Taimur Rahman Political Archive

Long Live Marxism-Leninism!

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.”
http://cpim.org/documents/1992_on_ideological_issues.htm

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
discussion.”

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

In solidarity
Taimur Rahman

Advertisements

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
capitalism?
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

Tibet

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
GLW.

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

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

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.

Elections:
“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
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1968/12/x01.html

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”).

Cities
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
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1970/05/x01.htm

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

Relationship between CPP and CPI after 1947

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 7, 2006

Comrade Hamza wrote “The Communist Party of Pakistan was not an Independent Party from the very first day of it’s birth.The CPP was working as a unit of CPI.The Party was not emerge through an independent Congress,it was bifercated on the basis of partitioned areas.”

Comrade Hamza, the fact that the CPP emerged as a result of the bifurcation of the CPI does not in anyway prove that the CPP was “not an independent party”. Given your logic, one would also have to accept that Pakistan was not independent of India given that it emerged as a result of the bifurcation of India.

In order for us to accept your thesis, you would have to present evidence beyond the Calcutta Congress that conclusively demonstrated the interference of the CPI in the politics of the CPP in a manner that undermined the decision making process of the latter. If you have such evidence please present it. All evidence points towards the other conclusion; that after the formation of the CPP in 1948, the CPI lost all contact with the CPP.

Posted in History | Comments Off on Relationship between CPP and CPI after 1947

CMKP on th Question of Maoism II

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 4, 2006

To continue to the second part of my explication of the general political line of the CMKP especially in relation to Maoism, I would like to bring to the fore certain other anomalies.

I have already explained how the MKP and later the CMKP differed on the question of Ayub Khan and Afghanistan in comparison to the “Maoist” movement in Pakistan. I would also like to bring to the fore other differences that the CMKP shares with the international Maoist movement. But before I begin to do that I need to define the major Mao’ist’ trends found in the world today.

There are two main trends laying claim to the legacy of Mao Tse-Tung. One is called “Maoism” and the other is called “Mao Zedong Thought”.

Maoism: The slogan of “Maoism” as a third stage of Marxism-Leninism was raised by the Communist Party of Peru in 1980 and its international manifestation remains the Revolutionary International Movement of which the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Communist Party of India (Maoist) are members.

Mao Tse-Tung Thought: The other important center of “Mao Zedong Thought” is the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany, Communist Party of Philippines, and Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist).

I won’t go into the details of the differences between the two because those differences are irrelevant to the discussion we are having at this stage about the CMKP. The differences I am going to explicate are shared in common with both trends.

1) CUBA
Both the “Maoists” as well as those adhering to “Mao Zedong Thought” consider Fidel Castro to be a revisionist and more often than not they consider Cuba to be a capitalist society.

The CMKP, on the other hand, supports Cuba as a socialist state and Fidel Castro as a great Marxist-Leninist.

2) China
Both the “Maoists” as well as those adhering to “Mao Zedong Thought” adhere to the view that China is a completely capitalist country. On the issue of the Tiananmen square both movements stood on the side of the protestors against the Communist Party of China.

The General Secretary of the CMKP comrade Ejaz Ghani made it clear to me that if China had capitulated to the demands of the Tiananmen square protestors the country would have followed the same path of destruction as the former Soviet Union. Therefore, CMKP does not share the analysis that the above mentioned trends made of the situation in China.

3) Elections
The CMKP is not against participation in bourgeois parliaments and elections.

4) Unions
The CMKP believes that communists should intervene in workers unions, even reactionary workers unions. Generally the party should participate in all mass legal organizations of workers and peasants.

5) Cities
The CMKP believes that the party must work in both urban as well as rural areas. The view that the revolution will necessarily arise from the countryside is completely one-sided.

These were some of the well-recognized differences that we share with Maoism and Mao Tse-Tung Thought as defined by the above mentioned parties. I would also like to present some of my personal thoughts on some other questions.

