Thursday, 31 March 2011
CIA covert operatives now in Libya
CIA covert operatives now in Libya
The wolves have now entered the backdoor in Libya has our Indian comrades warned in their statement on Libya.
The CIA has sent more than a dozen covert operatives to Libya as part of an escalating U.S. effort to vet the rebels working to oust Libyan strongman Muammar el-Qaddafi and lay the groundwork for funneling American aid to the insurgents, according to a person with direct knowledge of the CIA operations there.
The CIA’s deployment to Libya, which is virtually certain to expand in the coming days, comes amid word that President Obama has authorized U.S. intelligence agencies to provide direct assistance to the Libyan rebels. There are no U.S. military personnel on the ground in Libya yet, though the United Kingdom, America’s closest battlefield ally, has several dozen Special Air Service commandoes and M16 agents already operating there. News of the CIA deployments to Libya was first reported by The New York Times and then independently confirmed by National Journal.
We warn that the struggling people of the Arab world, particularly Libya have to be extra vigilant against the danger of the wolf which is trying to enter on various pretexts through the back door, while driving out the tiger through front door.
Struggle India Statement condemning the Attack against Libya
Struggle India Press Release
Condemn the Barbarous Incursion and Intervention
The Single spark from Tunisia is spreading like a prairie fire through out the Arab world. A wave of spontaneous mass struggles is sweeping across the Arab countries like Egypt, Bahrain & Libya etc. No doubt, the tide is against the reactionary and totalitarian imperialist puppet rulers of these countries and their policies.
Not only the reactionary rulers of these countries but the imperialists including US also got upset and trembled at these developments. And they indulged in various intravenous and interventions to deceive and defeat the struggling masses and install their own new guards in order to maintain their hegemony and exploitations over these countries.
With the direct united armed action on Libya and the UN sanction for it, the intention of the imperialist powers has become more explicit. Since countries like the US, France, Britain and Italy have a history of being the terminator of freedom, democracy and development in third world countries, it is a great joke to say that the present armed attacks are to save democracy in Libya. It is nothing but a shear barbarous incursion and intervention into the sovereignty and freedom of Libyan people and in the internal affairs of Libya. Let the destiny of Libya be decided by its own people. We vehemently condemn the united armed action by imperialism that assumes itself as an ‘International Police’. By giving sanction for the imperialists’ armed attacks on Libya, the UN itself has taken the role of a marshal in this war.
We urge all democratic, patriotic forces and people of our land to raise their voice against this aggression at Libya. We warn that the struggling people of the Arab world, particularly Libya have to be extra vigilant against the danger of the wolf which is trying to enter on various pretexts through the back door, while driving out the tiger through front door. On this occasion we would also like to invite the attention to the statement of Tunisian Maoist Communist Party, “the agenda must not be confined to change the guards only but they should extend to changing the whole system itself”.
(sd)
Palakkad/ Keralam, M.N.Ravunni,
21.3.2011
Secretary
STRUGGLE INDIA
MOB: 09249713184
Struggleindia2009@gmail.com
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Friday, 25 March 2011
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
In 2003 Bob Avakian delivered this historic talk in the United States. This is a wide-ranging revolutionary journey. It breaks down the very nature of the society we live in and how humanity has come to a time where a radically different society is possible. Full of heart and soul, humor and seriousness, it will challenge you and set your heart and mind to flight.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Revolution #227, March 20, 2011
LIBYA. With the U.S. once again involving itself in militarily attacking yet another country, ask yourself:
Which country in the world, from its beginnings to the present time, has the bloodiest history of genocide, slavery, invasions, coups, installing and backing brutal regimes, bombings, massacres and mass destruction, including the use of nuclear weapons? And which government imprisons its own people and in particular its minorities at the highest rate in the world?
No good can come from U.S. imperialist intervention of any kind.
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA3/18/201
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Statement on Libya from Revolutionary Initiative (Canada)
Democracy and Class Struggle fully endorses this statement from Canadian Comrades, it is one of the best statements produced on the Libyan Situation and we are pleased to publish it.
Statement from the General Secretary
March 13, 2011
The Imperialist Intrigues Against Libya
Expose and oppose all designs against the Libyan People
Gaddafi’s relationship to imperialism
In stark contrast to the manner in which the Western imperialists have
responded to developments across North Africa and the Middle East over
the last two months, for the armed opposition in Libya they have been
only too ready to support the anti-Gaddafi movement. For all their
clamoring about the necessity for “peaceful transitions” where the
masses threatened their clients in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere, the
imperialists have abandoned their pacifist demagogy when it has come
to Libya. NATO is pushing for a military assault against Libya that
could range in devastation anywhere from NATO’s operation against
Kosovo in 1999 to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
To be sure, the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya is neither
anti-imperialist nor or a defender of the interests of the Libyan
masses. Despite Gaddafi’s support to national liberation movements
throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, from the late 1990s onwards the Gaddafi
regime took the road of capitulation and collaboration, negotiating
its détente with imperialism and sharing in the spoils of a
structurally adjusted Libya. UN sanctions were lifted in 1999 and by
2006 the US lifted its own sanctions and normalized relations as it
looked to get in on the massive investments opportunities that
European corporations were availing themselves of.
