Nepal's Maoists -- Dengists?

[the last donut of the night]

“We will build special economic zones like China.. The special economic zones stimulated China’s economic development, and we want to learn from China. China’s experience is really helpful for us.” (1)


I have heard from a comrade that the Nepali Maoists are Dengists. He linked me to this: http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/prachanda-proposes-the-dengist-path-for-nepal-typical/


What do you think? Do you think this to be true?

[FreeFocus]

If they're talking about building capitalism up, then yes, they are Dengists. They're selling out the revolution, and particularly so to me because I don't feel that capitalism is a necessary step before socialism.

The Maoists have done some inspirational things on the ground in Nepal, but they've also done a lot of questionable things with regards to their political strategy and labor.

[RED DAVE]

The Maoists have done some inspirational things on the ground in Nepal, but they've also done a lot of questionable things with regards to their political strategy and labor.Could you specify both the "inspirational" and "questionable" things? Details are very important in this discussion.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Argh. I don't have time at the moment, but rest assured I'll post in this thread in the next couple of days.

All I'll say for now is, if you want to get an idea of what the political line of the UCPN (M) is, read these two links.

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/12/12/interview-with-nepals-bhattarai/

http://cpnmintl.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:latest-party-document&catid=35:article-national

[bayano]

Agreed. I know folks over there right now, and I get no feeling that this is how they plan to build socialism. Actually, it was part of a false series of claims made by ultra-leftists a planet away when the UCPN (M) engaged with elections.

There were too many who rushed to condemn them for that participation, typical anti-democracy elements in socialist movements that live comfortably within bourgeois democracy. The Nepal Maoists had fought with a central demand being the abolition of the monarchy (which they won) and some manifestation of democracy. When they achieved these aims, they rightly revealed that they would be consistent and principled by following what they had said. And then they won the election. And when they tried to do what needed to be done with an integration of their victorious people's army and the state military, the commanders refused. They tried to fire the military leadership, and were prevented. They were elected, in power, and the military and other sectors prevented them from carrying out the mandate of the electorate.

Now, the Maoists are a multi-tendency party (which is also really cool, I think), but all the tendencies to my recollection agreed with leaving the government after the state proved that it wasn't really about electoral democracy. I think all of this is legit. Deng didn't hold elections, but their participation in this electoral experiment was grounds for many to paint them as reactionary traitors to the cause. Hey, it's their revolution, better to watch and offer more tempered and dynamic analysis.

[red cat]

I have heard from a comrade that the Nepali Maoists are Dengists. He linked me to this: http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/prachanda-proposes-the-dengist-path-for-nepal-typical/


What do you think? Do you think this to be true?

It is wrong to make any decisive comments on them right now. Never in history have we seen the NDR in such a small country leading a wave of revolutions, that too in the absence of an already existing socialist bloc. So we still don't know what kind of strategy and tactics the UCPN(M) must use to make revolution.

There have been many criticisms and denunciations of the UCPN(M) from the revolutionary side, including one by the PCP. But I would mark the point that the CPI(Maoist), which is now the largest true CP in the world, and probably in direct contact with the UCPN(M), has criticized but not denounced them.

And by the way, no revolutionary third world CP follows the MSH line. That version of third-worldism is denounced by third-world Maoists themselves.

[Revy]

"Dengism" is a red herring. Mao supported alliances with the bourgeoisie from the beginning. He called it the "Bloc of Four Classes" (workers, peasants, petty bourgeois, and bourgeois).

[LeninBalls]

And plus, didn't only Prachanda say this? The words of Prachanda are not the official party line. The UCPN is a democratic party.

[Kléber]

Yes. All under the guidance of the workers, AKA, united front against imperialism.
By "the workers" you mean the Communist Party. If the bloc of four classes was really led by the workers, then it would accept support from "patriotic capitalists" but still advocate a proletarian revolution as the only solution to the national crisis. The CCP instead carried out a "new-democratic" (bourgeois) revolution, showing its true colors.

[Kassad]

Whatever you do, avoid most things Monkey Smashes Heaven says like the plague. They're convinced of a very anti-Marxist position that the first-world proletariat is not revolutionary, nor is it capable of carrying out a socialist revolution. Frankly, I think Maoist Third-Worldists have a good stance on global imperialism, but besides that, they're insanely dogmatic and frankly, anti-communist. It's kind of ironic how the most hardcore anti-revisionists (Hoxhaists, Maoist Third-Worldists) align with the most liberal Trotskyists (International Socialist Organization, Socialist Workers Party UK) on the classification of workers states as "state capitalist." It's pretty amusing.

Despite any of this, the Maoists in Nepal are leading a heroic struggle that probably has more potential for initiating a socialist revolution than most other movements across the globe right now. Despite some of my disagreements with it, Maoism is a very relevant ideology in the third world right now, but warping Maoist theory with third-worldist fervor can do nothing for modern socialists. Plus, I'd be surprised if the movement actually has a significant base of followers.

[Uppercut]

By "the workers" you mean the Communist Party. If the bloc of four classes was really led by the workers, then it would accept support from "patriotic capitalists" but still advocate a proletarian revolution as the only solution to the national crisis. The CCP instead carried out a "new-democratic" (bourgeois) revolution, showing its true colors.

I think that's being a bit nit-picky. After years of imperial government and the KMT, I think most Chinese wanted change, despite their class differences. Mao took advantage of this, and rallied everyone from all professions and occupations. There is nothing wrong with allying yourself with potential comrades until the overthrow of the ruling class.

Hell, who's to say that some members of the bourgeoisie wouldn't have a change of heart? It's improbable, but there's still a chance that some of them might see the errors of their way.

[Kléber]

I think that's being a bit nit-picky. After years of imperial government and the KMT, I think most Chinese wanted change, despite their class differences. Mao took advantage of this, and rallied everyone from all professions and occupations. There is nothing wrong with allying yourself with potential comrades until the overthrow of the ruling class.
No, there is nothing inherently wrong with the single act of accepting support from capitalists, but since Mao revised his politics to cater to the "patriotic capitalists," and abandoned socialist revolution in favor of the call for a coalition government with the GMD, it's no surprise that socialism was never achieved in China.


Hell, who's to say that some members of the bourgeoisie wouldn't have a change of heart? It's improbable, but there's still a chance that some of them might see the errors of their way.
Unfortunately, these bourgeois elements courted by Mao, and bourgeois ideology incorporated into the CCP, did ultimately encourage a "change of heart," but that was to restore outright market capitalism in the 1980's.

[Sendo]

From the perspective of dialectical materialism capitalism is more progressive than feudalism.

