Press Release Claims Regional Conference of South Asia’s Maoists
Posted by Mike E on March 23, 2011
Many of our readers will recognize that this might be an important development — if the revolutionary groups who have previously been united within CCOMPOSA have met in their fifth conference.
We do not yet have significant details — including who attended. This means that it is still unclear who this press release is speaking for.
We will post more details as they become available.
The following is their public statement (brought to our attention by banned thought).
Press Release of CCOMPOSA
The 5th Conference of the Co-ordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) was successfully completed in early March.
The delegates took up analysis of the current political situation in order to identify its main features. They noted the fall out of the global crisis, the devastations it has caused among the masses, the wave of struggles in imperialist citadels triggered of by the crisis and the recent series of popular upsurges in Arab countries, apart from developments in South Asia such as the successful withstanding of Maoists in India of the state’s counter-revolutionary offensive.
The Conference observed that
“though in an uneven way, the objective situation all over the world, including in the imperialist countries, is developing favourably for revolution. The main trend of revolution is strengthened. In comparison to the favourably developing objective situation and its demands, the subjective strength of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties still lags. Nevertheless, greater attraction of people towards Marxism and socialism all across the world is a very positive sign.”
As observed in the Political Resolution it adopted,
“This Conference is being held when the Indian new democratic revolution continues to confront the serious challenge of “Operation Green Hunt” launched by Indian state. While the initial victories in beating back this ‘war on the people’, politically as well as militarily, give better conditions to the revolutionaries, the gravity of the challenges they face remains. The revolution in Nepal is at the crossroads. The powerful potential of great victory exists along with the serious danger of harsh defeat. Imperialism and Indian expansionism are openly intervening in Nepal to destroy the revolution and is directly instigating the ruling classes for this. People all over the world look up to the Maoists in Nepal to break out of all domestic and external conspiracies and advance determinedly towards the completion of new democratic revolution. Notwithstanding vigorous attempts on the part of revolutionaries, the people’s wars in Bangladesh and Bhutan have yet to cut through enemy repression and develop it to a higher level. Maoist revolutionaries of Afghanistan are engaged in preparation of people’s war amid US occupation. In Sri Lanka the task of reorganising the Maoist party is still on the agenda.
“All this shows the challenges faced by the Maoists of this region in the present juncture. Guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the unity among the constituents of CCOMPOSA and their joint activities will surely strengthen the revolutionary struggles and initiatives going on in the different countries of South Asia and be a catalyst in facing up to these challenges and seizing the opportunities. This has a significance going far beyond the boundaries of South Asia.”
It concluded,
“Seize power where it is possible, develop ongoing people’s wars to higher levels, prepare and initiate people’s war where parties exist and build up parties where they don’t – this should be the working orientation of Maoist revolutionaries. It is a declared fact that CCOMPOSA has been formed to unite the Maoist revolutionaries of South Asia and fight Indian expansionist hegemony and imperialism in the region. Apart from accomplishing its responsibility in this region, CCOMPOSA, as a part and parcel of the international communist movement, must discharge its internationalist duties to further the cause of world proletarian revolution. South Asia is ripe for new democratic revolution.
“Let all of us strive to develop ongoing people’s wars, initiate new ones, accomplish new democratic revolution in our respective countries and establish South Asia as a strong base area of the world proletarian revolution. This and only this is the way the Maoist revolutionaries in South Asia can contribute to the advance to socialism and communism and thereby fulfil their proletarian internationalist duty.”
The Conference called upon all Maoist forces in South Asia to join the CCOMPOSA and strengthen it and thus further advance in the common aim of making South Asia a blazing center of world revolution.
CCOMPOSA condemns the aerial attack of Libyan cities by the US, French and British defence forces in the garb of implementation of “no fly zone” by the United Nations Security Council Resolution no. 1973. The recent history is replete with vivid memories how the attempts to implement of “no fly zone” were escalated into a full war of occupation in Iraq resulting in colossal human tragedy. The war preparations in the name of “Operation Odyssey Dawn” by these blood sucking imperialists show that they are determined to do another Iraq in Libya.
