Taimur Rahman Political Archive

Long Live Marxism-Leninism!

Archive for August, 2006

About ML and MLM

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 20, 2006

Dear comrade,

Thank you for your response. Nothing would make me happier than to
discover my mistakes. You wrote:

About Poland

You wrote: “the RIM did not think that it was ok to ally itself with
one imperialism againt one other. Saying that the RIM supported
Solidarnosc is merely a lie. What they would do today in the same
case is another point 🙂

My response: As history has shown, the Soviet Union was not a
capitalist country (and certainly not an imperialist country). It
was a socialist society, ruled after Stalin by modern revisionists
but nonetheless not a capitalist or imperialist society (the latter
cannot exist without the existence of private property and finance
capital unless one wants to make a complete mockery out of Marxian
political economy). Therefore, neutrality in the conflict between
the USA and USSR is an equally opportunist position.

If one cannot be ‘neutral’ in the conflict between bourgeois
democrats and bourgoeis fascists or between a bourgeois national
government and an invading imperial army, as the actions of Stalin
and Mao in the Second World War respectively testify, than one
cannot be neutral in the struggle between the infinitely more
progressive USSR in relation to US imperialism.

About Solidarity

I provided the quotation. You read it. Here is my evidence again:

“In the capitalist and imperialist countries of the Eastern bloc
important cracks and fissures in the relative stability of the rule
by the state-capitalist bourgeoisie are more and more apparent. In
Poland the proletariat and other sections of the masses have risen
in struggle and delivered powerful blows to the established order.
In these countries, also, possibilities for proletarian revolution
are developing and will be heightened by the development and
intensification of world contradictions.”

Anyone in the least familiar with recent polish history knows that
the force delivering “powerful blows to the established order” in
the early 1980s was none other than Solidarity (keep in mind that
the RIM document was written in March 1984).

You wrote: “What they would do today in the same case is another
point :)”
My response: I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Please

“New Democratic Revolution”

You wrote “you made a huge error in putting imperialist Russia (that
had feudal elements) and oppressed Cuba. It is a fact that Stalin
put forward the new democratic revolution…”

My response: Obviously then you have misunderstood entirely my
critique of RIM’s views. I am not saying that third world countries
are not standing at the stage of a New Democratic Revolution or a
People’s Democratic Revolution. What I am saying is that “preached
a line of combining revolutionary stages into one single “socialist”
revolution” is not an anti-Leninist position—Lenin, Stalin and Mao
all upheld that degree of separation of the stages depends on the
subjective and objective conditions of every society and more
specifically on the level of development of the class consciousness
of the proletariat. RIM errs when it claims that “preaching” a
program of “socialist revolution” is tantamount to appealing to
workers on the “narrowest of bases”.

What stage was the historical evolution European society during the
time of Karl Marx? With the exception of a few countries (France,
Britain, Holland) most European countries were either approaching or
undergoing the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolution. Marx
and Engels fully understood that there was only an extremely remote
possibility of a socialist revolution in their own lifetimes. Did
that stop them from developing or “preaching” the socialist
program? Did they for a moment think that the development of a
Communist League should be abandoned because it would be tantamount
to appealing to the workers on the “narrowest bases”?

We thus learn from the great historical example of Karl Marx that
even when the stage of the struggle is purely bourgeois-democratic
communists must work to create an independent workers party whose
objective is a socialist revolution. If the Cubans “preached a line
of combining revolutionary stages into one single “socialist”
revolution” they did nothing that runs against the grain of


You wrote: “Maoist criticize Hoxha as trotskyist for example for
saying that all countries in the world are capitalist (like the
trotskyists), i.e. for rejecting the thesis of bureaucratic
capitalism : for maoists oppressed countries are semi-colonial semi-

Hoxhaists are Trotskyists because they reject the thesis of
bureaucratic capitalism? I’m completely stumped. Is the rejection
of the “thesis of bureaucratic capitalism” defining features of
Trotskyism? The defining features of Trotskyism are:

1) The rejection of the thesis of the possibility of socialism
in one country
2) The thesis on bureaucratic deformations and the rise
of “Stalinism”
3) The thesis of Permanent Revolution

If a party does not uphold these views it is not a Trotskyite
party. Is that so hard to grasp?

Soviet Social Imperialism

You wrote: “people upholding Mao or Hoxha both consider the Soviet
Union as “social-imperialist”.”

My response: What matters is not who holds these views but whether
they can be corroborated by facts. If a thesis cannot be proven by
facts, we would reject it even if it was held by Karl Marx. The
thesis about “Soviet Social Imperialism” opened the door within the
anti-revisionist movement to opportunist and revisionist tendencies
of all shapes and stripes.


You wrote: “the thesis of Bhagat Singh is quite strange on this
level if we compare to the ones of the international communist
movement. Defending stalin and cuba, as cuba never upholded Stalin
in any way, is onlye defended by some rare groups : the DHKP/C of
Turkey or some french marxists-leninists that recently left the CP.”

