Hold Aloft the Invincible Banner of Mao Tse Tung Thought-1980


-Harbhajan Singh Sohi

(statement published in the Proletarian Path,Organ of the CC (provisional) of the U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.),March 1980 in commemoration of comrade Mao Tse Tung’s 86th birthday)

Hold Aloft the Invincible Banner of Mao Tse Tung Thought

Today, powerful forces have sprung from within the international communist movement to derail or deviate it from its established general line and principles. In this great trial of strength between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism, the battle around the estimation of Mao Tse Tung and Mao Tse Tung Thought is crucial. Feverish attempts are being made in categorical as well as veiled fashions by various opportunist quarters to denigrate the name and teachings of Comrade Mao Tse Tung. Confronted with this temporarily formidable opposite, the revolutionary aspect of the international communist movement is being compelled to develop and supersede it through struggle.

The gradually increasing number of genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and groups who boldly come forward against heavy odds, in defence of the glorious revolutionary practice of Mao Tse Tung and Mao Tse Tung Thought, are manifestations of this phenomenon and a testimony to the inexhaustible vitality of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought. Mao Tse Tung grasped and applied the science of dialectical materialism in a masterly fashion and, in the process, greatly enriched it. Carrying forward Lenin’s observation that the law of contradiction is the kernel of dialectics, Mao Tse Tung definitely formulated that the law of unity of opposites is the basic law of dialectics.

Thus, he specified the inter-relationship of various laws of dialectics. Consistently upholding the principle of universality of contradiction, he applied it to socialist society and the communist party as well. Not only did he further develop the concept of two types of contradictions, i.e. antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions to be resolved by two different methods, but, more importantly, he explored the identity of these two opposites under certain conditions, and recognized that antagonistic and non–antagonistic contradictions undergo transformation into their opposites. Thus, he provided the theoretical framework for conceiving the political phenomena of formation and dissolution of a united front between different class forces, and of alternating periods of milder and more acute forms of struggle in the development of socialist society as well as in the communist party under varying conditions. Applying it to socialist society, he propounded the theory of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Applying it to the Communist party, he put forth the organizational concept of ‘struggle between two lines”in the Communist Party, interlinking inner-party struggle and class struggle in society. In his analysis of the law of contradiction, Mao Tse Tung laid special emphasis on the study of particularity of contradiction and underlined its great importance for guiding the course of revolutionary practice. Exploring the problem of particularity of contradiction, he ascertained a new dimension of contradiction, representing in its particularity the unevenness of forces that are in contradiction, i.e., the uneven character of development of various contradictions, and more importantly, the mutual transformation into each other of the principal and non-principal ones. Mao Tse Tung applied this comprehension of the particularity of contradiction to such pairs of opposites which were generally considered to be undergoing no change in the respective positions of their aspects, namely the productive forces and the relations of production, theory and practice, and the economic base and the superstructure. Mao Tse Tung observed that the productive forces, practice, and economic base generally play the principal role but in certain conditions the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal roles.

Thus, he restored the true spirit of dialectical materialist outlook in the international communist movement, at the time suffering from a mechanical materialist outlook in its viewpoint, particularly in questions related to construction of socialist society. This provided the ideological basis of the recognition of prime necessity of revolution in the superstructure after basically completing the socialist transformation of the economic base.The Great Proletarian Cultural revolution was the result.

Grasping the uneven and dynamic character of various contradictions in the process of development of a thing and that of the two aspects of a contradiction, Mao Tse Tung observed that although the fundamental essence of a process remains basically unchanged until the culmination of the process, marked changes have their distinctive characters or particularities representing, respectively, qualitatively different states of contradiction in their inter-relationship.

Thus, he crystallized the concept of definite stages in a process of development of a thing. Mao Tse Tung’s comprehension of the phenomenon of definite stages in a process of development of a thing, that is, the law of quantitative changes leading to qualitative changes. In this connection, he ascertained that, in the process of development of a phenomenon, along with uninterrupted quantitative changes, many partial qualitative changes also take place before the final qualitative leap occurs. Mao Tse Tung’s conceptual grasp of the law of contradiction in things, especially the uneven and dynamic character of contradiction, the possibility under certain conditions of mutual transformation of principal and non-principal aspects of a contradiction, of partial qualitative changes, etc. permeates all his important military concepts, which constitute the most developed form of proletarian military thought to date: the strategy and tactics of protracted people’s war.

