Nepal: No other option than third people’s uprising

[Saorsa]

Nepal: No other option than third people’s uprising (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/nepal-no-other-option-than-third-peoples-uprising/)

Posted by n3wday (http:///) on July 30, 2009
http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/prachanda1.jpg?w=286&h=300 (http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/prachanda1.jpg)After the 2008 constituent assembly elections the United Communist Party of Nepal (formerly the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist) became the largest elected body in Nepal’s transitional government. In May of 2009, the UCPN decided to sack the Chief of Army Staff General Katawal due to his refusal to follow orders on multiple occasions. Hours after the decision he was reinstated by the ceremonial President, causing the UCPN to withdraw completely from the government. Over the past two months the UCPN has been engaged in intense debate (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/ideological-differences-sharpening-in-the-ucpn/) over what their next steps are to be, and whether to include a “people’s revolt” in those next steps. This appears to be the first time Pushpa Dahal (Prachanda), the party chairman, has stepped out publicly in favor of this option (assuming this report has fairly characterized his position).
This article was published on Telegraph Nepal (http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=5921). Thanks to Ka Frank for pointing it out.

Nepal Maoists determined for waging final Peoples’ Revolt
TGW
The Unified Nepal Communist Party-Maoist is preparing to lead a new peoples’ revolt.
The Maoists party has also decided to warm up the Streets and the Constituent Assembly body together in order to guarantee Peoples’ Supremacy and forcing the President to retract from his unconstitutional move that he took on May 3, 2009.


The Maoists party has also concluded that to achieve the set objectives, unity among the Nationalists, Republicans, Forward-looking and Communists was urgent and significant.
Responding to queries posed by party central committee members, Wednesday July 29, 2009, a pretty annoyed looking party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal also said that there was no option left with the Maoists than taking on to the path to what he called “Third People’s Uprising”.


“The Nationalists, Republicans, Forward-looking and Communists must unite to launch the third Uprising, our party will lead the entire movement”, said Dahal.http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gifhttp://mikeely.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif


“With the Peoples’ Uprising approaching the climax, it will in all likelihood open the gates for the Final Peoples’ Revolt,” one of the Maoists’ Central Committee members quoted the party chairman as saying.
The Maoists Central Committee meeting stretched to some four hours without any intervals, Wednesday.


“We prefer to become martyrs rather than fleeing from the ongoing peace process”, Dahal continued adding, “We will continue to struggle against all the Himalayan difficulties that lay ahead of us.”
“They have imported weapons to press us hard, we will stay right here in Kathmandu and fight”, he added.


If the Maoists determination is real then analysts presume that the country is soon to embrace a sort of fierce situation.
2009-07-30 09:13:43

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Excellent news, the UCPN shows once again its determination and incorruptability. Glory to the great People's Revolt!

[Pogue]

They want to unite with Nationalists and Republicans?

[scarletghoul]

They want to unite with Nationalists and Republicans?
These words means differant things in differant contexts. Nationalism in this case means national independance and antiimperialism and republican means forces against the monarchy advocating peoples government (obviously this is progressive).

[Pogue]

These words means differant things in differant contexts. Nationalism in this case means national independance and antiimperialism and republican means forces against the monarchy advocating peoples government (obviously this is progressive).

Oh, so class collaboration then?

[Kukulofori]

Wait, they're calling for a revolution against themselves?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Oh, so class collaboration then?Yes, just like the CNT collaborated with the Republican government.

[Pogue]

Yes, just like the CNT collaborated with the Republican government.

Yeh, there are similarities. I think what one group does in a period of desperation is different from the actual tried and failed tactic of believing somehow you can have an alleigance with 'progressive nationalists'. Perhaps the major difference is I don't actually advocate joining with anti-working class groups where Maoists do.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yeh, there are similarities. I think what one group does in a period of desperation is different from the actual tried and failed tactic of believing somehow you can have an alleigance with 'progressive nationalists'. Perhaps the major difference is I don't actually advocate joining with anti-working class groups where Maoists do.
Same way the Republican was anti-working class like the USSR bureaucrat class.

[Pogue]

Same way the Republican was anti-working class like the USSR bureaucrat class.

What?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Yeh, there are similarities. I think what one group does in a period of desperation is different from the actual tried and failed tactic of believing somehow you can have an alleigance with 'progressive nationalists'. Perhaps the major difference is I don't actually advocate joining with anti-working class groups where Maoists do.

Why should they fight with people who aren't an immediate threat?

[Pogue]

Why should they fight with people who aren't an immediate threat?

Because it confuses what our priorities are and leads to ideas that somehow we can trust bourgeoisie factions. It naturally leads to comprimise on our ideals.

[Yehuda Stern]

Please, Anarchists, Maoists, don't fight. Whether the former in Spain or the latter in Nepal, you both betray the working class very well whenever you have power!

[Asoka89]

Maoism is an ideology BASED upon class collaboration (peasant, workers). I'm not lambasting this.. it's needed in the undeveloped world if your goal is the erection of some sort of collectivist society.

Socialism can't be established in one country. If the Maoists want to topple this government and put a more progressive one in power, I have sympathy for them, but there are many limits on what their revolution can do. They are bound to the logic of the world capitalist system (and if they tried to break with that logic in an autarkic direction they would be even more screwed)

[scarletghoul]

Class collaboration to some degree is nothing new to revolutionary marxists and anarchists. However its important that the class alliance is led by the workers (and peasants in a peasant society), which is what the maoists are doing. They are not getting the workers and peasants to support the progressive bourgeoisie, it is the other way around. They are using the support of the progressive bourgeoisie and nationalists in order to help them establish a workers state

[Pogue]

Please, Anarchists, Maoists, don't fight. Whether the former in Spain or the latter in Nepal, you both betray the working class very well whenever you have power!

