Prachanda calls for world socialist revolution [Archive]

Saorsa

27th December 2009, 09:35

Dahal calls for world socialist revolution (http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=13309)

REPUBLICA

KATHMANDU, Dec 26: Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has called on all the revolutionaries of the world to be ready to lead a new world socialist revolution.

Concluding that the new wave of socialist revolution is all set to sweep across the world, Dahal has asked the revolutionaries from across the world to move ahead with great courage.

"At last, on the birth anniversary of Mao, we regard it our responsibility to call on the revolutionaries from around the world to be ready to lead the forthcoming wave of revolution," reads a statement issued by Dahal on the 116th birth anniversary of Mao Zedong.

"The new wave of world revolution has already been seen on the horizon," Dahal states, adding that the revolutionaries can achieve their goal through the political philosophy and strategy of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism.

http://www.myrepublica.com/Public/UserFiles/Image/prachandamuslims.jpg

The former rebel leader has also called on the revolutionaries of the world to move ahead to achieve their goals with courage.

Born on December 26, 1893, Mao was a Chinese revolutionary, political theorist and controversial communist leader. He died in 1976. Mao is regarded as one of the most influential figures in modern world history, and named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

IrishWorker

27th December 2009, 12:36

It’s a pity we don’t have more like Pushpa Kamal Dahal he is dead right when he says
"revolutionaries can achieve their goal through the political philosophy and strategy of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism." In reality Marxism Leninism Maoism are the ideological new kids on the block the idea of democracy has been about since 500BC and it still hasn’t been implemented properly anywhere in the world.
Communism isn’t dead this is only the beginning.
The seeds of communism have been sown solidarity to our Nepalese comrades.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg

KlÃ©ber

7th January 2010, 02:40

The Vegan Marxist

7th January 2010, 02:52

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

7th January 2010, 03:04

Well, since some Napalese moaist has called for revolution, i'll grab my AK.

the last donut of the night

7th January 2010, 03:17

omg it's suchhh a shameee that the maoist$$$$ are justttt class-collaborationistsss. w.e, theres an ICC meettinggg tomorroooo

The Vegan Marxist

7th January 2010, 04:12

omg it's suchhh a shameee that the maoist$$$$ are justttt class-collaborationistsss. w.e, theres an ICC meettinggg tomorroooo

The maoists in Nepal are far from what I would consider as 'class-collaborationists'.

EDIT: If true from what is said below, then my mistake :cool:

chegitz guevara

7th January 2010, 04:17

He was being sarcastic.

zimmerwald1915

7th January 2010, 04:20

He was being sarcastic.
Really? I thought he was being facetious.

chegitz guevara

7th January 2010, 04:23

Your face.

red cat

18th January 2010, 20:18

Was Mao really an internationalist? The PRC's brief period of an ultraleft "fuck everyone" foregn policy doesn't really count. Mao's "internationalism" amounted to supporting counterrevolutionary gangsters like Yahya Khan, Jonas Savimbi, Pol Pot, etc.

The Maoist banner has some serious stains on it. Mao's opportunist maxim about "leaning to one side" was an apology for always aligning the PRC with one or another global imperialist bloc. For all Mao said about the Chinese proletariat playing a central world historical role, he relegated his nation to the status of errand boy first for the Red imperialists, then the White imperialists when they offered a better deal. The PRC supported the right-wing Pakistani military government during the Bangladesh Liberation War, when Pakistani generals were implementing the CIA's experimental "selective genocide" policies against the Bengali population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities). The PRC under Mao entered into a tacit alliance with the US under Nixon in 1972, while North Vietnam was still being bombed. Mao's decision to ally with the US laid the groundwork for the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979.

These "stains" and the demonisation of Maoists like Pol Pot are the work of pseudo-leftist counter-revolutionaries.

Playing one reactionary power against another is a well-known Maoist tactic. And we Maoists believe that there had been counter-revolutions in both China and Vietnam before 1979.

The Liberation war of Bangladesh was actually a change of imperialist oppressors, which used the patriotic sentiment of the Bengalis. However, the Naxalbari movement identified the character of this war, expressed solidarity with the common fighters and the Maoists in Bangladesh. I think this makes China's stand clear, as there was practically no difference between the international line of the CPI(ML) and the CPC.

Yehuda Stern

18th January 2010, 20:46

red cat

18th January 2010, 22:03

Again, supporters of the Nepalese Maoists are quick to shower praise on their heroes for what they say and ignore completely their actions, which obviously are not making the world or Nepalese socialist revolution any closer.

Going for a city-insurrection in order to establish socialism in one stage and getting finished off by the Chinese, Indian and American armies within the next few weeks would not be very effective in doing that either.

Chimurenga.

18th January 2010, 22:08

KlÃ©ber

18th January 2010, 23:07

the Naxalbari movement identified the character of this war, expressed solidarity with the common fighters and the Maoists in Bangladesh. I think this makes China's stand clear, as there was practically no difference between the international line of the CPI(ML) and the CPC.
The CPI(ML) actually split over this issue. One faction wholeheartedly accepted the Chinese support of Yahya Khan and denounced the Bangladeshi national movement as controlled by Russian and Indian social imperialists; another faction stressed the imperialist nature of the US-backed Pakistani intervention, and tried to help the Bangladeshi liberation fighters. The Naxals as a whole were politically ruined by the CCP telling them to commit political suicide. It would be as if, at the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War, the CCP at Yan'an had decided not to fight against Japan, and subsequently fallen apart.

bricolage

18th January 2010, 23:22

Wow, first the call for a 'Fifth International' by President Chavez, & now this call for a world revolution. I feel the 21st century should be considered the red-century, because I haven't seen, nor read, so much support in our beliefs ever in history. I hope things turn out the way things are meant to go, & for the call, I'm all for it. If a revolution starts here in America, then I'm all up in arms ready to take action.