1) Soviet Social Imperialism: The theory that the Soviet Union was an imperialist state where a full capitalist restoration had occurred in 1956 is incorrect in my view. This theory was destroyed
by the events of 1991 which demonstrated clearly that the final capitalist restoration occurred with the breakup of the Soviet Union. (Although the CMKP does not utilize the term Soviet Social
Imperialism we have never had a full debate about this issue).

2) There is evidence that European Maoists supported Solidarity of Poland which in my view is equivalent to crossing the class line.

3) I am against the bourgeois “Prague Springs” and in my view Castro took a better position on the events in 1968 in Czechoslovakia than the leadership of the Communist Party of China (they initiated the slogan rhetoric of Soviet Social Imperialism from that event).

4) Generally the kind of anti-Sovietism I saw in my meeting with Maoist parties in Europe repelled me from their stance and I felt that to a considerable extent they were utilizing Maoism to cover up their inability to face the anti-Soviet imperialist propaganda within their own countries.

5) I do not agree with the Maoist assessment of Hoxha nor with the Hoxhaism assessment of Mao! They both seem to have lost the wood for the trees in my opinion. I simultaneously reject the “Three World’s Theory” which in my opinion was never a serious theory of revolution
but merely China’s foreign policy touted as a theory.

6) I also bitterly criticize the support that the Communist Party of China gave to Afghan Mujahideen, Pinochet, and UNITA. This was a disastrous policy decision.

What I agree with in the context of the great work of Mao Tse-Tung and Enver Hoxha are the excellent critiques they presented of Khrushchev’s revisionism in the early 1960s.

In the final analysis what we must take from Mao and Hoxha are their critiques of modern revisionism while rejecting their ultra-leftist errors or the ultra-leftist errors made in their name (especially those arising from the ridiculous theory of Soviet Social Imperialism).

The pro-Soviet parties have to wake up and realize that the Soviet Union was destroyed because of the opportunist policies undertaken under the rhetoric of de-Stalinization. The anti-revisionists have to get over their ultra-leftist errors. Only by correcting both revisionism as well as ultra-leftism can a Marxist-Leninist party be built up that can lead the world proletariat to victory.

In my view the CMKP made some progress in that direction by combining the anti-revisionist and pro-Soviet forces in the country, even though this step was taken out of a sense of desperation, but unfortunately some people remain stuck in another epoch and are unable to think dialectically grasp the dynamics of a new synthesis. Nonetheless, it is my firm conviction, after over a decade of involvement with the workers movement, that a success international
communist movement can only be revived by correcting both revisionism and ultra-leftism.

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

Discussion on Communist Party of Pakistan

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 4, 2006

First a short note to comrade Ehtisham.

Dear comrade, you have not touched a sensitive nerve. We are just as comfortable taking criticism as we giving it. Besides even if you did touch a sensitive nerve, why should you stop. If you feel you are correct, you should pursue your point of view with full vigor. Perhaps in the course of time we will be persuaded to what you have to say.

I would prefer that you continue posting on our list but not take our remarks personally. I apologize for offending you. The intent is not to offend but to discuss matters. However, I cannot deny that at times I lose my patience. In my defence I can only offer the fact
that I am also human. Anyway, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let us concentrate on the content rather than on the unconvincing form of my critique.

Comrade Hamza you wrote: “The CPP was disintegrated in 1951,due to the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case.After 1951,there was no Party,no CC or other instituation.”

I have a few questions in this regard.

1) While it is true that the CPP suffered a major blow after 1954 (when the party was outlawed), do you think it is correct to say that “there was no party”. If there was no party, why then was Hassan Nasir tortured to death?

2) Doesn’t your analysis ignore the CPP in East Pakistan?

3) Wasn’t the decision to join NAP reached by the remaining cadres of the CPP?

Hamza wrote: “When Qazi Removed from Dy.secertryship due to his pro-establishment contacts”

I would be very interested to know about these “pro-establishment contacts”? If you have some hard evidence I think you should share it with us and make it public to warn others.