In the 2000s, the Gaddafi regime consolidated its status as a strong
ally of imperialism, becoming a partner in the ‘War on Terror’ and
rigorously implementing neoliberal structural adjustment programs in
Libya. The amount of foreign direct investments from the Western
imperialists – especially France, U.K., Germany, Britain, Italy, and
Canada – have sky-rocketed in the past decade. According to an April
2010 report from the Libyan government, over the past ten years 110
state-owned companies have been privatized and the same report
promised to privatize 100% of the Libyan economy over time.
The Canadian imperialists, for their part, have made substantial
investments in Libya in the past few years and want to ensure the
protection of those investments. Among the top companies working out
of Libya include Canada’s largest oil company, Suncor and the
Quebec-based engineering and construction firm SNC-Lavalin. Amongst
SNC-Lavalin’s contracts include the construction of the Benghazi
airport, a prison in Tripoli, and the massive Great Man-Made River
Project.
For his opening up to the forces of imperialist globalization in the
2000s the Gaddafi regime became tolerable, even celebrated – or at
least so long as his rule was secure. But in the second half of
February 2011, Gaddafi has lost all support from the imperialists.
The emergence of opposition forces in Libya has provided the
imperialists with the opportunity to reclaim the initiative in the
region’s ongoing developments; restore their image as apparent
defenders of justice, democracy and progress; and re-legitimize the
logic of imperialist meddling in the region. There’s no doubt that
they view Libya as strategically significant and recognize that there
is a greater share of spoils to be seized.
As the popular rebellions of the Middle East and North Africa unfolded
throughout January and February 2011, the Western imperialists
desperately struggled to save face in the midst of popular movements
that revealed just how hated imperialism’s comprador front men really
were. The toppling of Mubarak served as a huge embarrassment for U.S.
policy in the region. Mubarak’s Egypt was second only to Israel as the
staunchest defender of American imperialist interests in the Middle
East.
At first, the imperialists cautioned the masses to exercise restraint
and ensure that their resistance would remain peaceful. As the
people’s movements in various countries advanced and threatened to
topple imperialism’s clients, especially in Egypt, the imperialists
saved face by feigning neutrality. When the strength of the people’s
struggles melted away the support for Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes,
some of the imperialists even celebrated these developments
“Revolutions” (with the subtle implication that it was time to go home
and let the “transition to democracy” work its magic).
The Libyan Exception
Yet, the chorus sung by the imperialists when it came to Libya
contrasts sharply with their positions in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and
all the other popular struggles. The imperialists have made no effort
to temper the opposition forces brandishing RPGs and Kalashnikovs
against Gaddafi, capturing city by city by force of arms. Certainly,
the people have a right to struggle by any means necessary. But had
any of the recent mass movements in the region (except for in Iran,
perhaps) taken up this level of armed resistance, the West would have
immediately labeled them as “terrorist” and provided direct assistance
in a merciless military assault.
The opposite has been the case with Libya. The imperialists are
supporting wholeheartedly the anti-Gaddafi forces. Every diplomatic
maneuver taken by the imperialists has been aimed at isolating Gaddafi
and supporting the opposition forces.
The development of an opposition movement against Gaddafi in the
broader context of the protest movements sweeping the region has
allowed the imperialists to conflate what’s happening in Libya with
everything else. The Western press has given top priority to the cause
of the anti-Gaddafi forces, eclipsing all other developments across
the Middle East and North Africa, many of which still pose a threat to
imperialism’s interests in the region. The diplomatic moves and
military maneuvers of the Western imperialists against Libya in the
past two weeks signal that they are actively working to steer the
popular anti-dictator sentiments in the region and around the world to
pursue their own imperialist interests in Libya.
Imperialism’s Intrigues Against Libya
The maneuvers of the Western imperialists must be exposed and opposed.
Any type of meddling or interference by the imperialists will prove
disastrous to the interests of the Libyan masses. Whether the
imperialists resolve upon stricter economic sanctions, NATO aerial
strikes, or outright military occupation, each and every move being
contemplated by the imperialists will only intensify the misery felt
by the masses under Gaddafi. All we have to do is look to the examples
of the Iraq sanctions regime throughout the 1990s, NATO’s aerial war
against the former Yugoslavia in 1999, or the occupations of
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti in the 2000s to see what bloody
catastrophes imperialism has caused in the past decade. The combined
effect of these U.S. or NATO-led campaigns has left millions upon
millions dead, and tens of millions languishing.
On February 26, the U.N Security Council voted unanimously in favour
of limited sanctions against Gaddafi and his close associates. The
following day, Stephen Harper announced that Canada would take the
sanctions one step further by blocking all transactions with the
government of Libya, its institutions and agencies, including the
Libyan central bank.
