Red Dave vs Comrade Alastair re Nepal: Let's go

[Saorsa]

The last times I attempted to debate Red Dave's position on the revolution in Nepal, he didn't reply. Let's try again. Red Dave originally posted this in a separate thread:


As you can see, or should be able to see, with the current situation in Nepal, which is the early history of China writ small, there's a lot more to that, including the notion of two-stage revolution vs. permanent revolution, whether or not a left-wing party can enter into a bourgeois government, this New Democracy stuff, etc.

To which I responded as follows:



*sighs*

Dave, you're confirming every stereotype of Trotskyists. This is shit. You're not making a concrete criticism, and I have yet to see a single concrete exposition from you of why you think the Maoist's tactics were wrong, and what you propose as an alternative. All you've been saying so far is "Trotsky did not say this should be done in any book of his I've read! And incidentally, wouldn't near simultaneous international revolution be nice? That'd like solve heaps of problems". You didn't even reply when I made a lengthy critique of your position in the last thread we were discussing this in.

This is why it's so hard to take so many Trotskyists seriously.

Dave then responded as follows:



Originally Posted by Comrade Alastair
Dave, you're confirming every stereotype of Trotskyists. This is shit.

Dave: According, of course, to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alastair
You're not making a concrete criticism, and I have yet to see a single concrete exposition from you of why you think the Maoist's tactics were wrong, and what you propose as an alternative.

Dave: The Maois/Stalinist tactics, in China, Vietnam and Nepal are wrong because they have led the working class into an opportunistic bloc with the national bourgeoisie, which is the worst enemy of the working class. Once in such a bloc, the party is unable to demand land to the peasants or to call for the peasants to seize the land or for workers control of industry or for the workers to seize control fo the means of production. The party is in a government with the landlords and the capitalists. It is unable to call for the liquidation of the national army as it is in the government of that army.

The party bureaucracy, in each case, became, instead of the leaders of the working class, the government over the working class. This is clear in the case of China to this day, and it's clear in Nepal.

Why the fuck would the leader of a revolutionary party become the prime minister of a bourgeois state?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Alastair
All you've been saying so far is "Trotsky did not say this should be done in any book of his I've read! And incidentally, wouldn't near simultaneous international revolution be nice? That'd like solve heaps of problems". You didn't even reply when I made a lengthy critique of your position in the last thread we were discussing this in.

I don't genuflect to the Great Old Man. It's not a matter of whatTrotsky said. It's a matter of what you Maoists are doing. You are, in every one of the countries where you take state power, instituting state capitalism and opening the door to private capitalism.

What is the alternative? Of course, permanent revolution. What does that mean, concretely? That the working class should be part of a government composed of revolutionary forces only: no fucking bourgeoisie, with the working class as the leading force: a dictatorship of the proletariat. At one point, Lenin used the formulation "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," but I believe they gave up that formulation after the dominant peasant party, the SRs, tried to stage a coup.

The party must constantly strive to educate the masses that what is taking place is only the earliest stages of socialism and that compromises may be necessary to keep the revolution alive until aid comes from the revolution in the major industrial countries. But above all, the party must never lie to the masses about what is going on. It must not call shit hamburger. it must not go into this crap about people's democracy, New Democracy, socialism in one country, etc.

From here on, I'll reply and write a seperate post.

The idea of this thread is to actually have a constructive debate about the revolution in Nepal, focusing on the actual lines of the UCPN (M), it's actual concrete practice and why this concretely does or does not advance the struggle to overturn Nepal's oppressive society. Despite the title, other people are of course welcome to join in. Let's hope this doesn't just turn into a big Stalin/Trotsky shitfest.

[Saorsa]

Most of my points have been made time and time again and can simply be linked to. If it becomes necessary to do so I'll do it, but for the time being I think I'll keep this brief and point out using evidence from the here and now the various places where Dave talks dogma without actually knowing anything much about the situation.


Dave: The Maois/Stalinist tactics, in China, Vietnam and Nepal are wrong because they have led the working class into an opportunistic bloc with the national bourgeoisie, which is the worst enemy of the working class. Once in such a bloc, the party is unable to demand land to the peasants

http://www.nepalcaportal.org/EN/who-said-what/details.php?ID=101


or to call for the peasants to seize the land

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/2-political/2931-maoists-capture-acres-of-land-across-the-country.html

I chose this one at random. I really can't be arsed digging up every single link that refers to Maoist-affiliated organisations of peasants and landless people seizing land since the signing of the peace accords, but I'm assuming you'll believe me when I say there are many, many more.


or for workers control of industry

http://ucpnm.org/english/doc11.php

"43. For the workers, weekly 40-hour working days and minimum wages shall be fixed and strictly implemented. Participation of the workers in the management of industries shall be guaranteed. Policy of encouraging co-operative system in cottage and small industries shall be followed."


or for the workers to seize control fo the means of production.

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/


The party is in a government with the landlords and the capitalists. It is unable to call for the liquidation of the national army as it is in the government of that army.

http://www.wprmbritain.org/?p=713

WPRM: Many Maoists around the world are concerned that the party has given up the armed struggle, the PLA are in cantonments and the party now has the plan to merge the two armies together, the PLA and the Nepali Army (NA). What is the role of the PLA now in the struggle for revolution in Nepal?

Com. Binod: The PLA is under the control of UNMIN and a special team, the Army Integration Committee. But practically the PLA is under the control of the Maoist party. Even though the weapons are in containers, the key of those containers is in our hands. We talked to the lower members of the NA and we found that the behaviour within their army is like from the 12th or 14th centuries, feudal behaviour is being carried out. The leadership of the NA is from a very backward class, from feudal leadership. If we do things carefully then there is a big possibility that the bitterness between officers and soldiers could be maximised. Obviously as long as the NA is around, insurrection or victory cannot be achieved. Hence, the question of integration is not that the PLA is being diluted into the NA. The NA should be diluted into the PLA. The meaning of the policy of army integration is not in the dissolution of the PLA but in the dissolution of the NA, to transform the NA and turn it into a PLA. That is why Nepali Congress and UML are always afraid of army integration.


The party bureaucracy, in each case, became, instead of the leaders of the working class, the government over the working class. This is clear in the case of China to this day, and it's clear in Nepal.

Oh yes? How exactly is it clear in Nepal? C'mon Dave, evidence... it helps make your arguments a bit more, you know, convincing.


Why the fuck would the leader of a revolutionary party become the prime minister of a bourgeois state?

I have explained this before.

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/in-defence-of-the-revolution-in-nepal/


Prachanda resigned from government, in a move that came as a shock to the Nepali media and most of the Nepali political establishment, who had never seen a politician willingly relinquish power before! The participation in the government, as has been made clear, was a tactical move on the Maobadi’s part to weaken the state structure from within and expose to the masses in practice, before their open eyes, that change cannot come from within the halls of parliament. We can write articles and make speeches about how it requires revolutionary mass action to radically change society and that the ruling class will never allow change to take place peacefully. This is Marxism ABC, and Marxist intellectuals like ourselves know this in our heads. But the Maobadi have gone a step further, and have shown to all Nepalis, even to the most illiterate uneducated peasant or labourer, that change cannot come through parliament. Their participation in the government, their attempts to push forward their revolutionary programme, their efforts to break the power of the feudalist military institution and put it under the control of the people, an effort they took in full knowledge that it would be unsuccesful, has clearly shown to the toiling masses of Nepal that the establishment in their country will not allow change.

It has always amazed me that people in the West can assume that Prachanda, Bhattarai, Kiran and the other leaders of the Nepali revolution were naive enough to think they could push their revolutionary program successfully through a parliament where they did not hold an outright majority. These are not idiots – these are the leaders of the most successful revolutionary struggle in decades, leaders who have been waging struggling blow for blow with the ruling class for decades now. These people know what they’re doing. I believe they entered into the coalition government in the full knowledge that this period in government would end with a collision between them and the reactionary parties. They could have just waited another four months for Army chief General Katawal to retire without a fuss, but instead they chose to push the issue and demand his resignation for insubordination. And when faced with the President’s veto of this move, they could have meekly accepted his decision or even tried to struggle against it within the halls of parliament. But no, instead they resigned from government, shut down parliament for months and sent their supporters into the streets in successive waves of mass demonstrations culminating in a general strike across Nepal. They have stepped up land seizures. They have declared 13 autonomous states across Nepal. And they have not budged in their demand that the President’s move be condemned as unconstitutional, and have not budged in their demand for civilian supremacy. These are not the actions of a party seeking to win change in some legalistic, reformist manner. These are the actions of a party actively seeking confrontation, a party throwing itself into a massive game of chicken with the ruling class. The reason, I believe, that the Maoists entered the coalition government was so they could use a grand stage, with the whole nation watching, to prove to the masses that further struggle was needed and the revolution could not advance through the halls of Singh Dabur.


What is the alternative? Of course, permanent revolution. What does that mean, concretely? That the working class should be part of a government composed of revolutionary forces only: no fucking bourgeoisie, with the working class as the leading force: a dictatorship of the proletariat. At one point, Lenin used the formulation "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," but I believe they gave up that formulation after the dominant peasant party, the SRs, tried to stage a coup.

So... in a country where the proletariat barely exists as a distinct class in itself, and where about 80% of the population are part of the peasantry, peasants should be excluded from power? How would this work in practice? Please, please, please try to talk using concrete proposals rather than theoretical rhetoric. Would peasants not be allowed to form soviets, so as to ensure the domination of the urban workers? Or would the vote of a man living in Kathmandu be worth, say, ten times as much as the vote of a man living in Rolpa? Would peasants be allowed to vote at all? Have you even thought about what you're saying? You are proposing an urban coup that ends with the revolutionary forces maintaining power by pointing their guns at the broad masses of the people.


The party must constantly strive to educate the masses that what is taking place is only the earliest stages of socialism and that compromises may be necessary to keep the revolution alive until aid comes from the revolution in the major industrial countries.

http://www.wprmbritain.org/?p=926


WPRM: As a way of concluding this interview, in the situation of continued pressure and the possibility of intervention from US imperialism and Indian expansionism in particular, do you think that socialism in one country can be developed in Nepal?

Baburam Bhattarai: This question of socialism in one country is a theoretical question to be debated. This is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Imperialism always consists of uneven and unequal development, so revolution within a country is not only a possibility, it is a must, because revolution won’t break out all over the world at the same time. That’s impossible as long as imperialism remains and uneven development is there. This is a basic tenet of Leninism which still holds true and we should grasp it. But in the specific case of a small country like Nepal, sandwiched between the big countries of India and China and being dictated over by US imperialism all over the world, if you don’t have support, international support, or there is no strong revolutionary movement, it will be very difficult to sustain the revolution. It may be possible to carry out the revolution to capture state power, but to sustain the state power and develop in the direction of socialism and communism we will need support from the international proletarian movement. That way the level of international support and international proletarian solidarity is important. After the growing influence of so-called globalisation, imperialist globalisation, the reaches of the imperialist power have gone to every corner of the world. If there is no strong international proletarian organisation to fight against imperialist intervention and domination, it will be difficult to sustain the revolution in one small country.

Keeping this in mind, we must however make revolution in our country, this is a must. But to sustain it and develop it further we need the backing of the international proletarian forces. For that we have to give more importance to internet work and the international community. This need is more important in the case of small countries like Nepal. In fact, in recent months we have been discussing this issue. To complete the revolution in Nepal and sustain it and develop it further, at least in the South Asian context, we need to have strong revolutionary solidarity and we need the backing from the international proletarian movement. We feel the events of the international proletarian movement worldwide and some of the institutions that are being developed are all important, like the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties in South Asia (CCOMPOSA) and the World People’s Resistance Movement (WPRM). These type of organisations are very important for the success of the revolution and to gather support at the international level for the success of our revolution.


But above all, the party must never lie to the masses about what is going on.

Please explain where the Maoists have done this.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Question: Are we keeping this as a debate strictly between the two of you (or if Dave doesn't show, the one of you)?

[Saorsa]

Second to last line of the OP bro ;-)

[red cat]

Probably Red Dave now agrees with us on the fact that the UCPN(M) is a genuine communist revolutionary party. He didn't reply to this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1673850&postcount=365) one too.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Red Dave makes great points in certain topics, but when it comes to third worldism & the Maoist rebellion, he seems to be stuck with propagandized views of past thought.

[Saorsa]

Third worldism is a reactionary and totally un-Maoist ideology VM.

[red cat]

Third worldism is a reactionary and totally un-Maoist ideology VM.

Those are the Dengist or Lin Biaoist versions of third worldism which groups like MSH uphold.

The PCP upholds Mao's Three Worlds Theory and as far as I know the UCPN(M) and CPI(Maoist) agree with it.

[Uppercut]

So shit's not goin' down between you and Red Dave?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

From one of your links:


Now that socialist governments have come to power in 12 Latin American countries, they are in the process of undertaking land reform and redistribution, without providing compensation to the previous owners.

That is one of the loosest definitions of "socialist governments" that I have ever seen. :blink:

[RED DAVE]

I will participate in this thread; however, (a) I am somewhat disturbed that my name was placed on what is, essentially, a call-out thread; (b) I am extremely busy in that I have two full-time jobs, I'm working on several books, and I assist my wife in her performing career; (c) I will take some time to review the history of the revolutionary situation in Nepal, including relevant documents from several sources.

Having said that:

LET'S ROCK!

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

It's not really a call out thread. I wanted to respond to some comments you made in a previous thread, and as I've said elsewhere, while you have all the characteristic failings of a Trot on questions like Nepal, you're not as much of a troll about it as some other users. So there can actually be some valuable debate.

As for the IRL issues, I'm in a similar boat really and don't plan on responding lighting fast or studying for hours for this thread. I'm just about to start some at a new job, and Revleft isn't always my first priority when I finish the day and get home lol.

I reserve the right to not respond for days if I'm busy and/or can't be fucked. :lol:

[RED DAVE]

Starting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal

RED DAVE

[Sendo]

Oh boy! A volatile, non-permalink link. And better yet, it's an anonymously written wiki! We know how reliable those are. But luckily I followed the link, and two-thirds of the way down there was a section proving Red Dave 100% right! Unfortunately, some Stalinist mod deleted it before I could copy it to my computer. ㅠ.ㅠ That makes me sad.

[RED DAVE]

Oh boy! A volatile, non-permalink link. And better yet, it's an anonymously written wiki! We know how reliable those are. But luckily I followed the link, and two-thirds of the way down there was a section proving Red Dave 100% right! Unfortunately, some Stalinist mod deleted it before I could copy it to my computer. ㅠ.ㅠ That makes me sad.Usually on wikipedia there's a record of all changes.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

It's an ok starting point, to be fair... If I ever need to doublecheck a statistic or something, or get a general idea about something, first place I go to is Wikipedia.

[RED DAVE]

May as well get started, even if it's not from the the beginning.


Prachanda warns Nepal Constitution from Streets


TGW

As long as State power is in the hands of parliamentary parties there will no peace in the country.

These are the words of Pushpa Kamal Dahal Chairman of Unified Maoists’ Party.

“Some forces are conspiring to dissolve the constituent assembly as they fear a Maoists’ friendly constitution”, Dahal said while addressing the Second General Convention of Magar National Liberation Front in Waling of Syangja District, February 27, 2010.

He also threatened that failing to draft the constitution on time would force his party to declare Peoples’ Constitution from the streets.

He reminded the attending crowd visiting the trade fair that Nationalists Nepalese are being murdered since the days of Bhakti Thapa and Bhim Sen Thapa until Madan Bhandari.

However, he guaranteed that the Nepali people will take revenge of those killings one by one.

But how? He, however, did not explain.

2010-02-28 08:53:46

http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=7243Okay, now when the Nepalese Maoists participated in the construction of a bourgeois parliamentary system, the fact that the bourgeoisie would attempt to draft a constitution to suit them was predictable.

This is exactly why Lenin and the Bolsheviks did exactly the opposite from what the Nepalese Maoists did: they refused to enter into a bourgeois government, the Kerensky regime, and they called for the workers and peasants own institutions, the soviets and soldiers committees, to take power. And this is why their slogan was "All Power to the Soviets" and not "All Power to the Duma" or "All Power to the Constituent Assembly."

Why have the Maoists waited until they entered into a bourgeois government by assuming the prime ministership, got kicked out of the government by the military, and only now are calling for a "Constitution from the Streets." Why didn't they do this in the first place considering that they were the overwhelming power in the country?

