At the occasion of the 10th birthday of People’s War initiation in Nepal, Prachanda granted an interview to the reactionary newspaper “The Hindu”, which published it on February 10.
Prachanda explains there at length the new positions of the CP of Nepal (Maoist), which go against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, as Prachanda himself recognizes : “ We feel we have contributed to the ideological development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.”
This “development” consists of the conceptions that the guidance by the sole Communist Party must be abolished and that Socialism must yield the place to Democracy. Let’s study them.
1. According to Prachanda, the Communist Party does not have to lead and should compete with the other political parties.
“We want to analyse the experience of revolution and counter-revolution in the 20th century on a new basis.
Three years ago we took a decision in which we said how are we going to develop democracy is the key question in the 21st century. This meant the negative and positive lessons of the 20th century have to be synthesised in order for us to move ahead.
And three years ago we decided we must go in for political competition. Without political competition, a mechanical or metaphysical attitude will be there. So this time, what we decided is not so new.
In August, we took serious decisions on how practically to build unity with the parliamentary political parties. We don’t believe that the people’s war we initiated was against, or mainly against, multiparty democracy. It was mainly against feudal autocracy, against the feudal structure.”
This thesis opposes the communist conception. The communist ideology wants to abolish the State and its approach is scientific, there is no time for “competition”.
On the other hand, Prachanda’s thesis links with Thorez’s one in his revisionist interpretation of People’s Democracies in Eastern Europe:
“There was no abrupt nor brutal transition to another system. There is a phenomenon which we have to study and think about: the working class power, the power exerted in the name of the working class and of the people, by a Communist Party which would not be alone, but which could unite other parties; that also appeared in our Xe Congress theses.
Like in Poland, like in Yugoslavia, this power is exerted as the parliamentary forms remain.”
2. Acoording to Prachanda, the principle of “communist direction” is wrong.
“That when we go for state power and are in power, then we will not do what Stalin or Mao did. Lenin did not have time to deal with issues of power. Although Stalin was a revolutionary, his approach, was not as scientific as it should have been, it was a little metaphysical, and then problems came.
We also evaluated Mao in the plenum. If you look at his leadership from 1935 to 1976 – from when he was young to when he was old and even speaking was difficult – must he remain Chairman and handle everything? What is this?”
Prachanda explicitly blames Mao for having been a potentate. He denies that Lenin wrote great works about the Soviet power and denies any role to Stalin in the Socialism edification in the USSR. In an interview granted to the review Kantipur Publications on February 7, he repeats the same charge:
« The people started to become monotonous in the 20th century communist movement, especially after the demise of Lenin”.
All that is but complete revisionism, and complete submission to the bourgeoisie propaganda, as well as to the revisionist myth of a so-called « personality worship” among Communists.
3. According to Prachanda, the Communists in Nepal should not aim at the Democratic Revolution any longer, but only at « Democracy ».
“Earlier, we were saying people’s democratic republic but this does not mean we have dropped that goal either. It’s just that according to today’s power balance, seeing the whole situation and the expectation of the masses, and that there [should] not be bloodshed, we also responsibly believe that to get there too we will do so through peaceful means.”
In his interview to Kantipur Publications on February 7, he expresses the impossibility of revolution in one country:
“Since we belong to a communist party, our maximum goals are socialism and communism. Those are the maximum goals of all those accepting Marxism, Leninism and Maoism as philosophical and ideological assumptions. Given the international power balance and the overall economic, political and social realities of the country, we can’t attain those goals at the moment.
We must accept this ground reality. We have mentioned democratic republic and constituent assembly, with the understanding that we should be flexible given the balance in the class struggle and international situation. This is a policy, not tactics. This is a necessary process for the bourgeoisie and the national capitalists alike, let alone the middle-class.“
This conception is basically wrong; it is completely similar to the trotskyist thesis of the impossibility to carry out revolution in one country.
It is a capitulation, which opposes the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, for which: « If the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue till the aim is fully accomplished…. It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.” (Mao Zedong)
Here again, Prachanda joins Thorez’s theses: “Democracy’s progress throughout the world, in spite of rare exceptions which confirm the rule, makes it possible to consider other ways to walk towards socialism than those followed by the Russian Communists”.
4. According to Prachanda, the sole establishement of “Democracy” is enough to be “revolutionary”.
“In the overall sense we feel that in Nepal there is going to be a great leap forward in the socio-economic condition because we are going to lead the country to a democratic republican structure.”
Maurice Thorez also said that “democracy, an ongoing realisation, will be completed within socialism.”
Prachanda’s thesis denies that, when the power is seized in all the country, the Democratic Revolution turns into a Socialist Revolution; “The party’s purpose is the establishment of the political power of the proletariat, even under New Democracy where it is the leading class, and principally the establishment, strengthening and development of the dictatorship of the proletariat so as, through cultural revolutions, to win the ultimate goal, communism. This is why the proletariat must lead in everything and in an all-around way.” (Gonzalo)
5. According to Prachanda, the Red Army does not prefigure the new State and must dissolve into a « democratic army ».
“In the multiparty democracy which comes – interim government, constitutional assembly and democratic republic – we are ready to have peaceful competition with you all. Of course, people still have a doubt about us because we have an army.