Ummm, really, how about the end of WW1 for one? How about that at the moment anti-capitalist politics are completely marginal in most countries in the world (especially the ones you and I live in)? I'm sorry it's nice to be optimistic but let's be realistic, we are a long way from any kind of world revolution. The only chance there is of getting remotely close if you put down your ak, start accepting there is fuck loads of work to be done and start getting involved in everyday struggles.

red cat

18th January 2010, 23:37

The CPI(ML) actually split over this issue. One faction wholeheartedly accepted the Chinese support of Yahya Khan and denounced the Bangladeshi national movement as controlled by Russian and Indian social imperialists; another faction stressed the imperialist nature of the US-backed Pakistani intervention, and tried to help the Bangladeshi liberation fighters. The Naxals as a whole were politically ruined by the CCP telling them to commit political suicide. It would be as if, at the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War, the CCP at Yan'an had decided not to fight against Japan, and subsequently fallen apart. Who were the leaders of these respective factions? And could you please explain the political suicide part?

KlÃ©ber

18th January 2010, 23:54

RadioRaheem84

18th January 2010, 23:55

About time someone call for action. What kind of efforts should we try in the West? Trust me, any variant of Marxist-Leninism is not going to influence a single soul here in the States.

Hiero

19th January 2010, 00:26

Saorsa

19th January 2010, 00:30

Again, supporters of the Nepalese Maoists are quick to shower praise on their heroes for what they say and ignore completely their actions, which obviously are not making the world or Nepalese socialist revolution any closer.

Again (as per usual), dogmatic and sectarian dismissals of the revolution in Nepal contain nothing concrete, nothing of substance, and instead reveal only how hopelessly uninformed the sectarians in question are.

Still, there are none blinder than those who choose not to see, and the opinions of the various sects in the West and their members are really quite irrelevant.

As comrade Bhattarai said;

"there is a confusion in the international community of proletarian forces, and we would like to clarify this, but I think this thing can be better done in practice than in words. Anyhow we are confident we can convince our comrades who have some doubts about our activities that we are still pursuing the path of revolution. We will complete the revolution in a new way and we have to show that revolution is possible even in the 21st century. And Nepal can be a model of revolution in the 21st century." (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/12/12/interview-with-nepals-bhattarai/)

red cat

19th January 2010, 05:55

Charu Majumdar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charu_Majumdar) (or Mazumdar) supported the Bangladeshi national struggle during the split, and he was murdered by police in 1972. Ashim Chatterjee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashim_Chatterjee) led the pro-Pakistan splitters who uncritically adopted the CCP line and compared Yahya Khan to Nordom Sihanouk; he has bounced around parliamentary politics with various opportunist groups since. And by political suicide I meant the support for Pakistan; every other left and Bengali party was for liberation.

Ashim Chatterjee practically split with the CC even before comrade CM was martyred.

The place where you have gone wrong is the CPC asking the CPI(ML) to support Pakistan and Yahya Khan. Charu Majumdar mentioned in one of his works in 1971 that some elements in the party were creating this confusion "in the name of the great Chinese Party".

In another work, comrade CM mentioned that the opposers of the party line "have read more documents of the Soviet Party than of the Chinese Communist Party". Nowhere it has been even hinted that the CPC asked the CPI(ML) to support the ruling regimes in Pakistan or Bangladesh.

The CPI(ML) actually supported the communist movement in Bangladesh, which I hold to be the correct line as against that of the Indian revisionists supporting various forms of imperialism.

KlÃ©ber

19th January 2010, 08:03

Charu Majumdar mentioned in one of his works in 1971 that some elements in the party were creating this confusion "in the name of the great Chinese Party". I don't know to what extent the CCP advised the CPI(ML), but the former took a line that it was impossible for the later to follow. You are right that there were many "pro-Chinese" groups in India, with diverse positions, but how is Maoism supposed to be a beacon to oppressed peoples when Mao's government supports a genocidal US-backed imperialist invasion?

The CPI(ML) actually supported the communist movement in BangladeshBy this you apparently mean that the CPI(ML) supported itself, since the rest of the "communist movement" supported the Bangladesh national effort. That would be great if the primary contradictory forces at the time were the CPI(ML) and the bourgeois state. However, the CPI(ML)'s position amounted to abstentionism in practice, because the primary contradiction at the time was not a communist struggle but a nationalist struggle. The rest of the Bangladeshi people were busy defending themselves against US-backed Pakistani forces, which openly aimed to behead the population through selective genocide.

I feel we must return to a suggestion of yours earlier in our disagreement, which exonerates the PRC and Maoism of any bearing on the outcome of the 1971 crisis.
The Liberation war of Bangladesh was actually a change of imperialist oppressorsIt didn't start out with Indian intervention, it started out as an actual "Liberation War" against rule from (West) Pakistan. Initially, only the right-wing chauvinists called for Indian involvement. By abstaining from such an important and primary social struggle, in which an entire people were taking part, the CPI(ML) squandered precious opportunity to influence events and left the road open to opportunist elements to welcome in the Indian Army. This confused and demoralized the workers and peasants of Bengal and India as a whole, who might have been inspired if the CPI(ML) had taken a leading role in defending the country against the US-backed Pakistani invasion, just like the CCP had won immense popularity by standing in the vanguard against Japan.

