August 22,
2022
Proletarians of all countries, unite!
Critique of the Maoist Communist Party
of Italy, again
You call our critique “A hysterical
attack to the Maoist Communist Party of Italy” and further
you declare that it is a “concentrate
of insults, subjective judgments, arbitrary and vulgar criticisms, falsehood,
without a precise political purpose except to attack our party”. Well, friends, maybe the tone is a bit harsh, but our critique is quite
precise and in no way hysterical. We are very concerned about the evils that
are going on, but we know that the left will prevail, worldwide, also in Italy,
also in your organization. Therefore, we understand our criticism rather as an
encouragement for this left to take up the struggle. In the whole world and in
all countries, that is generally our approach. That you call this hysterical
shows us that you are only trying to denigrate those within your ranks who
converge with our positions or even agree with them completely.
This is a very bad way of conducting the internal two-line struggle [you
yourselves make this reference: “words of Chairman Mao: ‘ … in inner-party criticism, guard
against subjectivism, arbitrariness and the vulgarization of criticism;
statements should be based on facts and criticism should center on politics’ ”; our emphasis; ci-ic.org] and this has hereby become obvious to everyone.
You write “it is fully
evident from our writing that by revolutionary theory we mean the
Marxism-LeninismMaoism, including the Mao’s developments on the party related
to the other two revolutionary instruments (the United Front and the People’s
Army). For any reader in good faith who knows our writings (and the comrades
do), it is also clear, by reading the complete quotation, that there is no
opposition between the contributions of Lenin and those of Mao in our
statement.” and this, unfortunately, is simply
not true. “Lenin
demonstrated with the victory of the Socialist October Revolution that this is
the only way to transform the imperialist war into a socialist revolution.” Again: “the only
way”. The only means there is no other. That you
now clarify that you (allegedly) meant otherwise does not change the
correctness of our criticism. It causes confusion. Formulations in political
documents express content, express politics, ideology and they are not, as art,
subject to interpretation. There are those who seek to oppose Maoism through
the denial of the People’s War as the universal military strategy of the
proletariat, and they do so by counterposing it with the so-called “October
road”. Your May Day document converges exactly with this. If you now think that
this was not done in bad faith, then it is at least sloppiness.
Our dear Italian friends state:
“The document
turns out to be an ‘improved’ version of the letter shortly before sent to our
Party by one of the parties belonging the fraction gathered around IC,”
The PCm Italy seems to accuse the existence of forces behind the CI-IC.
Yes, once more our friends are fully correct, the CI-IC is not another internet
page devoted to virtual or imaginary polemics, it is a propaganda organ with
tight links with the masses of the international proletariat and with the
communists who struggle for their reunification in the world, it is an
achievement, a result of a long process to impulse the development of the
International Communist Movement (ICM) by the Maoists.
Our simple and committed work, which we acknowledge that still suffer from
limitations and shortcomings, have achieved important results – like making the
Campaign for Maoism resound and to enlace the communists who were dispersed in
the most diverse latitudes, from Vietnam, China, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Morocco,
etc and to develop the support to the People’s Wars in the world.
CI-IC have opened a Tribune for the Debate, where it is published all the
critical positions to the proposition for Bases of Discussion written by the
CUMIC, in addition to the critical answers and comments that altogether are
more than a thousand pages.
In this sense, our Italian friends are right when pointing out the
differences between CI-IC and MaoistRoad. The MaoistRoad Blog is a blog which has no trace of initiative, or any ballast with the real
movement of the international proletariat and oppressed peoples of the world.
We ask ourselves, why has the “non-sectarian” Italian blog MaoistRoad not published any of the statements defending the proposition of the proposition
for Bases for Discussion, like the one written by the comrades from the
Communist Maoist Party of Spain, or by the comrades from the Communist Party of
Colombia – Red Fraction?
