Category Archives: Dengism

The Struggle in UCPN Maoist

Since the launch of ‘peace process’ and abandonment of the revolutionary path for peaceful way, infighting in UCPN(Maoist) has increased. A large section of the party is against the leadership of Prachanda for his alleged capitulation to the international imperialism and stabbing the revolution.

Maoist Mohan Baidhya , Party’s Senior Vice-Chairperson has warned of formation of new Maoist party if compromises were made to remain in power by sidelining the people’s liberation and changes. He said that:

“During the people’s war, the land was seized to ensure the rights of the workers in the land and calls were made to put an end to foreign intervention and unequal treaties but it was unfortunate that farmers are being evacuated from the seized lands and ‘black’ BIPPA has been signed with India,”

The hardline group led by Baidhya and Gajurel have accused Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai as being one who have stabbed the revolution and have become agents of Indian and US imperialism. Gajurel said that “Dahal and Bhattarai acted as agents of the India and discredited the people’s revolt. They have no right to stay in the Maoist party,” (Tuesday, 25 October 2011, nepalnews.com)

The hardline group has claimed that the November 1 treaty was a betrayal to the principle of Peoples’ War, “Certainly, the night of November 1 is the historic dark night. The dark night was marked as the cheerful night for the feudalists, imperialists and the expansionist and their puppets. However, on the other, the same night was marked as the night of suffering, worry and a curse for the family of the martyrs, wounded and the poor working class people. Therefore, we are presented here with the volcano of the sufferings and a thundering voice within worry.”(http://redstarnepal.com/?p=562).

Overall the situation in Maoist party is one where a furious two-line struggle is being waged. Which group emerges victorious is something to watch

Here we are giving news stories that appeared in Nepali news media.

Nepal: “Prachanda remains no longer Chairman of Nepal
Maoist”: C. P. Gajurel

On ideological grounds, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ remains no longer the Chairman of Unified Maoists’ Party, so said Party secretary C.P. Gajurel while addressing a press meet in Nawalpur of Sarlahi District, December 10, 2011.

“Dahal has already abandoned the ideology charted by the peoples’ revolt…… How Dahal could continue claiming that he holds significant position in the party”, asked Gajurel and said, “He has no space in the party.” ……..

……… “Differences in the party have already crossed the toleration limit. Dahal is to be entirely blamed for the ideological aberrations”, Gajurel told the media adding, “It all started with the differences over petty issues. The differences have attained a new height following unilateral decision of the Chairman to return the seized properties, humiliating rehabilitation and integration of the PLA and the fresh controversial BIPPA agreement that Baburam signed with India.”

Gajurel also disclosed that majority of the party leaders were the adherents of his own panel.

“We are not at all against peace and constitution”, Gajurel claimed and concluded by saying, that “We want honorific and scientific integration of PLA in the Nepal Army.”

Every unnatural height has a definite fall.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, Sunday, December 11, 2011

Nepal: Baidhya warns of birth of new Maoist party

KATHMANDU: Senior Vice-Chairperson of the UCPN-Maoist Mohan Baidhya has warned of formation of new Maoist party if compromises were made to remain in power by sidelining the people’s liberation and changes.

Speaking at a program organised in the capital on the occasion of the 88th memorial day of the first literary martyr Krishna Lal Adhikari on Sunday, Baiddya, who leads the hardliners in the party, said lasting peace would not be established if the new constitution was not written in favor of the proletariat.

“During the people’s war, the land was seized to ensure the rights of the workers in the land and calls were made to put an end to foreign intervention and unequal treaties but it was unfortunate that farmers are being evacuated from the seized lands and ‘black’ BIPPA has been signed with India,” Baiddya said.

He feared that attempts were being made to continue the parliamentary system in the name of republicanism, geographical federalism and secularism in the new constitution.

He claimed that the Maoists were the true followers of Krishna Lal Adhikari, the author of ‘Makaiko Kheti’, had died in jail while serving the jail sentence on the charge of writing the same book during Rana regime.

On the occasion, Maoist leader Ishwor Chandra Gyawali, Chairperson of Krishna Lal Foundation Yognath Upadhyay and others urged to declare Adhikari a martyr by recognition of his contribution to the country.

“Maoist row over returning property”

KATHMANDU, NOV 07 – The Maoist hardline faction led by Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya and party establishment camp are at odds over returning property seized or occupied by the party.

Return of property seized or occupied by the Maoists was one of the key points agreed to in the seven-point deal signed on November 1. The Baidya faction has, however, said it will resist every effort that is made to take away the land from the poor farmers and the landless.

A day after UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal issued a circular to the party’s lower organisations directing cadres to assist in the process of returning seized property, a gathering of the Baidya camp in the Capital on Sunday directed its activists to thwart the ‘takeover’.

“We will retaliate if anyone tries to take over the land from the farmers,” said Maheshwor Dahal, the Maoist central committee member of the Baidya faction.

The government should first come up with an alternative arrangement for the farmers and the landless, he said. The dispute over the return of property has also surfaced at the local level of the Maoists with the party’s hardline faction adamant on its refusal to go with what was agreed to in the seven-point agreement.

Hari Bahadur Gyawali, the Kailali district in-charge of the Maoists and a Baidya supporter, warned of ‘bloodshed’ if the authority tried removing the landless farmers and freed Kamaiya (bonded labourers) from their land.

“We captured land with orders from Pracha-nda and Baburam and distributed it to the landless and Kamaiyas. Now, we cannot throw those people out on the roads,” Gyawali said.

The establishment faction, meanwhile, has vowed to enforce the party’s central decision. “No one can stop the central directive. The land will be returned,” said Hari Bahadur Chaudhary, Maoist district secretary of the establishment side. Records at the District Administration Office showed that around 1,354 hectares of land of more than 200 people in Kailali is under Maoist control. The Baidya faction in Sankhuwasabha called a press conference on Monday and said seized property will not be returned unless the government comes up with an alternative for the current tenants.

“We are against the decision taken by the establishment side and we demand the agreement be scrapped immediately,” said Rajendra Karki, the Sankhuwasabha district joint-secretary of the Maoists. The Baidya team has said return of the seized land is possible only after a scientific land reform commission is formed to address the plight of the landless. In some parts of Dang, Maoist activists are accused of looting paddy from farmers. Janardan Sharma of Srigaun VDC-3 claimed that Maoist activists seized 33 quintals of paddy grown on his land four days ago.

According to the Maoist Victims’ Association, over 2,000 hectares of land in Dang is under Maoist control. The party is even taking away crops produced on the land.

“The Maoists are looting the produce from the farmers, while the authorities concerned are silent on the matter,” said Lokmani Giri of the association. The Bardiya local administration has started collecting data of the seized property. The Baidya faction has, however, warned it will not let the authorities take away the land distributed to the landless farmers.

As part of its plan to return such property to the rightful owners, the government is launching a campaign from Bardiya under the monitoring of Nepali Congress (NC) leader Krishna Prasad Situala and Maoist leader Suresh Singh.

The dispute within the Maoists, however, has not let the local administration create a favourable environment to return the property, said Sanjay Gautam, the NC district president.

‘No Surrender’: Kiran and Badal

The revolutionary faction of UCPN-Maoist has publicized an authentic voice for the protection of the revolution. After Prachanda and Baburam factions agreed to hand over the total achievements of the People’s War, com. Kiran and com. Badal have clearly put forwarded their voice in a pres-meet held in Kathmandu today.

In the National conference Hall packed up with journalists, intellectuals and the cadres, Senior-most Vice-chairman Com. Kiran clarified all the questions that were asked from the ground. He said, “The People’s Liberation Army (PLA); which has played a significant role in the political change of the nation, has been disarmed, dishonored and dispersed through the 7-point agreement signed at the night of November 1.” Flashing over the contribution of PLA and the people, com. Kiran said, “Just before the meeting of the central committee, party chairman has signed the agreement at mid-night. He has made a serious mistake by doing so. We are going to advise him to withdraw it, correct it in the central committee meting that is going to be held tomorrow. Along with it, we have said other political parties to correct this mistake too.” Com. Kiran publicly accepted the bitter reality that party is going to be degraded day by day. He added that party should be ideology, dream and people as well as the nation. Nation and the people are dearer than any party.

In the press-meet, General Secretary of the party com. Badal exposed all the intrigues and he strongly opposed anti-people and anti-nation plots by saying that their misdeeds will be put into dust. He said, “Today is the historic day for all of us in course of fighting against imperialism and the expansionism. The moment we are holding a press-meet is a historic moment because we are going to express our commitment but not only the opinion. The gathering here is the historic gathering that is centralized to fight against the expansionism, imperialism and their puppets. We are lined here for resisting and fighting against puppets until our death.”

Clarifying the doubts and rumours that have been spread against the revolutionary faction, he added, “Certainly, the night of November 1 is the historic dark night. The dark night was marked as the cheerful night for the feudalists, imperialists and the expansionists and their puppets. However, on the other, the same night was marked as the night of suffering, worry and a curse for the family of the martyrs, wounded and the poor working class people. Therefore, we are presented here with the volcano of the sufferings and a thundering voice within worry.”

