Why is it that the process of revolution is not correctly developing decades after the historic need of New Democratic revolution was resides in semi-feudal and semi-colonial Nepal which has been decrepit by feudalist and imperialist exploitation and oppression? This question is the one, which frequently hits the minds of Nepalese revolutionaries. Though generally, objective condition for democratic revolution prevails in the country, the tendency to evade to initiate revolutionary struggle under the pretext that subjective condition for is not ready has been dominant in the Nepalese communist movement. This tendency has set a tradition of being a mere follower of this or that reactionary clique instead of providing revolutionary slogans and leadership, no matter how critical is the reactionary regime and how strong the people's aspiration for a change is the main reason for it is the deviation of communist movement from revolutionary ideology of the proletarian class. Lenin, with emphasis, would say repeatedly, "There can be no revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory " Lenin had laid this emphasis during the life and death struggle against revisionism of Second International which would utter reformism and revisionism in the name of Marxism. During the historic struggle for a revolutionary theory, the established revisionists of Second International would hurl at great Lenin a bunch of allegations like 'dogmatist', 'leftist verbose', ‘impractical', 'bureaucratic', 'with mechanical thinking', 'infantile' etc. Today the elements from UML to Mohan Bikram have been using the same allegations in a single voice against the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) since it waged a fierce struggle for the Nepalese People's revolution and against the deviation that defined the reformism and parliamentarism, which was dominant in the history of Marxism. This is not an issue of mere coincidence and biasedness but of a serious ideological importance. Hence today it is the historic responsibility of supporters of the Nepalese revolution to think over it seriously and sufficiently.
Revolution or Reformism? The Main Problem is of Revolutionary Ideology
Marxism is a science of social revolution. Dialectical materialism, the world outlook of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, considers the absolute character of struggle prevalent even in the relative unity of opposites of the matter concerned as the causing factor of growth and destruction of every incident of nature, society and human thinking. The dialectics of evolution of every matter and event which are interrelated and in the dynamic flow of continuous change is, as Lenin says, not in a simple and straight line but seems in a zigzag curve; it does not happen spontaneously and unknowingly gradually but does happen in the forms of a sequence break of continuity, a leap, a calamity and revolution, transformation of quantity into quality, and negation of the negation. This is scientific essence of the Marxist dialectics regarding development.
When this scientific conclusion was applied in the evolution process of social life, it became clear that the contradiction between productive forces and production relation has been giving the motion to whole society. In every historical period, the level and nature of class struggle has been determined as per the nature of contradiction between productive forces and production relation. But whatever the level of development of productive forces, in every historical period, the growth of class struggle has been in the form of a breaking of continuity, a conscious push or revolution against regressive class by forward moving class. This process of social revolution has been accomplished neither spontaneously and by itself gradually nor by subjective will of somebody against the objective condition of development. That is determined and confined by the level of development of contradiction between productive forces and production relation. Marxism has provided a scientific method of revolutionary role to the proletarian class, which it must and can play within the limit of the contradiction. When this scientific method that changes the world as Marxism was invented, the conscious and revolutionary role of world's proletariat and toiling masses of the people has grown qualitatively. It has provided the history with fast pace through storm of class struggle that shakes the world. It makes it clear that, indeed, Marxism is revolutionism. Reformism defines Marxism in such a distorted way that there all other things are accepted but the revolution is opposed. In the 'Marxism' of reformists, quantity is never transformed into quality; there is only quantity, quantity and again quantity. In real life, what has been clear from the point of view of revolution is the quantity of reformists does not increase but goes on decreasing and ultimately degenerates into opposite leap or naked reaction. In Nepal, UML group is proper example of it. It is so because the reformists do not increase the quantity of revolution but that of reformism and qualitatively develops into reaction as per the rule of dialectics. The 'Marxism' of reformists does not need any conscious shock; break of continuity does not occur and situation of catastrophe should never come in their 'Marxism'. Antagonistic opposites never clash with one another in the 'Marxism' of reformists. But they reach a state of mutual coordination and agreement anyhow. Whatever they talk orally, in the 'Marxism' of reformists, the struggle between the opposites is temporary, momentary and relative where the unity is lasting, permanent and absolute.
The reformism is always a worshipper of spontaneity because its struggle is concentrated for reforms, not for the revolution. It never attempts to establish the leading role of proletarian class in the movement and make the people class conscious but always follows the movement and people, and amazingly, explains it as Marxism. Nowadays, quite cunningly, the reformism has sowed seeds of reforms but spread the illusion among the cadres and people that they can harvest the grains of revolution. What has been explained as Marxism for decades in Nepal is virtually reformism, following which revolutionary movement could not be accomplished and did not take place either.
Another important point is that Marxism teaches us to assimilate the fact that it is in course of struggle against untruth, bad and ugly that the truth, good and beautiful develops. As Marxism itself is the philosophy of struggle, it has developed through fierce struggle against various unscientific and unrevolutionary tendencies. As it is a science also, it has made it clear that its nature is to withstand problems of new kinds that appear in newer situations, and then develop. Accordingly, today Marxism has become Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in course of struggle. It has become a totality and an indivisible unit of the science of social revolution. One characteristic feature of the reformism of today is that it opposes Maoism and rejects the supremacy of the growth of Marxist science. It does not consider it as an indivisible unit of the totality of Marxist science and attempts to fragment it. In doing so, its intention is to kill the revolutionary essence of Marxist science and conspire to use it in accordance with reformist interest. In today's world, nobody can be a revolutionary Marxist if he separates the highest summit of science of the revolution attained by the proletariat or underestimates universal character of Maoism. Generally, in the history of communist movement, the reformism has been always running its reformist business by rejecting the supremacy of development of revolutionary ideology. The reformism has been attempting to cover its anti-revolutionary essence by opposing Marxism at the time of Marx, 'supporting' Marxism but opposing Leninism at the time of Lenin, and 'supporting' Marxism-Leninism but opposing Maoism in today's world. All those who talk of so-called MaoThought but do not accept the contributions of Mao as a new, third and higher stage of development of Marxism fall under this camp.