In this blog, when a document from a party does not please their editor, it
comes out with the stamp “for debate”. We would ask: which debate? An unaware
reader could consider that the editors of such blog would publish a critiscism
to the referred article afterwards, showing its mistakes and defending the
basic principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. To act like that would be to help
those who made mistakes to correct the path. To act like that would be to
safeguard unity of the International Communist Movement (ICM). However, those
who have dedicated themselves to follow the publications of the referred blog
could testify that these documents are unanswered, or even uncommented.
To what correspond the methods of the editors of MaoistRoad? This method consist in publishing the materials that interest them and to
simply put a negative seal on those that dissent from them, despite hiding the
documents that do not correspond to their interests, to avoid at all costs the
debate. How should this attitude be qualified?
A less important success, but also meaningful, of CI-IC was to allow groups
like the PCm Italy to move away from their previous position that “no two line
struggle could take place before the International Conference” and break with
their isolation and to participate in the debates of the ICM.
For some time, the Italian comrades accuse us of sectarianism, of
factionalism and of having formed a “bloc”. Our Italian friends seem to have
not understood the true meaning of the words factionalism and sectarianism.
Chairman Mao has described “sectarianism” as a policy of “closed doors”, as
the attitude of a “small sect that considers itself unfailing”. The Great Lenin
defined factionalism as “nominal
recognition of unity and actual disunity”. Let us
examine a little more carefully the problem of “sectarianism” and
“factionalism” in the ICM.
A great part of the revolutionaries nowadays have not participated or do
not know the two-line struggle that has been developed in the last decades of
the ICM. There are those who took part directly or indirectly in these
struggles, but who have forgotten its main lessons or that, after many years,
have a blurred and even distorted vision of those events. For these ones, it is
also necessary to remember or to make some basic questions of the recent
experience of the ICM be remembered.
All those who minimally know the principles of Marxism and the history of
the struggle for maoism in the last four decades know perfectly that the
struggle against revisionism and for reunifying the ICM is closely intertwined
with the struggle against the sectarian, factional, and dogmatic tendencies and
different opportunist positions, never forgetting that revisionism is the main
danger.
The liquidation of the RIM in the beginning of the 2000s, by the combined
action of Avakian’s and Prachanda’s revisionism and their accomplices, deepened
the dispersion of the forces of the ICM. In that period, the dispersion of
forces was characterized as the main problem and revisionism was the main
danger.
The Great Lenin have warned us that factionalism in the proletarian
movement was characterized by a period in which the proletarian movement was
united at the base, but facing any serious problem, the two fractions would
elaborate two different tactics. The dispersion of forces, sectarianism and
factionalism was a distinctive feature of the last decade of the 20th century
and the first decade of the 21st century.
Dispersion has its origin in the vile action of revisionism and opportunism
in dividing the international proletarian movement. However, it is necessary to
repeat that the action of revisionism is the source, but not the cause for the
dispersion. The overcoming of the dispersion was, and still is, a supreme duty
for those who assume the left line in the ICM. Therefore, it was, and still is,
urgent and necessary to raise the level of the two-line struggle within the
ICM, to overcome and break with the wrong methods that are contrary to
democratic centralism (sectarianism, hegemonist mentality, the doctrine of
father party, etc.) and that have contributed to its weakening.
In that period, the sect spirit, the policy of closed doors and unity
without principles represented a serious obstacle for the two-line struggle to
be able to be raised to a new level so that the dispersion could be overcome.
The overcoming of the dispersion of forces in the ICM demands the achievement
of real, ideological, political, organizational, theoretical, and practical
unity forged in class struggle.
In 2012, your Party, together with the C(m)PA and the CPI-ML (Naxalbari)
held a meeting that published a declaration called “special resolution”. This
document was a step forward in showing the will of breaking with the sectarian
attitude of closed doors originated from the RIM, however, unfortunately, as
history testifies after 10 years, and as some of its protagonists have
acknowledged, this initiative was nothing but a intention letter without any
real consequence.
