What's new

Join Laal for celebration of Labor Day on May 1st in Lahore

M. Sarmad

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
7,022
Reaction score
62
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
A day to remember the struggles of the working class. A day to enjoy the coming of spring. A day to celebrate the rebirth of nature and the rebirth of humanity.

Join us on May Day at Lhr Press Club 11am for a workers rally or at Nasir Bagh 2 pm for a students rally.

1510612_10152127831102879_4188088044449442475_n.jpg


Laal | Facebook

@jaibi @Alpha1 @danish falcon @Jazzbot @Leader and others .......
 
Is laal doing a separate rally than Awami Workers Party rally at the very place, or is he part of AWP Rally ?
 
Is laal doing a separate rally than Awami Workers Party rally at the very place, or is he part of AWP Rally ?

Laal is doing a rally with the trade union movement of Lahore . don't know what AWP is doing.


Here is the schedule :


Dear all, we've got big plans for May Day. Today, I am leaving to celebrate May Day with my comrades in Pakpattan. Motia Masood has organised a function and invited progressives from Lahore. Tomorrow, we will have a rally of the CMKP, Laal Rickshaw Union (yes its named after Laal band) & Coca Cola Union that will come down Thokar at 9 am. They will join with the mammoth rally of the All-Pakistan Trade Union Federation that will depart from Nisar Art Press at 10am. The two rallies will meet on the canal. They will stop at the Press Club for some short speeches at 11am. This rally will be lead by Rubina Jamil and Nasir Gulzar. Then they will join Khursheed Ahmed's rally at Laxmi chowk. The combined rally will end at GPO chowk mall road. From there we will go to Nasir Bagh, eat lunch, and rest for an hour or so. And then at 2 pm we will join the gigantic rally of the National Students Federation and Peoples Democratic Forum. From Nasir Bagh, the rally will come down the mall to the Assembly Hall. This wonderful function has been organised by my the inveterate revolutionary Mushtaq Chaudhary. The next day (3rd May) about 15 or so members of the CMKP and Laal band and Theatre will leave for Hyderabad by train. We will be speaking and performing at a massive function arranged by the Communist Party of Pakistan on the 3rd of May. This function will commemorate May Day and the birthday of Karl Marx and is organised by comrade Imdad Qazi. On 4th May we will meet with Sindhi nationalists and progressives in a talk organised by my dear comrades and friends Saleem Jamali and Aamir Mugheri. On 5th May, if we still have any stamina left, we will try to go to Karachi for another talk organised by the Communist Party of Pakistan. And we will also try to visit the BSO hunger strike camp. Hopefully on the 6th of May we will take the train back to Lahore (arriving on the 7th). Ordinarily, all this would not be hard for me. I've had tougher schedules in the past. My only concern is that with the allergic reaction I had recently my voice and lungs are not really working. I'm constantly coughing. But all comrades have assured me that even if I am unable to sing, they want me to speak, play guitar and just be present. I hope to make it through this hectic week on the basis of their love and solidarity. As the famous Beatles song says: What would you do if I sang out of tune, Would you stand up and walk out on me. Lend me your ears and I'll sing you song I will try not to sing out of key. I'll get by with a little help from my friends. I'll get by with a little help from my friends.
 
Laal is doing a rally with the trade union movement of Lahore . don't know what AWP is doing.


Here is the schedule :


Dear all, we've got big plans for May Day. Today, I am leaving to celebrate May Day with my comrades in Pakpattan. Motia Masood has organised a function and invited progressives from Lahore. Tomorrow, we will have a rally of the CMKP, Laal Rickshaw Union (yes its named after Laal band) & Coca Cola Union that will come down Thokar at 9 am. They will join with the mammoth rally of the All-Pakistan Trade Union Federation that will depart from Nisar Art Press at 10am. The two rallies will meet on the canal. They will stop at the Press Club for some short speeches at 11am. This rally will be lead by Rubina Jamil and Nasir Gulzar. Then they will join Khursheed Ahmed's rally at Laxmi chowk. The combined rally will end at GPO chowk mall road. From there we will go to Nasir Bagh, eat lunch, and rest for an hour or so. And then at 2 pm we will join the gigantic rally of the National Students Federation and Peoples Democratic Forum. From Nasir Bagh, the rally will come down the mall to the Assembly Hall. This wonderful function has been organised by my the inveterate revolutionary Mushtaq Chaudhary. The next day (3rd May) about 15 or so members of the CMKP and Laal band and Theatre will leave for Hyderabad by train. We will be speaking and performing at a massive function arranged by the Communist Party of Pakistan on the 3rd of May. This function will commemorate May Day and the birthday of Karl Marx and is organised by comrade Imdad Qazi. On 4th May we will meet with Sindhi nationalists and progressives in a talk organised by my dear comrades and friends Saleem Jamali and Aamir Mugheri. On 5th May, if we still have any stamina left, we will try to go to Karachi for another talk organised by the Communist Party of Pakistan. And we will also try to visit the BSO hunger strike camp. Hopefully on the 6th of May we will take the train back to Lahore (arriving on the 7th). Ordinarily, all this would not be hard for me. I've had tougher schedules in the past. My only concern is that with the allergic reaction I had recently my voice and lungs are not really working. I'm constantly coughing. But all comrades have assured me that even if I am unable to sing, they want me to speak, play guitar and just be present. I hope to make it through this hectic week on the basis of their love and solidarity. As the famous Beatles song says: What would you do if I sang out of tune, Would you stand up and walk out on me. Lend me your ears and I'll sing you song I will try not to sing out of key. I'll get by with a little help from my friends. I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

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.

p.s.

10169255_10152141067319527_8326536413867009126_n.jpg
 
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
 
Last edited:
Laal has no personal differences with any other leftist party , only ideological differences ......

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.

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.

academic objections by taimour.

however, I dont think so AWP confined itself within the capitalist imperialist boundary.. their party's main focus is to stand for the rights of the working class.
 

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


Why are the socialists and the communists at each others throat all the time? Seriously, every single country I have read about, its the leftist in fighting that has destroyed these movements, and not the right wingers. Why can't they come together on one point like the right wing, jamatis?

Don't mean to sound hostile, just curious. I mean Pakistan had such a budding leftist movement in the 50s and 60s. It's hard for me to believe that state repression alone dismantled the whole ideology.
 
Why are the socialists and the communists at each others throat all the time? Seriously, every single country I have read about, its the leftist in fighting that has destroyed these movements, and not the right wingers. Why can't they come together on one point like the right wing, jamatis?

Don't mean to sound hostile, just curious. I mean Pakistan had such a budding leftist movement in the 50s and 60s. It's hard for me to believe that state repression alone dismantled the whole ideology.


You are absolutely right . There are several internal conflicts and splits within the left in general (and within every left party). And there is a repetitive pattern to all of them. And this pattern is what can be ascribed to a phenomenon that Lenin called "small circle mentality". If we do not understand this phenomenon and we are unable to conquer it, then we shall spend the next 50 years more or less in the same boat as the one we have occupied till now.

Small circles have their own logic. They are primarily concerned with issues within the circle. These may be issues of authority, power, privilege, habits, manners and so on. All of them are about the individuals within that small circle. For them the political world exists primarily in the form of that small circle. What exists outside of it is somewhat of an abstraction about which there are many theories, many different views, and very little real experience. Hence, while the real political issues exist only as abstractions, issues concerning the personal relationship within that small circle substitute as politics.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom