Auteur/autrice : IoULeeM0n

Dialectical materialism affirms the inexhaustible nature of matter. The universe is only material, and it is infinite. This means that there is no space or time without matter, that matter is everywhere and always present. Whether we look to the infinitely small or the infinitely large, whether we look to the past, the present or the future, we will always have matter and only matter.

This aspect of matter is dialectically opposed to another aspect: that of its continuity. Dialectical materialism asserts that matter forms a whole, a whole in which everything is interrelated. At no point can we find a thing or phenomenon that is indivisible, isolated, irreducibly independent of the rest.

The dialectical paradox of the universe

There’s a dialectical paradox here. On the one hand, the universe is made up of an infinite number of different, and therefore distinguishable, things. On the other, the universe is absolutely continuous, undivided, all part of a single, infinitely rich, yet unified reality.

On the one hand, there is only one determination, that of the universe forming a whole where everything is interrelated, where nothing exists without being related to everything else.

On the other hand, there is an infinity of determinate things, each thing, each phenomenon possessing its own unity and consequently its own identity arising from its own difference from the rest.

However, dialectically, an infinity of determinate things posits an indeterminate infinity, since the identities of its elements are infinite.

On the one hand, then, we have a universe that is determined, because it is unified, uni-total… and, at the same time, a universe whose infinite nature is lost, in terms of definitions, in the infinity of what exists. The resolution of this question is complex.

The attempt at a religious answer
through the one and the many

What dialectical materialism understands as the opposition between the finite and the infinite has in the past been understood as the opposition between the one and the many. This is at the heart of the thinking of what is called philosophy.

The traditional starting point for this is philosophical questioning in Greece before Plato and Aristotle, with two philosophers highlighted here. There’s Parmenides, who says that the universe is one, always the same, and that consequently once we’ve talked about it, we can not speak more, since everything has already been said.

Then there’s Heraclitus, for whom everything is always changing: you can’t bathe in the same river twice. Consequently, we need to speak uninterruptedly, in order to always define things that are in essence always changing.

In one case, the universe is unity, in the other it is multiplicity. The notion of God was formulated intellectually precisely to be able to interpret this relationship between the one and the many.

For Plato, the material world is nothing but an illusion, a pale reflection of the only true reality, which is spiritual and is God. This is the message of the allegory of the cave. For Aristotle, on the other hand, the material world has all its dignity, with God serving merely as a “motionless motor” to set material things in motion in a continuous interplay of cause and effect.

Naturally, religions, which by definition necessarily follow Plato, have had great difficulty in justifying how the divine “one” can give rise to the material “many” (in some cases, the finite “emanates” from the infinite by degrees, other explanations invent an intermediary God playing the role of demiurge, others multiply the intermediate stages between the two or, on the contrary, make God “recede”, etc.).

In all cases, however, a relationship is established between the one and the many, making it possible to grasp the many by means of the concept of “one” (divine), and to establish definitions and determinations.

Religions are precisely those ethical, social, psychological, political, economic and other determinations. It is necessary to submit to the definitions laid down by the “one” (divine), which is the origin of the “many”. In any case, at the end of time, the multiple must give way to the “one”.

The bourgeois attempt at an empirio-critical response

In reality, God has only a conceptual reality, allowing us to posit the relationship between the finite and the infinite in one way or another. Moreover, according to its historical needs, humanity has modulated the relationship between God and the world, the one and the many. Protestantism, by affirming the unity of personal consciousness, thus reformulates the relationship to God in its entirety.

Religious formalism was, and still is, less tenable in the face of the observation of movement, whether in the past with the history of the planet, the history of species, or in the present, with expanding human activities.

As the productive forces grew, religions saw their concept weaken, allowing science to assert itself in human activities.

However, under the weight of bourgeois domination, science has been increasingly reduced to utilitarian pragmatism.

Its vision of the world is summed up in a more or less critical empiricism, combined with a wholly idealistic positivism, a genuine belief in “progress” consisting in the simple accumulation of data.

There would be a linear development of the sciences, as techniques and functional capacities would become more widespread.

In reality, it’s not so much a question of science as of a technical upsurge driven by the development of productive forces.

Under the bourgeoisie, scientists have even become so freewheeling that they can no longer even fight the idea of God, getting bogged down in a blissful cult of experimentation and a relativism presented as materialism.

The dialectical materialist response through cosmology

Dialectical materialism rejects both the religious interpretation of a relationship between the one and the many, and the more or less critical empiricism of a science reduced to techniques and experimentation.

Dialectical materialism posits the universe – i.e., matter – as the basis of any authentically scientific perspective. In so doing, it resolves the problem of the relationship between the elements of the universe and the universe itself.

It is because there is, dialectically, the infinite in the finite and the finite in the infinite, that it is possible to grasp how the universe is a single entity which, at the same time, possesses an infinite nature.

There is no such thing as a definite quantity of matter, which is static and simply “formed” from the outside. Only matter exists, and matter is self-moving. There is no external impulse to matter.

Nor is there any pause in the incessant movement of matter: there is never a halt in the process of matter’s transformation.

The universe is composed solely of matter, and this matter is in uninterrupted transformation, experiencing dialectical leaps based on the internal contradictions inherent in each thing, each phenomenon.

Since matter knows no external impulse or origin, and yet exists, then it has always existed, and always will. Since matter knows dialectical jumps, then it has always existed by knowing these dialectical jumps, and it exists by knowing these dialectical jumps, everywhere and all the time.

Since dialectical leaps take place everywhere and all the time, there is no limit to matter or its development.

The question of the relationship between whole and parts

How do incessant dialectical leaps relate to the unified, uni-total character of the universe? The basic problem is that what is infinite is logically incapable of having parts.

If infinity had parts, they would be finite or infinite. If these parts are infinite, then there would be several infinities, which is not coherent. If the parts are finite, then the infinite would be made up of finite elements, and could not be infinite.

One solution would be to conceive of an infinity of finite parts, which was Spinoza’s solution for expressing the inexhaustible character of the “modes” of existence of the entirely material universe. Here, the universe would be infinite in the sense that it would consist of an infinity of modes that themselves exist infinitely. All modes would be related in their very existence, as they would be of the “nature naturated” by the whole, which is “naturating nature”.

To define a thing or a phenomenon, we must therefore not have a positive reading, starting from “nothing” to get to the thing, but extract the thing from the whole: for Spinoza, “all definition is negation” (in the sense that a thing is not everything else).

However, this is not to posit a qualitative infinity, but to affirm that there is a dimension measurable to infinity, even if this measurement never ceases, quantitatively, going precisely to infinity.

Spinoza’s quantitatively infinite universe, with its concept of negation as the definition of everything, nevertheless paved the way for dialectics.

Negation as determination

It was Hegel who posited infinity as a qualitative leap from the finite. Unfortunately, he saw the movement of the world as passing through the human mind’s grasp of dialectics, rather than through the dialectical transformation of the world itself.

Hegel’s extension of Spinoza (who in turn extended Aristotle, Avicenna and Averroës) nevertheless posited transformation as the key to understanding phenomena.

Dialectical materialism does not consider the finite and the infinite to be separate. There is no irreducible “one” and “many” facing each other. In reality, God has only been the mask for the concept of infinity, and the term multiple has only designated the finite.

And yet, according to the law of contradiction, the finite is infinite and the infinite finite. Hegel understood this based on Spinoza’s definition of negation.

He understood that if a thing defines itself negatively (in the sense that a thing is not something else), then it must also be defined negatively in relation to itself.

Difference then becomes a thing’s identity. Every thing is both itself (because it is not something else) and other than itself, because it carries its own finitude.

Hegel, in The Science of Logic, notes that: “Difference as such is already contradiction in itself; it is in fact the unity of things that are only insofar as they are not one – and the separation of things that are only insofar as they are separated in the same relation.

The positive and the negative, on the other hand, are the contradiction posited, because as negative units they pose themselves, and hence the overcoming of the latter and the positing of its opposite.”

The direct consequence of considering that a thing, a phenomenon, poses itself as difference, is that there is a dialectical identity. This means that in its very existence, every thing posits itself as finite in the infinite, because it differs from the infinity of things. It posits itself as different, and therefore allows itself to be determined by this difference, by this negation of the rest.

Lenin, in his notes on this work by Hegel, makes the following remark on this question:

“[Hegel:] “They” (things) “are, but the truth of this being is their end.”

Shrewd and clever! Hegel analyses concepts that usually appear to be dead and shows that there is movement in them.

Finite? That means moving to an end!

Something?—means not that which is Other.

Being in general?— means such indeterminateness that Being = not-Being. All-sided, universal flexibility of concepts, a flexibility reaching to the identity of opposites,—that is the essence of the matter.

This flexibility, applied subjectively = eclecticism and sophistry.

Flexibility, applied objectively, i.e. reflecting the all-sidedness of the material process and its unity, is dialectics, is the correct reflection of the eternal development of the world.”

The dialectic of finite and infinite

It is from this contradictory relationship between the finite and the infinite that we must understand the inexhaustible nature of matter. Each thing is inherently different, and thus already the basis of a dialectical opposition. What’s more, in its very nature of being finite, it will cease to exist. It therefore carries an internal contradiction: it is, but it also contains its own death.

And this is universal. This means that finitude is infinite. And since, what’s more, everything transforms itself, this means that everything carries the infinite, since what is finite yields to transformation, in a qualitative leap, opening the way to something new, a non-finite within the finite, and thus the infinite.

In his notes, Lenin transcribes the following lines from Hegel:

“The unity of finite and infinite is not an external juxtaposition of these terms, nor an improper connection contrary to their determination, and binding together entities separate and opposed and mutually independent and hence incompatible.

On the contrary, each in itself is this unity, and is so only in transcending itself, neither excelling the other in Being-in-Self and affirmative Existent Being.

It has been demonstrated above that finitude exists only as a passing beyond itself; it thus contains infinity, which is its Other.…”

Lenin writes the following remark next to this quote:

« To be applied to atoms versus electrons. In general the infiniteness of matter deep within…”

Lenin prefigures here, as Mao Zedong did, the non-indivisible character of matter as regards atoms and their components. However, this is true not only in depth, but in all directions.

Infinity, non-infinity, continuity, discontinuity

We need to distinguish between infinity and non-infinity. A thing experiencing a qualitative leap is a finite thing carrying non-finiteness within it, as the new emerges from the old. We could say that, in the qualitative leap, a thing demolishes the limits apparently assigned to it.

Hegel, in The Science of Logic, sums this up by saying that: “It is the nature of the finite itself to surpass itself, to negate its negation, and to become infinite.”

The non-finite extracts itself from the finite. However, the question of the infinite still arises. Hegel has failed to define it here, because he has turned it into an abstract principle that overhangs reality. For him, infinity is the meaning of development, and therefore of the world, and the world no longer counts for him.

Dialectical materialism considers that it is the world which carries movement, development and therefore infinity. This means that infinity is by definition present in matter, as Lenin observed with “the infinity of matter in depth”.

In fact, one of the essential aspects of the process and the most disturbing for a human observer is that the infinite nature of matter combines with its opposite, its finite nature.

However, it is here in relation to the contradiction between continuity and discontinuity. Every phenomenon carries contradiction within itself, and therefore difference, because every contradiction affirms a phenomenon and consequently separates itself from the rest of matter to take on a finite, different character.

This poses a discontinuity in the infinite character of matter, but at the same time this discontinuity implies continuity, nothing being isolated.

An object made by a human being is, for example, inseparable from the productive forces carried by humanity, just as a cloud is inseparable from the general terrestrial system, the Biosphere.

However, if the productive forces of humanity cannot be explained without the terrestrial Biosphere, it cannot be explained without the galaxy, which itself depends on a super-cluster of galaxies, etc.

All this is true for the infinitely large and the infinitely small, to infinity.

There is no “final” level, whether towards the infinitely large or the infinitely small – otherwise, this “final” level would be isolated, independent, even a framework.

The infinitely large and the infinitely small themselves form a contradiction. There is thus both continuity and discontinuity in existence. A thing is both in continuity with the rest of the universe… And, through its internal contradiction, has its own leap.

The universe and its constitution in waves

The universe is a sort of infinite ocean made up of infinite waves responding to each other, transforming each other, to infinity.

Matter transforms matter, deepens it, develops it, and this does the same, to infinity.

The existence in the sense of elements relatively separated from the general movement of the universe is based on the waves of qualitative leaps occurring in matter itself. This in no way means that the contradiction of each thing is not internal, but that its framework relates to matter as a whole. To take an example, the Earth is the product of a qualitative leap in the organization of matter at the galaxy level, and one of the waves produced by the existence of the Earth is the formation of humanity, which itself forms a wave having an impact on its direct spatial environment, etc.

Every echo is infinite

Every qualitative leap has an infinite echo, because however small this echo may be, it is part of the general movement of matter.

Every finite thus carries within itself not only the non-finite of its own leap, of its own transformation, but also the infinite itself due to the fact that it relates to a general movement of matter.

It is not at all a question here of the existence of a simple “limit” pushed back from an expanding finite, but of infinity in the strict sense, that is to say non-measurable and non-divisible.

The slightest material element taken arbitrarily possesses in itself infinity, the infinite extension of matter, since it is part of it. Matter is infinite in its reality and the partial possesses the totality, the finite the infinite, and vice versa. In no case is it possible to speak of “parts” of matter.

If they were parts, then they would have to be given a special status. Their identity would each be opposed to the other parts, and therefore relatively isolated. However, no isolation is possible in the infinite nature of matter, because infinity cannot be finite.

Consequently, the separations that exist within material infinity, i.e. the existence of finite elements within infinity, must be defined as a moment, a stage, a relative situation, proper to the expansion, growth and thickening of matter. They are an aspect of infinity as the eternal movement of matter.

It is this aspect that mathematics observes, fixing and separating arbitrarily, for a momentary photograph of what in reality is in uninterrupted and infinite transformation.

Eternity and the inexhaustible nature of matter

What is finite has as its foundation the qualitative leap proper to the dialectic of the finite and the infinite, for the finite is the product of an infinite expressed in the finite.

The finite thus carries within it its own limit, which produces a leap to infinity; this leap leads to a finite situation which itself carries its limit, which itself produces a leap to infinity, and this to infinity, and therefore eternally.

What exists materially as a relatively autonomous entity – a human being, a tree, a table – has as its foundation the qualitative leap to infinity, and thus the contradiction between finite and infinite.

In this way, eternity is based on the uninterrupted and, so to say, the expanding presence of matter. This is not a mere spatial expansion. It is an extension in the sense of a qualitative movement progressing in an infinity of aspects.

In concrete terms, the contradictory movement of matter results in the production of an infinite number of contradictions, which themselves have an echo in matter. The law of contradiction is universal and it extends eternally through infinity, producing waves with an ever-greater impact in the universe.

The inexhaustible nature of matter

In a certain sense, we can say that matter is not only infinite, but that it goes on to infinity. Its movement of complexification is based on the infinite (as an internal leap resulting from the rupture within the finite) and goes towards infinity.

Matter is both infinite and in the process of becoming infinite – it’s a contradiction.

Dialectical materialism thus affirms the infinite character of matter, both in its finite existence and in its infinite nature. However, this infinite character relates to the infinity carried by the movement of matter in its universality, as its principal aspect. The infinite character of an ‘isolated’ material reality is solely an abstraction freezing the general movement of matter and its qualitative leaps producing cosmic waves consisting of transformations.

The waves in the universe, of the universe, are produced by different contradictions. This means that they are both finite, because they consist of a phenomenon that responds to an internal contradiction, and at the same time infinite, because their number is infinite, because they are part of the general movement of the universe, because their qualitative impact is itself infinite in the future, their source itself being infinite in the past.

The movement of matter, producing a qualitative leap in one phenomenon, which itself acts on other phenomena, other leaps, is therefore characterized by an uneven development, underlining both the identity and the difference of the leaps and the phenomena.

Any isolation of a thing is therefore necessarily arbitrary, at whatever level. And there is no such thing as a fixed matrix in the movement of matter. This is an essential aspect of movement, of the nature of matter, of the inexhaustible nature of matter. There is no fixed determination, because there are no separate, fixed ‘parts’ of matter.

Any focus on a particular aspect is simply a mathematical photograph of a given moment that has its dignity, but lets the internally-carried limit escape, and therefore the break that leads to the leap to infinity.

Matter is therefore inexhaustible, because its dialectical richness is infinite and carries infinity. To have a ‘stock’ of matter, we would need a ‘beginning’ – but this is impossible, because matter by definition carries infinity.

The realization of the law of contradiction

The contradiction between the finite nature of a thing, in the sense of its internal determination, and its finite expression in the world, produces in itself an internal tear, causing the infinite to re-express itself, to reassert itself. This is the law of contradiction: each thing, in existing, uninterruptedly affirms its difference, and thus posits negation.

This is true everywhere and all the time, ad infinitum. It is a consequence of the inexhaustible nature of matter.

The point here is not to confuse what is absolute with what is relative. It is not the finite form that is relative, but the infinite. In fact, the finite form itself carries the contradiction, and it is the contradiction that is universal. The development of the infinite is relative because it expresses contradiction.

Dialectical materialism is the science of the unity of opposites, not the religion of an abstract infinity.

However, the relative and the absolute also form a contradiction. The development of the infinite always prevails, because it is inherent in matter. For this reason, what is finite is only relative and is bound to disappear.

This is why every material entity is obliged to transform itself and can never be eternal. Nothing is eternal, everything is transformed, because only the whole exists, as a whole, but consequently also as an infinite whole, and therefore infinity in extension, expansion and deepening.

The eternity of a finite thing would be the cessation of movement, and therefore of infinity. Consequently, there would be no more movement, and there would never even have been any. Movement does not exist if there is no infinity.

The question is therefore whether the main aspect is infinity, motion or matter. Primitive materialism considers that it is matter, while materialism that recognizes the dynamics of matter chooses movement. Dialectical materialism considers that it is infinity, because matter implies movement, and therefore infinity.

However, dialectically, it is matter that carries infinity. The affirmation of dialectics thus establishes materialism. Dialectical materialism rests on the contradiction between matter and its own finitude, hence infinity, hence dialectic. This is the main aspect.

The infinity of matter

Dialectical materialism does not, therefore, make a fetish of matter in finite form, but celebrates the infinite as the most authentic reality of matter – and at the same time recognizes the full dignity of matter as the only reality, the bearer of the infinite. The universe is not composed of matter: it is matter. What we call the universe is matter in its infinite reality, whose waves propagate its general and particular transformations, in an infinite movement that produces the finite, itself both the carrier and the vector of the infinite.