As it is publicly known, since 2009, there were held Five Meetings of
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organizations from Latin America, a
Conference of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organizations of America,
Seven Meetings of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organizations of Europe,
in addition to dozens of meetings. From these events, a series of coordination
and campaigns were set in motion which concentrates thousands of unified
actions in dozens of countries. These meetings, with a previously prepared
agenda, took weeks to approach theoretical and practical aspects of the ICM,
raising the ideological and political struggle on fundamental problems of the
world proletarian revolution. Communist parties and organizations from the
whole world have participated on these meetings and campaigns, from Chile to
India, from Canada to Finland.
As part and resulting from this process, the ICM has experienced an
important impulse in the last decades with the emergence of new forces and a
further development of forces that were already persisting. This was a real
answer to the liquidation of the RIM and a solid step in overcoming the
dispersion of forces in the ICM and in combating revisionism as the main
danger. The situation of the unification and coordination of Maoist forces in
continents like America and Europe by itself has completely changed, and the
communists in these regions could impulse and strengthen their efforts in a
unified way. This is a great success.
Your Party was repeatedly invited to take part on many of these events, and
what was your attitude on that? As it is known, your party has repeatedly
rejected to get together and work with those who dissent from you and to put
the problems on the table to be discussed. How should one call this attitude,
if not the policy of closed doors?
On the contrary, your Party started to advocate the alien criteria that all
debate previous to the UMIC would be harmful to the unity of the ICM. As
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism teaches us, true unity can only be achieved through
struggle. Two-line struggle serves to achieve and defend unity among communists
and not the opposite. Only revisionism and opportunism could be against
two-line struggle. This criteria made us think that your party have not yet
healed from the ideological hangover of Prachandaism, of its “two combine into
one”, or the “theory of fusion”, to which you were such an eager defender.
On the contrary to taking part on these initiatives and serving its
development, supporting the new forces, your Party started to dedicate itself
each time more to disqualify and insult all the initiatives to which you
disagreed.
On this spirit, your Party has promoted a meeting on January 2020, whose
sole real aim was to oppose those who advanced in unity. We ask which is the
real unity, if not nominal, among those participating in that meeting? What
were the practical effects for class struggle and the struggle for the
unification of the communists? What was made out of the (nominal) committee
that was approved by it? Wouldn’t it get in contact with the hegemonist and
sectarian attitudes of your Party? We would tell you that what you call “bloc”
is a true unity, and the definition of factionalism made by the great Lenin
“nominal acknowledgment of unity and fraction in reality” seems perfectly fit
to designate the meeting of January 2020 promoted by your Party.
However, we consider that these questions do not constitute the gravest
ones and the essence of our divergence. The true conception of the PCm Italy
reveals itself in their position on the ICM and the People’s Wars in the wolrd.
You affirm:
“We remind the
comrades of IC that ‘the standards in the International Communist Movement’ are
not established by our subjective desires but by the concrete and
objective experience synthesized by the highest development of our ideology,
MLM with at its peak the experience of the Communist Party of China and the
Chinese masses in the GCPR. All this has already been synthesized by
Chairman Mao in his writings and not by Chairman Gonzalo and the PCP, who
instead creatively applied MLM to the concrete reality of Peru, particularly
through the launch and development of the People’s War. In addition, some
standards can also be established in a conjunctural way by the most advanced
subjective force of the ICM itself, as long as they are not in contradiction
with MLM.”
You continue to affirm:
“The point is:
how to define what is the most advanced subjective force established based on
objective criteria? In the aftermath of October Revolution it was evident: the
only party in power had such a responsibility. After the Chinese Revolution and
the raise to power of revisionism in the USSR, it was just as easy to
understand who should play this role. In the current stage, with not any
Communist Party in power, such standards should be collectively established in
an appropriate venue (a large and representative International Conference of
MLM parties and organizations, or an International Organization as large and
representative as the RIM could have been before its collapse). In this
context, the parties leading People’s Wars and therefore having condensed a
higher understanding than the others should be particularly taken into
consideration. These parties are today the Communist Party of India (Maoist)
and the Communist Party of the Philippines, which lead the People’s Wars and
the TKP / ML which leads an armed struggle in the path of the People’s War.”
