Police attack striking Maoist workers

[Saorsa]

25 Maoist workers held from factory
Last Updated : 2010-07-20 11:53 PM




25 Maoist workers held from factory


Himalayan News Service

KATHMANDU: Police today resorted to lathicharge after agitating UCPN-Maoist aligned All Nepal Trade Union Federation (ANTUF) picketed Kiran Shoes Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd in Chappal Karkhana, Kathmandu- 4. Maoists have shut the industry for the last 28 days demanding permanent status for employees who have worked for more than 240 days, implementation of earlier agreements and withdrawal of disciplinary action against employees.

Police had to use a moderate force after a team led by ANTUF Chief Saligram Jamakattel and one of its members Yogendra Kumal engaged in heated discussion on whether or not they should let the industry run. Four Maoist agitators were injured and 25 others detained, said police. They were released later in the day. More than 300 workers have been affected due to the protests.

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=25+Maoist+workers+held+from+ factory&NewsID=250411

[A Revolutionary Tool]

And here I thought the Maoists had no working class support ;)

[Saorsa]

Lol they've stopped trying that one, having been proven completely wrong. But Trots will always find something to complain about - that's the role they play in the system.

[RED DAVE]

Lol they've stopped trying that one, having been proven completely wrong. But Trots will always find something to complain about - that's the role they play in the system.Keep up your lies and your racism, CA. We have never claimed that the Nepalese Maoists don't have working class support. What we claim is that there is every reason to believe they are going to betray that support. That support was amply demonstrated during the general strike in May. What did the Maoists do with that support? They used it to get negotiations restarted to get a new, bourgeois constitution, which negotiations are stalled again.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

You don't claim it anymore... but you all used to. Go back to before 2006, before the Maoists proved their support levels to the entire world. And why don't you also take a look at what your kind are currently saying about the Indian comrades.

You're the same in every country. All talk, all slander, all destructiveness and arrogance and white First World chauvinism... no revolutionary character as far as the eye can see.

[scarletghoul]

Right on, Comrade Alastair.

Sometimes it seems like certain trots cling to this dogma of "theyre not really communists" as an article of faith, and they keep having to change their arguments to fit in with this faith, with the constant hope that the revolution will fail so that they can be proved right. From "they have no working class support" to "OK maybe they have support of the whole working class but they will betray it!", the arguments clearly are not made from looking at the objective facts, but rather as ways of upholding their faith in the white purity of the spirit of Trotsky opposed to the Asiatic Stalinists who don't know what they're doing. I wonder what the claim will have transformed into in 5 years - "ok yes they have created a state where the workers have power and great quality of life but the party is bound to betray them because Mao" ?

[bricolage]

Maoists have shut the industry for the last 28 days

When it says 'shut the industry' does that mean enough workers in it have gone on strike to mean it cannot function or that the Maoists have forcefully shut the company, ie. blockaded it or something to stop workers getting in?

[RED DAVE]

white First WorldKeep up your racism; it's typical of your political style.

RED DAVE

[the last donut of the night]

Keep up your racism; it's typical of your political style.

RED DAVE

How is he being racist, Dave?

[LeninBalls]

How is he being racist, Dave?

Comrade Alastair hates white people

[RED DAVE]

How is he being racist, Dave?He's not. I'm just a paranoid Jewish semi-Trot from New York.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand the term "white first worlder". Here's a hint: it's not racist, I'm white & I use the term at times.

[RED DAVE]

A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand the term "white first worlder". Here's a hint: it's not racist, I'm white & I use the term at times.Here's a hint: he's using it is a racist way: attempting to disparage criticism by using racial categories, instead of encountering ideas and facts.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I'm saying you're politics are based on incredible arrogance. You don't know anything much about the situation in Nepal. I know more than you, I've studied it in depth for years, but I still don't know much at all and I'm happy to recognise that. The difference between you and me is that even though you know next to nothing about the situation on the ground over there, you still somehow believe you can lead the revolution from New York. You think you can condemn every action of the Maoists, and you think you have the knowledge to suggest the path they should take instead. You're yet to explain why the working people of Nepal should take you seriously, and you're yet to explain why you even bother attacking the Maoists at every opportunity. What do you think it concretely achieves?

