क्रान्तीकारी नेपाल

As usual I will ignore any personal attacks made by opponents of the National Resistance Line. However, Morad accuses me of dishonesty when I deny believing in the past that the IRI was progressive. But he gives no evidence for this. It is an incorrect line to accuse fellow Maoists of dishonesty without evidence.

I have never advocated that the Iranian Maoists should enter into a United Front with the IRI, as things stand. Such an alliance could only be made from a position of strength, this is obvious and the Iranian Party is obviously not strong enough to do this at the moment. Also, it is obvious that such an alliance with reactionaries should only take place in the event of US invasion.

Like Borhan, I am able to read Mao’s works on the internet, though so far I have refrained from cutting and pasting large passages of them into emails. This is not to suggest that Borhan is wrong to use long quotations in his emails but he should be reassured I do not have to wait for him to do so before I can refresh my knowledge of Mao’s writings.

— On Sun, 3/16/08, Morad baharloo wrote:

From: Morad baharloo
Subject: Re:[** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] On Outmoded Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalist poles, and formation of National United front with one against the other!
To: maoist_revolution@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, March 16, 2008, 9:00 PM

I would like to bring the attention Of Maoist 1 to a couple very important points.
1- Maoist1 by examining his previous points is going around the circle and is back to square one! How?
Maoist 1 himself is saying one thing when examining his own past saying, but when he wants to do so he misrepresents Borhan’s writing. I think he is the master of misrepresentation.
Lets exam what has been actually said here.
Maoist 1 wrote (misrepresentation of Borhan’s writing on 10 Mar 2008): “Borhan states that I have previously advocated an alliance between Iranian Maoists and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) but have now changed my mind.”
This is what I have received through e-mail of what comrade Borhan wrote: “One example of such is when “Maoist” #1 wrote, “Why do people keep saying that supporters of the National Resistance Line think Islamic Fundamentalists are progressive? This may be the Trotskyist line, it is not ours.”
First of all we all know that when “Maoist” #1 was advocating formation of National United front with Islamic Fundamentalist Regime of Iran (from now on IFRI), he was very specific about reconciliation and unity between all Iranian Communists and IRI to fight possible US invasion.
I should say it is good that he and his friends don’t think IRI is progressive. That is an advance! Now the question that “Maoist” #1 has to answer if he no longer believes that IRI is progressive, so what is the class nature of this regime? And finally, for once he has to answer that is the IFRI a reactionary comprador feudal, imperialist dependent, theocratic state or not? One can not be so vague about the nature of the very same regime that advocates formation of united front with! That is not what Chairman Mao Tse-tung has done when calls for formation of United front with Kuomintang-minus Chiang Kai-shek clique- during Japanese Imperialism invasion (September 18, 1931 to July 7, 1937 and after).”
So what Maoist 1 should be honest once and for all about what Borhan has said? Borhan in his last e-mail ( which is a good research on the situation that CCP formed a united front with Kuomintang party and not Chiank Kei-chek ) is saying that you –Maoist1 - previously believed in that Islamic Fundamentalist regime of Iran is a progressive regime ( and I think he is right) and now you changed your mind. So please do not think that we in this yahoo group are not following what everyone else including Borhan have said. And I would like to ask Moist1 to abstain of misrepresenting his opponents writing and for this he-Maoist1- should self criticize himself.
So on the contrary of you Mr. Maoist1, Borhan is not saying you “…have previously advocated an alliance between Iranian Maoists and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) but have now changed my mind.” Why are you changing what he said? Why are not you honest? Are you tring to make a fool of yourself or others in this group? You keep changing your mind, Why?

2- I do not think Maoist1 is here to learn something. He thinks he knows it all!
Just look rather he learn from a good research of comrade Borhan on united front formation in China under leadership of Chairman Mao, what he sys:
“For example, Borhan goes into a lengthy history of the United Front in China . The point of this is to state that the United Front only took place in China because the Chinese Communists were strong enough to force Chiang Kai-Shek to enter into it. Again, I do not doubt this. I also accept, as I have said, that the CPI (MLM) would not be strong enough to do this at the moment, even if it wished to, therfore I am not advocating such an alliance.”
Mr. Maoist1, please do not act as a teacher (a teacher that likes to order but doesn’t like to learn or listen) , act as a revolutionary Maoist. I do not believe before reading Borhan’s research on situation leading to form united front between CCP and Kuomintang party ( during the life of Dr. Sun Yat-sen and after his death) you really knew those specifics that Borhan brought up. Before Borhan sending his research on history of formation of united front by CCP, looks like that you have heard that there was a united front formed between CCP and Kuomintang but I do not believe that you no how and under what condition. There is no need to say that you know everything. No one knows everything!
A little self criticism is the sign of revolutionary Maoist.
That is all I have to say
Morad Baharloo
16 March 2008

Maoist 1 wrote:
To: wprm britain
From: Maoist 1
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fwd: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] On Outmoded Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalist poles, and formation of National United front with one against the other!

Borhan Azemi makes two statements about what I have said in this debate that I would like to examine. Borhan states that I have previously advocated an alliance between Iranian Maoists and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) but have now changed my mind. He also says that I am stating that the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist) advocates a policy of sharing US war aims, but that I do not give any evidence to back this up. (Hereafter, the Iranian party is referred to as the CPI (MLM)).

On the first point Borhan states:

‘First of all we all know that when “Maoist” #1 was advocating formation of National United front with Islamic Fundamentalist Regime of Iran…he was very specific about reconciliation and unity between all Iranian Communists and IRI to fight possible US invasion.’

What I actually wrote in my email of 04/09/07 to Maoist Revolution was:

‘Here we see the problem with this line. OK, the Iranian party cannot lead resistance but it feels able to urge people to overthrow the IRI. Why can’t the Iranian Party urge the people to resist the US attack that it believed was likely when it wrote the report? Surely, the spirit of Mao’s statements on the War of Resistance would indicate that resisting imperialist invasion would be the main issue in the situation the Iranian party is describing.’

The point here is that I accept that the Iranian Party cannot lead the resistance to US imperialism, as part of a united front with the Iranian regime and the Iranian Party accepts this itself. However, it does feel able to urge the people to fight the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) as the ‘main enemy’, even at the point where the US is attacking and invading Iran. I was therefore saying that if the Iranian Party felt it had the influence to urge people to overthrow the IRI, it could also use its influence to urge the Iranian people to resist US attack, when circumstances demanded it, which would be in the spirit of what Mao was saying in his writings on national resistance. Contributions I sent after this email just clarified this. There has been no change of position here. There is, however, a certain tendancy to jump to conclusions on Borhan’s part.

Borhan also writes:
“This Maoist 1 wrote that CPI (MLM) ‘believes’, ‘that in the event of a US invasion the Iranian people should, in the main, assist with US war aims’. How does he know CPI (MLM) ‘believes’ if it is not written in its documents, calls and press?”

First of all, I believe that this is the implication of the line advocated by the CPI (MLM) not their clearly stated intention.

However, the implication of this line of the CPI (MLM)’s central committee is fairly clear in the extracts from its statement published on a World to Win on 28 August 2006 (’Iran’s Maoists Make Plans In The Shadow Of War’.) The following quotes illustrate it:

‘With the intensification of the contradictions between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the possibility of a military attack on Iran has become the main question in Iran and the world political scene.’

‘Whether or not the US carries out its threats, or how (air attacks, partial or complete military occupation, massing its armed forces on Iran’s borders)…’

So from these quotes we can see that the Central Committee of the Iranian Party believes there is some significant possibility of land invasion at the time of writing of their statement.

The Central Committe then states:
‘It is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally.’

In another part of the statement by the Central Committee that was not published as part of the World To Win extract (though it was made publically available), the Central Committee states that:

‘In certain times we may face with a situation where parts of the country are occupied by the imperialist armies and other parts are under the rule of the Islamic Republic-in such circumstances the question of the overthrow of the government in both areas must be the agenda of revolutionaries. ‘

(This extract from the report was forwarded by me on 03/10/07 to Maoist Revolution).

So the report states that if the US invades the country, revolutionaries should fight both the IRI and the US. However, elsewhere in the report it is saying that the IRI remains the main enemy of the people, not the US, for as long as the IRI is in power. The idea that at any point the IRI and US should be fought equally is explicitly rejected.

The overthrow of the IRI is the war aim of the US, therefore such a strategy would be (in the main) in accordance with US war aims.

However, I also state in my contribution to Kasama, where I say of the line of the CPI (MLM) on this issue:
‘It’s a revolutionary line, not a ‘CIA’ line but it leads to a very dangerous place (seeming to side with imperialism) . This is due to the over-subjective nature of Avakian’s line which tends to put revolutionary principle above objective necessities like preventing the destruction of your country by a rapacious foreign power (and making damn sure the people of your country know you are on their side against the imperialists. )’

It has always been clear that I believe the CPI (MLM) is advocating this line as part of a revolutionary strategy but that the CPI (MLM)’s road to revolution, in some of the scenarios it imagines, seems to involve going along with the US aim of overthrowing the IRI by means of outside force. The CPI (MLM)’s strategy involves hitting the IRI as the main enemy at the same time as the US is doing exactly the same thing, thus reinforcing the efforts of the US. I accept that the CPI (MLM) then believes that after this has occurred it can go onto create a revolutionary regime that the US definately would not like. However, I think the whole thing is a very dangerous strategy and will lead to much unnecessary confusion about what the true aims of the CPI (MLM) are. I continue to urge the party to advocate resistance to the US as the main enemy in the event of any future ground attack. This in no way prevents revolutionary struggle to overthrow the IRI when there is no imminent danger of US invasion.

