Al Jazeera interview Bhattarai

[Saorsa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Zw8sy6Yfg

don't bother with the first half, it's bourgeois rubbish. But from 12:20 onwards Baburam Bhattarai speaks about the struggle for a new constitution, the need to transform the old feudal army through integration of PLA fighters, the need for radical land reform and more besides. Interestingly, he also seems to suggest that he supports the Maoists running in new elections, and mentions how if they did so they would probably win a 2/3 majority.

The woman who presents this is incredibly irritating. She's a rich, educated, pale skinned, privileged person who speaks excellent, posh-sounding English... and she's wandering around Nepal finding as many anti-Maoists as she can to speak to the camera. From businessmen to former army generals, 'political analysts' to govt ministers, she smiles and nods to their reactionary bullshit.

But when talking to revolutionary leader Baburam Bhattarai, she talks over him, interrupts him, argues with him and dismisses what he has to say.

Class ----> Consciousness

[Proletarian Ultra]

Comrade Bhattarai is the leading Marxian theorist of our era.

EDIT: for better or worse. :) / :(

[Homo Songun]

If he is, it is not apparent from that interview. He says some stuff about state power and revolution that I suspect he knows is simply not true. If so, I don't really blame him, the interviewer is clearly hostile to the aims and program of the Maoists, and as such he apparently has the presence of mind to see that whatever he has to say will be presented in the least favorable light possible and as such avoids being pinned down for little gain. Of course that is the charitable interpretation. The not so charitable interpretations are either that he is either a full-blown revisionist on the question of the state or he simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Apparently he is a genius or something so we can probably rule out the latter. Thus the question becomes, is Bhattarai starting to believe in the hokum he is peddling here? I'm withholding judgment for now.

[Kléber]

pale skinned
of all the things you could say..

[Saorsa]

of all the things you could say..

What? She is pale skinned compared to most poor Nepalis, and she uses makeup to make herself look even more pale skinned. In black communities, in Asian communities, in all non-caucasian communities its typical for the privileged elite to have paler skin, either naturally or through use of cosmetics.


If he is, it is not apparent from that interview. He says some stuff about state power and revolution that I suspect he knows is simply not true.

I think it's a bit more complex about that. Bhattarai's point was that the Maoists have the support of the masses, they are by far the largest party, and it's also worth mentioning of course that they have the PLA and the YCL - their own army and police force. With this in mind, he says, why should they capture the state in the sense she is suggesting? Why should they storm Singha Darbur at this point? Bhattarai famously said (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/09/12/nepals-bhattarai-we-maoists-are-our-own-state/) that the Maoist party is a state in itself, and the puppet government is running a parallel government to the Maoists.

Perhaps that is the point he is alluding to? The Maoists do not seek to simply take control of the existing governmental apparatus through 'state capture', but instead seek to further develop the existing situation of dual power, where the Maoist party constitutes a state parallel to the 'official' one.

That said, if we take his words about how there is no need to capture state power literally, I don't agree with him. And I'm sure there are plenty of other leaders in the UCPN (M) who don't agree with him either.


If so, I don't really blame him, the interviewer is clearly hostile to the aims and program of the Maoists, and as such he apparently has the presence of mind to see that whatever he has to say will be presented in the least favorable light possible and as such avoids being pinned down for little gain. Of course that is the charitable interpretation. The not so charitable interpretations are either that he is either a full-blown revisionist on the question of the state or he simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Apparently he is a genius or something so we can probably rule out the latter.

I agree that we can rule the latter option out. Whatever else he may be, Bhattarai genuinely is a genius. He's one of the most intelligent men to come out of Nepal in a long time, and he has massive respect amongst the people of Nepal as a result of it. He knows exactly what he's talking about.

I suspect it's a combination of two things. Firstly, the Maoists are not going to reveal their plans for revolution. That should be obvious. There is always a major element of deception and distraction in a revolutionary process. Secondly, Bhattarai does appear (from the media reports anyway) to be arguing within the party for a strategy based around consolidating the gains made so far, winning over the bourgeois parties to some kind of compromise that will allow for the writing of a People's Constitution. The idea being that this constitution (drafted by Bhattarai), which will allow for things like the seizure of land without compensation by the state, can open up a whole new phase of struggle during which Nepal can be radically transformed.

