RIM and the RCP

[bailey_187]

So, correct me if i am wrong, but the RCP now thinks that the dividing line in the Communist movement is whether people accept Bob Avakians "New Synthesis", which has supposedly gone beyon Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. However, most RIM groups are stil MLMists, so how is the RCPs relation to the rest of RIM groups? Is RCP still part of RIM?

Is RIM even still functioning, they havnt updated their sites for ages?

[The Red Panther Party]

I am not sure comrade, though just to state my position, while i dont think Avakian has added much to MLM, i uphold him as a great Marxist Leninist Maoist and challenge you to find a more brilliant speaker within the revolutionary left.

[bailey_187]

I am not sure comrade, though just to state my position, while i dont think Avakian has added much to MLM, i uphold him as a great Marxist Leninist Maoist and challenge you to find a more brilliant speaker within the revolutionary left.

I agree, i enjoy his "7 Talks" and Revolution Talk DVD and some of his books. He would disagree that he is an MLM though lol, but a "New Synthesist" (i think)

[The Red Panther Party]

Yeah, ive heard of this new synthesis but never learnt any of it, what does it add to MLM, what does it advocate?

[bailey_187]

I'll reply to your posts on your wall as i dont want to derail my thread

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh gosh, i'm bored now of 'Avakianism', if you even want to ascribe him his own tendency.

Seriously, the guy talks and talks, and whilst he may be a fairly decent (but I certainly wouldn't say 'inspiring') speaker and certainly a solid MLM theorist, he brings little new to the table, in terms of concrete theory. In fact, listening to him, and reading his stuff, he just sounds rather woolly and self-indulgent.

If Bob Avakian is the pinnacle of human evolutionary/revolutionary thought, we may as well not bother and just get drunk.

[Saorsa]

The RCP have destroyed RIM. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say the degeneration and disintegration of the RCP has led to the destruction of the RIM.

The RIM still remains the most influential and meaningful international of the past fifty years, if only for Peru and Nepal. But it ain't what it used to be.

[red cat]

The RCP have destroyed RIM. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say the degeneration and disintegration of the RCP has led to the destruction of the RIM.

The RIM still remains the most influential and meaningful international of the past fifty years, if only for Peru and Nepal. But it ain't what it used to be.

I think the PCP has openly denounced the RCP and CoRIM as revisionist.

[Wanted Man]

The RIM still remains the most influential and meaningful international of the past fifty years, if only for Peru and Nepal.

And, quite probably, because most influential and meaningful communist parties over the last 50 years did not claim to be part of an "international" at all.

As for RIM, I don't know. In 2006, the RCP suddenly completely stopped publishing news about the struggle in Nepal (which they had supported enthusiastically before that), and since then the RIM site wasn't updated either.

I think Kasama has some reports of polemics between the RCP and the Nepali maoists at the time, but I can't be arsed to look for them. I suppose it's not very interesting either; a bunch of sanctimonious first world maoists lecturing the Nepali comrades on the ground on how to do stuff. :rolleyes:

[Audeamus]

I could be reading a bit too much into it, but as I recall the RCP site used to link to the RIM page, but they no longer do so.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I am not sure comrade, though just to state my position, while i dont think Avakian has added much to MLM, i uphold him as a great Marxist Leninist Maoist and challenge you to find a more brilliant speaker within the revolutionary left.

While Avakian is a pretty decent speaker, I'd say Omali Yeshitela of the African People's Socialist Party is waaaaay more enjoyable to watch. He's not a Marxist, but still very interesting.

But RIM has been basically dead for a few years now... It seemed to have collapsed as an organization after Sendero died off, but an RCP comrade should correct me if I'm wrong here. A World to Win (the RIM publication) stopped putting out its periodical in 2005, though the website still (barely) operates.

[bailey_187]

Could we expect a new Maoist international anytime soon? What if the Nepalese maoists seize power?

what is the UCPN(M) view to RIM?

[Prairie Fire]

Avakian...

I was reading 'Ike to Mao', his more or less autobiography, and put it down and didn't finish it (maybe someday I will). It offered some interesting insights, especially into the Black Panther party and its persynalities, but other things he says are questionable at best.

Avakian's line on the DPRK was that it is a "feudal kingdom", or some other such nonsense ( whatever the DPRK is, it's socio-economic relations are not feudal, are not land owner and peasant, small craftsmen in the place of industry, etc), and when I read about the RCP jumping on the Bandwagon of anti-Nixon sentiment to try and utilize contradictions among the bourgeoisie to their benefit, I understood how this perverted interpretation of Lenin lead them to take the stance that they did on Iran (i.e. Cheerleading for imperialism).

Now, as for the 'new synthesis', I won't comment on something that I know nothing about.

As for the RCP- UCPN(M) rift, though...That is a tricky one to take sides in.

Now, (from what I have gathered) the RCP are criticizing the questionable moves of the Nepalese Maoists.
http://revcom.us/a/160/nepal-article-en.html (http://revcom.us/a/160/nepal-article-en.html)


That said, one could ask if this is being done on a principled basis, because initially the RCP was standing by as the Nepalese did questionable things, which the third worldists flamed them to a crisp for.
http://www.youtube.com/user/shubelmorgan?blend=2&ob=1#p/u/23/8JNnedZITPA (http://www.youtube.com/user/shubelmorgan?blend=2&ob=1#p/u/23/8JNnedZITPA)

Still, I can't say that there is not some validity to criticisms of the theory and tactics employed by the Nepalese Maoists (I have made my share):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quotations-chairman-prachanda-t88773/index.html?t=88773&highlight=quotations+chairman+prachanda (http://www.revleft.com/vb/quotations-chairman-prachanda-t88773/index.html?t=88773&highlight=quotations+chairman+prachanda)

At the same time, there are equally valid criticisms to be made of the theory and tactics of the RCP-USA (which stretch far beyond the typical "LOL cult of persynality" one liners).

I think that the correct answer on this question is not choosing the lesser evil, but to call both sides out for what they are. No need for gratuitous smear, but an honest analysis of the words and actions of both of these forces.

El Granma:


If Bob Avakian is the pinnacle of human evolutionary/revolutionary thought, we may as well not bother and just get drunk.

Even jokingly, this is cynical bullshit.

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I still disagree that apathy is better than anything.

Alastair:

The RCP have destroyed RIM. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say the degeneration and disintegration of the RCP has led to the destruction of the RIM.

As could be expected, you take the Nepalese side.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the degeneration and disintegration of the RCP...

-Tailing the bourgeois democrats ( 'World Can't wait')
- Becoming cheerleaders for imperialist aggression re: Iran
- Elitist attacks on religious faith, completely devoid of political content

That said, to blame the RCP for the problems of the RIM... there is blame enough to go around.

When the Chairman of the UCPN(M) says "We do not believe that private property should be abolished" (Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03), at what point does the reflex "Don't be so dogmatic!" response become inadequate to defend such statements?

Now, some old German said something along the lines of:

"...In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "
( K. Marx, Manifesto of the Communist party, 1847)

Yeah.

At what point is the line between "creative application of Marxism to national conditions" and total liquidation of Marxism crossed?

Not only have the Nepalese parliamentarians not abolished private property, apparently from the mouth of their political leadership, they have no intentions of doing so.

National exceptionalism only goes so far. Private property in land ownership (or any property privately owned that generates a surplus) is the material basis for the existence and coming into being of classes.

When Marx penned those words over a century ago, he wasn't simply a dogmatic "first-world" Kracker who enjoyed the smell of ink on paper; he recognized that ownership of land and other means of production (land is a means of production, because you can grow crops on it, raise livestock, dig for minerals beneath it, own a structure on it and rent that structure out to tenants, etc, etc) is part of what gave rise to classes in the first place, was the economic/material basis perpetuating their continued existence, and if not abolished, they would do so again ( via accumulative privately appropriated wealth for a family over successive generations, generating surplus, allowing the "haves" to get a leg up on the "have nots", etc). Even Avakian recognized this (I'm pretty sure he spoke about this in his talks on the "Revolution" DVD).

With India and Peru there were similar mistakes made... largely because they saw no need to go to the working class. The bulk of Sendero Luminoso was Students and Peasants, and the Indian Maoists are largely Peasants and Tribal peoples, yes?

See, the problem with this is that the poor peasantry, despite their large numbers in these countries and their general position of disenfranchisement, just doesn't have the same socio-economic power that the working class does, because the working class are the creators of everything, therefore this is a service that the can withhold.

Peasants are generally survival farmers. They grow crops for themselves, and perhaps surrender a portion to their landlord. For this reason, they don't command the same power that, say, plantation workers do. Even though they are both agricultural workers, the plantation workers grow crops intended for society at large, not just themselves, hence they have a lot of bargaining power and security should they cease to grow those crops.

This may seem like a blatant hypocrisy, because both the USSR and Albania, countries which I generally support, had a large (in Albania, a Majority) Peasant involvement. The difference is, the movement was under the leadership of the working class, the proletariat, in these countries.

As for the other factions, Students are generally petty-bourgeois (I know the irony must be hilarious,), and they are vacillating as fuck. The Radical student movement is generally against the system, no matter what system it is.

As for the "tribals" in India... again, I can't imagine that these people command much socio-economic clout. I empathize with whatever specific national oppressions they may face, but that doesn't necessarily make them the class (are tribals even a class?) with the means and motivation for revolution.

Peasants, Students, Tribal peoples... these are all generally people who meet their needs as individuals. The Proletariat, on the other hand, by the position that they occupy, has to work socially in tandem with others in order to meet their own needs, because the nature of their work (industrial, agricultural, retail, etc) is always social.

Post-revolution, survival farmers and hunter gatherers just want to be left alone to provide for themselves in peace. They don't care about the society at large, because they have no stake in it. Only the proletariat is the class that can carry forward thorough going change, because they have a stake in the building of a new society and the precondition to increasing their own lot in life is increasing the general quality of the system itself.

I kind of digressed, but the point is that there is blame to be spread around in the RIM. The Nepalese, Indians, Peruvians and to some extent Turks may have gained a little more revolutionary street cred for packing guns and they may have mobilized more masses than their American counterparts, but the theoretical errors on their end are every bit as serious.

There is blame to go around.

Wanted Man:



I think Kasama has some reports of polemics between the RCP and the Nepali maoists at the time, but I can't be arsed to look for them. I suppose it's not very interesting either; a bunch of sanctimonious first world maoists lecturing the Nepali comrades on the ground on how to do stuff.


That line keeps coming up. This line that the forces on the ground "know what they are doing", and anyone who is not intimately involved in their conflict can't possibly understand it the same as those who are fighting it, let alone understand it more.

I suppose a Jingoistic American soldier in Iraq could make the same argument.
Just replace the term "first world Maoists" with "Elitist Liberals", and the term "Nepali comrades" with ”American Marines".

Do you see why this is a fallacious argument?

By this logic, Karl Marx could not have possibly understood the exploitation of industrial workers, because he was never an industrial worker himself, hmm?

Is it possible that innocent bystanders, who are not consumed in the thick of a situation, can perhaps see the big picture more so than the people on the ground?

The average factory worker sees their job as simply pulling levers, moving heavy objects, etc; it took a "first world" academic to see the bigger picture, that these same industrial workers were part of an overall system based on socio-economic exploitation. The overwhelming majority of workers never completely acquire this consciousness from their conditions and direct experiences alone, despite being in the thick of the situation.

The soldier on the ground has more insight than the military historian? The soldier on the ground pulls trigger and follows orders because they are told to; the military historian gathers information from dozens of different sources, from policy makers to front line fighters, puts things in the context of the times, and over all is able to see the bigger picture more so than those who are actually in the trenches.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Cooler Reds Will prevail

While Avakian is a pretty decent speaker, I'd say Omali Yeshitela of the African People's Socialist Party is waaaaay more enjoyable to watch. He's not a Marxist, but still very interesting.



I've watched his stuff a few times...

He is a Garveyist, with third worldist tendencies, who occasionally flirts with Maoism.

Bailey 187

What if the Nepalese maoists seize power?

What if they seize power?

A lot of this discussion comes back to the Maoist concept of "New Democracy", a state that is neither socialist nor capitalist.

This is of course complete nonsense, as with all "third positionism", but this is an attractive position to take because figures that hold state power around the world have enjoyed boasting that they occupy this space, this "third position", with a state that is neither capitalist nor socialist. Quaddafi, Idi Amin... even old Canadian school textbooks when I was a kid tried to teach me that Canada was "somewhere in the middle" between a Market economy and a 'command economy'.

