Maoists give Nepal govt 72 hours to quit

[mosfeld]

Holy smokes, things are heating up over there!


Maoists give Nepal govt 72 hrs to quit

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pugAklByimc/SndKF2npLYI/AAAAAAAACmg/hlvHG4Q5H3M/s400/maoistic.jpg

Facing a 72-hour ultimatum from the Maoist party to quit or face a nationwide protest movement, embattled Nepal Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal held an emergency meeting with the President, Ram Baran Yadav, on Monday for a solution.

The meeting came after the Maoists on Monday reminded the government that of the month-long deadline given by them to the government, only 72 hours remained.

Maoist spokesman Dinanath Sharma told TNN that a three-member “united front” had been formed under former finance minister Baburam Bhattarai, which would lead the future protests as well as try to woo other like-minded left forces in the country within the fold. From Friday, the Maoists will begin to block the parliament once more.

The Maoists are demanding the dissolution of Nepal’s 23-party government and the formation of a new national government under their leadership. If the demand is not met by Wednesday, in addition to the renewed siege on parliament, they are also going to start other pressure tactics.

Maoist Standing Committee decides to wage month-long stir if ultimatum not met


The Standing Committee meeting of the Unified CPN (Maoist) has seconded party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal's yesterday's warning and decided to re-launch a strong struggle '"from the street and the parliament" if the government failed to come clear on the issues of civilian supremacy and 'unconstitutional' move of the President on the Army chief episode within the next three days.

The first ever meeting of the topmost decision-making body of the party, which was resurrected after the party started getting increasingly restless over its desire to see a Maoist-led national unity government and simultaneously went for multiple-post leadership in the party - also constituted National People's Movement Coordination Committee under the chairmanship of vice-chairman Dr Baburam Bhattarai to oversee the struggle it has dubbed as the 'third people's movement'.

The committee also comprises senior Maoist leaders Amik Sherchan and Netra Bikram Chand 'Biplav'. The committee is expected get a full-shape within a day or two.

The Standing Committee also decided to boycott the public appearances of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and President Dr Ram Baran Yadav if the 22-coalition failed to address the issues raised by the party.

In the meeting that was held at party Chairman Dahal's residence in Nayabazaar since early Monday morning, there was also careful review of the decisions made during the protracted CC meeting and discussion on the future strategy of the party.

"We had given one month ultimatum to address the issues concerning the President's unconstitutional move. There will be protests in the streets as well as the parliament if the government fails to forge political consensus on those issues within four days," Dahal said while speaking at the press conference organised at the party office in Koteshwor to publicise the decisions of the CC meeting Sunday.

Dahal further said the present government would be responsible for the situation arising from the street movement, but assured that the protests would be peaceful.

The Maoist chairman also made it clear that his party agreed to join the high-level mechanism of major parties for timely completion of the peace process and the constitution-writing and that the Maoist party is not concerned about a mechanism that is meant to oversee the government's affairs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gme83rIbPXc&feature=player_embedded

You can find the article here (http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2009/08/maoists-give-nepal-govt-72-hrs-to-quit.html)

[scarletghoul]

Fuck yeah.

[hugsandmarxism]

Just another reason for me to love those Maoists :wub:

[Manzil]

The Nepalese 'Maoists' have made clear they are content to limit themselves to policies acceptable to their moderate opponents. Their support for democratic reforms and social justice is a welcome advance on the autocratic regime the original coalition government replaced. But their tendency to compromise, and willingness to rule in common with the bourgeois parties, makes it unlikely this sort of grandstanding will be effective. The Nepalese state survived years of "people's war", only for the Communist Party to take up office under the democratic republic. What if the government does not resign? Will the Maoists really abandon their journey down a parliamentary road? Even if they did, it is likely it would simply be so as to increase pressure on the other parties and leverage a better deal out of them in a few years' time. The CPN has to realise the peasantry will not benefit from deals with their enemies. - More cynically, socialism in Nepal has no chance because neither India nor China will let it.