This is why only dialectical materialism recognizes the dignity of reality. Only dialectical materialism can see the infinite in the finite, and therefore accord fundamental value to the finite. Far from losing itself in the infinite by affirming it, it is enthusiastic about reality and its movement, its transformation.

It is in transforming reality that inexhaustible matter is affirmed, forming the true meaning of life. Dialectical materialism sees movement as transformation (and not as dynamics), and assumes matter as a cosmic, infinite and therefore eternal reality.

=> documents in English

To transform a country through revolution, you need a strategic analysis. Without a strategy, there’s nothing; you can take as many tactical initiatives as you like, they’ll still come to nothing, because quantity is not quality.

Likewise, it’s futile to hope that through a lot of initiatives, quantity will be transformed into quality, because scattered initiatives, with no common thread, are not just a matter of quantity, but of individual quality, with very poor quality.

Only a long-term vision shall enable us to see what this or that thing wants, what impact this or that initiative can have. To get a clearer picture, we need to look at things in terms of periods, historical development, and the requirements specific to those periods and that development.

So, when we do something, we calibrate it according to objectives, historical expectations; if we observe a phenomenon, we assess whether or not it’s in line with historical expectations.

You always have to evaluate what you do, what you observe, by means of a two-lines analysis: what’s the red line, what’s the black line, where does the thing, the phenomenon, stand in relation to these lines.

It’s opportunism to rush into the slightest demand, the slightest strike, the slightest protest. In any case, modern France, from 1945 to 2023, has been full of protests, strikes and protests, without ever leading to a mass protest against capitalism. Civil servant strikist ideology and students spirit of revolt have never led to anything concrete.

French decadence

Let’s take a concrete example. France is a country in decadence. The level of science, culture and ideas among its people has collapsed. There’s a general laissez-faire, idle attitude that reflects France’s parasitic position in relation to the Third World. The French want to keep what they’ve got, and that’s as far as it goes.

If we turn our attention to the modalities and state of mind of the movement against pension reform in 2023, or the Gilets Jaunes before that, then we see very clearly that we’re dealing with reactionary initiatives aimed simply at keeping French capitalism as it is. Nothing good could come of it.

So how should we view the red line? It has to be said that France is a country that is losing positions on the world market; the standard of living cannot be maintained. There is already a real fracture between a bourgeoisie living in a pronounced bubble of conspicuous consumption and the broad masses living on the go, with home ownership as a central consideration. This divide is set to widen, mechanically producing bitterness and resentment.

This last aspect represents the major moral difficulty, since we are in the retrograde attitude of the proletarian of rich countries. Nevertheless, the positive aspect is that it is now possible to affirm civilization as socialist.

In the 1960s, 1980s, 2000s… the bourgeoisie was still educated, well-bred and capable of framing things. It had the prestige of tradition, of moral and civilizational continuity. Who was going to trust leftists or trade unionists to go off on their own adventures? Nobody, of course.

The proletariat no longer faces such a strong enemy. But it still has to transform itself, massively and profoundly, to assume its role as the ruling class.

Do the syndicalists of 2023 or the Gilets Jaunes converge with this need for proletarian self-criticism, with the idea of a socialist civilization? Not at all. The syndicalists and the Gilets Jaunes aligned themselves with the illusion of capitalism as infinitely redistributive, as long as you can “scrape away” gains.

Instability and war

How should the PMD see things? It must start from the premise that French capitalism is not static, but evolving. It’s evolving because of its internal contradictions, and it’s also evolving in relation to the global competition between powers, large and small. The internal evolution is decadence; the relationship with global competition is war. France goes to war because it has to in order to maintain its position in the global balance of power, and also to try and strengthen its own positions.

The internal shrivelling thus combines with a tendency towards war, which will bound to provoke upheavals in society. We tend to a revolutionary situation, which Lenin describes as follows:

“The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way.

It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters).

It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.”

Analytical grid and criteria

For each thing or phenomenon, the PMD must ask not simply for a “class position”, but how it relates to the New or the Old. In what way does the thing or phenomenon contribute to decadence, or, on the contrary, hinder it? In what way does the thing, the phenomenon, contribute to the tendency towards war, or, on the contrary, hinder it?

Then comes the question of placing ourselves historically: in what way does the thing, the phenomenon, converge with and reflect proletarian consciousness, the dialectical materialist worldview? For without dialectical materialism, there is no sufficient solidity.

It’s an analysis of the two lines first, then of alignment with the historical demand for socialist civilization. This is the driving force of the Party, which is why Mao Zedong says that holding a class position is not enough in itself. You have to align yourself entirely with the Party, which expresses the new in its historic, complete character.

“We stand on the positions of the proletariat and the masses of the people. For Communist Party members, this implies the need to stand on the Party’s position, to conform to the Party spirit and Party policy.”

The new drives out the old, the Party carries the future.

=> documents in English

Dialectical materialism is the study of contradiction, the identity of opposites. Lenin sums it up in his « Notes on Hegel’s Science of Logic »:

« Dialectics is the theory that shows how opposites can be and usually are (and become) identical – under what conditions they are identical by converting into each other -, why the human understanding must not take these opposites to be dead, petrified, but to be alive, conditioned, mobile, converting into each other. »

Idealism doesn’t grasp contradiction; indeed, it doesn’t even know the principle of contradiction. It looks for relationships, particularly of the cause-consequence type. In the end, what idealism talks about is abstractly constituted.

What Mao Zedong says about myths and children’s stories applies to the chimeras of idealism:

« In myths or children’s stories, the aspects constituting a contradiction do not have a real identity, but an imaginary one. Marxist dialectics, on the other hand, scientifically reflects identity in real transformations. »

Idealism does the same thing as myths or children’s stories, it looks for different aspects, but without grasping the real identity, the driving force, without delimiting the phenomenon. Idealism picks and chooses from different things, it invents realities, all in an attempt to explain or justify things.

Dialectical materialism does the opposite: it starts from the very substance of general reality, of the universe.

The first thing to note when studying dialectical materialism is that it is a total thesis: everything that exists is called nature, and nature obeys dialectics.

This is why Lenin remarked:

« Marx’s dialectic of bourgeois society is only a special case of dialectics. »

Dialectics, in fact, is the principle of absolutely all movement. There is no matter without contradiction, without unity of opposites, without movement. Consequently, to be scientific is to seek out the dialectical process in a phenomenon, in a thing.

As Lenin puts it:

« Thus, in any proposition we can (and must), as in a « cell », bring out the embryos of all the elements of dialectics, showing that dialectics is inherent in all human knowledge in general [that it is possible to acquire].

And the science of nature shows us (and, again, this is what must be shown on every simplest example) objective nature with the same qualities, the change from particular to general, from contingent to necessary, the leaps, the modulations in leaps, the mutual binding of opposites.

Dialectics is precisely the theory of knowledge (of Hegel and) of Marxism: this is what « aspect » of the story (and it’s not an « aspect », but the substance of the story) Plekhanov, to say nothing of other Marxists, didn’t pay attention to. »

Every process is dialectical, but we need to find its core, its driving force.

It’s wrong to think you can pick and choose, or to be satisfied with different examples.

To do so is to attempt to describe a phenomenon with movement, without seeing that the very material existence of the phenomenon and the movement are part of the very substance of the world, as eternal matter in dialectical motion.

As Mao Zedong puts it in On Contradiction:

« In all things and phenomena, the interdependence and struggle of the contradictory aspects inherent in them determine their life and animate their development.

There is nothing that does not contain contradictions. Without contradictions, there is no universe.

Contradiction is the basis of simple forms of motion (e.g. mechanical motion), and a fortiori of complex forms of motion. »

This universality doesn’t just apply to today’s phenomena, it is eternally valid: there is no matter without contradiction, and so all matter is necessarily in motion, and must transform itself, its contradiction giving way to a new contradiction, within the framework of a new phenomenon.

Mao Zedong notes therefore:

« Contradiction is universal, absolute; it exists in every process of the development of things and phenomena, and permeates every process from beginning to end.

What does the appearance of a new process mean? It means that the old unity and its opposites give way to a new unity and its new opposites, which succeeds the old one. The old process comes to an end, the new arises. And as the new process contains new contradictions, it begins the history of the development of its own contradictions. »

Dialectical materialism does not take phenomena at random: it circumscribes them and studies their inner core: the unity of opposites.

=> documents in English

When the bourgeoisie set out to conquer power, it came up against the ideology of the former ruling class, materialized in the Church and the Catholic religion. The Enlightenment was the culmination of the ideological conflict with the superstructure of the ancien régime, bringing to the fore the figure of the individual endowed with reason and free will.

The bourgeoisie’s dual historical task

The establishment of the capitalist mode of production, or rather the consolidation of the bourgeoisie’s power over the whole of society throughout the 19th century, led to a transformation of values and lifestyles. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had already noted this in their 1847 Manifesto, saying of the bourgeoisie that

« The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ―natural superiors, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ―cash payment.

It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.

It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe.

It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers. The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.”

This transformation of the way of life was well described in the works of Honoré de Balzac, with a critical focus on a romantic idealization of the past. Marx and Engels called this ideology « feudal socialism », which justified a return to the ancien régime, and which would recombine in the 20th century in fascism and its corporatist ideology.

In any case, the historical role of the bourgeoisie was that of the most complete dissolution of all the moral standards of the ancien régime.

In France, the bourgeoisie’s historical mission spans two centuries, between 1789 and 1989.

Between 1789 and 1917, the bourgeoisie fully asserted its claim to control society in the face of the social strata of the ancien régime. Naturally, this involved a predominantly political struggle, particularly over institutional, educational and clerical issues.

It was a time of trial and error for the bourgeoisie as it sought to form the political regime best suited to asserting its domination and leadership.

Thus, in 1875, the republican form of the regime was established, followed by school as central institution, the influence of the Church being historically set aside in 1905 in the « inventory quarrel », until 1913, when the obligation of secret voting in the polling booth and by envelope was enshrined in law, putting an end to the hegemony of the parish priest-worthy people tandem in the countryside.

The First World War was the culmination of the process: there was no crack in the political edifice, the mobilization for war was full and complete, at all levels of society. The bourgeoisie appears as the ruling force, having completely triumphed over the former ruling class.

But this does not mean that the bourgeoisie has completed its historical tasks, for it still has to train and consolidate a proletariat that is still far too immature, not what it is concerned itself, but in relation to the necessities of capital accumulation.

It’s important to understand that, up until the 1920s, France’s population was still massively rural, with a sea of self-sufficient domestic producers and an industry still fragmented and run by professional workers with skills inherited from the guild. Similarly, until the 1970s, the figure of the « worker-peasant » persisted in many industrial regions of France, just as some working-class homes in the most isolated rural areas had no toilets or running water.

And so, at the very heart of capitalism’s first general crisis, the bourgeoisie’s second mission began: to transform the peasantry, itself shaped by the ancien régime, into a proletariat that did not exist within capitalism, but through the accumulation of capital.

With the benefit of historical hindsight, we can safely say that France saw the formation of a proletariat in the period 1920-1970, at the very moment when the capitalist mode of production experienced its first qualitative break.

The proletariat as a historical force, born in the first general crisis

From this point of view, the following must be affirmed: the first general crisis of capitalism is not the space of confrontation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but rather the space of affirmation of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.

The proletariats of each country were still too immature to pose as positive protagonistsagainst a bourgeoisie that had only relatively decomposed, since it had been victorious on one side, that of its confrontation with the old feudal regime, still so pervasive across the globe.

Nor should we forget the emergence of the United States, a vast country with unhindered capitalism, spreading a way of life perfectly adapted to capitalist needs, without having to confront the historical situation as it exists in Europe.

The socialist experiments of the 20th century appear to be an attempt by a nascent proletariat to take charge of the universal, historical movement to raise the productive forces. This is a major contradiction: a historical social force still in its chrysalis was called upon to lead the major scientific process of industrialization.

This process was all the more difficult to manage through planning, as the proletariat itself was maturing within the process. This contradiction materialized in the debates on the modalities of the new socialist state apparatus and the trial-and-error implementation of planning.

It was only after this period of economic establishment that the proletariat of these countries – 1930-1940 for the USSR, 1950-1960 for People’s China – came to a full understanding of its own ruling vision, dialectical materialism.

But it was also at this turning point that the proletariat failed against revisionism, for the bourgeoisie was still on the move, not having fully achieved its second task, having entered into decadence only relatively.

While the proletariat « completed » the bourgeoisie’s two missions in backward countries, thus revealing its historical superiority, it remained on the threshold of realizing its own mission. The affirmation of socialist-communist ideology was thus confined to the proletariat as the pole opposed to the bourgeoisie, illustrated by its emblem of the hammer and sickle.

Dialectical materialism, the affirmation of proletarian maturity

When the proletariat aims for (and achieves) the conquest of power in the twentieth century, it does so first and foremost to direct the productive forces towards the full satisfaction of society’s needs.

The aim is quantitative production based on harmonious planning.

Socialism is about putting an end to pauperism, but also to the individual-king exemplified by the triumph of the private entrepreneur who decides on the lives of workers as well as of the consumers.

From this point of view, the proletariat is not confronted with the consequences of capitalist industrialization in terms of consumer society. Consumer society is the historical culmination of the capitalist mode of production, opening the way for the proletariat to grasp itself, for itself and with its own historical mission.

The reason is simple: the grip of the commodity had to be generalized to all aspects of human life, and the subsumption of the worker had to be superimposed by the subsumption of the consumer as the culmination of the capitalist mode of production.

It’s not for nothing that Marx begins Capital with an analysis of the commodity, and his well-known assertion that « the wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production reigns is announced as an ‘immense accumulation of commodities’ ».

Let’s take an image. If we make a worker in the 1920s read « The fetish character of the commodity and its secret », he will perceive its dimension, but not with the same depth as the proletarian of 2023. The worker of the 1920s is marginalized in terms of consumption, and lives a restricted life in this respect; he is not as familiar with commodities as the proletarian of 2023, whose consumption is everywhere.

If you make a proletarian of 2023 read « The Working Day », he’ll grasp its substance, but not with the same intensity as the worker of 1936. Not that the proletarian of 2023 works less, but the psychic and psychological implications of work prevent him from having the same distance from work as the worker in 1936.

We are witnessing the completion of the bourgeoisie’s second historical mission, with the existence of a proletariat that participates fully in capitalism, both as producer and consumer.

Dialectically, it’s also the consecration of the proletariat’s maturity. You can’t have a consumer proletariat, i.e. one that is alienated, without having a proletariat that is subjectively active in making consumer choices.

Consumer society corresponds to a stage of advanced development of the productive forces which, in its capitalist framework, gives rise to multitudes of markets valorizing heaps of subjective identities. This requires a certain cognitive disposition as a consumer, but also a degree of intellectual enrichment as a producer.

In this sense, the working class can grasp science, no longer simply as a modality for analyzing each sector of life (biology, chemistry, neurology, etc., etc.), but as a universal principle that takes the name of dialectical materialism. This understanding is made all the easier by the legacy of the 20th century’s long and vast experience.

Consumer society enshrines multi-dimensional connections

Until the development of consumer society, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie posed a framework that could still be said to be formal. There were bourgeois on one side, proletarians on the other.

The understanding of dialectical materialism was still marked by residues of « one-sided » conceptions: if it wasn’t bourgeois, it was proletarian, and vice versa. The real content of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as classes faded into the background, leading to the triumph of economist, syndicalist and reformist tendencies.

Even when refusing to abandon the cause, it was reductive to consider that dialectics had to be « applied » in such and such a field, each field being seen separately, as if they had a life of their own with no logical connections between them in the general whole.

This is why, even with the best will in the world, the social democracy of pre-1914, the Communist movement of the first half of the 20th century, and even the People’s Republic of China in the second half of the 20th century, always had to blindly chase after problems to try and solve them. The ability to take a global view was lacking.

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) was precisely the understanding of this lack of global vision. Before the GPCR, the Party was seen as a center that had to support and steer in the right direction. With the GRCP, the Party was seen as the hard core radiating its approach throughout the country.

The People’s Republic of China called this « Mao Zedong Thought », believing it to be an ideology, an ideology applied to concrete Chinese conditions, a state of mind, a mentality.

This is absolutely right, and every country does indeed need a guiding thought, a historical synthesis of national reality that exposes its contradictions.

Nevertheless, the GPCR is not only the expression of the need for a guiding thought, it is also the consideration of ideology as irradiating the whole country from its hard core, the Party.

It’s obviously easier to understand this vision in the 21st century than in 1966. In an underdeveloped country, and even in the second half of the 20th century in general, there was a tendency to separate things, to consider that each thing existed separately, forming a separate domain.

With the development of productive forces, on the contrary, it is immediately apparent that everything is linked: it is no longer possible to do economics without mathematics, physics without philosophy, geography without physics, archaeology without astronomy, law without history, architecture without aesthetics, mechanics without computer science, sport without biology, etc.

In the past, there were few goods and a hint of craftsmanship was still present, or we imagined a few large factories for the most massive goods, such as cars. Nowadays, we know that there are a variety of industries in different countries, designers in other countries, sellers, carriers, deliverers and so on.

The very existence of the Internet as a global network implies multiple connections. Naturally, this network is fragmented, separated by countries and their possible blockages, monopolies monopolizing its use, the lack of technical access in certain countries of the world, etc. Nevertheless, a human consciousness that has experienced the Internet is fundamentally different from one that has not.

In short, we can now see how everything is connected. Unfortunately, this rise in the level of knowledge is taking place within the framework of capitalism, in parallel with widespread consumerism. All intelligence serves capitalist competition and the systematization of commodification at every level.

Dialectical materialism is the way to understand this contradiction between developed productive forces and a reading of things demolished by consumer society. Dialectical materialism brings together where capitalism divides, and separates where capitalism artificially brings together.

End of prehistory, beginning of history

In concrete terms, what is at stake is not simply a new material distribution within humanity, but the re-establishment of the human being as a social animal, after a detour begun with agriculture and animal husbandry. Human civilization ceases to live « beside » reality, in the illusion of omnipotence.

The Dialectical Materialist Party takes it upon itself to put forward this essential thesis for the 21st century: the proletarian class struggle is not simply situated in human space-time, but takes place within the framework of cosmological development itself.