The much coveted ideological middle ground is an attractive place to be, for fence sitters and liberals.

For materialists though, we recognize that there is no such thing as a state that is neither in the hands of the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat and its allies. There is no intermediary stage of socio-political development between socialism and capitalism (socialism is the intermediary stage, between capitalism and a classless society).

Now, there is such a thing as progressive countries, as anti-imperialist countries...
Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, Belarus... all of these countries have progressive redeeming features, and certainly some bourgeois democracies are more representative of their people than others (especially if they are under the rule of a national bourgeoisie that is defiant to foreign imperialist bourgeoisie).

That said, to say that any of the countries that I listed above (or any other country, for that matter), are or could be between capitalism and socialism is just asinine.

[Sendo]

I don't agree with a lot of what you said, Prairie Fire, but your arguments are sensible and principled. Your beefs aren't with authoritarianism or the like, but rather a vacillating attitude which stalls and never gets firmly on that road to communism. Really, you're taking the stand known in layman's terms as "no such thing as a little pregnant."

I do have two problems, though. What do you suggest for nations like India, Nepal, and Peru? I know you're not against these movements the way some Trots are, and uphold the distinction between imperialist and anti-imperialist. Second, you didn't say much to address the RCP. I've felt he has ideologically isolated himself (dismissing many possible allies) and also has not put his thoer into practice.

[Saorsa]

Prairie Fire's argument against the revolutionary struggles in India and Nepal is flawed on several levels.

Firstly, it assumes that the Maoist movements in India and Nepal do not involve the urban working class. This is not the case. In India, the struggle is still underground and they do not carry out much in the way of urban guerilla attacks, an obviously ineffective and misguided tactic. So their strength is impossible for us to gauge with any real accuracy. However, what we do know is that the Indian Maoists see the urban working class, the slums and factories etc as very important areas of work. Just read their Urban Perspectives document (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/maoist/documents/papers/Urbanperspective.htm) to get some appreciation of that. A leader of their organisation was arrested last year and is currently being tortured and imprisoned. His name is Kobad Ghandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobad_Ghandy), and he was allegedly in charge of their urban work. The Indian comrades work very hard among the urban proletariat, but due to the conditions in India this work is underground, so we don't have reports of open CPI (Maoist) rallies in Mumbai to point at.

As for Nepal, I've made this argument plenty of times before. I don't feel the need to go into enormous detail here. The entire strategy of the UCPN (M) since 2005, and the reason they've worked openly in the cities and in the parliament since that time, is based on building up their political support and organisational strength amongst the working people in the urban areas. They have succeeded in this. Their trade unions, their student organisations, the participation in their rallies, strikes and bandhs... all of these point towards their strength as a movement. Their strategy for seizing revolutionary power is proceeding smoothly and within the next few months we will see it bear fruit, one way or another.

Yesterday they organised a series of huge rallies (http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/photo-gallery/gallery/899.html) around the country to build support for their movement to topple the government and write a People's Constitution.

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/images/stories/igallery/peoples_mo/lightbox/apr_06_10_students_rally4_b.jpg

Who do you think is taking part in these rallies? To argue that the Maoists in Nepal ignore the working class is just dogma with no basis in reality.

In both countries, the Maoists are actively organising the proletariat. In Nepal, the struggle is at a more advanced and critical stage, but both struggles are moving ahead with massive strides. The thing you seem to be missing here is that the whole point of a revolutionary communist movement is that it brings under it's banner all struggles against all forms of oppression. Workers only get an advanced political consciousness when they learn to identify with the struggles outside of their workplace, the struggles of other people against other oppressions. Marx's famous call on British workers to identify with the Irish national struggle springs to mind.

The Maoists in India organise among the peasants, the tribals, AND the proletariat. And they see the proletariat as the leading force in the revolutionary struggle All Maoist groups are quite clear about this, and it's the rest of the left that has to examine it's sectarian and uninformed attitudes.

I feel no need to defend Prachanda's comments to the BBC. At this point in the struggle, private property is not going to be totally abolished. It's ridiculous to suggest it should be. He is obviously making that statement within a particular context, i.e. the anti-feudal, anti-monarchist struggle that was taking place at the time and the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist struggle that is unfolding at the moment. He was also speaking to the BBC, and at a time when there is no socialist camp the UCPN (M) has no reason to alienate everyone around the world by spouting hardline rhetoric at every oppotunity. If you judge a movement by it's rhetoric, not it's substance, you always run into problems like Prairie Fire has here.

[Prairie Fire]

Sendo:


What do you suggest for nations like India, Nepal, and Peru?

India has a manufacturing sector, a pretty large one too. India has a very large proletariat, so aside from also having a peasantry (which my country does not), the tactics are generally pretty similar.

Peru and Nepal also are becoming more and more proletarianized. Capitalism, by it's nature, must seek out and constantly expand into new markets, and this is often done by creating new markets, often by destroying previous property relations in an area.

For this reason, feudalism has largely been destroyed by Capitalism, as food self sufficiency of various remaining peasant cultures is intentionally wiped out to create markets for imported goods and farmers indentured with terminator seeds.

More and more, the Asian peasantry is giving way to wage labourers, so in many ways the situation in India, Nepal and Peru today is actually fairly similar to the situation that Russia and Albania found themselves in around the time of their own revolutions.

Of course the peasantry of these countries can not be ignored. My point is, though many classes become revolutionary during a revolutionary period, they kind of cease to be very useful post revolution. Now,these peasant based movements in Nepal, India and at one time Peru have the support of the masses of peasants, because the peasantry as a class is being squeezed out by the forces of capitalism, and the peasants feel that.

The problem is though, after a successful revolution, and with land reform, the peasants go back to their plot of land, and retreat from the world around them. As long as they have a piece of land secured to grow the food that they need eat/sell, the peasants are happy and apolitical. As some peasants become more prosperous than others, they start hiring landless peasants and poorer peasants to work on thier land, plots of land start changing hands and become more monopolized by the richer peasants,the richer peasants become land owners and the cycle starts again from the beginning.

