Communist Party of Nepal recognizes role of Leon Trotsky

[Comrade Ian]

Speaks for itself

(Can't Post Link Yet, it's from Marxist.com)

This summer The Red Spark [Rato Jhilko - see photo], a journal of the Communist Party of Nepal published an article by Baburam Bhattarai, which stated that, “Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat”. This is the result of concrete historical experience that has revealed the real essence of Stalinism and vindicated the ideas of Leon Trotsky, in the case of Nepal in particular of the theory of the Permanent Revolution.


In The Red Spark [Rato Jhilko - see photo], a journal of the Communist Party of Nepal, one of the leading theoreticians of the party, Baburam Bhattarai, recently wrote an article that has not gone unnoticed within the Communist movement, both in Nepal and internationally. Bhattarai, 55, is a politburo member of the main Maoist organization in Nepal. He was Minister of Finance in August 2008 during the participation of the Maoists in the coalition government that they later abandoned. While the Communist Party of Nepal has long advocated the ideas of Mao and Stalin, this is what he wrote:
“Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the period of the October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to the unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism this has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat”. (The Red Spark, July 2009, Issue 1, Page-10, our translation from Nepali language).
Up till now, for the Nepalese Maoists the truth about the life and contribution of comrade Leon Trotsky had been hidden, and this also applies to their own cadres. Now that the road of Stalinism and Maoism is heading towards a dead end, and the party cadres are demanding an explanation from their Leaders, the latter have been forced to speak the truth about the Bolshevik Revolution in general and about Leon Trotsky in particular. This recognition is also an indication of the fact that the Maoists are trying to draw a balance sheet of their decades-long campaign.


One of the major differences between Stalin and Trotsky was the issue of "socialism in one country". By 1904, Trotsky had developed the idea that the Russian revolution against the Tsarist regime, would not stop at the immediate tasks of the "bourgeois-democratic" revolution (agrarian reform, parliamentary democracy, rights of national minorities, etc.). In other words, the Russian Revolution would not stop at the establishment of a bourgeois democratic regime. Indeed, Trotsky explained that due to the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and its dependence on the Tsar, the leading role in the revolution would necessarily fall to the working class. The underdevelopment of the Russian economy would not prevent the working class from seizing power and then initiating a socialist transformation of society. But at the same time, Trotsky explained that it would be impossible to establish a viable socialist regime without the extension of the revolution to several other countries in a relatively short period of time. This perspective entered into the history of Marxism as the "theory of the Permanent Revolution".


After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin and other leaders of the Bolshevik Party attacked the theory of the Permanent Revolution, to which they opposed the theory of "socialism in one country". According to this theory, it was possible to build socialism in Russia, regardless of the international context. The prospect of a "world revolution" was thus abandoned. This theory reflected the nationalist, bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet regime, due to the prolonged isolation of the Russian revolution and the economic and cultural backwardness of the country.


Bhattarai is, however, mistaken on one point. In 1917, neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor any other leader of the Bolshevik party (not even Stalin himself) considered that the revolution could be confined to one country. Nobody even mentioned this idea before it became the motto of Stalin from 1924 onwards. But despite this factual error of Bhattarai, the fact that a senior leader of a traditionally "Stalinist" party recognizes the validity of the ideas of Trotsky is a very significant development. This will stimulate a very useful discussion within the Communist movement on the historical roots of Stalinism and the ideas of genuine Marxism.


Now in Nepal there is a growing interest in the theory of the Permanent Revolution. The fact that a Maoist leader has recognised that “in the current context of globalised capitalist domination, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism” is an extremely interesting development. With this debate there is also a clear step towards building links with other movements and organisations that challenge capitalism globally. It is in fact the duty of Marxists everywhere to debate and discuss the correct tactics and strategy for the revolution internationally. In that sense we welcome Bhattarai’s article and wish to contribute to the discussions among Nepalese communists. The struggle for socialism is an international struggle, and a victory for the Nepalese communists would be a victory for the workers of the whole of the South Asian subcontinent, and indeed of the world.

[Q]

Interesting development for sure.

The link to the article is here btw (http://www.marxist.com/communist-party-nepal-recognises-role-of-trotsky.htm).

[Wanted Man]

Up till now, for the Nepalese Maoists the truth about the life and contribution of comrade Leon Trotsky had been hidden, and this also applies to their own cadres. Now that the road of Stalinism and Maoism is heading towards a dead end, and the party cadres are demanding an explanation from their Leaders, the latter have been forced to speak the truth about the Bolshevik Revolution in general and about Leon Trotsky in particular.

Where does this show? Sounds more like opportunism, with the goal of engaging everyone on the left with their process that some call a "revolution". Just like how Chavez is a Christian Trotskyist Maoist Guevarist Bolivarian Democratic Socialist... Considering the Chavez experience, it's not surprising that this article comes from marxist.com. They recently also said that the revolution has begun in Iran. If Kim Jong-il quotes Trotsky tomorrow, they will support the "North Korean revolution" immediately.

[Tower of Bebel]

Where does this show?
It may be a valid point, but I would like to hear more form this situation. "Trotskyism" hasn't always been the best alternative however. All I hope is that Trotskyism in this case means Marxist principles and not yet another opportunist current under the banner of Trotsky.

[Crux]

Funny I actually just read that article. I definately there exist an opening for genuine marxism in Nepal, with it's revolutionary development. This deosn't mean that I believe we should suddenly embrace CPN(m) but this certainly is an interesting turn of events. I know that the CWI has also been contacted by the Socialist Party in Nepal with the open intention of them joining the CWI. I know they have a representation in parliament and that they gave support to the maoist government, but beyond that I don't know. It would be great if any of the comrades with more indepth knowledge of Nepal could provide me with information about them, if it's avialable.

[scarletghoul]

It may well be true that Trotsky's Permanent Revolution seems correct to the Nepali comrades, but I would be surprised if they denounced the Marxist-Leninist path, especially Maoism. Bhattarai is simply commenting on the conditions Nepal and the world face right now. Socialism in One Country would be pretty difficult to achieve, and the Trotskyist idea makes more sense from this perspective. However this doesn't mean the entire movement will shift its ideological basis. That would be crazy and stupid

[Q]

I know that the CWI has also been contacted by the Socialist Party in Nepal with the open intention of them joining the CWI.
Who are these guys though? I never heard of the SP of Nepal before. Do you have some info on them?

[Искра]

It may well be true that Trotsky's Permanent Revolution seems correct to the Nepali comrades, but I would be surprised if they denounced the Marxist-Leninist path, especially Maoism....
Trotskyistism is still part of Leninism.

Any way, I see this as opportunism. They would also say that they are pro-anarchist if there were anarchists in Nepal.

[Crux]

Who are these guys though? I never heard of the SP of Nepal before. Do you have some info on them?
The only info I have found so far is in a list of parties running in the last Nepalese election. It didn't show any election results though, but from what I understand they were elected to parliament. But as I said, beyond that I really don't know. So if anyone else has any info on them, I'd be grateful.

[Crux]

Trotskyistism is still part of Leninism.

Any way, I see this as opportunism. They would also say that they are pro-anarchist if there were anarchists in Nepal.
I don't think, as much as I would like too, that his comments are a result of massive pressure from a trotskyist movement in Nepal. Rather he is begining to see Socialism In One Country for the dead end that it is, why that would be opportunism I don't really see either.



It may well be true that Trotsky's Permanent Revolution seems correct to the Nepali comrades, but I would be surprised if they denounced the Marxist-Leninist path, especially Maoism. Bhattarai is simply commenting on the conditions Nepal and the world face right now. Socialism in One Country would be pretty difficult to achieve, and the Trotskyist idea makes more sense from this perspective. However this doesn't mean the entire movement will shift its ideological basis. That would be crazy and stupid. Why? After all Trotskyism is the extension of revolutionary marxism and leninism.

[fidzboi]

But despite this factual error of Bhattarai, the fact that a senior leader of a traditionally "Stalinist" party recognizes the validity of the ideas of Trotsky is a very significant development.

No it's not, not at all.

[FSL]

It seems like a way to avoid making any meaningful changes in the economy, since now "Socialism in one country" will be considered the step before hell.

[Crux]

It seems like a way to avoid making any meaningful changes in the economy, since now "Socialism in one country" will be considered the step before hell.
Why?

[chegitz guevara]

I find this very interesting.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This growing "Trotskyist for Mao" phenomenon is interesting, however the Nepalese case exists mainly because the Nepali Maoists know that the fate of their "New Democracy" (but they're back in opposition) rests with the class struggle... in India!

[bailey_187]

however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries.

In the case of Nepal, i would agree. It would greatly help the Nepalese Revolution if it was to spread. The question is, like in Russia in the 1920s: will it?

If it does not, then what?

