893 (Part 1 of 10 series ) How did a dictator like Mr. Mao Tse Tung wake up to start a New Party in his tyrannical Empire?

Late Mao's image courtesy Wikipedia.org.
DeccanChronicle.Com, published from its archive, a 50 year old news which says that Mr. Mao Tse Tung, the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party has decided to have a new Communist Party for China based on one hundred percent 'Maoism' , and if necessary the new party would be set up in parallel to the existing one. Link to read this 50 year old news: Click here to go to the Deccan Chronicle.Com, to read this newsreport.

Tokyo, Jan. 25, 1967.
"...The Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party has decided to have a new Communist Party for China based on one hundred percent 'Maoism' , and if necessary the new party would be set up in parallel to the existing one. ..."

ybrao-a-donkey's observations, which are not intended to be imposed on others

Even in 2017, we find that there is no second party in China. That means, either Mr. Mao Tse Tung could not succeed in launching his second party in 1967. Or, he might have launched, but subsequently it might have been merged either by himself or his successors, into the Old Chinese Communist Party.

Normally, Dictators and Life Time Presidents ruling countries do not think of themselves launching a second party, or allow others to start a rival party to the official totalitarian ruling party. There must have been exceptional circumstances which might have forced Late Mao Tse Tung to talk of a new party. Might be, at that particular point of Chinese History, Mao Tse Tung might have lost control over the party founded by himself, and kept it under his feet. There must have been some internal revolt.

I am not a supporter or sympathizer of Mr. Mao Tse Tung. As a school boy, I might have developed my dislike for Mao and China, probably because he himself ordered or acquiesced when China invaded India in 1962, and occupied about 36,000 sq. miles of Indian Territory in Arunachal Pradesh, and Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir). Besides, under his leadership itself, in 1959 China tromped on Tibet and occupied it. In its history, Mao-Dictated China never respected the rights of other Nations. His successors are continuing the same policies even in 2017.

(Mother) Communist Party of India split in 1962, While the Rightists in the erstwhile Communist Party in India supported USSR (Soviet Russia) and Late Indira Gandhi, the Leftists who formed a separate party CPIM adored China and Mao Tse Tung. In those days, CPIM chose to acquiesce/ ignore the territorial aggressions of China.

Question: Why are you digging up/ raking up this question now? Mr. Mao Tse Tung exists only in history now!

Ans: True. Mr. Mao is dead long back. But the problem of viewing Communism / Marxism / Total Socialism (as distinct from Fabian Gradualist Socialism), as something draconian and anachronistic / obsolete / outdated theory is continuing, by those who get their crumbs from the Capitalist Tycoons. Personally, I (yb-a-donkey) viewed Communism / Marxism / Total Socialism as something which can be executed / implemented with democratic fervour. In my previous blogposts, I have always proposed and tried to popularise the idea that several Communist / Marxist / Total Socialist Parties can co-exist side by side and compete with one another, just as bourgeoisie parties contest and compete with one another in a Capitalist Economies and States.

LACK OF COMPETITION CAN ROT ANY SYSTEM, INCLUDING COMMUNIST / MARXIST /SOCIALIST SYSTEMS

Any system can atrophy, decay and stagnate when there is no healthy competition, and Communism is not an exception. Maoism under the dictatorship of Mao tse Tung too rotted as long as there was one party rule of his own party. IN Jan. 1967, Mr. Mao might have found some rivals, who were earlier his followers, rising their heads, and challenging his authority with sizable support from Members of the Party. A situation might have arisen where Late Mao might have found himself in a precarious stage of being dumped by his own followers. As a strategy he might have thought of a new Party, to challenge his rivals.

IT IS GOOD THAT INDIAN COMMUNIST PARTIES HAVE JOINED MAINSTREAM ELECTION POLITICS.

It is good that Indian Communist Parties, with the exception of Maoists of AOB Border, an some pockets of JhanKhand and West Bengal, have accepted democratic method of participating in elections. The problem with them is, they behave like bourgeoisie parties, owing to electoral compulsions. Deviations from the Basic Principles of Communism made them lose public sympathy, and they have become laughing stock. Occasionally, they lament jointly and severally, that Communists should get united, work jointly, to defeat Congress or BJP or some other party. As at 2017, the combined voting power of CPI and CPIM will not be sufficient to displace BJP or Congress. Then, what will be the using of their contesting together? Every Communist Party in India, by whatever name it is called, has to reinvent itself with better public images, but without parting with the basic tenets of Communism and Marxism.

Communist Parties should compete, and not unite

Competing Communist Parties, to popularise their Total Socialist principles and strategies, can prove to the Indian Citizens and also the outside world, that Communism is not an outdated totalitarian-dictatorial-tyrannical doctrine, but a vibrant-people-responsive practically working philosophy, which strives to bring in justice to the suffering Working Class. Indian Communist Parties have another problem.

Failure of Organised Sector Workers to help Unorganised Sector Workers

Communist Parties have an erroneous impression that the Organised Sector Unionised Workers who successfully coerced their employers to part with some sort of good wages, will work for the upliftment of unorganised sector multitudes and workers. This Organised Sector Employees uplifting the Unorganised Sector Workers, has not taken place because the Organised Sector Workers started spending their earnings on gold, share market investments, speculative real estate transactions cornering large number of house-sites and houses, becoming absentee-landlords of agricultural farms. The Organised Sector of Working Class forgot that it has a responsibility for its brother workers who are toiling in unorganised sector. Organised Working Class has started looking down upon the starving and suffering unorganised workers, as somebody suffering from contagious diseases. Organised Sector started believing that they themselves have merit to deserve higher pay and perks.

Was Long March so glorious and so true?

Personally, I have considered in the past, and even now I consider that Long March was exaggerated and magnified beyond proportions by hagio-graphic writers. This area of hagiographic hyperbolic magnifications of Long March need greater investigation.

To continue. This is a 1000 page subject. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.