Kishanji: not just another ‘martyr’

Sanhati

by Saroj Giri

Kishanji is not just a fighter against oppression, a brave and courageous soul. He presided over something unique in the history of resistance movement in the country – and maybe he was not even so aware of it. Several forms of resistance seem to have come together in his leadership – synchronizing armed fighting power of the people with open rallies, processions and demonstrations. If one is really serious about democratic mass upsurges then one cannot wish away ‘strategy’, the ‘use of force’ or ‘armed resistance’; that the life-veins of mass struggle extend into the zone of armed resistance – these otherwise old Leninist lessons were restated, reasserted, renewed afresh in the life and activity of Kishanji.

It is in this sense that Kishanji in a way rehabilitated the status of both mass movements and ‘military strategy’ within the left. The left today is prone to reject anything to do with discipline and military as just some kind of right-wing, fascist obsession. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek points out that, against the ruling ideology of hedonistic permissivity, the left should “(re)appropriate discipline and the spirit of sacrifice: there is nothing inherently ‘Fascist’ about these values” (http://www.lacan.com/zizhollywood.htm). Kishanji’s contribution stands out here –raising great fear and alarm among the ruling classes who hunted him down.

This is a crucial contribution at a time when the left is suffering from ‘loss of strategy’, when mass demonstrations at Tahrir Square or the Occupy Wall Street seem to hit a dead-end, simply tiring itself out, or unable to withstand state repression. Some might say that the militant mass demonstrations in Jangalmahal ended with the Maoists ‘taking over’ in June 2009. Instead this ‘taking over’ was nothing but the much needed backbone of the mass movement, able to now express itself as an organised force with a strategy.

This is the first step towards seeking clarity about the class struggle, defining what Marx in the Communist Manifesto calls a ‘line of the march’ for the movement as a whole – apart from being able to withstand the armed might of the state. Not that the Maoists have gained major success here but they have got some of the basics right. The usual story of mass activities and rallies frittering away after the initial upsurge did not therefore repeat itself here. The mass movement continues in many new forms. In fact, a new mass women’s formation, the Nari Izzat Bachao Committee has come up even as big rallies like the August 2010 mass rally attended by Mamata and Swami Agnivesh continue – unless banned or ‘denied permission’ by the government.

Such is Kishenji’s contribution, with something original – not just some bland ‘sacrifice’ or ‘martyrdom’ which Maoists themselves so often glorify. Maoists must guard themselves from this entrenched habit of not seeing anything specific or original about its leaders and painting them all in this barren seriality of ‘yet another martyr who heroically sacrificed his life for the revolution’. Otherwise the movement will be going round in circles, will stagnate in spite of the dynamism of its concrete practice.

Perhaps we can here identify something like a ‘Jangalmahal model or path’ of the Maoist movement, which can be compared to say the ‘Chattisgarh model or path’. There are many problems with talking in terms of ‘models’. And yet the specificities of the movement in particular areas must also be grasped so that we do not club all experiences and forms as one and the same. Otherwise, we are not learning anything new, not synthesizing, not learning from practice but endlessly repeating a set formula. Kishanji stands out in this respect. We do not know whether he also made conscious formulations about the specificity of the movement in Jangalmahal model (like a Hunan report?) but his concrete practice brilliantly shines forth.

Just in the month of September, Varavara Rao, myself and comrades from Kolkata had made a ‘fact-finding’ (for want of a better term) trip to Jangalmahal. We could not meet Kishanji but witnessed the atrocities committed by security forces and the private armies (bhairav bahini). I talked to a very young adivasi comrade, deep inside a village off Jhargram town: a member of the armed squad. I asked him if he had met Kishanji. He said yes. Then he said, that he cannot follow all that Kishanji says in meetings. Then I asked him if he heard of Marxism from Kishanji (I was curious). ‘Yes Kishanji talks about Marxism, but I find it very difficult to follow’. Then I ask him what has he understood of Marxism, what is it? I think he felt cornered but after some reflection came with a reply: it is something very good but some people have spoiled and distorted it. ‘We guerillas are fighting such people’.

Those like Kishanji have taken Marxism to the masses when doing so immediately means ‘organising’, planning, strategizing, taking the struggle ahead and putting yourself in the line of fire. Kishanji’s daring is not ‘speaking truth to power’, in postmodern Zapatismo-style, but making power come out of its democratic garb exposing its lies and falsities, including its violence to which our man fell.