For the outlook as mentioned above, the reformism stands always opposed to the revolt against status quo. This is the anti-revolt and anti-revolution character of the reformists behind their charge of 'dogmatist' and 'extremist' hurled at the revolutionary Marxists in every historical period and stage. The opposition of contemporary 'socialists' to Marxism, the opposition of most of the parties of Second International to Leninism, and that of modern reformists to Maoism simply reaffirms it. Thus, it is evident that the problem of developing revolutionary movement is the problem of struggle against reformism. It means, it is the problem of extension, use and development of revolutionary principle. Leaving it aside, neither any revolutionary movement has developed in the world nor it is possible in Nepal.
Charge of a Maoist on the History of Nepalese Communist Movement
The founding of Communist Party in Nepal in a propitious national and international situation inspired by revolutionary goals is definitely an event of historic importance. It can be easily understood that, at the time of founding, it was natural that there had been some inadequate revolutionary immaturity in applying the universal truths of Marxism in the historic particularity of the Nepalese society. But within a short period of 6 years of founding the Party, instead of seriously advancing in fulfilling its revolutionary goals it badly sank into the swamp of reformism and legalism. After that for a long period, Marxism was so vulgarized and distorted by the reformists that it was degenerated into petty bourgeois reformism in general. A tradition to follow reactionary policy like liberal bourgeois class in political and tactical questions but talking of Marxism and democracy in ideological and strategic questions was set in. Reformism and parliamentarism began to be worshipped in the name of proletarian class, Communist Party and Marxism. Differences between Communist Party and bourgeois parliamentary parties in important issues like political line, forms of struggle, daily conduct and behavior disappeared. A trend to follow bourgeois parliamentary politics by strangling independent politics of proletariat and putting forward the logic of relatively 'progressive' became dominant.
Talking about political line outside of parliamentarism began to be regarded as anti-Marxist. Two mutually antagonistic world outlooks between proletariat and bourgeois classes were used in practical political movement. The difference between the Communist and the Congress degenerated into that between liberal bourgeois and radical bourgeois. The naked bootlicking of feudalism and imperialism in the name of Communist Party and Marxism is the climax of reformism. What else can be a greater mistake than expecting a fruit of revolution while sowing seeds of petty-bourgeois reformism? Therefore, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) thinks that a revolutionary movement cannot be developed unless petty-bourgeois reformism is completely divorced on the basis of proletarian revolutionary principle. The political debate going on since long in the Nepalese communist movement and the discussions in the form of revolutionary and reformists are nothing but a dispute in essence between developed reformism son and developing reformism. Today there can be no other essence of opposition of Mohan Bikram-Nirmal Lama trends to the reformism of UML. The Maoists hold the view that the mistake lies in taking Marxism as reformism. The process to correct it should start right from there. The root of reformism, which emerged since 1957, must be uprooted and seed of revolutionary Marxism should be sown in its place. Those who are intoxicated by reformist poison and view revolutionary Marxism as extremism cannot do this task. For this, a decisive struggle against reformism is essential.
In this context, we need to recall Lenin's struggle against revisionism dominant at the time of Second International and Mao's struggle against the Khrushchovite revisionism. What most of the parties and leaders of Second International would interpret as Marxism about 100 years ago was, indeed, capitalism penetrated in the communist movement. That was treachery against Marxism in the name of Marxism. That was a great betrayal against proletarian class and toiling messes of the people, and a climax of the petty-bourgeois vulgarization of Marxism.
However, the dialectics of history is such that in the development of every process, another contradictory aspect emerges inevitably. Existence of positive element in the negative and vice versa is a universal law of contradiction independent of the will of human being. Accordingly, Lenin, during his vigorous struggle against the renegades, who had distorted and misinterpreted the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat and molded it to suit imperialism, not only defended Marxism but also developed it to the level of Marxism-Leninism. He had given particular emphasis on, "There can be no revolutionary movement without a revolutionary ideology", when the life and death struggle against those renegades had been going on. This applies even in the struggle waged by Mao against modern revisionism.
The history of Nepalese Communist movement also cannot be an exception to universal law of contradiction. Most of the old leaders of the Nepalese Communist movement have committed treachery against revolutionary ideology of Marxism in the name of Marxism. Like all other reformist and revisionists of the world, they have been betraying the Nepalese proletarian class and general working people. They have been playing the role of powerbrokers to resolve political crisis of reactionary class by worshipping reformism and parliamentarism in the name of Marxism. But here, too, as per the law of dialectics of development, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party has inevitably emerged from within the communist movement amidst the struggle against the old leaders and renegades of the Party and revolution, and it has been unfurling the red flag of revolution stepping on their heads. It should be never forgotten that this development is a consequence of long ideological struggle against revisionism and external class struggle. When the process of applying revolutionary principle for revolutionary movement began in the context of historical development of Nepal, all elements from developed reformist UML to developing reformist Mohan Bikram also started to display their real character by presenting old logics of Kautsky and Khrushchev in the same language, and they have been still doing so.