RED DAVE

[Crux]

So... in a country where the proletariat barely exists as a distinct class in itself, and where about 80% of the population are part of the peasantry, peasants should be excluded from power? How would this work in practice? Please, please, please try to talk using concrete proposals rather than theoretical rhetoric. Would peasants not be allowed to form soviets, so as to ensure the domination of the urban workers? Or would the vote of a man living in Kathmandu be worth, say, ten times as much as the vote of a man living in Rolpa? Would peasants be allowed to vote at all? Have you even thought about what you're saying? You are proposing an urban coup that ends with the revolutionary forces maintaining power by pointing their guns at the broad masses of the people.
Actually, I don't think Dave's post implied anything of what you are saying.
Saying that the working class must be the leading force is not the same thing as saying that the peasant population should be excluded. Remember the main author behind the theory of permanent revolution did so under the impression of and while taking part in the revolution in russia, a country which at the time also had a very small working class and a massive peasantry. So, as you ask how this would work in practice, is that of course the revolutionary working class organisation must win those layers of the peasantry that can be won, through land reform and other progressive measures. The reason however why the peasants, as a class, cannot lead a revolution is because of their diversified make up. This is actually a bit of marxism ABC in that the working class have the capability, when organized under a revolutionary leadership, to cut across those communal divisions and others that exist in a peasant society, because they are able to act as a class. This is why the revolution in russia was led by the bolsheviks, not the main agrarian party the Socialist Revolutionary Party. the SR based themselves on the peasant class, and as such they also contained all the contradictions of that class, leading them not only to adopt terrorism as a primary tactic but also to be pretty much controlled by the upper layers of the peasantry, indeed this caused a split between the Left and the Right SR's. Not to get into an history discussion here but I think there is still very much that can be learned from the russian revolution in this regard.

[cyu]

The reason however why the peasants, as a class, cannot lead a revolution is because of their diversified make up... pretty much controlled by the upper layers of the peasantry


So you see the the main difference between farm workers and urban workers is that farm workers are more unequal economically, but urban workers aren't so economically unequal? ...or did I misinterpret?

What about the revolution in China? Would you say urban workers had a bigger role to play than farm workers?

If you were going to try to encourage a revolution today, would you be trying to suppress the ideas of rural revolutionaries while promoting the suggestions of urban revolutionaries?

[Saorsa]

Okay, now when the Nepalese Maoists participated in the construction of a bourgeois parliamentary system,

Wrong. The bourgeois parliamentary system has existed in Nepal for some time. From 1950 to 1962 there was a very limited parliamentary system. In 1962 the monarchy banned all political parties, trade unions and so on and instituted the panchayat system of absolute monarchical rule. This was ended dramatically in 1990, when the masses rose up across the country in the first Janaandolan (loosely translates as 'People's Movement') demanding the restoration of multi-party democracy. From 1990 until the present day, there has been a parliamentary system in Nepal, and it has become quite entrenched. The Maoists certainly did not in any way 'construct' it, they had no need to.


Why have the Maoists waited until they entered into a bourgeois government by assuming the prime ministership, got kicked out of the government by the military, and only now are calling for a "Constitution from the Streets." Why didn't they do this in the first place considering that they were the overwhelming power in the country?

We should understand a few things here. Firstly, we must look concretely at the situation the Maoists and the Nepali masses in general faced in 2006. After the king dissolved parliament and suspended all civil rights, the people rose up against this. And that's the key thing - the second Janaandolan was not a conscious uprising against the feudal and/or capitalist economic relations existing in Nepal, it was an uprising against the usurpation of power by the King and for the restoration of civil rights. The Maoists supported the demands of the people and threw their weight behind them in order to help see them realised, but they analysed the situation and could see that the masses in Kathmandu had not yet reached the point where they were demanding that the parliamentary system be swept away and replaced with revolutionary people's democracy. You can't just will a communist revolution into existence - it has to be carried out by the people themselves, and the people of Nepal in 2006 were explicitly in the streets for multi-party parliamentary democracy, not against it.

This should guide how we view the existing Constituent Assembly in Nepal. The Constituent Assembly does not in any way represent the betrayal of a socialist revolution and it's diversion down some parliamentary path - on the contrary, what it represents is a series of victorious advances down the road toward socialist revolution. Communists in Nepal have been demanding a CA since the 1950s, and during the late 80s leading up to and during the Janaandolan of 1990 the demands for a CA, for a new constitution with no limits on the aspects of Nepali society it could reorganise, and for a republic were the demands that set apart the radical communist forces from the more moderate forces like the Nepal Congress and the revisionist UML party. While the NC and the UML called for multi-party democracy within the confines of the existing feudal society and within the framework of a constitutional monarchy, the radicals (who were organised in a coalition called the United People's Front) demanded that the monarchy be done away with and that a constitution be written not by the leaders of political parties picked by the King, but by a sovereign body made up of elected representatives of the people.

The Constituent Assembly, and indeed all the democratic rights that exist today in Nepal, were won by the people through bitter and bloody struggle. It took thousands of deaths and decades of oppression for the Nepali masses to get to the point they are at today, and they have paid for every step in blood. So it's actually kinda disrespectful to dismiss these gains as just some irrelevant bourgeois facade - they are real and genuine gains that the Nepali people have won through struggle, and they should be viewed as such.

They key point here is that the Maoists don't want to carry out a coup. They don't want to just impose their will on the people because they, as educated socialist intellectuals, know best. They want the people themselves to have come to the conclusion that revolution is a necessity, at which point the revolution and it's victory will be a foregone conclusion. The evidence suggests that this point is not far off in Nepal.

A lot of idealistic, dogmatic and uninformed leftists in the West think that the Nepali Maoists should have just seized power in 2006, presumably through violent seizure of the cities by the PLA. This is a somewhat contemptuous attitude towards the Nepali working class, who would have been caught in the murderous crossfire as the PLA and the royal army fought it out in the densely populated slums of Kathmandu. The Maoists did not feel that the time was ripe to seize power - why shouldn't we believe them? They didn't feel their mass base in the urban areas was yet strong enough - why would they lie about that? The protests that overthrew the monarchy were called by and carried out by a coalition of many disparate political parties, and were not unified under the leadership of either a proletarian organisation or a proletarian ideology. How on earth could western leftists know better than the leadership of the UCPN (M) when the correct time is to launch an all out insurrection and seize state power? If they fuck up, they die, so frankly I think they have every right to wait until they think the time is right. It's like condemning the RSDLP for not seizing power in Russia in 1905!

Use common sense. In 2006, the people of Nepal rose up in defence of parliamentary democracy when it was dissolved by the King. Yet you expect the Maoists to just come in and tell the millions of people on the streets that they intend to do the same thing? Revolution cannot be proclaimed from above, it has to be demanded from below.

The people had not yet lost their illusions in parliamentary democracy and the political parties represented in it. If anything, and for obvious reasons, the succesful uprising against the dissolution of parliamentary democracy strengthened the people's faith in it. So the tasks the Maoists had was to destroy these illusions, and show the people beyond all doubt that radical social change could not be achieved through the halls of parliament.

This, as I have explained many times before, is why they entered into the Constituent Assembly. The people had fought for and won these elections, and to refuse to participate in them would make no sense. As it turned out, the Maoists won a landslide victory in the elections, proving beyond all doubt that they were not just rural terrorists imposing their will through fear, but were the legitimate representatives of the masses hopes and dreams. Now, having won the elections, what were they supposed to do? Say to all the people who voted for them 'ha, you're all backward peasants, we're going to ignore your votes and let the Congress and the UML run the government again!' Don't be silly. They followed the instructions of the masses and formed a government.

I'm going to quote from what I've written previously to finish up my explanation of why the Maoists entered into the government:


Prachanda resigned, in a move that came as a shock to the Nepali media and most of the Nepali political establishment, who had never seen a politician willingly relinquish power before! The participation in the government, as has been made clear, was a tactical move on the Maobadi’s part to weaken the state structure from within and expose to the masses in practice, before their open eyes, that change cannot come from within the halls of parliament. We can write articles and make speeches about how it requires revolutionary mass action to radically change society and that the ruling class will never allow change to take place peacefully. This is Marxism ABC, and Marxist intellectuals like ourselves know this in our heads. But the Maobadi have gone a step further, and have shown to all Nepalis, even to the most illiterate uneducated peasant or labourer, that change cannot come through parliament. Their participation in the government, their attempts to push forward their revolutionary programme, their efforts to break the power of the feudalist military institution and put it under the control of the people, an effort they took in full knowledge that it would be unsuccesful, has clearly shown to the toiling masses of Nepal that the establishment in their country will not allow change.

It has always amazed me that people in the West can assume that Prachanda, Bhattarai, Kiran and the other leaders of the Nepali revolution were naive enough to think they could push their revolutionary program successfully through a parliament where they did not hold an outright majority. These are not idiots – these are the leaders of the most successful revolutionary struggle in decades, leaders who have been waging struggling blow for blow with the ruling class for decades now. These people know what they’re doing. I believe they entered into the coalition government in the full knowledge that this period in government would end with a collision between them and the reactionary parties. They could have just waited another four months for Army chief General Katawal to retire without a fuss, but instead they chose to push the issue and demand his resignation for insubordination. And when faced with the President’s veto of this move, they could have meekly accepted his decision or even tried to struggle against it within the halls of parliament. But no, instead they resigned from government, shut down parliament for months and sent their supporters into the streets in successive waves of mass demonstrations culminating in a general strike across Nepal. They have stepped up land seizures. They have declared 13 autonomous states across Nepal. And they have not budged in their demand that the President’s move be condemned as unconstitutional, and have not budged in their demand for civilian supremacy. These are not the actions of a party seeking to win change in some legalistic, reformist manner. These are the actions of a party actively seeking confrontation, a party throwing itself into a massive game of chicken with the ruling class. The reason, I believe, that the Maoists entered the coalition government was so they could use a grand stage, with the whole nation watching, to prove to the masses that further struggle was needed and the revolution could not advance through the halls of Singh Dabur. (http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/in-defence-of-the-revolution-in-nepal/)


the fact that the bourgeoisie would attempt to draft a constitution to suit them was predictable.

Dave, it may be predictable to educated Marxist intellectuals like you and me who've read our history and know what happened in Chile, in Indonesia and so on, but it is not predictable to an illiterate unemployed Nepali living in a slum in Kathmandu. This is intellectual arrogance, and it's not the first time you've displayed it. You made a comment a wee while back about how the fact that the Nepali revolutionaries are not doing exactly what Lenin advised the Bolsheviks to do in the April Thesis indicates that 'some people in Nepal need to learn to read'. No shit sherlock, there are millions of Nepalis that need to learn to read, and your quotations from Leninist literature mean nothing to them.

The working people of Nepal do not know the history of what happened in those places. It was by no means predictable to them that change could not be achieved peacefully. Particularly in a situation filled with optimism and hope, after the Maoists and the parliamentary parties united to overthrow the King and write a new constitution, it's quite reasonable for the poor and illiterate people of Nepal to feel optimistic about change coming without the need for another uprising.

The Maoists have set out to prove, in practice, before the eyes of all Nepalis, that peaceful change is impossible. They have spent the past year blowing the issue of civilian supremacy into a massive deal, going on and on about how the army refuses to obey civilian authority and elected governments cannot carry out their program due to the resistance of the propertied classes. They did not surrender in the face of this opposition. If they had, that would prove they had sold out. But they didn't, and have continued to launch wave after wave of mass protests. They are winning the people of Nepal to the idea that actually, this parliamentary democracy that we fought for isn't enough - we need to sweep it aside, we need to rise up for the 'final and decisive revolt' and establish a People's Republic.

If your idea of how this gets done in practice is giving everyone a copy of State and Revolution to read, it's no wonder Trotskyists have never come close to organising a successful insurrection.


This is exactly why Lenin and the Bolsheviks did exactly the opposite from what the Nepalese Maoists did: they refused to enter into a bourgeois government, the Kerensky regime, and they called for the workers and peasants own institutions, the soviets and soldiers committees, to take power. And this is why their slogan was "All Power to the Soviets" and not "All Power to the Duma" or "All Power to the Constituent Assembly."

That, Dave, is because Russia in 1917 is not Nepal in 2010. Prachanda is not Lenin. Madhav Khumar Nepal and Ram Baran Yadav are not Kerensky. General Katawal and his successor Toran Bahadur Singh are not Kornilov or Kolchak.

Nepal is a very different country to Russia and the Maoists are in a very different situation to the Bolsheviks. So why on earth would they do exactly the same things the Bolsheviks did??? I think you need to get your head out of the history books and into the real world.

[Saorsa]

The reason however why the peasants, as a class, cannot lead a revolution is because of their diversified make up. This is actually a bit of marxism ABC in that the working class have the capability, when organized under a revolutionary leadership, to cut across those communal divisions and others that exist in a peasant society, because they are able to act as a class.

The UCPN (M, like all other Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organisations, sees the proletariat as the leading class in the revolution.

[RED DAVE]

The UCPN (M, like all other Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organisations, sees the proletariat as the leading class in the revolution.Yes, but how does this work out in practice? For the Bolsheviks, the origins of this notion, this meant that they advocated a government, in backward, peasant dominated Russia, based on working class institutions (the Soviets). They absolutely avoided support for or taking power in the bourgeois government of the February regime and called for "All Power to the Soviets."

This is the exact opposite of the UCPN(ML) who actually took the prime ministership in a bourgeois government. This is not the action of a party that "sees the proletariat as the leading class in the revolution." Why, if so, and they are "Leninists," did they do exactly the opposite of what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did"

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I explained why they did that in my previous, much longer post. Perhaps you should write a reply to the points I made there rather than to a one line post I wrote afterwards.

The whole point of a debate is that you make points, I respond to them, you respond to my responses, I respond back and so on. We can't debate if you sidestep the bulk of my arguments.

[chegitz guevara]

Why, if so, and they are "Leninists," did they do exactly the opposite of what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did"

RED DAVE

Comrade,

Did Lenin not write a book, Left-Wing Communism: An infantile disorder precisely because communists in Western Europe were imitating the Communists, instead of adapting to their own concrete situations?

Being a follower of Lenin doesn't mean aping Lenin in an unthinking way. It means, analyzing the situation and taking actions accordingly. Lenin frequently would change course and go back on old ideas and plans of action. The April Theses were just such a change of direction.

The essence of Lenin is doing whatever it took to make the revolution happen. To be true Leninists, we must do the same, not follow a blue print of a revolution 90 years ago on the other side of the Earth.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not aware that the Maobadi sided with the bourgeoisie.

[RED DAVE]

Let me make a very quick, brief reply.


Nepal is a very different country to Russia and the Maoists are in a very different situation to the Bolsheviks. So why on earth would they do exactly the same things the Bolsheviks did??? I think you need to get your head out of the history books and into the real world.Of course Nepal is different from Russia, the US, Chile or any other country. However, certain fundamental principles are part of Marxism. A political group that violates these principles violates Marxism.

One of these principles is the principle of class collaboration, which Maoists have always paid fast and loose with. The Chinese Communists and now the Nepalese Maoists, have violated this principle. It's not a matter of a religious prohibition, but a matter of consequences. The Chinese permitted capitalist elements into their regime. What resulted was state capitalism, which morphed, seamlessly, into private capitalism. This was a disaster for the world proletariat which Maoists have never owned up to being responsible for. That was a Maoist party, in a Maoist regime, which oversaw first state capitalism and now rampant private capitalism.

The Nepalese are doing the same thing. They have made common cause with the national bourgeoisie and have entered into a government that included these elements. If, in fact, they achieve state power, they will institute state capitalism, which, in a few years, as happened in China and Vietnam, will morph into private capitalism.

I think that you and I have stated our positions clearly. Let's watch and see what the Nelapese Maoists do in the comming months and years. One thing I predict: whould seize state power, they will not institute workers control of industry nor land to the peasants.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

One of these principles is the principle of class collaboration, which Maoists have always paid fast and loose with. The Chinese Communists and now the Nepalese Maoists, have violated this principle. It's not a matter of a religious prohibition, but a matter of consequences. The Chinese permitted capitalist elements into their regime. What resulted was state capitalism, which morphed, seamlessly, into private capitalism. This was a disaster for the world proletariat which Maoists have never owned up to being responsible for. That was a Maoist party, in a Maoist regime, which oversaw first state capitalism and now rampant private capitalism.

Right. So you're saying that because, according to the theory of New Democratic Revolution, there are sections of the nationalist bourgeoisie that can be won over to cooperation with the revolutionary cause, China never moved beyond state capitalism and ultimately restored private capitalism. You're saying that state capitalism emerged due to flaws that exist at the core of New Democracy as a concept. Right.