Wanted Man

19th January 2010, 08:33

Prachander is not a replica of Mao, nor Yahya Khan, Jonas Savimbi or Pol Pot.

No Maoist proposes that what Mao did was 100% correct, so your point is quite irrelavant.

Surely, Mao's actions in practice should figure in how we evaluate Maoism. Whenever these things are discussed, I've rarely seen a Maoist advance beyond the "mistakes were made" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made) excuse...

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2010, 08:50

Alastair: quite the contrary. In fact, as one can see from the replies by you and red cat, it is in fact the support for the supposedly revolutionary Nepalese Maoists that is devoid of any concrete justification. Instead, supporters of the Nepalese Maoists dismiss as "hopelessly sectarian" or "not very effective" the methods of the Bolsheviks, which, may I remind the two of you, created the only workers state in the history of the world, rather than the state-capitalist nightmares that the different Maoist movements managed to come up with during the 20th century.

Comrade Prachanda says this, comrade Bhattarai says that. All is well. Sounds, for the most part, very radical and very revolutionary. But still none of you can answer my question: if these "comrades" are such great revolutionaries, where is the Nepalese revolution? Why is Nepal still a capitalist state?

And don't give me that crap about how the Maoists need to be careful because of imperialism. If we'll wait for imperialism to accept a revolution before making it we'll never have one; the Bolsheviks, as true revolutionaries, made their revolution despite knowing full well they would face imperialist resistance (and face they did - 14 imperialist armies in fact).

They, as internationalists, relied on the working class and oppressed masses of the world to come to their defense, which they did, and that's the only reason the Bolsheviks survived the civil war.

The Maoists, as nationalists, have no such faith in either the world working class or the Nepalese working class, which is why they felt such an urge to try and temporarily ban strikes, even though the working class is by all accounts overwhelmingly revolutionary and pro-Maoist.

Hiero

19th January 2010, 10:06

Surely, Mao's actions in practice should figure in how we evaluate Maoism. Whenever these things are discussed, I've rarely seen a Maoist advance beyond the "mistakes were made" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made) excuse...

Then we begin to evaulate Maoism as a religion with real religious power. Just the way christians evaluate themselves in regards to the choices and actions of Jesus. That they wil "do as Jesus did". There are very few Maoist out that plan to "do as Mao did". Maybe diferent in the USA, like the RCP-USA whcih are ridiciliously dogmatic.

I don't think it is any Maoist party policy for instance to form normal relations with the USA (Which is all Mao and Nixon did). That was a historical failure of Mao in the context of cold war and a excesses of considering the USSR imperialist and fear of a USSR invasion (which did have some real existing reasons).

Now take the CMKP in Pakistan, it is a historical example of a pro-soviet and pro-China (Maoist) merging and taking on self criticism of their own excesses of idealogy. Now are you going to criticises them on something Mao did, when they have already reconcilled it themselves.

It becomes a strange way of criticism, to criticises an evolving ideaoogy based on a dead actions of a man in history. Notice that Mao is a support of Stalin, however he is also a critic. I think every Maoist should aim to be a criticial support of Mao.

red cat

19th January 2010, 10:28

I don't know to what extent the CCP advised the CPI(ML), but the former took a line that it was impossible for the later to follow. You are right that there were many "pro-Chinese" groups in India, with diverse positions, but how is Maoism supposed to be a beacon to oppressed peoples when Mao's government supports a genocidal US-backed imperialist invasion?

These "pro-Chinese" groups were openly denounced by China itself right after the Naxalbari movement started. The official statement said that all geunine communist elements had broken from the pesudo-communists, who were just as reactionary as the ruling Indian National Congress Party ( this historic statement is specially known for a certain metaphor that it used to describe the insurrections, and it is quite impossible here to express the full poetic beauty of the Indian words that stand for it ).

It is a common trick of revisionists to pay lip service to a revolution abroad and still deviate from the correct national line. The CPC itself exposed all these parties in India and by 1967 all Indian communists consolidated themselves into two groups that would take the first countrywide attempt to make revolution.

The invasion was imperialist, but the regime that was to come to power in Bangladesh was a lackey of imperialists as well.

By this you apparently mean that the CPI(ML) supported itself, since the rest of the "communist movement" supported the Bangladesh national effort. That would be great if the primary contradictory forces at the time were the CPI(ML) and the bourgeois state. However, the CPI(ML)'s position amounted to abstentionism in practice, because the primary contradiction at the time was not a communist struggle but a nationalist struggle. The rest of the Bangladeshi people were busy defending themselves against US-backed Pakistani forces, which openly aimed to behead the population through selective genocide.

By the "communist movement" here I referred to the revolutionary Maoist tendency. The other groups that termed themselves communists never took any initiative to make revolution.

The history of Bangladesh has been seriously distorted by the Bourgeoisie. Same as in India, the revolutionary camp in Bangladesh consisted of experienced former nationalists and anarchists too, along with early members of what was previously the truly undivided CPI and thus had some experience in actual revolutionary warfare. In many areas, armed struggle had broken out, specifically in Chittagong, the same place which had previously witnessed a temporary revolutionary government and heroic battles between the revolutionaries and the British army.

The first thing that the "liberators" did after victory was to crush this movement. By the way, such a liberation is not possible without the leadership of the proletariat. So at any place where the subjective conditions are mature enough, the primary contradiction, which is the one between the broad masses and feudalism-imperialism-comprador capitalism, boils down to a war between imperialism(which supports feudalism and comprador capitalism) and the broad masses led by a communist party.