Historical Factors for Growth of Reformism
However, there has been certainly no sin committed by a particular person or group behind the growth of reformism in the Nepalese communist movement. Historical materialism teaches us to look for a concrete historical reasons for this, because, ultimately, the roots of various political tendencies are connected with economic production and life style and mutual relations of people caused by it in certain country, time and conditions. Marxism has taught us to learn ideas and tendencies of various classes formed in this context and establish the Communist Party as a conscious vanguard of proletariat by assimilating the interest of the proletariat, the last and revolutionary class of the society, and waging struggle against ideological tendencies of all other classes. The abundant experiences of international communist movement have shown that major source of opportunism inside the Communist Party is petty-bourgeois economic base. The unstable and fluctuating life style of the people involved in these petty-bourgeois economic activities is politically expressed in the rightist and ‘leftist’ deviations of communist movement. The petty-bourgeois class lying between two naturally contending classes-proletariat and bourgeois- has no scope virtually. Its life is pushing it down every day, on the one hand, but it is haunted by a dream to be capitalist, on the other. One part of it is already transformed into proletariat economically, but its consciousness is to be a capitalist at any cost. Therefore, this section of the petty-bourgeois class is, by nature, frustrated, resentful and impatient. Another section is making some earnings in life anyhow and views a possibility in the horizon to upgrade itself into a bourgeois class. This section naturally does not want the status quo disturbed. This conservative, unstable and vacillation, life condition and nature of the petty-bourgeois class are the reason of ideological deviation and disorder.
There is a fairly large section of this class in Nepal. One thing that we should pay attention to is, today the feudal and imperialists are conscious that life-standard of this class in general, and the ones who are called 'educated' in particular, does not degenerate from middle class status, thus learning 'lessons' from the experiences of world proletarian revolutions. The reactionaries have been mobilizing the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia by working out a master plan of distributing money to them and engage in counter-revolution and activities. In the Third World countries, the imperialist countries have been unleashing a campaign of involving generally petty bourgeois and particularly educated people in the counter-revolutionary activities in the name of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In this way, mainly the semi-feudal semi-colonial condition of economic and social development of Nepal and secondarily, conscious tactics of the reactionary class have formed strong material base for petty-bourgeois thinking. For example, the UML group can be taken to illustrate the fact that rightist tendency of communist movement transformed into the process of reformism on the basis of petty-bourgeois class outlook and is sold to the money of imperialists and degenerated into reaction in a rapid pace.
Whatsoever, in the Nepalese communist movement, major historical class source of rightist reformism is petty-bourgeois class. The proletarian class must pursue a protracted process of revolutionary struggle compulsorily to oppose it in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country like ours. In Nepal, it is impossible for the proletariat to defeat this petty-bourgeois tendency and establish its leadership in the movement by using various forms of struggle like the proletariat of the countries where there are huge forces of modern working class concentrated in large cities.
There is one more reason behind the dominance of reformism in the Nepalese communist movement. That is, the influence of various ideological tendencies prevailing in the international communist movement. In this context, the influence of growing relation of the then prominent leaders of Nepalese communist movement with Indian leaders involved in Indian 'freedom struggle' and mainly with their visions of the Indian communist movement is said to have played a substantial role. The parliamentarism dominant in the Indian communist movement after the withdrawal of Telengana armed struggle and the company of the then Nepalese communist movement leaders with the parliamentary leaders have created an environment to easily accept parliamentarism in Nepal, too. Similarly, the emergence of the Khrushchev revisionism in the international communist movement provided ground for the petty-bourgeois reformism in Nepal. Though this international influence is only a secondary reason for the growth of reformism we should not forget its role in it.
Also, the impact of the Hindu fundamentalist culture has been a causing factor for reformism, directly or indirectly. As a consequence of the impact of this culture, some people of high class like feudal, landlords etc. and some who are called smart and clever but with feudal culture easily get to the leadership. Naturally, they interpreted Marxism to suit their class interest and set a despicable working style of dealing with the Party as their fiefdom and party members as their servants. Misinterpreting Marxism with various kinds of stupid logic like the cheats of the villages became their characteristic particularity. They practiced a pompous working style with cunning logics with a view to preventing the communist movement from going towards revolutionary direction and confusing the sincere revolutionaries. Like the Hindu pundits who take the support of religion and mythology to conceal their corrupt and feudal culture and character, they pursued a hypocritical style to apply Marxism. It was their specialty to look very gentle externally but to undertake feudal, vulgar and corrupt activities internally. This kind of fraud and hypocritical character can be amply seen in the leaders from Ramajhi to Mohan Bikram. It was only natural that these leaders were always worried about distorting Marxist revolution. It shows that it cultivated reformism easily in the communist movement. Moreover, it elucidates the need to unleash a fierce and life and death struggle in order to establish a proletarian culture in the communist movement.
Apart from the factors above-mentioned, the representatives of revolutionary tendency of the communist movement could not, right from the beginning, correctly assimilate the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism due to the lack of ideological study and develop the struggle against reformism which helped in rapid growth of reformism, in the communist movement.