Hamza wrote: “Qazi Imdad was not a Communist he was a narrow nationalist and was member of G.M Sayed’s Party Jai Sindh.” So what you are saying is that the CMKP voted a “narrow nationalist” into the position of the Deputy Secretary of the CMKP? Perhaps you can explain why this occurred?

Further, wasn’t Major Ishaq also a member of Taluh-e-Islam before he joined the left? Clearly you cannot hold one’s former party affiliations against current political position.

What is the evidence that Imdad Qazi is presently a “narrow nationalist”? Clearly if he was a “narrow nationalist” he would have jumped at the opportunity to defend the right of the Baloch and Sindhis to self-determination. The fact that he didn’t, proves otherwise.

Let us not raise accusations that are unjust. Let us seek the non-partisan truth.

Posted in History, Pakistani Politics | Comments Off on Discussion on Communist Party of Pakistan

Differences with Jamil Malik

Posted by Taimur Rahman on August 3, 2006

First let me try to answer the questions raised by comrade Vegard.

1) “What will happen if these forces [MMA] gain access to Pakistans nuclear-program if they take power??”

After the Dr. A.Q. Khan incident the gov. of Pakistan gave “guarantees” to the USA that these nuclear sites could not be used in a manner that would be deterimental to US interests. I suspect that the level of control the US excercises over these nuclear sites is greater than the average Pakistani suspects. The possibility of these devices falling into the hands of the MMA, at
this stage, are very slight. In all probability they will be destroyed or scuttled if ever there is a chance that the MMA was close to taking power.

2) “Another question, is Musharraf considered by Pakistanis as a Islamist, a religous leader with “good” ties to the Mullahs, or is he a opportunistic army general serving the interest of imperialism?”

Definitely the latter.

3) An about the CMKP and CPP relations, I have understood so far that the CPP grew out of CP India in 1948. Then after the sino-soviet conflict, it split into MKP and CPP. And about in 1990`s the MKP and CPP joined forces in CMKP. But did all members of the CPP join the CMKP? Are the members and leaders of todays CPP, with mailadress: cppak@yahoogroups.com, members who didn`t want to join the CMKP?

No. All the members of CPP joined the CMKP. There may have been individuals who disagreed with this decision (on both sides) but they never presented their opinions in the form of an organized platform. For all intents and purposes the merger was next to unanimous and a historic advance at the time.

Jamil Malik’s cpofpakistan@yahoogroups.com is a recent breakaway from the CPP (which in turn broke away from the CMKP in 1999). All the parties arguing on this forum were members of the CMKP after the 1994 merger.

4) “Does it serve the workin-class and the peoples interest if Balochistan is to get autonomy? Maybe the communist in Pakistan could discuss and answer that.?”

Frankly, that would hardly constitute a discussion because everyone agrees on the question of autonomy. They do not however, agree on the right of self-determination or on basis of the conflict (i.e. the extent of the “foreign hand”).

Now to turn to Comrade Jamil Malik’s message

1) “Imdad Qazi also joined CMKP but none said that CMKP is a “Maoist Party” then. However, in year 1999 Imdad Qazi and Maula Buxsh was expelled from CMKP on the reasons known both to CMKP and Maula Buxsh and Imdad Qazi.”

In fact, not only was this objection not raised at that time, it was also not raised during the time when comrade Imdad Qazi split from the CMKP. In one word, the basis of the split was hardly over the question of the alleged Maoism of the CMKP. Comrade Imdad Qazi and Maulah Bux Khaskheli were not expelled from the CMKP comrade Jamil Malik. They chose to leave. Please recall that they campaigned to reconvene the 5th party congress (1998) by gathering signatures of the delegates to the 5th congress. When the demand to reconvene the congress was rejected by the central committee Imdad Qazi and Maulah Bux Khaskheli walked out and called for a new congress of the CMKP despite the decision of the CC (please note that even then the congress convened was of the CMKP). It was at this alternative congress that the 36 odd present delegates (if I am not mistaken) took the decision to revive the CPP. (The number of delegates is actually irrelevant because I would support even one person if they were really standing for Marxism-Leninism). The first time I have heard about the “Maoism” of the CMKP as the basis for the split was in Mansoor Saeed’s recent statement. However, if that is the position of the CPP then they should state it openly and without hesitation. Let us have an open debate on this issue and we will defend our position with logic and facts.