CCOMPOSA is confident that Libyan as well Arab people understand the designs of these imperialists that it is not the Libyan people’s interest behind the war frenzy, but the precious oil that is driving these plunderers in toppling Gaddafi’s regime. The compradore Indian government, instead of standing against the Imperialist attempts of interference in the ongoing civil war in Libya, by firmly opposing the Resolution, played a role of cunning fox, by abstaining in the voting.
Dil Bahadur
Standing Committee,
Co-ordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia
23rd March 2011
Felix Sullivan said
What an idiotic statement.
PPW is a fine strategy where it makes sense, especially where a party also has a presence in the unions and electoral politics (as UCPN-M did, as the Filipino party does). But this urges PPW as a matter of principle.
In essence: “Create Two, Three, Many Perus.”
David_D said
There is a website (don’t know if it’s official): http://www.ncocomposa.webs.com/
I had read that this venture involves the Kangleipak Communist Party based in India. The website mentions it and the Proletarian Party of East Bengal (Maoist Unity Group) as group conveners. There is this statement from months ago, the authenticity of which I cannot vouch for: http://www.irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php?62644-Join-Statement-Proletarian-Party-of-East-Bengal-%28Maoist-Unity-Group%29-Bangladesh-Kang
I’m not too familiar with KCP, but understand it comes from a national liberation movement. There is a blog in its name here: http://kcpml.blogspot.com/
David_D said
The concept of universalizing people’s war was, to my knowledge, put forth by the Communist Party of Peru: “People’s war until communism.” There’s a bit of feverishness about it that seems to not rest on a rigorous analysis of international conditions.
Mike E said
David and Felix:
there is a distinction conceptually between “peoples war” and “protracted peoples war.”
Maoists have generally held that revolutionary transition (from capitalism to socialism) will require (one way or another) a war of the people.
This was not “universalized” by the Peruvian maoist party — but by the Chinese party during the Cultural Revolution. That was generally when the Maoists stopped talking about any possibilities of peaceful transition (as had been previously accepted, for example, in the Moscow declaration.) However there were, even then, different approaches to that: A critique of peaceful transition was a key part of Mao’s criticism of revisionism. But in the hands of Lin Biao it became virtually the ONLY dividing line seen as separating Marxism and revisionism.
Protracted peoples war is a specific strategy of rural base areas, waged in semi-feudal countries. But Maoists have also discussed peoples wars that are less “protracted” and that emerge from compressed insurrections in highly urbanized capitalist countries.
There is ongoing deal of controversy (among Maoists) over whether it is possible to wage protracted peoples war in imperialist countries (I believe it is generally not.)
Revisionists in France and Italy waged guerrilla war in their imperialist countries during WW2, so, ironically, the legacy of arguing for protracted peoples war in such countries linked to their history and experience (a part of the legacy of revisionism, not a dividing line indicating revolution, and it has historically even been tied with a sense of nationalism and national defense being part of the communist project in Europe).
But there is little controversy among Maoists (as far as I know) over the need to (at the key moment of seizing power) wage a peoples war to defeat the powerful forces of the other side.
* * * * * *
On a minor side issue:
There is a problem with exclaiming (as Felix does):
It means you are rejecting and mocking the views of others — perhaps before you have even correctly understood what they are.
Felix Sullivan said
Comrade Ely,
Without hesitation, I apologize for my rudeness.
Now, to your main point: I’m aware that there are discussions of People’s War covering urban as well as rural guerrilla warfare. But can it really mean not guerrilla warfare?
You have talked yourself about the danger of universalizing the Russian experience to places where it is not applicable. This is my concern here.
Mike E said
Felix writes:
Peoples war is (in its core) forms of war that rely on the conscious activism and sacrifice of the broad masses of oppressed people (including, but not limited to, the forces directly organized into the peoples army).
And (in answer to your question) there is nothing about peoples war that refers only to guerrilla warfare.
