Let us celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and new democratic movement of Afghanistan for the purposes of strengthening the current communist and new democratic struggles in the country!
With the formation of the Progressive Youth Organization [PYO] on October 4, 1965, on the basis of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (that time Mao Zedong Thought) line and anti-imperialist, anti-social-imperialist, anti-reactionary and anti-revisionist orientation, under the leadership of comrade Akram Yari, the communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan came into being. Due to the principled political line of the PYO and the national and international environment, the new democratic movement under the leadership of the PYO turned into the most extensive political movement of the country, mobilizing tens of thousands of revolutionary men and women, students, teachers, writers, workers, and other toiling masses from all nationalities in struggles against reactionaries, imperialists, social-imperialists; it was thus that the Maoist communist movement flourished in the country.
Sholajawid was the name of the journal which was propagating new democratic ideas; it was initiated by the PYO and two other progressive groups, starting its publication two years after the formation of the PYO in 1967. Due to the crucial role this journal played in the expansion and spread of the movement, the movement itself became known as Sholajawid. Although only 11 issues of the journal were published, and subsequently censored by the reactionary monarchy of Zahir Shah, even the limited publication played an important historical role in the extensive and widespread formation of the new democratic movement.
Definitely the PYO and the Sholajawid movement, being young and inexperienced, was not without its shortcomings and weaknesses; it definitely needed improvement and evolution. Unfortunately, the internal weaknesses of the PYO, along with an increasingly national and international unfavorable situation, resulted into the fact that its movement could not continue to develop and evolve. After a short period following its initial prosperity, it moved towards collapse and dispersion.
The banning of the Sholajawid journal and the suppression of the demonstrations in 1968 by the repressive forces of the reactionary state under Zahir Shah – as well as the arrest and imprisonment of a large number of the leaders of the PYO and the movement – not only resulted in the first split in the Sholajawidmovement, but generated larger negative effects. Political-ideological lines other than the line of its founder (Akram Yari) emerged within PYO, and consequently two line struggles emerged within the organization. These were not line struggles that strengthened and expanded the organization but were ones that resulted in its collapse, negatively impacting the entire movement.
After comrade Akram Yari’s withdrawal from active political struggle due to serious illness, deviationist political lines took over the organization. These deviationist political lines not only provided the basis of splits within the PYO but also greatly facilitated the splits within the broader movement. Thus, the main deviationist line, which later negatively evolved into full fledged revisionism and capitulationism (and there are those who are still following this path), led to a significant split from the initial organization and movement, forcing the entire communist and new democratic movement towards dissipation – a drive towards revisionist, national and class capitulationist lines.
The dominance of the deviationist and revisionist capitulationist lines over the dispersed body of the communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan lasted at least a decade and a half (almost all of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s). Therefore, the movement could not prevent the two Soviet supported coups –the first in 1972 by Sardar Dawood, the second in 1978 by the gang of revisionist satraps of the Soviet social-imperialists (the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan [PDPA]) – and in the struggle against the coup regime and the social-imperialist occupation adopted unprincipled and incorrect political and military tactics and strategy.
As a result – and despite the fact that the communist and new democratic movement sacrificed tens of thousands of its leaders, cadre, organizers, and masses under its leadership in its confrontation with reactionary forces dependent on the western imperialists and reactionary regional powers –this movement could not employ these resistance struggles to expand, evolve, and progress on the path of new democratic revolution. Rather, it suffered bitter defeats. The negative effects of those bitter defeats are still strongly felt and remain distressful.
During this decade and a half, the principled communist and new democratic line did not have a clear expression and presence; it was not considered a challenge to the deviationist, collaborationist, and revisionist political lines. Severe ideological, political and organizational weaknesses, along with a low level of theoretical understanding, of the remnants and proponents of the principled communist and new democratic movement in the mid-1980s was apparent, facilitating the dominance of the collaborationist and revisionist lines over the dispersed body of the movement.
Based on the defeat of the deviationist, revisionist, and class and national collaborationist lines – and the relative growth of the communist movement in the newly international favorable circumstances, with efforts of parties and organizations in the ranks of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] – the first groupings of the principled communist movement emerged in Afghanistan. The emergence of the initial groups and movements that were the clear expression of a principled communist line not only reestablished the communist and new democracy movement in Afghanistan, but reactivated and improved the political line of our founder in the new national and international situation against imperialism and reaction, and also against the dominance of the aforementioned erroneous lines within different sections of the movement.