You don't take this attitude towards white revolutionaries. All the revolutions you support were led by white people in predominantly white countries. But every time backward, stupid, ignorant and weak brown people in Asia, Latin America, Africa or wherever dare to try and build a new world on the ashes of the old, you denounce them and make grandiose claims about how you know the path they should take forward instead.

The less you know about making revolution in New York, and the less you achieve in that struggle, the more you know about how to make revolution in Kathmandu. Seems logical doesn't it!

[S.Artesian]

Right on, Comrade Alastair.

Sometimes it seems like certain trots cling to this dogma of "theyre not really communists" as an article of faith, and they keep having to change their arguments to fit in with this faith, with the constant hope that the revolution will fail so that they can be proved right. From "they have no working class support" to "OK maybe they have support of the whole working class but they will betray it!", the arguments clearly are not made from looking at the objective facts, but rather as ways of upholding their faith in the white purity of the spirit of Trotsky opposed to the Asiatic Stalinists who don't know what they're doing. I wonder what the claim will have transformed into in 5 years - "ok yes they have created a state where the workers have power and great quality of life but the party is bound to betray them because Mao" ?


Well, yeah, let's see what happens in the next 5, or 15, years--- and if Nepal either lurches dramatically to the right, kind of like Chile did after the failure of the class collaboration policies of the UP, or if the Maoists are able to gain power and proceed over the years to turn Nepal into a "workers paradise" along the lines of the Guangdong-- then what? Then does any Marxist criticism of those results amount to "white skin privilege"?

Come one, we're talking about class, about organization of an economy, about property and labor-- we're talking about class struggle. Not the geographic or ethnic pedigree of individuals.

[Saorsa]

And we're not saying nobody has the right to criticise the UCPN (M). We're pointing out the arrogance, hypocrisy and European chauvinism that defines the criticisms being put forward by the likes of Red Dave.

[S.Artesian]

Well, to get the issue of geographical and ethno-centrism out of the way, let me admit I know just a little about the situation in Nepal, and I have no contact with anyone in Nepal, so if I direct criticisms and questions, it's to the participants in this thread, most of whom I also do not "know," and I don't have a clue as to anyone's skin color, or precise location unless he or she provides it in a public profile etc.

What little I do know indicates the Maoists have sought several "power-sharing" arrangements with the dominant ruling forces in Nepal under a revised constitution.

So my question is-- given the history of abject failure of such "power-sharing" arrangements-- in whatever form-- popular front as in Allende's UP government of Chile; "national revolution" as in the MNR in Bolivia; "left-wing" military-populist alliance, again Bolivia under Torres; left populism without the military-- Goulart's Brazil; left nationalism-- Arafat's PLA; really, really left populism as in Manley's Peoples National Party rule 1972-1980 in Jamaica,-- how does the program of the Maoists in Nepal actually overcome, or circumvent these risks of failure? How can it lead to success of a revolutionary struggle.

[RED DAVE]

And we're not saying nobody has the right to criticise the UCPN (M). We're pointing out the arrogance, hypocrisy and European chauvinism that defines the criticisms being put forward by the likes of Red Dave.Keep it up while Prachandra and Co. negotiate to form a bourgeois government.