My response: Yes but unlike the Maoists and Hoxhaists, we do not
subscribe to the view that a communist leader has to be correct on
every single question every single time in order for us to consider
him/her a Marxist-Leninist. Lenin’s attitude towards Rosa Luxemberg
is very instructive on this issue. Lenin wrote about Rosa:

“We shall reply to this by quoting two lines from a Russian
fable, `Eagles may at times fly lower than hens but hens can never
rise to the height of eagles’. Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken on the
question of the independence of Poland; she was mistaken in 1903 in
her appraisal of Menshevism; she was mistaken on the theory of
accumulation of capital; she was mistaken in July 1914, when,
together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others she
advocated unity between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks; she was
mistaken in what she wrote in prison in 1918 (She corrected most of
these mistakes at the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 when she
was released). But inspite of her mistakes she was and remains for
us an eagle. And not only will Communists all over the world cherish
her memory, but her biography and her complete works will serve as
useful manuals for training many generations of communists all over
the world. `Since August 4, 1914, German social-democracy has become
a stinking corpse’ — this statement will make Rosa Luxemburg’s name
famous in the history of the international working class movement.
And, of course, in the backyard of the working class movement, among
the dungheaps, hens like Paul Levi, Scheidemann, Kautsky and all
their fraternity will cackle over the mistakes committed by the
great Communist”. (Lenin, Notes of a Publicist, Vol. 33).

Lenin upheld that Rosa was an “Eagle” (that is a great Marxist
leader) because despite her mistakes her overall contributions were
great and perhaps most importantly because she fought and gave her
life against the most important question of her time: The World
War. On this crucial question Rosa and Karl Liebnecht struggled
against the opportunism of the second international that supported
imperialism under the slogan of “defence of the fatherland”.

Similarly, we uphold that Fidel Castro is a great Marxist-Leninist
because despite his mistaken position on Stalin and Gorbachev he
defended and even advanced socialism in Cuba and Latin America at a
time when the entire socialist block disintegrated from the
corrosive influence of revisionism. Despite all the difficulties
around him, he successfully steered Cuba against the longest
standing embargo in history by the largest military and economic
power in history in a period of complete international isolation.
He fulfilled the promise he made in 1962 that he would remain a
Marxist-Leninist until the day he died. Is that not true? Despite
the enormous historical defeat of socialism is he not defending the
essential ideas of socialism till his very last breath?

More importantly since our evaluation pertaining to the economic and
political foundations of a society (i.e. whether it is capitalist or
socialist) is not `exclusively’ tied to the political position of
its leadership (as is the case with Maoism and Hoxhaism) but is
rather based on an objective assessment of the economic & political
structures of that society, we uphold that a society may be
socialist even while we disagree, even sharply, with its political

Both Maoism and Hoxhaism uphold that when the “leadership” of a
socialist state falls into the hands of revisionists the socialist
state becomes a capitalist state. That was the basis upon which it
was asserted that the Soviet Union was capitalist after the death of
Stalin. Similarly, it was the basis upon which it was asserted that
China was capitalist after the death of Mao (or the defeat of the so-
called Gang of Four and Lin Piao). I wouldn’t be surprised if after
Hoxha came to the conclusion that Mao was a revisionist he
pronounced China a capitalist country.

The bases upon which these pronouncements are being made are not
merely common to Hoxhaism and Maoism but also belong exclusively to

I hope that clarifies our position further. Look forward to hearing
from you on these questions.

In solidarity
Taimur Rahman


Posted in International Communist Movement | Comments Off on About ML and MLM

Contributions of Mao Tsetung

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 20, 2006

Comrade Mansoor, with all due respect I think you have completely misunderstood the question under discussion. Let me begin by telling you what the debate is NOT about.

1) The debate is not about whether the contributions of Mao Tsetung to Marxism-Leninism were quantitative or qualititive. Niether is the debate about the philosophical, political, or economic contributions of Mao TseTung. They are of world historic proportions whether
parties attach his name or not.

2) The debate is not about the differentiation between “Maoism” and “Mao Tsetung Thought”. Although these are distinct tendencies, but this distinction is largely irrelevant given what we are discussing.

3) The debate is certainly not about denominations within Marxism. Marxism is a science not a religion.

4) The debate is not about whether or not to support the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). We unconditionally support the CPN(m) against the Monarchy.

The debate is about the political position with respect to the international communist movement of the organizations that claim to uphold the legacy of Mao.

Clear I hope.

You wrote “I profoundly disagreed with Mao’s negative stance on the creation of Bangladesh and did not hesitate to criticise the CPC in 1971 in open publications.”

My response: The impression in Pakistan was that China did not support the independence of Bangladesh. Can you please provide evidence. This is extremely interesting. This information will bring a completely new twist to debates within Pakistan.

I support the right of self-determination of the people of Bangladesh. What the people of Bengal wanted was crystal clear from the election results of 1970. If the CPC supported the right of the people of Bengal to create their own state, the only thing they are
guilty of doing is following Lenin’s views on the national question.

You wrote “While I agreed with the characterisation of the USSR as social-imperialist, I did not agreee that it was to be treated as more dangerous than the USA, and thus disagreed with several harmful but unnecessary manifestations of that characterisation.”

My response: If the USSR was indeed an imperialist state, support for the nationalist movements in Eastern Europe, Central Asia follow as a logical necessity. In other words, critical support for Solidarity of Poland, Sajudis of Lithuania, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, Prague Springs in Czechoslovakia, and so on in relation to the USSR. Naturally if the USSR was an imperial power it follows quite logically that these were the equivalent of bourgeois national
liberation movements.

Strange then that the living conditions of people were so much better under the ‘imperial’ influence of the Soviet Union than in the period of ‘liberty’. Ironic no?

Strange that in this Soviet ‘imperalism’ the colonies (i.e. Eastern Europe) actually enjoyed a better standard of living than the people of the imperial country (i.e. Russia). Ironic no?

Strange that the colonies like Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Egypt and so many others were subsidized by the imperial power. That surplus moved from the imperial capital to the periphery. Ironic no?

‘Liberty’ from Soviet imperialism was wonderful because it finally gave real and meaningful ‘liberty’ to the people of the Soviet Union, that is the ‘liberty’ to sell their labour-power to the highest bidder (i.e. Western Capitalism). How strange that ‘liberty’ condemned millions of poverty, prostitution, and the whims of the mafia. Ironic no?

How strange that this ‘capitalist’ ‘imperalist’ power experienced an event in 1991 which was pronounced the world over as the “death of socialism”. But according to the analysis of ‘soviet social imperialsm’ the bourgeoisie was already in power. Apparently millions of people were making a fuss about nothing. Ironic no?

It is time to bury the hatchet Comrade Mansoor. The entire ‘soviet-imperialism’ analysis is about as worthy as a soiled diaper.

In solidarity
Taimur Rahman

P.S. Dear comrade Mansoor, none of my remarks should be interpreted as attacks against you personally. I’m poking fun at the theory of soviet social imperialism and not at you as an individual. I respect you as a comrade.

Posted in International Communist Movement | Comments Off on Contributions of Mao Tsetung

Why Maoism is Left Revisionism?

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 18, 2006

As a supplement to what Bhagat Singh has written I would like to bring to the forum three points of disagreement with the founding document of RIM (one of the main international centers that promote Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).

Poland: Support for Solidarity by RIM

“In the capitalist and imperialist countries of the Eastern bloc important cracks and fissures in the relative stability of the rule by the state-capitalist bourgeoisie are more and more apparent. In Poland the proletariat and other sections of the masses have risen in struggle and delivered powerful blows to the established order. In these countries, also, possibilities for proletarian revolution are developing and will be heightened by the development and intensification of world contradictions.”

This document, signed by the constituting members of the Revolutionary International Movement in March 1984, clearly argues that the Eastern European countries were “capitalist and imperialist” and ruled by a “state-capitalist bourgeoisie”. Against this established order in Poland “the proletariat and other sections of the masses have risen in struggle”. Is there any doubt that this is a clear reference to the growth of Solidarity in the early 1980s in Poland?

The fact that the growth of this CIA funded reactionary trade-union Solidarity that culminated in the counter-revolution across Eastern Europe after their electoral victory of in 1989 could be viewed by RIM as signaling the “possibilities for proletarian revolution” is about as clever as claiming that neo-liberals are socialists. What results other than defeat could the anti-revisionists expect when the leadership of these parties did not merely fail to recognize the counter-revolutionary and imperialist character of Solidarity but led others to believe that the growth of this movement presented the possibility of the development of a proletariat revolution?

On “Cuban Revisionism”

“However this openly capitulationist, right-wing revisionism always corresponded with, and has become increasingly intermingled with, a kind of “left” armed revisionism, promoted at times by the Cuban leadership and others, which separated the armed struggle from the masses and preached a line of combining revolutionary stages into one single “socialist” revolution, which in fact meant appealing to the workers on the narrowest of bases and negating the necessity of the working class to lead the peasantry and others in thoroughly eliminating imperialism and the backward and distorted economic and social relations that foreign capital thrives on and reinforces. Today this form of revisionism is one of the major planks of the social-imperialist attempt to penetrate and control national liberation struggles.”

The attempt to combine the bourgeois democratic and proletarian stages into one single socialist revolution is not a revisionist but a Leninist position. Please note here is what Lenin wrote as far back as 1905.

From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and just in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop halfway…

Without succumbing to adventurism or going against our scientific conscience, without striving for cheap popularity, we can and do say only one thing: we shall put every effort into assisting the entire peasantry to carry out the democratic revolution in order thereby to make it easier for us, the party of the proletariat, to pass on, as quickly as possible, to the new and higher task—the socialist revolution.[1] [emphasis added]

On the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution, sixteen years after the above quotation, Lenin wrote:

The Kautskys, Hilferdings, Martovs, Chernovs, Hillquits, Longuets, MacDonalds, Turatis, and other heroes of ‘Two-and-a-Half’ Marxism were incapable of understanding… the relation between the bourgeois-democratic and the proletarian-socialist revolutions. The first grows over into the second. The second, in passing solves the questions of the first. The second consolidates the work of the first. Struggle, and struggle alone, decides how far the second succeeds in outgrowing the first. [2] [emphasis added]

Similarly, in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky Lenin wrote,

Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the “whole” of the peasantry against the monarchy, against the landlords, against the medieval regime (and to that extent, the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulak, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means monstrously to distort Marxism, to vulgarize it, to substitute liberalism in its place. It means smuggling in a reactionary defense of the bourgeoisie against the socialist proletariat by means of quasi-scientific references to the progressive character of the bourgeoisie as compared with medievalism.[3]

Notice that the Russian Revolution passed from the bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution directly into the socialist phase of the revolution without interruption. Lenin correctly argued that the bourgeois and proletarian revolution could become telescoped into one revolutionary crisis contingent upon the revolutionary preparedness of the proletariat. He summed up this idea perfectly in the phrase “struggle and struggle alone, decides how far the second succeeds in outgrowing the first”. Stalin held the same view as Lenin and wrote:

Consequently, Lenin fought the adherents of ‘permanent’ revolution, not over the question of uninterruptedness, for Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution, but because they underestimated the role of the peasantry, which is an enormous reserve of the proletariat….[4]

The RIM statement upholds the opportunist view that a substantial period of development between the democratic and socialist stages of the revolution is necessary. How can the revolutionary preparedness of the proletariat, the key factor according to Lenin that determines “how far the second succeeds in outgrowing the first”, take place if revolutionaries are prohibited from organizing them for a socialist revolution?