Put another way, the proletarian revolution is not simply the reconciliation of humanity with itself, but the harmonious unification of humanity with all living matter, with the planet as Biosphere.

As the opposite pole to the bourgeoisie, the proletariat not only brings about a social revolution, but also a qualitative leap forward for humanity as a whole.

This concept of the proletarian revolution as a vector for the extension and enrichment of civilization was well understood by the founders of dialectical materialism. The well-known thesis of communism as the « end of prehistory » is to be found in Marx’s 1859 Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, made famous by Stalin himself, who strove to present this text as the general classic of dialectical and historical materialism.

Here’s what Marx writes:

“The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals’ social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.

The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.”

Historically, this thesis has been understood as the end of the exploitation of man by man, and more generally of all oppression. This is absolutely true, but to put it this way is to limit it to a single dimension.

We must insist on the fact that we’re talking about « prehistory » and not simply « history »: there’s a reading of mankind’s development not just by and for itself, but in the context of Matter as a whole, of which mankind is only a part. To understand this, we need to read the passage from Capital analyzing « the fetish character of the commodity and its secret »:

“The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of everyday life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.

The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan.

This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.”

The socialist mode of production is humanity which grasps itself, and, grasping itself, can only grasp its own nature as a living being acting within the great whole of matter in motion.

Dialectically, it was necessary to arrive at this epoch of commodity generalization for the proletarian revolution to be a point of culmination for Humanity, that of the passage to a new Civilization enabled by the dialectical materialist worldview.

=> documents in English

Dialectical materialism considers that every phenomenon forms a unity of opposites, the latter being in struggle, in opposition. This is the law of contradiction, the universal law of eternal and inexhaustible matter on the road to Communism. In this context, the term « contrary » is often equated with « opposite ». In his philosophical notes, Lenin said:

« Strictly speaking, dialectics is the search for contradictions in the essence of things themselves. »

« Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites. »

The terms contrary and opposite are easily interchangeable, and in fact it is easy to switch from one term to the other, with the idea that they are equivalent.

In the French language, there is a great deal of ambiguity in the definition of the two terms; we tend to define something contrary as opposed, and something opposed as a contrary, even if there are nuances, depending on the context.

The basis of these nuances is as follows. “Oppose” is a term from Latin, meaning to place towards, in front of, i.e. to place opposite, against. There is an idea of face to face. Contradiction is what contradicts; the term also comes from Latin. There is an idea of cancellation.

The Latin languages and Russian follow the same pattern; in German, the term contradiction is widerspruch (wider meaning against, spruch meaning to say); the term gegensatz, opposition, in the strict sense means counter-sentence or anti-sentence. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels use the term widerspruch, but in the sense of gegensatz; the distinction is not operative.

Mathematical language, on the other hand, makes an apparently clear distinction, but we can see that it comes to the same thing.

The opposite of 1 is -1, -2 for 2, -3 for 3, and so on. The opposite is set against, and we find the idea of face to face: facing1 is -1, facing 2 is -2, and so on.

The contradiction is called the « inverse ». The inverse refers to a number that can be multiplied by itself to arrive at 1: 0.2 is the inverse of 5, because 5 x 0.2 = 1; 0.01 is the inverse of 100, because 0.01 x 100 = 1, and so on.

This inverse actually contradicts a number, because it prevents it from reaching 1, i.e. it prevents it from forming a unit, from being itself. The inverse annuls the number, annihilates its identity, contradicts it. Here we find the idea of a counter-affirmation to an affirmation.

However, if we think in terms of tension and conflict, it’s hard to see at first sight any difference between contrary and opposite, even in the mathematical language. There are always two aspects facing each other, and one cannot exist without the other.

The terms of opposite and contrary are thus closely related, even interchangeable, because they have in common the fact that they signify negation. The existing nuances have to do with the modalities of this negation, but their substance is common: their dialectical relationship, both linked (and therefore positive) and negative.

These negative nuances are found again and again in any language that seeks to describe material processes. For example, we speak of a headwind [in French a “contrary wind”] to say that the wind intervenes and opposes the initial movement, forming a cancellation.

The word “opposed” implies the idea of resistance, of an obstacle: we say that we have faced opposition. There is a strong idea of tension. However, we can interchangeably say “on the contrary” or “in the opposite direction”.

It is useful here to turn to the Chinese language. The term of contradiction originally chosen in Chinese by Mao Zedong, Mao-dun, is made up of 矛, meaning spear, and 盾, meaning shield. It is based on an old story told by Han Fei Zi (280 – 233 BC):

« A person, eager to sell his spear and shield, praised the excellence of the latter in these terms: ‘Its resistance is such that nothing can dent it. This shield is absolutely impenetrable ».

Turning to the spear, he continued: « Its point is so sharp that there is nothing it cannot pierce. It is omnipenetrating.

– How can your spear penetrate your shield?

The man didn’t know what to say. He had contradicted himself. Logically, an absolutely impenetrable shield and an omnipenetrable spear cannot go together.”

Here we have a contradiction, something contradicts something else, there is a cancellation, even though the idea of spear and shield also implies tension, and therefore opposition.

There are other Chinese expressions worth noting, such as 一分為二, yifenweier, meaning one becomes two, each thing has two sides, etc. 对 立 统 , duili tongyi, meaning the unity of opposites; 相 反 相 承, xiangfan xiangcheng, meaning to oppose and promote each other; 两點論, liangdian lun, which can be translated as the theory of two points.

All these expressions were used in People’s China during the time of Mao Zedong, particularly at the time of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. They are useful for showing that the term contradiction does not in itself adequately capture complementarity and tension; conversely, the notion of opposite does not capture the unity of the two poles, which is much more apparent with the term contradiction.

In concrete terms, contradiction and opposite form two aspects of the same contradiction/opposition, the two terms coming together and repelling each other.

If we want to avoid such back-and-forth, the expression « two-point theory » seems more abstract at first sight, but it allows us to set out the dialectical operational framework. The expression was used in an article for the fiftieth anniversary of the Communist Party of China, published simultaneously in the Renmin Ribao (the People’s Daily), the Hongqi (the Red Flag, the theoretical organ) and the Jiefangjun Bao (the Daily of the People’s Liberation Army).

This 1971 document retraces the history of the Party, with the struggles of two lines, between the red line and the black line at each stage, from the revolutionary war to the construction of socialism and the struggle against the forces of capitalist restoration, including the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution launched in 1966, while stressing that several such revolutions were needed.

The long conclusion deals with learning well and mentions the importance of the two-point theory:

« We have to follow the two-point theory, not the one-point theory. While focusing our attention on the main trend, we need to take note of the other trend that may be masked.

We must take full account of and firmly grasp the main aspect and at the same time resolve one by one the problems raised by the non-main aspect.

We need to see the negative aspects of things as well as their positive aspects. We have to see the problems that have already arisen and also anticipate the problems that we haven’t yet perceived, but which could arise. »

Hsueh Li clarified this in a 1972 article, The Two-point Theory, where he explained from the outset that:

« What is the theory of the two points? It is what we usually call dialectical materialism; it is the Marxist-Leninist theory of the fundamental law of the universe.

Chairman Mao gave us a comprehensible and penetrating explanation in his On Contradiction ».

After recalling the fundamentals of dialectical materialism, he concludes as follows:

« Managing to carry the two-point theory and go beyond the one-point theory is not simply a question of method, but of worldview. The two-point theory belongs to the proletarian world-view and the one-point theory belongs to the world-view of the bourgeoisie and all the exploiting classes.

Without exception, the thinking of people living in a class society is marked by class and is invariably influenced by the political orientation of the class to which they belong.

Even if people do not belong to the exploiting classes, they are inevitably affected by the idealism and metaphysics universally existing in class society.

This is why every person in the revolutionary ranks must see to it that every idealistic and metaphysical point of view is eliminated from his mind, and must make constant efforts to reshape his subjective world while changing the objective world.

Only in this way can the two-point theory be sustained and the one-point theory overcome. »

The expression « two-point theory » allows us to avoid focusing on the idea of annulment that the term « contradiction » may abstractly imply. – and it’s worth noting that the Chinese revisionists went so far as to say that it was necessary to accept the existence of contradiction, to accept negative things, and so on.

The expression « two-point theory » also avoids the use of the term « opposition », which loses sight of unity and runs the risk of refuting even the unity of opposites, in a leftist mode.

What’s more, the expression « theory of two points » immediately underlines the existence of two aspects, which is important at a time when the bourgeoisie seeks to deny dialectics, as evidenced by the nihilistic refutation of the existence of man and woman.

It allows you to change its own state of mind while at the same time transforming reality: have I followed the two-point theory correctly, have I seen the two aspects correctly, using the main trend to see which way to go?

In this way, the expression puts the emphasis on practice: it’s a good equivalent to the terms contradiction and opposition, which are themselves « two points ».

=> documents in English

Marxism was born with the workers’ movement; it consists of the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but also of their political action, with the First International and the birth of German social democracy. What we are talking about here are particular people, in a particular country, with particular ideas. And because of the dimension of these ideas of these people in this country, it is the universal that has prevailed and throughout the world, Marxism has been recognised as right by the workers’ movement. As right, not just for Germany, but for all countries.

Other ideas appeared and were added to Marxism, placing themselves within it, developing it through obstacles, difficulties and conflicts. Similarly, ideas developed in Russia and China have been recognized as having value not just for those countries, but for all countries. Lenin and Mao were references throughout the world.

Is it so then that we have to consider that the process could go on like this ad infinitum, that others could be added, that Marxism would continue to develop in this way? Of course, but then we have to recognize that this is no longer Marxism. Marxism would still be the basis, but there would be so many additions, so many deepenings, that Marxism would be unrecognisable.

It would be Marxism, but transformed. Already at the time of Lenin, Marxism had been profoundly transformed compared to the time of Marx, and it’s the same with Mao.

There was an interesting discussion on this subject in the 1990s between French Maoists and representatives in France of the Communist Party of Peru. The latter explained that to understand Marxism, you first had to understand Maoism, because Maoism was the most advanced form of Marxism. For the French communists, it seemed to be the other way round: it was by understanding Marxism well that one arrived, quite naturally, at Maoism. In a sense, both are naturally right, because it is a contradiction. However, if it is a contradiction, then it is a productive one.

It is precisely by turning towards this productive nature that we can overcome the separations between Marxism, Leninism and Maoism and grasp the unity of substance, which allows us to see that they are one and the same thing, and not three things with which we have to « come to terms ».

Mao Zedong had already foreseen what we must call the death of Marxism, not in the sense that it would be outdated, useless and had had its day, but in the sense that it was now material that had become part of something more developed.

Mao Zedong said with profound accuracy and a far-reaching historical perspective that:

« The world is infinite.

Both in time and space, the world is infinite and inexhaustible. Beyond our solar system, there are many stars that together form the Milky Way. Beyond this galaxy, there are many other galaxies.

Viewed globally, the universe is infinite, and viewed narrowly, the universe is also infinite.

Not only is the atom divisible, but so is the atomic nucleus, and it can be divided ad infinitum (…).

All individuals and all specific things have their births, their developments and their deaths.

Every person dies because he is born. Human beings must die, and Chang San (editor’s note: equivalent to Smith) being a man, he must die.

No one can see Confucius, who lived 2,000 years ago, because he had to die.

Humanity was born, and therefore humanity must also die. The Earth was born, and so it too must die.

However, when we say that humanity will die and the Earth will die, that’s different from what Christians say about the end of the world.

When we talk about the death of humanity and the death of the Earth, we mean that something more advanced than humanity will replace it, and this is a higher stage in the development of things.

I said that Marxism also had its birth, its development and its death. That may sound absurd.

But since Marx said that all things that develop have their death, how could that not be applicable to Marxism itself?

To say that it will not die is metaphysics.

Naturally, the death of Marxism means that something higher than Marxism will come to replace it. »

The death of Marxism that Mao Zedong is talking about here is the birth of dialectical materialism. Does this mean that dialectical materialism itself will die, disappear? Of course it does; dialectical materialism will suffer the same fate as Marxism: it will fade away to make way for a deeper understanding of the world. It will be dialectical materialism that has undergone a qualitative leap.

When will this happen? Most certainly in the decades following the unification of humanity and the systematisation of dialectical materialism at world level. There will be then such a deepening, such a development of nuances, that differences will appear and the law of contradiction will apply to dialectical materialism itself.

But we are not there yet, of course. What we need, for the time being, is for humanity to assimilate the fundamentals of dialectical materialism and to know how to apply them in practice, or rather: for dialectical materialism to be taken up as a world view by more and more people, until it is generalized throughout society.

Socialism will triumph when the proletariat understands the contradiction which both binds and opposes it to the bourgeoisie, and when the law of contradiction is grasped in everyday life, in scientific experimentation and the sciences, in industrial production and its conception, in the arts and letters.

This is a new era in which, the more connections are understood, the more connections are developed, the qualitative leap reaches maturity and is realized.

=> documents in English

1. Dialectical materialism is the affirmation of the inexhaustible nature of eternal matter, which obeys the law of contradiction.

2. « Marxist philosophy considers that the law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally in nature, in human society and in human thought. Between the opposing aspects of contradiction, there is both unity and struggle, and this is what drives things and phenomena to move and change ». (Mao Zedong, On Contradiction)

3. The PMD’s raison d’être is the systematization of dialectical materialism in all fields, at the personal level and throughout society, in a unified humanity living in harmony with planet Earth recognized as a Biosphere.

4. Dialectical materialism is carried forward by the proletariat, the class that transforms reality and unifies humanity, generating the socialist mode of production that abolishes all exploitation and oppression.

5. The PMD represents the vanguard of the proletariat, and its main activity is to generate and direct class struggles for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the working class as the ruling class, systematizing the dialectical materialist vision of the world.

6. The PMD’s main theoretical references are Stalin’s Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism and Mao Zedong’s On Contradiction.

7. The PMD’s main historical references are the historical existence of the USSR from the October Revolution of 1917 to 1952, that of the People’s Republic of China from its foundation in 1949 to 1976 (mainly with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), that of the Communist Party of Peru from 1980 to 1992 (with the affirmation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).

8. The PMD stresses that the beginnings of humanity, with agriculture and animal husbandry, established an unequal relationship with Nature and placed women in a situation of inferiority: this implies cultural revolutions to liberate the female psyche and correct the relationship with Nature, particularly with animals.

9. The PMD’s approach is the two lines struggle, in all areas: recognising the contradiction, asserting the red line against the black line, and strengthening the red line until it wins.

10. The PMD stresses the importance of collective optimism, historical enthusiasm, personal self-sacrifice and revolutionary romanticism; it combats pessimism, anti-social isolation, selfish vanity and insensitive indifference.

11. The PMD is a revolutionary organisation; membership is by co-option of at least three of its members. The compartmentalisation of its structures is the rule, the secrecy of the organisation the principle. To be a member of the organisation means to be active in a PMD organisation, to apply the resolutions adopted and to observe its own discipline.

12. The PMD operates according to the dialectic of centralisation and democracy. This democratic centralism implies that the leading bodies at all levels are elected by democratic consultation at congresses and that between congresses, the member of the PMD must submit to the organisation, the minority to the majority, the lower level to the higher level and the whole Party to the Central Committee.

13. If a member commits an offence against Party discipline, the Party organisation of the echelon concerned, within the limits of its powers and according to the case in question, will apply one of the following sanctions: warning, reprimand, removal from Party duties, observation, exclusion from the Party.

=> documents in English

On the occasion of this new first of May, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Center of Belgium and the Communist Party of France (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) express their confidence and enthusiasm for the growing affirmation of the second wave of the world revolution.

The first wave had given birth, a hundred years ago, in March, 1919, to the Communist International; the second will realize the objective of this one: the world unification and the realization of socialism on all the planet.

The formation of a World Socialist Republic is unavoidable in the 21st century. The realization of the complete unification of Humanity, on the basis of socialist relations in the economy and throughout society, is certain. There can be absolutely no doubt about it.

The resolution of the environmental problems, by establishing dialectical relations of humanity with the planet considered as a biosphere, is inevitable. The understanding of the nature of living matter and its respect goes hand in hand with the dialectical materialistic understanding of the general evolution of the eternal and infinite universe.

We affirm that the mastery of dialectical materialism and its fundamental theses on the universe are the very basis for understanding reality and transforming it.

It is undeniable that this still requires formidable initiatives. Mao Zedong had spoken in the 1960s of the next fifty to one hundred years, when humanity would experience upheavals like never before. We are precisely in this period and it is about being on the front line. We are as the vanguard of the working class in Belgium and France.

We say: there will be no capitulation, no turning back, no modification of the ideological fundamentals, nor revision of the main principles. We are fully aware of the complexity of the tasks incumbent upon us, but we will be able to assume them, with vigor and the greatest sense of responsibility. We are full of optimism about the future: the triumph of Communism corresponds to the movement of the universe itself. The proletariat is the most revolutionary class in history.

It is true that in the imperialist metropolis, the recomposition of the proletarian fabric is still an ongoing process, which does not follow a linear path and still requires an extremely important substantive work. There is still a titanic job to do in this area. We believe, however, that we have grasped the necessary general guidelines. In this sense, our two organizations are fully engaged in this struggle to ensure that the proletariat recovers itself and goes back to the reconquest of its identity, which has undergone profound changes due to the increase of the productive forces, beyond deep deformations, significant errors.

This process of recomposition of the proletarian fabric corresponds to the emergence of the second wave of the World Revolution. And the capitalist mode of production, both in Belgium and in France, experiences such internal problems, because of its historical limits, that it is less and less able to freeze social relations by means of the apparatus of State and corruption of a large part of the proletariat. This had led, since the 1950s, to the displacement of the main contradiction in the zone of storms: Africa, Latin America, Asia. We are now in a new period.

There is also the reaffirmation of the communist ideology that arises historically, through the maturation of class conflicts and especially the driving role of diffusion played by our organizations. Here we affirm very clearly that the explanations we provide of dialectical materialism are the decisive weapons to have the necessary tools, in the theoretical and practical, intellectual and material fields, to make advance the Cause. It is not a question of a side aspect or a philosophy accompanied by simple demands, but of the hard core of the communist affirmation.

It goes without saying, however, that it would be wrong to consider unilaterally that the proletarian-bourgeois contradiction has already resumed its natural course. It is very far from being the case. The ideological, cultural, social and political remains of the 1950-1980s are still widely present. The years 1990-2010 were also marked by a strengthening of many aspects of the capitalist mode of production, due to technological progress, the collapse of the bloc dominated by Soviet social-imperialism and integration into the capitalist world economy of China which became social-fascist.