I think when these two points are grasped, most of Borhan’s points are met (other than the personal attacks which I won’t go into here). For example, Borhan goes into a lengthy history of the United Front in China. The point of this is to state that the United Front only took place in China because the Chinese Communists were strong enough to force Chiang Kai-Shek to enter into it. Again, I do not doubt this. I also accept, as I have said, that the CPI (MLM) would not be strong enough to do this at the moment, even if it wished to, therfore I am not advocating such an alliance.

All revolutionaries should welcome struggles to overthrow the thoroughly reactionary regime in Iran. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that the principal enemy of the people of the world is the US. Anyone who is struggling to overthrow the Islamic regime in Iran must make sure they are not seen by the people of the world (even unfairly) to be strengthening the oppressive power of the US over the people of Iran.

wprm britain wrote:

Note: forwarded message attached.

——————————————————————————–
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
The World ’s Favourite Email.To: Maoist_Group
From: Borhan Azemi
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 18:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] On Outmoded Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalist poles, and formation of National United front with one against the other!

On Outmoded Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalist poles, and formation of National United front with one against the other!
“To “seek truth from facts” is the scientific approach, and presumptuously to claim infallibility and lecture people will never settle anything. The troubles that have befallen our nation are extremely serious, and only a scientific approach and a spirit of responsibility can lead it on to the road of liberation. There is but one truth, and the question of whether or not one has arrived at it depends not on subjective boasting but on objective practice. The only yardstick of truth is the revolutionary practice of millions of people. This, I think, can be regarded as the attitude of Chinese Culture.”
On New Democracy (January 1940), Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II
There has been an attempts put forward by Harry Powel, “Maoist”#1 and WPRM Britain to force the issue of reconciliation with Islamic fundamentalists such as IFRI (Islamic Fundamentalist Regime of Iran) based on possibility of US invasion/military attack of Iran .
It is very important to note that in the face of US threats to invade Iran the communist party of Iran (MLM) put forward a thorough going revolutionary line to continue struggle for the overthrow of the IRI and at the same time be prepared to fight against imperialist invaders and warned against those lines in the Left movement which proposed to side with one or the other of these two foes- it called upon the masses and revolutionaries to hurry up and build a great unity against both reactionaries and imperialists and in this way build the third pole –i.e. the peoples pole– against the pole of the US imperialists as well as the Islamic Republic state. It warned against choosing from amongst the arch enemies under whatever guise. And emphasized that without this line leading to armed revolution led by the proletariat we will face the disastrous situation like Iraq which peoples are victims of both imperialists and reactionaries of all sorts including ousted Sadam forces and other assortments of Middle Age fundamentalist products such as Moqtada Sadr.
Since then, Harry Powel, “Maoist”#1 and others have tried to undermine the revolutionary position of Communist Party of Iran (MLM).
They have been (and still are!) very eager to force a class collaborationist line which calls for uniting with the Islamic Regime in Iran in the absence of people’s army (remember “without a People’s army, the people Have Nothing”). These people often don’t mind to use a very non-revolutionary tactic to spread lie and misrepresent their opponents’ statements. Furthermore they falsely credited certain statements to CPI (MLM), just to accuse this party based on lies. I think NO revolutionary should use such a dishonest tactic to make a point. Communism does not advocate nor believes that aim would justify the means! NO Maoist should ascribe any false statement to any communist party (Means)- at the time of two line struggle -to reach his/her “goal” (shameless supporting of the Islamic fundamentalist forces such as IFRI under the pretext of formation of united front with it against treat of US invasion-Aim) !
Let’s not forget that Mao taught us “Communists must be ready at all times to stand up for the truth, because truth is in the interests of the people; Communists must be ready at all times to correct their mistakes, because mistakes are against the interests of the people. Twenty-four years of experience tell us that the right task, policy and style of work invariably conform with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably strengthen our ties with the masses, and the wrong task, policy and style of work invariably disagree with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably alienate us from the masses. The reason why such evils as dogmatism, empiricism, commandism, tailism, sectarianism, bureaucracy and an arrogant attitude in work are definitely harmful and intolerable, and why anyone suffering from these maladies must overcome them, is that they alienate us from the masses.” (14)
One example of such is when “Maoist” #1 wrote, “Why do people keep saying that supporters of the National Resistance Line think Islamic Fundamentalists are progressive? This may be the Trotskyist line, it is not ours.”
First of all we all know that when “Maoist” #1 was advocating formation of National United front with Islamic Fundamentalist Regime of Iran (from now on IFRI), he was very specific about reconciliation and unity between all Iranian Communists and IRI to fight possible US invasion.
I should say it is good that he and his friends don’t think IRI is progressive. That is an advance! Now the question that “Maoist” #1 has to answer if he no longer believes that IRI is progressive, so what is the class nature of this regime? And finally, for once he has to answer that is the IFRI a reactionary comprador feudal, imperialist dependent, theocratic state or not? One can not be so vague about the nature of the very same regime that advocates formation of united front with! That is not what Chairman Mao Tse-tung has done when calls for formation of United front with Kuomintang-minus Chiang Kai-shek clique- during Japanese Imperialism invasion (September 18, 1931 to July 7, 1937 and after). Chairman Mao’s teaching on the nature of Kuomintang party is very clear. Mao said;
“The big local tyrants and evil gentry, the big warlords and the big bureaucrats and compradors have long made up their minds. They maintain, as they have done all along, that revolution of whatever kind is worse than imperialism. They have formed a camp of traitors, for whom the question of whether to become slaves of a foreign nation simply does not exist because they have already lost all sense of nationality and their interests are inseparably linked with imperialism. Their chieftain is Chiang Kai-shek. This camp of traitors is deadly enemies of the Chinese people. Japanese imperialism could not have become so blatant in its aggression were it not for this pack of traitors. They are the running dogs of imperialism.” (1a)
Mao was very clear about formation of this united front. He repeatedly said that based on the class nature of Chiang Kai-shek (the comprador and landlord classes), he has no place in united front. In introduction of Mao’s article CCP wrote: “At the time of this report Chiang Kai-shek, after selling out the Northeast to Japan , was selling out northern China while actively keeping up his fighting against the Red Army. Therefore the Chinese Communist Party had to do its best to expose him as a traitor, and naturally he was not included in the Anti-Japanese National United Front proposed by the Party. But already in this report Comrade Mao Tse-tung mentioned the possible disintegration of the camp of the Chinese landlord and comprador classes as a result of the contradictions among the imperialist powers. And Japan ’s attack on northern China did subsequently lead to serious clashes of interest between Japanese and Anglo-American imperialism. The Chinese Communist Party maintained that the Chiang Kai-shek clique, with its close ties with Anglo- American imperialist interests, might change its attitude to Japan at its masters’ bidding, and therefore it adopted the policy of compelling Chiang Kai-shek to resist Japan. On its return to northern Shensi from Shansi, in May 1936 the Red Army appealed directly to the Nanking Kuomintang government for an end to the civil war and for united resistance to Japan . In August of the same year, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party addressed a letter to the Kuomintang’s Central Executive Committee, calling for the formation of a bi-partisan united front against Japan and negotiations between the representatives of both parties. But Chiang Kai-shek rejected these proposals. It was not until December 1936 when Chiang Kai-shek was detained in Sian by Kuomintang army officers who favoured alliance with the Communists against Japan that he was compelled to accept the Communist Party’s demand for ending the civil war and resisting Japan .” [ *]
This policy was adopted by Chairman Mao before full scale of Japanese invasion (1937). But, CCP under Chairman Mao leadership did not stay on this tactic nor he led the proletariat based on pervious tactical task for current situation, when Japanese Imperialism attempts to annex the whole of China . At the time that the entire China was in danger of being annexed by Japanese imperialism, Chairman Mao made an analysis based on new situation (August 25, 1937). Under pressure of the Chinese people, who unanimously demanded war against Japan , Chiang Kai-shek made a statement to resist Japanese invasion. “He did so under nation-wide popular pressure and as a result of the serious blow the Japanese invasion had dealt to the interests both of the British and U.S. imperialists in China and of the big landlords and the big bourgeoisie whom Chiang Kai-shek directly represented.” (12)
So those comrades that are advocating formation of united front with IRFI, should show us weather this regime has acted accordingly by “attempting” to make a public statement about arming Iranians, young and old to defend the homeland, in the event that US imperialism might invade Iran, or not?
With respect to keep in mind the above Chairman Mao’s quotation, unfortunately, comrade “Maoist”1 continues keep using falsification method (or to be more accurate he lies) by saying: “what mainly provoked the National Resistance Line was the awful (awful!) line of the Iranian RIM party that advocates the overthrow of the Islamic Iranian Regime because it is the main enemy of the Iranian people (so far so good) but then argues that it would still be the main enemy of the Iranian people, if there was a US invasion. [Be aware that this is not a direct quotation, this is “Maoist” #1’s rant about CPI (MLM) and his Eurocentric impulse does not allow him to learn the name of the party and calls it “Iranian party of RIM”- Borhan].
This is a de facto line that in the event of a US invasion the Iranian people should, in the main, assist with US war aims.” (Maoist# 1, Feb. 6 2008).
Hey Mr. Maoist #1 and Mr. Powel, it seems you really need something to hang onto in order to cover over your rotten line of saying it is necessary to unite with a bunch of cut throat torturers and killers of the peoples of Iran and their communist sons and daughters? DO NOT distort the line of CPI (MLM). If you want to discuss CPI (MLM) line, do it! But you must QUOTE – not your day dreams but the CPI (MLM) documents. And don’t lie. Lying is not science let alone revolutionary science called Maoism.
This Maoist 1 wrote that CPI (MLM) “believes”, “that in the event of a US invasion the Iranian people should, in the main, assist with US war aims”. How does he know CPI (MLM) “believes” if it is not written in its documents, calls and press? May be he attends the IRI gossip rooms too much! Or may be he practices Islamic palmistry! If these lines of our Mr. Moist 1 and his supporter, Mr. Harry Powel, is translated into Farsi and distributed in Iranian revolutionary movement, people would definitely think that he is from another planet. So to educate our Maoist1 and Harry, first hand let us note couple of things about the Iranian political scene. Up to few years ago it was extremely difficult to make agitation and propaganda against Imperialism in the Iranian Left movement and in all progressive social movements of Iran , because the IRI had shoved through and beautified all of it extremely reactionary social economic ideological and political system under the name if anti imperialism. Therefore the first and foremost problem for CPI (MLM) in building a third pole against reaction and imperialism was not to convince revolutionary forces and masses not to unite with the IRI! That was easy and up to this date such kind of unity is a kiss of death for any genuine revolutionary force and for good reasons. The difficulty was to fight hard to establish that the revolutionaries and people must also fight against US imperialism and in the case of invasion must fight against US imperialism but not for “saving” the IRI but for making revolution against both. This has been the line of CPI (MLM) in theory and practice and is amply documented and is well known in the Left movement, in women’s movement, in labor movement and in student movement.
I hope Mr. Maoist 1 and Harry follow the line of CPI (MLM) regarding Iran and non other as because it is this and only this line which represents the true interests of the masses in Iran as well as in the world. Do not unite with IRI! Unite with this party and the masses! Do not support the big landlords’ feudalist and comprador capitalist ruling classes of IRI! Support and unite with CPI (MLM)!
Remember it doesn’t mater if an individual tries to misrepresent his opponents line, rather it is important to know what is the class interest behind all those claims! As Lenin said, “ As long as any individuals doesn’t seek to know that behind sentences, statements, and promises such as of religion, political and sociological there is class interest, they would be a victim of silly deceive and self deceives in politics.” So one shall not pay attention to lies and distortions that an individual seek to spread about CPI (MLM), rather one should see the class interest of such an attempt.
Another example of such distortions by “Maoist” #1 is when he attempt to falsify my view on united front, when he says; “Borhan keeps talking as if Mao did not believe in forming a united front against imperialism in the event of an invasion of an oppressed nation by an imperialist nation.” (From his last e-mail to our Yahoo group dated January 27, 2008). I do not have to say that I have never said such a thing that is claimed by Maoist”. I have no doubt that most comrades recognized that I have even sent two articles written by Chairman Mao on formation of United front and in that e-mail of mine (dated January 4, 2008); I specifically note that since Harry Powel and “Maoist” #1 have not cited any direct quotation from Mao regarding the situation surrounding formation of such United Front , and they (“Moist” #1, Harry Powel, WPRM Britian and others) just put forward their understanding and their version (in which on both cases they are wrong and incorrect- which I get to this later on) of what Mao “said” and under what conditions Chairman Mao talks about establishing and formation of United front, therefore I have submitted two articles of Mao himself. This alone proves that despite of what Maoist 1 is saying, I do recognize that in fact Mao thought us about formation of united front based on particular situations at any given time. This is a dividing line question: do you believe a UF must be under the leadership of proletariat led by its party or the proletariat and its party must go under leadership of the reactionaries for having a UF? With what kind of material force the proletarian leadership must be exercised?
In that e-mail of mine, dated January 04, 2008, I wrote in respond to comrade Suresh Basker as follow: “Please read Mao’s view on the subject that has been put forward by comrade Suresh Basker. Here is the actual Maoist view on the united front. I would like everyone to read the following 2 articles written by Chairman Mao.
After everyone has a chance to read this on her/his own, I will send my comments on the comrade Suresh Basker promptly.
1-Please pay attention that chairman Mao has always emphasized on the fact that overthrowing Japanese Imperialism is not separated from overthrowing of reactionaries or as he puts it counterrevolutionar y forces.
2- Please read about the fact that under what condition CPC with the leadership of Chairman Mao went ahead to force Chiang Kai-shek to accept its policy of ending to the civil war!
3- Please keep in mind that despite the fact that treats of military intervention by US imperialism is still serious, yet Iran has not been attacked or occupied by Imperialist forces such as US imperialist.”