I find it a bit of an enigma that Kishanji never put away his gun when on camera – one can prominently see it and so he is clearly not bothered to play the democratic card of being democratic, peaceful and so on. He talks nothing about the gun, no glorifying violence and so on, as some would pathetically expect. Instead he talks about a meticulous patient fight for real democracy and power to the people (http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/who-is-kishenji/216926). So why is the gun so visibly present, slung on his shoulders, surrounded as he is by curious journalists in his own camp? It can only mean that he had no pretense here of liberal bourgeois leaders of being non-violent and democratic, even as they preside over huge standing armies, hidden away.

Here we are only traversing a key insight of Marxism – that the question of power must be foregrounded, hence no point playing games that there is no power in society, no class power, no armed power, it is all democracy and free competition and so on. That is why Lenin would say that socialism is not a better or true radical democracy (this would have sounded respectable and acceptable to all), but the dictatorship of the proletariat – this is far more honest that saying that there is democracy for everyone even though it is really class dictatorship. If you feel kind of uncomfortable in whole-heartedly supporting Kishanji because of his gun then you might be uncomfortable with a key insight of Marxism itself – this is the double bind he throws us in.

Kishanji was not the man of ‘its blowing in the wind’ but precisely of another Bob Dylan song. He is the man of ‘the hour when the ship comes in’, one who must have imagined that he is fighting to usher in this grand hour, perhaps even when ‘the answer might not be blowing in wind’: “the chains of the sea will have busted in the night and will be buried at the bottom of the ocean… And oh the foes will rise with the sleep still in their eyes and they will jerk from their beds and think that they are dreaming; but they will pinch themselves and squeal and know that it is for real. And they will raise their hands, saying we will meet all your demands, but we’ll shout from the bow, your days are numbered….”

Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

The 1993 Document of RIM

Introduction

In 1984, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement was founded, groupingtogether the nucleus of the Maoist revolutionaries the world over who weredetermined to carry forward the fight for a world without exploitation andoppression, without imperialism, a world in which the very division of societyinto classes will be overcome-the communist world of the future. Since theformation of our Movement we have continued to advance and today, on theoccasion of the Mao Tsetung Centenary, with a deep sense of our responsibility,we declare to the international proletariat and the oppressed masses of theworld that our guiding ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Our Movement was founded on the basis of the Declaration of the RevolutionaryInternationalist Movement adopted by the Second Conference ofMarxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations in 1984. The Declarationupholds the proletarian revolutionary ideology and on that basis in the mainit correctly addresses the tasks of the revolutionary communists in differentcountries and on a world scale, the history of the international communistmovement, and a number of other vital questions. Today we reaffirm theDeclaration as the solid foundation of our Movement upon which weare building a new clarity and deeper understanding of our ideology and themore solid unity of our Movement. The Declaration correctly stresses"Mao Tsetung's qualitative development of the science of Marxism-Leninism"and affirms that he raised it to "a new stage". However, the use of the term"Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought" in our Declaration reflecteda still incomplete understanding of this new stage. In the last nine yearsour Movement has been engaged in a long, rich and thoroughgoing discussionand struggle to more fully grasp Mao Tsetung's development of Marxism. Duringthis same period the parties and organisations of our Movement and RIM asa whole have been engaged in revolutionary struggle against imperialism andreaction. Most important has been the advanced experience of the People'sWar led by the Communist Party of Peru which has succeeded in mobilisingthe masses in their millions, sweeping aside the state in many parts of thecountry and establishing: the power of the workers and peasants in theseareas. These advances, in theory and practice, have enabled us to furtherdeepen our grasp of the proletarian ideology and on that basis take afar-reaching step, the recognition of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the new,third and higher stage of Marxism.

New, Third and Higher Stage of Marxism

Mao Tsetung elaborated many theses on a whole series of vital questions ofrevolution. But Maoism is not just the sum total of Mao's great contributions.It is the comprehensive and all-round development of Marxism-Leninism toa new and higher stage. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an integral whole; itis the ideology of the proletariat synthesized and developed to new stages,from Marxism to Marxism-Leninism to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, by Karl Marx,V.I. Lenin and Mao Tsetung, on the basis of the experience of the proletariatand mankind in class struggle, the struggle for production and scientificexperiment. It is the invincible weapon which enables the proletariat tounderstand the world and change it through revolution. Marxism-Leninism-Maoismis a universally applicable, living and scientific ideology, constantlydeveloping and being further enriched through its application in makingrevolution as well as through the advance of human knowledge generally.Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the enemy of all forms of revisionism and dogmatism.It is all powerful because it is true.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx first developed revolutionary communism almost 150 years ago. Withthe assistance of his close comrade-in-arms Frederick Engels, he developeda comprehensive philosophical system, dialectical materialism, and discoveredthe basic laws which shape human history.