However, you also say that under Stalin's leadership the USSR was state capitalist. And Stalin most certainly did not have either a theoretical position of cooperating with the Russian national bourgeoisie, and nor did he implement any such policies practically. Indeed, Stalin used widespread violence and terror to crush the power of the kulaks and wipe them out as a class, and the Russian bourgeoisie as it had existed before the revolution was wiped out.

Keeping in mind that you see both Stalin's Russia and Mao's China as state capitalist, it becomes clear that there is a flaw in what you're saying here. You're saying that the presence of the national bourgeoisie in the new democratic coalition is responsible for China becoming 'state capitalist', and ultimately restoring capitalism. Yet as I've pointed out, Russia did not have a new democratic revolution, and Stalin did not call for the bloc of four classes.

Therefore, keeping in mind that according to you both China and Russia were state capitalist, the ultimate source of this state capitalism cannot be the theory of New Democracy, as for all the flaws you see in Stalin's leadership of the Soviet Union, he did not ever call for a coalition with the Russian national bourgeoisie. Therefore, there must be another reason for why capitalism was ultimately restored in both Russia and China, and since I'm not quite shallow and stupid enough to claim that Trotskyism is invalidated by the failure of the revolution he led, perhaps you should try not to be shallow and stupid enough to claim that Maoism is invalidated by the restoration of capitalism in China.

But anyway Dave, this thread is about Nepal. You have asked a whole series of dogmatic questions about Nepal and the line and strategy of the UCPN (M), and I think I have answered them rather conclusively. So I'm asking you - stop side stepping my answers and asking the same tired old questions over and over again as if repetition makes them sound any more relevant, and actually respond to my answers. This thread is about Nepal - stop sidestepping the issue. You asked why the UCPN (M) entered the government - I explained why this tactic has advanced the Nepali revolution. If you can't respond to my explanation, admit that I'm right and that you're wrong.


One thing I predict: whould seize state power, they will not institute workers control of industry nor land to the peasants.

For fucks sake Dave, you're being dogmatic in an almost religious way. This is just embarassing. You're predicting they won't carry out land reform? What rock have you been living under for the past decade?!? They already have instituted far reaching land reform across the country, in a way no movement in Nepali history has ever done. Scroll through the News from Nepal thread, and on almost every page there is a reference to Maoist-led land seizures. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up your ridiculous claim that the UCPN (M) won't implement land reform, other than your own dogmatic blindness. If you do have evidence for this, I'd love to hear it. But you don't, because you're not saying this stuff based on concrete analysis of reality, you're saying it based on your own prejudices.

I mean come on, even if you don't believe the UCPN (M) is anything more than a capitalist party, land reform will allow for capitalism to develop in Nepal. Land reform has historically been carried out by non-revolutionary organisations, and was even carried out by the US imperialist army in Japan! You're just being silly here.

As for workers control of industry, there's fuck all industry in Nepal for the working class to have control over. Their first priority will be to develop it, by any means necessary. These two photos taken in the past week by Jed Bandt (the guy glenn beck is love with) in Nepal should give a rough idea of what industry actually exists in Nepal. Captions written by him and taken from his facebook page.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4401712642/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4401712828/in/photostream/

Above: Metal fabrication shops are scattered throughout the city, one of the few industrial jobs available.

As I said, time will tell. But they have a clear position on paper of workers being involved in the administration of their workplaces, and I have already provided you with examples of where Maoist-affiliated trade unions have seized control of workplaces and began running them under workers control. You've chosen not to respond to these examples. There's something of a pattern emerging here Dave - you make an uninformed, sectarian and dogmatic statement about Nepal, I provide evidence that proves it wrong, and you don't respond. You should work on that.

[RED DAVE]

One of these principles is the principle of class collaboration, which Maoists have always paid fast and loose with. The Chinese Communists and now the Nepalese Maoists, have violated this principle. It's not a matter of a religious prohibition, but a matter of consequences. The Chinese permitted capitalist elements into their regime. What resulted was state capitalism, which morphed, seamlessly, into private capitalism. This was a disaster for the world proletariat which Maoists have never owned up to being responsible for. That was a Maoist party, in a Maoist regime, which oversaw first state capitalism and now rampant private capitalism.
Right.Glad you agree with me. :D


So you're saying that because, according to the theory of New Democratic Revolution, there are sections of the nationalist bourgeoisie that can be won over to cooperation with the revolutionary cause, China never moved beyond state capitalism and ultimately restored private capitalism.Pretty much: plus the actual practice of the party, to rule over the working class instead of leading the working class to power. The backwardness of China, of course, lies behind all this, but the consequences of the choices the CPC made, which were not the inevitable or only choices, are clear: capitalism.


You're saying that state capitalism emerged due to flaws that exist at the core of New Democracy as a concept. Right.I wouldn’t precisely put it that way, but, okay, let’s see where this leads.


However, you also say that under Stalin's leadership the USSR was state capitalist.Yes.


And Stalin most certainly did not have either a theoretical position of cooperating with the Russian national bourgeoisie, and nor did he implement any such policies practically. Indeed, Stalin used widespread violence and terror to crush the power of the kulaks and wipe them out as a class, and the Russian bourgeoisie as it had existed before the revolution was wiped out.That’s why I’m saying that state capitalism also emerges from the practices of the party. All this, of course, is in the context of revolution in underdeveloped countries.


Keeping in mind that you see both Stalin's Russia and Mao's China as state capitalist,Correct. And this is based on the fundamental relations of production: that in neither of these countries under these regimes did the working class exert control over production. You can't get away from this.


it becomes clear that there is a flaw in what you're saying here.Let’s see who's got a flaw in their argument.


You're saying that the presence of the national bourgeoisie in the new democratic coalition is responsible for China becoming 'state capitalist', and ultimately restoring capitalism.No I am not saying that. I am saying that the presence of the national bourgeoisie in the “new deomocratic coalition” was a sign that the regime was not a working class regime from the very beginning. However, the presence of the national bourgeoisie is not a necessary condition for this as is shown in the case of Russia. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but the national bourgeoisie did not play much of a role in Vietnam, which is state capitalist moving towards private capitalism.


Yet as I've pointed out, Russia did not have a new democratic revolution, and Stalin did not call for the bloc of four classes.And as I pointed out the presence of the national bourgeoisie is not in and of itself necessary for the institution of state capitalism. So your whole argument collapses.


Therefore, keeping in mind that according to you both China and Russia were state capitalistCorrect.


the ultimate source of this state capitalism cannot be the theory of New Democracy, as for all the flaws you see in Stalin's leadership of the Soviet Union, he did not ever call for a coalition with the Russian national bourgeoisie.Wrong. The theory of New Democracy is flawed in many ways. The fundamental flaw of it is that it establishes a regime over the working class instead of a regime of the working class. The presence of a national bourgeoisie is handy but incidental.


Therefore, there must be another reason for why capitalism was ultimately restored in both Russia and China, and since I'm not quite shallow and stupid enough to claim that Trotskyism is invalidated by the failure of the revolution he led, perhaps you should try not to be shallow and stupid enough to claim that Maoism is invalidated by the restoration of capitalism in China.Uhh, please.

That's like saying: (1) You were in a car, which had an accident, but you were not driving (Trotsky was not in power when the Russian Revolution was betrayed and the bureaucracy seized state power).

(2) The car I was in had an accident, and I was driving (Mao was in power when the Chinese Revolution was bureaucratized from the beginning).

(3) You and I are both responsible (or not responsible) for what happened (so Trotsky and Mao are equally responsible or not responsible for what happened in their countries). Cheesh!


But anyway Dave, this thread is about Nepal.I have a friend who just got back from 6 months there.


You have asked a whole series of dogmatic questionsThat means questions having to do with the application of Marxist principles, which you have no answer for.


about Nepal and the line and strategy of the UCPN (M), and I think I have answered them rather conclusively.No you have not. You have still not stated why the UCPN(M) found it necessary to make an alliance with the capitalist class.


So I'm asking you - stop side stepping my answers and asking the same tired old questions over and over again as if repetition makes them sound any more relevant, and actually respond to my answers.I do respond to your answers. Unfortunately, the answer I give has to respond to your answers. And yours are bullshit.


This thread is about Nepal - stop sidestepping the issue. You asked why the UCPN (M) entered the government - I explained why this tactic has advanced the Nepali revolution.You are alleging that the tactic advanced the revolution.

According to my reading of the situation, once the Maoists assumed the prime ministerhip, responsibility for the government, and then got their asses kicked by the other parties, they produced a situation of stagnation that has persisted for ten months.

Consider what might have happened had the Maoists entered the Constituent Assembly (as the Bolsheviks entered the Duma) but refused to take responsibility for the government and refused the prime ministership. This might have forced the bourgeois parties to form a minority government, which would have done its dirty work, as the government is doing as we speak. And the Maoists would have been in opposition from the beginning, disrupting the functioning of the government, as they are doing now, without having given it legitimacy in the first place.

That’s a possible scenario, is it not?


If you can't respond to my explanation, admit that I'm right and that you're wrong.Let me give you some political advice: Don’t flatter yourself. Wait till others do it. :D


One thing I predict: [should the Maoists (typo in the original] seize state power, they will not institute workers control of industry nor land to the peasants.
For fucks sake Dave, you're being dogmatic in an almost religious way. This is just embarassing. You're predicting they won't carry out land reform? What rock have you been living under for the past decade?!? They already have instituted far reaching land reform across the country, in a way no movement in Nepali history has ever done. Scroll through the News from Nepal thread, and on almost every page there is a reference to Maoist-led land seizures. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up your ridiculous claim that the UCPN (M) won't implement land reform, other than your own dogmatic blindness. If you do have evidence for this, I'd love to hear it. But you don't, because you're not saying this stuff based on concrete analysis of reality, you're saying it based on your own prejudices.We shall watch and wait. Frankly, doing searches on the Internet, I have found little evidence of massive land reform, either in the areas controlled or formerly controlled by the Maoists or elsewhere. The landlords seem to be going about business as usual.


I mean come on, even if you don't believe the UCPN (M) is anything more than a capitalist party, land reform will allow for capitalism to develop in Nepal. Land reform has historically been carried out by non-revolutionary organisations, and was even carried out by the US imperialist army in Japan! You're just being silly here.So what you’re saying is: it would be okay if a Marxist party built state capitalism in Nepal as the Chinese Communists and the Russian Stalinists did in their countries. That would be okay with you.


As for workers control of industry, there's fuck all industry in Nepal for the working class to have control over.So what you’re saying is that the party is superior to the working class and will assume power over whatever industry there is.


Their first priority will be to develop it, by any means necessary.Here comes state capitalism: a shit cake with Marxist icing.

You have just let the proverbial cat out of the proverbial bag. The role of the Nepalese Maoists is to establish, of course in the name of the working class. State capitalism in Nepal by any means necessary!


These two photos taken in the past week by Jed Bandt (the guy glenn beck is love with) in Nepal should give a rough idea of what industry actually exists in Nepal. Captions written by him and taken from his facebook page.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3348154...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3348154...n/photostream/

Above: Metal fabrication shops are scattered throughout the city, one of the few industrial jobs available.I have read some of Bandt’s stuff from Nepal. It reads like the kind of wide-eyed shit that Lincoln Steffins and types like that wrote about Russian in the 1930s. Even if the revolutionary party in Nepal was one I agreed with politically, I wouldn’t trust a schmuck like Brandt. See 10 Days That Shook the World by John Reed to see how that kind of reporting needs to be done


As I saidAnd I have said.


time will tell. But they have a clear position on paper of workers being involved in the administration of their workplacesOne more time, the kitteh pounces from the sack. Workers control of industry does not mean workers being involved. It means workers control. Not sharing in the adminstratin, providing input, participating in councils with management (and the government/party) where they do not have a majority vote. It means workers control from bottom to top.


and I have already provided you with examples of where Maoist-affiliated trade unions have seized control of workplaces and began running them under workers control.As we have been debating this for awhile now, please provide those links again.


You've chosen not to respond to these examples. There's something of a pattern emerging here Dave - you make an uninformed, sectarian and dogmatic statement about Nepal, I provide evidence that proves it wrong, and you don't respond. You should work on that.Comrade, I strongly suggest you not go there. I don’t know as much as you about Nepal, but I do have some knowledge of it plus a few others places, plus some experience not only reading but applying Marxism. You want to challenge my integrity, go ahead. But remember, for many of us, Maoists carry the burden of 60 or so years of bullshit about China, so I would check my casements before I start chucking bricks. I have answered your points to the best of my ability, honestly, and within the time constraints I function under. Time will indeed tell.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Pretty much: plus the actual practice of the party, to rule over the working class instead of leading the working class to power. The backwardness of China, of course, lies behind all this, but the consequences of the choices the CPC made, which were not the inevitable or only choices, are clear: capitalism.

The anarchists say the same thing about Trotsky, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, with about as much analysis, but anyway... the debate about the nature of China and it's revolution will continue in plenty of other threads I'm sure.


No I am not saying that. I am saying that the presence of the national bourgeoisie in the “new deomocratic coalition” was a sign that the regime was not a working class regime from the very beginning. However, the presence of the national bourgeoisie is not a necessary condition for this as is shown in the case of Russia. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but the national bourgeoisie did not play much of a role in Vietnam, which is state capitalist moving towards private capitalism.

Russia was an imperialist state with an industrially advanced proletariat based in several major urban and industrial centres. China was a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country, and Nepal today is the same only without anything even approaching advanced industrial centres. Needless to say, and this should be obvious, the slogans raised in 1917 should not be and will not be raised in 2010.

As for Vietnam...

Ho Chi Minh: "The party must adopt a wise and flexible attitude towards the national bourgeoisie. It should seek to draw it into the Front, to rally the elements that can be rallied, and to neutralise those that can be neutralised."



That's like saying: (1) You were in a car, which had an accident, but you were not driving (Trotsky was not in power when the Russian Revolution was betrayed and the bureaucracy seized state power).

But he was, as Trotskyists so often like to point out, a central leader who was supposedly Lenin's right hand man and whose writings and theories contributed enormously to the direction the revolution took. He actually created and was the first leader of the Red Army, so having created the institution that enforces the power of the state he must surely bear some responsibility for how the state turned out? He was a central leader from the beginning and for many years afterwards, and had no problem with the Cheka, the Red Terror and all the other necessary steps that were taken to defend the gains of the revolution, until his inability to recognise that the period of world revolution had passed and turned into a period of consolidation led to him being democratically rejected by the Bolshevik party membership.


(2) The car I was in had an accident, and I was driving (Mao was in power when the Chinese Revolution was bureaucratized from the beginning).

The process of counter-revolution in China was bitterly fought by Mao through the Cultural Revolution, and it only succeeded after his death. The CR failed to defeat the counter-revolution and it is up to a new generation of revolutionary communists to learn from the mistakes and build on the successes of China, but the fact remains that Mao fought against the restoration of capitalism in China until his dying breath. He was a human being, and made mistakes, of course. We can go into these in another thread perhaps. But he died a revolutionary.


(3) You and I are both responsible (or not responsible) for what happened (so Trotsky and Mao are equally responsible or not responsible for what happened in their countries). Cheesh!

By the time capitalism was restored in China Mao had been forced well into the backseat of the car. If he is to blame for the actions of those who followed him, Lenin is to blame for Stalin.


I have a friend who just got back from 6 months there.

Um, good for you. What did your friend do while he was witness to the most advanced revolutionary struggle in decades? I hope he put his time there to good use.


No you have not. You have still not stated why the UCPN(M) found it necessary to make an alliance with the capitalist class.

All the UCPN (M) is saying is that following the revolution, it's not going to idealistically move to create socialism overnight in one country, which you yourself recognise as impossible. With your own position that socialism in one country is impossible, that means that until the revolution spreads it will be necessary to adopt some halfway kind of society. Maoists, having actually had to confront these problems in real life as opposed to history books like Trotskyists, came up with the theory of the New Democratic revolution and the People's Republic.

In practice, the UCPN (M) has very little in the way of an alliance with the capitalist class. But where merchants, traders, peddlers and so on can be won over to supporting the revolutionary movement, the Maoists welcome this support so long as these people adopt the Maoist programme. It is also a part of the Maoist strategic approach of attempting to divide and thus weaken the enemy ranks by playing off the nationalist bourgeoisie against the comprador bourgeoisie, the bourgeois democratic parties against the monarchy, etc. It has done no harm to the revolution so far, and I have no reason to believe this approach will harm it in the future.

It's quite telling that you focus so much attention on a theoretical position of the Maoists, but consistently avoid, sidestep and attempt to get out of answering my arguments about the concrete revolutionary strategy of the Maoists.


