Nepali Maoists Debate the Next Leap in Revolution

[Saorsa]

Nepali Maoists Debate the Next Leap in Revolution

http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/revolutionaries_in_nepal.jpg

“If we pay our attention towards the history, there was a hot debate on it in course of justifying the bases of revolution before initiation of People’s War (PW). The debate was about national and international situation at that time. In course of debate, the aspect to consider international situation more decisive than the national was defeated and PW was initiated. The success of PW justifies the factual reality that the internal aspect- that is people, politics, struggle,ideology and leadership- can have more important and decisive role than external aspect. The same debate has come into existence due to the prolonging peace process.”

* * * * * * *

Can We Go Ahead?

by Netra Bikram Chanda “Biplap”

The debate in Nepal is on whether revolution is possible or not. The debate is not only ideological and general assumption; rather, it is centered on the question whether there is possibility to increase intervention in the central power state or not. The two sharp analyses have emerged on the issue. They are on for and against.

The analytical perspective that sees revolution impossible:

One of the analytical perspectives is that the revolt is impossible. Yes, it seems so from that side of perspective. This analysis has been emerged mainly from the side of some leftist intellectual politicians and analysts. They have given the following reasons to justify this logic.

Unfavorable international situation-

Favorable international situation is needed for the completion of revolution. For that, there should be a crisis in the centre of capitalism and unfavorable situation should have created against them. Moreover, there should be crisis in India, America and China for the completion of revolution like small and poor country Nepal. Otherwise, these power centres interfere over Nepal and revolution can not be succeeded.


No support of India

Indian ruling class is in favor of bourgeois class of Nepal. The role of Indian ruling class is important for the revolution of Nepal; however, the favor of India ruling has always been on the side of Nepali Congress and UML. Therefore, the revolution is inconvenient due to oppose of Indian ruling class.

Nepali Army supports bourgeois class

The role of army is important for the success of revolution. In the situation of incomplete revolution and existence of strong old army that side gets victory towards which army pays support. Therefore, if army supports revolution, it gets its completion and if it does not, revolution becomes failure. In Nepal, army is in the side of Nepali Congress and UML. In this situation, we will have to fight with army if we want to complete revolution.

Maoist lacks the proper military efficiency

For the completion of revolution either the army should be brought in favor of revolution or should make them split or win them over. At present, neither we can bring Nepal Army in favor of revolution nor can we split them nor get victorious over them. There is not a favourable situation where we can be victorious. Therefore, there is no possibility.

The politics of consensus needs

The political of consensus came on the foundation of People’s War. This can not be broken at once and should not be broken too. It is impossible because it makes revolution impossible. As the going on politics of consensus is broken that brings destruction and the achievements till now lose.

The Analytic Perspective that Sees Revolution Possible

The second perspective is that the revolution is possible in Nepal. This analysis is run and made by the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionary intellectuals and some of the political analysts. The analysts have given the reasons to justify the possibility of revolution. Those reasons are as follows:

a) Internal aspect is decisive in revolution:

Revolution has both internal and external aspects. Both are necessary in the success of revolution; however, the two aspects do not have equal importance at a time. One has more or less importance than the other. International or external aspect, sometimes, is very important and it can have decisive role in some certain extent too. But, internal or national aspect remains always important and decisive in the completion of any revolution.

If we pay our attention towards the history, there was a hot debate on it in course of justifying the bases of revolution before initiation of People’s War (PW). The debate was about national and international situation at that time. In course of debate, the aspect to consider international situation more decisive than the national was defeated and PW was initiated.

Th e success of PW justifies the factual reality that the internal aspect- that is people, politics, struggle, ideology and leadership- can have more important and decisive role than external aspect. The same debate has come into existence due to the prolonging peace process. But, it is a ground reality that the Nepalese revolution has reached to more successive and favorable height in comparison to the past.