The point is that the peasantry, while a vital ally and a non-antagonistic class to the proletariat, can't be the driving force of a revolution, because that revolution will lose steam as soon as state power is taken and land reforms are made, and that is when vigilance is needed the most.


Second, you didn't say much to address the RCP. I've felt he has ideologically isolated himself (dismissing many possible allies) and also has not put his thoer into practice.

The RCP in recent years.... I dunno.

Certainly they may have played an important role during the sixties/seventies on some issues, and in mobilizing some forces. Apparently, what ever they were doing, they were doing something that made police agents take notice, and follow Avakian around.

Now, I dunno...

As an organization, I feel that they are characterized by opportunism.

What they see as "taking advantage of contradictions amongst the bourgeoisie" is generally tailing the democratic party and the liberal left, and their mass front "the world can't wait" was a pretty good example of that. Short-sighted Bush bashing was substituted for ongoing work of tangible political organizing.

The release and promotion of Avakians book "Away with all Gods" represented another opportunistic diversion. They put the politics on the backburner, in exchange for a liberal crusade against faith because they know that they can get more people on their bandwagon this way. Nevermind that this alienates the hell out of the deeply religious American working class, who other wise they could have worked with if they had addressed the issues actually affecting the American public.

And their stance on Iran is the culminating achievement of their opportunism. The bourgeois media is allready launching constant smear against Iran in order to justify military aggression which has been in preparations for years now, and large sections of the American people are allready leaning against Iran because of this, so rather than build a mass movement themselves around issues, the RCP moves in to kick Iran while they are down and rationalizes this as making use of inter-imperialist contradictions, and as taking a stand against theocracy.

It doesn't even bother them that the alternative that they are cheerleading for to the Ayatollahs is a military occupation by the United States.

Almost everything about the RCP is pure opportunism.

The rest, even their revolutionary stands and rhetoric are hollow and adventuristic, because they call for revolution (they have no minimum program), but yet they are not really building the definite organizations among the working class to carry out this call. Rather than putting forward a program that addresses the needs of the working class (even the Bolsheviks said "Land, Peace, Bread"), they are simpling latching onto the causes of the liberal/pro-imperialist left like a leech on a swimmers leg, and simultaneously crying for revolution the entire time.

Alastair:


Firstly, it assumes that the Maoist movements in India and Nepal do not involve the urban working class. This is not the case. In India, the struggle is still underground and they do not carry out much in the way of urban guerilla attacks, an obviously ineffective and misguided tactic. So their strength is impossible for us to gauge with any real accuracy. However, what we do know is that the Indian Maoists see the urban working class, the slums and factories etc as very important areas of work. Just read their Urban Perspectives document (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/maoist/documents/papers/Urbanperspective.htm) to get some appreciation of that. A leader of their organisation was arrested last year and is currently being tortured and imprisoned. His name is Kobad Ghandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobad_Ghandy), and he was allegedly in charge of their urban work. The Indian comrades work very hard among the urban proletariat, but due to the conditions in India this work is underground, so we don't have reports of open CPI (Maoist) rallies in Mumbai to point at.


See what I wrote above. My point is that with a peasant based movement, even if they succeed in taking state power their base will disperse immediately as soon as the threat of capitalism is removed and land is redistributed.

Who is to say that those same peasants currently fighting beneath the red cloth would not be the same peasants in staunch opposition to socialism as soon as the the new workers power starts to talk about agricultural collectivization?

The point is who their revolutionary base is. Now, many classes serve a purpose during a revolutionary period, but post-revolution their support wanes and some such as the national bourgeoisie (aka patriotic bourgeoisie) and the petty bourgeoisie become open liablities. This is why any succesful revolutionary movement must be based firmly in the proletariat.


As for Nepal, I've made this argument plenty of times before. I don't feel the need to go into enormous detail here. The entire strategy of the UCPN (M) since 2005, and the reason they've worked openly in the cities and in the parliament since that time, is based on building up their political support and organisational strength amongst the working people in the urban areas. They have succeeded in this. Their trade unions, their student organisations, the participation in their rallies, strikes and bandhs... all of these point towards their strength as a movement. Their strategy for seizing revolutionary power is proceeding smoothly and within the next few months we will see it bear fruit, one way or another.

The issue is not wether or not the Nepalese Maoists can seize state power. I have had not doubts that they can ever since 2005. My point is, once they do sieze state power, then what will they build?


The thing you seem to be missing here is that the whole point of a revolutionary communist movement is that it brings under it's banner all struggles against all forms of oppression.

Of course, but with Nepal my point was that the struggle for socialism seems to have been kicked out of the tenth story window.

Your criticism here is actually almost identical to what Avakian says in "Ike to Mao",with his criticism of Stalin. His analysis was that Stalin promoted Communism in a narrow economist sense, where previously Lenin had called on revolutionaries to be tribunes of the people.

Now, aside from the nonsense of this (Stalin previously was the commisar for nationalities and wrote on the question in various forms), essentially now I am being criticized in the same way.

My point is, regardless of the all of the various threads that make up a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist movement, the struggle for socialism must be paramount.

Which leads me to this:


I feel no need to defend Prachanda's comments to the BBC. At this point in the struggle, private property is not going to be totally abolished. It's ridiculous to suggest it should be.

Prachanda didn't say "we should not begin abolishing land at this point in the struggle". He said ""We do not believe that private property should be abolished". They reject the most basic premise of socialism as a principle.

You go on to say that I am focusing on rhetoric rather than substence. Well, I'll tell you the same thing I said about Chavez: I'll change my tune when he changes his actions.

Chavez said something similar, rejecting the abolition of private property outright. If Chavez does a turn-around on that, I'll do a turn around on Chavez. This same principle applies to Prachanda/ the UCPN(M).

In the meantime, in both word and deed the UCPN(M) has rejected collectivization of land and property, and they have not set a timetable for any abolition that may occur at some future date, nor have they hinted at it.

The statement of the political leader of the UCNP(M) was "We do not believe that private property should be abolished".

On the contrary to what you said, I look for substence first and foremost; the UCPN(M) has not been delivering though, when it comes to that.



He is obviously making that statement within a particular context, i.e. the anti-feudal, anti-monarchist struggle that was taking place at the time and the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist struggle that is unfolding at the moment.