What were the Trotskyists doing in Spain and Nepal again?

Its ironic anyway because you name your ideology after someone who used armed force to supress the working class and break their strikes. The ultimate scab.

[Asoka89]

What were the Trotskyists doing in Spain and Nepal again?

Its ironic anyway because you name your ideology after someone who used armed force to supress the working class and break their strikes. The ultimate scab.

The POUM and the CNT/FAI got along fine in Spain and they were both revolutionaries... I'm not sure why this is worth bringing up.

Calling Trotsky a scab is at best historical simplification and at worse an outright lie. I assume your talking about Kronstadt?

I'm not a Trotskyist, but he's clearly one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. An ardent Marxist, an anti-fascist, articulated an alternative to Stalinism within the "Leninist" camp and paid the ultimate price for his beliefs.

Read "The Prophet Outcast"

[Pogue]

I'm talking about him being part of the Bolshevik government that actively supressed striking workers, and being the man who became a dictatorial authority over the militant railway workers, whose democracy and autonomy he supressed in the name of the state. I'd say this is the pinnacle of scabbing and what we have to expect from Leninist (statists socialists).

[Yehuda Stern]

What were the Trotskyists doing in Spain and Nepal again?

I don't think the original FI ever had a section in Nepal, so the question is irrelevant, though I've come to expect that of you. As for Spain, the small Bolshevik-Leninist groups was advocating working class independence as opposed to the class collaboration of the PSOE, PCE, CNT and POUM.


Its ironic anyway because you name your ideology after someone who used armed force to supress the working class and break their strikes.

If you call white reactionaries "working class" then yeah, although using that rhetoric trick one can condemn anyone for anything. For example, one can try and claim that Lenin wanted an elite to rule over the working class. Oh wait, that's another lie you always tell.

[Pogue]

I don't think the original FI ever had a section in Nepal, so the question is irrelevant, though I've come to expect that of you. As for Spain, the small Bolshevik-Leninist groups was advocating working class independence as opposed to the class collaboration of the PSOE, PCE, CNT and POUM.



If you call white reactionaries "working class" then yeah, although using that rhetoric trick one can condemn anyone for anything. For example, one can try and claim that Lenin wanted an elite to rule over the working class. Oh wait, that's another lie you always tell.

I think the fact these groups were small is a sign of how they felt they could be in a position to do this. The POUM were Trotskyist leaning, but because they actually had a presence they had to make hard decisions too.

Oh, so all of those strikes that the Bolsheviks smashed were carried out by Whites? Yeh I can totally see that. Its nice to delude onself with lies, isn't it.

[Yehuda Stern]

The POUM were Trotskyist leaning, but because they actually had a presence they had to make hard decisions too.

Aha, is that in your "Opportunist Excuses" handbook? I swear I hear that excuse from supporters of Mao, Che Guevara, Castro, Chavez, Stalin...


Oh, so all of those strikes that the Bolsheviks smashed were carried out by Whites?

I don't want to say "all." I thought you were referring to Kronstadt. If you have other examples, we can discuss them too.

[Pogue]

Aha, is that in your "Opportunist Excuses" handbook? I swear I hear that excuse from supporters of Mao, Che Guevara, Castro, Chavez, Stalin...



I don't want to say "all." I thought you were referring to Kronstadt. If you have other examples, we can discuss them too.

I don't think desperation is the same thing as opportunism. Alot of anarchists disagreed and disagree with the decision of the CNT whilst also recognising why they did it. I don't think I can speak for such a decision when I wasn't in a situation where Stalinism and Fascism were both attacking me.

OK, I'll make a post on it tommorow when I have time to get my sources and type it up and we can discuss it then.

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think desperation is the same thing as opportunism. Alot of anarchists disagreed and disagree with the decision of the CNT whilst also recognising why they did it. I don't think I can speak for such a decision when I wasn't in a situation where Stalinism and Fascism were both attacking me.

I can understand why, I just don't think it excuses it. On the contrary, I think it underscores Anarchism's anti-working class attitude, that it would capitulate to reactionary forces because they were unsure of the wisdom of fighting for class indepedence.

[Pogue]

I can understand why, I just don't think it excuses it. On the contrary, I think it underscores Anarchism's anti-working class attitude, that it would capitulate to reactionary forces because they were unsure of the wisdom of fighting for class indepedence.

This is the same CNT that built up a revolution that went furhter than most revolutions in history. I don't think all of its members suddenly made the decision to collaborate with government, that would be absurd. They knew the dangers of government, but to quote the CNT, they thought a fascist victory was more terrifying prospect and they recognised the revolution had been killed out by the Stalinists and fascists anyway. I don't think a group making one difficult decision in a specific historical period shows anarchism is anti-working class because government collaboration is not an anarchist principle, its just something one group (following a vote from its members) felt it had to do.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is the same CNT that built up a revolution that went furhter than most revolutions in history. I don't think all of its members suddenly made the decision to collaborate with government, that would be absurd.

I doubt its correct to say that the CNT "build up" the revolution; I wouldn't even try to argue that about Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution. Clearly, the workers built up the revolution; the CNT was in a place to take its leadership to betray it, which it did. I'm sure many members were against the move, but then this just underscores the fact that his was a betrayal.


to quote the CNT, they thought a fascist victory was more terrifying prospect and they recognised the revolution had been killed out by the Stalinists and fascists anyway.

