Statement of the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan on the 50th anniversary of the founding the communist movement of Afghanistan:

Let us celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and new democratic movement of Afghanistan for the purposes of strengthening the current communist and new democratic struggles in the country!

With the formation of the Progressive Youth Organization [PYO] on October 4, 1965, on the basis of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (that time Mao Zedong Thought) line and anti-imperialist, anti-social-imperialist, anti-reactionary and anti-revisionist orientation, under the leadership of comrade Akram Yari, the communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan came into being. Due to the principled political line of the PYO and the national and international environment, the new democratic movement under the leadership of the PYO turned into the most extensive political movement of the country, mobilizing tens of thousands of revolutionary men and women, students, teachers, writers, workers, and other toiling masses from all nationalities in struggles against reactionaries, imperialists, social-imperialists; it was thus that the Maoist communist movement flourished in the country.

Sholajawid was the name of the journal which was propagating new democratic ideas; it was initiated by the PYO and two other progressive groups, starting its publication two years after the formation of the PYO in 1967.  Due to the crucial role this journal played in the expansion and spread of the movement, the movement itself became known as Sholajawid. Although only 11 issues of the journal were published, and subsequently censored by the reactionary monarchy of Zahir Shah, even the limited publication played an important historical role in the extensive and widespread formation of the new democratic movement.

Definitely the PYO and the Sholajawid movement, being young and inexperienced, was not without its shortcomings and weaknesses; it definitely needed improvement and evolution. Unfortunately, the internal weaknesses of the PYO, along with an increasingly national and international unfavorable situation, resulted into the fact that its movement could not continue to develop and evolve. After a short period following its initial prosperity, it moved towards collapse and dispersion.

The banning of the Sholajawid journal and the suppression of the demonstrations in 1968 by the repressive forces of the reactionary state under Zahir Shah – as well as the arrest and imprisonment of a large number of the leaders of the PYO and the movement – not only resulted in the first split in the Sholajawid movement, but generated larger negative effects. Political-ideological lines other than the line of its founder (Akram Yari) emerged within PYO, and consequently two line struggles emerged within the organization. These were not line struggles that strengthened and expanded the organization but were ones that resulted in its collapse, negatively impacting the entire movement.

After comrade Akram Yari's withdrawal from active political struggle due to serious illness, deviationist political lines took over the organization. These deviationist political lines not only provided the basis of splits within the PYO but also greatly facilitated the splits within the broader movement. Thus, the main deviationist line, which later negatively evolved into full fledged revisionism and capitulationism (and there are those who are still following this path), led to a significant split from the initial organization and movement, forcing the entire communist and new democratic movement towards dissipation – a drive towards revisionist, national and class capitulationist lines.

The dominance of the deviationist and revisionist capitulationist lines over the dispersed body of the communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan lasted at least a decade and a half (almost all of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s). Therefore, the movement could not prevent the two Soviet supported coups –the first in 1972 by Sardar Dawood, the second in 1978 by the gang of revisionist satraps of the Soviet social-imperialists (the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan [PDPA]) – and in the struggle against the coup regime and the social-imperialist occupation adopted unprincipled and incorrect political and military tactics and strategy.

As a result – and despite the fact that the communist and new democratic movement sacrificed tens of thousands of its leaders, cadre, organizers, and masses under its leadership in its confrontation with reactionary forces dependent on the western imperialists and reactionary regional powers –this movement could not employ these resistance struggles to expand, evolve, and progress on the path of new democratic revolution. Rather, it suffered bitter defeats. The negative effects of those bitter defeats are still strongly felt and remain distressful.

During this decade and a half, the principled communist and new democratic line did not have a clear expression and presence; it was not considered a challenge to the deviationist, collaborationist, and revisionist political lines. Severe ideological, political and organizational weaknesses, along with a low level of theoretical understanding, of the remnants and proponents of the principled communist and new democratic movement in the mid-1980s was apparent, facilitating the dominance of the collaborationist and revisionist lines over the dispersed body of the movement.

Based on the defeat of the deviationist, revisionist, and class and national collaborationist lines – and the relative growth of the communist movement in the newly international favorable circumstances, with efforts of parties and organizations in the ranks of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] – the first groupings of the principled communist movement emerged in Afghanistan. The emergence of the initial groups and movements that were the clear expression of a principled communist line not only reestablished the communist and new democracy movement in Afghanistan, but reactivated and improved the political line of our founder in the new national and international situation against imperialism and reaction, and also against the dominance of the aforementioned erroneous lines within different sections of the movement.

Deviationists, revisionists, and capitulationists who believed their dominance to be permanent and without challenge over different sections of the movement – who assumed that the principled line of the founder of the movement to have been buried – considered the new slogans, and position of the new communist movement as throwing old hay in the air. However, this new initiative grew and expanded, becoming the expression of the principled stance and slogans against the social-imperialist occupiers and their satraps, against the power of the reactionary Jihadists and their brutal civil war, and the reactionary repressive and archaic Taliban’s Emirate. Moreover, this movement stood against invasion and occupation of American imperialists from the beginning, opposing its allies throughout Afghanistan and the formation of its puppet regime; this was the only communist formation– the only non-reactionary representative of the revolutionary peoples – that advocated national resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime.

Although the old revisionists – pressured by the subjective and objective conditions of the country, world opinion, and the expansion of mass struggles and resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime –would gradually distanced themselves from the open capitulationism they previously displayed– and would sometimes, to a limited extent, take a stance against the imperialist occupiers and their puppet government – it is the reinitiated Maoist movement in the country that remains the solid defender of the struggle and principled resistance against the occupation and its puppet regime.

The new initiative of the communist and new democratic line from its inception and until now has been the theoretical and practical banner of the principled unity within our broader movement. By following this path of unity it has struggled against dispersion and sectarianism. Therefore, not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, the movement has continued to grow. Currently, C(M)PA and other Maoist organizations and individuals outside of the party represent this new initiative.

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Maoist movement in Afghanistan is an occasion that invites us all to move towards unity based on a principled proletarian and new democratic line, to collectively struggle, in a strong and organized manner, against the occupiers and their satraps as the principal enemy of the country and its people, moving forward on the path of preparing for the revolutionary peoples and national war of resistance.

Certainly, the national resistance struggle against the principal enemies of our country does not mean suspending the new democratic struggles against them, or also against anti-democratic feudal-bourgeois comprador forces opposed to occupiers and the puppet regime. Nor can this national struggle ignore the struggles against other imperialist and reactionary expansionist powers.

The experience of struggle internationally and also in Afghanistan has continually proven that one-sided emphasis on the national resistance against the current principal enemy, and forgetting the new democratic struggles against non-principal current enemies, will, in the last analysis, harm the national resistance as a whole. This kind of one-dimensional national resistance struggle, because it ignores the democratic demands of the masses, will limit and reduce the participation of the masses in the national resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime; it may even eliminate the possibility of their participation and thus will strongly expand and prepare the ground for the maneuvers of the reactionary and anti-democratic armed opposition to the occupiers and the puppet regime.

