a marxist analysis of the situation

[vyborg]

http://www.marxist.com/nepalese-maoists-call-for-indefinite-general-strike.htm

[Saorsa]

A response.

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/nepals-revolution-and-internationalism-a-response-to-the-imt/

[RED DAVE]

A response.

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/nepals-revolution-and-internationalism-a-response-to-the-imt/From the "response," which should be read, as should the OP article, in its entirely.


In actual fact, there is a democratic, progressive section of the bourgeoisie in Nepal. The Maoists allied with it to defeat the monarchists. Now the contradictions within this section have reached a crisis point and it is splitting between those forces (like the leftists in the UML gathered around Bam Dev Gautam) prepared to accept the power of the Maoist movement, and the sections (primarily the rightist UML leaders and the Nepali Congress) which are refusing to do so and would rather ally with the feudalist, royalist military forces to prevent Maoist-led revolution. It is not enough to simply curse the bourgeoisie – revolutionary movements must exploit divisions within it’s ranks in such a way as to take the movement forward. The Maoists have proved to be masters at this.This is extremely worrisome. It is one thing to exploit divisions within the ruling class. It is another to foster the illusion that a section of the bourgeoisie is "democratic" and "progressive" in any meaningful way. History has shown that the consequences of this fantasy is the opening the door not to a workers and peasants government but to state capitalism.

Nowhere in the response document is there a call for the workers to seize the workplaces and the peasants to seize the land if the Constituent Assembly fails to produce a constitution. This continued fetishism of the constitution, instead of focusing on class power, which this process can conceal or reveal, is not a good sign.

No, I do not trust the Maoists. Let me make that clear. To lead the workers and peasants this far and to hold back at the point of the seizure of power, which the Maoists, given their history, might do, would be a tragedy. We shall see.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

From the "response," which should be read, as should the OP article, in its entirely.

This is extremely worrisome. It is one thing to exploit divisions within the ruling class. It is another to foster the illusion that a section of the bourgeoisie is "democratic" and "progressive" in any meaningful way. History has shown that the consequences of this fantasy is the opening the door not to a workers and peasants government but to state capitalism.

Nowhere in the response document is there a call for the workers to seize the workplaces and the peasants to seize the land if the Constituent Assembly fails to produce a constitution. This continued fetishism of the constitution, instead of focusing on class power, which this process can conceal or reveal, is not a good sign.

No, I do not trust the Maoists. Let me make that clear. To lead the workers and peasants this far and to hold back at the point of the seizure of power, which the Maoists, given their history, might do, would be a tragedy. We shall see.

RED DAVE

If the Maoists hold back, then it's for a good reason. Actions that are taken by the Maoists are first assembled under whether "nay or yay" is the conclusion. And then the response is given from such results. For example, the decision that if the police try to attack them, then they'll retaliate. So if they hold back, it's because the majority of Maoists supported it. But from what it seems, they will not hold back & they will continue to fight, peacefully or militantly, until they're either wiped out of its entirety or have toppled the government.

[RED DAVE]

If the Maoists hold back, then it's for a good reason. Actions that are taken by the Maoists are first assembled under whether "nay or yay" is the conclusion. And then the response is given from such results. For example, the decision that if the police try to attack them, then they'll retaliate. So if they hold back, it's because the majority of Maoists supported it. But from what it seems, they will not hold back & they will continue to fight, peacefully or militantly, until they're either wiped out of its entirety or have toppled the government.This is about as unclear a politcal statement as one can make and still retain the English language.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is about as unclear a politcal statement as one can make and still retain the English language.

RED DAVE

How is what I said unclear? Am I typing too many words for you? Should I stick with single digits?

[Saorsa]

The Maoists have stated that programs of the next three month are building towards insurrection. They even quoted from Lenin in the article announcing this to make the Daves of the world happy.

Let's wait and see hmm?


It is one thing to exploit divisions within the ruling class. It is another to foster the illusion that a section of the bourgeoisie is "democratic" and "progressive" in any meaningful way. History has shown that the consequences of this fantasy is the opening the door not to a workers and peasants government but to state capitalism.

What about the sections of the bourgeoisie that support the restoration of the monarchy, and the sections that, uh, don't?

[RED DAVE]

The Maoists have stated that programs of the next three month are building towards insurrection. They even quoted from Lenin in the article announcing this to make the Daves of the world happy.

Let's wait and see hmm?The RED DAVE of this board is far from "happy."

I am forced, while maintaining an attitude of critical support for the Maoists, to lean very heavily on the "critical" side. Given the authoritative statements by the Maoists (and their uncritical supporters here at RevLeft), I think it's fair to ask at this point whether or not a serious mistake has been made.

And this question has to be answered in all honesty, without cheerleading or accusations of armchair revolution. If we can't engage in criticism of each other's actions without denunciation, we may as well divide this board up and start fighting now.

