Former Nepal Ambassador to U.S.: What About a Military Takeover?

[NaxalbariZindabad]

Former Nepal Ambassador to U.S.: What About a Military Takeover?

Posted on kasamaproject.org (http://kasamaproject.org/) by Mike E on December 21, 2009

Take note! Help circulate this widely! The following is an open discussion of a Pinochet moment for Nepal — which would not just be a military coup but also (inevitably) the creation of a death squad regime aimed at the massive decade-old revolutionary upsurge. Such a coup would require Indian and U.S. support — and this article is an ominous “trial balloon.”

Readers outside Nepal, and especially in the U.S., should take this as a warning and a call — to step up our work, to spread knowledge of this revolution, and accelerate work to create a voice against U.S. intervention.

No coup in Nepal! U.S. Hands Off! Victory to the revolution in Nepal!

This originally appeared in My Republica (http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=mikeely.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myrepublica.com%2Fportal%2Fin dex.php%3Faction%3Dnews_details%26news_id%3D13057) , December 20, 2009



Getting Out Of The Quagmire

by Sukhdev Shah

Sukhdev Shah is Nepal’s former ambassador to the U.S — holding that post from February 2009 until May 2009. He also worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for two decades and holds U.S. citizenship.

As things have evolved over the past three years, Nepal has become a fertile ground for a military takeover of the government, independently or under the shadow of a constitutional authority. Such a possibility has been talked about in a limited circle but been forced open by a delegation of some Nepali Congress (NC) leaders who recently urged President Ram Baran Yadav to consider imposing President’s Rule to help restore peace and enable the Constituent Assembly (CA) to complete writing the constitution before the expiry of deadline in five months. This is not an incredible or inappropriate suggestion, considering the marathon obstructions staged by Maoists to prevent the CA to open for business and carry out its mandate.

Even after losing the control of government in May this year over the enigmatic issue of civilian supremacy, Maoists have not softened their stance on the president’s action that re-instated the ex-army chief after his firing by the then Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. In order to further press on this issue, Maoists have announced formation of autonomous states in several parts of the country in defiance of the wishes of government, which also seems to challenge the constitution-making authority of CA. By doing so—unilaterally deciding to divide up the country into ethnic enclaves—Maoists have started the process of a slow dissolution of the State which they eventually would turn into an all-powerful proletarian dictatorship, making the country a one-party State. This particular perception of Maoists’ ultimate objective and long-term planning is not based on fancy or conjecture but comes straight out of their public declarations that claim the virtues of ‘fusion’ of ideologies and role of peoples’ war—jana yudhha—as means to capturing the State power.

The Maoist strategy of declaring autonomous states is probably the shrewdest means adopted until now to undercut the legitimacy of Maoist-version of a bourgeoisie State and assert people’s power under its own leadership. And this strategy would be highly appealing for the grassroots, who have had no great admiration for all-powerful Kathmandu-based governments doing the dictates of generations of family dynasties and self-serving corrupt politicians. With the promises of self-rule allowed to ethnic majorities under the autonomous state system, ordinary people can see the benefits of localization of government authority, with a chance of liberating themselves from the tyrannies of centrist authoritarian rule.

Facing the challenge

Needless to say, government is at a loss on how to face up to the Maoist new challenge. The easiest course of action will be to ignore it—let them disrupt house-sitting, demonstrate on the street, put-up road blocks, spread anarchy, and declare more autonomous states, which can be viewed as no more than a symbolic defiance. However, by ignoring such threats to its authority, the government in power is unlikely to generate confidence and win sympathies, or hope that current impasse is going to end quietly and uneventfully. If Maoists continue with its present strategy of making the central government look irrelevant, indifferent, and detached from the basic functions of the State, there will be no need for them to make a forceful entry into the capital to capture power. This will come to them naturally and effortlessly—from the growing irrelevance of government at the center, aided by gradual shift of state functions to regional, autonomous states.

There should be nothing wrong with the slow dissolution and eventual disappearance of the traditional State and its replacement by a grassroots entity that is built-up from grounds up. Indeed, by forcing the dissolution of the State, Maoists would be making a bloodless coup, which would be entirely legitimate in an environment of deepening conflict, lack of direction, heightened uncertainty, and loss of control over critical government functions.

There is not much that the Maoist-less current coalition government can do to stop or even slowdown the country moving in this direction except if it chooses to force-stop the process by making a last-ditch effort and take one extreme measure, similar to the one advocated by NC leaders noted above—presidential rule backed by the army.

Given the limited options the current government has in outsmarting the Maoists, it may be attracted to do just that and the army would, most likely, choose to go along. The army’s willingness to comply with such an option can be argued in two ways, the first being that it never got to use its full force to suppress Maoist rebels during their decade-old insurgency. Reportedly, the army was held back by palace orders, which had to come to think of Maoist challenge more as a counter to political parties than a threat to itself. Second, by making civilian supremacy a battle-cry, Maoists, once in power, will seek a quick dissolution of the army, which they view as the last hurdle on the road to complete victory.

Maoists have been in sort of an undeclared war with the army for sometime now but it is becoming increasingly certain that the army will not just sit back and surrender. Rather, it may be getting ready for a showdown and final war with the Maoists—an opportunity it was looking for during king’s regime but was repeatedly denied. Army’s willingness to face up to the Maoists will be strengthened if its actions are given the legitimacy of enforcing presidential rule, which is allowed under the constitution.

A discouraging outlook

There are many ways in which the current conflict can get resolved and the much-lauded peace effort moved towards its logical conclusion—which is to get an agreement on the constitution, hold broad-based election, and usher in an era of constitutional rule that upholds people’s sovereignty. However, the outlook for consensus building and restoration of normal conditions appear increasingly dim, even non-existent. The main reason for pessimism is that communism generally, and Maoism in particular, is now a ground reality in the country, reflecting not as much the smartness of ideology Maoists have brought to bear upon the population but the utter incompetence, lack of vision, and unabashed dishonesty of the regimes that have governed Nepal for decades and centuries. In particular, all of them have failed to create glue that binds people together, encourage them to pursue a common goal, and motivate them to work for a better future, for themselves and their children.