For instance, at a strategic plane, the concept of a revolutionary base area under people’s state power amidst the country-wide counter-revolutionary state power; and at a tactical plane, the concept of miniature counter-encirclements by the people’s armed forces within the overall encirclement by enemy forces, and the concept of ‘ten against one’ in tactical operations. Mao Tse Tung, overall, integrated the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. In grasping and solving the complex fundamental problems of national democratic revolution of semi-colonial and semi-feudal China and of its transition to socialist revolution.

Carrying forward the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on the colonial revolution, he dissected the native bourgeoisie, studied the characteristics of its segments, drew a clear cut demarcation between the big bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, treating the former as a target and the latter as a former ally of the revolution in its first stage preceding the socialist stage; he concretely solved the peasant question by providing proletarian leadership to the agrarian revolutionary movement and relying on the peasantry as a main force in the national democratic revolution; he ensured the consummation of the national democratic revolution and the transition to the socialist revolution by charting out a course of maintaining the independence of the proletariat as a political force, forging the worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the proletariat, establishing the hegemony of the proletariat over all the political forces engaged in the revolution, including the national bourgeoisie, thus making it a new democratic revolution in its political character.

Mao Tse Tung critically absorbed the first experience of the proletariat in building socialism in the USSR and the loss of proletarian state power there, and drew illuminating conclusions for steering the development of socialist revolution in China. He saw that “in the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle; there is the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road.” Hence, he brought forward the foremost position occupied by class contradictions in propelling social development throughout the historical period covered by socialist society, and laid down the cardinal precept that for properly appreciating and tackling problems of the development of socialist society, proletarian revolutionaries must proceed by taking class struggle as the key link.

He stressed the great significance of thoroughgoing changes in the relations of production and the superstructure for greatly boosting the development of productive forces during periods of revolutionary transition of society. He pointed out that socialist society, being a long historical period of revolutionary transition, calls for unrelenting revolutionary effort to adapt the relations of production to the constantly emerging requirements of the development of productive forces, and to transform the superstructure to bring it in tune with the socialist economic base so as to consolidate and develop the latter. He further observed that every socialist transformation in the relations of production and the superstructure corrodes influence and power of the old exploiting classes and new bourgeois elements, which inspires ever more frantic resistance on their part. This class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie finds intense expression on the political front. Hence the paramount importance for political revolution. Mao pointed out that after the smashing of the bourgeois political resistance, the chief representatives of the bourgeoisie are found to be hiding within the communist party itself – the party persons in authority taking the capitalist road – against whom the sharp class struggle has to be directed.

To achieve all-round socialist revolution in the ideological, political, and economic spheres, and to defend and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, Mao exhorted the proletarian revolutionaries to rely on the revolutionary masses of the people and revolutionary mass movements, bringing into full play their creative initiative and genius. The glorious decade of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, led by the proletarian revolutionaries headed by Mao Tse Tung, witnessed the practice and maturing of this theory of continuing revolution under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, marking a great leap forward in the revolutionary experience and achievements of the international proletariat.

We do not subscribe to the notion of infallibility of great revolutionary persons, for nor true Marxist does. Mao Tse Tung, like the other great teachers of the international proletariat – Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin – cannot be free of errors and inadequacies. But such errors and inadequacies, if noticed, are to be analyzed in a total and historical perspective, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought and with the purpose of enriching it. Whosoever ventures to challenge the validity of Mao Tse Tung Thought as an inalienable part of Marxism-Leninism must come to grips with this ideological edifice as a whole, especially Mao’s contributions to Marxist philosophy.

 The Leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania’s Struggle against Mao Tse Tung Thought

The leadership of the Albanian Party of Labor has launched an attack on Mao Tse Tung Thought in a most irresponsible manner, without a real theoretical refutation of a single tenet of Mao Tse Tung Thought. Not only have they taken a 180 degree turn from their own previous estimation of Mao Tse Tung Thought and his teaching without any convincing explanation or self-criticism, but they have also resorted to gross misrepresentations of Mao Tse Tung’s views to suit the convenience of their attack. Apparently, they cross swords with Teng-Hua revisionist clique, but in actual fact they are proving of great help to it by conferring upon it the sought-after legitimacy as successors to the ideology and cause of Mao Tse Tung, causing confusion and diversion in the struggle of genuine Marxist-Leninists against this clique and complementing the latter’s sophisticated attempts to discredit Mao Tse Tung thought with their wanton attacks on it.

