बैद्य र प्रचण्डलाई अफगानी माओवादीको दनक (हेर्नुहोस् पूर्णपाठ)
People’s war until communism!
Either Prachanda
Or Mohan Baidya (Kiran) Means More Revisionism!
CPN-Maoist Is
The Flip-side of UCPN (M): Both Giving Up The Struggle And Opposing People’s
War Strategy!
Bringing forth the theory of fusion of two different kinds of strategies
which was held by CPN (M) in its second national conference in 2001 was the
beginning for a deeply deviationist line. However, formally this party betrayed
the revolution from 2005-2006 on, but, one should consider the theoretical and
ideological roots for this. The so called theory of two different kinds of
strategies which is also called “the model of fusion”, according to Prachanda
is legitimate due to:
““The rapid development of science and
technology, especially in the area of electronic field has brought about
completely new model in regard to forwarding revolution in each country and in
the world in the form of fusion of the strategies of protracted people’s war
and general armed insurrection based on the above analysis.”
In such a manner, revisionism
rejected the universality of PPW, and denied its strategic sufficiency.
“Reviving” the model of armed
insurrection was not the point of interest for Nepali revisionists. It was a
mask for overthrowing the strategy of PPW. They found no “better” means rather
than escaping towards reviving an insurrectionist myth for discarding strategy
of People’s war.
“Model of fusion” was not more than
eclecticism. As MLM forces uphold, today, in all over the world, it is only the
PPW which is the international strategy of proletariat. Denying PPW equals to
denying and discarding Maoism. Discarding Maoism equals to discarding communism
and future of the world. So, revisionism, by creating such an elusive “model”,
indeed was attempting to discard Maoism. It seemed to announce a “Post-Maoist”
contribution, but indeed, it was a deviationist line, which was neither capable
of synthesizing the present situation nor able of formulating any new
contributions. For genuine Communists, in our time, it is only MLM which is the
command of world proletarian revolution. Avakianism which is a Post-Maoist
deviationist line, also has not been able to develop any proletarian
conception. Because, to deny Maoism, means to deny communism. It was what
renegades Avakian and Prachanda have since done!
UCPN(M) which upheld “model of
fusion”, finally gave up to imperialism, expansionism and reaction. The traitor
leaders of this party, finally came to “stagization” of the “bourgeois
democratic revolution”, and finally even discarded the slogan of New Democratic
Revolution!
The so called “Red Fraction” within
the UCPN(M) led by Mohan Baidya (Kiran) finally split from the party in 2012
and built a “New Party” under title of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
From January 16 to 18 this year
(2013) the so called formally “Seventh Congress” of the newly formed party was
held.
This congress, in its turn served the
bourgeoisie and adopt urban “people’s revolt” as party line.
While still a number of
revolutionaries in rank-and file of this party
argued for PPW and a re-start of people’s war in Nepal, but the
revisionist leadership of this party, under leadership of revisionist “Kiran”
rejected people’s war. They also rejected revival of People’s Guerrilla
Liberation Army, and said that they are not willing to either revive the
liberation army or the people’s government!
Under such a circumstance, by
adopting urban “ people’s revolt” instead of people’s war, the “newly formed”
party proved that: It is no more than an appendage of Nepalese revisionism! It
is a flip-side of Prachandist revisionism, which had already, in favor of
“model of fusion” had systematically rejected people’s war.
“People’s revolt” as an urban combat
weapon, by holding demonstrations and protests in cities, sides along shadows
of revisionist revival of myth of insurrectionist model within the frame work
of model of fusion.
So, for Kiran-co as it was and still
is for Prachanda-co, everything is possible and capable to be adopted except
the strategy of People’s war!
This is why we call them both
revisionists. Indeed, Nepalis revisionism, as already renegade Prachanda had
argued for, is prevailing in the scene by multi-party system of bourgeois
parties falsely naming themselves as proletarian ones!
Kiran-co and their newly formed
party, is a necessity for “Maoist” bourgeoisie which is fighting for a
multi-party system in twenty first century!
ICM must put serious steps combating
the twins revisionism: UCPN(M)+CPN(M)
Today, the centrist current is
defending CPN(M). Kiran in an interview wishes for rehabilitation and
reconstruction of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement within its former
members. “naturally” kiran demands the ICM not allow Prachandists in RIM.
Centrists also reject Prachandism. But, for genuine Maoists, reformation of RIM
in basis of former and present renegates and revisionist parties, does not
serve for ICM. Communist party of Ecuador (Reconstruction Committee) which has
argued for reformation of RIM based in former members of it, while taking stand
“In favor of PCP and MPP” has spread confusions among international Maoism. It
seems this party, “unconsciously” is siding along centrist parties like
Communist (Maoist) Party of Italy.
For genuine Maoists, RIM can not be
reformed in basis of revisionist and anti-Maoist elements. The December 26th,
Joint Statement of Maoist Organizations and Parties, correctly demands for a
new international Maoist Center. Today, RIM is a dead corpus, and we can not
revive it with reformist and centrist miracles.
Organization of the Workers of
Afghanistan(Marxist-Leninist-
It is the correct time to reject
Kiran-Prachanda betrayal, and it is the time to take stand, otherwise,
centrists will make their own “international” and will fasten the process of
consolidation of revisionism internationally.
Long Life
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
Down With Centrism and
revisionist eclecticism!
People’s war until
communism!
Ferbruary 15, 2013
Organization of the Workers
of Afghanistan
(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist,
principally Maoist)
Comments
Post a Comment