The Maoists have taken advantage of this vacuum by creating grassroots organizations to bring the people together, partly by the force of their ideology but mostly by aligning people against the hereditary and traditional interests. Of course, the record of nine-month rule by Maoists has caused much disappointment and helped cool down enthusiasm for its long-term sustainability but they continue to remain in public consciousness as the last hope for people who consider themselves dispossessed and have not much to lose from serious anarchy and breakdown of the law and order. At least one half of the country’s population would fit this category who seem united backing up Maoists’ intention of winning over and destroying the bourgeoisie democracy.

Presidential rule or army takeover can eliminate some Maoists and subdue their backers but it will be incapable of winning the ideological war. At the same time, if the ideologically-hardened comrades in hundreds of thousands face up to the army onslaught and engage them in running battles, the situation can easily get out of hand and millions will flee to take shelter across the border in India. It is difficult to predict how India will respond to the emergence of calamitous situation across its 800-kilometer open border with Nepal, but it is hard to think that it will do nothing. Most likely, it will commit itself actively to prevent the spread of violence, including the stationing of its own peace-keeping force to keep order. Of course, such a move will have unknown consequences for Nepal’s separate and independent existence.

There is little or nothing to take a bet on how the events are going to unfold over the coming months and years, but the present cat-and-mouse maneuverings by political parties and Maoists are likely to move the conflict to center-stage for a showdown. If this comes to pass, army will have a greater chance of claiming victory, provided that the conflict involves mostly the leadership on the top. Another big uncertainty is if Nepal has the good fortune of some strongmen rising to the occasion—the likes of Korea’s Park Chung-He, Chile’s Pinochet, Indonesia’s Suharto—to take up the challenge of suppressing dissent and mobilizing the machinery of the State to focus on only one mission: Building a strong and prosperous nation.

With so many options tried over so many years to eradicate poverty and catch-up on the bandwagon of growth, opportunities and prosperity, this last option may just have a chance to succeed.

[FSL]

Another big uncertainty is if Nepal has the good fortune of some strongmen rising to the occasion—the likes of Korea’s Park Chung-He, Chile’s Pinochet, Indonesia’s Suharto—to take up the challenge of suppressing dissent and mobilizing the machinery of the State to focus on only one mission: Building a strong and prosperous nation.


Unbelievable. That he writes that and that he's free to write that.

[Saorsa]

The other thing that struck me about this article when I first came across is it is the sheer pessimisism the Nepali ruling class is showing. They're very, very worried of a Maoist insurrection, and if this article's anything to go by seem to think that the current tactics of the Maoists are moving in that direction.

They have a lot more confidence in how revolutionary the Maoists are than the Western 'left' tends to. :rolleyes:

[RedScare]

Well, his pessimism is encouraging. LEt's hope that show down doesn't come pass in that fashion, I find it hard to believe the Indians, Chinese, and US would stand idly by.

[Sendo]

Originally Posted by Naxalbari:
Another big uncertainty is if Nepal has the good fortune of some strongmen rising to the occasion—the likes of Korea’s Park Chung-He, Chile’s Pinochet, Indonesia’s Suharto—to take up the challenge of suppressing dissent and mobilizing the machinery of the State to focus on only one mission: Building a strong and prosperous nation.

****

South Korea's Park Chung-hee actually succeeded in his goals (making South Korea catch up to North Korea via state industry and export-led growth) compared to Pinochet and Suharto who drove their countries into an abyss.

Yeah, having a military dictator who built up his country for the sake of mostly domestic capitalists and left an unstable mess to be taken over by a even worse dictator, crushing civil liberties is awful. Just seemed odd to lump him in with the rest. I'd say Syngman Rhee and Chun Doo-Hwan were far worse in their extermination of leftists and far less skilled in modernizing the place.


****

On topic though, it's nice to see some talk of a coup before the attempts. Look at just about every other coup where the victims are caught off guard. At least if it happens the left will know in advance this time instead of scrambling for aid and sympathy in the aftermath a la Honduras.

[Saorsa]

^ And in Nepal, the masses have an army. The Nepal Army can't just make a move whenever it feels like it.

[cyu]

Unbelievable. That he writes that and that he's free to write that.


Capitalism sure breeds a lot of assholes.

[cyu]

South Korea's Park Chung-hee actually succeeded in his goals (making South Korea catch up to North Korea via state industry and export-led growth) compared to Pinochet and Suharto who drove their countries into an abyss.



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee#Dictatorial_Rule

"The KCIA retained broad powers of arrest and detention, and opponents were frequently tortured."

What's the torture of a few dissidents compared to being able to get my hands on the new iPhone, eh?

[Sendo]

WOW! Really! I must have missed out on that IN MY OWN POST.

"Yeah, having a military dictator who built up his country for the sake of mostly domestic capitalists and left an unstable mess to be taken over by a even worse dictator, crushing civil liberties is awful."

I was remarking that it was stupid to lump in with the IMF/WB noeliberal types, when Park was an economic nationalist and would support state-owned and run industry.

Yes! He was a brutal, right-wing dictator, BUT I think it is more important to note he makes a shitty parallel to US stooges like Pinochet or his own predecessor Syngman Rhee. But apparently, anyone who isn't in the CNT or named Noam Chomsky is equally evil and economics are irrelevant to everything else in existence! I would argue that a directly-planted, corrupt US-planted dictator from South Korea's past like Syngman Rhee would be a far better example. That's all. Now you've pissed me off, by citing wikipedia, the last place to go for consistency, proper analysis, or objectivity (as far as Leftists are concerned). I'm a history buff living in South Korea...for the 17 of the last 19 months!

