Critica al avakianismo y su base liquidadora.

Dentro de la lucha contra el post-maoísmo avakianista, los camaradas del Next Front aportan este interesante documento de critica a la base filosófica post-modernista del mismo.

 

 

Some Notes On “Against Avakianism”

Posted by admin on December 25th, 2013

By: The Next Front

We  have got an article entitled ”Against Avakianism”  by Com Ajith, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari. It is long, but a readable article, which was introduced in August  2013.  It is a matter of surprise that even the newly formed CPN-Maoist also  has not publicized  his  official view on ”New Synthesis”. They have not made their position clear in this issue. It had come to know that the Central Committee meeting of  CPN–Maoist, which was held in Pokhara, had discarded the notion of “New Synthesis” as the liquidationist deviation. Party members have expressed their views on “New Synthesis”,   but officially CPN-Maoist has not  publicized   the decision on this issue. While the most of the Maoist parties inside the defunct RIM and outside, have made their positions clear.

We can’t   say exactly, whether the Comrades of CPN-Maoist have studied the article of Com,Ajith  or not. We have not gone through  any comment from them,  on this article. We  think they are still at the cross roads. As we think, now the time has come to make concrete decision on this issue. It is clear that there is no any possibility of rebuilding or restructuring the new International Center on the basis of  ‘New Synthesis’.  Here we would like to stress that while rebuilding a new embryonic Center,  the role of the  CPI(Maoist) and the Communist Party of the  Philippines will be decisive.

If  we are the real follower of Marxism-Leninism -Maoism, if we are dedicated to the world proletarian revolution,  we must have to create  a  common meeting point to reunite. We have got lesson already from Peru and Nepal–”Gonzalo thought” and ”Prachanda Path”. Now no need of another ‘ism’ like  Avakianism. It has been clear that  RCP, America  is imposing its liquidationist views on other parties . And there is no another way to move forward without  RCP, America. Being a Maoist no one can accept the view of ”New Synthesis”,  no  one  can declare  his own death. We urge the Maoist Parties to make concrete decision on this issue. Tomorrow is the 26 December –”The Mao- Day” and the  May Day also is coming near.

In Nepalese context, there is no any confusion on this issue.  Now we have some writings on ‘New Synthesis’. Com. Baral in an article entitled “International Communist Movement, Current Debate and New Synthesis”, has explained clearly about  ”New Synthesis” . Though it is in Nepali vernacular, but it has made clear that Avakian’s ”New Synthesis” is the notion of liquidation, a pessimistic view on current communist movement. Likewise in a Nepalese magazine Com. Basanta also has expressed his view that ”New Synthesis” can’t be the common point for the restructuring the new Center. In fact, those who have gone through ‘New Synthesis’, have the same conclusion that Bov Avakian is misinterpreting and misleading the communist movement-a liquidative approach.

Then what about ”Against Avakianism ” ?  We know  Communist party of Italy(Maoist)  (PCM-Italy),  has expressed  his support on  Com Ajith ‘s article, already. Basically we also  support this article .  But there are some points to be noted. Particularly on the issue of Post-modernism and Frankfurt School. These issues  need some clarification.

 The view expressed  on post-modern theories has made some confusions. As he has mentioned in the subtitle–”Some ‘Postist’ traits of Avakianism”

 Today, compared to even Mao’s time, we are enriched with a new awareness of the contradictory essence of Enlightenment and its scientific consciousness. Post-modernist trends have made significant contributions in this matter. Though their relativism led them to an ahistorical rejection of the Enlightenment and modernisation, the critical insights they offer must be synthesised  by Marxism.

We can’t accept   and appreciate the post-theories like post-modernism and post- Marxism. We disagree with the above mentioned views by Com. Ajith. Post-modernism  has not made any significant contribution to understand Enlightenment as well as  the Communist movement. Post-modernists have waged war against Enlightenment and Marxism. Postmodernism discards the whole achievement, achieved in the past, particularly the Communist Movement–addressing it ”end of the grand narratives”. We would like to mention the article ”Post-modern Condition” by J. Lyotard, the prominent  figure  of Post-modernism.  As Lyotard has mentioned in his article:

 The nineteenth and twentieth centuries have given us as much terror as we can take. We have paid a high enough price for the nostalgia of the whole and the one, for the reconciliation of the concept and the sensible, of the transparent and the communicable experience. Under the general demand for slackening and for appeasement, we can hear the mutterings of the desire for a return of terror, for the realization of the fantasy to seize reality. The answer is: Let us wage a war on totality; let us be witnesses to the unpresentable; let us activate the differences and save the honor of the name.

 It is clear, he is against the Communist Movement of nineteenth and twentieth century and he does not want to see this type of  “terror” also in future.

Here I want to quote some words from Siraj’s book ”Post-Modern Today”:

 Post-modernism is a trend of thought opposed to modernism (i.e. ideas emanating in the post-feudal era) and is therefore not only opposed to Marxism, but the entire leaps in thinking and values that came with the birth of capitalism — i.e. the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, Reason and even science.

 Post-modernism, though it can trace its roots to over a century back, in its present garb, it draws extensively from the philosophies of Nietzche, the philosophical farther-figure of Hitler’s fascism.

 While criticizing  the postist view of Bov Avakian , Com Ajith himself has been trapped in  a postist view.

 Not only this, Com Ajith has admired the contribution of Frankfurt School with highly enthusiasm. He mentions: ”The contributions made by theoreticians of the Frankfurt school are also to be acknowledged.”

It needs some clarification. What for it is  to be acknowledged–negatively or positively ?  What for Com Ajith  admires  the Frankfurt School, the founder organ of neo-Marxism ? There are  various trends within neo–Marxism . Among them,  Frankfurt School is more devious and dangerous. Their ”critical theory ” discards Marxism as deterministic view and they prefer Nietzsche and Freudian Psychology . The neo–Marxist  trend particularly the  ‘critical theory” of  Frankfurt School has  vulgarized  Marxism very badly. It is the matter to be cleared that we must criticize the concept of  neo-Marxism. There  is no any space to admire for Frankfurt School’s ”critical theory”.  How Com. Ajith urges us to acknowledge the contributions of  Frankfurt School. It is a matter of surprise!

We have lot of writings against the  Hegelian notion of this school. Mikhail Lifshits, the Marxist literary critic has said Frankfurt School as   “the reactionary sophisms of liberal intellectuals negatively inspired by the ”dialectics of enlightenment”. Pleaders of ”critical theory”   have borrowed some words from Marxist dictionary, but in fact, they are the follower of Nietzsche and Freud.  We must observe things critically, but that must be based on dialectical materialism—that means not going beyond Marxism.

Regarding the  ”New synthesis”, we have   remarkable   articles from Communist  ( Maoist)  Party of Afghanistan  and  The Workers Dreadnought. Now we have another an excellent  writing from Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari. These articles have laid down the foundation for the new journey–to build  a new International Center. Here we would like to cite some words from the article Against Avakianism. 

After all, one of the ideological criteria laid down by the SM is the rejection of Avakianism aka ‘new synthesis’ (the other being the rejection of Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism). Now that should certainly qualify as a precise demarcation!