Further the RIM statement implies that organizing around a socialist program will repel not merely “the others” (we can assume RIM implies the progressive sections of the petty or national bourgeoisie) but even the peasantry. Now it should be very clear that such a thesis is flawed not merely because it misrepresents the position of pro-Cuban communists on the Agrarian question (to my knowledge they have not eliminated commodity production in agriculture but merely engaged in redistributing the property of landlords, i.e. no communes have been built) but more importantly because it completely underestimates the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. The view that the peasantry would recoil from the democratic revolution at the prospect of a proletariat socialist revolution belongs exclusively to the anti-Leninist camp. In sum, this position implies that the proletariat should remain within the ideological confines of the revolutionary bourgeois-democratic program of the peasantry. In one word, far from bestowing on the proletariat the role of leadership, it advocates a position that subordinates the socialist-proletariat to the bourgeois democratic peasantry. That the peasantry has to go through several stages of revolutionary transformation is a foregone conclusion but how quickly these transformations occur is contingent on the level of class-consciousness and organization of the proletariat.

RIM on Hoxha

“At the same time, revisionism in its dogmatic form continues to be a bitter enemy of revolutionary Marxism. This current, most sharply expressed in the political line of Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour of Albania, attacks Mao Tsetung Thought, the path of the Chinese Revolution and especially the experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Masquerading as defenders of Stalin (when in fact many of their theses are Trotskyites), these revisionists soil the genuine revolutionary heritage of Stalin. These imposters use the shortcomings and errors of the international communist movement, and not its achievements in order to buttress up their revisionist-trotskyite line, and demand that the international communist movement follow suit on the basis of a return to some mystical “doctrinal purity”. The many features this Hoxhaite line shares with classical revisionism, including the ability of Soviet revisionism (as well as reaction in general) to promote and/or profit from both openly anti-Leninist “Euro-communism” and Hoxha’s disguised anti-Leninism at the same time, are testimony to their common bourgeois ideological basis.”

I’m at a complete loss to explain how Hoxhaism has anything in common with Trotskyism. Does Hoxhaism uphold that socialism cannot be built in one country? Does Hoxhaism uphold that after the death of Lenin a “Stalinist bureaucracy” took power in the name of the proletariat and the USSR became a “degenerated workers state”? Do Hoxhaists uphold the thesis of “permanent revolution”?

One has merely to state the positions associated with Trotskyism to realize that a world of a difference separates Trotskyism from Hoxhaism.

I strongly disagree with Hoxha’s assessment of Mao Tse-Tung but it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine that Hoxha was organizing on the basis of a Trotskyite thesis. I’m sure the Trotskyites are falling over themselves with laughter at the utter inanity of this statement.

Clearly then RIM is using the term “Trotskyism” as a pejorative description without realizing that such unscientific statements make a laughing stock of the science of Marxism.

I hope we can constructively engage with members of RIM on these and other questions on our forum.

In solidarity
Taimur Rahman


[1] V.I. Lenin, “The Attitude of Social-Democracy Towards the Peasant Movement”, Vol. VIII, pp. 186-87, September 1905 (pg. 167).
[2] V. I. Lenin, “Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution”, Vol. XXVII p. 26, October 1921 (pg. 167).
[3] V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”, October-November 1918, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1970 (pg. 97-98).
[4] J.V. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”, J. V. Stalin Works, Vol. 6, pp, 34 (pg. 165).

Posted in International Communist Movement | Comments Off on Why Maoism is Left Revisionism?

Pakistan: This Independence Day

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 17, 2006

The Facts Speak for Themselves

32.6% of the Pakistani population lived below the poverty line by the end of 1990’s

A girl child in RURAL areas of the country between ages 6-14 is found to be 24 percent less likely to be enrolled in school than a boy child

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1000 births): 83

By the time children reach an age of 5 in Pakistan:

1- 62% are stunted
2- 45% are underweight
3- 12% have already died

31% of the rural population does not have access to any hospital, clinic, or any health facility or health worker

Female primary school enrolment is 40.5% lower than in comparable countries

Poverty in rural NWFP is more than twice that of urban Sindh, at 19%

Lag in Pakistan’s indicators compared to other countries WITH THE SAME INCOME LEVEL:

As Compared to Other countries WITH THE SAME INCOME LEVEL AS PAKISTAN, Pakistan has:

1- 36% lower births attended by trained personnel
2- 11% more babies born with low birth weight
3- 42% lower health spending per capita
4- 1.6 % less of GDP spent on Health
5- 27 more infant deaths per thousand
6- 19 more child deaths per thousand
7- 23% lower share of population with access to sanitation
8- 20% fewer children of elementary school age enrolled in primary school
9- 40% fewer girls of elementary school age attend primary school than in countries with comparable incomes
10- There are nearly 5 more students per teacher
11- Public spending on education is 1.4% lower than expected
12- The share of population that is illiterate is 24% higher than one would expect based on Pakistan’s per capita income, the figure is 32% for women



27% of the male population and 41% of the female population of ages 11-15 is not enrolled in school

42% of the Male population and 73% of the female population( 15+) was illiterate in 2000

SOURCE: Pakistan Poverty Assessment, World Bank
(stats provided by Bhagat Singh)

Posted in Pakistani Politics | Comments Off on Pakistan: This Independence Day

Incorrect Criticism of CPP II

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 8, 2006

You wrote “After the split we never asked your Chairman to join our party instead at the flate of your G Secretary he asked us to have a merger again and we told him, it is not so simple and this is not the time.You can confirm it with your G,Sec.”

