What happened to the Maoists May Day campaign?

[Saorsa]

New Red Star opinion piece. There are also a handful of short pieces posted on the website. No new edition of the magazine in pdf form though...

Keep in mind this is an *opinion piece*. The Red Star is a pro-Maoist paper, but it is not an official mouthpiece. I don't even know if the author of this article is a party member.

What Happened to the Maoists May Campaign ?- Bimal Dahal

United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launched a mass protest to mount pressure on the government led by another communist party-Communist Party of Nepal (UML)-on May 2010. There was an unprecedented public participation in that demonstration which remained peaceful at the beginning, but on the following days it observed some sporadic violence and finally the Maoists decided to end its \'indefinite\' general strike on Friday May 7, 2010. Some critics understood this movement as the Maoist’s strategy to test the “ground” or foundation of the society so that they could formulate future strategic plans to overthrow the regime, whereas some identified it as an uncoordinated action plan to engage the mass base into the political dynamics. However, this movement did not yield any political leverage for the Maoist despite the enormous efforts from the cadres. This article will discuss why the May movement doomed to failure.

1.Weak Demand

Resignation of the prime minister and formation of a new government under the Maoist leadership was the official demand of the May protest. But this demand was further enhanced and sustained by upright revolution at the Maoist grass root level. Change of the government was one thing and change of the regime was absolutely another thing. In fact it seems the Maoist did not know what they want. However, the Maoist leadership tried to utilize these contradictory strategies to the benefit of the movement, but the state institution refused to grant any concessions to the Maoist which was later supplemented by the international community. It was too late to reformulate their demands as the demonstration progressed. By this very reason the Maoists withdrew the mass protest despite none of their demands was met.

2. Centralized Method of Concentration

Mass demonstration, marches and mass rally are organized to protest and persuasion. Such demonstration must have multi centers so that effective attrition could be carried out against the state. Uni-center movement is always vulnerable whereas multi centers initiatives , at the one hand confuse the government and at the other hand convince its supporters who will further carry out the speed of the demonstration, even if some centers are diffused by the adversaries. But the Maoist centralized their program at Kathmandu by bringing the mass from the peripheries which ultimately gave rise to the formation of political vacuum to be utilized by the “spoilers”. Moreover, such centralized activity posed threat not only to the urban elites, but also to the local populace of the region which ultimately distanced them from the local groups who were later organized in protest under the Professional Alliance for Peace and Democracy (PAPAD) banner.

3. Lack of Innovative Protest Models

Maoists did not have any innovative models to carry out their demonstration in various situations. They simply followed the conventional models which neither stretched the government’s capacity nor draw sufficient sympathy from the public. As the vacuum surfaced, or when they met with the counter protest or repression, they did not have alternative approaches to give the public an impression of their ubiquitous presence and possibility of a viable movement for wary and risk adverse potential supporters. A strategic Assemble-Action-Disperse (AAD) model would have been effective, but it was undervalued in organizing the May protest.

4. Lack of Effective Communication

Maoist could not absorb the media during the May protest. There was a visible lack of symbolic and informal communication which obscured the motive of the movement. The communication stream during the protest was like commentary which was not embodied with certain core message in a definite form that could serve the tactical function of the movement. Rather, the communication was filled with superfluous accusations and some negative aspects of the regime which could not generate unity of actions for the benefit of the movement. Besides these, the influential media portrayed the movement not as a serious enterprise which distracted the probable enthusiastic participants.

5. Lack of Institutional Backup

What was the backbone of the May protest? Did the Maoist apply the Chinese model-circle the city? Did they utilize Leninist model of attrition from within? The answer is no. Probably these models are outdated; therefore they would not have brought any positive outcome either. So, what were the institutions and strategies deemed to carry out the protest to its logical end or ultimate objective? Of course, the Maoist relied solely upon its sister organizations without effectively coordinating the vector of the demonstration with other social institutions. This defective strategy ultimately isolated them from the other socials entities which characterized the movement as an imposed one by the Maoists for the Maoists.

6. Lack of Socio-psychological Motivators

The May protest was not embedded with socio-psychological motivators which could have inspired the mass for the agenda of change. Of course, it tried to utilize some cultural elements for the benefit of the campaign, but the players were not credible at the eyes of the mass. The Maoist depended upon the same social actors who were repeatedly utilized by the former regimes for their respective political interests. Additionally, they undermined the need of cultural motivators for the movement.

7. Faulty Contextual Assessment

The Maoists at the earlier phase of the May protest emphasized the practice of nonviolent action. It was a counterproductive propaganda. The nonviolent action is viable only when the regime wants so. Anti colonial movements after World War 2 and liberation campaigns in the Easter Europe after the collapse of Soviet Union can not be a yard stick to conceptualize the pragmatic anti government campaign in Nepal where structural contradictions and social fragmentations are at their peak. In the same way, the Maoist misjudged the movements in Thailand and Kyrgyzstan where suppression was likely to be justified on the basis of anti-communist and pro capitalist imperatives.