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'm not exactly surprised, you'd be hard pressed to find a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't acknowledge that Trotsky did make some valuable theoretical contributions to revolutionary thought. What scarletghoul said is quite correct, socialism in one country worked well for the Soviet Union because it was a strong and relatively stable state despite the constant threat of counter-revolution. Stalin adopted the policy of socialism in one country in the 1920's, by which time, Russia had strengthened itself economically, militarily, and perhaps most importantly, diplomatically. Socialism in one country just wouldn't work in Nepal, at least, not until it had established itself as a Marxist-Leninist state. Chávez has also put forth ideas similar to Trotsky's, but adapted them for Latin America, because the region is still under threat from Northern imperialism, if Chávez or Morales or anyone like that initiated a true revolution, it would be crushed before they even got the chance to declare victory.

[A.R.Amistad]

I posted this on the Trotskyist page too

[FSL]

I'm not exactly surprised, you'd be hard pressed to find a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't acknowledge that Trotsky did make some valuable theoretical contributions to revolutionary thought. What scarletghoul said is quite correct, socialism in one country worked well for the Soviet Union because it was a strong and relatively stable state despite the constant threat of counter-revolution. Stalin adopted the policy of socialism in one country in the 1920's, by which time, Russia had strengthened itself economically, militarily, and perhaps most importantly, diplomatically. Socialism in one country just wouldn't work in Nepal, at least, not until it had established itself as a Marxist-Leninist state. Chávez has also put forth ideas similar to Trotsky's, but adapted them for Latin America, because the region is still under threat from Northern imperialism, if Chávez or Morales or anyone like that initiated a true revolution, it would be crushed before they even got the chance to declare victory.



Cuba is a smaller country than Venezuela with fewer natural resourses and under embargo for the past 5 decades. It also ranks higher than Venezuela in litteracy, overall level of education, life expectancy and child mortality rate. It is among the 50 best countries to live in according to HDI, about 10 places above Venezuela and one of the very few latin american countries to be that high.

Cuba's economy is also more to the left of that of Venezuela. It isn't "socialism in one country" since foreign investments are now important for it but still the state is the economy's driving force.
I don't see necessarily Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua being immediately "crashed" if they were to declare themselves worker's states. I 'd say that a great number of people in these countries would support that change, since we 've seen an overwhelming amount of militancy there, for example in the conflict with the upper classes in Bolivia or during the venezuelan coup.
All these countries, adding Cuba, go beyond being isolated or weak or just too poor. If Nepal were to join them, things could be develop differently for the situation there too.


But nor do these countries go through the changes they should, neither is Nepal going to by the looks of it. Whether one speaks of the need to have a "massive, international revolution" before we can challenge capitalism or one supports the need to develop capitalist production to get rid of the backwardness, fact remains that the Dengist, rightist deviation of China and the Trotskyist, leftist deviation of Nepal are ready to follow more or less the same economic policies.


The Soviet Union didn't try to nationalize factories while being sure its vast lands or number of people would be able to support these measures. There simply wasn't any other way to go to without leaving businesses and the land to those whom the workers and peasants had been fighting for years.

[rivalin]

nice to see him getting the recognition he deserves among the people on the ground.

[ItalianCommie]

Interesting development indeed. I personally think that Communism should be refounded as a whole, enough with the divisions of Stalinism, Troskyism etc. I may be quite simplistic, but I think that in some way the Communist parties around the world should sit around a table and define a new Communist thought, with a strong analysis of what has happened to Communist thought in the past decades, seeing honestly what has worked and what hasn't, and stop being paranoid about one's own identity.

That is why I think this is an interesting contribution, it's very interesting that a Maoist is actually finding some time to say something positive about Trotsky, trying to work out what is in some way right about Trotskyism and where Stalinism or Maoism fails. We need to be more like this, comrades, and stop abstractly assuming an idea as an axiom or a postulate and be more practical, adopt a philosophy of praxis.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not exactly surprised, you'd be hard pressed to find a Marxist-Leninist who doesn't acknowledge that Trotsky did make some valuable theoretical contributions to revolutionary thought.

That's not really true, comrade. In fact, it's the opposite. It's actually pretty damned rare to find a Stalinist or Maoist who acknowledges Trotsky's contributions. Course, most Trot's go to the other extreme, that everything the man did or wrote is solid gold. :rolleyes:

[communard resolution]

This growing "Trotskyist for Mao" phenomenon is interesting

Can you tell me more about this? A friend of mine reported from their latest SWP meeting (on the Chinese Revolution) that roughly half of the attendees were very fond of Mao.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Strip away the New Democracy's inclusion of the national bourgeoisie in the bloc of classes, and it's very similar to the anti-bourgeois position of Permanent Revolution.

[Spawn of Stalin]

That's not really true, comrade. In fact, it's the opposite. It's actually pretty damned rare to find a Stalinist or Maoist who acknowledges Trotsky's contributions. Course, most Trot's go to the other extreme, that everything the man did or wrote is solid gold. :rolleyes:
What I am saying is, that contrary to what many people think, Marxist-Leninists don't hate everything Trotsky said or did. Personally I disagree with most things that Trotsky believed, but he did have some valuable ideas, they just weren't valuable at the time.

[Yehuda Stern]

Strip away the New Democracy's inclusion of the national bourgeoisie in the bloc of classes, and it's very similar to the anti-bourgeois position of Permanent Revolution.

Yes - simply remove the part where Maoism supports an alliance with the bourgeoisie, and it's very similar to Trotskyism which opposes such an alliance!

(Even that's nonsense, actually, but I hope this just makes JR's ignorance of Trotskyism and Marxism in general clear to any sane person)

[BobKKKindle$]

Strip away the New Democracy's inclusion of the national bourgeoisie in the bloc of classes, and it's very similar to the anti-bourgeois position of Permanent Revolution.

The Chinese working class wasn't weak because the CPC adopted New Democracy, it was the other way around - New Democracy was an ideological product of the defeat of the Chinese working class in 1927, which was itself a result of the CPC being constrained by the Comintern. So when you say that everything would have been fine and you would be able to have a more positive attitude towards Maoism if only New Democracy hadn't advocated an alliance with the bourgeoisie (which is not exactly minor, as Yehuda points out) you're treating ideas in the abstract instead of rooting ideological developments in the course of historical events, which has nothing to do with Marxism. Prior to 1927, more than 75% of the CPC's membership was drawn from the working class whose militancy was such that Chinese workers in Canton were able to create a Soviet as a result of the May 30th Movement in 1925 (which took on a range of responsibilities, including the provision of food and entertainment for its participants, undertaking voluntary work, constructing a road from Canton to Whampoa, and even setting up eight schools for adult workers) and it was only because a section of the leadership of the CPC, who ranged themselves against Chen Duxiu, wanted to maintain its policy of subordinating the class to the desires of the KMT and the latter party's backers in Moscow that the achievements of Cantonese workers weren't replicated in other parts of the country.

The important thing about the May 30th Movement was that whereas previous developments in Chinese anti-imperialism such as the May 4th Movement in 1919 had nationalist intellectuals and overseas capitalists as their main constituency, the May 30th Movement grew directly out of the concerns of ordinary workers, as its starting-point was the murder of a Chinese workers at the hands of a Japanese foreman, and whilst it had the support of merchants and other sections of the ruling class for a short period of time, once workers employed by Chinese capitalists realized that their conditions were often worse than those of workers employed by foreign firms, they turned their anger against Chinese bosses, and from that point onwards it became a class struggle in the fullest sense of the word. The dissipation of the movement, the tragedy of 1927, and the subsequent failure of the adventurist uprisings and coup attempts that were forced on the CPC by the Comintern (like the Nanchang Uprising, the Autumn Harvest rising, and the creation of the Canton Commune) resulted in the party's class base being severely diminished, and it was only at this point and not before that individuals within the party who drew their ideals from nationalism and not socialism (like Mao) were able to move into positions of leadership - this process of degeneration being symbolized by the expulsion of Chen Duxiu and, later on, the imprisonment and torture of Li Lisan.

Incidentally, when the CPN(M) starts backing workers against the bosses, instead of calling for the banning of strikes, and when it adopts a Marxist analysis of the state instead of believing that it's possible to use a bourgeois republic to overturn capitalism or reconcile the interests of exploiter and exploited, then it can claim to be a Trotskyist party - as long as it acts as a constraint on class struggle, rejects the need for international revolution, and acts in accordance with the collaborationism of New Democracy, it's the same old Stalinism we've seen before.

[Crux]

But nor do these countries go through the changes they should, neither is Nepal going to by the looks of it. Whether one speaks of the need to have a "massive, international revolution" before we can challenge capitalism or one supports the need to develop capitalist production to get rid of the backwardness, fact remains that the Dengist, rightist deviation of China and the Trotskyist, leftist deviation of Nepal are ready to follow more or less the same economic policies.
So Nepal is a trotskyist deviation? I think you are reading in bit too much, further more your understanding of world revolution is flawed. It has never been a case of "waiting for the international revolution". It's been a case of making the international revolution, it may start in any one country to be sure but does that mean that revolution has to be "held back" (how by the way?) until the world revolution? Of course not.
Supporting the need to first develop capitalist production is teh exact opposite of the theory of permanent revolution, if you mean that in a two-step bourguise -> proletarian revolution way. Of course that doesn't mean, say NEP was wrong. NEP was necessary to win the peasants.

Since the de facto overtake of the comintern by the russian bereaucracy there has been no actual International, this is what we need, because the struggle is international. There is no other way.