Just to take the Chinese revolution as an example: it was (as is well known) a guerrilla war in its early stages (meaning irregular partisan warfare on the strategic defensive). But the peoples war in china went through other phases and developments ending (as it approached victory) with the strategic offensive (regular army troops, mechanized forces, etc.) But from beginning to end, this was a peoples war — relying on the people and their conscious activism in a way that bourgeois armies cannot.
The other example is the Soviet resistance to Nazi invasion with (again) although it was in form relatively conventional warfare (state on state, mechanized regular army as the main leg, etc.) was politically a peoples war — relying on the people to innovate and sacrifice in ways that often defy believe.
I recently read the book Stalingrad the Fateful Seige, which (once again) was awe-inspiring in the heroism and mobilization of the people. And (again) was not really the rurally-mobile melt-into-the-people small group tactics associated guerrilla warfare.
The Soviet WW2 effort did include large elements of partisan warfare in the occupied areas of the west. But the war as a whole (from the beseiged city of leningrad in the northeast, along the thousands of miles of front, to the world-changing collision in Stalingrad, to the vast highly mobilized rear area) was a peoples war — in both its guerrilla and conventional aspects.
Mao writes that the secret of victory in war fare is “they fight their way and we fight our way.” And our way is peoples war (because inevitably in revolution we generally start with far less of the material and weaponry than our enemies — but we have something they can never have and can unleash something they can never unleash.)
HOW communists organize people war under difficult conditions: there is a lot of particularity to that.
In contrast to Mao’s experience, for example, revolutionary war in imperialist countries has to build and mobilize rapidly — since the inability to create previous stable base areas of red political power means that the switch from non-war to war is more abrupt and therefore more difficult than in large rural semfeudal areas. The only way to make such a transition is to raise the broad understanding (among the advanced and partisan) of the need for that switch, and then to rely on (and lead) the conscious initiative taken by large numbers of people.
Felix Sullivan said
This is my concern, Mike. In Mao’s discussions of people’s war he’s constantly talking about united front work, political education, etc. But just saying “prepare and initiate people’s war” can lend itself to all kinds of readings, including a naive Lin Biaoist one that doesn’t leave room for this work. The danger is ending up like FARC or the PCP – holed up in the base camps with all justice on your side, suffer one crushing propaganda defeat after another while morale deteriorates.
I’m not trying to push some kind of Trot ‘PPW is always wrong’ kind of line here. And certainly e.g. small farmers in the tribal areas of West Bengal have damn good reasons for taking up arms immediately.
On another note, I was really impressed by this line:
Geopolitically, wow.
Mike E said
Felix:
You are commenting on a press release (!), from a conference (!), of divergent Maoists groups who are known to have sharply different views on all these and related questions.
Obviously their common statement will not be a sharp, synthesized argument — but a statement of “meeting points” with (inevitable) vagueness and ambiguity where there are differences.
What is the point of commenting on a press release and saying that one of its phrases (“prepare and initiate people’s war”) “can lend itself to all kinds of readings.” Well of course. And since no one on this planet will take a press release (or even the conference documents) as the working guidelines of founding a movement, that is perhaps not a major concern.
If this press release actually speaks for the previous CCOMPOSA (which is not yet documented), then the important point here is that they met, and the important outcome of their conference is most likely not in any public statement or documents.
To treat a joint statement (and a press release of extracted quotes) as a major theoretical document is to confuse ideology and politics — and to view every political event as mainly an ideological marker.
There are ideological matters here: There is a current among Maoists that sees the main (and even only) measure of revolutionary work whether someone is preparing to initiate people war.
Actually, the word “prepare” in such a document is a major leap: because it acknowledges that the preconditions for initiating a war don’t always exist, and there is (of necessity) a preparatory period (preparing the revolutionary forces, and perhaps also awaiting particular objective conditions and crisis). Previously in the ICM there were forces who denied (functionally) any need for preparation — and treated the initiation of peoples war as merely a matter of will and the courage to decide. It was tied to a view (promoted even by the RCPUSA) that the people of the third world were always (more or less) in a revolutionary situation, so that (even if there was a conjunctural element to launching armed struggle in advanced countries) there was probably not (in this view) much conjunctural element in launching people’s war in a semifeudal-semicolonial country.