In this sense, it is incorrect to consider a movement like the « yellow vests » in France other than as an expression of the capitalist crisis in general and the petty bourgeoisie in particular. There is a scissors phenomenon where everything between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is crushed. This phenomenon is also parallel to many others who, similarly, express the fear of seeing capitalism not being longer able to ensure social peace, to give free rein to small capitalists, to neutralize the working class.

Petty-bourgeois interpretations of the massive ecological crisis and the terrifying ecocide it causes, the catastrophic aggravation of global warming, the dramatic animal condition, are also the terrorized expression of the middle layers of capitalism taken between the hammer of proletarian demands and the anvil of capitalism. They are actually phenomena corresponding to the historical limit of capitalism. The time of its world overtaking has arrived.

Discourses on a « finite world », on the need to move to « sustainable » economic development, to adopt a more « sober » way of life, are nothing more than an attempt to curb the wheel of History. Fascism also reappears more strongly as a requirement for a step back in time. Calls to be more « reasonable » are always more numerous within the parasitic intellectual layers. All this catastrophism is fundamentally foreign to who has understood the magnitude of the changes underway, their scale.

In reality, matter is inexhaustible and we know a time of general transformation, both of social life and of humanity’s relationship with the rest of matter. In order to live up to this process, we must liberate the productive forces by adopting the principles of socialism in all fields. This is what will establish productive dynamics for the whole of life in the Biosphere that is the planet, announcing in the medium term the process of spatial colonization and the ever greater diffusion of life.

This requires a great capacity for self-criticism, in relationship to the old way of life. Only collectivism is able to break the individualism and selfishness that characterize the initiatives and dominant values in the capitalist mode of production. Only a perspective based on the notion of totality, of the whole, of universalism, can allow society not to fall under the blows of ultra-individualism, of its capricious consumption, of its contempt for all morality and all social requirement.

The capitalist mode of production, in perdition, also produces only cultural horrors and ideological poisons. Contemporary art, moral relativism, the most outrageous cynicism, the cult of excessive egos and futile appearance, subjectivist literature, dissonant music as a value in itself or repetitive and simplistic music with simple harmonies… Capitalism takes advantage of the overproduction of capital to overrun ever more aspects of everyday life.

This is vain, however. The masses feel fundamentally alien to all this decadence, even if some sectors being more or less important may be fascinated or momentarily disoriented. The masses are on the side of transformation and culture, openness and development. Fixations on identity, material fetishism, superficiality, are essentially foreign to them. Here, the future opposes itself to the celebration of an idealized past, Socialism to the decadence of « culture » in capitalism, to that anticapitalist romanticism that is fascism.

In Belgium and France, the battle is therefore the one to free the initiatives of the masses, to raise their consciousness and their organizational capacities. The avant-garde opens here spaces and, starting from workers’ centrality, forms the movement bringing the emergence of the People’s Democracy as a strategic proposition. It is a question of making falter the dominant system, of shaking it, go to its assault for the establishment of a new State. We must be certain of victory here.

Long live the working class, the most revolutionary class in history!

Long live its ideology: dialectical materialism, today Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

People’s war up to Communism!

Long live the second wave of the world revolution!

Marxist Leninist Maoist Center of Belgium

Communist Party of France (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) 

=> documents in English

This First of May of this year has a particular significance : 50 years ago happened the student revolt of May 1968 in France, which produced a popular movement all around the country which brought more than ten millions workers to go on strike.

It produced also numerous revolutionary organisations – which historically are summed up onto the label of “Leftism” – trying to relaunch the revolutionary process broken by the triumph of Revisionism, following the Coup in the Soviet Union in 1953. It stood in full convergence, as the revolt of the youth, as the call of Revolution, with the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution in China.

The value of May 1968 in France – and also in others countries, with different forms -, the value of the revolutionary experiments of the 1970’s in general, the negative aspect of the ideological influences of the petty-bourgeois and the universities (with the students but also the teachers), must be understood in a proper way.

On this First of May 2018, we call to learn the lesson from the past. The historical value of May 1968 is a part of the world revolutionary heritage, as it shows that, how strong a bourgeois modern society can be in organizing its institutions and its ideological-cultural controls, it is condemned to fail.

There is always a way to break the system maintaining the masses into a passive attitude; there is always a way to open spaces for the revolutionary conscience. In this sense, the main lesson from May 1968 is the workers autonomy, i.e. the autonomy of the working class, the non-dependence to the institutions and in particular of the trade-unions.

The main trade-union, the CGT, dominated by the Revisionist “Communist” Party, played a major role to block the alliance between student and workers, to reduce the struggle to an economical one. It was a part of the institutions in itself. This is the great lesson of May 1968, which corresponds to the changing of form of the bourgeois society since the productive forces have been developed after 1945. This stresses of course the subjective aspect.

The ability to break with the forms of thinking and acting spread by the bourgeoisie requires a high ideological-cultural level. This was a new situation for the Communists in the imperialist countries. If May 1968 had such an echo, it was also because the Russian October revolution of 1917 and the Chinese Democratic Revolution of 1949 belonged to societies which were not that much developed, both in the biggest country of the World and the most populous country of the World.

May 1968 in France appeared, therefore, as a major rupture in a bourgeois modern society, something of a new kind. We must never forget that the rebellious youth understood then that the question was the one of everyday life. Class struggle was not reduced to an economical question, but was understood as it is really : a struggle concerning each aspect of life, because the revolution touches the mode of production, of organizing society, of permitting the faculties of each person to develop themselves.

This is why we say that the key of May 1968 is that the revolutionary Party interacts with the wide masses through the workers autonomy : this was understood in the genuine Maoist experiences after May 1968, in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Belgium. This is the way to build the new state, to organize the rupture at the scale of society with the ruling ideology. This is the real sense of Maoism.

And this real sense was carried by the Red line, on the contrary of the Black Line, which pretended to be anti-Revisionist insofar as it proposed the revolutionary model of the 1920’s, when in fact it was a Trade-unionist, Legalist, formalist trend. On this First of May 2018, we call to understand this fact : because of the temporary failure of the Red Line in the 1980’s-1990’s, the last remains of the Black Line still existing today pretend to have formed in the 1960’s-1970’s the correct line, to be the real Maoist movement.

This is not true and there is still the need for a “back to the roots” proletarian movement, recuperating the heritage from the past and the Leading Thought which emerged then. We say : there won’t be any revolutionary process in any country, if is not understood the two-line struggle from the 1960’s-1970’s.

Even if often the Red Line tended to move to subjectivism, it was on the correct path ; the Black Line has nothing to propose but a Neo-Syndicalist, formal, strategy, full of clichés, with absolutely no cultural and ideological value. The French example from May 1968 is here very clear, as there was :

– a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of France -PCMLF, which was Legalist, Neo-Syndicalist, moving more and more across a lot of splits to Reformism, Hoxhaism, a pro-Deng Xiaoping line ;

– a Union of Young Communists (Marxist-Leninist) – UJC (ml), which became the Proletarian Left – GP, being the most famous organization from the 1960’s-1970’s because of its activity, its quest for the worker’s autonomy.

This two line struggle existed in fact all over the world, for example through the contradiction between the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India (MarxistLeninist), the Türkiye İhtilalci İşçi Köylü Partisi and the Communist Party of Turkey / MarxistLeninist, the Revolutionary Youth Movement II and the Revolutionary Youth Movement I, etc.

It was during this two-line struggles that emerged Siraj Sikder, Akram Yari, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, Gonzalo, Charu Mazumdar… as Guiding Thoughts in their own country.

As we know, the Red Line was not able to succeed in its initiative, even if it marked the history of its country, on the contrary of the Black Line. It is obvious, for example, that even if they failed, the Black Panther Party and the Weathermen marked American History, whereas the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, did not. The reason for the failure can now be correctly understood, fifty years afterwards.

The Red line, then, overestimated the question of the subjective aspect, believing that the revolutionary process would only be a question of a few years ; it was not before the beginning of the 1980’s that appeared the understanding that the revolutionary process would be protracted in itself. The Red Line, also, was not able to recuperate correctly Dialectical Materialism.

The continuity of Marxism-Leninism defined by Stalin through the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution, through Maoism, was not apprehended in a proper manner, permitting leftist-subjectivist and rightist-liquidationnist to emerge.

The history of the Red Line is, therefore, often marked by instability and the brutal triumph of liquidationnism. We have to understand that it was the price to pay to discover the new situation.

For this reason, there is no fetishism to be made, neither of May 1968 nor of the experiences made then and afterwards. This would bring in the hands of subjectivism again, even if the main risk, still today and because of the development of the productive forces, is still the loss of the subjective aspect. Here, we have to remember that numerous actors of May 1968 became part of the institutions, especially in the intellectual and cultural fields.

And the modernist part of the bourgeoisie used also the shaking from May 1968 to promote liberalism, individualism, the refusal of any “conservative” value which means of any value at all, etc. Each sequence of class struggle must be properly understood in relationship with the sequences before and after it, and of course with the main goal : the conquest of power.

We say for this reason : let’s learn, on this First of May, 2018, from May 1968!

Marxist Leninist Maoist Center of Belgium

Communist Party of France (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) 

=> documents in English

This 7th of November 2017, we celebrate the hundred years of the October revolution, which in 1917 led Russia to socialism, through an armed insurrection followed by a civil war between the red and the white armies.

We say that this path is still valid today ; in each capitalist country, a revolutionary upsurge must be led by the avant-guard revolutionary party, mobilizing the masses so that they take the power in destroying the old state in a necessary violent way.

The insurrection, i.e. the taking of the central power, is the revolutionary task of the real communists; the goal is not to reform or to ameliorate capitalism, but to overthrow it. The old state can not be amended, it has to be destroy and replaced by the power of the soviets, the socialist state.

The nature of the work of the Communists, therefore, must be conform to this revolutionary goal. The aim of the work of the Communists is to mobilize the masses for the global upsurge! The people in arms must be the New State!

The communists must therefore be aware of the capacity of repression of the old state and its allies, like the fascists and the mafia; they must understand the characterization of each period to work properly along the dialectics of legality and illegality. Moreover, and we say that this is the main key of the question, each aspect must be seen in relationship with the goal of taking power, which means that each revolutionary process has to be evaluated from the point of view of the People’s War: the confrontation old state/masses.

It is not a question of finding a “magic” tool of intervention, be it armed propaganda or electoralism. It is always a question of evaluating each situation according to the strategic goal of the armed insurrection, with the taking of the central power.

Each “victory” which does not correspond to this task is incorrect, on any fields (economy, politics, culture, etc.). A victory means moving forward in direction of the strategical goal. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It means also that the way is a political one. Revolutionary politics is only possible through a guiding thought, i.e. a correct position on the history of a given country, to show the correct path to realize the revolutionary contradiction.

We wish to stress here that the specific conditions for the October Revolution certainly won’t repeat itself, as the People’s War happened only after the insurrection, through the civil war. What shall happen more surely is a revolutionary process in which the taking of the central power occurs only at the end, like for the Chinese revolution.

When we say : “the goal is still the insurrection !”, we don’t mean by that that the insurrection would be the beginning of a revolutionary process, but only its climax. The revolutionary activity does not consist in the accumulation of forces, to organize a “coup”. The revolutionary activity exists only as a general process, in which a New Power is build, replacing by violence the old one.

With this in mind, we want to stress the importance of understanding the principle of People’s Democracy, which consists in the broad alliance of the anti-monopolies force, against war and fascism. The revolutionary goal of taking the central power belongs to the strategical offensive of the revolution, but a strategical equilibrium may be historically necessary in the situation where fascism and war are the main political aspect. In fact, this may be even the rule for the revolution in the imperialist countries.

A last point we wish to stress, is that it is impossible to separate the October Revolution from the USSR under the leadership of Stalin. Stalin was the leader of the socialist construction in the first socialist state in the world; defending the October revolution is defending Stalin, defending Stalin is the defending the October revolution.

The reason for that is that the very sense of the October revolution is the foundation of the new socialist state. Revolution means the victorious emergence of a new state. This is a basic learning of dialectical materialism. This is why, as the very nature of the state is depending of the revolutionary process, it is not possible to understand the question of the state without understanding that it is a practical one.

That’s why historically Karl Marx had to wait the Commune of Paris of 1871 to understand the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat; that’s why Lenin understood the form of the new socialist state through the revolutionary process itself.

In August 1917, Lenin explains, in the preface to the First Edition of The state andrevolution, the actual nature of the topic he’s studying then, in the period between the February  revolution and the October revolution to come :

“First of all we examine the theory of Marx and Engels of the state, and dwell in particular detail on those aspects of this theory which are ignored or have been distorted by the opportunists. 

Then we deal specially with the one who is chiefly responsible for these distortions, Karl Kautsky, the best­ known leader of the Second International (1889­-1914), which has met with such miserable bankruptcy in the present war. 

Lastly, we sum up the main results of the experience of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and particularly of 1917. 

Apparently, the latter is now (early August 1917) completing the first stage of its development; but this revolution as a whole can only be understood as a  link in a chain of   socialist  proletarian revolutions being caused by the imperialist war. 

The question of the relation of the socialist proletarian revolution to the state, therefore, is acquiring not only practical political importance, but also the significance of a most urgent problem of the day, the problem of explaining to the masses what they will have to do before long to free themselves from capitalist tyranny.”

Lenin Thought is born as expression of the Russian revolution and permitted to have a better understand of the nature of the state. As Stalin explained it in The Foundations of Leninism :

“Some   think   that   the   fundamental   thing   in   Leninism   is   the peasant question, that the point of departure of Leninism is the question of the peasantry, of its role, its relative importance. This is absolutely wrong. 

The   fundamental   question   of   Leninism,  its   point   of   departure, is not the peasant question, but the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the conditions under which it can be achieved, of the conditions under which it can be consolidated.  The peasant question, as the question of the ally of the proletariat in its struggle for power, is a derivative question.”

What Stalin points here is the universal aspect in the particular situation of Leninism as expression of the Russian revolution. This is because of this correct understanding that Stalin follows directly, as leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Lenin in guiding the new state in the socialist construction.

It is not possible to separate Lenin from Stalin and Stalin from Lenin, as Stalin is the successor, the one who noted that Leninism was a development of Marxism, the one who led the Party in the deepening of the socialist construction, of the socialist state. We find here the background the basic difference between Marxism and anarchism, Marxism and opportunism. The state is neither to negate, nor to reform. The state is to be built on a new foundation.

This is the principal aspect of the teaching coming from October 1917. It is not only a question of overthrowing the old state, which is a revisionist reduction of Leninism to a mechanical
conception of power. It means : from the avant-guard opening the ideological revolutionary space, being able to synthesize antagonism, organizing the most advanced elements seeking class autonomy, generate revolutionary mass organisms, build the new power, until the insurrection!

Marxist Leninist Maoist Center of Belgium
Communist Party of France (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)

November 2017

=> documents in English

Genuine revolutionaries don’t commit suicide, they struggle for life, defending the revolutionary evolution of society, the dialectical development of matter. Full of joy and happiness, they carry a fighting spirit, the will of the upsurge, the revolutionary thought carrying a systematic criticism of the reactionary aspects.

This is also the reason why Gonzalo, as he reconstituted the Communist Party of Peru, rejected the principle of hunger strike. The proletariat does not commit suicide ; it is the future of the word !

There is never no reason for any capitulation – the struggle continues until victory !

For this reason, we wish to stress here the historical signification of the murders of Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe, political prisoners of the Red Army Fraction, in the night of the 17th of October, 1977. Those murders form a major political event in the frame of the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution in the imperialist metropoles.

It was a major reactionary blow against the upsurge that appeared after the anti-revisionist struggle which followed the movements of the year 1968 in France, in Italy, in Germany, in the United States, for the retaking of the revolutionary path with the goal of overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

The Red Army Fraction contributed in a major way to this process, putting the revolutionary identity at the center of the struggle. No acceptance of the daily imperialist order can be made by the Communists ; the hostility against the values of the capitalist system is a duty.

Even if the Red Army Fraction went too far in this question of identity and fell in subjectivism, it understood the nucleus of something really important when it said in 1972 :

“The exploitation of the masses in the metropole has nothing to do with Marx’s concept of wage labourers from whom surplus value is extracted.

It is a fact that with the increasing division of labor, there has been a tremendous intensification and spread of exploitation in the area of production, and work has become a greater burden, both physically and psychologically.

It is also a fact that with the introduction of the 8-hour workday—the precondition for increasing the intensity of work—the system usurped all of the free time people had. To physical exploitation in the factory was added the exploitation of their feelings and thoughts, wishes, and utopian dreams—to capitalist despotism in the factory was added capitalist despotism in all areas of life, through mass consumption and the mass media.

With the introduction of the 8-hour workday, the system’s 24-hour-a-day domination of the working class began its triumphal march—with the establishment of mass purchasing power and “peak income” the system began its triumphal march over the plans, desires, alternatives, fantasies, and spontaneity of the people; in short, over the people themselves!

The system in the metropole has managed to drag the masses so far down into their own dirt that they seem to have largely lost any sense of the oppressive and exploitative nature of their situation, of their situation as objects of the imperialist system. So that for a car, a pair of jeans, life insurance, and a loan, they will easily accept any outrage on the part of the system.

In fact, they can no longer imagine or wish for anything beyond a car, a vacation, and a tiled bathroom.

It follows, however, that the revolutionary subject is anyone that breaks free from these compulsions and refuses to take part in this system’s crimes.

All those who find their identity in the liberation struggles of the people of the Third World, all those who refuse, all those who no longer participate; these are all revolutionary subjects—comrades.”

This vision is one-sided and the Red Army Fraction orientated itself in the direction of Third-Worldism instead of taking the direction of a general criticism of capitalist everyday life.

The RAF didn’t understand, for example, the contradiction between cities and countryside, the ecological signification in the relationship between humankind and nature, the importance of the animal question.

Nevertheless, the reason for this is of course lying in the historical situation then, as a main aspect. Moreover, the RAF leaders were murdered really quickly, having not the time to develop their reflections about imperialism.

In fact, the West-German state didn’t nothing else than proceeding of the physical liquidation of revolutionary cadres and leaders. The thesis of “suicide” was, accompanying those murders, an operation of psychological warfare, to negate the political identity of the RAF prisoners, to block the formation of a revolutionary line.