Ideological and Political Expressions of the Nepalese Reformism
Revolutionary Strategy, Reformist Tactics
Adopting a strategy of ascending Mt. Everest but tactics of descending towards Indian Ocean is the particularity of Nepalese reformism. This is exactly what is meant by the adoption of the strategy of New Democratic revolution but tactics of liberal bourgeois class. Generally, there is no dispute in the Nepalese communist movement in considering the Nepalese society as semi-feudal and semi-colonial, and accepting political strategy of New Democratic revolution (though the UML has separated itself from this process now). It is not possible for the present reformism to declare the anti-New Democratic revolution strategy as their political line and confuse the people and cadres due to the ideological victory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Therefore, the reformism is manifested in tactical issues because it is in this issue that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism directs the communists of each country to make a "concrete analysis of concrete situation" and devise policies in accordance with their conditions. This is where reformism finds a place to hide in.
Everybody knows that the relations between strategy and tactics is and should be indivisible like that between whole and part. When you adopt a strategy to overthrow feudalism and imperialism and establish a New Democratic state in its place, naturally you should adopt the tactics accordingly. But, to everybody's surprise, firstly, the Nepalese reformism devises strategy of liberal bourgeois class, and not that of the proletariat, in the name of tactics. To devise tactics of 'struggle for restoration of multi-party system', 'demand for constituent Assembly under monarchy', 'demand for restoration of parliament', 'government of patriotic and democratic forces', 'transfer of state power to the people', 'struggle for protection of multiparty system’ etc. are some examples. It only justifies the fact that a parallel strategy of New Democratic revolution was devised in the name of tactics. Secondly, the Nepalese reformism always separates the issue of revolutionary state power from the movement in the name of tactics. Lenin had said- "If somebody opposes reformism ideologically but keeps the revolutionary slogan away from the movement, that is reformism itself.’ In Nepal, the reformism of Mohan Bikram, Nirmal Lamas and the like falls under this category. They act as if they oppose reformism ideologically but always are opposed to the slogan of revolutionary state power in the name of immediate movement.
The reformists very cunningly attempt to hide the fact that if one makes the political slogans of liberal bourgeois as his tactics, it serves the strategy of the reactionaries, not the New Democratic revolution.
In order to achieve the totality of certain process, attempts should be made to attain its parts. But the Nepalese reformism attempts to attain the part of a some other different process by talking about achieving the totality of one. It is nothing but unscientific to apply a different method in resolving a qualitatively different contradiction instead of applying a conducive one in resolving a particular contradiction. It is what is called talking about going to east but in practice going to the west. The Nepalese reformism has been always rejecting the fact that, in order to attain the strategy of New Democratic revolution, the tactics of capturing the local people's state power through protracted process of armed struggle right from the beginning should be adopted. The reformism opposes the tactics of revolutionary struggle quite tactfully. It has been creating confusions by talking about the New Democratic revolution to the cadres and people and presenting the tactics Com. Lenin applied in the context of socialist revolution. It is self- evident that the tactics of revolution that Com. Lenin applied in a particular condition of historical development and that of revolution to be accomplished in the oppressed semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries with historically different condition of development cannot be similar. Moreover, the tactical principles to attain total strategy of New Democratic revolution are what Mao had developed in course of the Chinese revolution and objectively of which have been already proved. To talk about the strategy of New Democratic revolution but as per the policy on tactics is concerned, to follow the synthesis of Russian revolution, and not of the Chinese one. Isn't it contradictory?
The Nepalese reformists have not been doing so in order to sincerely learn from Lenin but with an objective of making him a cover to conceal their reformist and parliamentary character. Anybody with a little sincerity may easily understand that Lenin had himself raised the question on how to accomplish the proletarian revolution in Eastern countries where there are majority of peasants. Mao has answered the historic question by accomplishing New Democratic revolution through Protracted People’s War with a strategy of encircling the cities from the countryside on the bases of the leadership of the proletariat and workers- peasants alliance in course of long and fierce class struggle. The Nepalese reformists are so dishonest that they, no doubt, talk about New Democratic revolution but do not want at all to hear the tactics to be followed and always talk of tactics of parliamentary struggle. Many years pass by, the reactionary classes get trapped into huge political crises, and the people stand up for struggle again and again but tactics of the reformists never changes. Even after 50 years, they talk of the same tactics and get drowned in the reactionary elections, and sometimes get involved in the peaceful people's movement. In the name of tactics, they sometimes follow liberal reaction in contrast to hardcore reaction. They talk of tactics and get sunk into the struggle for reforms throughout life and raise the slogan of reactionary state-power against that of revolutionary state-power that is, Nepalese reformism. As a matter of fact, the people who adopt this kind of tactics don't have any right to talk about New Democratic revolution. But reformism has been making unethical attempts to the contrary. In this way, it has been serving reaction by declaring the revolutionary tactics to be adopted for New Democratic revolution as 'extremist'.
Reformism in Determining Methods of Struggle
Marxism-leninism-maoism thinks that the main form of struggle is war for new democratic revolution. But the nepalese reformism always keeps saying it is the peaceful people's movement. Marxism-leninism-maoism considers the publicity of necessity of armed struggle among the people in an organized way as the essence of its teachings. But for reformism, talking about armed struggle and even the dissemination of its necessity among the people is 'extremism'. For them, peaceful people's movement and parliamentary struggle is the main form of struggle forever.