Again, this is an excuse; the Anarchists collaborated with the government because they did not have any confidence in the working class' ability to overcome the oppression of the state and the Stalinists, i.e. they saw the workers as being powerless against the bourgeoisie and thus decided to support the latter against the former.


I don't think a group making one difficult decision in a specific historical period shows anarchism is anti-working class because government collaboration is not an anarchist principle, its just something one group (following a vote from its members) felt it had to do.

The test of a political ideology is in its practice. The experience of the CNT, which no Anarchist that I know of doubts was an authentically Anarchist organization, can be added to the pile of Anarchist betrayals during the period when Anarchism was still relevant to the working class movement. So yes, the CNT's betrayal alone does not suffice to reach the conclusion that Anarchism is counterrevolutionary; taken in isolation, it is only an illustration of that fact.

[Pogue]

I doubt its correct to say that the CNT "build up" the revolution; I wouldn't even try to argue that about Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution. Clearly, the workers built up the revolution; the CNT was in a place to take its leadership to betray it, which it did. I'm sure many members were against the move, but then this just underscores the fact that his was a betrayal.

Yes, the working class built up the revolution, but seeing as millions of workers were in the unions and many of the most militant were in the CNT its an accurate enough description.



Again, this is an excuse; the Anarchists collaborated with the government because they did not have any confidence in the working class' ability to overcome the oppression of the state and the Stalinists, i.e. they saw the workers as being powerless against the bourgeoisie and thus decided to support the latter against the former.


Again this would seem to be a fallacy, because the CNT held a vote on wether to join the government and the majority of the membership said yes, the same membership who had particpated in revolution shortly before. What would you have the anarchists do, ignore the wishes of the membership? You misunderstand that anarchism is about the power of the working class, and the CNT was structured as to reflect the interests of its members. The vast majority of the working class voted to join the government. I don't think it was because they were class collaborators, I think it was out of desperation.

What would Trotskyists do differently anyway? If the majority of the working class decided to join the government, after its revolution had been defeated, because it saw no other choice, how would you stop this? As I said, it wasn't that the anarchists promoted the policy of collaboration, it was that the workers and anarchists saw no other choice (although the FoD disagreed with it and I share their position).

The working class obviously has faith int he working class. Your comment suggests this was an anarchist decision. It was the decision of the workers, and so it has nothing to do with anarchist attitudes.

Look at May 68. I'd say it was a struggle I would advocate as an anarchist - mass strikes, workers councils, no Stalinist/reformist leadership/containment. But in the end it fizzled out. Does this disprove the ideas of anyone who supports this kind of revolutionary struggle? The Trotskyists presumably see this struggle as a good one - does the fact the working class accepted a pay rise and ended the revolt before it overthrew capitalism show that any ideology which claims to support independent working class action is doomed to fail? I don't think so, but your assumption would suggest this.

Or maybe you simply don't know enough about the period to comment. Alot of people don't recognise the historial circumstance or the fact that the membership voted in majority in favour of joining the government, the same way historically the working class has had to do things it might not want too but feels it has no choice.


The test of a political ideology is in its practice. The experience of the CNT, which no Anarchist that I know of doubts was an authentically Anarchist organization, can be added to the pile of Anarchist betrayals during the period when Anarchism was still relevant to the working class movement. So yes, the CNT's betrayal alone does not suffice to reach the conclusion that Anarchism is counterrevolutionary; taken in isolation, it is only an illustration of that fact.

Although I've already dealt with this in the above paragraph, when ws the test of Trotskyism? How would it deal with workers voting, out of desperation, for what they saw as their only choice (join the government and hopefully live to fight another day, don't join and be totally obliterated and see fascism triumph)? Would the party ignore the will of the masses and impose its own decision? Surely not. I doubt it would be able to if it tried. I don't think one historical circumstance disproves the whole ideolgoy of anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism, and I think it is wishful thinking on part of the Trotskyists to believe this.

Its also hypocritical. Bolshevism didn't create communism in Russia, so surely this means Bolshevism is an anti-working class idelogy that failed too, by your logic?

[Rawthentic]

And, what sort of practice validates Trotskyism?

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, the working class built up the revolution, but seeing as millions of workers were in the unions and many of the most militant were in the CNT its an accurate enough description.

It seems misleading at best, and is also indicative of a condescending attitude towards the working class that Anarchists usually blame Leninists of - that workers cannot become revolutionary without some revolutionary party guiding them.


Again this would seem to be a fallacy, because the CNT held a vote on wether to join the government and the majority of the membership said yes, the same membership who had particpated in revolution shortly before. What would you have the anarchists do, ignore the wishes of the membership? You misunderstand that anarchism is about the power of the working class, and the CNT was structured as to reflect the interests of its members. The vast majority of the working class voted to join the government. I don't think it was because they were class collaborators, I think it was out of desperation.

I don't think I misunderstand anything; I think it was exactly the class nature of the Anarchist CNT that led its membership to support the bourgeois government, whatever excuse one affords them. The logic of Anarchist politics simply led them down that road. The fact remains that the Durruti group, which was a minority of the Anarchist movement, did oppose this move, as if to further accentuate the Anarchist betrayal.


What would Trotskyists do differently anyway? If the majority of the working class decided to join the government, after its revolution had been defeated, because it saw no other choice, how would you stop this?

They couldn't, and didn't. But they fought for working class independence, and didn't capitulate to any of the groups in the popular front. Maybe because they failed this face is meaningless. But I for one can't bring myself to reason in such a cynical way.


Look at May 68. I'd say it was a struggle I would advocate as an anarchist - mass strikes, workers councils, no Stalinist/reformist leadership/containment. But in the end it fizzled out. Does this disprove the ideas of anyone who supports this kind of revolutionary struggle?

