Maoist peasants and squatters capture land

[Saorsa]

A bigha is about 8 square kilometres. Land to the masses, no peace for the landlords!

Maoists on land-grab spree

NIRMAL GHIMIRE

BARDIYA, July 21: Maoist-affiliated All Nepal Landless Squatters´ Association has captured private land at various places in the district. The locals have complained that the local administration has failed to provide them security.

As part of the Maoist-launched campaign beginning May 16, the party has captured hundreds of bighas of land in Daulatpur and Belawa VDC.



The Maoist-affiliated Rastriya Bhumi Adhikar Manch said it has captured land from those people who sold their original properties and bought other properties. It has also said that the landless must get lands and the government has already compensated the displaced families.

The victims, most of whom are farmers, have lodged complaints at the District Police Office arguing that their land has been captured at a time of rice plantation. Whereas the Maoists have claimed that the land has been confiscated from landlords.

Most land has been captured in Beluwa and Rajpur VDCs. Ram Singh Tharu, a local of Belawa, said, “They (Maoists) have threatened to kill me if I talk about the land. Who will protect me?”

Maoists´ Bardiya sub-in-charge Keshab Poudel said, “The state has committed to settle and compensate the landless.”

The police have said that it will take action as per the complaints filed by the victims. It has, however, urged the parties to settle the disputes amongst themselves.

Chairman of the Manch Phularam said that in Belawa VDC alone there are 60 families of landless squatters. He said the land will remain in the possession of the Manch unless the government comes with an alternative.

Nepali Congress district committee member Malati Sodari claimed that land has been confiscated from only NC and UML cadres. She said, “The Maoists don´t take away land of those families close to their party.”

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=21282

[pranabjyoti]

A bigha is about 8 square kilometres.
Sorry Comrade, a bigha isn't that big. In India, a bigha is about 1/3rd of a hectare.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sorry Comrade, a bigha isn't that big. In India, a bigha is about 1/3rd of a hectare.

Actually, it varies from country to country, comrade. This is pointed out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigha

Either way, this is great news on the UCPN-M remaining active, even while the problems that are in front of them continue.

[Nachie]

Someone oughtta tell them that squatting is petit-bourgeois lifestylism don't you think?

[Saorsa]

They're practically anarchists! >:(

I'd be interested to know more about how large a bigha is. On wikipedia it told me a bigha is taken to be larger in Nepal than it is in India, but obviously comrades who live in the region can tell me more reliably than wikipedia.

[Blackscare]

Is this actually a case of landlords being driven out? If so I support it. But if this is peasants without land displacing peasants WITH land and taking their land, it just strikes me as reshuffling poverty.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'm sorry I have to say this, but, where is RED DAVE at when the peasant and worker Maoists are taking action to say "good job" to them? He would show up to ***** about workers not taking action or peasants not seizing lands when talk of elections come up but when the Maoists are actually taking action RED DAVE is nowhere to be found to say anything that's actually positive. Sorry for that little rant but it's 1:30 in the morning where I'm at, I'm tired, and that just really pisses me off. Hopefully he won't use the same stupid argument in the future that the Maoists aren't seizing land...

[this is an invasion]

I'm sorry I have to say this, but, where is RED DAVE at when the peasant and worker Maoists are taking action to say "good job" to them? He would show up to ***** about workers not taking action or peasants not seizing lands when talk of elections come up but when the Maoists are actually taking action RED DAVE is nowhere to be found to say anything that's actually positive. Sorry for that little rant but it's 1:30 in the morning where I'm at, I'm tired, and that just really pisses me off. Hopefully he won't use the same stupid argument in the future that the Maoists aren't seizing land...

Why you obsessed with him fool?

[RED DAVE]

I'm sorry I have to say this, but, where is RED DAVE at when the peasant and worker Maoists are taking action to say "good job" to them? He would show up to ***** about workers not taking action or peasants not seizing lands when talk of elections come up but when the Maoists are actually taking action RED DAVE is nowhere to be found to say anything that's actually positive. Sorry for that little rant but it's 1:30 in the morning where I'm at, I'm tired, and that just really pisses me off. Hopefully he won't use the same stupid argument in the future that the Maoists aren't seizing land...Comrade, a little perspective. The seizure of something of the order of 1000 acres (400 hectares) of land (the OP says "hundreds" of bighas – I'm saying 500; a bigha, in Nepal, is about two acres or about .8 hectares) is hardly a major revolutionary action.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Typical. Trots sit around going 'the peasants must seize the land' and condemning the Maoists for supposedly not doing that. But when a news report surfaces of it actually happening, all the Trots can come up with is reasons to complain and condemn the action anyway.

Trotskyism is based on coming up with reasons for *not* supporting struggles overseas, and for criticizing from the sidelines those who struggle in your own country. It's destructive, disorientating and counter-revolutionary. Ignore them - they're irrelevant.