I forgot the part where I said I'm glad the US invaded in the 1950s, blew the place to rubble, destroyed the left (see "massacres" under google, or better yet, a book!), helped bring about the North's collapse into a complete mess, continued to support dictatorship through the 1980s, and pressured South Korea to send its soldiers on imperial adventures in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

For the record, Park was very much AGAINST importing consumer goods (eg iPhone). So actually, the recent penetration of foreign consumer goods into Korea is only possible because of the strong domestic industry for public and private capital and heavy goods and exportable goods. And even then, I'm sure Park would have opposed the acceptance of foreign consumer goods and intellectual properties.

******

I think you should keep out of this thread, if you all you have to contribute are childish attacks on me because I said Park was not economically parallel to Pinochet and Suharto.

******

But I'm glad to see him, his authoritarianism, propaganda, anti-worker terror, and his xenophobia gone. there. Are you happy, now, cyu?

[Luisrah]

^ And in Nepal, the masses have an army. The Nepal Army can't just make a move whenever it feels like it.

I didn't know that. That's good news for me.
This probably gives security to the masses, to know that they have an army with them.

[cyu]

I'm glad to see him, his authoritarianism, propaganda, anti-worker terror, and his xenophobia gone. there. Are you happy, now, cyu?


Indeed. The point was that improving the economic life for 20%, 40%, or even 99% of the population does not excuse torture, execution, "disappearing", or assassination of people who disagree with you.



Now you've pissed me off, by citing wikipedia


If you think that sentence from wikipedia is incorrect, then tell us why it's wrong. I'm sure both I and everyone else would benefit from your contribution.

[Saorsa]

Cyu, I don't think Sendo was 'excusing' those crimes. He was just pointing out that in his opinion, that particular dictatorship was different in character to those of Pincochet and co.

[cyu]

He was just pointing out that in his opinion, that particular dictatorship was different in character to those of Pincochet and co.


I'd say all dictatorships are different in some degree and similar in others. What I don't like is the implication (intentional or not) that "economic advancement" can be used as an excuse for torture, killings, or any other bodily assaults - regardless of whether those excuses are coming from people claiming to be pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist.

I think if Sendo and I were both living in Korea under Park's rule, we'd be on the same side fighting the regime. And it may indeed be true that Park's reign wasn't nearly as terrible as Pinochet's. Still, I think it's a good thing that this thread isn't descending into making excuses for what happened in Korea.

[pranabjyoti]

I'd say all dictatorships are different in some degree and similar in others. What I don't like is the implication (intentional or not) that "economic advancement" can be used as an excuse for torture, killings, or any other bodily assaults - regardless of whether those excuses are coming from people claiming to be pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist.

I think if Sendo and I were both living in Korea under Park's rule, we'd be on the same side fighting the regime. And it may indeed be true that Park's reign wasn't nearly as terrible as Pinochet's. Still, I think it's a good thing that this thread isn't descending into making excuses for what happened in Korea.
If you can not differentiate between "bourgeoisie dictatorship" and "proletariat dictatorship", then I would sorry say that it's an waste of time for you here. You are just denying very basic fact that all kind of rulers i.e. dictators should represent a class. Which class do you support?

[cyu]

If you can not differentiate between "bourgeoisie dictatorship" and "proletariat dictatorship"


What, are you claiming South Korea under Park Chung-hee was a "proletariat dictatorship"? If not, then what are you claiming? Would you say China is a "proletariat dictatorship"? If not, then what are we even talking about?

[Josef Balin]

I'd say all dictatorships are different in some degree and similar in others. What I don't like is the implication (intentional or not) that "economic advancement" can be used as an excuse for torture, killings, or any other bodily assaults - regardless of whether those excuses are coming from people claiming to be pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist.
I'm sorry but if you got that implication at all you are incredibly dense. That implication was not given off in the slightest or hinted at, and this is reflected by no one else commenting on it.

He clearly said, in his first post, that he only disagreed because another dictator would have fit more. If English is your first language and you didn't understand this and weren't inebriated or something, then you need to sign up for some Primary School Reading Comprehension courses...

EDIT: Weird that pranabjyoti is actually defending it and either calling Park Chung-hee a proletariat or exhibiting reading comprehension worse than cyu.

[cyu]

he only disagreed because another dictator would have fit more


The thing is, though, that the writer of the original article that mentioned the three "strongmen" was a pro-capitalist and wanted to use those 3 as examples of people he would support to take over Nepal and suppress dissent. It's not like leftist suggestions that he choose 3 more right wing examples would make him change his mind - to a right winger, those 3 dictators are as "great" as any right-wing dictators.

[Lyev]

Sorry if I seem really dumb; but how does this mean that the USA are planning a military coup d'etat? In the article, or letter or whatever it is, where are the USA at all mentioned? The "good fortune of... the likes of Korea’s Park Chung-He, Chile’s Pinochet, Indonesia’s Suharto" doesn't mean that the USA are necessarily planning to instigate a CIA-backed dictatorship.

[Saorsa]

The US isn't going to just come out and announce in advance any plans it has for a coup de'tat. And of course, a coup would be carried out by domestic reactionaries. India is a bigger and more immediate threat the US, but the US still lists the Maobadi as a terrorist organisation and is still intervening, such as with the State Dept's recent comments abut the Maoists needing to be more democratic blah blah blah

What articles like these, along with the similar ones I've been posting, do is give us an idea of where the ruling class in Nepal is at, or the ruling class in India or whatever depending on the source of the article. And in both countries, they're shit scared of a Maoist takeover and are openly discussing military rule and interventions.

The Nepali govt just promoted a guy who ran a torture camp during the People's War to second in command of the army. They're buying tanks from India, which due to Nepal's rugged terrain and general lack of roads are only useful for putting on urban streets, i.e. for use against the people. Things are building up fast and we have to be ready to oppose any moves the government and imperialist forces make against the Maobadi.