Then you should also know that it was I who pushed forward the idea of reuniting the CMKP and the CPP in the September 2003 National Council meeting of the CMKP in Multan. It was at that meeting that the National Council entrusted me with the responsibility of writing
a program of a united front which eventually, with some modifications, became the program of the Joint Left Front. It was as a result of the decisions of that National Council meeting that
the general secretary of our party approached you despite all the water that had passed under the bridge between our organizations.

That entire process led in to culmination of the JLF which was so stupidly scuttled by both our organizations thanks in particular to comrade Jamil Malik.

You wrote “Imdad Qazi and Chacha Maula bux were expelled from CMKP without any reason and before the congress they requested to withdraw the expulsion letter but your people refused thats why they walked out and had a seprate congress.confirm it with your seniors if any one left to tell the truth.”

The real question that needs to be answered, aside from why notable members of the current CPP were not able to win leading positions in that Congress, is what was wrong with the 5th Congress such that another Congress needed to be called? What were the ideological
mistakes in that Congress? Why was it so imperative to split the party and why could those struggles not be fought within the party?

There is no analysis of this important question; merely accusations without evidence.

You wrote “Would you please pause for a second and read our email again.In your enthusiasm you have far fetched things and drawn conclusion which we never meant.We just tried to clarify those lies which your comrade Hamza put forward about The disintegration of
Communist Party of Pakistan after the Pindi conspiracy case, about Imdad Qazi and khrushchev’s National democracy.We think It was malicious, dishonest and delibrate.You didnt answer or subsanciate any of those lies but you embarked upon questioning our moral
credibility instead of asking your comrade to stop telling lies.”

My response: Refer to messages number 6108 and 6137. You will see that I have replied to Hamza’s accusations and position before and in greater detail than you have.

I never questioned your “moral credibility”. I did however question the intellectual caliber of your reply, which all on this list will agree, was no different from the one in which you were accused. You will never convince anyone by responding to unsubstantiated malicious accusations with other unsubstantiated malicious accusations. Respond with the truth. Tell us,

1) What was and is the stand of the CPP on the 20th Congress
and on the historic role of Khrushchev
2) Was the CPP following a line of “National
Democracy” “Peoples Democracy” or some other line and what did these
lines mean in political and class terms.
3) Clarify your position on the National Question and in
particular on the current crisis in Balochistan. Do you, or do you
not uphold the right of the Baloch people to self-determination
including secession?

You wrote “We never denied the contribution of Mao in the world communist movement especialy on united front.”
My response: But you are not addressing the critique of Modern Revisionism raised by comrade Mao and Hoxha. Barring their other real or alleged mistakes, there was something of vital important in that critique. Why don’t we start with the “Nine Commentaries on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag)” which included:
1) The Origin and Development of the Differences Between the
Leadership of the CPSU and Ourselves (September 6, 1963)
2) On the Question of Stalin (September 13, 1963)
3) Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country? (September 26, 1963)
4) Apologists of Neo-Colonialism (October 22, 1963)
5) Two Different Lines on the Question of War and Peace
(November 19, 1963)
6) Peaceful Coexistence–Two Diametrically Opposed Policies
(December 12, 1963)
7) The Leaders of the CPSU are the Greatest Splitters of Our
Time (February 4, 1964)
8) The Proletarian Revolution and Khrushchov’s Revisionism
(March 31, 1964)
9) On Khrushchov’s Phoney Communism and its Historical Lessons
for the World(July 14, 1964)
What needs clear definition is a statement on the position contained
in these letters. Please read them and comment on them.

Incidentally, the CPI(m) has this to say about the entire Khrushchev affair:

“Once again in 1968, at the Burdwan Plenum on ideological issues, the CPI(M) had to carry forward this relentless struggle against modern revisionism advocated by the CPSU headed by Khruschchev.”

“The 20th Congress of the CPSU must also been seen in this light, as an attempt made in the name of estimating the correlation of forces under changed circumstances. The victory over fascism and the consequent international developments heightened the prestige and increased the influence of world socialism in general and USSR in particular. But instead of utilising these positive factors for enriching socialism, the gross distortion of the Leninist concept of peaceful coexistence and the advocacy of peaceful competition and peaceful transition by the CPSU leadership under Khruschchev, threw the door open for revisionism and class collaboration of the worst kind. As a consequence, many a communist party was virtually decimated leaving the international communist movement much emasculated.”

What is the position of the CPP on the question of the 20th Congress?

You wrote “We never accused any of your leaders after the spilt as Hamza and other members of your party did.”

My response: Do you want me to send you the emails Mansoor Saeed sent me privately?

You wrote “We wanted to send you some of our circulars on national question but now we think it will be an excercise in futality.However we are open to have any idialogical and political

My response: Please post them on our list so that everyone can read them.

