UCPN (M) discussing plans for revolt

[Saorsa]

It appears the entire party and all it's branches are now discussing whether to stop cooperating with the bourgeois parties and go for a people's revolt asap.

Maoist leader Baidya for waging people's revolt

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/images/stories/news_photo/mohan_baidhya.jpg

A senior Maoist leader is of the view that the party should stop cooperating with the "parliamentary parties" and make preparations to wage a fresh "people's revolt".


Mohan Baidya
Mohan Baidya "Kiran", who is the senior Vice-Chairman of the UCPN (Maoist) and is considered a party hawk as he leads a hard-line faction of the party, made the stark proposition in his latest political dossier presented at the ongoing Central Committee meeting of the party held on Saturday.

During the discussion held on his political dossier at the meeting, Baidya argued that the party line adopted after the crucial Chunabang meeting has been proven to be a mistake and that they should wage a fresh people's revolt.

The Chunbang meeting, which took place during the conflict period when Baidya was languishing in an Indian jail after being arrested there, had decided to cooperate with the parliamentary parties to establish a republican set up in the country.

Presenting a contesting dossier, party Vice-Chairman and ideologue Dr Baburam Bhattarai said that the party should continue to move ahead on the basis of the decisions taken by the Chunbang meeting.

Speaking at the meeting, party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal said that it is impossible for the party to chart its future course of actions by merging the contesting dossier presented by the Baidya and Bhattarai and that the final decision on the matter would be taken after sending the dossiers to the state and district committees for discussion. nepalnews.com

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/1-top-story/9095-maoist-leader-baidya-for-waging-peoples-revolt.html

[Saorsa]

Maoists decide to stir against 'growing foreign interference'
Sunday, 12 September 2010 17:45

Unified CPN (Maoist) on Sunday decided to wage fresh stir against what it called "growing foreign interference" in Nepal's internal affairs.

A meeting of the party's powerful Central Committee decided to organise various protest programmes from September 17 onwards for a period of one month against the interference, citing that it has seriously undermined the sovereignty and national integrity of the country.

As per the month-long protest programmes, the Maoists will organise mass assemblies, hold interaction programmes and mobilise people against the growing foreign interference in Nepal's affairs from September 17 to October 18.

In perhaps the first official reaction of the party to the audio tape scandal, the Maoists claimed that the release of the audio tape (in which party's foreign cell department head Krishna Bahadur Mahara is shown asking for funding from an alleged Chinese official to buy MPs to tilt the prime ministerial election in the party's favour) has violated Mahara's fundamental rights, and directly accused the Indian and US embassies of working in cahoots with the Nepal Army to create the audio tape scandal.

The meeting also decided to take the three separate documents to the state committees and district committees for further discussion as party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal failed to make a single document accommodating the issues raised by party vice-chairmen Mohan Baidya and Dr Baburam Bhattarai.

On Saturday, while answering questions of the central committee members on their respective political dossiers, Bhattarai and Baidya argued that party chairman Dahal should improve his working style and implement decisions taken by the party.

Particularly, Baidya was seen more hawkish when he said that the party should seriously review the decision taken at the Chunwang meet, which had decided to adopt a multiparty system, and should go for a "people's revolt" to ensure a "janabadi constitution". nepalnews.com

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/1-top-story/9106-maoists-decide-to-stir-against-growing-foreign-interference.html

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

FINALLY! This is the single most welcome development from Nepal I've read since getting on board with communist theory and politics! It gives me some hope that maybe the UCPN(M) can yet get back on the revolutionary road and re-join the authentic world communist movement. I still dislike Prachanda himself very much at this point and believe he should be unseated at the very least, if not expelled from the party. But I can't stress enough the historic importance of this development! A return to genuine revolutionary warfare is exactly what's called for and I'm immensely relieved to hear that there are still serious Maoist revolutionaries in high positions in the UCPN(M)!

RED SALUTE, KIRAN AND HIS STRUGGLE TO BRING REVOLUTIONARY, COMMUNIST POLITICS BACK INTO COMMAND!

[Saorsa]

You think Prachanda should be expelled? Why? :confused:

[hardlinecommunist]

You think Prachanda should be expelled? Why? :confused: Probably because he sold out the Nepalese Revolution

[The Vegan Marxist]

Probably because he sold out the Nepalese Revolution

We don't know that just yet. To expel him now & to later find out he wasn't selling them out, rather other members were, would be a devastating blow against the Maoists.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Exactly hardlinecommunist.

[Saorsa]

Um, how exactly did he sell out the Nepali revolution? The revolution is still ongoing, it's in a stronger position than ever and the decisions made at the Chunwang meeting were made democratically by a majority of party leaders, not by Prachanda alone.

If you think the party has made it this far with revisionism in command you really are deluded. Don't live vicariously from media report to media report - we don't know how much of this is true, we don't know the content of the internal debates and we don't know anything much about the ground reality in Nepal.

Yet of course, that won't stop some people from acting like they are UCPN (M) cadre who've gone through war and torture and as a result have the right to call for party leaders to be expelled. After all, it would be supremely arrogant for some random Westerner to call for Prachanda to be expelled based on their very limited understanding of the situation.

No investigation, no right to speak. Neither of you have investigated things in Nepal that well - your arrogance flows from your ignorance.

[hardlinecommunist]

Um, how exactly did he sell out the Nepali revolution? The revolution is still ongoing, it's in a stronger position than ever and the decisions made at the Chunwang meeting were made democratically by a majority of party leaders, not by Prachanda alone.

If you think the party has made it this far with revisionism in command you really are deluded. Don't live vicariously from media report to media report - we don't know how much of this is true, we don't know the content of the internal debates and we don't know anything much about the ground reality in Nepal.

Yet of course, that won't stop some people from acting like they are UCPN (M) cadre who've gone through war and torture and as a result have the right to call for party leaders to be expelled. After all, it would be supremely arrogant for some random Westerner to call for Prachanda to be expelled based on their very limited understanding of the situation.

No investigation, no right to speak. Neither of you have investigated things in Nepal that well - your arrogance flows from your ignorance.
So what if the majority of Party Leaders at the chunwang meeting went along with Prachanda that only shows that Revisionism is in complete command of the top leadership of the UCPN [M[ it is high time for all of the Revolutionary Communists that are still within the UCPN]M] to breakway from the revisionism of the Pro Prachanda leadership and renew the Nepalese New Democratic Revolution.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So what if the majority of Party Leaders at the chunwang meeting went along with Prachanda that only shows that Revisionism is in complete command of the top leadership of the UCPN [M[ it is high time for all of the Revolutionary Communists that are still within the UCPN]M] to breakway from the revisionism of the Pro Prachanda leadership and renew the Nepalese New Democratic Revolution.

The question here is can you clearly point out the revisionism within Prachanda's leadership?

[Saorsa]

What exactly makes his leadership and the decisions of the Chunwang meeting revisionist?

[hardlinecommunist]

What exactly makes his leadership and the decisions of the Chunwang meeting revisionist? Why not instead you tell me and others what made his decisions at the Chunwang meeting Revolutionary.

[mosfeld]

Why not instead you tell me and others what made his decisions at the Chunwang meeting Revolutionary. Nice save there. How about not dodging the question?

[Saorsa]

You made the first statement. You said that he was a revisionist. Therefore, the burden of proof is on yo. To make a statement and then say "i don't need evidence, you need to provide evidence that proves me wrong"... who does that remind me of?

The name escapes me at the moment but I believe it starts with 'Christian'.

I've written a small book about why I believe the UCPN (M) is still on a revolutionary path (although not one with a guarantee of success, of course). I've made my arguments in public, for years. Why don't you summon up the courage to do the same?

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

[hardlinecommunist]

Nice save there. How about not dodging the question? I am not dodging the question i would like for someone to show me some doucuments or statements or better yet some actions that will show that Prachanda and the UCPN[Maoist] is still on the Revolutionary Road to a New Democratic and then Socialist Nepal.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I am not dodging the question i would like for someone to show me some doucuments or statements or better yet some actions that will show that Prachanda and the UCPN[Maoist] is still on the Revolutionary Road to a New Democratic and then Socialist Nepal.
Like Comrade A already stated, if you make a positive statement you have to provide proof, not the other person making the negative statement. You has some explaining to do...

[Saorsa]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

[RED DAVE]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/Whatever my criticisms of this pamphlet, and they are many, no one can fruitfully participate in a discussion of Nepal and the program and strategy of the Nepali Maoists who hasn't read it.

RED DAVE

[hardlinecommunist]

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/17/new-pamphlet-from-new-zealand-revolution-in-nepal/ i have already read sometime back your artice on Nepal that you have posted in the link above and this article is a prime example of the Revivisionism going on in Nepal. i thought that you may have had something new to show that Prachanda and his wing of the UCPN[M] were not revisionist but i guess not i was giving you the benefit of doubt to see if you had any new facts or proof to show that Prachanda was not a revisionist. but you have none to show Prachanda is one of the wrost revisionists in the history of the Internatinal Communist Movement.

[hardlinecommunist]

Whatever my criticisms of this pamphlet, and they are many, no one can fruitfully participate in a discussion of Nepal and the program and strategy of the Nepali Maoists who hasn't read it.

RED DAVE I have read this article a while back and it clearly lays out the Revisionism going on in Nepal.

[scarletghoul]

You keep saying he is revisionist but have not explained how.

[hardlinecommunist]

You keep saying he is revisionist but have not explained how.
Prachanda is a Revisionist his actions for the past 6 years speaks for its self.

[Nachie]

Guy you don't have to write an essay about it, just put down like three quick bullet points saying why Prachanda is "revisionist". You keep throwing around the buzzword like that and pretty soon it's going to mean even less than it already does. You just look more and more like you have no specific idea what you're talking about.

[hardlinecommunist]

Guy you don't have to write an essay about it, just put down like three quick bullet points saying why Prachanda is "revisionist". You keep throwing around the buzzword like that and pretty soon it's going to mean even less than it already does. You just look more and more like you have no specific idea what you're talking about. Nachie if you do not mind me asking what are your views on Prachanda and Nepal.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Nachie if you do not mind me asking what are your views on Prachanda and Nepal.

Fucking answer the question. You've been beating the bush throughout this entire thread. Even anarchists like Nachie are getting tired of hearing you mumble the word "revisionist" without giving any reasons why.

[Nachie]

I've been reading about the civil war in Nepal for over ten years now, long before the palace massacre brought the situation to everyone's attention, and back when I was 15 or so used to have a website dedicated to it, so interested was I in where it was going. I think anyone who hangs up pictures of Lenin, let alone Stalin and Mao, is mentally deficient and should not be considered a communist. As far as I can tell Prachanda had/has a ridiculous personality cult around him and any progress in dismantling that is for the best. It is refreshing to hear about other people in the Maoist party and what they are thinking.

I believe that extra-parliamentary revolt is the only way forward in Nepal and would absolutely welcome that development but I also completely reject the idea of a need for "new democracy" or completing the bourgeois revolution and think that power should be immediately taken by organized groups of workers and the PLA. I do not pretend to know very much about the situation or that my analysis is totally awesome, because a few years ago I stopped reading so much about it.

Anyway enough about me, howabout you actually answer the original question?

[Saorsa]

http://ucpnm.org/english/doc12.php

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Comrade A.

Sorry about not getting back on this sooner. This last week most of my online activity has centered around working on my new message board. But speaking of which, we were discussing this matter recently there as well and I think I can clarify some of my thinking on the subject by quoting a couple posts from that discussion:


Slipoutside wrote:
I see the importance of what the Nepalese Maoist did when they put down their guns. It was a great and intelligent PR move. Just as the Maoist started making headlines they understood that if they didn't put down their guns that they would have been labeled terrorist and no one would have recognized them as the legit government in Nepal. now with that said I think the big question for them is when do we realize that the other parties are not going to allow us to integrate our soldiers into the national army and when do we pick back up our arms to finish the people's war.


The answer is quite simple. The time to carry out and finish the peoples war in Nepal is now. I feel it has been proven that the democratic path has been closed to the Maoist and since they are the popular party that means they are the party of the people. I believe this means that the people will support and help carry forward the proletarian revolution in their country. I think now is perfect because they Maoist can say to the world "look we tried the peace and democratic way, but the others are not respecting peace and democracy so we have to pick up the war again to reinstate a real democracy by and for the people of Nepal"


I replied:
While we can agree that it's time for the people's war to resume, I very strongly disagree with the argument that it was ever correct for them to put down their weapons in exchange for a place in the bourgeois republic. From there, the orientation became that of trying to dismantle the PLA as a main part of completing a "peace process" with the establishment whereby a "national unity government" (note: not an authentic people's state) would be established. Logically, such a position is analogous to that of the Mensheviks in Russia, who opposed revolutionary struggle and the revolutionary seizure of power by the masses after the monarch there was overthrown and instead advocated for participation in the new Russian republic. Lenin's position, as clarified in his famous April Theses, was strongly opposed to that. What's going on now in the internal politics of the UCPN(M) can hence be described as a potential shift away from "Menshevik (reformist) politics" to "Bolshevik (communist) politics" and nothing less. Indeed, the revolutionaries in the party grouped around Kiran are basing themselves on the argument that the 2006 accords were always wrong. This is a correct position. We should support the revolutionary aspect of the party rather than trying to forge out an eclectic view toward embracing whatever line might prevail at any given point.

That said, what I think we need to study here, in that connection, is the particular way in which the UCPN(M) is organized and the methodology of the revolutionary tendencies in their struggle against the prevailing revisionist line. Clearly there is something we can learn there! In all honesty, I'm not in the know as to whether the UCPN(M) is structured in a particularly unique way, but if it were then I think this develop may truly hold historic lessons for us in terms of correct party structure, given that obviously whatever the UCPN(M) is doing in that regard has enabled the revolutionary elements to make a comeback even years after the adoption of a revisionist line! And for the same reason we also need to, again, study the methodology the revolutionary forces in the party have employed to get to their present once-again powerful position.

But to once again come back to the issue of the 2006 accords, it's not that a deal with the reactionary parties that had been displaced by the king wasn't necessarily in order. Indeed, a tactical unity with them to defeat the king was probably the right course. Clearly the imposition of the absolute monarchy posed new problems for the progression of the people's war; problems that probably required a tactical unity with the displaced reactionary parties to resolve and thereby open the path to further revolutionary progress. The key though was the terms of the deal reached, wherein the Maoists agreed to abandon the people's war they were leading. Imagine, by contrast, if the terms had been different. Imagine if, for example, they had simply reached a deal to defeat the king and thereafter go their separate ways: the Maoists their way and the reactionary parties their way. That would have been a good agreement! Moreover, the Maoists didn't need to win a bourgeois election to prove they had broad support. That much was proven by the fact that the revolution they were leading had liberated 70 to 80% of the country.

Original context. (http://politicsincommand.pro-forums.com/ftopic6.php)

And yes, as you know, I agree that the counterrevolution in Nepal was never successfully consolidated, which is another significant aspect of this development that's worth taking note of, I think. Hope that clears a few things up.

But as a final note, it isn't being an "arrogant...Westerner" to recognize the difference between a revolutionary line and a counterrevolutionary one and to, as Mao put it, "lean to one side" of such disputes, yes even as an outsider to the party. There are important historic lessons to potentially be drawn from this experience of our comrades and our orientation should be that of actually learning them rather than that of blindly supporting whatever decision might be made at any given time. I say all this not only as a criticism, but also as a self-criticism of my previous position, which was pretty dismissive of the possibility of the UCPN(M) getting back on the revolutionary road at this point. We should all recognize it when we were just flat wrong and learn from our mistakes.

[hardlinecommunist]

Comrade A.

Sorry about not getting back on this sooner. This last week most of my online activity has centered around working on my new message board. But speaking of which, we were discussing this matter recently there as well and I think I can clarify some of my thinking on the subject by quoting a couple posts from that discussion:



Original context. (http://politicsincommand.pro-forums.com/ftopic6.php)

And yes, as you know, I agree that the counterrevolution in Nepal was never successfully consolidated, which is another significant aspect of this development that's worth taking note of, I think. Hope that clears a few things up.

But as a final note, it isn't being an "arrogant...Westerner" to recognize the difference between a revolutionary line and a counterrevolutionary one and to, as Mao put it, "lean to one side" of such disputes, yes even as an outsider to the party. There are important historic lessons to potentially be drawn from this experience of our comrades and our orientation should be that of actually learning them rather than that of blindly supporting whatever decision might be made at any given time. I say all this not only as a criticism, but also as a self-criticism of my previous position, which was pretty dismissive of the possibility of the UCPN(M) getting back on the revolutionary road at this point. We should all recognize it when we were just flat wrong and learn from our mistakes. I for one think that it is a good thing that the counterrevoution under Prachanda was never consolidated in Nepal because if it was we would have a counterrevoutiony party with State Power in Nepal. the reactionary compodoir class in Nepal did not trust Prachanda afer he sold out the Peoples War. because they were concerned and fearful of the Revolutionry Leftwing of the UCPN[M[ and so they kick Prachanda out of semi state power in Nepal after he had outlive his usefullness to World Imperalism. but now there is plenty of space for Comrade Mohan Baidya Kiran to renew the Peoples War and that is the good part. there is still hope that the Revolution in Nepal can move forward under Comrade Kiran leadership.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Yeah, I'm definitely glad of that too. The irony of the matter is that it actually would have been much worse if the UCPN(M) had managed to achieve its official objectives because that would have resulted in the liquidation of the PLA as an independent people's army. And, as Mao famously put it, "Without a people's army, the people have nothing". For the sake of the revolution in Nepal, the belligerence of the ruling forces has thereby ironically proven a good thing on balance. It's managed to keep the PLA intact long enough for this internal dispute to arise broadly. That probably wasn't their intention. ;) Fortunately though, all political forces make mistakes. :lol:

Yeah though, there is a lesson even in this: the ruling comprador elements simply don't trust the Maoists with guns in light of their late people's war. There is no possibility of rapprochement with the new republic unless it includes the complete capitulation of the Maoists on everything: the unconditional dismantling of the PLA, namely. This increasing realization has increasingly brought to our comrades' attention the reality of the matter that they have 2 options: they can either finish the people's war or they can completely surrender. There is no sustainable in-between. People's war, once initiated, must be carried through to conclusion. This much we should understand as a matter of principle.

[Saorsa]

What exactly do you think Mao was doing when he told his fighters to take the red stars off their caps and merge with the GMD forces, accepting GMD officers?

Was he being a revisionist?


Yeah, I'm definitely glad of that too. The irony of the matter is that it actually would have been much worse if the UCPN(M) had managed to achieve its official objectives because that would have resulted in the liquidation of the PLA as an independent people's army. And, as Mao famously put it, "Without a people's army, the people have nothing". For the sake of the revolution in Nepal, the belligerence of the ruling forces has thereby ironically proven a good thing on balance. It's managed to keep the PLA intact long enough for this internal dispute to arise broadly. That probably wasn't their intention. Fortunately though, all political forces make mistakes.

I love the fact you think you're smarter than the UCPN (M) leaders. What do they know about revolution anyway? I'm surprised they don't ring you every week for advice.

[hardlinecommunist]

What exactly do you think Mao was doing when he told his fighters to take the red stars off their caps and merge with the GMD forces, accepting GMD officers?

Was he being a revisionist?



I love the fact you think you're smarter than the UCPN (M) leaders. What do they know about revolution anyway? I'm surprised they don't ring you every week for advice. No Chairman Mao Zedong was not a revisionist because the situation in 1940s China is not the same as present day Nepal. Chairman Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party called for a New Democratic Coalition Government that would be made up of the Chinese popular classes and Chairman Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party of that time made as a Condition that there would be no complete military merger unitl such a Coalition Goverment was put in Place by the Kumintang. as for ringing me up on the phone i would not want the Prachanda wing of the UCPN[M[ to call me on the Phone because i do not like talking to revisionists who sell out the Working Class.

[RED DAVE]

Chairman Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party called for a New Democratic Coalition Government that would be made up of the Chinese popular classes ... ."This coalition of the "popular classes" included elements of the Chinese bourgeoisie. This is the essence of revisionism: bringing the working class into a coalition with the bourgeoisie.

While this was possible during the American Civil War, where the bourgeoisie was completing its own revolution, in the age of imperialism, this is no longer a tactic that can be employed by the working class without disaster. In every event where it has been attempted, it has led to the triumph of capitalism.

Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that the same thing will happen in Nepal when the Maoists come to power.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Comrade A. wrote:
What exactly do you think Mao was doing when he told his fighters to take the red stars off their caps and merge with the GMD forces, accepting GMD officers?

Was he being a revisionist?

In reply, allow me to highlight the following...


"How was it possible for a weak country to defeat a strong country? The basic reason was that the war of resistance against Japan was a genuine people's war led by the Communist Party of China." ...AND... "History also shows that, within the [national] united front, the communist party must maintain its independence and insist on its leading role." ...AND... "The war of resistance against Japan was in essence a peasant revolutionary war. Our base areas were, in fact, a state in miniature. The revolutionary base areas later became the springboards for the people's war of liberation." ...AND... "The special feature of the Chinese revolution was armed revolution. The main form of struggle was war and the main form of organization was the army, which was under the absolute leadership of the Chinese Communist Party."

--Lin Biao, top commander in the Chinese People's Liberation Army from the period in question. [From "Long Live the Victory of People's War!", written as a commemoration of the 20th anniversary of Japan's defeat.]

The purpose of the tactical national united front against the Japanese invaders/occupiers was to defeat a foreign aggressor through revolutionary means. Neither the condition (outright foreign aggression) nor the means of resistance thereto (revolutionary fighting) are present in Nepal and that's the point. Taking a look at Lin Biao's description highlighted above, we see that the Chinese Communists' struggle for power was divided into two distinct stages (a "war of resistance" and a "war of liberation"), but also that both of these stages are understood as revolutionary in nature and as taking place within the framework of people's war. The condition of Nepal and the Prachanda line that's currently prevailing in the UCPN(M) stands in stark and basic contrast to everything Lin Biao highlighted about the people's war of resistance against Japan:

-there is no outright foreign invasion of Nepal to make such an occupying force the principle enemy in the first place,

-the party's politics are only partially independent at present (...they, in part, share the same government as the enemy...),

-the party's orientation is toward the objective of dissolving the PLA as an independent people's army,

-and the whole current political dynamic the party is voluntarily engaging in is completely outside the framework of people's war,

Where in any of this do you see a parallel with the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese invasion and occupation?


Comrade A. wrote:
I love the fact you think you're smarter than the UCPN (M) leaders. What do they know about revolution anyway? I'm surprised they don't ring you every week for advice.

I'm tired of your employment of this cheap tactic of claiming I'm just some arrogant, know-nothing, chair-bound Westerner because I know the difference between revolutionary and revisionist politics and side with the advocates of the former rather than with those of the latter. In the future, this "debate" methodology you consistently employ will be ignored.

[RED DAVE]

-the [UCP(M]s politics are only partially independent at present (...they, in part, share the same government as the enemy...),

-the party's orientation is toward the objective of dissolving the PLA as an independent people's army,

-and the whole current political dynamic the party is voluntarily engaging in is completely outside the framework of people's war.To this I must add:

- except in rhetoric, the party does not put forth the working class as the leading class of the revolution.

This is a mistake the Neaplese Maoists shared with the Chinese Communists. This was shown clearly when the general strike last May was treated, basically, as a mass rally to further the constitution-making process as opposed to a preparation for the seizure of power. In this they were repeating the actions of the Chinese who did not urge the Chinese working class to seize power after the defeat of the Japanese, and complete the proletarian revolution, but told to the workers to go back to work and wait for liberation at the hands of the peoples army.

Unless there is a dynamic between the revolution in the countryside and the revolution in the cities, based on actual relationships and institutions (peoples army – workers councils), the course of the revolution is likely to follow China, the USSR, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, etc.: state capitalism leading to private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Red Dave:

The Chinese Communists, unlike yourself, understood that in an oppressed, feudal country, the base of the society is not the urban bourgeoisie, but the peasantry. Only when you turn to the base can you succeed in your revolutionary fighting. Hence why the people's war in China was formulated as a proletarian revolution in which the peasantry would be the main fighting force. It is a form of identity politics to assume that the motive force of revolution and the main fighting force must be synonymous. The Chinese peasants were being led to pave the way through revolutionary fighting for the establishment of a proletarian state that both theoretically would and actually did achieve socialism, the ultimate objective of which was of course the achievement of communism.

[Queercommie Girl]

While this was possible during the American Civil War, where the bourgeoisie was completing its own revolution, in the age of imperialism, this is no longer a tactic that can be employed by the working class without disaster.

Wait, don't bourgeois revolutions occur at different times in different countries? While the US had its bourgeois revolution in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, China's bourgeois revolution falls during the period from early to mid 20th century. So at a time when the Western bourgeois is on the whole no longer revolutionary, sections of the Chinese bourgeois still are.

In fact, Lenin had this to say about the leader of the 1911/1912 democratic revolution in China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen:

The Western bourgeois is already degenerate, and in front of it stands its own gravediggers - the proletariat. But in Asia, there are still representatives [like Dr. Sun] of sincere, fighting and completely democratic bourgeois, and it is not a shame to say that they are the comrades of the great activists and revolutionaries of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century.

-- Lenin, Democracy and Populism in China (translated from a Chinese edition)

Besides, the collaboration between the CCP and the Chinese "national bourgeois" is generally over-rated. The objective size of these bourgeois elements were all quite small, and early 1950s China was nothing like Venezuela today. The vast majority of the Chinese economy was completely nationalised by the CCP.

[RED DAVE]

Red Dave:

The Chinese Communists, unlike yourself, understood that in an oppressed, feudal country, the base of the society is not the urban bourgeoisie, but the peasantry. Only when you turn to the base can you succeed in your revolutionary fighting. Hence why the people's war in China was formulated as a proletarian revolution in which the peasantry would be the main fighting force. It is a form of identity politics to assume that the motive force of revolution and the main fighting force must be synonymous. The Chinese peasants were being led to pave the way through revolutionary fighting for the establishment of a proletarian state that both theoretically would and actually did achieve socialism, the ultimate objective of which was of course the achievement of communism.You should teach a course in distortion!

My objection, based on the class principles of Marxism, is not with an alliance with the peasantry, but with the Chinese Communist alliance with the bourgeoisie. And it was this alliance that led to state capitalism and private capitalism in China.

That being said, the CCP did not forge links with the urban working class and did not establish socialism in China. Had they established socialism, when the move came to re-establish capitalism, there would have been massive uprisings. Instead, state capitalism was replaced by private capitalism and the workers were fucked as usual.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

You should teach a course in distortion!

My objection, based on the class principles of Marxism, is not with an alliance with the peasantry, but with the Chinese Communist alliance with the bourgeoisie. And it was this alliance that led to state capitalism and private capitalism in China.

That being said, the CCP did not forge links with the urban working class and did not establish socialism in China. Had they established socialism, when the move came to re-establish capitalism, there would have been massive uprisings. Instead, state capitalism was replaced by private capitalism and the workers were fucked as usual.

RED DAVE

But why do you think workers can ally with capitalists when the latter were in their "revolutionary phase"? If this is true, don't you realise that in different countries, the bourgeois is "revolutionary" at different times?

[RED DAVE]

My objection, based on the class principles of Marxism, is not with an alliance with the peasantry, but with the Chinese Communist alliance with the bourgeoisie. And it was this alliance that led to state capitalism and private capitalism in China. That being said, the CCP did not forge links with the urban working class and did not establish socialism in China. Had they established socialism, when the move came to re-establish capitalism, there would have been massive uprisings. Instead, state capitalism was replaced by private capitalism and the workers were fucked as usual.
But why do you think workers can ally with capitalists when the latter were in their "revolutionary phase"? If this is true, don't you realise that in different countries, the bourgeois is "revolutionary" at different times?Because, as I stated above, during the era of imperialism, it is no longer possible for national bourgeoisies to play a progressive role in their own countries. It's interesting, Iseul, that you mention Lenin's attitude towards Sun Yat-Sen. Well, the political heir of Sun-Yat-Sen was Chiang Kai-Shek, he of the Shanghai massacre. Likewise, the Communists tried to have an alliance with Kemal Attaturk, the leader of the Turkish bourgeois revolution, in spite of the fact that he murdered Communists. (They also messed around with bourgeois elements in the Weimar Republic.)

The period when a national bourgeoisie can play a progressive role vis-a-vis the working class is long over. For any kind of leftist to advocate a political block with its own bourgeoisie is to engage in betrayal of the working class and usher in bourgeois rule. Aren't the lessons of China and Vietnam enough?

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Because, as I stated above, during the era of imperialism, it is no longer possible for national bourgeoisies to play a progressive role in their own countries. It's interesting, Iseul, that you mention Lenin's attitude towards Sun Yat-Sen. Well, the political heir of Sun-Yat-Sen was Chiang Kai-Shek,

Fuck no. Chiang Kai-Sheik is to Sun Yat-Sen what Stalin is to Lenin.

Learn some Chinese history before you speak, please.

True, Sun was only a petit-bourgeois democratic revolutionary, not a proletarian revolutionary, but he was a left reformist economically, and he was genuine and sincere. He had an explicit policy of "uniting with the CCP, uniting with the Soviet Union, and uniting with the workers and the peasantry". Also he had economic policies that call for workers' welfare and giving land to all peasants. Sun died in 1924 and he lost all real political power long before that. Sun was not in any way responsible for what happened in 1925-27. Chiang Kai-Sheik on the other hand represented the hypocritical, militaristic right-wing of the KMT. The two men couldn't be more different.

The argument regarding imperialist era has some points however, in that capitalists of a particular nation are never cut off from the rest of the world. So subjectively and intrinsically there were many capitalists in early 20th century China who were potentially revolutionary, but they became degenerate because Chinese capitalism was immersed in the degenerate overall environment of global imperialist capitalism. What this also means is that generally speaking in developing countries like China, degenerate right-wing capitalists, like Chiang, are more likely to be sell-outs to their own country and people and running dogs of Western imperialism, whereas progressive left-wing capitalists, like Sun, are more patriotic and anti-imperialist in the national liberation sense.

[RED DAVE]

Because, as I stated above, during the era of imperialism, it is no longer possible for national bourgeoisies to play a progressive role in their own countries. It's interesting, Iseul, that you mention Lenin's attitude towards Sun Yat-Sen. Well, the political heir of Sun-Yat-Sen was Chiang Kai-Shek,
Fuck no. Chiang Kai-Sheik is to Sun Yat-Sen what Stalin is to Lenin.

Learn some Chinese history before you speak, please.Don't know much about Chinese history:D, but I am aware that Sun and Chiang represented two separate factions of the Chinese bourgeoisie. (They were also brothers-in-law.:D) My point was that each was, successively, the leader of that class and that, therefore, the native bourgeoisies, as a class, were not potential allies of the working class.


True, Sun was only a petit-bourgeois democratic revolutionary, not a proletarian revolutionary, but he was a left reformist economically, and he was genuine and sincere. He had an explicit policy of "uniting with the CCP, uniting with the Soviet Union, and uniting with the workers and the peasantry". Also he had economic policies that call for workers' welfare and giving land to all peasants. Sun died in 1924 and he lost all real political power long before that. Sun was not in any way responsible for what happened in 1925-27. Chiang Kai-Sheik on the other hand represented the hypocritical, militaristic right-wing of the KMT. The two men couldn't be more different.Given the fact that it was Chiang and his tendency who ended up leading the Chinese bourgeoisie and not Sun and his faction, you have made my point.


