Nepal: Maoist Leader’s Reiterate-PLA Won’t Be Dissolved, YCL Will Expand

[mosfeld]

Nepal: Maoist Leader’s Reiterate-PLA Won’t Be Dissolved, YCL Will Expand

The following was originally published on Nepal News , Saturday October 9th under the headline “PLA won’t be dissolved“

At a time when the UCPN (Maoist) is coming under increasing pressure to integrate its combatants, some Maoist leaders have said the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will not be dissolved.

Speaking at a picnic organised by Maoist youth wing, Young Communist League (YCL) , Maoist standing committee member and the military in-charge Barshaman Pun said other parties were trying to ‘finish off’ the Maoist party by dissolving the PLA.

Pun, who is a member of the Special Committee for supervision, integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants, said the Maoists will not give up arms before they are sure of the future of the peace process and the constitution-drafting.

Speaking at the same function, PLA chief Nanda Kishor Pun said that the PLA “is ready to make whatever sacrifice people want”.

Likewise, politburo member and former PLA deputy commander Janardan Sharma said the other parties were raising the issue of integration instead of concentrating on the constitution-drafting and that the PLA would not be dissolved unless the constitution and republican order are ensured.

He also said the party is not ready to disband the YCL, but will instead expand its organisational base.

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/nepal-maoist-leaders-reiterate-pla-wont-be-dissolved-ycl-will-expand/

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

The headline here was very, very misleading. The positions described by both the UCPN(M) individuals cited describe a conclusion opposite the one suggested in the title:


Pun, who is a member of the Special Committee for supervision, integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants, said the Maoists will not give up arms before they are sure of the future of the peace process and the constitution-drafting.And...


Likewise, politburo member and former PLA deputy commander Janardan Sharma said the other parties were raising the issue of integration instead of concentrating on the constitution-drafting and that the PLA would not be dissolved unless the constitution and republican order are ensured.In other words, as long as a national unity government (note: not a people's republic) is enshrined in a new constitution, the party is perfectly willing to effectly disband the PLA by integrating all of its fighters into the regular army. i.e. Defeating the enemy army with the PLA and resolving the contradiction in that way is NOT the party's objective. The PLA only exists conditionally, according to this line. It's existence is not a principle, apparently.

[RED DAVE]

In other words, as long as a national unity government (note: not a people's republic) is enshrined in a new constitution, the party is perfectly willing to effectly disband the PLA by integrating all of its fighters into the regular army. i.e. Defeating the enemy army with the PLA and resolving the contradiction in that way is NOT the party's objective. The PLA only exists conditionally, according to this line. It's existence is not a principle, apparently.You are addressing exactly my fear about the Nepalese Maoists. There have been constant justifications and rationalizations being posted about UCP(M) strategy and outsmarting the bourgeois parties and educating the masses as to their perfidy and waiting for the right moment.

What I see is constitutional maneuvering where the Maoist leadership is aching to lead a bourgeois government as they did a year and a half ago and got their asses kicked for it. Objectively, the party is in a weaker position than it was before they took the prime ministership.

I don't see their actions as principled and astute but opportunist and clumsy. The episodes where Prachandra took the prime ministership and lost it shortly thereafter and the calling off of the general strike with no significant gain are particularly egregious. (No, the resignation of a bourgeois prime minister is not a significant gain. They can always get another one. And, in the meantime, the government functions and the capitalists exploit. Time is not on the side of the Maoists.)

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

Objectively, the party is in a weaker position than it was before they took the prime ministership.

You've said this before, without evidence. You say it again, without evidence.

Your own wishful thinking does not constitute an argument Dave.

[Saorsa]

Objectively, the party is in a weaker position than it was before they took the prime ministership.

You've said this before, without evidence. You say it again, without evidence.

Your own wishful thinking does not constitute an argument Dave.

[RED DAVE]

Objectively, the party is in a weaker position than it was before they took the prime ministership.
You've said this before, without evidence. You say it again, without evidence.

Your own wishful thinking does not constitute an argument Dave.It's not wishful thinking. It's an assessment of the situation.

Consider what has happened since Prachandra took the prime ministership a year and a half ago and the UCP(M) has actively participated in a bourgeois government. (That is, they are members of, and sometimes the leaders of, a government whose purpose is the maintenance of capitalism in Nepal.)

What has happened to further the revolutionary process? The revolution either goes forward or backward. A condition of dual power is unstable and must go either way.

Well, there has been a constituent assembly to make a new constitution. Where's the constitution? The constituent assembly is bogged down and will always be bogged down. Why? Because it is impossible to produce a constitution that satisfies on the one hand the revolutionary classes: the workers, the peasants and the revolutionary members of the petit-bourgeoisie who have cast their lot with the workers and peasants, and, on the other hand, the bourgeoisie. Can't be done. The workers and peasants want an end to exploitation. The bourgeoisie wants the right to unfettered exploitation and a government to help them do it efficiently.

Well there has been a general strike. Yes, there has. What did it accomplish? The resignation of a bourgeois prime minister. So? Was he replaced by a Marxist heading a Marxist regime? He wasn't even replaced by a Marxist heading a bourgeois regime as a year before. There have been sixteen or so votes for a new prime minister, and there isn't one yet. It is said that the bourgeoisie is in disarray. Well, maybe. But meantime, capitalism and the capitalist state are rolling on in Nepal. Time is not on the side of the revolutionaries.

There have been land seizures. Yes, there have been, but they have been local and minor. Has the balance of class power shifted in the countryside? Four years ago, the UCP(M) controlled the countryside. What has happened since they began to engage in bourgeois politics? You tell me.

There are public divisions within the UCP(M) that were not present (or at least not apparent) two or three years ago. It has been said that this is normal for a revolutionary party: getting rid of the bad blood, etc. Well, maybe, but in the meantime, I don't see any signs of increased strength.