Also, they're going for the Maoist plan of communist-party controlled capital development and then socialism. Mao's plan worked pretty well considering his situation. He can't be blamed for what Deng did, since he fought hard to keep guys like him in the corner. He had near a billion people in the country and many ethnic groups and country that was less industrialized relative to the size of its population in 1949 than Russia and the other states were in 1917.

They also study Mao well and know his mistakes without denouncing the general line and without becoming a Trotskist-style offshoot from MLM the way Trosky was from ML. In any case, a Deng-era economy sure beats the backwards, theocratic feudal state they just had last decade.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

No, there is nothing inherently wrong with the single act of accepting support from capitalists, but since Mao revised his politics to cater to the "patriotic capitalists," and abandoned socialist revolution in favor of the call for a coalition government with the GMD, it's no surprise that socialism was never achieved in China.


Unfortunately, these bourgeois elements courted by Mao, and bourgeois ideology incorporated into the CCP, did ultimately encourage a "change of heart," but that was to restore outright market capitalism in the 1980's.

Can people (Kleber in this situation) grow the fuck up and stop dragging every conversation about the revolution in Nepal down to a repetitive debate about how un-Marxist they think Mao Tse-Tung was? Judge the Maobadi based on what they're saying, doing, and developing, not based on your own pre-formed verdicts about revolutionary China. These arguments are a complete cop-out from actually engaging with the content of the revolution, an a priori dismissal of their accomplishments and goals. If you do an honest investigation into their line in theory and practice and decide that they're revisionists or whatever, fine... I strongly disagree, but I can appreciate the effort and will struggle with you from that standpoint. But this is the first *potential* seizure of state power by communists in decades and many of you are content to sit by, cover your ears and eyes and shake your heads because they call themselves Maoists. Jesus fucking Christ, can you get any more dogmatic?

If there was a Trotskyist party on the verge of leading a mass revolt/strike in, let's say Austria (or any other country), I wouldn't dismiss them because Trotsky thought the USSR was a degenerated workers state. Imagine how absurd and infantile that would be of me.

[Kléber]

Who led that? The bourgeoisie?:rolleyes: Are you suggesting that the entire CCP was led by the bourgeosie? If so, what are your sources for such outlandish claims?
The CCP had its origins in the Third International but became a capitalist party. Are you denying this happened? Do you think China is governed for and by the workers?


From the perspective of dialectical materialism capitalism is more progressive than feudalism.
That doesn't mean that it is the business of socialists in any country to support or try to lead a bourgeois government, unless you're reviving the Menshevik two-stage theory.


Also, they're going for the Maoist plan of communist-party controlled capital development and then socialism. Mao's plan worked pretty well considering his situation.
Revolutions never happen in good situations, so moralizing about the difficulties being confronted is never an excuse for the backwardness or revisionism of a political organization. As a strategy for building socialism, Maoism has failed.


He can't be blamed for what Deng did, since he fought hard to keep guys like him in the corner.
The fact remains that Deng was left alive (unlike many Chinese Trotskyists) and the fact he swung into power after the fall of the Gang of Four shows how deeply in the CCP ran support for the restoration of market capitalism. The way to prevent restoration was not the ultra-left campaigns of Jiang Qing and her clique because those targeted individual rivals but left bureaucratic power and capitalistic exploitative forms intact as long as it was the clique (who arrogantly claimed to represent the proletariat when they actually derived their power from the PLA) commanding it. Instead, Mao and co. should have really learned from the masses and granted that long-unfulfilled demand of the Chinese working class: democracy. Only with democracy would have been more than "Four" people with the political power to keep the bureaucracy's restorationist ambitions in check. If Mao had really been a principled socialist, he never would have backed off from the Hundred Flowers Campaign.


He had near a billion people in the country and many ethnic groups and country that was less industrialized relative to the size of its population in 1949 than Russia and the other states were in 1917.
A quantitative difference which doesn't change the fact that Lenin stressed that the proletariat in backwards countries should never surrender its political independence to the bourgeoisie.


They also study Mao well and know his mistakes without denouncing the general line and without becoming a Trotskist-style offshoot from MLM the way Trosky was from ML.
Trotsky defended Marxism and Leninism against their revision by the Stalinist clique. He did not choose to go into exile, but was expelled through bureaucratic, anti-Leninist methods for making very reasonable criticisms of Party and Comintern policy, something any Communist had a right and moreover an obligation to do. If the general line is wrong it should be corrected regardless of how much religious reverence one has for dead politicians.


In any case, a Deng-era economy sure beats the backwards, theocratic feudal state they just had last decade.So Maoism was responsible for a great bourgeois revolution. That doesn't make Maoism any more useful for the purposes of a socialist revolution, in China or elsewhere, than the writings of Cromwell or Robespierre. What they wrote is definitely important to read, study, and learn from, but no matter how progressive they were, they didn't represent the proletariat.


Can people (Kleber in this situation) grow the fuck up and stop dragging every conversation about the revolution in Nepal down to a repetitive debate about how un-Marxist they think Mao Tse-Tung was? Judge the Maobadi based on what they're saying, doing, and developing, not based on your own pre-formed verdicts about revolutionary China. These arguments are a complete cop-out from actually engaging with the content of the revolution, an a priori dismissal of their accomplishments and goals. If you do an honest investigation into their line in theory and practice and decide that they're revisionists or whatever, fine... I strongly disagree, but I can appreciate the effort and will struggle with you from that standpoint. But this is the first *potential* seizure of state power by communists in decades and many of you are content to sit by, cover your ears and eyes and shake your heads because they call themselves Maoists. Jesus fucking Christ, can you get any more dogmatic?
When did I say anything bad about the UCPN(M)?

The discussion centers on the relation between Deng and Mao, who did not exist outside of history, so I'm afraid that it is definitely necessary to point out that the "New Democratic" revolution has never gotten further than some form of capitalism. Communist Parties have come to power recently in other countries, like Cyprus and Moldova, and they apparently weren't romantic or exotic enough to be worth blogging about. If the UCPN(M) establishes a genuine socialist democracy in which they permit political freedom for the working class, that will be great, and I will support it. It will also be a step forward from Maoism.


If there was a Trotskyist party on the verge of leading a mass revolt/strike in, let's say Austria (or any other country), I wouldn't dismiss them because Trotsky thought the USSR was a degenerated workers state. Imagine how absurd and infantile that would be of me.
And if that happened I hope you would maintain your political independence, and your criticisms of Trotsky whatever they are, rather than jump ship and prove yourself to be a mindless follower.

[Chambered Word]

In any case, a Deng-era economy sure beats the backwards, theocratic feudal state they just had last decade.