Even today, the role of India, America, Europe and China is important. However, it is not decisive factor for the success and un-success of Nepalese revolution and we should not make wrong idea about it. The ideology, leadership and the struggle of Nepal are decisive in itself. Revolution is possible if Nepalese people want revolution. The situation is in favour of people, it is in favour of revolution. There is efficient leadership with correct ideology and the workers and the militant and conscious people are gathered around it. Nepal has all these things with favorable situation. Therefore, revolution is possible.

b) Nepalese People have Consolidated International Relationship:

Nepalese people have been able to make a good and harmonious relationship with revolutionary parties, organizations, institutions and individuals along with the most of oppressed people of the world. This consolidated international relationship denies the logic which says that the revolution in Nepal is impossible.

Some people have wrong ideas due to the relationship of Indian ruling class with Nepalese bourgeois and the coalition of the puppet government on its base. The Nepalese political movement and struggle is far more above than the reach and intervention of foreign powers.

Likewise, the situation of the nation is not so favourable for the foreign powers, which can not neglect the aspiration and the opinion of the people in a direct way. Rather, majority of the Indian people, liberalists along with the revolutionaries have a good relationship with Maoist of Nepal because they have true understanding about the opinion of the Nepalese people.

Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that the revolution of Nepal can not be aff ected by the external intervention; rather, it may be accomplish with its own specialties.

c) UCPN-Maoist has its political leadership in the country:

The success or the failure of any revolution depends on the correlation between political policy and its leadership. Nepal is only nation, in the contemporary world, where there is political leadership of the revolutionaries and the entire nation is in the hands of the proletarian class. The leadership of the revolutionaries is not only from the point of view of number; rather, it is because of political, ideological agendas. Constituent Assembly (CA), people’s new constitution, federalism, land-reform, special rights, national independence and new national army are the agendas and the conceptions put developed and fore warded by UCPN Maoist. Nepalese people have their active participation and a strong support on them. The intellectuals, traders and businessmen and even the security forces have their support on it.

Lobbies of UML and NC along with the small parties in the nation have their support to the agendas of Maoist party. This shows the possibility of people’s revolt.

d) Front between Maoist and Nepal Army is Possible for National Independence:

In general interpretation, it is said that Nepal army is in favor of NC and UML, the parliamentary parties. However, this assumption is not true even in the complexity of the contemporary politics and it should not be. Nepal is in the multifaceted situation.

The complex situation created in Nepal is due to the oppressive, hegemonic and interference tendency of the Delhi and the capitalist and puppet tendency of the parliamentary parties like UML and NC. Nepalese people are very sensitive, conscious and cautious about the problem of national capitulationism and national independence.

Nepalese Army and other nationalist force belong to that category. Th e sense of patriotism and love for the nation is in the heart of Nepal army since its history. The concept of CCPN Maoist about nationality is crystal clear up to the level of principle. But the parliamentary parties have no sense of patriotism and nationality.

The parliamentary parties are in a particular mission to be owner of the Nepalese people by making agreement with Delhi by handing over all the natural resources of the nation to it. Th is has been clearly understood by the Nepal army. If we analyze it objectively, the nation sense of the support of Nepal army towards NC and UML is wrong. In the period under the direct reign of king, army was with king.

But after the election of Constituent Assembly (CA) and declaration on of republic of Nepal, army has supported the parties. The condition for Nepal army not to support the king, when it was declared to be abolished through the meeting of CA, was peace and change.However, the condition or objectives for peace and change have not been achieved yet even after the abandonment of the king.NC and UML are hatching conspiracy to push the country into conflict. Nepal army and all the other patriotic forces clearly know about it. Th is shows possibility to form a united front between the Army and Maoist.

e) Assistance and Participation of big population:

Assistance and participation of the people is one of the important conditions for the completion of revolution of any country. In Nepal the majority of the population is with UCPN-Maoist and not with parliamentary parties. Maoist has its 4 million voters. The quantity of vote keeps influence over one and a half crore people out of 2 and a half crore of total population. It is the majority of the population. If we involve patriots, progressive and true republican forces together, the revolution is possible.