In fact, there is both a need to do serious preparation (among the people, and in the preparation of the revolutionary core), and also a need for favorable objective conjunctures (involving both internal and external factors).
There has been a great deal of debate (and I mean specifically in both India and Nepal) about what such preconditions are — and every advance has been made by defeating views that insisted that objective conditions were still (and perhaps permanently?) unfavorable — either for the initiation of armed struggle or for its countrywide victory (which are two separate matters).
The experience and mood swings of the Maoist movement historically have come down in different ways on this:
In some ways, the late sixties saw an almost focoist belief that with courage, will and a break with revisionist social-pacifism it would be possible to get a peoples war going almost anywhere. And so (again like focoists) there were some attempts to create political base areas and armed warfare — sometimes with insufficient preparation of party structures and political work. The experience of Turkey and also the great indian uprising are part of that.
At the same time, the launching of the 1968 Naxalbari revolt (and beforee it the Telangana Rebellion) shook the communist movement of this whole region and revealed that powerful preconditions for popular uprising existed. And then the launching of the peoples war in Nepal (1996) deeply shook up the entrenched views (in the indian Maoist movement) that there were only conditions for loose guerrilla zones, and that the development of real political base areas with red political power was (for the period) impossible in South Asia.
So for all those reasons, there is value in this formulation of “preparation and initiation” — it asserts that the very point of revolutionary work is to make revolution (something often lost on the endless treadmill of reform-work-disguised-as-preparation), and yet it injects the word “preparation” which asserts that it is not simply a matter of will, that there is a need for planning, and even a whole stage of developing sufficient forces for “a go.”
In some ways, the Peruvian experience is rich in this view of preparation and initiation: they used the Ayacucho teachers college as a base area — training revolutionary leaders (under the guise of thraining teachers for the peasantry) and sent their “graduates” to villages scattered in the Andes. And then (precisely after a period of ideological, political and organizatoinal preparation of that core, and the people around them) they struggled through (in their party) against those who opposed the ILA (initiation of the lucha armada)….
This line struggle was so intense that the PCP was not able to hold a first congress until after the ILA (i.e. they had to drive out those against the launching in order to hold a congress that could lead the launching).
So again two points:
1) A public statement from a diverse conference is always marked by subtle gaps and compromises. Sometimes the value is simply that people met (and that they decided things that are not announced).
2) Overall, the use of the phrase “prepare and initiate” actually captures well both aspects of this contradiction: I.e. that if revolutionaries arent thinking about “doing the dog” they aren’t worth much, and their thinking needs to take serious the need for periods of “preparation” (which may, as we know, prove protracted or short depending on the actual condition, kinds of country, larger conjuncture etc.)
perspectivainternational said
“Conquistar el poder, donde es posible, desarrollar las guerras populares en curso a mayor nivel, preparar e iniciar la guerra popular en que las condiciones existen y desarrollar los partidos en los que no – esto debe ser la orientación de trabajo de los revolucionarios maoístas. ….
saludo. Importante reunión, y orientaciones para el proceso de asia. El maoismo es la universalización de la Guerra Popular como la Estrategia Militar mas alta del Proletariado. Estrategia que nos llevara hasta el comunismo. El presidente Mao ha elevado la estrategia de la guerra de guerrillas a la guerra Popular, No solo en paises feudales o semifeudales. La Guerra Popular se aplica tanto como campo principal y ciudad complemento ó ciudad principal y campo complemento. Las condiciones de Inicio – Desarrollo y Conquista (Defensa-Equilibrio-Ofensiva)se desenvuelven en un marco de condiciones tanto objetivas como subjetivas, y a lo que se refiere voluntad esta enmarcado dentro de la onceava tesis de Marx, que: [XI] Los filósofos no han hecho más que interpretar de diversos modo el mundo, pero de lo que se trata es de transformarlo. (esto quiere decir, que los maoistas generan y transforman las condiciones).