It's almost worthy of a dog shit-horse shit comparison. We aren't going to get any further if we keep praising state capitalist countries.

I'm tired right now and maybe this is a bad comparison, but I don't, for example, see people praising British colonists for helping Australia progress towards capitalism. Aboriginal deaths from genocide or peasant deaths from hasty industrialization policies; either way societies have progressed at the needless cost of thousands of lives, whether 'intentional' or not.

Apologism for Stalinism and/or Maoism on the grounds of improved living standards and societal progress inevitably comes up in alot of threads, and if we constantly apply the logic that second best is still alright we're not going to make any progress towards socialism.

[Saorsa]

Apologism for Stalinism and/or Maoism on the grounds of improved living standards and societal progress inevitably comes up in alot of threads, and if we constantly apply the logic that second best is still alright we're not going to make any progress towards socialism.

Maoism has nothing to apologise for. It's thanks to the ideological correctness of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that the people of Nepal are on the brink of revolution.

All the people who are complaining that the Maoists won't change things need to spend less time talking, and more time learning. Reading helps with this.

This is what we know they did the last time they transformed society;


The Maoists were using a strategy developed by their ideological namesake, Mao Zedong, called protracted people’s war. Under this strategy, revolutionary forces fight the government where it is weakest, winning the support of the peasants and displacing the state from the rural areas. Once the government presence has been removed, the revolutionary forces seek to organise a new society and a new form of democratic government in what is called a ‘base area’, an area where the ruling class has no power and the poor, working people are in charge. These areas provide, as the name implies, a base from which the revolution can spread to other areas, gradually displacing the government from the entire countryside, at which point the revolution can spread to the cities and defeat the weakened government. They are also experimental zones where the social transformation is actually initiated, and where the enthusiasm of the people is fanned by the practical changes in wealth, life and power. They become like beacons illuminating the darkness of the old society and attracting everyone who dreams of a new road.

This is more than just a military strategy. Communist revolution is in no way similar to a coup d’état – power is not seized on behalf of the people, it has to be seized by the people. The revolution is by its very nature about social transformation, the empowerment of the powerless and the defeat of the powerful. People’s War is a war not just against the army, the government and the state, it is a war against the vested ruling class interests that dominate society, against the rich and powerful as a class, against all the old social relations, against backward and oppressive ways of thinking, against forms of discrimination such as the oppression of women and the caste system. It is a war fought not simply between two armies and their respective generals, but by all the oppressed classes and groups in society united around a vision of a new and better society, against all the forces in the currently existing society that prevent this vision from being realised. People’s War is class war, and a particular form of class warfare for designed for the specific conditions of a country like Nepal.

So the liberated areas were not simply areas where Maoist guerrillas held power at the point of a gun. Quite the opposite is true. Even at the height of the war, the PLA (which, unlike the royal army, did not have the backing of both an established government and also foreign governments such as India, the UK and the USA) was always militarily weaker than the Royal Nepal Army, and if the RNA mustered sufficient numbers it could travel wherever it wanted to. The Maoists could not have forced their power onto the people even if they had wanted to. They succeeded because they had the support of the masses, and they had this support because unlike every other movement in Nepali history, from the Nepal Congress to the UML, the Maoists kept their promises, and they had a programme of radical change to allow for these promises to be realised.

In the liberated zones, society was radically transformed. Land was seized from the parasitic landlords and distributed amongst the peasants who worked it, according to the Maoist principle of ‘land to the tiller’. While it was never compulsory, peasants were also encouraged to pool their meagre resources and set up collective farms and communes. Collective forms of organization were particularly important because they allowed the farmers to pool their labour and carry out infrastructural activities – building roads, schools, irrigation, wells, etc. This is key to transforming the countryside in a place where “investment” will never pour in from somewhere else, in an area left to rot by the ruling powers. In many of the liberated areas, the people were so poor that there were often no landlords at all, and feudal relations took the form of loan sharks rather than land tenancy. Collective forms of organisation and production were also essential to made possible the revolutionary army in the first place. Without tractors or much farm machinery beyond what was common in mediaeval times, human labour power is essential to work the fields and gather the harvest. A peasant family quite literally could not afford to spare any of its sons or daughters under the existing social structures. Collective organisation of production allowed for much more efficient production, and ensured that the community took responsibility for making sure their family of a soldier in the People’s Liberation Army was taken care of.

The PLA fighters were expected to help the peasants with their harvests and their every day work in the fields, and this made a noticeable contrast to the soldiers of the royalist army. A village counted itself lucky if after the RNA passed through, its crops were not stolen, its men were not killed or disappeared and its women were not raped. In a country where women are horrifically oppressed, and where the feudal cultural attitudes towards women are very backward, the Maoists resisted pressure to accommodate to these ideas and made a very high priority from the start of fighting male supremacy and delivering to women the respect and equality they deserve. The People’s Liberation Army retains the highest percentage of women in its ranks out of any rebel army in the entire world, with about 40% of its fighters being female. Ideas about the role of women were transformed, with men being expected to participate in household chores, cooking, cleaning and raising children. In the PLA and the liberated zones more generally, young people challenged the tradition of arranged marriage. Marriages based on choice and love became more common, including marriages across caste lines.

The Maoists encouraged the peasants to form Revolutionary People’s Councils and Peasant Associations in the villages. The People’s Councils were an exercise in a new form of democracy, similar to the Soviets of Russia and China. Whereas in the past power had tended to lie in the hands of either some kind of traditional authority structure, often a village patriarch or something similar, or in the hands of a government bureaucrat appointed from the government offices in Kathmandu (which to poor peasants in Nepal’s rural heartland may as well be a foreign country), the new grassroots organs of power allowed for poor peasants to elect members of their own class to leading the village, and allowed for much greater representation for women, lower castes and oppressed ethnic groups. Peasant associations took charge of implementing land reform, dispossessing the landlords and organising more efficient agricultural methods to produce more food and raise living standards. Ordinary people were provided with both economic benefits and political empowerment in a new form of society that saw power flow from the bottom up. And most important of all, it became possible to see how a New Nepal could emerge from such revolutionary changes – and how, over time, the profound problems of poverty and feudal society could be overcome by the people.

[Chambered Word]

Maoism has nothing to apologise for. It's thanks to the ideological correctness of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that the people of Nepal are on the brink of revolution.

Yeah, I'm sure China's doing just fine. Sadly, we might have to watch Nepal go down the same road.

[Saorsa]

If the counter-revolution in China invalidates Maoism, the counter-revolution in Russia invalidates Trotskyism.