The UCP(M) has "locked up" its fighting force in camps. They have been ambiguous about maintaining it as an independent force. It is not clear what the current role of the YCL is.

Confusion and lack of direction. Show me that I'm wrong.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

While I cannot agree 100% with Dave's assessment, on the essential point, he is correct:


What has happened to further the revolutionary process? The revolution either goes forward or backward. A condition of dual power is unstable and must go either way.


On balance, things have not moved forward in recent years. There has been a dangerous period of relative "stagnation" (no such thing), which, if we grasp the Maoist permanent revolution theory, means ideological relapse (that's why). Now there have been land seizures and some other things like this, but the crucial thing to understand is that they (the ones in recent years) were simply conducted as forms of protest, not as revolutionary acts. Maoism isn't simply a form of armed protest.

This whole national unity government thing reminds me of the Khrushchev theory of the "state of the whole people" that was precisely the inspiration for the Sino-Soviet Split. And the logic the UCPN(M) is applying is similar to Khrushchev's, in fact. Essentially they're arguing that the proletariat acquires state power peacefully and then consolidates it through low-level force, much as per the Khrushchev theory of the "peaceful transition" into socialism. Such is the logic of the "Prachanda Path".

However, I must also point out this to Red Dave:


Well, there has been a constituent assembly to make a new constitution. Where's the constitution? The constituent assembly is bogged down and will always be bogged down. Why? Because it is impossible to produce a constitution that satisfies on the one hand the revolutionary classes: the workers, the peasants and the revolutionary members of the petit-bourgeoisie who have cast their lot with the workers and peasants, and, on the other hand, the bourgeoisie. Can't be done. The workers and peasants want an end to exploitation. The bourgeoisie wants the right to unfettered exploitation and a government to help them do it efficiently.

This statement is only 75% correct because it neglects one section of the block of 4 classes that Maoist theory includes as part of the revolutionary people: the patriotic section of the third world bourgeoisie. They contradictions between these block elements can be resolved non-antagonistically, whereas the contradiction between these popular forces and the comprador elements (e.g. the Kuomintang, the Nepali Congress) must be resolved through force. This understanding stems from the reality of the global capitalist system that it is at the stage of imperialism...meaning imperialist states and their cohorts are the principal enemy and hence must be the focus of attack. Maoists task themselves with the strategic isolation of this enemy to assure its defeat. National unity (as contrasted with a national unity government, which we have found is always wrong) is appropriate only when an imperialist power itself steps in to directly impose colonial status (as contrasted with more common neo-colonial management) and thus creates a meaningful contradiction between itself and the comprador elements, which are often loyal to an open-door policy.

[Kiev Communard]

This whole national unity government thing reminds me of the Khrushchev theory of the "state of the whole people" that was precisely the inspiration for the Sino-Soviet Split. And the logic the UCPN(M) is applying is similar to Khrushchev's, in fact. Essentially they're arguing that the proletariat acquires state power peacefully and then consolidates it through low-level force, much as per the Khrushchev theory of the "peaceful transition" into socialism. Such is the logic of the "Prachanda Path".

This statement is only 75% correct because it neglects one section of the block of 4 classes that Maoist theory includes as part of the revolutionary people: the patriotic section of the third world bourgeoisie.

Well, objectively the ideas of "state of whole people" and "class bloc with patriotic bourgeoisie" are actually rather similar.

[Roach]

Well, objectively the ideas of "state of whole people" and "class bloc with patriotic bourgeoisie" are actually rather similar.

I'm not a maoist, but this is not true, one recognises the existence of class struggle after the socialist revolution, the other one simply doesn't it.

[Barry Lyndon]

It's so nice to see the Avakianites(I refuse to call them Maoists because they reject every major Maoist struggle that isn't led by Bob Avakian-ie all of them), and Cliffites holding hands to agree on one thing-spreading defeatist propaganda about Nepal.
Just keep chanting 'they will fail, they will fail' with your friends the Nepalese Congress Party and the CIA, and eventually it will come true.

[RED DAVE]

Well, there has been a constituent assembly to make a new constitution. Where's the constitution? The constituent assembly is bogged down and will always be bogged down. Why? Because it is impossible to produce a constitution that satisfies on the one hand the revolutionary classes: the workers, the peasants and the revolutionary members of the petit-bourgeoisie who have cast their lot with the workers and peasants, and, on the other hand, the bourgeoisie. Can't be done. The workers and peasants want an end to exploitation. The bourgeoisie wants the right to unfettered exploitation and a government to help them do it efficiently.
This statement is only 75% correct because it neglects one section of the block of 4 classes that Maoist theory includes as part of the revolutionary people: the patriotic section of the third world bourgeoisie.The question is: is this distinction real in 2010? Now, as has been quoted, Lenin and the Bolsheviks favored support of the Chinese bourgeoisie during its revolutionary phase in the early 1920s. However, by 1928, a major section of this class turned against and massacred the Communists. The KMT is termed the "comprador" branch of the bourgeoisie, as opposed to a "patriotic" branch.

While there may have been some justification for the is distinction at one time, that time is long past. Even in Lenin's time, the USSR supported the Turkish government of Attaturk in spite of the fact that this government was murdering Communists. Likewise, they gave some support to liberal elements in the Weimar government. Both these policies were wrong even then.

Now, to call for a block with some kind of "native" or "patriotic" bourgoisie in this day and age is a cross between an illusion and a disaster. There is no such thing as a "patriotic" bourgeoisie. This is late in the Age of Imperialism, the Age of Globalization. Any native bourgeoisie of any heft is part and parcel of the imperialist system. Any section of the bourgeoisie that is more-or-less purely "native," that is, basically engaged local commerce or manufacturing is a member of the petit-bourgoisie, the petty capitalists, whose existence has always been known as a class sandwiched in between the "large" bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie proper, and the working class.