I- Situation surrounding and considered by Chinese Communist party on formation of united front;
Chairman Mao has taught us, “Without a People’s army, the people have nothing.” Mao also taught us that “without people’s army, and without political power everything else is just a mirage and imagination.” Yet he had taught us that “The political power comes from the barrel of the gun”. And we should not forget the great lesson that all of our teachers have taught us that we have to have “specific analysis of any specific situation at any given time.” This later rules out the possibility of dogmatically applying any theory without regards to “specific analysis of any specific situation at any given time” such as in the case of Iran, apply the very same tactical principal of formation of the United front with reactionary ruling class of IRI regime is against teaching of Chairman Mao, as I have explained earlier..
Now, let’s analyze the situation and conditions in which CPC called for the formation of united front against Japanese imperialism aggressor.
1- Necessary Tools prior to formation of United Front;
Cardinal Principals leading to formation of United Front
Based on the historic, undisputed and necessary fact ( by necessary fact I mean this is a necessary and must cardinal principal of MLM) and MLM principal that if there is to be a revolution there must be a revolutionary theory, based on the undisputed fact and MLM principal that a revolutionary vanguard party is a must to lead the revolution, based on the historic fact and undisputed cardinal principal, the Communist Party of China (CPC) had already had small but determined red army, based on the historic and undisputed fact that after 2 line struggle ( to be more accurate it was 3 line struggle ) between Chen Tu-hsiu and Mao’s, which ultimately resulted in wining of revolutionary Mao’s line, based on the undisputed cardinal principal of MLM, in which While Chen Tu-hsiu, the exponent of right opportunism “concerned only with co-operation with the Kuomintang and forgot about the peasants” ( sounds familiar! Read Moist1 and Harry Powel’s statements as to how easy and simplifies to wanting to from a united front with IRFR), based on the cardinal principal of MLM and in opposition to right opportunist exponent in CCP ( Chen Tu-hsiu) Mao formulated “that the peasantry was the staunchest and numerically the largest ally of the Chinese proletariat” (1a), based on the undisputed cardinal principal of MLM that CCP had already established its revolutionary red areas (red political power in various provinces), and all those objectives was achieved through a long battle, way before formation of united front with Kuomintang, minus reactionary forces of comprador and landlord classes! It is clear that to form a united front there are some necessary steps that must be taken before considering forming a united front! Let’s not forget that the united front is not formed by alliance between communist parties with reactionary regime of the big bourgeois-landlord classes.