[red cat]

If the counter-revolution in China invalidates Maoism, the counter-revolution in Russia invalidates Trotskyism. No it doesn't. Trotskyism had nothing to do with the Russian Revolution, or any revolution so far. :lol::lol::lol:

[Chambered Word]

If the counter-revolution in China invalidates Maoism, the counter-revolution in Russia invalidates Trotskyism.

The counter-revolution in China was executed by the same party that was supposed to hold power 'for the working class'. Apart from being patronizingly anti-worker as I already pointed out in another thread it has only led to capitalist restoration.


No it doesn't. Trotskyism had nothing to do with the Russian Revolution, or any revolution so far. :lol::lol::lol:

This is just one of many reasons why I don't take a thing you say seriously, red cat.

[Kléber]

No it doesn't. Trotskyism had nothing to do with the Russian Revolution, or any revolution so far. :lol:
Oh, yeah, uh.. so who was it who planned the Red Guards' seizure of power in Petrograd, organized the Red Army and led it to victory against 14 nations and more White armies and rebellions than it would be reasonable to list? The UCPN(M) has said that Trotskyism is more relevant than Stalinism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htm

[Saorsa]

The counter-revolution in China was executed by the same party that was supposed to hold power 'for the working class'.

The counter-revolution in Russia was executed by the same party that was supposed to hold power 'for the working class'. A party, I might add, which Trotsky was a leading member of.


Apart from being patronizingly anti-worker as I already pointed out in another thread it has only led to capitalist restoration.

Link me to this thread, I'm sure it'll make for very enlightening reading.

[Chambered Word]

The counter-revolution in Russia was executed by the same party that was supposed to hold power 'for the working class'. A party, I might add, which Trotsky was a leading member of.

Until he was purged from it.


Link me to this thread, I'm sure it'll make for very enlightening reading.

My post was only brief, but you're welcome to read the thread. It's that 21 page one filled with Maoist spew from red cat, it's not hard to find. ;)

[Saorsa]

So what you're saying is, despite Trotsky holding a leading position in the CPSU, despite the fact he led the Red Army and played a leading role in the October insurrection itself, he failed to prevent the bureaucratic degeneration of the party and the revolution?

Obviously Trotskyism is a failed ideology that has nothing to offer the working class.


My post was only brief, but you're welcome to read the thread. It's that 21 page one filled with Maoist spew from red cat, it's not hard to find.

Oh right, I saw that. Your posts weren't all that memorable.

[Chambered Word]

So what you're saying is, despite Trotsky holding a leading position in the CPSU, despite the fact he led the Red Army and played a leading role in the October insurrection itself, he failed to prevent the bureaucratic degeneration of the party and the revolution?

Obviously Trotskyism is a failed ideology that has nothing to offer the working class.

Yeah, unlike Stalinism and Maoism which have produced alot of successes. This is quickly turning into the same stupid Maoist pissing contest that went on in the other thread. I might refrain from attempting to argue in the future.


Oh right, I saw that. Your posts weren't all that memorable.

In my honest opinion, they were slightly more memorable than red cat's...which isn't really memorable at all. You're right.

[Saorsa]

Yeah, unlike Stalinism and Maoism which have produced alot of successes. This is quickly turning into the same stupid Maoist pissing contest that went on in the other thread. I might refrain from attempting to argue in the future.

I was being sarcastic. You're a bit hypocritical if you complain about this turning into a Maoist-Trotskyist pissing contest, as you were the one who started making uneducated blanket dismissals of Maoism as a movement and an ideology. I was posting in this thread to discuss the Maoist-led revolution in Nepal. Perhaps we should both try and do that, hmm?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

The counter-revolution in China was executed by the same party that was supposed to hold power 'for the working class'. Apart from being patronizingly anti-worker as I already pointed out in another thread it has only led to capitalist restoration.

This thread is about Nepal, not China, yet somehow everybody's more interested in redrawing the same lines of demarcation over the same historical feuds than actually struggling over something going on NOW. If you have something to say about the UCPN(M) and the Nepali revolution, say it. Otherwise start a new thread about how much you think Maoism sucks and you can have the same unproductive shouting contest that's been had for 60 years.

It must be nice to live in a bubble where anybody that calls him/herself a Maoist automatically agrees with the entirety of the experience of revolutionary China and can thus be summarily dismissed (in your limited worldview) as an anti-proletarian traitor. Seems like a very materialist analysis of the theory and practice being developed by Prachanda, Bhattarai, Gajurel, Kiran and others that have made serious advancements on, and qualitative breaks with, inherited Maoism.

[red cat]

This is just one of many reasons why I don't take a thing you say seriously, red cat.

Well, observing that you take seriously someone who does things like claiming that a well-established theorem in mathematics is "rubbish" and then avoids defending a counter-proof, it would be an insult to me if you took my words seriously too.


Oh, yeah, uh.. so who was it who planned the Red Guards' seizure of power in Petrograd, organized the Red Army and led it to victory against 14 nations and more White armies and rebellions than it would be reasonable to list?

I am not denying Trotsky's revolutionary contributions. But had Trotsky come up with Trotskyism then, Lenin would have done in 1917 what Stalin took a decade more to do.



The UCPN(M) has said that Trotskyism is more relevant than Stalinism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htmThat is only what a single leader thinks (or at least thought for a while). The UCPN(M)'s party line is different.

[Kléber]

I am not denying Trotsky's revolutionary contributions. But had Trotsky come up with Trotskyism then, Lenin would have done in 1917 what Stalin took a decade more to do.
Lenin didn't try to purge Party members over minor differences, he upheld the principle of democratic centralism.

[Saorsa]

The UCPN(M) has said that Trotskyism is more relevant than Stalinism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...tary/index.htm

Poor wee Trots are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/10/22/on-rumors-of-nepali-maoists-trotskyism-and-socialism-in-one-country/

[Saorsa]

Lenin didn't try to purge Party members over minor differences, he upheld the principle of democratic centralism.

And in a desperate attempt to draw this thread back on topic, neither do Nepal's Maoists.

[Mather]

I have also heard that the Communist Party of India (Maoist) has become somewhat critical of the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), over the path taken by the UCPN(M).

Is this true and to what extent, as the two parties had a co-operative relationship before.

[Saorsa]

I have also heard that the Communist Party of India (Maoist) has become somewhat ciritical of the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), over the path taken by the UCPN(M).

Is this true and to what extent, as the two parties had a co-operative relationship before.

They have some tactical disagreements, but the two parties remain close and the Nepalis recently voted to formally renew their ties with the Naxalites.

[Uppercut]

socialism was never achieved in China.

What of the collectives that were established all over the country? Most of them were self-sufficient and currency was unnecessary.
And what of the barefoot doctors that were sent into the countryside to provide peasants with basic medical care?



