Major article: Basanta on 'Nepal's revolution and its ideological challenges'

[Saorsa]

This is another major piece of analysis from one of the leaders of Nepal’s Maoist revolution. Comrade Basanta says the time for a people’s insurrection is drawing near…

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/basanta-n/#more-514

Nepalese Revolution and its Ideological Challenges

Indra Mohan Sigdel ‘Basanta’

http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/nepal-basanta1-e1266650722953.jpg?w=250&h=330

Marxism and revisionism or so to speak revolution and counter-revolution are the unity and struggle of opposites. A communist party, which is formed of relative unity between Marxism and revisionism i.e. revolution and the counter-revolution, develops Marxism in the course of its absolute struggle against revisionism. Marxism develops to defeat revisionism and so does the revisionism to defeat Marxism. In this sense, the history of the international communist movement is the history of struggle between Marxism and revolution on the one hand and revisionism and counter-revolution on the other. No communist party in the world can escape from this struggle. It is equally true for our party also. Those communist parties, which could defeat revisionism in the ideological and political struggle i.e. two-line struggle in the party, have emerged victorious in the history. But contrarily, those which failed to defeat revisionism in this struggle have ultimately become witnesses of the counter-revolution.

The end result of revisionism is counter-revolution; however, every revisionist advocates revolution, not counter-revolution. Revisionism comes in the guise of creative application of Marxism. It is also true that without the development of Marxism no revolution can advance. Hence, whether Marxism or revisionism develops in any party is a contradiction. It is not a question of intention of some particular leader. Rather, it is a question of whether or not one grasps the dialectical and historical materialism correctly and then applies it creatively in developing a political line, plans and programmes, to change the given concrete condition. Besides, it is not that a counterrevolutionary turns revisionist but those which are revolutionary on the whole but lack the correct grasp of dialectics slide gradually towards revisionism.

A revolutionary communist party at one point of time can become a revisionist one at the other. It is relative to the time and space and the level of class struggle as well. The Communist Party of Russia founded and brought up by Comrade Lenin and Stalin turned into revisionist after latter’s demise. The Communist Party of China by means of which Mao led the new democratic revolution to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has turned revisionist. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), which was on one occasion a relatively revolutionary splinter group of the Khrushchevite Communist Party of India, has now become one of the reliable accomplices of the reactionary ruling class. In the same way, the coordination committee, once a relatively revolutionary communist group working in Jhapa, has now with the passing of time turned into a revisionist UML. There are plenty of such misleading examples in the international communist movement.

None portrays oneself as a revisionist; rather it is expressed in one’s ideological and political line. The political line changes with a change in the objective situation and so do the plans and programmes too. They are correct only when they comply with objective condition. It means that a political line that is revolutionary at one point of time becomes obsolete and even regressive at the other. Just for example, the political line of democratic republic that our CC meeting in Chunwang had adopted was correct in the then condition. But with the abolition of monarchy from the first meeting of Constituent Assembly and establishment of Federal Democratic Republic in Nepal, the Chunwang tactic has now become obsolete and even regressive. Therefore, at present our party has developed a correct political line, which is People’s Federal Republic. And after its accomplishment, the need to develop another political line arises.

Marxism is always attacked from two angles – ‘right’ and ‘left’. Different shades of rightists, tagged as communists, think that our party’s present line is ultra-left while the left sectarians see us as rightists. It is the line struggle mainly against these two wrong trends that our party, retaining its revolutionary character, has been advancing revolution. But, in the present context, right revisionism is the main danger. Only by waging firmly the ideological struggle against it can right revisionism be defeated. However, while struggling against right revisionism party must remain alert from the danger of being trapped into left sectarianism.