What do these above facts are providing us? These facts and teachings, without any doubt, are telling us that No Communist Party is allowed principally to form a united front before having people’s army (Peasants! “the peasantry was the staunchest and numerically the largest ally of the Chinese proletariat” Mao) and before establishing revolutionary red bases, with other classes and strata of people, Petty bourgeois and left wing of national bourgeois against imperialism aggressor. Unless that “Communist party” attempts is to commit a suicide! And put its weak and small unarmed forces in a much jeopardized situation. Unarmed forces that are not yet develop to even small guerilla forces, at this point I am not talking about people’s army, I am talking about the very first step of formation of people’s army through which formation of small and movable guerilla unites Is a very first step for formation of people’s army.
Let’s make this one more time a little more clearly from other angle.
“The existence of red political power and the ability to form and maintain a people’s army are cardinal features of Mao’s line of making revolution in the oppressed nations. Any proposed tactical or strategic readjustments (through negotiations or other means) must take these principles of Mao’s line into account.
Mao put it very succinctly, “without a People’s Army the people have nothing.” Significantly, Mao made this most important observation in his article “On Coalition Government,” when he was discussing the relationship between the Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang and even the possibility of long-term cooperation.
In this section, Mao refers to Chiang Kai-shek’s demand of the “handing over of all of the armed forces of the Liberated Areas by the Communist Party, after which it would grant the Communist Party `legal status.’ ”
Mao answers: “These people tell the Communists, `Hand over your troops and we will grant you freedom.’ According to their theory, a political party that does not have any army should enjoy freedom. Yet whatever freedom the Chinese Communist Party enjoyed during 1924-1927, when it had only a small armed force, vanished with the Kuomintang government’s policies of `party purge’ and massacre. And today, the China Democratic League and the democrats within the Kuomintang, who have no armed forces, have no freedom either. Let us take the workers, peasants and students and the progressively inclined people in cultural, educational and industrial circles under the Kuomintang regime–for the last eighteen years none of them have had any armed forces, and none of them have had any freedom.” (”On Coalition Government,” Selected Works, v 3, p.245)
It is not necessary to return to the distant early years of the Chinese revolution to find proof of Mao’s point. The experience of the last few decades in the oppressed countries has shown that without armed forces, the people are not only unable to enjoy political freedom, but they are subject to policies of bloody suppression and massacre at the hands of the reactionaries. The Indonesia example of 1965, when hundreds of thousands of communists and workers and peasants were slaughtered, is a tragic and painful lesson. In Chile , tens of thousands of revolutionary- minded workers and peasants and progressive people were killed when the army overthrew the elected government of Allende in 1973. In 1981 in Iran , thousands of communists, revolutionaries and progressives were executed or imprisoned when the Khomeini regime turned on those forces that had fought to bring down the regime of the Shah. In 1982, when the forces of the Palestinian revolution withdrew from Lebanon under the supposed “guarantee” of U.S. imperialism, hundreds of masses were massacred in the camps of Sabra and Shatila in the days that followed. In short, the ability of the people to enjoy freedom, the ability of the people to advance the revolution, and the ability of the people to defend themselves against suppression by the class enemy requires a people’s army.” (Emphasis added) (http://rwor. org/a/perus/ uic/uic6. htm)
Therefore based on Harry Powel and “Maoist” #1’s hypothesis of forming united front under any circumstances, such as alliance with Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the army of IFRI, it is correct to say if they were in the leadership of CCP during and after 1924, they would be in favor Chen Tu-hsiu right opportunism deviation and they wouldn’t rely on Mao’s revolutionary line of “the peasantry” was “ the staunchest and numerically the largest ally of the Chinese proletariat” and/.or they would be in favor of “Hand over your troops and we will grant you freedom.” This alone will explain the very nature of their hypothesis that at the time of US imperialism invasion, they will accept defeatist line of handing over the communist forces and being legalized just to form a united front with reactionary classes of big bourgeois-landlord of Islamic regime.
To achieve the new democratic government in Iran, at the time that the threat of US invasion is looming, NO progressive and revolutionary, progressive individual or forces in the world shall budge the IFRI and/or undermined the struggle to overthrow this regime under the pretext of US invasion. At the same time, NO progressive and revolutionary individuals or forces in the world shall undermine the struggle against possible imperialism invasion led by US imperialism under the pretext of overthrowing the IFRI. Struggle against imperialism is not and can not be separated from struggle to overthrowing the reactionaries (Chairman Mao, famous quotation). So, according to Chairman Mao, communist party can not forget the struggle against one pole in favor of the other pole.
In the absence of people’s army in Iran, in the absence of establish of revolutionary base area(s) and in the absence of US attack and/or occupation of, Harry Powel and “Maoist”#1 are calling to form a united front with the Revolutionary Guard (the main counter-revolutiona ry army of Islamic Fundamentalist regime of Iran)! This only means capitulate to IRI in order to receive freedom to serve the IRI! How scandalous!
II-How did Islamic republic of Iran Regime Climb to power?
“How did Chiang Kai-shek climb to power? By the Northern Expedition, by the first period of co-operation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, by the support given him by the people, who had not yet seen through him. Once in power, Chiang Kai-shek, far from being grateful to the people, knocked them down and plunged them into the bloodbath of ten years of civil war. You comrades are familiar with this segment of history. During the present War of Resistance the Chinese people again defended him. This war is now ending in victory and Japan is on the point of surrender, but he is not at all grateful to the people. On the contrary, thumbing through the records of 1927, he wants to act in the same old way. He says there has never been any “civil war” in China , only “bandit suppression” . Whatever he likes to call it, the fact is he wants to start a civil war against the people, he wants to slaughter the people.” (2)
I-The Islamic Republic and the 1979 Revolution!
“The Islamic Republic is the governing form taken by the reactionary state after the monarchy was overthrown. The new cloak that the state machinery donned was a response to the revolutionary crisis of 1978-79. Developments at an international level and the intensification of internal contradictions played decisive roles in the formation of that crisis. The world economic crisis of the 1970s greatly influenced the Iranian economy. The sudden rise in oil prices intensified distortions of the economic structure. The role of the Shah as the gendarme in the region and the expansion of the bureaucratic and military apparatus to secure the strategic goals of US imperialism in the region resulted in heavy expenditure. These pressures and shocks took place when the imperialist reforms of the 1960s reached their logical conclusion: the stagnation and crisis in agriculture became evident, migration from the countryside to the cities took breathtaking dimensions and the margins of the cities turned into powder-kegs. Inflation skyrocketed and squeezed the workers and labouring masses more than ever. The distorted and fragile modernism imposed from above by imperialism and its client state in a few sectors came into sharp contradiction with the backward and traditional foundations of society. The contradiction between the petite bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie with imperialist capital and bureaucrat comprador capital intensified. The divisions in the ruling classes and the cracks that appeared in the repressive and despotic machine of the regime added fuel to the flames of the revolutionary crisis. The workers and mass movements rose up, the state institutions suffered blows and the police intelligence apparatus fell apart. The army, openly and directly, stood against the oppressed classes to save the system. The army was put in a position where any advance of the revolution would have been possible only by attacking the army. The 1979 revolution, despite the sacrifices and heroism of the masses, was not able to target and destroy the heart of the state, i.e. the armed forces.. This would have required the leadership of the revolution by the working class and its vanguard party and the launching of a revolutionary war. The absence of this vital element gave imperialism and the reactionary classes manoeuvring room in order to safeguard the state machinery from the blows of the oppressed masses. The establishment of the Islamic Republic acted as a shock absorber or a safety umbrella for the state machinery.
The Islamic Republic was the result of a historic compromise to suppress the revolution. The participants in this compromise were the imperialist powers and the reactionary coalition around Khomeini. This coalition first and foremost consisted of a stratum of traditional bourgeois-feudals, who had been hurt by the imperialist reforms of the 1960s, and whose economic and political power had been undermined. A significant proportion of these forces were under the aegis of the clergy and religious institutions. Their opposition to the “White Revolution” was that they saw their class interests endangered. A section of the Khomeini coalition was the traditional middle-bourgeoisie mainly engaged in commerce, who saw the plunder table of imperialism and its lackeys and who aspired to become bureaucrat compradors. Moreover, in the 1970s the royal clique increased its economic monopoly and political despotism, alienating a section of the bureaucrat comprador capitalists. During the revolutionary crisis of 1978-79 and in the early days of the formation of the Islamic Republic, these alienated sections aligned with Khomeini..
The aim of the compromise was to suppress revolution and preserve the system and the existing state machinery. The imperialists’ fear of a deepening revolution and the increasing influence of revolutionary forces made them come to a rapid agreement with the Khomeini trend. The Western imperialists, headed by the US , wanted to save their basic and strategic interests in the region and the enormous machinery that they had developed to safeguard their interests, which was in danger. Another important element that made them adopt this policy was preventing the penetration of Iran by the Soviet Union . Considering the intensification of their contention with the Soviet imperialist bloc, the Western imperialists could not tolerate a revolutionary crisis and growing instability in Iran . The continuation of this situation could have strengthened the Soviet hand and changed the international balance of forces. The Khomeini coalition, on the other hand, wanted to replace the monarchical ruling class, take over the exorbitant comprador-feudal interests and run the system according to some political-ideologic al changes they favored. In order to rule, this coalition needed the existing state machinery and its instruments of coercion. The condition for this compromise was that this coalition would put a leash on the revolutionary crisis, suppress the revolutionary masses and mend and strengthen the damaged state machinery. The imperialists saw in Khomeini, who had jumped to the head of the revolution, the ability to do this. So they paved the way for the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic is the result of the dominance of a reactionary leadership over a genuine mass revolution. This leadership was based on certain material grounds. The die-hard feudal and semi-feudal relations provided a strong objective backing to the Islamic ideology in society. Despite the restrictions imposed on the clerical apparatus during the last two decades of the Shah’s regime, Islam continued to be an important ideological tool to control both the urban and rural masses and to fight off the influence of communist ideology. While the communists were brutally suppressed, the networks of mosques and Hosseiniyes [places for religious gatherings – translator] were expanding, and large sections of discontented people, when they took up active struggle and looked for a philosophy, found Islam to be the most readily available. This was in a situation where, internationally, progressive nationalism had proven incapable of fighting imperialism and reaction and liberation struggles under the leadership of the nationalists had either been defeated or co-opted by the imperialists of the Western or Eastern bloc. As a result of the overthrow of the proletarian state in China by the revisionists in 1976, the international communist movement was facing a major crisis. The communist movement in Iran was going through its young and inexperienced period and was poorly prepared for such a challenge.
Moreover, the changes made by imperialism to the socio-economic structure of Iran and the monopolist tendency of bureaucrat capitalism had dragged a wide spectrum of the urban and rural sections, who held religious beliefs and inclinations, onto the stage of struggle and opposition. Pan-Islamic tendencies within the clerical apparatus and among the forces that opposed imperialism and the development of capitalist relations from a feudal standpoint gained strength. The spread of secular and Western values in the cities, which threatened religious values and semi-feudal social relations, became another ground for reactionary opposition. In reaction to the penetration of imperialist culture and the cultural and moral decadence of the monarchy, many people, including sections of the intellectuals, took up the defense of tradition and religion.
The sum of these objective and subjective elements determined how the revolution advanced and that Khomeini came to its leadership.
During several years of bloody suppression of the masses and the destruction of a large section of the revolutionary generation, the Islamic Republic forged and consolidated itself. The suppressive military, ideological and political machine of the regime was forged through confrontation with the workers’ and communist movements, national and peasant movements, women’s and student movements and democratic movements of the broad masses. The revolutionary achievements of the masses, such as setting up workers councils in the factories, peasant councils and associations in the countryside, women’s organizations, writers’ associations, student organizations, councils in hospitals, schools, etc., and the revolutionary achievements of the oppressed nations were destroyed. The intelligence and military institutions were repaired and developed. The outbreak of the flames of the reactionary Iran-Iraq war, which was lit by the imperialists, further diminished the revolutionary energy of the masses. Through bloody suppression and the Iran-Iraq war a concentrated counter-revolution emerged. The administrative apparatus was tied tighter to the armed forces and was reorganized under the regime’s ideological umbrella.
The Islamic Republic is dependent on imperialism, both economically and politically. Some of its frictions with the imperialists are reflections of the inter-imperialist contradictions and rivalries that are expressed on the Iranian stage. Before the fall of the monarchy, the Shah’s regime was a running dog for the US, and US advisors, armaments and capital enjoyed an open presence in Iran . During the revolution the US was targeted by the revolutionary struggle of the masses, and US interests suffered blows. After the revolution, the Western bloc started to re-knit their ties with Iran , mainly through Europe; the Soviet Union took advantage of the loosening of the US ’s previously unchallenged grip on Iran and actively built relations with the new regime. The superficial “independence” of the Islamic Republic is nothing but the regime’s somersaults between its international masters, the aim being to better absorb the shocks of political and economic crises and to find a better position among the clients of imperialism. In fact, the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic throughout its existence was more pro-West and, considering the fundamental dependence of Iran ’s socio-economic structure on Western imperialism and the rule of the semi-colonial state, it could not have been otherwise.
The nature of a state is not decided by the class origins of its leaders and officials. Those who form the Islamic regime, contrary to the heads of the monarchic regime, were neither from the big monopoly capitalists nor big landlords. Most of them originated from the feudal lords and middle landowners that had been weakened during the reforms of the 1960s, as well as from the middle urban strata. But these origins did not change the class nature of the Islamic Republic. The ruling clerics and their non-cleric allies, who took responsibility for safeguarding the particular class relations, rapidly rose to the position of big bourgeois-landlord classes.
The replacement of the monarchic regime with the Islamic Republic shows that reactionary regimes can take different forms; methods and slogans can change, dominant policies and ideologies can be modified and reformed, but the class nature of the state remains untouched. These kinds of changes from one kind of regime to another have a common aspect: they all take place within the framework of comprador-feudal production relations and are aimed at preserving these reactionary relations.” (3)
By now it should be clear that the class natures of ruling classes of Iran are of big bourgeois-landlord classes.
These counter revolutionary forces are stronger than all revolutionary and progressive forces combined, in other words, they are stronger than people. But as working people organizing and masses unite under the leadership of Maoist party, they will grow from small and weak to big and strong forces, as for reactionary forces will grow from big and strong to small and weak. This is dialectic of people’s march toward freedom of Democracy, establishing the New Democratic government based on unity of workers and peasants, under the leadership of proletariat vanguard party, and from there toward socialist transition and ultimately communist world.
Waging the civil war against people has been the main objective of reactionary ruling classes, to suppress any political movement of Iranian workers, peasants, students and women. So at the time that IRI regime, since stealing the 1979 revolution, has waged civil war against people, talking to reconciliation with these reactionary is like accepting a total surrender, defeat and waving the white flag rather than raising the revolutionary red flag. The red flag is noting but preparation to start of people’s war. This is the aim of communist party of Iran (MLM), since it was established. And as communist party of Iran (MLM) has recently announced, they are still in the preparation stage to wage people’s war with aim to seize the political power, through long battle of people’s war to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes of big landlord and comprador bourgeoisie, through a new democratic revolution in a semi feudal and semi colonial of Iran .
Some international reformist tendency under the name of formation of united front with “progressive” and “anti-imperialist” IFRI, are asking indirectly on behalf of the said regime for disarmament of progressive and revolutionary forces including communist of Iran (MLM)! Let’ me make it clear that I am not saying that those tendencies are the agents of IRI regime, not at all. What I am saying is that this tendency is a reformist view and indirectly promoting the same thing that IRI regime is preaching! IRI regime is saying that any political movement against its interest is organized by US imperialism at the time that threat of war is imminent!!
So practically what Mr. Powel and “Maoist”#1 are asking from Iranian working people, peasants, students, women and revolutionary proletarian is to stop organizing resistance (self defense) against suppression (and civil war waged by ) of IRI regime!