The shallow and unfair polemical stand of the leadership of the APL against Mao Tse Tung and Mao Tse Tung Thought at present is disappointing and quite out of character realizing its reputation as a principled and mature Marxist-Leninist Party which boldly withstood the tremendous pressures of modern revisionism under testing conditions in the sixties. The less said the better about the so many rag-tag organizations decked in Marxist´Leninist colours, gathering under the ‘protective umbrella’ of Albanian ‘centre’ and covering their political bankruptcy of Marxism Leninism with vociferous denunciations of Mao Tse Tung and Mao Tse Tung Thought.

Their presumptuous conduct reminds one of a line of Mao poem: “Flies Lightly Conspire to Topple the Banyan Tree.” The objectives of the Albanian leaders, in presenting a distorted version of Mao Tse Tung’s views and practice apart from their own metaphysical and mechanistic approach to the study of concrete contradictions of the present day world, are linked to their inability to grasp the dialectical materialist content of Mao Tse Tung Thought, especially Mao’s exposition and handling of the particularity of contradictions. They reiterate the basic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, but fail to examine the various specific manifestations of this basic contradiction at various stages of its process of development, in the uneven accentuation of the four fundamental contradictions of the present world, and the changes in their inter-relationship.

They reiterate the historically ripe situation for socialist revolutions in the developed capitalist countries of Europe, North America, Japan, etc. in the era of emergent proletarian revolution, and note the increasing social discontent and turmoil under the impact of the intensifying economic crisis of world imperialist system, but yet fail to examine these factors of the situation in connection with the state of development of conscious revolutionary factors, in other words, specific political situations. They reiterate the common, essential character of all imperialist forces and also emphasise struggle against the two particular imperialist superpowers, without laying bare the distinctive features of the latter.

They reiterate the decisive significance of hegemony of the proletariat for successful consummation of national democratic revolutions but fail to recognize the peculiar form of its realization in an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution wherein the national bourgeoisie displays its incapability of leading the revolution through the end but retains, in some measure, revolutionary potentialities, while all the while the proletariat, establishing its credibility as the most staunch and consistent champion of national and democratic aspirations of the masses of the people by dint of the programme and practice of revolutionary struggle, strives to win over and carry along all those social forces whose revolutionary potentialities are not totally exhausted, such as the national bourgeoisie.

They emphasise the revisionist nature and defection to capitalism of Soviet rulers and emphasise their military nature and great-power-hegemonic role. But, in both cases, they miss the specific state of development of a phenomenon and divert the Marxist Leninist attack from the relevant focus, and so on and so forth. Despite the revolutionary phraseology of their documents and statements, and along with their ‘left’ opportunist positions regarding the orientation of the national democratic revolutionary movement in the East, the present situation and the tasks of proletarian revolutionary movements in the West, the practice of the Albanian leaders is also seriously right opportunist in its tendencies.

For instance, their political stand on the developments in South East Asia. Criticism of revisionism from ‘left’ opportunist standpoint is by now a familiar experience for the communist revolutionary movement, especially of India. In the case of Albanian polemics, it seems, their bombast against the Teng-Hua clique and real attack on Mao Tse Tung Thought are both meant to service a smokescreen for their own retreat to right opportunist course of action.

The leadership of the APL has facilitated the exposure of its own opportunism by it’s all out, contrived, spurious attack on Mao Tse Tung and Mao Tse Tung Thought. Hereafter, its capacity for causing confusion and disruption in the international Marxist-Leninist movement, especially the Asian contingents is, considerably reduced. Still, so long as the experience of the great reversal in China that occurred with the defeat of proletarian revolutionary line and forces after the death of Mao Tse Tung is not properly summed up and placed in the overall perspective of the zig zag course of transition from capitalism to communism, the negative approach to Mao Tse Tung’s revolutionary achievements in theory and practice shall sustain the traumatic effects of this historic event.