Another very important revolutionary figure, Ulrike Meinhof, was already killed in her prison cell on the 9th of May, 1976, with the West-German state already speaking of suicide to mask its counter-revolutionary murderous activities.

The murders of the 18th of October 1977 followed this liquidation line, in a tradition which is the one of National-Socialism against the democrats and the revolutionaries. And it is to note that the RAF prisoner Irmgard Möller was found stabbed by a knife in that night ; she always denied that she tried to suicide herself.

There are also many facts underlining the absurdity of the West-German thesis : Andreas Baader was killed by a fireweapon from a distance of between 30 and 40 centimetres, there was no gunpowder traces on Jan-Carl Raspe’s hands, there were neither no fingerprints on either Andreas Baader’s or Jan-Carl Raspe’s gun, etc.

Moreover, Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe were subjected at that time to a total isolation in the the Stammheim Prison near the city of Stuttgart, in West-Germany.

This difficult situation followed the kidnapping by the Red Army Fraction, at the beginning of September, of Hanns Martin Schleyer, former SS Untersturmführer, main secretary of the president for the economical integration of the “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia” into Nazi Germany, then President of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations and the Federation of German Industries.

This kidnapping was itself followed with the hijack of Lufthansa Flight 181from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt by a Palestinian armed group on the 13th of October, 1977, which led to a military failure ; Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe are pretended to have killed themselves following this, this even if they were in total isolation and placed under total supervision.

But, as we said, genuine revolutionaries don’t commit suicide. They fight because they know that the New become more powerful, the Ancient weaker. This is a law of history, the law of matter itself in its dialectical movement.

And the murdered prisoners of the Red Army Fraction were at that time leading a very aggressive defence strategy on trial. This is precisely what was considered as a main danger by the West- German state.

It was the strategical proposal of the revolution that the West- German state tried to kill with the murders of Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe.

We wish to precise here that it doesn’t mean that we endorse the totally erroneous hijacking of a plane and the killing of the pilot Jürgen Schumann. Such an action has nothing to do with genuine proletarian politics ; it is an expression of the non-correct third-worldism vision of the world, which we already criticized in a joint document.

And this is also an argument against the counter- revolutionary thesis of suicide : the Red Amy Fraction was always very proud of the support made by a Palestinian armed unit by hijacking of the plane, and this until the end in 1998 ; the RAF understood it as a convergence of the world revolutionary struggle. In this sense, even a military defeat wouldn’t be a reason to considered as a significant blow on the side of Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe.

This was indeed a subjectivist error ; the RAF tried to find at another level what was to search in the national frame, moving from Proletarian Internationalism to subjectivism. But this tendency to subjectivism should not hide its contribution about the question of underlining the revolutionary identity in the imperialist metropoles!

Marxist Leninist Maoist Center of Belgium

Communist Party of France (marxist leninist maoist)

18th of October 2017

=> documents in English

“We humans are mere fragments of time and heartbeats, but our deeds will remain for centuries stamped on generation after generation. We will people the Earth with light and happiness.” Gonzalo

History produces revolutionary leaders, people who breaks with the ideology dominating their epoch, denouncing injustice, studying the roots of the problems, paving the way for a revolutionary solution. They are the synthesized product of class struggles, like they synthesize class struggles.

Those leaders are not interesting as individuals in such, even of course respect is to be done for their accomplishment and their human ability to carry a break that others were not able to make.

Those leaders are interesting as they express the correct Thought to follow to be able to change the situation. It is the principle of the Guiding Thought, which we explained in an historical common document in Spring 2013.

In November 2016, we explained also the basis of Lenin Thought, which are carried notably in the following documents of Lenin : Guerrilla Warfare (1905), Lessons of the Moscow Uprising (1906), Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution (1908), The Development of Capitalism in Russia (second preface).

Lenin Thought was the direct expression of the Russian situation, of the understanding of the Russian society, of its historical needs. In 1934, as 29 volumes of Lenin works were published, the following writers were for example quoted by Lenin : Mikhaïl Saltykov-Chtchedrine 320 times, Nikolaï Gogol 99 times, Ivan Krylov 60 times, Ivan Tourgueniev 46 times, Nikolaï Nekrassov 26 times, Alexander Pouchkine 19 times, Anton Tchekhov 18 times, Alexander Ostrovsky 17 times, Gleb Ouspensky 16 times, Ivan Gontcharov 11 times.

It is a good expression of the connection with the Russian culture and situation. The October Revolution was, in 1917, the expression of Lenin Thought.

In the same way, the Chinese revolution was the expression of Mao Zedong Thought. And in each country, history produced revolutionary leaders who begin a revolutionary process.

For this reason, we wish to stress the importance of rejecting the double attack on Gonzalo which happened ideologically in France those last few days.

As leader of the Communist Party of Peru, which launched a Peoples’s War, Gonzalo understood the principle of the Guiding Thought. It permitted him to explain that Maoism was a third stage of Marxism, after Leninism.

There is no other “Maoism” that has been defined. All others attempts are without any sense, a weak construct. Historically, the concept of “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” comes directly from Gonzalo.

There is therefore no historically sense in translating in French and publishing, like it was done those last few days, a translation of a “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Basic Course”, made by people who joined afterwards the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

This can only be an attempt to negate the role of Gonzalo and the signification of its teachings. Gonzalo’s name doesn’t even appear in this document. But what appears is the concept of “MLM Thought”, which is of course an attempt to skirt the question of the Guiding Thought based on a national frame.

It is any way well known historically that in India, like in the Philippines, there is a huge tradition of refusing Maoism in name of Mao Zedong’s Thought, the main parties in those both countries participating for this reason for a long time to the international congresses organized by the revisionist Workers’ Party of Belgium.

It shows very well that a Maoism, not accepting the only definition of Maoism, the one of Gonzalo, is only “Mao Zedong’s Thought”. When the Communist Party of the Philippines hails North Korea, it show that its Maoism is incorrect.

It is also erroneous that the Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization – Proletarian Way produced a document against Gonzalo, accusing him of capitulation, whereas he is in jail since his arrest in September 1992, 25 years ago.

Such an accusation, published those last days, is based only on what the enemy accepts to say about him, and this is for this reason a clear break with the revolutionary tradition of not criticizing an arrested comrade in the hands of the counter-revolution.

There is also a great naivety to explain that Gonzalo is a traitor, when he’s still in total isolation, in a tiny cell. When somebody capitulates, he’s put forward by the reaction.

The production of fake letters of capitulation is nothing new either : it was already made for the revolutionary leader Thomas Münzer in Germany in 1525.

As said, it is basic teaching of the revolution that the reaction is not to be trusted.

And in its accusation, the Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization – Proletarian Way affirms that the Communist Party of Peru said that Gonzalo Thought would be a new stage of marxism. This is of course not true at all and it shows that the Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization – Proletarian Way doesn’t know or understand the Communist Party of Peru.

And how can it be else, when the Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization – Proletarian Way believes that all countries in the world are capitalist (and not capitalist or semi-feudal semi-colonial), that Stalin was a counter-revolutionary, rejecting the universal character of People’s War ?

It’s also strange to see the Marxist–Leninist Communist Organization – Proletarian Way denouncing the “capitulation” of Gonzalo, when it has itself supported Prachanda, the revisionist leader of Nepal, until the end of its capitulation.

This is here good example, because genuine revolutionaries have foreseen Prachanda’s errors at a very early stage. There is no such thing like a genuine revolutionary leader who, suddenly, capitulates.

This is why we can’t trust the German state when it says that Ulrike Meinhof killed herself in her prison cell, or when the social-imperialist USSR said that the great Greek leader Nikos Zachariadis killed himself in exile. These are lies.

In the same way, it is a question of trust in the movement of History not to believe in Gonzalo’s capitulation. His arrest, like he said, is only a “bend in the road” for the Peruvian revolution.

Such a bend can take time, exactly like the revolution in the imperialist countries is knowing a strategical retreat since the wave of the 1960’s-1970’s, when anyway Asia, Africa and Latin America became the “storm centers of world revolution”.

What counts, in such situation, is that the revolutionaries unite themselves in avant-garde parties in each country, defending the revolutionary traditions and struggling against Revisionism and subjectivist interpretations coming from outside the historical revolutionary current.

This, to be ready for the next great wave of the World Revolution.

Marxist Leninist Maoist Center of Belgium
Communist Party of France (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)

=> documents in English

This May 1, 2017 is marked by the historical strengthening of the tendency to imperialist war. Each camp polishes its weapons, strengthens its capacity for action, promotes nationalism.

The United Kingdom tumbles to the exit of the European Union with the Brexit; in India, Narendra Modi organizes a regime in which Hinduism turns to fanaticism.

In the United States, it is Donald Trump, that coarse, narrow billionaire who took the lead ; in Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has reinforced, in a generalized manner, his prerogatives as president relying on religion.

China is strengthening its armaments, having just launched an aircraft carrier built in complete independence; North Korea is multiplying missile tests with the aim of endowing them with nuclear warheads. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte leads the country with extreme nationalist populism; Japan increased its military budget for the fifth time in 10 years, reaching a record 1% of GDP.

This tendency is general, both in the capitalist-imperialist countries and in the semi-colonial capitalist bureaucratic countries. The crisis inherent to capitalism can not be resolved and the conquest of profit requires more exploitation within and more tendency to interventionism.

There is no other way out except a rush forward, the march towards war.

The price to pay, in case of incapacity to assume this orientation, is the collapse: countries like Libya and Iraq already do not exist any more, dismembered by the others; Afghanistan and Venezuela are swinging into chaos, while between 2011 and 2015, Brazil experienced more deaths by voluntary homicide than in Syria, which is experiencing a widespread war.

Given this background, on the first of May 2017, we therefore call the masses of Belgium and France to be constantly and thoroughly vigilant about the electoral progression of Marine Le Pen.

Its electoral success in the first round of the French presidential elections, with 7.7 million votes, reinforces indeed a double trend of historical importance.

There is in France a tendency towards nationalism and corporatism, that is to say the complete submission to capitalism in the name of the economic efficiency of the country.

But there is also a tendency to expansionism, to the strengthening of the capacity to project outwards – which is the basis of imperialism.

And the historical situation of the Belgian nation is known: it is marked by weaknesses in terms of its cultural unification. Consequently, France inevitably tends to seek to satellite a part of Belgium: Wallonia, even Brussels itself.

There is a convergence of interests between French imperialism and the Flemish fare right, which would both benefit from a negation of the Belgian nation, dismembering it to form real fiefs.

We would like to emphasize that it is not a question of seeing a plot or of imagining a French invasion, but of grasping a fundamental tendency which is based, on the one hand, on the expansionist needs of French capitalism in crisis, on the other on the attempt of Flemish capitalists to form fiefs, where nationalism would grant them political supremacy.

There is here an explosive situation, and this is even truer as the European Union, this capitalist utopia of a pacified Europe, collapses ever more under the blows of the selfish national interests, which is typical of imperialism.

Capitalists have promised progress and peace, but each national capitalism in crisis knows only one, inevitable, way out : fascism internally and war on the outside, whereas the world has already seen the destructive consequences of this historic law, with the First and Second World Wars.

The Belgian question does not attract the attention of Marine Le Pen alone: it can be seen that in the first round of the French presidential elections of 2017, all the « sovereignist » or nationalist candidates already had expressed a favorable opinion on the integration of Wallonia into France.

Marine Le Pen has already frankly approached the issue in July 2011, and this was especially easy as the Flemish far right Flemish is very close to her:

“If Belgian is going to split, if Flanders pronounces its independence, which seems more and more credible a possibility, the French republic would do well to welcome Wallonia into its heart. The historical and fraternal ties which unite our two peoples are too strong for France to abandon Wallonia.”

In 2010 already, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan spoke of “daring to clearly tell to our Walloon friends that France would welcome them with open arms”; Jean-Luc Mélenchon explained that he was “a “rattachiste” as they say. If the Flemings leave, if Belgium evaporates, then, let the Walloons come with us.”

It is also the case of François Asselineau (“in the hypothesis – at present not very probable, but not improbable either – in which the “rattachiste” (or “reunionist”) current ended by rallying a majority of French-speaking voters, French should accede to this majority demand”).

It goes without saying that the French expansionist attempts to profit from the profound Franco-Belgian friendship to justify themselves historically. It is very important to unmask such an undertaking, in order to truly strengthen genuine encounters between peoples, in a long process that will ultimately lead to the World Socialist Republic.

However, it is clear that, in any case, no progressive process can exist on the planet without being carried by the working class, without breaking with the growing power of the monopolies, without being able to break the forces that develop fascism.

The Communists must therefore be at the forefront of the anti-fascist struggle, knowing that the inevitable evolution of capitalism led to the formation of two camps: the camp of fascism, the camp of popular democracy, the latter being the natural terrain for the Communists .

Of course, this demands the ideological capacity not to yield to the pseudo-revolutionary demagogy of leftism, which is opposed to anti-fascism considered here as a “compromise” protecting bourgeois institutions.

Leftism is mistaken here, for nothing is static in society, because of the inherent instability of capitalism in crisis. The battle for democracy carries within it, inevitably, the break with the power of the monopolies, which is being strengthened in an ever more tyrannical way.

During this process, it will be a historic task for the Communists to organize the masses in general on the democratic ground of anti-fascism, with the unavoidable military confrontation of reaction and revolution.

For this reason, there is the task for the Communists to know the historical heritage of anti-fascist struggle, in particular the Spanish, Greek, Italian, German, Belgian and French experiences.

The war of the people against fascism will inevitably be the historical sequence to come, which will sweep away the attempt of capitalism to maintain itself in spite of its entirely decadent and destructive nature.

It is evident, therefore, that the question of the environment will be a particularly important detonator in the mobilization of the masses. This is part of the process of dialectical materialistic understanding of the world that the masses will experience in their ever more frontal opposition to capitalism knowing only the path of confrontation and destruction.

It is a whole new era that opens here, allowing a new undeniable impetus to the revolution, on the condition of grasping reality adequately, of knowing well the historical characteristics of its own country.

That is why, on the first of May, we affirm that the future belongs to the masses, not to fascism, and that the organized masses will be able to wage war against the anti-democratic forces seeking to prevent them from mastering their destiny, to establish the socialist society which corresponds to their needs.

Marxist Leninist Maoist Center of Belgium

Communist Party of France (marxist leninist maoist)

First of May 2017

=> documents in English

Ten years ago, on November 21, 2006, the World Revolution knew a setback with the capitulation of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which ceased its People’s War to accept a “comprehensive Peace Agreement” with the government.

At the time of the capitulation, the People’s War in Nepal began indeed to be world known. It controlled up to 80 percent of the country, after ten years of armed struggle where the Revolution presented itself as strategic proposition for the entire masses. The People’s Liberation Army, strong of 30, 000 combatants, went on from victory to victory.

Maoism, as leading ideology from the People’s War, was in a process of spreading all over the world, with in the background the historical advances made by the Communist Party of Peru, whereas in India there was a strong reorganization which brought the founding of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

The capitulation was a terrible betrayal from this situation in development. Deeply influenced by the eclectic tendencies of the Maoist current called Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) fell into a pragmatic-machiavelic line.

This was strongly intensified by the decadent way of life of its leadership, corrupted by the imperialist lifestyle, what brought a spirit of acceptance of the social and democratic “improvement” by imperialism considered as a unified globalized system.

The idea of a general victory was abandoned, as it was thought that both India and China, and also the USA, would block any further development. The city of Kathmandu was not considered as possible to be taken; the army, on the contrary of the police, seemed supposedly unbreakable.

Therefore, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) precipitated itself in the possibility of an alliance with the parliamentarian political parties which, in the situation of crisis where the Monarchy took all the control of the country, accepted to form a Republic, in exchange of the end of the People’s War.

This was just a new laying out of the semi-feudal semi-colonial nature of the country, but the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), hoping for a quick integration, self-intoxicated itself, with the “people’s revolt” as phantasmagoria.

In fact, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) already imagined that it found a new method combining insurrection and people’s war.

After the capitulation, it continued its idealist innovations with the revisionist theory of a multiparty constitution, where all political parties were considered as anti-feudal, because they were opposed to Monarchy, where therefore the destruction of the old state was conceived as not possible and even not necessary, as the general democratization, with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) being the major force in the country, would be unavoidable.

This concept of “democratization” was not new: it was a mere renewal of the revisionist thesis of Karl Kautsky and Maurice Thorez in the imperialist countries.

More precisely, it is what was professed by all the revisionist currents in the third world during the 1960’s-1990’s period, pretending to make a front with the national bourgeoisie to reform the country, when there were in reality trying to build a new bureaucratic bourgeoisie serving Soviet Social-imperialism.

Nowadays, as there is no Soviet Social-imperialism any more, such a tendency can only lead to the subordination to imperialists or expansionist semi-colonial powers. In Nepal, it is easy to see that Prachanda became the lackey of India.

And of course, as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) became a part of the world system of exploitation and oppression, it was strongly supported in its capitulation.

Naturally, the electoral victory of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) was greeted all over the world by all the revisionist forces. The calls to support the Nepal Revolution grew always more as soon as the peace agreement were signed. There were even groups appearing calling to support the People’s War in Nepal, when it was already over.

Revisionists won prestige of this and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) profited from this in keeping being considered as revolutionary.

But this was sadly not all. The vast majority of the forces upholding Maoism supported this process.

Instead of considering that the peace agreement was the end of the process transforming the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in a revisionist party, it was considered that it was only the beginning of it.

Years after the peace agreement, it was still spoken of a “complicated” situation and it was explained that still everything was possible, that a “red line” was growing, a new party in constitution, etc.

Ten years after the peace agreement, we can see that this was fully erroneous. There was no such thing like a “red line” in the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) which became revisionist, because the black line entirely won precisely with the “comprehensive Peace Agreement”.

A proof of it is the fact that all the tendencies and splitter movements which quitted the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) still thought that it was correct to reach such an agreement.

The “people’s revolt” was only a false dream masking the capitulation; it was a trick to occupy the radical sectors of the masses, to estrange them to scientific socialism. The calls for a “red line” in the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) formed an impediment to this understanding.

The forces who have pretended to “defend” the achievements of the Nepalese Revolution, the possibility of its continuation, have in fact helped to block any self-criticism in Nepal. They prevent a dialectical materialist perspective of the history of Nepal, of the conditions of class struggle.