You're talking as if the May 68 revolts had no leadership - even though the Stalinists were seen as traitors by the majority of the working class, the student and trade union leaders, and yes, some pseudo-Trotskyists all did their part to moderate the uprising and betray it.


Or maybe you simply don't know enough about the period to comment

Don't make me laugh.


I doubt it would be able to if it tried. I don't think one historical circumstance disproves the whole ideolgoy of anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism, and I think it is wishful thinking on part of the Trotskyists to believe this.

I don't think this alone suffices, although it is a powerful example as an obviously Anarchist group had a lot of power and used it to betray the working class. It is simpl added to the pile of example which includes the 1917 revolution, Kronstadt, etc.


And, what sort of practice validates Trotskyism?

I'm afraid Trotskyism has mostly been validated in the negative for the last couple of decades, especially its characterization of Stalinism as counerrevolutionary and the theory of permanent revolution. However, Trotskyism back in the day also produced some great working class fighters, and managed to win small successes in places like France and the USA, which is quite impressive given the times and its savage persecution by the fascists, Stalinists and 'democratic' bourgeois forces alike.

[Conquer or Die]

I think the decision to leave power with majority approval shows great promise for the future of Nepal. They were willing to compromise for peace and as a result created the best government Nepal has ever had. And then, when militant bureaucrats thwarted democratic rule and inclined power to military forces and royal bullshit they remove themselves from the corrupted orifice in order to reaffirm their status as a legitimate people ruled democracy.

[Tower of Bebel]

What kind of state power are the Nepalese Maoists fighting for? And what kind of "people's uprising" do they want?

[Saorsa]

The Nepalese Maoists are fighting for a People's Republic, and by "people's uprising" they mean a mass mobilisation of workers and peasants to overthrow the established order and establish a revolutionary government with the purpose of radically transforming society. The exact form this uprising will take and the exact details of how Nepal will move from where it is now to a socialist and ultimately communist society are impossible to predict. They will be unique to Nepal.

[Saorsa]

Oh and btw could a moderator split the stuff about the CNT etc into a different thread? This one's about Nepal not Spain.

[Yehuda Stern]

The Nepalese Maoists are fighting for a People's Republic, and by "people's uprising" they mean a mass mobilisation of workers and peasants to overthrow the established order and establish a revolutionary government with the purpose of radically transforming society.

False:


“The Nationalists, Republicans, Forward-looking and Communists must unite to launch the third Uprising, our party will lead the entire movement”, said Dahal.http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gifhttp://mikeely.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif

How many nationalists and Republicans are workers and peasants? It seems to me like Dahal is peddling the old Maoist line of the bloc of four classes, which is based on class collaboration.


The exact form this uprising will take and the exact details of how Nepal will move from where it is now to a socialist and ultimately communist society are impossible to predict.

That the surface appearance of the move will be unique does not mean that the basic class dynamics of the situation will be any different at all. At the very least, one can be certain that they will not include the bourgeoisie participating in the socialist revolution!

[BobKKKindle$]

The Nepalese Maoists are fighting for a People's RepublicThat doesn't settle the issue of power, though. Is the objective of the Maoists, acting as the vanguard of the Nepalese working class, to abolish the class rule of the bourgeoisie, and enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat? The past behavior of the Maoists would suggest that they are happy to maintain the existing state of affairs in terms of the political institutions they want to use to govern Nepal and carry out their policies (i.e. a bourgeois state which protects private property, and exercises power through armed bodies of men separated from the rest of the population) and whilst this is fine for a reformist organization, which limits its struggles to the framework of capitalism, and does not admit the irreconcilability of class interests, it has nothing to do with Marxism, which holds that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes" but must, in order to establish the proletariat as the ruling class, smash the bourgeois state, and, in its place, build a new state, based on the organic power of the proletariat, and aimed at crushing the resistance of the exploiters.


establish a revolutionary government with the purpose of radically transforming society.This betrays a problematic view of what a revolution is. A socialist revolution is not something that is imposed by a central government once a particular party has been voted into power by the electorate. Rather, it is something that is carried out by the working class in the form of factory occupations and the creation of democratic bodies to manage workplaces and coordinate the struggles of different sections of the working class, in preparation for the planned and democratic management of the means of production, with these bodies then forming the basis of the workers state, once the institutions of the bourgeois state - especially its organs of violence - have been destroyed. It is, in other words, an organic process. The ability of the Maoists to transform society will be limited as long as they continue to operate within the confines of a bourgeois state precisely because the state that currently exists in Nepal (and indeed all other "democratic" capitalist states) is a state geared towards the class interests of the bourgeoisie, due to its role in protecting private property. They have not challenged the class power of the bourgeoisie primarily because they and all other Maoists are under the illusion that it is possible for a section of the bourgeoisie (the so-called national bourgeoisie) to play a progressive role in raising the forces of production and challenging the imperialist powers, whilst we Trotskyists uphold the Marxist principle that class antagonisms are irreconcilable, and for that reason we advocate an unconstrained class war against the capitalists not only in Nepal but in every country throughout the world, as the only route to socialism.

[Devrim]

Oh and btw could a moderator split the stuff about the CNT etc into a different thread? This one's about Nepal not Spain.

I would like to comment on the Spanish discussion, though I have no objection if it is split off.



Yes, just like the CNT collaborated with the Republican government.Yeh, there are similarities. I think what one group does in a period of desperation is different from the actual tried and failed tactic of believing somehow you can have an alleigance with 'progressive nationalists'. Perhaps the major difference is I don't actually advocate joining with anti-working class groups where Maoists do.

