Although the incomplete selection of texts currently available in English make it impossible to carry out a comprehensive critique of the ideological formation of the KOE at this time with the material we have access to, we would like to draw attention to some interesting formulations in the few documents posted up on the organization’s website.
First of all the 2001 text “The Recent Developments and the Imperative Necessity to Discuss about the General Line of the Contemporary Communist Movement”.
Here the KOE attacks the line of universal applicability of protracted people’s war thorough a criticism of a text presented by the Anti-imperialist Revolutionary Forum of Nepal at the 2001 Brussels seminar:
“Here, the General Line of the Protracted People’s War is stabilized, on one hand, and becomes more flexible, on the other. The armed revolt is considered as one form, or a particular moment, of the People’s War. Here we are in front of errors, because the armed revolt and the people’s war are two different things. Generally speaking, the road of the October Revolution and the one of the Chinese Revolution were two distinctive roads. Up today, there has not been proposed another, different, third road – in spite of the fact that such a possibility must not be excluded theoretically; Lenin says enough on this, and Leninism teaches us enough as well. However, it is not correct to confuse those two roads that exist up today, and to merge them into one.
Another problem is that the invocation of such a General Line, as described by comrade Nabin Sapkota, does not grasp the importance that has, under the actual conditions, the creation of an international united front against the New World Order, against the imperialist globalization. Up today, the various supporters of the Protracted People’s War are privileging specific and quite restricted cooperation, aiming at promoting and imposing this General Line. Consequently, they are quite indifferent in front of a series of problems that exist; these problems desperately demand the attention of the communists all over the world – and especially the attention of those communists who consider that, in their countries, the General Line of the Protracted People’s War is not valid.
The result is to find us considerably delayed as far as the duty of building a worldwide front against imperialism is concerned.”
We must point out in response to this that the conceptualization of armed revolt as a specific moment of a protracted process of revolutionary war in fact corresponds to the experience of the Russian revolution between 1905-1921 and that of the German revolution between 1918-1924 as well as the Finnish experience. The so called “October Road” as elucidated in works like the Neuberg book on armed insurrection was a schematic misinterpretation of the Russian experience. A misinterpretation capable of generating only defeat.
As for the unspecified “third road” if the statements of individuals close to the organization that the military line of the KOE can be summarized as an attempt to replicate the Cultural revolution prior to the seizure of power are in fact correct this is extremely suggestive.
An attempt to replicate the tactics of a movement launched to secure the dictatorship of the proletariat-a movement which as evidenced by the rightist seizure of power in China was in fact insufficient to fulfill this task-under the conditions of bourgeois dictatorship can only be indicative of a fundamental confusion on the class nature of the state.
Moving on to the alleged importance of a united front against the “New World Order”:
We must ask what is the purpose from a communist perspective of a united front which does not aim at the mobilization of all forces which can be mobilized around a program of people’s war for the seizure of power by the proletariat and its allies?
The front against imperialism is not a goal in and of itself-its a means towards the end of the accumulation of forces for the initiation and development of people’s war for the seizure of power by the proletariat.
Outside of this context the construction of a broad anti-imperialist front becomes the justification for the liquidation of the communist program and inevitably transforms into its opposite-into a front of social forces aligned with one imperialist bloc or faction.
We can see this historically with the development of revisionism out of the anti-fascist popular front in the Western communist parties.
“Therefore, if we are allowed to make a general historical comparison (provided that the above mentioned is right), then this should be with the tasks posed to the world movement for the smashing of Nazi-fascism, the first version of the New World Order. The tasks set by the 7th Congress of the Comintern were not the launching of revolutions, but the formation of the united front of the working class and of the people’s antifascist front for the rebuttal of fascism and the confrontation of the approaching imperialist war. Only through the confrontation and the smashing of the “open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinist, imperialist elements of the finance capital” and the threat this signified through the launching of a world war, would it be possible to make way for revolution in general. There was no other course under the specific circumstances then….”
The entire Popular Front strategy had one overriding purpose-the defense of the USSR as the one extent socialist state against international imperialist encirclement. The coherence and potency of the international communist movement was sacrificed to the imperative of breaking up any broad anti-Soviet front of the imperialist bourgeoisie through alignment with democratic against fascist imperialism.
Broad sections of the international communist movement experienced fatal ideological corrosion as a result. In the absence of any socialist state facing a existential threat from imperialist encirclement the invocation of such a strategy is no more then a sordid excuse for shameless right opportunism.
“One more remark: We have noticed a certain underestimation of the Communist Parties and Organizations of Europe and, more generally, of the “first world”, by other forces. This underestimation is generalized with the underestimation of the working class struggles and of the radical movements developing in this part of the world. The position that the main contradiction is defined by the contradiction “imperialism/peoples” and is geographically located in the zones of revolutionary storms (Latin America, Asia, Africa) might lead to the conclusion that nothing serious can be born in the imperialist metropoles. Although we have clashed against Euro-centrism and Western-centrism (the conception that the center of the revolution is located in Europe and generally in the developed capitalist countries), we maintain that such attitudes are of no use; on the contrary, they are harmful…”
The above citation is characteristic of a metropole chauvinist line which is expressed throughout the available documents of the KOE. There is no mention of the split within the world working class of the labor aristocracy or the diffusion of imperialist super-profits within the metropolitan social formation.
The material basis for the centering of the world revolutionary process in the oppressed countries is completely obscured.
This goes hand in hand with the negation of the universal applicability of protracted people’s war as two sides of a single right opportunist coin.