The reformists rule out Mao's view that all activities of the Party should be centred for the preparation of armed struggle for New Democratic revolution until it begins and in its service after it does begin. In order to confuse the people, they say that they are also in favor of armed struggle but presently they are conducting peaceful movements and preparing for the armed struggle since it is no time for. They hide the fact that the people can be never trained with reformist and peaceful struggles for armed struggle. "today, cash, credit tomorrow" is their principle. This is what leading the people in parliamentary peaceful and reformist struggle and telling them to wage armed struggle tomorrow, means. In reference to the East European parties, Mao had said, "They did not wage revolutionary class struggle. Therefore, they shall harvest what they have sown". In the same way, the Nepalese reformism regards the sowing of seeds of revolutionary struggle as 'extremist' act and does sow that of peaceful struggle. So it has been now taking its reactionary fruits. Are the reformists including UML not examples of it?
In regard to the forms of struggle, the reformists do present one logic in order to provoke the cadres and people against revolutionaries. That is, "The armed struggle is not a matter of propaganda, this is something done internally. But since the Maoists are 'leftist phrase mongers', 'extremist' and 'infantile', they are making such stupid propaganda of it" etc. If deeply thought, this logic of the reformists looks very dangerous. This logic which is presented with an intention to deviate the people with low level of ideological knowledge from revolutionary struggle shows that they think that the armed struggle is something to be done by a handful of people inside the Party, not by the people. According to this logic, what they are preparing is not People’s War but terrorism. If they are really preparing for armed struggle as this logic shows, it is not Marxism at all but terrorism. But, dear readers! Please don't get scared! The fact is that 'our' reformists are not preparing for terrorism either. What I mean to say here is if politics of armed struggle is hidden from the people and attempts are made to wage, it is terrorism theoretically. In this context, it would be appropriate to study the discussions about commonalities between economists and terrorism, which Lenin has made in his renowned work "What is to be Done?” The real essence of the logic is to prevent the people from getting trained with politics of armed struggle, isolate the revolutionaries from people and confuse the cadres and people. With this logic, the reformists all over the world have been rejecting the fact that in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution today, the People’s War is the only path for revolution and that it is the historical duty of communist revolutionaries to fully involve in its preparation, initiation and development. The Nepalese reformism has been ruling out the historical necessity that in Nepal, the armed struggle is what must be concentrated on for New Democratic revolution right from the beginning. Offering the people the poison of peaceful, parliamentarian and legal struggle and talking about armed struggle internally are manifestation of hypocrite character of the reformism.
When the Maoist is propagating among the people that preparation and initiation of the protracted People’s War is essential today, all the reformists of the country talk about the threat of extremism. What does it mean when one sees 'extremism' in spreading the messages to the people of getting heartily involved day and night in various kinds of struggles and, mainly rural class struggles with thousands of people; directly participating in their pleasures and pains; organizing people's service, people's awareness, labour camps, cultural programmes; conducting struggles focusing on proper places particularly as per the unequal situation of development of the country; and of total change and inevitability of protracted People’s War for this in all the programmes of national and global level! It only means-not to get unified with people and not to give them revolutionary politics. Dear readers! What is an important point here is the reformists have been thinking or acting as if the protracted People’s War is armed insurrection, and opposing it. Lack of clarity in this issue has created illusions among many sincere revolutionaries, too. The armed insurrection and protracted People’s War is not the same thing. Owing to the present condition of economic, political and social development of Nepal, the possibility of capturing central people's state by accomplishing armed insurrection at the same time does not historically prevail. Therefore, if somebody talks about initiating armed struggle under the strategy of armed insurrection, it is simply an adventurism, extremism and stupidity. The Maoists are fully aware of it. This is because of this historical condition of Nepal that we've said that we should move forward through the process of protracted People’s War under the strategy of encircling cities from countryside. It is said that guerrilla warfare holds strategic role in the beginning. Seriously thinking on specificity of Nepal, the Maoist has said, "Give priority to the tasks of village but don's leave out them in the city"; "Give priority to illegal struggles but don't leave out the legal ones too"; "Give priority to certain strategic areas but don't spare other areas, too"; "Give priority to war tasks but don't spare people's struggles, too"; "Give priority to underground tasks but don't spare open ones, too"; "Give priority to rural class struggle but don't spare countrywide struggle, too"; "Give priority to publicity inside the country but don't spare the task of worldwide publicity, too"; "Give priority to the task of building military organization but don't spare that of other front organization, too"; "Give priority to depending on our own organization and force but don't leave out the actional unity and the task of gaining help and support of international community". Where is the extremism here? I challenge the reformists to prove it ideologically.
Whatever the Maoist has been doing today throughout the country, they are all within this policy. It is crystal clear to all the people who possess even a little sincerity to and knowledge about revolution that this is not extremism but Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This is also clear like broad daylight that what the reformists have been branding as extremism is virtually revolutionary Marxism only.
There is anti-revolution essence of the reformists behind their false allegation that the Maoist has been trying to accomplish armed insurrection without any preparation even though we have been talking of waging guerrilla warfare under the strategic defensive. They have no other objective than confusing the people and cadres and satisfy their mean ego, fulfilling their electoral interests and spreading the poison of reformism for this purpose.
Manifestation of Reformism on Reactionary Election
Today the policy on the parliamentary elections has been an important tool to examine which party is revolutionary and which is reformist. Nepal is no exception to it. It is reformism, which has been drawing the Party in the dirty swamp of parliamentarism since 1955 and strangling the throat of Nepalese revolution. Understanding this fact deeply holds a great significance.