I do respond to your answers. Unfortunately, the answer I give has to respond to your answers. And yours are bullshit.

No, you don't. I made a rather long post in this very thread, just one page back, explaining why the Maoists entered the government. You have not responded to any of my explanations, and have instead tried to steer this thread onto a discussion of Chinese history, as per usual. And if the best you can do is to dismiss my answers as 'bullshit', you might as well admit the fact that you don't have an adequate response, and admit that my explanation is correct.


You are alleging that the tactic advanced the revolution.

According to my reading of the situation, once the Maoists assumed the prime ministerhip, responsibility for the government, and then got their asses kicked by the other parties, they produced a situation of stagnation that has persisted for ten months.

All bow before Dave's opinion! He is wise beyond belief, and has no need for evidence of any kind (unlike us puny mortals). Nay, instead we must simply take his word for the gospel truth it is, and marvel at the pearls of wisdom that spill from his lips. Glory to Dave in the highest!

Are you seriously referring to the past ten months of political turmoil, mass demonstrations, land seizures, violence and increasingly heated and direct confrontation in Nepal as 'stagnation'? You don't even have the excuse any more that you don't know what you're talking about, you've had it all explained to you many times. Now you're just being dogmatic for the sake of it.

Please enlighten me as to why you actually disagree with my explanation, and believe your 'interpretation' to be correct. The normal practice on this forum is to quote the sentences written by the other person and respond to them from there, rather than just covering your ears and going 'la la la la la this is what i believe la la la la'.


Consider what might have happened had the Maoists entered the Constituent Assembly (as the Bolsheviks entered the Duma) but refused to take responsibility for the government and refused the prime ministership. This might have forced the bourgeois parties to form a minority government, which would have done its dirty work, as the government is doing as we speak. And the Maoists would have been in opposition from the beginning, disrupting the functioning of the government, as they are doing now, without having given it legitimacy in the first place.

They had the mandate of the people to form a government, and did not believe the people would understand if they gave them the finger and told them that they deserved another reactionary government because they were too stupid to instantly come to revolutionary conclusions. Also, had they not joined the government, the illusion that a democratically elected Maoist government could peacefully and legally solve Nepal's problems would have persisted, and probably been strengthened. They would not have achieved their strategic goals. By concretely exposing to everyone in Nepal that the Maoists, even when leading the government, cannot achieve change legally and peacefully, they have suitably prepared the grounds for the coming insurrection.

Why would you, from the comfort of your First World existence, know how to pull of a revolution in Nepal better than the leaders who will die if it fails? You're attitude is arrogant beyond belief.



We shall watch and wait. Frankly, doing searches on the Internet, I have found little evidence of massive land reform, either in the areas controlled or formerly controlled by the Maoists or elsewhere. The landlords seem to be going about business as usual.

Wow. So because you can't find evidence of massive land reform from a brief google search, it obviously can't have happened. How blind the peasants of Nepal have been, it seems the People's War didn't allow them to seize the land they worked on after all, they just imagined it and supported the Maoists because, I dunno, they seemed nice or something.

This is ridiculous.

Oh, and incidentally, this repor (http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/2-political/4570-maoists-continue-to-capture-private-land.html)t came in this morning.


So what you’re saying is: it would be okay if a Marxist party built state capitalism in Nepal as the Chinese Communists and the Russian Stalinists did in their countries. That would be okay with you.

Um, no. I'm saying a revolutionary government should encourage the development of industry, and the working people of the country concerned should figure out the best way to do it.


So what you’re saying is that the party is superior to the working class and will assume power over whatever industry there is.

You're very good at putting words in other peoples mouths. A shame you're not quite so good at concretely debating events taking place in the 21st century, which tend to be a little less straightforward than the paragraphs in your history textbook. The UCPN (M) is the party of the Nepali proletariat and all the oppressed working people of Nepal. It represents them, is made up of them, and would not exist without them and their support. If you read what they're actually proposing for how the New Nepal is structured, they're not proposing a top down system at all. It's all here. (http://ucpnm.org/english/doc11.php#39)



I have read some of Bandt’s stuff from Nepal. It reads like the kind of wide-eyed shit that Lincoln Steffins and types like that wrote about Russian in the 1930s. Even if the revolutionary party in Nepal was one I agreed with politically, I wouldn’t trust a schmuck like Brandt. See 10 Days That Shook the World by John Reed to see how that kind of reporting needs to be done

Do explain how it is wide eyed. You mean because Brandt actually takes hope and inspiration from revolution in the 21st century, rather than seizing on a new opportunity to have debates about history?


One more time, the kitteh pounces from the sack. Workers control of industry does not mean workers being involved. It means workers control. Not sharing in the adminstratin, providing input, participating in councils with management (and the government/party) where they do not have a majority vote. It means workers control from bottom to top.

Let's wait and see what kind of system gets set up in Nepal. That's certainly not the system the Bolsheviks set up in Russia, what you're talking about is syndicalist bullshit. Why should the workers of one particular factory be allowed to decide what gets produced, how it gets produced and presumably what price it sells at, regardless of how this will affect production, distribution and exchange across the entire society and for all the working people? In the Spanish Civil War there were worker controlled factories making shoes that voted to raise prices and export the products, despite the shortage of shoes on the front.

The whole point of a rationally planned economy is to coordinate production across all of the country so as to raise living standards for everyone and move society forward, in all areas, not just the prosperous ones. This requires all individuals, whether they work in a factory or not, to submit to the discipline of being part of a collective. And that's why 'worker's control' isn't enough - the whole point of a revolutionary political organisation being represented in the management bodies of the workplace is so that these workplaces aren't just run on the basis of making profit for the people that work there, and to ensure it's tied to a wider perspective of what the entire society needs.

Anyway, while this is an interesting discussion, we should probably wait until after the Maoists seize power and then critique any models they put in place. Until then we're just crystal ball gazing. Their practice so far offers nothing but hope, and I'd love it if you provided me with any concrete evidence of concrete actions taken by the party that suggest otherwise.


As we have been debating this for awhile now, please provide those links again.

It's in this thread. Previous page.

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/


Comrade, I strongly suggest you not go there. I don’t know as much as you about Nepal, but I do have some knowledge of it plus a few others places, plus some experience not only reading but applying Marxism. You want to challenge my integrity, go ahead. But remember, for many of us, Maoists carry the burden of 60 or so years of bullshit about China, so I would check my casements before I start chucking bricks. I have answered your points to the best of my ability, honestly, and within the time constraints I function under. Time will indeed tell.

The issue here isn't your 'integrity'. I don't know you, I couldn't comment on it if I wanted to. The issue is that when you say stuff life "why would the Maoists form a coalition government with bourgeois parties", and I answer your question in some depth, you have consistently not responded to my explanations. From where I'm sitting, it appears that you're deliberately trying to sidestep my arguments and drag the discussion onto historical and theoretical ground where you feel more comfortable.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

[RED DAVE]

Let's wait and see what kind of system gets set up in Nepal. That's certainly not the system the Bolsheviks set up in Russia, what you're talking about is syndicalist bullshit. Why should the workers of one particular factory be allowed to decide what gets produced, how it gets produced and presumably what price it sells at, regardless of how this will affect production, distribution and exchange across the entire society and for all the working people? In the Spanish Civil War there were worker controlled factories making shoes that voted to raise prices and export the products, despite the shortage of shoes on the front.

The whole point of a rationally planned economy is to coordinate production across all of the country so as to raise living standards for everyone and move society forward, in all areas, not just the prosperous ones. This requires all individuals, whether they work in a factory or not, to submit to the discipline of being part of a collective. And that's why 'worker's control' isn't enough - the whole point of a revolutionary political organisation being represented in the management bodies of the workplace is so that these workplaces aren't just run on the basis of making profit for the people that work there, and to ensure it's tied to a wider perspective of what the entire society needs.(emph added)

State capitalism here we come!

RED DAVE

[Crux]

Dave, you are doing some serious over-simplification there. That said, it of course runs the risk of aiming for making the worker's for the party rather than the party for the worker's. Especially as the UCPN(m) basically sees it as their task to build capitalism in Nepal. As a "first stage" of course, but yeah it definately bears with it some serious risks for pitfalls, pitfalls all too common for parties that employ a "two-stage" theory of revolution.

[Saorsa]

(emph added)

State capitalism here we come!

Are you serious?

[RED DAVE]

This requires all individuals, whether they work in a factory or not, to submit to the discipline of being part of a collective. And that's why 'worker's control' isn't enough - the whole point of a revolutionary political organisation being represented in the management bodies of the workplace is so that these workplaces aren't just run on the basis of making profit for the people that work there, and to ensure it's tied to a wider perspective of what the entire society needs.This is a clear statement of the necessity of exerting discipline over the working class.

By who?

If this discipline is not exerted by the working class itself, and I don't mean by a party but by the working class expressed through its own institutions of power, councils, soviets, etc., we see a force being exerted over the working class.

This is what you seem at least to be advocating.

By the way, the report that you posted about land seizure is trivial if we're discussing seizure of land by peasants in a nation of 30 million people.

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/2-political/4570-maoists-continue-to-capture-private-land.html

It refers to the "capture" by "Unified CPN(Maoist) and its sister organisations" of a total of 166.2 "bagahas" of land. According to wikipedia, a Nepalese bigaha (or bigha) is "0.677 hectare (1.67 acres)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigha

So, the sum total of what you are giving as an example of peasants seizing land is 277.5 acres of land. In addition, this land was fallow land seized by the party, not land seized by peasants themselves who were working the land under landlords.

RED DAVE

[southernmissfan]

I don't want to interrupt, but I do have a question. Both debaters have stated that Nepal is a semi-feudal, backwards country where the vast majority of the population are peasants, primarily illiterate ones at that. Now looking at Russia and China, there are certainly differences, but at the end of the day they shared those essential characteristics that Nepal currently has. Yes, they were to somewhat varying degrees and manifested in different ways, but by no means was Russia in 1917 an advanced developed country with a proletarian majority.

So to get to my point, how can communism--the revolutionary overthrow of class society by the proletariat--be established in such a situation? How can capitalism be overthrown when it has hardly begun to develop? At the end of the day, we can debate this or that decision by this or that historical party/movement, but isn't the real determining factor from a Marxist standpoint the material conditions? And if so, wouldn't that make the establishment of capitalism in China and Russia seem fairly inevitable given the context? And by extension, wouldn't it seem that the revolution in Nepal will follow the same path unless something monumental (aka international revolutionary upheaval perhaps) happens?

I will not engage in the debate over whether the Nepali Maoists are actually revolutionary or progressive or whatever. But, let's say the revolution is sucessful and the old order is overthrown. What will happen? I would assume what has historically taken place in similar situations--modernization and industrialization, increased gender equality, attack of superstition and backwards beliefs, increased literacy, etc. These are all vital, necessary and in this situation and given the material conditions of Nepal, indeed progressive. This doesn't make it communist. Or for that matter, socialist.

Just so I'm clear, I'm no expert. Not on Nepal, not on Marxism. Just throwing in my two cents, seeing where they land lol.

[Saorsa]

Dave, please. It was just the most recent news report of a land seizure. It is one of many, and these reports have been coming in for decades now. Do you really think the peasants would support the Maoists if the Maoists hadn't delivered on land reform? Really?

It seems to me that you'd only ever be happy if the entire revolutionary process took place in less than a week. Land reform must be carried out simultaneously across the entire world, or else it's bourgeois Stalinist state capitalism blah blah blah.

How many news reports of Maoist-led land seizures do I have to pull out for you to make you happy? Ten? Twenty? Fifty thousand?

And incidentally, you're coming across as more and more of an anarchist, with all the fetish that current has for spontaneity. Why is a land seizure carried out under the leadership of a revolutionary party somehow less worthy of support than a land seizure carried out spontaneously by peasants who just felt like doing it? Frankly, it seems obvious to me that the former indicates a state of heightened political consciousness, whereas the latter indicates little more than self interest.

Secondly, your stupid sentence about how you wish it had been a case of peasants kicking out the landlords only reveals how little you still understand the situation in Nepal. The article clearly states it was the Maoist squatters association that carried out the seizures, an organisation of landless people. Landless people don't tend to have landlords - if you're having trouble with this concept do tell me, and I'll explain it slower and in more depth.

As well as this, Nepal is such a crushingly poor country that in much of the countryside there isn't enough wealth being created beyond subsistence level farming to make it possible for a landlord class to even exist. Instead, the class contradictions arise between the peasants and loan sharks, often government loan agencies but also private ones, who lend the peasants money needed to buy equipment, fertiliser etc then charge exorbitant interest rates that leave the peasants heavily indebted. The very first action of the People's War was when the Maoists led local peasants and stormed a government loan agency, seized all it's financial papers, took them outside and burned them.

Furthermore, as in all third world countries, Nepal has a big problem with absentee landlords. In many cases, these absentee landlords are just loan sharks or former loan sharks who kicked the peasants who couldn't pay the interest off their land. This land, owned by people living in Kathmandu who may never even visit it, is often left to lie fallow. In a country where starvation is widespread and where landlessness if a big problem, it is absurd for you to make out that a bunch of revolutionary squatters taking over a piece of unused land and declaring they're going to put it to use for the benefit of the people is not worthy of support. Your hysterical bullshit isn't exposing anything about the UCPN (M), all it's exposing is the hollowness of your politics.

As I have patiently explained to you over and over again, expecting the revolution in Nepal to follow the same patterns as the revolution in Russia is somewhat unrealistic.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you're just criticising for the sake of it. And you're really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, you still haven't responded to this post. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1683898&postcount=20) Are you just going to admit you have no response to my arguments? And that your analysis of the revolution in Nepal is just dogmatic rubbish without any basis in reality?

[Saorsa]

This is a clear statement of the necessity of exerting discipline over the working class.

By who?

If this discipline is not exerted by the working class itself, and I don't mean by a party but by the working class expressed through its own institutions of power, councils, soviets, etc., we see a force being exerted over the working class.

This is what you seem at least to be advocating.

Very nice sounding theoretical statements. How do you propose to realise them in practice? What structures will be put in place to actually make this possible? I've linked you to what the CPN (M) was saying should be put in place in 2001, and what it attempted to set up in the areas it controlled... perhaps you should put forward some concrete criticisms of that.

But no, you won't. You're just going to respond to this by saying "THEY MUST BUILD SOVIETS AND THEN THEY MUST CALL FOR ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT LENIN DID AND NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE HAIL LENIN AND TROTSKY"

[red cat]

I don't want to interrupt, but I do have a question. Both debaters have stated that Nepal is a semi-feudal, backwards country where the vast majority of the population are peasants, primarily illiterate ones at that. Now looking at Russia and China, there are certainly differences, but at the end of the day they shared those essential characteristics that Nepal currently has. Yes, they were to somewhat varying degrees and manifested in different ways, but by no means was Russia in 1917 an advanced developed country with a proletarian majority.


Russia was already imperialist before the Russian revolution. It had also entered an imperialist world war, which by Leninism, was nothing but a struggle among capitalist powers for redistribution of colonies.

Also, they had a bourgeois revolution in March 1917. Where the bourgeoisie can conduct a revolution to seize power throughout the country, bourgeois relations of production are very strong indeed.




So to get to my point, how can communism--the revolutionary overthrow of class society by the proletariat--be established in such a situation? How can capitalism be overthrown when it has hardly begun to develop? At the end of the day, we can debate this or that decision by this or that historical party/movement, but isn't the real determining factor from a Marxist standpoint the material conditions? And if so, wouldn't that make the establishment of capitalism in China and Russia seem fairly inevitable given the context? And by extension, wouldn't it seem that the revolution in Nepal will follow the same path unless something monumental (aka international revolutionary upheaval perhaps) happens?

I will not engage in the debate over whether the Nepali Maoists are actually revolutionary or progressive or whatever. But, let's say the revolution is sucessful and the old order is overthrown. What will happen? I would assume what has historically taken place in similar situations--modernization and industrialization, increased gender equality, attack of superstition and backwards beliefs, increased literacy, etc. These are all vital, necessary and in this situation and given the material conditions of Nepal, indeed progressive. This doesn't make it communist. Or for that matter, socialist.

Just so I'm clear, I'm no expert. Not on Nepal, not on Marxism. Just throwing in my two cents, seeing where they land lol.

At present, it is impossible for the bourgeoisie to conduct any successful anti-imperialist revolution anywhere, because its class interests ultimately lead it to cling on to whatever share of power it is offered by imperialism, rather than to overthrow it and risk a proletarian revolution. Therefore every successful anti-imperialist movement today has to be led by the proletariat and therefore be communist.