f) Efficient & Capable Revolutionary Party:

The first and foremost condition for the fulfillment of the revolution is consolidated and capable revolutionary party. And, UCPN-Maoist is its representative. Th e party has hundred thousands of trained cadres who have faced many problems and suffering. The chain of leadership is form the local level to the decision making central level. Th e number will be increased along with the creation of favourable environment of revolution.

g). People’s Liberation Army and Youth:

Military force is other important factor for People’s Revolution. Any of the people’s revolution is not success without the army of the people. Nepalese people have this efficiency available with them at this time. People have 19,000 registered PLA in the cantonments and hundred thousands trained YCL with them. This force can be used for the liberation of people, prosperity of the nation and national independency.

Conclusion:

If we study the debate- ‘is revolution possible or not in Nepal’- seriously, we come to the conclusion that these debate are not un-objective, false and untruth. Rather, they are true, objective and natural in some extent. The analysis that accepts the impossibility of revolution is also true from that perspective. Along with it, the logics and the analytical expression from the side that accepts the possibility of the revolution is truer from that point of view. However, we should and must be aware that which one is more objective and truthful. We should find out the truth which one is more possible and correct.

The logic and the perspective that sees revolution impossible is obviously weaker, confined and shortsighted. This type of analysis has become unable to include the entire area of Nepalese politics and its objective, subjective, ideological and the practical aspects along with its possibility. This type of analysis only can see the middle class, foreign ruling class, some handful anti people intellectuals and the diplomats. It can not submit the contradictions, the subjective forces of the revolutionary people. Therefore, it has a possibility to leave the strong aspects of the revolution by putting the weaker aspects ahead.

The other aspect that sees the possibility of the revolution is leading the stronger aspects of the revolution though there are some weaknesses. This point of view sees the revolution from its basic foundation. In totality, the revolution is being possible if we adapt the same way of thinking from decision making place to the local party and the people and even in the international area. This type of analysis has involved the issues of revolutionary ideology, a revolutionary party, revolutionary leadership, revolutionary people, people’s army and the united front that are the internal aspects of the revolution. It can unify the progressive class, caste, gender and the oppressed people. important. This perspective is very important from the point of view of revolution.

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/06/29/nepali-maoists-debate-the-next-leap-in-revolution/

[Saorsa]

Just to be clear, Biplap is a Maoist leader and this was in the latest issue of the Red Star.

[RED DAVE]

The other aspect that sees the possibility of the revolution is leading the stronger aspects of the revolution though there are some weaknesses. This point of view sees the revolution from its basic foundation. In totality, the revolution is being possible if we adapt the same way of thinking from decision making place to the local party and the people and even in the international area. This type of analysis has involved the issues of revolutionary ideology, a revolutionary party, revolutionary leadership, revolutionary people, people’s army and the united front that are the internal aspects of the revolution. It can unify the progressive class, caste, gender and the oppressed people. important. This perspective is very important from the point of view of revolution.

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/06/29/nepali-maoists-debate-the-next-leap-in-revolution/Note the strong emphasis on the working class as the leading class in the Nepali revolution, the necessity for the working class to seize power and lead the peasantry and other classes to a successful overthrow of the bourgeois state.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

While radical communists lead a revolutionary movement of millions of people, Dave sits on the sidelines criticizing the language they use. It's getting really dull.

[RED DAVE]

d) Front between Maoist and Nepal Army is possible for national Independence:

In general interpretation, it is said that Nepal army is in favor of NC and UML, the parliamentary parties. However, this assumption is not true even in the complexity of the contemporary politics and it should not be. Nepal is in the multifaceted situation.

The complex situation created in Nepal is due to the oppressive, hegemonic and interference tendency of the Delhi and the capitalist and puppet tendency of the parliamentary parties like UML and NC. Nepalese people are very sensitive, conscious and cautious about the problem of national capitulationism and national independence.