Deviationists, revisionists, and capitulationists who believed their dominance to be permanent and without challenge over different sections of the movement – who assumed that the principled line of the founder of the movement to have been buried – considered the new slogans, and position of the new communist movement as throwing old hay in the air. However, this new initiative grew and expanded, becoming the expression of the principled stance and slogans against the social-imperialist occupiers and their satraps, against the power of the reactionary Jihadists and their brutal civil war, and the reactionary repressive and archaic Taliban’s Emirate. Moreover, this movement stood against invasion and occupation of American imperialists from the beginning, opposing its allies throughout Afghanistan and the formation of its puppet regime; this was the only communist formation– the only non-reactionary representative of the revolutionary peoples – that advocated national resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime.
Although the old revisionists – pressured by the subjective and objective conditions of the country, world opinion, and the expansion of mass struggles and resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime –would gradually distanced themselves from the open capitulationism they previously displayed– and would sometimes, to a limited extent, take a stance against the imperialist occupiers and their puppet government – it is the reinitiated Maoist movement in the country that remains the solid defender of the struggle and principled resistance against the occupation and its puppet regime.
The new initiative of the communist and new democratic line from its inception and until now has been the theoretical and practical banner of the principled unity within our broader movement. By following this path of unity it has struggled against dispersion and sectarianism. Therefore, not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, the movement has continued to grow. Currently, C(M)PA and other Maoist organizations and individuals outside of the party represent this new initiative.
Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Maoist movement in Afghanistan is an occasion that invites us all to move towards unity based on a principled proletarian and new democratic line, to collectively struggle, in a strong and organized manner, against the occupiers and their satraps as the principal enemy of the country and its people, moving forward on the path of preparing for the revolutionary peoples and national war of resistance.
Certainly, the national resistance struggle against the principal enemies of our country does not mean suspending the new democratic struggles against them, or also against anti-democratic feudal-bourgeois comprador forces opposed to occupiers and the puppet regime. Nor can this national struggle ignore the struggles against other imperialist and reactionary expansionist powers.
The experience of struggle internationally and also in Afghanistan has continually proven that one-sided emphasis on the national resistance against the current principal enemy, and forgetting the new democratic struggles against non-principal current enemies, will, in the last analysis, harm the national resistance as a whole. This kind of one-dimensional national resistance struggle, because it ignores the democratic demands of the masses, will limit and reduce the participation of the masses in the national resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime; it may even eliminate the possibility of their participation and thus will strongly expand and prepare the ground for the maneuvers of the reactionary and anti-democratic armed opposition to the occupiers and the puppet regime.
Therefore, based on the interest of the masses of Afghanistan and based on the communist and new democratic program, we should not only merely talk about national struggle and national war of resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime, but we should talk about a revolutionary and national peoples war of resistance. We need to carry forward such a struggle for preparing to initiate and pursuing revolutionary and national peoples war of resistance.
Resistance because we are the victims of aggression and occupation of imperialists –of a foreign reactionary power – and under the domination of a puppet regime. Our struggle against these principal enemies of the people is characterized by resistance: self-defense, defense of the independence of the country, and defense of the freedom of the country and its people. This struggle is the just struggle of the victims of occupation and against invaders, occupiers and their puppets.
National because the resistance struggle for defending the independence of the country and the independence of its people is fundamentally based on the struggle and resistance, on our national interests, and against the interests of invaders, imperialist occupiers, their national traitor satraps – not a limited religious and non-religious ideological struggle and resistance. Any kind of attempt to impose such a limitation will limit the scope of struggle against occupiers and their puppet regime, eventually benefitting the imperialist occupation. Thus, the secular character of this struggle and resistance is an unavoidable necessity.
National because this resistance struggle must consider the defense and independence of the country as a whole; it should not kick the wolves out the door so that the hyenas enter from the windows. In the current epoch, the global domination of the world capitalist imperialist system is marred by serious contradictions and tensions between imperialists and reactionary powers, and these powers are eager to employ any political movement and initiative as an instrument for their interests against their imperialist and reactionary rivals. The communist and the new democratic movement of the country, while accepting the necessities of struggle against American imperialism and its satrap regime, should also pay attention to the necessities of this national responsibility.