On March 1, the General Assembly suspended Libya from the UN Human
Rights Council. The International Criminal Court has announced that it
will investigate Gaddafi for “crimes against humanity” for the
regime’s actions from February 15, 2011 onwards. Such charges are
never hurled at the clients of the Western imperialists fighting
counter-insurgency campaigns far more ferocious than what’s being seen
in Libya. Colombia’s decades-long war on its people and the armed
revolutionary forces, claiming tens of thousands of lives; Sri Lanka’s
genocidal assault against tens of thousands of Tamil civilians in
2009; the Philippine state’s notorious disappearance campaign against
thousands of mass activists amidst its own anti-Maoist
counter-insurgency campaign; India’s anti-Maoist ‘Operation Green
Hunt’, the largest military exercise against the Indian people in that
country’s history; and Israel’s invasions and sieges against Lebanon
in 2006 and Gaza in 2009 – none of these anti-people offensives led to
charges of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”. These cases do
not diminish Gaddafi’s crimes against the Libyan people; they only
reveal the great terror that will befall the Libyan people if the
imperialist’s intervene.
All diplomatic moves taken against Libya have been aimed at
delegitimizing Gaddafi while strengthening the hand of the
anti-Gaddafi forces. However, with the position of the opposition
forces being beat back and incapable of immediate success – a piece of
military intelligence that the U.S. imperialists began to admit openly
by March 10 – the only option left to the imperialists is to secure
the support they need from the “international community” to impose a
no-fly zone (which would be followed by air strikes). According to the
“international law” of the imperialists, the only legal way to do this
is through approval from the United Nations Security Council. However,
two of its veto-wielding members, the imperialists to the east, Russia
and China, have expressed their opposition to and will likely block
any attempt to legally sanction an intervention in Libya. Hence, the
imperialists are side-stepping China and Russia by taking their
campaign outside UN framework, encouraging the Arab League and the
African Union to sanction imperialist intervention.
On Saturday, March 12, the Arab League, which has suspended Libya,
called on the Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya,
while paying lip service to being opposed to foreign occupation: “The
Arab League has officially requested the UN Security Council to impose
a no-fly zone against any military action against the Libyan people”,
said the Secretary-General of the League, Amr Moussa.
The African Union has thus far rejected military intervention in
Libya, not wanting a strike against Gaddafi to set a precedent that
would threaten other African heads of state. The AU has insisted that
Libya is in a state of civil war and should be treated as such.
Zimbabwe’s Mugabe said: “We took exception to interference by Western
powers … and we absolutely reject their intervention.”
Preparing themselves for this possibility, NATO forces have been
accumulating in the Mediterranean since early March, amassing aircraft
carriers and rapid strike forces. The challenge confronting the
western imperialists, however, is that while they do not want to see
the opposition get thoroughly crushed and are military positioned for
intervention, they fear making any hasty moves that will turn the
Libyan masses and the masses of the whole region and the world against
them.
U.S. imperialism is already incredibly overstretched and there may not
be another set of powers willing to lead up any major operations. But
these restraints do not necessarily limit the dangers that remain for
the Libyan people.
Hence, the imperialist press is working furiously to foster public
opinion against Gaddafi in favour of some sort of military
intervention.
The Libyan masses do not need to replace one set of reactionaries with
another set. Any forces in Libya calling on NATO to bomb Libya are
opportunists at best, if not reactionaries. The Libyan revolution does
not need a NATO campaign of aerial bombing. The overthrow of Gaddafi
remains the right of the Libyan people alone and can only come through
the fruits of their own struggle. An imperialist intervention will
only stem the tide of the revolution and foreclose the possibility of
an expansion of people’s power.
There are a number of forces claiming to have played a role in
initiating the anti-Gaddafi uprisings, including the National
Transitional Council, which declared itself the “sole representative
of all Libya” on March 5, 2011; and there is the National Conference
for the Libya Opposition (NCLO), which is claiming to have played a
role as well. Amongst these forces are military men, judges, lawyers,
academics – and in the case of the NCLO, the royalist Libyan
Constitutional Union led by the pretender to the Libyan throne,
Muhammad as-Senussi.
That certain imperialists have been quick to extend diplomatic
recognition to “the opposition” in Libya does not suggest that what we
have observed unfolding is simply a plan hatched in Washington. The
Libyan masses have sufficient reason to seek Gaddafi’s removal.
In a country with 30% unemployment and 50% youth unemployment, Gaddafi and
the bureaucrat capitalists and compradors have become richer and
richer through the period of neoliberal reforms, while the masses have
suffered immensely. The meddling of the imperialists is merely their
attempt to exploit the class contradictions that characterize the
opposition to arrive at an outcome even more preferable to
imperialism.
Revolutionaries in the imperialist countries have the duty to expose
and oppose the role of their own imperialist bourgeoisies in Libya,
and the people in the Middle East and North Africa have already
demonstrated that the assistance of imperialism is not required to do
away with reactionaries like Mubarak and Ben Ali. As Mao Zedong once
said, “All reactionaries are paper tigers”. Mao’s certainty in the
triumph of the people stemmed from his recognition that all
reactionaries are divorced or divorceable from the interests of the
people.
The growing waves of protests, strikes, and uprisings by workers and
the broad masses all across the world, conditioned by the general
crisis of the imperialist world system, reveal that the position of
imperialism is in strategic decline, while that of the proletariat is
strategically improving. Today’s People’s Wars in India and the
Philippines demonstrate that, when led by a genuine communist Party,
the will of the people for liberation is inexhaustible. In the coming
years, new People’s Wars will emerge all across the world. Out of the
uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, new and revolutionary
communist Parties can and must emerge. The imperialists and all their
clients can and must be crushed.