[mountainfire]

There is a question I'd like to raise. One of the most interesting aspects of the Chinese Revolution is that, from 1927 onwards, the CPC found itself in the countryside, and, in the course of waging struggles firstly against the KMT government based in Nanjing and then subsequently against the invading Japanese armies during the War of Resistance, also carried out a program of radical agrarian reform, so that, by the time the CPC came to power and was able to formally proclaim the People's Republic in 1949, the land revolution had already been carried out in large areas of the country. In other words, the Chinese Revolution, in the sense of the combined socio-economic changes carried out by the CPC, was protracted, even if the CPC adopted a more moderate policy, centered on rent and interest rate reductions rather than actual transfers of ownership, during the second United Front in order to avoid alienating the KMT. Now, as a party that proclaims ideological allegiance to Maoism and which had waged a people's war on the model of the Chinese Revolution, one would expect the UCPN(M) to have adopted a similar strategy, also carrying out agrarian reform in the areas under its control. The question that arises is: why is the seizure of land at this point in time even necessary? Or, to put it differently, what kind of social and economic changes were taking place before the 12-point agreement in 2006, in the areas under Maoist control, and in what ways have these changes been reversed, so that landless workers and poor peasants are once again being compelled to seize control of the land?


Trotskyism is based on coming up with reasons for *not* supporting struggles oversea

On the contrary, Trotskyists have always supported changes and struggles that enhance the power of the working class regardless of which organizations carry them out. There is no Trotskyist who would not celebrate the Chinese Revolution as an emancipatory event, for example. What Trotskyists do not do is pledge uncritical support to any organization or process, or accept the notion that socialism can be accomplished either in one country, owing to the fact that socialism depends on an advanced productive apparatus, or by any force other than the organized working class. The main fact which indicates that Nepal is not about to experience a revolution is that there do not yet exist alternative bodies of state power - where are the workers', peasants', and soldiers' Soviets?

[RED DAVE]

Typical. Trots sit around going 'the peasants must seize the land' and condemning the Maoists for supposedly not doing that. But when a news report surfaces of it actually happening, all the Trots can come up with is reasons to complain and condemn the action anyway.The amount of land involved in about the size of Central Park. This is hardly a revolutionary action, especially when the local police tell the people "to settle the disputes amongst themselves."


Trotskyism is based on coming up with reasons for *not* supporting struggles overseas, and for criticizing from the sidelines those who struggle in your own country. It's destructive, disorientating and counter-revolutionary. Ignore them - they're irrelevant.Your ignorance of Trotskyism matches your unwillingness to engage in or accept truly revolutionary criticism.

RED DAVE

[Barry Lyndon]

a)The amount of land involved in about the size of Central Park. This is hardly a revolutionary action, especially when the local police tell the people "to settle the disputes amongst themselves."

b)Your ignorance of Trotskyism matches your unwillingness to engage in or accept truly revolutionary criticism.

RED DAVE

a) How much land and resources have you expropriated from the ruling class lately?

b) Actually, being a former Trotskyist(and still a strong admirer of Trotsky the man), your inane, circular, robotic and Eurocentric arguments are a reminder as to why I abandoned the label 'Trotskyist' to begin with.
'True revolutionary' does not = Trotskyist, btw.

[Homo Songun]

Someone oughtta tell them that squatting is petit-bourgeois lifestylism don't you think?

Well played.

[Wanted Man]

Well played.

How so? Who has a problem with squatting here?

[Saorsa]

The amount of land involved in about the size of Central Park. This is hardly a revolutionary action, especially when the local police tell the people "to settle the disputes amongst themselves."

Lolz, so if the American ISO organised hundreds of homeless workers to occupy Central Park and build houses there, you would condemn that as being 'hardly a revolutionary action'?

Of course we know you wouldn't. The American ISO speak English and are predominantly white! You're happy to support their actions, they're not backward and stupid enough to need your constant paternal guidance.

[Saorsa]

@ Mountainfire: Why not do some basic research of your own? There's plenty of information available from a quick googlesearch about what happened during the People's War. The Maoists redistributed land to the people, and organised collective and communal forms of agriculture.


The question that arises is: why is the seizure of land at this point in time even necessary? Or, to put it differently, what kind of social and economic changes were taking place before the 12-point agreement in 2006, in the areas under Maoist control, and in what ways have these changes been reversed, so that landless workers and poor peasants are once again being compelled to seize control of the land?

Um, because the revolution is not yet over. There's still work left to do and there's still major battles ahead - the Maoists are doing this work and preparing for these battles.

[RED DAVE]

The amount of land involved in about the size of Central Park. This is hardly a revolutionary action, especially when the local police tell the people "to settle the disputes amongst themselves."
Lolz, so if the American ISO organised hundreds of homeless workers to occupy Central Park and build houses there, you would condemn that as being 'hardly a revolutionary action'?In the context of the US, that migh, and i mean might, be a revolutionary action. However, context rules. Squatters movements have been go on in various European countries for decades. They are hardly revolutionary.


Of course we know you wouldn't. The American ISO speak English and are predominantly white! You're happy to support their actions, they're not backward and stupid enough to need your constant paternal guidance.(1) As usual, go fuck yourself.

(2) Read up on the history of racism and engage in some self-criticism.

(3) When you're finished with these, try, I know it might be rough for you but try, to learn the difference between being a "paternal guide," a sycophant, and a revolutionary critic.

