International unity is certainly good. But the statement seems tired and clichéd-- conservative.
For example:


<blockquote>
"All this indicates that the main contradiction at the world level is that between imperialism and oppressed people, while the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and as well as inter-imperialist contradictions are sharpening. In the context of the spreading crisis, the revolution emerges more and more clearly as being the main trend in the current world."</blockquote>



this kind of thoughtless mash-up of Lenin's "Imperialism" pamphlet, Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism" and Mao's "On Contradiction" --just add water and you get an analysis-- is really undermining any attempt to move forward.

Kasama, it seems to me, has moved beyond a lot of this type of formulaic analysis, but how to relate to something that is on the one hand potentially positive but on the other so obviously limited.

And, how do we use these shortcomings to highlight our own. For instance, when are we going to get over Lenin's theory of imperialism. We use the term "imperialism" but it is meaningless--an empty signifier. Nearly every theses advanced in Lenin's pamphlet is theoretically and empirically incorrect but it still lingers about like Jason in Friday the 13th XVI.

Imperialism is "meaningless," an "empty signifier"? How so? Is "capitalism" similarly meaningless? How do you refer to the system that involves the export of capital in search of highest possible profits throughout the world, the acquisition of markets and resources and militarily strategic assets, and the routine deployment of military force to secure and expand these assets, if not by "imperialism"?

Lenin's hastily written pamphlet is plainly dated. But what is "theoretically incorrect" about it, Keith?

Keith has already, and will presumably continue to make his case vis a vis Lenin's theory of imperialism. I share Gary's disagreement that the term "imperialism" is "meaningless -- an empty signifier." Beyond that specific line of discussion though is I think Keith is making a more general observation that this statement, while on the one hand a welcome, and indeed exciting, expression of international unity that includes some of the most important forces in the world revolutionary movement today, is at the same time in fact also fairly formulaic in a way that feels inadequate to the present moment, certainly in the U.S.. This underlines for me a set of particular difficulties that attach to developing a good internationalist practice in the U.S.. I'm of the basic view that the revolutionary movements in South Asia today represent the most advanced outposts of revolutionary practice on the planet and that consequently there is a special responsibility to support them, to educate ourselves about them, and to popularize what they are doing. At the same time these movements are occurring in places that are almost as unlike our own conditions as any on the planet, conditions which I think explain why language that feels exhausted here still shows considerable life there. This inclines me to think that on many questions we have more to learn directly from movements in Latin America and Europe. All of which is to say that the particularities of the United States -- its distinct history of settler colonialism, its status as waning global hegemon, and the consequent need to engage in solidarity with very diverse forces internationally -- make it I think particularly difficult to simply latch on to a particular international trend and say "we're the U.S. franchise for this" and remain true to the theoretical and practical tasks that actually confront us. This is why while I take a great deal from Mao and regard the GPCR as something of a highwater mark of the worldwide revolutionary process, I have resisted identifying as a "Maoist." All that said

oops...

All that said, it is still exciting to see a joint statement from these forces, in particular one supported by both the Nepali and Indian Maoists. I'd also be very interested in having a better picture of the Maoist Communist Parties in France and Italy.

I agree. This joint statement is a good sign that many of us from around the world are on the same page. To bad the Italian CARC didn't sign (if they had a chance, which I don't know).

Gary,

I think that capitalism is a perfectly adequate term to describe the international system and I think that Marx’s critique of political economy provides the conceptual apparatus that we need to apprehend the world system. Lenin’s theory doesn’t add anything useful and in fact adds a great deal of confusion. I have made this comment before. Lenin's theory is usually dogmatically defended (I define "dogma" as assertion without evidence), but here is my critique in a nutshell.

The four main features of Lenin’s theory are:

1. The combination of industrial capital with bank capital, creating a new form of capital called “Finance Capital.”

2.The move from competition among many capitalist concerns to huge transnational monopolies.

3.The move from mere export of products to export of capital; i.e. capital moving all over the globe in search of maximum profits.