Support the people of Libya in smashing Gaddafi and all deals with imperialism!
No to imperialist meddling! No to NATO intervention!
Support the struggles of the masses in the Middle East and North
Africa for New Democracy and Socialism!
Revolutionary Initiative
March 13, 2011.
the bureaucrat capitalists and compradors have become richer and
richer through the period of neoliberal reforms, while the masses have
suffered immensely. The meddling of the imperialists is merely their
attempt to exploit the class contradictions that characterize the
opposition to arrive at an outcome even more preferable to
imperialism.
Revolutionaries in the imperialist countries have the duty to expose
and oppose the role of their own imperialist bourgeoisies in Libya,
and the people in the Middle East and North Africa have already
demonstrated that the assistance of imperialism is not required to do
away with reactionaries like Mubarak and Ben Ali. As Mao Zedong once
said, “All reactionaries are paper tigers”. Mao’s certainty in the
triumph of the people stemmed from his recognition that all
reactionaries are divorced or divorceable from the interests of the
people.
The growing waves of protests, strikes, and uprisings by workers and
the broad masses all across the world, conditioned by the general
crisis of the imperialist world system, reveal that the position of
imperialism is in strategic decline, while that of the proletariat is
strategically improving. Today’s People’s Wars in India and the
Philippines demonstrate that, when led by a genuine communist Party,
the will of the people for liberation is inexhaustible. In the coming
years, new People’s Wars will emerge all across the world. Out of the
uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, new and revolutionary
communist Parties can and must emerge. The imperialists and all their
clients can and must be crushed.
Support the people of Libya in smashing Gaddafi and all deals with imperialism!
No to imperialist meddling! No to NATO intervention!
Support the struggles of the masses in the Middle East and North
Africa for New Democracy and Socialism!
Revolutionary Initiative
March 13, 2011.
Friday, 18 March 2011
A SINGLE SPARK CAN START A PRAIRIE FIRE
January 5, 1930
[This was a letter written by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in criticism of certain pessimistic views then existing in the Party.]
Some comrades in our Party still do not know how to appraise the current situation correctly and how to settle the attendant question of what action to take. Though they believe that a revolutionary high tide is inevitable, they do not believe it to be imminent. Therefore, they disapprove of the plan to take Kiangsi and only approve of roving guerrilla actions in the three areas on the borders of Fukien, Kwangtung and Kiangsi; at the same time, as they do not have a deep understanding of what it means to establish Red political power in the guerrilla areas, they do not have a deep understanding of the idea of accelerating the nation-wide revolutionary high tide through the consolidation and expansion of Red political power. They seem to think that, since the revolutionary high tide is still remote, it will be labour lost to attempt to establish political power by hard work. Instead, they want to extend our political influence through the easier method of roving guerrilla actions, and, once the masses throughout the country have been won over, or more or less won over, they want to launch a nation-wide armed insurrection which, with the participation of the Red Army, would become a great nationwide revolution. Their theory that we must first win over the masses on a country-wide scale and in all regions and then establish political power does not accord with the actual state of the Chinese revolution. This theory derives mainly from the failure to understand clearly that China is a semi-colonial country for which many imperialist powers are contending. If one clearly understands this, one will understand first why the unusual phenomenon of prolonged and tangled warfare within the ruling classes is only to be found in China, why this warfare is steadily growing fiercer and spreading, and why there has never been a unified regime. Secondly, one will understand the gravity of the peasant problem and hence why rural uprisings have developed on the present country-wide scale. Thirdly, one will understand the correctness of the slogan of workers' and peasants' democratic political power. Fourthly, one will understand another unusual phenomenon, which is also absent outside China, and which follows from the first (that in China alone there is prolonged and tangled warfare within the ruling classes), namely, the existence and development of the Red Army and the guerrilla forces, and together with them, the existence and development of small Red areas encircled by the White regime. Fifthly, one will understand that in semi-colonial China the establishment and expansion of the Red Army, the guerrilla forces and the Red areas is the highest form of peasant struggle under the leadership of the proletariat, the inevitable outcome of the growth of the semi-colonial peasant struggle, and undoubtedly the most important factor in accelerating the revolutionary high tide throughout the country. And sixthly, one will also understand that the policy which merely calls for roving guerrilla actions cannot accomplish the task of accelerating this nation-wide revolutionary high tide, while the kind of policy adopted by Chu Teh and Mao Tse-tung and also by Fang Chih-min [1] is undoubtedly correct--that is, the policy of establishing base areas; of systematically setting up political power; of deepening the agrarian revolution; of expanding the people's armed forces by a comprehensive process of building up first the township Red Guards, then the district Red Guards, then the county Red Guards, then the local Red Army troops, all the way up to the regular Red Army troops; of spreading political power by advancing in a series of waves; etc., etc. Only thus is it possible to build the confidence of the revolutionary masses throughout the country, as the Soviet Union has built it throughout the world. Only thus is it possible to create tremendous difficulties for the reactionary ruling classes, shake their foundations and hasten their internal disintegration. Only thus is it really possible to create a Red Army which will become the chief weapon for the great revolution of the future. In short, only thus is it possible to hasten the revolutionary high tide.
