What will the Maoists do about national debt?

[Ricardo]

If the revolution is successful, what will the workers do about Nepal's national debt? According to wikipedia, Nepal is in debt 2.7 billion dollars. Have they stated they'll refuse to pay?

[The Vegan Marxist]

If the revolution is successful, what will the workers do about Nepal's national debt? According to wikipedia, Nepal is in debt 2.7 billion dollars. Have they stated they'll refuse to pay?

What exactly put them into debt in the first place? If it was through cross-dealings with imperialist/capitalist countries, I seriously doubt the Maoists will worry about the debt & rather swipe it off like it was never there. That's what I'd do.

[Ricardo]

I'm not sure what put them into debt, but I hope they refuse as well. I'm sure they'll face repercussions from the loaners though maybe an embargo or something.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm not sure what put them into debt, but I hope they refuse as well. I'm sure they'll face repercussions from the loaners though maybe an embargo or something.

An embargo may do some damage. No matter what system you operate under, trades must take place for the economy to survive. The only reason Cuba has lasted for so long is because China came in as their alternative trade partner against U.S. consent. North Korea's the same when it comes to their trade dealings with South Korea. Venezuela, as well, does trades with China. So hopefully Nepal can find somebody willing to trade with them if an embargo takes place.

[Saorsa]

I think that at least in the short term, they'll try and keep paying it off. Nepal needs foreign investment to fund development, hydropower projects in particular.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think that at least in the short term, they'll try and keep paying it off. Nepal needs foreign investment to fund development, hydropower projects in particular.

What are their debts due to, though?

[Saorsa]

Loans...

[Saorsa]

This just in.

Nepal receives $42 million in IMF loan
Last Updated : 2010-05-29 11:42 PM




Himalayan News Service
KATHMANDU: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) today approved immediate loan of $42.05 million to help address Nepal’s economic problems.

The loan was approved under the Washington-based fund’s rapid credit facility, which provides swift and flexible financial assistance for low-income countries that face urgent balance of payments need, according to IMF.

The move follows yesterday’s agreement among the main political parties to extend the Constituent Assembly’s (CA) term in a dramatic eleventh-hour deal to avert political crisis.

Under the deal reached at the stroke of midnight, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal agreed to resign within a week, while the UCPN-Maoist said the leaders had agreed to form a new national consensus government as part of the deal. The IMF said in a statement that the zero interest rate loan did not require any explicit programme-based conditionality or review.

However, it said, economic policies were expected to address underlying balance of payments (BoP) difficulties and support macroeconomic stability and poverty reduction.

The country is experiencing significant decline in export, thus widening the trade deficit. Besides, worsening economic confidence has led to massive deterioration of the current account balance, decline in international reserves and liquidity crunch in the banking sector.

According to the central bank’s report for the first nine months, the country recorded a BoP deficit of Rs 22.1 billion, while total trade deficit has expanded by 58.9 per cent to Rs 238.47 billion. Similarly, gross foreign exchange reserves have dropped by 15.8 per cent to Rs 235.75 billion.

“The government’s policy programme, supported by the IMF, is aimed at addressing these risks and stabilising international reserves,” said IMF Deputy Managing Director Naoyuki Shinohara. “At the core of the programme are a tight monetary and fiscal policy stance to support the exchange rate peg, which remains Nepal’s anchor for macroeconomic stability, and efforts to improve financial sector soundness.”

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Nepal+receives+$42+million+i n+IMF+loan&NewsID=245617

[ReinoTheProle]

They could do the thing i call " Laotiang Thing " , addressing to the fact what happened in Laos after War of 'Nam. They just ignore the starvation, economical disputes, and everything else, chance the colours to red, and continues the free market policies underground. Thats how we see it in Kotka.

[Ocean Seal]

Ideally I would imagine that they would refuse to pay the debt, but I would hope that they are able to pay the debt. If they refuse to pay the debt they would be taking a stand, unfortunately the capitalists would make sure to make the Nepalese people suffer by using economic sanctions and since there are few socialist nations things would be difficult for the people.

[ReinoTheProle]

Ideally I would imagine that they would refuse to pay the debt, but I would hope that they are able to pay the debt. If they refuse to pay the debt they would be taking a stand, unfortunately the capitalists would make sure to make the Nepalese people suffer by using economic sanctions and since there are few socialist nations things would be difficult for the people.


