5 nov 2012

Are avakianism and prachandism the same? The error of the MPP

Submitted by Anonyme (non vérifié)

The MPP is the Peru's People's Movement, organism generated by the Communist Party of Peru for the work abroad. It organized a conference in Madrid a couple of days ago, and took a firm position against what is called new revisionism.

It looks like the come back to the “good old” MPP, who demolishes ideologically the revisionists, calling to the People's War in each country, like we saw it in the 1990's.

But as each thing has two aspects, a question must be risen here. Because the problem is the following and easy to understand: the MPP did not produce an ideological criticism of prachandism.

During the period where Prachanda and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) took the lead of the maoist international structure, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), the MPP did not react openly.

The MPP rejected open criticism as a method which would not be correct. Moreover, the MPP produced numerous common documents with Rossoperaio / Maoist Communist Party of Italy, which became the central organizer of centrism.

Because of the lack of open criticism of Prachanda, it has been others revolutionary structures which opened the fire. The CPMLM [France] criticized Prachanda as early as September 2005, but anyway numerous others organisations criticized prachandism, like the Union of Revolutionary Communists (MLM) of Chile and of course the UOC (MLM) (Communist Worker Union) of Colombia.

The UOC (MLM) took the lead, at the international level, of the rejection of prachandism. Expressions of this were the first of May appeal in 2011, or of course the call of December 2011: THE INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF THE COMMUNISTS REQUIRES THE DEFEAT OF REVISIONISM AND CENTRISM!

The MPP has totally miss this, and it has to accept this. The line of not making a public criticism to prachandism did not help at all. The fact of “forgetting” the existence of a criticism of prachandism openly made is not correct neither.

And because of this, the MPP makes the mistake nowadays of explaining that avakianism and prachandism are, finally, the same thing. This is not true and ideologically wrong.

The Avakian faction - RCP, USA; Sarbedaran; TKP/ML Maoist Merkezi - led the Committee of the RIM, but was replaced by the pro-Prachanda faction (Rossoperaio that became Maoist Communist Party of Italy, TKP(ML) that became MKP of Turkey – North Kurdistan, RCP of Canada).

Then, the Prachandists just gave up the RIM, and the Maoist Communist Party of Italy decided to rebuild it.

There never was an avakianist-prachandist unified faction. There was a major change in the RIM due to the hegemony of the CPN (Maoist) and Prachanda.

But the MPP does not recognize this. The MPP, in fact, has the same line about the RIM as in 1992, as the Communist Party of Peru considered itself as the red fraction in the RIM, whereas the RCP USA and Avakian were considered as the black line.

But things changed totally: the avakianist faction lost its position, and in the process of prachandist hegemony, there was anyway no RIM anymore.

Of course, avakianism and prachandism looks quite the same, and forms both what must be called New Revisionism. The MPP has certainly right: once that the question of Direction – Jefatura – is understood, there is no place for New Revisionism, and prachandism is quite the same as avakianism: ideological eclecticism, ultra-democratism, etc. etc.

But there are differences, and we have to see them, what the MPP does not and there is a political reason for that: the MPP focuses unilaterally on avakianism, because it missed the struggle against prachandism.

And because it missed the struggle against prachandism, it misses the struggle against centrism, i.e. the faction that did not break in a complete manner with prachandism, that refused to denounce Prachandism until the last moment, that has spread illusion on a “red faction” in the revisionist Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

But how can something new be born without a proper historical materialist approach? Is it scientific to “forget” the UOC MLM, to “forget” the numerous attacks endured by the Odio de Clase Collective, because of its rejection of prachandism?


No, this is not correct.

And during the hegemony of Prachandism and the time just after, those who refused Centrism were sharply under attack. The MPP did not defend them, and now it is “forgetting” this period of history of the International Communist Movement.

So, what can we do? We can have the same fear like before: in the past, the MPP tolerated centrism, so that it can be in a Maoist international centre, as a “red fraction”, like before in the RIM.

That is why, whereas the RIM was already dead in the 2000's, the MPP called to a conference of the RIM, two line struggle in the RIM, etc. The RIM was like a fetish.

But life always triumphs. The RIM divided in a post-Maoist pro-Avakian faction and in a faction organized around the Maoist Communist Party of Italy (the “Maoist Road” project).

Either the “Maoist Road” project is correct, and then their call to an international Maoist Conference, without a base determined in advance, is what is needed, to unify all Maoist currents and structures.

Or, there is the need first to refuse centrism in the question of prachandism. But it is the position of the 2011 call THE INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF THE COMMUNISTS REQUIRES THE DEFEAT OF REVISIONISM AND CENTRISM! which was useful, and this need to be say.

Of course, it is possible that the MPP brings much more than that. But to exist ideologically, this proposal must be slot in political reality.