The political unreliability of this class is proverbial. For the Maoists to make a major political point of blocking with this class will, on the basis of their illusions, lead them into a political alliance with the large bourgeoisie, which is what is going on how. The fact that the Maoists are, right now, full members of a bourgeois government, based on capitalist economic relations, jockeying for power in that government, is a disaster.


They contradictions between these block elements can be resolved non-antagonistically, whereas the contradiction between these popular forces and the comprador elements (e.g. the Kuomintang, the Nepali Congress) must be resolved through force.Again, this is an illusion. Any significant capitalist elements in Nepal are comprador elements: linked to the global system of capitalism. Any capitalist elements not so linked are petit-bourgrois. What this Maoist notion means, essentially, is that the Maoists will block with the bourgeoisie itself, which is no surprise to anyone who ever saw Mao make kissy-nice with Richard Nixon.


This understanding stems from the reality of the global capitalist system that it is at the stage of imperialism...meaning imperialist states and their cohorts are the principal enemy and hence must be the focus of attack.And here is where you make your mistake: the native bourgeoisie is as much the enemy as the imperialist powers and native capitalism is as dangerous as global capialism because it is a part of it! It was not the imperialists and imperialism that created capitalism in China and Vietnam. It was the native bourgeoisie.


Maoists task themselves with the strategic isolation of this enemy to assure its defeat. National unity (as contrasted with a national unity government, which we have found is always wrong) is appropriate only when an imperialist power itself steps in to directly impose colonial status (as contrasted with more common neo-colonial management) and thus creates a meaningful contradiction between itself and the comprador elements, which are often loyal to an open-door policy.This is no longer the case. Again, there is no meaningful distinction between comprador capitalism and native capitalism. If there ever was in the 20th Century, it was for a very brief period that ended shortly after WWI. Native capitalism may attempt to defend itself against foreign capitalism, as the USA attempts to defend itself against, say, Japanese capitalism, but the US capitalists will block with the Japanese capitalists in a hot second rather than make a block with its own working class that is truly favorable to the working class.

The Maoist strategy of the block of four classes is an illusion. There is no native bourgeoisie that is independent of imperialism to block with. The Maoists, as we are seeing in practice, are blocking with the bourgoisie itself.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Barry Lyndon wrote:
It's so nice to see the Avakianites(I refuse to call them Maoists because they reject every major Maoist struggle that isn't led by Bob Avakian-ie all of them), and Cliffites holding hands to agree on one thing-spreading defeatist propaganda about Nepal.
Just keep chanting 'they will fail, they will fail' with your friends the Nepalese Congress Party and the CIA, and eventually it will come true.

The entire post quoted above is a direct (and completely false) personal attack on me alleging that I'm "friends with the Nepalese Congress Party and the CIA". This level of "debate" is completely unacceptable and I have no intention of tolerating it. The next time any such an offense occurs, it will be reported. For those who haven't noticed, I'm a supporter of Nepal's revolution. Siding with the revolutionary part of the party is not the same thing as supporting the principal enemies of the revolution...or even close!

And for clarity's sake, for the roughly 27,000th time now, I am NOT, repeat NOT, any longer on board with the RCP and Bob Avakian anyway, not that that has anything to do with anything here. If you're going to make a character assassination attempt, know what the hell you're talking about in the first place!

RED CAT: My Maoist comrade, rather than supporting these tactics with your thanks, maybe you should try debating the issue legitimately. Just a thought. I forgive you for your ignorance of my political line, given that you were absent for the whole summer wherein a key change therein took place. But that doesn't excuse your support for a frontal violation of this forum's basic rules.


RED DAVE wrote:
Now, to call for a block with some kind of "native" or "patriotic" bourgoisie in this day and age is a cross between an illusion and a disaster. There is no such thing as a "patriotic" bourgeoisie. This is late in the Age of Imperialism, the Age of Globalization. Any native bourgeoisie of any heft is part and parcel of the imperialist system. Any section of the bourgeoisie that is more-or-less purely "native," that is, basically engaged local commerce or manufacturing is a member of the petit-bourgoisie, the petty capitalists, whose existence has always been known as a class sandwiched in between the "large" bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie proper, and the working class.

Here is where you really lose me. You simply reclassify the patriotic bourgeois elements as "petit-bourgeoisie" and thus arrive at a different formulation that means the exact same thing as the block of 4 classes in practice. Why even bother writing such a pointless polemic?

Even in the realm of theory though, there are holes in your argument. Here it's worth once more pointing out what the objectives of the proletariat are. As summed up by Mao, the goal of the proletariat is the abolition of the 4 Alls (analogous to Marx's 2 Radical Ruptures, but more specific):

1. All class distinctions.

2. All exploitative economic relations.

3. All oppressive social relations.

4. All reactionary ideas.

What I think you're tending to do is focus in on the former two and ignore the latter two. For example, the patriotic bourgeoisie of the third world can't really be described as exploited, but they are oppressed. They're held down by the force of imperialism. Therein lies the real possibility of forming a strategic block with them. It's also worth recalling that these native bourgeois elements are generally poorer than and have less access to capital than most first world workers! I point this out to highlight the fact that even these elements do actually have a material interest in proletarian revolution. Thus the contradiction between even these elements and the proletariat can be resolved non-antagonistically. They were in China by the end of 1957. By the end of 1957, virtually everyone in China was essentially a member of the working class. (e.g. By way of the collectivization of agriculture, the peasants were effectively transformed into agricultural workers, etc.)