In solidarity
Taimur Rahman

Posted in International Communist Movement, Pakistani Politics | Comments Off on Incorrect Criticism of CPP II

On Criticism II

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 8, 2006

Ehtisham Sahib, I am delighted to find that you have reconsidered the intent of my criticism. The fault though, comrade, is mine. Having read and been inspired by Lenin, who demolishes his opponents in no uncertain terms, I have also adopted the same kind of intransigient language. Unfortunately, I have not developed the intellectual calibre of Lenin and therefore niether the sufficient sensitivity to our own cultural needs. A man like Lenin can get away with it because he is one of the greatest political minds of the 20th century. A man such as myself finds himself clutching and clasping at straws.

Be that as it may, I genuinely appreciate the fact that you were able to overlook my shortcoming and we can at last get down to the real issue at hand. And because I do not flatter myself enough to believe that my intransigient use of the English langauge in the manner of a poor one-sided immitation of Lenin’s writing is really an issue for the movement in Pakistan, let alone the international communist movement, I think it is time now to continue our analysis of some of the more important points that people have been raising on this forum in the
spirit of scientific inquiry.

I look forward to your continuing contributions on this forum and to hard, honest, and always critical and open minded analysis.

In solidarity
Taimur Rahman

P.S. I would really recommend a book that was fundamental in changing my opinions on the communist movement. It is called “Another View of Stalin” by Ludo Martens and is available free one line at http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html. If you can spare sometime I highly recommend this book.

Posted in Pakistani Politics | Comments Off on On Criticism II

Incorrect Criticism of CPP

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 8, 2006

Did you pause for a second and ponder as to why I criticized a member of my own party? It is because he attacked you personally in a manner that was under the belt. Your response, however, has taken away from you whatever temporary moral legitimacy you enjoyed. You have resorted with an equally one-sided and personal attack that has undermined whatever possibility existed of a scientific dialogue on the questions of the international communist movement and the communist movement in Pakistan.

I wrote the open letter in order to invite everyone for a scientific dialogue, not for a match of personal mud-slinging and slander mongering. However, it seems that you were unable to resist the temptation to react in kind to comrade Hamza’s vitriolic.

You wrote “You said after 1951 Communist Party of Pakistan disantegerated,if so then who was Hasan Nasir who martyred at Shahi Qila in 1959 by the intelligence agancies and whose name your internal and external represantative is owening proudly.”

My response: Did not Major Ishaq the founder of the Mazdoor Kissan Party fight the case of Hassan Nasir in court when everyone else was too scared to even take his name? Was not his defense vital in exposing the complicity of the Pakistani government in the deliberate torture and death of this great communist hero? Why then would you imagine that the Mazdoor Kissan Party, or for that matter the entire communist movement, would not take the name of Hassan
Nasir with pride?

You wrote “We simply said to that foreign enguiry that CMKP is a Maoist Party.We didn’t meant to accuse or blame as we tell others that Labour party is a Trostkyist party as we claim to be Leninist and Stalanist.we wonder why you got so worked up if we we said you
are Maoist.”

My response: The answer should be so obvious to someone who has served a higher position in the CMKP than I have that it boggles my mind why I should have to answer it. The CMKP was formed as a result of a merger between the CPP and the MKP in 1994 after a two year process of criticism and self-criticism on the part of both parties. Apparently, you only paid lip service to this genuine attempt for unification of the communist movement on the basis of a higher synthesis. If you wanted to correctly represent the CMKP, you ought to have said that it was formed as a result of a merger between the CPP and the MKP in 1994 with an independent Marxist-Leninist position.

You wrote “Now we wonder where were you at the time of Sino-Soviet split.Did you go with pro-soviet faction or the pro- china faction.We feel sorry to say if you went with the pro-china faction then we cant help you calling a maoist,strangly there is no one who is so ashamed to be a maoist and we salute you for your sincerty.”

My response: Why should comrade Hamza feel any “shame” in having sided with one of the greatest communist leaders of the 20th century Mao Tse-Tung in the battle against revisionism that corrupted and destroyed the Soviet Union?

Is there still any doubt in your mind comrade that the de-Stalinization program undertaken by Khrushchev led to the eventual destruction of the Soviet Union?

Where today is the state of the whole people?
Where today is the party of the whole people?
What happened to the vaunted concept of peaceful coexistence (as
interpreted by the revisionists)?
Were the economic achievements of the Soviet Union sufficient to
convince capitalists and imperialists to follow the socialist road?
Did not the Liberman reforms fracture the social capital of the
former Soviet Union into 90,000 particles?
Did not Gorbachev’s continuation of the De-Stalinization
(perestroika and glostnost) lead to the full restoration of
Are you even familiar with these debates?

An entire movement, state, society was utterly destroyed. It was not destroyed by the largest army in the history of the world (fascism) or by the largest nuclear arsenal in history. It was destroyed by the class enemy within. It was destroyed by opportunism within the party. It was destroyed in the name of fighting Stalinism.

It is not sufficient to carry around the banner of Stalin if one does not have even a basic sense of what it was that Stalin fought for.

If the banner of Stalin cannot help you understand the correct position on the national question in Pakistan, you only disgrace that banner.

If the banner of Stalin cannot help you identify that during the transition from capitalism to communism the state can only be the dictatorship of the proletariat, you only disgrace that banner.

If the banner of Stalin cannot help you identify that between socialism and capitalism there can not be lasting peaceful coexistence and that the economic success of the Soviet Union is
insufficient to turn capitalists and imperialists into socialists, you only disgrace the banner of Stalin.