Nepalese Army and other nationalist force belong to that category. Th e sense of patriotism and love for the nation is in the heart of Nepal army since its history. The concept of CCPN Maoist about nationality is crystal clear up to the level of principle. But the parliamentary parties have no sense of patriotism and nationality.

The parliamentary parties are in a particular mission to be owner of the Nepalese people by making agreement with Delhi by handing over all the natural resources of the nation to it. Th is has been clearly understood by the Nepal army. If we analyze it objectively, the nation sense of the support of Nepal army towards NC and UML is wrong. In the period under the direct reign of king, army was with king.

But after the election of Constituent Assembly (CA) and declaration on of republic of Nepal, army has supported the parties. The condition for Nepal army not to support the king, when it was declared to be abolished through the meeting of CA, was peace and change.However, the condition or objectives for peace and change have not been achieved yet even after the abandonment of the king.NC and UML are hatching conspiracy to push the country into conflict. Nepal army and all the other patriotic forces clearly know about it. Th is shows possibility to form a united front between the Army and Maoist.What this seems to be saying is that the Nepalese Maoists advocate an alliance with the army based on something referred to as "peace and change." What does that mean? What is the class content of such an alliance? Does "peace and change" include workers control of industry, land to the peasants?

If not, if it's based on "[t]h e [sic] sense of patriotism and love for the nation," what is being advocated is an opportunistic alliance in which the interests of the workers and the peasants will be sacrificed for a "consensus" government in which bourgeois class relations, exploitative of the workers and the peasants, remain intact.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

The Maoists are trying to break the unity of the Nepal Army. They are trying to appeal to the ordinary soldiers and win them over to supporting national liberation, social progress and genuine democracy. The main obstacle standing between the Maoists and state power is the 90,000 strong Nepal Army, a force they have determined would be very difficult to defeat in battle and a force which won't exactly disappear if you quote Trotsky at it.

The Maoists are trying to split the army and use the resulting collapse of reactionary state power to allow for the victory of the revolution and the revolutionary transformation of Nepal. This is no easy task - the army is infused with reactionary monarchist ideology, and is tightly controlled by its fascist officer corps. I somehow doubt the Maoists are going to win over many ordinary soldiers by talking to them about the historical experience of the Russian Revolution and the form it took. The Maoists can only win over the ordinary soldiers by talking to them in a language they understand and appealing to them on the basis of things that are real, concrete and important to them - things like peace, social transformation, land reform, genuine democracy and a new, republican and revolutionary constitution.

There are no Soviets in Nepal. The workers in Russia of their own accord formed Soviets to advance their class struggle - the Soviets were not artificially created and then imposed from on high by the Bolsheviks. The workers in Nepal have never formed Soviets, they have consciously chosen to use other methods and other forms of organising to advance their struggle. Dave, do you really think the Maoists should ignore this fact and impose Soviets on the workers of Kathmandu whether they like it or not? Why do you assume the Nepali workers are too stupid and backward to figure out for themselves how their revolution should proceed? Why do you assume you know best? Is it because you're white and American? It is somewhat odd that the only revolutions you support or think we can learn from took place in predominantly white countries and were led by white men. I think you need to seriously examine your attitudes and the reasons you have them.

The Maoist party is a democratic party controlled by its membership, it is a party which is based on hundreds of thousands of village, factory and neighbourhood committees made up of ordinary Nepalis united around one thing - a commitment to radical social change and a commitment to achieving this no matter what obstacles the ruling class put in their way.

A revolution is unfolding in front of you. Have some Marxist humility - try to learn from it, rather than assuming that a white Westerner like you is far more intelligent than the stupid brown people in Nepal who need you to tell them what to do.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Is there, per chance, a way to get a better translation of this article?

[Saorsa]

Is there, per chance, a way to get a better translation of this article?

Not unless somebody rewrites it, which would be quite dangerous as the person doing the rewriting would inevitably add their personal slant to the article. I think it's best to leave polemical articles like these untouched.

Is it really that hard to understand?