To put it the way Marx did, you have two options when it comes to broad middle-type forces: you can either win them over to the side of the proletariat or you can surrender them to the enemy. The latter is a defeatist position that serves only to prevent the revolutionary victory of the proletariat. I see that principle as applicable to this fourth aspect of the block as well.


And here is where you make your mistake: the native bourgeoisie is as much the enemy as the imperialist powers and native capitalism is as dangerous as global capialism because it is a part of it! It was not the imperialists and imperialism that created capitalism in China and Vietnam. It was the native bourgeoisie.

Now the re-emergence of capitalist forces in China (for example) subsequent to the '50s doesn't discount the point I'm making here. Capitalism also re-emerged in the Soviet Union, where they didn't forge such a broad block in making their revolution, for example. So it's not as simple as "what we choose" in this sense. The danger of capitalist restoration always exists in socialist society. Capitalism can re-emerge even in socialist society because you haven't yet fully transformed all the old relations and ideas. And therein lies the importance of the Maoist permanent revolution theory. Continuing the revolution under socialism is not an option if one hopes to keep socialism. Now this of course can be contrasted with Stalin's theory of productive forces, which he developed late in life. The productive forces theory contends that once you've established a rudimentary form of socialism, the main task from that point on is simply building up the economy because that'll just sort of automatically yield you a communist society one day. That deterministic mentality is a big part of what Mao broke with in writing his criticism of Stalin in 1958 and in launching the Great Leap Forward that same year. The whole premise was to actively leap to a new stage of socialism that would serve as a bridge to communism. Maoism is all about continuing the forward motion of the revolution. Chen Boda (the initial head of the Cultural Revolution Group and the guy who originally formulated "continuing the revolution under socialism") found Lenin's statement that Bolsheviks are the Jacobins of the proletarian movement particularly important in that connection. It's a good analogy for the authentic Maoist position. You can distinguish the authentic Maoist from the phony in that the phony responds to problems by advocating the idea of moving backward toward capitalism or toward surrender. That dividing-line was what the Cultural Revolution was all about.


The political unreliability of this class is proverbial. For the Maoists to make a major political point of blocking with this class will, on the basis of their illusions, lead them into a political alliance with the large bourgeoisie, which is what is going on how. The fact that the Maoists are, right now, full members of a bourgeois government, based on capitalist economic relations, jockeying for power in that government, is a disaster.

Once again, this conclusion is based on an overly simplified analysis. In reality, the essential problem is that they're of the orientation of forming a common government (and hence a common politics) with the comprador bourgeoisie. These are elements that are NOT included in the 4-class block, but rather whose class interests are fundamentally bound up with the perpetuation of the imperialist system.


While there may have been some justification for the is distinction at one time, that time is long past. Even in Lenin's time, the USSR supported the Turkish government of Attaturk in spite of the fact that this government was murdering Communists. Likewise, they gave some support to liberal elements in the Weimar government. Both these policies were wrong even then.


Again, this is an illusion. Any significant capitalist elements in Nepal are comprador elements: linked to the global system of capitalism. Any capitalist elements not so linked are petit-bourgrois. What this Maoist notion means, essentially, is that the Maoists will block with the bourgeoisie itself, which is no surprise to anyone who ever saw Mao make kissy-nice with Richard Nixon.

I'll address your latter quote first:

I don't think you've very clearly differentiated between Mao and Maoism...and this doubtless results in big misconceptions about what the Maoist foreign policy and global outlook was, as contrasted with what happened during the '70s. In that connection, I addressed this matter at some length recently on my separate message board (which is mainly a theoretical journal for a few of us at this early stage) here (http://politicsincommand.pro-forums.com/ftopic17-0-0-asc-.php) if you wanted to get a clearer understanding of the importance of this distinction and much better understanding of what the Maoist foreign policy and global outlook actually was.

To highlight something that's key though regarding the first quote above, this Maoist foreign policy and global outlook sees imperialism as the main enemy and thus opposes rapprochement with any section thereof. We can hence reassess the historical record on the basis of that outlook and understanding. This perspective shows the USSR's "united front against fascism line" from 1935, for example, to have clearly been a mistake. And, in fact, we can see that it was more clearly by the course of events: this strategy failed completely to prevent a German invasion. In fact, Stalin had to reach an agreement with Hitler himself to even initially stave off an invasion...and that didn't work either. No section of the imperialists, whether liberal or fascist, was interested in coming to the USSR's defense to prevent an invasion thereof. And look at how the united front with the Allies forged during the war negatively affected Stalin's position: he even agreed at Yalta to allow several bourgeois governments to exist indefinitely and later wrongly went along with the Western Allies' insistence that the KMT accept the Japanese surrender in China, despite the fact that the Communists had done most of the fighting! Finally, the whole framework of the "Allies" and "world peace" via the UN proved altogether unsustainable and broke apart shortly after the war. The contradiction between even the liberal imperialists and the camp of the proletariat could only be resolved antagonistically. And it was precisely this rupture that enabled the Soviet Union to support many socialist revolutions that took place within its Eastern European sphere during this time. At Yalta, Stalin had supported bourgeois elections for Poland. Once the Cold War got underway though, he had to rupture with that position in order to support the socialist revolution that took place in Poland. Just as one example of what I mean.

[red cat]

RED CAT: My Maoist comrade, rather than supporting these tactics with your thanks, maybe you should try debating the issue legitimately. Just a thought. I forgive you for your ignorance of my political line, given that you were absent for the whole summer wherein a key change therein took place. But that doesn't excuse your support for a frontal violation of this forum's basic rules.


I am sorry if this offends you, but if you keep engaging in typical first-worldist propaganda against a top leader of one of the most successful revolutionary movements at present, I can't but oppose you.

