General Strike Ended

[chegitz guevara]

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/flash-general-strike-called-off-in-nepal/

Jed Brandt just wrote from the capital (about 12 noon EST, early evening in Nepal):

“Prachanda announces end of general strike. Violence from police and vigilante groups was widespread today. Nobody knows yet what this means – the new terms will be announced at mass meetings across the city tomorrow.”

In short: The news is rapidly spreading in Kathamandu, Nepal: The general strike has been called off. The conditions and reasons are not known yet — to the people gathered in the capital, or to us watching from afar.

Announcements of the strike’s end appeared on Nepali TV.

Three hours earlier Jed wrote:

“Vigilante gangs broke off from civil society peace march, attacking protesters rocks and sticks. Police respond by tear-gassing canteen, beating Maoists who responded to the attack. Hindu-chauvinist groups attack Maoists with police assistance in the Terai, targetting leaders. Don’t believe the mainstream press. They smear the movement, portraying right-wing gangs as local residents and protesters as outsiders.”

Yesterday Jed wrote:

“Government intransigent in face of the Maoist mobilization. There is still dancing, but after a week in the streets and the total shut down tempers are rising. Minor clashes are breaking out around banch compliance. Counter-mobilizations are threatened.”

The bandh (shutdown) had been enforced by the large numbers of pro-Maoist activists that had gathered in the capital since May First. Its main demand had been the resignation of the current unpopular and unelected government.

It is not known yet what this means for the mass movement in the streets. Or for the current government whose resignation was the central demand of the strike.

We will post new information as we know it. Watch this space.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Maoist to change 'nature of protest'
REPUBLICA

KATHMANDU, May 7: Dr Babu Ram Bhattarai, the vice-chairman of the Unified CPN (Maoist), said that ´the nature of the agitation against the government will be changed.´

Dr Bhattarai´s statement came just before the standing committee meeting of the party being held at chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal´s residence, Naya Bazaar on Friday evening.

"The nature of the ongoing protest program will be changed," Dr Bhattarai told myrepublica.

The indefinite general strike is a part of the protest program that the Maoists have launched against the present government.

A press conference is scheduled after the meeting.

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=18347

[Alaric]

New phase of activity...interesting!

Hopefully they'll keep their momentum, maybe push for a referendum or a vote of no confidence on the current government.

[DaringMehring]

Clearly a retreat, which is sad to see. But, hopefully this is only a retreat before the big final advance.

Maybe the Maoists realized, when the enemy wouldn't back down, that they were forcing a final conflict, and decided they were unprepared.

Unfortunately, this may not have been a good episode. As the general strike leaders in San Francisco 1934 said, the general strike is not something to be played with. You have to be ready and able to go to the end.

My hope is that this is a move to gain time to organize the YCL and the Maoist combat forces for a final seizure of power. My fear is that the strike will be the most militant thing the party does, and the rest will be backsliding into negotiation, compromising, and ultimately opportunism. At this point we international communists are sadly unable to do much to help the comrades in Nepal, so all we can do, is wait and see.

In solidarity,

All power to the Nepalese workers!

Long live the Nepalese revolution!

[The Vegan Marxist]

Clearly a retreat, which is sad to see. But, hopefully this is only a retreat before the big final advance.

Maybe the Maoists realized, when the enemy wouldn't back down, that they were forcing a final conflict, and decided they were unprepared.

Unfortunately, this may not have been a good episode. As the general strike leaders in San Francisco 1934 said, the general strike is not something to be played with. You have to be ready and able to go to the end.

My hope is that this is a move to gain time to organize the YCL and the Maoist combat forces for a final seizure of power. My fear is that the strike will be the most militant thing the party does, and the rest will be backsliding into negotiation, compromising, and ultimately opportunism. At this point we international communists are sadly unable to do much to help the comrades in Nepal, so all we can do, is wait and see.

In solidarity,

All power to the Nepalese workers!

Long live the Nepalese revolution!

This wasn't a retreat. It was a decision made due to how people were actually suffering because of the strike. The strike was only part of the protests that were to be waged against the government. We'll soon see more today & many others 'til May 28th. And after that, who knows what'll come.