I get these kind of requests a lot IRL, and while I appreciate that the article isn't written in perfect English by any means surely you can still understand what the guy is saying.

[RED DAVE]

While radical communists lead a revolutionary movement of millions of people, Dave sits on the sidelines criticizing the language they use. It's getting really dull.I am criticizing the program, not the language, and you should know that.

What is the program that the Maoists are using to split the army? If the program approximates the language of the OP article, then the Maoists are acting opportunistically.


Nepalese Army and other nationalist force belong to that category. Th e sense of patriotism and love for the nation is in the heart of Nepal army since its history. The concept of CCPN Maoist about nationality is crystal clear up to the level of principle.(emph. added)

This is not a program for splitting the army on revolutionary grounds. And, by the way, as a Marxist I have a perfect right to criticize the Nepalese Maoists from the sidelines, frontlines, toilet or anywhere else. Just because they are leading a revolution doesn't mean it's a revolution on Marxist principles. In my opinion, the Nepalese Maoists are headed for state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Homo Songun]

In my opinion, the Nepalese Maoists are headed for state capitalism.
You say this as if it was possible for you to come to any other conclusion.

[RED DAVE]

In my opinion, the Nepalese Maoists are headed for state capitalism.
You say this as if it was possible for you to come to any other conclusion.Of course it's possible. If they were basing their revolution on the working class, instead of the violently unmarxist block of four classes, they would headed towards a workers and peasant state, some kind of transition towards socialism. Instead, the are headed towards preservation of bourgeois economic forms in the workplace and in the countryside, supervised by the state -- state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Homo Songun]

You are begging the question, Dave.

[RED DAVE]

You are begging the question, Dave.You are ducking the issue, Shmuel.

What is the effect on post-revolutionary society of a block of four classes?

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Why the fuck does it matter if the UCPN (M) allow a section of small shop owners and a minority of industrial capitalists to continue to participate in the management of their enterprises after the revolution, to be peacefully and gradually expropriated rather than violently and suddenly, in return for them supporting or at the very least not actively opposing the seizure of power by the revolutionary movement?

You've posted a lot of rhetoric about why this INEVITABLY LEADS TO STATE-CAPITALISM BLARGH RARGH BLORGH, but no concrete evidence for this assertion beyond 'capitalism was restored in China'. To which anyone can of course respond that capitalism was restored in Russia, proving wrong all of Lenin and Trotsky's contributions.

Why can the workers and peasants state not take a different approach to dealing with some capitalists than others? Why should it not split its enemies ranks?

It's all very well in practice, but will it work in theory?

[RED DAVE]

Why the fuck does it matter if the UCPN (M) allow a section of small shop owners and a minority of industrial capitalists to continue to participate in the management of their enterprises after the revolution, to be peacefully and gradually expropriated rather than violently and suddenly, in return for them supporting or at the very least not actively opposing the seizure of power by the revolutionary movement?On a small scale, as you describe, it doesn't matter. However, what the Maoists seem to be ready to preside over is a society in which bourgeois property relations are retained in toto.


You've posted a lot of rhetoric about why this INEVITABLY LEADS TO STATE-CAPITALISM BLARGH RARGH BLORGH, but no concrete evidence for this assertion beyond 'capitalism was restored in China'. To which anyone can of course respond that capitalism was restored in Russia, proving wrong all of Lenin and Trotsky's contributions.You are being willfully obtuse. I have gone far beyond rhetoric and demonstrated that incorporating non-working class elements in the government and not giving the working class the leading role in controlling the state and the economy leads to state capitalism.

In the case of Russia, due to the civil war, the incorporation of nonworking class elements into the party after the civil war (the Lenin levy) and the failure of the revolutions in the West led to state capitalism.

In China, the workers never had control of the economy. It was state capitalism from the beginning.


Why can the workers and peasants state not take a different approach to dealing with some capitalists than others? Why should it not split its enemies ranks?No problem, especially on a small scale. But in Nepal what is developing is not a workers and peasants state but a block of four classes in which the petit-brougeois leadership of the party provides the unifying factor. So long as the workers do not have control of the economy and the peasants are not given the land, we have state capitalism.