If the banner of Stalin cannot help you identify that the law of balanced development demands not the fracturing and splintering of social capital but requires greater emphasis on the production of the means of production, then you only disgrace that banner.

And so on.

The proletariat does not need people who merely carry banners. The proletariat needs people with a clear understanding of what those banners scientifically stand for.

You wrote “we agree with taimur we were desperate and isolated and thats why we had those discussion for two years and ultimately we merged.We still dont blamed or accuse any one but why Imdad Qazi was expelled from CMKP and why Chacha Maula Bux.”

My response: Were Qazi or Maula Bux expelled comrade or did they walk out? I was standing outside in the CC meeting in which they walked out and then subsequently called for a CMKP congress in Sindh. The Sindh congress certainly cannot claim to represent the majority opinion of the party.

You wrote “we all knew that Afzal Khomosh was hobnobing with the esteshment and so was doing your chairman Sufi with Jamali who was the then Chief minister of Balochastan.”

My response: The question comrade Imdad failed to answer even as far back as 1998 when he started his campaign was, did Sufi’s personal contacts with Jamali result in him advocating an opportunist line within the party? In the first press conference after the coup (two days after the coup Oct 14th) Sufi Khaliq immediately declared that the CMKP was opposed to the military takeover. Did Sufi Khaliq ever advocate support for Musharraf or for the PML(Q)? If so, provide the evidence.

When Khamosh opted to support Sherpao and embarked upon an opportunist program in the 6th Congress 2003, I publicly resigned my post as President of the Punjab at the Congress. It was only to continue the internal struggle to the final conclusion that Comrade Hamza correctly persuaded me to withdraw my resignation. On July 12th 2003 during the Punjab Committee meeting the internal struggle came to its final conclusion. It was comrade Hamza who physically defended me against those who would have liked nothing better than to break a few bones in my body. In sum, comrade Hamza, myself and so many others conducted a life and death struggle against opportunism within the CMKP. Can it be said with any degree of fairness that I deliberately sheltered opportunists or opportunism within our party? Can it be said with any degree of fairness that I sheltered the opportunism of Khamosh? But I suspect you do not even have an inkling of this struggle.

You wrote “Is ther any doubt about it,Do you know your Chairman Sofi Khaliq more then us.”

My response: If you know him so well why were you making such a strong effort to convince him to join the CPP after the internal split that the CMKP suffered? Your actions speak louder than your words.

You wrote “we are sorry to say hamza as you claime that national democratic line of khurshchever was adopted by the CPP,you are politacally nillitrate..What i feel sorry about you is that you only read the read book as most of the maoist have done..”

My response: Well this is the first time I’ve heard this accusation (that Maoists merely read books). And just when I thought I heard everything.

Perhaps it would be wiser comrade to elaborate on the line that the CPP followed and follows instead of merely abusing comrade Hamza.

You wrote “with love,lol we never thought you can be that fool and lier. Central Secretariar. Communist Parety of Pakistan.”

Is this a Communist Parety or a Communist Parody because frankly and unfortunately it is beginning to sound more like the latter? Kahan Faiz Sahib, Sibte Hasan, Sajjad Zaheer, Hassan Nasir, Major Ishaq, Eric Siprian aur kahan yeh “debate”…

Still hopeful for a meaningful scientific dialogue on the real questions pertaining to the international communist movement

Posted in Pakistani Politics | Comments Off on Incorrect Criticism of CPP


Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 8, 2006

Articles such as “China’s ‘Sky Train’ — fast-track to genocide” areexactly why the politics of the Green Left Weekly are deserving of the gutter of history. As usual the LPP gorges on the gutter politics of imperialism under the guise of left-wing phraseology much like the

Please read Micheal Parenti to understand the real situation in Tibet.

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

Posted in International Affairs, International Communist Movement, Pakistani Politics | Comments Off on Tibet

On Criticism

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 7, 2006

Ehtisham sahib,

Have you seen this film by Che Guevara called “The Motor Cycle Diaries”? In that film there is a scene when this extremely friendly doctor gives Che and his friend refuge in his house. He feeds them and helps them out in many ways. While they are guests in his house he gives them a book to read that he has been writing for a long time. He says he wants nothing but the truth, the absolute honest opinion.

When they are about to leave he asks them what they thought of the book. Alberto, Che’s more pragmatic friend, responds by saying “it was good” but when Che is asked he says that the book was really terrible. That the metaphors were too typical, the style was poor and the writing was basically bad. The doctor is shocked. His mouth drops open. After a long unfriendly silence the doctor says “damn it boy, thank you for being so honest.”

When we submit something upon which we have expended so much labour and love, we may ask for the honest opinion of others but few among us are ready to hear the really honest opinion of others. What we are looking for is not honesty but reaffirmation.

You submitted your writing. I gave you my honest opinion of it. Where I disagreed strongly, I told you bluntly, perhaps too bluntly. I did not try to flatter you with praise, to butter you up with honeyed phrases, or win you over to my party/cause with hypocrisy (as politicians are apt to do).

When you pointed out that you were offended by a certain word that I used, I immediately apologized because my intent is not to hurt your feelings but to engage constructively. If you prefer the honeyed phrases of professional politicians, rest assured that I have the ability to utilize words to flatter you as well. If you, however, are searching for the truth, as we believe we are, and are ready to submit your writing to severest of criticism, then please accept my
humble attempt at destroying views that I am convinced are incorrect.

