Nepal Interview with CA member

[the-red-under-the-bed]

http://maobadiwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/interview-with-com-suresh-kumar-ale.html


"We would like to call on the progressive and leftist forces of the world... to support us so revolution and be accomplished."

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Here's why I'm not particularly rushing to do so (http://www.revcom.us/a/160/nepal-article-en.html). (Maoist perspective.)

[AvanteRedGarde]

Red Dragon, every time an RCP fan links or references a RCP article instead of actually making an argument, it simply confirms how intellectual effete RCP lackeys really are. Simply saying you have a 'true' Maoist prespective makes you look 12. Even the RCP doesn't pretend to uphold orthodox Maoism. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, Monkey Smashes heaven, a sharp critic of the RCP, has been making the same criticisms of Nepal for well over three years. Avakian: synthesizer or plagirizer?

Nepal Fan,
This document didn't look too opimistic to me. The guy admitted that the Maoists don't have state power. This is essentially a backstep from 2005, when they did have state power in the countryside. Also, he is talking about integrating the PLA into the Nepali Army, not the other way around. And then he talks about the the UCPN is integrating itself into the existing state, though (suprise), the existing state is unwilling to change.

They talk about an "anti-imperialist" front while begging for IMF loans. It's really pathetic.

The most brazen and dogmatic part is where the CA member criticizes Chavez for not being based in MLM. Hell, the UCPN has abandoned MLM in every single aspect except the names and faces.

Abandoning People's War was a mistake. Now UCPN, and more importantly the global proletariat, is paying for those mistakes.

[redwinter]

It looks like I made an argument in this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/developments-nepal-and-t104546/index2.html

But nobody, including yourself Avante, felt like responding.

The MSH scrawl (and in fact all previous critiques I've read of the CPN(M), with the exception of one by the Communist Party of Iran (MLM)) have been on the basis of tactics (criticizing the peace accords or some other policy of the CPN(M)) rather than line (which the RCP letters do in an in-depth way that your blogger of the week has not even approached).

So check out that other thread and let me know what you think.

[Red Heretic]

AvanteRedGuard's posts are really important for people to learn from by negative example.

ARG's approach to dealing with these questions is to try to narrowly label revolutionary movements as revisionist based upon tactics alone, and deludes themself into thinking that this is the same critique that the RCP has put forward.

What actually stands out about the RCP critique is that it is not narrowly based upon tactics, but rather, they have been waging a principled line struggle with the CPN(M) long before the peace accords or the current practice ever occured, and the RCP has been doing so on the basis of the political and ideological line.

It's not the tactics, it's the line. As the RCP March 2008 letter pointed out, if a different line were in command of the party, some of these tactics, like neogotiations forward example, may have actually served a different purpose. However, the revisionist line is in command of the CPN(M). It's a question of what are these tactics FOR? What line to the serve? Is it "fighting to neogotiate" or "negotiating to fight."

Even if, for example, the UCPN(M) returned to armed struggle, but if the revisionist line remained in command, it would still ultimately lead to the betrayl of the revolution.

There must be an international two-line struggle, that decisive repudiates the revisionist line. Our comrades in Nepal must repudiate the revisionist view of the state (especially the view that the current state in Nepal is neither proletarian nor bourgeois, that it can be made into a New Democratic state or a bourgeois state), break with pragmatism, ecclecticism, and empiricism. And the revolutionary communist line must be put in command, to save the revolution in Nepal.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Ok Heretic. What was the single largest tactical manifestation of this incorrect line?

You keep on saying it's a line, it's a line. WTF do you think people have been saying, including MSH. If the RCP wanted to have an "international two line struggle" against the revisionist line heading up to UCPN, they should have had the nerve, and the prescience, to do so two years ago. So quite honestly, f### off with your, "it's the line" nonsense. If the UCPN's leadership is so mired in revisionism, why did it take the RCP two years to wage this two line struggle??

I'm sorry, Winter. I actually didn't see your post. In the main, RCP's criticism of the UPCN is fundamentally correct. Insofar as the UCPN is dumping the core of MLM, they should have the ABC's of Marxism reitnerated to them. In the main though, I was basically representing the correct line to Alastair, while you found it more important to highlight how much more correct Avakian's line is. Sometimes its really hard taking you people seriously.