The argument regarding imperialist era has some points however, in that capitalists of a particular nation are never cut off from the rest of the world. So subjectively and intrinsically there were many capitalists in early 20th century China who were potentially revolutionary, but they became degenerate because Chinese capitalism was immersed in the degenerate overall environment of global imperialist capitalism. What this also means is that generally speaking in developing countries like China, degenerate right-wing capitalists, like Chiang, are more likely to be sell-outs to their own country and people and running dogs of Western imperialism, whereas progressive left-wing capitalists, like Sun, are more patriotic and anti-imperialist in the national liberation sense.I would go much further than that: it is impossible, in this age of imperialism, for any faction of the native capitalist classes to play a progressive role, except with regard to direct struggles against imperialism. Even there, given globalization, there is less and less wiggle room. All we have to do is compare Gandhi or Nehru, on the one hand, and Manmohan Singh (current prime minister of India), on the other, to see the change that has occurred.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't know much about Chinese history:D, but I am aware that Sun and Chiang represented two separate factions of the Chinese bourgeoisie. (They were also brothers-in-law.:D) My point was that each was, successively, the leader of that class and that, therefore, the native bourgeoisies, as a class, were not potential allies of the working class.


That's true but their wives (who were sisters) were also very different. Sun's wife was a much more progressive woman than Chiang's wife. Just because they were sisters doesn't mean they were politically alike.



Given the fact that it was Chiang and his tendency who ended up leading the Chinese bourgeoisie and not Sun and his faction, you have made my point.
Dr. Sun could not establish a truly democratic capitalist republic in China because Western imperialism would never allow it. Soon after Sun proclaimed the Republic of China in January 1912, he was forced to resign and hand over the presidency to the powerful Beijing-based feudal warlord Yuan Shikai (who later proclaimed himself Emperor of China in 1916), because he simply didn't have sufficient political power. All of the Western capitalist states supported the warlord Yuan Shikai rather than the progressive Dr. Sun Yat-sen, except the Soviet Union after 1917 which gave their support to Sun. This was one reason why Sun politically shifted more to the left. But by the late 1910s Sun already lost all real political power. The real political power in China was in the hands of the various regional warlords and the KMT right-wing.

Chinese progressive, democratic and revolutionary capitalism was destroyed in its cradle by Western imperialism, because the West prefers to deal with a semi-colonial China that is much easier to exploit rather than a prosperous and genuinely democratic republican state. When the European and American democratic capitalist revolutionaries first emerged, they didn't have foreign imperialists to deal with like Sun did.

[RED DAVE]

Frankly, Iseul, I don't think we have any differences at this point. Neither of us thinks, for good historical reasons, that native (or national) bourgeoisies can be allies of the working class.

Where this is going to get rough is in discussions of places like Nepal, where the Maoists are, basically, part of a government along with various completely bourgeois parties, even going so far, at one point, as to assume the prime ministership. This is justified either as part of a sophisticated strategy of divide and conquer or as preliminary steps to the establishment of a "new democracy."

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Where this is going to get rough is in discussions of places like Nepal, where the Maoists are, basically, part of a government along with various completely bourgeois parties, even going so far, at one point, as to assume the prime ministership. This is justified either as part of a sophisticated strategy of divide and conquer or as preliminary steps to the establishment of a "new democracy."


Many Maoists do not uncritically support what the Nepalese Maoists are doing now.

[RED DAVE]

Where this is going to get rough is in discussions of places like Nepal, where the Maoists are, basically, part of a government along with various completely bourgeois parties, even going so far, at one point, as to assume the prime ministership. This is justified either as part of a sophisticated strategy of divide and conquer or as preliminary steps to the establishment of a "new democracy."
Many Maoists do not uncritically support what the Nepalese Maoists are doing now.Could you go into some detail on this?

Is it a matter that they just condemn, correctly, all the political maneuvering and just want to get back to "peoples war"? Or are they also aware of shortcomings (to say the least) between the Maoists and the working class?

I have yet to see a Maoist group that really placed the working class as the leading class of the revolution, except in rhetoric. They all end up, one way or another, relating primarily to other classes.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

Prachandra is clearly revisionist because he does not do what armchair Western communists think he should be doing.

[RED DAVE]

Prachandra is clearly revisionist because he does not do what armchair Western communists think he should be doing.Comrade, you got a political point to make? Then fucking make it instead of engaging in political cursing.

There is a case to be made against Prachandra. You want to defend him? Fine, defend him. Make your case based on the facts as opposed to your personal prejudices against individuals.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

I made the political point. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid, anymore than the fact you (or RDR, etc) don't like Prachandra makes him a revisionist.

Frankly, if either of you two had been in charge of the revolution, we'd be raising a pint to yet another glorious lost cause.

[RED DAVE]

I made the political point. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid, anymore than the fact you (or RDR, etc) don't like Prachandra makes him a revisionist.

Frankly, if either of you two had been in charge of the revolution, we'd be raising a pint to yet another glorious lost cause.Whatever. We'll see, as time goes by, who loses causes.

Question: If the Maoists strategy in Nepal leads to state capitalism and private capitalism, as in Vietnam, what will your attitude be towards Prachanra, etc.?

RED DAVE

[thälmann]

the maoists in nepal are revisionists. thats something not only western leftists say. the indian maoists tell us the same...and they have good arguments.

[RED DAVE]

the maoists in nepal are revisionists. thats something not only western leftists say. the indian maoists tell us the same...and they have good arguments.Sources please. And by "indian maoists" do you mean the Naxalites?

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/index.htm#Nepal

[RED DAVE]

http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/index.htm#NepalWhen you use this link, use your search engine for "Nepal." The document entitled "Open Letter to Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) from the Communist Party of India (Maoist)" seems to be the crucial one.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

Whatever. We'll see, as time goes by, who loses causes.

Question: If the Maoists strategy in Nepal leads to state capitalism and private capitalism, as in Vietnam, what will your attitude be towards Prachanra, etc.?

RED DAVE

I don't believe in state capitalism as Cliffites define it. It's a BS theory.

If the revolutionary process in Nepal only leads to capitalism that would still be progressive compared to feudalism.

[gorillafuck]

I don't believe in state capitalism as Cliffites define it. It's a BS theory.

If the revolutionary process in Nepal only leads to capitalism that would still be progressive compared to feudalism.
Agreed on the first point, disagreed on the second. Fight for socialism, not capitalism that is progressive over "feudalism" (I am skeptical of calling Nepal "feudalism").

[The Vegan Marxist]

Agreed on the first point, disagreed on the second. Fight for socialism, not capitalism that is progressive over "feudalism" (I am skeptical of calling Nepal "feudalism").

Well of course we want Socialism over Capitalism. Who doesn't? Fact of the matter though is that at the moment, there's a need for a step-by-step process to take place, which this consensus government is a necessity for such. To go from feudalism to Capitalism is not a step to embrace Capitalism, but is a step-by-step process to embrace Socialism. It'll always remain a gradual process, & they're slowly destroying the pyramid.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I fail to see how modern export-orientated agriculture makes Nepal 'feudal'. It's exactly the same as land-in-rent in various other neo-colonial countries in the Third World - decidedly capitalist.

[Queercommie Girl]

If the revolutionary process in Nepal only leads to capitalism that would still be progressive compared to feudalism.

That's never going to happen anyway even if Nepal today were just feudal. Western imperialism would never allow a kind of healthy capitalism to emerge in Nepal at all.

In the long-run, it's either forward to socialism, or backward to nothing. There is no real "middle-ground".

And why exactly are socialists fighting for capitalism in any kind of ultimate sense anyway?

[Queercommie Girl]

the maoists in nepal are revisionists. thats something not only western leftists say. the indian maoists tell us the same...and they have good arguments.

I certainly wouldn't write the Nepalese Maoists off but I wouldn't uncritically support them either. Critical thinking is something that should never be lost in favour of sectarian loyalty of any kind.

[RED DAVE]

Well of course we want Socialism over Capitalism. Who doesn't? Fact of the matter though is that at the moment, there's a need for a step-by-step process to take place, which this consensus government is a necessity for such. To go from feudalism to Capitalism is not a step to embrace Capitalism, but is a step-by-step process to embrace Socialism. It'll always remain a gradual process, & they're slowly destroying the pyramid.A perfect statement of Menshevism and exactly what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not advocate.

You are advocating a two-stage theory of revolution, which is exactly what Lenin opposed and which enabled the Russian Revolution to take place.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

A perfect statement of Menshevism and exactly what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not advocate.

You are advocating a two-stage theory of revolution, which is exactly what Lenin opposed and which enabled the Russian Revolution to take place.

RED DAVE

To be fair though, Menshevism and the Two-Stages Theory aren't technically the same thing at all. The former writes-off Revolution almost completely, while the latter, in principle at least, is not in any way anti-Revolution or non-Revolutionary intrinsically but rather argues that present conditions aren't sufficient for an immediate comprehensive revolution. So in theory at least, the Two-Stages Theory does work in an ideal setting.

Nevertheless, in semi-colonial countries it is highly debatable how applicable the Two-Stages theory really is in practice because the danger of degeneration is very high.

In short, Menshevism fails as a matter of principle, Two-Stages Theory fails as a matter of practice. Even yourself admitted that had we lived in the pre-imperialist era, alliances with the progressive bourgeois may actually be possible in practice.

[chegitz guevara]

Well of course we want Socialism over Capitalism. Who doesn't? Fact of the matter though is that at the moment, there's a need for a step-by-step process to take place, which this consensus government is a necessity for such. To go from feudalism to Capitalism is not a step to embrace Capitalism, but is a step-by-step process to embrace Socialism. It'll always remain a gradual process, & they're slowly destroying the pyramid.

Well, I don't believe that the UCPN(Maoist) is aiming for capitalism. I'm just answering a hypothetical posed by Red Dave. Nor do I think that two-stage revolutions are a viable strategy. It should not be a point of contention among Marxists, however, that capitalism, even the kind of underdeveloped capitalism we see in much of the neo-colonial world, is better for people than previous modes of production.

@Zeekloid, I'm not sure debt peonage, share cropping, and other methods of forcing peasants to provide free labor to landlords aren't modern types of feudalism, simply because they are not specifically tied to the land by law, custom, religion, etc. Rather, they are tied by debt, poverty, or extra legal threats of violence.

For example, a person doesn't stop being a slave simply because owning a human being is illegal. There are constant stories of slavery being uncovered in my state, Florida.

Of course, we can't say because something is true of slavery than it, ipso facto, must be true of feudalism.

[RED DAVE]

To be fair though, Menshevism and the Two-Stages Theory aren't technically the same thing at all.I disagree.


The former writes-off Revolution almost completelyThis is not what Menshevism was all about. The fundamental difference was in their relationship to bourgeois and socialist revolution. The following is fair:


oth factions believed that Russia was not developed to a point at which socialism was possible and believed that the revolution for which they fought to overthrow the Tsarist regime would be a bourgeois democratic revolution. Both believed that the working class had to contribute to this revolution. However, after 1905, the Mensheviks were more inclined to work with the liberal "bourgeois" democratic parties such as the Constitutional Democrats, because these would be the "natural" leaders of a bourgeois revolution.

In contrast, the Bolsheviks didn't believe that the Constitutional Democrats were capable of sufficiently radical struggle and tended to advocate alliances with peasant representatives and other radical socialist parties such as the Socialist Revolutionaries. In the event of a revolution, this was meant to lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, which would carry the bourgeois revolution to the end. The Mensheviks came to argue for predominantly legal methods and trade union work, while the Bolsheviks favoured armed violence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevism

A third position which emerged, that of Trotsky, was that the bourgeoisie was incapable of completely it own democratic revolution and that the working class would simultaneously complete the bourgeois democratic revolution and accomplish, with the aid of the peasantry, the socialist revolution.

In practice, this is what happened. When Lenin returned to Russia, he called for an end to any support for the bourgeois parties and their government, which were still vacillating over the issue of the war. The Bolsheviks called for the establishment of a workers government, based on the soviets. The rest is history.


while the latter, in principle at least, is not in any way anti-Revolution or non-Revolutionary intrinsically but rather argues that present conditions aren't sufficient for an immediate comprehensive revolution. So in theory at least, the Two-Stages Theory does work in an ideal setting.Where do you get this term "comprehensive revolution"? The two-stage theory calls for a bourgeois revolution followed, in the future, by a workers revolution. The theory of "new democracy" is a cover-up for the failure of an allegedly Marxist party to lead a socialist revolution but, instead, to collaborate with bourgeois elements to establish a society that, eventually, becomes capitalism. Call it what you will: China, Russia and Vietnam both, under the rule of a Communist party, became capitalist.


Nevertheless, in semi-colonial countries it is highly debatable how applicable the Two-Stages theory really is in practice because the danger of degeneration is very high.

In short, [B]Menshevism fails as a matter of principle, Two-Stages Theory fails as a matter of practice. Even yourself admitted that had we lived in the pre-imperialist era, alliances with the progressive bourgeois may actually be possible in practice.But we do not live in such a period. Such an alliance has always led to capitalism. Frankly, I don't see that you've made a case for the difference between Menshevism and two-stage theory.

The point is, though, whatever you call it, fish or fowl, it ain't got fur. The course advocated and practiced by the Maoists in Nepal is either Menshevism or something close to it, and the historical results are known: capitalism.

RED DAVE

[gorillafuck]

Well of course we want Socialism over Capitalism. Who doesn't? Fact of the matter though is that at the moment, there's a need for a step-by-step process to take place, which this consensus government is a necessity for such. To go from feudalism to Capitalism is not a step to embrace Capitalism, but is a step-by-step process to embrace Socialism. It'll always remain a gradual process, & they're slowly destroying the pyramid.
No, Nepal doesn't need a bourgeois state and it's not "necessary". It needs socialist revolution and international friendship with it's socialist revolution to sustain itself. Capitalist national liberation has nothing to offer the working class and peasants of Nepal, and you're advocating a way that was rejected by the Bolsheviks.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No, Nepal doesn't need a bourgeois state and it's not "necessary". It needs socialist revolution and international friendship with it's socialist revolution to sustain itself. Capitalist national liberation has nothing to offer the working class and peasants of Nepal, and you're advocating a way that was rejected by the Bolsheviks.

I'm not exactly advocating it. I hope that I'm wrong, & something more can be done. I'm just explaining it on how I see it, which again I could be wrong. In the end, the Nepalese Maoists are the ones making the decisions, & I'm in no position to be telling them what's best for them.

[gorillafuck]

I'm not exactly advocating it. I hope that I'm wrong, & something more can be done. I'm just explaining it on how I see it, which again I could be wrong. In the end, the Nepalese Maoists are the ones making the decisions, & I'm in no position to be telling them what's best for them.
Just because you're not in Nepal doesn't mean that you have to think it's okay if they install capitalism. That sort of thinking is absurd. It's basically "I don't live there therefore I can't give anything but unconditional support regardless of what they do".

[Saorsa]

If the Nepali Maoists just end up building a capitalist system, with no liberation for the people, I'll be the first to condemn it. But so far that doesn't appear to be their agenda at all, and they appear committed to the complicated and difficult task of radically transforming the backward, excruciatingly poor and semi-feudal country of Nepal.

Socialism is not a static situation you achieve overnight. It is a process, a struggle, a campaign... a journey down the socialist road.

Currently Nepal is a country in which most of the population have little or no road access. While ultimately of course we want to see concrete roads with electric lights and modern cars throughout Nepal, should the Maoists be condemned for building dirt roads in the first stage?

That's the logic many of you seem to apply here. The final goal is everything! Condemn all the steps leading towards it! Dirt roads are not good enough - we demand jetpacks for everyone!

I do want to say though. TVM, a capitalist Nepal is not an intermediary stage between semi-feudal Nepal and socialist Nepal. The Maoists are not fighting to build a capitalist country. Reforms like land to the tiller and so on will spread petit-bourgeois property relations through the country. There will be forms of private enterprise allowed and encouraged to flourish - if a PLA fighter wants to retire and start a medicine shop in Rukum, why would he not be allowed to? The organised masses in that area can ensure the shop owner operates according to the needs of the people rather than exploiting them. Capitalism will exist in many ways and in many areas of the country, but it will not be the dominant aspect and the working people of Nepal will be building a new, socialist society - not capitalism.