[BobKKKindle$]

It has never been a case of "waiting for the international revolution". It's been a case of making the international revolutionI broadly agree with this - the outbreak of revolution in even one major country has the potential create a worldwide revolutionary situation (if one does not exist already - the conditions that allow revolutions to occur cannot exist in one country alone, due to the world being a single economic unit, and the countless economic and political ties that link countries together and make them dependent on each other) both because of the example set by workers when they take power anywhere, and the impacts that a socialist revolution would have on the economic conditions of other countries, especially if a country where workers have expropriated the bourgeoisie reject their financial obligations to other countries. However, I think your formulation neglects the role of objective conditions by going too far in the direction of subjective factors, i.e. the role of the party. The fact of the matter is that Nepal has never experienced a revolutionary situation because at no point has the Nepalese working class sought to create its own organs of power and challenge the rule of the bourgeois state - the stability of bourgeois rule in Nepal is demonstrated by the fact that the bourgeoisie was willing to allow elections to take place and, whilst they were in government, did not call on its regional partners to remove the Maoists from power, and at this point is not seeking to destroy the Maoists. It will only be possible for Nepal to undergo a socialist revolution, as distinct from a transition to bourgeois democracy and populist government, when Nepal enters a revolutionary period, and until this happens it seems that the main role of socialists in Nepal is to lead workers in their immediate (economic) struggles, which also means protecting their right to strike, even if this brings socialists into conflict with pseudo-progressive forces like the Maoists. If we are thinking about the nature of what has happened in Nepal, I would argue that the victory of the Maoists in both the military and political sense was made possible by the ability of the petty-bourgeois leadership of the CPN(M) to lean on broader class forces in the form of the peasantry, and, by offering a limited set of economic concessions, such as land reform, to utilize those forces as a strategic asset. As far as I know there is no sociological analysis of the party's membership but, given the absence of working-class radicalism in Nepal, and the party's previous strategy of building bases in rural areas as a way of putting pressure on the state, it seems unlikely that the party derives its mass membership or leadership from the ranks of the working class, and it is this lack of connection to workers that partly explains the consistent failure of the CPN(M) to grasp what socialist revolution means and to further the interests of Nepalese workers. In this respect they are true to the history and theory of Maoism.

[Raúl Duke]

So...
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Personally, I don't mind if the Nepalese communists are looking into the theoretical contributions of Trotsky (and/or being in general being more open at looking at or accepting other theoretical contributions) as long as it helps at least struggles/defeats imperialism and increases Nepalese living standards/quality of life (at most I hope they can get to genuine socialism and reach communism; obviously).

[FSL]

So Nepal is a trotskyist deviation? I think you are reading in bit too much, further more your understanding of world revolution is flawed. It has never been a case of "waiting for the international revolution". It's been a case of making the international revolution, it may start in any one country to be sure but does that mean that revolution has to be "held back" (how by the way?) until the world revolution? Of course not.
Supporting the need to first develop capitalist production is teh exact opposite of the theory of permanent revolution, if you mean that in a two-step bourguise -> proletarian revolution way. Of course that doesn't mean, say NEP was wrong. NEP was necessary to win the peasants.

Since the de facto overtake of the comintern by the russian bereaucracy there has been no actual International, this is what we need, because the struggle is international. There is no other way.


I didn't say that the whole of nepal went trotskyist, but the party's acceptance of the "permanent revolution" seems to be in line with their previous decisions to allow *capitalist* production to increase, not threaten private property etc. It offers them the ideological foundation based on which they will claim that a country besieged by imperialism has no other option but to wait (assist if you prefer it) the struggle of the workers elsewhere.
That to me is a lie. Even if a country as small and poor can't completely shut itself from the world market or achieve growth without foreign capital, this can certainly happen while taking more than a few petty-bourgeois measures.


And never did the concept of "Socialism in one country" claim there wasn't a need for a worker's revolution everywhere or that such efforts wouldn't be supported. Instead, it was collectivization (the genuine "making" of revolution) that was met with little support among leftists and rightists alike. And it is the people claiming they uphold/appreciate Trotsky's legacy in Nepal that speak of private property as if they were Bukharin or Deng.

[BobKKKindle$]

but the party's acceptance of the "permanent revolution" seems to be in line with their previous decisions to allow *capitalist* production to increase, not threaten private property etc.This has nothing to do with permanent revolution, though. The key conclusion of that theory is that, when the proletariat carries out the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it being the only class capable of doing so given the weak condition of the bourgeoisie in countries like Nepal, it will, in order to defend the main gains of the democratic revolution, especially gains that relate to the conditions of the working class such as the eight-hour working day and other elementary rights, be forced to threaten capitalism and the class interests of the bourgeoisie, and so there will be a immediate transition from the democratic to the socialist revolution if the gains of the former are to be maintained. The Maoist concept of New Democracy, which was made possible by the deproletarianization of the CPC, on the other hand, holds that, in underdeveloped countries, the initial revolution should be carried out by a bloc of four classes, consisting of the working class, the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie, all of which Mao saw as having a progressive role to play in the elimination of feudalism and the development of a national economy. In his essay on this subject, entitled 'On New Democracy', Mao asserted that the policies of this historic period would be rooted in the Three People's Principles formulated by Sun Yat-sen, which, in concrete terms, meant that capital would not be permitted to “dominate the livelihood of the people”, and that whilst the government would “confiscate the land of the landlords” and distribute it to those with “little or no land”, it would still permit a “rich peasant economy”. Although Mao suggested that this New Democratic revolution would be carried out under the hegemony of the proletariat, which he described “the most revolutionary class”, not only was this not reflected in the Chinese Revolution, the fact that the economy of New Democracy permits the continued existence of private property and capitalism means that the bourgeoisie will retain the power to undermine policies that pose a challenge to its own class interests simply by lowering production or moving its capital out of the country, even if, in the political sphere, it is allocated less formal power than the working class. There is therefore an irreconcilable tension between the ideal of the proletariat being the main component of a broad dictatorship, and the political realities that arise in any country where the bourgeoisie has not yet been expropriated. It is, in other words, ultimately the fact that the bourgeois state operates in the context of a capitalist economy in which power and wealth is (by definition) concentrated in the hands of a minority that forces the state to acknowledge the interests of the ruling class and hence act as a bourgeois state, regardless of whether the individuals who are formally in charge of it [the state] are members of the bourgeoisie themselves and/or subjectively in favour of capitalism.


It offers them the ideological foundation based on which they will claim that a country besieged by imperialism has no other option but to wait (assist if you prefer it) the struggle of the workers elsewhere.Trotskyists do not believe that the working class has taken power in Nepal, however, and we find it unlikely that the working class of any country will find itself in a position where it is capable of becoming the ruling class in the absence of revolutionary situations in other countries, due to the international nature of capitalism, which even you acknowledge. As I said in my last post, the main role of socialists in Nepal at the moment is so assist the working class in defensive struggles, which also means defending its right to strike against the nationalist ambitions of the Maoists.

[Crux]

And it is the people claiming they uphold/appreciate Trotsky's legacy in Nepal that speak of private property as if they were Bukharin or Deng. They are?

[FSL]

They are?


They've done it more than once before, you can search older articles. I especially remember one about a prominent member leaving the maoists after they basically advised the rulling class to "calm down" through interviews.



We find it unlikely that the working class of any country will find itself in a position where it is capable of becoming the ruling class in the absence of revolutionary situations in other countries, due to the international nature of capitalism


So for example in Soviet Union in the late 20s or in Nepal today, where we can see that "revolutionary situations in other countries" do not exist, the working class couldn't become the rulling class itself? That obviously means that the workers who were unlucky to find themselves in those countries at those times, could not move to abolish/challenge private property?

You started by saying that "(the strategy of) permanent revolution has nothing to do with not challenging private property". Yet you now say that the nature of capitalism is such that private property can be challenged in a country only when certain conditions have been met, those conditions being "revolutionary situations in other countries", and this is an integral part of Trotskyism.
So we've gone from people challenging bourgeoise power even in backward countries without only presenting demands for democratic reforms and capitalist growth to "workers in a country challenging the rulling class depends on other countries as well"


CPC hasn't abandoned marxism in paper. It considered China a semi-feudalist country and itself a truely marxist party that developes the productive forces in China,moving it to the next economic stage and, thus, leading the way to some glorious socialist future.

Trotskyism would say that even if revolution were to errupt in Nepal, and one led by the workers, it is "unlikely" that it could end with them challenging the rulling class (even though that is ideal and should be the goal for workers at all times)due to the international nature of capitalism . Instead, the country should aim in exporting its revolution (the same revolution that was unable to bring any concrete changes, sounds like a tough thing to advertise) so that it will be able, once it achieves that target, to move to socialism.


I 'm not suggesting that both ways of thought "preach" the same thing, but that both of them do not represent in their essence working class interests. They both seek to secure (petty-)bourgeois existence even in a post revolutionary period, with trotskyism simply having a more "workerist" tone.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes - simply remove the part where Maoism supports an alliance with the bourgeoisie, and it's very similar to Trotskyism which opposes such an alliance!