8. Absence of the Public Space

The May demonstration lacked the public space where discourses could be articulated for the effectiveness of the movement. Public space is the avenue which often lies outside the control of the military and it can attract sufficient local and international attention defending the movement from brutal intervention. Moreover, it has the potency to capitalize the momentum of the protest for future growth. Maoists did not pay any attention towards this issue except relying on some “confidential” kitchen discourses which subsequently turn out to be ineffective.

9. Lack of Latitudinal Initiatives

Strategy to diffuse the state force from within could have been an effective tool for the success of the movement, but the May protest did not utilize such option which could have defected the bureaucracy and the elites upon which the state relied. It was observed that the state became more specific and focused consolidating its stakeholders as the momentum developed during the final episode of the campaign.

10. Ineffective Lobbying Capabilities

Lobbying at different levels to canalize the pressure of the external actors for the benefit of the movement was absent. Maoists did not send any effective representatives to foreign countries to win the support of Diaspora community and external actors, including the donors, to use their leverage for the effectiveness of the program. Practically they could not capitalize the amorphous international relationship developed after the reconsideration of the issue from the Western perspective.

Nepalese have often expressed their desire for change through elections. In 1960 they voted for Nepali Congress, but internal clash and criminalization of the politics finally tempted the king to rein the nation autocratically through military means. In 1991, they again voted for Nepali Congress and a moderate communist party only to invite political instability which subsequently led the nation into the verse of decade long civil war. In 2008, they voted again enthusiastically, but this time for the Maoists-the former rebel group--with a hope for peace and stability, but again peace and prosperity are not visible even in a distant future. Rather they have been victimized by the half hearted policies. The May movement is a recent example. Hence, the Maoists have to take lesson from this failure and try to tune their strategies to meet the aspiration of the people and the “rule of the game” they have accepted.

http://krishnasenonline.org/main/news.php?pname=Theredstar&id=163&cata_name=Opinion

[RED DAVE]

While many of the points in this article are valid, much of it is a "technical" criticism of the May general strike. However, these "technical" mistakes are a result of and mask a much deeper error on the part of the Nepali Maoists: failure to depend on the working class as the leading class of the revolution.

Let's be honest. The general strike was a failure. The Maoists exerted enormous effort and achieved nothing. If anything, they are weaker and more divided than before the strike.


What Happened to the Maoists May Campaign ?- Bimal Dahal

United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launched a mass protest to mount pressure on the government led by another communist party-Communist Party of Nepal (UML)-on May 2010. There was an unprecedented public participation in that demonstration which remained peaceful at the beginning, but on the following days it observed some sporadic violence and finally the Maoists decided to end its \'indefinite\' general strike on Friday May 7, 2010. Some critics understood this movement as the Maoist’s strategy to test the “ground” or foundation of the society so that they could formulate future strategic plans to overthrow the regime, whereas some identified it as an uncoordinated action plan to engage the mass base into the political dynamics. However, this movement did not yield any political leverage for the Maoist despite the enormous efforts from the cadres. This article will discuss why the May movement doomed to failure.This is accurate. I believe that, basically, the Maoists did not have a clear strategy and, therefore, their tactics were not effective.


1.Weak Demand

Resignation of the prime minister and formation of a new government under the Maoist leadership was the official demand of the May protest.Yes, and to this must be added that what the Maoists were pushing for was a bourgeois government: a government in which capitalist forms of property would be preserved.


But this demand was further enhanced and sustained by upright revolution at the Maoist grass root level.But at the point of the general strike, this "upright revolution," if I understand the author, was limited to rhetoric. No revolutionary actions took place: no seizure of the workplaces by the working class; no mass seizure of land by the peasants.

The most powerful weapon of the working class short of actual insurrection was used as a parliamentary maneuver, and it failed.


Change of the government was one thing and change of the regime was absolutely another thing. In fact it seems the Maoist did not know what they want.Correct. Did the Maoists want the leadership of a bourgeois parliamentary government or did they want to engage in revolutionary action? The two are not compatible.


However, the Maoist leadership tried to utilize these contradictory strategies to the benefit of the movement, but the state institution refused to grant any concessions to the Maoist which was later supplemented by the international community. It was too late to reformulate their demands as the demonstration progressed. By this very reason the Maoists withdrew the mass protest despite none of their demands was met.

http://krishnasenonline.org/main/news.php?pname=Theredstar&id=163&cata_name=OpinionCorrect. The bourgeoisie declined to be the nice guys and so, since the Maoists were playing the bourgeois game, they lost.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

It strikes me as extremely unscientific to begin your analysis of an article by setting out your own opinions, pointing out how the article does not match up to them and declaring as a result that the article is inferior to your own point of view.