Therefore, based on the interest of the masses of Afghanistan and based on the communist and new democratic program, we should not only merely talk about national struggle and national war of resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime, but we should talk about a revolutionary and national peoples war of resistance. We need to carry forward such a struggle for preparing to initiate and pursuing revolutionary and national peoples war of resistance.

Resistance because we are the victims of aggression and occupation of imperialists –of a foreign reactionary power – and under the domination of a puppet regime. Our struggle against these principal enemies of the people is characterized by resistance: self-defense, defense of the independence of the country, and defense of the freedom of the country and its people. This struggle is the just struggle of the victims of occupation and against invaders, occupiers and their puppets.

National because the resistance struggle for defending the independence of the country and the independence of its people is fundamentally based on the struggle and resistance, on our national interests, and against the interests of invaders, imperialist occupiers, their national traitor satraps – not a limited religious and non-religious ideological struggle and resistance. Any kind of attempt to impose such a limitation will limit the scope of struggle against occupiers and their puppet regime, eventually benefitting the imperialist occupation. Thus, the secular character of this struggle and resistance is an unavoidable necessity.

National because this resistance struggle must consider the defense and independence of the country as a whole; it should not kick the wolves out the door so that the hyenas enter from the windows. In the current epoch, the global domination of the world capitalist imperialist system is marred by serious contradictions and tensions between imperialists and reactionary powers, and these powers are eager to employ any political movement and initiative as an instrument for their interests against their imperialist and reactionary rivals. The communist and the new democratic movement of the country, while accepting the necessities of struggle against American imperialism and its satrap regime, should also pay attention to the necessities of this national responsibility.

It is obvious that struggle and resistance has its material base and also its ideological and political superstructure. At the same time, however, it is also true that in a multi-national class society where there is diverse class and national interests, and diverse thoughts and political world-views, a broad-based resistance against occupiers and national traitors will be multifarious and diverse and will have a democratic character. Naturally, different forces engaged in this struggle will compete with each other over the leadership of this resistance, and it cannot be otherwise. If the communist and new democratic forces do not pay attention to this reality, this could lead to political-ideological and eventually organizational liquidationism, resulting in capitulationism, the weakening of the struggle, and the inability to consolidate revolutionary and progressive leadership over the resistance.

However, this struggle should be carried out under the overall interest of the resistance against the occupying forces and the puppet regime, not in contention with the general interests of the resistance. Ignoring this issue, by any force including ours, will ultimately result in replacing the principal contradiction with non-principal contradictions, only benefitting the puppet regime and the occupying forces.

We should emphasize that a resistance that is only male cannot be an authentic national resistance. Women form half of society and a national resistance in the real sense of word cannot happen without their inclusion. Any kind of attempt to limit women, based on any kind of religious and cultural excuse that would deprive them of their basic personal and social rights, including the right to participate in the resistance against occupiers and their satraps, is an attempt to distance half of the population from the active national resistance, at the same time consciously or unconsciously forcing them into the ideological and political trap of the occupiers and the national traitor satraps who often wield deceptive slogans about women’s rights or freedom. It is obvious that such attempts are also extremely anti-democratic.

Peoples because a national resistance struggle can only be an unrelenting and solid struggle if it possesses a mass character, based on the superior interests of the masses – that is, the revolutionary masses struggling against the occupiers and the puppet regime – and not on the interests of the exploiting and oppressive feudal comprador bourgeois classes. The latter faction of the masses are classes whose interests are in line with imperialism, particularly with the invading and occupying imperialists, as well as the land-holding and bourgeois comprador classes who are always prepared to collude with the occupiers and the puppet regime. Giving mass character to the national resistance against the occupiers and their puppets does not merely mean involving the masses in the resistance: such involvement should mean the conscious participation in national resistance based on their superior, revolutionary interests rather than the interests of the exploiting classes. From this perspective, giving mass character to the national resistance against occupiers and national traitors requires the spread of revolutionary consciousness among the masses of people, particularly the lower layers of the toiling masses, workers, peasants, and the poor petty-bourgeoisie. Enlightening the masses with revolutionary consciousness requires prolonged and continuous efforts, but we should acknowledge that, without a certain level of progress in this regard, national resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime cannot develop, expand, and deepen a popular/mass character.

Revolutionary because the peoples national resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime should be armed with a scientific revolutionary worldview so that it can direct the resistance against the capitalist-imperialist system, and the reactionary system in the country. Otherwise, the resistance runs the risk of being cut short, either in the middle of the national resistance itself or after achieving its goal of partial independence – the country could still remain in the shackles of the oppressive and exploiting world system and the masses, despite heroic and selfless sacrifices, would remain under the capitalist-imperialist world system with the semi-feudal/semi-colonial classes in control. More importantly, the revolutionary strategic orientation of the resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime, guarantees continuous progression of the national and popular characteristics of the resistance.

Since the resistance against the soviet social-imperialist occupiers and their puppet regime was carried out under the leadership of reactionary forces dependent on western imperialists, and was thus totally lacked revolutionary strategic orientation, that resistance prepared the ground for the invasion of American imperialism and its allies and the subsequent occupation and formation of the current puppet regime. However, since the contemporary resistance against the current occupiers and their satraps has not yet led to the total withdrawal of the occupying forces and the collapse of their puppet regime, the monopolistic dominance of the armed reactionary resistance has resulted in the materialization of another foreign invasion and occupation – that is, the invasion and occupation that considers the entire country a province of a reactionary Arab “caliphate.”

The forces that have raised the black flags of the Islamic State [ISIS] in Afghanistan are the armies of this reactionary Arab caliphate and are thus, in actuality, the occupying forces of a reactionary foreign state, even if some of their forces are originally from within the country. These forces as a whole have been born and raised within the ranks of the current reactionary resistance in Afghanistan. More importantly, the founders and original leaders of this reactionary caliphate (ISIS) have also been raised in the lap of the past reactionary resistance against the soviet social-imperialists and their puppet regime. Despite the fact that the “Arab Caliph” openly declares the leader of the Islamic Emirate of Taliban an illiterate servant of Al-Qaeda, and calls the Emirate itself “expired medicine”, the reactionary Taliban leadership are sending ISIS messages of “Islamic brotherhood”, humbly and submissively asking them not to become the reason of friction in the “Islamic resistance of Afghanistan.” Have they not understood that ISIS does not accept Afghanistan as a country and sees it a province of its Arabic Caliphate?


If we suppose that the resistance against social imperialist invaders and occupiers and their puppets leads to the invasion and occupation of American imperialists and their allies, and then the resistance against the current occupiers and their puppets in the middle of journey prepares the ground for the invasion and occupation of a reactionary Arab caliphate, and that this is the destiny of Afghanistan, then we should be very worried.

With the spread of the influence of ISIS in Afghanistan on the one hand, and the mysterious death of the Taliban’s ex-leader (Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund) on the other, the country's situation has become even more complicated. With the expansion of the influence of ISIS in Afghanistan, all foreign jihadists in the region are now possible ISIS soldiers and should be considered potential or active invading forces of that foreign power, the target of revolutionary peoples and national resistance.

Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund, who was the uniting factor behind the Taliban’s fractured movement (which was divided along ethnic, tribal, regional, and political lines), is dead. In his absence, maintaining the unity of such an army, if not impossible, is extremely difficult. Furthermore, his mysterious death in Pakistan (kept secret for two years within a circle of a few individuals), and the method of appointment of his successor, are strong factors in creating friction amongst the Taliban. Definitely, enormous efforts have been made for consolidating Mullah Akhtar Mansur’s leadership, by his supporters within the Taliban and also by foreign “friends”, and there is no doubt the greater part of the Taliban movement will remain under the new leadership. However, certain sections of the Taliban have not accepted the new leadership. These forces can hardly stand on their own feet; it is highly possible that under pressure from the new leadership of the Taliban they would ultimately be forced towards the puppet regime or into joining ISIS. Therefore, these forces should potentially be considered as either capitulating to the regime or part of the invading army of ISIS.

Moreover, the death of Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund and the outbreak of friction within the Taliban over appointing his successor has resulted in the close cooperation between its new leadership and their Pakistani “friends”. Indeed, in consolidating his position, Akhtar Mansur has held public meetings throughout Pakistan. This situation has completely led to the identification and publicity of their rank and file, thus it would significantly increase the control of their Pakistani “friends” over them, so that they cannot claim “they only partially have the support of Pakistani friends.” It certainly can be said that the acceptance of the Pakistan as the patron of peace in Afghanistan by the American imperialists and the puppet regime has also significantly increased the control of Pakistan over the Taliban.

All of these issues illustrate the fact that the scope of aggression of foreign occupying powers over Afghanistan has increased: at a time when the aggression and occupation of the American imperialists and their allies has not ended, other reactionary aggressive occupying forces, ISIS, have emerged in certain pockets of the country and are dominating the lives of its people. At the same time, the interventions of the Pakistani state, that are constantly being carried out with cross border military incursions, as well as the interventions of Iran, have increased. Therefore, our revolutionary responsibility in terms of struggling against the principal enemy has multiplied, but it has also increased in relation to non-principal enemies as well, and we have to increase our efforts towards them all.

Despite Obama’s verbal commitment to withdraw all of America’s combat troops (except for the 1000 that would remain to protect the American embassy in Kabul) by the end of 2016, its practical implementation has not yet materialized. The recent wars in several parts of the country illustrate that the puppet regime cannot maintain its hegemony without the presence of foreign occupying powers. Even if Obama’s claims were to be realized according to the security agreement between the American state and the puppet regime, the legal path for the former's return to Afghanistan is available, and due to the security agreement between NATO and the puppet regime the legal path for the return of NATO occupying troops is also available.

In fact, the crisis-stricken and corrupt puppet regime's continued existence is premised on the hope of future support from its occupying imperialist masters rather than its own constitution. However, the results of the longest war of American imperialism (the war in Afghanistan) is clearly indicating that American occupiers and their allies and puppets are unable to impose the total subjugation of Afghanistan through war. Therefore, despite the prolongation of their occupying presence – their support of the puppet regime though military and non-military means –so as to consolidate their authority, the imperialists are also constantly trying to bring the reactionary Islamist insurgents to the negotiating table by promising them a share in the regime.

Hence, the American imperialist state, in alignment with the expansionist Indian state, is putting pressure on Pakistan to reduce the field in which the Taliban can maneuver, eventually forcing them to negotiate with the puppet regime. Preventing economic aid to Pakistan so as to assert political pressure – that might intensify in the near future – is being carried out by the US for the aforementioned purpose. Tensions between Indian and Pakistan regarding the control of Kashmir, and prolonged military engagement between both sides, is a partial war that is being carried forward for the negotiations for peace in Afghanistan between two reactionary, expansionist regional atomic powers.      

The revisionist and the expansionist rulers of China are in their own way participating in this game. China's plan to invest 50 Billion dollars in Pakistan is not only a sign of their expansionist political and economic tendencies, but is also an appeasing tactic to persuade Pakistan not to allow its territories to be used as a base for training and organizing Uighur Islamist militants. The point, here, is to prevent a safe haven for Islamist insurgents opposed to the puppet regime and the occupying powers in Afghanistan.

If this American, Indian, and Chinese tripartite politics of carrot and stick towards Pakistan continues, and even intensifies so that it becomes unbearable for Pakistan, it is all too likely that sooner or later the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Akhtar Mansur, now firmly in their grip, will be forced to resume negotiations with the puppet regime under the supervision of Pakistan, the US, and China. In this case, the intense and widespread military confrontation in the current season of war – that we can certainly say is unfavorable to everyone involved – would be employed as a negotiating chip for scoring political concessions.

Indeed, the reactionary resistance of Taliban is not, in its essence, a total and relentless anti-imperialist resistance. Even in the case of a military victory – which it has now proven it cannot achieve – the Taliban cannot free the country from the orbit of the reactionary world imperialist system.

Moreover, even if the negotiations resume and move forward, in the final analysis everyone's share would be determined based on their political and economic weight, and our people would thus continue to suffer under an archaic system of exploitation and oppression – the country will lack true independence. The process of carrying these negotiations forward will also not be smooth and easy; it will cause our people to provide immense sacrifices and experience serious difficulties.

We called for celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and the new democratic movement in Afghanistan to loudly announce the long fifty year presence of this movement in the arena of the revolutionary political struggle in Afghanistan so as to state the fact that: the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Maoist movement is an occasion that invites us all to consider five decades of the ups and downs of revolutionary struggle and reaffirm our commitment to strongly carry forward our patriotic, national, democratic, and revolutionary responsibilities.

The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan has repeatedly announced that the biggest flaw and weakness of the current communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan is its mere political presence and lack of representation in the arena of armed struggle against the occupiers and the puppet regime. Indeed it is this limitation that is reducing the effect of our political and ideological struggle against our principal and non-principal enemies. In circumstances when the principal aspect of the struggles in the country is armed struggles, the mere political and non-military voices in an environment full of the thunders of bombs, canons, and guns are rarely heard. Therefore, in these circumstances our struggle can only have a path-breaking effect if it is carried out in preparation for the people’s revolutionary national war of resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime (the current form of people’s war in the country).

For correct, principled, timely and effective conduct of these efforts, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan has to constantly mobilize and expand all of its members, supporters, and the masses under its leadership. Moreover, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan and other Maoist forces and individuals in the current situation need to establish stronger unity amongst themselves, on the one hand, and carry forward polemics and discussions for solving theoretical disagreements, on the other, so as to expand their practical cooperation amongst themselves, and ideologically and practically move towards cooperation, coordination, and unity.

Forward on the path towards initiating and carrying forward the revolutionary people’s national war of resistance against imperialist occupiers, the puppet regime, and reactionary ISIS occupiers!

Forward on the path of struggle against other reactionaries aligned with imperialist and reactionary powers!



Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan
October 4, 2015

Nepal : Indian Blockade and Nepalese Maoists by Rishi Raj Baral

                            This article reflects the personal views of Rishi Raj Baral



At the outset, I would like to inform that, since two months, we Nepalese people are facing ruthless economic blockade, imposed by the Indian expansionism. Indian fascist government wants Nepal to be under his control like Bhutan, a small landlocked country of South East Asia. 

It wants to treat Nepal as his own province. Indian expansionism is exercising neo-colonialism, forgetting that Nepal, a country which safeguarded its sovereignty and independence even at the time when the world was divided among the world empires, is a sovereign, independent country.

Nepal has executed new Constitution and has formed a new government in the leadership of K.P.  Oli, Chairman of UCPN (ML). The new constitution of Nepal is not a people's constitution, it is not based on the revolutionary content. In fact, it is a constitution based on multiparty parliamentary system. And the newly formed government also is not the government of Communist revolutionaries. UCPN (ML) and UCPN(Maoist) both are the followers of multiparty parliamentary system. 

But, it is a matter of surprise that, India has imposed economic blockade, violating the international law on the rights of a landlocked country.  It is known to all that India wished to manage the Nepalese Constitution in his own command and to form the government in the leadership of of pro- Indian parties like Nepali Congress and Tarai (plain) based  parties.

The blockade imposed by India has produced a lot of fury among the Nepalese. It will be better to make clear that, federal system was/is not the voice of the Nepalese People, it was forcefully imposed by the Indian expansionism through Tarai based pro-Indian parties and NGOs, so that, India could mange plain area of Nepal according to his interest. No doubt, India’s design is to split Tarai region and merge the Nepali territory in the Indian union.  It is known to all that, after the invasion on Sikkim, Indira  Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, had intended to split the southern part of Nepal, through political conspiracy.

It is the matter to note that, India has not clarified, on claims made by former RAW chief RK Yadav regarding Indian plans to break the Tarai region. Yadav, chief of RAW  during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as PM, in his book, Mission RAW , stated that India had planned to disintegrate the Tarai region. 'Madhesi Morchaa'  is the joint front of Tarai based pro-Indian parties, who is working  for the Indian interest. Now Modi Government is executing that unfinished work by Indira Gandhi, through these anti- nationalist elements.

India has not given permission to entrance any vehicle including fuel and Medicine in the Nepalese territory. Fuel problem, particularly lack of cooking gas and medicine are the main problem that Nepalese people are facing these days. In fact, it is the declaration of war by India, against Nepal and Nepalese People.

They have come out in the street chanting the slogan 'Back off India', 'Modi! Remove Blockade'. Not only this, we have got support and understanding from the intellectuals and journalists of India and abroad.

It is a matter of worry that Oli government has no any scientific plan and program to solve this national crisis. Frequently Nepalese People are facing these problems since long time (it is third time that India has imposed blockade on Nepal) and now we want a long term policy, plan and program to solve this type of crisis. Words are not enough, people want to be aware of in action.

Now we have another question, in such critical circumstance. where are the Maoists of Nepal? What should they do and what are they doing? In fact, we have a vital question:  Are there Maoists in Nepal? This is the question to be answered.

Yes, there are, but, all the glitters is not gold.

I have not to say anything more about UCPN (Maoist) and Prachanda- Bhattarai, a lot of has been written about them. As I have mentioned above,  they have declared themselves as the follower of pluralism, multiparty democracy and parliamentary system. Now Prachanda and his followers are enjoying with more and more chairs in the Oli government. 

Baburam Bhattarai, who is known as the faithful client of Indian expansionism, has left the accompany of Prachanda and going to form another party based on 'social democracy'.

Each and every Nepalese citizen knows, that since long time, he is working for the Indian interest. 

He is one of the key person, who betrayed the Nepalese Maoist Movement and now he is betraying with the National  interest.

'Madhesi Morchaa' and Baburam Bhattarai are moving in the same direction, as guided by their Indian Master.

Then there remains two 'Maoist' organizations, one is led by Mohan Baidhya 'Kiran' and another  led by Netra Bikram Chanda 'Biplav'.

Mohan Baidhya 'Kiran' who was (now I am compelled to mention 'was') known as a revolutionary leader, also have lost his presence among the oppressed people. In fact, he has lost his revolutionary ground.  He is the strong supporter of federal system and identity politics. 

His group wants to reunite with UCPN (Maoist) led by Prachanda, and to take part in local and national election. Now Kiran faction has joined hands with a small faction CPN (Unified), led by Pari Thapa, who always denied Maoism and played the negative role during the Ten Years People's War. After the party unification they have named it as CPN (Revolutionary Maoist). 

Though they have named it as 'Revolutionary Maoist', but philosophically, ideologically and politically they have abandoned the revolutionary path, the path of Peoples War and the New Democratic Revolution, guided by Comrade Mao tse-tung.

In their press statement, released after the party unification, they have mentioned that the political line of their party will be 'people's revolt'. It means, that they have taken the road of Russian Model, the Model of October Revolution.  In reality, they are heading towards the same road adopted by Prachanda, in the name of changing national/international situation. 

No doubt, sooner or later Kiran will join hands with Prachanda. Not only this, they have made alliance with 'Federal Socialist Forum Nepal' one of the major faction of 'Madhesi Morchaa', that works for the Indian interest.  It It is crystal clear that, the party led by Mohan Baidhya, has no any revolutionary plan and program to move the Nepalese Revolution ahead.

Now we have another Maoist party led by Netra Bikram Chanda 'Biplav'. Most of the young leaders, cadres and former PLA have joined CPN Maoist led by Chanda. Likewise, most of the leaders of the sister organizations, particularly, student, trade union and Dalit organizations also have joined CPN Maoist. 

It is the positive aspect of   Chanda led Maoist Party, that they  have no any  confusion about identity politics and federal system.  

But it is a matter of irony that, this faction also is not clear in the ideological and political line, that should be adopted for the Nepalese revolution.  Chanda Party has mentioned that armed struggle will be the road to the Nepalese revolution. It is a positive aspect, but what type of armed struggle, that the Nepalese revolution needs, is not clear. Just to mention armed struggle is not enough.  Maoist People's War or armed struggle of Foco type, they have not analyzed it in their document.

It seems that Chanda faction is not in the position to follow the path of Maoist People's War. In their document they have not mentioned the need and significance of 'three magical weapons' as guided by Mao tse-tung. Rather than, they have mentioned 'Unified People's Revolution' as their political line.

They have replaced 'Unified People's Revolution' in the place of New Democratic Revolution. What is 'Unified Revolution' and  what type of armed struggle they are pleading for the Nepalese revolution ? It is hard to understand.  

In an article written by Chanda in the party organ, Janakranti (People's Revolution), he has mentioned that " we cannot accomplish the task of revolution only spinning within the boundary of  Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." This kind of opinion reflects only the post-MLM thinking- a road to liquidation.   

Instead of agrarian class struggle, they have emphasized the role of urban struggle and "middle class". In fact, as they have mentioned in their party document, they have recognized "middle class" as the basic force for the Nepalese revolution. It means Chanda faction also is not clear about the Nepalese revolution.

