Dahal, Khanal advocate Left unity

[scarletghoul]

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Dahal%2C+Khanal+chant+left++ unity+mantra+&NewsID=250960


Dahal, Khanal chant left unity mantra

Added At: 2010-07-24 11:45 PM
Last Updated At: 2010-07-25 11:45 PM
Himalayan News Service
KATHMANDU: Chairmen of the two largest left parties Unified CPN Maoist and CPN UML today called for unity of all left parties to build a new Nepal.

Launching the Nepali version of Karl Marx’s ‘Das Capital’ here, today

Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ said a New Nepal was possible if all communist parties could unite. He, however, said the rightist deviation among left parties would not allow unity. “I’m hopeful that the three volumes

of ‘Punji’ will inspire the parties to realise the truth and fight against the deviation,” he said.

Prachanda claimed that the support left parties had lent to UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal was not just tactics, but a bold step to defeat rightist forces.

“We now should go ahead to establish a single communist centre,” said CPN UML Chairman Khanal adding that communist parties should move towards pluralism. “Our common goal is to lead society towards communism via socialism by liberating people from the existing feudalist system.”

Khanal said the communist movement is widespread and the country’s Constituent Assembly has more than 60 per cent representation of left parties. “We should utilise our strength in an appropriate manner,” he said, adding that the left forces have

successfully brought

about historic changes in the country.Er it was already formatted like that >_>. Anyway this seems pretty cool

How leftist is Khanal and other left-wing UML members ?

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is good news. Though, I'm a bit skeptical on the CPN-ML's views or direction on this unity call. Let's see how it folds out. Hopefully this can work.

[RED DAVE]

Parties represented in the Constituent Assembly

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

• Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (239)
• Nepali Congress (110)
• Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (109)
• Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum, Nepal (52)
• Tarai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party (20)
• Sadbhavana Party (9)
• Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) (8)
• Rastriya Prajatantra Party (8)
• Janamorcha Nepal (7)
• Communist Party of Nepal (United) (5)
• Nepal Workers Peasants Party (4)
• Rastriya Janamorcha (4)
• Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (4)
• Rastriya Janshakti Party (3)
• Communist Party of Nepal (Unified) (2)
• Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandidevi) (2)
• Nepali Janata Dal (2)
• Rastriya Janamukti Party (2)
• Sanghiya Loktantrik Rastriya Manch (2)
• Chure Bhawar Rastriya Ekta Party Nepal (1)
• Dalit Janajati Party (1)
• Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal (1)
• Nepal Parivar Dal (1)
• Samajbadi Prajatantrik Janata Party, Nepal (1)

RED DAVE

[Who?]

I feel like there should be more unity throughout the left altogether and this is certainly a good move.

We should have a united anti-capitalist front in the USA.

[Saorsa]

The UML is a party of the petit-bourgeoisie. It has left wing elements within it and a small amount of working class support, but fundamentally it is the party of the upwardly mobile.

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=21458

[RED DAVE]

The UML is a party of the petit-bourgeoisie. It has left wing elements within it and a small amount of working class support, but fundamentally it is the party of the upwardly mobile.

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=21458Why, then, would the Maoiists want to be in a political alliance with them?

Did the Bolsheviks get into an alliance with the Mensheviks and the SRs?

Yes, I know, Nepal isn't Russia. But the principle is the same. This is an opportunistic block in which a party, ostenisbly dedicated to the rule of the working class and the peasantry,` is attempting to ally itself with classes that are opposed to the working class and the peasantry: the large and small bourgeoisie.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Red Dave: Yet another brilliant analysis on your part. :rolleyes: To think that you, of all people, would lament opportunism...considering that's pretty much your sole practice here.

Look, everyone knows my views on the situation in Nepal at this point. Everyone knows that I'm totally against the current revisionist direction of the UCPN(M) leadership. But seriously Red Dave, if you're sincere in your recognition of that fact (the fact that the UCPN(M) leadership is revisionist), you wouldn't waste half as much time as you do on this particular forum. This forum belongs to the supporters of Prachanda and nothing you can say will change that consensus. (Of course it would help if you had a serious critique to present on occasion, but you know what I mean.) Unless you have something to say that hasn't already been said on every single thread on this forum (and by you specifically), perhaps you should consider refocusing your efforts toward avenues where they would be more productive. I almost never post on this forum for exactly that reason: I recognize that there's virtually no point in it.

Why do you feel compelled to post the same three things on every single thread on this forum? Do you really think people forget your views that fast?