[cyu]

Excerpt from http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/gaurav-the-revolution-in-nepal/

True, we had liberated 80% of the countryside and we had reached up to the gate of Kathmandu. But in order to seize countrywide power, for countrywide victory, our strength was not enough. The Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) was confined to their barracks, they could seldom come out. Whenever they were carrying out actions against our forces, they could just suddenly come out of their barracks, go 4-5 kilometres away from the barracks and encircle a village, and kill each and every person they found before returning. The next day they would propagate that they had killed a number of Maoists from the People’s Liberation Army.

Actually, they were not able to kill our force. They killed the common people. That was their practice for almost one year, since one year back. On the one hand, the RNA could not actually inflict any defeat on our People’s Liberation Army. On the other hand, we were not able to capture their big barracks. They were well fortified, especially with the help of US military experts.

[pranabjyoti]

What, are you claiming South Korea under Park Chung-hee was a "proletariat dictatorship"? If not, then what are you claiming? Would you say China is a "proletariat dictatorship"? If not, then what are we even talking about?
I just want to say that even after getting power, workers have to establish a social, which can be called as "dictatorship" by the oppressed bourgeoisie and their followers and even part of petty-bourgeoisie. The examples of proletariat dictatorship is USSR during the time of Lenin and Stalin and partly China after 1949 during the rule and leadership of Mao.

[cyu]

The examples of proletariat dictatorship is USSR during the time of Lenin and Stalin


So you're a supporter of Stalinism now? If I didn't know any better, I'd assume you were a pro-capitalist troll. If not, you still can't seriously expect any anarchists to support Stalinism, can you?

[pranabjyoti]

So you're a supporter of Stalinism now? If I didn't know any better, I'd assume you were a pro-capitalist troll. If not, you still can't seriously expect any anarchists to support Stalinism, can you?
There are huge number of revolutionary minded persons here who are supporter of Stalin. To me, in short, what Stalin had done during his leadership period is nothing but implementing principles of proletariat dictatorship. Anarchists want to reach to a classless society without dictatorship of proletariat, which is HISTORICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

[Saorsa]

He wasn't really saying he expected anarchists to adopt a pro-Stalin line. He was expressing MLM politics, in which Stalin is upheld.

[cyu]

To me, in short, what Stalin had done during his leadership period is nothing but implementing principles of proletariat dictatorship.


What does dictatorship of the proletariat mean to you? Is it just a dictatorship, where the ruling class says it's governing in the name of the working class? Is it a "dictatorship" where the class of "dictators" includes everyone in the working class? Something else? Which one do you think Stalin implemented? Which one do you think Stalinism represents? Do you think China currently has dictatorship of the proletariat? Why or why not?



Anarchists want to reach to a classless society without dictatorship of proletariat, which is HISTORICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.


Everything was without historical precedent at one point. That's basically the definition of "new" - if everything has to have historical precendence to be possible, then there would never be anything new.

[pranabjyoti]

What does dictatorship of the proletariat mean to you? Is it just a dictatorship, where the ruling class says it's governing in the name of the working class? Is it a "dictatorship" where the class of "dictators" includes everyone in the working class? Something else? Which one do you think Stalin implemented? Which one do you think Stalinism represents? Do you think China currently has dictatorship of the proletariat? Why or why not?
In a class based society, not everyone of the ruling class can be rulers. That's a very basic point. Even in USA and UK and similar kind of imperialist countries, not all the bourgeoisie have the power to rule. Even in class based societies, there are rules of few people who will represent the class. I just want to say you that without any kind of class support, there can not be any kind of "rule of a few people" in history. The problem with anarchists like you is that, you never accepted that fact.
During the years of "Stalinism", the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie class were weak enough to rule, while workers are strong. Kindly you better answer me which class do Stalin and Stalinists represent?
At present, the ruling class of China is the newly formed bourgeoisie that evolved from the petty-bourgeoisie, which were greatly profited from the revolution of 1949.

Everything was without historical precedent at one point. That's basically the definition of "new" - if everything has to have historical precendence to be possible, then there would never be anything new.
The question is whether something is "new" or not, the question is whether it is feasible in reality or not. Whether the rules of historical development approves the "new" model or not. So far, nothing "new" had been done or found, which goes against any kind of scientific law.

[cyu]

During the years of "Stalinism", the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie class were weak enough to rule, while workers are strong.

Maybe you left out a word there? What do you mean by "weak enough to rule"? Do you mean "too weak to rule" instead? And if "workers are strong" in those years, would you say that workers were the ruling class in those years?

If Stalinists during those years were ruling as "representatives of the workers" and not as a "newly formed bourgeoisie", how can you tell that "the ruling class of China is the newly formed bourgeoisie" now, but the Stalinists during those years were not? What structural aspects of the Stalinist political structure prevent the rulers from turning into the "newly formed bourgeoisie"?



the question is whether it is feasible in reality or not... So far, nothing "new" had been done or found, which goes against any kind of scientific law.


If someone told you that all communist countries eventually either develop into dictatorships or eventually revert back to capitalism like the USSR and PRC, what would you say to them? It seems you are merely trying to use the same type of "logic" that pro-capitalists regularly use to attack "communism", to attack the developments of anarchism.

[pranabjyoti]

Maybe you left out a word there? What do you mean by "weak enough to rule"? Do you mean "too weak to rule" instead? And if "workers are strong" in those years, would you say that workers were the ruling class in those years?
Certainly, no question about it.

If Stalinists during those years were ruling as "representatives of the workers" and not as a "newly formed bourgeoisie", how can you tell that "the ruling class of China is the newly formed bourgeoisie" now, but the Stalinists during those years were not? What structural aspects of the Stalinist political structure prevent the rulers from turning into the "newly formed bourgeoisie"?
After the revolution, when the old bourgeoisie had been destroyed, the source of the "newly formed bourgeoisie" is the petty-bourgeoisie class. The peasants, the shop-owners and other petty-bourgeoisie factions, that existed both in USSR and in China.
You haven't noticed that I want to say "the ruling class of today's China".