Now without any hesitation, I would like to stress that, though they have documented MLM as their guiding principal, but in practice, both Mohan Baidhya 'Kiran' and Netra Bikram Chanda 'Biplav' have diverted from the path of People's War, the path of New Democratic Revolution. Mohan Baidhya is pleading ''people's revolt" as their political line and Chanda is pleading the line of  ''unified revolution". 

It is the fact that, in the name of changing situation, both have diverted from the revolutionary path of MLM, and heading towards liquidation. Thus, it is the reality that, there are Maoist revolutionaries in Nepal, we have ''Revolutionary Intellectual- Cultural Front,  but there is no any revolutionary Maoist Party  in Nepal.

Let us wait and see how these two 'Maoist' organizations move ahead.

In my opinion, Chanda faction should think over its political line. As we know, only the New Democratic Revolution can solve the contradiction of Nepalese society, and we can achieve this only through the People's War. Firmly, I would like to stress that, there is one and only one way to achieve the revolutionary goal, that is Maoist People's War–the People's War of Nepalese character.

As I have mentioned above, Nepalese people have come out in the street chanting the slogan 'Back off India', 'Modi! Remove Blockade'. But Oli government has no any scientific policy and program to solve the national crisis. In such circumstances revolutionaries should take the situation in their own hand.  Now the time has come to come out in the street raising the flag of National sovereignty and People's Democracy. Only genuine Maoists can lead the People towards the New Democratic Revolution.

Now CPN Maoist led by Biplab, has declared nationwide movement against Indian expansionism. Similarly, they have warned Oli Government to solve the national crisis  promptly. It is a positive step, but Chanda Party should take it gravely that only street movements are not enough, it needs ideological and political clarity. We must have a long term plan and policy that heads towards the New Democratic Revolution.  

From the Ideal City to Urban Warfare - the colonising of housing and urban land by finance by Raquel Rolnik at Urbino - Italy

SEE ALSO : 

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-social-cleansing-of-london-by.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/france-revolt-of-suburbs-response-to.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/from-riots-of-banlieues-to-proletarian.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-urbanization-of-our-discontents-by.html

The Urbanization of our Discontents presented by David Harvey at Urbino - Italy

The David Harvey speech the Urbanization of Our Discontents starts at 35 minutes on the above video.

David Harvey explains the Political Economy of Urbanization and the Class Struggle and is very relevant to the Paris Meeting today on the revolt in suburbs and proletarian revolution.

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/france-revolt-of-suburbs-response-to.html


http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/from-riots-of-banlieues-to-proletarian.html

ttp://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-social-cleansing-of-london-by.html

RED BLOCK STATEMENT ON MEETING IN PARIS On 21st NOVEMBER - REVOLT OF BANLIEUES TO PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION

RED BLOCK STATEMENT ON MEETING IN PARIS 
On 21st NOVEMBER

REVOLT OF BANLIEUES TO PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION

THE RED BLOCK OFFERS A RED SALUTE TO THE COMRADES GATHERED IN PARIS TO DISCUSS THE REVOLT IN SUBURBS AND PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION ON 21ST NOVEMBER

IN PARTICULAR OUR COMRADES FROM LONDON SOUTH BANK WILL STUDY YOUR WORK AND THE RESULTS OF YOUR MEETING.

LONG LIVE PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM THE NEED OF THE HOUR IN PARIS AND THE WORLD

LONG LIVE MARXISM LENINISM MAOISM

RED BLOCK 20TH NOVEMBER 2015

DEMOCRACY AND CLASS STRUGGLE
LONDON MAOIST STUDY CIRCLE
REVOLUTIONARY PRAXIS

SEE ALSO :

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-social-cleansing-of-london-by.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/france-revolt-of-suburbs-response-to.html

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/from-riots-of-banlieues-to-proletarian.html

France : Revolt of the suburbs: response to OCML-VP and "Les Matérialistes"

You can find Partisan Magazine's article here, the relevant part is "Revolts and riots are not revolution." You can find the piece by "Les Matérialistes" here.

Recently Bloc Rouge (Maoist Unification) has been criticized ideologically on the question of the suburban revolts almost simultaneously by two organizations: OCML-VP and Les Matérialistes (old website "Voie Lactée"). It seems important to answer these criticisms and the way they were brought for two reasons :

- to refute the falsehoods that can be found in both texts and clearly reaffirm our line on the question of the revolt of the suburbs and Protracted People's War.

Let's focus first on the criticism from the OCML-VP who appeared in an article in the latest issue of Partisan Magazine (you can view the entire article here). First on the form: the polemic is conducted through a magazine without informing us and the provocations are numerous: we note the quotation marks on "Maoists" and "our" that tends to give a patronizing tone, PCmF is qualified as anecdotal ... From there we have to raise the level to overcome the sterile debate that the OCML-VP wants to launch and proceed to the real ideological issues. We will not play with words, will not truncate quotes and we will concentrate on the substance of the matter: that of revolutionary strategy, the role of suburbs in it and the meaning of the revolt of suburbs for revolutionaries.

Firstly, the quotes are truncated and constructed from several sentences, in short, a risky and malicious craft which seeks to distort and erase the meaning of the discourse so targeted. It is ironic that an organization claiming to be Maoist makes use of this method: it was the typical method of Enver Hoxha to attack Mao distorting his words one by one in his book Imperialism and Revolution. We invite you to read the brochure in question, "The People's War in the imperialist countries" which is an outline drafted by the PCmF in 2008 on the issue of the preconditions of the People's War in France.

The OCML-VP would like us to believe that we confuse revolts (and not "riots" as their article asserts) and revolution, that we are blind to the qualitative leap that has to be made from one to the other. This accusation is ridiculous and baseless, and what OCML-VP is in fact criticizing is that we said loudly and clearly at that time that it was necessary for communists to go to the suburbs, to be on the side of the proletarian youth in revolt against the police and the bourgeois state, in short, to fully support the revolt ...

What OCML-VP seeks to attack it is position that the revolt of 2005 suburbs played a role of exposure : it showed the lack of work by so-called revolutionary in poor suburbs while showing that these suburbs have great capacity for revolt. And that is why we say that this revolt is part of the premises of the People's War in France: it is an essential element to be taken into account in the development of a revolutionary strategy in the French state.

The OCML-VP has always rejected the people's war strategy and the Leninist conception of the party. Thus in the 2000s, it is important to remember that the OCML-VP called on us to vote for the Trotskyist Lutte Ouvrière and previously it had advised voting for Mitterrand ! By postponing the revolutionary perspective indefinitely, the OCML-VP has systematically strayed into opportunist and reformist tendencies : it is what necessarily happens when you imagine the revolution as a remote "Grand Soir" cut off from the reality of today. The strategy of People's War breaks with this misconception of a distant insurgency following a peaceful buildup of strength to assert among other things the protracted character of the revolution and the need to carry it out with three instruments: the Party, the Front and the Red Army.