The ideal situation would be That, but with China's help, theu could gain momentum over capitalists. Like foodd rops and such from Tibet. Since they both would be (namelly) communist states if Maoists take power.

[Crux]

The ideal situation would be That, but with China's help, theu could gain momentum over capitalists. Like foodd rops and such from Tibet. Since they both would be (namelly) communist states if Maoists take power.Dude, china backed the king.

[ReinoTheProle]

Dude, china backed the king.

That's absurd, and against the Maoian thougts. But i can believe. :bored:. If China is excluded, only Vietnam is an dimly burning candle in otherwise capitalist Asia. Perhaps they would help.

[Saorsa]

Vietnam and China are capitalist countries.

The Maoists are building diplomatic links with the Chinese regime because in order for them to challenge Indian domination they will need to play the Chinese and Indian ruling classes off against each other. But the Maoists have no illusions in the nature of the Chinese regime, let alone the Vietnamese.

[ReinoTheProle]

Vietnam and China are capitalist countries.



How come?

[Ismail]

Dude, china backed the king.Only opportunistically. I'm fairly sure they'll be backing the Dengists now.


How come?http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/historyofmaopt5.html
http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/ALLIANCE27HOCHIMINH.htm

[RED DAVE]

Vietnam and China are capitalist countries.

The Maoists are building diplomatic links with the Chinese regime because in order for them to challenge Indian domination they will need to play the Chinese and Indian ruling classes off against each other. But the Maoists have no illusions in the nature of the Chinese regime, let alone the Vietnamese.But the question is what will be the nature of the Nepalese regime. It seems to me pretty certain is that it will be state capitalist.

You cool with that?

RED DAVE

[Proletarian Ultra]

It seems to me pretty certain is that it will be state capitalist.

You cool with that?

RED DAVE

No, I'm not cool with how you hate on everyone else's revolution.

To the OP's question, I'd say getting close to China would be advisable; suck it, haters. I would also be talking with the governments of Ecuador, Malaysia and Argentina for advice on how to tell the IMF to fuck off and live to see another day.

[Saorsa]

But the question is what will be the nature of the Nepalese regime. It seems to me pretty certain is that it will be state capitalist.

You cool with that?

All bow before Red Dave's personal certainty!

Trotskyists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

[scarletghoul]

There will be a period of New Democracy, and a lot of people will probably jump on this with screams of 'state capitalism'..

Anyway Nepal is very vulnerable so probably wont cancel its debts right away.. Hopefully they will eventually, like Equador, but not now. It's a very blockadable country as its landlocked with only 2 borders, and neither India or China supports the Maoists.
The only chance of Chinese support would be if the Maoists emerge as the only possible ruling party, or if the other parties became complete indian puppets, and even then China probably would just give enough support for Nepal to survive and defend itself but not enough to properly industrialise. Like they do with North Korea.

[RED DAVE]

There will be a period of New Democracy, and a lot of people will probably jump on this with screams of 'state capitalism'.We sure as shit will because that's what it is.

Let me make this clear: the Nepalese revolution is an important antiimperialist revolution. However, like China, Vietnam, etc., before it, it will go the way of state capitalism and then private capitalism in the absence of revolutions in the major industrials, which can help them make it to socialism.

My major objection to the Maoists is the deliberate muddying of the water about this. New Democracy, with its multi-class base and retention of the exploitative relationship over labor is state capitalism. Why not be honest about this?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

My major objection to the Maoists is the deliberate muddying of the water about this. New Democracy, with its multi-class base and retention of the exploitative relationship over labor is state capitalism. Why not be honest about this?
Lenin had no problems with state capitalism:
According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . . It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.(emph added)

Lenin seems to have believed that state capitalism was just a brief, a very brief, prelude to socialism, in anticipation of the revolutions in the West. The article above was published in April, 1918, when WWI was still raging and the revolutions in the West had not yet failed.


A successful proletarian revolution in Germany would immediately and very easily smash any shell of imperialism (which unfortunately is made of the best steel, and hence cannot be broken by the efforts of any . . . chicken) and would bring about the victory of world socialism for certain, without any difficulty, or with slight difficulty—if, of course, by “difficulty” we mean difficult on a world historical scale, and not in the parochial philistine sense.Of course, we know in hindsight, that the revolution in German and elsewhere failed.