[Saorsa]

I don't want to interrupt, but I do have a question. Both debaters have stated that Nepal is a semi-feudal, backwards country where the vast majority of the population are peasants, primarily illiterate ones at that. Now looking at Russia and China, there are certainly differences, but at the end of the day they shared those essential characteristics that Nepal currently has. Yes, they were to somewhat varying degrees and manifested in different ways, but by no means was Russia in 1917 an advanced developed country with a proletarian majority.

So to get to my point, how can communism--the revolutionary overthrow of class society by the proletariat--be established in such a situation? How can capitalism be overthrown when it has hardly begun to develop? At the end of the day, we can debate this or that decision by this or that historical party/movement, but isn't the real determining factor from a Marxist standpoint the material conditions? And if so, wouldn't that make the establishment of capitalism in China and Russia seem fairly inevitable given the context? And by extension, wouldn't it seem that the revolution in Nepal will follow the same path unless something monumental (aka international revolutionary upheaval perhaps) happens?

I will not engage in the debate over whether the Nepali Maoists are actually revolutionary or progressive or whatever. But, let's say the revolution is sucessful and the old order is overthrown. What will happen? I would assume what has historically taken place in similar situations--modernization and industrialization, increased gender equality, attack of superstition and backwards beliefs, increased literacy, etc. These are all vital, necessary and in this situation and given the material conditions of Nepal, indeed progressive. This doesn't make it communist. Or for that matter, socialist.

Just so I'm clear, I'm no expert. Not on Nepal, not on Marxism. Just throwing in my two cents, seeing where they land lol.

They're reasonable questions comrade. I think I've answered some of them here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1689213&postcount=13)

[southernmissfan]

When this democratic revolution is led by the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry, as it is in the case of Nepal, it no longer has the bourgeois quality of the 19th century nationalist revolutions. Unless you've forgotten, capitalism has reached the imperialist era and bourgeois capitalism is in its decadent phase and can no longer be progressive.

But how does this movement differ from the dozen or so Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist movements and revolutions over the past century? If this movement gains power in Nepal, and Nepal only, what exactly do you think will happen? What's a best case scenario here, another Cuba? Maybe Maoist China?

Certainly it is not of the same character of 19th century nationalist revolutions. Neither were any of the "communist" revolutions of the 20th century. Yet in retrospect, weren't the effects fairly similar (aka modern, developed capitalism)?

And yes, bourgeois capitalism would be extremely progressive for Nepal, comparatively speaking. Though, as I have already said, a "communist" victory in Nepal wouldn't exactly mean 19th century capitalism. The progressive things were exactly what I mentioned and I don't see how that can be argued. In fact, I believe Comrade Alastair basically agreed with me in another thread. And he hit on another good point which I left out. While Maoist victory in Nepal alone will not result in "socialism" or "communism", it will weaken international capitalism as a whole and can also lend strength to revolutionary movements in the region (India seems like a logical example). This in turn can have extremely progressive effects.

I'm not debating on whether the Maoists in Nepal are "revolutionary enough" for me. I'm just trying to be honest about the material conditions and what a victory would actually mean.

[southernmissfan]

Russia was already imperialist before the Russian revolution. It had also entered an imperialist world war, which by Leninism, was nothing but a struggle among capitalist powers for redistribution of colonies.

Also, they had a bourgeois revolution in March 1917. Where the bourgeoisie can conduct a revolution to seize power throughout the country, bourgeois relations of production are very strong indeed.




At present, it is impossible for the bourgeoisie to conduct any successful anti-imperialist revolution anywhere, because its class interests ultimately lead it to cling on to whatever share of power it is offered by imperialism, rather than to overthrow it and risk a proletarian revolution. Therefore every successful anti-imperialist movement today has to be led by the proletariat and therefore be communist.

I am not arguing whether Russia was imperialist, or that there was in fact a bourgeoisie and a working class. Both are just common facts. Which is why I tried to make sure to distinguish between Russia and China because there were certainly real, material differences. But there is one overall theme of all the Leninist-inspired revolutions of the 20th century: they all took place in backwards countries that were under-developed and overwhelmingly peasant. Now that certainly came in varying degrees but Russia was not a fully industrialized capitalist nation, not even by 1917 standards. The bourgeois elements were just emerging from the last vestiges of feudalism and had certainly not grown to anything comparable to say the German or British bourgeoisie of the same period. The material conditions just weren't there, I'm sorry. We can send around and say it was Lenin's fault, or Trotsky's fault, or Stalin's fault or whomever you like. Reality is that it was the material conditions that prevented communism from taking place.

As to your second point, yeah that sounds great. But while we might like for every anti-imperialist movement to be proletarian, and we might know a GENUINELY revolutionary one must be, that doesn't make it so. If you were right, I imagine the CIA wouldn't have spent the last six decades or so overthrowing every nationalist leader to emerge in the third world. If a country that is exploited by imperialism stands up for itself, whether it be through a Leninist party or a nationalist/populist movement, it does real harm to imperialism. In the end, it will accomplish many of the same things. Why do you think the US is so upset with Chavez and the other left-populist folks down in Latin America? Precisely because they aren't following orders and charting an independent path. To think this path is "communist" seems fairly optimistic, but whatever it is, it is progressive. Anytime 1) a country's material conditions and development improve and 2) imperialism is weakened or defeated even in the slightest, it is progressive and something that the international working class can use to its advantage.

[red cat]

But how does this movement differ from the dozen or so Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist movements and revolutions over the past century? If this movement gains power in Nepal, and Nepal only, what exactly do you think will happen? What's a best case scenario here, another Cuba? Maybe Maoist China?

What will happen in Nepal cannot be compared to Cuba and China. Cuba never overthrew imperialism completely; it succumbed to Soviet imperialism. China, on the other hand is a big country. Each of the successful wave of revolutions we have seen till now has been led by a big country. I think that this is militarily essential, because a large area, population and economy is needed to effectively neutralize the first attacks of imperialism on the wave of revolutions.

Also, since a new democratic revolution takes place in a very weak and backward country, it still remains considerably weak after the revolution. In case of China, a socialist bloc led by the USSR was present to prevent imperialism from attacking China with full force. Today, however, no socialist bloc or country remains. Therefore the country that completes its new democratic revolution first also has to face major imperialist attacks and become the base for world-revolution. We don't know yet what such a revolution will look like.

Nepal is a small country surrounded by two big ones. One is an emerging imperialist power and the other is an expansionist semi-colony. Both are militarily many times stronger than Nepal, and Nepal has to depend on one of them for access to the sea. Before overthrowing imperialism completely, the UCPN(M) has to chalk out plans for overcoming all these disadvantages. In my opinion, they will either try to set imperialist powers against each other, or wait till the CPI(Maoist) has progressed enough in making revolution in India.



Certainly it is not of the same character of 19th century nationalist revolutions. Neither were any of the "communist" revolutions of the 20th century. Yet in retrospect, weren't the effects fairly similar (aka modern, developed capitalism)?

Some important aspects of a new democratic system is that every industry that grows big is nationalized and workers start taking control, land is collectivized and there are no big land owners. All this doesn't happen in capitalism.




And yes, bourgeois capitalism would be extremely progressive for Nepal, comparatively speaking. Though, as I have already said, a "communist" victory in Nepal wouldn't exactly mean 19th century capitalism. The progressive things were exactly what I mentioned and I don't see how that can be argued. In fact, I believe Comrade Alastair basically agreed with me in another thread. And he hit on another good point which I left out. While Maoist victory in Nepal alone will not result in "socialism" or "communism", it will weaken international capitalism as a whole and can also lend strength to revolutionary movements in the region (India seems like a logical example). This in turn can have extremely progressive effects.

I'm not debating on whether the Maoists in Nepal are "revolutionary enough" for me. I'm just trying to be honest about the material conditions and what a victory would actually mean.

If the revolution in Nepal succeeds, it will serve as a base for world revolution, display a much better system before the oppressed masses of the world who are deluded by promises of democracy, freedom and even socialism, confiscate some imperialist capital and engage imperialism militarily, thus weakening it at other parts of the world. The part of imperialist capital that will manage to escape Nepal before confiscation will try to find markets at other places, thereby intensifying imperialist oppression there and hastening more revolutions.

[red cat]

I am not arguing whether Russia was imperialist, or that there was in fact a bourgeoisie and a working class. Both are just common facts. Which is why I tried to make sure to distinguish between Russia and China because there were certainly real, material differences. But there is one overall theme of all the Leninist-inspired revolutions of the 20th century: they all took place in backwards countries that were under-developed and overwhelmingly peasant. Now that certainly came in varying degrees but Russia was not a fully industrialized capitalist nation, not even by 1917 standards. The bourgeois elements were just emerging from the last vestiges of feudalism and had certainly not grown to anything comparable to say the German or British bourgeoisie of the same period. The material conditions just weren't there, I'm sorry. We can send around and say it was Lenin's fault, or Trotsky's fault, or Stalin's fault or whomever you like. Reality is that it was the material conditions that prevented communism from taking place.

It is true that Russian capitalism was nowhere near its west European counterparts. But it was capitalism nevertheless. The nature of revolution depends substantially on which class is in power. For example, some elements of bourgeois democracy was there in Russia. Even communists had a representation in parliament and formed legal organizations openly affiliated to them. This is impossible in any new democratic revolutionary process until the CP has reached strategic equilibrium.

I doubt whether material conditions prevented communism from taking place. In my opinion it was lack of political experience of the proletariat and its vanguard, both in China and Russia, that led to capitalist restorations.



As to your second point, yeah that sounds great. But while we might like for every anti-imperialist movement to be proletarian, and we might know a GENUINELY revolutionary one must be, that doesn't make it so. If you were right, I imagine the CIA wouldn't have spent the last six decades or so overthrowing every nationalist leader to emerge in the third world. If a country that is exploited by imperialism stands up for itself, whether it be through a Leninist party or a nationalist/populist movement, it does real harm to imperialism. In the end, it will accomplish many of the same things. Why do you think the US is so upset with Chavez and the other left-populist folks down in Latin America? Precisely because they aren't following orders and charting an independent path. To think this path is "communist" seems fairly optimistic, but whatever it is, it is progressive. Anytime 1) a country's material conditions and development improve and 2) imperialism is weakened or defeated even in the slightest, it is progressive and something that the international working class can use to its advantage.

I didn't get your point here. Where and why do you think I went wrong?

By the way, we should distinguish between movements that actually overthrow imperialism completely, those which succumb to another form of imperialism soon after, and those that are just puppets of some form of imperialism from the beginning.

[RED DAVE]

This is a clear statement of the necessity of exerting discipline over the working class.

By who?

If this discipline is not exerted by the working class itself, and I don't mean by a party but by the working class expressed through its own institutions of power, councils, soviets, etc., we see a force being exerted over the working class.
This is what you seem at least to be advocating.Me and my buddy Lenin.


Very nice sounding theoretical statements.Thank you.


How do you propose to realise them in practice? What structures will be put in place to actually make this possible?Uhh, Comrade, this is the central task of a revolutionary vanguard party: to lead the working class in constructing its own organs of power. It is not a matter of how I propose it. It is a matter of how the workers of any particular country, whether Nepal or the USA choose to do it and how the party assists.


I've linked you to what the CPN (M) was saying should be put in place in 2001, and what it attempted to set up in the areas it controlled... perhaps you should put forward some concrete criticisms of that.I shall. But I'm a hell of a lot more interested in the practices of the Maoists rather than their documents. I see no movement toward the creation of organs of workers control, either spontaneously by the masses or under the guidance of the Maoists.


But no, you won't. You're just going to respond to this by saying "THEY MUST BUILD SOVIETS AND THEN THEY MUST CALL FOR ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT LENIN DID AND NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE HAIL LENIN AND TROTSKY"Political cursing is a piss-poor substitute for debate.

Meanwhile, we see a very real possibility of the Maoists in Nepal achieving state power over the workers and peasants and intituting state capitalism, as in China and Vietnam. Don't forget, Comrade, in a post above you advocated

[quote=Comrade Alistair]The whole point of a rationally planned economy is to coordinate production across all of the country so as to raise living standards for everyone and move society forward, in all areas, not just the prosperous ones. This requires all individuals, whether they work in a factory or not, to submit to the discipline of being part of a collective. And that's why 'worker's control' isn't enough - the whole point of a revolutionary political organisation being represented in the management bodies of the workplace is so that these workplaces aren't just run on the basis of making profit for the people that work there, and to ensure it's tied to a wider perspective of what the entire society needs.[/qluote]Once more, this is politically dangerous ot the extreme. When this is combined with your call for "Industrialization by any means necessary," you are opening the door to dictatorship over the working class.

RED DAVE

[el_chavista]

Greetings to all comrades participating in this thread. What I am interested in is what political tactics for seizing power are the Maoist taking after Prachanda's resignation?
In Latin America, communist have several times backed the bourgeois movements for the sake of the "democratic national revolution" (Stalin's 1st stage for the revolution in backward countries) and as a result have neither gained some decisive political power nor improved their influence on the masses.
How comes that Prachanda's prime ministership was only a propaganda step to demonstrate to the people the futility of the parliamentary regime? Could he not do something more politically decisive with that political power?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Greetings to all comrades participating in this thread. What I am interested in is what political tactics for seizing power are the Maoist taking after Prachanda's resignation?
In Latin America, communist have several times backed the bourgeois movements for the sake of the "democratic national revolution" (Stalin's 1st stage for the revolution in backward countries) and as a result have neither gained some decisive political power nor improved their influence on the masses.
How comes that Prachanda's prime ministership was only a propaganda step to demonstrate to the people the futility of the parliamentary regime? Could he not do something more politically decisive with that political power?

I think it's pretty clear what their tactics are going to be. Both Prachanda & many maoists have spoken clearly that if the government fails to bring forth a reasonable constitution & doesn't take for the peace accord, then they will militantly overthrow the government & occupy its entirety.

[RED DAVE]

I think it's pretty clear what their tactics are going to be. Both Prachanda & many maoists have spoken clearly that if the government fails to bring forth a reasonable constitution & doesn't take for the peace accord, then they will militantly overthrow the government & occupy its entirety.That's cool, but what institution will be developed by the working class and the peasantry, in the process of revolution, in order to construct a new state?

In every revolution involving the working class, in the process of the revolution, the workers have build instituions, councials, soviets, rank-and-file committees, etc., that were the nucleus of the new state. What and where are such institutions in the Nepalese Revolution? In the absence of such worker-created organs, the possibility of a revolution over the working class, as in China and Vietnam, is imminently possible.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Dave... We. Don't. Know. We'll find out after the revolution how the new system of state power works. There were People's Councils and People's Courts set up throughout the liberated areas during the People's War - these have continued to operate in a clandestine way, and in many areas are starting to come out into the open again.

But of course, you won't be happy. Because to you, revolution is about repeating what you read in the history books, not finding new and creative ways to bring power to the oppressed.

[RED DAVE]

I think it's pretty clear what their tactics are going to be. Both Prachanda & many maoists have spoken clearly that if the government fails to bring forth a reasonable constitution & doesn't take for the peace accord, then they will militantly overthrow the government & occupy its entirety.
That's cool, but what institution will be developed by the working class and the peasantry, in the process of revolution, in order to construct a new state?

In every revolution involving the working class, in the process of the revolution, the workers have build instituions, councials, soviets, rank-and-file committees, etc., that were the nucleus of the new state. What and where are such institutions in the Nepalese Revolution? In the absence of such worker-created organs, the possibility of a revolution over the working class, as in China and Vietnam, is imminently possible.
Dave... We. Don't. Know. Then Katmandu, we have a problem. :D

In every revolution where the working class played the role of the dominant class, there were institutions of working class power being created during the revolutionary process.


We'll find out after the revolution how the new system of state power works.Not a good answer as it is precisely the conflict between the nascent proletarian power, expressed in the institutions workers of self-management, and the bourgeois state, that the brings the workers to power.


There were People's Councils and People's Courts set up throughout the liberated areas during the People's War - these have continued to operate in a clandestine way, and in many areas are starting to come out into the open again.Now you're talking. Could you provide details?


But of course, you won't be happy. Because to you, revolution is about repeating what you read in the history books, not finding new and creative ways to bring power to the oppressed.I suggest, Comrade, one more time, that you recognize that those of us who don't have the little red book tucked under our pillows at night have grave and serious and legitimate doubts about the political strategies of the Maoists. Twice in history, Maoism has taken power in a country, China and Vietnam, and the result was state capitalism leading to private capitalism. (And we're not even discussing Russian stalinism.) And there are very strong indications that the Nepalese Maoists are going in the same direction.