RED DAVE

[Barry Lyndon]

A brief guide to RED DAVE's stupid arguments-

First line of defense: The Maoists are phony revolutionaries. They are not seizing any land or factories.

Second line of defense: Their not seizing enough.

Third line of defense: Well that doesn't matter, because these are just peasants and it doesn't involve the working class!

Fourth line of defense: Well, all of this is a ploy by the evil 'Stalinists' to dupe the naive Nepalese into an alliance with the capitalists and foreign imperialists. Look, they attended a conference in the US! Trotskyists NEVER do that!

Fifth line of defense: Well, socialism can't be built in Nepal because I have a crystal ball and I know in advance that they will fail. This is obvious.

[Saorsa]

In the context of the US, that migh, and i mean might, be a revolutionary action. However, context rules. Squatters movements have been go on in various European countries for decades. They are hardly revolutionary.

This is such bizarre logic. Whether an action viewed in isolation is 'revolutionary' or not is irrelevant. The question is, what place does this action take in the broader revolutionary struggle? Where does it fit in the social context?

Luxemburg said that revolutionaries are those who fight the hardest for reforms. I know your instinctive Trotskyist approach is to come up with a reason for *not* supporting something, but try to look at these land seizures in a Marxist way - look at them in the context they have emerged in. This is the tip of the iceberg, Nepal is a country without roads, let alone phones or internet. Only news of a small minority of revolutionary actions reach us in the West, and when we do get news it has to be analysed. You pointed to the fact that the police have not intervened as if that was somehow proof these actions were not revolutionary. Well, try to think the situation through a bit more deeply. Why would the police not intervene? Why is it, that in a poor rural district in Western Nepal, not far from Rolpa, the police are too scared to block Maoist decisions? And what does that mean for the political situation there?


1) As usual, go fuck yourself.

Your ignorance of my fucking habits matches your unwillingness to engage in or accept truly revolutionary criticism.


(2) Read up on the history of racism and engage in some self-criticism.

Oh, the irony.


(3) When you're finished with these, try, I know it might be rough for you but try, to learn the difference between being a "paternal guide," a sycophant, and a revolutionary critic.

That's what I'm doing. You're teaching me every time you post. :)

[RED DAVE]

A brief guide to RED DAVE's stupid argumentsSigh!


First line of defense: The Maoists are phony revolutionaries. They are not seizing any land or factories.Never said it. What I have said is that the Nepalese Maoists are not basing their actions on the revolutionary action of the workers and peasants but, instead, they are, basically, using the workers and peasants to establish a state capitalism regime.


Second line of defense: Their not seizing enough.600 or so acres is scarcely a major revolutionary act, especially as the details are not clear.


Third line of defense: Well that doesn't matter, because these are just peasants and it doesn't involve the working class!Never said it. What I have said that Marxist revolutionaries base their actions on the working class as the leading class of the revolution, not the peasantry.


Fourth line of defense: Well, all of this is a ploy by the evil 'Stalinists' to dupe the naive Nepalese into an alliance with the capitalists and foreign imperialists. Look, they attended a conference in the US! Trotskyists NEVER do that!What I have constantly pointed out is that by establishing the block of four classes as the basis of the revolution, the Maoists have, essentially, guaranteed sell-out in advance. With regard to the conference in the US, it strikes me as pretty weird that the Nepalese Maoists were willing to lend their name to a US Government-sponsored conference.


Fifth line of defense: Well, socialism can't be built in Nepal because I have a crystal ball and I know in advance that they will fail. This is obvious.You want to believe in socialism in one country, go ahead. The Russians couldn't do it; the Chinese couldn't do it; the Vietnamese couldn't do it.

The sad thing is that this isn't a game. The Nepali Maoists are advocating the same policy, the block of four classes, that the Chinese advocated, and which is a blue print for state capitalism, leading to private capitalism. As this is being written, the Chinese and Russian working classes are engaged in the same struggles as workers in the Western industrial countries, in spite of Stalinist and Maoist bullshit going back decades.

RED DAVE

[Barry Lyndon]

Sigh!

a) Never said it. What I have said is that the Nepalese Maoists are not basing their actions on the revolutionary action of the workers and peasants but, instead, they are, basically, using the workers and peasants to establish a state capitalism regime.

b) 600 or so acres is scarcely a major revolutionary act, especially as the details are not clear.

c) Never said it. What I have said that Marxist revolutionaries base their actions on the working class as the leading class of the revolution, not the peasantry.

d) What I have constantly pointed out is that by establishing the block of four classes as the basis of the revolution, the Maoists have, essentially, guaranteed sell-out in advance. With regard to the conference in the US, it strikes me as pretty weird that the Nepalese Maoists were willing to lend their name to a US Government-sponsored conference.

e) You want to believe in socialism in one country, go ahead. The Russians couldn't do it; the Chinese couldn't do it; the Vietnamese couldn't do it.

f) The sad thing is that this isn't a game. The Nepali Maoists are advocating the same policy, the block of four classes, that the Chinese advocated, and which is a blue print for state capitalism, leading to private capitalism. As this is being written, the Chinese and Russian working classes are engaged in the same struggles as workers in the Western industrial countries, in spite of Stalinist and Maoist bullshit going back decades.