Later in the same quote, above, Lenin says,


In the second place, there is nothing terrible in it for Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Obviously, and not surprisingly, in 1918, when this was written, WWI was still raging, and the revolutions had not failed in the West.

And, not surprisingly, Lenin could not conceive of the Communist Party he helped to build becoming the bulwark of the state bureaucracy and state capitalism and "the power of the workers and the poor" would be lost.

However, he writes the following, which should scare the shit out of Marxists 90+ years later.


While the revolution in Germany is still slow in “coming forth”, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism. If there are anarchists and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries (I recall off-hand the speeches of Karelin and Ghe at the meeting of the Central Executive Committee) who indulge in Narcissus-like reflections and say that it is unbecoming for us revolutionaries to “take lessons” from German imperialism, there is only one thing we can say in reply: the revolution that took these people seriously would perish irrevocably (and deservedly).(emph original)

And so we see, even in the writing of Lenin, the potential for state capitalism as we know it: the dictatorship of the state over the workers.

Further on, though, Lenin says the following, which puts the kibosh to any Maoist schema:


Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).

At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state.(emph added)

Lenin was right as state power ebbed away from the proletariat during the 1920s. And is anyone going to try to prove that "the proletariat [will be] the ruler of the state" in China or now Nepal?

Why not be honest about New Democracy being state capitalism? Then Marxists, instead of bullshitting about the progressive national bourgeoisie, and so on, can make some choices about how to support and not support, what is really going on, which is not the establishment of socialism.

In fact, we now know that state capitalism is a prelude to private capitalism. In fact, state capitalism was actually used in Taiwan to create private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

We sure as shit will because that's what it is.

Let me make this clear: the Nepalese revolution is an important antiimperialist revolution.
Yes, aswell as an antifeudal revolution. This is a country that had an absoloute monarchy only a few years ago. Feudal relations and culture were/are still a powerful force in Nepal, and this must be taken into account. In such a situation, elements of the bourgeoisie can be not just progressive but even revolutionary, as the feudal order of things must be overthrown along with imperialism. The peasants must get land from the landlords, the industry must be built up under Nepali control, etc.

However, the revolutionary process is not under the leadership of any bourgeoisie, or the peasants or pettybourgeoisie. It is under proletarian leadership, which means that bourgeois forces can be mobilised to help overthrow imperialism and feudalism, but will not be allowed to dominate and establish a reactionary capitalist order.


However, like China, Vietnam, etc., before it, it will go the way of state capitalism and then private capitalism in the absence of revolutions in the major industrials, which can help them make it to socialism.
You're forgetting one thing, the fact that China actually became socialist. The move to capitalism came only after intense struggle and party coups, so it can not be seen as a direct result of New Democracy. Yes, perhaps bourgeois thinking survived in the bloc of four classes, but its not as if they didn't help the revolution and it's not as if they were able to take power easily. The fact is that China was able to not only overthrow feudalism and imperialism but also establish socialism for quite a while, with help from progressive elements of the bourgeoisie. The failure came later, when capitalist-roaders were able to take charge of the party and oppose the peoples' will (and this failure is something the Nepal Maoists plan to improve on).

[RED DAVE]

There will be a period of New Democracy, and a lot of people will probably jump on this with screams of 'state capitalism'.
We sure as shit will because that's what it is [state capitalism].

Let me make this clear: the Nepalese revolution is an important antiimperialist revolution.(emph orig)


Yes, aswell [sic] as an antifeudal revolution. This is a country that had an absoloute monarchy only a few years ago. Feudal relations and culture were/are still a powerful force in Nepal, and this must be taken into account.(emph orig)

Let's see what that means.


In such a situation, elements of the bourgeoisie can be not just progressive but even revolutionary, as the feudal order of things must be overthrown along with imperialism.It is not clear that we can call "elements of the bourgeoisie" progressive. This class, in countries such as Nepal, is weak, and thoroughly compromised by collaboration with feudalism and imperialism. Any collaboration with them has to be termed "class collaboration" and a condition of dual power between contending classes. To call it anything else is dishonest. If such a block is going to be made, why lie about what it is?