(Even that's nonsense, actually, but I hope this just makes JR's ignorance of Trotskyism and Marxism in general clear to any sane person)

I said "very similar to the anti-bourgeois position of Permanent Revolution" and not identical (I'm also ignoring Mao's role in Indonesia and Cambodia):

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1118


With the exception of Trotsky, these ideas seem to have been lost to Russian Marxism in the years between the end of the XIXth century and 1917. If we leave aside the semi-Marxists in the populist camp, such as Nicolaion, or the “legal marxists”such as Piotr Struve, there remain four clearly delimited positions inside Russian social-democracy :

I) The Menshevik view , which considered the future Russian revolution as bourgeois by its nature and its driving force would be an alliance of the proletariat with the liberal bourgeoisie. Plekhanov and his friends believed that Russia was a backward, “Asiatic”and barbarous country requiring a long stage of industrialism and “Europeanization”before the proletariat could aspire to power. Only after Russia has developed its productive forces, and passed into the historical stage of advanced capitalism and parliamentary democracy would the requisite material and political conditions be available for a socialist transformation.

II) The Bolshevik conception also recognized the inevitably bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution, but it excluded the bourgeoisie from the revolutionary bloc. According to Lenin, only the proletariat and the peasantry were authentically revolutionary forces, bound to establish through their alliance a common democratic revolutionary dictatorship. Of course, as we know, Lenin changed radically his approach, after the April Theses of 1917.

III) Parvus and Rosa Luxemburg, while acknowledging the bourgeois character of the revolution in the last instance, insisted on the hegemonic revolutionary role of the proletariat supported by the peasantry. The destruction of Czarist absolutism could not be achieved short of the establishment of a workers’ power led by social-democracy. However, such a proletarian government could not yet transcend in its programmatic aims the fixed limits of bourgeois democracy.

IV) Finally, Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution, which envisaged not only the hegemonic role of the proletariat and the necessity of its seizure of power, but also the possibility of a growing over of the democratic into the socialist revolution.

[Crux]

They've done it more than once before, you can search older articles. I especially remember one about a prominent member leaving the maoists after they basically advised the rulling class to "calm down" through interviews.
Oh I am aware of that. But again, this article doesn't magically make the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) trotskyistes and it's downright bizzare that you would suggest this.






So for example in Soviet Union in the late 20s or in Nepal today, where we can see that "revolutionary situations in other countries" do not exist, the working class couldn't become the rulling class itself? That obviously means that the workers who were unlucky to find themselves in those countries at those times, could not move to abolish/challenge private property? Of course they could. You are argumenting with a strawman here. Further more you are wong about the lack of revolutionary situations in the 1920's Italy, Germany and China are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head


You started by saying that "(the strategy of) permanent revolution has nothing to do with not challenging private property". Yet you now say that the nature of capitalism is such that private property can be challenged in a country only when certain conditions have been met, those conditions being "revolutionary situations in other countries", and this is an integral part of Trotskyism.
So we've gone from people challenging bourgeoise power even in backward countries without only presenting demands for democratic reforms and capitalist growth to "workers in a country challenging the rulling class depends on other countries as well"

oh private property can be abolished in one country, no doubt, but for a socialist revolution not to the degenerate the internationalist perspective is absolutely vital. Socialism is international or nothing at all.


CPC hasn't abandoned marxism in paper. It considered China a semi-feudalist country and itself a truely marxist party that developes the productive forces in China,moving it to the next economic stage and, thus, leading the way to some glorious socialist future.
Yes I know that's their rationale.


Trotskyism would say that even if revolution were to errupt in Nepal, and one led by the workers, it is "unlikely" that it could end with them challenging the rulling class (even though that is ideal and should be the goal for workers at all times)due to the international nature of capitalism . Instead, the country should aim in exporting its revolution (the same revolution that was unable to bring any concrete changes, sounds like a tough thing to advertise) so that it will be able, once it achieves that target, to move to socialism.

Yes, the aim of a successfull revolutionary movement must always be to spread to the neighbouring countries. This was the view of Lenin, for example.


I 'm not suggesting that both ways of thought "preach" the same thing, but that both of them do not represent in their essence working class interests. They both seek to secure (petty-)bourgeois existence even in a post revolutionary period, with trotskyism simply having a more "workerist" tone.
Nonsense, it's not about "securing" anything, the trotskyists were those most strongly arguing for collectivization and going further with the planned economy.

[BobKKKindle$]

So for example in Soviet Union in the late 20s or in Nepal today, where we can see that "revolutionary situations in other countries" do not exist, the working class couldn't become the rulling class itself?Firstly, I thought it was clear from my last post that not only do I believe that there is not a revolutionary situation in other countries besides Nepal today, there is also not a revolutionary situation in Nepal itself, because at no point have the workers of that country sought to create their own organs of power and challenge the hegemony of the bourgeois state - rather there has been a transition from an authoritarian regime to a bourgeois-democratic regime and even the limited democratic gains that have been made are now coming under attack, not least from the Maoists themselves, as can be seen from their proposal to ban strikes when they were still part of the government. I find it unlikely that a revolutionary situation could ever exist in one country alone (due to the internationalized nature of capitalism, as I noted) and I challenge you to provide an example of workers in a single country seeking to challenge the bourgeois state to any degree without the same conditions also existing in other countries around the world. If you can show that it is possible for workers to be in a position where they can overthrow capitalism whilst the workers of other countries remain opposed to revolution then your objections might have force but as it stands they seem purely hypothetical because you have not refuted my claim that revolutionary situations (or the potential for those situations to emerge) arise on an international scale, as a result of international crises.

Secondly, I do think that the working class was still the ruling class in the late 1920s having seized power in 1917, but from 1919 onwards Soviet Russia experienced a continuous process of degeneration due to the initial failure of the revolution to spread to other countries, and that process could only have been stopped and the gains of the revolution protected if, at some point in the 1920s, revolution had broken out elsewhere. The last opportunity for revolution was China, as the working class in that country did challenge state power in 1925 by creating a Soviet, albeit only on a local scale in Canton, but, given that the degeneration of the Comintern was more serious than the degeneration of the Bolsheviks and the institutions of the Soviet state, the policies that were imposed on the CPC by the Comintern's officials in China meant that the energies of the working class were not channeled effectively, and, in the 8 months after the tragic events of April 1927, some 38,000 militants were killed or executed by the butchers of the KMT, who cooperated extensively with criminal gangs in cities like Shanghai and Canton, and 32,000 were imprisoned, with party membership experiencing a similar decline, especially in terms of its working-class base. The defeat of the working class in China marked the final defeat of socialism in Russia as from that point onwards the bureaucracy was able to rapidly establish itself as a new ruling class and deprive the working class of all the gains that had been made possible by 1917.


It considered China a semi-feudalist countryI don't think China was a feudal country, semi- or otherwise, because land had been freely traded as a commodity for thousands of years, small-scale rural enterprises were widespread, in some regions horticulture centered around commodities like silk was taking the place of marginal farming such that the rural population were purchasing their foodstuffs with the revenue generated by the sale of non-food crops, and, in the northern regions of China in particular, it was increasingly common for peasants to own the land they tilled, such that tenancy was not an issue. In essence, China did not exhibit the features of the feudal mode of production. A fascinating feature of Chinese agriculture from the late Ming Dynasty onwards is how it related to the international market despite agricultural goods still being sold only on a local scale - this was the case because under Zhang Juzheng, there was a shift to a taxation system based solely on silver coinage, instead of the previous system, which was centered around corvee labour, a key feature of feudalism. However, peasants were still being payed for their labour and goods in cooper coinage and so in order to pay their taxes they had to use their copper currency to purchase silver currency, which, given that silver was being used by western powers to pay for Chinese exports such as tea and porcelain, meant that Chinese agriculture had a direct link to the world market, of which China was becoming an increasingly important part. This meant that, when the price of silver changed, which it did frequently and with great volatility, it was the peasants who payed the price. I find it hard to say that China could have been feudal when even in the 16th century it was part of an emerging capitalist world-system to such an advanced degree.

It's also worth noting that despite the CPC's efforts to claim to represent the peasantry, and the poor peasants in particular, they constrained class struggle in the countryside to a significant degree. I go into this in some depth in my essay here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-revolution-essentially-t119849/index.html?t=119849), in the second section, so it needs no repetition.


that developes the productive forces in China,moving it to the next economic stage and, thus, leading the way to some glorious socialist future.I take it from the grammar of this sentence that you believe that China is a socialist country now, in which case the only thing I have to say is that if you believe that the main "job" of socialism is to develop an underdeveloped economy, you should, by that criterion, also admire countries like South Korea under military dictatorship, and Francoist Spain, as these countries also succeeded in overcoming their backwardness and even provided increased living standards for their populations, and, like China, they also denied workers the right to organize without facing state repression.