It's all very well in practice, but will it work in theory?State capitalism works very well in theory until the native and foreign bourgeoisie catch their breath and take over. Remember Vietnam.

By the way, currently in Bangladesh, workers, especially women, are engaged in massive demonstrations against subsistence wages and encountering vicious state repression. I note that the Nepalese Maoists have made statements with regard to the rural-based Indian Maoists in the past few days. Have they made any statements about the working class resistance in Bangladesh?

RED DAVE

[theAnarch]

If i'm not mistaken this debate sounds similar to the one going on in the Bolshevik Party prior to Lenin's arrival from exile. One section of the party (including many prominent leaders) believed that socialist revolution was impossible in semi-feudal Russia and that the Bolsheviks needed to support the provisional government and the bourgeois revolution. The other faction believed that socialist revolution was possible and that a workers government could complete the tasks of the capitalist revolution.

Of course we all know which side won the debate....and fortunately the civil war.

My thoughts on the matter are thus;

A. Comrade Alistair is correct that workers control over the means of production needs to be established by the workers themselves, it is however the job of the Communist party to convince them of that direction.

B. After such time as state power is seized there will be a period in which small shop keepers and even some small capitalists will be permitted to exist and be raised out over time so that the system of goods and services will not brake down before a socialist method is developed to replace them.

[RED DAVE]

If i'm not mistaken this debate sounds similar to the one going on in the Bolshevik Party prior to Lenin's arrival from exile. One section of the party (including many prominent leaders) believed that socialist revolution was impossible in semi-feudal Russia and that the Bolsheviks needed to support the provisional government and the bourgeois revolution. The other faction believed that socialist revolution was possible and that a workers government could complete the tasks of the capitalist revolution.Correct, and it is exactly the faction that wanted to support the Provisional Government that eventually came to control the party after Lenin's death. Guess what Stalin's position was prior to the publication of Lenin's April Theses? Guess which faction Maoism descends from?


Of course we all know which side won the debate....and fortunately the civil war.

My thoughts on the matter are thus;

A. Comrade Alistair is correct that workers control over the means of production needs to be established by the workers themselves, it is however the job of the Communist party to convince them of that direction.Comrade Alastair may hold this position in the abstract, as do most Maoists, but concretely what the Nepali Maoists are doing is something else. Instead of calling for a workers and peasants government, they are in negotiations with various bourgeois parties to form a government. And they have already headed up a bourgeois government in Nepal, a little over a years ago, and got their asses kicked for it by the bourgeois parties.


B. After such time as state power is seized there will be a period in which small shop keepers and even some small capitalists will be permitted to exist and be raised out over time so that the system of goods and services will not brake down before a socialist method is developed to replace them.No argument here; however, if the Maoists continue on their present course, they will, having achieved state power, establish state capitalism: rule over the working class.

Their adherents here are denying that this is the course of the Nepali Maoists, that what they are doing is different from the Chinese, but that's rhetoric. I have come to the conclusion, based on Maoist practice in China and Vietnam, that Maoism is an ideology of state capitalism dressed in the garments of Marxism. As Marx said in the 18th Brumaire:


And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.And in a tragic unfolding of historic irony, the Maoists are using the "disguise and borrowed language" of socialism to establish something quite different.

Events may prove me wrong. The Nepali Maoists may, in fact, when the seize power, turn the state over to the control of workers organs of power that they have not called for and do not yet exist. However, every indication in their practice points in a different direction.

RED DAVE

[left communist]

Dave, as much as I enjoy your posts, one must not expect anything better than state capitalism from bourgeois leftists.

[Saorsa]

A whole page of bile, and not a concrete criticism to be seen. A whole lot of slander, but not much in the way of evidence.

