15 sep 2013

Is François Hollande a “neo-fascist”, as says the CP of India (Maoist)?

Submitted by Anonyme (non vérifié)

Is François Hollande a “neo-fascist”? Of course, not. Such an affirmation is ridiculous, because as we know there are contradictions among the bourgeoisie, with different fractions.

The French president François Hollande is a “modernist”, representing a fraction of the bourgeoisie which wants the traditional accord with the imperialist USA, whereas as we know, Marine Le Pen represents the most aggressive part of the bourgeoisie, which advocates for an “all alone” line, more or less in relationship with Berlin and Moscow.

Therefore, François Hollande is a traditional holder of bourgeois democracy, whereas Marine Le Pen goes precisely in the direction of neo-fascism.

It is clear that speaking of François Hollande as a “neo-fascist” means hiding the real fascism of which this modernist is an objective ally. It is an error, which was classical in the 1970's with the conception of “modern fascism”, with fascism coming from “within” the state.

Unfortunately, if we speak about this erroneous interpretation of François Hollande a a “neo-fascist”, it is because it was explained by the Communist Party of India (Maoist), in a document published on the 5th of September and called “War-monger Obama! Your dirty hands off Syria! The right to decide the future of Syria lies with and only with the Syrian people, not with imperialists or any one else! Oppose strongly the neo-Nazi US led imperialist aggression on Syria!”

In this document, the ultra-democratic trend of the CPI (M) is maybe more visible than ever. In seven pages, the word “class” comes only two times, to speak of the “US ruling classes”.

We don't find neither the word “class struggle” nor “people's war”, neither “Maoism” nor “Marxism”, neither “semi-colonial” nor “semi-feudal”.

Instead of that, it is spoken about:

“The neo-Hitler Obama”

“The imperialists led by the neo-Nazi US have tightened their dragnet around Syria”

“France under the neo-fascist Francois Hollande”

“The ruling and opposition parties (monopoly capitalists and their marionette) in imperialist countries never have any major dispute about their ‘right to strike' any country.”

“The world capitalist system is bogged down in an all-encompassing financial crisis. Wars of aggression are also being resorted to apart from bailouts and increasing ruthless loot of resources from the resource-rich ‘backward’ countries of the world.”

It is blank anti-imperialist populism, because Hollande is not “neo-fascist” and Obama not a Hitler; they are imperialists and it is already enough to condemn more totally.

Moreover, this is Luxemburgism, not Marxism. It is Rosa Luxemburg's conception that the origin of the growth of capitalism comes from the conquest of non capitalist areas.

But the wars of aggression are not “chosen” - capitalism doesn't think. Wars of aggression, imperialist wars, are the natural product of the expansion of capitalism. The expansion of capitalism in each imperialist country makes that the contradictions grow between these countries, making then a leap to imperialist war.

And this expansion means also, and this the other side, the general crisis of capitalism because of the fall of the rate of profit.

It is easy to see that it is not the conception of the CP of India (Maoist), which has a vision of an unified imperialist system, which is the same as the revisionists ans the neo-revisionists.

Imperialists, in the eyes of the CP of India (Maoist), means “aggression” and “loot”, done by “conscious” capitalists trying to overcome their own problems. It is very different from the teachings of Marx in the Capital; it is a subjectivist trend, as so we are not surprised to read in the document that:

“The imperialists are thinking they are amassing wealth but what they are actually piling up is the hatred and anger of the oppressed masses of the world in abundance with their every act of aggression and loot.”

According this line, “anti-imperialism” would be the mechanical product of the behavior of the imperialists, and revolution comes mechanically:

“Since the past century the imperialists have been resorting to fascism and war to overcome their financial crises and people have been resorting to resistance and revolution to oppose and defeat them.

The material conditions are turning more and more favorable for revolution in the world and our party calls upon the people of our country and the world to make successful revolutions. Only through revolutionary revolutions we can put an end to all imperialist and unjust wars and ensure world peace. “

This goes so with a strange interpretation of Syria's regime's nature: this regime would be neither good nor bad, but would play a kind of progressive role in opposing to “the imperialists, particularly the US and Israel” (which would means by the way that the zionist state is imperialist, which is again not Marxist).

The document of the CP of India (Maoist) explains:

“Syria has been consistent in its opposition to US-Israel imperialist interventions and designs in West Asia.”

“Though Assad had declared that they would oppose any kind of imperialist aggression this would be successful only when it is be done by mobilizing the people and relying on them. It is equally true that no regimes can mobilize the people or gain their support against imperialist aggression unless people enjoy democracy.”

This is an interpretation of Syria's regime as a kind of anti-imperialist national state; there is also no rejection of Russia and China as imperialist powers, and of course, the CP of India (Maoist) doesn't consider Syria as semi-colonial semi-feudal, as a fascist country.

It is even said that:

“Russia and China have been supporting the Assad government consistently till date and have opposed any kind of armed imperialist intervention or attack on Syria.”

This is a joke: Russia and China are not opposed to an “ armed imperialist intervention or attack”, but to an armed intervention or attack of others imperialists. This is the huge difference.

This position of the CP of India (Maoist) is, of course, not a surprise; it is a trend that can be seen since long, for example in the CPI (ML) People's War.

Nevertheless it is still shocking to see the affirmation of an imperialist world system in a country that faced in the 1960's-1980's precisely both pressure of the imperialist USA and the social-imperialist USSR.

In the same way, the imperialists divide to conquer, as India knows it very well because of the imperialists game made to weak and to split the masses through the religious question. It is sad that nothing is said here about how imperialists are using religious communities one against the other.

And what a shame about the conference to support the People's War in India held in Hamburg, Germany, in November 2012 under the banner “Lal Salam” written in... hindi. Hindi, the language of the “center”, of the central government, when the Maoists in India struggle also for the national recognition of all the peoples.

Even a democratic Bollywood movie would put at least urdu with it (i.e. hindustani or better said the version in Arabic script)!

This is all very decadent, and if we put the post-modernist writer Arundhati Roy in the middle of it, we have here a bad vision of the wealth of the Indian revolution. In considering that the semi-colonial aspect is the main one, and not the semi-feudal, the Indian Maoists have moved always more to an “anti-imperialist” ultra-democratic trend.