2) Comrade Jamil Malik wrote “Is he [Mansoor Saeed] spokesman of CPP led by Imdad Qazi or is an employee of the Central Secretariat of CPP led by Imdad Qazi?”

Comrade, this comment is below the belt. I think you owe Mansoor Saeed an apology for this personal insult. Whatever mistakes Mansoor Saeed may be making, you cannot take away from him the work he has done in the context of progressive television in Pakistan. Especially the work he has done for the translation and dubbing of the documentary series “The Ascent of Man” and “Cosmos”.

3) Jamil Malik wrote “It is a closed chapter from our side and every on this forum knew that a rift was created last year (2005) on Hisbah Bill and on the matters of Provincial Autonomy and Baluchistan within CPP and the result was that the communists within CPP, who believed in two lines struggle expelled Imdad Qazi due to his pro-establishment and pro-Musharraf role and elected Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik as the Chairman of CPP.”

First, the conflict over Balochistan was an after-thought on your part comrade. As an impartial observer I felt that you only opened this debate after you had been told repeatidly to obey party discipline and not support the Hasba Bill. On that issue I still support the position of Imdad Qazi. He was right and you were wrong.

Second, your interpretation of the “two-line struggle” misrepresents the teachings of Lenin and Mao.

Third, the alleged expulsion of Imdad Qazi is as much news to me as the “Maoism” of the CMKP is. Name the members of the CC and PC, of the CPP supported you?

Fourth, have you realized your mistake on the Hasba? Are you ready to make a self-criticism on this position? If so, would you be prepared to submit this in writing?

Jamil Malik wrote: “Is it possible in Pakistan that all the left and progressive political parties can be united on one platform so as to form one left political party in Pakistan as the scattered left and progressive parties have yield no positive results in the Pakistani politics yet?”

No this is not possible comrade because those who have left communism are not ready to accept anything less than complete capitulation from Marxism as a prerequisite for unity. Given the current ideological alignment of parties, such a unity (i.e. the formation of one political party of the left) would essentially constitute the complete liquidation of the small communist parties left in Pakistan.

Small and ineffective as we may be comrade, the real hard work in front of us is continue to ideologically struggle for the dominance of Marxism-Leninism against variants of social-democracy. Failure to understand this essential task is what led you to pursue steps that
scuttled the consolidation of the Joint Left Front. But you have not understood your error in this regard because you still continue to harbour illusions about these “left” parties.

Jamil Malik asked “Or if not in one political party, can left and progressive parties are competent enough to form an effective united alliance against the current military regime?”

We did form such an alliance comrade (the Joint Left Front) but it was primarily your impatience that led to serious raptures in the relationship we built after enormous efforts.

PONM, ARD, AJT I think we should join PONM and the ARD. If the AJT is ready to talk to us on the basis of equality, we should be ready to join that as well. Membership of one front does not preclude the opportunity to join other fronts. Why should we leave any anti-establishment forum
or alliance without communist influence?

Jamil Malik asked : “Presently in Pakistan, there is no effective role of left and progressive parties and groups against the military regime of General Pervaz Musharraf and American Imperialism and can we play an effective role now, if so, how and why?”

Little Red Riding Hood got into a lot of trouble by taking short-cuts. Similary, we communists should not expect any other results from similar shortcuts. We have to first and foremost build Marxist-Leninist unity on the basis of ideological clarity. It is the low ideological level of the movement as a whole that condemns us to factionalism.

Which is why this forum and this debate in particular is proving to be a great asset for ML unity. I hope that we communists continue to participate on this forum with a scientific spirit.

Posted in Pakistani Politics | Comments Off on Differences with Jamil Malik