It is obvious that struggle and resistance has its material base and also its ideological and political superstructure. At the same time, however, it is also true that in a multi-national class society where there is diverse class and national interests, and diverse thoughts and political world-views, a broad-based resistance against occupiers and national traitors will be multifarious and diverse and will have a democratic character. Naturally, different forces engaged in this struggle will compete with each other over the leadership of this resistance, and it cannot be otherwise. If the communist and new democratic forces do not pay attention to this reality, this could lead to political-ideological and eventually organizational liquidationism, resulting in capitulationism, the weakening of the struggle, and the inability to consolidate revolutionary and progressive leadership over the resistance.
However, this struggle should be carried out under the overall interest of the resistance against the occupying forces and the puppet regime, not in contention with the general interests of the resistance. Ignoring this issue, by any force including ours, will ultimately result in replacing the principal contradiction with non-principal contradictions, only benefitting the puppet regime and the occupying forces.
We should emphasize that a resistance that is only male cannot be an authentic national resistance. Women form half of society and a national resistance in the real sense of word cannot happen without their inclusion. Any kind of attempt to limit women, based on any kind of religious and cultural excuse that would deprive them of their basic personal and social rights, including the right to participate in the resistance against occupiers and their satraps, is an attempt to distance half of the population from the active national resistance, at the same time consciously or unconsciously forcing them into the ideological and political trap of the occupiers and the national traitor satraps who often wield deceptive slogans about women’s rights or freedom. It is obvious that such attempts are also extremely anti-democratic.
Peoples because a national resistance struggle can only be an unrelenting and solid struggle if it possesses a mass character, based on the superior interests of the masses – that is, the revolutionary masses struggling against the occupiers and the puppet regime – and not on the interests of the exploiting and oppressive feudal comprador bourgeois classes. The latter faction of the masses are classes whose interests are in line with imperialism, particularly with the invading and occupying imperialists, as well as the land-holding and bourgeois comprador classes who are always prepared to collude with the occupiers and the puppet regime. Giving mass character to the national resistance against the occupiers and their puppets does not merely mean involving the masses in the resistance: such involvement should mean the conscious participation in national resistance based on their superior, revolutionary interests rather than the interests of the exploiting classes. From this perspective, giving mass character to the national resistance against occupiers and national traitors requires the spread of revolutionary consciousness among the masses of people, particularly the lower layers of the toiling masses, workers, peasants, and the poor petty-bourgeoisie. Enlightening the masses with revolutionary consciousness requires prolonged and continuous efforts, but we should acknowledge that, without a certain level of progress in this regard, national resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime cannot develop, expand, and deepen a popular/mass character.
Revolutionary because the peoples national resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime should be armed with a scientific revolutionary worldview so that it can direct the resistance against the capitalist-imperialist system, and the reactionary system in the country. Otherwise, the resistance runs the risk of being cut short, either in the middle of the national resistance itself or after achieving its goal of partial independence – the country could still remain in the shackles of the oppressive and exploiting world system and the masses, despite heroic and selfless sacrifices, would remain under the capitalist-imperialist world system with the semi-feudal/semi-colonial classes in control. More importantly, the revolutionary strategic orientation of the resistance against occupiers and the puppet regime, guarantees continuous progression of the national and popular characteristics of the resistance.
Since the resistance against the soviet social-imperialist occupiers and their puppet regime was carried out under the leadership of reactionary forces dependent on western imperialists, and was thus totally lacked revolutionary strategic orientation, that resistance prepared the ground for the invasion of American imperialism and its allies and the subsequent occupation and formation of the current puppet regime. However, since the contemporary resistance against the current occupiers and their satraps has not yet led to the total withdrawal of the occupying forces and the collapse of their puppet regime, the monopolistic dominance of the armed reactionary resistance has resulted in the materialization of another foreign invasion and occupation – that is, the invasion and occupation that considers the entire country a province of a reactionary Arab “caliphate.”