This rejection of People's War by the OCML-VP is pushed to its climax in the resolutions of their last conference (published in late November 2014 here: http://www.vp-partisan.org/article1375.html). In these resolutions on support for People's Wars in India and in the Philippines, OCML-VP speaks of "armed struggle with a revolutionary political program" to avoid the term Protracted People's War and deny the qualitative differences with simple revolutionary armed struggle, it denies the strategic aspect of the People's War developed by Mao Zedong: "Therefore support for revolutionary armed struggles in oppressed countries like the Philippines and India, which are armed struggles with a revolutionary political program, is a political line of demarcation between the organizations claiming communism. ". It is not support for the People's War in India and in the Philippines which constitutes a demarcation between the organizations claiming communism but the strategy of people's war! The support for People's War by OCML-VP is also very eclectic, we are facing a real sectarian opportunism : even when in Paris a united campaign to support the People's War emerged, led by the CRI ( Red Internationalist Collective for the Defense of Political Prisoners), the OCML-VP preferred to go it alone and prepare to launch its own campaign while still operating within the CRI.

It is also important to note that these resolutions do not contain any real analysis of French imperialism and how to lead the fight against it. In the same vein we find no analysis of the rise of fascism today. How can a communist organization have a Congress without devoting an important part to the question of French imperialism and the rise of fascism today ?

Here is the substance of the criticism of OCML-VP: a denial of the importance of the revolt of the suburbs for communists in France, a negation of the role of suburbs in the revolutionary process and a denial of the strategy of the People's War. We are indeed opposed to the OCML-VP on every point.

Now, about the website "Les Matérialistes". For several reasons we will be brief in discussing their article: Les Matérialistes have no practice and only exist virtually, and this website now has an openly chauvinist and reactionary line (exaltation of the "Charlie Spirit", asserting that sex workers should be put in in re-education camps and other foulness ...).

In it article, Les Matérialistes, begin by greatly falsifying the history of the PCmF: it never rejected the People's War and it never rejected the experience of Gauche Prolétarienne. Our support to the People's Wars is historical, it dates back to the People's War in Peru, the PCmF is also historically the only communist organization to advocate the strategy of People's War in the French state.

Regarding our position on the Gauche Prolétarienne,It is very clear: the positive aspects of the Maoists in the years following 68 in France have always been emphasized by us and the fact that our newspaper is called La Cause du Peuple is not insignificant: "The CdP is a newspaper serving the struggles of the people. It was first promoted by the Gauche Prolétarienne, a Maoist organization after the movement of May 1968. This organization was the most combative of that time. We decided to highlight the CdP to give voice to all the exploited and oppressed, from the perspective of the emancipation of the proletariat and the conquest of power by the workers of our country, alongside the exploited and oppressed of the whole world.".

We invite all those interested in learning more on the position of the Bloc Rouge (Maoist Unification) about the revolt of the suburbs to come to the meeting that we organize with our comrades of the Maoist Communist Party - Italy this Saturday, November 21 from 15h in Aubervilliers at 51 rue de la Commune de Paris (see the call).


CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR MEETING ON 21st NOVEMBER IN PARIS

The address change (close to the old address):
95 Boulevard Felix Faure, 93300 Aubervilliers.
Access: Metro / TRAM: Porte de la villette (Metro: Line 7, tram: T3b), Then 10/15 minutes on foot or take the bus 139 until the stop "Felix Faure - Street of schools".



SEE ALSO:

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/from-riots-of-banlieues-to-proletarian.html

"Against Bureaucratism" by Che Guevara - February 1963

Our revolution was essentially the product of a guerrilla movement that initiated the armed struggle against the dictatorship and brought it to fruition in the seizure of power. The first steps of the revolutionary state, like the whole of the primitive epoch of our management of the government, were strongly tinged by fundamental elements of guerrilla tactics as a form of state administration. “Guerrillaism” translated the experience of the armed struggle in the Cuban mountains and countryside into the work of the different administrative and mass organizations, and this meant that only the main revolutionary slogans were followed — and often interpreted in different ways — by bodies in the administration and in society in general. The method of solving concrete problems was chosen at will by each leader.

Because they occupied the whole complex apparatus of society, the fields of action of these “administrative guerrillas” clashed among themselves, producing constant friction, orders and counter-orders, and different interpretations of the laws. This reached the point, in some cases, of state institutions countering laws by issuing their own dictates in the form of decrees, ignoring the central administrative apparatus. After a year of painful experiences we reached the conclusion that we had to totally revamp our style of work and reorganize the state apparatus in a rational manner, utilizing planning techniques known in the fraternal socialist countries.

As a countermeasure, the strong bureaucratic apparatus that characterized this first period in the building of our socialist state began to be organized. But the swing went too far, and a whole number of institutions, including the Ministry of Industry, initiated a policy of centralization that put too many restrictions on the initiative of administrators. This idea of centralization can be explained by the shortage of middle-level cadres and the previous anarchic spirit, which required enormous zeal in ensuring that instructions were being carried out.

At the same time, the lack of adequate control mechanisms made it difficult to correctly spot administrative errors in time, which were often hidden by the general chaos. In this way, cadres — the most conscious ones as well as the most timid ones — curbed their initiatives in order to adjust them to the sluggish motion of the administrative machinery. Others continued doing as they pleased, without feeling obliged to respect any authority, and this called for new control measures to put a stop to their activity. This is how our revolution began to suffer from the evil called bureaucratism.

Bureaucratism, obviously, is not the offspring of socialist society, nor is it a necessary component of it. The state bureaucracy existed in the period of bourgeois governments with its retinue of hangers-on and lackeys, as a great number of opportunists — who made up the “court” of the politicians in power — flourished in the shade of the government budget. In a capitalist society, where the entire state apparatus is at the service of the bourgeoisie, the state bureaucracy's importance as a leading body is very small. The main thing is that it be permeable enough to allow opportunists to pass through, yet impenetrable enough to keep the people trapped in its nets. Given the weight of the “original sins” in the old administrative apparatus and the situations created after the triumph of the revolution, the evil of bureaucratism began to develop strongly. If we were to search for its roots today, we would have to add new motives to the old causes, coming up with three fundamental reasons.

One is the lack of inner motivation. By this we mean the individual's lack of interest in rendering a service to the state and in overcoming a given situation. It is based on a lack of revolutionary consciousness or, at any rate, on acquiescence in things that are wrong. We can establish a direct and obvious relationship between the lack of inner motivation and the lack of interest in resolving problems. In this case, whether the weakness in ideological motivation is due to an absolute lack of conviction or to a certain dose of desperation in the face of repeated insoluble problems, the individual or group of individuals take refuge in bureaucratism, filling out papers, shirking their responsibility, and establishing a written defense in order to continue vegetating or to protect themselves from the irresponsibility of others.

Another cause is the lack of organization. Attempting to destroy “guerrillaism” without sufficient administrative experience has produced dislocations and bottlenecks that unnecessarily curb the flow of information from below, as well as the instructions or orders emanating from the central apparatus. Sometimes, the former or the latter take the wrong course; other times, they are translated into poorly formulated, absurd instructions that contribute even more to the distortion.

