AWP is doing the rally on mayday from lahore press club and AWP is the only platform that every socialist should stand on.. I dont find it right thing if he is creating his own league.
Laal has no personal differences with any other leftist party , only ideological differences ......
The Awami Workers Party (AWP) was formed in November 2012, as a merger of the Labour Party Pakistan, the Awami Party Pakistan and the Workers Party Pakistan.
1) Labour Party Pakistan: The LPP is a neo-Trotskyist organization. Although they are no longer affiliated to any international Trotskyist organization, they continue to uphold the theory of permanent revolution. The few non-Trotskyists found amongst the ranks, for instance in Sindh, are merely deluding themselves into thinking that they can convert this into a Marxist-Leninist organization. Given its strong connections to civil society and NGOs they are able to exercise a degree of power far in excess of their actual popular support. They receive absolutely no funds from membership contributions whatsoever and are only able to maintain a number of whole-timers on the basis of several NGO projects.
On occasion we have found them to be in the ranks of those people advocating support for the Transitional National Council in Libya. On other occasions we find them amongst the ranks of the right-wing reactionary alliances like the All Parties Democratic Alliance. Still at other times we find that they have caused splits in working class movements like the Anjuman Mazareen Punjab that lead to the decline of these movements. On the question of religious extremism and fundamentalism they also joined hands with the right-wing to call an end to operations in Swat against the Taliban.
2)Awami Party Pakistan is ideologically hostile to Marxism-Leninism. They are explicitly and openly a liberal-democratic party that at best advocates democratic reforms only within the context and constraints imposed by capitalist-imperialist world economy and its power centers such as the International Monetary Fund. They explicitly reject Lenin's concept of imperialism and consider that Marxist analysis is out of date and/or irrelevant to Pakistan.
3) Workers Party of Pakistan: The WPP claim that they are "creatively" applying Marxism in Pakistan. This "creative" application of Marxism amounts to little more than expunging the word socialism or Marxism in their party program or constitution. They claim that Pakistan requires a long period of capitalist industrial development before the struggle for socialism can begin. Hence, they argue that the left should not be agitating against capital, but only against landlordism and tribalism. At best the left can attempt for Social Democratic welfare reforms within the framework of capitalism. Moreover, in the not to recent past, their position on military dictatorship in Pakistan was totally ambiguous
Please note that while imperialism, secularism, and the struggle against feudalism is mentioned absolutely explicitly, there is no mention of the struggle against capitalism. Is this just an oversight? Given that two parties out of the three merging together do not call for a struggle against capitalism in their respective party manifestoes, it is not at all surprising to find that in this article no mention is made of the struggle against capitalism. The fact is that the lowest common denominator between these three parties is not opposition to capitalism but reforms within the framework of capitalism that is being euphemistically referred to as "democratic socialism".
Last but not least, if you require a litmus test of the Social Democratic nature of this new political party, please inquire about whether or not they programmatically uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat. In discussions that we have found that the most of the leading comrades in this new party are completely opposed, even hostile, to the very mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
What are the teachings of Marxism Leninism with respect to this question? Allow me to repeat an often quoted but very clear statement by Lenin that explains and draws a clear line of demarcation between revolutionary politics and reformist politics. Lenin says:
"It is often said and written that the main point in Marx's teachings is the class struggle; but this is not true. And from this untruth very often springs the opportunist distortion of Marxism, its falsification in such a way as to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie. For the doctrine of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and generally speaking it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie.
Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists: they may be found to be still within the boundaries of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics.
To confine Marxism to the doctrine of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something that is acceptable to the bourgeoisie.
Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeoisie. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested." (Lenin: State and Revolution, 1916)
Hence, it is absolutely crystal clear that those who do not recognize the class struggle to recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat are not Marxists, are not participating in the politics of the working class, but are in fact representatives of the bourgeoisie or petty bourgeois classes.
How then do Social Democrats in Pakistan justify themselves as being and representatives of the working class while repudiating the most central concept of working-class politics; that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat? They do so by mainly arguing that we must learn to compromise in order to build broader left unity. Let us examine what Lenin's teaching say with respect to such compromises?
"[Marx] sharply condemns eclecticism in the formulation of principles: If you must unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders, then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make 'concessions' in questions of theory. This was Marx's idea, and yet there are people among us who strive - in his name - to belittle the significance of theory.
Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This thought cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity." (Lenin: What is to be Done, 1902)
In other words it is crystal clear to anyone who has read Marxism-Leninism that compromising on the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat is unacceptable. To put it simply, repudiating the dictatorship of the proletariat, or belittling its significance in order to achieve unity for "practical aims", simply means repudiating working-class politics for petty bourgeois or bourgeois politics.
Conclusion
Many "worldly wise" and "practical" people inform us of the continuing weaknesses of the communist movement in Pakistan. They point out that if we unite with social democrats we would be able to make a bigger "left" party that will counteract right-wing forces. What they fail to understand, or at least point out in their arguments, is quite simply that they are comparing apples and oranges. Social democracy and communism are the ideologies/ideas of two very different classes. The former represents the petty bourgeois or the bourgeoisie. The latter represents the working class.
We are committed to unity within the framework of Marxism Leninism that alone represents, in a historical and philosophical sense, working class politics. But we are not committed to any form of unity that would de-facto result in abandoning the principles of Marxism-Leninism, leaving the framework of working-class politics, in order to unite with Social Democracy.
On the contrary, we are committed as communists to expose the illusions of social democracy. To not do so, that is to not expose social democracy, would equally be a form of opportunism on our part (Lenin called it centrism). The Communist Party can only be built in any country in firm ideological opposition to all reformist illusions, and all forms of social democracy. As a communist, I will not not only not join this Social Democratic merger, but, at the ideologically level, will continue to educate people about the illusions of Social Democratic that help to maintain the capitalist system and keep the working class in a state of ideological, organizational, and political paralysis.
Long Live Marxism-Leninism