Communist party without army can not exist. Because it presents the opposite pole than the reaction, it should be with its strong pillar that is PLA. But in Nepal, PLA is being shamelessly disarmed and dispersed. He further added, “The night was the night when PLA were shamelessly disarmed, cruelly disarmed and put into dust to surrender before the reaction. Therefore, it is the black night for the PLA soldiers, the working people and the freedom-loving people. This was misfortune! However, it has brought a hurricane with it. This misfortune has brought a bright future with it. The future of the working class will smash their momentary pleasure”

In the pres-meet, he committed to drive the revolution without surrendering before the enemy. He concluded, “Comrades and journalist friends! We want to make our promise public on this occasion by putting the martyrs, wounded, prisoners and the poor people as witnesses of our commitment that we won’t let to ruin the dream of you all in vain. We will realize your own dream. The night of November 1 was the night for the culmination of the rightist disperses in the history of the communist movement of Nepal. The rightist deviation; which dissolved the PLA that has sacrificed itself for the peace and transformation, will be demised soon. Hundred thousands of new PLA soldiers will take birth from the ashes of the dissolved PLA. The land lords, puppets, imperialists and the expansionists; who are exchanging their happiness, will have no more time to feel their happiness because we are with people and their happiness.”

http://redstarnepal.com/?p=562

Nepal: UCPN (M) infighting leads to closure of party’s FM station

[The Himalayan Times newspaper]

Monday, 03 October 2011

Radio Mirmire (89.4 MHz) , a FM radio station run by the UCPN (Maoist), has been shut down after a group of employees allegedly close to the Maoist party establishment took away its equipment Sunday night.A group of employees led by former director of the FM Bishnu Prasad Sapkota barged into the station office at Anam Nagar at around 11:30 pm and took away the computers and the transmitter.Employees involved in the capturing have said took such a step as they were not receiving salary for a long time.Employees supporting the Mohan Baidya faction have accused Sapkota of stealing the equipment.Employees and managers divided into two rival camps of the Maoist party are known to be at loggerheads for some time.

Source

Advertisements

Revealing Quotes from Arch-Revisionist Deng Xiaoping

“Let me add that our socialist state apparatus is so powerful that it can intervene to correct any deviations. To be sure, the open policy entails risks and may bring into China some decadent bourgeois things. But with our socialist policies and state apparatus, we shall be able to cope with them. So there is nothing to fear.”

(Reform is the Only Way for China to Develop its Productive Forces, August 28, 1985 in Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, vol. III)

“There is no fundamental contradiction between socialism and a market economy. The problem is how to develop the productive forces more effectively. We used to have a planned economy, but our experience over the years has proved that having a totally planned economy hampers the development of the productive forces to a certain extent. If we combine a planned economy with a market economy, we shall be in a better position to liberate the productive forces and speed up economic growth.”

(There is no Fundamental Contradiction between Socialism and a Market Economy, October 23, 1985 in Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, vol. III)

“Why do some people always insist that the market is capitalist and only planning is socialist? Actually they are both means of developing the productive forces. So long as they serve that purpose, we should make use of them. If they serve socialism they are socialist; if they serve capitalism they are capitalist. It is not correct to say that planning is only socialist, because there is a planning department in Japan and there is also planning in the United States. At one time we copied the Soviet model of economic development and had a planned economy. Later we said that in a socialist economy planning was primary. We should not say that any longer.”

(Planning and the Market are both Means of Developing the Productive Forces, February 6, 1987 in Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, vol. III)

Suspicions linger 30 years after Sino-Vietnam war

Chinese soldiers arrested are kept by Vietnamese fighters on the battlefield of Cao Bang, in February 1979. China invaded Vietnam 30 years ago this week, but the event will not be officially marked by Beijing, which refuses to acknowledge the war -- making life even harder for veterans who are haunted by it. (AFP/File)

Thirty years after they went to war with each other, Beijing and Hanoi have opted for cooperation, even if Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia view China’s growing presence with suspicion.

In China, the war that began on February 17, 1979 is not even mentioned, and few young people here know the history of how their nation launched a brief but bloody invasion into their small southern neighbour and later withdrew without a clear victory.

“The toning down of public statements about the Sino-Vietnam conflict reflects growing interdependence and pragmatism in today’s bilateral relations,” said Chin-Hao Huang, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

“Both sides are willing to cast aside historical grievances and work together on building trade, business and economic relations, monitoring and combating disease outbreaks like the avian flu and cracking down on narcotics trade, among many other issues of mutual interest.”

Although relations have improved, disputes remain in the oil-rich South China Sea, where Beijing and Hanoi vie for sovereignty over the Spratley and Paracel islands.

The Chinese parliament has voted to declare Chinese sovereignty over 80% of the South China Sea, but has proposed joint exploitation of resources, said Jean-Claude Pomonti, a Bangkok-based journalist.

“The Vietnamese suspicion of the Chinese remains intact, but they have no choice (but to agree to Chinese proposals),” said Pomonti, who is also the author of a book on Southeast Asia.

At the same time, three decades after deadly hostilities between the communist neighbours, a military option is out of the question.

“The fact that China has agreed and signed on to the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea with Vietnam and other Asean member states is an important step in the right direction to resolving the conflict through non-military means,” said SIPRI’s Huang.

The Cold War is over, and Indochina is no longer an arena of ideologically charged rivalry among the United States, the Soviet Union and China.

The Americans may still play an important role in the region, but China is leaving heavy footprints too.

Investment, resource exploitation and trade are the reasons why the Asian giant is so interested in the region.

Vietnam imported 15.6 billion dollars of Chinese goods last year with bilateral trade totalling 20.1 billion dollars.

Other parts of Southeast Asia are becoming engaged with China too: In the northwest of Laos, vast rubber plantations produce for the Chinese markets.

A brand new highway, one of the best in all of Laos, cuts through the country facilitating transportation between China and Southeast Asia.

As a sign of the growing engagement between the two areas, Beijing named a special ambassador to the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) in December.

“The strengthened presence of China especially in the economic field is an opportunity for Asean to reach a new market,” said Rodolfo C. Severino, a former Asean secretary general and now a researcher at Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

“It’s not so much a question of traditional balance of power, but more an opportunity for Asean as a group to deal with the great powers to gain influence.”

But the majority of Southeast Asian countries remain worried about China’s long-term interests and regional ambitions, according to SIPRI’s Huang.

“As such, most Southeast Asian countries prefer to see a strong, continued presence of the United States and Japan to help maintain the balance in regional stability,” he said.

Source

Enver Hoxha on Pol Pot

This [the Sino-American imperialist alliance] is obvious, also, from the fact that now the American government is trying to put China, which has attacked Vietnam, on the same plane as Vietnam because, allegedly, it has attacked Cambodia. In Cambodia, the Cambodian people, communists and patriots, have risen against the barbarous government of Pol Pot, which was nothing but a group of provocateurs in the service of the imperialist bourgeoisie and of the Chinese revisionists, in particular, which had as its aim to discredit the idea of socialism in the international arena.

Even Prince Sihanouk, who was incarcerated for nearly four years in Pnom Pen, has spoken publicly at UNO about the crimes of the Pol Pot government and its extermination of the Cambodian people. The anti-popular line of that regime is confirmed, also, by the fact that the Albanian embassy in the Cambodian capital, the embassy of a country which has given the people of Cambodia every possible aid, was kept isolated, indeed, encircled with barbed wire, as if it were in a concentration camp. The other embassies, too, were in a similar situation.

The Albanian diplomats have seen with their own eyes that the Cambodian people were treated inhumanly by the clique of Pol Pot and Yeng Sari. Pnom Pen was turned into a deserted city, empty of people, where food was difficult to secure even for the diplomats, where no doctors or even aspirins could be found. We think that the people and patriots of Cambodia waited too long before overthrowing this clique which was completely linked with Beijing and in its service. When the first conflicts broke out on the Cambodian-Vietnamese border, the view of socialist Albania was, and the world is witness to this, that disagreements between the two neighbour countries should be resolved through talks and without the interference of the Chinese or Soviet social-imperialists. But this was not done. On the contrary, the Pol Pot group, incited by Beijing, brought out in Pnom Pen daily communiques in which they announced that thousands of Vietnamese were being kill led by its army on Vietnamese territory.

It was quite apparent that this provocative and warmongering activity was supported and carried out for the expansionist aims of Deng Xiaoping, Hua Guofeng and on their account. And why should Deng Xiaoping not support and back the clique of Pol Pot and Yeng Sari when he has rehabilitated all the scum of Chinese reaction, when he has returned property, money and power over the plants and factories to the big bourgeoisie, the men of the Kuomintang and all the counter-revolutionaries, and has turned China into a social-imperialist capitalist country, as our Party has rightly described it? The bourgeoisie in the party and the bourgeois intellectuals are in power in China. There this scum is considered the élite, while they demand that the working class bend its head and work for the «modernizations». It was precisely these capitalists, the clique of Deng Xiaoping and Co., who kept Pol Pot in power in Cambodia and now, after he has been overthrown, are trying with every means to restore him. The Chinese leadership are trying to cover up the aggressive act they undertook against Vietnam with the absurd pretext that Vietnam is seeking «small-scale hegemony», thinking that in this way they will be excused for the large-scale hegemony of China.

But the question must be asked: Why do the Chinese imperialists allegedly have the right to defend the barbarous fascist Pol Pot group, and Vietnam does not have the right to support the revolutionaries and the people of Cambodia to build a free, independent and sovereign country? The Vietnamese government has officially and publicly rejected the Chinese allegation that it is aiming to set up a federation of Indochina and has declared that Vietnam wants the peoples of this zone to live free, in friendship and independence, each in its own country.

 — From The Chinese Leadership headed by Deng Xiaoping have Launched a Military Attack on Vietnam from the newspaper “Zeri i Popoullit.”

Series on Maoist Revisionism: Enver Hoxha Quotes on Maoist Revisionism pt. 2

These quotes from Enver Hoxha show the PLA’s attitude toward the phenomenon of the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” which portrayed itself as a movement of the working class but in reality was a decade-long student riot driven by the cult of Mao that maintained and preserved revisionist rule in China and welcomed the black reaction of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping.