You will recall that I had mentioned that Prachanda was on a revisionist track about a year ago in this forum. After that I also clarified about his overall revolutionary nature. You need to differentiate between conscious and unconscious revisionism. Until the UCPN(M) totally liquidates the revolution or declares Prachanda a revisionist, you don't have any right to say such things about him, or claiming that the UCPN(M) should expel him etc. A very revolutionary leader can temporarily take on a revisionist line as well.

When it comes to Prachanda, it is primarily the duty of his co-warriors, and not yours, to criticize him. What do you know about the Nepalese revolution anyway ? A few reports from Kasama and your own analysis ? Basing on that you are siding with Trotskyite counter-revolutionary attacks on him and the UCPN(M) ? Even when Trots attack our revolutions they claim to be communists and doing it for the "good of the working class", but the truth is far from that.

What you are doing now displays the height of first-worldist arrogance. Humility is one of the primary qualities of a revolutionary. Learn it if you want to be one. Then apologize for your arrogance and engage in constructive discussions and criticisms inside the MLM group. You don't need to prove how right you are. You need to develop your political consciousness.

[RED DAVE]

I am sorry if this offends you, but if you keep engaging in typical first-worldist propaganda against a top leader of one of the most successful revolutionary movements at present, I can't but oppose you.

You will recall that I had mentioned that Prachanda was on a revisionist track about a year ago in this forum. After that I also clarified about his overall revolutionary nature. You need to differentiate between conscious and unconscious revisionism. Until the UCPN(M) totally liquidates the revolution or declares Prachanda a revisionist, you don't have any right to say such things about him, or claiming that the UCPN(M) should expel him etc. A very revolutionary leader can temporarily take on a revisionist line as well.

When it comes to Prachanda, it is primarily the duty of his co-warriors, and not yours, to criticize him. What do you know about the Nepalese revolution anyway ? A few reports from Kasama and your own analysis ? Basing on that you are siding with Trotskyite counter-revolutionary attacks on him and the UCPN(M) ? Even when Trots attack our revolutions they claim to be communists and doing it for the "good of the working class", but the truth is far from that.

What you are doing now displays the height of first-worldist arrogance. Humility is one of the primary qualities of a revolutionary. Learn it if you want to be one. Then apologize for your arrogance and engage in constructive discussions and criticisms inside the MLM group. You don't need to prove how right you are. You need to develop your political consciousness.Stuff and nonsense. One of the duties of a revolutionary is revolutionary criticism of their own party and other parties. To fail to do so in either case, which is an epidemic among Maoists, is to fail in responsibility.

There is every reason to believe that the UCPN(M) is engaged in a political course that will lead to either to state capialism or just out-and-out capitalism. You want to debate that, sure. But don't try to pull that first-worldist or trot cards around here. They're jokers and don't belong in the deck.

You got new info that the course of the UCPN(M) since Prachandra took the prime ministership and got his ass kicked, and that they general strike of last spring was useless, post it. Too much shit has hit the fan in Nepal for all to see for you to pretend it's chocolate and that we need to eat it and shut up.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Stuff and nonsense. One of the duties of a revolutionary is revolutionary criticism of their own party and other parties. To fail to do so in either case, which is an epidemic among Maoists, is to fail in responsibility.

There is every reason to believe that the UCPN(M) is engaged in a political course that will lead to either to state capialism or just out-and-out capitalism. You want to debate that, sure. But don't try to pull that first-worldist or trot cards around here. They're jokers and don't belong in the deck.

You got new info that the course of the UCPN(M) since Prachandra took the prime ministership and got his ass kicked, and that they general strike of last spring was useless, post it. Too much shit has hit the fan in Nepal for all to see for you to pretend it's chocolate and that we need to eat it and shut up.

RED DAVE

Who is the "we" here ? I did not ask you to shut up. My concern was for comrade MRD, not you.

P.S. Do you spell Prachanda's name wrong intentionally or out of ignorance ?

[RED DAVE]

Why don't you stop bullshitting and answer my points?


I am sorry if this offends you, but if you keep engaging in typical first-worldist propaganda against a top leader of one of the most successful revolutionary movements at present, I can't but oppose you.

You will recall that I had mentioned that Prachanda was on a revisionist track about a year ago in this forum. After that I also clarified about his overall revolutionary nature. You need to differentiate between conscious and unconscious revisionism. Until the UCPN(M) totally liquidates the revolution or declares Prachanda a revisionist, you don't have any right to say such things about him, or claiming that the UCPN(M) should expel him etc. A very revolutionary leader can temporarily take on a revisionist line as well.

When it comes to Prachanda, it is primarily the duty of his co-warriors, and not yours, to criticize him. What do you know about the Nepalese revolution anyway ? A few reports from Kasama and your own analysis ? Basing on that you are siding with Trotskyite counter-revolutionary attacks on him and the UCPN(M) ? Even when Trots attack our revolutions they claim to be communists and doing it for the "good of the working class", but the truth is far from that.

What you are doing now displays the height of first-worldist arrogance. Humility is one of the primary qualities of a revolutionary. Learn it if you want to be one. Then apologize for your arrogance and engage in constructive discussions and criticisms inside the MLM group. You don't need to prove how right you are. You need to develop your political consciousness.Stuff and nonsense. One of the duties of a revolutionary is revolutionary criticism of their own party and other parties. To fail to do so in either case, which is an epidemic among Maoists, is to fail in responsibility.

There is every reason to believe that the UCPN(M) is engaged in a political course that will lead to either to state capitalism or just out-and-out capitalism. You want to debate that, sure. But don't try to pull those first-worldist or trot cards around here. They're jokers and don't belong in the deck.

You got new info that the course of the UCPN(M) since Prachanda took the prime ministership and got his ass kicked, and that they general strike of last spring was useless, post it. Too much shit has hit the fan in Nepal for all to see for you to pretend it's chocolate and that we need to eat it and shut up.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Why don't you stop bullshitting and answer my points?