[DecDoom]

This is awesome. Go Maoists! :thumbup1:

[Saorsa]

But their tendency to compromise, and willingness to rule in common with the bourgeois parties, makes it unlikely this sort of grandstanding will be effective.Tendency to compromise? The Maoists speak a lot about the need for "strategic firmness and tactical flexibility", keeping their sights firmly set on the goal of proletarian revolution and socialism while at the same time retaining a willingness to adopt flexible and creative tactics in order to read there. For all your orthodoxy Manzil, you are in many ways the kind of infantile leftist that Lenin polemicised against in "Left Wing Communism":


To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others?
Political manouverings and compromise are absolutely neccesary if you want to advance to the point where a succesful insurrection is possible. Revolution cannot be decalred by decree - you cannot move before the people are ready, and if you do your attempt will either fail miserably or the results will be disastrous.

At the end of the People's War, the Maoists had reached the point of equilibrium with the state. Neither side had the strength to destroy the other. So the Maoists adopted new tactics that allowed them to significantly expand the PLA by tricking the UN into thinking they had more troops than they did (from about 8,000 troops to 20,000 now), allowed them to move into the cities and openly connect with the urban workers, amongst whom they have developed a massive support base, and allowed them to strengthen the party and expand its areas of operation.

Revolutions do not proceed in a straight line. They are never 'pure'. The revolutions that succeed are the ones that break with the methods of the past,and adopt new tactics suitable to the unique conditions they are fighting in, history shows this quite clearly.

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.


More cynically, socialism in Nepal has no chance because neither India nor China will let it. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1507267&postcount=37

[Saorsa]

Lenin: After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!

Lenin: Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901-02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political alliance with Strove, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the working-class movement.

The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, against the liberal bourgeoisie and tsarism, never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsarism (for instance, during second rounds of elections, or during second ballots) and never ceasing their relentless ideological and political struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the bourgeois-revolutionary peasant party, exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who have falsely described themselves as socialists. During the Duma elections of 1907, the Bolsheviks entered briefly into a formal political bloc with the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Between 1903 and 1912, there were periods of several years in which we were formally united with the Mensheviks in a single Social-Democratic Party, but we never stopped our ideological and political struggle against them as opportunists and vehicles of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. During the war, we concluded certain compromises with the Kautskyites, with the Left Mensheviks (Martov), and with a section of the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov and Natanson); we were together with them at Zimmerwald and Kienthal, [33] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm#f33)[34] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm#f34) he was very close to and almost in agreement with us).

At the very moment of the October Revolution, we entered into an informal but very important (and very successful) political bloc with the petty-bourgeois peasantry by adopting the Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian programme in its entirety, without a single alteration—i.e., we effected an undeniable compromise in order to prove to the peasants that we wanted, not to "steam-roller" them but to reach agreement with them. At the same time we proposed (and soon after effected) a formal political bloc, including participation in the government, with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who dissolved this bloc after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and then, in July 1918, went to the length of armed rebellion, and subsequently of an armed struggle, against us. and issued joint manifestos. Lenin: From all this follows the necessity, the absolute necessity, for the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its class-conscious section, to resort to changes of tack, to conciliation and compromises with the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers and small masters. It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise—not lower—the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win.

Lenin: It is folly, not revolutionism, to deprive ourselves in advance of any freedom of action, openly to inform an enemy who is at present better armed than we are whether we shall fight him, and when. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the enemy, but not to us, is criminal; political leaders of the revolutionary class are absolutely useless if they are incapable of "changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise" in order to take evasive action in a patently disadvantageous battle.

All these quotes were taken from "Left Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder", from the chapter entitled "No Compromises?". I would suggest you read it. http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm

[Pogue]

Really all I can say is I hope it goes well for the working class. I don't really trust the Maoists at all because I don't trust any form of Leninist socialism, but who can say. Things are certainly developing. I think the only judge will be when things are really kicking off and we see what the Maoists do, i.e. if they betray the class or not.