It was correct to denunciate what consisted historically in a capitulation. Prachanda was not only an opportunist, he was a revisionist and the systematic criticism of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) should have been done immediately at the time of the “Peace Agreement”, to liberate the forces in Nepal wanting to move to a scientific socialist understanding of the situation.

This was also very important to protect Maoism. The situation in Nepal helped widely the Revisionist currents, in particular Hoxhaism, to maintain the accusation that Maoism was an “armed struggle without perspective”, a petty-bourgeois trend. Rejecting these slanders was only possible with a general Maoist condemnation of Prachanda and the position of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) with the “Peace Agreement”.

That’s why we say, ten years of the Nepali capitulation, that it is important to learn from it. It helps to understand the Maoist teachings on the question of the state, on People’s War, on the principle of bureaucratic bourgeoisie. It shows the nature of forces pretending nowadays to be Maoist, when they were converging with the revisionist line of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

This is particularly the case of the Maoist Communist Party of Italy and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada. Both were at the very heart of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and very close to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). They accompanied the process to the “Peace Agreement”: it is easy to see from their positions at that time.

It is important to see that there was in Nepal in December 2006 , in presence of many Maoist parties, an international Seminar “on Imperialism and Proletarian revolution in the 21st century”. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) had then already signed the “Peace Agreement” and developed all its theories about “multiparty democracy”.

Was it then not already time to denunciante the revisionist line of Prachanda, the capitulation of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)? Ten years after, it is clear that yes.

Learn from the defeat in Nepal, which is only a bend in the road of the World Revolution!

Defend Maoism against Revisionism, but also against connivance and convergence with Revisionism!

Uphold the principle of the armed ocean of the masses! People’s War until Communism!

Organization of the workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist)
Marxist Leninist Maoist Center of Belgium
Communist Party of France (marxist leninist maoist)
November 2016

=> documents in English

April 1, 1986 : Communist Party of Nepal – Mashal tries without success to launch an armed process against the elections. In Kathmandu the statue of King Tribhuvan is painted black and a number of police posts attacked.

April 9, 1990 : the ban on political parties is lifted.

November 9, 1990 : a new constitution is promulgated.

November 19-20, 1990 : merger of the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal), the Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention), the Proletarian Workers Organisation, the Communist Party of Nepal (Janamukhi). The name of the new organization is Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre).

April 6, 1991 : violent incidents around the general strike, the police kills a dozen people.

May 12, 1991 : the United People’s Front Nepal, generated organism of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre), becomes the third largest party in the parliament with 9 seats (UML : 68 seats, Nepali Congress : 110 seats).

May 22, 1994 : process of splitting of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre), with Puspa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda on one side, Nirmal Lama on the other.

March, 1995 : the Third Plenum of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre) abandons elections and the organization becomes the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist-Centre), under the leadership of Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai.

September, 1995 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist-Centre) adopts the principle of People’s War, for which three fronts are organized : the Sindhuli, Kavre and Sindhupalchok Districts in eastern Nepal, the Gorkha and Lamjung Districts in central Nepal, the Rolpa, Rukum and Jajarkot Districts in midwestern Nepal. The state answers with the two-months during “Operation Romeo”, arresting more than 130 people without warrants, nearly 6,000 others being driven out of their villages, raping dozens of women.

February 4, 1996 : Baburam Bhattarai representing the United People’s Front Nepal, presents a forty-point list of demands to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.

February 13, 1996 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launches the People’s War. It is present with Committees in 35 of the 75 Districts of the country, having three kind of organizations : the Radak Dal i.e. the Fighting Groups, the Gaun Surakcha Dal i.e. the Village Defence Groups and the Swayamsewaka Dal i.e. the Volunteer Groups. At the beginning, the arms are a 303 rifle, some homemade guns and the nepali knives called Khukhuris. 6,000 actions are made in 15 days, belonging to four types : propaganda, sabotage; guerilla actions, execution of class enemies.

May 26, 1998 : the Police begins the operation “Kilo Sierra II” in Rukum and Rolpa.

November 27, 1998 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) calls to develop base areas.

August 7, 2000 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) rejects peace talks offer.

January 22, 2001 : the State announces the formation of the Combat Brigades called Armed Police Force.

February 2001 : Second National Conference of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which adopts Prachanda long strategic document : “The Great Leap Forward: An Inevitable Need of History”. This will be called “Prachanda Path”.

“Through the internal contradiction of the imperialists, unequal development and distribution as per the inherent character of capitalism, the development of this objective situation will lead to the revolution in any country in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and its international importance is just evident. It magnificently justifies Mao’s analysis that Asia, Africa and Latin America shall be the storm centres of revolution. These characteristics clearly indicate that 21st century shall be the century of people’s wars, and the triumph of the world socialist system. Apart from this, it also shows that there has been a significant change in the prevailing concept of model of revolution after 1980. Today the fusion of the strategies of armed insurrection and protracted people’s war into one another has been essential. Without doing so, a genuine revolution seems almost impossible in any country (…).

Actually, the new situation clearfy indicates the change in the nature of strategic difference that occurred between armed insurrection and protracted people’s war generally until the Eighties of 20th century.

There should be no confusion at all that basically, the developed imperialist countries must essentially pursue the path of armed insurrection and the oppressed countries of the third world protracted people’s war even today.

But the change occurred in the world situation as mentioned above has created a situation that necessarily links the characteristics of armed insurrection and protracted people’s war with one another, and, moreover, there is a need to do so.

Because of this situation of the development, it has been almost impossible to successfully advance the strategy of protracted PW of encircling the city with villages and building base areas in any third world country, without pursuing several characteristics of armed insurrection from the beginning.

The military line of general armed insurrection contains some fundamental characteristics such as continuous intervention by the political party of the proletariat at the centre of reactionary state on the ground of political propaganda right from the beginning, training the masses including the workers with continuous strikes and street struggles on the basis of revolutionary demands, developing works in the military force and bureaucracy of the enemy in a planned way, waging intensive political struggle against various revisionist and reformist groups from the central level, and, lastly, seizing the central state power through armed insurrection in appropriate International and national situation, etc. It is evident that the proletariat of a third world country should concede and apply the above-mentioned characteristics of general armed insurrection, too.”

Mai 28, 2001 : Prachanda gives an interview to A World to Win, produced by the Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.

“The rapid development of people’s war is inevitable today after this leadership problem is solved through intense struggle against alien tendencies in the proletarian movement, mainly right revisionism. For the masses there is no alternative to rebellion and revolution, given the objective background of exploitation, repression and poverty prevalent in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries of the Third World (…).
Taking the synthesis of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the highest expression of conscious class struggle, as our starting point, we delved into serious study We made a particularly fervent study of the ideological struggle that erupted in the process of the development of the Communist Party of Peru, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA and in other countries (…).

The Party has been striving to develop the people’s army according to the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: « without a People’s Army, the people have nothing », « political power grows out of the barrel of a gun », and « armed sea of masses », which are requirements for the revolution.”

June 1 2001 : Gyanendra becomes king, as officially Prince Dipendra went mad and killed ten members of his family, including his brother the king, committing himself suicide. Dipendra was since the beginning of the year sent two times by the king as emissary to negociate with the the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

July 22, 2001 : Sher Bahadur Deuba becomes Prime Minister and calls to peace talks.

July 25, 2001 : general ceasefire.

August 30, 2001 : first round of peace talks, in Kathmandu.

September 13-14, 2001 : second round of peace talks, in Bardiya district.

November 13, 2001 : third round of peace talks, in Kathmandu.

November 21, 2001 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) stops the peace talks, following by daring attacks police and military posts in forty-two districts, attacking for the first time the Royal Nepalese Army, in particular in Ghorahi (Dang District) with a 1,100 strong unit.

November 26, 2001 : the government declares the state of emergency and the Royal Nepalese Army is mobilized.

May 7, 2002 : the USA announces counter-insurgency support.

May 15, 2002 : Great-Britain proposes counter-insurgency support, followed by India.

May 22, 2002 : the King Gyanendra dissolves the Parliament.

October 4, 2002 : the King Gyanendra takes control of the governement.

January 29, 2003 : general ceasefire.

April 27, 2003 : first round of peace talks, in Kathmandu.

May 9, 2003 : second round of peace talks.

August 17, 2003 : third round of peace talks. 17 cadres and 2 others persons are killed in a fake encounter at Doramba.

August 27, 2003 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) withdraws from the peace talks.

December 17, 2003 : the Royal Nepalese Army announces the killing of 1056 Maoists since the end of the ceasefire.

April 2004 : during the last months, 11 out of the 95 Central Committee members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have been arrested in India.

January 31, 2005 : Bhattarai is kept temporarily in custody and condemned with others cadres, following his refusal to centralize the People’s War and to launch an anti-India campaign, and his use of Nepali mainstream media in December 2004 to promote a “note of dissent”.

February 1, 2005 : the King Gyanendra and the Royal Nepalese Army take the control of the state.

April 29, 2005 : end of the emergency state.

June 20, 2005 : the Seven Party Alliance calls the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to stop the people’s war and to join against the king.

September 3, 2005 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) announces a three-month unilateral ceasefire.

September 2005 : in France, the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) begins the publishing of a series of articles about Nepal with Nepal : “lead the Revolution till the end or be defeated by sugar-coated bullets ?”, followed in October by “The Nepalese Revolution at a turning point : dare the new or « reform » the country?”.

“In most of the « Third World » States, there is a more or less « democratic » constitution, which does not prevent the State from being a fascistic State, dominated by imperialism, bureaucratic bourgeoisie sold to that imperialism and great landowners.

What does uniting traditional political parties then mean, since those parties are useless, discredited as pretending to be progressist but having done nothing against the fascistic State that they even characterised as democratic, and having always opposed People’s War? (…)

One cannot speak of « vacillating » parties whereas those parties always supported the fascistic State, against People’s War.

The CPN(m) is a Vanguard, it built on its fight against those traditional political parties’ opportunism, what is the point of reviving them whereas they are historically supplanted?

It is not possible to assert on the one hand that People’s War in Nepal has entered the strategic offensive phase, and on the other hand to stop the armed struggle precisely while the old State has to be destroyed.

The CPN(m) questions the fact that the Party leads the Army and the Front, after having built those three forms in turn. It places the Army under the guidance of the United Front, and subordinates the Party’s policy to the United Front, which is a questioning of the revolutionary principles.”

October 2005 : the Chunwang Baithak Central Committe meeting of the the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) adopts the principle of the “democratic republic” instead of the “people’s republic” goal.

November 15, 2005 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist–Leninist–Maoist) founded in 1981 reunifies his two factions, forming the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Centre).

November 22, 2005 : the Seven Party Alliance and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) sign a 12 point agreement, calling for peace and the holding of a Constituent Assembly.

February 10, 2006 : Prachanda gives a long interview to the Indian newspaper The Hindu.

“We want to analyse the experience of revolution and counter-revolution in the 20th century on a new basis.

Three years ago we took a decision in which we said how are we going to develop democracy is the key question in the 21st century. This meant the negative and positive lessons of the 20th century have to be synthesised in order for us to move ahead.

And three years ago we decided we must go in for political competition. Without political competition, a mechanical or metaphysical attitude will be there. So this time, what we decided is not so new.

In August, we took serious decisions on how practically to build unity with the parliamentary political parties. We don’t believe that the people’s war we initiated was against, or mainly against, multiparty democracy. It was mainly against feudal autocracy, against the feudal structure.”

“That when we go for state power and are in power, then we will not do what Stalin or Mao did. Lenin did not have time to deal with issues of power. Although Stalin was a revolutionary, his approach, was not as scientific as it should have been, it was a little metaphysical, and then problems came.

We also evaluated Mao in the plenum. If you look at his leadership from 1935 to 1976 – from when he was young to when he was old and even speaking was difficult – must he remain Chairman and handle everything? What is this?”

“We must accept this ground reality. We have mentioned democratic republic and constituent assembly, with the understanding that we should be flexible given the balance in the class struggle and international situation. This is a policy, not tactics. This is a necessary process for the bourgeoisie and the national capitalists alike, let alone the middle-class.”

“In the multiparty democracy which comes – interim government, constitutional assembly and democratic republic – we are ready to have peaceful competition with you all. Of course, people still have a doubt about us because we have an army.

And they ask whether after the constitutional assembly we will abandon our arms. This is a question. We have said we are ready to reorganise our army and we are ready to make a new Nepal army also. So this is not a tactical question.”

“The weapons of both sides should be put together and both the armies should be transformed into one under the supervision of the United Nations or another reliable agency. (…)

The army will be formed according to the results of the election. This is what you should be clear about. We will accept it if the constituent assembly says we want monarchy. We are flexible even that far. We will accept it even if the people say we want an active monarch. “

February 2006 : in France, the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) defines Prachanda as the “follower of modern revisionism”, because of his position in his interview to The Hindu.

April 21, 2006 : several hundred thousand people fills the 27-kilometre long Ring Road that surrounds Kathmandu and Lalitpur, in the frame of the mass movement launched by the Seven Party Alliance and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), with a 19 days general strike.

April 25, 2006 : the Seven Party Alliance stops the movement in accepting the Prime Minister post and the reinstall of the Parliament.

April 26, 2006 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) announces a three-month ceasefire.

May 3, 2006 : the Seven Party Alliance announces a ceasefire and the beginning of peace talks with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

May 18, 2006 : the Royal Nepalese Army becomes the Nepali Army, the state adopts secularism.

May 26, 2006 : first round of peace talks between the government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), who decide both of a 25-point Code of Conduct.

June 16, 2006 : first media appearance of Prachanda in 35 years of political activity, at the Prime Minister’s residence, in presence of the Seven Party Alliance leaders, after having being brought by helicopter to Kathmandu from the Kaski District.

June 17, 2006 : eight-point agreement between the government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), consisting in the formation and interim constitution and governement, the dissolution of both the Parliament and the parallel Maoist government structures, the United Nations supervision of the arms management of the Nepali Army and the People’s Liberation Army.

June 2006 : CPI(Maoist) spokesman Azad gives an interview to People’s March.

“Firstly, we are greatly perturbed by the proposal put forth by comrade Prachanda in his various interviews that his party was committed to multiparty democracy, which will be practiced not after the revolutionary seizure of power by the proletariat but within the semi-colonial semi-feudal society. The 2003 Plenum document was quite vague regarding CPN(Maoist)‘s concept of multiparty democracy or political competition, i.e., whether it is applicable after the seizure of power by the revolutionary party or prior to seizure itself (…).

Moreover, we find that comrade Prachanda and the CPN (Maoist) had turned the tactics to the level of strategy and path of the world revolution in the 21st century. Thus, in his interview to The Hindu comrade Prachanda stressed that the Maoists‘ commitment to multi-party democracy is not tactical but the result of a lengthy ideological debate within the party over three years.”

August 27, 2006 : the Colombian Unión Obrera Comunista (MLM) adopts a resolution about Nepal, “giving a fraternal and internationalist call to the leading comrades of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) so that they take again in consideration their engagement with the parliamentarian republic and bourgeois democracy, which are the completed instruments of bourgeois dictatorship”.

November 13, 2006 : Communist Party of India (Maoist) releases a document called “A New Nepal can emerge only by smashing the reactionary state! Depositing arms of the PLA under UN supervision would lead to the disarming of the masses!!”.

“The agreement to deposit the arms of the people’s army in designated cantonments is fraught with dangerous implications. This act could lead to the disarming of the oppressed masses of Nepal and to a reversal of the gains made by the people of Nepal in the decade-long people’s war at the cost of immense sacrifices (…).

The CC, CPI(Maoist), as one of the detachments of world proletariat, warns the CPN(Maoist) and the people of Nepal of the grave danger inherent in the agreement to deposit the arms and calls upon them to reconsider their tactics in the light of bitter historical experience (…).

Even more surprising is the assertion by the CPN(Maoist) that their current “tactics” in Nepal would be an example to other Maoist parties in South Asia. Comrade Prachanda had also given a call to other Maoist parties to reconsider their revolutionary strategies and to practice multiparty democracy in the name of 21st century democracy.

Our CC makes it crystal-clear to CPN(M) and the people at large that there can be no genuine democracy in any country without the capture of state power by the proletariat and that the so-called multiparty democracy cannot bring any basic change in the lives of the people. It calls upon the Maoist parties and people of South Asia to persist in the path of protracted people’s war as shown by comrade Mao.”

November 21, 2006 : a Comprehensive Peace Agreement is signed by the government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

November 2006 : the Colombian Unión Obrera Comunista (MLM) adopts a resolution calling “to struggle against the opportunistic betrayal of the direction of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)”.

December 26-30, 2006 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) organizes an international Seminar “on Imperialism and Proletarian revolution in the 21st century” at the 114th birthday of Mao Zedong. Are notably present representants of the Communist Party of Afghanistan (Maoist), the Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), the Communist Party of the Philippines, the Maoist Communist Party of Italy, the Maoist Communist Party of Turkey/Kurdistan, the Revolutionary Communist Party of USA. A press communiqué is published at the end.

“The international seminar on ‘Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution in the 21st Century’, organised as part of celebrating the tenth anniversary of the initiation of the People’s War in Nepal, has been successfully completed with the participation of 14 Maoist parties and organisations.

The seminar was held at a historic juncture where the Nepali people are marching forward to a decisive victory over their enemies and when US imperialism, the main enemy of the people of the world, is getting bogged down in its wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

February 13, 2007 : big mass rally of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in Kathmandu.

February 2007 : the Chilean Unión de Revolucionarios Comunistas (MLM) publishes a long document called « In Nepal has been consumed a great revisionist betrayal”, where Prachanda is presented a someone having “deviated like Bernstein and Kautsky”, the opportunist line existing already since years in the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

“November 21, 2006 will be remembered as a disastrous day in the history of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the people of Nepal. This day will remain in the history of the international communist movement as a day of betrayal mlm principles.”

February 23, 2007 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist–Leninist–Maoist Centre) joins the the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

April 1, 2007 : formation of an interim government, with five members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

April 1, 2007 : publication in the Red Flag, organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, of an article called “What is the situation of the revolution in Nepal?”.

“Developments over the last year in Nepal, after more than 10 years of armed struggle that shook the foundations of the old regime and won admiration from millions of exploited people and proletarians around the world, did not go without generating debates within the international communist movement—and within forces supporting revolution in that country.

Many wonder about the decisions made by the leadership of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN[M)]) and the future of their revolution. Important Maoist parties like the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Communist Party of the Philippines publicly expressed their dissent with the Nepali comrades.