Unfortunately, these bourgeois elements courted by Mao, and bourgeois ideology incorporated into the CCP, did ultimately encourage a "change of heart," but that was to restore outright market capitalism in the 1980's.

You can't blame Mao for the restoration of capitalism. He warned against capitalist roaders in the party, especially during the Cultural Revolution. The whole idea of the movement was to remove bourgeois individuals from power and replace most government organizations with revolutionary committees, which were a three-way alliance with red guards, honest party cadres, and the PLA. The old bueaurocracy was shook up and replaced with something more substantial and grassroots.

[Kléber]

What of the collectives that were established all over the country? Most of them were self-sufficient and currency was unnecessary.
The peasantry was ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of the cities. 14-30 million people starved during the Three Hard Years famine due to bureaucratic carelessness and a lack of democratic structures. Sexism was also pervasive in those communes, women were always paid less for the same work and the Party failed to stop it.


And what of the barefoot doctors that were sent into the countryside to provide peasants with basic medical care?
That was an innovative program but doesn't make China any more socialist than universal healthcare in Britain or France.


You can't blame Mao for the restoration of capitalism. He warned against capitalist roaders in the party, especially during the Cultural Revolution. The whole idea of the movement was to remove bourgeois individuals from power
Yes, but removing a few "capitalist roaders in positions of authority" did not challenge the fundamental contradictions which permitted restoration: inequality between the elite and the masses and the lack of democracy to provide a guaranteed proletarian check on bureaucratism. The mechanical class identification system, where classes were frozen from the early 1950's until 1976 and passed down along the male line, identified as "capitalists" people who were impoverished outcasts and had long ceased to be capitalists, while the richest and most powerful Party officials were officially positive categories like "workers" or "revolutionary cadre." So the struggle against "capitalists" during this period that you hear about in Maoist propaganda was not a struggle against real capitalists at all, largely it amounted to beating up social pariahs because of their official class status, but these were people who in fact had not had any control over the means of production in 10-20 years or more, or at all (children inherited their fathers' class background regardless of their actual class).


and replace most government organizations with revolutionary committees, which were a three-way alliance with red guards, honest party cadres, and the PLA.
It's a reflection of the faction fighting and political chaos that was going on, but it was far from a democratic representation of proletarian interests. "Red guards" were the paramilitary forces cobbled together by various party officials, often representing nothing more than clique interests. "Honest party cadres" is a pretty loaded term, basically it meant people still in favor with the central Party apparatus. And the PLA, well, they had the guns and pretty much dominated the "Cultural Revolution" from the point they were called in to when it was declared over, and represented the interest of a very limited clique of officers.


The old bueaurocracy was shook up and replaced with something more substantial and grassroots.
The bureaucracy was a bit shaken, but the Gang of Four was far from a grassroots alternative, and what replaced them was the onset of market capitalism.

[Kléber]

The bold part being the key. It became dominated by capitalist roaders after Deng.
So what class interests did Deng represent? How were capitalist interests present within the Party and Chinese society, and strong enough to make Deng their leader, if the Party and the economy were really socialist? And whether or not that challenges the claim that China was socialist, what solution can you think of to stop the rise of "capitalist roaders" if not to expand democratic freedoms like in the Hundred Flowers Campaign?

[Chambered Word]

You can't blame Mao for the restoration of capitalism. He warned against capitalist roaders in the party, especially during the Cultural Revolution. The whole idea of the movement was to remove bourgeois individuals from power and replace most government organizations with revolutionary committees, which were a three-way alliance with red guards, honest party cadres, and the PLA. The old bueaurocracy was shook up and replaced with something more substantial and grassroots.

Maybe I'm missing the whole point here, but maybe revolutions would be more successful if instead of giving capitalist roaders opportunity to gain power they gave the workers unmitigated democratic power?

To think of bourgeois elements in the party that can be purged as a finite number of officials is kind of like seeing Islamic 'terrorists' as a finite number of malicious individuals who can be completely eliminated by a so-called War on Terror. When a party has power over the working class, officials serving their own material interests seems inevitable to me.

A clearer articulation of my thoughts:


So what class interests did Deng represent? How were capitalist interests present within the Party and Chinese society, and strong enough to make Deng their leader, if the Party and the economy were really socialist? And whether or not that challenges the claim that China was socialist, what solution can you think of to stop the rise of "capitalist roaders" if not to expand democratic freedoms like in the Hundred Flowers Campaign?

[GracchusBabeuf]

what solution can you think of to stop the rise of "capitalist roaders" if not to expand democratic freedoms like in the Hundred Flowers Campaign?I don't have any magic formulas, but this is something that the party has to learn from experience. Now that we know what capitalist roaders can really do when they gain the upper hand (e.g., censoring and slandering the Cultural Revolution etc), the cultural revolution will have to be waged earlier than it was in China to root out the corrupt and capitalist elements within the party.

[Kléber]

I don't have any magic formulas, but this is something that the party has to learn from experience.
The party is not just one leader who rules alone "from experience." There were people criticizing the course of the party and they were silenced by undemocratic methods. Many loyal Communists who simply criticized bureaucratic privilege or called for democracy were imprisoned as "Trotskyists," tortured into confessing and repenting, and sometimes shot, going back to the Jiangxi Soviet era, with notable cases like Wang Shiwei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Shiwei). Often times people were struggled or purged for very minor, or understandable, disagreements with the Party center. Peng Dehuai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peng_Dehuai) for example, a hero of the Civil War and Korea, was purged for trying to correct the course that led to massive starvation in 1959. What is needed are not ultra-left-style "struggle campaigns" against the individual enemies of the ruling clique, but true democratic reforms closer to stated aims of the unfulfilled Hundred Flowers Campaign, which was canceled when workers started to get involved.


Now that we know what capitalist roaders can really do when they gain the upper hand (e.g., censoring and slandering the Cultural Revolution etc), the cultural revolution will have to be waged earlier than it was in China to root out the corrupt and capitalist elements within the party.
I already explained why there was nothing proletarian or even that great about the "Cultural Revolution." You are the one with a dogmatic formula that says: do a Cultural Revolution, beat up some officials, that will make the danger go away for a few years. But in China it failed. Democracy, on the other hand, is not a formula, it's letting the working class collectively play a role in developing the formula for moving society forward.

[red cat]

Lenin didn't try to purge Party members over minor differences, he upheld the principle of democratic centralism.

Agreed. Without Trotskyism around, differences were minor then.