Marx developed a science of political economy that revealed the exploitationof the proletariat and the inherent anarchy and contradictions of the capitalistmode of production. Karl Marx developed his revolutionary theory in closeconnection with and to serve the class struggle of the international proletariat.He built the First International and wrote, together with Engels, the CommunistManifesto with its resounding call "workers of all countries, unite!" Marxpaid great attention to and summed up the lessons of the Paris Commune of1871, the first great attempt of the proletariat to seize state power.
He armed the world proletariat with an understanding of its historic mission:seizing political power through revolution and using this power -- thedictatorship of the proletariat -- to transform social conditions until thevery basis for the cleavage of society into different classes is eliminated.
Marx led the struggle against the opportunists in the proletarian movementwho sought to confine the struggle of the workers to improving the conditionsof wage-slavery without challenging the existence of this slavery itself.
Together, the stand, viewpoint and method of Marx came to be called Marxism,and represents the first great milestone in the development of the ideologyof the proletariat.

V.I. Lenin

V.I. Lenin developed Marxism to a whole new stage in the course of leadingthe proletarian revolutionary movement in Russia and the struggle in theinternational communist movement against revisionism.
Among many other contributions, Lenin analysed the development of capitalismto its highest and final stage, imperialism. He showed that the world wasdivided between a handful of imperialist powers and the great majority, theoppressed nations and peoples, and showed that the imperialist powers wouldbe forced to go to war periodically to redivide the world amongst themselves.
Lenin described the era in which we live as the era of imperialism andproletarian revolution. Lenin developed the political party of a new type,the Communist Party, as the proletariat's indispensable tool for leadingthe revolutionary masses in the seizure of power.
Most importantly, Lenin raised the theory and practice of proletarian revolutionto a whole new level as he led the proletariat in seizing and consolidatingits political power, its revolutionary dictatorship, for the first time withthe victory of the October Revolution in formerly Tsarist Russia in 1917.
Lenin waged a life-and-death struggle against the revisionists of his daywithin the Second International who had betrayed the proletarian revolutionand had called on the workers to defend the interests of their imperialistmasters in World War I.
The "guns of October" and Lenin's struggle against revisionism further spreadthe communist movement throughout the world, uniting the struggles of theoppressed peoples with the world proletarian revolution, and the Third (orCommunist) International was formed.
Lenin's all-round and comprehensive development of Marxism represents thesecond great leap in the development of proletarian ideology.
After Lenin's death, Joseph Stalin defended the proletarian dictatorshipagainst enemies from within as well as from the imperialist invaders duringWorld War II, and carried forward the cause of socialist construction andtransformation in the Soviet Union. Stalin fought for the international communistmovement to recognise Marxism-Leninism as the second great milestone in thedevelopment of the proletarian ideology.

Mao Tsetung

Mao Tsetung developed Marxism-Leninism to a new and higher stage in the courseof his many decades of leading the Chinese Revolution, the worldwide struggleagainst modern revisionism and, most importantly, in finding in theory andpractice the method of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship ofthe proletariat to prevent the restoration of capitalism and continue theadvance toward communism. Mao Tsetung greatly developed all three componentparts of Marxism -- philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism.
Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Mao Tsetungcomprehensively developed the military science of the proletariat throughhis theory and practice of People's War. Mao taught that people, not weapons,are decisive in waging war. He pointed out that each class has its own specificforms of war with its specific character, goals and means. He remarked thatall military logic can be boiled down to the principle "you fight your way,I'll fight my way", and that the proletariat must forge military strategyand tactics which can bring into play its particular advantages, by unleashingand relying upon the initiative and enthusiasm of the revolutionary masses.

Mao established that the policy of winning base areas and systematicallyestablishing political power was key to unleashing the masses and developingthe armed strength of the people and the wavelike expansion of their politicalpower. He insisted on the need to lead the masses in carrying out revolutionarytransformations in base areas and to develop these politically, economicallyand culturally in the service of advancing revolutionary warfare.