[Saorsa]

^ I really can't argue with that at all.

When the Maoists speak of a "Third people's movement", they are referring to a mass popular protest movement in the cities similar to the first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Andolan) and second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loktantra_Andolan) People's Movements. This is not a new strategy - the basis for Prachanda Path (as the Maoists saw it) was always the synthesis of Mao's strategy of Protracted People's War and Lenin's "October Road", i.e. that the final struggle would take place through urban insurrections.

[Pogue]

What I don't understand is where they intend to go once the forces of the government are 'defeated'. What form will there state take? Do they intend to have a phase of itnroduction of capitalism with all the classes involved or what?

[Saorsa]

I doubt even they know exactly what they're going to do, the situation would be very fluid and probably very chaotic! There won't be a completely perfect socialist economy overnight, but I suspect things we'd see rapidly following a Maoist-led revolution would be land reform, state control over food distribution (there are increasing food shortages in Nepal atm), a much greater role for trade unions in the management of production along with a greater role for the state, while still allowing some private enterprise to operate under certain guidelines. Since as we all know socialism in one country is impossible, they can't go as far as us or them would like overnight but there would definitely be progress.

[Saorsa]

Oh and they also want to significantly reduce the size of the army, ultimately replacing it with a system of popular militias. Nepal has 100,000 troops in the field as well as 20,000 PLA troops being supported in the cantonments, and it's unaffordable and opens up the possibility of state repression.

[n0thing]

Do the Maoists have a program, or a manifesto? Or even better, what's the structure of their party like? Do they have a strict, regimented, hierarchy?

[Pogue]

Well as I said I think the only test will be what power the working class has. I don't think the Leninist strands of socialism can bring workers power. I think thats the nature of the vanguard and the state, but if the Maoists did it and it was genuine workers pwoer, true direct democracy, I wouldn't knock it just because it was Maoist, because to me it would be real socialism. I just don't trust that Leninist socialism can do this. I don't see how you can hope a centrally managed state trying to manage capitalism for an eventual transition to communism will ever last without degenerating.

[n0thing]

Oh and they also want to significantly reduce the size of the army, ultimately replacing it with a system of popular militias. Nepal has 100,000 troops in the field as well as 20,000 PLA troops being supported in the cantonments, and it's unaffordable and opens up the possibility of state repression.

They're politicians. For every 1000 corrupt, power-hungry politicians there are probably one or two who genuinely want to make life better for someone other than themselves.

If the Maoists renegade on these promises when they take power, there is no way to hold them accountable. If you want to get a realistic picture of what they would be like in power, you should look at how they've conducted themselves up until now. What the structure of the party is like, how they manage the communities already under their control, how kill-happy they are, etc.

It's not like Maoist leaderships have a great track record on corruption.

[RedScare]

I'm genuinely hopeful about Nepal. However, on the path to socialism they face the state, the army, China and India, and bureaucratic degeneration if they do seize power. But I still think it's better that they try while they have the chance.

[gorillafuck]

They're politicians. For every 1000 corrupt, power-hungry politicians there are probably one or two who genuinely want to make life better for someone other than themselves.

If the Maoists renegade on these promises when they take power, there is no way to hold them accountable. If you want to get a realistic picture of what they would be like in power, you should look at how they've conducted themselves up until now. What the structure of the party is like, how they manage the communities already under their control, how kill-happy they are, etc.

It's not like Maoist leaderships have a great track record on corruption.
How have they been corrupt in the past? (I'm genuinely curious, I don't know too much about the Maoists in Nepal)

[Random Precision]

Lenin: After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!

Lenin: Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901-02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political alliance with Strove, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the working-class movement.