In history, there was a period when people's voice could be raised inside the parliament and it had some political sense. Generally, this period was before World War-I. But after capitalism developed into imperialism, era of proletarian revolution began and the world moved forward through the disasters of First and Second World Wars, the parliamentary system completely turned into a tool of the imperialism to impose wars on the people. Imperialism means war, whereas capitalism of the past was directly not a synonymous word to war. In this situation for the proletariat, possibility to publicise its revolutionary polities inside the parliamentary system ended not only in the underdeveloped countries but also in the developed ones. Since this fact was not grasped, the proletarian class had to bear deadly losses in Chile, Indonesia etc. Therefore, it would be a great historical illusion to think that the proletariat can make any preparation for revolutionary struggle from inside the parliamentary system in a country like Nepal, which is tied in the shackle of feudalism and imperialism.
It is known to all that the more the parliamentary system has grown useless and fascist, the more the reactionary class has been declaring it to be universal. The mistake the reformism of communist movement commits is that it also accepts it as universal. This is justified by the fact that the reformists say the use of parliamentary election is a tactical issue but adopt a strategy of participating in it in their whole life, no matter where the world has reached; how naked the parliamentary system has grown; how conducive environment has been prepared for revolutionary struggle; how different the country, time, condition have been; and whatever the nature of revolution. And, when they are able to win lesser seats in the parliament, they play the role of opposition in the name of exposing the system, but when able to win more, they even form the government with the mercy of and with puppets of feudalism and imperialism. In today's world, it has been proved universally that the use of parliamentary elections does not bring out a result other than this. We have been watching the Nepalese reformism for move than 4 decades, which has been declaring it 'tactics', but practically devising a strategy to participate in the elections for the whole life. Dear readers! Isn't it a proof that the reformism also accepts the parliamentary system as universal indirectly?
The Nepalese reformism talks of New Democratic revolution but it has rejected Mao's teaching that for this stress should be laid on the People’s War right from the beginning, and has established parliamentarism in its place. Consequently, all these groups and subgroups have been directionless parliamentary dirty gangs full of cheatings, conspiracies and personal interests. There may be some sincere persons also but the history, as Engel's says, has proved them to be more dangerous.
In this context, what the Maoist says is there can be no use of parliamentary elections separated from the armed struggle, i.e., People’s War in Nepal. Through the use of parliament in the name of tactics, it is possible neither to develop a revolutionary party nor accomplish the revolution in Nepal. Today's reality of the world is that if a party gives up the People’s War and gets involved in the elevations, it shall inevitably be trapped into parliamentarism and if it walks on the path of People's War, the possibility of using the parliament collapses. If it is properly thought about the, scientific and revolutionary truth of the Maoist's statement that the question of reactionary elections must be linked with the People’s War can be understood. It is impossible to develop the revolutionary movement in Nepal and the liberation of Nepalese people is impossible without despising against and waging a life and death struggle revisionist renegades who have gone to the parliament under the cover of Lenin in the pretext of creativity. This is also not possible by the reformists who have given up the path of People’s War and gone to parliament forever in the pretext of exposing the parliamentary system. All those reformists taking this path are bound to inevitably degenerate into reaction like UML.
Manifestation of Reformism on the Slogan of State Power
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has taught us that the proletarian class always does and must put forward the revolutionary slogan of the state power not only strategically and ideologically but also directly, practically and tactically. If the revolutionary slogan is not put forward from this point of view or another slogan of reformist state power of reactionary class is given on any pretext it cannot help in building revolutionary movement. To talk about a strategically revolutionary but tactically reformist state power is, indeed, equal to betraying the cause of proletariat and helping that of reactionary class. It would be appropriate to recall the historical contexts when Marx and Engels followed the tactics of proletarian revolution from the very beginning, Lenin gave emphasis on provisional revolutionary government and Mao stressed on slogan of democratic state power of workers-peasants- soldiers.
But the Nepalese reformism has never raised the slogan of state power in revolutionary Marxist way. Here a tradition to talk strategically about democratic revolution but advocate the reactionary state power practically and tactically and struggle for it has been set. This disease has grown widespread ever since the then party general secretary Manmohan Adhikari told the king in 1955 that the Party will only propagate peacefully about socialism and made the Party legal to the extent that it would support parliamentary system. It resulted in tactical support to the parliament, in spite of talks of republic strategically, and participation in the elections without any hesitation. After that, the Party always moved after the liberal bourgeoisie in the name of tactical slogan of the state power. All the slogans that were presented in the Darbhanga plenum in 1960 were the slogans of reformist state. All the slogans have represented the cause of liberal bourgeoisie, not independent revolutionary cause of the proletariat. Then after it was nothing but a conspiracy of the reformists to compare between the Constituent Assembly under monarchy or sovereign parliament and declare it a revolutionary slogan and confuse the cadres and people for a long time. The Nepalese reformism, later in the context of the slogan of state power, presented a strategic slogan parallel to the people's state power in the name of tactics and carried out a conspiracy to mislead the people. The slogan of the Government of Patriotic and Democratic Forces and that, though ambiguous, of transfer of power to the people of similar nature fall under this category. To present a slogan of another parallel state power in the place of New Democratic state power and put forward different forms of struggle has been the particularity of the Nepalese reformism. Due to this character in the name of so-called leftist front, the reformism made the establishment of multiparty system its tactics regarding the state power in the historic movement in 1990. Now their tactics has been to defend it. This kind of outlook regarding the slogan of state power has made the reformism of Nepalese communist movement a weapon of the feudal and bureaucratic and comprador bourgeoisie to resolve its political crisis. Moreover, people's aspiration for change has been again and again betrayed.