Mao taught that the Party should control the gun and the gun must never beallowed to control the Party. The Party must be built as a vehicle capableof initiating and leading revolutionary warfare. He emphasised that the centraltask of revolution is the seizure of political power by revolutionary violence.Mao Tsetung's theory of People's War is universally applicable in all countries,although this must be applied to the concrete conditions in each countryand, in particular, take into account the revolutionary paths in the twogeneral types of countries-imperialist countries and oppressed countries-thatexist in the world today.
Mao solved the problem of how to make revolution in a country dominated byimperialism. The basic path he charted for the revolution in China representsan inestimable contribution to the theory and practice of revolution andis the guide for achieving liberation in the countries oppressed by imperialism.This means protracted People's War, surrounding the cities from the countryside,with armed struggle as the main form of struggle and the army led by theParty as the main form of organisations of the masses, mobilising the peasantry,principally the poor peasants, carrying out the agrarian revolution, buildinga united front under the leadership of the Communist Party to carry out theNew Democratic Revolution against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratcapitalism and establishing the joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classesled by the proletariat as the necessary prelude to the socialist revolutionwhich must immediately follow the victory of the first stage of the revolution.Mao put forward the thesis of the "three magic weapons" -- the Party, theArmy and the United Front -- the indispensable instruments for making revolutionin every country in accordance with its specific conditions and path ofrevolution.
Mao Tsetung greatly developed the proletarian philosophy, dialecticalmaterialism. In particular, he stressed that the law of contradiction, theunity and struggle of opposites, is the fundamental law governing natureand society. He pointed out that the unity and identity of all things istemporary and relative, while the struggle between opposites is ceaselessand absolute, and this gives rise to radical ruptures and revolutionary leaps.He masterfully applied this understanding to the analysis of the relationshipbetween theory and practice, stressing that practice is both the sole sourceand ultimate criterion of the truth and emphasising the leap from theoryto revolutionary practice. In so doing Mao further developed the proletariantheory of knowledge. He led in taking philosophy to the masses in their millions,popularizing, for example, that "one divides into two" in opposition to therevisionist thesis that "two combines into one".
Mao Tsetung further developed the understanding that the "people and thepeople alone are the motive force in the making of world history". He developedthe understanding of the mass line: "take the ideas of the masses (scatteredand unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them intoconcentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate andexplain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fastto them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of theseideas in such action". Mao stressed the profound truth that matter can betransformed into consciousness and consciousness into matter, further developingthe understanding of the conscious dynamic role of man in every field ofhuman endeavour.
Mao Tsetung led the international struggle against modern revisionism ledby the Khrushchevite revisionists. He defended the communist ideologicaland political line against the modern revisionists and called upon the genuineproletarian revolutionaries to break with them and forge parties based onMarxist-Leninist-Maoist principles.

Mao Tsetung undertook a penetrating analysis of the lessons of the restorationof capitalism in the USSR and the shortcomings as well as the positiveachievements of the construction of socialism in that country. While Maodefended the great contributions of Stalin, he also summed up Stalin's errors.He summed up the experience of the socialist revolution in China and therepeated two-line struggles against revisionist headquarters within the CommunistParty of China. He masterfully applied materialist dialectics to the analysisof the contradictions of socialist society.