Actually, that is not obvious at all. Nothing about the way that he phrased his words hints at any sort of time frame for hypothetical future abolition of private property, nor are there any mentions that the current situation is temporary.


He was also speaking to the BBC, and at a time when there is no socialist camp the UCPN (M) has no reason to alienate everyone around the world by spouting hardline rhetoric at every oppotunity.

Ah, I see. So this is one of those Mao to Nixon "I like Rightists" sort of things?

So the issue poses itself as "hardline" rhetoric vs pure opportunism ? These are the only two options?

So, the correct course of action when speaking to foriegn press is to take anti-communist positions, so that you don't alienate foriegn observers (most of which who are paying attention to Nepal are in favour of abolition of private property).

This is not the only grievous black mark against the leadership of UCPN(M). I simply use this as my example, because it is the most blatant.

[Saorsa]

This is not a question of principle. There is no requirement for all forms of private property to be abolished immediately after the revolution (which has not reached it's decisive stage in Nepal yet, we should keep that in mind). Engels wrote in 1847, in 'The principles of Communism':


— 17 —
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

The creation of a society without private property requires a post-scarcity society. Nepal is a country with famine conditions at the moment that are worse than most African countries. Prachanda is speaking the language of this point in the struggle.

It is debatable whether socialism existed or could have possibly existed in the USSR. I think that under Lenin and Stalin, the USSR was a society on a revolutionary path away from capitalism and towards communism, i.e. socialism. But Russia was a vast empire full of natural resources and people, with heavy industry, vast factories like the Putilov works, and if nothing else a shitload of land. Nepal is none of those things. It was possible to advance much further with socialism in one country in Russia than it is in Nepal. How can you have socialism in a country were the proletariat barely exists, and certainly not in any kind of industrial form?

The revolution in Nepal will proceed along its own path according to its own requirements. It makes no sense to criticise it using ultra-left language about how the revolutionaries need to immediately abolish private property.

[Saorsa]

Also, this statement should be put in context. It was made during an interview Prachanda did with the BBC (http://links.org.au/node/617) in 2008.


Then, how can one be assured of the right to private property under your government when you are yourself are not keeping private property?

We do not believe that private property should be abolished. But we believe that the leadership must keep away from making money to ensure that the properties of the people are protected and promoted.

Prachanda is quite clearly replying to a question about what will take place "under you're government", i.e. under the coalition government the Maoists entered into in 2008 for political and strategic reasons. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1683898&postcount=20) When asked a series of questions about whether or not private property rights would be taken away under the Maoist-led government, Prachanda responded by saying "We do not believe that private property should be abolished."

I don't think we need to dwell on this point.

[Prairie Fire]

You are putting words in my mouth to rationalize an obsecenely anti-communist position.

At no point did I say that all property has to abolished in one stroke, or that it has to be done immediately.

The point that I was articulating was that it needs to be abolished. I didn't specify when, nor did I reject a gradual program of collectivization outright. I was simply taking the stand that it needs to happen (whenever that may be).

Prachanda said "We do not believe that private property should be abolished".

You are the one who keeps trying to contain this, by assigning a time table to it, when neither myself nor Chairman Prachanda were speaking in terms of definite time frames. I was speaking as a matter of principle in a generalized fashion, and so was Prachanda.

[Saorsa]

I was speaking as a matter of principle in a generalized fashion, and so was Prachanda.

So you're psychic now?

The BBC were pursuing a line of questions implying that the Maoist-led government was going to abolish private property. Prachanda saw this, and responded to it. That's all there is to this.

The UCPN (M) are quite clear about their position, and while you can cherry pick all kinds of dodgy sounding out of context statements, it doesn't change the politics of the party and it's leaders. You're treating Prachanda the same way the liberals treat Stalin.

I hate getting into the quote vs quote game, but you leave me no choice... Senior party leader Baburam Bhattarai had this to say (http://links.org.au/node/1331) in October last year.


After the revolution, the first thing we will do will be redistribution of property. There will no longer be rich and poor, a big gap between the haves and the have nots....

... what we need to practice now is the idea that the revolution never stops until all the classes are abolished, the state is abolished, the property system is abolished and we enter a classless and stateless society, or a commune of the masses of people is created. Until that stage is reached revolution never stops.

There you go.

[Prairie Fire]

So you're psychic now?


Indeed. I wonder if I can make your head blow up from this distance?



The BBC were pursuing a line of questions implying that the Maoist-led government was going to abolish private property. Prachanda saw this, and responded to it. That's all there is to this.


Yes... who claimed he didn't respond?
He did respond. He folded like a lawn chair.


The UCPN (M) are quite clear about their position

Actually, they rarely are. From what I have read, there is a growth of factions within the party, and there is not a consensus on many major issues.



I hate getting into the quote vs quote game, but you leave me no choice... Senior party leader Baburam Bhattarai had this to say (http://www.anonym.to/?http://links.org.au/node/1331) in October last year.


Quote:
After the revolution, the first thing we will do will be redistribution of property. There will no longer be rich and poor, a big gap between the haves and the have nots....

What we need to practice now is the idea that the revolution never stops until all the classes are abolished, the state is abolished, the property system is abolished and we enter a classless and stateless society, or a commune of the masses of people is created. Until that stage is reached revolution never stops.
There you go.


Wow. A different quote, from a different persyn. You sure showed me.

Given what I have read about the line struggle being waged within the UCPN(M) at this time, this means practically nothing.

As for the UCPN(M)s participation in parliament for tactical reasons, this is not something that ML's necessarily oppose as a rule. My question is, considering that this participation was only tactical, they certainly went above and beyond to incorporate this tactic into the official ideology espoused by their party and into their longterm goals for a socialist society.

Considering how 'tactical' it was, why did Prachanda start rationalizing multi-party pluralism as something that is vital to socialism, something that Lenin would have adopted if he was alive today, and something that the Indian Maoists should take up?

[Saorsa]

Actually, they rarely are. From what I have read, there is a growth of factions within the party, and there is not a consensus on many major issues.