RED DAVE

a) Yes, that is why the Maoist revolutionaries are working their asses off, bleeding and dying for over a decade to overthrow a brutal and backward feudal system-because they WANT to establish 'state-capitalism'.

b) The details are not clear, and yet you are already making pompous pronouncements. Typical.

c) Marxist revolutionaries=A few hundred blabbermouths in New York City and a few other American cities. Millions of politically active peasants, workers, students trying to construct an alternative economic system=not Marxist revolutionaries.

Makes a lot of sense.

d) It's "pretty weird" that Trotsky made a treaty with the German imperialists that gave away the whole Ukraine. I guess he wasn't a revolutionary.

e) 99.9% of all slave revolts failed, so why did Spartacus or Toussaint L'Ouverture even bother? Just because these revolutions were ultimately defeated does not mean that they were not worth the effort, or that they did not accomplish amazing things. I also noticed you left out Cuba. Neat trick. Still waiting and hoping for the imperialists to snuff out that one aren't you?

f) Your right. This is not a game. The last things that revolutionaries who are risking everything to build a better world out of poverty, ignorance, disease, and filth need is armchair intellectuals joining hands with the imperialists in demonizing and attacking them.

[RED DAVE]

filth is armchair intellectuals joining hands with the imperialists in demonizing and attacking them.I'll deal with the rest of it tomorrow, but you've got a big, dumb mouth. I was a revolutionary when your father was in diapers, and when 99% of the punks here have sold out to the bourgeoisie, I'll be around.

So, as usual, go fuck yourself with the rest of the cheerleaders. I'll deal with the substance, to the extent that you have any in your post, tomorrow.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Red Dave, the only argument that I have on you is that you base your opinions on unsubstantiated claims that the Maoists will lead to nothing more than Capitalism, & I feel that you believe they WANT to go to capitalism, which is absolutely absurd!

[Barry Lyndon]

I'll deal with the rest of it tomorrow, but you've got a big, dumb mouth. I was a revolutionary when your father was in diapers, and when 99% of the punks here have sold out to the bourgeoisie, I'll be around.

So, as usual, go fuck yourself with the rest of the cheerleaders. I'll deal with the substance, to the extent that you have any in your post, tomorrow.

RED DAVE

Being older does not make one wiser.

[RED DAVE]

Being older does not make one wiser.No, but I'll match my political experience against yours, Comrade Alastair's, etc., any day. One thing I've learned is not to cheerlead any political organization, movement, etc., including those I agree with.

Revolutionary criticism is our first responsibility. In fact, the highest degree of support for an organization, movement, etc., requires criticism.

This is something that Maoists and Stalinists have never learned. To this day, all that they can do in the face of the collapse of the regimes they supported in China and the USSR is throw up their hands, shrug their shoulders and shout, "Revisionism."

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is something that Maoists and Stalinists have never learned. To this day, all that they can do in the face of the collapse of the regimes they supported in China and the USSR is throw up their hands, shrug their shoulders and shout, "Revisionism."

RED DAVE

Do what? You think the Maoist movements have not learned criticism? Do you know anything of what the Maoist's did during their studying sessions while they were waging a people's war against the Nepalese bourgeois state, or even of today? Because that's a bullshit lie.

[Nachie]

Vegan Marxist, did you brainwash your self or did you have to get sent somewhere for that?

[pranabjyoti]

This is something that Maoists and Stalinists have never learned. To this day, all that they can do in the face of the collapse of the regimes they supported in China and the USSR is throw up their hands, shrug their shoulders and shout, "Revisionism."

RED DAVE
What people like you don't understand that at least the revolutions had changed both of those countries from a poverty-stricken, impoverished countries to some kind of standard world power. Without the revolution, both will mostly look like India at present. But, at least both were and are far ahead of India in HDI for a long time. TO ME. THIS IS CERTAINLY SOME LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT THE REVOLUTION, WHICH CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED.

[Saorsa]

This is something that Maoists and Stalinists have never learned. To this day, all that they can do in the face of the collapse of the regimes they supported in China and the USSR is throw up their hands, shrug their shoulders and shout, "Revisionism."

You're fully aware that's not true. I've asked you before and received no reply, but I'll ask again - are you incredibly forgetful and stupid, or do you have a deliberate agenda to slander the Maoists?


Vegan Marxist, did you brainwash your self or did you have to get sent somewhere for that?

Brainwashing is a bullshit concept the bourgeoisie came up with because it thinks ordinary people are too stupid to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions. Typical that a bourgeois anarcho-kiddy from RAAN would endorse the concept.


No, but I'll match my political experience against yours, Comrade Alastair's, etc., any day. One thing I've learned is not to cheerlead any political organization, movement, etc., including those I agree with.

Noone is cheerleading anything. It's possible to approach something with a critical mind and still come out firmly supportive of what's taking place. That's the attitude real communists take towards Nepal, where a genuine revolution is unfolding. It may still be defeated - most revolutions are. It may never gain the critical mass necessary to capture state power - it hasn't done so yet.