Surely, when dealing with a rare English language article from Nepal that supportively analyses the successes and mistakes of the UCPN (M), it would be better to focus on what the article can reveal about what's going on to foreigners with a poor understanding of the situation? What it can teach foreigners with no experience with mass revolutionary work in a time of dual power?

It seems to me like your mind is made up in advance, and you skimread the article to find the points you agree with and discard the rest. I believe it is a poor method of analysing an article like this.

Anyways...


However, these "technical" mistakes are a result of and mask a much deeper error on the part of the Nepali Maoists: failure to depend on the working class as the leading class of the revolution.

The working class is always the leader of red revolutions in the modern age. The Maoists recognise this, have been completely open about it. Comrade Basanta said in February this year:


We should keep in mind that sustenance of the proletarian power in a single country is in the present world situation equally difficult to or more challenging than the seizure of political power. Sustenance of people\'s power is inseparably related with the expansion and development of revolutionary class struggles in other countries. Right in this context, the international proletariat class has twofold duties. The Nepalese proletariat must emphasize firstly on the seizure and then sustenance of power as a base area of the world proletarian revolution and at the same time pay attention to the expansion of revolutionary class struggles and anti imperialist movements all across the world.

While the proletariat in other countries must lay emphasis on developing revolutionary class struggles in their respective countries and pay attention to the defence of people's power in Nepal. It is the true proletarian internationalism we need today.

http://krishnasenonline.org/main/news.php?pname=Theredstar&id=73&cata_name=Opinion


Let's be honest. The general strike was a failure. The Maoists exerted enormous effort and achieved nothing. If anything, they are weaker and more divided than before the strike.

Achieved nothing? Their demand was that the Prime Minister resign. The Prime Minister has resigned. Their second demand, for the formation of a national unity government led by them and capable of writing the constitution, is currently still being fought for. The strike moved the struggle forward and achieved the concrete gain of forcing the government to resign and forcing the country into its present political crisis. Twelve rounds of voting in the Constituent Assembly and there is still no new Prime Minister - the country is polarising and contradictions are sharpening.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the party is weaker now than it was then. That's fantasy (perhaps wishful thinking?) on your part.

As for being divided... line struggle and general debate is a normal, indeed essential, part of a healthy communist revolution. The UCPN (M) is figuring out how to seize power, and you're surprised that there are disagreements over how to move forward? :lol:


This is accurate. I believe that, basically, the Maoists did not have a clear strategy and, therefore, their tactics were not effective.

Why do you believe this?


Yes, and to this must be added that what the Maoists were pushing for was a bourgeois government: a government in which capitalist forms of property would be preserved.

The formation of a government in Singha Durbar does not determine the forms of property that exist in society. That is decided through grassroots struggle, struggle which is taking place as we speak.

As this article (http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Maoists+seize+land&NewsID=252230) reveals, land is still being seized by the party and distributed amongst the people. As these (http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/2010/10/8/FromtheNepaliPress/17547) two (http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=22136) articles reveal, the land already captured has not been returned.

And as you're aware, Nepal has a ridiculously high number of strikes and protests.


But at the point of the general strike, this "upright revolution," if I understand the author, was limited to rhetoric. No revolutionary actions took place: no seizure of the workplaces by the working class; no mass seizure of land by the peasants.

As you showed in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoist-peasants-and-t138919/index.html), when mass seizures of land do take place you refuse to accept them as revolutionary. Seems the Maoists can't win!


The most powerful weapon of the working class short of actual insurrection was used as a parliamentary maneuver, and it failed.

You really think the only thing the Maoists had in mind, when they organised the shut down of the country and mobilised half a million plus people onto the streets of Katmandhu, was a 'parliamentary manouvre'?

There will be those both outside and inside the party who argue that the seizure of nationwide political and economic power by the workers and peasants is impossible at this point. The all Nepal bandh proved that it is possible - for a week, Kathmandu and most of Nepal was effectively under Maoist control.

Do you think it's a coincidence that right now, following the arrival of this concrete proof, the entire party is organising a major debate over whether the next tactical move should be to seize state power? The party will be coming together and voting on this on November 14th.

If you try to take in the full picture, you can begin to get a tentative understanding of whats going on. If you see the situation as fluid and in motion, the ripples of continuity become apparent.

If, on the other hand, you charge in with a dogmatic and sectarian attitude, you'll miss things.


Correct. Did the Maoists want the leadership of a bourgeois parliamentary government or did they want to engage in revolutionary action? The two are not compatible.