There are no factions. While they have a very democratic internal culture, there have never been any moves to form official factions within the party that I am aware of. There has been a 2ls going in the party over various issues for sometime. The way it was generally reported in the bourgeois media (the Maoists have not named names), senior leader and now Vice Chair of the Party Mohan "Kiran" Baidya, senior leader and now Secretary Gajurel were lined up against Bhattarai and Prachanda on a number of issues, chiefly around whether or not to focus at the moment on institutionalising the bourgeois democratic republic or whether to move ahead towards a people's republic through people's revolt. The party unified around a line of fighting to pass a people's constitution through the Constituent Assembly, while promising a people's revolt if, after the deadline of May 28th, the constitution is not passed. That's a month and a half away.

The leaders often disagree, but disagreement is not met with suppression and following the resolution of a dispute the leaders stay united.


Wow. A different quote, from a different persyn. You sure showed me.

Given what I have read about the line struggle being waged within the UCPN(M) at this time, this means practically nothing.

The funny thing here is that the 2ls is usually portrayed with Prachanda and Bhattarai vs Kiran, Gajurel and others. People who jump to conclusions often say it's a case of Prachanda and Bhattarai on the right and the others on the left, so to say that on the question of revolution vs reform in the party is Bhattarai for the former and Prachanda for the latter is pretty funny.


Considering how 'tactical' it was, why did Prachanda start rationalizing multi-party pluralism as something that is vital to socialism, something that Lenin would have adopted if he was alive today, and something that the Indian Maoists should take up?

Firstly, we should be clear about the fact that the UCPN (M)'s vision of multi-party competition in a socialist society does *not* include bourgeois parties. They have explicitly said parties like the Congress and the UML will not be allowed to compete in such a system. But parties that are supportive of the people's revolution and are anti-imperialist will be allowed to take part. I think this is a good idea, I like the fact that they're trying to come up with new approaches to avoid the mistakes that were made in the past in Russia and China. I think the ICM should seriously question the post-1920s assumption that a revolution requires a one party state.

[bailey_187]

Why has this turned into another debate about the UCPN(M)?

I want to know about Maoist internationals.

[Saorsa]

There are only like two. The RIM (http://www.aworldtowin.org/) and the ICMLPO. (http://www.icmlpo.de/) Maoists don't seem to feel the need to split as often as Trotskyists do!

There's also CCOMPOSA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_Committee_of_Maoist_Parties_and_Organ isations_of_South_Asia)

[red cat]

With India and Peru there were similar mistakes made... largely because they saw no need to go to the working class. The bulk of Sendero Luminoso was Students and Peasants, and the Indian Maoists are largely Peasants and Tribal peoples, yes?

See, the problem with this is that the poor peasantry, despite their large numbers in these countries and their general position of disenfranchisement, just doesn't have the same socio-economic power that the working class does, because the working class are the creators of everything, therefore this is a service that the can withhold.

Peasants are generally survival farmers. They grow crops for themselves, and perhaps surrender a portion to their landlord. For this reason, they don't command the same power that, say, plantation workers do. Even though they are both agricultural workers, the plantation workers grow crops intended for society at large, not just themselves, hence they have a lot of bargaining power and security should they cease to grow those crops.

This may seem like a blatant hypocrisy, because both the USSR and Albania, countries which I generally support, had a large (in Albania, a Majority) Peasant involvement. The difference is, the movement was under the leadership of the working class, the proletariat, in these countries.

As for the other factions, Students are generally petty-bourgeois (I know the irony must be hilarious,), and they are vacillating as fuck. The Radical student movement is generally against the system, no matter what system it is.

As for the "tribals" in India... again, I can't imagine that these people command much socio-economic clout. I empathize with whatever specific national oppressions they may face, but that doesn't necessarily make them the class (are tribals even a class?) with the means and motivation for revolution.

Peasants, Students, Tribal peoples... these are all generally people who meet their needs as individuals. The Proletariat, on the other hand, by the position that they occupy, has to work socially in tandem with others in order to meet their own needs, because the nature of their work (industrial, agricultural, retail, etc) is always social.

Post-revolution, survival farmers and hunter gatherers just want to be left alone to provide for themselves in peace. They don't care about the society at large, because they have no stake in it. Only the proletariat is the class that can carry forward thorough going change, because they have a stake in the building of a new society and the precondition to increasing their own lot in life is increasing the general quality of the system itself.

I kind of digressed, but the point is that there is blame to be spread around in the RIM. The Nepalese, Indians, Peruvians and to some extent Turks may have gained a little more revolutionary street cred for packing guns and they may have mobilized more masses than their American counterparts, but the theoretical errors on their end are every bit as serious.

There is blame to go around.

Wanted Man:



That line keeps coming up. This line that the forces on the ground "know what they are doing", and anyone who is not intimately involved in their conflict can't possibly understand it the same as those who are fighting it, let alone understand it more.


The comments that flow only from studying classical communist literature rather than observing and analyzing the revolutionary field work concerned are almost always highly flawed. To illustrate this, I will describe one of the cases that you have focused on, namely, the tribal people of India.

The tribal people of India have generally been excluded from what is known as the "mainstream" civilization. They generally reside in or around forest areas and nearby rural areas. They had maintained a very ancient system by not mingling with external occupation, and rather being at war with them. The notion was absent, a good amount of communal wealth would be present. In short, it was something very close to ancient communism.

Just before the British imperialist invasion started, there existed several tribal monarchies in central Indian areas like Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand etc. Note that this was very different from feudal or slave systems. It was just the beginning of grouping of ancient communist societies together.

The rest of India was more or less at a transitional stage between feudalism and capitalism; powerful merchants were emerging and a substantial amount of political power was being shifted to them. There were instances of merchants who were buying all finish goods from certain communities and even paying them to produce only for them; the predecessor system of factories. At this point, there was an upserge of nationalism, (India is not really a single country) and the associated monarchies intensified war amongst themselves.

During this period, an empire called the "Maratha" empire conquered almost the whole of central India and destroyed the tribal monarchies. They then introduced the feudal system. A chunk of the tribal population also worked as bonded labourers (slaves). However, the internal structure of the tribal society remained more or less unchanged. There would be a chief and a wizard who would be serving feudalism, the rest of the population would be heavily oppressed.

During the days of direct British imperialism, this system was preserved, plus some tribals were recruited to gather and process forest products. Thus besides the-semi hunter gatherer , slave and semi-peasant livelihood, they were also being transformed into semi-rural proletariat. Generally an outsider feudal lord and merchant would now control large chunks of the tribal territories with the help of local chiefs.