[scarletghoul]

While yes the UML is essentially a (petit)bourgeois party, there is doubtlessly left-wing working class elements in its membership, and the Maoists are quite right if they attempt to make the most of these. A split in the UML would be ideal hehe.
Anyway I was just wondering does anyone know what proportion of UML members are more leftist (or sympathetic to maoists) ? And how leftist is Khanal ?

[RED DAVE]

Red Dave: Yet another brilliant analysis on your part. :rolleyes:Thanx. It's nice to be appreciated. :thumbup1:


To think that you, of all people, would lament opportunism...considering that's pretty much your sole practice here.You wouldn't know opoportunism if it bit you on the ass. Why don't you go kiss Big Bob's ass (if you can afford a trip to France)?


Look, everyone knows my views on the situation in Nepal at this point. Everyone knows that I'm totally against the current revisionist direction of the UCPN(M) leadership.Okay.


But seriously Red Dave, if you're sincere in your recognition of that fact (the fact that the UCPN(M) leadership is revisionist), you wouldn't waste half as much time as you do on this particular forum. This forum belongs to the supporters of Prachanda and nothing you can say will change that consensus.I believe in education. I believe that comrades will learn as the situation develops.


(Of course it would help if you had a serious critique to present on occasion, but you know what I mean.)It would help if you knew what a serious critique is.


Unless you have something to say that hasn't already been said on every single thread on this forum (and by you specifically), perhaps you should consider refocusing your efforts toward avenues where they would be more productive. I almost never post on this forum for exactly that reason: I recognize that there's virtually no point in it.perhaps you should consider reducing your frequency even further. Ask Bob about that.


Why do you feel compelled to post the same three things on every single thread on this forum? Do you really think people forget your views that fast?I'm a teacher. I believe that new people come here all the time to post, teach and learn.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Did the Bolsheviks get into an alliance with the Mensheviks and the SRs?

Um... yes. Yes they did. You heard of the coalition the Bolsheviks had with the Left SRs? And if the Mensheviks has been willing to support the Bolshevik position of immediate peace negotiations, radical land reform and so on the Bolsheviks would have happily gone into an alliance with them.

You're making a virtue out of necessity.

[theblackmask]

Did the Bolsheviks get into an alliance with the Mensheviks and the SRs?

I'm really at a loss for words here. Does flat out ignoring history count as trolling?

[Crux]

Red Dave:
The UCPN-M aren't the Bolsheviks (I think they seem more akin to the Left SR's to be honest), criticizing this potential move, while it should be criticized, from that angle does you no good.

[RED DAVE]

Um... yes. Yes they did. You heard of the coalition the Bolsheviks had with the Left SRs? And if the Mensheviks has been willing to support the Bolshevik position of immediate peace negotiations, radical land reform and so on the Bolsheviks would have happily gone into an alliance with them.

You're making a virtue out of necessity.The Bolsheviks were only willing to enter a coalition with the Mensheviks and the Left SRs on a revolutionary basis. This is why Lenin denounced those, including Stalin, who were supporting the Provisional Government.

What the Nepali Maoists are attempting is an opportunistic coalition to become the head of a bourgeois government.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Of course Dave, of course. Nice save bro.

[RED DAVE]

Of course Dave, of course. Nice save bro.Basically, you are saying you have no answer to this. The Maoists, as has been pointed out over and over again, are engaged in opportunistic politics. This is a perfect example.

By the way, so far, the various "left" parties have, I believe, refused to block with the Maoists.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I'm saying your argument is stupid and bizarre. The Bolsheviks sought alliances, and the Bolsheviks attempted to form a socialist unity government, seeking a coalition with the left wing progressive forces. If these forces had accepted the basic demands of the Bolsheviks, a coalition govt would have been formed and history could have played out very differently. It was only because all the parties concerned turned the Bolsheviks down that the unity government didn't happen. Haven't you read Ten Days that shook the world? There are plenty of other texts that go over this as well.

What the UCPN (M) is doing with regards to the UML and the other smaller left parties is similar to what the Bolsheviks did with the SRs. It may become even more similar in the months ahead - the SRs split, and the Bolsheviks formed a coalition government with the Left SRs, despite the SRs being a petit-bourgeois party. In Nepal 2010, the UML is split between the 'leftists' led by Bam Dev Gautam to the 'far left' and Khanal to the 'centre left', and Oli and MKN on the 'right'. The left/right divide essentially boils down to how far the party should accomodate to the Maoists. There may well be a split in the days ahead, and if it was ok for the Bolsheviks to govern with the Left SRs, why would it not be ok for the UCPN (M) to ally with the Left UML?