Nature of Teng-Hua Revisionism and revisionist turn of current C.P.C leadership

The change of colour in socialist China ,the great bastion of the world proletariat revolution, is such a tremendous loss as many revolutionaries find it difficult to absorb and digest. n India,the leadership of many difficult to acknowledge and digest. In India, the leadership of many communist revolutionary organizations and circles, afflicted with opportunism in varying degrees and of different hues but formally upholding Mao Tse Tung Thought, are banking on the state of mind of their ranks for virtually treating the developments in China as a non-event, deliberately evading or scuttling the issue.”The picture is far from clear’,internal issue of C.P.C,”Indian revolution should be our prime concern’,”two-line struggle is going on between Teng revisionist forces and Hua’s revolutionary forces.”

And “support C.P.C headed by Hua Kuo Feng with serious reservations”. A serious effort, on the part of genuine Marxist-Leninists ,is needed to accomplish a thorough exposure of the counter-revolutionary line and practice of the present day C.P.C leadership top enable the vast masses of genuine revolutionaries to see and treat it as the most detestable and cunning foe of Mao Tse Tung Thought. The concentration of the ideological attack on the Teng-Hua revisionist clique of China is necessary because, one,it attempts to utilize and undermine the great prestige of Mao Tse Tung by formally accepting and caricaturing Mao Tse Tung Thought,when at present broad sections of the communist revolutionary movement of India are prone to a right opportunist swing which finds a greater booster in the class –collaborative international line dished out by this clique. The present day Chinese rulers ,the revisionist usurpers of proletarian state power and party leadership in China are ideologically too bankrupt to challenge the theoretical validity of Mao Tse Tung Thought and feel still politically too insecure to openly renounce it.

Instead they choose for the time being, to strangle Mao Tse Tung Thought by malevolent embrace. They rob it of dialectical materialist and revolutionary content and peddle its shell stuffed with eclecticism and pragmatism. In a way,they are doing to Mao Tse Tung what the Russian revisionists did to Lenin. The latter disposed oif Lenin by reducing him to a glorified mummy and unleashing a proxy-attack on Stalin who faithfully defended,elaborated,and applied Leninsm. Similarly,the Chinese revisionists seek to dispose of Mao Tse Tung by reducing him to a venerable icon and unleashing a proxy attack on the four,who faithfully applied and defended Mao Tse Tung Thought. But there is a subtle difference between the 2 situations.

Whereas the Russian revisionists had a distance for about 3 decades and consequences of 2nd World War from the time of Lenin to amend or ignore as irrelevant his teachings under the pretext of changed conditions. The Chinese revisionists are denied this escape route from the revolutionary legacy of Mao Tse Tung. Mao Tse Tung,till the year of his death and their counter-revolutionary coup d’etat ,used to comment on vital questions of internal and external line of China’s Socialist Revolution. That is why the distinguished features of their revisionism is the reversal of the established contemporary revolutionary line,principles and policies at the national as well as the International level. And,to begin with,the reversal of the correct verdicts of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of China.

Teng-Hua revisionism in it’s present form is the continuation and development of Chinese revisionism ,which has been engaged in fierce contention with Mao Tse Tung Thought for controlling the steering of social development of China since the emergence of New China in 1949.Ever since the central thrust of the Chinese revisionists has been to stall the forward movement of the social revolution,of China on a course charted out by the proletariat,with the slogan of consolidating the obtaining stage of development of the revolution:should this stratagem fail,to sabotage the revolutionary movement in the name of ‘rectifying the excesses of revolution:should this stratagem fail too,hypocritically to hail the victories of revolution and stall the next revolutionary step further with the plea that the revolution had already achieved it’s objectives and other tasks come to the fore-all the while scheming to corrode and reverse the previous gains of revolution.

The proletarian revolutionary aspect exerted pressure through ideologically-politically exposing and defeating the particular platform by means of which revisionism ought to gain ground at a given stage, and consolidating and extending the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie in all fields. Until the passing away of Mao Tse Tung and the counter–revolutionary October Coup,the struggle developed under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Despite the relative shifts in the balance of forces between the proletarian revolutionary aspect and the bourgeois revisionist aspect of this intensely unfolding class contradiction,both within the party and the state,the former retained its principal position and initiative in the struggle. The latter was trounced from one–battle position after another was constrained to adopt a new form other than the already exposed and defeated ones.-in order to be able to contend with the former advanced position.