Why are they not compatible?

A revolutionary party taking control of and then relinquishing hold of the reigns of government is a tactic never tried before. These are new tactics for a new revolution. It is still too early to say whether the tactics have worked or not - the revolution is far from finished.


Correct. The bourgeoisie declined to be the nice guys and so, since the Maoists were playing the bourgeois game, they lost.

You really think it's that simple?

[RED DAVE]

Just a quicky.


Did the Maoists want the leadership of a bourgeois parliamentary government or did they want to engage in revolutionary action? The two are not compatible.
Why are they not compatible?They are not compatible because a bourgeois state, whose purpose is the regulation and maintenance of capitalism, can't be used by the working class as part of the process of seizing power. However, since the purpose of Maoism, I'm convinced, is the establishment of state capitalism, then such a strategy is fine.


A revolutionary party taking control of and then relinquishing hold of the reigns of government is a tactic never tried before.And for very good reason. If a revolutionary party is strong enough to "tak[e] control of ... the reigns of government," the situation is ripe for revolution. It is significant that you, like all Maoists, speak of a "revolutionary party taking control" and not the working class "taking control." The Maoist concept of revolution is a revolution in which the working class takes part, yes, but does not lead.


These are new tactics for a new revolution. It is still too early to say whether the tactics have worked or not - the revolution is far from finished.Far from finished, unlike Maoist-style revolutions in China and Vietnam, which sure as shit are finished.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

Just a quicky.

They are not compatible because a bourgeois state, whose purpose is the regulation and maintenance of capitalism, can't be used by the working class as part of the process of seizing power. However, since the purpose of Maoism, I'm convinced, is the establishment of state capitalism, then such a strategy is fine.


"State-capitalism" as a reference to Stalinist deformed worker's states is a bankrupt concept. You should listen to the orthodox Trotskyists here.



And for very good reason. If a revolutionary party is strong enough to "tak[e] control of ... the reigns of government," the situation is ripe for revolution. It is significant that you, like all Maoists, speak of a "revolutionary party taking control" and not the working class "taking control." The Maoist concept of revolution is a revolution in which the working class takes part, yes, but does not lead.


Why are the "revolutionary party" and the "working class" mutually exclusive? You think a worker can't also be a party member?



Far from finished, unlike Maoist-style revolutions in China and Vietnam, which sure as shit are finished.


Really? So what's the MCPC/CCP(M) doing in China right now calling for a "second socialist revolution"?

[RED DAVE]

"State-capitalism" as a reference to Stalinist deformed worker's states is a bankrupt concept. You should listen to the orthodox Trotskyists here.You should study history. There is nothing "working class" about societies like China, except that (a) they have one, and (b) it's not in power. Societies like China are no more workers states, deformed or otherwise, than a bonobo is a human being. Both have four limbs, a brain, etc., but they are two different species. A bonobo never was a human and can never become one.


Why are the "revolutionary party" and the "working class" mutually exclusive? You think a worker can't also be a party member?You are missing my point, hopefully not deliberately. Maoists always call for the victory of the party not the victory of the working class because their party is intended to set up a regime over the working class not of the working class. Compare the actions, analysis and slogans of the Bolsheviks who always talking about the working class.

The Maoist block of four classes is a regime over the working class.


Really? So what's the MCPC/CCP(M) doing in China right now calling for a "second socialist revolution"?Stop being silly. You know full well what I'm talking about: the earlier revolutions of these countries (China and Vietnam) have become capitalist. And yes another revolution will be necessary. Hopefully, not lead by Maoists.

In the meantime, Iseul, what is your opinion of the situation in Nepal after the general strike?

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

You should study history. There is nothing "working class" about societies like China, except that (a) they have one, and (b) it's not in power. Societies like China are no more workers states, deformed or otherwise, than a bonobo is a human being. Both have four limbs, a brain, etc., but they are two different species. A bonobo never was a human and can never become one.


Your example of "humans" and "bonobos" is useless and not to the point.

What exactly makes a state a "worker's state" or a "capitalist state"?

In a worker's state, the working class holds power. In a capitalist state, the capitalist class holds power.

What is the working class? Well the economic definition is clear enough.

What you fail to grasp is 1) just because a state is effectively ruled by a bureaucracy doesn't make it into a state-capitalist state, because the bureaucracy might not be capitalist; 2) the complexities of the real world - the working class is not a "single slab of concrete", there are actually multiple layers within the working class itself. So if in a worker's state, only a privileged layer of the working class holds effective political power, what would you call such a state? It's a deformed worker's state, not a state-capitalist state.