[red cat]

Kleber:


"Trotskyism" only existed as a separate tendency after Trotsky and people who agreed with his positions were expelled from the CPSU and Comintern-affiliated parties, and even then, the International Left Opposition continued to consider itself an expelled faction of the Comintern until that body effectively abandoned world revolution with the Popular Front in 1934.

I disagree, but let us move this to some other thread.

[the last donut of the night]

I'm so glad that I, the OP, have started yet another dick-measuring contest between Trotskyists and Maoists.

[Chambered Word]

I'm so glad that I, the OP, have started yet another dick-measuring contest between Trotskyists and Maoists.

Kleber seems to be offering constructive criticism as he often does, and I've attempted to do a bit of the same too. It hasn't really degenerated into dick-measuring IMO.


Agreed. Without Trotskyism around, differences were minor then. Can we at least cut out the one-liners lest we actually do find ourselves 'comparing sizes'? :rolleyes:

If a mod wants to split this thread, I'm fine with that.

[Uppercut]

The peasantry was ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of the cities.
How so? A peasant's vote counted just as much as a worker's vote. And as I already stated, most of these collectives were self-sufficient and money was mostly abolished.

14-30 million people starved during the Three Hard Years famine due to bureaucratic carelessness and a lack of democratic structures.

Bureaucratic carelessness? I agree there was corruption in their system, and this led to local cadres sending unrealistically high production stats to the central planning industry, leading to famine. It was a tragedy, but it could've happened just as easily under a Trotskyite regime.
And the collectives were very democratic and egalitarian in nature. I spoke to a foreign-exhange student last year that moved here from China. Her parents lived on an old collective for years (I forget the name exactly) and she told me all the stories they told her about their life. From what she described, it was very free. Everybody happily worked for the common good, and there were self-criticism meetings to encourage self-improvement and unity.


Sexism was also pervasive in those communes, women were always paid less for the same work and the Party failed to stop it.

This is somewhat true. However, women's status was on the rise in during the Mao Era. There were still problems left over from thousands of years of feudal society, however. I'm going to deny this.

[Kléber]

How so? A peasant's vote counted just as much as a worker's vote. And as I already stated, most of these collectives were self-sufficient and money was mostly abolished.
No it wasn't, they got paid based on the work-point system. And a vote was no more empowering for the working class than municipal elections in any bourgeois state; behind the veil of limited democratic freedoms there was an effective dictatorship by the central Party clique which crushed as "Rightist" or "Trotskyist" any dissent which articulated coherent demands for democratization or social equality.


I agree there was corruption in their system, and this led to local cadres sending unrealistically high production stats to the central planning industry, leading to famine. It was a tragedy, but it could've happened just as easily under a Trotskyite regime.
The famine could not have happened on that scale if there was political freedom for the working class, or even democracy within the Party. Peng Dehuai was a very distinguished CCP member and he was totally justified in criticizing the policies which caused the famine. He was purged simply for being principled enough to criticize a wrong-headed policy, something which should be the duty of every communist.


This is somewhat true. However, women's status was on the rise in during the Mao Era. There were still problems left over from thousands of years of feudal society, however. I'm going to deny this.
Women gained from the marriage reform in 1950, but even that did not give them total freedom to divorce as local Party committees could and did still refuse divorces and people were not allowed to change residences under the "hukou" system so a woman who divorced was still subject to immense social stigma. Fundamental economic inequalities in pay persisted; even after women won the right to receive full work points (whereas many were initially limited to making 8/10 or 7/10 of what men did), certain occupations, mostly agricultural labor, were feminized while the men who dominated local Party-state structures ensured that males continued to receive a higher degree of remuneration for their labor.

Also, women and men were treated differently by the state class label system. Children inherited class labels from their fathers regardless of their actual social class. Men were stuck in their class from the early 1950's until 1976 when the system was abolished altogether. Women could, however, change class by marrying into a different family, which encouraged the bourgeois model where women were raised as potential spouses in order to "marry up" into a better class label and thus aid the family. This aspect of the state system, which also shot back and forth between whether it wanted women to seek work, have children, or be "modern scientific socialist housewives," was fundamentally discriminatory.

[FSL]

Lenin didn't try to purge Party members over minor differences, he upheld the principle of democratic centralism.


Except that one time when one quarter of the membership was kicked out. Or when he called for Kamenev and Zinoviev to be expelled.

[Kléber]

And were Kamenev and Zinoviev then tortured until they confessed to ludicrous crimes, and shot along with 2/3 of the Party Congress?

[Sendo]

It's almost worthy of a dog shit-horse shit comparison. We aren't going to get any further if we keep praising state capitalist countries.

I'm tired right now and maybe this is a bad comparison, but I don't, for example, see people praising British colonists for helping Australia progress towards capitalism. Aboriginal deaths from genocide or peasant deaths from hasty industrialization policies; either way societies have progressed at the needless cost of thousands of lives, whether 'intentional' or not.

Are you serious? How on Earth does an imperialist invader heaving capitalism upon natives have anything to do with the evolution from feudal serfdom to capitalism? I'm much happier being a wage slave who can move himself than a peasant tied to his land by military force. Please let me know the thousands of Chinese who died under imperialist Chinese hands in the transition from 1924-2010.

If all economic systems which aren't "socialist" enough for you were different flavors of shit, then you would be just as happy being a slave in 1790 Alabama as you would be waiting tables in 1790 Alabama or 1996 Sweden, wherever, whenever.

And the proper term is "a lot", not "alot", we don't see "acommunist" or "ahouse".

******
To all:

As for Deng taking over, he did so at a time when Mao was failing in health and took a back seat and the attacks on corruption and the Red Guards and everything hadn't attacked or exposed the upper echelons of the party. A lot of the struggle was misdirected at individuals posed much less of a threat. A major tactical blunder I won't deny.

But Mao accomplished much more than Trotsky ever did and he doesn't have to rewrite history to put himself in the co-pilot's seat, nor did he seize power. He won it during the Long March by proving his brilliance in meetings, speeches, and in the field, whereas the other CPC leaders submitted to him, sponsored him, or died in their adventurism.

[red cat]

Let's talk about Nepal here. Ongoing revolution => Easy to verify things => Good for Maoists, bad for Trots.

[FSL]

And were Kamenev and Zinoviev then tortured until they confessed to ludicrous crimes, and shot along with 2/3 of the Party Congress?


Unfortunately, they weren't. They got what was coming to them later on though.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Let's talk about Nepal here. Ongoing revolution => Easy to verify things => Good for Maoists, bad for Trots.

Correction: Good for the oppressed and exploited of Nepal, inconvenient for Trots.

[Sendo]

Well the Naxalites are the Nepali Maoists are renewed allies, are carrying out more revolution than anyone else in the area, and have not privatized state infrastructure nor have they made academia an anti-vocational, elitist enterprise, nor have they attempted.