I feel we must return to a suggestion of yours earlier in our disagreement, which exonerates the PRC and Maoism of any bearing on the outcome of the 1971 crisis.It didn't start out with Indian intervention, it started out as an actual "Liberation War" against rule from (West) Pakistan. Initially, only the right-wing chauvinists called for Indian involvement. By abstaining from such an important and primary social struggle, in which an entire people were taking part, the CPI(ML) squandered precious opportunity to influence events and left the road open to opportunist elements to welcome in the Indian Army. This confused and demoralized the workers and peasants of Bengal and India as a whole, who might have been inspired if the CPI(ML) had taken a leading role in defending the country against the US-backed Pakistani invasion, just like the CCP had won immense popularity by standing in the vanguard against Japan.

It seemed a liberation war but it really wasn't. The national bourgeoisie cannot lead any successful liberation movements now. The CPI(ML) had correctly identified the contradictions in Bangladesh.

"Demoralization" didn't really happen that way. The CPI(ML) failed not due to all this but for a different political line that had nothing to do with this.

NaxalbariZindabad

19th January 2010, 11:12

Comrade Prachanda says this, comrade Bhattarai says that. All is well. Sounds, for the most part, very radical and very revolutionary. But still none of you can answer my question: if these "comrades" are such great revolutionaries, where is the Nepalese revolution? Why is Nepal still a capitalist state?

If you and your "comrades" from the Internationalist Socialist League are such great revolutionaries, where is the Israeli revolution? Why is Israel still a capitalist state? What's your excuse?

I don't think you know better than the UCPN(M) themselves about if they are ready or not for state capture.

KlÃ©ber

19th January 2010, 19:01

It seemed a liberation war but it really wasn't. The national bourgeoisie cannot lead any successful liberation movements now.The point of intervening in the struggle would be precisely to stop the national bourgeoisie, be it the Chinese Nationalist Party or Indian National Congress, from misleading the movement. How can you say no national struggle existed, when the entire nation was under attack. The Pakistani army, advised by the CIA, entered Dhaka University and massacred the students and teachers. 300,000 to 3 million people were killed, the figures are not clear because up to 10 million people fled the country to escape from the genocide. Anybody involved in organized labor, or who had any sort of education was an "intellectual" slated to be wiped out. Hundreds of thousands of women were raped and enslaved. You skirt around the fact that the invasion was fully supported by China and used Chinese and US military equipment.

The first thing that the "liberators" did after victory was to crush this movement. By the way, such a liberation is not possible without the leadership of the proletariat.Yes, the Indian bourgeoisie won the day because the CPI(ML) failed or, was unable despite the efforts of Majumdar (in spite of the ruinous Chinese line), to play a role in the national struggle.

So at any place where the subjective conditions are mature enough, the primary contradiction, which is the one between the broad masses and feudalism-imperialism-comprador capitalism, boils down to a war between imperialism(which supports feudalism and comprador capitalism) and the broad masses led by a communist party.That's reductionism, like the ultraleft Comintern line that Mao reacted against. The CCP didn't come to power with clunky logic. Mao was willing to unite with the Nationalists in order to take advantage of them. On paper, given the 1927 atrocities by the GMD, it seems like a temporary alliance with the USA could not be much worse. However, there is a qualitative difference between the military alliance with the bourgeois nationalist GMD of 1937-46, and the tacit alliance with the imperialist USA from 1972 until the 90's. The former was conditional on the continued Japanese occupation and gave the CCP a great patriotic and international reputation, as well as territory seized through guerrilla tactics in Manchuria. In the latter case, Mao's alliance with the US imperialists and their Pakistani (and other) lackeys, won some trade links and security for China but probably enabled the privatization "reform" process as well.. not to mention it confused foreign supporters who might have seen the CCP as a beacon for world revolution had it not actively supported US imperialism in their countries.

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2010, 21:22

If I had imagined in advance the dumbest possible response to what I said, I doubt I could come up with the one by NaxalbariZindabad, and I have quite an imagination. Need I point out that Israel is an imperialist-colonialist state, where even the working class masses enjoy benefits from the state which greatly distort their consciousness? Need I stress that the ISL is just a few years old, while the Nepalese Maoists have been building their power for decades? Need I stress that, most importantly, the Nepalese working class has become highly radicalized, while the Israeli working class still supports the wars and other oppressive policies of its ruling class?

Really, all this comment shows is the main flaw in Maoist theory, that is, that a "correct line" makes the revolution rather than working class consciousness. What nonsense.

Finally, I know just as well as the Nepalese Maoists that they are ready for state capture. They have, in a way, captured their state, and are pursuing their social function in that capacity: to suppress the working class and prevent a socialist revolution.

red cat

19th January 2010, 21:50

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2010, 22:02

I can't see where I have suggested that the Nepali workers are overwhelmingly Trotskyist, so I'll just quote myself from my last post:

If I had imagined in advance the dumbest possible response to what I said, I doubt I could come up with the one by NaxalbariZindabad, and I have quite an imagination.

red cat

19th January 2010, 22:03

I can't see where I have suggested that the Nepali workers are overwhelmingly Trotskyist, so I'll just quote myself from my last post:
Don't you think that class consciousness should somehow make them choose the correct line?