Mao taught that the Party must play the vanguard role -- before, during andafter the seizure of power -- in leading the proletariat in the historicstruggle for communism. He developed the understanding of how to preservethe proletarian revolutionary character of the Party through waging an activeideological struggle against bourgeois and petit bourgeois influences inits ranks, the ideological remoulding of the Party members, criticism andself-criticism and waging two-line struggle against opportunist and revisionistlines in the Party. Mao taught that once the proletariat seizes power andthe Party becomes the leading force within the socialist state, the contradictionbetween the Party and the masses becomes a concentrated expression of thecontradictions marking socialist society as a transition between capitalismand communism.
Mao Tsetung developed the proletariat's understanding of political economy,of the contradictory and dynamic role of production itself and of itsinterrelationship with the political and ideological superstructure of society.Mao taught that the system of ownership is decisive in the relations ofproduction but that, under socialism, attention must be paid that publicownership is socialist in content as well as in form. He stressed the interactionbetween the system of socialist ownership and the other two aspects of therelations of production, the relations between people in production and thesystem of distribution. Mao developed the Leninist thesis that politics isthe concentrated expression of economics, showing that under socialist societythe correctness of the ideological and political line determines whetherthe proletariat actually owns the means of production. Conversely, he pointedout that the rise of revisionism means the rise of the bourgeoisie, thatgiven the contradictory nature of the socialist economic base it would beeasy for capitalist roaders to rig up the capitalist system if they cometo power.
He profoundly criticised the revisionist theory of the productive forcesand concluded that the superstructure, consciousness, can transform the baseand with political power develop the productive forces. All this took expressionin Mao's slogan, "Grasp Revolution, Promote Production."
Mao Tsetung initiated and led the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution whichrepresented a great leap forward in the experience of exercising the dictatorshipof the proletariat. Hundreds of millions of people rose up to overthrow thecapitalist readers who had emerged from within the socialist society andwho were especially concentrated in the leadership of the Party itself (suchas Liu Shao-chi , Lin Piao and Deng Xiao-ping) . Mao led the proletariatand masses in challenging the capitalist roaders and imposing the interests,outlook and will of the great majority in every sphere that, even in socialistsociety, had remained the private reserve of the exploiting classes and theirway of thinking.
The great victories won in the Cultural Revolution prevented the capitalistrestoration in China for a decade and led to great socialist transformationsin the economic base as well as in education, literature and art, scientificresearch and other parts of the superstructure. Under Mao's leadership themasses dug away at the soil which engenders capitalism -- such as bourgeoisright and the three great differences between town and country, between workerand peasant, and between mental and manual labour.
In the course of fierce ideological and political struggle, millions of workersand other revolutionary masses greatly deepened their class consciousnessand mastery of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and strengthened their capacity towield political power. The Cultural Revolution was waged as part of theinternational struggle of the proletariat and was a training ground inproletarian internationalism.
Mao grasped the dialectical relationship between the necessity of revolutionaryleadership and the need to arouse and rely on the revolutionary masses frombelow to implement proletarian dictatorship. In this way, the strengtheningof the proletarian dictatorship was also the most extensive and deepest exercisein proletarian democracy yet achieved in the world, and heroic revolutionaryleaders came forward such as Chiang Ching and Chang Chun-chiao who stoodalongside the masses and led them into battle against the revisionists andwho continued to hold high the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the faceof bitter defeat.

Lenin said, "Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the classstruggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat." In thelight of the invaluable lessons and advances achieved through the GreatProletarian Cultural Revolution led by Mao Tsetung, this dividing line hasbeen further sharpened. Now it can be stated that only he is a Marxist whoextends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorshipof the proletariat and to the recognition of the objective existence of classes,of antagonistic class contradictions, of the bourgeoisie in the Party andof the continuation of the class struggle under the dictatorship of theproletariat throughout the whole period of socialism until communism. AsMao so powerfully stated, "Lack of clarity on this question will lead torevisionism."
The capitalist restoration following the 1976 counter-revolutionary coupd'etat led by Hua Kuo-feng and Deng Xiao-ping in no way negates Maoism orthe world-historic achievements and tremendous lessons of the Great ProletarianCultural Revolution; rather this defeat confirms Mao's theses on the natureof socialist society and the need to continue the revolution under thedictatorship of the proletariat.
Clearly, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution represents a world-historicepic of revolution, a victorious high point for the world's communists andrevolutionaries, an imperishable achievement. Although we have a whole processahead of us, that revolution left us great lessons we are already applying,such as, for example, the point that ideological transformation is fundamentalin order for our class to seize power.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: The Third Great Milestone

In the course of the Chinese revolution Mao had developed Marxism-Leninismin many important fields. But it was in the crucible of the Great ProletarianCultural Revolution that our ideology took a leap and the third great milestone,Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, fully emerged. From the higher plane ofMarxism-Leninism-Maoism the revolutionary communists could grasp the teachingsof the previous great leaders even more profoundly and indeed even Mao Tsetung'searlier contributions took on deeper significance. Today, without Maoismthere can be no Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, to negate Maoism is to negateMarxism-Leninism itself.
Each great milestone in the development of the revolutionary ideology ofthe proletariat has met with bitter resistance and has only achieved recognitionthrough intense struggle and through its application in revolutionary practice.Today the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement declares thatMarxism-Leninism-Maoism must be the commander and guide of the world revolution.
Hundreds of millions of proletarians and oppressed masses of the world areincreasingly propelled into struggle against the world imperialist systemand all reaction. On the battlefield against the enemy they search for theirown flag. Revolutionary communists must wield our universal ideology andspread it among the masses to further unleash them and organise their forces,in order to seize power through revolutionary violence. To accomplish this,Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties, united in the Revolutionary InternationalistMovement, must be formed wherever they do not exist and existing ones mustbe strengthened in order to prepare, launch and carry through to victoryPeople's War to seize power for the proletariat and the oppressed people.We must uphold, defend and, most importantly, apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