Stuff and nonsense. One of the duties of a revolutionary is revolutionary criticism of their own party and other parties. To fail to do so in either case, which is an epidemic among Maoists, is to fail in responsibility.

There is every reason to believe that the UCPN(M) is engaged in a political course that will lead to either to state capitalism or just out-and-out capitalism. You want to debate that, sure. But don't try to pull those first-worldist or trot cards around here. They're jokers and don't belong in the deck.

You got new info that the course of the UCPN(M) since Prachanda took the prime ministership and got his ass kicked, and that they general strike of last spring was useless, post it. Too much shit has hit the fan in Nepal for all to see for you to pretend it's chocolate and that we need to eat it and shut up.

RED DAVE

Personally I am not interested in answering your points here. I posted in this thread to answer comrade MRD, not you.

[RED DAVE]

Personally I am not interested in answering your points here. I posted in this thread to answer comrade MRD, not you.Translation: I can't answer your points.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Translation: I can't answer your points.

RED DAVE

Sometimes this is a very effective way of making people answer one's points.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

red cat wrote:
You will recall that I had mentioned that Prachanda was on a revisionist track about a year ago in this forum. After that I also clarified about his overall revolutionary nature. You need to differentiate between conscious and unconscious revisionism. Until the UCPN(M) totally liquidates the revolution or declares Prachanda a revisionist, you don't have any right to say such things about him, or claiming that the UCPN(M) should expel him etc.

Incorrect. If this argument had been applied in China, for example, the Cultural Revolution would never have happened because, according to your logic, unless and until the revolution is actually materially lost, it's wrong to oppose and rebel against the revisionist tendency. The Cultural Revolution was a political revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Maoism has nothing to do with bottling up the truth so no one can see it and everything to do with keeping the forward motion of revolution going. I'm a supporter of the revolutionary tendency within the UCPN(M). That should be enough for you to avoid Thanking people who violate the rules to level personal attacks on me.


When it comes to Prachanda, it is primarily the duty of his co-warriors, and not yours, to criticize him. What do you know about the Nepalese revolution anyway ? A few reports from Kasama and your own analysis ? Basing on that you are siding with Trotskyite counter-revolutionary attacks on him and the UCPN(M) ? Even when Trots attack our revolutions they claim to be communists and doing it for the "good of the working class", but the truth is far from that.

No substantiation, no response.


What you are doing now displays the height of first-worldist arrogance. Humility is one of the primary qualities of a revolutionary. Learn it if you want to be one. Then apologize for your arrogance and engage in constructive discussions and criticisms inside the MLM group. You don't need to prove how right you are. You need to develop your political consciousness.

Now see what you've done here is to turn reality exactly on its head. In reality, Barry Lyndon is the one who violated the rules by leveling a personal attack on me, which you supported. If anyone owes anyone an apology here, it should be the two of you apologizing to me. But excellent mystification of the facts!

[red cat]

Incorrect. If this argument had been applied in China, for example, the Cultural Revolution would never have happened because, according to your logic, unless and until the revolution is actually materially lost, it's wrong to oppose and rebel against the revisionist tendency. The Cultural Revolution was a political revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Maoism has nothing to do with bottling up the truth so no one can see it and everything to do with keeping the forward motion of revolution going. I'm a supporter of the revolutionary tendency within the UCPN(M). That should be enough for you to avoid Thanking people who violate the rules to level personal attacks on me.

One of the differences being that at present you know a lot about the GPCR, since it happened three decades ago. Given the level of your knowledge of the Nepalese situation, a revolution that is happening right now, you would most probably be supporting the anti-Maoist elements during the GPCR.

EDIT:



No substantiation, no response.



Now see what you've done here is to turn reality exactly on its head. In reality, Barry Lyndon is the one who violated the rules by leveling a personal attack on me, which you supported. If anyone owes anyone an apology here, it should be the two of you apologizing to me. But excellent mystification of the facts!

When it comes to being arrogant regarding an ongoing revolution, I don't really mind much the way a supporter of the revolution might react to the same. You have typically been acting as a very knowledgeable person about the Nepalese revolution, which you are clearly not. At least I won't "substantiate" any points of mine here so that I might be blessed with your response. With every post of yours you are getting closer and closer to first-worldism.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Quit claiming that I'm just too stupid and ignorant to comment on the situation in Nepal because I'm not an uncritical supporter of the Prachanda line. That's the cheapest argument I've ever read.

[red cat]

Quit claiming that I'm just too stupid and ignorant to comment on the situation in Nepal because I'm not an uncritical supporter of the Prachanda line. That's the cheapest argument I've ever read.

Dont feel offended, but that is exactly what you are, except the "stupid" part. What makes you think that you know a lot about Nepal when you receive your information from the internet while sitting in the opposite side of the world ? There is nothing to be ashamed of your ignorance if you are willing to learn more about the ongoing revolutions. Even big third world revolutionary CPs go wrong about each other when they are that far apart.

[Palingenisis]

Quit claiming that I'm just too stupid and ignorant to comment on the situation in Nepal because I'm not an uncritical supporter of the Prachanda line. That's the cheapest argument I've ever read.

You are far from stupid, you are highly intelligent, but you lack as comrade red cat pointed out humility which stops you from being wise.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I recently highlighted the problem with this mentality in a blog entry (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1203). At this point, I'd recommend taking a read to that.