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2010, 23:04

If it were that simple than a revolution would be pretty automatic; all it would take would be for objective events to push workers towards class consciousness, and then we all could, like you, simply applaud every bourgeois nationalist who proclaims himself a revolutionary socialist (Prachanda, Chavez, Morales, etc.). But it doesn't quite work like that. When workers are beginning to develop their consciousness, advanced consciousness gets mixed in with reactionary consciousness, all sorts of residue from past experience lingers, etc. That is why Lenin arrived at the conclusion that the working class needs to build a vanguard party, of the most active, advanced, class conscious workers, who in due time can serve as the memory and the leadership of the working class. Reformist and nationalist organizations undermine the ability of the vanguard party to develop and that is why they are so dangerous; they prevent the revolution and therefore assist, sometimes indirectly, sometimes by taking the role themselves, in suppressing the revolutionary workers.

NaxalbariZindabad

19th January 2010, 23:31

Really, all this comment shows is the main flaw in Maoist theory, that is, that a "correct line" makes the revolution rather than working class consciousness. What nonsense.No, you don't get it at all. You're the one who wrote something like "if Prachanda and Bhattarai are so great, why is Nepal still capitalist." My answer was to make you understand that what makes or breaks revolutions is mass support. Even if your group is certain to have figured out the right ideas for revolution, you're still going nowhere because you have no mass support. I don't know why you think to have the right strategy for Nepal when your knowledge on the situation there is based on approximate guesses. And when you obviously can't do anywhere as well in your own country.

Finally, I know just as well as the Nepalese Maoists that they are ready for state capture.No, you don't know this. You just pretend it. There's a difference. You say "the Nepalese working class has become highly radicalized". This is probably true if you mean there is a lot of political discussion, political actions. But this doesn't mean the Nepalese working class is highly radicalized for revolution. The Maoists' influence is strong in all oppressed sectors of the Nepalese society but it's not a hegemonic political current, far from it. In some interviews*, some Nepalese Maoists leaders explained they entered into peace talks because they evaluated that support for socialism was not strong enough for a red army takeover of the capital. They said there was an overwhelming progressive sentiment among the people during Jana Andolan-II, but that even if that meant visceral opposition to the King, this didn't necessarily mean support for socialist revolution.

I don't have sufficient serious information about the situation in Nepal to say if the UCPN(M) are ready for state capture or not. Probably everybody in this forum is in the same situation. People can say whatever, but regarding serious, complex and strategic stuff like this, I guess you at least have to be in the UCPN(M) Central Committee to know what you're talking about. It's not like you can find strategic political reports, mobilization plans, membership numbers, weapons reports etc. on cpnm.org :rolleyes:

*I can't find the texts in particular, if someone know the link(s), it would be nice to have it.

Yehuda Stern

19th January 2010, 23:36

Somehow, I have to believe that a party which manages to become a governing party has at least the power to start an insurrection. But it has been a couple of years now without that. So really, all your talk about how we all don't know how much power the Nepalese Maoists have is nice in theory but the facts paint a different picture.

NaxalbariZindabad

19th January 2010, 23:55

So it seems your reasoning is if they're strong enough to get elected, then they're strong enough for an armed takeover.

Alright, you can believe that if you want, but you shouldn't say these are "facts".

leninpuncher

20th January 2010, 02:56

who?

Yehuda Stern

20th January 2010, 07:59

The Russian revolution started from an insurrection in St Petersburg. Are you seriously telling me that a party that has so much mass support can't do that? Supporters of the Nepalese Maoists are seriously going to have to decide whether or not they are immensely popular or not enough even for an insurrection. Or are you one of those "revolutionaries" who believes we should wait for the majority of people in the country to support the revolution before we can have it?

NaxalbariZindabad

20th January 2010, 14:41

Yes the Nepalese Maoists are popular enough to start a civil war anytime. They could probably launch an insurrection next week if they wanted to. But the question that matters is not if they can start it, but if they can complete it. If they launch it and are crushed within a few weeks, I guess that would be a bad move.

A revolutionary movement can be both immensely popular and not ready to takeover the State. Is this the case in Nepal? Maybe, I don't know. Millions have supported the UCPN(M) in the last elections. Which fraction of these same millions is ready to kill or be killed during an insurrection? I have no idea. I don't think you do neither.

red cat

20th January 2010, 19:36

The point of intervening in the struggle would be precisely to stop the national bourgeoisie, be it the Chinese Nationalist Party or Indian National Congress, from misleading the movement. How can you say no national struggle existed, when the entire nation was under attack. The Pakistani army, advised by the CIA, entered Dhaka University and massacred the students and teachers. 300,000 to 3 million people were killed, the figures are not clear because up to 10 million people fled the country to escape from the genocide. Anybody involved in organized labor, or who had any sort of education was an "intellectual" slated to be wiped out. Hundreds of thousands of women were raped and enslaved. You skirt around the fact that the invasion was fully supported by China and used Chinese and US military equipment.

Yes, the Indian bourgeoisie won the day because the CPI(ML) failed or, was unable despite the efforts of Majumdar (in spite of the ruinous Chinese line), to play a role in the national struggle.

That's reductionism, like the ultraleft Comintern line that Mao reacted against. The CCP didn't come to power with clunky logic. Mao was willing to unite with the Nationalists in order to take advantage of them. On paper, given the 1927 atrocities by the GMD, it seems like a temporary alliance with the USA could not be much worse. However, there is a qualitative difference between the military alliance with the bourgeois nationalist GMD of 1937-46, and the tacit alliance with the imperialist USA from 1972 until the 90's. The former was conditional on the continued Japanese occupation and gave the CCP a great patriotic and international reputation, as well as territory seized through guerrilla tactics in Manchuria. In the latter case, Mao's alliance with the US imperialists and their Pakistani (and other) lackeys, won some trade links and security for China but probably enabled the privatization "reform" process as well.. not to mention it confused foreign supporters who might have seen the CCP as a beacon for world revolution had it not actively supported US imperialism in their countries.