Other parties or organizations, whose actual existence is slight of outside the Internet, [We refer here to a small group called “Parti communiste marxiste-léniniste-maoïste” of France.] profited from hardships occurring in the normal course of a revolutionary process, like the one going on in Nepal, to launch a wild campaign against the leadership of the CPN(M), and even against other parties and organizations (notably the Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) who would not follow their appeal to publicly condemn what they call “Prachanda revisionism” (from the name of the main leader of the Nepali party).

We have clearly set ourselves apart from this childish position, a position which shows a total misunderstanding of the complexity of a revolutionary struggle which is taking place outside of some webmaster’s cozy apartment. In many places there are individuals and collectives of all kinds who have no revolutionary experience, or even the slightest idea of its strategic requirements, but who nonetheless aspire to confused revolutionary ideals. Such groups or individuals will sometimes be attracted to a certain revolutionary symbol. Some will, however, never go beyond this stage.

Many romanticized the revolution in Nepal, seeing images of armed fighters and acts of open rebellion, and praised the CPN(M). But the recent tactics applied by the Maoist party and the appearance of new images, such as Prachanda no longer a charismatic mysterious revolutionary leader but shaking hands with Prime Minister Koirala, have disappointed them. Their narrow militaristic and romanticized vision of revolution prevents them from understanding that both kinds of activity are part of the same process, and that this process in and of itself always remains essentially political.

That being said, developments from the last year are raising serious issues, some of which are actually linked to important principles.

At this point, as a Maoist organization that has supported the revolutionary process in Nepal since its beginning, and acting as a detachment of the international communist movement, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) submits the following considerations:

1. The revolution in Nepal constitutes the most advanced revolutionary experience of the last 10 years for the international proletariat. The application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the conditions of Nepal by the CPN(M) allowed the country’s revolutionary masses to rapidly progress and win one victory after another.

The revolutionary process in Nepal also brought forward the whole international communist movement. It confirmed the accuracy of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and of the strategic path of protracted People’s War.

Revolution in Nepal demonstrates the Maoist thesis, according to which the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history; it once again proves the necessity of a solid revolutionary leadership embodied by a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard party linked to the international communist movement.

2. Tactical decisions made by the CPN(M) over the last 18 months are in continuity with the orientation developed by this party, which allowed the revolution to progress up until now.

Our first impression is that these decisions are not surprising; the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is following the plan it adopted when it first declared the People’s War. From the outset, the CPN(M) clearly indicated that, within the class composition of Nepal, the main enemy of the Nepali people was made up of feudal landowners and of comprador bourgeoisie and their imperialist allies in the US and India; and that to ensure their domination, these reactionary classes relied, politically, on a monarchist type of state which supports the entire structure of oppressive relations in Nepali society.

On the basis of concentrating all revolutionary forces to attack one enemy at a time, the CPN(M) decided to target feudal monarchy, and demanded the formation of a constituent assembly that would create a democratic republic. It fought to initiate a united front with the forces opposed to monarchy—including some hesitant forces that it carefully brought into the camp of revolution (even if only temporarily).

3. These tactical decisions and this step in the revolutionary process has, however, raised a number of questions that should be mainly answered by the CPN(M). One of them is about the important military issue which will determine what force will become dominant at the end of this political process. The peace accord of November 2006 did not force the People’s Liberation Army to give up their arms, as some claim, but simply put them in warehouse.

During a conference in New Delhi on February 3rd, 2007, Comrade Gaurav, finally freed after more than three years in prison, and now assuming leadership of international relations for the CPN(M), explained that the People’s Liberation Army would need only an hour to fully mobilize itself (eKanpitur.com, 2007/02/03).

The question of how the national army will be disbanded if the Maoists win the elections in the constituent assembly still remains open. Party leader Baburam Bhattarai recently raised the idea that the national army could be “substantially reduced” and replaced by a people’s militia (eKantipur.com, 2007/02/09).

However, until elections are held and the Maoists can proceed with building a new country, the conditions of the peace accord, even if they have not neutralized the armed capacity of the People’s Liberation Army, have still placed the forces of the enemy in an advantageous position, since only part of their troops, weapons and supplies, equivalent to that of the PLA, were set down in the same way.

The national army currently possesses enough surplus strength, in strict military terms, to intervene in the electoral process and perhaps even stage a coup d’état. If they did so, however, it would go against the spirit and word of the peace accord, and the legitimacy of the revolutionary forces would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; then, the PLA would be in a far better position to pick up arms to defend the integrity of the free democratic process.

More generally, the transitional process, which the CPN(M) hopes will abolish the monarchist state once and for all and lead to a democratic republic as a step towards New Democracy and socialism, remains scattered with obstacles. The path towards revolution in any given country never follows a straight and predictable line. It can not be claimed that each step must follow another with a kind of historic determinism.

The key is for the revolutionary proletariat, embodied in its vanguard party, to lead the process, to accumulate its strength and at each step act according with the reality of the situation, forging and breaking class alliances, advancing and withdrawing, and realizing the tasks necessary for the next step. It is the greatest hardship any revolutionary party will confront.

As a supporter of the CPN(M) told us not too long ago, the closer the party gets towards seizing power, the more it progresses in transforming society through revolution, and the more its margins of error narrows. When the People’s War was initiated in 1996, the party could afford to make mistakes (relatively, of course).

A single defeat, or a single failure, could not lead to the consequences that it can now, as millions of people have put their hopes in the revolution.

4. Nothing is settled; everything is still possible. We are of the opinion that nothing is final, nothing has been set in stone, for the revolution in Nepal. We clearly reject the point of view of those pretending that a bourgeois line has triumphed within the party and that the revolution has been defeated.

The revolutionary movement in Nepal is more alive than ever.

The masses are involved by the millions, in one way or another, in the revolutionary process.

They benefit from the contribution of a trained and combat-proven vanguard party which has proven its mastery at military and political tactics; each compromise made during the course of the People’s War, and each cease-fire, allowed it to accumulate its forces, isolate the enemy and put the revolutionary camp in a better position. This, however, does not give any guarantee about the future. The party (as well as elsewhere), as the leading center of the revolution, is obviously where the bourgeois line is going to redevelop.

In 1957, eight years after the triumph of Chinese Revolution, three years of New Democracy and four years of socialist construction, Mao Zedong wrote: “Class struggle is by no means over. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the various political forces, and the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the ideological field will still be protracted and torturous and at times even very sharp.

The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is not really settled yet.” (On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People) We believe that in Nepal, the matter of knowing who will win is not yet resolved.

5. The challenges for revolution in Nepal are shedding light on a certain number of difficulties and weaknesses within the revolutionary forces and the world proletariat.

From the beginning, the CPN(M) was always very aware of the dialectical link which unites revolution in Nepal and world revolution. It also grasped the importance of relating the revolution in Nepal with the world revolution, even if it involves mainly internal factors specific to Nepal.

This relation begins with revolution in South Asia, particularly in India, which constitutes the most immediate and dominant foreign influence in Nepal. The CPN(M) has spent a lot of effort unifying Maoist revolutionary forces in the region. It put forward the strategic idea of a Federation of Soviet Republics of South Asia as a means of establishing and consolidating socialism in each of the region’s countries.

At the international level, the CPN(M) participates with the efforts of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (the RIM) to develop the world revolution and people’s resistance, and build Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard parties and organizations everywhere in the world, as well as a global revolutionary leading center.

In the short run, because of the current international context characterized by imperialist war and the USA’s hegemonic imperialist offensive (since the fall of Soviet social-imperialism, and in particular since the September 11, 2001 attacks), proclaiming, establishing and maintaining a Communist-led revolutionary regime represents a gigantic challenge that can never be overcome alone by Communists in a single country. This challenge belongs to Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, to revolutionary and anti-imperialist forces all over the globe.

6. In this context, solidarity with revolution in Nepal is more necessary than ever. We must continue to support Nepal’s revolutionary masses; in fact, our solidarity with them must strengthen. This does not exclude debate and discussion on the orientations of the CPN(M).

Not in the least bit. Comrades from Nepal openly participate within the international communist movement, so that the worldwide revolution can be strengthened by their experience, and vice-versa—not in a literal way, but in a very real and concrete manner. And if there is a single concrete revolutionary movement in the world, it is in Nepal. This revolution belongs to us all: it is the revolution of the world’s oppressed people.

The Maoist conception of revolution excludes any unconditional submission to some “father party.” Thanks to the revisionists, this deviation, which has always plagued the international communist movement, has brought disastrous results in the past. It has been vigorously fought against by Mao and the Chinese Communists, and today is rejected by the CPN(M) and genuine Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces.

What revolutionaries in Nepal need, what they are righteously asking from us, is that we take the revolution’s issues at heart; that we defeat our fears and our monotonous inaction and lack of resolve, which has become the characterization of far too wide a portion of the international communist movement. They ask that we openly debate with them, in the spirit proletarian internationalism. They ask that we go forward, decisively, on the road to revolution.

We must not underestimate the impact these advances will have on revolution in Nepal, including on the possibility for revolutionaries there to proceed to the next step towards socialism. Let’s be clear that for our part, our commitment is firm and our solidarity remains indestructible for our comrades in Nepal.” 

August 3, 2007 : Fifth Expanded Meeting of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in Kathmandu, with more than 2 000 cadres.

August 20, 2007 : Prachanda and Bhattarai both produce two separate statements with 22 demands concerning the elections, notably the Republic, the seizure of the king’s properties, the democratisation of the Nepali Army and its merger with the People’s Liberation Army, the payment of Rs. 100,000 (€1,100) to the families of fallen Maoist fighters.

September 17, 2007 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) quits the Government.

December 15, 2007 : the Seven Party Alliance accepts to call Nepal a republic at the time of the first sitting of the new assembly just after the elections and to use the proportional system.

December 30, 2007 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) joins the Government.

January 8, 2008 : the “Comité de Solidarité Franco-Népalais” (French-Nepalese Solidarity Committee) explains having be founded on the 15th of December, 2007, to “make known the progressive anti-feudal, anti-imperialist and democratic process” in Nepal.

March 2008 : the Chilean Unión de Revolucionarios Comunistas (MLM) publishes a document called “Declench the people’s war in the world, combat prachandist revisionism in the ICM”.

“The Communists (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in the world have to join their forces to counter the revisionist trend of the 21st century arose within Maoism, whose visible head is today Prachanda.

It becomes necessary for this to develop a wide international debate to expose these new revisionists, to ward off the danger that appears and develops right opportunistic lines right wanting to abjure the path of PW and to regroup around prachandiste revisionism.

Nowadays in the ICM (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), voices were raised to strongly condemn the betrayal of prachandists. There are others who defend it by ignorance, or because they fully embrace its liquidators views. Finally, there are those who remain silent by opportunism or because they are wavering.”

February 28, 2008 : rally in the front of the US consulate in Montreal by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada in support of the “Nepalese People’s Republic”.

April 10, 2008 : elections of the first Nepalese Constituent Assembly. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) receives 38,1% of the votes, the Nepali Congress 19,1%, the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) 18%.

April 13, 2008 : declaration of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada “greetings the victory of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)”.

“To the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist),

To Comrade Prachanda and all militants and all the activists of the party,

Dear comrades,

It is with great joy and renewed proletarian internationalists feelings that we welcome the resounding victory that you just won, in the frame of the election to the constituent assembly that will end the monarchy and the old regime in Nepal (…).

You just take the next step – a critical step – towards the construction of a new Nepal. No doubt the road to total liberation of the people of Nepal and the establishment of a revolutionary regime will be strewn with obstacles.

The imperialist powers who claim to be masters of the world and the reactionary forces that defend and enjoy the old world order, are sure to hatch plots and conspiracies to prevent the triumph of the revolution. The invaluable experience that you have accumulated over the past 12 years and the unfailing determination of the revolutionary Nepalese masses allow you to move forward and overcome, until the final victory. Know that on this road, you can still count on our militant solidarity.

Having participated in the first international brigade road construction Martyrs in Rolpa district, our party was a privileged witness of your success and your determination. The historic victory that you just won encourages us to continue the fight with more vigor.”

April 24, 2008 : the Communist Party of India (Maoist) expresses his point of view on the elections in Nepal.

“The election results in Nepal have proved once again the overwhelming anger of the masses against the outdated feudal monarchic rule in Nepal, against the Indian expansionist’s bullying and domination of Nepal, against US domination and oppression, and are a reflection of the growing aspirations of the Nepali masses for democracy, land, livelihood and genuine freedom from imperialist and feudal exploitation (…).

The real test, however, begins now after the CPN(M) taking over the reins of power. It is a fundamental tenet of Marxism that no radical restructuring of the system is possible without the smashing of the existing state. It is impossible to make genuine changes in the system through measures initiated “from above”, i.e. through state decrees and laws (…).

The CC, CPI(Maoist), suggests to the CPN(Maoist) to beware of the conspiracies of the imperialists led by the US imperialists, the Indian reactionary ruling classes, and the feudal comprador forces of Nepal to engineer coups, political assassinations, creation of artificial scarcity through economic blockades and sabotage, and subversion of the democratic process, and calls upon it to be fully prepared to confront these reactionaries by armed means (…).

The CC, CPI(Maoist) sees immense possibilities in present-day Nepal to carry forward the revolutionary programme by firmly relying on the masses and intensifying the class struggle for genuine land reforms and against imperialist/expansionist domination of the country, while guarding against all reactionary plots and schemes. This is possible if the main leadership of the Maoist party does not become part of the government but concentrates on the principal task of continuing the class struggle by mobilizing the masses.”

May 10, 2008 : the French Maoist Communist Party hails the electoral success of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

« Our party welcomes your success in the elections of April 10, 2008. This is primarily the result of ten years of people’s war (…). You borrow a path for some is not orthodox, but you are not alone on the path to communism. « 

June 19, 2008 : the Red Star, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has an ad for Toyota on his cover. This was already the case in Ferbuary March, for example. Nepal Telecom and the internet provider Ncell did also such ads.

January 1, 2009 : publication in the Red Flag, organ of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, of an article by Samir Amin, called “Nepal: a promising revolutionary breakthrough”.

January 12, 2009 : the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre–Masal), coming partly from the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre–Masal) where the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) comes from a split, joins the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which becomes the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), still mostly known as Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

February 1, 2009 : Kiran responds to an interview called “The street struggle is connected with the peace process” in The Red Star, published by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

“How are you evaluating the unity between CPN-Maoist and CPN (Unity Centre-Masal)? Our party had already made decisions to make single pole of the revolutionary parties and organization. It is the beginning of the unity among the revolutionaries. This unity will certainly fulfill its responsibility for the nation and the people that is to accomplish the revolution (…).

Is the street struggle related to the future insurrection? The street struggle is connected with the progress of the peace process. The three fronts: the government, CA and street: are complementary. However, the front of struggle can take another bend if the anti-people and the reactionary powers create obstacles incessantly against writing constitution and the peace process.”

February 16, 2009 : Kiran publishes an article called “The Mandate Expressed in People’s War”, The Red Star.

“Right before 12 years, Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) had brought a historical initiation of the people’s war to establish a New State Power by assaulting over the old state power on 13th February. The day has been established as the momentous day for the Nepalese people. Now, we are going to celebrate the day as the entrance of the 13th year all over the country. At this moment, it is necessary to be serious for the adoption and the implementation of the expressed mandate of the great people’s war remembering the commitments committed before the initiation of the people’s war.

Now, we are advancing ahead in the peaceful process through between the historical process of the ten year long people’s war and nineteen days people’s movement. The goal of the great People’s War is to move ahead to the direction of Socialism and Communism by establishing the New Peoples Republic in Nepal. At present, we are advancing ahead energetically to the direction to built new Nepal through the election of the constituent assembly (CA) as the starting point of achieving the goal.”

May 4, 2009 : Prachanda resigned from the post of Prime Minister after being impeached by the president Ram Baran Yadav from the Nepali Congress to dismiss Nepalese Chief of the Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal.

October 12, 2009 : the World People’s Resistance Movement interviews Chandra Prakash Gajurel “Gaurav” in England.

“When our party talks about multiparty competition or democracy, we are talking about our concept of ‘21st Century Democracy’. The difference here however is that in China there was a condition, all anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces had to cooperate with the CCP. This was the precondition. But now our party is talking about allowing those political parties to compete even with the UCPN(M).

In China there was a precondition, they were not allowed to compete but had to cooperate. In elections they made some sort of compromise or negotiation and they fixed candidates by consensus. In some constituencies the other parties put forward their candidate and the CCP did not. And in most other seats they did not have a candidate but supported the candidate of the CCP. But here in Nepal today we are talking about competition. All those political parties will be allowed to compete with the UCPN(M). We can have direct elections with those parties and the Maoists. That is the difference.”

December 15, 2009 : the French Organisation Communiste Marxiste-Léniniste Voie Prolétarienne published the document “Long live the revolution in India and in Nepal!”.

“Since five years, the Asian continent is the heart of the world revolution (…).

In Nepal, it is the Maoists (Unified Communist Party of Nepal Maoist) who won the support of the majority of the population and organized the popular uprising that brought down the monarchy.

Today, at their initiative, a new wave of popular uprisings has just started in the country to remove from power the bourgeoisie still powerful in the economy, the government and the army, especially as it has the strong support the major powers, neighboring India in the first place. In the complex situation of a tiny circled semi-feudal country, in the debate and the line struggle, the Nepalese Maoists advance toward the democratic revolution (…).

We Marxist-Leninists and Maoists of Proletarian Way, France, assure our Indian and Nepalese comrades of our support. They are the ones that sustain today the hope of the world revolution!”

29 March 2009 : the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA makes public an exchange of letter with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), where its policies is criticized.

July 24, 2009 : the Communist Party of India (Maoist) writes a 24 pages Open Letter to the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

“We are sending this Open Letter to your Party so as to conduct a polemical debate both within your Party and the Maoist revolutionary camp worldwide.

This step has become necessary because of the very serious developments that have taken place in the course of development of the revolution in Nepal that have a bearing on our understanding of imperialism and proletarian revolution as well as the strategy-tactics to be pursued by Maoist revolutionaries in the contemporary world; there is also serious deviation from the ideology of MLM. Hence these are no more the internal matters concerning your Party alone (…).

The UCPN(M) leader has directly assured the comprador bourgeois-feudal parliamentary parties that his Party is ready to have peaceful competition with all of them.