Talking shit about Maoist theory is not 'evidence'. It is an opinion, and not one to be taken particularly seriously. The Maoist revolution in Nepal is based on the leadership and mass participation of hundreds of thousands of working class party members in the urban areas, and the support of millions more. Standing equal to this but in even greater numbers if the revolutionary peasantry, the oppressed nationalities, women, Dalits, and all the people oppressed by the system in Nepal. These people have built a people's army and have fought their way to a situation of dual power - a situation which has not existed many times before in history.

The revolution is ongoing and unfinished. Why don't you ultraleftists wait until it's all over to start your sectarian attacks and dismissals... we all know that's what we'll hear from you not matter what happens.

[RED DAVE]

The revolution is ongoing and unfinished. Why don't you ultraleftists wait until it's all over to start your sectarian attacks and dismissals... we all know that's what we'll hear from you not matter what happens.You keep on trying to duck the fundamental fact that the Nepalese Maoists, like Maoists everywhere, are not basing the Nepalese revolution on the power of the working class to run society. This is obvious.

There are no calls for workers power; there are no calls for the peasantry to seize the land. What we see is the Nepalese Maoists sitting down with the bourgeois parties and negotiating for who is going to run the government. This is undeniable.

RED DAVE

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You keep on trying to duck the fundamental fact that the Nepalese Maoists, like Maoists everywhere, are not basing the Nepalese revolution on the power of the working class to run society. This is obvious.

There are no calls for workers power; there are no calls for the peasantry to seize the land. What we see is the Nepalese Maoists sitting down with the bourgeois parties and negotiating for who is going to run the government. This is undeniable.

RED DAVE
What do you think happened during the People's War, the peasants didn't seize any land? Is that why it's written in the Peace Accord that Maoists have to return "stolen" land(Which they haven't done)? What about when workers of Maoist unions seize factories? http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/
Again your critique is that their rhetoric isn't correct according to you while they actually lead millions of workers and peasants.

[RED DAVE]

You keep on trying to duck the fundamental fact that the Nepalese Maoists, like Maoists everywhere, are not basing the Nepalese revolution on the power of the working class to run society. This is obvious.

There are no calls for workers power; there are no calls for the peasantry to seize the land. What we see is the Nepalese Maoists sitting down with the bourgeois parties and negotiating for who is going to run the government. This is undeniable.
What do you think happened during the People's War, the peasants didn't seize any land?I wonder why not?


Is that why it's written in the Peace Accord that Maoists have to return "stolen" land(Which they haven't done)? What about when workers of Maoist unions seize factories? http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/As far as I know, the Maoists have not seized control of any significant number of factories nor has anyone claimed that they have. The link is an event from one plantation in 2008.


Again your critique is that their rhetoric isn't correct according to you while they actually lead millions of workers and peasants.My critique is that they are not calling on the peasants to take the land or the workers to take the factories. It is not a matter of rhetoric; it's a matter of what the Maoists are actually telling the workers and peasants to do.

It is a matter of record and has been demonstrated here over and over again that even as far back as post-WWII China, the Maoists specifically ordered the workers not to seize control of the workplaces. Same shit now.

RED DAVE

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I wonder why not?

As far as I know, the Maoists have not seized control of any significant number of factories nor has anyone claimed that they have. The link is an event from one plantation in 2008.


Again your critique is that their rhetoric isn't correct according to you while they actually lead millions of workers and peasants.My critiqwue is that they are not calling on the peasants to take the land or the workers to take the factories. It is not a matter of rhetoric; it's a matter of what the Maoists are actually telling the workers and peasants to do.

It is a matter of record and has been demonstrawted here over and over again that even as far back as post-WWII China, the Maoists specifically ordered the workers not to seize control of the workplaces. Same shit now.

RED DAVE
It's not a question of why they didn't seize land because they did seize land. If they didn't seize land you wouldn't hear the bourgeoisie saying "give us back our land" you wouldn't put in the Peace Accord that the Maoists need to return "stolen" land if they didn't seize any land. Why do you think they signed the Peace Accord, why they lobbied for peace? It's because they couldn't capture cities like Kathmandu, but now the Maoists have thousands of workers on their side in the cities.