4. Competition and wars between rival capitalist powers.

Each is wrong. Let's take these one at a time:

1. The combination of industrial capital with finance capital.

Lenin gets this idea from the Rudolph Hilferding who elaborated it at great length in his text: "Finance Capital." The problem is that this is not a theoretical discovery. It is a empirical observation. And Marx's theory was/is adequate to deal with it. In the second volume of Das Kapital Marx explains that circuit of industrial capital has three moments: money capital, productive capital, and merchant capital. Collectively these three moments make up the circuit of "industrial capital." In other words, money capital, be it institutionally controlled by a bank or not, is already a part of the circuit of industrial capital. The relationship between productive capital and banks can certainly be one of struggle and banks can dominate productive capitals but so can merchant capitals. Wal-Mart’s domination of productive capitalists – in mainstream literature productive capitals are referred to as wal-marts “suppliers”—is legendary. In any event, the idea that “Finance capital” is a merger of bank and industrial capital is redundant. It freezes a momentary empirical observation into a universal theory and only adds confusion.

Here is a quote from Marx making the point:
“The real circuit of industrial capital in its continuity is therefore not only a unified process of circulation and production, but also a unity of all its three circuits” The three circuits are money, production, circulation. (that is on page185 of volume 2 penguin edition)

What we need is a class analysis of the corporation. "Wall Street" is the colloquial term for financial capital. Investors, i.e., finance capitals, own shares of the corporation and some of those share holders elect a board of directors. The board of directors main jobs are hiring top managers and appropriating and distributing the surplus value pump out of labor. Top management takes on many of the same duties as the capitalist entrepreneur of smaller enterprises, namely overseeing the production process and seeing the commodity to market for the realization of value. All three of these moments, financing, production, selling could be accomplished by one capitalist, usually in a smaller enterprise, or they could be separated: a shoe making enterprise finance itself and markets its products in branded retail shops (For example, I just bought a pair of red wing work boots at a store that only sells red wing work boots. I didnt look that deeply into the companies operations but I assume the retail store is owned by the productive capital). Or the enterprise borrows money from the bank, produces shoes and delivers them to Footlocker (a separate retail store with wares from many different productive capitals) for realization of the value. In any case it is an empirical difference that we grasp with the same theoretical apparatus. In this case the theoretical apparatus developed by Marx. Hilferding and Lenin add nothing here but confusion.

2. the theory of monopoly capitalism
This is Lenin's most egregious error and, in my view, his most pernicious. Have you ever wondered why so few Marxists read Marx? The theory of monopoly capitalism is the answer.

Everyone familiar Lenin ‘s theory, and the history of the communist movement, knows the following catechism:
Marx studied 19th century competitive capitalism. But in the 20th century a new and higher monopoly stage of capitalism emerged, analyzed by Lenin.

This, of course, renders Marx’s magnum opus Das Kapital and his labor theory of value to the dustbin of academia, and thus Lenin’s short propaganda pamphlet displaces Marx’s critique of political economy (competition between capitals is the mechanism that enforces what Marx called “the law of value” without competition there is no labor theory of value). Why bother reading Marx. The capitalism Marx talks about no longer exists. Or so 20th century communists believed. But they were: WRONG!

But just because it displaces Marx does not make it wrong. Let’s see how Lenin’s theory is wrong.

The theory of monopoly capitalism posits two stages of capitalism: a nineteenth century competitive stage, and a twentieth century monopoly stage. This dichotomy, the very notion of a “competitive stage,” and a “monopoly stage” is incontrovertible evidence that Lenin is working with a different theoretical paradigm then Marx. In other words, Lenin and Marx have very different theories of competition and monopoly. In Lenin monopoly negates competition (if this weren’t the case there would be no need to identify a “new stage”), and thus the law of value is negated. In Marx monopoly intensifies competition.