If you are convinced that my views are incorrect, you have the same right as I do to destroy my arguments utilizing equally strong language.

Let us engage constructively and honestly.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on On Criticism

CMKP on th Question of Maoism III

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 7, 2006

“Actually, the Filipino party uses the “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism formulation now.”

Yes but, if I am not mistaken, it is still ideologically closer to the MLPD than to RIM.

“I don’t think this is a dividing line with Maoism. The Nepalese party participated in the old state’s parliament before launching the people’s war. There’s no reason not to use this as a tribune under certain conditions.”

True, it is not longer the dividing line. Things have changed. However, one has merely to pick up the writings of Charu Mazamdar to realize that he considered it one of the essential dividing lines
between revisionism and Maoism. Please note:

“In the present era when imperialism is heading towards total collapse, revolutionary struggle in every country has taken the form of armed struggle; Soviet revisionism, unable to retain its mask of socialism, has been forced to adopt imperialist tactics; world revolution has entered a new higher phase; and socialism is marching irrepressibly forward to victory – in such an era, to take to the parliamentary road means stopping this onward march of world revolution. Today, the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists cannot opt for the parliamentary road . This is true not only for the colonial and semi-colonial countries, but for the capitalist countries as well. In this new era of world revolution when victory has been achieved in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, it has become the main task of the Marxist-Leninists the world over to establish bases in rural areas and to build up, on a firm foundation, the unity of workers, peasants and all other toiling people through armed struggle. So, the slogans ‘boycott elections’ and ‘establish rural bases and create areas of armed struggle,’ which the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists have advanced, remain valid for the entire era.” “Boycott Elections!”
International Significance of the Slogan

Please note that the last line does not imply that that boycotting elections is valid for particular periods of political upsurge (which conformed to the Leninist position explicated in Left Wing Communism) but is considered valid “for the entire era” (i.e. the era “when imperialism is heading towards total collapse”).

Maoists never held this to be the case in the imperialist countries. But as far as the neo-colonial countries are concerned, the Nepalese party is advocating developing the Maoist conception of protratec people’s war by combining it with urban insurrection. The modern conditions necessitate combining “surrounding the cities” with insurrection.

Please note that Charu says:

“it has become the main task of the Marxist-Leninists the world over to establish bases in rural areas and to build up, on a firm foundation, the unity of workers, peasants and all other toiling
people through armed struggle.”
Clearly Charu is saying that the “main” task for MLs the “world over” is to work in the countryside. In other words, city work is not the main task. I don’t think we should make a generalization of this sort. I think it is better to leave it to individual communist parties to determine fr themselves their “main” task in accordance with a scientific study of their material conditions.

Soviet Social Imperialism:

“I don’t think that the 1991 events show that it was then that capitalism was restored. Even the Yanayev coup plotters advocated continuing Gorbachev’s “reforms.” Yevsei Lieberman was busy setting up the foundations for capitalist economy (under “public ownership” in the 1960’s). Capitalism wasn’t restored in the economic base in 1956 in one stroke, but the working class did lost state power at the center.”

But that was not the thesis upheld by Maoists in the 1970s. It was clearly stipulated that capitalism had been “fully” restored in the Soviet Union and that the latter had become “a social -imperialist power”. In fact, to uphold that the Soviet Union was “revisionist but not imperialist” was considered “centrism” in the 1970s and is today considered “neo-revisionism” by those who call themselves Maoists. Again I would like to quote Charu:

“The struggle between the two lines is there within the Party and will continue to be there. We must oppose and defeat the incorrect line. But we must be on our guard against centrism. Centrism is a brand of revisionism – its worst form. In the past, revisionism was defeated again and again by revolutionary elements but centrism always seized the victories of the struggle and led the Party along the revisionist path. We must hate centrism. On the question of boycotting elections, Naggi Reddy said : “Yes we accept it but it should be restricted to a certain area at a certain period. We will participate in elections where there is no struggle.” This is Naggy Reddy’s line. This is centrism. We have fought against it and have thrown the Naggy Reddy’s out of our organization. Regarding Soviet social – imperialism some say : ” The Soviet leaders are revisionists. But how can they be imperialists ? Where is that development of monopoly capital ?” These are centrists. We have fought them and thrown them out of our Party. So the centrists raised the questions of trade unions and “working class based party” when armed clash is to be developed by relying on the peasantry. We fought Asist Sen and company on these lines and threw them out of the Party.”
Hate, Stamp and Smash Centrism

Clearly the view that the Soviet Union is not an imperialist country is incompatible with Maoism (and also it demonstrates that participation in elections is also incompatible with Maoism).

Solidarity in Poland:

“There are “Maoists” who did so, and that is mistaken. Clearly, Solidarity was a US-imperialist front, and nothing more.”

The problem is that support for Solidarity is mentioned in the founding document of RIM. I wouldn’t be surprised if the MLPD had roughly the same statement.

“I do not believe that the errors of Mao can be put on par with actions of renegades like Khrushchev or Gorbachev.”

The greatness of Mao lay not merely in the fact that he built up the largest socialist state in the world but also led the struggle against revisionism in the 1960s. Unfortunately the good work of his excellent critique presented in the seven open letters to the CPSU was undone by the later extremely one-sided interpretations of anti-revisionism under the influence of the theory of “soviet social imperialism” and the ultra-leftist tactics of those who called themselves “Maoists”.

Posted in International Communist Movement | Comments Off on CMKP on th Question of Maoism III