The fact that there were mass murders does not imply that there was a mature struggle already. And even if there was, it would be the responsibility of the CPEP(ML) to form a united front with them if necessary. The line of the CPI(ML) was, correctly, to support the CPEP(ML). The CPI(ML) declared both the sides in the "liberation"-war to be reactionary, and recognized the struggle of the CPEP(ML) as the only genuine revolutionary struggle.

Evaluating the contradictions of their own country, the line of the CPEP(ML) was also to oppose both the Awami-League and the Pakistani ruling class. The CPEP(ML) had success in establishing its own base areasand PLA. Trying to exploit the contradictions between American and British imperialism, and those between the Indian and Pakistani compradors, CPC sent out material help to the Pakistani ruling class in order to make the weaker side a bit stronger. This was an attempt to stop the creation of an American base in the name of a new nation.

KlÃ©ber

21st January 2010, 09:05

the struggle of the CPEP(ML) as the only genuine revolutionary struggleThere was no such party capable of united action during the crisis; the CPEP(ML) split into 12 factions over the issue. Some rival Maoists like the EBWM/EBSP/Sarbohara Party fought bravely against both the Indian-armed Awami League and the Pakistani army. The Awami forces had Indian & Soviet aid and the Pakistanis had Chinese & US aid. To my knowledge, the PRC did not give military aid to Indian/Bengali Maoists whose defencist line contradicted their own foreign policy; only to Pakistan.

CPC sent out material help to the Pakistani ruling class in order to make the weaker side a bit stronger. This was an attempt to stop the creation of an American base in the name of a new nation.Whaa? The US was supporting Pakistan too..

Delenda Carthago

21st January 2010, 15:18

shit,the only thing we can take from this declaration is that Nepal revolutionaries have no idea whatsoever about the condition in the rest of the world,which is kind of scary for them...

Hiero

22nd January 2010, 13:15

shit,the only thing we can take from this declaration is that Nepal revolutionaries have no idea whatsoever about the condition in the rest of the world,which is kind of scary for them...

That's how it has been for the past history of the revolutionary left. Just look up any party now, and alot are off their tree with illusionary imagery of the current possibility of revolution. There is rarely an impartial analysis.

NaxalbariZindabad

22nd January 2010, 17:18

I fail to see why these two sentences by Prachanda show the UCPN(M) have a wrong understanding of the world situation.

If the revolution in Nepal succeeds, this will very likely give a huge boost to the revolutionary movement in India. And if the revolutionary movement in India gains significant momentum, this will indeed mark the start of a new wave of world revolution.

This is from a leaflet from the Kasama Project:

Imagine Nepal as a Fuse Igniting India

Nepal is such a marginalized backwater that it is hard to imagine its politics having impact outside its own borders. The country is poor, landlocked, remote and only the size of Arkansas. Its 30 million people live pressed between the world’s most populous giants, China and India.

But then consider what Nepal’s revolution might mean for a billion people in nearby India.

A new Nepal would have a long open border with some of India’s most impoverished areas. Maoist armed struggle has smoldered in those northern Indian states for decades – with roots among Indian dirt farmers. Conservative analysts sometimes speak of a “red corridor” of Maoist-Naxalite guerrilla zones running through central India, north to south, from the Nepali border toward the southern tip.

Understanding the possibilities, Nepal’s Maobadi made a bold proposal: that the revolutionary movements across South Asia should consider merging their countries after overthrowing their governments and creating a common regional federation. The Maobadi helped form the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) in 2001, which brought together ten different revolutionary groupings from throughout the region.

A future revolutionary government in Nepal will have a hard time surviving alongside a hostile India. It could face demands, crippling embargos and perhaps even invasion. But at the very same time, such a revolution could serve as an inspiration and a base area for revolution in that whole region. It could impact the world.

http://kasamaproject.org/2008/06/08/eyes-on-the-maobadi-4-reasons-nepal%E2%80%99s-revolution-matters

cyu

23rd January 2010, 01:04

When Latin America started going left while W was busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, some people might have said, well, you know... it's just those Latin Americans. When Nepal started going left, some might have said that was just an isolated pocket in the middle of nowhere. Then when certain parts of India start going left, some might say they have no hope of winning anyway. Then Greece, then Iceland and Ireland (to some extent)... maybe Europe won't be on the bleeding edge, but if the tide in Asia starts turning as much as the one in Latin America, we're going to be talking about some serious history being made.

red cat

23rd January 2010, 16:35

There was no such party capable of united action during the crisis; the CPEP(ML) split into 12 factions over the issue. Some rival Maoists like the EBWM/EBSP/Sarbohara Party fought bravely against both the Indian-armed Awami League and the Pakistani army. The Awami forces had Indian & Soviet aid and the Pakistanis had Chinese & US aid. To my knowledge, the PRC did not give military aid to Indian/Bengali Maoists whose defencist line contradicted their own foreign policy; only to Pakistan.

Whaa? The US was supporting Pakistan too..

I am not sure about the other parties you mentioned, but the CPEP(ML) had spread its armed struggle in at least twelve districts and created base areas in the districts of Khulna, Noakhali, Jessore etc. The one covering the Dumuria police station area and several other police station areas in Khulna Sadar and Satkhira subdivision was quite large. The CPEP(ML) too fought against both the Indian expansionists and the Pakistan Army.