RED DAVE

[Lyev]

Will this sort of action by the police escalate into another civil fighting if workers retaliate in self-defence? Something I will add about the the urban working class population is that in Nepal it's roughly 6%, if I remember rightly. The Russian working class in 1917 was 11%, India's is 12% and in 1949 China it was below 2%. Now of course whilst all the material conditions that define an epoch are slightly varied in each one of these examples, I think we can use the lessons learnt from '49 and '17 to try and deduce what will happen here. Although having said that, the mish-mash of feudalist-capitalist class relations in all said countries are or were quite similar to each other. The old contention about the bourgeois revolution being carried through, land distributed amongst the peasantry etc. is a dilemma common to every one of these examples, although on a side note, it's slightly less relevant in India. And in Nepal, as regards land re-distribution, there have been instances where the rural peasantry have spontaneously seized land themselves, but there's also this:

Q: What method of land reform have you decided to implement?

Roka: We studied the four models of land reform that have taken place. First, the kind undertaken by the Europeans and North Americans; second, what was undertaken in South America; third, the attempts by Socialist countries such as China and Russia; and fourth, the kind undertaken by the Koreans, Taiwanese and Japanese.

The Americans learnt from the Prussians. The landlords themselves institutionalized the wage system. So the feudals turned into capitalists. Gradually, land gradually became concentrated in the hands of capitalists and others were displaced. Some remained as wage labourers, others went to work in industries. The South Americans freed themselves from European colonization. But the big landlords kept control of the land. Now that socialist governments have come to power in 12 Latin American countries, they are in the process of undertaking land reform and redistribution, without providing compensation to the previous owners. In China and Russia, the state captured all land, and after that, according to the need of both the people and the state, prepared communes and cooperatives.

Land reform in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan was imposed by the Americans, as a tool to make communism less attractive to the population there. All land was taken by the government. The government then collected data on the nature and quality of land and of all families. Then it asked people what occupation they wanted to enter. Then the governments then redistributed land according to the needs of the family and the quality of the land that was being provided. This was a very effective method of land reform. In South Korea, for instance, 87 percent of people were in agriculture in the 1950s. Now, only 10 percent are. They understood that land reform did not simply mean redistribution, that it was necessary to provide seeds, fertilizer, to create a market and credit etc. Great growth took place in the agricultural sector as a result, and this created resources to invest in the industrial sector, setting the foundations for export-led growth.

We have thus come to the conclusion that the most suitable method of land reform for Nepal is the fourth one.(Full interview is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-plans-land-t136263/index.html).) Which at least shows a commitment to a concisely structured strategy for land reform. And I just had the thought, I suppose if land reform is going to happen it should be decided by the people (sorry for such an ambiguous word), via pressure from below. Anyway, that was a bit off-topic, but I don't think "more than 300" shoe-factory employees is exactly broad working class support. Where is there more examples of UCPN(M)-affiliated unions and workers organisations striking or demonstrating in such a militant fashion?

[RED DAVE]

In South Korea, for instance, 87 percent of people were in agriculture in the 1950s. Now, only 10 percent are. They understood that land reform did not simply mean redistribution, that it was necessary to provide seeds, fertilizer, to create a market and credit etc. Great growth took place in the agricultural sector as a result, and this created resources to invest in the industrial sector, setting the foundations for export-led growth.

We have thus come to the conclusion that the most suitable method of land reform for Nepal is the fourth one.This is a blueprint for state capitalism in agriculture.

RED DAVE

[Lyev]

This is a blueprint for state capitalism in agriculture.

RED DAVEI appreciate your contributions Dave, but you sometimes don't put forward solutions - Trotskyists are often disparaged for criticizing such movements as the one in Nepal without offering any concrete alternative. Taking into account the complexity of the feudalist-capitalist transition, and the mix-up of a hybrid ruling class of landlords and a weak bourgeoisie, how could things have gone differently? Do you think permanent revolution can be applied to such a situation? As I see it, "New Democracy", and the class-collaborationism of "The Bloc of Four Classes", is the Maoist equivalent of such a theory.

[Saorsa]

This is a blueprint for state capitalism in agriculture.

They have committed to expropriating the landlords without compensation, redistributing land to the poor peasants and developing communal forms of agriculture. And you call it state capitalism.

Fuck you're a douchebag.

[pranabjyoti]

This is a blueprint for state capitalism in agriculture.