Your politics are the politics of arrogance. You have no right to criticise genuine communists like Barry Lyndon for having a certain amount of humility.

[Saorsa]

I'll deal with the rest of it tomorrow, but you've got a big, dumb mouth. I was a revolutionary when your father was in diapers, and when 99% of the punks here have sold out to the bourgeoisie, I'll be around.

Yeah, you'll be around. You'll be on the sidelines trying to pursuade young revolutionaries not to fulfil their internationalist duties and build solidarity with revolutions overseas. You'll be playing the destructive and demoralising role the system prizes you for.

[ckaihatsu]

Red Dave, the only argument that I have on you is that you base your opinions on unsubstantiated claims that the Maoists will lead to nothing more than Capitalism, & I feel that you believe they WANT to go to capitalism, which is absolutely absurd!


One "convenience" in politics is that we *don't* have to establish proof of political intentionality behind trajectories of causation and outcomes. So while some may get caught up trying to track down the minutiae of who-told-whom, we as revolutionaries can come to accurate conclusions, and even make accurate predictions, based on the *political programs* that various forces subscribe to.

Do the Nepalese Maoists *know* that their Stalinist-type efforts are a revolutionary dead-end and only build up the kind of political capital that is redeemable for capitalist capital?

- It doesn't matter. -

We don't need courtroom standards for the determination of evidence or intentionality -- rather, we're looking at the large-scale, or macro, programs of *group*-minded political positioning to establish our analyses.





What people like you don't understand that at least the revolutions had changed both of those countries from a poverty-stricken, impoverished countries to some kind of standard world power. Without the revolution, both will mostly look like India at present. But, at least both were and are far ahead of India in HDI for a long time. TO ME. THIS IS CERTAINLY SOME LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT THE REVOLUTION, WHICH CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED.


Okay, but *why stop there* -- ??? -- !!!

Would you say that it was enough for backward agrarian countries to *only* be anti-imperialist, or should they have taken up explicitly pro-workers-power, pro-international-revolutionary programs as well?

Now with the industrialization "game" mostly in the past many (most?) countries are simply falling into the *new* follow-the-leader capitalist trend -- financialization / neofeudalism. That's what *inevitably* happens without true working class independence.

[Barry Lyndon]

RED DAVE, where are youuuuuu??????

[Barry Lyndon]

Seriously, just shut the fuck up. You do this every fucking time we hear something out of Nepal to make yourself appear more important than you actually are.

You ever wonder why Trots needed to be suppressed in the past...?

Whoa! I do NOT agree with that. That is a totally fucked up Stalinist thing to say.

[pranabjyoti]

Okay, but *why stop there* -- ??? -- !!!

Would you say that it was enough for backward agrarian countries to *only* be anti-imperialist, or should they have taken up explicitly pro-workers-power, pro-international-revolutionary programs as well?

Now with the industrialization "game" mostly in the past many (most?) countries are simply falling into the *new* follow-the-leader capitalist trend -- financialization / neofeudalism. That's what *inevitably* happens without true working class independence.
It can be asked when they will reach that level, not before that. Can you explain the term "neofeudalism"?

[Homo Songun]

Seriously, just shut the fuck up. You do this every fucking time we hear something out of Nepal to make yourself appear more important than you actually are.

You ever wonder why Trots needed to be suppressed in the past...?Whoa! I do NOT agree with that. That is a totally fucked up Stalinist thing to say.

The truth hurts. Learn to deal with it.

[ckaihatsu]

It can be asked when they will reach that level, not before that.


These things *don't* have to go in *linear* stages, as from feudal lords to bourgeois capitalists to national liberation to socialist workers.

The *point* is that as long as there is enough industrial development and international solidarity the workers are clustered together around the machinery enough and empowered enough to displace capitalist rule from the entire earth.

(There's no need to be stuck within national borders -- even for anti-imperialist efforts -- while production takes place on an *international* scale.)





Can you explain the term "neofeudalism"?





Neofeudalism (Wikipedia)

Neofeudalism literally means "new feudalism" and implies a contemporary rebirth of policies of governance and economy reminiscent of those present in many pre-industrial feudal societies. The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor (also see wealth condensation). This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism.

[...]

In a proposed party-neutral definition of the term, the traits ascribed to a theoretical emerging neofeudalism would not belong to one political party alone but would be emergent throughout the whole political system in all or at least several major parties. This definition describes a version of neofeudalism with its origin squarely in the realm of business interests and the interests of business owners actively advancing agendas that benefit them personally through political action committees and lobbying efforts directed at politicians not in one, but in every political party. This is a version of the "accidental" or unintentional definition of neofeudalism and describes it as the projected result of rich individuals using their wealth and connections in legal ways to influence politics strongly to their personal advantage over a period of time. In this party-neutral definition there is no cabal or secret society deliberately guiding national politics, but rather the sum effect of the pressures put on politics by the wealthy and elite can be described as moving towards a sort of "new feudalism."

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofeudalism

[pranabjyoti]

These things *don't* have to go in *linear* stages, as from feudal lords to bourgeois capitalists to national liberation to socialist workers.