These are not abstract concepts we're talking about. Nepal is a country where most people still scratch the earth with sticks to stay alive. What does revolution mean for these people? In the foreseeable future, maybe some roads, an end to police brutality, caste oppression, women's oppression, rights for oppressed nationalities, and so on.

There are more developed areas in the cities and in the Terai plans in the south where bitter class struggle can be expected, where there could be large scale land seizures and redistribution, where factories can be expected to be taken over by the people and put under public control. But for most of Nepal, the revolution literally has to start from the ground up.

[gorillafuck]

If the Nepali Maoists just end up building a capitalist system, with no liberation for the people, I'll be the first to condemn it. But so far that doesn't appear to be their agenda at all, and they appear committed to the complicated and difficult task of radically transforming the backward, excruciatingly poor and semi-feudal country of Nepal.

Socialism is not a static situation you achieve overnight. It is a process, a struggle, a campaign... a journey down the socialist road.

Currently Nepal is a country in which most of the population have little or no road access. While ultimately of course we want to see concrete roads with electric lights and modern cars throughout Nepal, should the Maoists be condemned for building dirt roads in the first stage?

That's the logic many of you seem to apply here. The final goal is everything! Condemn all the steps leading towards it! Dirt roads are not good enough - we demand jetpacks for everyone!
I think people were more against TVM's saying that it would be acceptable for the Maoists to create a regular capitalist state. I was arguing against him for that viewpoint but I have no illusions of everything getting done overnight.

Edit: aside from people who were making b.s. arguments about "state-capitalism"

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think people were more against TVM's saying that it would be acceptable for the Maoists to create a regular capitalist state. I was arguing against him for that viewpoint but I have no illusions of everything getting done overnight.

Edit: aside from people who were making b.s. arguments about "state-capitalism"

Didn't say it's acceptable, just that in the end it's their decision on what they feel is best for them. And so I find myself in a position where I'm unable to tell them what I feel is best for them instead.

[gorillafuck]

Didn't say it's acceptable, just that in the end it's their decision on what they feel is best for them. And so I find myself in a position where I'm unable to tell them what I feel is best for them instead.
You said that Nepal needs capitalism as a step to socialism (I'm glad the UCPN (M) doesn't think like that). And your way of thinking is ridiculous. You can't criticize anything, even the creation of a capitalist state, if you don't live there?

[RED DAVE]

Just a quicky.


Socialism is not a static situation you achieve overnight. It is a process, a struggle, a campaign... a journey down the socialist road.This is true and not true. Lenin said, "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country." But the first element is Soviet power. What I do not see the Nepali Maoists doing is moving towards a Nepali version of "Soviet power." In more modern terms, this means workers power. It means that the leading class in the revolution and the leading class in post-revolutionary society, even in an undeveloped country like Nepal, is the working class.

It is not surprising that the Maoists are doing this because they are Maoists. Their orientation is a rural armed struggle based on the peasantry and led by the party. And then they are surprised that they can't militarily take the cities. In China, the bourgeois armies could not hold the cities because they had been defeated by the Japanese. So when the workers rose in the cities, the Maoists did not tell them to seize the workplaces. They told them to keep working and accept leadership from the outside.

There is no tradition in Maoism of working with an independent working class.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

I disagree.

This is not what Menshevism was all about. The fundamental difference was in their relationship to bourgeois and socialist revolution. The following is fair:

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

A third position which emerged, that of Trotsky, was that the bourgeoisie was incapable of completely it own democratic revolution and that the working class would simultaneously complete the bourgeois democratic revolution and accomplish, with the aid of the peasantry, the socialist revolution.

In practice, this is what happened. When Lenin returned to Russia, he called for an end to any support for the bourgeois parties and their government, which were still vacillating over the issue of the war. The Bolsheviks called for the establishment of a workers government, based on the soviets. The rest is history.

Where do you get this term "comprehensive revolution"? The two-stage theory calls for a bourgeois revolution followed, in the future, by a workers revolution. The theory of "new democracy" is a cover-up for the failure of an allegedly Marxist party to lead a socialist revolution but, instead, to collaborate with bourgeois elements to establish a society that, eventually, becomes capitalism. Call it what you will: China, Russia and Vietnam both, under the rule of a Communist party, became capitalist.

But we do not live in such a period. Such an alliance has always led to capitalism. Frankly, I don't see that you've made a case for the difference between Menshevism and two-stage theory.

The point is, though, whatever you call it, fish or fowl, it ain't got fur. The course advocated and practiced by the Maoists in Nepal is either Menshevism or something close to it, and the historical results are known: capitalism.

RED DAVE

Menshevism essentially writes-off socialist revolution completely since for them during the "bourgeois democratic phase" of the revolution the bourgeois class is the leading class.

The Two Stages Theory never at any stage calls for the bourgeois class to lead. In the collaboration between the proletarian class and the progressive bourgeois, the former must always have political leadership. Just like according to the CCP's official line, the working class is the leading class while the peasantry is the "semi-leading class". In both kinds of class collaborations, the leading role of the working class must be always guaranteed completely, otherwise it becomes a total failure.

Yes, I won't deny that as things stand now, Maoism failed in China, otherwise China won't be like how it is today. But of all the various branches of Third International Marxism-Leninism, only Mao truly recognised the danger of bureaucratic capitalist restoration and that's why he initiated the Cultural Revolution to promote proletarian democracy and combat bureaucratism. In the early days of the PRC, Mao's mistake was that the working class did not have sufficient control. (On the other hand, the line among some Trotskyists is that the working class had no control at all in early PRC, but that's clearly an unfair evaluation. They think for the Chinese workers there was essentially no change in productive relation pre and post 1949, but that is objectively false) His dismissal of Li Lisan was also a mistake. Mao recognised the importance of proletarian democracy to some extent by the time of the Cultural Revolution, but by then it was objectively too late. The Cultural Revolution also objectively failed.

[RED DAVE]

This is the real crux of our difference:


In the early days of the PRC, Mao's mistake was that the working class did not have sufficient control. (On the other hand, the line among some Trotskyists is that the working class had no control at all in early PRC, but that's clearly an unfair evaluation. They think for the Chinese workers there was essentially no change in productive relation pre and post 1949, but that is objectively false) His dismissal of Li Lisan was also a mistake. Mao recognised the importance of proletarian democracy to some extent by the time of the Cultural Revolution, but by then it was objectively too late. The Cultural Revolution also objectively failed.Comrade, you misunderstand the nature of workers power and socialism.

It can never be a matter that "the working class did not have sufficient control." If this is the case then the whole revolution is off the track from the beginning. There are three conditions to be considered: (1) workers power over production or socialism; (2) the control of production by some other class (I don't want to get into the state capitalism argument here); (3) a mixture of (1) and (2), which is dual power, which must devolve into workers power or the triumph of another class.

It is clear that the workers as a class never controlled production in China. The very fact that you state, honestly, that "the working class did not have sufficient control," demonstrates that, at best, it was a condition of dual power, and, in fact, it wasn't even that. It was a clear case that an alien force, the bureacracy, had control of production from the outset and never reliquished it.

With regard to the Cultural Revolution, in my opinion, this was the begining of "the final conflict" between state capitalism and private capitalism, with private capitalism winning out. I see no independent role for the working class led by Mao. The essence of Marxism is workers power. The fact that the man who is supposed to have been the great heir of Lenin finally "recognised the importance of proletarian democracy to some extent" shows that he was no Marxist.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

This is the real crux of our difference:

Comrade, you misunderstand the nature of workers power and socialism.

It can never be a matter that "the working class did not have sufficient control." If this is the case then the whole revolution is off the track from the beginning. There are three conditions to be considered: (1) workers power over production or socialism; (2) the control of production by some other class (I don't want to get into the state capitalism argument here); (3) a mixture of (1) and (2), which is dual power, which must devolve into workers power or the triumph of another class.

