This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.

India:

When to push up and when to push down

[Comrades, MIM is in a fog about organizational questions as to what is holding up the Indian Maoists and their relationship to MIM. However, we wish to push forward on political economy in India.]

In response to the May-June 2006 issue of People's March and also some booklets by the Dalit Voice, MIM would like to take a tenative stand in order to be held accountable.

It appears to us that in both sides of this debate, each side fails to play its strong cards.

What we like about the People's March article is the clear conception of imperialism as defined by Lenin. The word "imperialism" is reserved to refer to economic phenomena most typically seen in the World Bank.

From there it follows that there is an all-India identity for a class fighting against imperialist super-exploitation. This view is also crucial in preserving independence, if for example U.$. imperialism invades Nepal or India. The people fighting must know their commonality.

Oddly, the People's March simultaneously holds that the so-called workers of France are exploited. It thus plays down the unity possible within India, by potentially overestimating India's bourgeoisie or perhaps the converse is true; maybe People's March means to imply that almost everyone in India is exploited if French workers are. In the discussion of France, People's March does not show us any lines of demarcation between proletarians and petty-bourgeoisie. This leads us to suspect that People's March has also fudged the issue in India, not least of all because Indian comrades should not accept that their petty- bourgeoisie has less access to appropriation of labor than French so-called workers, such as street-sweepers.

MIM has heard Indians more than once reject "all nationalism." When the issue is fending off imperialist invasion and the World Bank, there would seem to be some basis for that, because what the comrades really mean is no nationalism of the many nations within Indian borders. But then the nationalism remaining would be anti-imperialism, so this is an unfortunate use of language that makes it difficult to interact in the international communist movement. Anti-imperialism still has to be called nationalism, Indian nationalism, and what can that be but Hindu chauvinism? In fact, part of the whole debate here is what extent anti- imperialism as opposed to other struggles inherently promotes Hindu chauvinism guised as all-Indian nationalism in the short-run.

To us at MIM, the national question inside imperialist country borders is uniformly positive. We call on the CPI(Maoist) to acknowledge that and uphold the struggle of Occupied Mexico/Aztlan and against imperialist military recruiting and globalization.

We also call on CPI(Maoist) to do a concrete analysis of the line between urban proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie--comparing India with the imperialist countries simultaneously. It is our contention that the struggle against bureaucrat capitalism and imperialism are both linked to an accurate view of labor appropriation. It is the task of the comprador to sell his own country's labor cheap, and this is what we fear for those opposing the MIM line in the Third World. For us it is no accident that the Black Panthers were smashed and remaining various labor aristocracy politicans gained the favor of Zhou Enlai and then Deng Xiaoping brought us the sweatshop factories. It is not an accident, because they basically saw their own people as worth less than others. The resistance to the MIM line reflects the attitude of the comprador--that Indian workers and petty-bourgeoisie should be paid less than unskilled workers in imperialist countries, and they should be paid less because the comprador is uninterested in the question of development, just scooping bribes off the top from the imperialists.

Nor is it an accident that the labor aristocracy parties of the RIM have such a hard time entering into united front with Iran, including its president. They have bought into anti-Islamic chauvinism to such an extent that they have done violence to the most basic principles of Maoism in calling for the defeat of Iran.

Inside India, the national question cannot be so easily called progressive as inside u.$. borders. It is easy to imagine a struggle against imperialist invaders or the World Bank in which tribal or caste-related nationalism is not progressive. The struggle against nationalism in India helps in the struggle to "push up" against the imperialists. Only the all-India kind of nationalism is progressive then.

At the same time, to take another side of the question, there may be a need to "push down" first for dalits to play their role in the class struggle. Here the problem is that if the struggle against imperialism pushes up to the sky, does it bring some kind of Hindu nationalism with it. And do the people look to the state then for all-India answers, a place where the comprador again sinks in his teeth.

From the Dalit Voice we hear that most people in India can get away with not thinking they are Hindu. They have to be told the right history and there has to be almost a unity of various oppressed nations against a Hindu nation.