The peasants must get land from the landlords, the industry must be built up under Nepali control, etc.And since the landlords are part of the national bourgeoisie and industry must be controlled by one class or another, what kind of politics are you talking about?


However, like China, Vietnam, etc., before it, it will go the way of state capitalism and then private capitalism in the absence of revolutions in the major industrials, which can help them make it to socialism.


You're forgetting one thingOh really?


the fact that China actually became socialist.I guess you want to call a society where the workers did not control industry or the state socialism. Me, I call it state capitalism from the giddy-up.


The move to capitalism came only after intense struggle and party coups, so it can not be seen as a direct result of New Democracy.Under so-called New Democracy, which was actually Old State Capitalism, the workers did not control the workplaces or the state. It was not socialism.


Yes, perhaps bourgeois thinking survived in the bloc of four classesIt sure as shit was persistent in that it survived under what was supposed to be socialism for about 40 years. If Chinese socialism was so great, how did this thinking survive inside the Communist Party, which was supposed to be the vanguard of socialism? Unless, of course, the CP was the vanguard of state capitalism and private capitalism in the first place.


but its not as if they didn't help the revolutionOh they helped the revolution all right: the state capitalist revolution.


and it's not as if they were able to take power easily.It seems to me that, in the absence of massive resistance by the working class, the state caps had it pretty easy as they did in Russia. As in Russia, no elements of the CP were willing to break with the party, go to the workers, and engage in revolutionary action.


The fact is that China was able to not only overthrow feudalism and imperialism but also establish socialism for quite a while, with help from progressive elements of the bourgeoisie.No workers control, no socialism. What they established, "with help from progressive elements of the bourgeoisie" was state capitalism, which morphed into private capitalism "with help from progressive elements of the bourgeoisie."


The failure came later, when capitalist-roaders were able to take charge of the party and oppose the peoples' willAnd how the fuck did that happen? It happened because the policies of the Chinese CP were state capitalist from the beginning. And the change was relatively minor: from state capitalism to private capitalism.


(and this failure is something the Nepal Maoists plan to improve on).And they're improving on it not only by making the same political block as the Chinese Maoists, but they're also telling the same lies about the national bourgeoisie.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Lenin was right as state power ebbed away from the proletariat during the 1920s. And is anyone going to try to prove that "the proletariat [will be] the ruler of the state" in China or now Nepal?
Why should we prove that? Maoists are attempting a New Democratic revolution which means the state is going to be bloc of four classes.So people who are calling themselves Marxists are engaged in the establishment of a form of capitalism.

If you don't agree with that, its because you do not know the material conditions of what it requires to transition from a semifeudal country to a socialist one.Sigh. I’m quite aware of that. I’m also aware that the role of Marxists is not to build capitalism. It’s going to be really interesting once the Maoists take power with the block of four class and the working class decides to engage in class struggle.


We know that Cliffite-Trotskyists do not support any socialist/anti-imperialist revolutions because they are just bourgeois anti-communists.
I'm not even a tiny bit surprised about Cliffites not supporting the Nepali revolution.True or not, not my party.


Why not be honest about New Democracy being state capitalism?
I think your criticisms on revleft are probably never reaching the UCPN(M)True but irrelevant. I also suspect that whatever tendency you belong to is not exactly leaving its mark on the working class in the major industrials these days.


but I have no problems with it being New Democratic (or state capitalist),Okay, so we can now legitimately treat you as a supporter of capitalism. And, presumably, as in China, as state capitalism morphs into private capitalism, we’ll know which side of the barricade you’ll be on, unlike your namesake, Babeuf.


as I see it as a necessary stage before socialism. It would be insane to go from a semicolonial stage DIRECTLY to communism.No one ever mentioned communism. However, some form of socialism, with the workers (as opposed to the bureaucracy of the UCPN(M) running the show, is probably possible.

All that said, let’s recall that we are all, hopefully, supporting the Nepalese anti-imperialist revolution, even though the Maoists are really the curtain raisers for capitalism, as the were in China and similar political tendencies were in Vietnam and Russia.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

How can a semifeudal country go directly to socialism? Let us have your detailed plan for this.