saludos desde Perú.
maitri said
to ask a naive question- i can see how a PW may be successful in a third world country. I’m afraid I dont see how it would be possible in a first world country. be curious what people think about this. also, the examples of Peru and Nepal are not exactly ‘successes’, and anyhow both these countries are really on the periphary of capitalism. does the Peruvian or Nepali PW really show the way forward for people in the UK, US, France etc? I’m afraid I dont see how.
in india, the Maoist PW are in the most backward tribal areas ( Jharkand, etc) but in the developed areas such as Delhi, Mumbai,Kolkotta etc, there is not much sympathy for Maoism. I think that in developed areas of the world, a more worker-centred movement is more appropriate.
Sukhwiner said
The strategy of protracted peoples war or the area wise seizure of power can’t be applicable even in 3rd world countries, because the production relations here have changed.going through a process of long transition the capitalist relations of production dominate the in the 3rd world countries. A major reason of the stagnation in the world communist movement is that the CRs of the world are not understanding the changes in the relations of productions in the third world countries. take the case of CPI(Maoist),According to this party India is a semi feudal semi colonial country and is in stage of new democratic revolution. path of Indian revolution is protracted peoples war. This political line is totally irrelevent in present Indian conditions.CPI Maoist is trying To copy Chinese NDR.Indian socio political conditions are totally different to that of China in 1949 or 1927.
During the last six decades after political independence in 1947 India has gone through a process of capitalist development. CPI Maoist do not recognise this change in production relations in India.According to this party India was a semi feudal semi colonial country in 1947 and same is now.It means it became stagnant in 1947. Such a position is a product of a totally unscientific outlook.
The present movement under the leadership of this party is confined to a few backward pockets of India.It has no support in urban areas and the planes of India.And in the absence of countrywide support the movement under it’s leadership has rose to the level of “peoples war”.Actually THIS IS NOT PEOPLES WAR BUT A NEW EDITION OR CHARU’S LEFT ADVENTURISM
Felix Sullivan said
1. Contradiction between urban workers and the peasantry are a very real problem in PPW.
2. That contradiction has become even more problematic now that we are a ‘planet of slums,’ where the majority of the world’s population lives in urban areas.
I can’t think of a more tragic example of this contradiction than Peru. As we all know, the Communist Party of Peru (Sendero Luminoso), with its base among the intellectuals and the extremely poor peasants, started a people’s war. On the other hand, other parts of the Left including the Communist Party of Peru (Patria Roja), with a base among urban workers and the (relatively) better off peasantry, had a policy of infiltrating the army. That led to the left-wing Velasco dictatorship in the 70′s (famous quote: “If the Chileans keep up this bullshit, I’ll be eating breakfast in Santiago.”)
The result was a war in which PCP (PR) cadres were sent out to massacre PCP (SL) cadres.
Now, if were more of a Maoist I might just say that PCP(PR) are revisionists and wash my hands of them. Certainly one former Patria Roja cadre, current presidential candidate and former war criminal Ollanta Humala, has gone full on social-fascist, maybe just fascist.
But I think simple dismissal (“these were not communists, but social-democrats/patriots/fascists/whatever”) misses the real theoretical and human problematic. Fuck, where was I going with this? Oh right: splits are not always just the result of bad line. Often they are the result of splits and contradictions that the process of capitalist production itself opens up within the masses. Neither PR’s nor SL’s line was capable of overcoming this split and therefore they were both wrong. Perhaps not equally, but both wrong.
Nepal may be one of the last countries left where a traditional peasant-guerrilla PW can meet with success – and the UCPN(M) was intensely aware of the urban/rural contradiction; they have their own trade union, they had Dr. Bhattarai working behind the lines in traditional politics.
The slums; those are the key to seizing power India. I think the Iranian revolution may have been the first modern slum revolution. The pace and tactics of this kind of fight will be very different – protracted guerilla warfare is not possible, they just send in airstrikes.