After India was turned into a neo-colony in 1947, the feudal lord was gradually replaced by a more centralized state power which would be commanded by the feudal lords. Moreover, hunting and gathering from the forests was made illegal so that that more of the population could be enslaved into loaning money(which they still did not understand well and thus were regularly deceived) and working for life under the officials who represented the state. Thus, most of the contradictions now turned directly towards the state without any middle man in between. What is meant by "tribals" is the sum total of slaves, semi-peasants and semi-proletarians, all led by the latter in class struggle.

I have totally excluded racial, caste discrimination and cultural and military aspects of these contradictions. But I hope that from this you will understand how wrong your analysis was.

[Prairie Fire]

Alastair:



Firstly, we should be clear about the fact that the UCPN (M)'s vision of multi-party competition in a socialist society does *not* include bourgeois parties.


So, they would have several working class parties?

Erm, why?

I think now we have to analyze what is the basis of pluralism/multi parties?

Under a bourgeois system, there are several parties in power, all representing the bourgeoisie, but representing different strata of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois parliament itself came into being to work out contradictions among the bourgeoisie in a non-antagonistic way.

Now, what would the be the basis of seperate political parties in a socialist state? Representing different strata of the working class?

Is it necessary, or even remotely wise, to split the class? To give the impression that industrial workers are in competition with agricultural workers, and service industry workers and so on? To pit the working class off against itself, completely dispense with class conciousness, and instead have workers narrowly identify with their trade?

What is the basis of multi-parties in a socialist state? You yourself recognize that 2 line struggle and democratic centralism can take place withing a party, so a one party state is not necessarilly un-democratic....

Again, what is the possible concrete material basis for many parties under a socialist state?


But parties that are supportive of the people's revolution and are anti-imperialist will be allowed to take part. I think this is a good idea, I like the fact that they're trying to come up with new approaches to avoid the mistakes that were made in the past in Russia and China. I think the ICM should seriously question the post-1920s assumption that a revolution requires a one party state.

Again, why do you think this?

You think that the problems of the socialist countries stemmed from only having one party (despite the wealth of democratic institutions on a local level, which empowered the people directly)?

Does having more than one party prevent revisionism, or does it simply present more than one party for revisionism to infiltrate?

Does a working class society require the "Party in power, party in opposition" model of a bourgeois state?

What would be the basis for this, aside from a liberal desire to distance yourself from the history of the international communist movement, but still claim the mantle?

Red Cat:

The comments that flow only from studying classical communist literature rather than observing and analyzing the revolutionary field work concerned are almost always highly flawed. To illustrate this, I will describe one of the cases that you have focused on, namely, the tribal people of India.

The tribal people of India have generally been excluded from what is known as the "mainstream" civilization. They generally reside in or around forest areas and nearby rural areas. They had maintained a very ancient system by not mingling with external occupation, and rather being at war with them. The notion was absent, a good amount of communal wealth would be present. In short, it was something very close to ancient communism.

Just before the British imperialist invasion started, there existed several tribal monarchies in central Indian areas like Bundelkhand, Baghelkhand etc. Note that this was very different from feudal or slave systems. It was just the beginning of grouping of ancient communist societies together.

The rest of India was more or less at a transitional stage between feudalism and capitalism; powerful merchants were emerging and a substantial amount of political power was being shifted to them. There were instances of merchants who were buying all finish goods from certain communities and even paying them to produce only for them; the predecessor system of factories. At this point, there was an upserge of nationalism, (India is not really a single country) and the associated monarchies intensified war amongst themselves.

During this period, an empire called the "Maratha" empire conquered almost the whole of central India and destroyed the tribal monarchies. They then introduced the feudal system. A chunk of the tribal population also worked as bonded labourers (slaves). However, the internal structure of the tribal society remained more or less unchanged. There would be a chief and a wizard who would be serving feudalism, the rest of the population would be heavily oppressed.

During the days of direct British imperialism, this system was preserved, plus some tribals were recruited to gather and process forest products. Thus besides the-semi hunter gatherer , slave and semi-peasant livelihood, they were also being transformed into semi-rural proletariat. Generally an outsider feudal lord and merchant would now control large chunks of the tribal territories with the help of local chiefs.

After India was turned into a neo-colony in 1947, the feudal lord was gradually replaced by a more centralized state power which would be commanded by the feudal lords. Moreover, hunting and gathering from the forests was made illegal so that that more of the population could be enslaved into loaning money(which they still did not understand well and thus were regularly deceived) and working for life under the officials who represented the state. Thus, most of the contradictions now turned directly towards the state without any middle man in between. What is meant by "tribals" is the sum total of slaves, semi-peasants and semi-proletarians, all led by the latter in class struggle.

I have totally excluded racial, caste discrimination and cultural and military aspects of these contradictions. But I hope that from this you will understand how wrong your analysis was.

with cat-like grace, you evade my point.

My point was that, being as the "Tribals" are generally not proletarians, and those that are most likely form a miniscule part of the Indian proletariat, the issue is that they just do not have the same bargaining power as the masses of the Indian working class.

Wether or not they live in a state of primitive communism is irrelevent. By this logic, the Yanomani tribes of Brazil/Venezuela are the force for change in that country, as are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert in Botswana.

The issue, which yourself and Alastair are side-stepping, is which class has the means to bring down the bourgeois state (not just with guns), and which class is capable of weilding state power post revolution, in the trasnformation of society into revolutionary socialism?

Many, many classes and groups become radicalized in a revolutionary situation: Proletariat, (poor) Peasantry, Petty-bourgeoisie (who chaffe under competition from the big bourgeoisie), National bourgeoisie (if the country is under occupation or exploited by foriegn interests), lumpenproletariat, Students, Soldiers, national minorities/indegenous people, etc, etc.


The problem is, every single on of those groups is in the revolution for their own piece of the pie.

The National bourgeoisie resents competing with/being dominanted by a foriegn bourgeoisie. After the foriegn bourgeoisie is removed, they try and constitute themselves the new government, and tailor the new state to serve their own exploitation.

The Petty-bourgeoisie resent competing with the bourgeoisie (both foriegn and domestic). After that competition is removed, they generally continue exploiting, maybe expand in the absence of big competition, and ultimately become bourgeoisie themselves.