The *point* is that as long as there is enough industrial development and international solidarity the workers are clustered together around the machinery enough and empowered enough to displace capitalist rule from the entire earth.

(There's no need to be stuck within national borders -- even for anti-imperialist efforts -- while production takes place on an *international* scale.)
Certainly, I agree with you in this regard. But, that can only be achieved after some level of industrialization. And sorry to say, even comparatively advanced countries like Cuba and Venezuela haven't yet make any steps in this regard. USA still have a huge influx of brains from all over the world, but just search google with "idea submission" or "submit an idea" or similar phrases, then you will millions of pages and mostly from USA, UK and European countries. In contrary, though countries like Cuba and Venezuela are less advanced, no website can be found based on those countries seeking new innovative ideas regarding product and technology. In my opinion, they are in need of new ideas more than USA, UK and other European countries.

[danyboy27]

I'm sorry I have to say this, but, where is RED DAVE at when the peasant and worker Maoists are taking action to say "good job" to them? He would show up to ***** about workers not taking action or peasants not seizing lands when talk of elections come up but when the Maoists are actually taking action RED DAVE is nowhere to be found to say anything that's actually positive. Sorry for that little rant but it's 1:30 in the morning where I'm at, I'm tired, and that just really pisses me off. Hopefully he won't use the same stupid argument in the future that the Maoists aren't seizing land...

stop trolling.

on another note, congrat to those folk who where able to get the land back, lets hope everything will go for the best.

[ckaihatsu]

Certainly, I agree with you in this regard. But, that can only be achieved after some level of industrialization.


No, this is a misnomer, because you're (unintentionally?)(subconsciously?) *respecting* the institution of national borders.

What's of far more significance is humanity's system of *social relations*, all over the world. If those social relations respect a blueprint of development in which *every individual country* has to industrialize on their own, within their own borders, then we have a situation that can readily be described as the 19th and 20th centuries of world history.

(Note that here in the 21st century monopoly capital has gone ahead and internationalized anyway, so that the bulk of the world's production is done in a relatively small number of locations, like China, etc.)

I'll suggest that, given a *socialized* world system of production it wouldn't matter too much if *every single country* was industrialized or not -- rather, it would be about overall workers' control of *all* production so that its outputs could be *distributed* evenly.





And sorry to say, even comparatively advanced countries like Cuba and Venezuela haven't yet make any steps in this regard. USA still have a huge influx of brains from all over the world, but just search google with "idea submission" or "submit an idea" or similar phrases, then you will millions of pages and mostly from USA, UK and European countries. In contrary, though countries like Cuba and Venezuela are less advanced, no website can be found based on those countries seeking new innovative ideas regarding product and technology. In my opinion, they are in need of new ideas more than USA, UK and other European countries.


Here, with this line of thinking, you're continuing to put the cart before the horse, so to speak -- 'advancement' for humanity as a whole doesn't come from new inventions or innovations because we've already passed the technological mark required to supply everyone on earth with the basics of humane living. Everything since the time of industrialized farming (and other infrastructure developments from industrialized production) has been merely *refinements* of civilization that has mostly benefitted the wealthy elite (and arguably the "middle class").

While we can put a man on the moon we also have to question what *significance* that 'advancement' has for each and every human being on earth, if any.


'Whitey on the Moon'

http://www.gilscottheron.com/lywhitey.html

[The Red Next Door]

At Least it is something, it is funny that people sit on their computer, tell people on the front lines how to do a revolution.

[Kassad]

To Barry Lyndon, Uppercut and every other person spamming this thread or posting relatively offensive shit, cut it out. I'm getting really tired of having to pass out blanket verbal warnings because it's time for the weekly tendency war. I'm not doing this again, so I'm issuing infractions for spam, flaming and trolling I see after this post.

Carry on.

[Lolshevik]

Typical. Trots sit around going 'the peasants must seize the land' and condemning the Maoists for supposedly not doing that. But when a news report surfaces of it actually happening, all the Trots can come up with is reasons to complain and condemn the action anyway.

Trotskyism is based on coming up with reasons for *not* supporting struggles overseas, and for criticizing from the sidelines those who struggle in your own country. It's destructive, disorientating and counter-revolutionary. Ignore them - they're irrelevant.

Hey now, don't speak for all of us! I support this action and the Maoists' struggle in general. Whatever criticisms I have of their strategy & tactics, like my criticism of New Democracy for instance or my position that merging the PLA with the Nepalese Army would lead to disaster, are placed in the context of my profound hope that they do win, and establish a socialist Nepal, which would be a beacon of revolutionary forces throughout the whole area. I don't condemn them because they're Maoist, I just think they have to go beyond many traditional Maoist tactics to win.

[Saorsa]

Hey now, don't speak for all of us! I support this action and the Maoists' struggle in general. Whatever criticisms I have of their strategy & tactics, like my criticism of New Democracy for instance or my position that merging the PLA with the Nepalese Army would lead to disaster, are placed in the context of my profound hope that they do win, and establish a socialist Nepal, which would be a beacon of revolutionary forces throughout the whole area. I don't condemn them because they're Maoist, I just think they have to go beyond many traditional Maoist tactics to win.