We reject your version of the (temporary?) end of history with the end of
the GPCR. You claim: “the concrete and objective experience sygthesized by the
highest development of our ideology, MLM with at its peak the experience of the
Communist Party of China and the Chinese masses in the GCPR. All this has
already been synthesized by Chairman Mao” We are not aware of any corresponding
documents from Chairman Mao or the CPCh. A simple assertion on your part is not
enough for us, cannot be enough for anyone. We would like to clarify that the
issue of synthesis has been dealt with frequently and incorrectly even by us.
The point is: Chairman Gonzalo has defined Maoism. You are free to see it
differently, but then please explain to us who should have done it, or if you
think,that it is not necessary, because Maoism is not really anything new. If
you explain “some standards can also be established in a conjunctural way by
the most advanced subjective force of the ICM itself, as long as they are not
in contradiction with MLM”, then you claim at least implicitly that there has
been no such development, ergo end of history, for 46 years. We are surprised
that you think there could be “most advanced subjective forces of the ICM”,
which are “in contradiction with MLM”. We do not believe that there can be such
a thing. Not in the sense you mean, contradiction as something negative,
destructive and not as positive, creative.
From where does such a point of view come from? Our Italian friends reveal
themselves as true heirs of the realpolitik of the revisionist Togliatti and
not of the Marxist-Leninist leader Antonio Gramsci.
Our friends mix truths with forgery to confuse the international
proletariat. Its document obscures the truth on the relation between the
objective and subjective factors. It is not up to discussion for a Marxist that
practice constitutes the criteria for truth.
With the counterrevolutionary coup of Deng Xiaoping in 1976, capitalism was
restored in China and the CPCh was converted into a fascist Party; this meant
that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ceased to be the highest point –
so far – of the World Revolution? After 1976, the ICM should have opened a
“great debate” “on the mistakes of Chairman Mao” (Avakian style) or rather the
flag of Chairman Mao should be hoisted even higher? Was it not precisely from
the defense and application of the principles of Chairman Mao that the People’s
Wars in Peru, India, the Philippines and Turkey were raised?
But, something else, regarding the GPCR in China, although it was the
highest point of the Chinese revolution, at the moment it is not on the agenda,
because at the moment there is no socialist country, so it will again be the
most important thing in perspective; now, what is on the agenda in the ICM is
the definition of Maoism, the people’s war, the new democratic revolution, the
socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, the
Italian friends, what they seek with this kind of argumentation is to divert us
from the discussion and our present tasks.
We still ask you if was it not essentially the same program that was
defeated in 1905 which has triumphed in 1917 in Russia? After the defeat of
1905, the revolutionaries should invalidate the principles of Lenin or, as they
did, uphold, defend and apply, mainly apply, and thereby developing? Why should
that attitude be adopted now with the People’s War in Peru that persists after
it has suffered a hard blow? What happens, dear comrades, is that class struggle,
revolutions, that are true generate a powerful counterrevolution and its course
is neither a straight line nor punctual.
Following the same criteria that was established above by your Party, it is
curious that you erect yourselves as authority in other’s People’s Wars.
According to what we know, your organization is 30 years old and according to
what we could know there is not and there was not a People’s War, nor anything
similar in that period, despite that in your country there is one of the most
important experiences of armed struggle in imperialist countries, during the
years of 1960-1970. according to what we could deduce, your direct experience
comes from decades of peaceful unionist struggles.
However, our Italian friends affirm:
“The desire of
every revolutionary that a defeat never happened in Peru (as well as in Nepal)
cannot replace the harsh reality of the facts. We cannot uphold something that
does not exist, this is dialectical materialism, comrades, deal wth it! What is
useful to the ICM, as Marxism (Marx in particular) teaches us, is, on the one
hand, to understand the defeat and, on the other hand, to start over even when
everything seems lost (as Gramsci said). We wish that the revolutionaries in
Peru re-found the Communist Party of Peru and resume the path of the People’s
War, strengthened by experience and having assimilated the positive experiences
and taking stock of the temporary defeat of the People’s War.
