क्रान्तीकारी नेपाल

Summary Of Debate On Resistance To Imperialism (Part 2) This summary is of the second part of an ongoing debate concerning the correct Maoist line on resistance to imperialist aggression against oppressed countries. The second summary covers the period October-November 07. It takes in some important contributions. It summarises debates 16-23, although it also includes Debate 14, which wasn’t included in the previous summary of the debate.
The debate began following an article by Comrade Sunsara Taylor in Revolution the organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) published on June 10th 2007, which was a reply to an article by American Trotskyists entitled “Standing Up To Islamophobia’ “. This debate was described in Part I of the summary. People debated the question of whether or not Maoists should support the Iraqi Resistance. They also discussed the line of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist) that the Iranian regime would remain the principal enemy of the Iranian people, even in the event of US military attack or invasion. It was stated in the first part of the summary: ‘Two lines developed. One, proposed by the RCP (USA) is termed the ‘McWorld vs.Jihad’ line which argues that the world increasingly faces a choice between US imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism and that both should be opposed, even when Islamic Fundamentalists are involved in resistance to US imperialism. ‘ The other line is termed ‘The National Resistance’ line. This line stresses the importance of wars of national resistance. In particular it promotes the line that, based on the objective situation, Maoists should form a broad national united front, which could include reactionaries, to oppose an invasion of an oppressed nation by an imperialist country.’ In this part, the debate deepens and takes in issues such as Lenin’s line on anti-imperialist struggles and whether the contradiction between Crusading McWorld and Reactionary Jihad represents a contradiction of a new type between different reactionary forces. Imperialism And The Principal Contradiction The Crusading McWorld Vs. Reactionary Jihad Line An article from Revolution newspaper attempts to relate the ‘War On Terror’ to the USA’s history of imperialism (’If You Want To Understand The Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and the “War On Terror,” You Need To Know:’ September 26 2007-Debate 14). It states that the US is grounded in a history of slavery, genocide against Native Americans and the seizure of territory from Mexico. It states that after World War 2, the US presided over a system of ‘neo-colonialism’ whereby nominally independent countries were dominated and exploited by the US. The article states that ‘It is impossible to understand the real reasons for the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism, and the deep hatred for the U.S., in the Middle East and other parts of the world, without being aware of and fully taking into account this whole bloody history of plunders and repression which the U.S. has carried out, and continues to carry out.’ A group of Canadian revolutionaries sent a post in which they gave their comments on the debate (see Debate 18). They argued against Comrade Harry Powell’s support for Stalin’s line on national resistance (see Debate 13). Harry had characterised Stalin’s line on anti-imperialist struggles as focusing on their objective impact on the political situation and only looking secondarily at their subjective intentions. The Canadian revolutionaries argued that Stalin’s approach to the national question ‘leaves out much of Lenin’s nuance and complexity’. They point out that Lenin spoke of the need for a struggle ‘against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements’ in oppressed nations. He also spoke of ‘the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends’ which combined a liberation movement against western imperialists with attempts to strengthen the position of feudal and religious forces. They also quote Lenin as saying ‘we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberatio n movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited’. They summarise that Lenin ’sees the struggle for national liberation as being linked to the proletarian revolution, where each pole must reinforce the other.’ The Canadian revolutionaries question the approach that states that the principal contradiction in the world today is the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations. They say that the Iraq war represents a contradiction between an imperialist country and an oppressed country but also reflects a contradiction between imperialists. Also, it represents a new type of contradiction which does not fit into the four contradictions that Mao identified in the world. This is the contradiction between ‘certain imperialist states and Islamic fundamentalism’ . They argue further that Islamic resistance forces may strike a blow against some imperialists but this does not necessarily weaken imperialism as a whole or in the long-run because Islamists in power are capable of serving imperialism. They argue later that ‘The common element of Islamism is its reactionary and stupid world-view.’ The National Resistance Line Anti-Imperialist Action have written a leaflet about resistance to imperialism which was distributed in Britain (see Debate 16). It stated that ‘It is obvious that the main enemy at present of the Iraqi people is not Islam-as claimed by the WCPI [Worker Communist Party Of Iraq]. and their Western supporters-but American and British imperialism.’ In Comrade Maoist 1’s response to the statement by the Canadian revolutionaries, Maoist 1 stated that Stalin in the ‘Foundations of Leninism’ does not have a different line from Lenin. Both Lenin and Stalin agree that the key question about any national liberation movement is ‘whether it is progressive from a global point of view’. Maoist 1 points out that Lenin was arguing that the Communist International should use its power to try and ensure communists led anti-imperialist struggles. Maoist 1 point out that communists in the 21st century are not in a position to make such a demand. Also, Maoist 1 stated that Lenin was stressing this point because western powers were giving ‘independence’ to some oppressed countries while ensuring that they remained under neo-colonial control by western powers and with an anti-Soviet foreign policy. The point Lenin was making, according to Maoist 1, was that those leading national liberation struggles who followed such a pro-imperialist line should only receive Soviet assistance when they were prepared to change their line. In ‘Methodological Issues’ (see Debate 21) Comrade Harry Powell also responds to the statement by the Canadian Revolutionaries. Harry says that Lenin in ‘A Caricature of Marxism and “Imperialist Economism” ‘ argues that communists should not support an uprising by ‘reactionary classes’ against imperialism but then goes onto qualify this by saying : “[we cannot] withhold support from any serious popular struggle against national oppression.” Comrade Powell refers to the uncertainty of the Canadian revolutionaries about whether the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations is the correct one in the current time. Powell argues that in Afghanistan and Iraq this contradiction indeed determines the nature of the conflicts that are occurring. In Iran, Powell argues that a contradiction between the Islamic regime and the people exists also. If this is the Principal contradiction then Maoists must argue that the people should struggle to overthrow the regime as their main task. However, at a certain point mounting imperialist aggression against Iran will become principal and then the emphasis of Maoists should be opposing this aggression ‘without abandoning their aim of overthrowing the IRI.’ He states that if imperialists attack then ‘it would be correct to call for national unity against the common foe. Imperialist occupation is likely to be more difficult to get rid of than the IRI.’ Comrade Powell goes onto state that a materialist analysis of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan would establish what class forces and political forces are active in the struggles in these countries. On the basis of such analysis it will develop tactics to advance communism. Powell argues that such a materialist analysis would lead Maoists to ‘call for qualified support for the existing reactionary movements leading the armed struggle against imperialism in these countries. At the same time we call for communists in those countries to get organised and engage in armed struggle against imperialism and in the case of Iran against the Islamic Republic.’ Powell says this is not about tailing reactionaries but simply recognising the blows that the armed resistances in Iraq and Afghanistan are making against the imperialist powers, blows that are to the advantage of oppressed peoples across the world, he believes. However, Powell does not advocate ‘qualified support’ for the Iranian regime, instead calling for armed struggle against it. Powell contrasts his ‘materialist’ analysis of the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran with what he describes as an ‘idealist’ analysis. This analysis begins not from the actual situation but from what some Maoists would like to see-anti-imperialis t fronts under communist leadership. He states that invasion makes the situation in oppressed countries much worse and that a line that states that imperialism and reactionary resistance are equivalents does not take this material fact into account. Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line In ‘If You Want To Understand The Rise Of Islamic Fundamentalism and the “War On Terror,” You Need to Know:” (Debate 14) in Revolution newspaper, the writer states: ‘It is impossible to understand the real reasons for the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism, and the deep; hatred for the U.S., in the Middle East and other parts of the world, without being aware of and fully taking into account this whole bloody history of plunder and repression which the U.S. has carried out, and continues to carry out. And it is impossible to break out of the current very bad and potentially even more disastrous dynamic-where U.S. imperialism and reactionary Jihadism continue to reinforce each other even while opposing each other-without a mass movement that challenges this whole dynamic.’ The Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist)-CPI (MLM) sent a congratulatory message to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada (M-L-M) on its founding (see Debate 19). In this message the CPI-MLM stated that ‘In the process of colonising and consolidating its hegemony, the United States enters into conflicts with other imperialist powers and reactionaries such as the Iraqi, Iranian and Afghanistan regimes. However, these conflicts are nothing but contradictions between imperialists and reactionaries. They have nothing to do with the contradiction between capitalism and the working class or the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed peoples.’ They also state ‘Communists and revolutionary forces should not, under any condition, take sides in the conflict between imperialism and reaction.’ Bob Avakian in ‘Why Religious Fundamentalism Is Growing In Today’s World And What Is The Alternative’ (Debate 28) states:”What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you ended up strengthening both.” The National Resistance Line Comrade Bahadur in his comment on the congratulatory message sent by the CPI (MLM) to the Canadian Party (Debate 19) challenges the CPI (MLM)’s statement that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the possible invasion of Iran have no bearing on the contradictions between capitalism and the working class or imperialism and the oppressed peoples. Comrade Bahadur states that ‘Once the U.S. imperialists and their allies directly invade and occupy these countries, they come into direct conflict with the people of these countries.’ He goes onto develop this point by talking of the death and destruction that the Iraqi and Afghan people have suffered due to invasion and occupation. Mao’s Theory Of National Resistance The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line Comrade Paul Newton (Debate 17) talks about Mao’s doctrine of building a united front to fight a war of national resistance. He asks how the CPI (MLM) could make a united front with the Iranian regime given they do not have enough of a power base in the country and given the history of brutal repression of communists by the Iranian regime. The National Resistance Line Comrade Maoist 1 (Debate 17) agrees that the Iranian Maoists could not form a military alliance with the Iranian regime in their current situation. However, Comrade Maoist 1 queries why this leads the CPI (MLM) to declare that the Iranian regime should remain the main enemy of the Iranian people in the event of an attack by the US. Comrade Bahadur talks about Mao’s theory of contradiction. He quotes Mao who states that in the development of a thing there are many contradictions, ‘one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions. ‘ Comrade Bahadur further quotes Mao to show how it is the job of revolutionaries to discover the principal contradiction. As an example he states that when Saddam was a puppet of the West then the principal contradiction in Iraq was between the people and their repressive ruler. However when the US and Britain invaded Iraq the death and destruction this created meant that the contradiction between the invaders and the people became principal and the contradiction between the people and Saddam’s regime became secondary. The Iraqi Resistance The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line The Canadian revolutionaries argue that in Iraq ‘there are many different trends, some of who focus on opposing the occupation while others attack other Iraqi forces to manoeuvre for a greater share of power in the new puppet regime.’ They argue that the defeat of the US in Iraq would not automatically lead to advances for peoples struggles. They argue that, depending on the circumstances, it could just strengthen other imperialists or strengthen reactionaries across the world. They state that the only thing which can guarantee a positive outcome in Iraq is ‘an organized ‘third pole’ aside from the Islamists and the imperialists. ‘ The Iraqi Resistance The National Resistance Line Anti-Imperialist Action in their leaflet ‘Resistance Or Collaboration? ‘ states that the Baathists are aiming for ‘a strong Pan-Arab state while Islamists dream of a Muslim world.’ They state that these conscious aims are reactionary but their resistance objectively weakens imperialism. Anti-Imperialist Action condemns the Iraqi Communist Party for working with the occupiers. It criticises the Worker Communist Party of Iraq for denouncing the armed resistance in Iraq and states that both these parties have been calling on the imperialist forces to crush the resistance. In ‘Methodological Issues’, Comrade Harry Powell talks about Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, noting that proletarian parties are weak in such countries. He states that these parties could only be brought forth with ‘a protracted process of political and military struggle’. He goes on to state that ‘At present the proletariat in these countries is a “class in itself”-divided by religion and ethnicity-and not yet a “class for itself”. The task of communists is to bring about such a transformation and not to speak as if this is already the case.’ Comrade Harry Powell then argues that if communists in these countries condemn the resistance in these countries then they will be seen ‘as stooges of imperialism and thus legitimate targets for the resistance.’ In ‘The Hidden Facts: Statement By The 1920 Revolution Brigades, Iraq’ (Debate 22) : the 1920 Brigades state that important ministries in the puppet occupation government, such as the Interior and Defence were handed over to Iranian backed militias. The 1920 Brigades see this as part of a ’secret agreement’ between the US and Iran to foment sectarian violence to weaken the resistance. They state that despite the ‘reservations’ people may have about the Iraqi Resistance they have taught the world that oppressed nations and societies can sustain a self-sufficient resistance movement. They predict that capitalist economies orientated towards high consumption will fail after a period in which they try to sustain themselves through global exploitation and slavery. They see the Iraqi Resistance as part of a process by which the fall of capitalism will be achieved. They express support for the anti-globalisation and peace movements. They say that after Bush leaves office there will be an opportunity for the US to negotiate with the Iraqi Resistance for a withdrawal of troops. The Threatened Attack On Iran The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line The Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist) in their greeting to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist) in Debate 19 discusses how the Islamic regime came to power with the suport of the imperialist powers as a means of crushing the ‘democratic revolution of 1978-79.’, including repression against workers, peasants and national minorities. The CPI (MLM) states that the Islamic regime in Iran maintains military and economic relations with the United states. The Threatened Attack On Iran The National Resistance Line Bahadur in Debate 19 agrees that the Iranian regime like other reactionaries in history have killed large numbers of revolutionaries and ordinary people but he implies that their brutality will not safeguard their position. Bahadur predicts that when the imperialists attack Iran part of the reactionary ruling class will try to hang onto their position by siding with the US. Others will take a more patriotic line. Bahadur argues that a ‘Maoist dynamic armed United Front’ should be formed which will unite against the invaders and unite with everyone that can be united with. The Maoists should insist on leadership in the United Front and the War of Resistance against the invaders. Comrade Bahadur deals with the objection that the Maoists have no army by stating: ‘The correct line will bring forth the people’s resistance and people’s soldiers and much more, everything!’ The Maoist Task The Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad Line The Canadian revoutionaries argue that to really resist imperialism, oppressed countries need to free themselves from feudal oppression and the oppression of women. Otherwise the economy will not be able to develop independently and will remain dependent on imperialist capital. Also, the people will not support the regime and will not be prepared to defend it against imperialist domination. They argue that Islamists, fail to follow such an approach and therefore act as an obstacle to self-determination, even if self-determination is what they advocate. They argue that Maoists should unite with the disgust of the masses towards such practices as stoning women, in countries where Islam is influential . The Communist Party Of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist) in its congratulatory message to the Canadian revolutionaries states that ‘Under the conditions of a serious crisis in the world when imperialist powers and reactionaries are in disarray, we witness the rise of innumerable spontaneous struggles throughout the world. These resistances are fragmented. The historical mission of the communist movement is to unite and lead these struggles in order to carry out proletarian revolutions. ‘ The National Resistance Line Comrade Harry Powell in ‘Methodological Issues’ (Debate 21) argues that the central task is ‘in uniting and mobilising the people to oppose imperialism and local reaction. Furthermore we know from past experience that only a disciplined revolutionary party is capable of carrying out this task….It is all very well to talk, as some of the American comrades do, about “bringing forward the role of the proletariat” but this cannot be done except through a process of political and military struggle.’ Comrade Bahdur writes in Debate 19 that as the era of imperialism emerged, the contradiction between colonial and non-colonial powers intensified, along with the contradiction between capitalists and workers and the contradcition between capitalist countries owing to their uneven development. Comrade Bahadur states that: ‘Thus, resistance against the invaders is a matter of concern to all Iraqis and first and foremost the revolutionary Maoist Iraqis. Resistance must be their element!’ Conclusion The supporters of the Crusading McWorld vs. Reactionary Jihad line continue to ask how reactionary resistance to imperialism can lead to an objectively progressive result. They argue that it will strengthen reactionaries internationally or strengthen other imperialists instead. Comrade Harry Powell believes that resistance led by reactionaries can lead to the weakening of imperialism but points out that the people need a proletarian party that can unite the whole people. Comrade Bahadur argues that the Maoist party should demand leadership of any United Front against foreign attack that is made with reactionaries. A difference has emerged between those who argue that an attack by imperialists on a reactionary regime has no bearing on the people and they should not take sides in it and those who argue that when an imperialist country attacks an oppressed nation, this constitutes a direct attack on the people, irrespective of the reactionary nature of the regime.