The new democratic revolution in Nepal is at a crossroads of possibility of great victory and the danger of serious defeat. We are now in the Constituent Assembly to write people’s constitution for a New Nepal. The representatives of different classes in the constituent assembly are exercising to write their own constitution. The comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the feudal elements want a status quo constitution to ensure their class interest. But, the entire oppressed class, nation, gender and the region including from the workers to the national bourgeoisie want a constitution that is anti-feudal and anti-imperialist in content. In this way, the class struggle is now focused at the content of the constitution, status quo or revolutionary.

In view of less than two- third majority on the part of entire parliamentarian parties the conspiracies to push our party aside from the constitution writing process are mounting and it will intensify further. It is sure that reactionaries will by no means write people’s constitution in their own. The recent political activities on the part of reactionaries reveal their conspiracy. Linger the process till May 28 and stage a counter-revolutionary military coup the next to impose status quo seems to be the reactionary design. In fact, the constitutional crisis after May 28 is in this way going to create a political crisis in the country. The reactionaries have seen military fascism as the only alternative to ‘evade’ the political crisis that the constitutional crisis after May 28 brings about.

Nepalese people are impatiently waiting for a constitution prepared as to resolve the basic contradictions that the semi-feudal and semi-colonial condition has created. There has been thousands of sacrifices from Nepalese people in order to build up an independent and prosperous Nepal that is free from feudal exploitation and imperialist intervention including class, national, regional and gender oppressions. Nepalese people have lined up for more sacrifice but cannot bow down before the reactionaries, domestic and foreign.

There is no doubt that the class struggle which is now centred on the new constitution making will develop to its climax in the days to come. It is definite that the foreign moves and interventions too will qualitatively increase. Not only will this bring different trends of the society into surface but also it cannot be denied that these trends will not influence the two-line struggle in the party, ongoing party’s political line and the plans and programmes of the struggle as well. The logic in the big house media that envisages ultra-left danger in the present line of People’s Republic and suggests on the need to seek a new model of transitional republic based on consensus should be viewed in relation to this context.

The class struggle directly influences the line struggle and vice versa. These two cannot be separated. In the present context when the class struggle is leading towards its climax our party has been, by means of inter-party struggle, sharpening the political line and concretising the plans further. And this is the way to go ahead. To grasp deeply the party line, remain cautious so that it does not become dull and implement firmly the plans of struggle is the responsibility shouldered upon all of us at present.

Today, our party is seriously engaged in writing new constitution. But the reactionaries are now forcing to make the revolutionary forces surrender and, if not, working to ‘wipe them out’ with military might. The expressions like, writing of an abridged constitution, revival of 1990 constitution and reinstatement of the Hindu Kingdom etc. have clearly indicated the conspiracies on the part of reactionaries.

In this situation, the constitution is not going to be written easily. And, no constitution can be written on the will of our party alone. The way how the great people’s war compelled those parliamentarian parties, who did not want even to listen the term constituent assembly, to agree with it and forced the monarchy to kneel down before the people by means of 19 days mass movement founded on people’s war, in the same manner, the people’s insurrection far more stronger than that will be able to defeat entire conspiracies including military coup and thereby open the way to writing people’s constitution that institutionalises the People’s Republic. In order to liberate Nepal and Nepalese people from feudal exploitation and imperialist oppression and build up an independent and prosperous new Nepal there appears no other alternative to people’s insurrection before the Nepalese people.

When the ultra-left danger in our party’s line of people’s insurrection is being discussed now in Nepal, it will not be out of context to place here how Lenin used to look at insurrection and the danger that Bern-stein, who had accused Lenin of Blanquist ultra-left, had seen in the context of Russian insurrection. In a letter headed Marxism and insurrection to the central committee written in September 1917, Lenin writes, “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.”

Immediately after that, in the next paragraph he writes, “Once these conditions exist, however, to refuse to treat insurrection as an art is a betrayal of Marxism and a betrayal of the revolution.”