He would argue it couldn't. He would argue that in the absence of revolutions led by white workers in the West, it is impossible for the revolution in Nepal to succeed and it is completely inevitable and unavoidable that it will degenerate into counter-revolution.

Trotskyism is an inevitablistic, deterministic, pessimistic and demoralising current within the international communist movement. It is not an ideology built around making revolution or supporting revolution - it is a framework of analysis that allows you to come up with a big long list of reasons why you should not support revolutions. Trotskyists support revolutions that are crushed, and revolutions that they've read about in history books. They don't support revolutions unfolding in front of them, revolutions that are a living process and can go any way imaginable.

It's no coincidence that Trotskyism has never had any appeal to workers and peasants in the Third World, the weakest links in the imperialist chain, where revolutions actually tend to happen. Why would workers and peasants in the neo-colonies take up an ideology that tells them they are too weak, uncultured and underdeveloped to do anything other than wait for the more advanced white workers so beloved of Trotskyists to rise up?

There's no real point in debating Dave about Nepal except in reference to specific details. Any conversation about New Democracy, 'state capitalism', his determinism and so on will just go round in increasingly frustrating circles.

[RED DAVE]

Okay, so we can now legitimately treat you as a supporter of capitalism. And, presumably, as in China, as state capitalism morphs into private capitalism, we’ll know which side of the barricade you’ll be on, unlike your namesake, Babeuf.
Thats a pretty big presumption on your part. But if the Nepalese revolution degenerate to revisionism like in China, I'd oppose that, like I oppose the Dengists.Glad to hear it. No bullshit.

No one ever mentioned communism. However, some form of socialism, with the workers (as opposed to the bureaucracy of the UCPN(M) running the show, is probably possible.
How can a semifeudal country go directly to socialism? Let us have your detailed plan for this.I’m busy. Check out the Collected Works of Lenin.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

I’m busy. Check out the Collected Works of Lenin.
I've looked, it's not there maan. He just goes on about state capitalism, instead of going straight to socialism, the reactionary bastard !

[Saorsa]

Dave's analysis is based on a long series of incredibly annoying assumptions. Take this for example:
some form of socialism, with the workers (as opposed to the bureaucracy of the UCPN(M) running the show, is probably possible.

What evidence can you possibly have that the UCPN (M) has an oppressive, undemocratic bureaucracy in charge of it? All the evidence I've seen, a lot of which I've posted on this site, indicates that the UCPN (M) and it's mass organisations operate in an extremely democratic way with mass involvement from the working class.

Revolutions require revolutionary leadership not by an unorganised, spontaneous mob of heroic workers who suddenly spring up and demand the exact things Trotsky did in 1917, but rather by a group of experienced and consistently revolutionary leaders. The UCPN (M) has elected Prachanda, Kiran, Bhattarai, Gaurav, Badal and so on to be its leaders, and that's the role they are going to play as this revolution unfolds.

Dave looks increasingly like an anarchist who can't bring himself to admit to it.

[RED DAVE]

Dave's analysis is based on a long series of incredibly annoying assumptions. Take this for example
some form of socialism, with the workers (as opposed to the bureaucracy of the UCPN(M) running the show, is probably possibleI knew when I wrote that there would be problems but I needed to express something that needs to be sorted out much more carefully: what is the alternative to state capitalism? What I wanted to say is that there is, I hope, a form of, and here I'm being very vague, a form of workers state that can come out of an anti-imperialist struggle like in Nepal, but which is not state capitalist and an open door to private capitalism.


What evidence can you possibly have that the UCPN (M) has an oppressive, undemocratic bureaucracy in charge of it?That's not the point.


All the evidence I've seen, a lot of which I've posted on this site, indicates that the UCPN (M) and it's mass organisations operate in an extremely democratic way with mass involvement from the working class.That's the point: mass involvement from the working class. The working class is not the leading class in this revolution. It is one member of a "bloc of four classes." And this has always, in fact it must, end up with the state dictating to the working class instead of the state being an expression of working class power. The state will end up mitigating the class struggle, preserving the exploitative role of capital, albeit state capital.

And this, it is obvious to me from history and from the actions of the UCPN(M) that this is what is going to happen.


