Log in

View Full Version : New Pamphlet: Revolution in Nepal



Saorsa
20th March 2010, 03:22
New Pamphlet: Revolution in Nepal

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/political.jpg

This new pamphlet contains two essays: Revolution in Nepal, by Alastair Reith and Eyes on the Maobadi: Four Reasons Nepal’s Revolution Matters, by Mike Ely.

For the full pamphlet in printable form. (http://workerspartynz.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/revolution-in-nepal.pdf)

from Alastair Reith’s introduction;

The first communist revolution of the 21st century is unfolding in Nepal. The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is leading the workers, peasants and oppressed in a movement that seeks nothing less than a whole new world. Ever since the destruction of the Soviet Union, the ruling class has told us that communism is dead. Unfortunately for them, the people of this small, desperately poor country do not appear to be listening.

Nepal’s Maoists are fighting to make a new kind of revolution in a new kind of way. They do not seek to mechanically copy the models of revolution we have seen in the past, and they have made a painstakingly detailed analysis of what they see as the mistakes made in the revolutions of the 20th century and how they intend to avoid them. They have often surprised their friends and supporters around the world with their creative and innovative tactics, and they have consis¬tently sought to develop a method for applying Marxism to Nepal that actually fits the conditions in that country. They take their tactics from an analysis of the real world around them, not from century-old books.

Having analysed the degeneration and eventual defeats of the socialist revolutions in Russia and China, the UCPN(M) has proposed that in order to try to prevent this from happening in Nepal, multi-party democratic elections will continue even after the seizure of state power by the revolution. They envisage a system where the ordinary working people are capable of voting the party bureaucrats out of office if it becomes apparent that things are going wrong, and Maoist leader Chairman Prachanda has publicly stated that they see themselves as continuing in the tradition of Lenin, not Stalin, who they see as having made serious errors. They have proposed that Nepal’s standing army be dissolved and replaced by arming the people. A system of people’s militias responsible to local power authorities that are in turn responsible to a state structure under the control of the people would, in their opinion, make a large permanent military force unnecessary.

They have fought for almost 20 years for a new Nepal, where the workers have jobs, the peasants have land, the oppressed nationalities have self-determination, the women have equality and the nation has full independence. Their struggle has transformed Nepal, and opened up possibilities for revolution and freedom that the world has not seen in decades. A successful revolution in Nepal will create an echo heard around the world, and will have a particularly large im¬pact on Nepal’s south Asian neighbours, such as India, where there is already an advanced revolutionary movement that the Indian government has declared to be the greatest security threat the Indian ruling class has ever faced. As the man who Nepal’s Maoists take their name and their ideology from once said, a single spark can start a prairie fire. And, after centuries of poverty, inequality and injustice across the world, the grass is very dry.

Saorsa
20th March 2010, 03:30
This is the first edition, which has been written and put out in time for a speaking tour (http://workersparty.org.nz/2010/03/18/ben-peterson-on-his-experience-in-nepal/) the WP is helping organise.

A second edition will be released before too long with pictures. And naturally, at some point in the next 6 months or so after the Maoists launch the first revolution we've seen in a very long time, a new edition will be released. Perhaps even a second pamphlet entirely devoted to what's taken place after the revolution... Who knows.

For now though, you've got this. Read, critique, discuss, but above all, try to appreciate what's taking place in Nepal as we speak.

RED DAVE
20th March 2010, 03:53
Let me say that reading this pmaphlet is essential for anyone who wants to engage in a discussion or debate on Nepal.

RED DAVE

Saorsa
21st March 2010, 02:44
There's been some interesting discussion inspired by the publication of this pamphlet here. (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/19/new-forms-of-democracy-for-a-new-socialist-mainstream/#comment-21769) Well worth a look.

bricolage
21st March 2010, 02:51
I haven't read all of it but a question on the semi colonial, semi feudal bit. It talks a lot about India dominating Nepal and I don't doubt this however I've also often seen India called a semi colonial, semi feudal country here as well. Do you think that this correlates, can a semi colonial, semi feudal country in term act in an imperialistic fashion towards another?

red cat
21st March 2010, 03:07
I haven't read all of it but a question on the semi colonial, semi feudal bit. It talks a lot about India dominating Nepal and I don't doubt this however I've also often seen India called a semi colonial, semi feudal country here as well. Do you think that this correlates, can a semi colonial, semi feudal country in term act in an imperialistic fashion towards another?

Indian aggression is of a semi-colonial expansionist type. The imperialist blocs dominating India can use its political and military power to restructure or even conquer other states.