Pogue is right in that it is a consistent stratergy of the Maoists. However, the argument that the CNT's actions were 'in a period of desperation' is pretty weak. Revolutions are not made in calm times. All revolutions are made 'in a period of desperation'. War and revolution are the tests for organisations that claim to be revolutionary. The CNT failed this test and betrayed.


What were the Trotskyists doing in Spain and Nepal again?

I have no idea if there even are any Trotskyists in Nepal today. However the Trotskyists organisation in Spain, which was tiny and only had eight militants was the Seccion Bolshevik-Leninista. Their programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/munis/1937/07/program.htm) issued in May 1937 explains their positions. Although it may seem like a tiny group it is important to remember that the much talked about anarchist Friends of Durruti group probably had no more than thirty members at most. Such was the weakness of the forces resisting the CNT's collaberation in Spain.

Whilst both of these groups fought on the barracades in May 1937 and resisted the CNT's attempt to disarm the working class both had, in our opinion, very confused positions, even though they expressed a class reaction.


I think the fact these groups were small is a sign of how they felt they could be in a position to do this. The POUM were Trotskyist leaning, but because they actually had a presence they had to make hard decisions too.

As already mentioned the revolutionary forces were weak because the working class was weak. All groups opposing class collaberation were. The POUM was not a Trotskyist group. It was a part of the 'London Bureau' or International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, which Trotsky himself described as being 'centerist'.


This is the same CNT that built up a revolution that went furhter than most revolutions in history. I don't think all of its members suddenly made the decision to collaborate with government, that would be absurd.

There was no revolution in Spain. The working class never seized power there.


Again this would seem to be a fallacy, because the CNT held a vote on wether to join the government and the majority of the membership said yes, the same membership who had particpated in revolution shortly before.

This isn't exactly true. Some FAI leaders joined the Government, and then put a 'fait accompli' to the CNT to ratify. The decision was not made by the organisation, but forced upon it.

Devrim

[Devrim]

An article from our press on the Friends of Durruti can be found here:http://en.internationalism.org/ir/102_durruti.htm

Devrim

[Saorsa]

How many nationalists and Republicans are workers and peasants? It seems to me like Dahal is peddling the old Maoist line of the bloc of four classes, which is based on class collaboration.

Erm, lots actually. The Nepali people (i.e. workers, peasants, progressive students etc) are intensely nationalistic, flowing from their long history of colonial and neo-colonial domination. The struggle going on in Nepal atm is as much about national liberation as it is working peoples revolution.


That the surface appearance of the move will be unique does not mean that the basic class dynamics of the situation will be any different at all. At the very least, one can be certain that they will not include the bourgeoisie participating in the socialist revolution!

Quite so. It is useful to keep in mind that there is virtually no national bourgeoisie in Nepal, and what little there is hates the Maoists. Thanks to the constant calling of strikes and bandhs (political strikes) by Maoist affiliated trade unions there were just 12 strike free days in the six months leading) called off at the last minute threatened strike action, and is threatening to strike again soon. There objectively is no collaboration between the Maoist party and the Nepali bourgeoisie to speak of at the moment, but the Maoists recognise that following a succesful seizure of power by revolutionary forces a country as underdeveloped as Nepal, isolated in a capitalist sea and without any socialist power to support it, market forces will not be abolished overnight and a 100% planned socialist economy will not be put in place by the following morning. If anyone seriously thinks this isn't the case feel free to try and argue your position.

This is where the contradictions in Trotskyism come to the surface in my opinion. On the one hand it is stressed over and over again that you cannot build socialism in one country, it can only be done internationally, a statement I agree with. Socialism in one country is impossible. Obviously the ideal situation would be if a revolutionary wave rapidly swept the entire globe and all across the planet people began the task of constructing a new world together. But then what position do we take when confronted with a situation like Nepal, where a powerful mass based revolutionary force has emerged and is in a position to potentially take power? There is no world-wide revolutionary wave at the moment. If revolutionary workers and peasants seize power in Nepal they will not be helped in their task by a socialist Britain, or a revolutionary America. There's no way around that. So what should they do?

From a Trotskyist perspective, they appear to be damned if they do seize power and damned if they don't. Literally in fact! Trotskyists worldwide will condemn them for doing either. Because they can seize state power only in Nepal and begin the task of building a new society only in Nepal, socialism is not possible. Trotskyists know this, the Maoists know this, everyone knows it. The best they can do is try to create some form of transitional society between where things are at now and socialism, pending the spread of revolutionary power and the potential this opens up to move forward. This is the basis of the Maoist theory of New Democracy, which contains few essential differences to the Trotskyist notion of permanent revolution - it is merely a more realistic and practically grounded version, having been worked out in the context of concrete revolutionary struggle and the kind of transformation of society that Trotskyists have never accomplished. A New Democratic revolution attempts to make the best of a bad situation, seeking to move beyond the horrors of capitalism, semi-feudal conditions and imperialist domination, while recognising that in the context of an isolated national revolution socialism is not possible - as Trotskyists constantly point out.

Revolutionaries are faced with a choice. Do they seize power despite the bleak situation on a world scale, knowing that this opportunity may not come again in their lifetimes? Or do they hold off and refuse to seize state power, since after all it would be impossible to achieve socialism even if they did? Do they instead wait for guaranteed global revolution before they move?

If they choose the latter and do not seize power, on the one hand they'll probably get massacred by the military soon or later a la Indonesia. But despite this seeming to be the more pure and orthodox Marxist course of action, this leads to them being condemned by Trotskyists as reformists and sellouts. Rightly so in my opinion, but it seems inconsistent.