If someone told you that all communist countries eventually either develop into dictatorships or eventually revert back to capitalism like the USSR and PRC, what would you say to them? It seems you are merely trying to use the same type of "logic" that pro-capitalists regularly use to attack "communism", to attack the developments of anarchism.
If someone says so, then I will advise him to read the world history of 20th century. After WWII, how even the worst capitalist countries had become apparently socialist and some facts, which are now we used to today, arises from the socialist countries. I also ask the man that I will agree with him, if such an occurrence had been occurred in a country without any kind of imperialist intervention.

[cyu]

You haven't noticed that I want to say "the ruling class of today's China".

Right, so if today's China is ruled by a "newly formed bourgeoisie" - how can you tell that during Stalin's time, the USSR wasn't ruled by a "newly formed bourgeoisie"? What structural aspects of the Stalinist political system prevent the rulers from turning into the "newly formed bourgeoisie"?



After WWII, how even the worst capitalist countries had become apparently socialist and some facts, which are now we used to today, arises from the socialist countries.


I'd say the rise of the modern welfare state in capitalist nations was a direct response to the threat of communism - by giving a few scraps to the poor, they hoped they could blunt the harshest criticisms of capitalism made by communists, and thus continue to have a society ruled by the rich.

Still, you haven't explained why you believe the USSR and China either turned into authoritarian dictatorships or reverted to capitalism. If you want, here's mine: the problem was that they were dictatorships in the first place. As a result, they could never achieve communism, because the imbalance of power allowed the rulers to grab more material goods for themselves.

Since neither the USSR nor China achieved economic equality, they became vulnerable to the propaganda of capitalist nations. Their main mistake was that instead of choosing the democratic aspects of Western nations, they chose the capitalist aspects instead. If that wrong turn is not corrected, I doubt they'll ever become a model for future generations to follow.

[pranabjyoti]

Right, so if today's China is ruled by a "newly formed bourgeoisie" - how can you tell that during Stalin's time, the USSR wasn't ruled by a "newly formed bourgeoisie"? What structural aspects of the Stalinist political system prevent the rulers from turning into the "newly formed bourgeoisie"?
After revolution, bourgeoisie class needs time to be reborn and reorganize from the petty-bourgeoisie class. Stalin had taken the leadership in 1923, just after the death of Lenin and at that time, it is just impossible for "new bourgeoisie" to born and organize. Most were driven out of country and those who are hiding inside USSR, can't do more than sabotaging espionage.

I'd say the rise of the modern welfare state in capitalist nations was a direct response to the threat of communism - by giving a few scraps to the poor, they hoped they could blunt the harshest criticisms of capitalism made by communists, and thus continue to have a society ruled by the rich.
Well, without the existence of USSR and China, the rich even don't want share that with the poor. That too can be called an advancement of history.

Still, you haven't explained why you believe the USSR and China either turned into authoritarian dictatorships or reverted to capitalism. If you want, here's mine: the problem was that they were dictatorships in the first place. As a result, they could never achieve communism, because the imbalance of power allowed the rulers to grab more material goods for themselves.
Well, I have clearly told you before that I don't believe in phrases like "authoritarian dictatorship". I only believe in class dictatorship.

Since neither the USSR nor China achieved economic equality, they became vulnerable to the propaganda of capitalist nations. Their main mistake was that instead of choosing the democratic aspects of Western nations, they chose the capitalist aspects instead. If that wrong turn is not corrected, I doubt they'll ever become a model for future generations to follow.
What kind of democracy are you talking about? Do you think, if the "western democracy" is sufficient to overthrow capitalism, the capitalist would have tolerated that till today? The answer is "no". At least, economic equality in USSR and Mao's China was far far far greater than the capitalist countries.

[Sendo]

^

I take the Maoist line that bourgeoisie can be "reborn" by disparity in access to social services, careerism, privilege, pre-existing wealth, etc. Especially with privatization in the alter years. It's not the same as the old bourgeoisie, but takes many of its characteristics, becomes inherited so to speak, and uses rightist thinking to move politics toward capitalist restoration.

But I will stand by your defense of Stalin's regime as un-capitalist in character.

[cyu]

bourgeoisie class needs time to be reborn and reorganize from the petty-bourgeoisie class

What is your definition of a "bourgeoisie class"? If the state owns all companies and the head of state then uses his control to live in luxury, would you consider that a bourgeoisie class? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

"a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist. Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."


without the existence of USSR and China, the rich even don't want share that with the poor. That too can be called an advancement of history.

Sure, why not. However, even if something is a positive development, that doesn't mean you have to give it 100% support.


I don't believe in phrases like "authoritarian dictatorship". I only believe in class dictatorship.

So what does this mean? If a country has a leftist revolution, and there are no longer capitalists in control of any companies, then by definition there are no people playing the role of the capitalist in that country. At that point, would you consider everyone to be part of the working class? If so, what does dictatorship of the proletariat mean in that scenario?


What kind of democracy are you talking about? Do you think, if the "western democracy" is sufficient to overthrow capitalism, the capitalist would have tolerated that till today? The answer is "no".

Agreed. The type of non-capitalist democracy I'd support would be one where mass media companies are not owned and controlled by either the wealthy or by politicians. Rather, in terms of day to day running, these media companies are run democratically by their employees, while in terms of content, they are run democratically by the communities they serve. If 30% of the population want stories about marine agriculture, 25% want to hear about space exploration, and 45% worker self defense, then 30% the stories would be about marine agriculture, 25% about space exploration, and 45% about worker self defense.

As far as the anarchist slant to democracy, see http://everything2.com/title/decentralized%20democracy


economic equality in USSR and Mao's China was far far far greater than the capitalist countries.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Today, China has a 46.9 Gini coefficient. Hong Kong 43.4. Singapore 42.5. US 40.8. Russia 39.9. Israel 39.2. India 36.8. Spain 34.7. France 32.7. Germany 28.3. Finland 26.9. Norway 25.8. Sweden 25. Japan 24.9. Denmark 24.7.