Such a tendency tends to close its eyes on civil war waged by Islamic fundamentalist Regime of Iran (IFRI) for the last 29 years.
II - Civil War in Iran, since 1979 revolution.
IRI has come to power through stealing people’s revolution in 1979. Since then the IRI has waged war against the Kurdish people and still is suppressing them heavily. But all this seems OK to Harry Powel, “Maois”t#1, WBPRM Britain. And next summer is the 20th anniversary of 1988 great massacre of political prisoners which Islamic butchers killed thousands of political prisoners in matter of 2 weeks on direct orders of Khomeini. Does that count for Harry and number one and others? Since the first day of IRI they have moved to enslave women through brutalizing by police force as well as tightening chains of tradition and religion. Does it matter? May be not! After all they are just women! Others are just workers and peasants! They are only 70 million! But boy these Islamic fundamentalists they are hell of tough guys. So what they have revived courts of Inquisition period in Iran and against Iranian people and doesn’t matter if they are comprador feudal classes of Iran who have tightly kept Iran in chains of world capitalist system run by guess who?!
In fact Harry and Maoist 1 think that they know better than Maoists of Iran about nature of ruling classes of IRI, as progressive and anti-imperialist classes!!
Therefore, I hope Harry Powel, Maoist 1 and others, start opening their eyes on atrocities and massacre that was (and still is on going phenomenon) committed by IRI by killing unarmed workers of a copper smelting factory at the Mirook Mine near Khatoon Abad village), just because they protested against the decision of mine comprador capitalist owners (who are part of the ruling class of IRI) that laid off contract workers who have been demanding for job security through permanent jobs. In fact this protest was directed against downsizing of the “Khatoon Abad copper mine company” to keep their profit high and hiring workers as contract workers. Eventually, they organize a demonstration on January 23 in Shahre Babak (Babak city), a city close to their village. The workers were accompanied by their family members in expressing their belief, sharing their suffering as well as demanding for jobs as their basic right with other city residents. IRI was afraid that this demonstration could initiate a bigger protest by the way of joining other people to demonstrators, who hate this regime. Shortly after gathering, demonstrators were confronted by anti-riot blocked and armed security; they started to attack worker and their families using machine guns. At the end 4 workers got killed in such a brutalized way using military helicopter to strike them from the air! While the anti riot Revolutionary Guard using machine gun attacking them from the ground! Like what has been happening in West bank Gaza , when Israeli forces open fire from the helicopter above killing Palestinian demonstrators.
As I mentioned before, this is not the first incident during the reign of Islamic regime in Iran . Islamic ruling class of Iran has been committed to endless gruesome confrontation since in power. The vicious attack to Tehran university campus (July 2000, and also June of 2004) that viciously throwing of students from top of the campus building, killing few students. Killing of Miss. Zahra Kazemi the Iranian-Canadian journalist, chain murders of political activist inside and outside of Iran . Raping and Killing of Miss. Zahra Bani-Yagoob , MD (November 23 2007). “ Zahra Bani-Yaqoob, 27, was walking with her fiancé in a park in the city of Hamedan (central Iran ) 11 October when she arrested by the “Virtue Police”, security forces charged with enforcing “Islamic behaviour”. She was raped while in custody and then reported dead within 48 hours of her arrest. Despite an orchestrated attempt by the authorities to prevent the spread of the news, her death shocked and outraged many people. ” (4)
Arresting and torturing of 30 students activist a month before student day [December, 6. 2007 (5)] last year, is another example of the regime that some individual without regard to its class nature, without regard to its on going vicious atrocities, are calling for formation of United front with them.
“Now Iranian communist students are strongly worrying abut the situation of more than thirty students from their lines whom are in the prison of special security forces. There is not any chance to contact with the prisoners inside these jails. This part of the jail is even out of the control of the main officials of the Ewin prison. Far from any witness and through most hard physical and psychological and sexual oppression they extract forcefully the information from the prisoners, forcing them to accept the so called accusation, make them to confess false crimes, and so on.” (6) (Please read the continuation of this paragraph on note 6).
Above, are just a few examples of the thousands of atrocities showing the true reactionary nature of IRI!