RED DAVE
At least better than feudal or semi-feudal mode of agriculture, the root cause of poverty in South Asia.

[bricolage]

Just to bump this as I never got an answer and am genuinely asking a question.


Maoists have shut the industry for the last 28 days

When it says 'shut the industry' does that mean enough workers in it have gone on strike to mean it cannot function or that the Maoists have forcefully shut the company, ie. blockaded it or something to stop workers getting in?

[Saorsa]

Sorry mate I've been busy. This article is the only information we have on this dispute. We don't know what tactics the workers are using to further their strike. But there is no evidence to suggest that the workers have been blocked from going to work by Maoist cadres against their will - the evidence suggests the opposite. The workers are members of a radical trade union affiliated to the UCPN (M) - that was a decision they made themselves.

The Maoists don't just blockade random factories. If a bandh is called then all industries are forcefully shut down yes, although with 200,000 Maoist union members in Kathmandu alone a Maoist strike pretty much shuts the city down anyway. There is no bandh going on at the moment. This is a dispute between the workers of the factory, backed up by the UCPN (M), and the factory management.

The demands being put forward are not demands that further the agenda of the UCPN (M) as a political party, they are demands for a better deal for the workers concerned.


permanent status for employees who have worked for more than 240 days, implementation of earlier agreements and withdrawal of disciplinary action against employees.

This is a strike. Workers vs bosses. As far as I can tell, in this case it's as simple as that.

[Devrim]

And here I thought the Maoists had no working class support ;)

I think that when there has been talk of Maoists having 'no working class support', it was almost exclusively about the situation in India. I would imagine that Maoists in Nepal do have some support amongst the working class, which is however absolutely tiny.

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

I think that when there has been talk of Maoists having 'no working class support', it was almost exclusively about the situation in India. I would imagine that Maoists in Nepal do have some support amongst the working class, which is however absolutely tiny.

Devrim
How do you know that? Kindly remember that they are now banned in India and THERE IS NO CHANCE FOR THEM TO GO FOR OPEN ORGANIZATIONS.

[Devrim]

How do you know that? Kindly remember that they are now banned in India and THERE IS NO CHANCE FOR THEM TO GO FOR OPEN ORGANIZATIONS.

As I have said before, it is based upon visits to India, and impressions from talking to people there including our own militants and ex-Maoists (some of them the same people). I think that it is also something recognised by the Maoists themselves when they have openly talked about not having much urban support, and has certainly been recognised by Maoist supporters on this board including 'Comrade Alistair'.

I don't think I am saying anything at all controversial.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

I think that it is also something recognised by the Maoists themselves when they have openly talked about not having much urban support, and has certainly been recognised by Maoist supporters on this board including 'Comrade Alistair'.

They don't yet have enough working class support to bring down the Indian state and seize power nationwide. But they certainly have more mass support amongst workers, peasants and all other sectors of society than any other revolutionary organisation in India. The CPI (Maoist) is the leading force in the Indian revolutionary movement - that's a basic fact.

[Devrim]

The CPI (Maoist) is the leading force in the Indian revolutionary movement - that's a basic fact.

It sort of depends if you think they are revolutionaries or not really.


But they certainly have more mass support amongst workers, peasants and all other sectors of society than any other revolutionary organisation in India.

They have massive support in the peasantry, and in the poorest sectors of society. That isn't the same as having support within the working class.

By the way, I am sorry to hear that you got suspended.

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

It sort of depends if you think they are revolutionaries or not really.



They have massive support in the peasantry, and in the poorest sectors of society. That isn't the same as having support within the working class.

By the way, I am sorry to hear that you got suspended.