Comrades who suffer from revolutionary impetuosity overestimate the subjective forces of the revolution [2] and underestimate the forces of the counter-revolution. Such an appraisal stems mainly from subjectivism. In the end, it undoubtedly leads to putschism. On the other hand, underestimating the subjective forces of the revolution and overestimating the forces of the counter-revolution would also constitute an improper appraisal and be certain to produce bad results of another kind. Therefore, in judging the political situation in China it is necessary to understand the following:
1. Although the subjective forces of the revolution in China are now weak, so also are all organizations (organs of political power, armed forces, political parties, etc.) of the reactionary ruling classes, resting as they do on the backward and fragile social and economic structure of China. This helps to explain why revolution cannot break out at once in the countries of Western Europe where, although the subjective forces of revolution are now perhaps somewhat stronger than in China, the forces of the reactionary ruling classes are many times stronger. In China the revolution will undoubtedly move towards a high tide more rapidly, for although the subjective forces of the revolution at present are weak, the forces of the counter-revolution are relatively weak too.
2. The subjective forces of the revolution have indeed been greatly weakened since the defeat of the revolution in 1927. The remaining forces are very small and those comrades who judge by appearances alone naturally feel pessimistic. But if we judge by essentials, it is quite another story. Here we can apply the old Chinese saying, "A single spark can start a prairie fire." In other words, our forces, although small at present, will grow very rapidly. In the conditions prevailing in China, their growth is not only possible but indeed inevitable, as the May 30th Movement and the Great Revolution which followed have fully proved. When we look at a thing, we must examine its essence and treat its appearance merely as an usher at the threshold, and once we cross the threshold, we must grasp the essence of the thing; this is the only reliable and scientific method of analysis.
3. Similarly, in appraising the counter-revolutionary forces, we must never look merely at their appearance, but should examine their essence. In the initial period of our independent regime in the Hunan-Kiangsi border area, some comrades genuinely believed the incorrect appraisal made by the Hunan Provincial Committee and regarded the class enemy as not worth a rap; the two descriptive terms, "terribly shaky" and "extremely panicky", which are standing jokes to this day, were used by the Hunan Provincial Committee at the time (from May to June 1928) in appraising the Hunan ruler Lu Ti-ping. [3] Such an appraisal necessarily led to putschism in the political sphere. But during the four months from November of that year to February 1929 (before the war between Chiang Kai-shek and the Kwangsi warlords), [4] when the enemy's third "joint suppression expedition" [5] was approaching the Chingkang Mountains, some comrades asked the question, "How long can we keep the Red Flag flying?" As a matter of fact, the struggle in China between Britain, the United States and Japan had by then become quite open, and a state of tangled warfare between Chiang Kai-shek, the Kwangsi clique and Feng Yu-hsiang was taking shape; hence it was actually the time when the counter-revolutionary tide had begun to ebb and the revolutionary tide to rise again. Yet pessimistic ideas were to be found not only in the Red Army and local Party organizations, even the Central Committee was misled by appearances and adopted a pessimistic tone. Its February letter is evidence of the pessimistic analysis made in the Party at that time.
4. The objective situation today is still such that comrades who see only the superficial appearance and not the essence of what is before them are liable to be misled. In particular, when our comrades working in the Red Army are defeated in battle or encircled or pursued by strong enemy forces, they often unwittingly generalize and exaggerate their momentary, specific and limited situation, as though the situation in China and the world as a whole gave no cause for optimism and the prospects of victory for the revolution were remote. The reason they seize on the appearance and brush aside the essence in their observation of things is that they have not made a scientific analysis of the essence of the overall situation. The question whether there will soon be a revolutionary high tide in China can be decided only by making a detailed examination to ascertain whether the contradictions leading to a revolutionary high tide are really developing. Since contradictions are developing in the world between the imperialist countries, between the imperialist countries and their colonies, and between the imperialists and the proletariat in their own countries, there is an intensified need for the imperialists to contend for the domination of China. While the imperialist contention over China becomes more intense, both the contradiction between imperialism and the whole Chinese nation and the contradictions among the imperialists themselves develop simultaneously on Chinese soil, thereby creating the tangled warfare which is expanding and intensifying daily and giving rise to the continuous development of the contradictions among the different cliques of China's reactionary rulers. In the wake of the contradictions among the reactionary ruling cliques--the tangled warfare among the warlords--comes heavier taxation, which steadily sharpens the contradiction between the broad masses of taxpayers and the reactionary rulers. In the wake of the contradiction between imperialism and China's national industry comes the failure of the Chinese industrialists to obtain concessions from the imperialists, which sharpens the contradiction between the Chinese bourgeoisie and the Chinese working class, with the Chinese capitalists trying to find a way out by frantically exploiting the workers and with the workers resisting. In the wake of imperialist commercial aggression, Chinese merchant-capitalist extortions, heavier government taxation, etc., comes the deepening of the contradiction between the landlord class and the peasantry, that is, exploitation through rent and usury is aggravated and the hatred of the peasants for the landlords grows. Because of the pressure of foreign goods, the exhaustion of the purchasing power of the worker and peasant masses, and the increase in government taxation, more and more dealers in Chinese-made goods and independent producers are being driven into bankruptcy. Because the reactionary government, though short of provisions and funds, endlessly expands its armies and thus constantly extends the warfare, the masses of soldiers are in a constant state of privation. Because of the growth in government taxation, the rise in rent and interest demanded by the landlords and the daily spread of the disasters of war, there are famine and banditry everywhere and the peasant masses and the urban poor can hardly keep alive. Because the schools have no money, many students fear that their education may be interrupted; because production is backward, many graduates have no hope of employment. Once we understand all these contradictions, we shall see in what a desperate situation, in what a chaotic state, China finds herself. We shall also see that the high tide of revolution against the imperialists, the warlords and the landlords is inevitable, and will come very soon. All China is littered with dry faggots which will soon be aflame. The saying, "A single spark can start a prairie fire", is an apt description of how the current situation will develop. We need only look at the strikes by the workers, the uprisings by the peasants, the mutinies of soldiers and the strikes of students which are developing in many places to see that it cannot be long before a "spark" kindles "a prairie fire".