Harry Powel and his friend “Maois”t#1 have been opening the door to the most “Popular” and bizarre discussion of national united front based on distorted facts, and untruth, false and incorrect version of their own about experience of CPC on formation of the united front (which I return to this shortly). But let’s not forget they started off defending the position of ISO (International Socialist Organization, a true Trotskyist organization) , questioning and opposing the correct positions of RCP and CPI (MLM) on two outmodeds poles, Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism, and then to ovoid being tagged and label as a supporter of the Reactionary Islamic Fundamentalist pole based on position of, If you support either of these “two historically outmodeds” you end up strengthening both.
As Bob Avakian Chairman of Revolutionary Communist party (MLM), USA sums it up:
“In connection with this, we have to simultaneously struggle against two trends which represent (to borrow Engels’ phrase) “opposite poles of the same stupidity.” On the one hand, there is a line—which has currency among some “left” forces in the U.S. and elsewhere—of supporting Islamic fundamentalists simply because they are in some measure opposing imperialism, and U.S. imperialism in particular, without examining, or really being concerned very much about, the content of that opposition and where the ideology and program of Islamic fundamentalism will lead—the true horrors it really does represent. This speaks to the importance of the polemic by Sunsara Taylor that was in Revolution not long ago—a polemic against the ISO (International Socialist Organization) and their opposition to the “two outmodeds” analysis, as well as their whole economist (and ludicrous) line about how working people in the U.S.. don’t benefit from imperialism—to which perhaps the most meaningful response is, simply: “What fucking world are you living in?!
This is an important polemic, but it will continue to be necessary to take on—to dissect and refute—these kinds of arguments (as put forward by the ISO and others). This kind of thinking represents, ultimately, a defeatist orientation toward really being able to take on imperialism through mobilizing masses on a revolutionary basis, and a limiting, or consigning, of the struggle to the contest between these two reactionary and outmoded forces; it amounts to, or leads to, becoming cheerleaders for one side or the other (and in the case of those with “anti-imperialist” pretensions, often doing this on behalf of those, like the Jihadist Islamic fundamentalists, who are to a certain degree opposing U.S. imperialism but, once again, are doing so from a reactionary and “historically outmoded” position, politically as well as ideologically) . It is one thing when, in the past, some people’s stance and role amounted, or became reduced to, simply playing the role of cheerleaders for forces struggling against U.S. imperialism, but those forces were at least engaged in what could legitimately be considered revolutionary struggle (as, for example, the Vietnamese people’s war of resistance against the U.S.). But it is quite another thing when you’re becoming cheerleaders for thoroughly reactionary forces, with all the horrors they’ve already brought about and would bring about on a much fuller scale, were they able to do so.” (7)
III-Some information and historic background on Chinese revolution;
1- Shanghai Coup
Chiang Kai-shek attempted to put an end to growing Communist influence during the 1926 Northern Expedition (do not forget that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen died on 1925, soon after his death power struggle began within Kuomintang party), which set out to wrest power from the remaining warlords. With Chiang as commander-in- chief, NRA forces took the cities of Wuhan and Nanchang , and prepared to move on Shanghai .

As NRA troops advanced on the city (under Chen Tu-hsiu counterrevolutionar y line), Shanghai workers were called upon to strike and take over key installations. Having lured the Communists out of the woodwork, Chiang let loose a reign of terror against the Communists and their sympathizers.

With the help of Shanghai ’s underworld leaders and with financial backing from Shanghai bankers and foreigners, Chiang armed hundreds of gangsters, dressed them in Kuomintang uniforms and launched a surprise attack overnight on the workers’ militia. About 5000 Shanghai Communists were killed. Massacres of Communists and various anti-Chiang factions followed in other Chinese cities.
2- Civil War
After the massacre of 1927, the Communists were divided between an insurrectionary policy of targeting large urban centers (advocated by Chen Tu-hsiu ) and one of basing its rebellion in the countryside. After costly defeats in Nanchang and Changsha , the tide of opinion started to shift towards Mao Tese-tung , who, along with Zhu De, had established his forces in the Jinggangshan Mountains on the border between Jiangxi and Hunan and who advocated rural-based revolt.

Communist-led uprisings in other parts of the country met with some success. However, the Communist armies were still small and hampered by limited resources. They adopted a strategy of guerrilla warfare emphasizing mobility and deployment of forces for short attacks on the enemy, followed by swift separation once the attack was over. Pitched battles were avoided except where their force was overwhelmingly superior. The strategy was summed up in a four-line slogan:

The enemy advances, we retreat;
The enemy camps, we harass;
The enemy tires, we attack;
The enemy retreats, we pursue.

By 1930, the Communist Party of China had had an army of perhaps more than 100,000 that presented such a serious challenge to the Kuomintang that Chiang had to wage a number of extermination campaigns against them. He was defeated each time, and the Communist army continued to expand its territory.
IV- Alliance of Chinese Communist Party with Kuomintang was based on New Three Principals.
The Old Three People’s Principals, Vs. The New Three Principals!
In 1923, the Chinese Communist Party decided to establish a revolutionary united front. It helped Sun Yat-sen reorganize the Kuomintang (the old Tong Meng Hui was reorganized into the Kuomintang after the Revolution of 1911). With the formation of the Kuomintang-Communis t united front, the Chinese Communist Party mobilized the masses on a broad scale, and the revolutionary situation developed vigorously. It continued to rise after the death of Sun Yat-sen in 1925. Organized and energized by the Party, the revolutionary forces swept away the reactionary forces in Guangdong , and in 1926 the Northern Expeditionary War began. Supported by the masses, the revolutionary army defeated the counter-revolutiona ry armies of the Northern warlords and occupied central and south China . The worker-peasant movement grew rapidly throughout the country.
According to CCP, it is true that Mao went ahead and formed a national united front with Kuomintang.. But it is also true that Kuomintang was founded by Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (1912), the political representative of national bourgeoisie. According to Chairman Mao, Kuomintang party was established based on the Old Three Principals of people. But the same Old three principals were not the basis of alliance between CCP and Kuomintang! Only when Kuomintang Party evolves and advanced those old principals into the new three principals ( with the help of communists such as Mao himself) according to Mao were consider part of the principal of the bourgeois democratic revolution in China, some basic aspects of a new democratic revolution.
“The Three People’s Principles were the principles and programmes put forward by Sun Yat-sen on the questions of nationalism, democracy and people’s livelihood in the bourgeois democratic revolution in China . In 1924, in the Manifesto of the First National Congress of the Kuomintang, a congress characterized by co-operation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, Sun Yat-sen restated the Three People’s Principles, interpreted nationalism as opposition to imperialism and expressed active support for the movements of the workers and peasants.. The old Three People’s Principles thus developed into the new Three People’s Principles with the Three Great Policies, that is, alliance with the Soviet Union , alliance with the Communist Party and assistance to the peasants and workers. The new Three People’s Principles provided the political basis for the co-operation between the Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang during the First Revolutionary Civil War period.” (8)
So, if the base of alliance of CCP with Kuomintang was new Three People’s Principals that was adopted by Dr. Sun Yat-Sen with the help of CCP, on what base should CPI (MLM) form alliance with IFRI? Are there any similarities between the Kuomintang Party (Founded by Dr. Sun Yat-Sen and cooperation of CCP) and IFRI? Of course, that there are not any.
“In 1923 Sun Yat-sen, with the help of the Chinese Communist Party, decided to reorganize the Kuomintang bring about Kuomintang-Communis t co-operation and admit members of the Communist Party into the Kuomintang. In January 1924 he convened in Canton the Kuomintang’s First National Congress at which he laid down the Three Great Policies–alliance with Russia , co-operation with the Communist Party and assistance to the peasants and workers. Mao Tse-tung, Li Ta-chao, Lin Po-chu, Chu Chiu-pai and other comrades attended the Congress and played an important part in helping the Kuomintang to take the road of revolution. Some of these comrades were elected members, and others alternate members, of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang.” (9)
Reading what Chairman Mao wrote about class nature of Kuomintang below, reminds Iranian communists a lot about Islamic Regime, since it stole the 1979 revolution and changes it to counter-revolution. Throughout the Iran the workers, the peasants, the women, the students and teachers, have remained under counter- revolutionary rule of Islamic regime.
“The present regime of the new warlords of the Kuomintang remains a regime of the comprador class in the cities and the landlord class in the countryside; it is a regime which has capitulated to imperialism in its foreign relations and which at home has replaced the old warlords with new ones, subjecting the working class and the peasantry to an even more ruthless economic exploitation and political oppression. The bourgeois-democrati c revolution which started in Kwangtung Province had gone only halfway when the comprador and landlord classes usurped the leadership and immediately shifted it on to the road of counter-revolution; throughout the country the workers, the peasants, the other sections of the common people, and even the bourgeoisie, have remained under counter-revolutiona ry rule and obtained not the slightest particle of political or economic emancipation.”(10)
Therefore the question is what was the reason that CCP after death of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen still insisted to form the alliance with party that was headed by Chiang Kai-Shek? It wasn’t for the reason other than bringing unity and alliance with patriotic Kuomintang groups which favored resistance to Japan , and forcing Chiang Kai-Shek to stop civil war, against Chinese people CCP. “After the invasion of the three northeastern provinces by the Japanese aggressors, the Chinese Communist Party in 1933, proposed to all the Kuomintang forces then attacking the revolutionary base areas and the Red Army that an armistice agreement be concluded to facilitate united resistance to Japan; this proposal was made with three conditions– that the attacks should stop, that the people should be granted democratic rights, and that the people should be armed. But the Kuomintang authorities rejected it..” (14) This is what Mao himself concluded through materialism and dialectic analysis of tortuous Chinese people’s war;
“The Chinese people’s War of Resistance has followed a tortuous course. It began as far back as 1931. On September 18 of that year, the Japanese aggressors occupied Shenyang , and within a few months they seized the three northeastern provinces. The Kuomintang government adopted a policy of non-resistance. But against the will of the Kuomintang government and led or assisted by the Chinese Communist Party, the people and a patriotic section of the troops of these provinces organized the Anti-Japanese Volunteers and the Anti-Japanese United Army and engaged in heroic guerrilla warfare. At one time this heroic guerrilla warfare grew to great dimensions and, despite many difficulties and setbacks, it has never been put down by the enemy. When the Japanese aggressors attacked Shanghai in 1932, a group of patriots in the Kuomintang once again defied the will of the Kuomintang government and led the 19th Route Army in resisting the Japanese aggressors. In 1933 the Japanese aggressors invaded Jehol and Chahar Provinces, and for the third time a group of patriots in the Kuomintang defied the will of the Kuomintang government and co-operated with the Communist Party in organizing the Anti-Japanese Allied Army to resist the enemy. But in all this fighting against Japan support came entirely from the Chinese people, the Chinese Communist Party, other democratic groups and the patriotic Chinese overseas, while the Kuomintang government with its policy of non-resistance contributed nothing. On the contrary, the anti-Japanese actions in Shanghai and Chahar were both wrecked by the Kuomintang government itself. In 1933 it also destroyed the people’s government which had been established in Fukien by the 19th Route Army.” (14)