Contained also in these quotes are the beginnings of the criticism of the cult of Mao which is still upheld in China to this day, as well as criticism of the revisionist economic practices of “new Democracy” in China wherein the bourgeoisie were allowed to exist and participate in government as well as receive fixed income from their property.

The culmination of the Mao cult was the publication of “Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung” by the Maoist revisionists in the leadership. All of these criticisms would be taken up publicly between China and Albania in the 1960’s and 70’s.

August 9th, 1966
Marx condemned the cult of the individual as sickening. However, we observe with regret that in recent months the Chinese comrades have embarked on the wrong, anti-Marxist course, of turning the cult of Mao almost into a religion, exalting him in the most sickening way, without giving the least consideration to the great harm this is doing to our cause, not to mention the ridicule to which it is giving rise.

We condemn this unrestrained, non-Marxist propaganda. But the fact is that our criticism on this question to Chou En-lai on his last visit here had no effect at all. Are we dealing with Marxists or religious fanatics?

The question arises; why all this unrestrained propaganda? I can explain it only, as the deafening beating of a drum to conceal some hostile activity.

Further, the Chinese comrades, who in so many things show themselves cautious and slow to move, now begun to smash things with axes. We agree that the axe should be used, where necessary, but in China it is falling upon every work of art, every literary creation, regardless of its overall progressive spirit.

Progressive world culture in general appears to have no value at all in the eyes of the Chinese comrades. To allow the students to display this terrible xenophobia, as is being done in China is a great mistake which has nothing in common with proletarian internationalism.

August 20th, 1966
A great puzzle! Astonishing events, dangerous to the great cause of Communism are taking place. We have a problem with many unknown factors; we have to try to see clearly into this dark Chinese forest with Marxist judgment.

The Proletarian Cultural Revolution against bourgeois elements in the field of culture should have been inspired by Marxist-Leninist, ideology and organised and led by the Party. There should have been no smell of mysticism, metaphysics or idealism in its essence, its
forms or its tactics. For then it is no longer a Proletarian Cultural Revolution, but however it may be portrayed, its opposite.

Chinese propaganda presents it as a revolution launched spontaneously from below, by the masses. But in reality it had to be organized. By whom? Here the figure of Lin Piao emerges. But how is it possible for such a Cultural Revolution to be launched by one person; while the Party and its Central Committee remain in the background? Only the Central Committee of the Party can take such decisions. It is a fact since 1956, when the 8th Congress of the CPC was held, more than five years have elapsed since the time when the 9th. Congress should have been convened. Why is this?

Normally, also, Plenums of the Central Committee of a Marxist-Leninist Party are held twice a year; but the recent Plenum of the CC of the CPC was held after four years delay! Then who is leading the Party? I suspect that since 1956, Mao has been left on the sidelines and turned into a mere symbol. Recently the Party has been completely over-shadowed by the name of, Mao Tse-tung. Behind the fanaticisation around the person of Mao Tse-tung lies something very dangerous.

August 26th, 1966
Today I read the 16-point document on the Cultural Revolution issued by the recent Plenum of the CC of the CPC. This implies that the enemy had deeply penetrated the party, to the point where it had taken over the leadership of whole Party committees.

One thing worries me: the role of the CC and of the Party as a whole emerges as weak. Another thing, strikes the eye. Although school pupils and students hold the initiative in the Cultural Revolution, the Party’s youth organisation is not to be seen anywhere. What is even more serious, there is no sign of the participation of the working class; it seems as if they are afraid of it.

Although power appears to be in the hands of the proletariat, it is possible that the bourgeoisie is still powerful and dangerous. The Chinese comrades admit this when the put the question: Which will win in China, socialism or capitalism.

Industry in China is declared to be socialist, but we see that the capitalists in enterprises still receive a fixed interest. This should not have been allowed. Instead of receiving crushing blows, all the enemies were “re-educated” and “placed in suitable jobs” where they could carry on hostile activity.

September 1st, 1966
What this “Red Guard” is and why it is being created is not clear to us. It has been said that, it is being formed “to carry out a radical purge of capitalist and revisionist culture.” But this task has been begun in an anarchic and confused manner.

Certain serious questions strike us at the start:

1. The “Red Guard” is composed mainly of youth, university students and school pupils. But it cannot be carried out by students alone.

2. If this is to be a revolution in favour of “proletarian culture,” it is amazing that is the working class and peasantry are sitting by as onlookers! Whatever the Chinese comrades say, nothing satisfactorily explains this.

3. What has become of the Communist Youth? Its voice is not being heard at all. It seems as if it does not exist. The only concrete thing which the “Red Guard” does is to praise Mao Tse-tung to the skies, presenting him as a god: in the full sense of the term.

September 20th, 1966
The true purpose of the “Red Guard” movement remains unknown to us. It is certainly acting without leadership or control.

The Chinese comrades simply must inform our Party about the full decisions of the recent plenum of the CC of the CPC. The “excuse” that the Chinese ambassador in Tirana has been away from his post for five months “doing his physical labour” in China is unacceptable. Even if the Chinese comrades continue on this wrong, non-Marxist-Leninist course, we shall never allow our Party to be committed to the course of the cult of the individual.

January 29th, 1967
It is now clear that Mao found himself in a minority, and for this reason had to rely on the army. The military fist under the direction of Mao and Lin Piao is the reality standing behind the Cultural Revolution.

April 7th, 1967
The “new form” which emerged from the Cultural Revolution appears to be that the Chinese moving towards the “unification of” the Party with the state”!?

April 28th, 1967
A Marxist-Leninist Party like ours, which is building socialism correctly, cannot proceed on the road advocated by the Chinese. A Marxist-Leninist Party like ours deepens the revolution, but not like that which is going on in China today.

July 14th, 1967
Posters in China say: “Mao Tse-tung Thought is the culmination of Marxism.” Surely Mao himself cannot approve such wild exaggerations. But the fact is that they are occurring.

Guided by hasty judgments, incorrect principles and ill-considered claims, the Chinese comrades could gravely damage the new Marxist-Leninist groups and parties which are in process of creation.

In seeking to establish that “Mao is the world leader” of international Communism, it could happen that if some Marxist-Leninist group or party does not put much emphasis on Mao and the Cultural Revolution while some deviators from Marxism-Leninism emphasize these things strongly, the Chinese comrades will prefer the latter. And the damage has been done.

The Chinese have reached the conclusion that the little red book, “Quotations from Mao Tse-tung” is “the culmination of Marxist-Leninist science and philosophy.” Such claims are infantile.

Today they are carrying on without an organised party. How can they advise the Marxist-Leninists of the world how to form and consolidate new parties?

August 15th, 1967
The Chinese press is liquidating Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and making a god of Mao, reaching the scandalous level of saying; “Those who do no follow the road of Mao and the Cultural Revolution are ‘deviators.’” This wrong. This is not Marxism, but Trotskyism.

January 16th, 1968
We have almost no contact with the Chinese comrades and do not know official1y what is happening there. They withdrew their ambassador in Tirana on the grounds that he was implicated in the activities of the Liu-Teng group. When will he be replaced? There is no signal.

January 19th, 1968
The main Chinese newspapers are publishing the directive on the re-organization of the Communist Party and the mass organizations. Thus it is confirmed that up to now the CPC has been broken up and that the Cultural Revo1ution was in fact led by Mao and the “Main Group of the Cultural Revolution.”

March 20th, 1968
In the international arena the voice of China is almost, if not completely, silent. Thus it is not acting wisely. For nearly a year they have not had an ambassador even here in our country. Can this be covered by the excuse: “We haven’t a good man?” Or is it in order to reflect their silent dissatisfaction that we are not shouting `hosannas’ to Mao and not following their mistaken tactic of silence in the international field?

We see a similar superficial stand on the part of the Chinese comrades, towards the new Marxist-Leninist groups and parties. They have contacts and give aid to many groups and Parties, even to those groups separate from or hostile to the new parties, justifying these undifferentiated contacts by saying: “We assist all groups that fight imperialism and modern revisionism.” But the struggle brings about differentiation, and this must, be followed up on a principled basis.

April 25th, 1968
Under the cloak of the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese have shut themselves up completely in their own shell. They are merely publishing the quotations of Mao, in millions of copies, making millions of Mao badges, and spreading slogans in praise of him.

Nothing else, absolutely nothing else!

All China’s contacts with the outside world have been completely frozen if not broken off altogether. All China’s ambassadors have been withdrawn from the countries where they were serving. Neither their newspapers, nor Hsinhua, nor Radio Peking, deal with any international question.

Even with us their closest friends, contacts are glacial. They don’t allow our ambassador in Peking any contacts; he is isolated. An astonishing situation!

They have refused our invitation to send a delegation to the May Day celebrations, and have not invited any delegation from our side either. They carry on a “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” yet ignore the celebration of the proletarians! This too is astonishing!

Prachanda: Integration of People’s Liberation Army into Nepal Army Possible Within 4 Months


Himalayan Times, 2010-05-12

KATHMANDU: Chairman of the Unified CPN-Maoist Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ today said protracted political deadlock could end if PLA integration were effected within four months.

Addressing an interaction with intellectuals, industrialists, business community and members of the civil society, he said, “We’ll dismantle the barracks of the Young Communist League within four-five days. We are ready to break the relation of the party with the cantonments.”

Prachanda also claimed that the party was ready to categorise the Maoist combatants by mid-June. He said the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Commission for Missing People and the one to resolve contentious issues related to the constitution should be formed to resolve the vexed issues.