However, when revolutionary forces do seize power (in China, in Cuba, hopefully soon in Nepal) they are condemned anyway. Despite Trotskyists knowing that socialism in one country is impossible, they condemn revolutionary movements which have succesfully seized power in one country for not being able to do what they themselves point out is the impossible, and build socialism! The Nepalese Maoists are condemned as revisionists and reformists etc etc etc for recognising this and proposing that market forces and the capitalist elements they give rise to be allowed to continue operating to a limited degree in an immediately post-revolutionary Nepal, despite Trotskyists also pointing out at every opportunity that there is no alternative!

When dealing with the critiques of Trotskyists, revolutionaries are faced with an impossible situation. Trotskyism contains a deeply pessimistic and determinist streak within it, saying to revolutionaries in the most oppressed parts of the world "sorry, I know you want nothing more than to free your people from this misery and try to construct something better but all your efforts to do so are doomed, no way out of it. Oh, unless you wait around calmly watching your fellow workers starve until events beyond your control lead to a global revolutionary situation - if you take action before then your efforts are guaranteed to be in vain."

Little wonder that Trotskyism has so little appeal to workers and peasants in the Third World!

This is one of the main reasons I originally rejected Trotskyism, and I much prefer the optimism and faith in the ability of the masses to transform the world that Maoism has so deeply ingrained into it (although I don't believe that Maoism is by any means perfect).

The Nepalese Maoists are attempting to radically overturn their society with no outside support, and have achieved everything so far against the greatest odds imaginable. The heroism and sacrifice this took is mind boggling. If they do seize state power, and I hope they do, they will be faced with an incredibly difficult situation. They will not be able to construct socialism. They will not be able to do a hell of a lot to trigger immediate world wide revolution, although they can play a role in supporting revolutionary struggles in the South Asian region (such as the People's War in India). And yes, as a result of this the danger of buerucratic degeneration of their isolated, encircled revolution will be very real. But all they can do is attempt to fight that buerucratic degeneration within the confines of Nepal while at the same time encouraging and as far as possible directly supporting revolution abroad. They have proposed new, innovative ideas about how to do this, namely the continuation of multi-party competition under the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to try and ensure that the Party has to retain the support of the masses. They are facing real world problems and trying to come up with real world answers to them.

And all the recieve in return is the dogmatic blanket condemnation of leftists whose ideology has never achieved anything close to what they have. As the Maoists themselves said - "Memorizing things from books and interpreting for hours and hours on their basis is one thing, and applying them in living practice is qualitatively another. Frankly speaking, it is very easy not to commit any mistakes in strategy. But it is extremely difficult to take up and apply appropriate tactics in the service of strategy. It is dangerous too. Where there is more danger, there is more opportunity, this is dialectics. The test of revolutionaries... is best taken by tactics, not strategy. Therefore, the fate of the revolution depends fully not on the strategy alone, but on what kinds of tactical moves one adopts at various junctures of the revolution to attain the strategic goal."

This is not a sectarian attack on Trotskyists. This is a comradely criticism intended to generate discussion. Similar critiques can be applied to anarchists, "left"-communists and so on.

[Yehuda Stern]

Erm, lots actually. The Nepali people (i.e. workers, peasants, progressive students etc) are intensely nationalistic, flowing from their long history of colonial and neo-colonial domination. The struggle going on in Nepal atm is as much about national liberation as it is working peoples revolution.

OK, the nationalist parties may have many workers in their ranks - how does this make the parties any less bourgeois? Are the Democratic and Republican parties in the US proletarian? Would it be correct for revolutionaries there to collaborate with them?

Alastair: I don't know what other Trotskyists "condemn" the Nepalese revolution for; we in the ISL don't condemn it at all, nor do we criticize the Maoists for not establishing socialism. We criticize them for collaborating with the nationalist and Republican bourgeoisie and for attempting to hold back the revolution, in fact - like in their proposed ban on strikes a while back.

[Guerrilla22]

So they had a majority in the government, then walked out due to an issue over a military officer and now are going to go to war again against the government? If they are succeessful are they going to exclude the elements they ahve had issues with from the government completely? I'm having a hard time following their strategy here.

[BobKKKindle$]

CA, let me first say I think you're completely right in raising these issues and I appreciate you doing it in a comradely manner. I actually raised basically the same issue not long ago in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-and-international-t110611/index.html?t=110611) thread and I agree that Marxists do face a difficult choice when we are faced with a situation where the mass of the working population is ready to overthrow their government and wants progressive change, but does not find that its radical desires are mirrored throughout the world. For that reason, I'm looking forward to what some other Trotskyists have to say. I do think however that if we look at the practice of the Bolsheviks we find that they also had to make similar choices in the months before the October Revolution as there were several occasions when leading members of the party and large sections of the proletariat in cities like Petrograd were calling on the Bolsheviks to lead the revolution and yet Lenin eventually decided to argue in favour of not overthrowing the Provisional Government at that point in time for strategic reasons. This was most true during the April Days when Lenin disagreed with the slogan that had been raised by the Petrograd Committee ("Down with the Provisional Government") on the grounds that the Bolsheviks did not yet command mass support beyond a small number of urban centers, and so if they led a revolution against Kerensky they would either be isolated rapidly (and ousted from power) or would be forced to enter into compromises with the bourgeoisie to maintain their position, which would mean accepting the continuation of the war, and some degree of capitalist exploitation.