And they ask whether after the constitutional assembly we will abandon our arms. This is a question. We have said we are ready to reorganise our army and we are ready to make a new Nepal army also. So this is not a tactical question.”
This thesis completely opposes Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and People’s War principles. Besides, Prachanda affirms it also very clearly in his interview to Kantipur Publications:
“The weapons of both sides should be put together and both the armies should be transformed into one under the supervision of the United Nations or another reliable agency. (…)
The army will be formed according to the results of the election. This is what you should be clear about. We will accept it if the constituent assembly says we want monarchy. We are flexible even that far. We will accept it even if the people say we want an active monarch. “
6. According to Prachanda, People’s War originates from the parliamentary struggle.
“For three years we struggled inside Parliament. For three years we were there. Our 40-point demands were placed but there was not even any discussion on this. So the seeds of our armed struggle were sown inside Parliament, in a manner of speaking.
This is a very big difference between us and, say, those in India who say they are waging a people’s war. They didn’t begin from inside Parliament. We were inside Parliament, so we had good relations with the parliamentary parties for a long time.”
This thesis was inevitable, since Prachanda wants to seem the true democrat, just like Thorez did at his time: “Communists are democrats. They are, among all democrats, the most consistent democrats, because they intend to substitute for a still legally and actually limited democracy, a boundless democracy.”
7. According to Prachanda, the imperialist European countries can play a positive role.
“We also wanted to send a message to the international community that we were different from the way we were being projected ideologically. For example, right now we are having discussions with the European Union and with others, but among all the international forces, U.S. imperialism is the most dogmatic and sectarian element.
The U.S. ruling classes are dogmatic. They don’t understand what is happening. We are trying to look at the world in a new way, to change in a new way, and we wanted to send out this message. And in this regard, during the ceasefire, we were quite successful.”
Characterizing the US imperialists as “dogmatic” means nothing, neither do negotiations with others imperialist forces. Prachanda’s thesis clearly links with the Three Worlds theory, a Chinese revisionist theory stating that the Third World can lean on the Second World (the medium imperialist powers such as France, Canada, etc.) to oppose the First World made of the superpowers (the USA and, at its time, the USSR).
8. According to Prachanda, fascistic China and expansionist India are interested in democracy in Nepal, to oppose the USA.
“We are glad with the new situation that is emerging after Shyam Saran went to China, it seems the situation can change. Our movement is also going forward and I think in 2-3 months, if the struggle continues, then there is a real chance of ending the kingship once and for all and making a democratic republic in Nepal.
This is the best outcome for China and India, and everyone else. The U.S. does not want this. They want to maintain the monarchy at all costs.”
Prachanda thus considers that, instead of « resting on our own strength” and serving the world revolution, he would rather reassure India and China and have no revolutionary program. That is logical in regard to the Three Worlds theory.
9. According to Prachanda, the Maoists of India must negotiate with the old Indian State:
“And if you feel the Naxalite movement in India is a problem for you, we feel we are trying to deal with the problems in Nepal in a new way, so if you release our comrades and we are successful in establishing multiparty democracy in Nepal, then this will be a very big message for the Naxalite movement in India. In other words, the ground will be readied for them to think in a new political way.”
That is straightforwardly a proposal for an alliance with the Indian expansionism!
As we can see, Prachanda’s theses are in a direct line with the revisionism spread since a few time by the CPN(m); this revisionism, hiding behind “democracy”, had already been used by Thorez in France, and is now mainly embodied by the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA.
The RPCUSA, by means of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, certainly influenced the CPN(m).
The CPRUSA leader, Bob Avakian, defends more and more openly his revisionist and “democratic” theses.
According to him, Communism is one “possibility” among others, that is why he rejects the principle of “inevitability”, saying that “the world didn’t turn out the way Marx and Engels anticipated.” (January 2005, Revolutionary Worker n°1266).
He pretends that “in some instances, the Bolsheviks had a kind of « Mafia » approach in some areas, especially during the civil war that followed the October 1917 Revolution.” (December 2004, RW n°1262), that there was among Communists an “autocratic” tradition in a way.
That is why the RCPUSA focuses on Bush the “antidemocrat”, just like the Nepalese revisionists fight for a “genuine Democratic Republic”.
That is also why Avakian claims to found a “new internationalism « , which is actually but a pretext not to fight in one’s own country: “There is a call to combine Lenin’s stance on and definition of internationalism with an approach of proceeding first and above all from the world level, and looking at the world as a whole at any given time to determine where it is that, through a combination of objective and subjective factors, the most important breakthroughs for the whole international struggle can be made—and for parties in particular countries to act accordingly, to give political support in relation to those « breakthroughs, » even at the cost of some sacrifice on the part of particular parties and in terms of the struggle in « their » countries.”
That is revisionism, no more no less, denying the fact that, as part of world People’s War, it is on the contrary necessary to open more battlefronts.
We understand, while seeing the RPCUSA revisionism, why the Canada RCP speaks so much about Nepal, whereas it is supposed to want People’s War in its own country, and as social contradictions within Canada are supposed to be the main aspect.
The “Democratic Republic” in Nepal became the new ideal of those who already rejected Stalin and who will tomorrow exchange even the usurped flag of Marxism Leninism-Maoism against an “ultrademocrat” flag.
Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist Maoist) February 2006