The modality of people’s insurrection in any country is of its own character. Replication of Russian or Chinese model cannot make revolution in Nepal. But, in order to accomplish people’s insurrection as an art, the aforesaid conditions put forth by Lenin are universal. The crux behind three months’ plan of struggles that our party has adopted is aimed at fulfilling the aforesaid conditions for people’s insurrection. In compliance with the political line, only by implementing firmly the entire programmes of struggles that the party has adopted for three months can the entire conditions the Nepalese revolution demands, including the aforesaid ones, be fulfilled. It is today’s Marxism to accomplish Nepalese revolution. •

PBM, UCPN-Maoist

[RED DAVE]

With all due respect, Comrade, this article fails to set up useful criteria for distinguishing between "Marxism" and "revisionism."


The end result of revisionism is counter-revolution; however, every revisionist advocates revolution, not counter-revolution. Revisionism comes in the guise of creative application of Marxism. It is also true that without the development of Marxism no revolution can advance. Hence, whether Marxism or revisionism develops in any party is a contradiction. It is not a question of intention of some particular leader. Rather, it is a question of whether or not one grasps the dialectical and historical materialism correctly and then applies it creatively in developing a political line, plans and programmes, to change the given concrete condition. Besides, it is not that a counterrevolutionary turns revisionist but those which are revolutionary on the whole but lack the correct grasp of dialectics slide gradually towards revisionism.I see a severe problem here. Revisionism is couched in terms of subjective criteria: "whether or not one grasps the dialectical and historical materialism correctly and then applies it creatively in developing a political line, plans and programmes, to change the given concrete condition." I believe this is a serious error. What Maoists call revisionism is, at root, adherence or loyalty to a class other than the proletariat. The ideological component is secondary to the class component.

When Basanta says that, "It is not a question of intention of some particular leader," he is correct. But when he replaces "intention" with "grasp[ing] the dialectical and historical materialism correctly and then appl[ying] it creatively in developing a political line," etc., he is still using a subjective criterion.

The class nature of the ideology of a revolutionary (or a revisionist) can be judged by the result of their ideology. In the case of all Maoisms before this, especially China, the result was the rule first of the bureaucracy and then of the bourgeoisie. Without grasping the class root of ideology, there is every reason to believe that the Nepalese Maoists are open to the same defeat as the Chinese.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

The class nature of the ideology of a revolutionary (or a revisionist) can be judged by the result of their ideology. In the case of all Maoisms before this, especially China, the result was the rule first of the bureaucracy and then of the bourgeoisie. Without grasping the class root of ideology, there is every reason to believe that the Nepalese Maoists are open to the same defeat as the Chinese.

The problem with this is that the same is true of Leninism, and arguably Trotskyism as well. The Russian Revolution degenerated, and in your opinion very quickly. Does this invalidate the model of an urban soviet insurrection? Does this invalidate Leninism?

You wouldn't argue it does. Yet you argue the eventual degeneration and defeat of the Chinese revolution invalidates the People's War model and the New Democratic Revolution model. There is an inconsistency in your argument.

The Nepali Maoists have analysed what took place in the 20th century, and it concerns them deeply. This is easily apparent in party documents. They have tentatively proposed a new model of socialism, with multi-party competition, to try and avoid the fusion of party bureaucracy and state bureaucracy that took place during the defeat of the revolutions in Russia and China. Whether this works in practice is yet to be seen, but it is very unfair to treat the UCPN (M) as just another rerun of what happened in China.

They are trying to make a revolution in unimaginably difficult circumstances, and they are proposing new methods to try and ensure the revolution survives after it takes power.

[RED DAVE]

The class nature of the ideology of a revolutionary (or a revisionist) can be judged by the result of their ideology. In the case of all Maoisms before this, especially China, the result was the rule first of the bureaucracy and then of the bourgeoisie. Without grasping the class root of ideology, there is every reason to believe that the Nepalese Maoists are open to the same defeat as the Chinese.
The problem with this is that the same is true of Leninism, and arguably Trotskyism as well.It was certainly a potential problem in the thought of both men. Lenin was, I believe, evolving his position when he died. Trotsky, by clearly siding with the workers and not the bureaucracy in his conflict with Stalin, largely, I believe, dealt with this. However, his final formulation of the USSR as a "degenerated workers state" shows that he did not reach the final conclusion that the workers state, to the extent that it existed between 1917 and, say, 1928, was gone.