[bailey_187]

it seems since about last year we have heard that "new phases" are being entered with mass action and protests, but they dont seem to lead anywhere.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

DaringMehring:
My hope is that this is a move to gain time to organize the YCL and the Maoist combat forces for a final seizure of power. My fear is that the strike will be the most militant thing the party does, and the rest will be backsliding into negotiation, compromising, and ultimately opportunism. At this point we international communists are sadly unable to do much to help the comrades in Nepal, so all we can do, is wait and see.

As many of you know, I'm not exactly in agreement with Prachanda and his revisionist political line and am of the view that the UCPN(M) must re-adopt a genuinely revolutionary orientation and genuinely revolutionary objectives in the immediate future lest it face either total annihilation or undergo the final lapse into irreversible revisionism. But to be perfectly honest, I don't think this would really be the context anyway to go to the seizure of state power. At this point, it appears as a necessity that communists in Nepal focus mainly on tactically resisting imperialist incursions at this very significant juncture as part of building up a revolutionary mass movement for the seizure of power and oriented toward new democratic revolution, socialism, and communism. Just as some of my thoughts.

[Kassad]

As many of you know, I'm not exactly in agreement with Prachanda and his revisionist political line and am of the view that the UCPN(M) must re-adopt a genuinely revolutionary orientation and genuinely revolutionary objectives in the immediate future lest it face either total annihilation or undergo the final lapse into irreversible revisionism. But to be perfectly honest, I don't think this would really be the context anyway to go to the seizure of state power. At this point, it appears as a necessity that communists in Nepal focus mainly on tactically resisting imperialist incursions at this very significant juncture as part of building up a revolutionary mass movement for the seizure of power and oriented toward new democratic revolution, socialism, and communism. Just as some of my thoughts.

Only in the United States can someone sitting comfortably at a computer moan and wail about people leading armed struggle and how "revisionist" they are. I'm sure the Nepalese Maoists with rifles in their face as they try to formumate a new system for themselves are prepared to stop what they're doing and come up with a new plan because of how "revisionist" they are.

Oh, how could I forget. The Nepalese struggle doesn't live up to Bob Avakian's standards, so it doesn't deserve our support. How stupid of me.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Explain to me where in Nepal at present the "people leading an armed struggle" to which you refer are.

Besides, in context I was mainly intending to emphasize that the current situation in Nepal doesn't leave much room for the actual seizure of power at this juncture.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Explain to me where in Nepal at present the "people leading an armed struggle" to which you refer are.

Besides, in context I was mainly intending to emphasize that the current situation in Nepal doesn't leave much room for the actual seizure of power at this juncture.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1741611&postcount=979

[DaringMehring]

This wasn't a retreat. It was a decision made due to how people were actually suffering because of the strike. The strike was only part of the protests that were to be waged against the government. We'll soon see more today & many others 'til May 28th. And after that, who knows what'll come.

If they had to call off an indefinite general strike because people were suffering after less than a week, then it means they hadn't prepared well enough. That's what the leaders of San Fran 1934 were saying.

You say it is only part of the protests, but its hard to imagine what other protests would be as advanced. What could press on the government more than indefinite general strike?

Only an armed insurrection. The only scenario in which this is not a retreat, is the one in which they saw that they were going to provoke an all-out fight for the state power, and decided they had to ready themselves first. I hope this is the case. Otherwise, unless they're aiming for another general strike with more preparation, it will all be backsliding.

Long live the Nepalese revolution!

[kasama-rl]

"Explain to me where in Nepal at present the "people leading an armed struggle" to which you refer are.

The UCPN(M) has an army that confronts the national army of the government. That is as armed as struggle gets. There is currently a protracted ceasefire and stalemated negotiations between the two sides. But your political current (in a rather non-materialist way) acts like their army disappeared the moment the guns were silenced by the current political process.

Everything happening in Nepal was profoundly influenced by (is essentially a fruit of) the ten years of open warfare and the creation of the Peoples Liberation Army.