The lack of organization is fundamentally characterized by the weakness of the methods used to deal with a given situation. We can see examples in the ministries, when attempts are made to solve problems at an inappropriate level or when problems are dealt with through the wrong channels and get lost in the labyrinth of paperwork. Bureaucratism is like a ball and chain weighing down the type of official who is trying as best he can to solve his problem but keeps crashing time and again into the established way of doing things, without finding a solution. It's common to observe how the only way out for many officials is to ask for more personnel to do a task, when an easy solution requires only a little logic. This in turn creates new reasons for unnecessary paperwork.

As a healthy self-criticism, we must never forget that the revolution's economic management is responsible for the majority of bureaucratic ills. The state apparatus was not developed by means of a single plan and with well-worked out relationships; this left a wide margin for conjecture about administrative methods. The central economic apparatus, the Central Planning Board, did not fulfill its task of leadership and could not do so because it lacked sufficient authority over the other bodies. It was unable to issue precise orders based on a single system and with adequate supervision, and it lacked the requisite assistance of an overall plan. In the absence of good organization, excessive centralization curbed spontaneous action without replacing it in time with correct methods. An accumulation of minor decisions obstructed our view of the big problems, and finding solutions for all of them came to a standstill without rhyme or reason. Lastminute decisions, made hastily and without analysis, became characteristic of our work.

The third cause, a very important one, is the lack of sufficiently developed technical knowledge to be able to make correct decisions on short notice. Not being able to do this meant we had to gather many experiences of little value and try to draw some conclusion from them. Discussions became endless and no-one had sufficient authority to settle things. After one, two, or more meetings, the problem remained until it resolved itself or until a decision had to be made willy-nilly, no matter how bad it might be. The almost total lack of knowledge, which as I mentioned earlier was made up for by a long series of meetings, led to “meetingitis” — basically a lack of perspective for solving problems. In these cases bureaucratism — the brake that endless paper shuffling and indecision place on society's development — becomes the fate of the bodies affected.

These three fundamental causes, one by one or acting together in various combinations, affect the country's entire institutional life to a greater or lesser degree. The time has come to break away from these malignant influences. Concrete measures must be taken to streamline the state apparatus, in such a way as to establish the strict central control that enables the leadership to have in its hands the keys to the economy while also releasing initiative as much as possible, thus developing on a logical basis the relationships among the productive forces.

If we know the causes and effects of bureaucratism, we can analyze accurately the possibilities of correcting the malady. Of all the fundamental causes, we can consider the need for organization to be our central problem, and we can tackle it with all the necessary rigor. To do so we must modify our style of work. We must prioritize problems, assigning each body and each decision-making level its particular task. We must establish the concrete relationships between each one of them and all the others, from the center of economic decision making to the last administrative unit, as well as the relationships among their different components — horizontally — until we establish all the interrelationships within the economy.

This is the task most within our reach at the present time, and it will afford us an additional advantage: redirecting to other areas of work a large number of employees who are not needed, who are not working, who carry out minimal duties, or who duplicate the work of others with no results whatsoever. Simultaneously, we must develop our political work with dogged determination to rid ourselves of the lack of internal motivation, that is, the lack of political clarity, which translates into things not getting done. This can be done, first, through continuous education, through concrete explanations of the tasks, through instilling in administrative employees an interest in their work, and through the example set by the vanguard workers. And, second, by taking drastic measures to eliminate the parasites, whether it be those who conceal in their stance a deep enmity to socialist society, or those who are irremediably opposed to work.

Finally, we must correct the inferiority that comes from our lack of knowledge. We have begun the gigantic task of transforming society from top to bottom in the midst of imperialist aggression, of an increasingly tighter blockade, of a complete change in our technology, of drastic shortages of raw materials and foodstuffs, and of a massive exodus of the few qualified technicians we have. In these conditions, we must set ourselves the task of working seriously and persistently with the masses to fill the vacancies left by the traitors and to meet our need for a skilled work force resulting from the rapid rate of our development. That is why training is a top priority of all the revolutionary government's plans.

The training of active workers begins in the workplace at the most basic educational level: the elimination of any remaining illiteracy in the most remote areas; continuing education courses and, later, workers' improvement courses for those who have reached the third grade; courses in basic technical skills for the better educated workers; extension courses to turn skilled workers into assistant engineers; university courses for all types of professionals and also for administrators.

The revolutionary government intends to turn our country into one big school where study and success in one's studies become a basic factor for bettering the individual, both economically and in his moral standing in society, to the extent of his abilities.

If we manage to unravel the massive amount of red tape, the intricate relationships among institutions and among departments, the duplication of functions and frequent “potholes” into which our institutions fall, we will find the roots of the problem. We will develop organizational norms, elementary at first and later more complex. We will wage a head-on battle against those who are confused, indifferent, or lazy. We will educate and reeducate that mass of people, incorporate them into the revolution and eliminate what should be thrown out. At the same time we will tirelessly continue the great task of education at all levels, whatever obstacles we may face. If we do all this, we will be in a position to do away in a short time with bureaucratism.

The experience of the last mobilization [during the October 1962 Missile Crisis] motivated us in the Ministry of Industry to discuss and analyze what happened: in the middle of the mobilization, when the entire country steeled itself to resist the enemy attack, industrial production did not drop, absenteeism disappeared and problems were solved with surprising speed. Upon analyzing this, we concluded that a number of factors came together that destroyed the basic causes of bureaucratism. There was a great patriotic and national impulse to resist imperialism, and this sentiment was shared by the immense majority of the Cuban people. Each worker, at his own level, became a soldier of the economy, ready to solve any problem. In this way the stimulus of foreign aggression became an ideological driving force. Organizational norms were boiled down strictly to pointing out what could not be done and the fundamental problem that needed to be solved: to maintain production at all costs, to maintain certain production with even greater emphasis, and to free the enterprises, factories and institutions from all functions that, although necessary in normal social periods, are not essential.

Each individual had a special responsibility, which forced him to make rapid decisions. We were faced with a situation of national emergency, and decisions had to be made whether they were correct or not; we had to make them, and quickly. This was done in many cases.

We have yet to draw a balance sheet of the mobilization and, obviously, it will not be a positive balance sheet in financial terms. But it was positive in terms of ideological mobilization, in the deepening of the masses' consciousness. What lesson do we draw? That we must make our workers, toilers, peasants and office workers realize that the danger of imperialist aggression still hangs over our heads, that there is no peace, and that our duty is to continue to strengthen the revolution day by day, which is also the best guarantee an invasion will not occur. The costlier it is for the imperialists to take this island, the stronger our defenses and the higher our people's awareness, the more they will think twice. But at the same time, the economic development of the country eases our situation and brings greater material well-being.

The ideological task is to make permanent the great example of the mobilization in response to imperialist aggression. We must analyze each official's responsibilities and define them as strictly as possible within limits that must not be overstepped on penalty of severe sanctions. On that basis we can grant officials the broadest possible authority. At the same time we must examine what is fundamental and what is incidental in the work of the different units of the state institutions and limit all that is incidental in order to emphasize the fundamental, thereby permitting quicker action. We must demand action from our officials, establishing deadlines for carrying out instructions from the central bodies, correctly supervising them and making them reach decisions in a reasonable amount of time.