The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, against the liberal bourgeoisie and tsarism, never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsarism (for instance, during second rounds of elections, or during second ballots) and never ceasing their relentless ideological and political struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the bourgeois-revolutionary peasant party, exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who have falsely described themselves as socialists. During the Duma elections of 1907, the Bolsheviks entered briefly into a formal political bloc with the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Between 1903 and 1912, there were periods of several years in which we were formally united with the Mensheviks in a single Social-Democratic Party, but we never stopped our ideological and political struggle against them as opportunists and vehicles of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. During the war, we concluded certain compromises with the Kautskyites, with the Left Mensheviks (Martov), and with a section of the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov and Natanson); we were together with them at Zimmerwald and Kienthal, [33] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm#f33)[34] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm#f34) he was very close to and almost in agreement with us).

At the very moment of the October Revolution, we entered into an informal but very important (and very successful) political bloc with the petty-bourgeois peasantry by adopting the Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian programme in its entirety, without a single alteration—i.e., we effected an undeniable compromise in order to prove to the peasants that we wanted, not to "steam-roller" them but to reach agreement with them. At the same time we proposed (and soon after effected) a formal political bloc, including participation in the government, with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who dissolved this bloc after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and then, in July 1918, went to the length of armed rebellion, and subsequently of an armed struggle, against us. and issued joint manifestos. Lenin: From all this follows the necessity, the absolute necessity, for the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its class-conscious section, to resort to changes of tack, to conciliation and compromises with the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers and small masters. It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise—not lower—the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win.

Lenin: It is folly, not revolutionism, to deprive ourselves in advance of any freedom of action, openly to inform an enemy who is at present better armed than we are whether we shall fight him, and when. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the enemy, but not to us, is criminal; political leaders of the revolutionary class are absolutely useless if they are incapable of "changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise" in order to take evasive action in a patently disadvantageous battle.

All these quotes were taken from "Left Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder", from the chapter entitled "No Compromises?". I would suggest you read it. http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm

Did the Bolsheviks join the Provisional Government?

[n0thing]

How have they been corrupt in the past? (I'm genuinely curious, I don't know too much about the Maoists in Nepal)
Maoists in general.
Mao certainly was, anyway.

[Saorsa]

Did the Bolsheviks join the Provisional Government?


No. They didn't. But the situation was very different, and frankly I think it's ridiculous to base your assessment of whether a tactic is correct or not on whether or not the Bolsheviks did it! Nepal 2009 is not Russia 1917. The situations are very different, and your thoroughly unMarxist approach does you no credit.

If joining the Provisional government had advanced the struggle and put the Bolsheviks in a closer position to being able to lead the revolution then they should have joined it, and I'm sure Lenin would have advocated them joining it. However by November 1917 the situation had reached the point where the Provisional Government was irrelevant and the Bolsheviks could realistically call for all power to be given to the Soviets. Lenin didn't put this line forward as an eternal principle, he put it forward when it was tactically correct. In fact Lenin at several points argued against the Bolsheviks toppling the Provisional Government, and argued against the Petrograd Committee's slogan of "Down with the Provisional Government".

Seriously, how hard is it to argue about the merits of something using concrete analysis of the concrete conditions it exists in? How hard is it to argue about whether or not the Nepalese Maoists should have taken part in the government based on whether or not it actually strengthened them as an organisation and moved the country closer to a position where revolution is possible?

It's incredibly irritating to see how many people judge whether something is good or bad by asking if Lenin did it... You treat Marxism as a religion.

[Hiero]

Well as I said I think the only test will be what power the working class has. I don't think the Leninist strands of socialism can bring workers power. I think thats the nature of the vanguard and the state, but if the Maoists did it and it was genuine workers pwoer, true direct democracy, I wouldn't knock it just because it was Maoist, because to me it would be real socialism. I just don't trust that Leninist socialism can do this. I don't see how you can hope a centrally managed state trying to manage capitalism for an eventual transition to communism will ever last without degenerating.

This isn't a workers revolution.

There needs to be a proleteriat revolution for dictatorship of the proleteriat to emerge. In Nepal other contradictions are playing out here.

Surely now in the 21st centuary even anarchist, Orwelian-fetishist should be able see that revolution does not occur in this artificial space where only two social classes exist (bourgiesie and proleteriat).