The forces that have raised the black flags of the Islamic State [ISIS] in Afghanistan are the armies of this reactionary Arab caliphate and are thus, in actuality, the occupying forces of a reactionary foreign state, even if some of their forces are originally from within the country. These forces as a whole have been born and raised within the ranks of the current reactionary resistance in Afghanistan. More importantly, the founders and original leaders of this reactionary caliphate (ISIS) have also been raised in the lap of the past reactionary resistance against the soviet social-imperialists and their puppet regime. Despite the fact that the “Arab Caliph” openly declares the leader of the Islamic Emirate of Taliban an illiterate servant of Al-Qaeda, and calls the Emirate itself “expired medicine”, the reactionary Taliban leadership are sending ISIS messages of “Islamic brotherhood”, humbly and submissively asking them not to become the reason of friction in the “Islamic resistance of Afghanistan.” Have they not understood that ISIS does not accept Afghanistan as a country and sees it a province of its Arabic Caliphate?
If we suppose that the resistance against social imperialist invaders and occupiers and their puppets leads to the invasion and occupation of American imperialists and their allies, and then the resistance against the current occupiers and their puppets in the middle of journey prepares the ground for the invasion and occupation of a reactionary Arab caliphate, and that this is the destiny of Afghanistan, then we should be very worried.
With the spread of the influence of ISIS in Afghanistan on the one hand, and the mysterious death of the Taliban’s ex-leader (Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund) on the other, the country’s situation has become even more complicated. With the expansion of the influence of ISIS in Afghanistan, all foreign jihadists in the region are now possible ISIS soldiers and should be considered potential or active invading forces of that foreign power, the target of revolutionary peoples and national resistance.
Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund, who was the uniting factor behind the Taliban’s fractured movement (which was divided along ethnic, tribal, regional, and political lines), is dead. In his absence, maintaining the unity of such an army, if not impossible, is extremely difficult. Furthermore, his mysterious death in Pakistan (kept secret for two years within a circle of a few individuals), and the method of appointment of his successor, are strong factors in creating friction amongst the Taliban. Definitely, enormous efforts have been made for consolidating Mullah Akhtar Mansur’s leadership, by his supporters within the Taliban and also by foreign “friends”, and there is no doubt the greater part of the Taliban movement will remain under the new leadership. However, certain sections of the Taliban have not accepted the new leadership. These forces can hardly stand on their own feet; it is highly possible that under pressure from the new leadership of the Taliban they would ultimately be forced towards the puppet regime or into joining ISIS. Therefore, these forces should potentially be considered as either capitulating to the regime or part of the invading army of ISIS.
Moreover, the death of Mullah Muhammad Omar Akhund and the outbreak of friction within the Taliban over appointing his successor has resulted in the close cooperation between its new leadership and their Pakistani “friends”. Indeed, in consolidating his position, Akhtar Mansur has held public meetings throughout Pakistan. This situation has completely led to the identification and publicity of their rank and file, thus it would significantly increase the control of their Pakistani “friends” over them, so that they cannot claim “they only partially have the support of Pakistani friends.” It certainly can be said that the acceptance of the Pakistan as the patron of peace in Afghanistan by the American imperialists and the puppet regime has also significantly increased the control of Pakistan over the Taliban.
All of these issues illustrate the fact that the scope of aggression of foreign occupying powers over Afghanistan has increased: at a time when the aggression and occupation of the American imperialists and their allies has not ended, other reactionary aggressive occupying forces, ISIS, have emerged in certain pockets of the country and are dominating the lives of its people. At the same time, the interventions of the Pakistani state, that are constantly being carried out with cross border military incursions, as well as the interventions of Iran, have increased. Therefore, our revolutionary responsibility in terms of struggling against the principal enemy has multiplied, but it has also increased in relation to non-principal enemies as well, and we have to increase our efforts towards them all.
Despite Obama’s verbal commitment to withdraw all of America’s combat troops (except for the 1000 that would remain to protect the American embassy in Kabul) by the end of 2016, its practical implementation has not yet materialized. The recent wars in several parts of the country illustrate that the puppet regime cannot maintain its hegemony without the presence of foreign occupying powers. Even if Obama’s claims were to be realized according to the security agreement between the American state and the puppet regime, the legal path for the former’s return to Afghanistan is available, and due to the security agreement between NATO and the puppet regime the legal path for the return of NATO occupying troops is also available.