We must step up our struggle for the formation of a Communist Internationalof a new type, based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The world proletarian revolutioncannot advance to victory without forging such a weapon because, as Mao Tsetungtaught, either we all go to communism or none of us go.
Mao Tsetung said, "Marxism consists of thousands of truths, but in the finalanalysis they all boil down to one: it is right to rebel." The RevolutionaryInternationalist Movement takes the rebellion of the masses as its startingpoint, and calls on the proletariat and revolutionaries the world over totake up Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This liberating, partisan ideology mustbe brought home to the proletariat and all the oppressed because it alonecan enable the rebellion of the masses to sweep away thousands of years ofclass exploitation and bring to birth the new world of communism.

Hold High the Great Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
26 December 1993

MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM AND MARXISM-LENINISM-MAO TSE-TUNG THOUGHT ARE NOT THE SAME

The Worker, #10, May 2006

Article

Ajith

CPI (ML) Naxalbari

Over the past decades, the Maoists have gained significant achievements through ideological struggle and revolutionary practice in establishing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) as the commander and guide of world proletarian revolution. This is seen in two inter-related aspects. More than ever before, waging People's War or actively preparing to launch it is now recognized as the central task of a Maoist party. In turn with this, the polarization within the broad Marxist-Leninist movement that emerged in the 1960s, between genuine communists and various trends of right opportunism, has also sharpened. Right opportunism, centrism and dogmato-revisionism are increasingly forced to reveal their counter-revolutionary essence. The space for concealing this under the flag of Mao Tse-tung Thought is being steadily cut down. Earlier, right opportunist trends had tried to block the adoption of MLM by raising the bogey of Lin Piaoism and creating confusion over the era question.1 That has failed. Those who tried this have now been forced to show their true colors by deviating from MLM and the revolutionary road even more explicitly.2 Yet right opportunists have not given up. Some have now turned to accepting Maoism without making any decisive break from their past. For such people, MLM is nothing more than a convenient sail to pick up, now that their own ones are in tatters.

It is a law of revolution that revisionism and other alien trends will adopt new forms with each advance of class struggle. Therefore, such an opportunist adoption of MLM is not surprising. But Maoists certainly have the responsibility of countering such opportunist tactics. Unfortunately, a wrong understanding persisting within the Maoist ranks is becoming a hurdle in this struggle. It is also giving some room for such right opportunist tactics. What is this erroneous understanding? It is the thinking that MLM and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought are one and the same. The change in terminology from Mao Tse-tung Thought to MLM is certainly a more precise and scientific explanation of Mao's contributions. It is also necessary in order to draw a sharper line of demarcation from modern revisionism. But, if we fail to make it clear that MLM and Mao Tse-tung Thought are not the same, adopting MLM becomes merely a matter of change in terminology. Room is left for the new trend of right opportunism mentioned above.

What is the source of this erroneous thinking? It emerges from a formalist view of the whole issue. As explained in an earlier article, "It is true that a formal checklist comparing Mao Tse-tung Thought and Maoism will not reveal anything new. But that is hardly the point and we must be alert to avoid this trap of formalism held out by the opponents of Maoism. Mao Tse-tung Thought and Maoism are not the same. There is something new here. Something new of great ideological importance is achieved by adopting Maoism. Andthis newness is not so much in the word as such. It resides in the rupture from an incomplete or fractured understanding of the universality of Mao's contributions taken as a whole and in the leap to a qualitatively higher, better, deeper grasp of our ideology. Evidently, any reasoning, which harps on emphasizing that nothing new is added, will fail to mobilize the whole Party and lead it in carrying out this rupture. The task of actualizing this grand potential for a vigorous ideological rectification, for achieving a better grasp of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, will be done in a partial manner Even worse, it will be left to spontaneity."3

The founder leaders of the new Marxist-Leninist parties founded in the 1960's had made the adoption of Mao Tsetung Thought as the new, third and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism the cornerstone of the rupture from revisionism. They had applied this ideology to build revolutionary line and guide practice. All the Maoist parties existing today derive their origins from such leaps. But from there to the present adoption of MLM was not a straight line. We need not get into a detailed account of this whole process. But it is quite clear that this advance was achieved by struggling against tendencies, which worked against a firm grasp of the universality of Mao Tsetung's contributions. It is a struggle that remains to be completed.

