Today, in the midst of profound crisis in the ranks of Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, the need for international unity and the need for a new international organisation are urgently felt."

On the other hand, opponents of a "new communist international" are perhaps best represented by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The CPP engages in various meetings of different parties and organizations, but opposes the existing of permanent international organizations unifying communist parties politically and ideologically.

In the past, I never understood the opposition to a new international. It seemed that it only made sense. After all, Stalin dissolved the Comintern during World War 2, seemingly as a concession to the "liberal" bourgeoisie for the sake of the popular anti-fascist front. But it is also true that Mao never took steps to found a new communist international or even something resembling it. He had at least 12 years between the conclusion of the Sino-Soviet polemics and his death during which he could have taken such a course of action, but he did not. That may be evidence that he at a minimum had serious reservations about resurrecting the Lenin-Stalin era type of international.

What is called for is a communist international of a new type. The Communist International, the third international of the working class, spread communism from the Soviet Republic to every corner of the earth. Without that international would the salvoes of the October Revolution bear fruit internationally as it did? But every party must have absolute equality. On matters not related to the basic political foundations of Marxism, there must be a certain degree of non-interference in the internal affairs of fraternal parties. There can be no return to one party being "big brother" (in a non-"Orwellian" sense) or "the center of the world revolution." Indian Communist Charu Mazumdar said in the 1960's, "China's Chairman Is Our Chairman!" Indeed, Mao Zedong was the greatest communist of that era on earth, but India must have its own chairman who can apply communism to Indian conditions. That is why, yes, there should be a new international when conditions arise allowing for it, but it must be an organization of parties each with its own, dynamic leadership capable of carrying the red flag no matter what arises in any quarter. Communists cannot again tolerate the stress of "iron discipline" at the expense of the important principle of "going against the current" when need be.

South Asia Revolutionary Compact Zone (RCZ) Is Reality

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has provided the basic impetus for the resurgence of communism throught south Asia. At this time, the Nepalese revolutionaries control most of the countryside of that country, including many villages. The Nepal People's Liberation Army is able to seize control of medium-size towns at will, and has constructed a whole new state, with schools, hospitals, people's courts, and so on.

The Nepalese party coordinated with other Maoist parties and organizations in the region to form the Coordinating Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA). The group has met several times and articulated the compact revolutionary zone as a multi-national red zone that would extend southward from Nepal into India along with feudal eastern regions and extend into Sri Lanka off the coast, as well as potentially Bhutan and Bangladesh.

This is an exciting development. While the Nepalese party has stressed national rights for oppressed nations by creating special autonomous regions, it also has a grand conception for a Soviet federation of south Asia, uniting the revolutionary struggles of several nations on a voluntary basis.

The armed struggle in India is strengthening by leaps and bounds. The Indian elite is clearly worried that several of its states are slipping out of control as the first liberated areas are being consolidated in the southeast. This political basis for these gains was created through the formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in 2004, as the result of a merger of forces. Bhutanese revolutionaries have formed their own Communist Party, and the Maoists of Nepal have won over many Bhutanese refugees in camps in Nepal currently. The compact revolutionary zone is a material reality in the form of base areas and guerrilla zones, but it is also a political reality in the sense that the unity and organization of the regions communists is becoming a fact.

Shining Path and Abimael Guzman

Prior to the 1992 capture of Abimael Guzman, known also as Presidente (Chairman) Gonzalo of the Communist Party of Peru (known as Shining Path in the media), the Peruvian revolutionaries were beginning to garner more and more support on the left. For years, most of the left shunned this group, characterizing its tactics as sectarian and accusing it of targeting the people instead of the enemy. But in 1992, Shining Path had seized power in many parts of the country and had developed a strong urban network among the poor masses in the sprawling shantytownsthe belts of steel that would strangle the enemy during a future insurrection. The old state was in a devastating crisis and indeed it appeared that its demise was imminent.

However, that is not what happened. Guzman, along with the main leadership of the party, was captured. Immediately, the focus of the Shining Path was entirely upon defending the life of Chairman Gonzalo. Now, I do not criticize this. But, when Guzman was presented to the media in a cage after his capture, he did not call for the defense of the leadership. He called for the party and army to form a broader national united front and to persevere in the strategic plans laid down.

One year later, the old Peruvian state presented Guzman in the form of video clips. In them, he praised the old state for resolving the crises of bureaucrat capitalism, and called for the party to fight for a peace accord. A document was attributed to him in which the clear call was made to dismantle the new revolutionary power in the countryside, and to disarm and dissolve the partys armed forces.

The Central Committee of the party rejected this call. Many Shining Path supporters either held the view that this was a hoax, or simply avoided expressing a view on that matter. What is clear is that a genuine political line emerged among Shining Path in favor of concluding armed struggle. However, only now does it appear generally accepted that indeed Guzman has articulated a political line for ending the partys military struggle. When he was presented for a re-trial in late 2005, he led his fellow imprisoned party leaders in chanting slogans in favor of the party and their ideology. This was captured on film. But he did not mention the peoples war. That alone is evidence of his position. If he favored a continuation of that form of struggle, he would have certainly indicated such with a slogan, as was always standard practice among Shining Path peoples war, give ones life for the party and the revolution, were key phrases.

But the international Maoist forces are silent on this issue of Guzman. And there is an argument for doing so. If his position indeed does not represent treachery, then this is an internal affair of the Peruvian party. On the other hand, if it is out-and-out capitulation, then it should be stated. And for that matter, if the latter is true, Gonzalo Thought must be cast aside as a term, and the specific ideological advanced made by Guzman and other leaders should be instead called "Guiding Thought," as it indeed was prior to the formulation of "Gonzalo Thought."