And by describing this decision on multiparty democracy as a strategically, theoretically developed position comrade Prachanda has brought a dangerous thesis to the fore—the thesis of peaceful coexistence with the ruling class parties instead of overthrowing them through revolution; peaceful competition with all other parliamentary parties, including the ruling class parties that are stooges of imperialism or foreign reaction, in so-called parliamentary elections; abandoning the objective of building socialism for an indefinite period; and opening the doors wide for the feudalcomprador reactionaries to come to power by utilizing the backwardness of the masses and the massive backing from domestic and foreign reactionaries or the bourgeois and petty bourgeois forces to hijack the entire course of development of society from the socialist direction to capitalism in the name of democracy and nationalism.

Overall, com. Prachanda’s conclusions regarding multiparty democracy creates illusions among the people regarding bourgeois democracy and their constitution (…).

The fusion theory of the CPN(M) had undergone further deviations in the five years since it was first proposed, and by 2006 it became the theory of peaceful competition with the reactionary parties and peaceful transition to people’s democracy and socialism.

From a fusion of people’s war and insurrection Prachanda’s eclectic theory had assumed the form of negotiations and diplomatic manouevring. One of the major reasons for this change was the incorrect assessment of the contemporary world situation and the conclusion that the neo-colonial form of imperialism is now taking the form of a globalised state (…).

Our CC appeals to the leadership and ranks of the UCPN(M) to undertake a deep review of the wrong reformist line that the Party has been pursuing ever since it has struck an alliance with the SPA, became part of the interim government, participated in the elections to the CA, formed a government with the comprador-feudal parties, abandoned the base areas and demobilized the PLA and the YCL, deviated from the principle of proletarian internationalism and adopted a policy of appeasement towards imperialism, particularly American imperialism, and Indian expansionism.”

October 21, 2009 : Indra Mohan Sigdel Basanta gives an interview to the World People’s Resistance Movement.

“First of all I would like to say it was not a struggle between two individual leaders. Comrade Prachanda is our Chairman; he has been leading our party and revolution for a long time. Comrade Kiran is a senior leader, even senior to Comrade Prachanda.

Sometimes in the outside world it is said that it is a struggle between Prachanda and Kiran, but this is a wrong way of looking at. Definitely lines come from certain comrades and in our case comrade Prachanda and comrade Kiran are such leaders who have stood as unity and struggle of opposites i.e. they have dialectical relationship.

The way this has been reported in the external media is wrong and is aimed at dividing our party. They projected that Comrade Prachanda was a soft-liner and Comrade Kiran was a hard-liner. This kind of projection was always there because the reactionaries do not want our party to remain united. They want to destroy it.

The reality is that the principal aspect between them is unity. If they did not have unity how could they lead our party together for so long years? But because they are the products of our society they have different ways of thinking so the differences in certain issues arise.”

Avril 29, 2010 : the French Maoist Communist Party publishes an article in support of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

“There is a debate about the theories espoused by some of the leadership of the UCPN-Maoist. Our Party has already expressed some criticisms and reservations. However, we must always move from the assessment of what is primary and what is secondary.

Today, what is primary is supporting the mass movement led by the Maoists in Nepal. UCPN-Maoist has demonstrated that he had not abdicated imperialism and expansionism. In this delicate phase, our duty is to support the popular initiative against the reactionaries.”

June 16, 2010 : Netra Bikram Chanda “Biplap” publishes the article Can We Go Ahead? In The Red Star.

“Nepal is only nation, in the contemporary world, where there is political leadership of the revolutionaries and the entire nation is in the hands of the proletarian class. The leadership of the revolutionaries is not only from the point of view of number; rather, it is because of political, ideological agendas.

Constituent Assembly (CA), people’s new constitution, federalism, land-reform, special rights, national independence and new national army are the agendas and the conceptions put developed and fore 4 warded by UCPN Maoist. Nepalese people have their active participation and a strong support on them. The intellectuals, traders and businessmen and even the security forces have their support on it.”

May 27, 2011 : publication in the bulletin Partisan of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada of an article calledd “Difficult situation for the revolution in Nepal”.

“It is difficult to predict how the Maoists of Nepal comrades shall resolve these contradictions; rumors of a split of the party are also increasingly strong. Time will tell what will become of the red flag flying over Mount Everest; but we remain confident that the revolutionaries of Nepal will lead the revolution to victory.”

September 2, 2011 : the “Comité de Solidarité Franco-Népalais” (French-Nepalese Solidarity Committee) begins to take a critical stance about the situation in Nepal stopping its activity two weeks later.

“Two important news reached us from Nepal. Unfortunately, they are the sign of a great danger for the revolution rather than a sign of recovery of the revolutionary struggle.

First, Baburam Bhattarai was elected prime minister. He is the representative of the reformist line in Nepal. He’s for the establishment of a bourgeois parliamentary democratic republic he sees as a necessary step towards a people’s republic landing stages. He seems ready for any compromise to stop for good the revolutionary process.

Secondly, key containers containing the arms of the People’s Liberation Army have just been handed to the Special Committee for Integration, meaning de facto surrender of the PLA. All keys have been made except in a cantonment in Kailali, where the deputy commander said he had received no formal directive from the party.”

September, 2011 : in France, the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) publishes a document called “Line, tendency, fraction and the question of Nepal”.

“For the so-called maoists and real trotskyists, nothing happened in Nepal with the peace agreement in 2006. This is because they looked the phenomena from above, and not from below. And they look it from above because they have a mechanical conception of the Nepali revolution.

They don »t understand that the Nepali revolution progresses in spiral, and so that the people »s war can suffer huge defeat if its development is not correctly understood by the avant-garde. Only the fact that the Nepali revisionnists like Prachanda pretend that they have invented a “tactic” is a proof of their non understanding of the scientific laws of dialectical materialism (…).

A line is the expression of life (for the red line) or death (for the black line), its ideological synthesis has a high level, because it is question of path for the phenomena. It is what is called a crisis. A line is so an expression not of a tactical problem, but of a strategical one. For this reason, there are not two lines in the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (maoist).

They are two tendencies, tendencies that disagree on many points, and now so many that they become openly opposed, and so fractions, open and public tendencies. But both were favourable of the peace agreement, both pretended to “choose” the path of people’s war, instead of understanding people’s war as the insurrection of matter.

Both accepted prachandism in the 2000 »s, with the promotion of “socialism of 21st century”, the rejection of the dictatorship of proletariat under the direction of the Communist Party (in name of “democracy”), etc.”

September 23, 2011 : the French Maoist Communist Party publishes a document called About the line struggle within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

“Under these conditions, there are two possibilities.

1. Complete surrender, total renunciation to the prospect of insurgency. It has been five years that the Party has been engaged in these transactions, with no significant progress to solve the issue of “power”. What do the masses think about all this? They are either in expectation for the better, or disappointed for the worse. 

2. The resumption of the revolutionary fight, which involves mobilizing the masses. “One divides into two” and not “two combine into one”. One has to choose. The rightist line must be denounced to the masse; the only way is to return to the masses because the masses make history and at the same time suffer when their leaders take false, flickering or liquidationist, revisionist positions.”

November 2011 : the Colombian Unión Obrera Comunista (MLM) publishes a document called “About the betrayal in Nepal and the role of the so-called red Fraction”, explaining that there is no such things in the prachandist party.

December 26, 2011 : Joint declaration called “The International unity of the communists requires the defeat of revisionism and centrism!”

“It has appeared that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) – CPN (M), being a RIM member, has raised in the name of Maoism against Marxism Leninism Maoism, clutching a revisionist platform of renunciation of destroying the old reactionary state, of betraying the People’s War by renouncing to it, by disarming the people, by dismantling the bases of popular power already conquered and by dissolving its People’s Liberation Army in the reactionary army of exploiters, and finally by merging with the revisionist party Mashal in the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) – UCPN (M), and by compromising with all others opportunist parties to defend the class dictatorship of the landlords, the bourgeoisie and imperialism, and to serve to run over the people.

It is likewise evident that the Committee of the RIM has, remaining silent facing the revisionist line and the betrayal carried out by the CPN (M), resigned in practice the role of being the international leading center, and compromising the prestige of the RIM (…).

Against such a need that requires to differentiate and to break completely with opportunism, rises again the familiar centrist tendency known in the history of communist movement for its « conciliator » role between Marxism and revisionism. A centrist tendency, headed today by the Communist Party (Maoist) of Italy, direct continuation of the centrism in the RIM yesterday, and mainly in its Committee.

In the open bourgeois degeneration of prachandism, the centrists, who yesterday praised his theory, ignored the treason in Nepal and supported bourgeois parliamentarism of the UCPN (M), declare today themselves to be against Prachanda, but actually without breaking with prachandism.

They remain supporters of a fraction of prachandism that no longer recognizes Prachanda as leader, but Kiran. They repudiate the current symbolic acts of Bhattarai and Prachanda in the surrender of the revolution, but deny the revisionist nature of the party and escape its responsibility in the real political betrayal of People’s War conducted in the Peace Agreement of 2006.

Centrism both reconciles and calls « red » a fraction of the revisionist right in Nepal, and fights angry against the revolutionary communists whom are called « dogmatic-revisionists » and « opportunistic liquidators » for their struggle against revisionism and centrism.

It fears the complete rupture, ideological, political and organizational, with the revisionist line of the UCPN (M), a condition without which it is not possible to conceive a true revolutionary line in Nepal, able to return to the People’s War and lead it, to conquer the triumph of the Revolution of New Democracy in the whole country.”

December 26, 2011 : the Maoist Road blog made by the Maoist Communist Party of Italy answers to the joint declaration.

“leftist-cyber maoists make a joint declaration.. what is their real objective ? They attack to ‘PCm Italy’ but their real ennemies are the possibility to save and advance nepal revolution and the rebuilding of an real international mlm organisation with parties and organisations that make the revolution in the praxis.”

June 19, 2012 : founding of the Communist Party of Nepal – Revolutionary Maoist, led by Mohan Baidya “Kiran”.

July 1, 2012 : Mohan Baidya “Kiran” explains his position at a press conference.

“Yes, we are in the RIM. There are many different parties in the RIM (…). We used to be involved in the decision making in the RIM. The RIM is actually not operative at this moment (…).

We did not leave Prachanda and Baburam but they left us. We did not separate from the party as well but they split themselves ditching the political ideological line of the party. Therefore, now the issue of their class categorization is a real bizarre. An independent political line of Prachanda and Baburam has come to an end. What should we label those who are the puppets of foreign reactionaries and expansionism? It is not possible to join neck together with the puppets (…).

We are not ambiguous about whether to go for People’s War or People’s Revolt. Firstly, we will revolt for new democracy against parliamentarianism. We don’t acknowledge parliamentarianism.

The democratic republic, the aged-decayed parliamentarianism of which all the parties here sing the retro song of democracy deafeningly, that democracy has completely failed, the Constituent Assembly has also failed. Therefore, as an alternative, in the interest of the country and the people we move ahead to establish New Democratic Republic in Nepal against Feudalism, Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism. This is our key agenda.

To attain this goal, if asked how we move ahead, both ways, legal and underground, a revolutionary party can utilize every essential method. We came to the peace negotiation honestly. When we arrived only the Maoists had to make all the compromises but now we don’t compromise up to this excess.

So, that is beyond doubt, if necessary– People’s War or People’s Revolt, anything can happen, this is the key issue.”

August 31, 2012 : the Communist Party of India (Maoist) publishes a document called “Hail the formation of Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist”.

“The CC, CPI (Maoist) is sending its warmest revolutionary greetings to you and all the CC members and the entire rank and file of the CPN-Maoist on the formation of the new revolutionary party in Nepal after a prolonged internal ideological and political struggle against the opportunist and neo-revisionist leadership within the party who betrayed the Nepalese revolution and by demarcating and making a break with them.

Even while the Nepal Revolution reached the stage of strategic offense, the UCPN (Maoist) leadership assessed the national and international situation subjectively, took erroneous tactics which themselves led the party get bogged down in the quagmire of parliamentarianism with capitulationism uninterruptedly since end 2005 (…).

Revolutionaries may still be present in the neo-revisionist Prachanda-Bhattarai faction of the party, so your stand of continuing internal struggle and keeping the doors open till the Congress is correct (…).

We end this letter with the great hope that CPN-Maoist would uphold revolutionary traditions of the great oppressed masses of Nepal and Proletarian Internationalism and fulfill the dreams of thousands of great martyrs of Nepal revolution.”

October 2012 : the TKP/ML from Turkey releases a document called “The Nepalese Revolution in the Clasp of Reformism and Revisionism”.

“The UCPN (M) successfully led a people’s war in Nepal and is currently at a historical threshold, facing the question of whether or not to continue with the revolution. In the struggle against the revisionist line that is dominant in the party, comrades, especially those in the leadership positions, are taking an active stance in the discussions, expressing their opinions and criticism openly, even publicly for sometime now. This course of action is further proof that situation is extremely serious (…).

The « peaceful transition » theory, advocated as a method of seizing state power, in fact aims to preserve the existing mechanism. The system is preserved, only this time masters with the « revolutionary » or « socialist » mask have come to power.

The « populist » or « revolutionary » governments that came to power through elections or similar methods, and once through coups that took place with the involvement of social-imperialists, never brought about a fundamental change in the reign of ruling classes. Another dimension of the issue is the abstract concept « democracy » that forms a basis for the dreams about « peaceful transition. »

The understanding that defines democracy as a supra-class concept, a common system that is isolated from classes, finds its ground in the assessment of « geniality » regarding imperialism. It is argued that imperialism, which collectively carries the humanity to more advanced standards and optimally develops the productive forces, contains legitimate possibilities for peaceful transformation of the system owing to the virtues of « democratic » regimes that it has established or assisted the establishment of in many countries.”

January 4, 2013 : the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada hails the 7th congres of he Communist Party of Nepal – Revolutionary Maoist, led by Mohan Baidya “Kiran”.

“Montreal, January 4, 2013

Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’ president

Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal’, General Secretary

Organisatory Central Committee

Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist

Dear comrades,

On behalf of the Central Committee and all supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, please convey our warmest revolutionary greetings to all comrades participating in the historic Seventh National Congress of your party. Even if we can not be physically present, know that we are with you and that our solidarity is acquired to you (…).

Since 1996, our party, and the organizations that preceded it, has always supported the proletariat and the revolutionary masses of Nepal and the Maoist vanguard party. We’re very proud to have participated in the first international Martyrs road construction brigade in fall 2005 in the Rolpa district.

The example of the people’s war in Nepal has also led us to undertake a process unit with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), that we have unfortunately been unable to complete before the disappearance of this organization.”

January 16, 2013 : a Marxist Leninist Maoist National Liaison Commission (USA) sends a Letter of Solidarity and Greetings to Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist.

“We are most excited and delighted to know that the comrades of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), after years of struggle against the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionist clique, are forging again a party of steel to complete revolution in Nepal.

The Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionist clique had indeed not only derailed the revolutionary people’s war in Nepal but had confused the entirety of the revolutionary movement with their liquidationist treachery.

In Nepal this clique had attempted to surrender the People’s Liberation Army to the enemy, it had locked up the fighting comrades, seized their weapons, and negotiated their liquidation with the reactionary state.”

February 15, 2013 : the Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist) produces a document called “Either Prachanda Or Mohan Baidya (Kiran) Means More Revisionism!”.

“Bringing forth the theory of fusion of two different kinds of strategies which was held by CPN (M) in its second national conference in 2001 was the beginning for a deeply deviationist line. However, formally this party betrayed the revolution from 2005-2006 on, but, one should consider the theoretical and ideological roots for this.

The so called theory of two different kinds of strategies which is also called “the model of fusion”, according to Prachanda is legitimate due to:

““The rapid development of science and technology, especially in the area of electronic field has brought about completely new model in regard to forwarding revolution in each country and in the world in the form of fusion of the strategies of protracted people’s war and general armed insurrection based on the above analysis.”

In such a manner, revisionism rejected the universality of PPW, and denied its strategic sufficiency.

“Reviving” the model of armed insurrection was not the point of interest for Nepali revisionists. It was a mask for overthrowing the strategy of PPW. They found no “better” means rather than escaping towards reviving an insurrectionist myth for discarding strategy of People’s war.

“Model of fusion” was not more than eclecticism. As MLM forces uphold, today, in all over the world, it is only the PPW which is the international strategy of proletariat. Denying PPW equals to denying and discarding Maoism. Discarding Maoism equals to discarding communism and future of the world.”

April 13, 2013 : constituted by different break away groups, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified) joins the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

July 14, 2013 : the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan expresses its view about the situation in Nepal, in a A Documentary Summary Analysis of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist.

“It seems that the initial optimism about a profound and comprehensive position by the faction under Kiran’s leadership within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist [UCPN-M]––the faction that, after the “national convention of the revolutionary faction of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist” in June 2012, has emerged as the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist [CPN-M] against Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism––did not have a strong basis.

Despite the CPN-M’s recent congress we have not received or been able to study the documents it produced. Thus, we do not deem it necessary to produce a final and detailed conclusion regarding this party. However, even with close scrutiny of the CPN-M’s pre-congress we can find particular ideological and political positions that indicate the repetition of the deviations of the UCPN-M in a different form and shape.”

November 19, 2013 : second Nepalese Constituent Assembly election. The Nepali Congress receives 29,8% of the votes (2,694,983 votes), the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) 27,55% (2,492,090 votes), the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) 17,79% (1,609,145 votes).

November 29, 2014 : split in the Communist Party of Nepal – Revolutionary Maoist, as the secretary Netra Bikram Chand leaves and founds the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

May 19, 2016 : merger of the UCPN-Maoist, the majority of CPN-Revolutionary Maoist (but without Kiran), a faction of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (but without Netra Bikram Chand) and 7 others organizations. The name chosen is CPN Maoist Centre, with Prachanda as chairman.

July 12, 2016 : Baburam Bhattarai, who left the UCPN Maoist in september 2015, founds the Naya Shakti Party (New Force Nepal), on a line of “good governance”.

June 16, 2016 : merger of the Communist Nucleus Nepal party led by Hemanta Prakash Oli and CPN Maoist (Revolutionary) led by Bhupendra Neupane, as Communist Nucleus Nepal.

August 3, 2016: Following the resignation of the Prime Minister, member of the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) favorable to China, Prachanda takes his succession, supported by India and the Nepali Congress.

=> documents in English