In the case of the Maoists it is the second of these dangers that presents itself because they are clearly quite capable of winning an election in Nepal and defending their power against the rival political parties. The Maoists are trying to become the key executive component (and note that this is different from the strategy that Marxists normally adopt in relation to "democratic" aspects of the bourgeois political system - we welcome legislative elections as a way of gaining a platform but at no point do we advocate becoming part of the executive arm of the state, which would mean being responsible for the execution of capitalist policies and the repression of working-class struggles) of the Nepalese state and, furthermore, are intent on maintaining a balance between two classes which Marx and all those who have followed his legacy regard as being in direct opposition to each other due to the nature of their economic interests - namely the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

This is important because is raises the issue of what cause the state under capitalism to act in defense of bourgeois interests. In my view it is not because the people who are members of this state have generally been members of the capitalist class or even because they are in favour of capitalism on an ideological level, rather it is simply because the state operates in the context of a capitalist society that the state will always be forced to account for the interests of capitalism in order to maintain its own position, even if this means going against the subjective preferences of those who are in charge of the state. By this I mean that the bourgeoisie in Nepal still owns and controls the means of production (this is true by definition) and so if the state does something they do not like they will be able to disrupt the economy and undermine the government's support base by taking advantage of their position (such as laying off workers, lowering output, etc.) until the government decides to adopt policies that are friendly to their interests. This is something that can be observed not only in Nepal but also in every other country where a government has come to power with an alleged commitment to radical reform but has been forced to change their policies due to a hostile reactionary from the bourgeoisie, whose property they were not willing to expropriate, as in the case of Mitterand's government in France during the early 1980s, which aimed to take over the banks (as well as implement a 10% increase of the minimum wage, a 39 hour work week, and 5 weeks holiday per year, amongst other policies) but eventually became one of the most neo-liberal governments in French history due to the adverse economic conditions of that era and overwhelming pressure to assist the bourgeoisie in their efforts to restore profitability.

In these situations the only choice (apart from the working class carrying out the expropriation of the bourgeoisie) is to capitulate or to withdraw from government. The Nepalese Maoists have chosen the latter, although it seems that this is more due to political pressure than a fightback from the bosses, given that they never tried to implement radical economic policies to begin with. But the fundamental lesson here is that capitalism and the bourgeois political system impose real constraints on what governments are able to do, constraints that are structural in nature. In fact, the power of these constraints has already manifested itself in the Maoist policy of banning strikes - something they wouldn't have had to do if they weren't part of a bourgeois state apparatus. I, like you, don't expect the Nepalese Maoists to lead a revolution against all forms capitalism, and in any case it doesn't seem as if the Nepalese working class is at that level of consciousness anyway, because they haven't yet carried out occupations of their workplaces, haven't established Soviet assemblies, aren't raising slogans in favour of socialism, and all of the other things that would lead us to believe that Nepal is on the brink of a socialist revolution. But I also fear that trying to occupy a halfway house in the form of New Democracy (which doesn't have anything to do with the theory of permanent revolution - I'd be interested to know why you think this is the case) will discredit the Maoists when they are forced to act as the representatives of the bourgeoisie. For that reason, I think it is necessary to take the tough route - to continue agitating and organizing, checking the powers of the government, fighting for reforms through strikes, fighting in the economic sphere - until the international situation becomes more favorable.

PS I apologize for the rambling nature of this post, but it is a difficult (albeit very interesting) topic.

[NecroCommie]

It is unbelievable how some people can waste half a thread on the most blatant displays of sectarianism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

OK, the nationalist parties may have many workers in their ranks - how does this make the parties any less bourgeois? Are the Democratic and Republican parties in the US proletarian? Would it be correct for revolutionaries there to collaborate with them?

Alastair: I don't know what other Trotskyists "condemn" the Nepalese revolution for; we in the ISL don't condemn it at all, nor do we criticize the Maoists for not establishing socialism. We criticize them for collaborating with the nationalist and Republican bourgeoisie and for attempting to hold back the revolution, in fact - like in their proposed ban on strikes a while back.

If you studied Party documents, you would likely discover that every senior Maoist leader has the view that this is an unfinished revolution. The united front with the other patriotic parties would be purely tactical in nature and it will probably not determine the path of the revolution itself (unless you have evidence that it will otherwise).

[RHIZOMES]

Oh, so class collaboration then?

You don't think the Maoists abolishing the monarchy by allying with other anti-monarchist forces was a progressive step for Nepal?


you both betray the working class very well whenever you have power!

Something dogmatic Trot sectoids will never do...

Not because they're incorruptible but because they'll never have any power :lol::lol::lol:

[Pogue]

I don't believe in 'progressive steps' for nation states, I believe in the emancipation of the working class through independent action of the class, focused on aims of establishing socialism, not 'progressing' a nation.

[Revy]

Since one of Mao's founding theories was "Bloc of Four Classes" the bourgeois "betrayal" of the Maoist government is not surprising. We now have a new "Bloc of Four Classes" consisting of "Nationalists, Republicans, Communists and Forward-thinking people".

Other communist parties have risen up against the Maoist gov't because of their bourgeois elements. And Trotskyists there have been critical as well (yes, they exist there).

[the last donut of the night]

It is unbelievable how some people can waste half a thread on the most blatant displays of sectarianism.

This is RevLeft. It seems you are lost then.

[Pogue]

I don't think its sectarian for me to attack Maoists. I have nothing in common with Maoism, a thoroughly class collaborationist, nationalistic and dare I say dictatorial ideology which I believe is far detached from the socialist movement. The same way I have nothing in common with the apologists for any other despot or mass murderer of the working class and its movements. I don't think you can label me sectarian for opposing anti-working class currents. I am a working class revolutionary after all. I don't see this big socialist family. I just see people opposed to the interests of ymself and the class and those in support of it. This is as much down to individual attitudes and actions as it is ideologies.