Devrim
If you think in this term, then the revisionists now have the highest support of the "working class" at present. If you ask me, then I just want to say that IT IS THE INCAPABILITY OF THE WORKING CLASS THAT THEY TOGETHER CAN NOT STAND BESIDE THE MAOISTS. As per with my little knowledge of working class, I can say that at present DON'T HAVE THE SPIRIT TO FIGHT AND OVERTHROW THE BLOODY INDIAN RULERS AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON BEHIND THEIR LACK OF SUPPORT TO INDIAN WORKING CLASS.

[Devrim]

If you ask me, then I just want to say that IT IS THE INCAPABILITY OF THE WORKING CLASS THAT THEY TOGETHER CAN NOT STAND BESIDE THE MAOISTS. As per with my little knowledge of working class, I can say that at present DON'T HAVE THE SPIRIT TO FIGHT AND OVERTHROW THE BLOODY INDIAN RULERS AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON BEHIND THEIR LACK OF SUPPORT TO INDIAN WORKING CLASS.

I think that this is very typical of Maoism and other similar forms of leftism. Disillusionment in the working class ends up with them blaming the working class for not supporting them, and ultimately in many cases hating them.

It is very common on large parts of the left in this country.

I'd like to ask a question; Do you or do you not think that the working class is the only class that can bring about a socialist transformation of society?

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Be careful in asking that, Devrim: it's a popular assumption to equate the factory worker with the working class as a whole. When people think of the "industrial working class," they think about factory workers.

The social group of factory workers, by itself, is incapable of bringing about a socialist transformation of society.

On the other hand, the disillusionment you speak of is seen now in attitudes towards other manual workers and also clerical and professional workers. :(

[Devrim]

Be careful in asking that, Devrim: it's a popular assumption to equate the factory worker with the working class as a whole. When people think of the "industrial working class," they think about factory workers.

I don't really think that I should need to have to explain what the working class is a 'revolutionary left' forum.

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

I think that this is very typical of Maoism and other similar forms of leftism. Disillusionment in the working class ends up with them blaming the working class for not supporting them, and ultimately in many cases hating them.

It is very common on large parts of the left in this country.

I'd like to ask a question; Do you or do you not think that the working class is the only class that can bring about a socialist transformation of society?

Devrim
Actually, it's the working class ideology rather than working class itself will bring the change in my opinion. In India, the working class is a minority and it need help from other oppressed people like aboriginal people of India (adivasi) and lower caste people particularity in case of India. I hope you know that revolution rarely takes any straight way. Its pathway had been and will be shaped by many factors depending on the condition of the country.
Do you think, those few number of workers you have talked about represent the whole working class of India and most important, do they have proper information and idea about the Maoists?

[Devrim]

Do you think, those few number of workers you have talked about represent the whole working class of India

I don't think that they do represent the 'whole working class of India'. I think it is possible to pick up impressions about politics from talking to political militants though.


and most important, do they have proper information and idea about the Maoists?I would imagine so considering many of them were ex-Maoists militants, and a few had been in prison for years for Maoist activities. They may have had some idea.


Actually, it's the working class ideology rather than working class itself will bring the change in my opinion.

So it is not the working class that will bring change but its 'ideology'. What an absurd piece of idealism.

I presume that you consider Maoism to be the ideology of the working class despite the fact that in reality it is a peasant based cross class nationalist ideology.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

If you ask me, then I just want to say that IT IS THE INCAPABILITY OF THE WORKING CLASS THAT THEY TOGETHER CAN NOT STAND BESIDE THE MAOISTS.So the problem is the cowardly working class that can't fight side by side with the brave Maoists. That's a hell of thing for a Marxist to write.


As per with my little knowledge of working class, I can say that at present DON'T HAVE THE SPIRIT TO FIGHT AND OVERTHROW THE BLOODY INDIAN RULERS AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON BEHIND THEIR LACK OF SUPPORT TO INDIAN WORKING CLASS.So the Maoists justify their abandoning of the working class as the leading class of the social revolution in India because the Indian working class doesn't have fighting spirit.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

By the way, have either the Nepali or Indian Maoists had anything to say about the massive working class actions taking place right now in Bangladesh, which borders both India and Nepal?