[RED DAVE]

The UCPN(M) has an army that confronts the national army of the government. That is as armed as struggle gets. There is currently a protracted ceasefire and stalemated negotiations between the two sides. But your political current (in a rather non-materialist way) acts like their army disappeared the moment the guns were silenced by the current political process.

Everything happening in Nepal was profoundly influenced by (is essentially a fruit of) the ten years of open warfare and the creation of the Peoples Liberation Army.Can you elucidate the role of the UCPN(M) army in the general strike.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

The PLA played no role - that would violate the peace accords, and the UCPN (M) is the party of peace. I'll respond more fully to some of the points here a bit later when I'm not so horribly hung over.

[kasama-rl]

"The PLA played no role - that would violate the peace accords, and the UCPN (M) is the party of peace. "

You're kidding right?

The role of PLA cadre in the ongoing struggle in the capital is not open. The reactionaries claim that many cadre of the PLA were involved -- moved into the city for the agitations. In some ways the YCL (nationally, one of the main organizing forces at the grassroots and key to the structure of the current movement) is drawn from the PLA -- and being built as the backbone of a new wave of militia in the villages.

[Saorsa]

My point is that the PLA played no role as the PLA. It is an army, and it did not take any kind of military action in support of the demonstrations, which is what I think the question was getting at.

The YCL is led by former PLA commanders and what your saying about it is true. I wasn't at all downplaying the heroism and sacrifice of the PLA which led to all the victories the masses have won so far, but in the recent bandh the PLA wasn't being deployed as the PLA.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Alastair is correct, Mike. The UCPN(M) plainly claims to be, as Alastair has put it, "the party of peace". They are not fighting an armed confrontation. There is a possibility that circumstances will force them to try by the end of the month, but this is the main reason I raise the urgency of the issue of weeding out revisionism, unpopular as it may be here on RevLeft right now, when it's relevant.

[Saorsa]

Why is fighting to become the party of peace and to force the reactionaries into the position of being viewed as aggressors in any way 'revisionist'?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Because revolution is not pacifism. The UCPN(M)'s efforts to accomplish the objective you laid out have so far (and I mean over the course of several years) consistently fallen flat and accomplished nothing but further alienating the people from them for a reason: because Prachanda's current line doesn't reflect the interests of the masses.

When the Chinese Communists resisted the Japanese occupation, that constituted armed struggle consistent with a revolutionary trajectory. They were actually fighting against the Japanese while discrediting the Kuomintang Western puppet regime. That was hastening forward while awaiting the development of a revolutionary situation. The UCPN(M), by contrast, is seeking out peace with the establishment and has long since ceased armed struggle as part of that. That's completely inconsistent with a revolutionary trajectory.

[manic expression]

Because revolution is not pacifism.
I'm trying to remember this slogan I heard once, can anyone help me out?

"Land, Bread and _____"

[Saorsa]

Firstly, let's be clear. The UCPN (M) has not totally abandoned violent methods. It's cadres are prepared to fight the police on the streets, the PLA remains armed and battle ready, and the YCL has organised a new and massive network of revolutionary militias throughout Nepal. With that in mind, let's look at RDR's post.


Because revolution is not pacifism.

True. But fighting for peace and fighting to portray your movement as a movement that is peaceful and is being attacked by counter-revolutionary war mongers is not the same thing as 'pacifism'.


The UCPN(M)'s efforts to accomplish the objective you laid out have so far (and I mean over the course of several years) consistently fallen flat

Which precise objective is that? Their objective is to pull off a succesful revolution that can not only seize power but hold power in a very difficult international situation. And they have made huge progress towards that goal over the past few years - they're now closer than they ever were.


and accomplished nothing but further alienating the people from them

Right.

http://jedbrandt.net/wp-content/gallery/may-day/nepal_maoist_strike_bandh_jedbrandt-32.jpg

Perhaps you should provide some evidence which indicates the people have been alienated from the Maoists. That's not what the evidence suggest to me, but I'm sure you know plenty of things I don't about the Maoist support base.


for a reason: because Prachanda's current line doesn't reflect the interests of the masses.

Why?