However, it's difficult to see how this new constitution will allow for the peaceful transformation of Nepal unless the power of the army is broken. There is now only one thing standing between the Maoists and total state power, and that's the Nepal Army. 90,000 armed men, led by an officer corps almost totally loyal to reactionary monarchist ideology. The Maoists never had and still don't have the power to defeat this army in conventional set piece warfare, and they never did and still don't want to march the PLA into Kathmandu and kill tens of thousands of innocent working people in the brutal crossfire that will ensue. Plus, they don't want to destroy Nepal's industrial capital - it's factories, its workplaces, its roads, its power plants, its tourist hotspots and so on. They want to take over a country that can function, not a country guaranteed to starve.

They broke out of the military stalemate that ensued from their control of the countryside versus the RNA's control of the cities. They now control the countryside and, in practice, the cities as well. But they haven't yet defeated the reactionary army, and until they figure out a way to do that, all the constitutions in the world will be meaningless. That's what worries me the most about Bhattarai's line of thought.

[GreenCommunism]

al jazeera piss me off. scared of youth organisation? what the hell.

[Saorsa]

At least they're covering what's going on. No other news agencies have reported anything about Nepal.

[Proletarian Ultra]

al jazeera piss me off. scared of youth organisation? what the hell.

Pfff. And asking for land reform - what a bunch of terrorists.

The reason aJ covers this is they're based in Qatar - which like most of the gulf Arab states imports most of its labor force from South Asia. I doubt many of them come from Nepal but any revolutionary movement in S. Asia is a direct threat to the ruling caste of the gulf states.

[GreenCommunism]

al jazeera lost alot of my respect. clearly there is no unbias news channel. i thought al-jazeera wasn't taht bad, but when it comes to conflicting with their national interests, objectivity is flushed down the toilet.

[Martin Blank]

What? She is pale skinned compared to most poor Nepalis, and she uses makeup to make herself look even more pale skinned. In black communities, in Asian communities, in all non-caucasian communities its typical for the privileged elite to have paler skin, either naturally or through use of cosmetics.

Her name is Fauziah Ibrahim. She's not Nepali, she's Malaysian and a longtime bourgeois journalist. Before al-Jazeera, she worked for the BBC in Singapore, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the American CNBC business channel.

[Saorsa]

I never said she was Nepali. I said that compared to most poor Nepalis, she is pale skinned.

[RED DAVE]

I think it's a bit more complex about that. Bhattarai's point was that the Maoists have the support of the masses, they are by far the largest party, and it's also worth mentioning of course that they have the PLA and the YCL - their own army and police force. With this in mind, he says, why should they capture the state in the sense she is suggesting? Why should they storm Singha Darbur at this point? Bhattarai famously said that the Maoist party is a state in itself, and the puppet government is running a parallel government to the Maoists.What you are describing, of course, is a condition of dual power. Such a condition is unstable and must devolve into the triumph of one class over another.


Perhaps that is the point he is alluding to? The Maoists do not seek to simply take control of the existing governmental apparatus through 'state capture', but instead seek to further develop the existing situation of dual power, where the Maoist party constitutes a state parallel to the 'official' one.That's a reformist line if I ever heard one. What it means is that, at the level of production, nothing changes.


That said, if we take his words about how there is no need to capture state power literally, I don't agree with him. And I'm sure there are plenty of other leaders in the UCPN (M) who don't agree with him either.This constitutes an incipient split in the leadership of the UCPN(M), which has been discussed before. It is quite possible that this split is a real possibility and not a bourgeois rumor.


I suspect it's a combination of two things. Firstly, the Maoists are not going to reveal their plans for revolution. That should be obvious. There is always a major element of deception and distraction in a revolutionary process. Secondly, Bhattarai does appear (from the media reports anyway) to be arguing within the party for a strategy based around consolidating the gains made so far, winning over the bourgeois parties to some kind of compromise that will allow for the writing of a People's Constitution. The idea being that this constitution (drafted by Bhattarai), which will allow for things like the seizure of land without compensation by the state, can open up a whole new phase of struggle during which Nepal can be radically transformed.Do you really believe that bourgeois parties would agree to this? And, of course, what about the seizure of the workplaces by the working class?


However, it's difficult to see how this new constitution will allow for the peaceful transformation of Nepal unless the power of the army is broken. There is now only one thing standing between the Maoists and total state power, and that's the Nepal Army. 90,000 armed men, led by an officer corps almost totally loyal to reactionary monarchist ideology. The Maoists never had and still don't have the power to defeat this army in conventional set piece warfare, and they never did and still don't want to march the PLA into Kathmandu and kill tens of thousands of innocent working people in the brutal crossfire that will ensue. Plus, they don't want to destroy Nepal's industrial capital - it's factories, its workplaces, its roads, its power plants, its tourist hotspots and so on. They want to take over a country that can function, not a country guaranteed to starve.Whatever happened to the general strike as an instrument leading to the overthrow of state power? The Maoists were willing to use it, allegedly to break the logjam over the constitution.