The talks between the three major parties were called off after the NC and UML urged the Maoists to give the number of the combatants to be integrated in the security forces on May 1.

Prachanda apologised for calling the general strike ‘indefinite’. “Our party has realised that organising indefinite general strike was a mistake and we would never repeat such a mistake,” he said.

Continue reading

Chinese Social-Imperialism in Africa

Published in Reorganization by the KKE (1918-1955):

The year 2006 was a milestone for Sino-African relations. Only the first half of the Chinese President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited 10 African countries. In November of that year took place in Beijing in the third session of the Forum on Sino-African Cooperation (FOCAC), involving 48 of the 53 African countries. In January, no, last year, China published the “document of Chinese policy in Africa” ​​by presenting the objectives of the Chinese presence and the means to achieve them. On January 30, and the Chinese president goes to visit 10 new African countries.

Bilateral trade has jumped from 10 billion. In 2000 to $ 55 billion. $ 2006, making China the third largest trading partner after the U.S. and France. 156 loans to 31 countries, worth $ 1.38 billion donated by China in 2004, and truncate their duties on 190 products. By the end of 2005, China has undertaken over 720 projects in Africa, awarded 18,000 scholarships, sent 15,000 medical personnel who treated her roughly 170 million Africans and political support.

The many rewards: raw materials and energy sources (see below for oil), African support for China on human rights committee of the UN and the withdrawal of the Olympic Games in 2008. And despite the low purchasing power of Africans, Chinese and competitors know that this is offset by the same population of Africans.

Historically, the period of Mao and Chu Lai In the absence of significant economic exchanges across political and mutual projects such as the Tanzania-Zambia Railway in the ’70s, whose existence is in China. Just $ 770 million was a record volume of bilateral trade in 1977.Apo the early ’90s, however, the emphasis was on “cooperation” for the “exploration and exploitation” of energy sources, technology and trade.

Continue reading

Series on Maoist Revisionism: On the “Socialism” of the Maoist Revisionists


From the Journal “Reorganization” by the KKE (1918-1955)

The issue of socialism is today one of the most central positions in political and ideological struggle taking place between the Marxists – Leninists and revisionists of all shades (Khrushchev, Tito, Chinese, Euro-Communists).

In theory, the scientific understanding of socialism to find pleria formulated and integrated in the works of Marx – Engels – Lenin – Stalin. Prachtika socialism first built in the Soviet Union of Lenin – Stalin (1917 -1953) and now successfully built LSD in Albania, which is the only truly socialist country in the world.

The revisionists of all shades from a grossly distorting the Marxist conception of Marxism and propagate various anti-Marxist perceptions that have nothing to do with scientific socialism and the other advertised as “socialism” to capitalism that exists in the revisionist countries (USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, China, etc.).

The revisionist “K” JV defense and wants to build in our country called “real socialism” of the current Soviet Union ie palinorthomeno capitalism that prevails there.

The various revisionist Maoist organizations and groups defending the “Chinese socialism.” Some of them want to build “socialism” of China by Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping (NCSR “,” NCSR-ML KKE “:” The PR China is a country of socialism “, Materials of the first Unionist Congress 1984, p. 87), while others such as “Marxist-Leninist Communist Party” (Proletarian Flag), “Communist Party Marxist-Leninist” (Political Left “) and” The Movement for the reconstruction of Marxist – Leninist movement “only” socialism “of Mao Zedong that capitalism in China, which dominated the season. The latter believe that after the death of Mao, “palinorthothike capitalism” (most recently, in January this year, the “Proletarian Flag” speaks for “restoration of capitalism” in China).

However, as demonstrated by Comrade Enver Hoxha’s famous work Imperialism and the Revolution, Mao Zedong “was not Marxist – Leninist, but a democrat, progressive revolutionary, who was for a long time leader of the Communist Party of China and played an important role in victory of the Chinese anti-imperialist democratic revolution “(p. 315) and even that” Mao Zedong is anti-Marxist and “Mao Zedong thought is anti-Marxist” (p. 316).

Because of anti-Marxist perceptions of Mao Zedong and the Chinese party, China could not move and did not ever achieve socialism. It took over the city – a democratic revolution. Comrade Enver Hoxha said: “The transition from urban – a democratic revolution to socialist revolution can take place only then when the proletariat away decisively the bourgeoisie from power and expropriate. Once in China, the working class divided the power of the civil order, where the bourgeoisie has maintained its prerogatives, the power that was introduced in China, there might be power of the proletariat, and therefore the Chinese revolution could not have evolved into a socialist revolution “(p. 302 -303). And below: “In Chinese society were and are still not economically, politically, ideologically and socially remnants of the past, but are there and the exploiting classes, like classes, which were and still remain in power. The bourgeoisie not only continues there, but also benefit from the income of property had “(p. 305)

Article partner TOMOR CEROVA reproduced in the insert from the magazine “Albania today” No 2 / 1980 analyzes the relations of production in China at the time of Mao Zedong and shows clearly and convincingly, that these were not socialist but capitalist, suggests that the path of development of Chinese economy after 1949 until today, both industry and agriculture was permanently capitalist path of development.

Therefore can not speak for the existence of socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat in China in the era of Mao and “restoration of capitalism” after his death, as do the Maoists revisionist “Marxist-Leninist Communist Party” (Proletarian Flag) “Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (” Left Politics “) and” Movement for the reconstruction of Marxist – Leninist movement “when in China ever built socialism.

The capitalism that prevailed in China in the era of Mao Zedong dominates today there is not and can not be related to the builders of socialism in the Soviet Union of Lenin – Stalin and after Stalin’s death was abolished by Khrushchevite revisionists. The Maoists revisionist defense of “socialism” in China of the Mao era that capitalism can only reject the builders of socialism in the Soviet Union of Lenin – Stalin and being built today in Albania according to the teachings of Marx – Engels – Lenin – Stalin.

They boarded a complete inability to refer to relations of production on property relations, the relations of distribution are socialist in class relations and class now in power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, not dare to openly challenge the existence of socialism in Albania , or prefer to remain silent or resort to a different type of libel: “Without doubt, the implementation of the CRL of a reconciliation – opportunist policy towards the Soviet social imperialism distorts the cause of socialism” (“Theses on the founding conference of the” Movement for reconstruction of the Marxist-Leninist movement, ‘”p. 127, Athens 1984),” now that an approach to leadership metachotzikis Albania and the USSR is very possible and use the old naval bases of the Soviet fleet in the country “( “Left Politics, 15 December 1984) or” Communist Party Marxist-Leninist “(Proletarian Flag) resorting to the sister of revisionist Maoist parties to slander the NAC and Albania.

The Maoists revisionists of our country being able to analyze the economic-social situation in Albania have been transformed into Pythia to predict the future of socialism in Albania, that they now reject it and fight.

The struggle of the Marxists – Leninists against anti-Marxist perceptions of modern revisionists for socialism should be connected closely with the defense of the scientific socialism of Marx – Engels – Lenin – Stalin and prachtiki own construction in the Soviet Union of Lenin – Stalin and the building today in Albania. It must always be connected with the consistent defense and promotion of socialism Albania.

Series on Maoist Revisionism: Down with the “RCP-USA’s” Shameful Anti-Communist Attack on the Glorious Party of Labor of Albania!

In an editorial in the January 1979 issue of Revolution, the Central Organ of the Central Committee of the “Revolutionary Communist Party, USA”, the “RCP,USA” makes a vicious anti-communist attack on Comrade Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labor of Albania. The RCP leadership displayed its U.S. great-power chauvinism and essentially called for the overthrow of the leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania. The editorial is full of filth, like saying that the PLA allegedly is “challenging the entire science of Marxism-Leninism” and is following “bourgeois nationalist interests”. And what is the pretext for “RCP’s” frenzied gangster activity?

The RCP leadership is frightened by the publication in English and release of Enver Hoxha’s outstanding new work Imperialism and the Revolution. With this attack on Albania, the RCP leadership has come out openly against the only genuine socialist country in the world and exposed the RCP’s anti-revolutionary and anti-communist features. With this attack, the RCP leadership has come out in the open to claim the title of commando squad of “three worlds-ism” and wrecking crew for imperialism and revisionism. This attack marks the complete bankruptcy of the “RCP” and of its chief “theoretical” hack and “creative” interpreter of the “three worlds” theory and Chinese revisionism, Bob Avakian.

Why is the “RCP” leadership attacking the Party of Labor of Albania? The “RCP” is doing this because it is a fervent adherent of the theory of “three worlds” and of the entire arsenal of Chinese revisionism. We show in an article elsewhere in this issue the fraudulent nature of “RCP’s” criticism of the “three worlds” theory. The “RCP” has sought one way after another to hold back the struggle against “three worlds-ism” and to preserve the basic theses of “three worlds-ism”. Their differences with the Klonskyites (“CP (M-L)”) are not on fundamentals, but only on shade, they were never opponents of the social-chauvinists but only centrists, conciliators, as we showed in the pamphlet “Why Did the ’RCP, USA’ Split?’. It was inevitable that the deepening of the struggle against “three worlds-ism” and Chinese revisionism would drive the “RCP” to frenzy. They were not happy about Enver Hoxha’s historic Report to the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania nor about the justly famous article “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution”. They were thrown into a panic by the July 29th “Letter of the CC of the Party of Labor and the Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and the Government of China”. Instead of enthusiastically taking up the defense of socialist Albania against the attacks of the Chinese revisionists, Teng Hsiao-ping, Hua Kuo-feng and Co., they circulated attacks on Albania. The “RCP’s” article in the September 1978 Revolution on China’s attacks on Albania was not a defense of Albania but a polemic against the July 29th Letter.