[gorillafuck]

Maoists in general.
Mao certainly was, anyway.
Give an instance of these Maoists being corrupt, then. You said they are and I'm genuinely curious about the corruption of these Maoists.

[Saorsa]

If the Maoists renegade on these promises when they take power, there is no way to hold them accountable.

Yeesh, why do people keep speaking when they obviously don't have a clu what they're talking about? The UCPN (M) has an extremely healthy internal democratic culture, there have been plenty of line struggles in the party over the past year or two that have been carried out without any buerucratic repression whatsoever. The party cadre just imposed a code of conduct on the leadership to restrict the tendencies some leaders were showing towards luxury - if the Maoists are all corrupt power hungry buerucrats tell me why they would do that? There is every opportunity to hold the leadership accountable within the Maoist party, and they've proposed that multi-party competition be continued under the dictatorship of the proletariat ffs - if you don't like them you can just vote them out!


If you want to get a realistic picture of what they would be like in power, you should look at how they've conducted themselves up until now. What the structure of the party is like, how they manage the communities already under their control, how kill-happy they are, etc.

In all those categories they've behaved pretty bloody well. The party is run in a democratic fashion, the communities they liberated were run in a direct democratic manner through People's Committees, and they never went around killing people for fun. One third of the casualties in the People's War can apparently be attributed to the Maoists, and it's kind of inevitable that in an armed struggle... well, people die.

Oh and just in response to all the allegations they just love compromising etc... One of the key concessions made as part of the peace process was returning the land they seized to it's "rightful" owners, along with dismantling the parallel government. There have been numerous reports that the parallel govt continues, and this report just came in today that lo and behold, despite their claims the Maoists have not returned the land they seized during the war to it's parasitic owners.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=207831

[Guerrilla22]

It's going to be a difficult road CPNM. Nepal is still very much a fuedal state (meaning thedistribution of land is highly unequal) that has very little inustrial development. Although there has been some progress, namely getting rid of the monarchy, they are basically starting from nothing. I hope this tactic is successful and wish them luck in building socialism in Nepal.

[LeninKobaMao]

Prachandra is a REAL Maoist unlike Pol Pot and other wannabe Maoists I bet you he will do good things for Nepal :) he is a great guy he truely wants to help people.

W()()T! GO MA()ISM!

[Pogue]

This isn't a workers revolution.

There needs to be a proleteriat revolution for dictatorship of the proleteriat to emerge. In Nepal other contradictions are playing out here.

Surely now in the 21st centuary even anarchist, Orwelian-fetishist should be able see that revolution does not occur in this artificial space where only two social classes exist (bourgiesie and proleteriat).

I do love dressing up as Orwell and getting spanked???

Oh wait your another one of those first world Maoists :D

Carry on.

[Asoka89]

This isn't a workers revolution.

There needs to be a proleteriat revolution for dictatorship of the proleteriat to emerge. In Nepal other contradictions are playing out here.

Exactly. I'm a fairly orthodox Marxists, so I'm vehemently opposed to Maoism, especially when it claims to represent a continuation of Marx and Lenin's thought. It is what it is and in Nepal I think the Maoists are the most progressive force on the landscape.

[Manzil]

Snip

This is a load of angry, hot air - you're talking about an abstract, ideal situation, rather than the actual recent history of Nepal.

The "political manouverings and compromise" by the Communist Party are in no way designed to lead to "proletarian revolution". Its leaders have explicitly stated this. Just looking at the state of Nepalese society in terms of demographics, economics and its international position, there is no possibility of a 'socialist' revolution - the movement in Nepal is following in the well-trodden steps of most armed peasant rebellions. The 'Maoists' are fulfilling the same role as 'national liberation' movements throughout the last century: constitutionalism, land reform, replacement of feudal social forms with modern guarantees of equality before the law. These are worthwhile and deserving causes, but they certainly won't lead to any sort of workers' power. Especially not while the Maoists remain in the playground of official politics; beyond surface reforms to the exact legal nature of the state, just how exactly have they changed the fundamental way of life for the Nepalese workers, let alone the poor farmers?