You are missing my point, hopefully not deliberately. Maoists always call for the victory of the party not the victory of the working class because their party is intended to set up a regime over the working class not of the working class. Compare the actions, analysis and slogans of the Bolsheviks who always talking about the working class.

The Maoist block of four classes is a regime over the working class.
What if a revolutionary party consisting of privileged layers of the working class holding power over the rest of ordinary workers? What would you call that? Technically it's still a working class party, but a deformed one.

It's factually untrue that the CCP never mentioned "working class taking power". That's just an outright lie. Also, unless you are an ultra-left dogmatist, there is nothing stating that working class parties cannot form temporary alliances with other classes, provided that the working class has the leadership position and is political independent. The failure of the 1927 Revolution in China was not because they were allied with the bourgeois, indeed, even Lenin called on socialists in China to support left-wing KMT forces like Sun Yat-sen, but that they totally lost any kind of political independence.



Stop being silly. You know full well what I'm talking about: the earlier revolutions of these countries (China and Vietnam) have become capitalist. And yes another revolution will be necessary. Hopefully, not lead by Maoists.
How am I being silly? So what if the revolution failed the first time? Didn't that happen to the Trotskyist revolution in Russia too? Where is the worker's state called the USSR established by Lenin and Trotsky in 1917 now? And surely you are aware of how the Trotskyists in Sri Lanka degenerated into bureaucrats? Or do you really think that Trotskyists are fundamentally immune to degeneration?

[Queercommie Girl]

The Nepalese revolution is obviously partially progressive but it is also flawed because 1) there is not enough real democracy for workers and ordinary party members and 2) although I don't completely reject class-collaborationism or parliamentary politics in principle, in Nepal it seems to have gone overboard.

That's why I critically support radical Maoist parties like the MCPC/CCP(M) in China today, because they explicitly call for the establishment of worker's supervisory councils, democracy within the Communist Party, grassroots trade unionism and also democratic decision-making regarding land collectivisation in the countryside rather than forced dekulakisation imposed from above. I think Chavez has implemented some similar democratic measures in the barrios of Venezuela. Of course, it remains to be seen how honest the MCPC is regarding worker's democracy. After all, even Trotskyists who most certainly call for explicit worker's democracy on paper can in practice degenerate into bureaucrats, like the Trotskyists in Sri Lanka. Saying something and doing it are two different things. I judge people by what they do, not what they say, which is one reason why I don't label my political orientation by someone's surname, like "Trotskyism" or "Maoism", but rather call myself a proletarian-democrat. I support anyone who genuinely supports proletarian democracy, whether they be Trotskyists, Maoists or anarchists. Sometimes Maoists can genuinely support proletarian democracy and Trotskyists can be hypocritical bureaucrats. The world certainly isn't black-and-white.

[RED DAVE]

You should study history. There is nothing "working class" about societies like China, except that (a) they have one, and (b) it's not in power. Societies like China are no more workers states, deformed or otherwise, than a bonobo is a human being. Both have four limbs, a brain, etc., but they are two different species. A bonobo never was a human and can never become one.
Your example of "humans" and "bonobos" is useless and not to the point.It’s very much to the point. Two societies can have similar features but be entirely different. The argument that the USSR, China at some point, the Eastern European states were workers states of some sort, deformed, or degenerate, rises or falls on the presence of certain structural elements. These are held to be sufficient for the countries to be workers states per se. If a country has nationalized property, central planning, monopoly of foreign trade, etc., it is a workers state. If it once had genuine workers power, as in the USSR, it is a degenerated workers state. If the workers never held state power, it is a deformed workers state.

Three points are crucial here:

(1) You are asserting that a workers state can be a workers state just because of the presence of these structural features.

(2) These structural features can obviously be established by a class other than the workers.

(3) These features can exist in a state that no one has ever stated is a workers state, i.e. Taiwan.

Given the above, it is ridiculous to refer to these states as any kind of workers state.


Your What exactly makes a state a "worker's state" or a "capitalist state"?Whichever class is the ruling class.


In a worker's state, the working class holds power. In a capitalist state, the capitalist class holds power.Yes.


What is the working class? Well the economic definition is clear enough.We’ll see how clear this definition is.


What you fail to grasp is 1) just because a state is effectively ruled by a bureaucracy doesn't make it into a state-capitalist state, because the bureaucracy might not be capitalist;And what the fuck would make the bureaucracy a working class or socialist bureaucracy? Fact is, the bureaucracy is an agency of social control for a ruling class. What you are saying is that the working class would permit a bureaucracy to rule over itself in its own name. It was obvious from the beginning of the USSR that the bureacracy was exerting power over the working class. Lenin himself, as early as 1921, referred to the Soviet state as "a workers' state with a bureaucratic deformation.”And things did not improve over the next 70 years. The predominance of the bureaucracy over the working class became complete. When the workers do not control the state, directly, it is not a workers state.