Trotskyism would say that even if revolution were to errupt in Nepal, and one led by the workers, it is "unlikely" that it could end with them challenging the rulling classI don't understand this, if there was even a revolutionary situation in Nepal then of course it would involve the working class challenging the ruling class because revolutionary situations are international in scope and there would be no good reason to assume that a successful revolution would certainly be confined to Nepal alone. Again, provide an example of a country where a revolutionary situation has existed without other countries exhibiting the same conditions - I find it hard to understand how you can accept that capitalism is now an international system but then challenge Trotskyism by making use of a hypothetical and unrealistic situation in which one country is on the brink of revolutoin whilst capitalism remains stable in all other countries. You also mischaracterize Trotskyism by making it seem as if it possible (in our view) for a revolution to achieve its democratic stage and then stop, as Trotsky himself was aware that such a process would not only not challenge the power of the bourgeoisie, it would also leave democratic gains vulnerable to the ruling class's counter-attack, such that the uninterrupted character of the revolution is derived from the fact that it is only through the immediate carrying-out of a socialist revolution that the gains of the democratic revolution can be realized and defended. In support of this, Trotsky points to the fact that during the 1905 revolution the response of the bourgeoisie to the demand for the eight-hour day (a democratic demand) was to declare a lock-out, such that in these conditions the eight-hour day could only have been realized if the workers had occupied the factories at which point the revolution left its democratic character behind and became the first phase of a socialist revolution, due to the threat it posed to the interests of the bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

oh private property can be abolished in one country, no doubt, but for a socialist revolution not to the degenerate the internationalist perspective is absolutely vital. Socialism is international or nothing at all.

Private property rights are merely a legal construct. If socialism were defined in mere relation to this, then it can be "achieved" in a single country.

That, of course, ignores the problem of commodity production, wage labour, and the circulation of money-capital, among other things.

[FSL]

I take it from the grammar of this sentence that you believe that China is a socialist country now, in which case the only thing I have to say is that if you believe that the main "job" of socialism is to develop an underdeveloped economy, you should, by that criterion, also admire countries like South Korea under military dictatorship, and Francoist Spain, as these countries also succeeded in overcoming their backwardness and even provided increased living standards for their populations, and, like China, they also denied workers the right to organize without facing state repression.

I don't understand this, if there was even a revolutionary situation in Nepal then of course it would involve the working class challenging the ruling class because revolutionary situations are international in scope and there would be no good reason to assume that a successful revolution would certainly be confined to Nepal alone. .


1st. I obviously didn't mean that, you could understand as much but felt you had to go on a tirade.

2nd. Then try not mentioning about those necessary conditions since by default they 'll be there. You should be saying "Permanent revolution means workers challenge private property." No ifs or buts.



Nonsense, it's not about "securing" anything, the trotskyists were those most strongly arguing for collectivization and going further with the planned economy.

Hey there partener. "Arguing for collectivization" you said!?! But ofcourse, they argued. But let's see what some of Trotsky's reactions were when collectivization did happen (sadly it happened at the wrong time without revolutionary situations all around the wrold and by a greedy, brutal leadership at that. Those workers in Moscow should learn to live without bread until Germany went red)





on the peasant question the government had not only no five-year plan, but not even a five months’ program.


The problem, however, is far from settled by these general historic considerations. The real possibilities of collectivization are determined, not by the depth of the impasse in the villages and not by the administrative energy of the government, but primarily by the existing productive resources – that is, the ability of the industries to furnish large-scale agriculture with the requisite machinery. These material conditions were lacking. The collective farms were set up with an equipment suitable in the main only for small-scale farming. In these conditions an exaggeratedly swift collectivization took the character of an economic adventure(!!!)


Actually realizing their own former caricature of the Left Opposition, the bureaucracy “robbed the villages.” Collectivization appeared to the peasant primarily in the form of an expropriation of all his belongings. They collectivized not only horses, cows, sheep, pigs, but even new-born chickens. They “dekulakized”, as one foreign observer wrote, “down to the felt shoes, which they dragged from the feet of little children.” As a result there was an epidemic selling of cattle for a song by the peasants, or a slaughter of cattle for meat and hides.
(they were more aggressive then even the left opposition had dared become?! taking shoes from little children's feet! Oh, the ruthlessness! Thank god for that foreign observer who was there to inform us, the true revolutionaries, of atrocities commited in the name of socialism!)


epidemic character of collectivization as a measure of despair. “Complete collectivization”, wrote the same foreign critic, “plunged the national economy into a condition of ruin almost without precedent, as though a three years’ war had passed over.”
(Dear god, things went so bad. Probably it would have been for the best if the soviet government hadn't been so adventurist in its economic policies. What do you think? Well, I know the foreign observer would agree with me)


Twenty-five million isolated peasant egoisms, which yesterday had been the sole motive force of agriculture – weak like an old farmer’s nag, but nevertheless forces – the bureaucracy tried to replace at one gesture by the commands of 2,000 collective farm administrative offices, lacking technical equipment, agronomic knowledge and the support of the peasants themselves. The dire consequences of this adventurism soon followed, and they lasted for a number of years.
(So was Trotsky in the previous years actually arguing that those 25 million egoisms driving the economy should be crashed by the state that was hardly prepared for such a task? Arguing strongly, as I believe you said? Hm, not much sense)


But even so, collectivization could and should have assumed a more reasonable tempo and more deliberated forms. Having in its hands both the power and the industries, the bureaucracy could have regulated the process without carrying the nation to the edge of disaster. They could have, and should have, adopted tempos better corresponding to the material and moral resources of the country.
“Under favorable circumstances, internal and external,” wrote the émigré organ of the “Left Opposition” in 1930, “the material-technical conditions of agriculture can in the course of some 10 of 15 years be transformed to the bottom, and provide the productive basis for collectivization. However, during the intervening years there would be time to overthrow the Soviet power more than once.”
(Again the conditions! Damn them! Damn them all to hell! And so with favorable conditions we 'd need 10 to 15 years for the collectivization to be possible? Oh, and wait a minute, fascism rising all across Europe would probably stall it even more? Bad luck, comrade, bad luck!)


Never before had the breath of destruction hung so directly above the territory of the October Revolution, as in the years of complete collectivization. Discontent, distrust, bitterness, were corroding the country

He basically goes on and on and on... So yeah, nonsense, he wasn't interested in securing anything. He actually couldn't wait to crass the opressors.

[spiltteeth]

A large part of the Nepali Maoists success will rest upon the Indian Maoist's, and unfortunately the 2 parties haven't been seeing eye to eye lately.

However, if Nepal pulls off some kind of revolution, I believe it will spark a renewed support for the Maoists in India, and if they could unite into a larger base, it would be a major step in the right direction.

[BobKKKindle$]

Then try not mentioning about those necessary conditions since by default they 'll be thereSo if you also accept that revolutionary situations do not exist in one country alone but are international in scope, doesn't that make your objection to Trotskyism - that Trotskyists would not support a socialist revolution if there were no possibility of a revolution being able to spread to other more advanced countries - slightly redundant, given that it's based on a hypothetical situation, which, apparently by your own admission, would never come to pass?

Unless you believe that one country alone can experience a revolutionary situation, in which case you should provide an example of this, and explain how you can reconcile this with capitalism being an international system, and the crises from which revolutionary situations are born being international in scope.


1st. I obviously didn't mean that, you could understand as much but felt you had to go on a tirade.So if you don't believe that the "job" of socialism is to develop underdeveloped economies, then why do you regard the events of 1949 as a socialist revolution, and why do you believe that China was a socialist country at any point in time, given that the working class did not have a major role in the revolution itself, and given that, in your previous post, your main source of admiration for China seemed to be the presence of a Marxist party that "developes [sic] the productive forces in China, moving it to the next economic stage", i.e. economic development?

[Honggweilo]

This third source article sounds like a misinterpreted short quote (without any real context) by eager trotskyists wanting to jump on the Nepali bandwagon (which i consider the oppositie of a bad thing, dont get me wrong), but i find it veeeery hard to believe that such an anti-rural and unpragmatic strain of marxism as trotskyism would be praised as "practical" in a rural country like Nepal which is facing economic/political isolation and also very explosive class antagonisms in their country :confused:

[Crux]

Trotskyism never was and has never been "anti-rural", even though critics have tried to persistently tried to pin that opinion on Trotsky all since the 1920's.

[Crux]

1st. I obviously didn't mean that, you could understand as much but felt you had to go on a tirade.

2nd. Then try not mentioning about those necessary conditions since by default they 'll be there. You should be saying "Permanent revolution means workers challenge private property." No ifs or buts.




Hey there partener. "Arguing for collectivization" you said!?! But ofcourse, they argued. But let's see what some of Trotsky's reactions were when collectivization did happen (sadly it happened at the wrong time without revolutionary situations all around the wrold and by a greedy, brutal leadership at that. Those workers in Moscow should learn to live without bread until Germany went red)
He basically goes on and on and on... So yeah, nonsense, he wasn't interested in securing anything. He actually couldn't wait to crass the opressors.
Either you are not understanding or you are purposfully misreading. Trotsky objected, and rightly so, to the catastrophic collectivizations carried out in a beaurucratic manner against the peasantry. In fact this again flies in the face of Trotsky' supposed "anti-rural" position in that he wanted to collectivize the farmlands gradually and not by force. Which would have avoided the violent resistance the top down anti-democratic Stalinist methods engendered, where peasants rather burned their crops and slaughtered all their animals then let themselves be collectivized. The same kind of methods used, to an even more catastrophic end by Mao's regime during the Great Leap.
I sure hope this is not the policies you would like to see in Nepal.