The Peasantry resent their landlords, and require a plot of land for survival farming. With the landlords removed, and land redistributed, basically the peasant ceases to be a peasant and becomes an agricultural petty bourgeoisie, who wants to be left alone to farm in perpetuity and has no interest in abolishing the exploitation of others.

The lumpenproletariat often find themselves in poverty and on the the recieving end of violence from state law enforcement. With the bourgeois state destabilized and their needs provided for, they either are assimilated into the proletariat, or in the case of the more criminal members of this class, they become and open liability, robbing from the people.

Student radicals have their uses, but they need to be placed under the command of a working class political party. Putting student radicals in command is a recipe for disaster, and the American left found that out the hard way during the 60's and 70's, as did China during the GPCR. The student left are prone to adventurism, individualism, pessimism, hedonism, and generally the are against the system no matter what system it is. The student left either becomes the proletariat, or they become academics and intellectuals that are usually useless to the struggle (if not openly counter-revolutionary).

Soldiers can be revolutionized if they are in a war with no end, are conscripts, are faced with harsh conditions and imminent death in an un necessary war, as was the case with czarist soldiers in Russia during the first world war/ Russian revolution, American GI's in Vietnam, and to a diminished extent with American Marines in Iraq.
When the threat of war, and the threat to their own skins is removed, they don't necessarilly join hands with their working class comrades.

National minorities suffer from national chauvenism. Once a state is in place that guarantees the rights of all, we find out that national minorities are not immune to class society; they are still devided into exploiters and exploited, and their participation in the socialist struggle is found to often be more nationalist than class concious. Also, they resent having some of their more reactionary indigenous traditions (ie. various forms of patriarchy) curtailed by the new workers power (Afghanistan, under the revisionist PDPA government).


I'm not saying that the broadest forces shouldn't be mobilized in a revolutionary situation. I'm saying that the working class must be the base for the revolutionary movement, because all of these other elements will evaporate or turn on the new workers power immediately after the capitalist state is removed.

[Dimentio]

It seems like the bourgeoisie see it as a strength to have different stratas represented. I think it is not necessarily a sign of weakness to pit different interests against one another. On the contrary, it could show that differences are accepted within the system because the system is so confident that it could allow a certain amount of dissent.

[red cat]

Red Cat:


with cat-like grace, you evade my point.

My point was that, being as the "Tribals" are generally not proletarians, and those that are most likely form a miniscule part of the Indian proletariat, the issue is that they just do not have the same bargaining power as the masses of the Indian working class.

Wether or not they live in a state of primitive communism is irrelevent. By this logic, the Yanomani tribes of Brazil/Venezuela are the force for change in that country, as are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert in Botswana.

The issue, which yourself and Alastair are side-stepping, is which class has the means to bring down the bourgeois state (not just with guns), and which class is capable of weilding state power post revolution, in the trasnformation of society into revolutionary socialism?

Many, many classes and groups become radicalized in a revolutionary situation: Proletariat, (poor) Peasantry, Petty-bourgeoisie (who chaffe under competition from the big bourgeoisie), National bourgeoisie (if the country is under occupation or exploited by foriegn interests), lumpenproletariat, Students, Soldiers, national minorities/indegenous people, etc, etc.


The problem is, every single on of those groups is in the revolution for their own piece of the pie.

The National bourgeoisie resents competing with/being dominanted by a foriegn bourgeoisie. After the foriegn bourgeoisie is removed, they try and constitute themselves the new government, and tailor the new state to serve their own exploitation.

The Petty-bourgeoisie resent competing with the bourgeoisie (both foriegn and domestic). After that competition is removed, they generally continue exploiting, maybe expand in the absence of big competition, and ultimately become bourgeoisie themselves.

The Peasantry resent their landlords, and require a plot of land for survival farming. With the landlords removed, and land redistributed, basically the peasant ceases to be a peasant and becomes an agricultural petty bourgeoisie, who wants to be left alone to farm in perpetuity and has no interest in abolishing the exploitation of others.

The lumpenproletariat often find themselves in poverty and on the the recieving end of violence from state law enforcement. With the bourgeois state destabilized and their needs provided for, they either are assimilated into the proletariat, or in the case of the more criminal members of this class, they become and open liability, robbing from the people.

Student radicals have their uses, but they need to be placed under the command of a working class political party. Putting student radicals in command is a recipe for disaster, and the American left found that out the hard way during the 60's and 70's, as did China during the GPCR. The student left are prone to adventurism, individualism, pessimism, hedonism, and generally the are against the system no matter what system it is. The student left either becomes the proletariat, or they become academics and intellectuals that are usually useless to the struggle (if not openly counter-revolutionary).

Soldiers can be revolutionized if they are in a war with no end, are conscripts, are faced with harsh conditions and imminent death in an un necessary war, as was the case with czarist soldiers in Russia during the first world war/ Russian revolution, American GI's in Vietnam, and to a diminished extent with American Marines in Iraq.
When the threat of war, and the threat to their own skins is removed, they don't necessarilly join hands with their working class comrades.

National minorities suffer from national chauvenism. Once a state is in place that guarantees the rights of all, we find out that national minorities are not immune to class society; they are still devided into exploiters and exploited, and their participation in the socialist struggle is found to often be more nationalist than class concious. Also, they resent having some of their more reactionary indigenous traditions (ie. various forms of patriarchy) curtailed by the new workers power (Afghanistan, under the revisionist PDPA government).


I'm not saying that the broadest forces shouldn't be mobilized in a revolutionary situation. I'm saying that the working class must be the base for the revolutionary movement, because all of these other elements will evaporate or turn on the new workers power immediately after the capitalist state is removed.

A portion of the tribal population is proletarian. The question is not ultimately which class will bring down the ruling class, but rather which class starts doing so. Even the whole of the proletariat does not participate in the revolution at once.

It turns out that the tribal proletarians and in general the tribal masses are much more oppressed than those in the mainstream. Hence they are the most revolutionary portion of the population at present. The other conditions, like the martial nature of the tribal and the geographical areas where they live in makes preparing them for the revolutionary war much easier. And it is ultimately a part of the proletariat that leads the revolution.

As the tribal masses liberate themselves, the capital acting on them previously now concentrates on other population belts, thereby increasing oppression and initiating the revolutionary war there. This is how the revolution progresses.