[RED DAVE]

Just for starts:


Lenin's The April Theses (1917)


[Published in Pravda, No. 26, 7 April 1917]



I did not arrive in Petrograd until the night of April 3, and therefore at the meeting on April 4 I could, of course, deliver the report on the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat only on my own behalf, and with reservations as to insufficient preparation.



The only thing I could do to make things easier for myself -- and for honest opponents -- was to prepare the theses in writing. I read them out, and gave the text to Comrade Tsereteli. I read them twice very slowly; first at a meeting of Bolsheviks and then at a meeting of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.



I publish these personal theses of mine with only the briefest explanatory notes, which were developed in far greater detail in the report.



THESES

1. In our attitude to the war, which under the new government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary
defencism” is permissible.

The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not only in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

The most widespread campaign for this view must be organised in the army at the front.

Fraternisation.

2. The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution - which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie - to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants.

This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognised rights (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism.

This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special conditions of Party work among unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life.

3. No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government.

4. Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc of all the petit-bourgeois opportunist elements, from the Popular Socialists and the Socialist-Revolutionaries down to the Organising Committee (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.

The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, and as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.

As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers Deputies, so that people may overcome their mistakes by experience.

5. Not a parliamentary republic - to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers' Deputies would be a retrograde step - but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Agricultural Labourers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.

Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy. i.e. the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the whole people.

The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.

6. The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers' Deputies.

Confiscation of all landed estates.

Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers' and Peasants' Deputies. The organisation of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers' Deputies and for the public account.

7. The immediate amalgamation of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers' Deputies.

8. It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers Deputies.

9. Party tasks:

(a) Immediate convocation of a Party Congress;

(b) Alteration of the Party Program, mainly (1) on the question of imperialism and the imperialist war; (2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a “common state”. (3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum program.

(c) Change our name, we must call ourselves The Communist Party.

10. A new International.(emph added)

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

*sigh*

[RED DAVE]

*sigh*Indeed.

The Nepalese Maoists are trying to make an unprincipled block with nonrevolutionary, pseudo-leftist parties to get the prime ministership of a bourgeois government.

Sigh indeed.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

The only question that ever applies is, does it advance the revolutionary struggle? Does it strengthen the revolutionary forces and weaken the reactionaries?

Posting a century old quote from Lenin about his attitude towards the Provisional Govt does not answer that question. If you weren't so dogmatic you could understand this.

[Small Geezer]

Isn't there a pro-North Korean party in Nepal or something? Meaning one that takes it's line from Pyongyang.

[RED DAVE]

The only question that ever applies is, does it advance the revolutionary struggle? Does it strengthen the revolutionary forces and weaken the reactionaries?

Posting a century old quote from Lenin about his attitude towards the Provisional Govt does not answer that question. If you weren't so dogmatic you could understand this.Explain to us how if the Nepali Maoists achieve he prime ministership of a bourgeois government (one that preserves capitalist economic relations in the workplaces and in the countryside), this will "strengthen the revolutionary forces and weaken the reactionaries."

We are supposed to be Marxists, not liberals or social democrats. Our cause is the cause of the working class and the peasantry, of socialism not private capitalism or state capitalism.

The Maoists got the prime ministership almost a year and a half ago, and they resigned it almost immediately because they were unable to replace the head of the army. What has changed?

The strength of the working class was brought to bear, in May, with the general strike. It's purpose was to get the constitutional process going again. The strike was called off. What has changed?

Now, instead of depending on the strength of the working class and the peasantry, the Maoists are engaged in unprincipled negotiations with nonrevolutionary parties, under a nonrevolutionary program, to get the prime ministership. What has changed?

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

Isn't there a pro-North Korean party in Nepal or something? Meaning one that takes it's line from Pyongyang.
The Maoist party is pro-North Korean if that's what you mean. They sent a delegation there a few years ago and came back with a glowing report on the greatness of that country. I'm not sure there's any party that 'takes its line from Pyongyang'; that would be kinda silly on both their and Pyongyang's part.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The Maoist party is pro-North Korean if that's what you mean. They sent a delegation there a few years ago and came back with a glowing report on the greatness of that country. I'm not sure there's any party that 'takes its line from Pyongyang'; that would be kinda silly on both their and Pyongyang's part.

It's also best to conclude that not everything in the Maoist report from the DPRK was particularly true, but was said nonetheless to gain the DPRK as an ally, which is a smart move to take.