[FSL]

Unless you believe that one country alone can experience a revolutionary situation, in which case you should provide an example of this, and explain how you can reconcile this with capitalism being an international system, and the crises from which revolutionary situations are born being international in scope.

your main source of admiration for China


Of the countries were revolution seemed possible during the years and after ww1, only in the Soviet Union did the workers manage to grasp political power. They proceeded to rightfully use it to take economic power as well, and it didn't result in a degenerated revolution and a "stalinist" state but in a vertical rise of the standard of living, for as long as that policy was pursued.
The thing here is I don't see any reason why the working class has something to gain by waiting before establishing its "rule". Whether one talks of "internal/external circumstances" like Trotsky or the need to "develop capitalist production first" like Bukharin, the differences in practice are none. The result is simply not going ahead with revolution.


And ??? Admiration of China? Nope, read again.

[FSL]

Either you are not understanding or you are purposfully misreading. Trotsky objected, and rightly so, to the catastrophic collectivizations carried out in a beaurucratic manner against the peasantry. In fact this again flies in the face of Trotsky' supposed "anti-rural" position in that he wanted to collectivize the farmlands gradually and not by force. Which would have avoided the violent resistance the top down anti-democratic Stalinist methods engendered, where peasants rather burned their crops and slaughtered all their animals then let themselves be collectivized. The same kind of methods used, to an even more catastrophic end by Mao's regime during the Great Leap.
I sure hope this is not the policies you would like to see in Nepal.


Trotsky objected to the collectivization happening in the 30s because as he claimed the state lacked the resourses for it but was arguing strongly for it for years before that?

He wasn't against the collectivization itself but against its bureaucratic nature? The Kronstadt Trotsky we 're talking about here, right?

And it is mentioned of when should the collectivization go ahead "gradually and not by force" . In 10-15 years, if circumstances are favourable. Yeah, compared to that true horror I 'd very much be in favour of it if they started snatching shoes from 5-year-olds in Nepal.

[Crux]

Trotsky objected to the collectivization happening in the 30s because as he claimed the state lacked the resourses for it but was arguing strongly for it for years before that?

He wasn't against the collectivization itself but against its bureaucratic nature? The Kronstadt Trotsky we 're talking about here, right?

And it is mentioned of when should the collectivization go ahead "gradually and not by force" . In 10-15 years, if circumstances are favourable. Yeah, compared to that true horror I 'd very much be in favour of it if they started snatching shoes from 5-year-olds in Nepal.
Yes, because, as you may be well unaware, the stalinist "adaption" of the Left Oppositions program had some vital difefrences, it was adventuristic and dictatorial.

It's quite bizzare for a stalinist to bring up Kronstadt. I know it was your attempt at a rhetorical question, but yes of course he was opposed to the bureaucratic methods. One of the key criticisms made by Trotsky by the way.

Compared to what horror? You are just making shit up.

[N3wday]

"hich would have avoided the violent resistance the top down anti-democratic Stalinist methods engendered, where peasants rather burned their crops and slaughtered all their animals then let themselves be collectivized. The same kind of methods used, to an even more catastrophic end by Mao's regime during the Great Leap."

Ok, a few points.

1. The collectivization of agriculture in China for the most part was peaceful and bore very little resemblance to what happened in Russia—unless you inlcude the peasants executing an occasional feudal landlord here and there. There simply wasn't a great deal of resistance in China, and this had a lot to do with the fact that most of the Communists social base was in the country side, but also because of the methods they used.

2. Mao originally wanted to collectivize at a much slower pace than what actually happened. However, after the initial land reform took place, some sections of the peasantry quickly began capitalizing on the new found "even" terrain, previously dominated by feudal lords. Essentially some peasants started aggressively accumulating land and using their new found freedom to exploit other peasants. This occurred in a variety of forms, but it was essentially agricultural capitalism and was nurturing counter revolutionary social relations among the peasantry. So, collectivizing at the pace that occurred was a response to a real material assessment of what was happening in the countryside, not dogmatic clinging to stalinist orthodoxy.

This is a problem with making socialist revolution in a country that is composed mostly of peasants that had just started to emerge from feudalism. I doubt we disagree there—just in the conclusions we draw after...

3. Its important to note here that collectivization also occurred at a very uneven pace. I'm going to apologize ahead of time if some of the details of what I'm about to say are fuzzy. Its been some time since I've read about the mechanics of China's collectivization and I don't have time to go through my books at the moment.

Roughly it went something like this...

Land reform and individual ownership -->

Mutual aid teams. If I remember correctly these were the smallest and least advanced form and occurred largely within single villages. Peasants would have communal tools and a few plots that they would manage together. For the most part it was still very individual. -->

Cooperatives - which were organized in a way where each peasant still earned wealth only according to their work but there were much larger sections of communal land. It provided the basis for the peasants to learn how to manage large scale agricultural projects cooperatively. It was designed to give peasants managerial as well as governmental experience through running the cooperatives. They generally would begin on a small scale, then would merge and expand. -->

Communes, these could be quite large. They were intended to provide largely according to need, but this was an uneven process. Some of the most advanced did, others retained many of the characteristics of cooperatives.

Also, these "models" were applied differently to different parts of the country based on the peasantry's attitude (broadly speaking) towards them. Some areas moved very slowly and others collectivized at a pretty rapid pace. It generally did not happen in a uniform way. This was specifically designed to avoid as much bloodshed and force as possible. Regarding collectivization persuasion and appeal was regularly practiced in opposition to force. I'm not going to argue that there was NO force used at any point, clearly that did happen some. But, for what was occurring and on the scale it did it was a rather peaceful process.

So, collectivization was not just the GLF. It started long before and was a process culminated in the Leap.

As for the actual details of the Great Leap Forward itself. This was an enormously complex period... One that a dismissive sentence doesn't do justice. I see a few factors at play during that time.

1. The withdrawal of soviet support that was a response to their denunciation as no longer socialist by China. Vast numbers of technical advisers were withdrawn leaving development projects half completed. All loans were cut off. The soviets lined up troops on China's border and demanded that all the money they had been loaned be payed back immediately, in grain... To say this caused economic turmoil would be an understatement.

2. Embargoes. What's often left out of the narrative regarding the GLF was that China appealed to the international market seeking to purchase essential staples like grain when the famine began—but due to the US influenced embargoes and Russia's hostility—were unable to on the necessary scale.

3. Some things government planners tried to implement across the country were simply terrible ideas. Such as the notion of sparrows as pests to be killed (although by 1976 they had one of the most sophisticated IPM systems in the world). Backyard furnaces I'm a little bit more ambivalent about. In essence the idea was to try and develop the countrysides industry, and to use labor intensive projects to do so because there was so little capital available for investment. It made perfect economic sense and was aimed at modernizing the countryside so they could develop mutual relations between it and the cities. This brings to my next point..

4. The rapidity of implementation of SOME things caused major problems. Backyard furnaces didn't work that and were widely implemented. So, although a good idea in essence that should have been experimented with, turned out not to work so well and caused major problems.

5. Managers reporting incorrect numbers. There were widespread occurrences of bureaucrats misreporting information about production. This had to do with the fact that most of the people with the skill sets required necessary for managing elements of the economy came from the vestiges of China's ruling class and were more concerned with protecting their privilege than reporting accurately. This was an objective problem based on China's economic backwardness.

So, on one hand the CPC was trying to open things like communal kitchens so the peasants could eat as much as they want, and on the other you had bureaucrats reporting false production numbers. No one is going to implement a rationing system far enough ahead of time to buffer the problem unless they know food production is hurting.

6. Natural disasters. Half of China's arable land was negatively affected by droughts and floods during this period of time which caused steep declines in production. That coupled with part of the peasant labor force focusing on industrial and developmental projects was a huge problem. Maybe it wouldn't have been had experienced normal weather patterns.

7. Lastly, the numbers spouted off by folks about how many people died are extrapolations based on shitty statistical methods. There was no accurate census data from most of the country at the time (see, "Did Mao Really Kill Millions - By Joseph Ball (http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm)). Even the original 16 million number was generated by the CPC during a campaign, aimed at discrediting Mao's "legacy". I don't share the same conclusions that Ball draws in his article (that 150,000 or so could be an accurate estimation of famine deaths). I simply believe there was a famine and how many died is something that will never be known. As well as the problem that mainstream numbers generated largely by anti-communists (and then parroted by communists themselves) are based on bad methods, are lacking data, and are gross exaggerations.

Basically, there was a lot of stuff that happened during that time period and a great deal of it had nothing to do with things the Maoists had direct control over (although certainly a lot did). The result was disaster at a terrible cost—no doubt. But, I really would like to implore folks to be careful about dismissing that period outright and simplifying what happened to the point of caricature.