Now here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoist-leaders-preparing-t143249/index.html?p=1899311#post1899311) (in the very last post on page 1) I pointed out what I believe our appropriate role from where we're sitting to be in connection to this line dispute in Nepal. While it's a small role, it's not insignificant! Read over that blog entry again and I think you'll begin to see why. To highlight something that's described therein, recall the loss of China and the massive disorientation that caused among Maoists worldwide. Most of the global Maoist movement was lost and precisely because they adopted the uncritical mentality the two of you are advocating! Such a mentality prevented them from recognizing a counterrevolutionary coup when it was occurring right before their eyes! Those who led the way in regrouping the global Maoist movement were precisely those who, by contrast, had adopted a more critical approach to the examination of events inside China before the counterrevolutionary coup of '76...including yes the much-maligned Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, which played a leading role in the formation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement; the chief body where the remaining Maoist current regrouped.

As highlighted in that blog entry, already the decision of the UCPN(M) to abandon their people's war when it had reached such an advanced stage is having a huge and massively disorienting impact on the Maoist movement worldwide today. And that disorientation will grow even larger if the revolution in Nepal is actually materially lost. In order to prevent a repeat of the experience seen after the loss of China, with the corresponding loss of most of the Maoist movement, we need to grasp, including critically study, the internal situation in Nepal now, before the revolution is lost! Now unlike the RCP, I'm not prematurely writing off the UCPN(M) and calling for a split at this point. But yes we most certainly can and must grasp the essence of what's going on inside Nepal right now, when it actually counts, not later. Therein lies the vital importance of summing up the situation correctly at this key juncture. If the revolution is lost and we fail to recognize it, the global Maoist movement very broadly, not just in Nepal, will suffer an unnecessary, huge setback as a result. My aim here is not to display arrogance, but to cut losses we would suffer if Nepal's revolution is lost by promoting correct publicity on the subject.

While there are many fine details of what's going on in Nepal that we can't know without actually being there, the two of you are making the major mistake of reducing all questions to the level of identity politics, as if one must live in Nepal to know anything about, including the fundamentals of, the internal situation. Just as I needn't actually be an African American to grasp the basic plight of black people in America, neither need I be Nepalese to grasp the core essence of what's going on in Nepal.

As a final note...


red cat wrote earlier:
With every post of yours you are getting closer and closer to first-worldism.What readers of this thread may not know is that just days ago this same individual alleged that I was a "third worldist". I just wanted to point that fact out to demonstrate the complete inconsistency of the labels you (red cat in particular) feel it necessary to constantly brand me with. "Third worldist" one day, "first worldist" and "Trotskyist" the next, CIA agent another day, etc. If you don't want me to be offended, stop employing and supporting these tactics and start debating in a serious way.

[RED DAVE]

[T]he decision of the UCPN(M) to abandon their people's war when it had reached such an advanced stage is having a huge and massively disorienting impact on the Maoist movement worldwide today. And that disorientation will grow even larger if the revolution in Nepal is actually materially lost. In order to prevent a repeat of the experience seen after the loss of China, with the corresponding loss of most of the Maoist movement, we need to grasp, including critically study, the internal situation in Nepal now, before the revolution is lost! Now unlike the RCP, I'm not prematurely writing off the UCPN(M) and calling for a split at this point. But yes we most certainly can and must grasp the essence of what's going on inside Nepal right now, when it actually counts, not later. Therein lies the vital importance of summing up the situation correctly at this key juncture. If the revolution is lost and we fail to recognize it, the global Maoist movement very broadly, not just in Nepal, will suffer an unnecessary, huge setback as a result. My aim here is not to display arrogance, but to cut losses we would suffer if Nepal's revolution is lost by promoting correct publicity on the subject.I don't want to get into a brouhaha about Maoism in general but to stress MRG's point about criticism.

It is stupid and politically criminal to avoid criticism of a party in another country. It is the political responsibility of Marxists to criticise ourselves, our parties or tendencies and those in other countries. I've made this point over and over again, but diehard, uncritical defenders of the UCPN(M) keep coming back to it.

Criticism is part of the beating heart of Marxism. When you substitute faith for criticism you are in the realm of religion.

RED DAVE

[thälmann]

i think the relationship to the bourgoisie is a big problem in maoism. it is right that in a democratic revolution, the national bourgoisie is an ally. but that doenst mean you can solve the contradiction between them and the proletariat non antagonistic. after the democratic revolution, they main contradiction is between proletariat and bourgoisie.

in china for example parts of the bourgoisie hold big parts of the capital of state-private industry until, i dont know, if this ever ends, but not during the "socialist" phase in the 50s.

i think what happened in nepal the last 4 years is just wrong. i realy dont know why the maoists, holding 80 % of the country, didnt smash the state, solve the tasks of the democratic revolution and went further to socialism.
and know they talk with feudal parties and playing games in this rotten old state.

[RED DAVE]

i think the relationship to the bourgoisie is a big problem in maoism.Not only the bourgeoisie but also the working class. Which tells you a lot about Maoism.


it is right that in a democratic revolution, the national bourgoisie is an ally.No, it is dead wrong. First of all, there are no more national bourgeoisies in the sense that might have been so 100 years ago. Imperialism and globalization have made all bourgeoisies international. The distinction between national bourgeoisie and comprador bourgeoisie is untenable. Any capitalist grouping that is not international, is local, is petit-bourgeois.