Saorsa
21st March 2010, 03:10
I haven't read all of it but a question on the semi colonial, semi feudal bit. It talks a lot about India dominating Nepal and I don't doubt this however I've also often seen India called a semi colonial, semi feudal country here as well. Do you think that this correlates, can a semi colonial, semi feudal country in term act in an imperialistic fashion towards another?

You raise a very important point. I don't know if other tendencies employ a similar analysis, but Maoists draw a distinction between imperialist states like the US, Britain, New Zealand etc and expansionist states like India. India is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country that remains exploited and underdeveloped at the hands of Western imperialism. However, it's comprador ruling class has the military and economic strength despite this to intervene into neighbouring countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and so on. It's also a prison house of nations to some extent, with a wide variety of national liberation struggles going on within it's borders.

Basically, if you have a country like India that is still overwhelmingly poor and underdeveloped, where most of the people still live in semi-feudal conditions and where Western imperialism is still dominant, but where this country is also dominating it's neighbouring countries, forcing them to sign unfair treaties, exploiting their people and their resources etc, that's an expansionist state.

Invincible Summer
21st March 2010, 10:47
You raise a very important point. I don't know if other tendencies employ a similar analysis, but Maoists draw a distinction between imperialist states like the US, Britain, New Zealand etc and expansionist states like India. India is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country that remains exploited and underdeveloped at the hands of Western imperialism. However, it's comprador ruling class has the military and economic strength despite this to intervene into neighbouring countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and so on. It's also a prison house of nations to some extent, with a wide variety of national liberation struggles going on within it's borders.

Basically, if you have a country like India that is still overwhelmingly poor and underdeveloped, where most of the people still live in semi-feudal conditions and where Western imperialism is still dominant, but where this country is also dominating it's neighbouring countries, forcing them to sign unfair treaties, exploiting their people and their resources etc, that's an expansionist state.

So the main difference between imperialist states and expansionist states is that:
1) Imperialist states do not exploit each other, whereas they may exploit expansionist states;
2) Expansionist states are generally underdeveloped and semi-feudal, whereas imperialist states are highly developed

Saorsa
21st March 2010, 11:18
Essentially, yes. I guess the main point to stress is that imperialist states exploit and oppress expansionist states, but expansionist states cannot exploit and oppress imperialist states.

The US dominates India and Nepal. But India only dominates Nepal, and cannot dominate the US.

RED DAVE
21st March 2010, 11:58
Essentially, yes. I guess the main point to stress is that imperialist states exploit and oppress expansionist states, but expansionist states cannot exploit and oppress imperialist states.

The US dominates India and Nepal. But India only dominates Nepal, and cannot dominate the US.Where would you fit China and Russia into this schema?

RED DAVE

Saorsa
21st March 2010, 12:11
Russia is an imperialist power. It's not dominated by any foreign power, and we've seen a noticeable return to inter-imperialist rivalry between Russia and the US over the past few years. Notably the proxy war in Georgia.

China, I'd say, is expansionist. It's a rising star and may at some point become an imperialist state in it's own right, it's certainly closer to that goal than India is... But it just isn't strong or wealthy enough to be called an imperialist state yet. That said, I haven't studied China today, it's economy, it's military, it's export of finance capital etc in any real depth. So I can't say for sure.

red cat
21st March 2010, 13:33
China, I'd say, is expansionist. It's a rising star and may at some point become an imperialist state in it's own right, it's certainly closer to that goal than India is... But it just isn't strong or wealthy enough to be called an imperialist state yet. That said, I haven't studied China today, it's economy, it's military, it's export of finance capital etc in any real depth. So I can't say for sure.

China, unlike India, is capitalist. Therefore it will not need an internal qualitative change to turn imperialist; it is already on the way.

India, on the other hand, is not capitalist, but a semi-colony. So it will not become imperialist until:

1) the proletariat completely defeats imperialism and feudalism, introducing new democracy and then socialism,

2) the bourgeoisie defeats the proletariat in class struggle and restores capitalism, ( this and the following step are unlikely to happen, so that socialism will lead to communism :) )

3) and then the Indian capital increases to a certain level and exhausts all its markets.

bailey_187
21st March 2010, 13:37
I haven't read all of it but a question on the semi colonial, semi feudal bit. It talks a lot about India dominating Nepal and I don't doubt this however I've also often seen India called a semi colonial, semi feudal country here as well. Do you think that this correlates, can a semi colonial, semi feudal country in term act in an imperialistic fashion towards another?

I think its called Sub-Imperialism, IIRC

bricolage
21st March 2010, 14:16
I think its called Sub-Imperialism, IIRC

Oh right I see. And in regards to Alastair asking if others employ this distinction I know Patrick Bond has written extensively about South Africa as a sub-imperialist power.