2) the complexities of the real world - the working class is not a "single slab of concrete", there are actually multiple layers within the working class itself.Okay.


So if in a worker's state, only a privileged layer of the working class holds effective political power, what would you call such a state? It's a deformed worker's state, not a state-capitalist state.But Comrade, the bureaucracy is not “a privileged layer of the working class.” At the point at which it exercises state power, tt represents a different social stratum. It’s relationship to the working class changes. The bureaucracy, say, in the USA, could be called a layer of the working class (and not all that privileged). However, this “layer” does not exert state power. It does not control the economy. It does not make decisions. These are left to the bourgeoisie itself and its political representatives.


You are missing my point, hopefully not deliberately. Maoists always call for the victory of the party not the victory of the working class because their party is intended to set up a regime over the working class not of the working class. Compare the actions, analysis and slogans of the Bolsheviks who always talking about the working class.

The Maoist block of four classes is a regime over the working class.
What if a revolutionary party consisting of privileged layers of the working class holding power over the rest of ordinary workers? What would you call that? Technically it's still a working class party, but a deformed one.But such a situation has never existed.

The “revolutionary party” in the USSR, China, etc., stood in a different relationship to the means of production as the working class. And the actual power bearers in that society were not workers. After the so-called Lenin levy in 1924, the vanguard of the working class no longer controlled the party.


It's factually untrue that the CCP never mentioned "working class taking power".emph. added.


That's just an outright lie. Also, unless you are an ultra-left dogmatist, there is nothing stating that working class parties cannot form temporary alliances with other classes, provided that the working class has the leadership position and is political independent.So you are saying that it would be okay to form a “temporary alliance” with the bourgeoisie in a country. Funny that the Bolsheviks didn’t do that at the point of the seizure of power. Quite the contrary.


The failure of the 1927 Revolution in China was not because they were allied with the bourgeois, indeed, even Lenin called on socialists in China to support left-wing KMT forces like Sun Yat-sen, but that they totally lost any kind of political independence.There may have been a moment, at the beginning of the bourgeois regime in China, when it was permissible to do that. But now, 75 years later, when native bourgeoisies are linked to global imperialism, they are weaker than ever, in practice, this is impossible. In effect, this call is a call for an alliance with imperialism.

In addition, in Maoist practice, the working class does not maintain political independence. This was demonstrated in the recent general strike in Nepal, where the Nepalese did not urge the working class to set up independent organs of power during the strike. This is the legacy of Stalinism/Maoism.


Stop being silly. You know full well what I'm talking about: the earlier revolutions of these countries (China and Vietnam) have become capitalist. And yes another revolution will be necessary. Hopefully, not lead by Maoists.
How am I being silly? So what if the revolution failed the first time?In the absence of ruthless analysis of why the revolution failed, it will happen again. I see no indicatin that the Maoists have valuated their strategy. Your stance in this thread demonstrates that. The Nepalese Maoists are replaying the Chinese Revolution. Should they take state power, they will establish state capitalism immediately.


Didn't that happen to the Trotskyist revolution in Russia too?Wow! The Trotskyist revolution. That’s a new one on me.


Where is the worker's state called the USSR established by Lenin and Trotsky in 1917 now?By a process that is well understood, the bureaucracy gained control and turned it into state capitalism.


And surely you are aware of how the Trotskyists in Sri Lanka degenerated into bureaucrats? Or do you really think that Trotskyists are fundamentally immune to degeneration?Orthodox Trotskyism has never entirely broken off its affection for the bureaucracy.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

In a worker's state, the working class holds power. In a capitalist state, the capitalist class holds power.

Yes.

Then what is it that you don't get on how China is, in fact, a workers state? The CPC is predominantly run by working class people - by the millions!

No thanks to President Jiang Zemin, by 2001, capitalists were allowed to join the party.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0502cpc.htm

By 2001, there were close to around 60 million members of the CPC. This year, it's counted to be around 77 million.

http://english.cpcnews.cn/92277/6277861.html

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

So a 17 million increase took place since the allowance of capitalists in the party. What this means is that, even if each & every 17 million were capitalists, the working class of the CPC have a 60 million member dominance over the capitalists. How you can state that the working class aren't the predominant ruling class of the CPC is beyond me.

[Queercommie Girl]

Numerical superiority is meaningless however in a system without intra-party democracy.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Numerical superiority is meaningless however in a system without intra-party democracy.

Would you say that there isn't any democratic relations between the 60 million working class members of the CPC?

[penguinfoot]

How you can state that the working class aren't the predominant ruling class of the CPC is beyond me.