The “RCP” leadership is afraid of the exposure of the long-standing roots of Chinese revisionism. Now that Imperialism and the Revolution has been published, they have let out their full anti-communist fury. The “RCP” leadership has attacked the book before reading it: the editorial admits that “we have not had an opportunity to study the book” but have only seen the summary from the December 20th issue of the Albanian Telegraphic Agency. From that alone they can tell that the PLA is allegedly “challenging the entire science of Marxism-Leninism”. What a serious scientific attitude to Marxism-Leninism, what a careful examination and study of the views of the Party of Labor of Albania! , The “RCP” leadership is in such a hurry because they want to stop the circulation of this book or, at least, to close the minds of their cadre in advance. But the “RCP’s” frenzy will only arouse even more interest in Imperialism and the Revolution. Circulation and study of Comrade Hoxha’s book will be a good way for the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists to reply to “RCP’s” treachery!

Revolution’s editorial reveals the “RCP’s” leadership’s total degeneration to gangster activity. More and more in the last half year, the RCP has stepped up its gangster style of activity and aim 3d them not at the Klonskyites but mainly at the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, both in the U.S. and internationally. The editorial utterly revels in its shame. It declares the existence of two lines in the Party of Labor of Albania and states its solidarity with those who “will fight Enver Hoxha’s attempts to drag them on the wrong side of this dividing line” and declares that the Albanian Marxist-Leninists are ”in objective unity with Teng Hsiao-ping, the Soviet social-imperialists and other revisionists”. Thus the “RCP” leadership is openly endorsing the despicable acts of the Chinese revisionists in inciting and organizing the treacherous sabotage activity of the putschist group of Beqir Balluku, Abdyl Kellezi, Koco Theod-hosi, etc. The “RCP” leadership is not expressing some difference of opinion in the common struggle nor is it writing a scientific polemic, instead on the contrary, the “RCP” leadership simply calls for the overthrow of the PLA’s leadership. This is out-and-out fascist, imperialist mentality. This is the same road as Tito, Khrushchov and the Chinese revisionists tried before the “RCP” leadership. As Enver says, referring to the Chinese attempt, “So we made the mines explode in the hands of the Chinese.” (“Albania Is Forging Ahead Confidently and Unafraid” reprinted in Proletarian Internationalism, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 55) And the “RCP’s” vicious attacks on a principled Party staunchly fighting all revisionism and upholding the purity of Marxism-Leninism, the PLA, will surely blow up in their own hands in a torrent of outrage from all genuine Marxist-Leninists!

The ”RCP” leadership has by its actions shown its hatred of socialism. The “RCP” would have the world believe that it is only motivated by its pure love for socialism in China. But how can one love socialism in China and hate it in Albania? Albania is a small country, with less population than many cities of the world. Yet it has set an example to the whole world of unflinching courage in following the principles of Marxism-Leninism. It impresses the whole world and upsets the plans of Chinese revisionism by relying neither on U.S. imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism nor any other patron. Albania stands firmly on the basis of self-reliance and the support of the world proletariat and all progressive people. It shows the tremendous power of the toiling masses when led by a genuine Marxist-Leninist Communist Party such as the Party of Labor of Albania. It shows the shining reality of socialism and shines forth as a beacon to all the oppressed and exploited masses around the world. And the “RCP” leadership has no warmth, no love, not even respect for glorious socialist Albania, but just fear and spite in front of Albania’s unflinching stand against revisionism. The “RCP” leadership, like any run of the mill Trotskyite, attacks Albania for “bourgeois nationalist interest”.

In the editorial, the “RCP” gives no serious arguments at all to explain its treachery. The editorial is written in the vulgar style that one has come to expect of the “RCP”. The editorial shouts a little about consistency. Imagine that! The “RCP”, which is jumping from this position to that position in a frenzy on the “three worlds” theory, is worried about consistency. The “RCP” leadership regards it as highly inconsistent that the PLA defended the Communist Party of China when the CPC was fighting imperialism and revisionism, refrained from making its differences public, and maintained this stand until the open alliance of Chinese revisionism with imperialism, and the Chinese revisionists’ barbarous and brutal attacks on Albania forced an open split. Anyone who wishes to know how the Albanians developed the struggle against Chinese revisionism should read the July 29th Letter and Imperialism and the Revolution. Anyone who traces the PLA’s stand on any important question through the readily available literature will see that the PLA has constantly maintained a consistent principled position – and it will be quite a relief from trying to figure out the zig-zag positions of the Chinese revisionists on anything.

The fact is that it is not consistency that the “RCP” leadership is worrying about. Instead the “RCP” leadership is trying to defend Chinese revisionism and the “three worlds” theory through the same political blackmail with respect to Mao Tsetung that the Klonskyites tried in 1977. A difference of shade is that the Klonskyites flaunted the “three worlds” theory and tried to hide their revisionism and denial of the revolutionary Marxism-Leninism of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, while the “RCP,USA” in its long series “Mao Tsetung’s Immortal Contributions” flaunts Bob Avakian’s contempt for Marx, Engels, Lenin and especially Stalin and is trying to disguise its support for the “three worlds” theory. We predict that they will have the same fiasco that the “CP(M-L)” Pentagon-socialists and volunteer advisors to the State Department had before them. The Marxist-Leninists will continue the struggle against Chinese revisionism despite the “RCP’s” hysteria. On the question of Mao Tsetung, we hold that he is not a Marxist-Leninist classicist and we are certain that Comrade Enver Hoxha’s book Imperialism and the Revolution will prove invaluable in uncovering the deep sources and long-term roots of Chinese revisionism.

As everyone knows, the “RCP” recently sponsored a big campaign to “give a fitting welcome to Teng Hsiao-ping”. In our opinion, they succeeded quite well. Nothing could have made Teng happier than anti-communist attacks on and fascist, Trotskyite slanders of socialist Albania, the sharp thorn in the side of all imperialists and social-imperialists. But besides the ”RCP” leadership with its “fitting welcome” to Chinese revisionism, there are also the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists who led the proletariat in denouncing the U. S.-China warmongering imperialist alliance . The revolutionary proletariat will never stop fighting social-chauvinism and all the “three worlder” sects and enemies of socialism. Today the defense of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania is the touchstone of proletarian internationalism. And proletarian internationalism is inseparably connected with the struggle against “three worlds-ism”, Chinese revisionism and all forms of revisionism and opportunism. Down with “RCP’s anti-communist attacks on the Party of Labor of Albania!

Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought are Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist


Intro

The following resolution was unanimously and enthusiastically passed at an internal conference of the Central Organization of U. S. Marxist-Leninists in March 1979, a conference attended by all comrades working under the discipline of the COUSML: “… the March, 1979 Internal Conference of the COUSML resolutely denounces Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought as anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist.”

This resolution was the result of a long period of study and discussion inside the organization. In June 1978 the National Committee took up the question of various formulations, such as Mao Tsetung Thought. The National Committee set forth the task of assessing the whole course of the struggle against modern revisionism and of looking into the origins of the theory of “three worlds”. Part of this was the assessment of the role of Mao Tsetung and of the Communist Party of China. The whole COUSML began internal discussions on the assessment of the course of the struggle against modern revisionism following the publication of the July 29th Letter of the CC of the Party of Labor and Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and Government of China.

The COUSML approaches the question of Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought from the point of view of the assessment of the whole course and history of the struggle against modern revisionism. The COUSML assesses the course of this struggle solely in order to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism and to wage the struggle against modern revisionism more powerfully and consistently. It is the struggle against social-chauvinism and the all-round intensification of the struggle against modern revisionism that has resulted in the exposure of Chinese revisionism and Mao Tsetung Thought.

Chinese revisionism presented itself as part of the movement against Khrushchovite revisionism and all its variants. But the facts show that the Communist Party of China did not proceed from the sound positions of Marxism-Leninism in its criticisms of the Soviet revisionists and that the Chinese leadership promoted its own revisionist theories and had a corrosive and disruptive effect on the great historical movement against modern revisionism. Finally Chinese revisionism and Mao Tsetung Thought led China and the Communist Party of China to an utter fiasco when the Chinese “third road” collapsed into social-imperialist warmongering and open alliance with U.S. imperialism.

Right from the start, the COUSML pointed out that the emergence of open social-chauvinism in the form of ”directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism” was not an accident, but that it had deep longstanding roots and stemmed from the long corrosion of opportunism inside the Marxist-Leninist movement. In the September 1976 issue of The Workers’ Advocate, the COUSML denounced the alliance of the October League (now the “CP(ML)”) with U.S. imperialism in the article “Mao Tsetung Thought or Social-Chauvinism, A Comment on the October League’s Call for ’Unity of Marxist-Leninists’” (in the title of the article, one should read “Marxism-Leninism” in place of “Mao Tsetung Thought” – at that time we still believed that Mao Tsetung upheld Marxism-Leninism and was fighting against the Chinese revisionists and all modern revisionists). In that article, we pointed to the splittist and liquidationist activities of the diehard OL social-chauvinist leaders right from their work against the youth and student movement of the 1960’s to the present (p. 8). One section of the article was written on the theme that “The OL’s social-chauvinism in the face of the war danger is only a natural outgrowth of their neo-revisionist line on class struggle and proletarian revolution in the U. S.” (p. 33). In The Workers’ Advocate of March 10, 1977, which gives the call “U.S. Marxist-Leninists, Unite in Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism!”, it is stressed that ”The rise of open social-chauvinism is not an accident. Conditions have been prepared for it by the long corrosion of neo-revisionism… inside the Marxist-Leninist movement.” (p. 1) The paper connects the denunciation of the theory of “three worlds” and of open social-chauvinism with the necessity of carrying through a thorough repudiation of Browderism and modern revisionism and with the clarification of political line on the burning questions of the American revolution. Thus the COUSML constantly stressed that the class treason of the “three worlders” and the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists should not be viewed in isolation, but that the deep roots of the class betrayal should be uncovered and repudiated.