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

I don't think that they do represent the 'whole working class of India'. I think it is possible to pick up impressions about politics from talking to political militants though.
I know so many "militants", who are very good before the mouthpiece, but very very bad in case of real needs. Kolkata is full of such "militants" who are very good to deliver hot speeches, but far from the real battleground. I think, you have met with those "militants".

I would imagine so considering many of them were ex-Maoists militants, and a few had been in prison for years for Maoist activities. They may have had some idea.
If they were really Maoists, they would now certainly be inside prison then. I think they were former Naxalites, who are now active agents of CPI(Marxist), the worst revisionist party of India. In reality, they are far far away from both the working class and the peasants. Do you know, Maoist posters are often found in rail stations of Industrial belts and police often found abandoned Maoist hideouts in Industrial areas very close to Kolkata.

So it is not the working class that will bring change but its 'ideology'. What an absurd piece of idealism.
The working class ideology is the expression of class interest of working class. As I have previously said, working class is a small minority in India and without support from other oppressed people, no revolution can occur. Actually, it's just impossible to think about revolution without the participation of other oppressed people in a country like India. Kindly try to understand my lines in Indian context AND ALSO TRY TO UNDERSTAND INDIAN SITUATION WITH A LITTLE DEPTH.

I presume that you consider Maoism to be the ideology of the working class despite the fact that in reality it is a peasant based cross class nationalist ideology.
At present, it's the best weapon to fight feudalism, crony capitalism and imperialism.

[pranabjyoti]

So the problem is the cowardly working class that can't fight side by side with the brave Maoists. That's a hell of thing for a Marxist to write.
It's a fact. Those who know the reality can not deny it. If you are a Marxist, I hope you know that "nothing stand still", therefore certainly the working class of a particular country can become weak and stay away from militant struggle for time being. After all they are human being and this is part of human nature.

So the Maoists justify their abandoning of the working class as the leading class of the social revolution in India because the Indian working class doesn't have fighting spirit.
RED DAVE
Maoists haven't abandoned working class but rather the working class abandoned both militant struggle and Maoists and now mostly in the grasps of opportunist parliamentary parties.

[Devrim]

If they were really Maoists, they would now certainly be inside prison then. I think they were former Naxalites,

Yes I said 'ex-Maoists'. As the Naxalities were Maoists and there isn't much difference between the words 'ex' and 'former' that is what I said.


who are now active agents of CPI(Marxist), the worst revisionist party of India.

No, I don't think I discussed with any members of that organisation.

But this is a bit pointless really. You don't like what people I discussed with said, so you try to discredit people by accusing them of being this or that despite having really no idea at all who they were.

The really ironic thing of course is that you say virtually the same thing yourself with of course a bit of bile against the working class thrown in.

I said that the Maoists have virtually no support within the working class.

You said:


If you ask me, then I just want to say that IT IS THE INCAPABILITY OF THE WORKING CLASS THAT THEY TOGETHER CAN NOT STAND BESIDE THE MAOISTS.

and also:


therefore certainly the working class of a particular country can become weak and stay away from militant struggle for time being. After all they are human being and this is part of human nature.

As well as:


Maoists haven't abandoned working class but rather the working class abandoned both militant struggle

All of which implies that the Maoists have no support amongst the working class.

When you write though that "certainly the working class of a particular country can become weak and stay away from militant struggle for time being" this is true.

What it means though is that if this is the case there is no class struggle, and parts of the 'middle class' intelligentsia taking to the countryside to lead the peasantry and tribals in killing a few soldiers and policemen does not change that.

In India today though this is not at all the case. The Indian working class is struggling, on however small a scale, to defend its own class interests. Events like the recent strike of half a million public sector workers in Jammu and Kashmir (http://en.internationalism.org/ci/2010/kashmir-struggle) and the the struggle of the Jute Mill workers in Calcutta (http://en.internationalism.org/ci/2010/kolkatta-jute-workers-strike) show this.A summary of struggles in India last year can be found in this article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/3686) by the ICC. In fact when I was in India earlier this year one thing I noticed in the English language press alongside constant reports of Maoist activities was that there are lots of strikes going on everyday.