It is true that the CPC did not give military help to the Maoists of India or Bangladesh. But it expressed solidarity and gave political guidance to the CPI(ML).

The US had given aid to Pakistan does not necessarily mean that it preferred the Pakistani compradors to the Indian ones. The US had been giving aid to Pakistan for a long time. Yet it tried to remove the ruling comprador bourgeoisie twice, in 1965 and 1968-69. Kennedy and Stevenson had come to India to encourage its expansionist policies. Later USA openly blamed Pakistan for the war. After the creation of Bangladesh, Mc.Namara visited both Delhi and Dhaka and assured the respective ruling classes of American aid.

KlÃ©ber

31st January 2010, 20:14

I am not sure about the other parties you mentioned, but the CPEP(ML) had spread its armed struggle in at least twelve districts and created base areas in the districts of Khulna, Noakhali, Jessore etc. The one covering the Dumuria police station area and several other police station areas in Khulna Sadar and Satkhira subdivision was quite large. The CPEP(ML) too fought against both the Indian expansionists and the Pakistan Army.The Pakistani Army was armed by the PRC. I never questioned the heroism of the Indian and Bengali cadres, I pointed to the contradiction of Maoists doing battle with an army armed and supported by Mao's own government.

Yet it tried to remove the ruling comprador bourgeoisie twice, in 1965 and 1968-69.The fact that the US was plotting coups in Pakistan does not mean it was trying to overthrow the Pakistani bourgeoisie. The US also facilitated the assassination of many South Vietnamese leaders, that didn't mean there was anything good about the South Vietnamese bourgeoisie.

Later USA openly blamed Pakistan for the warOf course they blamed the fall guy, it was an international fiasco once the news of genocide got out. Judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. US Navy vessels supported the invasion.

It is true that the CPC did not give military help to the Maoists of India or Bangladesh. But it expressed solidarity and gave political guidance to the CPI(ML).
Did they tell them to oppose the Pakistani invasion that they were at the time diplomatically supporting?

I Can Has Communism

1st February 2010, 02:12

I pointed to the contradiction of Maoists doing battle with an army armed and supported by Mao's own government.That makes as much sense as "The sun rises in the East, therefore the Indian Maoists are evil". On the other hand, if the CPC had actually materially aided the Maoists, you'd have shouted "Stalinist imperialism".

Also its amusing how you think all Maoists form a monolithic block. I've constantly heard people here saying stuff that basically boils down to "<Insert Soviet/Chinese/Comintern historical anecdote here>, therefore all present-day Maoists are reactionary". Complete non-sequiturs.

Uppercut

1st February 2010, 11:53

Asking for world revolution is too ambitious at this point. I admire his call for revolution and socialism, but there's a slim chance that too many countries will suddenly revolt against their government.

Oh well, it's the thought that counts, right?

red cat

3rd February 2010, 16:27

The Pakistani Army was armed by the PRC. I never questioned the heroism of the Indian and Bengali cadres, I pointed to the contradiction of Maoists doing battle with an army armed and supported by Mao's own government.

I don't see any contradiction in this. PRC wanted both the comprador regimes to have equal strength. With the line of the PPW advocated by the CPC for all Maoist parties, the weapons, supplied by China or any other country to the Pakistan army, would have surely fallen into the hands of the Maoists.

The fact that the US was plotting coups in Pakistan does not mean it was trying to overthrow the Pakistani bourgeoisie. The US also facilitated the assassination of many South Vietnamese leaders, that didn't mean there was anything good about the South Vietnamese bourgeoisie.

Of course they blamed the fall guy, it was an international fiasco once the news of genocide got out. Judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. US Navy vessels supported the invasion.

Anything "good" about a regime does not have anything to do with whether the US wants to overthrow it or not. If the US plans a coup against a regime, that certainly means that it wants to overthrow the regime.

The CPI(ML) had correctly stated earlier that there was a US - Soviet pact to encircle PRC. The PRC later responded to this in two ways; firstly by trying to set these two superpowers against each other, and secondly to exploit the contradictions between US them and British imperialism.

At that point of time, the ruling comprador bourgeoisie of Pakistan was controlled more by British imperialists. So that at a place where US interests were supreme, like in Vietnam, Pakistan refused to send its troops.

The Indian Maoists of today uphold the CPI(ML)'s stand and maintain that Mujib Ur Rehman was thoroughly backed by US imperialism. The Maoist parties of Bangladesh haven't contradicted this thesis anywhere.

Did they tell them to oppose the Pakistani invasion that they were at the time diplomatically supporting?

The CPC fully agreed with the CPI(ML)'s international line and the CPI(ML) fully upheld the CPEP(ML)'s line of fighting both the sides. Doesn't this indicate something?

chegitz guevara

4th February 2010, 13:04

KlÃ©ber

4th February 2010, 16:38

I don't see any contradiction in this. PRC wanted both the comprador regimes to have equal strength. With the line of the PPW advocated by the CPC for all Maoist parties, the weapons, supplied by China or any other country to the Pakistan army, would have surely fallen into the hands of the Maoists.That's reductionist, voluntarist logic. First of all, that didn't happen, they didn't seize the Chinese weapons, they got devastated by armies with Soviet and Chinese weapons.

Second of all, Maoists do not have magical weapon-capturing abilities. The CCP forces did not acquire large quantities of arms until 1945. Small amounts had been captured by fighters in North China since the Party deployed its soldiers there in earnest. But serious quantities were not acquired until 1945 when the Soviet Red Army staged a massive invasion of Manchuria, giving not only industrialized Manchuria but enough Japanese and Soviet war materiel to the CCP to conduct mobile warfare and finally smash the GMD.