When the Chinese Communists resisted the Japanese occupation, that constituted armed struggle consistent with a revolutionary trajectory. They were actually fighting against the Japanese while discrediting the Kuomintang Western puppet regime. That was hastening forward while awaiting the development of a revolutionary situation. The UCPN(M), by contrast, is seeking out peace with the establishment and has long since ceased armed struggle as part of that. That's completely inconsistent with a revolutionary trajectory.

It seems that you view a party as revisionist unless it is engaging in armed struggle against someone. That's a slightly strange view to me - perhaps you should explain it further. Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't wage armed struggle against the reactionaries for quite some time, and I doubt you'd call them revisionist.

I'd also love it if you explained how the past year of mass demonstrations, strikes, bandhas and general unrest has helped the Maoists make peace with the establishment. Considering the continuing attacks on Maoist supporters and the many clashes between the YCL and various reactionary forces, I don't think the Nepali ruling class sees things this way.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Wow, and people actually applauded that (Manic Expression's post). What we're all missing in this formulation is the difference between Bolshevism and Menshevism. The Bolsheviks opposed continuing Russia's imperialist war against Germany. This is clearly to be differentiated fundmantally from any interest on the part of the Bolsheviks in making peace with the bourgeois republic. The basic difference between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was that the former opposed the provisional government (also established following the overthrow of a monarchy) and organized and led its overthrow, while the latter, by contrast, sought to establish the leadership of the provisional government. Which of these positions reminds you of the UCPN(M)'s line more: Bolshevik or Menshevik?

Following the overthrow of the bourgeois government, the revolutionaries quickly found out that they had to consolidate their victory and institutionalize the dictatorship of the proletariat. And this meant fighting a three-year civil war. So much for pacifism. Mao subsequently learned from that historical experience and synthesized and systemized the revolutionary civil war and the consolidation and institutionalization of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a new approach called people's war. Thus we see the historical learning process. What Prachanda is advocating then logically corresponds to a 'great leap backward' (to coin a term) in this learning process: all the way back to pre-Leninism. All the way back to the orientation of the Mensheviks.


Comrade Alastair wrote:
Perhaps you should provide some evidence which indicates the people have been alienated from the Maoists. That's not what the evidence suggest to me, but I'm sure you know plenty of things I don't about the Maoist support base.How about the tens of thousands who marched (and apparently occasionally rebelled here and there) against the strike that is the subject of this thread under the leadership of the enemy? I've already linked to some basic info on that.


It seems that you view a party as revisionist unless it is engaging in armed struggle against someone.Well, I do see how my statements might have been read that way, but essentially I was trying to suggest a difference of orientation, even in the absence of a revolutionary situation. Namely: the difference between resisting oppression (which can correspond to and lead to revolution) and fighting to head up the establishment (which can only correspond to revisionism). The UCPN(M)'s plainly stated goal is to merge with and establish the leadership of the existing state -- the bourgeois republic -- not to overthrow it and establish a people's republic. There's nothing revolutionary about that orientation and objective; that political line.

[Saorsa]

How about the tens of thousands who marched (and apparently occasionally rebelled here and there) against the strike that is the subject of this thread under the leadership of the enemy? I've already linked to some basic info on that.

And you accuse me of being a liberal? You're playing the exact same role as the bourgeois media in Nepal - slandering, denigrating and dismissing the Maoist-led People's Movement and playing up the opposition.

20,000 people marched against the strike. The media themselves admitted the vast majority of people there were doctors, lawyers, businessmen, journalists and so on - urban professionals and sections of the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie. I know you lean towards MIMism, but have you lost all class analysis?

20,000 vs 500,000

I wonder if the people are turning against the Maoists...


The UCPN(M)'s plainly stated goal is to merge with and establish the leadership of the existing state -- the bourgeois republic -- not to overthrow it and establish a people's republic.

I was going to go and get a long list of recent statements from various leaders of the party clearly stating that their goal is to overthrow the bourgeois republic and establish a people's republic... but everyone, including you RDR, has seen these before. There comes a point when I can't be fucked proving you wrong any more.

Suffice it to say that what RDR said is false. Simple as that.