The idea that there are stages of capitalism with different laws is a radical error. Lenin’s theory is linear. Marx’s is dialectical. In Marx competition leads to monopoly and monopoly leads to competition. The laws of capitalism do not change. There are not new "stages" of capitalism. The application of capitalism’s “laws of motion” first analyzed by Marx are intensified and more perfectly applied over more and more geographic space as capitalism develops. They are not negated as in Lenin's theory.
Indeed, the world of globalization is not one of monopoly. Quite the opposite, it is one of HYPER-COMPETITION. This is obvious, no?

Global capitalism is the law of value enforced ruthlessly across the face of the entire planet. Everyday more people enter into capitalist social relations. Globalization is capitalism perfecting itself and creating the conditions for its transcendence.

Jonas Zonninsein has a somewhat obscure text entitled "Monopoly Capital Theory" which offers a rigorous critique of Lenin and Hilferding's theory. I highly recommend it.

3. Export of Capital
The United States, as in “U.S. led imperialism.” is a net importer of capital, not an exporter. Capital is imported and exported regardless of the countries status in the system. Lenin is empirically wrong. Again a momentarily correct empirical observation is transformed into an incorrect theory.

4. Competition between rival capitalist powers
On this point Lenin’s theory has more in common with bourgeois international relations theory than with Marx. And this is the reason why communist analysis is pre-occupied with the nation state and power relations and when it comes to the international arena and has precious little to say about class. We should leave the analysis of power relations to Kissinger.

What we need is a global class analysis.
To just hint at such an analysis: the uprisings in the middle east are uprisings against LANDLORD States. The Gaddaffi regime, for instance, did not tax the Libyan people. The state collected rents on its oil field. The state was a landlord. Indeed, the OPEC countries are all landlord states. Landed Property is a one of the main classes of the capitalist epoch even though it is a feudal class (Marx has a lot to say about landed property in the Eighteenth Brumaire and in the third volume of Capital). The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wars of industrial capital against landed property.

There is a collection entitled "The Rentier State in Africa" that develops the idea of the state as owner of landed property collecting rent. Cyrus Bina's text: "Economics of the Oil Crisis" uses Marx's theory of rent as do some essays in Peter Norre's edited volume "Oil and Class Struggle" Also Fernando Coronil’s book “The Magical State” – a study of Venezuela-- has a very good analysis of the landlord state in the introduction and first chapter.

Once we grasp that Lenins' 4 central theses are wrong we realize that the whole theory of imperialism is wrong. We dont need a theory of imperialism. The uselessness of the theory is painstakingly obvious whenever anyone tries to use it to analyze contemporary events (the statement above is a good example). Especially the events it is supposed to explain: wars, global inequality, poverty. We need a theory of capitalism. Because capitalism is war, poverty, inequality, among other things. Do you know the best theory of capitalism? Marx's value theory elaborated in the three volumes of "Das Kapital" and his "Theories of Surplus Value."

We need a global class analysis. Our global class analysis must include: financial capital, productive capital, merchant capital, landed property, the working class (stratified across nationally boundaries, by race, by gender, by differential wages and skills, by rates of exploitation etc.)

These are obviously immensely complicated questions. Unfortunately, Lenin’s theory is not a help, it is in the way.

It is time to put away the meager gruel of Lenin’s "Imperialism" pamphlet and get to the feast that is the inheritance of the working class: Marx’s "Das Kapital." We have good tools, we just have to learn to use them.

Tell No Lies said:

<cite>...while I take a great deal from Mao and regard the GPCR as something of a highwater mark of the worldwide revolutionary process, I have resisted identifying as a “Maoist.”<cite>

I am also uncomfortable with the use of "Maoist" although it has come into widespread usage. As I recall even throughout the Great Proletarian Revolution the term was never used as the intellectual foundation of revolutionary communism was "Marxism-Leninisn, Mao Tse-tung thought."
When did organizations and individuals people begin using and identifying as "Maoist"?

I'd very much appreciate a response to Keith's critique of Lenin's theory of imperialism.

Derived from the aformentioned International Communist Maoist Parties,are set forth three critical declarations deemed crucial and necessary for waging Revolution,for waging war upon Imperialism in the world today.