The Russian Revolution degenerated, and in your opinion very quickly. Does this invalidate the model of an urban soviet insurrection? Does this invalidate Leninism?Quite the contrary: it affirms it. The death of Leninism was not in the "urban soviet insurrection" but in the subsequent civil war, foreign invasion and in the backwardness and isolation of Russia and in the failure of the revolution in the West.

You wouldn't argue it does. Yet you argue the eventual degeneration and defeat of the Chinese revolution invalidates the People's War model and the New Democratic Revolution model. There is an inconsistency in your argument.


The Nepali Maoists have analysed what took place in the 20th century, and it concerns them deeply. This is easily apparent in party documents. They have tentatively proposed a new model of socialism, with multi-party competition, to try and avoid the fusion of party bureaucracy and state bureaucracy that took place during the defeat of the revolutions in Russia and China. Whether this works in practice is yet to be seen, but it is very unfair to treat the UCPN (M) as just another rerun of what happened in China.I appreciate this, but, frankly, in their discussions of the working class and in the role of the working class in the current crisis, I do not see them treating the working class as the fundamental revolutionary agent with the party as the vanguard.

For example, in the recent general strike, which had to be called off because of lack of provisions in the capital, among other reasons, it would seem to me that the proper role of the working class was to move to a position of dual power where the workplaces were seized and the class as a whole, in alliance with the peasantry, took the responsibility for feeding and running the capital. The Maoists, clearly, did not do this. Their agent was the party and the not the working class as a class.


They are trying to make a revolution in unimaginably difficult circumstances, and they are proposing new methods to try and ensure the revolution survives after it takes power.I salute them for their courage and persistence, but the class nature of their politics, as shown in their actions, worrisome in the extreme.

And thank you Comrade Alastair for being one of the only Maoists I have ever met who is capable of being critical of events as they are transpiring and not being a cheerleader.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

For example, in the recent general strike, which had to be called off because of lack of provisions in the capital, among other reasons, it would seem to me that the proper role of the working class was to move to a position of dual power where the workplaces were seized and the class as a whole, in alliance with the peasantry, took the responsibility for feeding and running the capital. The Maoists, clearly, did not do this. Their agent was the party and the not the working class as a class.

It's 3am and I can't write too much, but I want to make a quick point. Would you have condemned the Bolsheviks in July 1917 for not attempting to seize power? As the masses took to the streets resisting an attempt to send revolutionary soldiers to the front and demanding all power be transferred to the Soviets, the Provisional Govt responds by shooting down demonstrators in the streets like the Tsar did only a few months before. Lenin flees to the north, the Bolsheviks do not attempt to launch an insurrection. Is this a sign of Bolshevik treachery? Of Lenin seeking to betray the aspirations of the masses and compromise with the PG?

Lenin explained these actions like this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/13.htm


On July 3-4 it could have been argued, without violating the truth, that the correct thing to do was to take power, for our enemies would in any case have accused us of insurrection and ruthlessly treated us as rebels. However, to have decided on this account in favour of taking power at that time would have been wrong, because the objective conditions for the victory of the insurrection did not exist.

(1) We still lacked the support of the class which is the vanguard of the revolution.

We still did not have a majority among the workers and soldiers of Petrograd and Moscow. Now we have a majority in both Soviets. It was created solely by the history of July and August, by the experience of the "ruthless treatment" meted out to the Bolsheviks, and by the experience of the Kornilov revolt. (evidence of Lenin's bourgeois legalism and weakness for parliamentary democratic practices! The workers are ready to storm the Winter Palace, and Lenin tells them to wait until the Bolshevik party wins a majority in the Soviet!)