Let us examine a specific issue, the theory of People's War. Even while Mao Tsetung Thought was upheld, for a long period, the dominant trend was to see this as something specific, relevant and applicable solely to the semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. Shades of this continue to exist among Maoist parties, even today. Yet, the founder leaders of the new Marxist-Leninist parties in the 1960's were quite clear about the universality of People's War. The writings of Comrade Charu Mazumdar are an example. So how can we explain the emergence of the mistaken view that restricts People's War to oppressed nations? This was a deviation. It was not challenged till the forceful presentation of Maoism as the new stage of Marxism-Leninism and the universality of People's War by the PCP.

The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and its participant parties accept that "Mao Tsetung comprehensively developed the military science of the proletariat through his theory and practice of People's War." and that this is "... universally applicable in all countries, although this must be applied to the concrete conditions in each country..."4. Evidently, this is one of the issues where "a still incomplete understanding" of the new stage attained through Mao's contributions was rectified through the adoption of Maoism. But was this merely restating what was said in the 1960s? No, it reflected a deeper, fuller grasp. And it was based, at that time, on the lessons of the advanced experience gained through the People's War in Peru, which in turn were guided by an advanced grasp of Mao's contributions, and more specifically, the theory of People's War. This grasp has been further enriched through the People's War in Nepal, particularly in its integration of armed insurrection tactics, such as political intervention at the central level, with the protracted People's War. Today, to speak of accepting the universality of People's War while refusing to recognize and take lessons from this advanced grasp is meaningless. To adopt Maoism and deny the contributions in understanding made by these People's Wars would be an incomplete understanding of the universality of Maoism.

Why does this happen? In the '60s, Comrade Charu Mazumdar wrote, "... today, when we have got the brilliant Thought of Chairman Mao Tsetung, the highest stage of the development of Marxism-Leninism, to guide us, it is imperative for us to judge everything anew in the light of Mao Tsetung Thought and build a completely new road along which to press ahead."5 The adoption of Maoism calls exactly for this sort of 'judging and building anew'. It demands a fresh look at the whole question of ideology and its development in general and of Mao Tsetung's contributions in particular. To do this in a meaningful and comprehensive manner it must be linked to a thorough evaluation of the party's line and practice. And it must learn from the fresh, advanced, experiences of the international proletariat. For some parties it will be a matter of carrying out a decisive break from basic deviations and regaining the revolutionary road. For others, already in revolutionary practice, it will be a matter of rectifying specific issues. What is common is the task of ideological-political rectification. This is the essential point in 'judging and building anew'. It is missed when Maoism and Mao Tse-tung Thought are declared the same and the issue is reduced to one of adopting a better expression.

The adoption of Mao Tse-tung Thought in the 60's was a matter of rupturing from revisionism and building a new party on fresh foundations. When that has already been done, when the rupture from revisionism was further consolidated and sharpened through decades of revolutionary armed struggle, does the adoption of Maoism again call for ideological-political rectification? The experiences of the international communist movement and in India give a clear reply to this. Persistence on the path of People's War certainly provides a powerful basis for identifying and rectifying mistakes. But whether this rectification is done at the very roots in a comprehensive manner or whether it is limited to correcting certain positions, is not something guaranteed by revolutionary armed struggle alone. It cannot be verified by immediate practice also because the outcome of this difference in approach will be revealed only in the long run. This is principally a matter of being firm and persistent in ideological struggle. It is a matter of fully applying 'line is principal'. It is a matter of steeling the party and the masses in the decisiveness of this Maoist teaching for now and for the protracted revolution all the way up till communism.

Moreover, even if the adoption of Maoism is only seen as a better expression sharpening the demarcation with revisionism, doesn't this also call for ideological-political rectification? "Fight self, repudiate revisionism" was an important call of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Modern revisionism within the broad Marxist-Leninist movement tries to spread its poison by presenting a distorted or fractured vision of the teachings of Mao Tsetung. To repudiate and destroy this, Maoists must sharpen their own ideological grasp, particularly their grasp of the universality of Maoism. Both these tasks are inseparably linked. If our own ideological sharpening, rectification, is kept aside under the plea that we have been Maoists all along, then the fight against modern revisionism will be weakened. To quote from a PCP document, "...it is vital and urgent to analyze Maoism again, aiming to define more and better its content and meaning, guided by the judgment that to hoist, defend and apply Maoism is the essence of the struggle between Marxism and revisionism in the present."6