I am not nit-picking. You fail to see the danger. You make statements like "Industrialization by any means necessary" and talk about the workers being subject to "the discipline of being part of a collective," and red flags :D go up. There is no reason to be complacent or smug about this. One more state capitalist regime, operating under the guise of Marxism, is not what is needed.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Now you're talking. Could you provide details?

RED DAVE

You want details? Then start taking initiative like the rest of us & start researching. Start reading books about the revolution. Hell, I'll even give you a name of a book which, in my opinion, will be the best book you can get that explains the Nepalese Maoists in A LOT of details with personal witnesses by the author, herself. The book is called "Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal" by Li Onesto.

We can't just keep giving you answers. We learned because of our curiosity & the hope for a better world. So I suggest you do the same thing, Comrade.

[RED DAVE]

You want details? Then start taking initiative like the rest of us & start researching. Start reading books about the revolution. Hell, I'll even give you a name of a book which, in my opinion, will be the best book you can get that explains the Nepalese Maoists in A LOT of details with personal witnesses by the author, herself. The book is called "Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal" by Li Onesto.

We can't just keep giving you answers. We learned because of our curiosity & the hope for a better world. So I suggest you do the same thing, Comrade.With all due respect, this is a snotty and uncomradely response.

If Nepal is a focus of yours, and you have specific and strongly-held views, your responsibility is to provide material, links, etc., for the rest of us based on your interest, views and knowledge. When you say you'll even give me the name of a book, that's very revealing. I could say what I feel right now, but I'm trying to keep this on a comradely basis.

Oour responsibility is to educate ourselves and each other. I have two full-time jobs (I'm marking student papers are 12:50 AM), and I don't have time to read everything. My primary focus is American trade union activity, and that takes a hell of lot of time to keep track of and I don't post half the amount of material I want.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

With all due respect, this is a snotty and uncomradely response.

If Nepal is a focus of yours, and you have specific and strongly-held views, your responsibility is to provide material, links, etc., for the rest of us based on your interest, views and knowledge. When you say you'll even give me the name of a book, that's very revealing. I could say what I feel right now, but I'm trying to keep this on a comradely basis.

Oour responsibility is to educate ourselves and each other. I have two full-time jobs (I'm marking student papers are 12:50 AM), and I don't have time to read everything. My primary focus is American trade union activity, and that takes a hell of lot of time to keep track of and I don't post half the amount of material I want.

RED DAVE

And we've happily explained things for you when you asked questions about it. Now, I feel, it's time you took initiative as well & start doing some research yourself. Yes, we're all Comrades & we're here to help each other out, in which I will remain helping, but you need to start learning yourself as well.

[RED DAVE]

And we've happily explained things for you when you asked questions about it. Now, I feel, it's time you took initiative as well & start doing some research yourself. Yes, we're all Comrades & we're here to help each other out, in which I will remain helping, but you need to start learning yourself as well.You continue to be condescending.

It's obvious you have no concept of how comrades debate and discuss. I'll let it go at that. Perhaps we need a thread on this in Learning.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

He has a point Dave. The arguments have been made over and over again. The links have been provided over and over again. The evidence has been provided over and over again. And from where I'm standing, it appears you've either chosen to ignore it, or some kind of subconscious Cliffite filter has blanked it out and prevented it from reaching your brain, leading you to say the same tired old things over and over again without actually engaging with what we're saying.

You still haven't responded to the arguments I made on page one of this thread. This was supposed to be a debate - you're sidestepping my arguments and trying to get out of having to reply to them. And if you've got enough time to make the replies you have made, you've got enough time to reply to my arguments on the first page of this thread. How many times do I have to bring it up?

[RED DAVE]

I'm going to ignore the carping and ask a question. Is it true that:


One of the political conditions that CPN(M) reached with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) for joining force in overthrowing the monarchy and for CPN(M) to participate in the elections as a legal political party was to ask peasants having seized land during the land revolution to return the land and resume paying rent to the landowners, pending a legal “scientific land reform” to be launched by the new government.http://www.solidaritykhabar.com/index.php?view=article&id=5828%3Aland-reform-and-national-development-in-nepal&option=com_content&Itemid=147

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

If it is, and I'm not saying it is, sometimes the Party has to lead retreats. An orderly retreat is better than a rout, and a retreat that sets up the conditions for a new advance is even a type of offensive. The conditions of reality mean we cannot only, and always, go forward. Many comrades have deep difficulty in understand strategy and tactics, and only want to engage in a mass charge across an open field towards an entrenched enemy with machine guns. I suggest that is not only not an effective way towards victory, but it is a betrayal of those whom depend on us for leadership.

Our job is to win, not create the next noble lost cause and next batch of martyrs to which future comrades can raise their pints in memory.

[RED DAVE]

Please note: this post was inadvertently nearly deleted by me. I restored it from memory. Sorry.


Is it true that:
One of the political conditions that CPN(M) reached with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) for joining force in overthrowing the monarchy and for CPN(M) to participate in the elections as a legal political party was to ask peasants having seized land during the land revolution to return the land and resume paying rent to the landowners, pending a legal “scientific land reform” to be launched by the new government.http://www.solidaritykhabar.com/inde...ent&Itemid=147 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.solidaritykhabar.com/index.php?view=article&id=5828%3Aland-reform-and-national-development-in-nepal&option=com_content&Itemid=147)


If it is, and I'm not saying it is, sometimes the Party has to lead retreats. An orderly retreat is better than a rout, and a retreat that sets up the conditions for a new advance is even a type of offensive. The conditions of reality mean we cannot only, and always, go forward. Many comrades have deep difficulty in understand strategy and tactics, and only want to engage in a mass charge across an open field towards an entrenched enemy with machine guns. I suggest that is not only not an effective way towards victory, but it is a betrayal of those whom depend on us for leadership.This is pompous bullshit. What you are doing is rationalizing taking land from peasants and driving them into deeper poverty. Did the peasants consent to giving the land back? Were they even asked?


Our job is to win, not create the next noble lost cause and next batch of martyrs to which future comrades can raise their pints in memory.Win what? Win state power so state capitalism can be imposed on the workers and peasants?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Win what? Win state power so state capitalism can be imposed on the workers and peasants?


Even if Maoists create only state capitalism, that will be much better than imperialism and feudalism.

[RED DAVE]

Win what? Win state power so state capitalism can be imposed on the workers and peasants?
Even if Maoists create only state capitalism, that will be much better than imperialism and feudalismSo, you have no problem with the Nepalese Maoist party following the sterling example of the Chinese and Vietnamese parties and imposing state capitalism over the working class and the peasants.

Thanks for being so honest. The rest of us can now draw our own political conclusions about the true nature of Maoism.

RED DAVE

[Muzk]

The end

[red cat]

So, you have no problem with the Nepalese Maoist party following the sterling example of the Chinese and Vietnamese parties and imposing state capitalism over the working class and the peasants.

You are so good at making false accusations.


Thanks for being so honest. The rest of us can now draw our own political conclusions about the true nature of Maoism.

RED DAVENot before we discuss in details how Trots resent even the victory of a national liberation movement, or anything else that harms imperialism.

[red cat]

The end.


... but you have to agree that the discussions between red cat and Rosa are much more boring.


One little point. In that thread about Mao, Rosa has tried to negate not only Mao, but Marxism-Leninism-Maoism altogether. And we find only Maoists or those who sympathize with Maoism fighting back. This does us tell who the true political successors of Marx and Lenin are, doesn't it ?

Again, what is the leftist tendency that Rosa and her supporters claim to be affiliated to ?

[Muzk]

One little point. In that thread about Mao, Rosa has tried to negate not only Mao, but Marxism-Leninism-Maoism altogether. And we find only Maoists or those who sympathize with Maoism fighting back. This does us tell who the true political successors of Marx and Lenin are, doesn't it ?

Again, what is the leftist tendency that Rosa and her supporters claim to be affiliated to ?


The master of strawmen.

[red cat]

The master of strawmen.

Hardly.

I will just highlight the fact that previously people have been thrown out from the Trotskyist group for merely questioning. What could be the reason behind allowing someone who opposes Marxist-Leninist dialectics and hence practice, to be a member ?

[Muzk]

Master of strawmen.


btw Rosa opposes dialects yet she is in the trotskyist group (??)

[red cat]

Master of strawmen.

Are you introducing yourself each time ? :)


btw Rosa opposes dialects yet she is in the trotskyist group (??) Exactly my point.

[Muzk]

ah i read it again, i get it now...

what exactly is this holy dialectic you are talking about? does it give you jedi powers?

[red cat]

ah i read it again, i get it now...

what exactly is this holy dialectic you are talking about? does it give you jedi powers?

Read Lenin at least, and let us continue any further discussion on this through PMs.

[Muzk]

I read Lenin. But you should stop eating every single of their words as if they were always speaking the ultimate truth. Lenin is not god


This is my last word

[red cat]

I read Lenin. But you should stop eating every single of their words as if they were always speaking the ultimate truth. Lenin is not god


This is my last word

I will post a visitor-message reply to you.

[RED DAVE]

Win what? Win state power so state capitalism can be imposed on the workers and peasants[/QUOTE=red cat]Even if Maoists create only state capitalism, that will be much better than imperialism and feudalism.
So, you have no problem with the Nepalese Maoist party following the sterling example of the Chinese and Vietnamese parties and imposing state capitalism over the working class and the peasants.

Thanks for being so honest. The rest of us can now draw our own political conclusions about the true nature of Maoism.
You are so good at making false accusations.No, I'm merely drawing the extremely logical conclusion from your words.

A Maoist victory in Nepal, resulting in state capitalism, as in China or Vietnam, is cool with you. I'll expect to see that printed in your literature.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

No, I'm merely drawing the extremely logical conclusion from your words.

You did not mention that all the Maoist states had been socialist once.


A Maoist victory in Nepal, resulting in state capitalism, as in China or Vietnam, is cool with you. I'll expect to see that printed in your literature.

RED DAVE

But look at the bright side of it, if we don't show what you call "state capitalistic" tendencies, then Trotskyism has no future! Look at Nepal, just after the Maoists have abolished monarchy, a net-Trot group has emerged, and all they do is whine about the UCPN(M) not being revolutionary enough etc etc. Global Trotskyism also seems to dedicate itself only to that single task. Without us being "state capitalistic", where on earth would YOU be ? :lol:

[Muzk]

Without us being "state capitalistic", where on earth would YOU be ? :lol:


In the socialist world republic.

[Saorsa]

Dave, my god. It just keeps getting worse. I have explained so many times in the past year or so, and you must have seen this, that while the UCPN (M) promised to do return the seized land, it never did. I can provide you with plenty of links from years ago right up until the present day showing the Nepali ruling class whining about how the Maoists haven't fulfilled their promises like that one.

Here's a video from last week of General Katawal, former chief of the Nepali Army (the one the Maoists tried to sack, couldn't and then resigned in protest) saying that the Maoists have not dissolved have not dissolved their paramilitary forces and that they have not returned seized property. If you require me to, I'll get you plenty more evidence like this. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that what I'm saying is correct - the Maoists promised the bourgeois parties they would return the captured land, and then never did. And in fact, in the past three years, they've seized plenty more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkDnY7cNOQM


I read Lenin. But you should stop eating every single of their words as if they were always speaking the ultimate truth. Lenin is not god

I find it very ironic that you'd accuse the supporters of the UCPN (M) of treating Lenin like a god and Leninism like a religion, when it's been Dave who in this thread has displayed an almost religious dogmatism towards Lenin. It's been the sectarian opponents of the Nepali revolution who act as if any deviation from what Lenin did almost a century ago means counter-revolution. So don't pull that one out - we're the ones who are creatively re-envisioning Marxism and attempting to build a revolutionary movement in the 21st century, and we're the ones who are supporting the succesful efforts of revolutionaries like the UCPN (M) to do this. You're the christians here, not us.

[Muzk]

I find it very ironic that you'd accuse the supporters of the UCPN (M) of treating Lenin like a god and Leninism like a religion, when it's been Dave who in this thread has displayed an almost religious dogmatism towards Lenin. It's been the sectarian opponents of the Nepali revolution who act as if any deviation from what Lenin did almost a century ago means counter-revolution. So don't pull that one out - we're the ones who are creatively re-envisioning Marxism and attempting to build a revolutionary movement in the 21st century, and we're the ones who are supporting the succesful efforts of revolutionaries like the UCPN (M) to do this. You're the christians here, not us.

Strawman, I never said that. It's red_cat who loves dialectics, and then gives me a "proof" that dialectics are right by saying Lenin liked them.

[Saorsa]

This thread is not about dialectics. Talk about that somewhere else. I have zero interest in a discussion with Rosa, the biggest troll on these forums, so please don't attract her. If this sidetrack conversation keeps going I'll have to ask a mod to split the posts.

[RED DAVE]

=RED DAVE]No, I'm merely drawing the extremely logical conclusion from your words.
You did not mention that all the Maoist states had been socialist once.None of them were ever socialist. There never was workers control of industry in either China or Vietnam. Workers control of industry is the essence of socialism.

A Maoist victory in Nepal, resulting in state capitalism, as in China or Vietnam, is cool with you. I'll expect to see that printed in your literature.
But look at the bright side of it, if we don't show what you call "state capitalistic" tendencies, then Trotskyism has no future! Look at Nepal, just after the Maoists have abolished monarchy, a net-Trot group has emerged, and all they do is whine about the UCPN(M) not being revolutionary enough etc etc. Global Trotskyism also seems to dedicate itself only to that single task. Without us being "state capitalistic", where on earth would YOU be ?Now you are just being childish. And you are avoiding the fact that you just exposed the essence of your politics: state capitalism, where some class rules over the proletariat, is acceptable to you.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

None of them were ever socialist. There never was workers control of industry in either China or Vietnam. Trots saying so doesn't prove it.




Now you are just being childish. And you are avoiding the fact that you just exposed the essence of your politics: state capitalism, where some class rules over the proletariat, is acceptable to you.

RED DAVEI merely stated that state capitalism is far better than imperialism and feudalism. How is this wrong ?

Also, I think that any genuine revolutionary should primarily uphold the actions of Maoists, rather than denouncing them, because even if their party later succumbs to capitalism, it will be much better for the masses than what they have now. Presently, while the new democratic revolution is yet to be won in Nepal, Trots who themselves have contributed nothing to the revolution but howl anti- Maoist slogans are only serving imperialism.

[Muzk]

Trots saying so doesn't prove it.
You act like a child.


I merely stated that state capitalism is far better than imperialism and feudalism. How is this wrong ?
Imperialism is state capitalism
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/04.htm#030) Would you agree if I said "imperialism is better when it was initiated by a communist revolution which at first introduced an efficient planned economy"?


Also, I think that any genuine revolutionary should primarily uphold the actions of Maoists, rather than denouncing them, because even if their party later succumbs to capitalism, it will be much better for the masses than what they have now. Presently, while the new democratic revolution is yet to be won in Nepal, Trots who themselves have contributed nothing to the revolution but howl anti- Maoist slogans are only serving imperialism.Strawman.... you're pretty full of yourself and your Mao beliefs... almost religious.

[red cat]

You act like a child.

:rolleyes:


Imperialism is state capitalism
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/04.htm#030) Would you agree if I said "imperialism is better when it was initiated by a communist revolution which at first introduced an efficient planned economy"?

I don't understand how state capital of a country acting on itself has the same effects as imperialist capital acting on a colony. :lol:


Strawman.... you're pretty full of yourself and your Mao beliefs... almost religious.

How is it a strawman ? Please explain.

[Muzk]

Also, I think that any genuine revolutionary should primarily uphold the actions of Maoists, rather than denouncing them, because even if their party later succumbs to capitalism, it will be much better for the masses than what they have now. Presently, while the new democratic revolution is yet to be won in Nepal, Trots who themselves have contributed nothing to the revolution but howl anti- Maoist slogans are only serving imperialism.




Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0)
Quoting an opponent's words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy) and quote mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining)).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-files-1)
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as theevery upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) defender, then refuting that person's arguments – thus giving the appearance that
Inventing a fictitious persona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona) with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.


Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

[red cat]

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0)
Quoting an opponent's words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextomy) and quote mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining)).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-files-1)
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as theevery upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) defender, then refuting that person's arguments – thus giving the appearance that
Inventing a fictitious persona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona) with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.


Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.



Very informative post indeed, but how and where is any strawman involved in my argument ?

[Muzk]

Stop playing.

[red cat]

Stop playing.

Either try to reply properly, or stop posting about things you haven't got the least idea about.