UCPN-M =/= Dengist. Done. Repeating mantras about this not being classless communism, nor zombie Lenin's nor ghost Trotsky's personal project can stop it.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

The question we should be looking at here is whether Nepal can break out of the joint problems of dependency and under-development.

What strategy can the Nepali comrades adopt to minimize the penetration of foreign capital and maximize the development of productive forces: that is what we should be looking into.

I'd like to hear some comrades out on this. Frankly, we on the Left don't have a clearly-mapped out development strategy for any Third-World country where a popular democratic revolution (like the one in Nepal) is taking place.

[pranabjyoti]

And were Kamenev and Zinoviev then tortured until they confessed to ludicrous crimes, and shot along with 2/3 of the Party Congress?
The trial of Zinoviev, Kamenev and other traitors were done in open court, before the eyes of NON COMMUNIST and neutral intellectuals and officials. First and foremost, Joseph E Davis, US Ambassador to USSR that time. He later wrote a book on the Moscow trial. There were other eye witnesses of the whole trial; like Foyeth Vangar, German writer and Dadly Collard, lawyer and Russia expert from UK. I suggest you read the book by Joseph E Davis.

[Kléber]

If all economic systems which aren't "socialist" enough for you were different flavors of shit, then you would be just as happy being a slave in 1790 Alabama as you would be waiting tables in 1790[sic] Alabama or 1996 Sweden, wherever, whenever.

And the proper term is "a lot", not "alot", we don't see "acommunist" or "ahouse".
So, because a black person waiting tables in 1970 has a better life than they would have had as a slave in 1790, anyone who criticizes workplace discrimination and pay inequality in the 1970's is an annoying Trot counter-revolutionary who needs to shut the fuck up and get on their knees and worship the great achievements of United States Socialism and Washingtonism-Lincolnism-Richard Nixon Thought?

By renovating the Menshevik two-stage theory you retreat from Lenin's contributions to the workers' movement.


As for Deng taking over, he did so at a time when Mao was failing in health and took a back seat and the attacks on corruption and the Red Guards and everything hadn't attacked or exposed the upper echelons of the party. A lot of the struggle was misdirected at individuals posed much less of a threat. A major tactical blunder I won't deny.

But Mao accomplished much more than Trotsky ever did and he doesn't have to rewrite history to put himself in the co-pilot's seat, nor did he seize power. He won it during the Long March by proving his brilliance in meetings, speeches, and in the field, whereas the other CPC leaders submitted to him, sponsored him, or died in their adventurism.
Mao and Trotsky were both military geniuses and every revolutionary should study the works of both with great detail. But after power, Mao had a comfortable life and died a natural death while the workers never gained their political freedom, Trotsky on the other hand put up a principled struggle against the bureaucracy and gave his life for it.


The question we should be looking at here is whether Nepal can break out of the joint problems of dependency and under-development.

What strategy can the Nepali comrades adopt to minimize the penetration of foreign capital and maximize the development of productive forces: that is what we should be looking into.

I'd like to hear some comrades out on this. Frankly, we on the Left don't have a clearly-mapped out development strategy for any Third-World country where a popular democratic revolution (like the one in Nepal) is taking place.
Actually, Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao were all explicitly concerned with the socialist revolution in backwards oppressed countries. A bourgeois development plan with SEZ's catering to foreign investment is alien to all of them.

The solution is not to devote ourselves to a "popular democratic" revolution, which is just a euphemism for a bourgeois revolution, but to instead organize a proletarian revolution. The Nepali proletariat alone can and must stand up and take the lead, regardless of conditions.


The trial of Zinoviev, Kamenev and other traitors were done in open court, before the eyes of NON COMMUNIST and neutral intellectuals and officials. First and foremost, Joseph E Davis, US Ambassador to USSR that time. He later wrote a book on the Moscow trial. There were other eye witnesses of the whole trial; like Foyeth Vangar, German writer and Dadly Collard, lawyer and Russia expert from UK. I suggest you read the book by Joseph E Davis.
The show trials were completely illegitimate. The approval of a few handpicked respectable representatives (who were diplomatically obliged to support the trials) is meaningless. Why would the leaders who carried out the 1917 revolution betray it to British and Nazi imperialism? I would recommend instead 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror (http://books.google.com/books?id=PZ92ueBx7MQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1937+stalin%27s+year+of+terror&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false), based on archival evidence, not the personal interests of a US imperialist diplomat.

[pranabjyoti]

The show trials were completely illegitimate. The approval of a few handpicked respectable representatives (who were diplomatically obliged to support the trials) is meaningless. Why would the leaders who carried out the 1917 revolution betray it to British and Nazi imperialism? I would recommend instead 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror (http://books.google.com/books?id=PZ92ueBx7MQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1937+stalin%27s+year+of+terror&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false), based on archival evidence, not the personal interests of a US imperialist diplomat.
Those people weren't bound to Stalin or USSR in any manner. Problem with you is that you just wipe out evidences against you and put forward flimsy archival evidence. I want to know when this book was written and by whom. There are huge stack of BS floating around, both from imperialist and also from the revisionist and pseudo-leftist camps regarding Stalin.
The US "imperialist" diplomat is an eyewitness of the whole process and others too, who were not obliged to Stalin or CPSU at that time.

[Uppercut]

I'm done arguing.

[Kléber]

Those people weren't bound to Stalin or USSR in any manner. Problem with you is that you just wipe out evidences against you and put forward flimsy archival evidence. I want to know when this book was written and by whom. There are huge stack of BS floating around, both from imperialist and also from the revisionist and pseudo-leftist camps regarding Stalin.
The US "imperialist" diplomat is an eyewitness of the whole process and others too, who were not obliged to Stalin or CPSU at that time.
The guy who wrote that book was not affiliated with any groups to my knowledge. Judge the purges for yourself. If you read about the Russian Revolution, practically everyone who was involved with leading it was executed from 1936-39. Lenin's entire surviving Central Committee, and most of the Society of Political Prisoners, could not have been guilty of those crimes. There is no way that the people who carried out the revolution all secretly plotted with British, German, Japanese, etc. imperialism to bring it down. Two-thirds of the "Congress of the Condemned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_%28Bolsheviks%29)" is a shocking proportion.