Fair call.

[pranabjyoti]

No, this is a misnomer, because you're (unintentionally?)(subconsciously?) *respecting* the institution of national borders.

What's of far more significance is humanity's system of *social relations*, all over the world. If those social relations respect a blueprint of development in which *every individual country* has to industrialize on their own, within their own borders, then we have a situation that can readily be described as the 19th and 20th centuries of world history.

(Note that here in the 21st century monopoly capital has gone ahead and internationalized anyway, so that the bulk of the world's production is done in a relatively small number of locations, like China, etc.)

I'll suggest that, given a *socialized* world system of production it wouldn't matter too much if *every single country* was industrialized or not -- rather, it would be about overall workers' control of *all* production so that its outputs could be *distributed* evenly.
National borders are there and will remain in near future. There would be cultural barriers, language barriers and other kind of barriers. Rubbing out the borders from the world map would be a Himalayan task.

Here, with this line of thinking, you're continuing to put the cart before the horse, so to speak -- 'advancement' for humanity as a whole doesn't come from new inventions or innovations because we've already passed the technological mark required to supply everyone on earth with the basics of humane living. Everything since the time of industrialized farming (and other infrastructure developments from industrialized production) has been merely *refinements* of civilization that has mostly benefitted the wealthy elite (and arguably the "middle class").

While we can put a man on the moon we also have to question what *significance* that 'advancement' has for each and every human being on earth, if any.


'Whitey on the Moon'

http://www.gilscottheron.com/lywhitey.html
Sorry, I totally disagree with you. Because, the technologies of today are non-sustainable. As for example, for electricity generation, we still largely dependent on fossil fuels. Advancements in alternative energy generation technology is very much necessary at this moment. With the present level of technologies, humanity will destroy itself for "betterment". THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT FOR WHOLE HUMANITY FOR A SUSTAINED AND NON-DESTRUCTIVE PROGRESS IS YET TO ACHIEVE.

[ckaihatsu]

National borders are there and will remain in near future. There would be cultural barriers, language barriers and other kind of barriers. Rubbing out the borders from the world map would be a Himalayan task.


Note that today's workplace *already* features an internationalization and diversity of workers, crossing boundaries of nation, culture, language, and so on. So the point isn't the borders *themselves* -- or cultural "barriers" or language "barriers" or racial ones or gender issues, either.

What's at stake is *who controls* those workers, their output, and under what aegis. Since so many petty social divisions have already been transcended due to the international character of capital, we merely have to ask why those very same workers can't just retain control of their own work product. The nature of work can be very infantilizing -- or at least humiliating -- because of this *taking* of one's work product, and the *control* that one must submit to in order to work for a wage.





Sorry, I totally disagree with you. Because, the technologies of today are non-sustainable. As for example, for electricity generation, we still largely dependent on fossil fuels. Advancements in alternative energy generation technology is very much necessary at this moment. With the present level of technologies, humanity will destroy itself for "betterment". THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT FOR WHOLE HUMANITY FOR A SUSTAINED AND NON-DESTRUCTIVE PROGRESS IS YET TO ACHIEVE.


Hey, just as revolutionaries are for *any* progressive advancements in the political world, as for the Maoists collectivizing land in Nepal, we're also for any *technological* advancements, either from capitalist development or otherwise, that will generally improve human living.

But at the same time we can't just *sidestep* the social relations question -- should we go at an exploitative and snail's pace under the existing social relations of capitalism (capital-mediated), or should we look to revolutionize the infrastructure of energy, etc., by taking it out of monopoly, profit-grubbing control?

[Sendo]

A brief guide to RED DAVE's stupid arguments-

First line of defense: The Maoists are phony revolutionaries...

Fifth line of defense: Well, socialism can't be built in Nepal because I have a crystal ball and I know in advance that they will fail. This is obvious.

#5 leads us back to #1.

How? Most leftists believe that communism can't happen in a world with capitalist imperialist powers at your doorstep, demanding you to have a defense budget. (Some focus on whether socialism is possible, which is wrong in my opinion, since I accept Mao for saying that socialism is a transition period under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course the journey away from capitalism can be begun.)

So, let's accept world revolution must precede full-fledged communism. So, when, as some proudly reminded us, the revolution suffers setbacks (vindication!), they say it proves the bad intentions of the revolutionaries.

1. Given: Revolution can't be completed until the world is liberated.
2. Thus, there will be setbacks.
3. Worldwide revolution will never happen
4. Thus, all revolutions are doomed.
5. QED: Setbacks prove that revolution A is led by state capitalists.

It's numbers 3, 4, and 5 I have a problem with. Reminds me of high school jealousy...you know, being bitter over not being as well liked as someone else and attacking the ridiculousness of it all, instead of not caring.

I think we should examine the direction that Nepal is taking. If Maoists and their affiliates are getting land to the landless by any means necessary, it is a good sign. I don't have much patience for hearing that people are being bought out by scheisty, half-hearted reformers selling the same deal. This brings a tangible benefit to those landless, no matter how few in number.