Now,after the October Coup,a qualitative change has taken place;the proletarian revolutionary aspect has been thrown back to a non-principal position and the struggle is unfolding under condition of revisionist bourgeois dictatorship.Obviously,the nature of revolutionary pressure exerted upon the counter-revolutionary revisionist forces has also radically changed. Hence,under the new conditions,the Teng Hua revisionist clique can venture to march back to the once defeated revisionist positions and reverse the correct verdicts of Socialist Revolution of China. The reversal of correct verdicts and the proletarian revolutionary line is brought about by this clique in phases through a series of shifting postures corresponding with the changing state of consolidation of it’s counter revolutionary grip over CPC and PRC since the October Coup.

The typical pattern of these shifting postures has been that of taking as the point of departure, an established formulation with pinpoints the principal contradiction or the principal aspect of a contradiction but rendering it non –operative for the period at hand by laboring the non-principal aspect of a contradiction or aspects of a contradiction at par in an eclectic manner but letting the weight of the whole argument to fall in favor of the non–principal aspect and elevating it to the principal position without plainly saying so,and ultimately,substituting metaphysics for their earlier eclecticism,inflating the non –principal aspect to the point of virtual negation of the principal aspect. Take for instance,the treatment of the Cultural Revolution and the relationship of grasping revolution and promoting production, at the hands of the Teng-Hua clique. During the first year of its revisionist usurpation up to the conclusion of the 11th Congress of CPC,the counter-revolutionary consolidation being yet very fragile,the clique had to maneuver in the familiar fashion of the earlier periods ,that is formally accepting the verdicts of the 9th and 10th Congress that the Cultural Revolution was a glorious leap forward of China’s Socialist Revolution but harping on the abuses of the cultural revolution allegedly the result of the four’s harmful influence.

Formally,upholding the Cultural Revolution, in other words,significance of grasping revolution,then, giving it a revisionist twist to draw the conclusion that the tasks of revolutionary transformation,having already been accomplished should give way to the urgent tasks of promoting production. Apart from being a pretext for formally terminating the Cultural Revolution,this revisionist logic insinuated that the Cultural Revolution did not embrace or promote production. They propagated that during the G.P.C.R.,due to ultra-leftist policies and interference of the Gang of four,the development of production was adversely affected in some fields and to overcome this lag and boost production,the focus was to be shifted to the four modernizations. The appraisal of the Cultural Revolution was made an open question and the need to critically examine it and sum up its experience was stressed.

Thus the correct verdict of the 2 party Congresses on the Cultural Revolution stood suspended. During the next year,having passed the critical; phase of it’s counter-revolutionary consolidation,the Teng-Hua revisionist clique felt bold enough to declare the glorious decade of the Cultural Revolution to be a period of veritable calamity for the economy and the people of China. The clique moaned that the chaos of the Cultural Revolution had thrown the economic development of China many years back and what had been consolidated during this decade was not the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie but fascist dictatorship. Revolution and production were made to appear to be antithetical phenomena,one developing at the cost of another.

So,in the name of seeking unhindered development of production,revolutionary mass movements were prohibited,revolution was banished. In this way the Teng-Hua revisionist clique effected the reversal of the established guiding principle of Socialist Construction, “Grasp revolution and promote production.”The correct verdict on the chief exponents and the chief opponents of the Cultural Revolution was also reversed. Now the four were labeled as bourgeois counter revolutionaries,and Teng Xiaping and Liu Shao-Chi became great proletarian revolutionaries. The Teng-Hua revisionist clique has reversed all the verdicts of Socialist revolution of China,and the essential components of Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line Mao Tse Tung’s theory of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat has been replaced with the theory of productive forces i.e. the theory of capitalist restoration.

By pushing four modernizations relying on foreign finance capital,they have replaced Mao Tse Tung’s line of building an advanced Socialist economy by mainly relying on China’s own potential, its resources,and the conscious dynamism of revolutionary masses of the Chinese people. Mao Tse Tung’s line on foreign affairs has been replaced, with the line of solely opposing Soviet Social Imperialism and its accomplices from narrow bourgeois nationalist considerations..They curry favour with imperialist states led by U.S Imperialism and betrayed the revolutionary movements of the peoples of the world. They have justified and prodded the war preparationss of U.S imperialism and it’s allies ,thus opposing genuine anti war movements of the world people led by the International proletariat. It allies itself with one of the two imperialist groupings in the name of utilizing inter-imperialist contradictions ,that is the line of capitulating to imperialism and aspiring to become a regional hegemonic power.