It is the same with Chinese revisionism. The present U.S.-China warmongering alliance and the rule in China of the most fascist elements, such as Teng Hsiao-ping, is not an isolated accident, an unfortunate thunderbolt coming from the unknown. No, Chinese revisionism has its deep roots. In June 1978 the National Committee took up the task of assessing the history of the struggle against modern revisionism and of looking into the origins of the theory of “three worlds”. As a result of this study into the longstanding roots of the theory of “three worlds”, the National Committee came to the conclusion in February 1979 that Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought are anti-Marxist-Leninist. It was Mao Tsetung Thought that corroded the Communist Party of China from within, that put forward a number of specific revisionist theories, that negated the universal laws of Marxism-Leninism and that thus provided the basis for the wild factionalism, unprincipled eclecticism, constant zigzags in policy, and the various revisionist groupings within the Communist Party of China. The Communist Party of China put forward the pretext that Mao Tsetung Thought developed in the struggle against modern revisionism, but actually Mao Tsetung Thought springs from the 1930’s as a “Chinese form (revision) of Marxism” while the Communist Party of China vacillated repeatedly in the struggle against Titoite and Khrushchovite revisionism.

The March 1979 Internal Conference of the COUSML unanimously condemned Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought. Below we reproduce a section of a speech delivered at the Internal Conference. This extract, edited for publication, outlines the grounds upon which the COUSML condemns Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought. The COUSML will continue to deepen the repudiation of Mao Tsetung Thought as part of the crucial struggle against modern revisionism.

I. GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF MAO TSETUNG

Mao Tsetung was anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist. He began as a progressive revolutionary democrat and he played an important role in the triumph of the Chinese democratic anti-imperialist revolution. But he was an eclectic who opposed the Marxist theses. As the leader of the Communist Party of China, he therefore opposed Marxism-Leninism and was anti-Marxist-Leninist.

His actual theses were eclectic combinations of all sorts of opportunist and revisionist ideas of all trends, and even including ancient Chinese philosophy. He sought to impose this on the Communist Party of China through the theory of developing an “Asian communism”, and he displayed xenophobia towards the rest of the world, including towards the world proletariat. Mao Tsetung Thought and the use by the Chinese Communist Party of the term Mao Tsetung Thought in fact dates back to the 1930’s, and it was developed as a “Chinese form of Marxism”, i.e. a Chinese revision of Marxism. With this “national Marxism” Mao Tsetung tried to take a middle road between imperialism and socialism. But no such road is possible. As a result, damage was done to the liberation movement before 1949 and especially after 1949 when the Chinese revolution was prevented from going over to the socialist stage. Although some measures of socialist transformation did take place, as a result of Mao Tsetung Thought, China did not develop socialism and was kept in a chaotic situation on all fronts. Eventually this third road collapsed altogether and gave rise to capitulation to world imperialism and to the emergence of China as a social-imperialist power. From a force fighting U.S. imperialism, China turned to an alliance with U.S. imperialism. The U.S.-China alliance has been under preparation since 1971, and as part of this Mao Tsetung personally greeted Nixon twice, the second time in 1976 after the fascist war criminal Nixon had fallen from power and even the pretext of the needs of international diplomacy did not exist.

Mao Tsetung Thought has been the basis for all the deviations of the Communist Party of China. It was Mao Tsetung Thought that corroded the Communist Party of China, prevented it from establishing a sound Marxist-Leninist basis and thus provided the basis for all the Chinese revisionist groupings. It is Mao Tsetung Thought that is the basis of “three worlds-ism”.

II. THE ENIGMA OF CHINA

One of the greatest difficulties in assessing the life and work of Mao Tsetung and the line and history of the Chinese Communist Party is that the Communist Party of China has consistently witheld information on the actual state of affairs in China, on the theories of Mao Tsetung and the line of the Communist Party of China, and has developed various ways and forms of creating a great mystery about what was going on in China – in the Party, in the state and in the economy.

One example of this is the case of Lin Piao. When he died, his death was not written about in Peking Review. This was not for reasons of state secrecy, as all sorts of bourgeois visitors were informed of his death. But it never was announced in Party channels. As a result, we upheld that Lin Piao was alive because it was simply unimaginable to us that such a thing would not be mentioned in Party literature and instead simply broadcast to all visiting bourgeoisie. Further consultation has revealed that we weren’t the only Party which had difficulties on this front.

When we began research on China, we ran into this immediately. Even the simplest questions are shrouded in mystery. For example, which units own the land in the Chinese communes? It seems that land and the means of production are owned in China’s countryside by very small units, even smaller than the commune, but discussion on this and on its significance is lacking in Chinese economic literature. What is the actual state of ownership of the means of production, what happened to the bourgeois class, etc., etc.? No discussion of this takes place. We have only found one or two articles that even approach the discussion of such matters. Often the only sources on China are bourgeois sources or by inference.

Party affairs are in a similar shape. The last Party Congress which gave a detailed description of the line of the Party was the Eighth Congress, which was well known as a revisionist Congress. After that, the Congresses do not describe the state of affairs in the Party or the line. Instead one receives various propaganda formulas or even six word quotations from Mao Tsetung quoted out of context. Great debates can be waged on such formulations. Each person is left to put his own meaning into these words. Mao Tsetung Thought is promoted by the Communist Party of China as the Marxism-Leninism of the era, but few writings by Mao Tsetung after 1949 have been officially published.

The theory of two headquarters in the Party is closely related to this veil of mystery. Every crime of the Party is attributed to the bourgeois headquarters on a totally arbitrary basis. Thus it becomes impossible to objectively figure out the line and a full field is left open for rampant speculation.

This mystery and chaos was encouraged by the Chinese Communist Party which went quite far in using elaborate methods to foster it. Therefore, Mao Tsetung’s views and life cannot be evaluated solely from his writings.

III. PHILOSOPHY

In practice Mao Tsetung was a pragmatist and an eclectic. In philosophical theory, Mao Tsetung also developed a number of erroneous theories on dialectics. One important thing, was that he regarded the transformation of opposites simply as a change in place. Thus, consider the example of the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Mao Tsetung regarded the socialist revolution simply as a change of place, as the proletariat going from the subordinate aspect of the contradiction to the dominant aspect, and the bourgeoisie going from the ruling class to the ruled class. He negated the fact that socialist revolution involves the elimination of the exploiting classes and a qualitative change of the phenomenon, in this way he opposed the Marxist-Leninist view of revolution and substituted evolutionist views.

In fact, Mao Tsetung regarded revolution itself as just an endless process, as a cycle repeated eternally. It goes from victory to defeat to victory, never rising to a higher level but eternally repeating itself. His quotation (Peking Review, No. 21, 1976. p. 9) on the need for revolution 10,000 years from now because junior officials etc., will always feel slighted by big shots is typical.

This is related to his view that the exploiting classes are never eliminated under socialism, under the pretext that the existence of class struggle in socialist society implies the existence of the exploiting classes. It is also related to his view that the class struggle inside the party, the struggle against revisionism, implies the existence of two headquarters.

Mao Tsetung also arbitrarily imposes formal opposites onto every situation. He speculates on thousands of different contradictions, logical contradictions, and imposes them on the world. Thus idealist sophistry replaces materialist dialectics.

IV. THE LEADING ROLE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PARTY

Mao Tsetung was opposed to the hegemonic role of the party of the proletariat. He advocated “long-term coexistence and mutual supervision” between the Communist Party of China and the bourgeois parties in China in “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”. Thus he opposed the undivided leadership of the proletariat and its party. The existence of the bourgeois parties was presented as inevitable right up until communism, for as long as the Communist Party would exist.

In practice he used the army as the arbiter between factions in the Communist Party of China. In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Party and the mass organizations were dispersed by millions of non-party youth at the call of Mao Tsetung, and the army was also called in.

Mao Tsetung also displayed contempt for the Party in many ways. The norms of the Party were constantly violated and subordinated to his personal power. Line was constantly changed. For example, the Eighth Congress gives one line, then Mao Tsetung wrote “ On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” and gave a different line – or, to be precise, grafted on a new line eclectically to the formulations of the Eighth Congress. Subsequently another sitting of the Eighth Party Congress took place. The Party Congress apparantly found it entirely ordinary that the Party should give one line and the Party Chairman a different line, and neither endorses Mao’s views, nor condemns Mao’s deviation, but simply continues giving another line.

Mao Tsetung’s factionalism was especially revealed in his theory of the existence of two headquarters in the party, with representatives of these headquarters existing in every body from the central committee and political bureau, right down to every organization at the base. This is a theory of unbridled factionalism and of destroying the party’s monolithic unity. It presents itself as a theory to fight revisionism, but actually it is a theory to coexist with revisionism.