They broke out of the military stalemate that ensued from their control of the countryside versus the RNA's control of the cities. They now control the countryside and, in practice, the cities as well. But they haven't yet defeated the reactionary army, and until they figure out a way to do that, all the constitutions in the world will be meaningless.So they haven't broken the stalemate at all.


That's what worries me the most about Bhattarai's line of thought.It should worry you since I believe you are an honest revolutionary. In my opinion, what we are staring in the face is the process of the Maoists preparing the way for state capitalism.

In reviewing the OP video, I noted that the working class was mentioned twice: once by a former child soldier in the Maoist army who spoke fervently of the proletariat and once by Bhattarai, who listed the working classes grievances in passing along with other groups.

Does this sound like the leader of a Marxist party based on the working class and dedicated to the working class coming to power as the leading class of a revolution?

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

What you are describing, of course, is a condition of dual power. Such a condition is unstable and must devolve into the triumph of one class over another.

I agree.


That's a reformist line if I ever heard one. What it means is that, at the level of production, nothing changes.

It is reformist if the development and maintenance of dual power is all you have in mind. But if this development is tied to creating the conditions where a seizure of state power can take place and succeed, plenty will change.


This constitutes an incipient split in the leadership of the UCPN(M), which has been discussed before. It is quite possible that this split is a real possibility and not a bourgeois rumor.

Whatever the history of the Trotskyist movement could lead one to believe, a two line struggle in a revolutionary party does not necessarily have to lead to a split. The Maoists have struggled fiercely inside the party before - before the end of the People's War Baburam Bhattarai and his wife and fellow party leader Parvati were stripped of their roles in the party and put under house arrest during an internal struggle. However, even after the struggle reached this point, the party overcame the divisions and united around a new line, emerging stronger than ever.

There is nothing to indicate anything different will happen after this 2ls.


Do you really believe that bourgeois parties would agree to this? And, of course, what about the seizure of the workplaces by the working class?

I'm sure workplace seizures and the control of production by the Maoist mass organisations will be a central part of the revolution. But the revolution encompasses a lot more than just workplace seizures - in most parts of the country and for most people involved the struggle will take place outside of capitalist shopfloor conditions.


Whatever happened to the general strike as an instrument leading to the overthrow of state power? The Maoists were willing to use it, allegedly to break the logjam over the constitution.

The Maoists never said the May general strike was aimed at capturing state power. It was speculated that it might be, that's all. The general strike is a tactic of the proletariat, but it isn't the only one. I expect we'll see more of this tactic in the near future.


So they haven't broken the stalemate at all.

One splits into two. They've resolved one contradiction, only to be faced with another - that's dialectics for you. There's plenty of struggle left ahead, but there's been plenty of strategic advances in the last five years, and the Maoists are closer to state power than ever before.

No, they haven't broken out of the stalemate. But this is a new stalemate that has emerged after they broke out of the old one - how they resolve this one is yet to be seen.


It should worry you since I believe you are an honest revolutionary. In my opinion, what we are staring in the face is the process of the Maoists preparing the way for state capitalism.

I don't think there's any evidence for that at all. You're basing that assumption on an instinctive distrust of Maoists and Maoism.


In reviewing the OP video, I noted that the working class was mentioned twice: once by a former child soldier in the Maoist army who spoke fervently of the proletariat and once by Bhattarai, who listed the working classes grievances in passing along with other groups.

The working class IS one group among many. It's the decisive class, the only class which can lead the transition to socialism - but a revolution can only succeed if it mobilises people around causes much wider than workplace relations.


Does this sound like the leader of a Marxist party based on the working class and dedicated to the working class coming to power as the leading class of a revolution?

You can't determine whether someone is a true Marxist revolutionary by counting the number of times they say 'proletariat'. Baburam Bhattarai has led a revolutionary movement to the brink of victory - whatever happens next, history will remember him for that.

[Martin Blank]

I never said she was Nepali. I said that compared to most poor Nepalis, she is pale skinned.

There was a sort of implication, though. But it's not really relevant to the matter at hand. I was just stating it for the record.

[Tablo]

Hmmm, I did not like the interviewer.. pretty sad that Al Jazeera is pretty much the best major international new source. xD