It is very strange to expect the Indian Maoists to historically repeat what was done by the CCP with the aid of an entire Soviet army corps, when China did not give any soldiers let alone weapons to their Indian comrades, but on the contrary gave significant military aid to one of the imperialist factions.

The CPC fully agreed with the CPI(ML)'s international line and the CPI(ML) fully upheld the CPEP(ML)'s line of fighting both the sides. Doesn't this indicate something?Do you have a source for that?

Because that means the People's Republic of China was supporting two opposite sides in a war at once.

Also, "CPI(ML) fully upheld" is not true, as anyone following the discussion between us will recall. (Unless you can find a source like a newspaper article or something that proves me wrong, I admit my knowledge on this subject is flaky). From what I've read, many in the party (around Chatterjee) were very pro-Pakistan, they compared the Pakistani leadership to Nordom Sihanouk of Cambodia. These internal divisions, fostered by the Chinese line, forced Majumdar's support for the Bangladeshi struggle to be somewhat muted.

The CPI(ML) had correctly stated earlier that there was a US - Soviet pact to encircle PRC. The PRC later responded to this in two ways; firstly by trying to set these two superpowers against each other, and secondly to exploit the contradictions between US them and British imperialism.Funny how you consider Trotsky a traitor for criticizing revisionism in the USSR as was his Marxist duty, but when Mao decided he will defeat revisionism by openly siding with the US imperialists on the world stage, he was just "exploiting contradictions."

red cat

4th February 2010, 17:09

That's reductionist, voluntarist logic. First of all, that didn't happen, they didn't seize the Chinese weapons, they got devastated by armies with Soviet and Chinese weapons.

Second of all, Maoists do not have magical weapon-capturing abilities. The CCP forces did not acquire large quantities of arms until 1945. Small amounts had been captured by fighters in North China since the Party deployed its soldiers there in earnest. But serious quantities were not acquired until 1945 when the Soviet Red Army staged a massive invasion of Manchuria, giving not only industrialized Manchuria but enough Japanese and Soviet war materiel to the CCP to conduct mobile warfare and finally smash the GMD.

It is very strange to expect the Indian Maoists to historically repeat what was done by the CCP with the aid of an entire Soviet army corps, when China did not give any soldiers let alone weapons to their Indian comrades, but on the contrary gave significant military aid to one of the imperialist factions.

Firstly, the CPEP(ML) was crushed by Mujib Ur Rehman's government after Bangladesh was created. The Pakistani Army could never cause any serious damage to them.

Secondly, given that the correct line is followed, weapon-snatching capabilities of Maoists is magical...

The CPC mainly on its own strength during its own revolution. After WW2 it was aided by huge deflections from the GMD.

During the 60s and 70s China was surrounded and on the defensive. Here directly helping communists in a large neighbouring country like India could mean disaster. Anyway, now Indian Maoists hold that had the political advice of the CPC been followed at that time, the CPI(ML) would have made revolution long ago.

Do you have a source for that?

Because that means the People's Republic of China was supporting two opposite sides in a war at once.

Also, "CPI(ML) fully upheld" is not true, as anyone following the discussion between us will recall. (Unless you can find a source like a newspaper article or something that proves me wrong, I admit my knowledge on this subject is flaky). From what I've read, many in the party (around Chatterjee) were very pro-Pakistan, they compared the Pakistani leadership to Nordom Sihanouk of Cambodia. These internal divisions, fostered by the Chinese line, forced Majumdar's support for the Bangladeshi struggle to be somewhat muted.In opposition to comrade CM's line of opposing Indian invasion of East Pakistan, but denouncing both the imperialist blocs involved, two opportunist lines arose in the CPI(ML). One tried to raise support for the Awami League, the other concluded that the Pakistani leadership was equivalent to that of Narodom Sihanouk. Comrade CM opposed both these lines.

Bangladeshi Maoists still uphold this line of CM.

Funny how you consider Trotsky a traitor for criticizing revisionism in the USSR as was his Marxist duty, but when Mao decided he will defeat revisionism by openly siding with the US imperialists on the world stage, he was just "exploiting contradictions."What Trotsky criticized was socialism. But Trotskyism is denounced for its "socialism in a single stage theory", illogical emphasis on city-insurrrections and many other reasons too.

What Mao did is a commonly practiced tactic of the Maoists today. Even within a single country, they often set different groups of the ruling class against each other.

KlÃ©ber

4th February 2010, 19:10

directly helping communists in a large neighbouring country like India could mean disasterThis argument is illogical. The CCP could not arm the Maoists because it would anger India, so instead they helped the US and their Pakistani allies in an imperial conflict against India.

What Trotsky criticized was socialism.The USSR was not socialist. It was a revision of Leninism to claim that the USSR was socialist. Lenin said that if managers got paid 2,000 while workers got paid 1/10 that much, "that is state capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm)." These wage differentials were the same in 1938, when Stalin declared "socialism" had been established. But the social difference was even greater, because since 1918, a variety of luxury goods had become readily available for the Soviet elite, which were accessible only to them in special stores, restaurants, and gated communities in which ordinary workers were not allowed to shop, eat, or live. So can you please tell me how state capitalism was "socialist" from 1938-1953? It was never socialist.. to say so is Stalinist revisionism!

But Trotskyism is denounced for its "socialism in a single stage theory", illogical emphasis on city-insurrrections and many other reasons too.You seem to have Trotskyism confused with Leninism.