<b><i>People want revolution
Proletarians want the Party of the Revolution
Communists want internationalism and a new international organization</b></i>


Issued from a revolutionary sense of "Urgency",a clarion call for <i>Revolution,Party of Revolution,Internationalism/Organization</i> has been voiced by Companeros from around the world.I find myself in total agreement with what I believe is their profoundly correct dialectical assessment of the situation.

Their message is worthy of serious consideration,study and debate..



I believe it is important that Communists in the US share the same sense of revolutionary urgency which our courageous fighting Companeros feel,that their call will not fall upon deaf ears.






American Communists must struggle with conscious resolve to break out of the prison maze of disorientation,stasis,complacency,irresolution and cynicism they find themselves in.

We must realize that even though they are experiencing a destabilizing crisis,the US ruling class still has vast resources and wealth from which to draw from in order to divide,bribe,coerce and maintain class support..to different degrees-in qualitatively different ways.To cause to defer and placate urgency.


Tragically,here in US society there is still too much racism,comfort and class privilege remaining which has served to reinforce hesitation and doubt,oppose,dampen,obscure,discourage,nullify,any burning sense of "Revolutionary Urgency."

Even from within the ranks of the Communist Left this has been reflected in an unintentional (or intentional) paralysis,inertia,complacency,resistance-sometimes approaching outright denial-hostility towards the internalization of a motivating revolutionary sense of "Urgency"..
The result has been the same-an endless cycle of excuse making,retarding,sabotaging the growth of a significant stable ongoing Revolutionary movement within the Empire.
It does not surprise me at all to see the calculated distancing of some US Communists away from identification with,ideological solidarity-support of Lenin and Mao in what amounts to an objective historical attempt at negating the era of successful Communist revolutions in the 20th century,reverting back to the mostly pre-revolutionary period of Marx and Engels.
Sometimes,I wonder if there is even perhaps a subtle element of racism when I hear some on the Communist Left continually and conspicuously bending over backwards in an attempt to deny-rationalize a distancing away of themselves away from Chairman Mao Tse Tung ideological contributions and the overall significance of the GPCR.Believe it or not even self-identified Communists are capable of being racists..

Nevertheless,despite so many seemingly unpassable obstacles,Communists must be honest and ask themselves a deep question-

"How <i>urgently</i> do we want a revolution?".

I like what chicanofuturet said. Of course there are people without a historical sense of the past decade and those who have been inspired by other theorititions. But when dealing on a global level, these Maoist parties have made it clear we are all a force to take seriously if we wish that to happen. Some of us need to be that serious in order for revolution to happen, inside and outside the US.

Keith's post is a great critique of Lenin's theory of imperialism based on the 4 volumes of capital. Definitely interested in hearing the responses of people who are defenders of lenin's theory. Right on, Keith. Looking forward to reading more.

Speaking for myself, I by no means underestimate the significance of the GPCR. I think it was hugely significant and I think we have much to learn from studying Mao. Lenin too. But that doesn't mean all of their theories were correct or as universal as has often been claimed. Keith made a quite specific critique of Lenin's theory of imperialism and the response so far, rather than speaking to the substance of his argument is basically one of browbeating. "Urgency" is an argument for developing a correct line. It is not, however, an argument for a particular line. If the world situation is urgent, and it is, and Lenin's theory is wrong then it is equally urgent that we take the time necessary to rethink things so that we can advance on the basis of a correct theory.

With the important exception of South Asia, the ICM has been in retreat all over the planet for several decades. This fact alone I think suggests the inadequacy of the line that Chicanofuturet is claiming we need to rally around not on the basis of any argument, but simply on the basis of urgency.

Finally, while it is certainly true that self-identified communists are not immune to racism and also true that there has been an element of racism in how many Western Marxists responded to the contributions of the Chinese Revolution in general and Mao in particular, that the critical question remains one of the adequacy of the theories involved. This can only be determined by closely examining, discussing and debating those theories on their merits. (Deng Xiao Ping was Chinese too. Is my rejection of HIS views an expression of racism too?) Injecting a sweeping insinuation of racism into a theoretical debate in this way is highly unprincipled and really only serves to derail the debate.