Where do you think China and Russia went wrong? What structural characteristics in their old political systems do you think would have prevented the current situation?

[Saorsa]

Just to bring this thread back to Nepal, here is an essay by Baburam Bhattarai where he discusses exactly what we're discussion right now, how to avoid the bureucratic degenerations that took place in both Russia and China. And thankfully, his suggestions are more fleshed out than the usual dogmatic Maoist line of 'let's just have another cultural revolution!'

He puts forward the argument for multi-party competition within an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist framework so as to allow the masses the ability to exercise control over their leadership.

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/where-do-they-stand-the-question-of-building-new-type-of-state/

[pranabjyoti]

What is your definition of a "bourgeoisie class"? If the state owns all companies and the head of state then uses his control to live in luxury, would you consider that a bourgeoisie class? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
I have repeatedly told you that the new bourgeoisie evolved from the petty-bourgeoisie class. That class exists both in USSR and Mao's China as freelance service providers like lawyers, shop-keepers and other independent traders. Moreover, there was peasants, who apparently had been engaged in the collective farms, but remained in the their petty-bourgeoisie state in mentality.

"a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist. Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."
By capitalist way means to me "for the interest of the capitalists". Like India, after its independence, there have been a boom in state owned industries, because the capitalists of India at the time was too weak to do so.

Sure, why not. However, even if something is a positive development, that doesn't mean you have to give it 100% support.
It's not the question of your and my support, it's the question of advancement of history. That does care about any kind of support at all.

So what does this mean? If a country has a leftist revolution, and there are no longer capitalists in control of any companies, then by definition there are no people playing the role of the capitalist in that country. At that point, would you consider everyone to be part of the working class? If so, what does dictatorship of the proletariat mean in that scenario?
I have already answered this question. You repeatedly denied the existance and role of petty-bourgeoisie.

Agreed. The type of non-capitalist democracy I'd support would be one where mass media companies are not owned and controlled by either the wealthy or by politicians. Rather, in terms of day to day running, these media companies are run democratically by their employees, while in terms of content, they are run democratically by the communities they serve. If 30% of the population want stories about marine agriculture, 25% want to hear about space exploration, and 45% worker self defense, then 30% the stories would be about marine agriculture, 25% about space exploration, and 45% about worker self defense.
As far as the anarchist slant to democracy, see http://everything2.com/title/decentralized%20democracy
Mass media or means of production without any kind of class control, though there would be existence of class. Another petty-bourgeoisie utopia.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Today, China has a 46.9 Gini coefficient. Hong Kong 43.4. Singapore 42.5. US 40.8. Russia 39.9. Israel 39.2. India 36.8. Spain 34.7. France 32.7. Germany 28.3. Finland 26.9. Norway 25.8. Sweden 25. Japan 24.9. Denmark 24.7.

Where do you think China and Russia went wrong? What structural characteristics in their old political systems do you think would have prevented the current situation?
USSR went wrong during and after the WWII. Huge loss of manpower and death of huge number of old party members caused unimaginable loss to both the party and the country. In my opinion, it's actually a very bad drawback of world proletariat of that time. USSR alone had to face imperialist attacks, internal sabotages and at the end, Nazi attack. At that time, most of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America, in short the third world were in deep sleep. They hadn't been able to give proper support to USSR and which at the end lead to the unimaginable losses. If at that time, the world proletariat would be awake enough to give sufficient support to USSR, our world would be different today.
Mao himself, called the country, that he was leading as "new democracy", not even "socialist democracy". That clearly means that he knew well about the presence of petty-bourgeoisie class in China. Chinese revolution was in fact much more peasant revolution that worker revolution from the very beginning. So, there was always a high chance that China can turn into capitalism. Mao himself was aware about that fact very much and that's why he later launched "cultural revolution".

[Sendo]

Just to bring this thread back to Nepal, here is an essay by Baburam Bhattarai where he discusses exactly what we're discussion right now, how to avoid the bureucratic degenerations that took place in both Russia and China. And thankfully, his suggestions are more fleshed out than the usual dogmatic Maoist line of 'let's just have another cultural revolution!'

He puts forward the argument for multi-party competition within an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist framework so as to allow the masses the ability to exercise control over their leadership.

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/where-do-they-stand-the-question-of-building-new-type-of-state/

I see what you're saying...that "another cultural revolution!!!11" is too simplistic. I'd say make the cultural revolution part of the program at the start of state power (so it's not so chaotic and violent from building tensions...I support the GPCR but there were definitely bits of low-on-politics/high-on-vendetta...but not enough to detract overall). And the multi-party democracy is another idea. I guess the moral of the story is keep pressure on the cadres and the government and the party and the local management at all times, and be mindful of history (be esp careful of how services are doled out)

[cyu]

Just to bring this thread back to Nepal, here is an essay by Baburam Bhattarai where he discusses exactly what we're discussion right now, how to avoid the bureucratic degenerations that took place in both Russia and China. And thankfully, his suggestions are more fleshed out than the usual dogmatic Maoist line of 'let's just have another cultural revolution!'

He puts forward the argument for multi-party competition within an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist framework so as to allow the masses the ability to exercise control over their leadership.

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/where-do-they-stand-the-question-of-building-new-type-of-state/


Thanks for the link. Can you elaborate on the points you like most there? That article borders on tl;dr and I like your brief summary, but it would be nice to have a happy medium between a short summary and a major research paper =]

[cyu]

I have repeatedly told you that the new bourgeoisie evolved from the petty-bourgeoisie class. That class exists both in USSR and Mao's China as freelance service providers like lawyers, shop-keepers and other independent traders. Moreover, there was peasants, who apparently had been engaged in the collective farms, but remained in the their petty-bourgeoisie state in mentality... I have already answered this question. You repeatedly denied the existance and role of petty-bourgeoisie.