In this regard, the Maoist clearly says that to present a slogan of another state power in the place of that of New Democratic state under any pretext and logic is to betray Marxism and revolution. In order to capture the New Democratic state totally, one has to engage in a process to capture that partially or tactically. For this, there can be no revolutionary tactical slogan in Nepal other than marching towards the direction of capturing central state power by intensifying local class struggle and capturing local people's state power. Revolutionary movement is impossible to develop unless a decisive struggle is fought against the tradition set by reformism to present an anti-Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, anti-New Democratic revolution and capitalist slogan regarding that of the state power.
Reformism on the Unity, Split and Two-Line Struggle
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has directed us to make the Communist Party as a militant vanguard of the proletariat on the basis of revolutionary principle through ideological struggle and class struggle. Marx & Engles had fought fiercely against petty-bourgeois elements inside the Party. During the bourgeois democratic revolution, Lenin pointed out the fact that a militant party can be built only by fighting vigorously against bourgeois fellow- travel less of the workless movement and undergoing through several splits from those kinds of elements Mao has taught us that we should wage a life-and-death struggle against opportunism and a revolutionary party should be built through storms of People's War. The essence of the discussions is that the Communist Party should be built and developed on the basis of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist science and should never be made a place to gather crowds on the basis of petty-bourgeois idealist thinking.
But the Nepalese reformism has been making the Party a tool for compromise and co-ordination on the basis of petty-bourgeois idealism, and not a means for struggle on the basis of science. It has been interpreting the unity and split on the basis of the same unprincipled compromise, and not from a dialectical point of view on the basis of revolutionary ideology and politics. Here the decisive struggle against opportunism on the basis of revolutionary principle is named splittism, sectarianism, and dogmatism. Who is for unity and who is a splittist? Its deciding criteria is revolutionary principle and politics of proletarian class, but the Nepalese reformism has been rejecting this scientific view. It has been upholding the philosophy of compromise and co-ordination inside the Party in the name of presenting itself as anti-splittist and pro-unity. Today it has further developed and filled the Party with correct & wrong elements of all kinds and degenerated party to the level of a puppet of feudalism and imperialism, and this process still continues. Not only that any cheat, feudal or smuggler can easily enter all reformist parties of Nepal but these elements can be seen as dominant there. The Nepalese reformism is suffering from a modern revisionist trend that kills the revolutionary party of proletarian class in the pretext of making the Party of the entire people. It has been a profession of the reformists from UML to Mohan Bikram to make allegations, like renegade Kautsky, Khrushov and Tengs- Shiao-Ping, of 'sectarianism', 'dogmatism' and 'extremism' against the Maoists who advocate the revolutionary principle, revolutionary struggle and revolutionary party. The main difference between these reformists and Maoists is that they oppose revolutionary Marxism and revolutionaries, and unite with opportunists whereas the Maoists oppose opportunism and pay stress on the unity of the revolutionaries. In Nepal, reformism is so extensive that a large section of intelligentsia brainwashed by it is found to be attempting to convert the Communist Party into a co-ordinationist party in the name of Marxism and oppose the Maoists, who follow Marxist science.
What all these reformists fail to understand or reject, is that the revolutionary party is not a party of reactionary election votes; that is a fighting squad of the proletariat. In the Party of the proletariat, the unity and principle are achieved not through compromise but through struggle; he/she is the splittist who goes against revolutionary principle and who advocates parliamentarism and reformism.
The reformists do not consider the inner struggle of the Party as the reflection of class struggle outside, and they do not struggle dialectically on the basis of principle but in an unprincipled manner on the basis of diplomatic maneuver. Hence, they use bourgeois tricks and conspiracy in handling two-line struggle, instead of open and clear proletarian method. Because of all these factors, practically no difference is seen between these so-called communist groups and Pancha*-Congress groups.
Today, the Maoist party has fought decisive struggle against the idealist thinking on the questions of unity, split and two-line struggle, and been applying the teachings of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism firmly. This is why all reformists of country have been alleging the Maoist to be dogmatist and displaying their real splittist and anti-revolutionary character.
The Distortions Produced by the Development of Reformism
Reformism has produced a great heap of garbage of various kinds in the Nepalese communist movement. The largest of them is the degeneration up to the level of serving feudalism and imperialism, i.e., naked reaction in the name of Marxism and Communist Party openly. This has developed deviation, frustration, and mentality of capitulation among several people who were likely to transform themselves into revolutionaries.
Due to predominance of reformism in the movement, a section of petty-bourgeois is degenerating through the path of 'left' liquidationism, which appears in the communist movement as a product of reformist sin. Totally frustrated and disappointed, this section of petty-bourgeois, as a last expression of impatience, defy marching through troublesome and lengthy route of ideology, polities, organization and struggle, and makes revolutionary noise in contrast to the objective situation and ultimately runs away from the revolutionary struggle. Though this kind of tendency has not yet come to the surface in an organized way and been a major problem in the movement in Nepal, however, it appears in the form of individuals and smaller local groups. In the name of opposing revisionism, it attacks even revolutionary Marxism from ‘left’ angle and damages the revolutionary movement. Nowadays in Nepal, the people suffering from this disease are found to have been advocating leftist liquidationism, saying, ‘All are renegades’, ‘Nobody is revolutionary’ etc. This is also indeed a distortion produced by the reformism dominant in the Nepalese communist movement. Though not a major problem presently, the communist revolutionaries should be aware of it, lest it may get organized tomorrow and pose a threat to the development process of the People's War.