This is evident for any coherent
MLM, but perhaps the fraction of IC has an interest in ‘keeping artificially
alive’ the People’s War in Peru for their own purposes and being trafficker
with a People’s War that does not exist and with a Communist Party of Peru
whose sources have been unknown for years, in order to attribute a certain
authority to themselves, establishing an erroneous equivalence between a
generated organism now devoid of any authority (the so-called MPP) and the
generating organism and ‘transforming’ the first into the second with the same
mystifying method with which their ‘criticisms’ are written.”
Likewise, your Party aims to affirm that what exist in Turkey is not
People’s War, but only an “armed struggle in the path of the People’s War.”
We ask you, how have you reached such a conclusion on the end of the
People’s War in Peru? Once more, we are not aware of the existence of possible
Italian delegates that lived on the mountain ranges or poor neighborhoods of
Peru, but according to what you yourselves have affirmed, this definition seems
to be based on the following criteria:
“If it is
possible to have news of armed actions and in general of the People’s Wars in
India, the Philippines and Turkey and of the parties that lead them, for some
years now there has been no news of the actual existence of the People’s War in
Peru or of the Communist Party of Peru.”
The existence of a thing is not dependent on any articles in the bourgeois
press about it or your confirmation or perception of its existence, nor does
the existence of a thing end by you claiming it does not exist. This is
materialism. You claim to be “partisans of the launch and development of
people’s wars in all countries”, in fact you sit in your comfy office chairs
and sit in judgment on those who are really in combat.
It is no secret in the ICM that the People’s War in Peru faces a complex
and hard moment. Have not the People’s Wars in Turkey, India or the Philippines
also faced similar situations? Have not the revolutions in China or in Russia
also been declared dead (by their enemies) before they could reemerge? What
should be the attitude of true communists before a party that have handed over
the best contributions and efforts to the ICM, when they announce they have
entered in a process of general reorganization, if not to dedicate all energy
to support them?
The hard struggle developed by communists, combatants, and masses in the
mountains, in prisons, and in the poor neighborhoods who pay with blood for
keeping hoisted the glorious flag of the People’s War in Peru or Turkey seems
to not fit the filter of the specialists of “PCm Italy” who, while converging
with the propaganda of imperialism, the reaction and revisionism, hurry up to
attest the end of the People’s War. This treacherous attitude is not only a
crime, but it is also a warning for the future.
The communists are not like summer moths who are fascinated by the light of
lamps. The true proletarian revolutionaries work in the shadows of the
searchlights, in the daily work among the masses, in which the Party and the
Revolution lives. To the Italian communists who want to struggle, we assure
you, the People’s War in Peru, in the midst a thousand difficulties, have not
stopped for a second. The communists are still combating for the General
Reorganization of the Party, take the time it takes, as it was taught by
Chairman Mao “to go back to Yenan” once more and a thousand times if necessary.
The “Pulcinella secret” of the Italian friends is that the “great
assessment” on the People’s War in Peru that they propose is the same of the
Right Opportunist Line of Peru, to attack Chairman Gonzalo, Gonzalo Thought,
the First Congress, to liquidate the People’s War, to affirm that Peru is not
semi-feudal anymore, laying the basis for the rotten parliamentary path.
The true communists cannot fear the two line struggle, this one can only
serve the aims of the international proletariat. This is why we cannot but to
greet the open debate. We hope that the initiative of the Italian comrades of getting
out of their previous position (of no discussion, no two line struggle) and
taking active role in the two line struggle, to be coherent and put an end to
their fractional and closed doors policies.
Continue Reading
PreviousFrederick
Engels – Introduction to Dialectics of Nature