So it is not that the working class is not struggling although not on a massive scale it is. It is that it doesn't support the Maoists.

You write that "working class is a small minority in India", and it is true that it is a minority, but that misses the fact that in absolute terms, even whilst it is outnumbered by the peasantry, it is numerically massive.

You continue to say that "without support from other oppressed people, no revolution can occur. Actually, it's just impossible to think about revolution without the participation of other oppressed people in a country like India. Kindly try to understand my lines in Indian context AND ALSO TRY TO UNDERSTAND INDIAN SITUATION WITH A LITTLE DEPTH."

First although one has to ascertain the real material situation in any given country, the idea that there are specific national circumstances has always been the line put forward to justify opportunism within the workers' movement.

Second and more importantly is that the working class, fighting directly for its own interests itself is capable of pulling other classes behind it. This though is completely different from abandoning class politics, talking of class analysis, and following Maoists gangs round the countryside killing a few soldiers.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

Let me say this as I've said it many times before: as Marxists our responsibility is to be a part of a working class revolution. History has shown that in this period, many classes can engage in revolution: the peasantry, the petit-bourgeoisie and the working class. The special contribution of Marxists is to always base our activities on the working class as the leading class of the revolution.

This means, always, calling for the working class to set up instruments of class power and take power in society. For a so-called Marxist party to take power under any other circumstances, including the prime ministership of a bourgeois state, is for that party to either be a part of a state capitalist or a private capitalist regime.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Let me say this as I've said it many times before: as Marxists our responsibility is to be a part of a working class revolution. History has shown that in this period, many classes can engage in revolution: the peasantry, the petit-bourgeoisie and the working class. The special contribution of Marxists is to always base our activities on the working class as the leading class of the revolution.

This means, always, calling for the working class to set up instruments of class power and take power in society. For a so-called Marxist party to take power under any other circumstances, including the prime ministership of a bourgeois state, is for that party to either be a part of a state capitalist or a private capitalist regime.

RED DAVE

That doesn't mean they've abandoned their positions on gaining socialism nor communism though.

[RED DAVE]

That doesn't mean they've abandoned their positions on gaining socialism nor communism though.The Nepali Maoists are engaged in engineering an entirely opportunistic deal to get them the prime ministership of a government that will preserve capitalist economic relations in the countryside and in the workplaces.

This is called "abandon[ing] their positions on gaining socialism nor [sic] communism," unless you believe, like social democrats everywhere, that getting control of a bourgeois government will lead to socialism. Clement Atlee and Salvadore Allende will teach you otherwise.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Nepali Maoists are engaged in engineering an entirely opportunistic deal to get them the prime ministership of a government that will preserve capitalist economic relations in the countryside and in the workplaces.

This is called "abandon[ing] their positions on gaining socialism nor [sic] communism," unless you believe, like social democrats everywhere, that getting control of a bourgeois government will lead to socialism. Clement Atlee and Salvadore Allende will teach you otherwise.

RED DAVE

I don't think they believe that their ruling of the bourgeois state will gain socialism, nor do they think that the struggle is over when they win. That's just something that you seem to promote. What they're trying to build with their victory is a "New Democracy", in which will bring a better life to their people. The "New Democracy" isn't the end though. This is just the beginning.

[RED DAVE]

I don't think they believe that their ruling of the bourgeois state will gain socialism, nor do they think that the struggle is over when they win. That's just something that you seem to promote. What they're trying to build with their victory is a "New Democracy", in which will bring a better life to their people. The "New Democracy" isn't the end though. This is just the beginning.New Democracy = Bourgeois Democracy.

