UCPN(M)-led coalition

[ZombieGrits]

I've read that the Maosists and ten other parties are now working together. Does any body know anything about these other parties?

[Saorsa]

A bunch of ethnic nationalist parties and reformist left groups. However, the coalition is in trouble, as the biggest party after the Maoists just pulled out. (http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Key+UCPN-M++ally+backs+out&NewsID=244659)

[ZombieGrits]

Also, why does UML oppose the Maoists so?

[Saorsa]

Because despite its name, the UML is a revisionist and counter-revolutionary party of the ruling class.

[the last donut of the night]

If the Maoists want to overthrow capitalism, why are they forming bourgeois coalitions?

Just curious, no trolling.

[chegitz guevara]

If you want to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it helps to split it. Divide and conquer isn't just a strategy for the other side.

[RED DAVE]

If the Maoists want to overthrow capitalism, why are they forming bourgeois coalitions?

If you want to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it helps to split it. Divide and conquer isn't just a strategy for the other side.This is true, but let's remember that the Maoists in China pursued this same course and ended up creating first state capitalism and then the most populous capitalism nation in the world.

In Maoist terms, "revisionism" is always a danger. And, in my US-East Coast-dilettantish-petit-bourgeois-sitting-at-my-computer-and-not-fighting-in-the-countryside opinion, the Maoists in Nepal are for too sanguine about this.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

state capitalism is a bullshit theory

[RED DAVE]

state capitalism is a bullshit theoryWell I guess that settles it.

:crying:

I'll just give up the theoretical basis that underpins my understanding of Russia, China, etc., and adopt your notion that, somehow, from somewhere, sneaky revisionists infiltrated those sterling parties decades after their revolutions.

:rolleyes:

RED DAVE

[Crux]

Well I guess that settles it.

:crying:

I'll just give up the theoretical basis that underpins my understanding of Russia, China, etc., and adopt your notion that, somehow, from somewhere, sneaky revisionists infiltrated those sterling parties decades after their revolutions.

:rolleyes:

RED DAVE
This is perhaps a debate for another thread, but I am curious, at what point did the Soviet Union become state capitalist? And whar shoudl we learn from that?

[scarletghoul]

I'll just give up the theoretical basis that underpins my understanding of Russia, China, etc., and adopt your notion that, somehow, from somewhere, sneaky revisionists infiltrated those sterling parties decades after their revolutions.
As opposed to what, state-capitalists infiltrating those parties ??

Anyway you're looking at it too much as a case of good and bad individuals. We don't believe that some individuals in the party are good and some are evil revisionists; its more a case of revisionism as a phenomenon that arises in the party once it takes power, a force of wrong ideas. Thats why revisionism cant be eliminated by purging people, it can only really be destroyed through the battle of ideas. Well thats my view anyway

[bie]

This is perhaps a debate for another thread, but I am curious, at what point did the Soviet Union become state capitalist? And whar shoudl we learn from that?
Revolutionary Russia had elements of state capitalism before 1922 and NEP, after let's say 1934 it was completely replaced by the socialist economy. And the rest is just pure bullshit.

[RED DAVE]

Revolutionary Russia had elements of state capitalism before 1922 and NEPOkay.


after let's say 1934 it was completely replaced by the socialist economy. And the rest is just pure bullshit.What you are saying is that after 1934 the workers controlled the economy is the USSR. And, by extensions, those bad-ass Khrushevites took it away sometime after 1953.

You must sleep with a stuffed Stalin. :D

RED DAVE

[bie]

"State capitalism" basically refers to the state enterprises acting on the basis of the foreign licenses in the framework of capitalist economy. It may be controlled by workers, cleaners, Trotskyists, accountants or even eternal forces - it doesn't change its character of the state capitalist enterprise.


What you are saying is that after 1934 the workers controlled the economy is the USSR. And, by extensions, those bad-ass Khrushevites took it away sometime after 1953.
What we are saying is that Soviet economy was socialist until 1991 when it was privatized and became capitalist. There is no conspiracy here :) This concept is quite widely accepted apart from few sectarians.