Easily - in the same way that, just because the British Labour Party has historically been comprised mainly of working class people (this may not be the case at present because the party is increasingly dominated by degree-holders and middle class professionals - but that's a debate for another thread I think) it is not a democratic party geared towards the interests of working people, much less the cornerstone of a socialist society in Britain. And before you say that Labour remains a workers party, whether that is the case or not remains a subject of debate within the British revolutionary left, and if it is the case it is because of Labour's institutional ties to the trade unions and the labour movement rather than because of anything about the social composition of Labour's formal party membership as such - and at the risk of stating the obvious, Labour being a workers party does not make Britain socialist when Labour is in power.

[Queercommie Girl]

Would you say that there isn't any democratic relations between the 60 million working class members of the CPC?

To be frank, the vast majority of CCP members outside the ruling bloc have no real political power at all. Otherwise how could cases like Zhao Dongmin have occurred in China?

[Queercommie Girl]

(1) You are asserting that a workers state can be a workers state just because of the presence of these structural features.

(2) These structural features can obviously be established by a class other than the workers.


But in China the working class did play a big part in the 1949 Revolution, even though not as much as the peasantry did. Furthermore, it was a revolution in which the old capitalist state machine was completely smashed and the capitalist class as a class abolished.



(3) These features can exist in a state that no one has ever stated is a workers state, i.e. Taiwan.
Some of these features maybe, but it's clearly not the same. Firstly, income inequality is still far higher in countries like Taiwan compared with Maoist China (not China now), despite the existence of a significant amount of public ownership and even some public welfare. Secondly, despite the existence of many state-owned industries, there are also many explicitly private enterprises in countries like Taiwan. Private enterprise simply on the whole did not exist at all in Maoist China. Thirdly, the structure of the state-owned enterprises in Taiwan is very different from that of the SoEs in Maoist China. In Maoist China workers had better conditions and more control over the process of production through the Angang constitution.

You are conflating "state-capitalism" in the Cliffite sense with "state-capitalism" in the more conventional sense of bureaucratic capitalism, i.e. the alliance between "big (capitalist) government" and "big business", in both China today and Taiwan, what you have is this kind of bureaucratic capitalism, which is somewhat different from the liberal capitalism of the West, but in Maoist China you did not have this because there were no big businesses.



We’ll see how clear this definition is.

And what the fuck would make the bureaucracy a working class or socialist bureaucracy? Fact is, the bureaucracy is an agency of social control for a ruling class.
Which in a worker's state, is the working class.



What you are saying is that the working class would permit a bureaucracy to rule over itself in its own name.
Yes, because as I said, the working class is not a single "slab of concrete", but is divided into multiple layers. A privileged higher layer of the working class could acquire effective control of the bureaucratic state machinery and then lord it over the rest of the ordinary layers of workers.

Your mistake is that you refuse to recognise that intense antagonisms could indeed exist within the working class, not just between the working class and another class. The working class could be divided in many ways, not just in the way I'm describing here, but also through race, culture, gender etc. It is ridiculously utopian to think that the global working class would just somehow "automatically" always be in unity just because they all happen to be workers. Sometimes the quantitative magnitude of the amount of conflict within the socialist camp can even exceed the conflict between socialists and capitalists.

Your views about the "working class" are utopian and idealistic. The working class is not some kind of "magical wand". Do you think, for instance, that workers of one race is incapable in principle of committing racial genocide upon the workers of another race? Or that a higher layer of workers cannot rule over ordinary workers in a way similar to how capitalists do it?



It was obvious from the beginning of the USSR that the bureacracy was exerting power over the working class. Lenin himself, as early as 1921, referred to the Soviet state as "a workers' state with a bureaucratic deformation.”And things did not improve over the next 70 years. The predominance of the bureaucracy over the working class became complete. When the workers do not control the state, directly, it is not a workers state.
Do you refuse to recognise the USSR immediately after the 1917 Revolution as a worker's state then? If you don't, then how can the USSR qualitatively transform itself from a worker's state to a capitalist state without any kind of explicit counter-revolution? Your views here are like "reformism in reverse", as Trotsky himself said.



But Comrade, the bureaucracy is not “a privileged layer of the working class.” At the point at which it exercises state power, tt represents a different social stratum. It’s relationship to the working class changes. The bureaucracy, say, in the USA, could be called a layer of the working class (and not all that privileged). However, this “layer” does not exert state power. It does not control the economy. It does not make decisions. These are left to the bourgeoisie itself and its political representatives.
But the "working class" is an economic definition, not a political one. Just because workers, or a layer of workers, take political control of the state machine, doesn't make them into non-workers, otherwise the worker's state could not have existed at all.



