Maoist chairman Prachanda is leaving for India today to take part in the Leadership Summit to be organized by The Hindustan Times daily in New Delhi.
Senior Maoist Dr Baburam Bhattarai is also accompanying Prachanda to New Delhi.
The Summit to be held in November 17-18 will be participated by a panel of reputed speakers from around the world including Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Afghan president Hamid Karzai, former British foreign secretary Jack Straw, former Malaysian president Mahathir Mohammad, former New York mayor Rudolf Guilliani, communist leader Sitaram Yechury, BJP leader Arun Jaitly, business magnate Vijay Mallya, cricketer Saurav Ganguly and film producer Karan Johar, among others.
According to reports, Prachanda will be one of the panel speakers in the summit.
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2006/nov/nov16/news03.php
I think Prachanda should now join the U.S. govt. under george bush. That will be good for a revisionist like him.
ReplyDeleteIt is a nice oppurtunity to Prachanda and his party CPN(M) for getting international recognition. It offcourse help them for positive contribution to the ongoing peace process in Nepal. It is not neccessary to be extra 'revolutionary' always. be constructive. Its a time to change traditional communist version and attitude in the changing context.
ReplyDeleteImagine, there so different then and now.
Thousands of matyrs have dedicated their lives for the fundamental change of Nepal. Now Prachanda and his company are not only utilising great martyrs blood-sweat and dream, but also mobilising the whole party and people in such a way that ensures the excisting mode of production to persue. They are acting as seafty valve now.
ReplyDeleteIt is too late to call prachanda a revisionist. Everything is in the process of development. Their revisionist tendencies were quite clear before, specially when they put Com Mao against Com Stalin as Maoism. Unfortunately their line was not attacked from revolutionary camp untill couple of months before.
This revisionists not only making the revolutionary preperation worst in Nepal, but also in whole South East Asia, specially in India. In India, revolutionaries who recognised this gang as their friend should go for a self-criticism.
Now this is the time to observe how revisionists turn into social facists in Nepal.
what do you expect from those who work with CIA and Trotskyism.
ReplyDeleteI agree that now this is the time to observe how revisionists turn into social facists in Nepal.diamond info
ReplyDeleteAt this moment, it is really important to draw a line of demarcation between revisionists and communist revolutionaries. This is the only way to mobilize mass in the direction of new democratic revolution followed by socialism-communism.
ReplyDeleteThe RIM parties and other proponents of Maoism argued that changing of guiding ideology from Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism would be essential to fight against the revisionism. Now, we saw that with the name of Maoism, with the formulation of qualitative difference between this moment and imperialismist era (era of proletarian revolution, as Com Lenin formulated) these “Maoists” have abandoned the whole revolutionary teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.
From the practical experience the formulation of “Maoism” instead of Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought” is questionable now. It is the revolutionary duty to follow the line formulated by 9th and 10th Congresses of CPC under the leadership of Com Mao himself rather than the“Maoists”.
Long live Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought.
What does applying the label "Maoism" over "Mao tse-Tung Thought" have to do with it? There are plenty of capitulationists who self identify as followers of "Mao tse-Tung thought." What is important is destructiveness of the content of the line, not what they choose to call it.
ReplyDeleteRIM was never Maoist anyways.
ReplyDeleteAccording to dialectics everything is in the process of development. So there must be a process of development of revisionist line out of Marxist line.
ReplyDeleteIf we look carefully, we can see some aspects of these "Maoists". They claim that "Maoism" is the highest stage of Marxism-Leninism in the course of its theoretical development. Apparently it sounds revolutionary, but, in content it denies the dialectic interconnection between object and knowledge. Our conception or knowledge can only be qualitively developed into new stage only when the object (because, we are talking about the knowledge of a particular object; that is why we are materialists) itself will be qualitatively developed further.
So when anyone argues that "Maoism" is the third stage of the development of Marxism-Leninism, it actually means that the world's concrete situation is now qualitatively different from the era of imperilism and proletarian revolutin (as defined by Com Lenin). It then follows that the Leninist strategy and tactical line is no longer valid. And this is what exactly Prachanda says now to defend their current line.
On the contrary, as formulated by 9th and 10th congress of CPC, world situation have been changed after second world war; crisis of imperialism has been deepened, imperialism is in the phase of total collapse. But the laws of imperialism as formulated by Com Lenin are still valid. Accounting these changes, our knowledge has been developed as well, but, not in the higher third stage. That is why the ideology of proletariat as CPC called Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought, not "Maoism".
Remember, CPC never claimed Mao thought as the third stage of Marxism-Leninism
So the fundamental point is whether we follow the dialectics in the analysis of concrete situation or not. Calling "Maoism" as the third and highest stage of Marxism-Leninism, as RIM does rises the conceptual confusions. Firstly, it denies the Leninist line and secondly it denies the basic materialist teaching--knowledge comes from the object.
In brief, it is the danger of 'Maoism" as goiding ideology. And we have seen some people who promoted 'Maoism", soon adopted new "thoughts" or "paths". And we have also seen their turn into revisionism.