I see. So you're saying the role of the "petty-bourgeoisie" was never eliminated in Stalin's time. What role in the government do you think they had? Did they have a lot of power and it's something Stalin allowed to happen? Did they have a lot of power and Stalin was trying to prevent it? Did they not have much power at all, but it was growing, and eventually corrupted the system?

How did Stalin (or Stalinists) decide who should be placed in positions of power? Was his method something you'd support today?


By capitalist way means to me "for the interest of the capitalists". Like India, after its independence, there have been a boom in state owned industries, because the capitalists of India at the time was too weak to do so.

If there are a lot of state owned industries, but the politicians controlling them got rich and the employees remained poor, would you support it? Would you call that capitalism or something else?


It's not the question of your and my support, it's the question of advancement of history. That does care about any kind of support at all.

History advances because of human actions. If humans didn't act, then nothing would change. Maybe one random individual can't affect history all that much, but if that belief led everyone to do nothing, then you get the status quo.


USSR went wrong during and after the WWII. Huge loss of manpower and death of huge number of old party members caused unimaginable loss to both the party and the country.

Yes, the Soviet Union suffered a great deal during WWII. However, it wasn't until Gorbachev that the communists lost control (or at least the people who claimed to be communists lost control). In all the time between WWII and Gorbachev, why did the Soviet Union continue to spiral downhill? Is it because of corruption from the "petty-bourgeoisie"? Something else? Would any internal structural changes have been able to prevent this, or was it entirely out of their hands and their fate was determined by outside forces?

[Saorsa]

I dunno if I can some it up that well, always best to go to the original source... but basically he proposes multi-party competition so as to allow the masses a way to throw the ruling party out of power.

He also talks about the nature and historical role of standing armies, and proposes that Nepal not have one, and instead have a system of popular militias.

[Sendo]

I dunno if I can some it up that well, always best to go to the original source... but basically he proposes multi-party competition so as to allow the masses a way to throw the ruling party out of power.

He also talks about the nature and historical role of standing armies, and proposes that Nepal not have one, and instead have a system of popular militias.

I'd be curious to see how that would turn out. What about state paramilitaries? Republican Spain fought with militias and lost. But those militias were last minute and were directed away from guerrilla warfare. I'd like to see how the Maoist would do it differently. Would they all be loosely united Maoist militias just tied to particular localities? a national guard situation? I would be interested to know the military and revolutionary merits of these.

[pranabjyoti]

I see. So you're saying the role of the "petty-bourgeoisie" was never eliminated in Stalin's time. What role in the government do you think they had? Did they have a lot of power and it's something Stalin allowed to happen? Did they have a lot of power and Stalin was trying to prevent it? Did they not have much power at all, but it was growing, and eventually corrupted the system?
The question is NOT "in Government", but rather "in society". Peasants, the largest group among petty-bourgeoisie still exist. Stalin, with regret, wrote on an essay that "the peasants are though engaged in collective farms, but in mentality they still remain in their private peasant state". He was strongly against handover of machine tractor stations to the collective farms, but Khrushchev just done that. During WWII, the internal fight with the petty-bourgeoisie section was abandoned, because at that time the war was a much more bigger necessity. After war, due to heavy loss, the time isn't right to start the fight again. When the time has come, then Stalin was old and sick to continue. During the reign of Khrushchev, the petty-bourgeoisie had gained a lot due to the action of Khrushchev.

How did Stalin (or Stalinists) decide who should be placed in positions of power? Was his method something you'd support today?
It wasn't Stalin's method, it was as per the constitution of CPSU. When Khrushchev won by defeating Malenkov, at that time most of the old and veteran party members were dead and their place had been taken by new recruits from peasant i.e. petty-bourgeoisie class. In short, the petty- bourgeoisie class had taken over CPSU instead of working class.

If there are a lot of state owned industries, but the politicians controlling them got rich and the employees remained poor, would you support it? Would you call that capitalism or something else?
If it's the case of the industries of CPSU, I can assure you that was certainly not the case. I suggest you better read The Stalin Era by Anne Louis Strong.

History advances because of human actions. If humans didn't act, then nothing would change. Maybe one random individual can't affect history all that much, but if that belief led everyone to do nothing, then you get the status quo.
Well, but the very basic of Marxism is that the advancement of history has its own course. In short, it's a natural historical process which human will and action can not alter. Are you denying this fact?

Yes, the Soviet Union suffered a great deal during WWII. However, it wasn't until Gorbachev that the communists lost control (or at least the people who claimed to be communists lost control). In all the time between WWII and Gorbachev, why did the Soviet Union continue to spiral downhill? Is it because of corruption from the "petty-bourgeoisie"? Something else? Would any internal structural changes have been able to prevent this, or was it entirely out of their hands and their fate was determined by outside forces?
During the reign of Khrushchev, the petty-bourgeoisie class had gained control over the party and the upper part of the petty-bourgeoisie slowly turned in new bourgeoisie during the reigns Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and at last that will eventually give birth of Gorby and Yeltsin. It can also happen in any country, if after the revolution, we just left it on its own in the name of "internal democracy". In all undeveloped and underdeveloped countries, if everything was left to the people of that country in the name of "democracy", the petty-bourgeoisie will eventually rule out working class and at the end, the leadership of the petty-bourgeoisie will turn into new bourgeoisie. In my opinion, the only solution to this kind of problem is a very strong international, which will always observe activities of communist parties and have sufficient control over them. Whenever, any party will show any kind of petty-bourgeoisie tendency like revisionism, that should instantly take action against it. The petty-bourgeoisie should be kept under working class after revolution. Whenever, it has been freed in the name of "democracy", they will eventually rule out working class.

[cyu]

have a system of popular militias.

Sounds interesting - it's definitely harder to oppress an armed population than an unarmed one.

[cyu]

the very basic of Marxism is that the advancement of history has its own course. In short, it's a natural historical process which human will and action can not alter. Are you denying this fact?