The gist of the above was already contained in the letter from the Front Committee to the Central Committee on April 5, 1929, which reads in part:
The Central Committee's letter [dated February 9, 1929] makes too pessimistic an appraisal of the objective situation and our subjective forces. The Kuomintang's three "suppression" campaigns against the Chingkang Mountains was the high water mark reached by the counter-revolutionary tide. But there it stopped, and since then the counter-revolutionary tide has gradually receded while the revolutionary tide has gradually risen. Although our Party's fighting capacity and organizational strength have been weakened to the extent described by the Central Committee, they will be rapidly restored, and the passivity among comrades in the Party will quickly disappear as the counter-revolutionary tide gradually ebbs. The masses will certainly come over to us. The Kuomintang's policy of massacre only serves to "drive the fish into deep waters", [6] as the saying goes, and reformism no longer has any mass appeal. It is certain that the masses will soon shed their illusions about the Kuomintang. In the emerging situation, no other party will be able to compete with the Communist Party in winning over the masses. The political line and the organizational line laid down by the Party's Sixth National Congress [7] are correct, i.e., the revolution at the present stage is democratic and not socialist, and the present task of the Party [here the words "in the big cities" should have been added] [8] is to win over the masses and not to stage immediate insurrections. Nevertheless the revolution will develop swiftly, and we should take a positive attitude in our propaganda and preparations for armed insurrections. In the present chaotic situation we can lead the masses only by positive slogans and a positive attitude. Only by taking such an attitude can the Party recover its fighting capacity.... Proletarian leadership is the sole key to victory in the revolution. Building a proletarian foundation for the Party and setting up Party branches in industrial enterprises in key districts are important organizational tasks for the Party at present; but at the same time the major prerequisites for helping the struggle in the cities and hastening the rise of the revolutionary tide are specifically the development of the struggle in the countryside, the establishment of Red political power in small areas, and the creation and expansion of the Red Army. Therefore, it would be wrong to abandon the struggle in the cities, but in our opinion it would also be wrong for any of our Party members to fear the growth of peasant strength lest it should outstrip the workers' strength and harm the revolution. For in the revolution in semi-colonial China, the peasant struggle must always fail if it does not have the leadership of the workers, but the revolution is never harmed if the peasant struggle outstrips the forces of the workers.
The letter also contained the following reply on the question of the Red Army's operational tactics:
To preserve the Red Army and arouse the masses, the Central Committee asks us to divide our forces into very small units and disperse them over the countryside and to withdraw Chu Teh and Mao Tse-tung from the army, so concealing the major targets. This is an unrealistic view. In the winter of 1927-28, we did plan to disperse our forces over the countryside, with each company or battalion operating on its own and adopting guerrilla tactics in order to arouse the masses while trying not to present a target for the enemy; we have tried this out many times, but have failed every time. The reasons are: (1) most of the soldiers in the main force of the Red Army come from other areas and have a background different from that of the local Red Guards; (2) division into small units results in weak leadership and inability to cope with adverse circumstances, which easily leads to defeat; (3) the units are liable to be crushed by the enemy one by one; (4) the more adverse the circumstances, the greater the need for concentrating our forces and for the leaders to be resolute in struggle, because only thus can we have internal unity against the enemy. Only in favourable circumstances is it advisable to divide our forces for guerrilla operations, and it is only then that the leaders need not stay with the ranks all the time, as they must in adverse circumstances.