But such a situation has never existed.
That's by and large what you had in deformed worker's state. Technically in Maoist China everyone was a worker, including Mao himself. Mao was not rich in a personal sense, he still lived on wages he received from the state, and he had no direct control of any means of production. So Mao was a worker economically speaking.



The “revolutionary party” in the USSR, China, etc., stood in a different relationship to the means of production as the working class. And the actual power bearers in that society were not workers. After the so-called Lenin levy in 1924, the vanguard of the working class no longer controlled the party.


But objectively most of the party members in those days were indeed workers. They were not rich personally, they lived off nothing except wages given by the state, and they did not possess direct control or ownership of any means of production.




emph. added.
The fact that the working class did not play as big a role in the 1949 Revolution as the peasantry did was due to China's particular circumstances. It is one reason why the revolution was somewhat deformed from the beginning, but it doesn't mean subjectively the CCP did not focus on the working class. No-one has control over objective circumstances.



So you are saying that it would be okay to form a “temporary alliance” with the bourgeoisie in a country. Funny that the Bolsheviks didn’t do that at the point of the seizure of power. Quite the contrary.
It's never black-and-white. Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's not. In any event the key is have real political independence.



There may have been a moment, at the beginning of the bourgeois regime in China, when it was permissible to do that. But now, 75 years later, when native bourgeoisies are linked to global imperialism, they are weaker than ever, in practice, this is impossible. In effect, this call is a call for an alliance with imperialism.
When did I say socialists should ally with the bourgeois in China now?



In addition, in Maoist practice, the working class does not maintain political independence. This was demonstrated in the recent general strike in Nepal, where the Nepalese did not urge the working class to set up independent organs of power during the strike. This is the legacy of Stalinism/Maoism.
I was talking about independence from bourgeois political forces, not independence from the party machine, which is indeed debatable, but is a separate issue.



Wow! The Trotskyist revolution. That’s a new one on me.
Trotsky played a very crucial role in the 1917 Revolution. It was a revolution made by both Lenin and Trotsky, not just Lenin. Also, as Trotskyists claim, the early USSR possessed the features of real democratic socialism in the worker's state. So calling it a "Trotskyist revolution" isn't so wrong.



By a process that is well understood, the bureaucracy gained control and turned it into state capitalism.
How did it happen if initially Trotsky and Lenin understood that workers must always remain in control as a class? How could the degeneration have occurred?



Orthodox Trotskyism has never entirely broken off its affection for the bureaucracy.
So you think Third-campists are immune from degeneration?

The idea that any tendency or anyone can be really immune from degeneration is frankly a very dangerous one.

This is why I agree with the Maoist doctrine of "continuous revolution".

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
The price of communism is eternal revolution.

Everyone can degenerate, and the risk of degeneration is forever present as long as humanity exists in this universe.

[chegitz guevara]

You should study history. There is nothing "working class" about societies like China, except that (a) they have one, and (b) it's not in power.

Clearly the Teamsters and other unions are not working class organizations, because the workers are not in power. Clearly Nazi Germany was not a capitalist state, because the capitalists were not in power.

Who holds the reigns of state power does not necessarily determine the nature of a state.

[RED DAVE]

Who holds the reigns of state power does not necessarily determine the nature of a state.Quite the contrary. It is the essence of Marxism that only the working class can hold state power for the working class.

The bourgeoisie, under conditions of fascism or bonapartism, can let elements of other classes run the state because it retains economic power by its control of industry. Since, for the working class, state power and economic power are synonymous, when the working class loses state power, it loses economic power. Such as society can in no way be called a workers state.

To call it such is the basic fallacy of Stalinism and Maoism.

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

No, that's not the essence of Marxism. Marx never said much about what a socialist society would look like. He refused to predict it, because like any good materialist, he knew that reality doesn't have to conform to ideas.

The workers don't lose economic power simply because they lose political power. If you really believed that, you'd be a Left Communist, since the workers lost political power in the Russian Revolution in April 1918, when the Soviets were hobbled.

[RED DAVE]

No, that's not the essence of Marxism. Marx never said much about what a socialist society would look like. He refused to predict it, because like any good materialist, he knew that reality doesn't have to conform to ideas.True, but we're talking here about the content of the workers state, not the form. The content is workers power. The form could be soviets, rank-and-file committees, solders committees, almost anything that serves for the workers to exercise class control over the economy.


The workers don't lose economic power simply because they lose political power.Yes they do because under socialism, unlike capitalism, economic power and political power are fused.


If you really believed that, you'd be a Left Communist, since the workers lost political power in the Russian Revolution in April 1918, when the Soviets were hobbled.That was the very rapid beginning of the end. Even Lenin acknowledged that the USSR was a workers state with bureaucratic deformation. (I forget the exact formula he used.) Quite rapidly, the bureaucratic deformation negated the workers state.

RED DAVE