Well, I don't consider myself a Marxist, so you can't expect me to take everything he said as if it were the Word of God. What I would say about fatalism like this is that it's good to make pro-capitalists believe it: in other words, if pro-capitalists are resigned to the fact that capitalism will end regardless of what they do, then it encourages them to do nothing. The less they do, the easier it is for leftists.

Other the other hand, I would say such fatalism is dangerous to spread among leftists. If leftists think capitalism will end regardless of what they do, then they may do nothing and just wait for its collapse. The more leftists that do nothing, the less likely capitalism will ever end.


It can also happen in any country, if after the revolution, we just left it on its own in the name of "internal democracy". In all undeveloped and underdeveloped countries, if everything was left to the people of that country in the name of "democracy", the petty-bourgeoisie will eventually rule out working class and at the end, the leadership of the petty-bourgeoisie will turn into new bourgeoisie.

Nope, I'd say it's simply the lack of democracy that allowed the "bourgeoisie" to return. In other words, those who are high up in the party organization are able to abuse their power, and the general population is not able to kick them out. The result is that they use their power to turn themselves into the new capitalists.

If everyone had the right to vote out or ignore their management, at any level, I doubt capitalism can return. In other words, the right to insubordination is the structural aspect of the political system that prevents the return of oppression.

[Sendo]

In all undeveloped and underdeveloped countries, if everything was left to the people of that country in the name of "democracy", the petty-bourgeoisie will eventually rule out working class and at the end, the leadership of the petty-bourgeoisie will turn into new bourgeoisie. In my opinion, the only solution to this kind of problem is a very strong international, which will always observe activities of communist parties and have sufficient control over them. Whenever, any party will show any kind of petty-bourgeoisie tendency like revisionism, that should instantly take action against it. The petty-bourgeoisie should be kept under working class after revolution. Whenever, it has been freed in the name of "democracy", they will eventually rule out working class.

I think the problem is bourgeois democracy, privately-financed campaigns, capitalist-environment, winner-take-all elections, old police and armies of the state, in the absence of soviet elections. I have faith in the people enough for democracy. I just don't think that simple "check the name" popular elections are real democracy.

I don't support Communist states because leaving power to the people is foolish--it's because it's impossible, and anyone claiming to make a socialist state so "democratic" so quickly is really just giving power to the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois democracy structure.

I wouldn't attack anarchists with arguments against full democracy, but rather arguments in favor of a strong, ideologically hostile to rightism, state.

[pranabjyoti]

Well, I don't consider myself a Marxist, so you can't expect me to take everything he said as if it were the Word of God. What I would say about fatalism like this is that it's good to make pro-capitalists believe it: in other words, if pro-capitalists are resigned to the fact that capitalism will end regardless of what they do, then it encourages them to do nothing. The less they do, the easier it is for leftists.
IT IS NOT THE WORDS OF MARX. IT IS VERY CORNERSTONE OF SOCIOLOGY, IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER EVEN THAT AS SCIENCE. I just want to ask you that have you EVER read any works of Marx or never felt any urge to do so?

Other the other hand, I would say such fatalism is dangerous to spread among leftists. If leftists think capitalism will end regardless of what they do, then they may do nothing and just wait for its collapse. The more leftists that do nothing, the less likely capitalism will ever end.
Leftists know well that their own actions are a result of the historical process. The problem with you is that you have taken everything in a too much simplistic way.

Nope, I'd say it's simply the lack of democracy that allowed the "bourgeoisie" to return. In other words, those who are high up in the party organization are able to abuse their power, and the general population is not able to kick them out. The result is that they use their power to turn themselves into the new capitalists.
You have denied Marx because "he is not God", so I don't want to waster my time and energy with you in this aspect.

If everyone had the right to vote out or ignore their management, at any level, I doubt capitalism can return. In other words, the right to insubordination is the structural aspect of the political system that prevents the return of oppression.
The very existence of capitalism and all other social structures depends on level of development of production. I better suggest you read some Marxist literature before making any comment in any such kind of subjects. BEFORE DENYING MARX FOR JUST "HE ISN'T GOD", BETTER STUDY HIM AND TRY TO PUT YOUR OWN LOGIC OVER HIS LOGIC AND CONCLUSION.

[cyu]

IT IS VERY CORNERSTONE OF SOCIOLOGY, IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER EVEN THAT AS SCIENCE.

I actually quite like sociology and would love to see more sociologists and social psychologists get involved in policy making - as long as all their proposals are made public and open to debate. However, why do you believe it's a "cornerstone of sociology"? The very fact of sociologists getting involved in policy making means those policies can push society in one direction or another.


I just want to ask you that have you EVER read any works of Marx or never felt any urge to do so? ...You have denied Marx because "he is not God", so I don't want to waster my time and energy with you in this aspect.

I've read excerpts of Marx, and also of the Bible, however, I have never read any entire book written by Marx, or Proudhon, or Rudolf Rocker, or Mises, or Adam Smith, or Keynes, or Friedman, or Darwin, or Dawkins, nor have I read the entire Bible. I'm not sure I've ever read any entire book by any politician. I have, however, once read the entire Koran (a non-Arabic version), though I can't remember much of it. Do I feel the urge to read Marx? Well, as a self-described anarcho-syndicalist, I'd at least have to put Rudolf Rocker's writings before Marx, and even then, I doubt I could possibly agree with everything Rocker wrote.

That's just a part of memetic evolution: adopt the memes you like, throw out the ones you don't, try to find better replacements, and spread the result as much as possible, while being open to revising the set of memes you're spreading.


Leftists know well that their own actions are a result of the historical process. The problem with you is that you have taken everything in a too much simplistic way.

History affects our actions and our actions affect history. What do you find is too simplistic?


The very existence of capitalism and all other social structures depends on level of development of production.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you mean economic production, then sure, it's necessary for the survival of society. Are you implying than I'm against economic production?