[Crux]

Revolutionary Russia had elements of state capitalism before 1922 and NEP, after let's say 1934 it was completely replaced by the socialist economy. And the rest is just pure bullshit.
Well, I am aware of NEP, but in the same manner as I would question the definition of the soviet union as "state capitalist" (in there that the actual capitalist class was lacking) I would also profusely question any defintion of the SU as socialist. It was a state under bureaucratic control, not without i's contradictions, of course. If I take a somewhat critical stance towards the maoists in nepal is because I know what paths it might, note that I say might not must, lead to.

[bie]

You may want to have a look at the what Lenin said about Soviet economy in 1922:


Thus, in 1918, I was of the opinion that with regard to the economic situation then obtaihing in the Soviet Republic, state capitalism would be a step forward. This sounds very strange, and perhaps even absurd, for already at that time our Republic was a socialist republic and we were every day hastily—perhaps too hastily—adopting various new economic measures which could not be described as anything but socialist measures. Nevertheless, I then held the view that in relation to the economic situation then obtaining in the Soviet Republic state capitalism would be a step forward, and I explained my idea simply by enumerating the elements of the economic system of Russia. In my opinion these elements were the following: “(1) patriarchal, i.e., the most primitive form of agriculture; (2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of the peasants who trade in grain); (3) private capitalism; (4) state capitalism, and (5) socialism.” All these economic elements were present in Russia at that time. I set myself the task of explaining the relationship of these elements to each other, and whether one of the non-socialist elements, namely, state capitalism, should not be rated higher than socialism. I repeat: it seems very strange to everyone that a non-socialist element should be rated higher than, regarded as superior to, socialism in a republic which declares itself a socialist republic But the fact will become intelligible if you recall that we definitely did not regard the economic system of Russia as something homogeneous and highly developed; we were fully aware that in Russia we had patriarchal agriculture, i.e., the most primitive form of agriculture, alongside the socialist form. What role could state capitalism play in these circumstances?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/04b.htm

Basically, socialism and state capitalism are distinguished as two different forms. There is no mention about "bureaucracy" (probably because all industry have to be controlled by the bureaucracy since the complexity of the division of labour). Therefore in this case it is your choice: you may follow Lenin or you may follow Trotsky. None both of them.

[ZombieGrits]

Guys, the thread isn't about Russia. There's a time and a place for such historical pursuits, but its nothing to obsess over the way some of you guys are.

To get the thread back on track; I understand that Nepal's economy now is pretty much a lot of agriculture. What I don't know is about the socio-political system. Would you guys say it's closer to feudalism or capitalism? Or that weird post-colonial mixture of both? It may be important, the Maoists seem like the kind of people who would allow capitalism to develop in Nepal if they thought that the country was "feudal."

[RED DAVE]

Guys, the thread isn't about Russia. There's a time and a place for such historical pursuits, but its nothing to obsess over the way some of you guys are.For those to wish to obsess :D:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-capitalism-oh-t135928/index.html?p=1755642#post1755642

RED DAVE

[Crux]

You may want to have a look at the what Lenin said about Soviet economy in 1922:


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/04b.htm

Basically, socialism and state capitalism are distinguished as two different forms. There is no mention about "bureaucracy" (probably because all industry have to be controlled by the bureaucracy since the complexity of the division of labour). Therefore in this case it is your choice: you may follow Lenin or you may follow Trotsky. None both of them.
Eh, no.
In Defence of Marxism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/index.htm)
But enough about that.

[chegitz guevara]

Well I guess that settles it.

:crying:

I'll just give up the theoretical basis that underpins my understanding of Russia, China, etc., and adopt your notion that, somehow, from somewhere, sneaky revisionists infiltrated those sterling parties decades after their revolutions.

:rolleyes:

RED DAVE

That's not my theory. That's also a bullshit theory. BTW, that theory also posits state capitalism, so it's a double bullshit theory.

This is one of the places where Trotsky's analysis was correct.

[Proletarian Ultra]

This is one of the places where Trotsky's analysis was correct.

And Trotsky is more correct than a lot of 'Marxist-Leninists'. Reading the RCP's sinophobic bile on the other Nepal threads gives me a new respect for Mr. Lev Davidovitch.