[this is an invasion]

There would be cultural barriers, language barriers and other kind of barriers.


Which is why we should destroy cultures and languages so that we may create our own.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ And if we don't accept your language, then what?

[this is an invasion]

^ And if we don't accept your language, then what?

You can read, right? I said "our own." As in a collective project.

[Nachie]

then what?

muthafuckin' protracted people's waaaaaaaarrrrrrrr!!!

[scarletghoul]

Which is why we should destroy cultures and languages so that we may create our own.
uhh that would be great but how are you gonna do that comrade

[this is an invasion]

uhh that would be great but how are you gonna do that comrade

It's not up to me, is it? I'm just one dude. What I say, think, and do has very little to no impact on the international working class.

But I think the quote in my sig is extremely relevant to anyone who calls for communist revolution.

[Andropov]

Which is why we should destroy cultures and languages so that we may create our own.
The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organised, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bereaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
- Michael Parenti

[Hoggy_RS]

Fair play to these peasants! The attitude of some leftists on here is sickening when faced with truly revolutionary acts they can only ***** and moan instead of supporting progressive movements taking action against capitalism. They are the definition of ultra-leftists.

[ckaihatsu]

They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organised, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bereaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted.


Yeah, I realized this, too, early on and was disconcerted by it. It's not until fairly recently that I've been able to fill in that gap as I could -- let's call it an extrapolation of revolutionary theory / ideology outward into a Marxism-grounded framework of realistic, possible practice:





For the reader I'd like to introduce a model I developed not too long ago. It posits a mass-prioritized listing of political demands and consumer preferences, aggregated from all individuals, updated daily.

On the labor-supply side, using entirely collectivized assets and resources, the model establishes a political economy of labor-hour-based labor credits that are *not exchanged* for material personal possessions (since the output from collectivized infrastructure by liberated labor *must* be free-access, by definition). Instead the earned labor credits proportionally empower liberated laborers to organize and select *incoming* liberated laborers, going forward, in perpetuity.




communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg




Infrastructure / Overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process


A further explanation and sample scenario can be found here:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

[this is an invasion]

The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organised, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bereaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
- Michael Parenti

I don't think a group of people who have lived their entire lives in a capitalist economy and under capitalist socialization can very honestly talk about the details of a post-revolutionary society.

“Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary” - Bakunin

Plus I think ya'll are far too ahead yourselves when there isn't even a movement to speak of in most of the world.

[pranabjyoti]

But at the same time we can't just *sidestep* the social relations question -- should we go at an exploitative and snail's pace under the existing social relations of capitalism (capital-mediated), or should we look to revolutionize the infrastructure of energy, etc., by taking it out of monopoly, profit-grubbing control?
It seems that you are putting the two tasks one against another. But, rather they SHOULD go side by side and one is incomplete without the other.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think a group of people who have lived their entire lives in a capitalist economy and under capitalist socialization can very honestly talk about the details of a post-revolutionary society.

“Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary” - Bakunin

Plus I think ya'll are far too ahead yourselves when there isn't even a movement to speak of in most of the world.


My thing is *only* a model premised on a societal surplus that can be collectively administered by a liberated labor free from commodity production. I don't claim it to be anything more than that.

[ckaihatsu]

It seems that you are putting the two tasks one against another. But, rather they SHOULD go side by side and one is incomplete without the other.


This is *not* the politics of a revolutionary. You may want to rethink that designation of 'Revolutionary' that you have under your name.





'advancement' for humanity as a whole doesn't come from new inventions or innovations because we've already passed the technological mark required to supply everyone on earth with the basics of humane living.

[pranabjyoti]

This is *not* the politics of a revolutionary. You may want to rethink that designation of 'Revolutionary' that you have under your name.
Sorry, my opinion is clearly different from you in this respect. From the history of 2oth century, at least I have learned that WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF PROPER TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS, DOING AND KEEPING A REVOLUTION IS VERY VERY .......... HARD, NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry, my opinion is clearly different from you in this respect. From the history of 2oth century, at least I have learned that WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF PROPER TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS, DOING AND KEEPING A REVOLUTION IS VERY VERY .......... HARD, NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.


No, I'm going to have to beg to differ, and to also insist on a distinct valid revolutionary line (regarding technology).

First, please consider that technological advancements in the 20th century have brought the very *bad*, or *destructive*, along with the very *good*, or *constructive*. The use of the atomic bomb, twice, is, unfortunately, the best example we have of how dark technological development can get.

Second, I'll repeat that by juxtaposing the humanistic to the technological we quickly arrive at the policy issue of how much industrialization, where, and to what degree of distraction it brings us from more humanistic-minded activities, including leisure. Capitalism uses the yardstick of nationalism-minded amassings of capital reserves from labor exploitation to determine extents of industrialization, and will consciously develop implements of world warfare in order to keep this yardstick in place. Certainly the same process also develops technologies that wind up benefitting regular people in more humane ways, like the Internet, but you can't deny that the bad comes with the good, under this system.

So, really, the topic of technology itself is almost *entirely irrelevant* to the task of revolution -- revolution is a humanistic-minded endeavor that may or may not be assisted by technological implements.