Harsh Thakor said
In reply to Sukhwiner .Today the line of the C.P.I(Maoist) is vitiated with left adventurism akin to Che Guevera’s focoism.No doubt they have built a strong movement and are arguably the strongest Maoist force in the world but have not developed a mass military line.Inspite of their heroic tenacity of their Peoples Liberation Guerilla Army surviving against all odds they often violate Mao’s line of protracted Peoples War.
The most vital question is whether today we are in the stage of implementing armed struggle or Peoples War.Launching a Peoples War requires strong preparation nad we have to study the experience of the Chinese party in this regard.They have not created the level of preparation for armed struggle which was done In the Telengana Armed Struggle of 1946-1951 where work was initiated in the AndhraMahasabha ,or in the 1924-1927 period in China where Peasant associations were formed and a base was built for mass agrarian revolutionary Movement.,or even the preparation period for he launching of armed struggles i Phillipines or Peru I the periods of 1959-1968 a 1968-1980 respectively.
The most significant experience of armed struggle in India was in 1946-1951 in Telengana district of Andhra Pradesh where Maoist armed struggle was implemented with a mass line perspective.Unfortunately the C.P.I.called it off.In the late 1960′s Charu Mazumdar era the chief exponents of the mass line were T.Nagi Reddy and D.V.Rao who refuted the theory of ‘annihilation of class ememies’ and stressed on building the mass movements and organisations.This massline struggle had a predominant influence on the mass movement in Punjab in the 1970′s of the Punjab Studfents Union and the agrarian movements in Andhra Pradesh,West Bengal and Orissa.
Vast regions in India are not prepared for armed struggle and in India the party is at a stage of re-organisation.Spectacular efforts may have been made by PW-MCC forces in Andhra Pradesh,Dandkaranya and Bihar to light the red flame but inadequate organs of revolutionary Peoples power were built up.However it is not the same as the Charu era as the C.P.I.(Maoist)has built mass organisation and the erswhile P.W,P.U.and M.C C had built mass organisations in the peasant and student’s front.A much stronger movement than that of the early 1970′s ahs been established in Dandkaranya and Jharkhand.However a correct policy was not adopted towards the mass organisations,who were merely used as front organisations of the ‘party’ and hardly given their independent role and structure.
Comrade D.V Rao had stated that for the building of a Peoples Guerilla Army adequate agrarian revolutionary Movement has to be built.Quoting arevolutionary document :“The armed struggle is the highest form of class struggle of which agrarianrevolutionary movement is the axis. While the class struggle develops througha process, from lower to higher to the highest levels and corresponding forms,it is the task of the communist revolutionaries, throughout all phases ofthe revolutionary movement, to constantly educate the people in the politicsof seizure of political power and to prepare them for armed struggle in anappropriate manner (to enable them to imbibe the necessary revolutionaryconsciousness and preparedness on the basis of their own experience). Itis the level of consciousness and preparedness of the people that determinesthe realisation of the necessity and launching of any form of struggle includingthe armed struggle. While the armed struggle proper will start at a certainlevel of development of the agrarian revolutionary movement (which is objectivelyverifiable in terms of actual manifestations of the consciousness andpreparedness of the people to seize and control the means of production andhence political power through their own instruments of struggle and power),the people should be guided and prepared to arm themselves to put up self-defenceand resistance to armed attacks of the ruling classes and their agents; theparty forces among the masses playing the leading role in carrying out suchself-defence–all of which is a part and parcel of the process of developmentof class struggle to its highest form–the armed struggle. Integrating therevolutionary struggles of different sections of people with the agrarianrevolutionary movement and integrating and developing different forms ofstruggle to the armed struggle, should be addressed to by the communistrevolutionaries with an integral concept and plan of tasks of the revolutionarymovement in all the stages of the process of its development. In a nutshell,the process of development of armed struggle should be conceived in its organicrelationship with the process of development of the class struggle, of theParty and of the revolutionary united front. Though the objective in starting armed struggle is to set up liberatedbase areas, the present correlation of forces in India is such that it isnot possible to achieve this