I am curious what people think of Samir Amin's idea for a fifth pluralist internationale? this seems to me to be a better model for the 21st century than recreating another version of the third internationale. there is someething really tired and dated about this old comintern mode of presentation, vocabulary etc, altho the analysis is fine. my main question is this: if MLM has not succeeded in delivering the goods, as it hasn't, then why suppose that MLM will succeed in delivering a 'Communist future'? Samir Amin's idea of the fifth international seems to be more of the time, as it recognises complete ideological agreement among the oprressed/proleterian forces is not ever going to be possible.

This topic is one of historic significance.Infact several of the comments although raise valid points reflect the looseness of the grasps of Marxist Leninst Polemics.True there may have been serious erors but we have to learn from the experiences of Marx,Lenin and Mao who made an immortal theoretical contribution but for which the Bolshevik or Chinese Revolution s would not have succeededor the partial victory of the G.P.C.R.The G.P.C.R made an immortal contribution to Marxist-Lenist practice inspite of serious errors where achievements were made unsurpassed in the history of mankind and the working class gained democratic power as never before.However the personality cult of Mao and left sectarian trends defeated it.What was needed was broader avenues for debate ,criticism and dissent .

The Stalin era had gross errors with regartd to support of Chinese revolution,innocent party members killed,democratic opposition supressed but we cannot forget Com Stalin's immortal contribution of winning the World War and saving the 1st Socialist Stae with no supportinmg Socialist Country.Infact but for U.S.S.R.the Chinese revolution would not have succeeded.Kasama very losely asseses Com Stalin morally claiming that revisonism started in the mid 1930's and hardly understands the significance of Stalin's positive line ,but for which Socialism would have been dead and buried with the encircling of Imperialist powers.

Com.Mao 's theories can never be seperated from Marx and Lenin and it was Com Mao who dcefended Stalin as a graet revolutionaly who was 70 percent correct.Infact the views of several of the comments vaccilate towards Trotskyism.Infact the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement wa sinfested with such trends which helped defaet the Sendero Luminoso in Peru.

In the era of Leninism we are attacking the very basic foundations of the I.C.M by finding fault with Lenin's colonial thesis and study of Imperialism.Such theories were the bassi and foundation sof the Great Debate and the G.PCR and thus we can never seperate Mao's ideolgy from Lenin's.

Today we are at a stage when the Communist Movement worldwide is at an embryonic stage and it is premature to form a new International.Struggling against such trends wa sthe very basis of the line propounded by the late Harbhajan Singh Sohi who wrote against the Deng-Hua cliques revisionist 3 worlds theory in 1979.Arguably India is still not prepared to wage a Peoples War.

A very significant point was made by Stiofan when he reminds us that the C.C.P . even in the G.P.C.R.period never used the term 'Maoism' in place of Mao Tse Tung Thought.'This would be replacing the era of 'Imperialism ' which Com.Lenin discovered with 'Maoism.'MaoTse Tung Thought is a thesis but you cannot call it a new era in itself.Mao's 'continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the Proletariat was a development of Leninism to the highest level but not a new ism in itself nor was his military line of protracted Peoples War.

Since the fall of proletarian power in the C.C.P. there is no Socialist base in the World. History remembers that despite the achievement of C.P.C under Mao ,the party did not go towards establishing he Communist International or establishing an International Organisation. Instead it stressed for he Communist Parties of the camp to apply he universal truths of Marxism-Leninism in the concrete situation of their country. It emphasized that other countries should not copy the Chines Experience to-to but apply the Chinese experience in accordance to their own condition.The main reason for the C.P.C’s caution was

a .Imperialism was devising through its local regimes new forms of neo-colonial rule and only a native communist party could analsye and review such situations. An outside force could not grasp the concrete reality. Thus he necessity of political independence of each country’s communist party.

b.Chauvinistic tendencies may develop under Communist Parties .The more developed and advanced may act chauvinistically and deliver big-brother treatment to the less developed or successful parties.

c.The victory of a revolution in a country under the leadership of a Communist Party indicates that certain crucial contemporary problems of he revolutionary movement have been resolved by it ,and thus the experience can be passed on to Communist Parties of othe Countries.At presnt there is no such party in the World..The ideological political struggle against Oppurtunism withi the revolutionary Camp is fierce and bitter in each country.