Revolutions require revolutionary leadership not by an unorganised, spontaneous mob of heroic workers who suddenly spring up and demand the exact things Trotsky did in 1917Stop (1) pontificating about revolution and (2) talking about shit you don't really know about. Trotsky's role in Russian history prior to 1917 was torturous, difficult, and he made mistakes. He was welcomed into the party by Lenin and given command of the forces that actually seized power.


but rather by a group of experienced and consistently revolutionary leaders.Comrade, there is revolution and there is revolution. The question is which class is going to be the leading class? It is obvious that in the revolution led by the UCPN(M) this class is not going to be the working class.


The UCPN (M) has elected Prachanda, Kiran, Bhattarai, Gaurav, Badal and so on to be its leaders, and that's the role they are going to play as this revolution unfolds.Oh they're going to be revolutionary leaders all right. The question, one more time is, what kind of revolution. The anti-imperialist nature of the revolution is clear. It's anti-capitalist nature is not.

Yes, I know about New Democracy. What it is historically, and what it shows every sign of being in Nepal, is Old State Capitalism. I see nothing in the practice of the UCPN(M) leadership that will prevent the development of state capitalism. In fact, I see constant signs that they will welcome it.


Dave looks increasingly like an anarchist who can't bring himself to admit to it.I'm going to be kind and gentle in my response and say, Comrade you are sadly mistaken.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's not that there's a revolution & another revolution. These are under contradictory terms, in which there's both the revolution & counterrevolution. There is an antagonistic contradiction between the two, in which the Maoists are forming the revolution, but are having to face the counterrevolution against the revisionist Marxists in Nepal. This is similar to other areas as well. I don't understand where you see no anti-capitalist "nature?" (I hate using that word) within the revolution behind the Maoists. If anything, the revisionist Marxists are the ones upholding a state of capitalism, that is why they are of counterrevolution.

[Saorsa]

Dave, we've had this discussion before and it's ended the same. But I'll say this one more time - if the eventual defeat of the Chinese Revolution invalidates New Democracy, then the eventual defeat of the Russian Revolution invalidates both Trotskyism and Leninism.

You say the working class is not the vanguard of this revolution because of the Maoist desire to unite as many forces as possible in their movement against imperialism. This is an assertion which you have not provided evidence for beyond "trust me, I know this will end badly". The Kathmandu valley, home to most of what working class exists within Nepal's borders, is dominated by the Maoist movement. At least 200,000 workers belong to revolutionary trade unions of the Maoist party, unions which are political in nature, carry out political education and allow their members the opportunity to interact with senior leaders of the party to discuss the path forward.

The entire point of the shift in tactics that took place in 2005/6 was to ensure that the urban workers, urban poor and the urban intelligentsia were firmly on the side of the UCPN (M), a goal which in the process of being finalised. This hardly indicates a desire by the Maoists to conquer the cities with a peasant army as you seem to think they still plan on doing.

Furthermore, most of the Nepali proletariat live overseas in India, Malaysia, Dubai, Hong Kong and so on. Maoist-affiliated organisations of expat workers are active throughout the diaspora, and huge numbers of these workers contribute from their meager wages to fund the revolutionary struggle.

The working class is organised, mobilised and charging forward at the head of the revolution. Every major wave of demonstrations and strikes since 2005 has been centred in Kathmandu and the other urban areas. The Maoists won the majority of seats in Kathmandu, and they have almost universal support in the most militant proletarian sections of Nepali society - the hotel workers, the tourism workers, the taxi drivers and so on.

You have absolutely no evidence for your claim that the proletariat is not leading this revolution other than sectarian and utopian dismissal of the Maoist approach (based on 'uniting all who can be united'). Everyone should be completely aware of this, and should treat Dave's assertions and the assertions of people like him with the complete lack of respect they deserve.

[chegitz guevara]

Lenin had no problems with state capitalism:
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

Lenin also meant something completely different by state capitalism, the NEP.

[Zanthorus]

Lenin also meant something completely different by state capitalism, the NEP.

Don't have quotes to hand now but there's one article where Lenin says that he's going to quote himself on state-capitalism and then quotes himself on state-monopoly capitalism which to me implies that what Lenin meant by statecap was basically the same thing that was meant by stamocap. Not to mention there were mentions by guys like Wilhelm Liebknecht and Bukharin of state-capitalism which means that if Lenin was using statecap to refer to the NEP he was being oddly idiosyncratic.