(1) The Nepalese Maoists called a general strike of indefinite duration to accomplish a political goal (the promulgation of a new constitution). It is fair to ask if this was a good strategic or tactical move, especially since the strike was called off abruptly. To call a strike of planned, limited duration and execute it would have shown the power and discipline of the Maoists. Now, it's reasonable to ask if they knew what they were doing.

(2) A general strike can be called for a limited goal or prepertory to a seizure of power. No provision was apparently made for calling off the strike, and no provision was made to move rapidly forward to an insurrection. In either case, the Maoist's use of this tactic is open to criticism.

(3) Given the indefinite length of the strike, no provision was made for long-term feeding of people in the capital. This inevitably meant (and it did) that the strike would either have to move forward to a seizure of power or be called off weeks before the deadline for the constitution. That the Nepalese Establishment would make counter-moves and that violence would erupt was predictable. It is reasonable to conclude that the Maoists have made a serious misstep.

(4) This strike was called during season when peasants need to be at home planting. This seems to have been something of a blunder. Yes, the constitutional deadline placed restraints on the Maoist's actions, but the result seems to be a hasty, unplanned retreat.

Comrades, nothing would be easier for you than to denounce the rather raggedy set of points I've made above. And it may well be that the Maoist leadership in Nepal, after decades of struggle, is the font of all Marxist wisdom. But the questions are real, coached honestly, and I hope they will be answered in the same spirit.

RED DAVE

[bailey_187]

tbh, Red Dave seems to have a fair point about handling of the general strike/Bandh

[Saorsa]

I am forced, while maintaining an attitude of critical support for the Maoists, to lean very heavily on the "critical" side. Given the authoritative statements by the Maoists (and their uncritical supporters here at RevLeft), I think it's fair to ask at this point whether or not a serious mistake has been made.

I am not an uncritical supporter of the UCPN (M) at all. They are an organisation and a movement made up of human beings. Human beings made mistakes, and mistakes need to be criticised. However, in terms of the tasks that need to be done, I see it as very important to try and build international solidarity with this revolution as it advances in very difficult circumstances. I do not see it as important for me to write articles from the First World lecturing Third World revolutionaries on what they should be doing, as if I know better than them how to advance in the unique conditions of their country. I am not an arrogant person, and I don't like this incredibly arrogant attitude.


And this question has to be answered in all honesty, without cheerleading or accusations of armchair revolution. If we can't engage in criticism of each other's actions without denunciation, we may as well divide this board up and start fighting now.

I agree with this paragraph. Serious questions deserve serious answers. Revolution is always controversial and we shouldn't shy away from that.


(1) The Nepalese Maoists called a general strike of indefinite duration to accomplish a political goal (the promulgation of a new constitution). It is fair to ask if this was a good strategic or tactical move, especially since the strike was called off abruptly. To call a strike of planned, limited duration and execute it would have shown the power and discipline of the Maoists. Now, it's reasonable to ask if they knew what they were doing.

I don't think that's reasonable to ask at all. These guys have been leading a revolutionary struggle with great success for over a decade now, and you're wondering if they 'know what their doing'? We can discuss whether a specific action or strategy has advanced or retarded the revolutionary struggle, but to wonder whether the leaders of the UCPN (M) 'know what they're doing' is frankly quite bizarre. The Maoists never said the strike would go on forever, they said it was indefinite, i.e. it would continue for as long as necessary and was not going according to a specific timeframe.


in·def·i·nite   [in-def-uh-nit] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
2.
not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.

The movement continues. The masses are still on the streets. (http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/2-political/5916-maoists-picketing-singha-durbar-kathmandu-traffic-affected.html) Currently the Maoist movement continues to paralyse the state, and is gheraoing (surrounding with masses of people and shutting down) the central government buildings in Singha Durbar and all other government administration centres and offices around Nepal.

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/images/stories/igallery/bandh_call/large/may_08_10_prachand1_b.jpg

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/images/stories/igallery/sit_in_pro-1/large/may_09_10_cadres_staging_b.jpg


(2) A general strike can be called for a limited goal or prepertory to a seizure of power. No provision was apparently made for calling off the strike, and no provision was made to move rapidly forward to an insurrection. In either case, the Maoist's use of this tactic is open to criticism.

This paragraph is extremely confused. Where did you get this information from that no provision was made for calling off the strike? You must be in direct contact with Prachanda himself, and he must trust you more than most people in his own party if you're privy to all this information! Judging by the fact that the strike has been lifted, I'd say provisions kind of were in place to lift the strike. Perhaps you should explain yourself a bit more.