A dialectical process involving unity of Communist Parties is required. Mutual exchange has to take place Actual experience should be shared, which would pave the ay for more advanced form s of collective positions on issues and ralying of more forces worldwide. Mutual Exchange and Common stands,bilaterally and laterally,,and multilateral platforms on the basis of the general line are required.

We have to defend the achievements in Socialist U.S.S.R from 1917-1956 and China from 1949-76 tooth and nail,inspite of errors and refute trends like multi-party system.I still wish some of the polemic writings on the International line by Comrade Harbhajan Singh Sohi were published in the Ksama debates which defends the proletarian revolutionary line.Today the Nepalese comrades have virtually capitulated to revisionism,the Peruvian revolution has received a major setback,the Indian Maoist movement (although the largest in the world)is vitiated with left sectarianism and possibly only the Phillines Communist party is following the correct trend.

A very valid point is the practice of mass line with regards to conditions of waging Peoples War and in implementing Peoples War.After Com Gonzalo made a historic contribution in succesfully launching the greatest peoples War since the Chinese revolution in Peru but after he was arrested in 1992 the movement received a setback which has virtually been defeated today.From 1980 to 1991 the Sendero Luminoso was the greatest peoples war staged applying mass line with Co.Guzman making great innovative contribution with regards to the Peoples Guerilla army adapting to the urban areas and overall development of Peoples War theory.

Today,the C.P.I(Maoist) is carrying out a major movement In the areas of Jharkhand, Bihar and Dandkaraya. Any Maoist critique must applaud their effort.To have created such bastions of revolutionary struggle in Andhra Pradesh,Jharkhand,Bihar and Dandkaranya is an achievement of historical proportions. In Lalgarh they made great efforts to enhance the movement.Base areas have yet to be created but with great tenacity they have defended their guerilla zones. The fact that they have heroically resisted the enemy forces f or a period of 30 years and form a Central Peoples Guerilla army to become the strongest Maoist party in the World when no Socialist Country in the World exists and when the forces of globalization are acting as tentacles is one of the greatest achievements in the annals of the world Communist Movement.Armed struggle is a debatable issue but the Current line of the C.P.I(Maoist)is plagued with defective trends towards the building of military political power.There is also an erroneous concept towards the building of mass organisations and their relationship with the party and mass organisations are virtually formed as Front organisations nad hardly given an independent identity.the military line has shades of Che Guevera’s focoist tendency.. Historically there is a difference between revolutionary base areas and guerilla zones.Quoting Mao’s writings on military line, “When guerilla Warfare began,the guerillas could not completely occupy the places ,but could only make frequent raids,,they are areas which are held by the guerilla forces when they are present and the by the puppet regime when they are gone.Thus they are not guerilla bases but zones.These zones can be converted into bases by consolidating guerilla warfare and after large portions of enemy troops have been annihilated,and the puppet regime destroyed..The mass organsiations also formed as well as peoples local armed forces.The extent to which the enemy is destroyed is the vital factor.“ The C.P.I. (Maoist). in implementation of line often confused the difference between forming a guerilla zone and a base area. Today the trend is similar. In their zones they retaliate and defend their areas through their guerilla squad actions and are not able to replenish their losses. They do not have sufficient support of the broad masses. There is insufficient development of mass agrarian revolutionary struggle and revolutionary democratic movement.A maoist mass military line has not been built.For many a action there is lack of adequate preparation of agrarian revolutionary Movement. What was defective was the nature of squad actions not properly evaluating the co-relation of the enemy with the masses..Over-emphasis has been placed on armed struggle without combining effective mass struggles. To a considerable extent the military actions reflect anarchist tendencies and have not adhered to a the maoist mass military line Today it’s all India Front the Revolutionary Democratic Front can hardly function openly like the A.I.P.R.F could earlier.I t has been dealt a severe blow In states like Orissa and West Bengal,and is for all moral purposes banned in states of armed MovementS.Unable to withstand the counter-onslaught of the state the mass organizations of such groups were virtually crushed and forced to function underground.Now mass struggle is completely substituted by armed Struggle.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.