[RED DAVE]

Very informative post indeed, but how and where is any strawman involved in my argument ?As soon as I nailed you, using your own words, as a supporter of state capitalism, you started, out of the blue, to attack Trotskyism.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

As soon as I nailed you, using your own words, as a supporter of state capitalism, you started, out of the blue, to attack Trotskyism.

RED DAVE

You consider that as a strawman argument ? Seriously ? :lol:

EDIT: By the way, yes, Maoists prefer state capitalism to imperialism and feudalism. But you are yet to prove that Maoists prefer state capitalism to socialism. However, this does not stop Trots from attacking Maoist movements, proving that Trotskyism is allied to imperialism

[Muzk]

Strawman

srsly your last posts were all strawmen

Oh and even though you don't fucking care, just for the archives: we support maoist movements, but we don't support so-called communists selling out the working class to the bourgeoise.

[red cat]

Strawman

srsly your last posts were all strawmen

Very enlightening. :rolleyes:


Oh and even though you don't fucking care, just for the archives: we support maoist movements,

Unfortunately your attitude indicates the contrary.


but we don't support so-called communists selling out the working class to the bourgeoise.

Is that enough reason NOT to participate in the peoples' war and start opposing the Maoists ( and not imperialism or feudalism ) even before the first revolution is won ?

[Muzk]

Strawman I already told you we don't oppose liberation movements; only their leadership if they are traitors to the working class.



Unfortunately your attitude indicates the contrary. Unfortunately your attitude indicates that you are a strawman.

[red cat]

Strawman I already told you we don't oppose liberation movements; only their leadership if they are traitors to the working class.

How exactly have Trots supported Maoists so far?



Unfortunately your attitude indicates that you are a strawman.

:rolleyes:

[Muzk]

How should I know?! I'm not a big trotskyism history book! But, I can tell you that we trotskyists supported you by giving you something to heat your ovens with... Murderers.

[red cat]

How should I know?! I'm not a big trotskyism history book! But, I can tell you that we trotskyists supported you by giving you something to heat your ovens with... Murderers.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=562&pictureid=5202

1) If you do not remove this picture immediately, I will report it.

2) If you do not know how Trots support Maoists, how do you know that they support us at all ?

[Muzk]

I support maoists. But not you. You are nothing but a strawman.

First world maoists... pathetic.

[red cat]

I support maoists. But not you. You are nothing but a strawman. Supporting our big parties in the third world will do. But if you claim that even a significant number of Trots support us, then you must be able to show us some Trot propaganda or material support for Maoists.



First world maoists... pathetic. I disagree. Our comrades in the first world are doing quite a good job. By the way, unlike those of yours, our strongholds are here in the third world, so you'd better focus on the same.

[Muzk]

Supporting our big parties in the third world will do. But if you claim that even a significant number of Trots support us, then you must be able to show us some Trot propaganda or material support for Maoists.


Waste of time propagandizing third world maoist's struggle for freedom, we have to build our own resistance in the first world, don't you know?!

[red cat]

Waste of time propagandizing third world maoist's struggle for freedom, we have to build our own resistance in the first world, don't you know?!

You don't think it is a waste of time fabricating stories about how third world Maoists are about to create state capitalism though . :lol:

[Muzk]

That's not my task, it's Dave's.

Remember what I said about strawmen?

[red cat]

That's not my task, it's Dave's.

Why not let him defend his own posts when you cannot back up your claims with any evidence ?



Remember what I said about strawmen?
You are the one making strawman arguments here.

[Muzk]

Next strawman.

I didn't claim shit either. Prove it.

By the way: An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise

[red cat]

Next strawman.

I didn't claim shit either. Prove it.

You claimed that Trots support Maoists. You failed to give any evidence for this. In this forum we have had nothing but slandering from you Trots.




By the way: An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise

Do you mean that your belief or characteristic contradicts Trotskyism ?

[RED DAVE]

You claimed that Trots support Maoists. You failed to give any evidence for this. In this forum we have had nothing but slandering from you Trots.Like most Maoists/Stalinists, you have no concept of fraternal criticism.

We have pointed out that your system is, basically, as you admit, at least strongly biased towards state capitalism. And you think we're slandering you. In addition, problems in the practice of the Nepalese Maoists have been raised which you dismiss with a wave of your magic wands. Not slander but legitimate questions and criticism, which you need to face and deal with.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Like most Maoists/Stalinists, you have no concept of fraternal criticism.

We have pointed out that your system is, basically, as you admit, at least strongly biased towards state capitalism. And you think we're slandering you. In addition, problems in the practice of the Nepalese Maoists have been raised which you dismiss with a wave of your magic wands. Not slander but legitimate questions and criticism, which you need to face and deal with.

RED DAVE

That is not fraternal criticism, and our system is not biased towards state capitalism.

But we are yet to receive any kind of valid support from Trots. Has any of your organizations highlighted the achievements of Nepali Maoists so far ?

[RED DAVE]

That is not fraternal criticism, and our system is not biased towards state capitalism.Sorry, Comrade, but I have demonstrated above, in several ways, that this is true. Telling the truth is part of fraternal criticism. We're not here for hugs.

You would be perfectly happy to be adminstrating state capitalism over the workers. You said you preferred this to semi-feudalism, and since semi-feudalism is on its way out in Nepal, with no prospects for a workers and peasants state, guess what ... . And with your corrupt ideas about land seizure and workers control, it is easy to conclude that this is what you actually want.


But we are yet to receive any kind of valid support from Trots. Has any of your organizations highlighted the achievements of Nepali Maoists so far ?Red herring. This is about the work of the Nepali Maoists. You can't wiggle away from your state cap tendencies and theirs by trying to derail this discussion.

By the way, according to the one report I was able to find, since you don't seem to feel you have the obligation to provide information, during the ten years of peoples war, the Maoists have redistributed, in their liberated areas and elsewhere, approximately 1% of the arable land in Nepal. 1% in 10 years.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

In addition, problems in the practice of the Nepalese Maoists have been raised which you dismiss with a wave of your magic wands. Not slander but legitimate questions and criticism, which you need to face and deal with.

Dave, the only person in this thread who has been refusing to answer legitimate questions is you. YOU HAVE STILL NOT RESPONDED TO THIS POST (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1683898&postcount=20), WHERE I REFUTED YOUR UNINFORMED ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE TACTICS OF THE UCPN (M). You have consistently refused to try and respond to my arguments (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1683898&postcount=20), and I can only conclude from this that you're admitting defeat and you've realised that you don't know what you're talking about and that you are, quite simply, wrong. This post. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1683898&postcount=20) This post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1683898&postcount=20) is the one you are trying to get out of replying to.


Like most Maoists/Stalinists, you have no concept of fraternal criticism.

A Trotskyist is trying to lecture other tendencies on how to carry out fraternal criticism? You must be joking. It must be frightening to you to see a party like the UCPN (M), which can carry out major internal line struggles and come out of it with greater unity than ever, rather than splitting into a thousand different sects.


You would be perfectly happy to be adminstrating state capitalism over the workers.

No, we would not. And you're such a hypocrite! I didn't want to turn this into a tendency war, but ffs, you started it. Trotsky was as much a proponent of the party ruling over the workers as Mao ever was. And I don't believe Mao was a proponent of any such thing, so take from that sentence what you will.

March 30, 1918 on the introduction of top down appointment of Red Army officers
"The elective basis", Trotsky wrote, "is politically pointless and technically in expedient and has already been set aside by decree". (L. Trotsky. 'Work, discipline, Order', Sochinenlya, XVII, pp. 171 - 172)

***************************************

April 6th 1920 at the Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions.

"the militarisation of labour . . . is the indispensable basic method for the organisation of our labour forces" . . . "Is it true that compulsory labour is always unproductive? . . . This is the most wretched and miserable liberal prejudice: chattel slavery too was productive". . . "Compulsory slave labour . . . was in its, time a progressive phenomenon". "Labour . . . obligatory for the whole country, compulsory for every worker, is the basis of socialism". "Wages . . . must not be viewed from the angle of securing the personal existence of the individual worker" but should "measure the conscientiousness, and efficiency of the work of every labourer".

********************************************

A few quotes by Trotsky from his work _Terrorism and Communism_. Ann Arbor edition, 1961):

"The organisation of labour is in its essence the organisation of the new society: every historical form of society is in its foundation a form of organisation of labour" (p. 133.)

"The creation of a socialist society means the organisation of the workers on new foundations, their adaptation to those foundations and their labour re-education, with the one unchanging end of the increase in the productivity of labour". (p. 146)

"Wages, in the form of both money and goods, must be brought into the closest possible touch with the productivity of individual labour. Under capitalism the system of piecework and of grading, the application of the Taylor system, etc., have as their object to increase the exploitation of the workers by the squeezing out of surplus value. Under socialist production, piecework, bonuses, etc., have as their problem to increase the volume of the social product . . . those workers who do more for the general interest than others receive the right to a greater quantity of the social product than the lazy, the careless and the disorganisers". (p. 149)

"The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite unquestionable .. . the only solution to economic difficulties that is correct from the point of view both of principle and of practice is to treat the population of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power - an almost inexhaustible reservoir - and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and utilisation". (p. 135)

"The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the application, to a greater or lesser degree, of the methods of militarisation of labour". (p. 137)

"The unions should discipline the workers and teach them to place the interests of production above their own needs and demands". "The young Workers' State requires trade unions not for a struggle for better conditions of labour - that is the task of the social and state organisations as a whole - but to organise the working class for the ends of production". (p. 143) "

It would be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of production, in the supremacy over the whole soviet mechanism of the collective will of the workers and not at all in the form in which individual economic enterprises are administered". (p.162)

"I consider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent. most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully". (p. 162)

"We have been more than once accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our own Party. . . In this substitution of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class..." (p. 107)

************************************************** *****

"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."
Trotsky, 10th Party Congress, 1921.

************************************************** **********

Trotsky's speech 30. March 1920 at the 9th party congress:

"If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of developement, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers".

In the same speech, he says "Deserters from labour ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps".

**********************************************

So don't go pointing fingers at Maoism with your bullshit talk of 'state-capitalism'.


You said you preferred this to semi-feudalism, and since semi-feudalism is on its way out in Nepal, with no prospects for a workers and peasants state, guess what ... . And with your corrupt ideas about land seizure and workers control, it is easy to conclude that this is what you actually want.

Semi-feudalism has a long way to go before it's gotten rid of in Nepal, it doesn't vanish overnight. Please explain in concrete terms exactly what is corrupt about our ideas of workers control and land seizures.


By the way, according to the one report I was able to find, since you don't seem to feel you have the obligation to provide information, during the ten years of peoples war, the Maoists have redistributed, in their liberated areas and elsewhere, approximately 1% of the arable land in Nepal. 1% in 10 years.

Do provide this report, I'd love to see it. Are you seriously trying to claim that the People's War didn't radically change the social relations in the countryside? Are you serious? I'm not even going to engage with that argument, that's just fucking stupid. You're deliberately throwing around slander now, either that or you are mentally retarded. And since I don't think the latter is true, the former must be.

[Crux]

So do tell me, comrade, what is the purpose of this wall of text with quotes ripped out of context? Your certainly not unintelligent, so I have to question what it is you wish to achieve? I could source the quotes and explain about the debates within the bolsheviks in the 1920's but this hardly seems to be the place for that. I know we have touched upon the chinese revolution somewhat as well, as that is the model that maoism generally tries to follow with the theory of the alliance of the Four Classes and New Democracy, I would suggest a look into this thread, where Red Struggle makes a rather informed critique of bothe the Cominterns line and the CPC line: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=130715

[Saorsa]

And just to indicate how ridiculous Dave's statements about how he doesn't believe the Maoists actually carried out land reform are, here's some quotes from scholarly articles I managed to find within about ten minutes of searching on the internet.

It should also be kept in mind, and is already known by those who've actually done research into the conditions in Nepal (as opposed to those who just mouth off as if they know what they're talking about), that the land struggle there has never been one of landless farmers working on big estates, who can just seize and redistribute/collectivise the land of these big estates. It reveals a lack of Marxist analysis to just assume that because a situation like this existed in Russia and in other countries around the world, it must also exist in Nepal. It does not. Nepal does not geographically support such a situation, and whether it did or not, such a situation does not economically exist. The land struggle in Nepal is as much a struggle between the peasants and the banks that own the deed to their land, between the peasants and the government departments that decide who holds the land deeds (generally based on written deeds, which causes obvious problems in a country where most people are functionally illiterate), and between the peasants and the absentee landlords who own the land they work on.

It should also be noted that there is a legal limit to the size of a landholding, and while this is obviously poorly enforced, it still makes things more complicated that some uninformed dogmatic types on this forum might assume. This quote from a very good scholarly piece on land ownership in Nepal explains the situation:


Legally the range is limited by ceilings, at most 11 bigha or 7.3 ha in the Tarai.
This is dramatically lower than pre-reform distribution in 1951 at which time
large holdings in the Tarai could amount to a 100 ha or more.22 Nepal never
possessed the vast hacienda of Latin America (and which still today amount to
50,000 ha for cattle ranches and agri-business enterprise in that vast continent).

http://www.landcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/nepal_law_book.pdf

The above quote sheds a lot of light on the situation. While of course the feudal/comprador state doesn't tend to crack down on illegal activities of the propertied classes, it is still illegal in Nepal to have a landholding larger than just over seven hectares. And while that's still large (about, what, eight or nine football fields?), it's not enormous. It should also be noted that in a country as mountainous as Nepal, probably the only place you could even have a 7 hectare landholding would be in the southern Terai plains region. The Maoist strongholds, where they began their movement and where they established complete control to implement their programmes, were in the hilly regions to the West in areas like Rolpa and Rukum. The Terai was never controlled by the Maoists, although they did have a strong presence there particularly in the second half of the PW, and so the Maoists were never able to carry out largescale land reform in the area where it was most possible. Instead they seized power in the impoverished hill areas to the West and the East, where the nature of landholding and land struggle was and remains very different - more about peasant vs creditor than peasant vs landlord.

47% of Nepali peasants have landholdings that they can work on to their hearts desire, but simply aren't quite large enough to produce enough food to survive. The struggle isn't so much one of straight up seizure and redistribution, but rather of enouraging communal forms of agriculture. Which the Maoists have been doing. (http://blog.com.np/2009/10/18/a-maoist-agricultural-center-in-nepal/)

In a country as horrifically underdeveloped as Nepal, land reform isn't as simple as just seize and redistribute. That's an important element which the Maoists have put into practice where possible, but the reason the Maoists haven't redistributed 10% or 50% or whatever of Nepal's land is because in the areas where they held power, there was fuck all land to redistribute in the first place. As all Marxists should know, revolution isn't just about redistributing wealth, it's about changing power relations... and that's what's happening in Nepal today and has been happening for the past decade.


Landlessness (Sukumbasi): Along with the Kamaiya system, landlessness and the unfair practices connected with it are at the centre of rural unrest fanning the Maoist insurgency.

According to Karki (2001, chapter 5) the various attempts at land reform since the 1960s
motivated by donor (American pressure) to contain the spread of communism in Asia
failed to successfully redistribute land amongst the landless. The movement against
landlessness debt, and the struggle for the security of tenure dates back to the 1950s, and was not always non-violent. Force, including Indian army personnel were used to suppress these rural uprisings (Karki, 2001). Central to the movement was the destruction of (sometimes false) mortgage and debt documents, a practice continued by contemporary Maoists. Government attempts at land reform were only partially successful.

Redistributed land ended up in the hands of the non-poor, and as long as the debt nexus
was not modified, the burden of debt servicing rendered the recent landless, landless once again. It can be argued that the movement for land rights forms the basis of Nepalese communism, and the modern Maoist movement.4

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/inequalityMAOISMnepal.pdf


In their base areas, the Maoists redistributed the captured land from absentee landlords and feudal interests to the locals to farm and use as cooperatives.

https://repository.unm.edu/dspace/bitstream/1928/3295/1/ManiNepal_Inequality%26Conflict2.pdf


"In 2053 (1996/97) we heard that Maoists were starting to break into the houses of wealthy people, tax collectors and money lenders, stealing their money and property and distributing it to the poor. What amazing news, we had never heard anything like that before! I was also happy when I heard this rumour, but I was afraid that this struggle might end badly. But I put those thoughts aside when I heard the wonderful news about sharing out the wealth of the rich land owners. The Maoist had even burned all the papers and accounts kept in some banks. We heard that the Maoist were breaking the arms and legs of tax collectors and money lenders in the West of the country and were taking control of villages. How amazing!"