The Teng-Hua revisionist clique has replaced Mao Tse Tung’s analysis of semi-feudal,semi-colonial countries of Asia,Africa and Latin America and the pressing tasks of democratic revolution and national liberation at the hands of the revolutionary movements of these countries. It projects the defense of independence and promotion of national economies in these countries, as the primary task of the revolutionary movements, instead of national and democratic revolution.

It flouts Mao Tse Tung’s celebrated thesis on the differentiation of the bourgeoisie of colonial and semi-colonial countries into two wings, that is anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie and pro-imperialist big bourgeoisie in describing the countries ruled by big bourgeoisie and feudal calluses as the main force in the struggle against imperialism and hegemonism. It flouts an important tenet of Mao Tse Tung Thought according to which the character of the phenomena is mainly determined by it’s principal aspect in describing the character of these countries as basically anti-imperialist because of the numerical insignificance of reactionaries and agents of imperialism inhabiting these countries. It has also reversed the correct verdict of the International Communist movement on Titoite revisionism as the counter revolutionary agency of Imperialism, and bestowed upon it’s honor of being not only a genuine anti-imperialist force but ,more a genuine Marxist Leninist force successfully building Socialism in Yugoslavia.


The historical fact that every contemporary variety of opportunism was driven to an inevitable clash with Mao Tse Tung Thought and ultimately crashed against the solidity of its theoretical edifice and the efficacy of it’s political guidance, and that it is not amenable to formal acceptance and revisionist adaptation as the Chinese Revisionists are now finding to chagrin, is a veritable indicator that Mao Tse Tung Thought is the indispensable ideological weapon of the International proletariat to defeat the onslaught of opportunism against the revolutionary orientation of world proletarian revolutionary movement. On his 86th birthday we triumphantly wave the red flag of Comrade Mao Tse Tung and express our gratitude to the Chinese proletariat for providing us with Mao Tse Tung Thought.

The Significance of Combating International Opportunism of the Teng Hua brand

Socialist China has changed colour. A great fortress of world proletarian revolution today stands transformed into a citadel of neo-revisionism,a center hostile to world revolution. The grave development has serious international repercussions. Remaining true to proletarian internationalist outlook ,we in,India ,cannot afford to adopt an attitude of unconcern or casualness towards this development. It has a profound bearing on the development of our organization and revolutionary mass movement. We should bear in mind that every significant triumph or setback experienced by any of the contingents of the world proletarian revolutionary movement ,and lessons drawn from it influence all other contingents in terms of material prospects as well as ideological clarity.

Proletarian Internationalism rests on the common fundamental interests,aims, and fate of International proletariat. Like Marxism,its opposite aspect/opportunism ,a form of bourgeois ideology in Marxist guise is also an International phenomena. Although opportunism may assume particular expression in a given country which demands a corresponding treatment at the hands of Marxist-Leninists situated there. On account of this, every opportunist trend gets nourishment from International Opportunism.

That is why opportunism can effectively be combated only through concerted attack all along the front,locally as well as Internationally. The practice of consistent struggle against local opportunist trends equips Marxist Leninist Forces for discerning the concrete thrust of opportunism of any hue that comes to the fore at International level. On the other hand,the process of uncompromising struggle against the latter brings out the latent opportunist and vacillating tendencies within the ranks of the Marxist–Leninists.

The tendency to evade bold confrontation with International opportunism is a pointer to the sagging revolutionary will of Marxist Leninist forces who exhibit o t,and it works towards undermining the very proletarian character of the concerned organization. Because, an organization that succumbs to this tendency would not only be turning it’s back to the obligation of proletarian Internationalism, but also paving the ground for opportunism to flourish within its bosom and ultimately take it over. One of the factors responsible for assisting a well-meaning Marxist-Leninist section or organization falling prey to this opportunist tendency is the wrong notion, entertained by the leadership, concerning the method of struggle against opportunism.