Insurrections do not happen 'rapidly'. They are not acts of will power. Lenin wrote in September 1917 in a letter that deserves far more serious study than it tends to recieve that;


"To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/13.htm)

This was recently quoted from in the latest Red Star by senior Maoist leaders. They are mobilising the masses to create the conditions for an insurrection, and it's coming soon. It continues to amaze me that people in the West feel they have the right to tell the Nepali revolutionaries to hurry things up, as if revolution can be accomplished by flicking a switch. Wait and see what happens, and allow the Maoists to prove themselves with their actions.


(3) Given the indefinite length of the strike, no provision was made for long-term feeding of people in the capital.

Two things.

1: You're wrong.

http://jedbrandt.net/wp-content/gallery/the-general-strike/nepal_maoist_strike_bandh_jedbrandt-32.jpg

That's a photo of one of the kitchens the Maoists organised, taken by Kasama Project member Jed Brandt. They organised these at least once a day, generally twice from what I've read, all over the city, and anyone could come off the streets and eat. The fact that they provided food to the hungry in Kathmandu, a city of about two million people, is incredible.

2: A general strike could never have gone on for much more than a week in Kathmandu. This was already the longest strike since the second Janaandolan, and the Maoists pulled it off very impressively. However let's keep some basic facts in mind here. Nepal has no social security net. There is no unemployment benefit. For the daily wage labourers in Kathmandu, a few days without work means running out of food and starting to starve. Nepal has large areas of it's countryside in a situation of 'acute food shortages'. It's constantly hit by famine, and has to import food. Marxism is supposed to be based on concrete analysis of concrete conditions, not utopian wishful thinking! I have posted numerous reports in the News From Nepal thread detailing the fact that the massive influx of Maoist supporters into Kathmandu resulted in the UCPN (M) buying up all the food it could get its hands on, pretty much cleaning the valley out. They did everything they could.

To call for the Maoists to organise feeding the city of Kathmandu as a general strike prevents anyone from working for weeks on end is ridiculous. And more than that, it's impossible. Enlighten us Dave - how could they do it? The peasants might be able to spare a bit of grain here and there, but they're going hungry too most of the time. They can't afford to feed the entire Kathmandu Valley as an act of solidarity. The strike always had to end at some point, and the Maoists lifted the comprehensive general strike because they were concerned about impacting on the working people's livelihoods.

Don't confuse ending the general strike with ending the Janaandolan. They are quite clear that this movement will continue until the government falls and either a national unity (i.e. 2/3 majority) govt is formed to pass a People's Constitution, or a revolt sweeps the govt away. The masses are in the streets and are targeting specific institutions now, rather than forcing all the people in Nepal to go without work until they starve to death.


This inevitably meant (and it did) that the strike would either have to move forward to a seizure of power or be called off weeks before the deadline for the constitution. That the Nepalese Establishment would make counter-moves and that violence would erupt was predictable. It is reasonable to conclude that the Maoists have made a serious misstep.

Again, I have to ask why you're assuming that the UCPN (M) isn't aware of this? I suspect they know more about the 'Nepalese [sic] Establishment' than you do. The Maoist movement is at the highest point it's ever been at the moment, and you still desperately scrape the barrel in search of some mythical 'betrayal'. This is the fatal flaw in Trotskyist politics - an ideological current based on pessimism and determinism, and defined not by how it fights capitalism itself but by how it critiques and attacks non-Trotskyists fighting capitalism.


(4) This strike was called during season when peasants need to be at home planting. This seems to have been something of a blunder. Yes, the constitutional deadline placed restraints on the Maoist's actions, but the result seems to be a hasty, unplanned retreat.

Some have gone home to plant crops. Others have replaced them. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/05/05/top-story/maoist-meet-today-to-raise-stir-bar/207952/) The Maoists have worked around this by doing two things.

1: They asked for one supporter from each family in their areas. They didn't want to take any more than that so as to ensure that the peasants who stayed home could gather the harvest.

2: Rotation. The idea is not for people to arrive in Kathmandu and then all of them stay there til the end, the idea is for large numbers to flood in for a time then leave, to be replaced by other supporters from around Nepal. This ensures the protests continue and remain full of energy, and the crops still get gathered. The Maoists have no desire to cause a famine. And think what effect this will have... villagers that have never been to Kathmandu flood in, confront the police in the streets and mingle with their comrades from around Nepal, then return to their villages to share the stories. This will raise consciousness throughout Nepal.


Comrades, nothing would be easier for you than to denounce the rather raggedy set of points I've made above. And it may well be that the Maoist leadership in Nepal, after decades of struggle, is the font of all Marxist wisdom. But the questions are real, coached honestly, and I hope they will be answered in the same spirit.

I tried to do so. The minor attack on Trotskyism, which I decided not to delete in the end, does not change the fact that these are questions asked out of genuine concern which deserve to be addressed as such.

[vyborg]

The second part...http://www.marxist.com/nepal-maoists-call-off-general-strike.htm