The weakness of this passage is that the reasons adduced against the division of forces were of a negative character, which was far from adequate. The positive reason for concentrating our forces is that only concentration will enable us to wipe out comparatively large enemy units and occupy towns. Only after we have wiped out comparatively large enemy units and occupied towns can we arouse the masses on a broad scale and set up political power extending over a number of adjoining counties. Only thus can we make a widespread impact (what we call "extending our political influence"), and contribute effectively to speeding the day of the revolutionary high tide. For instance, both the regime we set up in the Hunan-Kiangsi border area the year before last and the one we set up in western Fukien last year [9] were the product of this policy of concentrating our troops. This is a general principle. But are there not times when our forces should be divided up? Yes, there are. The letter from the Front Committee to the Central Committee says of guerrilla tactics for the Red Army, including the division of forces within a short radius:
The tactics we have derived from the struggle of the past three years are indeed different from any other tactics, ancient or modern, Chinese or foreign. With our tactics, the masses can be aroused for struggle on an ever-broadening scale, and no enemy, however powerful, can cope with us. Ours are guerrilla tactics. They consist mainly of the following points:
"Divide our forces to arouse the masses, concentrate our forces to deal with the enemy."
"The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue."
"To extend stable base areas, [10] employ the policy of advancing in waves; when pursued by a powerful enemy, employ the policy of circling around."
"Arouse the largest numbers of the masses in the shortest possible time and by the best possible methods."
These tactics are just like casting a net; at any moment we should be able to cast it or draw it in. We cast it wide to win over the masses and draw it in to deal with the enemy. Such are the tactics we have used for the past three years.
Here, "to cast the net wide" means to divide our forces within a short radius. For example, when we first captured the county town of Yunghsin in the Hunan-Kiangsi border area, we divided the forces of the 29th and 31st Regiments within the boundaries of Yunghsin County. Again, when we captured Yunghsin for the third time, we once more divided our forces by dispatching the 28th Regiment to the border of Anfu County, the 29th to Lienhua, and the 31st to the border of Kian County. And, again, we divided our forces in the counties of southern Kiangsi last April and May, and in the counties of western Fukien last July. As to dividing our forces over a wide radius, it is possible only on the two conditions that circumstances are comparatively favourable and the leading bodies fairly strong. For the purpose of dividing up our forces is to put us in a better position for winning over the masses, for deepening the agrarian revolution and establishing political power, and for expanding the Red Army and the local armed units. It is better not to divide our forces when this purpose cannot be attained or the division of our forces would lead to defeat and to the weakening of the Red Army, as happened in August two years ago when our forces were divided on the Hunan-Kiangsi border for an attack on Chenchou. But there is no doubt that, given the two above-mentioned conditions, we should divide our forces, because division is then more advantageous than concentration. The Central Committee's February letter was not in the right spirit and had a bad effect on a number of Party comrades in the Fourth Army. At that time the Central Committee also issued a circular stating that war would not necessarily break out between Chiang Kai-shek and the Kwangsi warlords. Since then, however, the appraisals and directives of the Central Committee have in the main been correct. It has already issued another circular correcting the one containing the wrong appraisal. Although it has not made any correction of the letter to the Red Army, its subsequent directives have not been couched in the same pessimistic tone and its views on the Red Army's operations now coincide with ours. Yet the bad effect which this letter had on some comrades persists. Therefore, I feel that it is still necessary to give some explanation.
The plan to take Kiangsi Province within a year was also proposed last April by the Front Committee to the Central Committee, and a decision to that effect was later made at Yutu. The following reasons were given in the letter to the Central Committee:
The armies of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kwangsi warlords are approaching each other in the vicinity of Kiukiang, and a big battle is imminent. The resumption of mass struggle, coupled with the spread of contradictions among the ruling reactionaries, makes it probable that there will soon be a high tide of revolution. As for how our work should be arranged under these circumstances, we feel that, so far as the southern provinces are concerned, the armed forces of the compradors and landlords in Kwangtung and Hunan Provinces are too strong, and that in Hunan, more over, we have lost almost all our mass following, inside as well as outside the Party, because of the Party's putschist mistakes. In the three provinces of Fukien, Kiangsi and Chekiang, however, the situation is different. First, militarily the enemy is weakest there. In Chekiang, there is only a small provincial force under Chiang Po-cheng. [11] In Fukien, although there are five groups of enemy troops totalling fourteen regiments in all, Kuo Fengming's troops have already been smashed; the troops under Chen Kuo-hui and Lu Hsing-pang [12] are bandits of small fighting capacity; the two brigades of marines stationed along the coast have never seen action and their fighting capacity is undoubtedly not high; Chang Chen [13] alone can put up some sort of a fight, but, according to an analysis made by the Fukien Provincial Committee, even he has only two relatively strong regiments. In addition, Fukien is now in a state of complete chaos, confusion and disunity. In Kiangsi, there are sixteen regiments under the two commands of Chu Pei-teh [14] and Hsiung Shih-hui; [15] they are stronger than the armed forces of either Fukien or Chekiang, but far inferior to those of Hunan. Secondly, fewer putschist mistakes have been made in these three provinces. We are not clear about the situation in Chekiang, but the Party's organizational and mass base is somewhat better in Kiangsi and Fukien than in Hunan. Take Kiangsi for example. In northern Kiangsi we still have some basis in Tehan, Hsiushui and Tungku; in western Kiangsi the Party and the Red Guards still have some strength in Ningkang, Yunghsin, Lienhua and Suichuan; in southern Kiangsi the prospects are still brighter, as the 2nd and 4th Regiments of` the Red Army are steadily growing in strength in the counties of Kian, Yungfeng and Hsingkuo; and what is more, the Red Army under Fang Chih-min has by no means been wiped out. All this places us in a position to close in on Nanchang. We hereby recommend to the Central Committee that during the period of prolonged warfare among the Kuomintang warlords, we should contend with Chiang Kai-shek and the Kwangsi clique for Kiangsi Province and also for western Fukien and western Chekiang. In these three provinces we should enlarge the Red Army and create an independent regime of the masses, with a time limit of one year for accomplishing this plan.