It is worth studying the writings of Comrades like Tarimala Nagi Reddy and Devulipalli Venkateshwara Rao against the Charu Mazumdar Military line,in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.Remarkable work wa sdone t shape the Srikaulam armed struggle.The Formation of the Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Commitee of Communist Revolutionaries has great significance in the light of developing the mass line as well as that of the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India in 1975.Similarly Com.Harbhajan Sohi refuted the Charu Mazumdar line and led the Punjab Co-ordination Commitee which provided the leadership line for the Punjab Students Union .

On Armed struggle I am quoting the views of Coms D.V.Rao and Tarimala Nagi Reddy who refuted the Charu Mazumdar Line.

“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.”



Com.D.V. Rao upheld the military line of the Telenagana Armed Struggle and in the late 1970’s deferred the formation of the Red Army without adequate development of Agrarian revolutionary Movement.

The deep study and the historic lessons drawn out of this study shall guide the 21st Century revolutionary movements in each country. The toiling masses and the youth across the globe should arm themselves with basic marxist thought and the efforts to build and develop the first phase of socialist societies. They should also learn scientifically the reasons and how they collapsed or reversed. Even though I respect and attach lot of respect for the great contributions of the revolutionary personalities, I do not like naming revolutionary parties after specific personalities whether MARX, LENIN or MAO. It is the people along wit their leaders, strategists, theoriticians etc. are the combined motive forces of the revolutionary vehicle. Change and revolution is a combination of vision, sacrifice and peoples participatory initiative.
The Indian left has as many theories as the number of disgruntled leaders and arm chair theoriticians.
Similarly there were and are short cut slogan loving revolutionary emotionalists who overnight sell themselves to the capitalist chieftans.
The Communist Party of India(Maoist)stands as a beacon light, a hope to Indian toiling masses. One thing is it is willing and ready to listen to the people who invite change,who invite justice to the working class, who are willing to expose the capitalists from inside and outside.
Its utterly wrong to say that they do not have a mass base.
Its the ruthless supression of all such civil and democratic space by the most cunning Indian ruling classes and their revisionist supporters of all shades is the real fact - they are learning how to rebuild this massbase in towns and cities, in lower middle classes. They have gone through the process of grave mistakes, the best of peoples' movements, greatest sacrifices, but they never lost their revolutionary vision and moved out of revolutionary path.
It is the application of marxism for each individual society and country by the revolutionary forces under a desciplined and commited party is what is again required. This is what we can visulaize from variuos emerging peoples'uprisings.
Genuine communist thinkers across the globe shall discuss and put forward scientific arguments regarding LENIN /STALIN/MAO in the spirit of developing international communist movement and working class power.
The essential thing is to practice revolution in the best of times and the worst of times and fight revisionism all the time.

ohh!!...india is not a semi feudal-semi colony country ... Indian Maoist are silent on every debate in countrysides marxist circles... they even not know the difference b/w guerilla zone and a base area (see Jagalnama.. prominent novel of maiost movement in india's bastar region)... enen where these maoist are fighting, there is nothing like feudalism or feudal lord..they are figjing with state... in the 90 persent area of india, they have not any work.. although they are working from 80's.. for them revolution means continuing battle, .. what not THINK on it..!!...they only know "copy and paste"...

yasmin and zoloft valtrex and liver oxycontin x26 percocet metformin prolonged release viagra a 18 ans

<a href="/http://google.com" rel="nofollow">google</a> froogle blah blah blah