V- How the CCP did forced Chiang Kai-shek to accept the terms of unity?
“In 1936 the Kuomintang’s Northeastern Army headed by Chang Hsueh-liang and the Kuomintang’s Northwestern Army headed by Yang Hu-cheng were stationed in and around Sian; they were charged with the task of attacking the Chinese Red Army which had arrived in northern Shensi . Influenced by the Chinese Red Army and the people’s anti-Japanese movement, they agreed to the Anti-Japanese National United Front put forward by the Communist Party of China and demanded that Chiang Kai-shek unite with the Communist Party to resist Japan. Chiang Kai-shek turned down the demand, became even more active in his military preparations for the “suppression of the Communists” and massacred the anti-Japanese youth of Sian . Chang Hsueh-liang and Yang Hu-cheng took joint action and arrested Chiang Kai-shek. This was the famous Sian Incident of December 12, 1936. Chiang Kai-shek was forced to accept the terms of unity with the Communist Party and resistance to Japan and was then set free to return to Nanking .” (11)
Once again, this enforcement of policy by CCP was not done through direct formation of united front with Chiang Kai-shek, rather CCP policy force him to “accept” its terms.
Let’s not forget that when on July 7, 1937, the Japanese imperialism attempt to annex the whole of China by armed forces. CCP concluded that: “The Chinese people unanimously demanded war against Japan . Ten days elapsed before Chiang Kai-shek tardily made a public statement at Lushan announcing armed resistance to Japan. He did so under nation-wide popular pressure and as a result of the serious blow the Japanese invasion had dealt to the interests both of the British and U.S. imperialists in China and of the big landlords and the big bourgeoisie whom Chiang Kai-shek directly represented. But at the same time the Chiang Kai-shek government continued to parley with the Japanese aggressors and even accepted the so-called peaceful settlements they concluded with local authorities. It was not until August 13, 1937, when the Japanese aggressors launched a major attack on Shanghai and thus made it impossible for Chiang Kai-shek to maintain his rule in southeastern China , that he was compelled to embark on armed resistance; but Chiang never ceased his clandestine attempts to make peace with Japan right up to 1944. Throughout the War of Resistance Chiang Kai-shek opposed all-out people’s war in which the entire people are mobilized, and pursued the reactionary policy of passively resisting Japan but actively opposing the Communist Party and the people; thus his actions completely violated his own Lushan statement that “once war breaks out, every person, young or old, in the north or in the south, must take up the responsibility of resisting Japan and defending our homeland”. The two policies, two sets of measures and two perspectives discussed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in this article reflect the struggle between the line of the Communist Party and Chiang Kai-shek’s line in the War of Resistance.” (12) (Emphasis added-Borhan) .
Sounds familiar! Of course it is. Behind the close doors and despite of tough talks about “the big American Satan”, which is only made for the purpose of public opinion fabrication, IRFR has been negotiating with US administration to reach a “peaceful settlement”. “Peaceful settlement” is none other than let them be the local managers of oil fields with the expense of Iranian workers’ exploitation and repression.
VI-TWO LINES IN THE ANTI-JAPANESE WAR

The two lines struggle continued between, revolutionary line and reactionary line, between CCP and Kuomintang governments (Chiang) for achievement and obtaining the leadership of anti Japanese imperialism resistance. Therefore two entirely different, policies emerged and adapted, one by Chairman Mao (CCP) and the second one by Chiang. While Chiang government tried his best to come in terms and peaceful settlement with Japanese imperialism, at the same time maintaining his active opposition to Chinese Communist party and waging civil war against it.
As a result, a month after Japanese invasion (August 25, 1937), Chairman Mao put forward a outline for propaganda and agitation for the propaganda organs of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. This is what he advocates; “B. But on the other hand, even after the Lukouchiao Incident of July 7, the Kuomintang authorities are continuing to pursue the wrong policy they have pursued ever since the September 18th Incident, making compromises and concessions, suppressing the zeal of the patriotic troops and clamping down on the patriotic people’s national salvation movement. There is no doubt that, having seized Peiping and Tientsin, Japanese imperialism will press ahead with its policy of large-scale offensives, take the second and third steps in its premeditated war plan and launch fierce attacks on the whole of northern China and other areas, relying on its own brute military strength while at the same time drawing support from German and Italian imperialism and exploiting the vacillations of British imperialism and the estrangement of the Kuomintang from the broad masses of the working people. The flames of war are already raging in Chahar and in Shanghai . To save our motherland, to resist the attacks of the powerful invaders, to defend northern China and the seacoast and recover Peiping, Tientsin and northeastern China, the Kuomintang authorities and the whole people must thoroughly learn the lesson of the loss of northeastern China, Peiping and Tientsin, learn and take warning from the fall of Abyssinia, learn from the Soviet Union’s past victories over its foreign enemies, learn from Spain’s present experience in successfully defending Madrid, and firmly unite to fight to the end in defense of the motherland. Henceforth the task is: “Mobilize the entire nation’s forces for victory in the War of Resistance” and the key to its accomplishment is a complete and thorough change in Kuomintang policy.” (13)
Chairman Mao sums “TWO LINES IN THE ANTI-JAPANESE WAR” this way;
“When it comes to such summing up, it is plain to all that there are two different guiding lines in China . One leads to the defeat of the Japanese aggressors, while the other not only makes their defeat impossible but in some respects actually helps them and undermines our War of Resistance.
The Kuomintang government’s policy of passive resistance to Japan and its reactionary domestic policy of active repression of the people have resulted in military setbacks, enormous territorial losses, financial and economic crisis, oppression and hardship for the people and the disruption of national unity. This reactionary policy has been an obstruction to mobilizing and uniting all the anti-Japanese forces of the Chinese people for the effective prosecution of the war, and has hindered the awakening and unity of the people. Yet this political awakening and this unity have never ceased to develop, but have moved forward along a tortuous course, under the twofold repression of the Japanese aggressors and the Kuomintang government. Clearly, there have been two lines in China for a long time, the Kuomintang government’s line of oppression of the people and of passive resistance, and the Chinese people’s line of enhancing their own consciousness and unity for the waging of a people’s war. Herein lays the key to all China ’s problems.” (14)

The CCP under the leadership of Mao never doubt about the nature of Kuomintang under Chiang’s leadership (as a representative of big landlords and the big bourgeoisie) and each time by persuading of Kuomintang to stop civil war and passive resistance, he teaches the masses about how to resist Japanese invader independently, under leadership of Chinese communist party by not relying and waiting for reactionary clique to “join”, based on scientific materialist and dialectical analysis of the specific situation that Chinese people came to faced with at any given time.
Supporters of united front formation should consider answering the question of weather or not, there is any possibility that under current Islamic regime policy, to form a united front between communist groups, such as CPI (MLM), and this regime! Since IFRI still with its full deadly force is carrying out the policy of civil war, still does not plan to grantee basic democratic rights- such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of women from all gender based misogynist and Islamic punitive laws in Iran, Freedom of ALL political prisoners- to people and do not plan to recognize the right of people from all walks of life, including genuine revolutionary communists and communist party, to armed themselves against US aggressor (when US invade Iran), independently and without IRI control.
Mao teaches us;
“A revolutionary party is the guide of the masses, and no revolution ever succeeds when the revolutionary party leads them astray. To ensure that we will definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friends in order to attack our real enemies. To distinguish real friends from real enemies, we must make a general analysis of the economic status of the various classes in Chinese society and of their respective attitudes towards the revolution.” (1a)