Another group of intelligentsia involved in the communist movement has taken the path of downfall due to reformism, declaring that the main solution of all problems is cultural transformation. Involved in the occupation of endless interactions, these people place themselves above ideology, politics, organization and proletarian discipline, and have been attempting to cover their inferiority complexed mentality by displaying a sense of significance. These elements who actually runaway from the field of ideological struggle of communist movement have been acting as priests who give advice and teachings to people. Reformism is no less responsible for this distortion which talks about cultural transformation idealistically. But Marxist science holds that ideological and political line decides everything. We can understand it as nihilism from philosophical point of view.
History of Struggle Against Reformism and Present Situation
We briefly discussed above about the Nepalese petty-bourgeois tendency that takes Marxism as reformism, its manifestation and consequence. However, it does not mean that there is no revolutionary trend and tendencies. In fact, there has been a revolutionary trend in the communist movement since the beginning and has been waging struggle in various ways against opportunism of various kinds in the course of its development process. But for a long period in the history, this trend failed to grasp Marxism correctly, and then could not develop to the level of applying it in the historical development process of Nepalese society and waging a decisive struggle against opportunism. Consequently, various kinds of opportunism became predominant in the movement, and the reactionary class was successful in suppressing and betraying the people's movement in this or that way.
What we want to say right here is the struggle of the people against reactionary class and that of the revolutionaries against opportunism has taken a qualitative leap. In other words, the reactionary regime is in extreme crisis, the people are going in favor of total change, and in this state of contradiction, a revolutionary party guided by essential revolutionary principle has been developed to lead correctly. This development is a result of class struggle as well as long and fierce ideological struggle of revolutionary Marxists against ‘leftist’ and mainly rightist petty-bourgeois tendency. The reformists and several kinds of opportunists have been making efforts to distort and confuse the development of the revolutionary principle and revolutionary party, and check the growth of revolutionary movement. But we claim that the revolutionary principle achieved by the people as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism through a long process of class struggle and ideological process and the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party developed an this basis shall burn the reformist garbage into ashes and lead the revolutionary struggle of the people against reactionary class to victory gradually. This claim is based mainly on following points which the opportunists have been trying to distort :
* To grasp the science of revolution of the proletarian class as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the first and fundamental condition and basis. During the struggle against opportunism, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) successfully assimilated this science of revolution in its totality, i.e., as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It also assimilated the fact that in today's world, nobody can be a revolutionary Marxist without accepting Maoism as the higher stage of development of Marxism-Leninism. Today nobody can be a genuine revolutionary without firmly grasping the inevitability of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as a starting point of building a new party, new movement and new society. Ever since the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) took Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as an ideological weapon of proletarian class, it led the revolutionaries to wage decisive struggle against and divorce from the opportunism of various kinds which had been dominant in the Nepalese communist movement, and leading the people towards the process of revolutionary struggle. In fact, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has been today a scale to measure the difference between the Marxists and revisionist reformists.
* The assimilation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as guiding principal inspired CPN (Maoist) to study natural & historical development of the Nepalese society. The study of the history enabled it to make an objective assessment of economic, political and cultural state of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial society of today. It taught the Party the development of bureaucratic capitalism emerged together with the unholy coalition of feudalism and imperialism in Nepal and its critical situation today. It also taught the Party to deeply assimilate theoretical and practical ways of total change necessary in Nepal and how that is possible. The study enabled the revolutionaries to answer the questions why and how to accomplish New Democratic revolution in Nepal in a way naturally different from that of the reformism dominating the Nepalese communist movement.
* The assimilation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism enabled the revolutionaries in Nepal to comprehend the confusion and ambiguity prevailing in the question of nature of political power and struggle and reformist vicious circle, and develop a revolutionary political line for founding New Democratic state power in the place of reactionary state power by struggling against it. Moreover, it inspired the Maoists to adopt a qualitatively different line, i.e., a political line of capturing the central state power by building New Democratic state power at the local level, which would be in contrast to the tradition of Nepalese revisionists to struggle for reformist state to serve the purpose of the reactionary class. It also elucidated the fact that talking about any state power, excepted the New Democratic one in both theoretical and practical sense and struggling for it, is nothing but a despicable conspiracy of revisionist in Nepal.
* Thus, the study of history and struggle against revisionist illusions enabled the Maoists to make an assessment of real position of class friends and foes and particularities of today's Nepalese society, and understand the theory on the military strategy and tactics of the New Democratic revolution in Nepal. It led them to devising military plan to initiate armed struggle in Nepal on the basis of that kind of military principle. This is how the Maoists could march towards this direction with full confidence after making synthesis of how the People’s War can move forward as a total war in the world today and what its particularities are in Nepal.
* This process of assimilating the revolutionary principle moved the Maoists towards the direction of carrying out rural class struggle for New Democratic revolution unifying with mainly the oppressed peasants living in large areas. It taught the Maoists to comprehend the limitless power of the Nepalese peasants, and to participate in their pains and pleasures and learn their real problems.
w This principle taught the Maoists to learn real sense of adjustment between the legal and illegal and rural and urban struggles. In addition, it taught them to learn the development process of the Party as a militant vanguard of the proletariat, and building United Front on basis of unity of workers- peasants and People’s Army under the leadership of the Party.
* In all, this study has taken the Maoists to the extent of launching the process of founding New Democratic state with historic initiation of the People’s War by grasping the essence of Lenin's view that there can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary ideology and Mao's view that whether ideological and political line is correct or not determines everything, and exposing all sorts of opportunism. Who is genuine revolutionary and who is opportunist? Now this shall be decided by the attitude and policy it will adopt towards the People's War.