Here the Dalit Voice side of the equation may draw from Marx again. All national struggles of oppressed nations against imperialism as defined by Lenin are progressive. Yet Marx even said that some national struggles were progressive in his day. The obvious national struggle of progressive value is in centralizing trade and government administration to overcome fiefdom type thinking. In this regard, perhaps the national struggle in India is regressive yet if it can possibly go too far backwards economically.

On the other hand, if Hindus can be located as a nation upholding the caste system, to that extent the struggle to push down may be helpful. Here the question of tribals arises as well. Do Hindus have a common territory, culture and economy and to what extent does it overlap with the state? The Dalit Voice claims that the real Hindus are a minority.

Here too the question is one of superstructure. Oddly, those arguing that caste is super-structural also point out that religious conversion sometimes fails to eliminate caste influence. To us at MIM, that would only prove that caste is indeed part of the relations of production, connected to the division of labor. The economic relations are unchanged so even some Christians are practicing caste. People's March does call caste structural, not just superstructural, a fact we were unaware of when this article came out.

In the united $tates, we too have neighborhood segregation. This creates the basis of a common territory, a factor in nationality.

We must grant that the dominant nation in India is not an exploiter nation as a nation of imperialism defined by Lenin. Moreover, we must also grant that intra- proletarian conflict is a setback when it comes time to deal with the World Bank. These are strikes against "pushing down."

Again we return to the French so-called worker. If the French so-called worker is really a worker, then who is not a worker in India? Very few. The class struggle in India is thus made an abstraction except to the extent of invasion and the World Bank. In truth, MIM agrees with this view and holds it principal, that in fact, the people of India must ultimately learn the "abstraction" of imperialism. If the Indian people do successfully mobilize against their exploitation, they will have to deal with the abstraction of imperialism. It is the final goal.

The question remains whether this all-India emphasis does not have the effect of reinforcing what People's March calls Hindu chauvinism and thus the caste system. Will the agrarian struggle be sufficient to overcome caste and even if so, what about the cities in the meantime?

The question is the meantime. The question is those situations where imperialism has not invaded and there is still semi-feudalism to overthrow. Can the dalits play their full role without "pushing down" first? When we think of the French as so-called workers, how can there really be any class struggle except against the World Bank. At the same time, would it not be true there would be people stuck in the caste system? Can the exploited overcome metaphysics without a tussle among themselves first? Will the anti-caste struggle lead to a setback in the mode of production in tribal areas for instance?

On the question of cannon fodder, we have not seen any proof of this accusation. Can the Dalit Voice prove that casualties are disproportionately dalit? Maybe there should be hard numbers on deaths and caste membership in the revolutionary armed forces. On the other hand, we hope to see proof soon that CPI(Maoist) does not regard Iranians as any less fit of anti-imperialist support than Indians. It is not just a matter of opposing the u.$. war but setting straight those calling themselves "Maoist."

It would seem to MIM that there is no progress for India to bring to tribal areas or nationalities. The whole point of India as super-exploited victim of imperialism is that its progress is being prevented. Bureaucrat-capitalism and imperialist labor aristocracy must be resisted together for an accurate attack on imperialism.

The CPI(Maoist) has found areas out of reach of the state to launch armed struggle. The constant derision of the "forests" that we see is proof that CPI(Maoist) did something right in terms of armed struggle.

To the extent that the national bourgeoisie is not brought into play in India, its new democratic role against caste will be stifled. Here we do not suggest giving up armed struggle to allow the national bourgeoisie to play a role. But in line with Dalit Voice, we have a suspicion that tribals and others may be able to play an armed role in conflict with the state. On the other hand, it is fair to ask where the armed struggle can be sustained out of reach of the state. Perhaps in all such areas the struggle against semi-feudalism is principal. We at MIM would invite our Indian comrades to tell us more about places where the reach of the state is weak. Are there any tribal areas for instance where semi-feudalism is not on the agenda and the state's reach is weak?