It's a matter of record that Marxist-Leninist parties that seize control of the state revert back to capitalism eventually, it's a matter of record that Trotskyists haven't ever had a successful revolution.

[chegitz guevara]

it's a matter of record that Trotskyists haven't ever had a successful revolution.

Except for those ones in Russia in 1905 and 1917. :rolleyes:

[redasheville]

Is anyone else bothered by the sexist language in Revolutionary Tool's posts?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Except for those ones in Russia in 1905 and 1917. :rolleyes:
Well then we can just say it's a matter of record that they revert back to capitalism...And was the 1905 revolution really successful? The point I was making is that none of the -isms have a record of moving society to communism yet.


Is anyone else bothered by the sexist language in Revolutionary Tool's posts?Saying Sarah Palin is a ***** is sexist?

[RED DAVE]

It's not a question of why they didn't seize land because they did seize land. If they didn't seize land you wouldn't hear the bourgeoisie saying "give us back our land" you wouldn't put in the Peace Accord that the Maoists need to return "stolen" land if they didn't seize any land. Why do you think they signed the Peace Accord, why they lobbied for peace? It's because they couldn't capture cities like Kathmandu, but now the Maoists have thousands of workers on their side in the cities.And with all this, the best they can do is sit around and negotiate to head a bourgeois government.


It's a matter of record that Marxist-Leninist parties that seize control of the state revert back to capitalism eventually,It is true that the USSR reverted to state capitalism with the triumph of Stalin and his faction (the political forebears of Maoism). And then, eventually, to private capitalism.


it's a matter of record that Trotskyists haven't ever had a successful revolution.And it's also a matter of record that we are trying to build our revolutionary organizations, country by country. And one thing we won't do is pretend to build socialism while we're really building state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

And with all this, the best they can do is sit around and negotiate to head a bourgeois government.

Do you really think that's 'all' they're doing? Really?

You think the only activity the Maoist party is doing with its millions of active supporters and mass organisations like the trade unions, student unions and the YCL is 'sitting around'? You think it's only agenda is the one it's prepared to talk about in public?

I'm still yet to hear you explain the question I've asked you so many times Dave. How would it help the revolutionary struggle if the Maoists publicly announced all their plans years in advance?

[RED DAVE]

I'm still yet to hear you explain the question I've asked you so many times Dave. How would it help the revolutionary struggle if the Maoists publicly announced all their plans years in advance?Their "plaans" should be simple: All Power to a Workers and Peasants Government. They should be calling for the workers to take control of the workplaces, peasants to seize the land, soldiers in the army to form councils and replace their officers, etc. Instead, they are conducting themselves like any bourgeois party trying to form a government. They are depending on their leaders to negotiate, instead of depending on the workers and peasants moving to seize power.

Your very question indicates how far from a Marxist schema the Nepalese Maoists are operating.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Surely the point is that the working masses seize power... not that they seize power using the paticular historical method you think they should? Are you saying the Russian soviet model is the *only* model, an eternal and unchanging blueprint for revolution?

That isn't a very Marxist view of history.

[RED DAVE]

Surely the point is that the working masses seize power... not that they seize power using the paticular historical method you think they should? Are you saying the Russian soviet model is the *only* model, an eternal and unchanging blueprint for revolution?

That isn't a very Marxist view of history.A fish cannot get to its spawning ground on a bicycle, and the "working masses" cannot "seize power" by taking over a bourgeois state. This is clear. And this is what the Nepali Maoists are attempting to do. Should they accomplish this, they'll be in the situation of social democrats, at best. The only way that revolution, in the sense that Marxists believe in it, can come to fruition is for the workers to raise up institutions of workers power, take control of industry and lead the other oppressed classes to power.

It can't be done by wheeling and dealing with bourgeois parties.

RED DAVE

[redasheville]

Saying Sarah Palin is a ***** is sexist?

Calling a woman a ***** is sexist, yes.