V. MAO TSETUNG’S OPPOSITION TO THE HEGEMONIC ROLE OF THE PROLETARIAT

Mao Tsetung downplayed the role of the proletariat. With his theory of encircling the city from the countryside he advocated the hegemonic role of the peasantry. This thesis, presented as simply a description of a military situation where the main base is in the countryside, is not true as a universal pattern and is used as a cover for definite theories negating the role and hegemony of the proletariat and the role of the cities in the revolution. In the Chinese revolution, although at the beginning the Communist Party of China had undivided leadership of the proletariat and great strength in the cities, by the liberation of China in 1949 the situation was so bad in the cities and in the proletariat that Mao Tsetung himself describes that the Communist Party of China was at a loss to find cadres for the cities. Therefore Mao Tsetung turns to the army for the cadres for the city. Even if this is accepted as an unfortunate peculiarity of the situation in China due to devastating setbacks in the cities, this would not explain or justify Mao Tsetung’s theories since, a) the Communist Party of China does not in any of its literature regard it as at all out of the ordinary that the proletariat was not organized and the cities not organized, and b) it prescribes this pattern to all other countries.

VI. ON THE TRANSITION FROM THE BOURGEOIS DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION TO THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

Mao Tsetung puts forward the view that there is a long period of capitalist economic development needed between the victory of the democratic anti-imperialist revolution and the stage of the socialist revolution. Although this view was later ascribed to Liu Shao-chi, in fact it is the theory of Mao Tsetung who developed it in his works on the question. In this way the transition of the Chinese revolution from liberation in 1949 to the socialist revolution was stopped.

Under this theory a conciliatory attitude was taken to the exploiting classes. The bourgeoisie was allowed to maintain its positions in the state apparatus. And it maintained economic positions as well.

We always took the theory of new democratic revolution to be the basic Marxist theses on national liberation and on the national liberation movement being part of the world proletarian socialist revolution. However the actual theory of Mao Tsetung was that of the great barrier between the democratic and socialist revolutions.

At first, the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung stated that the new democratic state was not the dictatorship of the proletariat. Later on, the Chinese new democratic state was simply redefined by the Chinese Communist Party as the dictatorship of the proletariat without any fundamental change being made in the state. In the Cultural Revolution the existence of the bourgeois parties was ignored in the documents, but they continued to exist. There was never any discussion in the Chinese literature on this change of definition, which appears to be just that – a change of definition – and not a transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The theory of capitalist economic development under the new democratic state is simply replaced by the theory that the bourgeois parties and the bourgeoisie will exist throughout the entire epoch of socialism and under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

VII. ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE EXPLOITING CLASSES

Mao Tsetung had a conciliatory and favorable stand towards the exploiting classes. This is revealed in many ways. For example, he advocated the “long-term coexistence and mutual supervision” of the bourgeois parties with the communist party and the bourgeoisie with the proletariat. He opposed the abolition of the bourgeoisie as a class and maintained that the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois parties continue to exist in the entire period of socialism.

In “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”, the theory is concocted that the antagonistic contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one. Manual labor and ideological re-education was used to justify a benevolent attitude towards everyone, even the puppet emperor of Manchukuo.

VIII. ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China have for a long time maintained a chauvinist attitude towards the international communist movement. The Chinese have no interest in the revolutionary and progressive traditions, values and experiences of the peoples of other countries. But they only regard China, Chinese experience and Chinese history as of any value. They did not even bother to investigate the experience of other parties and peoples. To them their own experience was everything. They maintained a xenophobic attitude.

The Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung applied this xenophobic attitude even to the world proletariat and Marxism-Leninism. From the mid-30’s, Mao Tsetung developed a “Chinese” or “Asian Marxism”. In so far as there is any Marxist or Marxist-sounding element or phrase in it, it is taken over and renamed as a special theory and contribution of Mao Tsetung.

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China were extremely hostile to the correct criticisms of Stalin and the Communist International concerning the deviations of the Communist Party of China from Marxism-Leninism. They spoke disparagingly of Comintern delegates and blamed the Comintern for all their mistakes while failing to give any role to the Communist International with regard to the victories of the Chinese revolution.

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China took an extremely opportunist and vacillating stand in the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism and Titoite revisionism. They used their participation in the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism to promote their own sectarian and revisionist formulations, such as the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class under socialism and Mao Tsetung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of the era.

The attitude and activity of the Communist Party of China toward the new Marxist-Leninist parties formed in the struggle against modern revisionism was hostile and disruptive. At first they opposed the formation of the new Marxist-Leninist parties. Later they adopted the tactic of recognizing all new parties whether or not they were Marxist-Leninist in order to cause disruption in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement and oppose the new Marxist-Leninist parties. Still later the Communist Party of China adopted the tactic of recognizing many parties in one country with the exception of the genuine Marxist-Leninist party in order to disrupt the Marxist-Leninist movement in those countries. In the U.S. every opportunist trend and sect – from the neo-revisionists to the straight-out revisionists of the Guardian – was promoted in Hsinhua. At the same time the Chinese slandered the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists of the ACWM(M-L) and the COUSML in the most extravagant terms to all sorts of opportunist visitors to China. Today the Communist Party of China recognizes only the opportunist groups and parties which kowtow to its line such as the Klonskyites in the U.S. and the Jurquets in France.

Thus the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung have played a disruptive role in the international communist movement, a role marked by chauvinism and xenophobia, an attitude which is entirely hostile to the principles of proletarian internationalism.

IX. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST REVISIONISM

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China present themselves as great fighters against modern revisionism and promoted themselves internationally on that basis. But in fact they used the prestige gained by the stands that they did take against Khrushchovite revisionism in order to promote their own Chinese revisionism.

Examination of the facts show that Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China played an extremely vacillating role in the struggle against modern revisionism. To begin with, they promoted the theory that revisionism and opportunism are middle forces which can be united with. This is a theoretical justification for conciliation to revisionism and coexistence with revisionism.

And in practice the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung vacillated to the extreme. They actually supported Tito and and considered him correct in 1948 but did not come out at that time due to the stand of the Soviet Union and due to the constraints placed on them as part of the international communist movement. When Khrushchovite revisionism emerged, Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China were happy about the criticism of Stalin, and they supported the rehabilitation of Tito. They failed to distinguish between Khrushchov and Stalin in their criticism of the Soviet Union. While Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China later appeared to moderate their stand on Stalin, they never really defended his life and work and they slandered Stalin in order to push their own revisionist theses.

The July 29th Letter of the CC of the Party of Labor and the Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and the Government of China gives a history of the vacillation of the Communist Party of China in the struggle against modern revisionism, which will not be gone into here.

It is notable that the Chinese revisionists used their stand against the Khrushchovite revisionists to promote their own special revisionist theories internationally, such as the continued existence of the bourgeoisie under socialism, encircling the cities from the countryside, opportunism as a middle force to be united with, etc.

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China criticized the Khrushchovites for their alliance with U.S. imperialism, but since 1971 Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China have been developing their own alliance with U.S. imperialiism. They have developed the anti-Leninist theory of “three worlds” to justify this alliance and their own social-imperialist ambitions. The theory of “three worlds” is not just a concoction of Teng Hsiao-ping but finds its ideological roots in Mao Tsetung Thought and was widely promoted in the Chinese press and Party while Mao Tsetung was still alive. This shows that the Chinese struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism did not stem from Marxist-Leninist positions.

Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists

Series on Maoist Revisionism: Against Chinese Revisionism and the “Theory of the Three Worlds”

Excerpt from the work, “Enver Hoxha and the Great Ideological Battle of the Albanian Communists Against Revisionism“:

Against Chinese Revisionism and the “Theory of the Three Worlds”

In the 1970s, when the Chinese Communist Party elaborated the so-called “theory of the three worlds,” Enver Hoxha denounced the anti-Marxist character of that theory, stating that it was a new variant of modern revisionism.

This means that – Enver Hoxha said – the call made by the Chinese is for the “third world” to unite in alliance with the “second world” to fight half of the “first world”?

Such a division of the world confuses the oligarchy with the oppressed and the people, their aspirations and their level of development, which are different and in struggle against that oligarchy.

“In its division of the world into three, the Communist Party of China is advocating class conciliation….

“In the first place, by juggling with the contradictions, the Chinese leaders are endeavoring to justify their stand towards US imperialism, to pave the way for their rapprochement and collaboration with it.

“The Chinese revisionists claim that there is only one contradiction in the world of today, and that this puts the ‘third world,’ the ‘second world’ and half of the ‘first world’ in confrontation with the Soviet Union. Proceeding from this thesis which unites the peoples with a group of imperialists, they advocate that all class contradictions must be set aside and that the only fight must be against Soviet social-imperialism.”9

“The Chinese revisionists continue to hold to their known standpoint of the fight only against Soviet social-imperialism… They relegate US imperialism to second place and stress that the United States of America ‘wants the status quo, that it is in decline’. From this the Chinese revisionists arrive at the conclusion that an alliance with American imperialism against social-imperialism can and should be reached.

“US imperialism is not at all weakened or tamed, as the Chinese leaders claim. On the contrary, it is aggressive, savage and powerful, like Soviet social-imperialism….
The very posing of the question that one imperialism is stronger and the other weaker, one is aggressive and the other tamed, is not Marxist-Leninist. The presentation of the question in this manner is a reflection of a reactionary view which leads the Chinese revisionists into alliance with the United States of America, NATO and the European Common Market, with the King of Spain, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile and all the fascist dictators.

“We Marxist-Leninists cannot defend the various reactionaries, the clique around Strauss or Schmidt in Germany, the British Conservative or Laborite leaders, simply because they have contradictions with Soviet social-imperialism. Were we to do so and support the preachings of the Chinese to the effect that ‘the capitalist states of Europe should unite in the Common Market’, that ‘United Europe’ should be strengthened so as to be able to face Soviet social-imperialism, that would mean our agreeing to sacrifice the struggle and efforts of the proletariat of these countries to break the chains of enslavement.”10

Enver Hoxha recalled that in the 1960s, the Chinese Communist Party had quoted the well-known Marxist-Leninist theses and principles.