Earlier we mentioned that taking a fresh look at our ideology also involves learning from the fresh, advanced, experiences of the international proletariat. How do we judge whether it is advanced or not? Verification in practice is no doubt the criterion. But how this is understood has become an important issue in the struggle over whether or not the experiences of the People's Wars in Nepal and Peru represent an advanced grasp. Judging this mainly in terms of immediate advance or setback or of the level of armed struggle and repression would be a wrong application of the practice criterion. Similarly, to minimize these lessons as those of small countries with weak states and so on is also wrong. In both these views, ideology is glaringly missing. Without it, the criterion of practice gets reduced to empiricism. The dialectic of universality and particularity is broken. One important lesson of the struggle to establish MLM was a deeper grasp of Mao's observation that, in the development of proletarian ideology, "The basis is social science, class struggle".7 Backed by rich experiences of revolutionary class struggle, ideology can develop. New, deeper, advanced grasp of existing theories can emerge. New concepts can be developed. Whether this is so, must be judged principally on the basis of MLM. No doubt, the lessons of a particular revolution cannot be mechanically applied elsewhere. But that is true of MLM itself. If the lessons of a particular revolution stand the test of MLM, if they show a new way of knowing and doing, then those lessons must necessarily be upheld and applied. And that too is a test of a party's adoption of MLM.

What is lost by turning away from a conscious grappling with this advanced grasp? To give a specific example, a couple of years back, the undivided CC of the CPI (ML) Janasakthi had come out with a review document. This document identified the reason for the setbacks they faced as the failure to take up tactical counteroffensives. What is instructive for us is the fact that this 'rectification' could be put forward without any rapture whatsoever from the 'phase theory'8 of CP Reddy line (a variation of the Nagi Reddy line). In fact, the whole document itself was an eclectic effort to combine two into one?the right opportunism of CP Reddy with Charu Mazumdar. But why is it instructive? The prominent trend within the Maoist critique of the 'phase theory' has always targeted the failure of the Janasakthi to take up armed struggle against the state. This was also projected as the crux of 'phase theory'. It was contrasted to the growth of the revolutionary movement led by Maoists who persisted in armed struggle and raised it to the level of a Peoples' War against the state. This comparison made in the context of the experiences in India is certainly useful in exposing this anti-Maoist theory. But this singular emphasis on one form of manifestation of the 'phase theory' was also a distraction from probing further and pin-pointing its negation of the dynamism of war, which is the real essence. It weakened the criticism against 'phase theory'. It allowed room for such manoeuvres like the one made by the Janasakthi leadership to pass off as rectification. One reason for this was the failure to examine the whole issue from the vantage point of insights from new, advanced grasp and experiences of People's War, instead of being limited to the experience in India. In the particular instance of the Janasakthi, a group of comrades who seriously tried to review their past from precisely this vantage point succeeded in achieving rapture, unlike other sections that still flounder at various depths of the Nagi Reddy morass. This led these comrades to arrive at the firm position that correct grasp of Maoism, more than just adopting it, is the key question in the unification of the Maoists in India into a single party, into a party based on MLM and united with the RIM. Today, when right opportunism pays lip service to MLM in order to hitch on to the ongoing unification process of genuine Maoists, this development is of great significance. It once again stresses the vital importance of deepening our grasp of MLM, particularly Maoism, and struggling against views that blur the distinct leap achieved through adopting Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the place of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought.

* Contributed by CPI(M-L)Naxalbari.

1 See: 'The Fight to Establish Mmxism-Leninism-Maoism' in NAXALBARI No: 2.

2 In India, the CPI (ML) Red Flag is a sharp example. In its recent split one charge raised by a faction was about the other 'deviating' from their common position of purging Maoist positions, such as 2 line struggle, from their line!

3 'The Fight to Establish Marxism-Leninism-Maoism', NAXALBARI; No:2.

4 'Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism', 1998 Edition, page 59. (this is the 1993 document of RIM and not the one mentioned by Ajith.)

5 'Party's Call to Students and Youth,' from 'The Historic Turning Point', Volume 2, Page 36, emphasis added.

6 'Maoism. On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.', from 'CPP and Mao Tsetung', 1987, emphasis added.

7 'Talks on Philosophy'.

8 'First economic struggle, then armed resistance to defend economic gains and then armed struggle for political power', this is the perspective of this anti-Maoist theory. For criticism of the 'phase theory', see 'Repudiation of the CRC, CPI (ML)'s Views on Military Line', Spring Thunder, No: I (republished in 'A World to Win', No: 26).

"It is well known that when you do anything, unless you understand its actual circumstances, its nature and its relations to other things, you will not know the laws governing it, or know how to do it, or be able to do it well." -- Mao Tsetung, Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War, SW-1