aim immediately. To achieve this aim, it isnecessary to create areas of armed struggle in a number of areas in the country.For a long time they will be guerrilla zones in the military sense of theterm. With the numerical extension of such areas of armed struggle it becomesextremely difficult for the ruling classes to concentrate their armed mightin one area. During this process there arises a favourable situation, whereinrevolutionaries will be able to wrest the initiative from the ruling classes,and to advance towards the setting up of liberated base areas. Some majorchanges in the national and international situation may also lead towardquicker development of liberated base areas. Revolutionary forces have to fight armed battles in the guerrilla zonesfor quite some time. Guerrilla forces, skilled and tempered over a long timein these battles, grow in number as well as in experience. In the courseof these battles there arises a situation wherein the guerrilla forces areable to defeat the armed forces of the ruling classes. This is the time whena part of the guerrilla forces is turned into a regular people’s army. Thepeople in the area are mobilised to help the people’s armed forces in inflictingdefeat after defeat on the enemies’ armed forces and wiping them out. Thisis how liberated base areas come into being. They are constantly extendedinto adjoining regions, eventually covering a vast area and a sufficientpopulation with the necessary resources for the people’s sustenance.It is possible to set up liberated base areas in the plains and deltaic areas(where there are well-knit communication lines) at an advanced stage of thearmed struggle. In the same way, towns adjoining the base areas are liberatedfirst, then the rest and finally the whole country.
On the question of nature of Indian state there are definitely graeter areas of capitalist development than in China in the 1930′s but there are still immense backward and feudal forces of agricultural production.Globalisation has created a great loss of jobs through closure of factories and influx of workers to villages.There is variance in the mode of production nationwide eg compare Punjab to Jharkhand or Maharashtra to Orissa.We cannot copy the military line toto of the Chinese revolution with the greater influx of Imperialism and Capitalist development and urban forces have to be consolidated to a much greater extent tha in China in the revolutionary struggle.We will have to incorporated Mao’s Protracted Peoples War path with the changes but still fundamentally have to stand by the Chinese path.We cannot mechanically copy the Chinese Peoples War path and the Indian revolution will have it’s own charasterictics.Remember how the Shining path in Peru developed insurrectionary form sof struggle led by the P.L.G.A in the towns.
We have to study the theory and practice of the Nagi Reddy Line and the 1946 Telengana Armed Struggle as the principal contradiction is still between feudalism and the broad masses with agarian revolution being the principal struggle.
Harsh Thakor said
Mike,you have brilliantly illustrated that Peoples War has to have preparation periods and cannot be launched regardless of the conditions.The Chinese experience cannot be mechanically applied and the subjective factor is vital.The re-organisation of the proletarian party is also of vital importance.The best examples are the preparation periods launched by the Peruvian Communist Party under Com.Gonzalo who ultimately launched the greatset peoples War since the Chinese Revolution.Even the Phillipines experience and the 2 line struggle they carried out is an important study.Com.Gonzalo brillinatly innovated Mao’s military line to the conditions of Peru particularly in light of it’s diffferent urban structure from pre-revolutionary China where the peoples War was taken to the cities through the Peoples Guerilla army .
In India its is very important too,to study the need for preparation and here lies the importance of the Nagi Reddy line which defers armed struggle to date.I would suggest that Kasama could post some of the writings of Nagi Reddy and D.V.Rao of the A.P.C.C.C.R. in 1968-71on massline as against Charu mazumdar’s left adventurism as well as on the Telangana Armed Struggle from 1946-51.There is a superb interview of Chou En Lai with Souren Bose in 1970 where a criticism is made of left adventuris.I suggest you post this piece.
I wish you could elaborate your points with more polemical postings on the Peoples War and the need for preparation.
Incidentally today is the 31st anniversay of the launching of the Peoples War in Peru.Mayble Kasama could post some historical material ion the 2line struggle and the setback of arguably the greatest Maoist peoples War launched.An important point of debate is whether the Maoist peoples war could be launched in the European countries applyong the theory to the conditions.Remember the recent war in Russia in Chechyna.