In fact, the crisis-stricken and corrupt puppet regime’s continued existence is premised on the hope of future support from its occupying imperialist masters rather than its own constitution. However, the results of the longest war of American imperialism (the war in Afghanistan) is clearly indicating that American occupiers and their allies and puppets are unable to impose the total subjugation of Afghanistan through war. Therefore, despite the prolongation of their occupying presence – their support of the puppet regime though military and non-military means –so as to consolidate their authority, the imperialists are also constantly trying to bring the reactionary Islamist insurgents to the negotiating table by promising them a share in the regime.
Hence, the American imperialist state, in alignment with the expansionist Indian state, is putting pressure on Pakistan to reduce the field in which the Taliban can maneuver, eventually forcing them to negotiate with the puppet regime. Preventing economic aid to Pakistan so as to assert political pressure – that might intensify in the near future – is being carried out by the US for the aforementioned purpose. Tensions between Indian and Pakistan regarding the control of Kashmir, and prolonged military engagement between both sides, is a partial war that is being carried forward for the negotiations for peace in Afghanistan between two reactionary, expansionist regional atomic powers.
The revisionist and the expansionist rulers of China are in their own way participating in this game. China’s plan to invest 50 Billion dollars in Pakistan is not only a sign of their expansionist political and economic tendencies, but is also an appeasing tactic to persuade Pakistan not to allow its territories to be used as a base for training and organizing Uighur Islamist militants. The point, here, is to prevent a safe haven for Islamist insurgents opposed to the puppet regime and the occupying powers in Afghanistan.
If this American, Indian, and Chinese tripartite politics of carrot and stick towards Pakistan continues, and even intensifies so that it becomes unbearable for Pakistan, it is all too likely that sooner or later the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Akhtar Mansur, now firmly in their grip, will be forced to resume negotiations with the puppet regime under the supervision of Pakistan, the US, and China. In this case, the intense and widespread military confrontation in the current season of war – that we can certainly say is unfavorable to everyone involved – would be employed as a negotiating chip for scoring political concessions.
Indeed, the reactionary resistance of Taliban is not, in its essence, a total and relentless anti-imperialist resistance. Even in the case of a military victory – which it has now proven it cannot achieve – the Taliban cannot free the country from the orbit of the reactionary world imperialist system.
Moreover, even if the negotiations resume and move forward, in the final analysis everyone’s share would be determined based on their political and economic weight, and our people would thus continue to suffer under an archaic system of exploitation and oppression – the country will lack true independence. The process of carrying these negotiations forward will also not be smooth and easy; it will cause our people to provide immense sacrifices and experience serious difficulties.
We called for celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the communist (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and the new democratic movement in Afghanistan to loudly announce the long fifty year presence of this movement in the arena of the revolutionary political struggle in Afghanistan so as to state the fact that: the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Maoist movement is an occasion that invites us all to consider five decades of the ups and downs of revolutionary struggle and reaffirm our commitment to strongly carry forward our patriotic, national, democratic, and revolutionary responsibilities.
The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan has repeatedly announced that the biggest flaw and weakness of the current communist and new democratic movement of Afghanistan is its mere political presence and lack of representation in the arena of armed struggle against the occupiers and the puppet regime. Indeed it is this limitation that is reducing the effect of our political and ideological struggle against our principal and non-principal enemies. In circumstances when the principal aspect of the struggles in the country is armed struggles, the mere political and non-military voices in an environment full of the thunders of bombs, canons, and guns are rarely heard. Therefore, in these circumstances our struggle can only have a path-breaking effect if it is carried out in preparation for the people’s revolutionary national war of resistance against the occupiers and the puppet regime (the current form of people’s war in the country).
For correct, principled, timely and effective conduct of these efforts, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan has to constantly mobilize and expand all of its members, supporters, and the masses under its leadership. Moreover, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan and other Maoist forces and individuals in the current situation need to establish stronger unity amongst themselves, on the one hand, and carry forward polemics and discussions for solving theoretical disagreements, on the other, so as to expand their practical cooperation amongst themselves, and ideologically and practically move towards cooperation, coordination, and unity.
Forward on the path towards initiating and carrying forward the revolutionary people’s national war of resistance against imperialist occupiers, the puppet regime, and reactionary ISIS occupiers!
Forward on the path of struggle against other reactionaries aligned with imperialist and reactionary powers!
Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan
October 4, 2015