In the document entitled “A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement,” published by the Central Committee of the CPC in 1963, it stated: “These or those necessary compromises between socialist and imperialist countries do not require that the oppressed peoples and nations also make compromises with imperialism and its stooges.” And further: “Never should anybody, under the pretext of peaceful coexistence, demand that the oppressed peoples and nations renounce the revolutionary struggle”.

Today – stated Enver Hoxha – it is the Chinese leadership that is preaching to the peoples, the revolutionaries, the Marxist-Leninist parties and the proletariat of the whole world the necessity of allying with the imperialist or capitalist countries, of allying with the bourgeoisie and all reactionaries against Soviet social-imperialism.

“Such vacillations and 180° turns have nothing to do with the principled Marxist-Leninist policy. They are characteristic of the pragmatic policy followed by all revisionists.”11

Enver Hoxha denounced the support of the Chinese government to the worst reactionary regimes.

“China defends Mobutu and the clique around him in Zaire. Through its propaganda China is trying to create the impression that it is allegedly defending the people of that country against an invasion of mercenaries engineered by the Soviet Union, but in reality it is defending the reactionary Mobutu regime. The Mobutu clique is an agency in the service of US imperialism. Through its propaganda and ‘pro-Zaire’ stand, China is defending Mobutu’s alliance with US imperialism, with neo-colonialism, and striving to prevent any change in the status quo of that country.”12

“The Chinese ‘third world’ and the Yugoslav ‘non-aligned world’ are almost one and the same thing….

“As Tito’s visit to China and Hua Kuo-feng’s visit to Yugoslavia showed, the Yugoslav revisionists are lavishing praises and cunning flattery on China…. Although they do not renounce their theory of the ‘third world’, the Chinese revisionist leaders, headed by Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao-ping, have come out in open support of the Titoite theory of the ‘non-aligned world’. They have demonstrated that they want to work closely with the Yugoslav revisionists along the same lines, on two parallel rails, with the anti-Marxist aim of deceiving the peoples of the ‘third world’….

“During Tito’s visit to Peking, the Chinese leaders half admitted that the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was a Marxist-Leninist party and that genuine socialism was being built in Yugoslavia. When Hua Kuo-feng went to Belgrade, they stated this completely and officially.”13

“History shows that every big capitalist country aims to become a great world power, to overtake and surpass the other great powers, and compete with them for world domination….

“In order to become a superpower, China will have to go through two main phases: first, it must seek credits and investments from US imperialism and the other developed capitalist countries, purchase new technology in order to exploit its local wealth, a great part of which will go as dividends for the creditors. Second, it will invest the surplus extracted at the expense of the Chinese people in states of various continents, just as the US imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists are doing today….

“Nikita Khrushchev and the modern revisionists elaborated the ill-famed theory of Khrushchevite ‘peaceful coexistence’, which advocated ‘social peace’, ‘peaceful competition’, ‘the peaceful road’ of the revolution, ‘a world without arms and without wars’. It was intended to weaken the class struggle….

“The Communist Party of China has been following a policy like that of Khrushchev since the time when Mao Tsetung was alive. This policy, too, calls on both sides, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the peoples and their rulers, to cease the class struggle, to unite against Soviet social-imperialism only, and forget about American imperialism.”14

All these statements of Enver Hoxha have been confirmed by facts, by the complete degeneration of the Chinese Communist Party into a bourgeois party which has restored capitalism.

Sources for this excerpt:

9 Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana, 1979, English edition, p. 270, 278.
10 Enver Hoxha, ibid., p 282, 291, 296
11 Enver Hoxha, ibid., p. 305.
12 Enver Hoxha, ibid., p. 319.
13 Enver Hoxha, ibid., pp. 325, 332-334.
14 Enver Hoxha, ibid., pp. 368-369, 369-370.

Breaking News from Nepal: “Major Protests Against Disarming of People’s Army”

One of many blockades throughout the country. Photo by Eric Rebillarsi

By Eric Ribellarsi, Winter has Its End

Today, the Kiran faction of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has launched a major protest program against the disarming of the People’s Liberation Army being led by Nepal’s new Prime Minister, Baburam Bhattarai. The Maoist rebels are demanding the immediate reversal of the decision to disarm People’s Liberation Army, a process which has already begun.

So far, this programme has included:

1. A nation-wide one hour blockade of major roads and intersection throughout the country. We have heard this took place at roughly 50 locations in Kathmandu, including Kalanki, the main road used for entrance into Kathmandu.

2. A boycott of major party meetings, including today’s Standing Committee meeting.

3. Torchlight marches throughout Kathmandu and in other cities throughout the entire country, beginning tonight at 6:00 PM.

We will keep you posted as we learn more.

Source

New Maoist Prime Minister of Nepal Surrenders Weapons

UCPN (Maoist) hands over keys of arms containers to AISC monitors at five cantonments

In what would be viewed as a major headway in ongoing peace process, ruling UCPN (Maoist) Thursday started handing over keys of the weapons containers to Army Integration Special Committee (AISC) as per the party’s earlier decision.

Despite facing sharp opposition from the hardliner faction led by party vice chairman Mohan Baidya, the Maoist party started handover of the keys of arms containers to the AISC from the Third Division of PLA cantonment in Shaktikhor of Chitwan and Second Division in Dudhauli of Sindhuli district including Jhyaltungdanda cantonment of Nawalparasi, Dhaban cantonment of Rolpa and Chulachuli cantonment of Ilam district.

Organising a programme in Shaktikhor cantonment premises, Maoist Division Commander Udaya Bahadur Chalaune ‘Deepak’ and Division spokesperson Janak Bista ‘Kuber’ handed over the keys of the arms container to the AISC representatives Thursday evening.

Likewise, the Maoists have also handed over keys of the arms container at the Second Division in Dudhauli of Sindhuli district. According to the source, the keys were handed over as per the command of the PLA headquarter Thursday afternoon.

Continue reading

Dr Bhattarai elected Prime Minister

“Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat” — Dr Bhattarai in “Red Spark,” 2009.

Kathmandu, Aug.28: Vice-chairman of the UCPN (Maoist), Dr. Baburam Bhattarai has been elected the Prime Minister of Nepal. In the elections held today at the meeting of the Legislature-Parliament, Dr. Bhattarai won with 340 votes. His only contender, Nepali Congress Vice-president Ram Chandra Poudel garnered 235 votes. A total of 575 votes were cast today out of the total 594 members present in the Legislature-Parliament.

The United Democratic Madhesi Front’s support played a decisive role in Dr. Bhattarai’s win, based on a four-point agreement reached earlier today between the UCPN (Maoist) and the Front on matters relating to peace, constitution and a coalition government.

Voting in favour of Dr. Bhattarai today were the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Nepal, the CPN (ML-Socialist), the Rastriya Janamorcha, the CPN (Unified), the CPN (United), the Samajbadi Janata Dal, the Nepal Pariwar Dal, the Nepal Sadbhawana Party (Giri), the Rastriya Janamukti Party and the Nepal Democratic Socialist Manch, besides his party the UCPN (Maoist).

Continue reading

Series on Maoist Revisionism: Extracts from the Letter from the CC of the Party of Labor of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party of China

Stamp with President Mobutu of Zaire meeting Chairman Mao; Mao gave Mobutu $100 million in technical aid

Aid to Albania from China

On July 7, 1978 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People‘s Republic of China handed an official note to the Embassy of the People‘s Socialist Republic of Albania in Peking, whereby it announces the decision of the Chinese Government to stop its economic and military aid and its aid payments to Albania and bring back its economic and military experts working in Albania up till that date. With this perfidious and hostile act towards socialist Albania, you unscrupulously scrapped the agreements officially concluded between the two countries, brutally and arbitrarily violated elementary international rules and norms and extended ideological disagreements to state relations with Albania. Taking this hostile step against socialist Albania, you seek to hit at, and damage, the economy and defence capacity of our country, to sabotage the cause of the revolution and socialism in Albania. At the same time, you gravely undermine the fraternal friendship between the Albanian and Chinese peoples. Wishing ill to a socialist country, such as the People‘s Socialist Republic of Albania, you give satisfaction to the enemies of socialism and the revolution. The responsibility for this reactionary and anti-Albanian act, as well as its consequences, lies completely with the Chinese side.

The Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian Government denounce the brutal cessation of aid and loans to socialist Albania before all world public opinion as a reactionary act from great power positions, an act which is a repetition, in content and form, of the savage and chauvinistic methods of Tito, Khrushchev and Brezhnev which China, also, once condemned.

[…]

To any normal person it is unbelievable and preposterous that Albania, a small country, which is fighting against the imperialist-revisionist encirclement and blockade and which has set to large-scale and all-round work for the rapid economic and cultural development of its country, which is working tirelessly for the strengthening of the defence capacity of its socialist Homeland, should cause and seek cessation of economic co-operation with China, refuse its civil and military loans and aid. Inspired by the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism, the Albanian people, their Party and Government have sincerely and consistently fought for the strengthening of friendship, fraternal co-operation and mutual aid between Albania and China.

[…]

Now, as in the past, the Albanian people, their Party and Government stick to their assessments of this aid and its role, among other external factors, in the development of our country. Socialist Albania has never considered its friendship with the peoples of other countries a means of economic profit. At the same time, it has permitted nobody to consider economic aid and co-operation an investment whereby political and ideological views, which run counter to Marxism-Leninism and socialism, are dictated to, and imposed on, our country. The People‘s Socialist Republic of Albania has never sold out its principles, it has never traded on them.

Continue reading