Samir Singh ##

When I went to a dialectical seminar in Germany, people from different countries used to ask me, ‘How strong is your party in Nepal?’, I used to answer, ‘our party in India is stronger than Nepal. After attending the 14-day seminar there, something different was happening in my worldview. Based on that perspective and understanding, I had that kind of answer.

Which party is called a strong party? This is a matter of debate. Regarding this question, the conclusion of the philosophical conference was, ‘A party cannot be called a strong party on the basis of organizing those influenced by petty-bourgeois mode of thinking.’ Based on this view, the Communist Party of Germany, the MLPD, did not form organizations such as students and intellectuals. They are especially active in the direction of strengthening the labor organization.

Based on such roles, their party is getting stronger day by day. That party has never been a victim of divisions and splits.

They used to be surprised when they said, ‘In Nepal, we also make students and intellectual organizations’. They believed that students and intellectuals will weaken the party. Their party leader has also been working in children’s organizations since childhood and was elected as a leader only after joining the labor organization for a long time.

I said that our party is stronger in India than Nepal based on the discussion I heard in the philosophical seminar. Because the organization of our party in Nepal is mostly between students, teachers and intellectuals. But in India our party organization is among the workers. Based on that, my answer was, ‘We are stronger in India than Nepal.

What is a strong party organization? There are different opinions on this matter. If we have to form an organization of thieves, no matter how many monks there are, it doesn’t matter. For that type of organization, the greater the number of highly skilled thieves, the stronger the organization. Stealing large sums of money is a strategic objective, but if only monks are enrolled in that institution, the stated strategic objectives may not be fulfilled.

If an organization of thieves is formed by recruiting many monks in this way, it should be called a weak organization. Similarly, if a union of monks is to be formed, people of different natures are needed.

If we talk about political parties, every party has its own strategy and tactics. The purpose of tactics should be to serve the strategy and form its basis. If the strategy of the party is only parliamentary politics, the organization can be built by including smugglers, corrupt people, anti-people, anti-national people can be recruited in that organization.

If the big corrupt and criminals can be included in the organization, the basis for winning the next election can be prepared. But if the party’s strategy, new democratic revolution and elections are only tactical matters, organizational structure should be built based on strategy.

If the strategy of the party is only parliamentary politics. In such a situation, coming to power after winning the election there will be more corruption, and on the basis of that, arranging expenses for the next election, etc. becomes important. Accordingly, the organizational structure should be built.If such an organization can be built, that party should be said to be strong.

If a party takes parliamentary elections only as a tactics to prepare the basis of a new democratic revolution, its organizational structure should also be of the same type. For this type of party, an organization of disciplined and militant revolutionaries is more important than a mass of people.

Election victory and defeat have no meaning for the revolutionary party. The main thing is how much movement can be done against the exploitation and oppression of the working people? How much struggle can be done for the nationalism of the country and the livelihood of the people? Is there agreement with ideas and principles or not? Have they adopted the Leninist organizational system in the right way or not? Has Marxist philosophy and theory been used correctly or not?

Based on these various questions, how strong is any revolutionary party? It is certain that who is the leader and who is the worker for such a party? This is not a matter of such importance. It is not believed that a party of this kind can be led by a person who is in a hurry. In this type of party, the leadership is selected on the basis of democratic centralism.

How much has the tactics determined for the revolutionary party helped to achieve the strategic objective? That is the main thing. If we want to go to power and engage in corruption and commission, parliamentary strategy will help, that kind of strategy has weakened the movement of revolution and change. For the revolutionary party, this type of organizational structure should be evaluated as a weak organization.

It is more important for a revolutionary party to build a small revolutionary party than to gather millions of people, spend a lot of money on elections and get a lot of votes. To be more clear this kind of party organization should be evaluated as a strong organization because this kind of revolutionary squad supports the strategy of revolution and change.