[RHIZOMES]

I don't believe in 'progressive steps' for nation states, I believe in the emancipation of the working class through independent action of the class, focused on aims of establishing socialism, not 'progressing' a nation.

Oh okay so mass movements which are capable of abolishing feudalistic monarchies aren't a positive and progressive thing? Does it makes workers feel like they can't change anything through mass organization? Especially in an environment when socialism is considered a viable option for many Nepalis...

[scarletghoul]

This kind of fantasy puritanism in some anarchists is really annoying. Like, they dont support anything, no matter how progressive, unless it establishes a classless stateless society straight away

[RHIZOMES]

This kind of fantasy puritanism in some anarchists is really annoying. Like, they dont support anything, no matter how progressive, unless it establishes a classless stateless society straight away

Also only if it's labelled "anarchist"

Anything else they won't touch it with a ten foot pole

[Yehuda Stern]

It is unbelievable how some people can waste half a thread on the most blatant displays of sectarianism.

What's worse, some people find that all they have to contribute to a political discussion is useless whining on "sectarianism."


If you studied Party documents, you would likely discover that every senior Maoist leader has the view that this is an unfinished revolution.

Yes; Chavez also has been talking for 10 years about needing to take the revolution forward. Similar statements were made by Stalinist politicians in China and even the USSR at different times. It actually serves the party bureaucrats quite well to constantly speak of the need to deepen and broaden the revolution; it creates both the illusion of change and the theoretical justification for periodic purges. For this reason, i.e. historical experience, I find the "Party documents" you speak of to be quite unimpressive.


Not because they're incorruptible but because they'll never have any power

I would argue that it's best to never have come to power than to use every such occasion to betray, oppress and murder the working class. But why worry about that? It's not like we care.


Other communist parties have risen up against the Maoist gov't because of their bourgeois elements. And Trotskyists there have been critical as well (yes, they exist there).

Can you link to some more info on that?

[Asoka89]

The Maoists were right to united a broad coalition to try to topple feudalism.

That's my word on the subject. Now as for creating socialism-- in a backwards, isolated country within the logic of the world's capitalist market... that's impossible (in come the Hoxhaists)....

[anticap]

Am I the only one who sees no point in endlessly reliving the past? I don't mean that we should forget the lessons of history -- that would be stupid. I mean that keeping these historical battles alive serves no purpose. Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I can read anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc., and separate the useful wisdom from the useless cruft. Is it because I'm still learning, so I don't know what you all seem to know, i.e., that it's completely unacceptable to ever sway one iota from your ideological line?

The way I see it, all these lines stem from the same first principle: working-class struggle. Thus, if the working class has an opportunity to use the state to its advantage, and anarchists oppose them seizing that opportunity, then the anarchists are wrong. Conversely, if an ostensibly socialist state has become a hindrance to the working class, and anarchists have an opportunity to cast off that state, then the state-socialists who oppose them are wrong.

I follow Yogi Berra's advice when I come to a fork in the road: I take it. I look at the options, and choose the one that sucks least for the working class, even if it isn't perfect (nothing ever is). So am I just a pie-in-the-sky idealist, or has everyone else lost the plot?

[Saorsa]

Other communist parties have risen up against the Maoist gov't because of their bourgeois elements. And Trotskyists there have been critical as well (yes, they exist there).

Yeah, I'll second Yehuda's call for a source for that. There has been a very minor split from the Maoists led by Matrika Yadav, but that hardly counts as 'rising up' against the MUCPN (M). And his lot never waged armed struggle against the Maoist-led government, since ended. You don't know what your talking about.

If there are individual Trotskyists in Nepal (I have yet to see any evidence of a party although I'm open to being shown this evidence) I'm sure they have been critical of the Maoists. But they don't have any base in the toiling masses whatsoever, and as the Maoists have shown such a base is perfectly possible to develop in Nepal - they must be doing something very wrong.

[RHIZOMES]

Am I the only one who sees no point in endlessly reliving the past? I don't mean that we should forget the lessons of history -- that would be stupid. I mean that keeping these historical battles alive serves no purpose. Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I can read anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc., and separate the useful wisdom from the useless cruft. Is it because I'm still learning, so I don't know what you all seem to know, i.e., that it's completely unacceptable to ever sway one iota from your ideological line?

The way I see it, all these lines stem from the same first principle: working-class struggle. Thus, if the working class has an opportunity to use the state to its advantage, and anarchists oppose them seizing that opportunity, then the anarchists are wrong. Conversely, if an ostensibly socialist state has become a hindrance to the working class, and anarchists have an opportunity to cast off that state, then the state-socialists who oppose them are wrong.

I follow Yogi Berra's advice when I come to a fork in the road: I take it. I look at the options, and choose the one that sucks least for the working class, even if it isn't perfect (nothing ever is). So am I just a pie-in-the-sky idealist, or has everyone else lost the plot?

Just to clarify if a Trotskyist-led revolution ever happens I'll definitely support it just as I support any far left revolution or movement which looks like it could go in progressive directions, as opposed to "My sect tells me that this more successful sect is an enemy of the workers!!". My reference to "dogmatic Trot sectoids" was to dogmatic sectoids who happen to label themselves Trots. The problem is a lot of self-proclaimed Trotskyists (but definitely not all of them, I have great respect for the CWI, Besancenot, etc for example so I'm not saying this as some Stalin kiddie) just seem to do nothing except writing 100 page long political pamphlets about why everyone else is wrong that like only 5 people read. And those sectoids are a problem for the Trotskyist movement to overcome.