This proposal to contend for Kiangsi erred only in setting a time limit of one year. It was based not only on conditions within the province itself, but also on the prospect that a nation-wide high tide of revolution would soon arise. For unless we had been convinced that there would soon be a high tide of revolution, we could not possibly have concluded that we could take Kiangsi in a year. The only weakness in the proposal was that it set a time limit of one year, which it should not have done, and so gave a flavour of impetuosity to the word "soon" in the statement, "there will soon be a high tide of revolution". As to the subjective and objective conditions in Kiangsi, they well deserve our attention. Besides the subjective conditions described in the letter to the Central Committee, three objective conditions can now be clearly pointed out. First, the economy of Kiangsi is mainly feudal, the merchant-capitalist class is relatively weak, and the armed forces of the landlords are weaker than in any other southern province. Secondly, Kiangsi has no provincial troops of its own and has always been garrisoned by troops from other provinces. Sent there for the "suppression of Communists" or "suppression of bandits", these troops are unfamiliar with local conditions, their interests are much less directly involved than if they were local troops, and they usually lack enthusiasm. And thirdly, unlike Kwangtung which is close to Hongkong and under British control in almost every respect, Kiangsi is comparatively remote from imperialist influence. Once we have grasped these three points, we can understand why rural uprisings are more widespread and the Red Army and guerrilla units more numerous in Kiangsi than in any other province.
How then should we interpret the word "soon" in the statement, "there will soon be a high tide of revolution"? This is a common question among comrades. Marxists are not fortune-tellers. They should, and indeed can, only indicate the general direction of future developments and changes; they should not and cannot fix the day and the hour in a mechanistic way. But when I say that there will soon be a high tide of revolution in China, I am emphatically not speaking of something which in the words of some people "is possibly coming", something illusory, unattainable and devoid of significance for action. It is like a ship far out at sea whose mast-head can already be seen from the shore; it is like the morning sun in the east whose shimmering rays are visible from a high mountain top; it is like a child about to be born moving restlessly in its mother's womb.
NOTES
1. Comrade Fang Chih-min, a native of Yiyang, Kiangsi Province, and a member of the Sixth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, was the founder of the Red area in northeastern Kiangsi and of the Tenth Red Army. In 1934 he led the vanguard detachment of the Red Army in marching north to resist the Japanese invaders. In January 1935 he was captured in battle against the counter-revolutionary Kuomintang troops and in July he died a martyr's death in Nanchang, Kiangsi.
2. The subjective forces of the revolution mean the organized forces of the revolution.
3. Lu Ti-ping, a Kuomintang warlord, was the Kuomintang governor of Hunan Province in 1928.
4. The war of March-April 1929 between Chiang Kai-shek, the Kuomintang warlord in Nanking, and Li Tsung-jen and Pai Chung-hsi, the Kuomintang warlords in Kwangsi Province.
5. The third invasion of the Red Army's base area on the Chingkang Mountains by the Kuomintang warlords in Hunan and Kiangsi lasting from the cad of 1928 to the beginning of 1929.
6. The quotation is from Mencius, who compared a tyrant who drove his people into seeking a benevolent ruler to the otter which "drives the fish into deep waters".
7. The Sixth National Congress of the Communist Party of China was held in July 1928. It pointed out that after the defeat in 1927, China's revolution remained bourgeois-democratic in nature, i.e., anti-imperialist and anti-feudal, and that since the inevitable new high tide in the revolution was not yet imminent, the general line for the revolution should be to win over the masses. The Sixth Congress liquidated the 1927 Right capitulationism of Chen Tu-hsiu and also repudiated the "Left" putschism which occurred in the Party at the end of 1927 and the beginning of 1928.
8. The statement in brackets has been added by the author.
9. The regime set up in western Fukien came into bang in 1929, when the Red Army in the Chingkang Mountains sallied eastward to build a new revolutionary base area and established the people's revolutionary political power in the counties of Lungyen, Yungting and Shanghang in the western part of that province.
10. Stable base areas were the relatively stable revolutionary base areas established by the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army.
11. Chiang Po-cheng was then the commander of the Kuomintang peace preservation corps in Chekiang Province.
12. Chen Kuo-hui and Lu Hsing-pang were two notorious Fukien bandits whose forces had been incorporated into the Kuomintang army.
13. Chang Chen was a divisional commander of the Kuomintang army.
14. Chu Pei-the, a Kuomintang warlord, was then the Kuomintang governor of Kiangsi Province.
15. Hsiung Shih-hui was then a divisional commander of the Kuomintang army in Kiangsi Province.
Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.
HTML revised 2004 by Marxists.org
HTML revised 2004 by Marxists.org
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)