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!
mas
isso também significa para a classe trabalhadora e os povos da Ásia, da
África, da Américas, um constante agravamento da sua situação social,
além da devastação ecológica causada pela exploração monstruosa de tudo o
que pode trazer alguns dólares ou euros.
Hoje,
com o capitalismo global todas as lutas do mundo estão interligados, o
Brasil como a Índia é uma peça central na economia global. É um pais-fazenda do
mundo, dedicado à oferta global de alimentos mercantizados, e portanto,
quanto mais avançar a revolução no Brasil mais enfraquecer o
imperialismo, o mais que podemos lutar nos países imperialistas .