If we succeed in all this work, bureaucratism will disappear. This is not a task for a single economic body or even all the economic bodies in the country. It is the task of the entire nation, which is to say, of the leading bodies, fundamentally the United Party of the Revolution and the mass organizations. We must all work to implement the following pressing slogans of the day:

War on bureaucratism. Streamline the state apparatus. Production without restraints, and responsibility for production.

SEE ALSO:

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ernesto-che-guevara-rebel-against.html

Venezuela: State of Essequibo: more than Bolivarian historical nationalism.by Jesus Rojas

Democracy and Class Struggle says the Guyanese Government is engaged in a provocation against Venezuela has a proxy for  United States Imperialism

The Guyanese government extending its sovereignty over the Essequibo region is a provocation

The Constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, does not have to prove the demonstrable: the Essequibo State is part of the historical geography of the entire territory of the historical Venezuela. Nothing to discuss, history proves it.

But it is a reality that is questioned that less expresses the history and the historical processes more when we are involved in any situations that really represents the capitalist historical socio-economic system of the natural evolution of "being created" as "being social" in shares and historical realities in historical spaces from which we draw the "historic speech".

That is, in our development topic, which is based on  specifically the development of the capitalist system and, specifically, post-Industrial Revolution, that is, at the same historical moment when capitalism Manchester and Liverpool  evolves into imperialism overseas, the British Empire decided to enter market competition with the Dutch and French merchants in the distant lands of India  defeating both armies in establishing a presence in an unusual way to typical European expansion in Asia.

That British Empire made India a colony rather than a Vice royalty with the whole structure of a dependent-state - British both legally and militarily and religious,  but fundamentally ideologically-educational.

That British presence in India was confronted with the objective requirements imposed on it by capitalist development itself both in India and mainly in the Europe of the crowned heads.

That expansion would lead to a symbiosis of business and military to sail the seas of southern Asia to find commercial refuge in southern China.

That fact, in our view, would be the catalyst of the capitalist imperialist system in its early phase,not only in business, military and religious force but by the very competition intra-empires of America when the US took its first steps expansionist post Monroe Doctrine in that historic Chinese nation, the justification to  develop an international legal framework that would become obligatory reference to relations between nations.

A glance of the text published in 1921 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace entitled "Treaties and Agreements With and Concerning China, 1894-1919", teaches us "the justification of the unjustifiable".

The expansion process of world capitalism in its imperialists early stages.

Treaties and Agreements involving the imposition of high interest loans (mutatis mutandis: Greece these days), calculated tax penalties that would force China to be paying debts by almost one hundred (100) years (mutatis mutandis: Russia and subtext, content Decree Obama).

Agreements on drug trafficking, legalizing, transfer of national territories (read:Hong Kong Island), transfer of national territorial spaces in southern China in the form of "lease" for a period of 99 years (read: Kowloon) China economic consequence of the defeat of the "Boxer Rebellion" opening ports in strategic coastal cities in China (eg Shanghai, Tianjin) sanctions, obligation to provide the customs administration of acquired ports not only to mention but also"factual facts" but that each of these "factual facts" meant to sign a legal text that was and should be respected not only by the signatories but it was considered that they were forced respect for those countries that had not participated in your signature.

The development that  would be  imposed on the international scene must be respected and the imperial powers had all legal, political and international military rights, not only to impose the respect of agreed and signed sanctions but to impose by military means such as The "Block of La Guaira" perfect image in the "Block the port of Tianjin" in 1900, these international obligations, ie, walking to the "world government." "Since then" the Western powers and not so Western  have supported their arguments in that legal framework contained in the mentioned text proposed for its information and subsequent purposes.

In that historical referent context, it allows us, again to be referent to consenquential cases to the imposition of judicial  texts in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth century.

Let's go to some examples. the  "Russian-Japanese War",  the "Sino-Japanese", war, the delivering the  Taiwan island  to Japan as "war booty" and the already mentioned "block of  La Guaira", the sanctions and costs to the defeated Germany after the  World War I in Versailles and we must expose the logical consequences that would develop in the 30s of the fateful  XX century.

We must not fail in the pipeline three historical facts in our Caribbean region: Punta del Este and the expulsion of Cuba from within the Organization of American States, OAS, the "Missile Crisis" and the "Block of Cuba" as a logical development of US imperialism.

That is, both the American and British imperialists have shown that "they are  alive and well " as we know in the entente on the developments of the "Monroe Doctrine" in Las Malvinas, and in the geography of British Guiana.

As we have expressed and exposed above the "State of Essequibo" it is and is part of the Venezuelan State and this is not in any discussion.

That is, in our opinion, one does not discuss what is ours  but, as we have exposed, the realities are objectives and the "Venezuelan State" is obliged to expose the historical realities of the Venezuelan territoriality of  the Essequibo seen that, as we have also tried to show above, empires in its current phase of re engineering of both imperialists try to justify and be justified by international law which in this case is adverse to the Essequibo, in their current re-engineering of capitalism .

They take their arguments of "the deepening of sanctions under the Decree Obama" applied economic sanctions that go beyond the same contents of these sanctions because they are directly related to the violation of human rights and freedom of the economy and free movement of people as in the case of Russia.

Dr. Samuel Moncada expressed in the program moderated by José Vicente Rangel under the name of "José Vicente Today" (Televen, July, Sunday 26, 2015) that the Venezuelan government should go beyond the regional american bodies and obviously, of bilateral relations in the American scene implying that it should go beyond our american shores.

Such consideration of the historian and Ambassador Moncada is consistent and direct in relationship not only with the historical experiences in "other areas out of America" but that "Aggressive diplomacy" should be sustained in base of this  imperialist legal framework that is permanently on all negotiating tables and, consequently, in any earthly court.

That is, we can support our argument besides all historical documents and more recent as well as the theological arguments of the texts of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, solid argument not only of conceptual meaning of the word "peace" in its application as "state policy".

That all this, in the context of the significance of the historical logic itself of the capitalist system, mainly in these historic moments of profound re-engineering of capitalist current system in structural crisis that has forced the group formed by the USA and Britain, combining a single aggressive policy throughout the Caribbean and throughout the Americas to the  south of the Rio Grande and the southern peninsula of Florida: Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, as references to the expansion of imperialists policy, because the American continent has a geographic qualities as part of the global geo strategy that allows any power that controls our American continent, control the world.

We are not exaggerating and put as an example the US and Canada. In both countries the only wars they  have faced were internal wars and / or between one and the other country in times of decolonization "13 Colonies."

Another example would be the "Cuban Missile Crisis" in Cuba, the  historical moments of the Venezuelan urban guerrillas in support of those tragic and dangerous moments that the Cuban brother people lived; that crisis showed that when the United States of America proposes, it applies the "Monroe Doctrine" regardless of the crisis in chaos that can generate its military actions. There are other examples: Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela.

In that context,  as shown,  we have not touched the "military issue" in conscience , but as my commander in chief Hugo Rafael Chavez  Frias expressed ..

 "Our Bolivarian Revolution is peaceful but armed...".