[pranabjyoti]

The guy who wrote that book was not affiliated with any groups to my knowledge. Judge the purges for yourself. If you read about the Russian Revolution, practically everyone who was involved with leading it was executed from 1936-39. Lenin's entire surviving Central Committee, and most of the Society of Political Prisoners, could not have been guilty of those crimes. There is no way that the people who carried out the revolution all secretly plotted with British, German, Japanese, etc. imperialism to bring it down. Two-thirds of the "Congress of the Condemned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_%28Bolsheviks%29)" is a shocking proportion.
Certainly not. But it can be possible that they have been affected by "petty-bourgeoisie class mentality" virus and have to be eliminated to secure "dictatorship of the proletariat". Just remember, Khrushchev too is a party member during the time of Stalin, but we all know his role later. I hope you know there is always conflict going on inside a communist party, class struggle between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. During the revolution, when there was a united front against bourgeoisie and imperialist intervention, those two classes together make a front, but the contradiction still remained and after the revolution, this contradiction erupts. That too happened in case of China and CPC, the mentor of Deng Xiao Ping was Zhou En Lei, one of the close assistants of Mao during and after revolution.
Actually, as per Marxian theory, nothing in this universe is without contradiction and without contradiction, there would be no change or progress. How can a communist party itself be without contradiction and thus violating the basic theory, on which it had been based? Until and unless, the petty-bourgeoisie class can be eliminated totally and the classless society can be achieved, there would be contradiction (in fact class struggle between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat) and we just can not avoid that fact anyhow.

[Sendo]

Kleber, you idiot, I meant "1790". Are you telling me that there weren't bars or taverns or restaurants at that time?

And no, I never said that we shouldn't complain about injustices. But we are discussing the possibility of transitioning from FEUDALISM TO A MIXED ECONOMY. It hasn't happened yet, we should welcome it as better.

ONCE IT IS IN PLACE then we can criticize and improve it. But Maoist, "Dengist" whatever, it is better.

By your philosophy, no one in the 1850s should have supported ending slavery because that would cause blacks to end up as wage slaves or sharecroppers! Never accept any improvement unless it's perfect. It's 100% good to take improvements and work towards them, and then say "...it should be even better" That's the drive and the raison d'etre for humanity.

And save us the bullshit about Trotsky giving his life to fight bureaucracy. How laughable of a sentence that is. Excepting the ludicrous image of a man dying a hail of bullets as he storms the 3rd floor offices of the Agricultural Commissar's branch office in Leningrad or wherever, Trotsky was a twister of facts and an opportunistic fuck who gave the right ammunition for decades to come to immunize would-be Marxists from becoming true Marxist-Leninists and to make them cynical towards all historical workers' states.

You are hopelessly in love with this man. Not his ideologies, the man himself. I never hear theories beyond this specter of bureaucracy and Trotsky this and that. This is a thread on the left/right or revisionist/non-revisionist nature of the UCPN-M. Not a thread for you to debate the merits of MLism or MLMism. Get out, troll.

[khad]

Kleber, stop derailing the thread with your sectarian trolling. This thread is on Nepal.

This is a verbal warning. Persist, and there will be consequences.

[Saorsa]

It's quite telling that once Kleber is told he has to actually talk concretely about Nepal and that he has to stop derailing the thread into a historical debate about Stalin vs Trotsky, he stops posting. Says a hell of a lot :rolleyes:

[Kléber]

FSL and pranabjyoti blew up the purges thing into an issue, I had only mentioned it in passing. I see no point in replying further because if we aren't allowed to discuss theoretical and policy differences between Mao and Deng, then it is impossible to discuss how Prachanda's statement regarding SEZ's in Nepal fits into the "Maoists -- Dengists" contradiction which I thought this thread had something to do with. Apparently, any semblance of free discussion here is just a farce, covering up a mutual j/o session for petty bourgeois wankers like yourself Alastair.

[pranabjyoti]

Kleber,
You are just spreading baseless BS around, which at least I know aren't fact. Therefore, I should protest it and put the truth before others. None here should have the right to spread baseless propaganda.

[Saorsa]

Apparently, any semblance of free discussion here is just a farce, covering up a mutual j/o session for petty bourgeois wankers like yourself Alastair.

Lol, why don't you just type out jerk off? Dang diggity darn it, can't have anyone swearing! You don't know me and you don't know what my class status is, but believe me when I say it is not in any way bourgeois.

When MSH accused the UCPN (M) of being 'Dengists', they meant something quite specific. They meant that the UCPN (M) are fake Maoists, who are selling out the revolution and spitting on the graves of the martyrs of the People's War. That's the issue up for debate here - is that true or not? That's what this thread is about, not China, not Russia. Nepal.

Perhaps you should go away and do a wee bit of study into what's happening in Nepal, and when you're not totally ignorant on the subject you could come back and actually engage in serious debate about it. The fact that you know nothing about the subject does not mean you can just drag discussion somewhere else whenever you feel like it.

You don't even have to go the trouble of leaving this forum! Why not have a read of this. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/news-nepal-t114558/index30.html) You might even learn something :)

[Kléber]

When MSH accused the UCPN (M) of being 'Dengists', they meant something quite specific.
Yes, the theories and policies of Deng Xiaoping, his market reforms, revisions of the marriage law and gutting of social services, had a "quite specific" historical origin. Despite their imperialist character, the SEZ's established under Deng were in the interest of the Chinese bourgeoisie in building up its productive forces. Mao had concluded a tacit alliance with US imperialism in 1972 but China was always fundamentally independent, and the SEZ's set up under Deng were built from a position of relative strength, even if they were a concession to the American bourgeoisie. Thus, for Prachanda to propose SEZ's when power has not yet even been seized by the UCPN(M) and Nepal is still under a government representing comprador bourgeois forces linked with imperialism, may at first seem definitely un-Maoist. At any rate, the quote that MSH uses is pretty limited. But getting back to the central issue of why the difference between Mao and Deng is important here - during the "New Democratic" (openly bourgeois) phase of the Chinese revolution from 1949 until the mid 1950's, investment and private capitalist development were openly encouraged by the PRC. So setting up SEZ's in the initial period does not contradict with Maoism in principle at all! MSH is just taking a sectarian position that views anything not in line with "socialist China" as it looked in 1967 as fundamentally evil and revisionist, even though Mao changed his policies and positions quite a bit as Chinese history unfolded. I don't agree with Maoism, but the way the UCPN(M) is implementing its "New Democratic" campaign in principle doesn't seem fundamentally distinct from what Mao might have done. And furthermore, Deng's policies were just the outgrowth of political and economic forms established by Mao so there's no telling that what we call Dengism might not in fact have been carried out by Mao himself had he had superhuman longevity.


You don't even have to go the trouble of leaving this forum! Why not have a read of this. You might even learn something
I have been following that thread and appreciate your contributions. It seems I was under the mistaken impression that discussion would be allowed here.