What you are saying is that it is all right for Marxists to be the government of a bourgeois state and therefore be part of the exploitation of the workers and peasants.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

New Democracy = Bourgeois Democracy.

What you are saying is that it is all right for Marxists to be the government of a bourgeois state and therefore be part of the exploitation of the workers and peasants.

RED DAVE

The New Democracy is being used in order to build up the classes in order to gain Socialism. It's not about continuing the exploitation of the people. Yes, they're not going to gain it right away when they gain rule, but that's because it's the building of class relations that represents the New Democracy.

[RED DAVE]

The New Democracy is being used in order to build up the classes in order to gain Socialism.The only class that will be built up under New Democracy is the brougeoisie. Russia, China and Vietnam show this.


It's not about continuing the exploitation of the people.Yes it is. (1) If the Nepali bourgeoisie controls the extraction and distribution of surplus value, that's capitalism: present-day China, Russia and Vietnam. (2) If the state controls the distribution of surplus value, that's state capitalism: post revolutionary China, Russia and Vietnam. (3) If the working class, directly,controls the extraction and distribution of surplus value, that's socialism. (DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH FOR (3).)


Yes, they're not going to gain it right away when they gain ruleNo shit, Sherlock. The question is: who is going to "gain it"? If the Nepalese Maoists go the way of their Chinese predecessors, as they show every sign of doing, first the state, not controlled by the working class but by the state bureaucracy, will control the economy. And then, probably quite soon, private capitalism will prevail. This is happening right now in Cuba.


but that's because it's the building of class relations that represents the New Democracy.The only class relations that are going to be built in Nepal are based on the extraction of surplus value from the working class.

If and when the workers control the economy, from top to bottom, as the brougeoisie controls the economy now, then there will be some kind of workers state, supported by the peasantry. Negotiating with bourgeois parties for the prime ministership of a bourgeois government (or a state capitalist government) will not accomplish this.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

The only class that will be built up under New Democracy is the brougeoisie. Russia, China and Vietnam show this.

Wrong, through the New Democracy, this is building of class relations between the working class, peasantry, petit-bourgeoisie, & national bourgeoisie. In no way does it bring all to one certain class.


Yes it is. (1) If the Nepali bourgeoisie controls the extraction and distribution of surplus value, that's capitalism: present-day China, Russia and Vietnam. (2) If the state controls the distribution of surplus value, that's state capitalism: post revolutionary China, Russia and Vietnam. (3) If the working class, directly,controls the extraction and distribution of surplus value, that's socialism. (DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH FOR (3).)

Yes, I'm sure, because according to you, the Maoists are hidden capitalists out to weaken capitalism in order to gain capitalism. :rolleyes:


No shit, Sherlock. The question is: who is going to "gain it"? If the Nepalese Maoists go the way of their Chinese predecessors, as they show every sign of doing, first the state, not controlled by the working class but by the state bureaucracy, will control the economy. And then, probably quite soon, private capitalism will prevail. This is happening right now in Cuba.

That's a very black & white view of how capitalism was restored in China. In no way did capitalism become restored because of the actions of the State. If anything, it was the lack of needed actions that allowed people like Deng to come in, arrest the "Gang of Four", & then start a campaign in order to restore capitalism within China. So your assessment on how Nepal will head to Capitalism is wrong.


The only class relations that are going to be built in Nepal are based on the extraction of surplus value from the working class.

If and when the workers control the economy, from top to bottom, as the brougeoisie controls the economy now, then there will be some kind of workers state, supported by the peasantry. Negotiating with bourgeois parties for the prime ministership of a bourgeois government (or a state capitalist government) will not accomplish this.

Yes, because apparently you have a crystal ball that tells the exact future of what is going to happen in Nepal. Please, your arrogance is no longer amusing. And in a way, I do agree that these "agreements" won't lead them much anywhere. Though, I'm sure they've come to slowly realize this too with the constant failings of the voting process & them starting PLA recruitment again, against the wishes of the peace dealings.