The end to the Maoists' strategy has been well-mapped by other, comparable movements. It is failure, outside of a limited reform agenda entirely compatible with the general social system prevailing in Nepal. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

[Random Precision]

No. They didn't. But the situation was very different, and frankly I think it's ridiculous to base your assessment of whether a tactic is correct or not on whether or not the Bolsheviks did it! Nepal 2009 is not Russia 1917. The situations are very different, and your thoroughly unMarxist approach does you no credit.

True enough. But we are not talking about just two unconnected instances in the history of working class struggle, where Marxist principles can mean nothing in analyzing one and everything in analyzing the other.

One of the fundamental principles of Marxism is that the working class is the agent of its own liberation. Connected to this is that the working class cannot, through its own parties, use the framework of a bourgeois state to establish or advance socialism. Marx realized this after the fall of the Paris Commune, and his observation has been confirmed ad nauseum by various social-democratic and Stalinist parties, and it will soon be confirmed again by the Nepali Maoists if they succeed in retaking the government. Not dogma, but historically confirmed truth.


If joining the Provisional government had advanced the struggle and put the Bolsheviks in a closer position to being able to lead the revolution then they should have joined it, and I'm sure Lenin would have advocated them joining it.

No, I don't expect he would have. Lenin was a principled revolutionary and realized that cooperation with a capitalist government out of its own merits and ends would end in the ruin of the revolution, not the capitalists.


However by November 1917 the situation had reached the point where the Provisional Government was irrelevant and the Bolsheviks could realistically call for all power to be given to the Soviets. Lenin didn't put this line forward as an eternal principle, he put it forward when it was tactically correct. In fact Lenin at several points argued against the Bolsheviks toppling the Provisional Government, and argued against the Petrograd Committee's slogan of "Down with the Provisional Government".

I read the quotes you so helpfully provided. Arguing against toppling the government at a certain moment is not equivalent to what the Maoists have done, joining and in fact taking leadership of a capitalist government.


Seriously, how hard is it to argue about the merits of something using concrete analysis of the concrete conditions it exists in? How hard is it to argue about whether or not the Nepalese Maoists should have taken part in the government based on whether or not it actually strengthened them as an organisation and moved the country closer to a position where revolution is possible?

This is something I'm always hearing. But the thing is, how has participation in a capitalist government strengthened them? How has the revolution moved forward? All I've seen is that they've been adding more stages even before New Democracy, and talking about ensuring capitalist development in Nepal. Their very demand in the present situation is to retake leadership over the government. In fact, even some of the Maoists on this board were complaining not so long ago about Prachanda's "revisionism".


It's incredibly irritating to see how many people judge whether something is good or bad by asking if Lenin did it... You treat Marxism as a religion.

Excuse me? Who was it with all the quotes from Left Wing Communism?

[Forward Union]

The Nepalese 'Maoists' have made clear they are content to limit themselves to policies acceptable to their moderate opponents. Their support for democratic reforms and social justice is a welcome advance on the autocratic regime the original coalition government replaced. But their tendency to compromise, and willingness to rule in common with the bourgeois parties, makes it unlikely this sort of grandstanding will be effective. The Nepalese state survived years of "people's war", only for the Communist Party to take up office under the democratic republic. What if the government does not resign? Will the Maoists really abandon their journey down a parliamentary road? Even if they did, it is likely it would simply be so as to increase pressure on the other parties and leverage a better deal out of them in a few years' time. The CPN has to realise the peasantry will not benefit from deals with their enemies. - More cynically, socialism in Nepal has no chance because neither India nor China will let it.

Although a victory for Maoists in nepal may boost or give kudos to the Maoist rebels in India, who are already faily formidable.

[KurtFF8]

Not to start anything too off topic, but what effect will this have on the Maoist events in India do you think?

(Edit: I didn't see the post right above me when I typed that, I was only viewing the first page)