The leadership relies on a subjective assumption for justifying its course ,that it will be able to prevent the organization being overwhelmed by international opportunism, even without taking a clear cut stand against the latter that is,without involving and ideologically arming it’s ranks up to the primary level. An effective struggle against opportunism requires not only the involvement of the rank and file of the organization, but still more, of the revolutionary mases led by it. This cannot be fulfilled unless the organization comes out boldly against opportunism and its chief protagonist in particular period. Another factor underlying the vacillation of certain Marxist –Leninist forces in India on this practice of proletarian Internationalism.

These distortions not a recent phenomena It is one of the many defective attributes inherited by the communist revolutionary movement of India from the olden day Communist Movement. The circumstances that favored the occurrence of this distortion was the incompetence and diffidence of party leadership at national level,time and again seeking assurance of the correctness of it’s line from a greatly experienced Communist Party in power which at that time played an outstanding role in the International Communist Movement. It is quite legitimate and desirable for a Communist Party to learn from the experience of other fraternal parties,especially,the rich experience of victorious ones. But it can properly learn only on the basis of the own grasp of line and practice of revolution in it’s own land. Otherwise it will not be able to find it’s bearings in the dynamic reality concretely confronting it.

That was the case, earlier,in relation to the C.P.S U. until its degeneration,and ,more or less,in relation to the C.P.C,afterwards ,in the absence of International Communist Organization. On account of such thinking,at the time of revisionist transformation of the C.P.S.U. at the hands of the renegade Khrushchev leading clique ,the minds of so many Marxist Leninists were greatly exercised by the prospect of a break with the revisionist C.P.S.U. and their revolutionary will to confront the International opportunism of Khrushchev hue was paralyzed. The experience of that period of great demarcation and realignment in the International Communist Movement showed that those who vacillated for long in drawing a clear cut line of demarcation from Khrushchev opportunism ultimately landed in the mire of revisionism The present situation is witnessing the occurrence of a similar phenomena in the great struggle against the latest version of International Opportunism headed by the Teng –Hua revisionist clique of the C.P.C.

In the period of the Great Debate ,the opportunist leadership of a great many communist parties used to brandish the sword of fake proletarian Internationalism and the accusation of anti-Sovietism to scare the Marxist Leninist ranks into vacillation in openly denouncing Khrushchev revisionist leading clique of the C.P.S.U. Following the footsteps of their predecessors, the opportunist leaders of many communist revolutionary groups of India are now waving the flag of fake proletarian Internationalism.

The revisionist C.P.I. and C.P.M. parties, hail the Soviet and Vietnamese aggressors and denounce the just struggles of the Kampuchean and Afghan peoples. Real proletarian Internationalism would make us hail the anti-fascist and anti-imperialist struggles of the Iranian people and denounce the despotic Shah regime and its patron U.S Imperialism .Hua supported the Shah regime on his trip to Iran as a further demonstration of China;s unflinching support to third world regimes in distress. Proletarian Internationalism should make us denounce Sadat’s betrayal of the cause of Arab peoples, especially the Palestine people struggling against the Zionist state of Israel..Fake proletarian Internationalism would support Sadat’s “Camp David peace Initiative.” Today a distinction should be made from ardent champions of Teng –Hua opportunism as the renegade S.N.Singh clique of the C.P.I.(M.L.) and certain Marxist Leninist forces who are still vacillating or duped by Teng-Hua clique. While the former should be denounced and routed,efforts should be made to win the latter through ideological struggle.

A cursory glance at various organizations who at present denounce Teng–Hua opportunism, reveals that many of them conceal their left opportunism under the militant posture of crossing swords with the right opportunism spearheaded by the renegade Ten-Hua clique of the C.P.C. In this spectrum there are two shades of left opportunist trends. The first one, patronized by Hardial Bians supports the Albanian Hoxhaite position,the second one is represented by the “mass line” group that advocates the line of ‘annihilation of class enemies.”The trend that openly attack the revolutionary practice of Mao Tse Tung should be openly refuted and defeated. However the other should be subjected to a patient ideological criticism to retrieve the progressive sections. We must delve deep into the mode of manifestation of Chinese revisionism under the conditions of dictatorship of the proletariat,and the causes underlying its temporary triumph over the genuine Marxist Leninist forces.

This entry was posted in Editor's desk, Maoists India, resistance, strategy and tactics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.