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/DESTIN/pdf/WP78.pdf


Court cases are as usual but the tip of the iceberg in property dispute, not least
because fees, power and education are required to see the case through. As a
rule Dalits and members of other disadvantaged groups do not attempt to use
the courts. Charges are common that Judges are biased to the better off and/or
require payment. Data was not available as to how many disputes are resolved
at the ward or especially VDC level. The Rupandehi District Judge observed that
land cases have fallen during recent years because these were being resolved
through Maoist courts in different parts of the district.

http://www.landcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/nepal_law_book.pdf

[Saorsa]

So do tell me, comrade, what is the purpose of this wall of text with quotes ripped out of context? Your certainly not unintelligent, so I have to question what it is you wish to achieve?

I agree that they're taken out of context, and I agree that they don't reflect on the overall nature of Trotskyism as an ideological current. I guess what I'm trying to achieve is to point out to Dave that for all his idealistic theoretical talk of 'workers control' as some abstract thing that exists in the ether, 'workers control' as he's envisioning it is not what the Bolsheviks put into practice and is not what was possible in Russia, or today in Nepal. The methods the working class uses to express it's power can vary from country to country, and there is not one holy method that has to be put into place regardless of the conditions. Dave and co go on and on about how Maoism is about rule of the party over the workers, and how my comments about how individual workers in a post-revolutionary society will have to operate according to the discipline of the collective indicate a 'state-cap' mentality... Well, as I've just proven, Trotsky advocated more or less what I'm talking about! Trotsky wasn't an idealist on these matters, and he had a much clearer idea of what workers power actually means that Dave and the people like him do.

As he said - "It would be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of production, in the supremacy over the whole soviet mechanism of the collective will of the workers and not at all in the form in which individual economic enterprises are administered".

Dave's politics appear to have more in common with anarchism than with Trotskyism and/or Marxism-Leninism.

[Crux]

I agree that they're taken out of context, and I agree that they don't reflect on the overall nature of Trotskyism as an ideological current. I guess what I'm trying to achieve is to point out to Dave that for all his idealistic theoretical talk of 'workers control' as some abstract thing that exists in the ether, 'workers control' as he's envisioning it is not what the Bolsheviks put into practice and is not what was possible in Russia, or today in Nepal. The methods the working class uses to express it's power can vary from country to country, and there is not one holy method that has to be put into place regardless of the conditions. Dave and co go on and on about how Maoism is about rule of the party over the workers, and how my comments about how individual workers in a post-revolutionary society will have to operate according to the discipline of the collective indicate a 'state-cap' mentality... Well, as I've just proven, Trotsky advocated more or less what I'm talking about! Trotsky wasn't an idealist on these matters, and he recognised that when the situation calls for it measures that may not be perfect have to be taken.

As he said - "It would be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of production, in the supremacy over the whole soviet mechanism of the collective will of the workers and not at all in the form in which individual economic enterprises are administered".

Dave's politics appear to have more in common with anarchism than with Trotskyism and/or Marxism-Leninism.
Well, it has to be said Trotsky did revise some of his stances, which is perfectly reasonable to do I think especially in light of what subsequently happened. Worker's democracy is still one of the fundaments for building socialism, and I do think dave raises some important point, if in a bit of a knee-jerk fashion. What would you say to the risk of UCPN(m) being relatively close to the influence sphere of china tough? If there is a seizure of power this might become a further problem.

[chegitz guevara]

Not before we discuss in details how Trots resent even the victory of a national liberation movement, or anything else that harms imperialism.

It would be helpful if you didn't lie about your comrades. :thumbdown:

[chegitz guevara]

This is pompous bullshit. What you are doing is rationalizing taking land from peasants and driving them into deeper poverty. Did the peasants consent to giving the land back? Were they even asked?

The revolution doesn't ask. The revolution does.

In any event, I don't agree that land has been returned. I'm just saying that if it had been returned, in order to prepare the ground for a new offensive to take total control of the country that would be an objectively revolutionary act!


Win what? Win state power so state capitalism can be imposed on the workers and peasants?

RED DAVE

This is why you are just like Red Cat. You have complete religious faith in your own ignorance and you refuse to look at anything which contradicts your world view. You both have an anti-historical materialist, anti-dialectical viewpoint. KARL MARX said that capitalism was progressive compared to feudalism and slavery. Even if I were to accept your ridiculous and thoroughly un-Marxist definition of state capitalism (look, capitalism without private property, the law of value, or commodity production!), I would still be able to accept that it was progressive compared to what currently exists in Nepal.

By your standards, we should never fight for anything until we can get the whole pie, all in one fell swoop. You're like an anarchist, don't fight for better rights, because it's still capitalism. Don't fight for better wages, because that just leaves capitalism intact. No! It doesn't! It weakens capitalism, it makes us stronger!

I was very skeptical about the Maoists in Nepal. But instead of looking at the situation with my ideological blinders on, I actually studied. They are more revolutionary than anything happening in the West, hell, anything happening anywhere! They aren't dogmatic assholes claiming that the revolution can only be made one way, according to a slapdash blueprint for another country fifty or one hundred years ago. They are trying to make the revolution in their own country, in th 21st Century, under different conditions, facing much more powerful enemies, and do it without losing.

[red cat]

It would be helpful if you didn't lie about your comrades. :thumbdown:

As of now, Trots aren't exactly our comrades. Most third world Trots will agree (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1566660&postcount=167) with me. We can reconcile only if they uphold our revolutions.

[Crux]

As of now, Trots aren't exactly our comrades. Most third world Trots will agree (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1566660&postcount=167) with me. We can reconcile only if they uphold our revolutions.
So your idea that india is not capitalist got trashed by an indian trotskyist? So what? Or, I forget you are not interested in socialism at all.

[red cat]

So your idea that india is not capitalist got trashed by an indian trotskyist? So what?

That is only one aspect of the post. Read it carefully. Then also read the replies after which the Trot shut up.




Or, I forget you are not interested in socialism at all.

All this won't help you lot build revolutionary movements. :)

[RED DAVE]

All this won't help you lot build revolutionary movements. :)But what's going to keep you lot from going the way of China and Vietnam?

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

Fear of a bad turn out should not stop us from making the revolution.

[RED DAVE]

Fear of a bad turn out should not stop us from making the revolution.Absolutely true.

However, it should make us scrutinize our politics, strategy and tactics. A very good definition of insanity is someone who does the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.

However, as at least one of our resident Maoists has said, state capitalism is acceptable to them as a outcome.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

Absolutely true.

However, it should make us scrutinize our politics, strategy and tactics. A very good definition of insanity is someone who does the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.

If I lived by that creedo, I wouldn't be a socialist.


However, as at least one of our resident Maoists has said, state capitalism is acceptable to them as a outcome.

RED DAVE

Capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism. Thus, even if one accepts your anti-Marxist theory of state capitalism, you have no choice but to admit that state capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism ... unless you want to throw historical materialism out the window.

[Muzk]

Capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism. Thus, even if one accepts your anti-Marxist theory of state capitalism, you have no choice but to admit that state capitalism is progressive compared to feudalism ... unless you want to throw historical materialism out the window.

What's the point in first world maoism then? :blink:

[chegitz guevara]

What's the point in first world maoism then? :blink:

There is no point in Maoism being distinct from revolutionary Marxism in the First World (which is why I keep trying to get Maoists and Trotskyists to get over their differences and unite against the capitalists), except for those Maoists who hold to theory that the First World must be conquered by the Third. In that case, they see their role as providing support for Third World revolutions.

Course, I could be wrong. It's not like I'm a Maoist. I just think Maoists are every bit as much my comrades as I do Trotskyists. Now if they could both just stop uniting on thinking I'm a counter-revolutionary for not being one of them. :D

[Muzk]

I certainly think we should unite, too! But then I read shit about trotskyists being bourgeoise/reactionaries/whatever. Not only from MLs but from "old" leftcoms too :/


Basically yes. I don't like the term 'extreme left wing of capitalism' personally, but it does sum it up. For us the problem with Trotskyism is not that it is 'authoritarian', but that its politics are bourgeois.

Devrim


They're not ground in reality. It's the theory promoted by opportunistic and ultra-leftist Trotskyists and hardcore anti-revisionists to criticize revolutionary forces, much like the bourgeoisie and imperialist media does, as opposed to defending their revolutionary gains. People who promote the theory of state capitalism are the same ones who cheered the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, which led to plummeting social standards and living standards in the area.

[Muzk]

Oh oops I got something confused.. fixd

[RED DAVE]

I suggest that discussion of Maoist/Trotskyist relations be transferrred to this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trot-ml-reconciliation-t129699/index.html

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I would suggest you reply to my post. You know, the one you've been avoiding replying to, on page one.

[chegitz guevara]

On the question of returning peasant land without asking the peasants. Keeping in mind there isn't a lot of evidence that land has, in fact, been returned to former owners, and keeping in mind we don't actually know if the peasants weren't asked ...

... did the Bolsheviks ask the Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Finns before they sacrificed them to German imperialism in order to save the revolution in Russia? Had the Bolsheviks not signed Brest-Litovsk, the entire revolution would likely have fallen. There was a faction of Bolsheviks opposed, but they were wrong. Just as you are wrong to oppose any temporary retreat in Nepal, if that is what has occurred.

[RED DAVE]

I would suggest you reply to my post. You know, the one you've been avoiding replying to, on page one.(1) I'll reply to it as soon as I can.

(2) Please do not entertain the fantasy that I haven't replied because your presentation is so powerful that I'm crushed. I have two full-time jobs, plus other commitments, including those of political activism.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

You're not too busy to write other stuff in this thread, and a fair bit of it at that. Seems rather strange, but anyways...

[RED DAVE]

You're not too busy to write other stuff in this thread, and a fair bit of it at that. Seems rather strange, but anyways...I've asked you to cut that kind of shit out. You started this thread, and I agreed to participate. However, you do not make the rules. Strangely enough, I actually take your posts seriously, and since you're decided that the indicated thread is of importance, I'm giving it the attention you say it deserves.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Frankly, I think the thread has proven to be of little value. I think a few good points came out in the discussion that's taken place, and I'm glad I took the opportunity to explain why the Maoists formed a govt etc, those posts will be of some use in the future. But you haven't engaged with the subject. Rather than concretely debating the tactics of the UCPN (M) in the context of Nepal today, asking the question whether this has concretely advanced the revolutionary struggle or not and attempting to answer the question with evidence, you've just tried time and time again to drag the discussion back onto the historical terrain you're familiar with. You've made plenty of assertions, and made plenty of references to what Lenin did in 1917 and how lo and behold, the Maoists aren't doing exactly this in 2010 (sacrilege! burn the witch!)... But you haven't even made a serious critique of the Maoist's strategy from a Trotskyist perspective. You've just pointed out that you don't like Maoism and you think Trotsky was cool.

Feel free to keep posting if you want to, but don't feel any major expectation to do so. I expected better of you in this thread, but it seems you're attempts at argument don't rise above most of the other sectarian Trots on this forum.

You live and learn I suppose.

[Crux]

Frankly, I think the thread has proven to be of little value. I think a few good points came out in the discussion that's taken place, and I'm glad I took the opportunity to explain why the Maoists formed a govt etc, those posts will be of some use in the future. But you haven't engaged with the subject. Rather than concretely debating the tactics of the UCPN (M) in the context of Nepal today, asking the question whether this has concretely advanced the revolutionary struggle or not and attempting to answer the question with evidence, you've just tried time and time again to drag the discussion back onto the historical terrain you're familiar with. You've made plenty of assertions, and made plenty of references to what Lenin did in 1917 and how lo and behold, the Maoists aren't doing exactly this in 2010 (sacrilege! burn the witch!)... But you haven't even made a serious critique of the Maoist's strategy from a Trotskyist perspective. You've just pointed out that you don't like Maoism and you think Trotsky was cool.

Feel free to keep posting if you want to, but don't feel any major expectation to do so. I expected better of you in this thread, but it seems you're attempts at argument don't rise above most of the other sectarian Trots on this forum.

You live and learn I suppose.
Nobody answered my question...I suppose you just missed it, so I'll ask again, what are the risk of an UCPN(m) (with popular front I suppose) regime coming too strongly under influence of the Chinese Communist Party? And how close are their current relations? I think it is relevant and warranted questions.

[red cat]

Nobody answered my question...I suppose you just missed it, so I'll ask again, what are the risk of an UCPN(m) (with popular front I suppose) regime coming too strongly under influence of the Chinese Communist Party? And how close are their current relations? I think it is relevant and warranted questions.

There is always a chance of counter-revolution in any country if socialism has not been achieved and consolidated enough.

Presently the UCPN(M) holds that after the defeat of the GPCR, capitalist restoration took place in China, and that the CPC is revisionist now.

[Crux]

There is always a chance of counter-revolution in any country if socialism has not been achieved and consolidated enough.

Presently the UCPN(M) holds that after the defeat of the GPCR, capitalist restoration took place in China, and that the CPC is revisionist now.
Forgive my ignorance but "GPCR"? Is that the Culutural Revolution? Well, in any case they are obviously currently in contact, and I am unaware as to what extent their contacts go, but I don't think the UCPN(M) outright denounces China. I might be wrong though. That is why I am asking.

[Saorsa]

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6558

[red cat]

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/wprm-nepals-gaurav-speaks-on-democracy-cultural-revolution/

[Crux]

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6558

However, in sharp contradiction to what the party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been uttering of late more so after his China visit, Mr. Kiran rules out Chinese support in the Maoists’ agitation that begins today, November 1, 2009.Doesn't this imply that there is an ongoing conflict inside the party? Oh and the CCP's tradition of backing all sides goes way back. The articles are interesting so don't get me wrong but I would be interested in your own assessment as well.

[red cat]

Doesn't this imply that there is an ongoing conflict inside the party? Oh and the CCP's tradition of backing all sides goes way back. The articles are interesting so don't get me wrong but I would be interested in your own assessment as well.

The CPC will try to back only the revisionist elements in the UCPN(M).

Any Maoist party always has struggle inside it to varying degrees. At the present state of a long strategic equilibrium, the UCPN(M) is particularly vulnerable to a revisionist takeover.

However, whether they are revisionist or not will be determined only by their actions concerning the organs of peoples' power.

[Crux]

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/wprm-nepals-gaurav-speaks-on-democracy-cultural-revolution/
This is curious with maoism, in that it in theory has it's own safety net built in, indeed a sort of belated permanent revolution against the bureaucracy, in reality though the cultural revolution ended up being a struggle between different wing's of the then existing bureaucracy rather than against the bureaucracy itself.

[red cat]

This is curious with maoism, in that it in theory has it's own safety net built in, indeed a sort of belated permanent revolution against the bureaucracy, in reality though the cultural revolution ended up being a struggle between different wing's of the then existing bureaucracy rather than against the bureaucracy itself.

This assumption of yours is wrong.

[Crux]

The CPC will try to back only the revisionist elements in the UCPN(M).

Any Maoist party always has struggle inside it to varying degrees. At the present state of a long strategic equilibrium, the UCPN(M) is particularly vulnerable to a revisionist takeover.

However, whether they are revisionist or not will be determined only by their actions concerning the organs of peoples' power.
Well a general opening for pro-capitalist elements would be the problem of two-stage revolution in itself, I believe, consider the ideological justifications the Chinese Communist Party uses for their current political line, in that "capitalism must be developed further before socialism can be achieved".

When I read about the Maoists election win while back, it was implied by their spokesperson that they would take free market approach. This might well not be representative of the entire party, or the entire party leadership, but no doubt this is already a wing within the UCPN(M).

[Crux]

This assumption of yours is wrong.
Why? In any case the bureaucracy prevailed.

[red cat]

Well a general opening for pro-capitalist elements would be the problem of two-stage revolution in itself, I believe, consider the ideological justifications the Chinese Communist Party uses for their current political line, in that "capitalism must be developed further before socialism can be achieved".

But reversing the socialist gains is plain counter-revolutionary. That a socialist gain has happened proves that it is possible.



When I read about the Maoists election win while back, it was implied by their spokesperson that they would take free market approach. This might well not be representative of the entire party, or the entire party leadership, but no doubt this is already a wing within the UCPN(M).

I do not oppose the possibility of the leaders of the UCPN(M) being revisionist. But the party as a whole has not yet shown the tendencies of a revisionist one . So it is possible only for the party cadres and the broad masses to correctly identify and overthrow whoever will be trying to destroy the revolution from within.

[chegitz guevara]

This assumption of yours is wrong.

That's an assertion not supported by evidence, but that's really a discussion for another thread.

[red cat]

That's an assertion not supported by evidence, but that's really a discussion for another thread.

Some amount of evidence can probably be produced. But yes, that is not a topic for this thread.