[BobKKKindle$]

unless you inlcude the peasants executing an occasional feudal landlord here and thereThe funny thing is that peasants in China did seek to carry out land reform themselves but were held back by the CPC. In Henan in 1949, villagers seized all of the land formerly owned by rich peasants, and categorized a number of middle peasants as belonging to the higher category, then going on to divide everything that could be moved, as well as beating and even killing those whom the community despised, including a number of rich peasants who were reportedly guilty of acting as bailiffs for the landlords. Harris (Harris, 1978) shows that this was not restricted to Hunan, as, in response to land seizures in Hubei during the winter of 1947-1948, as well as demands that peasants should supervise the party, which were themselves prompted by the unwillingness of the party to implement reform rapidly, Mao reportedly argued that peasants who had seized land should not follow landlords into the towns to deliver justice, rejected the seizure of industrial enterprises, called for the reclassification of rich peasants and landlords as middle peasants when those groups had been unfairly classified, and asserted that poor peasant associations should be required to admit rich peasants and the “enlightened gentry” into their ranks. These events eventually resulted in land reform being halted, such that, from that point onwards, reform was implemented by administrative methods only, over a period of time, and alongside the creation of local governmental organs, in contrast to the previous strategy of encouraging peasants to struggle openly against their oppressors and divide the struggle fruits amongst themselves.

The CPC's decision to limit class struggle (which was not restricted to the countryside - but that's another story) did not have anything to with peasants becoming exploiters, as the final version of the law implemented by the party in 1947 after the renewed outbreak of the civil war required that change take place through village assemblies consisting of everyone except landlords, allowed middle peasants to retain their holdings, and permitted rich peasants to retain the land they cultivated themselves, such that, once the reform had been introduced, the ratio of the largest to the smallest farms was still around two to one. In fact, the Agrarian Law of 1950 was so conservative that it allowed allowed rich peasants to own not only land they and their families worked but also land that was worked by hired laborers and rented out to other peasants, on the condition that no more than half of their total land belonged to these latter categories. Both of these laws allowed exploitation and inequality in the countryside to continue. It is therefore difficult to avoid the conclusion that the CPC's policy in the countryside was profoundly reformist and embodied an oppressive attitude towards the peasantry.


The withdrawal of soviet support that was a response to their denunciation as no longer socialist by ChinaNonense. There are a number of reasons to believe that this justification was post-hoc in nature, and not representative of a genuine ideological conflict in the sense of such a conflict being distinct from national interests. The initiation of de-Stalinization in 1956 in the form of Khrushchev's secret speech at the 20th Party Congress, to which no foreign parties were invited, was not condemned as revisionist by the PRC when it was first published, but was in fact celebrated in light of the way Mao had been treated by Stalin in the past, with Mao's only criticisms being that he was not informed in advance of the speech's content, and that it did not include specific references to Stalin's crimes concerning China. Most surprisingly of all, even after relations between the USSR and the PRC had deteriorated, and at the height of Mao's rhetoric concerning self-reliance, the PRC was still willing to accept the military assistance on offer, as the Soviet Union continued to help the PRC build its air-force by sending instructors and assisting in the production of MiG-21s, as well as providing the PRC with military intelligence relating to the United States, cooperating in setting up military communications in northeastern China, and providing the PRC with advanced air-to-ground missiles amongst other forms of technology, all of this taking place as late as December 1962, or shortly before Mao condemned the Soviet Union as fascist. This is confirmed by the limited efforts to resolve the dispute in 1962, which were initiated by the North Vietnam Workers party, and involved polemics being ceased for some time even if they continued in a hidden form, being directed against historic revisionists such as Bernstein and Kautsky, and were published again in larger numbers than ever before after the Soviet Union informed China in August that she had agreed along with the United States not to disseminate nuclear weapons. If Mao had believed his rhetoric, it seems unlikely that these forms of cooperation would have continued, hence an ideological explanation is suspect.

It's also worth pointing out that the alliance that had hithero existed between the USSR and PC (insofar as there really was an alliance - that's a matter of debate) had nothing to do with any ideological solidarity, as, shortly after the CPC had come to power, Mao sought to gain the support of the United States. According to a report made public by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 21 January 1973, in May and June of 1949 the CPC had contacted the American ambassador to China, John Leighton Stuart, through one of his former pupils at Yenching University, Huang Hua, with Huang, later to serve as foreign minister, but then serving as director of the Foreign Affairs Office of the CPC Military Control Commission, going to see Stuart at Mao's request, in order to explore the possibility of future negotiations with the United States, including diplomatic recognition. It appears that this and other tentative moves such as the PLA's insistence on not harming foreign residents and embassy staff may have produced results, or that the United States was initially not interested in challenging the new government, as Acheson's defense perimeter speech in January 1950 announced the policy of non-interference in China and excluded Taiwan from the area that the United States would seek to defend, and it was arguably only due to the Korean War and the vicious anti-communism of Dulles that the two countries did not move closer together.

Also, check this. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/relations-between-ussr-t120457/index.html?p=1576421#post1576421)

[Saorsa]

I'd suggest splitting this topic.

Honestly, sometimes Trotskyists amaze me. You're getting all excited about a report that Bhattarai made a passing remark about Trotsky. Ok. Great. I'd seriously suggest reading the article below, and thinking long and hard about how seriously you should take a report that refers to the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) as the Communist Party of Nepal. Nepal's communist movement is fractured beyond belief, and such sloppy innacuracies indicate that the author is totally uninformed about Nepal.

On Rumors of Nepali Maoists, Trotskyism and Socialism in One Country (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/on-rumors-of-nepali-maoists-trotskyism-and-socialism-in-one-country/)

Posted by Mike E (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/) on October 22, 2009

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/marx_lenin_stalin_mao_prachanda_in_nepal.jpg?w=350 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/marx_lenin_stalin_mao_prachanda_in_nepal.jpg)The ideology of Nepali Maoists on display.

By Nando Sims

A bit of a strange speculation has rippled through the world of online Trotskyism. It was triggered by the circulation of an article entitled “Communist Party of Nepal Recognises Role of Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxist.com/communist-party-nepal-recognises-role-of-trotsky.htm)” (including on the Marxmail (http://marxmail.org/)list). The authors of the piece are Pablo Sanchez and Kamred Hulaki.
In breathless tones, this piece claims that the world’s most prominent Maoist party has decided Trotsky was right and Stalin was wrong. The article’s opening paragraph reads:
“This summer The Red Spark [Rato Jhilko ...], a journal of the Communist Party of Nepal published an article by Baburam Bhattarai, which stated that, ‘Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat’. This is the result of concrete historical experience that has revealed the real essence of Stalinism and vindicated the ideas of Leon Trotsky, in the case of Nepal in particular of the theory of the Permanent Revolution.” (from In Defense of Marxism, IDOM)
When we first received these claims (weeks ago) here at Kasama, we didn’t feel the need to post them or comment — since on the surface the various claims were hyped, false and even silly. But now this article from IDOM is unfortunately being taken seriously, so some comment is in order.
Just for starters: This piece does not even manage to get the name of the Maoist party right anywhere, including in its headline. There is no “Communist Party of Nepal” — as anyone familiar with Nepal knows. There are many parties with the word “Communist” in their name. The Maoist party is called the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) — a fact apparently unfamiliar to the folks behind this IDOM article.
Such a error is not fatal in its own right — but it highlights that these authors have a real indifference to the most basic facts. This ignorance marks the rest of the piece in perhaps-less-obvious ways.
Here is the heart of the matter:

The claims of this IDOM piece are based on a quote they have translated from an article written by Baburam Bhattarai, one of the most prominent leaders of the UCPN(M).

“Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the period of the October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to the unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism this has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat”. (The Red Spark, July 2009, Issue 1, Page-10, our translation from Nepali language).
For starters, let us just say that we have no reason yet to accept this translation is accurate. It has emerged from marginal forces with an ax to grind — and their piece suggests (as i said) a militant indifference to facts. The whole chatter pivots on one sentence above. Bhattarai may have said this, or he may not. He may have said something similar to this, but subtly different. So we will discuss the quote — but note that both the citation and the translation needs to be confirmed by much more reliable forces.
Look At the Actual Context
If you read closely what Bhattarai is alleged to have said, you can see that the IDOM distorts this in some extreme ways. And it does so by ignoring what is actually being discussed and debated.
Here is that context — i.e. the outlines of the real-world real-time debate in Nepal:
Nepal is one of the world’s poorest countries. It is landlocked. It has virtually no industry. And it is surrounded by two of the world’s largest countries (India and China). It is vulnerable to blockades. Its main natural resource (hydroelectric power) requires massive capital investment to exploit or export in any major way. And its lowland agricultural regions are very vulnerable to military occupation from India.
In that context, there is a debate within the Maoist party of Nepal over whether they can take a road of socialism in the current international climate (where there are no socialist countries and not yet a clear prospect of revolutionary victory within India over the short term).
They are debating whether to soon seize power, establish a peoples democracy, and take the socialist road. Or to postpone it, operate within a bourgeois democratic framework of post-monarchical Nepal, and solicit international investment in hyroelectric projects — and then, when a more favorable context develops internationally, to seize power and take the socialist road.
One argument says it would be reckless and premature to go it alone in this context. Another says that waiting may mean the chance of revolution will slip away.The painstakingly gathered revolutionary forces could be demoralized, dissipated, or even crushed by such a delay.
The debate (in short) is over whether to draw out the current “transition” period — or to cut it short by now preparing a seizure of power.
In that context, Bhattarai is associated with the line of extending the transition period. He was also a major author of the whole substage of “transition period” and the proposal for the 2006 negotiated ceasefire and political offensive.
So to be clear: what Bhattarai is arguing for is the opposite of Trotskyist Permanent Revolution. And he is not making an argument that Trotsky was right in 1920 — but rather that major changes in the last decades mean that the old communist verdict (in favor of socialism in one country) may not apply today in some universal or mechanical way, and so Nepal’s situation should be thought through (and debated) in light of current concrete conditions.
The Trotskyist theory of Permanent Revolution holds that one stage socialist revolution is the universal necessary model for overthrowing capitalism — including in poor agricultural third world countries. This theory of permanent revolution exists in sharp and direct opposition to the Maoist theory of New Democracy (two stage socialist revolution) in third world countries.
Bhattarai seems to arguing for drawing out the stages — and perhaps making some form of bourgeois democracy into its own extended indeterminate stage (preceding the transition to socialism).
Again: His argument is the opposite of Trotskyism.
So why would he quote Trotsky?
Bhattarai is raising the question of “socialism in one country” for fresh consideration.
In the Soviet Union, in the mid 1920s there was a debate over whether it was possible to take the socialist road in the former Russian empire. Trotsky said you could not, and instead needed the support of forces in the more advanced countries, and that you could not build socialism in one country. The Stalin-Bukharin forces argued that such support was not coming. The revolution in Germany had been defeated repeatedly. And so the Stalin-Bukharin forces argued that the Soviet Union had no choice but to proceed on the socialist road alone, if necessary, pending some new wave of world revolution in the future.
China and the Soviet Union were (after all) two of the very largest countries on earth — with large populations and many diverse resources for developing complex economies and for conducting credible military defense against reactionaries.
This previous has always begged the question: Is it possible to build “socialism in one country” universally? In all countries? What about very small, poor and isolated ones? Can one build socialism in just El Salvador? Or in Zimbabwe? Or Nepal? The previous answer was that they could integrate themselves into an existing socialist camp. But there is no such camp now. Is it the case that smaller countries now need regional revolutions to lay a sufficient basis for socialist transformation and economics?
And, in addition, there have been changes (as Bhattarai is arguing) in the world economy — as the circuits of production and exchange have internationalized in highly unprecedented ways. Is it possible to conceive of a socialist country today with the kind of the semi-isolated economy that was attempted in Russia and China?
In Nepal, there is for example the acute reality that they have one major national resource (hydroelectric power) and some potential for tourism — neither of which will develop if Nepal is cut off from neighbors and the world market. If Nepal take a socialist road that assumes a form of autarchy (isolation), what does that mean for its chances of advancing, and what does that mean for its internal political conditions. Is it possible to imagine a lively open society of debate if economically the whole is confined to subsistence agriculture by embargo? Or is it possible for the seizure of power in Nepal to be a kind of manifesto that draws forward positive conditions — and perhaps accelerates radical movements and changes in India?
So, in that difficult debate, Bhattarai is saying (in a provocative way) that it would be wrong to take Stalin’s 1920s position as some kind of universal verdict that applies in all places and all times. And that (ironically) he believes that some of the arguments made against socialism in one country (in the Soviet Union) may apply today to Nepal.
This is not (as the IDOM implies) some vindication of Trotsky’s historic role or core positions, but a consciously provocative way of arguing against dogmatic assumptions and mechanical thinking.
It is relatively unusual for supporters of Mao to cite Trotsky in this way (but among the Nepalis there have been references to Rosa Luxemburg, Che and Trotsky before).
But (to draw again from someone else’s post) it is certainly not the case that if “XXX is mentioning YYY, he must be a closet YYY-ist.” Similarly when Chavez mentions Trotsky, (as he occasionally does) some of these same international Trotskyist forces think that this must mean Chavez too is a closet Trotskyist. The simple-mindedness of this speaks for itself.
In fact, some in the UCPN(M) have argued to debating these urgent matters without clouding the issue by injecting Trotsky’s name. One Central Committee member Kushal Pradhan is quoted saying:
“If a simultaneous wave of revolution is necessary to sustain the revolution in each country and if such a position is in line with the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought, then there is no point in dragging Trotsky into this debate. Secondly, the idea of revolution in a single country belongs to Lenin; and Stalin created the structure of the first socialist state. Stalin might have made some mistakes, but he was a great Marxist and Leninist practitioner and his contribution should not be underestimated.” (The Red Guard, September 2009, cited by IDOM) (http://www.marxist.com/nepal-maoists-looking-for-new-strategic-direction.htm)
It is true (imho) that thinking in terms of regional revolution is quite compatable with Maoism and does not require some reference to Trotsky. Just a few historical example: In the 1970s, Mao urged the people of Indochina to view their revolutionary process as linked. Another: There was considerable debate in Central America during the 1980s that anti-imperialist revolution had to take a regional form. Or see the occasional speculations of Peru’s Maoists about regional revolution in Latin America. And, the Nepali and Indian Maoists have discussed various forms of regional cooperation for a while — with the Nepalis actually proposing a post-revolutionary regional socialist federation. There is nothing particularly or inherently Trotskyist about any of this.
This above quote from Kushal Pradhan also confirms that the IDOM (and its headline) is simply wrong in implying that Bhattarai is somehow speaking for the“Communist Party of Nepal” in all this. Bhattarai is speaking as part of a debate within the UCPN(M) — and his views on this (and certainly any quip about Trotsky-Stalin) is not some reversal of views by his party-as-a-party.
It is well known that among the Maoists, the Nepali party has had the most harshly critical stand on Stalin — in particular in their willingness to move away from assumptions of a Soviet-style one-party state. But there is no indication (zero) that they have any inclination toward the core concepts of Trotskyism. .
* * * * * * * *
At the risk of stating the obvious:
There has been a flurry (in some corners) of accepting the IDOM report at face value. And for some it seems like wishful thinking: I.e. some trotskyists see this as a vindinciation of their own defense of Trotsky’s 1920s arguments. Other political forces (who have sought to merge Trotskyism and Maoism in various ways) have seen this as a vindication of their politics. And so on.
It needs to be pointed out that people should not be so gullible or superficial. Should we really ourselves descend to the mindless world of 10-second soundbites — flung around without thought or context?
Bhattarai’s remarks were taken out of the context of an intense real-world debate (a debate in which Trotskyism and Permanent Revolution are NOT one of the significant poles).
More to the point: Revolutions produce clouds of disinformation and false claims. And too many people seem willing to pick this or that claim from the bourgeois press or other sources (in this case IDOM) — and spin a chatter of superficial speculation. Is that wise? Is it helpful? Does it help anyone understand what is actually going on?

[Random Precision]

Blah. marxist.com is far from a reliable source on anything involving other socialist organizations- the IMT has crawled up the ass of groups as diverse as the British Labour Party, the IRSP, the PSUC of Venezuela, the Eurocommunist CP of France, the Bhutto Family and Friends Party (aka PPP) in Pakistan, etc. This is probably just their excuse for an upcoming reappraisal of the CPN-M's "revolution".

The only thing I would say is that I would like to see a full translation of Bhattarai's article. Other than that I would just like to emphasize my emphatic agreement with this:


Incidentally, when the CPN(M) starts backing workers against the bosses, instead of calling for the banning of strikes, and when it adopts a Marxist analysis of the state instead of believing that it's possible to use a bourgeois republic to overturn capitalism or reconcile the interests of exploiter and exploited, then it can claim to be a Trotskyist party - as long as it acts as a constraint on class struggle, rejects the need for international revolution, and acts in accordance with the collaborationism of New Democracy, it's the same old Stalinism we've seen before.

[Honggweilo]

To conclude my former suspicions, back by the latter evidence of Comrade Alistar, i would like to say;

NOM NOM NOM! :lol:

[spiltteeth]

Blah. marxist.com is far from a reliable source on anything involving other socialist organizations- the IMT has crawled up the ass of groups as diverse as the British Labour Party, the IRSP, the PSUC of Venezuela, the Eurocommunist CP of France, the Bhutto Family and Friends Party (aka PPP) in Pakistan, etc. This is probably just their excuse for an upcoming reappraisal of the CPN-M's "revolution".

The only thing I would say is that I would like to see a full translation of Bhattarai's article. Other than that I would just like to emphasize my emphatic agreement with this:

But it's not the 'same old Stalinism.'

They are trying to be undogmatic, and try new things, it does indeed look like, as Bob points out,
that it's possible to use a bourgeois republic to overturn capitalism or reconcile the interests of exploiter and exploited is wrong, and they are reformulating themselves right now.

Unfortunately, revolution does not take place in ideal conditions, so their will always be injustice, ugliness, and mistakes.
As always, things I'm sure look alot different on the ground than from our vantage point.