(2) There was no country-wide revolutionary upsurge at that time. There is now, after the Kornilov revolt; the situation in the provinces and assumption of power by the Soviets in many localities prove this. (at this point in time, there is not yet a country wide revolutionary upsurge in Nepal. The Maoists are creating one - Basanta explains in the article above that the current nationwide protest movement is aimed at doing this. But until such a situation occurs, an attempt by the Maoists to seize power would simply be a putsch. They mobilised the masses into Kathmandu as a show of strength, a test of their levels of support and organisational capacities, and to see how the state would respond. They have concluded that the time was not yet ripe for revolt, and that they would postpone the general strike program until May 28th - the deadline for a new constitution).

(3) At that time there was no vacillation on any serious political scale among our enemies and among the irresolute petty bourgeoisie. Now the vacillation is enormous. Our main enemy, Allied and world imperialism (for world imperialism is headed by the "Allies"), has begun to waver between a war to a victorious finish and a separate peace directed against Russia. Our petty-bourgeois democrats, having clearly lost their majority among the people, have begun to vacillate enormously, and have rejected a bloc, i.e., a coalition, with the Cadets. (the ruling class in Nepal is only now beginning to seriously split. Ten minor parties, including the reasonably significant MJF with 30 seats and a base in the Terai, has aligned with the Maoists. The ruling coalition is falling apart as a result of the May Day demonstrations, and the situation is ripening for a revolt, but the conditions need to develop further... just as was the case in July in Russia)

(4) Therefore, an insurrection on July 3-4 would have been a mistake; we could not have retained power either physically or politically. We could not have retained it physically even though Petrograd was at times in our hands, because at that time our workers and soldiers would not have fought and died for Petrograd. There was not at the time that "savageness", or fierce hatred both of the Kerenskys and of the Tseretelis and Chernovs. Our people had still not been tempered by the experience of the persecution of the Bolsheviks in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks participated. (The Maoist's peaceful movement was attacked by the police, by Hindu fascist gangs, by right wing vigilantes and so on. Journalists slandered and mocked the poor peasants flooding into Kathmandu. Businessmen denounced them. I've spoken to Maoist cadres and supporters in Nepal over the past few days on Facebook, and there is a great feeling of anger at the government and the ruling class, which is spreading throughout the country. A feeling of impatience is taking hold... The people are almost ready, and why would the Maoists move a second too soon?)

We could not have retained power politically on July 3-4 because, before the Kornilov revolt, the army and the provinces could and would have marched against Petrograd. (this is perhaps the main difference between Russia and Nepal. In Russia, the decisive moments were when the soldiers mutinied and the Petrograd garrison came over the the Bolsheviks. A conscript army of peasants and workers rebelled and joined the demonstrations in the streets. Nepal's army is a volunteer one that has not been brutalised by a long, losing war. It is not mutinying, it is not rebelling against it's officers. This may happen - as the Maoist movement and the ruling class begin to clash, the chance of the army being deployed grows greater, and the Maoists are confident that ordinary soldiers will rebel and take their side. But the situation in this regard is far more difficult than it was in Russia. The Prov Govt lost all power when the army switched sides in Petrograd, at the front and elsewhere. The Bolshevik seizure of the state was just an official announcement of what was already a concrete reality - the revolutionaries held power as they controlled the guns as well as the factories. In Kathmandu, the Maoists do not control the army and they have no way of simply getting it to switch sides. They cannot risk decades of work for a Quixotic and suicidal attempt to seize power before the time is right. They have to wait until they are as confident as can be that they can seize power and hold it, and if they haven't taken power yet they obviously are not yet confident of that.)

Revolutions do not happen in a straight line. Retreats are not betrayals. Retreats can open up the ground for advances later... July led to October/November.

We don't yet know where May will lead.


And thank you Comrade Alastair for being one of the only Maoists I have ever met who is capable of being critical of events as they are transpiring and not being a cheerleader.

What a beautiful moment ;-)