It is clear that the workers as a class never controlled production in China. The very fact that you state, honestly, that "the working class did not have sufficient control," demonstrates that, at best, it was a condition of dual power, and, in fact, it wasn't even that. It was a clear case that an alien force, the bureacracy, had control of production from the outset and never reliquished it.


You are a dogmatist who sees everything in black-and-white binary terms.

In semi-colonial countries like China in the 1940s, the working class is an extremely weak force. The vanguardist party is forced to play the political role that would be played by the working class in general in advanced countries.

Remember Lenin explicitly said that just because a political force objectively consists mostly of working class elements, does not necessarily make it into a genuine Marxist political force, since there is also the matter of subjective consciousness. The reverse therefore must also be true.

As I told you before, the "bureaucracy" can never be an independent class in its own right. In countries like the PRC, when bureaucratic revisionism occurs, it was still done by the bureaucracy of the working class, not some other class. The Cliffite "state-capitalist" theory is fundamentally flawed because it treats the "bureaucracy" as a completely independent class like the capitalist class.

Interestingly, the British SWP is also incorrect in its analysis of ancient China, since they treat the bureaucracy in imperial China as an independent class in its own right, rather than a layer of the landlord class.



With regard to the Cultural Revolution, in my opinion, this was the begining of "the final conflict" between state capitalism and private capitalism, with private capitalism winning out.
I don't agree with third-campist Trotskyism. If one takes an Orthodox Trotskyist position and re-word what you said there in ortho-trot terms, it becomes "the Cultural Revolution was the "final conflict" between the deformed worker's state and private capitalism, with private capitalism winning out". This is objectively not so different from the Left Maoist line.



I see no independent role for the working class led by Mao. The essence of Marxism is workers power. The fact that the man who is supposed to have been the great heir of Lenin finally "recognised the importance of proletarian democracy to some extent" shows that he was no Marxist.
Mao had no control over the objective situation that the working class was extremely weak in the early PRC.

I won't deny that Mao made mistakes, but then so did Lenin himself. However, even if you take a cynical view of Mao in the personal sense with respect to his political role during the Cultural Revolution, you cannot deny the objectively pro-worker policies that were introduced during the Cultural Revolution period, such as the political right to freely strike.

[RED DAVE]

I won't deny that Mao made mistakes, but then so did Lenin himself. However, even if you take a cynical view of Mao in the personal sense with respect to his political role during the Cultural Revolution, you cannot deny the objectively pro-worker policies that were introduced during the Cultural Revolution period, such as the political right to freely strike.JIseul do you read what you write. On the one hand, you refer to China under Mao as some kind of workers state, some kind of socialism, where the workers didn't have the right to strike! I don't care how subjectively nonrevolutionary the Chinese working class may or may not have been (and, in fact, by 1949 they were revolutionary enough to rise up – and get sent back to work by the Maoists), this great Marxist leader and his cohorts didn't support the right of the working class to strike!

These "objectively pro-worker policies that were introduced during the Cultural Revolution period" weres omething that any bourgeois liberal (or conservative for that matter) could support: the right to strike.

Jeez, Iseul.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

JIseul do you read what you write. On the one hand, you refer to China under Mao as some kind of workers state, some kind of socialism,

Yep, as would most orthodox Trotskyists.


where the workers didn't have the right to strike! I don't care how subjectively nonrevolutionary the Chinese working class may or may not have been (and, in fact, by 1949 they were revolutionary enough to rise up – and get sent back to work by the Maoists), this great Marxist leader and his cohorts didn't support the right of the working class to strike!


Leninists don't necessarily support every sporadic worker's "movement".

Lenin himself would have probably done the same thing as Mao.



These "objectively pro-worker policies that were introduced during the Cultural Revolution period" weres omething that any bourgeois liberal (or conservative for that matter) could support: the right to strike.


Except the right to strike in the context of a worker's state isn't the same as the right to strike in the context of a bourgeois state. In a worker's state there is no general class opposed to the working class as a whole like the bourgeois, only revisionist bureaucrats, which are still technically a part of the working class itself. Of course, the introduction of "market socialism" does change this completely.

[maskerade]

This is true and not true. Lenin said, "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country."

and just because lenin said so does not make it so. This is what really gets on my nerves about a lot of leftists, the whole clinging on to the past and sticking to 100 year old blueprints for revolution.

Yea, the writings of Lenin, Trotsky etc are important. But there are more important things. Like realizing that Nepal will take a different route than Russia, and that this doesn't make them revisionist, or capitalists etc.

And haven't the nepali maoists made their thoughts about capitalism clear? That they don't want it. yea.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is a difference between being non-dogmatic and being opportunistic. The basic principles of socialism cannot be changed.

I'm observing the development in Nepal, but I certainly won't put absolute faith in the leadership there.

[RED DAVE]

and just because lenin said so does not make it so. This is what really gets on my nerves about a lot of leftists, the whole clinging on to the past and sticking to 100 year old blueprints for revolution.When the Nepali Maoists find a better blueprint, let me know. In the meantime they are repeating every mistake of the Chinese, plus a few of their own, like substituting parliamentary maneuvering and taking the leadership of a bourgeois government.


Yea, the writings of Lenin, Trotsky etc are important. But there are more important things. Like realizing that Nepal will take a different route than Russia, and that this doesn't make them revisionist, or capitalists etc.No, what makes them revisionist or capitalist is what they are doing: collaborating with capitalist parties and preparing the way for state capitalism in Nepal.


And haven't the nepali maoists made their thoughts about capitalism clear? That they don't want it. yea.Neither did the Chinese.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Neither did the Chinese.

Neither did the Russians. They still ended up with it. Maybe that blueprint isn't perfect after all?

[Jayshin_JTTH]

If these guys are actual communists, they have to realize that participating in bourgeois politics has a place, but it's not an end. I mean, so what if the Maoists can get a super-majority or a super-super-majority in the Constituent Assembly, if they are communists then they're ultimate goal is to disperse and smash such an assembly, the same way the Bolsheviks smashed there CA.

[hardlinecommunist]

Don't know much about Chinese history:D, but I am aware that Sun and Chiang represented two separate factions of the Chinese bourgeoisie. (They were also brothers-in-law.:D) My point was that each was, successively, the leader of that class and that, therefore, the native bourgeoisies, as a class, were not potential allies of the working class.

Given the fact that it was Chiang and his tendency who ended up leading the Chinese bourgeoisie and not Sun and his faction, you have made my point.

I would go much further than that: it is impossible, in this age of imperialism, for any faction of the native capitalist classes to play a progressive role, except with regard to direct struggles against imperialism. Even there, given globalization, there is less and less wiggle room. All we have to do is compare Gandhi or Nehru, on the one hand, and Manmohan Singh (current prime minister of India), on the other, to see the change that has occurred.

RED DAVE Chiang was not a true follower of Sun Yat Sen rather he betrayed the Revolutionary program of Sun Yet Sen which Mao and the Chinese Communist Party carried out and put in practice under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Working Class with the victory of the Chinese New Democratic Revolution in 1949. Nehru and Indira Gandhi were not National Bourgeoisie at all. rather they both were representatives of the Indian Comprador Bourgeoisie. The National Bourgeoisie still has a Revolutionary role to play in India and other Asian Countries.

[RED DAVE]

Chiang was not a true follower of Sun Yat Sen rather he betrayed the Revolutionary program of Sun Yet SenOkay.


which Mao and the Chinese Communist Party carried out and put in practice under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Working Class with the victory of the Chinese New Democratic Revolution in 1949.Okay. I accept that the Maoists carried out the bourgeois revolution and retained bourgeois production relations.


Nehru and Indira Gandhi were not National Bourgeoisie at all. rather they both were representatives of the Indian Comprador Bourgeoisie.Considering that he was one of the leaders of the anti-colonial revolution in India, I think you'll have a hard time proving that.


The National Bourgeoisie still has a Revolutionary role to play in India and other Asian Countries.It sure does; it's role involves a long knife and the collective back of the working class.

RED DAVE