The CCP under leadership of Chairman Mao never took his eyes off of seizing the political power. Not even before, after and during formation of united front. Whatever policy and outline he put forward, he would never forget that all those must serve the primary task of seizer of political power by Chinese proletariat and its vanguard party (CCP). In the other word, Chairman Mao solve the contradictions facing CCP and Chinese people, based on the overall wining over the masses heart, relying on people’s army (Red army), creation and expanding the red basis and serving the short and long term interest of Chinese proletariat to transfer the china into socialist society and from there to Communism world.
As Chairman Mao sums it up;
“It must always be remembered that the ten-year civil war was stopped and that the three large-scale anti-Communist campaigns and countless other provocations during the War of Resistance were checked (up to and including Chiang Kai-shek’s recent invasion of the southern part of the Shensi-Kansu- Ningsia Border Region) not because Chiang Kai-shek was strong, but on the contrary because Chiang was relatively not strong enough, while the Communist Party and the people were relatively strong. The ten-year civil war was stopped, not by the appeals of public figures throughout the country who desired peace and feared war (such as those of the former “League for Banning Civil War” and similar bodies), but by the armed demand of the Communist Party of China and the armed demands of the Northeastern Army under Chang Hsueh-liang and the Northwestern Army under Yang Hu-cheng. The three large-scale anti-Communist campaigns and countless other provocations were not beaten back by unlimited concessions and submission by the Communist Party, they were beaten back by the Communist Party’s persistence in a just, stern attitude of self-defense — “We will not attack unless we are attacked; if we are attacked, we will certainly counter-attack. ”

Comradely
Borhan Azemi
02-17-2008

Notes
[ *] On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism. (December 27, 1935).Selected Works of Mao Ts-tung, Vol. I. Note #9
(1a) Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society (March 1926).
(1) “This article was written by Comrade Mao Tse-tung to combat two deviations then to be found in the Party. The exponents of the first deviation, represented by Chen Tu-hsiu, were concerned only with co-operation with the Kuomintang and forgot about the peasants; this was Right opportunism. The exponents of the second deviation, represented by Chang Kuo-tao, were concerned only with the labour movement, and likewise forgot about the peasants; this was “Left” opportunism. Both were aware that their own strength was inadequate, but neither of them knew where to seek reinforcements or where to obtain allies on a mass scale. Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that the peasantry was the staunchest and numerically the largest ally of the Chinese proletariat, and thus solved the problem of who was the chief ally in the Chinese revolution. Moreover, he saw that the national bourgeoisie was a vacillating class and predicted that it would disintegrate during the upsurge of the revolution, with its right-wing going over to the side of imperialism. This was borne out by the events of 1927.”(Selected work of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.. I. “ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY March 1926”.)
(2) ” THE SITUATION AND OUR POLICY AFTER THE VICTORY IN THE WAR OF RESISTANCE AGAINST JAPAN-August 13, 1945” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. IV.
(3) Draft Program of the Communist Party of Iran (MLM).
http://www.sarbedar an.org/language/ index.htm
(4) [(A World To Win News Service) AWTW News Service- December 03 2007.]
(5) In December 6, 1953, few months after the US led-coup ( August 18, 1953), Nixon (then a Vice president to president D. Eisenhower,) “traveled to Iran and pronounced himself much impressed with both Prime Minister Zahedi and Mohammad Reza Shah” (Stephen Kinzer, author of “ All the Shah’s Men” P. 211). Prior of arrival of Nixon, students in Tehran University were busy organizing their protest against arrival of head of the US who led a successful coup d’etat, ousting Dr. Mosaghegh National Government. Nixon trip to Iran fueled an increasing anti-Us uprising in Iran ; Tehran University students staged a demonstration on December 6, 1953.The Shah’s army attacked students killing three of them. Since then (1953) December 6 is declared as a student day in Iran.
(6) Please refer to “Collective of Iranian students and youth living in Europe ” site: http://committe2007 .blogfa.com/ post-39.aspx
“The prisoners are forced to answer the written or oral questions of the inspectors while sitting on wood or metal chairs facing the wall. These kinds of inquiries are continued for hours and hours without any break. If the prisoners are not ready to cooperate or resist admitting the accusations then he or she would enter to a hard process. Inspectors would start insulting all of family members, especially insulting the female members. They mix the insults with threats and strikes against back of the neck and shoulders and little by little the darkness the time of torture will arrive. Those who are according to the inspectors the “breakers of the will” and having especial kind of skills, come on the stage. They take the prisoner to downstairs or the room for central heating or backyard. “Breakers of the will” is always crying, insulting and threatening. They order the prisoner to sit and stand and he or she must chose between obeying or to be beaten. During this process the “breakers of the will” keeps on talking about the illness of parents, how the mother had heart attack because of hearing about her child, how the judge had ordered an especial kind of Islamic punishment and so on. Just once the prisoner does slowly the movement of sitting and standing, they would start beating him or her. Little by little prisoner feels tires and weakness and would face insensibility in the feet, now the new process will start. They order the prisoner to stay on one leg. If not obeying then you would receive punches in the stomach or slaps at your face. This would increase your weakness so that you can not stand on your foot. The “Breakers of the will” according to their experience, find out this feeling very soon. They would start to beat up and down of the back part of the feet of the prisoner with their foot. Each strike cause the knees to be bent and breaks the balance. A treble pain would begin in the feet. Then he would start to beat behind both side of the neck with the keen part of his hand. The punch against spinal column causes darkness in your vision. During this process prisoner would fall down frequently, but “Breakers of the will” poor cold water by some plastic glass over your face, neck and down your waist to keep you more vigilant.
They return the prisoner with such a condition to the jail wanting him or her to fill up 100 page of the marked papers of the “revolution court”, telling you if not fill all the papers till next day with your confess then the torture would be repeated. Prisoner after that much of pressure must chose either not sleeping or to be tortured again.
If you refuse in any way the will of inspectors or the “Breakers of the will” then they would return with the especial Islamic punishment order of the judge. According to this order they will fest your hands and feet to a wooden bed and beat you with belt or lash on the bottom of your feet.
If the team of inquiry is not sure about the duration time of arrest then they would not meet any risk and would try nothing remain as a trace of torture on the body of prisoner. In this case they would use the method of white torture. In the 209 and 325 part of the prison there are the individual jails all in white or red color. They keep the prisoner for some weeks in such a kind of jail and would not ask him or her anything. In this kind of the jail there is a small window of 20cm long and 10cm width in the bottom of the door to put the food inside, so you can not even see the guard. Because of the color of the jail you lose your balance and would have hard nervous tensions. If they continue for a long time this method of painless torture the prisoner would rich to the full madness and losing his or her subjectivity and would become ready to cooperate with them.
Other kind of torture especially against Jung prisoners is sexual abuse. They luck the hands from behind the body, cover the eyes and put the prisoner against the wall and round him or her by three or four, starting with sexual threats and touching the different parts of the body of prisoner… prisoner become so nervous that either give up for cooperating or resorting to madly reactions…
Keeping awake is another treble kind of torture, they use against prisoners. They put the prisoner in an individual jail where strong projectors lightening the jail strongly from some three meter distance. They broadcast loudly alarm or mournful songs. So they tear apart the nerves of prisoners and even when they are unconscious taking them under water to keep the prisoner awake. And again keeping them in the same jails brazenly lighted and loudly broadcasted with alarm or mournful songs. And this process continues some 3 till 7 days.
Description above is only a part of what happening in 209 and 325 jails. The” freedom lover and equality seekers students” already are in the jails of Islamic Republic Regime of Iran, they are under threats of such an inhuman and barbaric deeds. This danger is much greater for the prisoners who could not be able to have any contact with their families. “
(7) “Heightened Parasitism and the “Two Outmodeds”, By Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party , USA . http://www.revcom. us/a/118/ makingrevolution -p2-06-en. html

(8) Selected Work of Mao Tse-tung Vol. IV, Note #2 of his article “On a Statement
by Chang Kai- Shek’s Spokesman August 16, 1945.”
(9) Selected work of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. I. “ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY March 1926”. Note#6
(10) WHY IS IT THAT RED POLITICAL POWER CAN EXIST IN CHINA ? October 5, 1928, selected work Vol. I.
(11) Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung Vol. IV, Note #5 of his article “On a Statement by Chang Kai- Shek’s Spokesman August 16, 1945.
(12) THE PERIOD OF THE WAR OF RESISTANCE AGAINST JAPAN (1)
POLICIES, MEASURES AND PERSPECTIVES FOR RESISTING THE JAPANESE INVASION. July 23, 1937 Selected Work of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II.
(13) For the Mobilization of All the Nation’s Forces for Victory in the War of Resistance (August 25, 1937). Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II.
(14) On Coalition Government (April 24, 1945). III. Two Lines in the Anti-Japanese
War. Selected Work of Mao Tse-tung Vol. III.