Secondly, where in Marx of Lenin did anyone get the idea that, in the age of imperialism the bourgeoisie could be made an ally of socialism. That theory should have been exploded when the Chinese bourgeoisie massacred the Communists in 1928. The national bourgeoisie is the enemy of the working class. If it wasn't, why didn't Lenin advocate such an alliance?


but that doenst mean you can solve the contradiction between them and the proletariat non antagonistic. after the democratic revolution, they main contradiction is between proletariat and bourgoisie.This is Maoist mysticism, whose purpose is to justify an alliance with the bourgeoisie. The results of this we know: the bourgeoisie wins in the end. The national bourgeoisie is always the enemy of the working class. The only time a bloc might be possible is during a fight against imperialism and even then the situation is, at best, iffy.


in china for example parts of the bourgoisie hold big parts of the capital of state-private industry until, i dont know, if this ever ends, but not during the "socialist" phase in the 50s.Maoists deny this but families retained private fortunes during all periods up to the full restoration of capital. I have met members of such families who told me that they were able to operate small and medium-scale enterprises at all times after 1949.


i think what happened in nepal the last 4 years is just wrong. i realy dont know why the maoists, holding 80 % of the country, didnt smash the state, solve the tasks of the democratic revolution and went further to socialism.They could not do this because they never put the working class at the head of the revolution and, therefore, were unable to "take" the cities.


and know they talk with feudal parties and playing games in this rotten old state.State cap fun and games with the UCPN(M)

RED DAVE

[red cat]

I recently highlighted the problem with this mentality in a blog entry (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1203). At this point, I'd recommend taking a read to that.

Now here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoist-leaders-preparing-t143249/index.html?p=1899311#post1899311) (in the very last post on page 1) I pointed out what I believe our appropriate from where we're sitting to be in connection to this line dispute in Nepal. While it's a small role, it's not insignificant! Read over that blog entry again and I think you'll begin to see why. To highlight something that's described therein, recall the loss of China and the massive disorientation that caused among Maoists worldwide. Most of the global Maoist movement was lost and precisely because they adopted the uncritical mentality the two of you are advocating! Such a mentality prevented them from recognizing a counterrevolutionary coup when it was occurring right before their eyes! Those who led the way in regrouping the global Maoist movement were precisely those who, by contrast, had adopted a more critical approach to the examination of events inside China before the counterrevolutionary coup of '76...including yes the much-maligned Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, which played a leading role in the formation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement; the chief body where the remaining Maoist current regrouped.

As highlighted in that blog entry, already the decision of the UCPN(M) to abandon their people's war when it had reached such an advanced stage is having a huge and massively disorienting impact on the Maoist movement worldwide today. And that disorientation will grow even larger if the revolution in Nepal is actually materially lost. In order to prevent a repeat of the experience seen after the loss of China, with the corresponding loss of most of the Maoist movement, we need to grasp, including critically study, the internal situation in Nepal now, before the revolution is lost! Now unlike the RCP, I'm not prematurely writing off the UCPN(M) and calling for a split at this point. But yes we most certainly can and must grasp the essence of what's going on inside Nepal right now, when it actually counts, not later. Therein lies the vital importance of summing up the situation correctly at this key juncture. If the revolution is lost and we fail to recognize it, the global Maoist movement very broadly, not just in Nepal, will suffer an unnecessary, huge setback as a result. My aim here is not to display arrogance, but to cut losses we would suffer if Nepal's revolution is lost by promoting correct publicity on the subject.

While there are many fine details of what's going on in Nepal that we can't know without actually being there, the two of you are making the major mistake of reducing all questions to the level of identity politics, as if one must live in Nepal to know anything about, including the fundamentals of, the internal situation. Just as I needn't actually be an African American to grasp the basic plight of black people in America, neither need I be Nepalese to grasp the core essence of what's going on in Nepal.

On the contrary, we consider the Indian and Peruvian CPs to be the major defendants of the Maoist line after the capitalist restoration in China.

And no Maoist movement that had ever started a revolutionary war fell because they "failed to recognize the revisionist government of the PRC". Usually that line would be brought in much after the victory of revisionism in the national political and military lines.

I agree that one might not live in Nepal and yet know a great deal about it. But the problem is that you do not fall in that category.



As a final note...



What readers of this thread may not know is that just days ago this same individual alleged that I was a "third worldist". I just wanted to point that fact out to demonstrate the complete inconsistency of the labels you (red cat in particular) feel it necessary to constantly brand me with. "Third worldist" one day, "first worldist" and "Trotskyist" the next, CIA agent another day, etc. If you don't want me to be offended, stop employing and supporting these tactics and start debating in a serious way.Both are two sides of the same coin. Both first-worldists and Dengist or Lin Bioist third-worldists advocate lines which are revisionist in essence and have been rejected by Maoist CPs in the third world. And as a matter of fact, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote about third worldism in our group. Anyways, I notice that you still haven't replied to my post there. I want to see some real proof of your claim that the "majority" of the American proletariat has been bought off. The income of an "average" American alone proves nothing.

I will not reply to your posts in this thread anymore. If you consider yourself anything better than the ones who have no idea of what Marxism really is and who continue to whine about our revolutions, then you will apologize here for your arrogance regarding the Nepalese revolution and state your questions inside our group, and also try to prove your assertion about the American proletariat there. Otherwise you may continue siding with other reactionaries on the question of Nepal, and I think that all Maoists here will take a common stand on your line.

[RED DAVE]

I will not reply to your posts in this thread anymore. Seems to becoming a habit of yours: duck and run when you can't answer someone's points.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Seems to becoming a habit of yours: duck and run when you can't answer someone's points.

RED DAVE

Posting more of your provocative, troll posts, won't help you much in anything. I won't answer her outside the MLM group because I want my comrades only, and not trolls like you, to take part in the discussion that will follow.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Since red cat is opting to conveniently cut off debate in quite a timely manner, I'll return the favor and press on to relevant comments by others:


thalmann wrote:
i think what happened in nepal the last 4 years is just wrong. i realy dont know why the maoists, holding 80 % of the country, didnt smash the state, solve the tasks of the democratic revolution and went further to socialism.

This really is a display of, as Mark Twain once put his commentary on Americans generally, "the perfect combination of ignorance and arrogance". The pressures that drove the CPN(M) to jettison revolutionary fighting are obvious to those familiar with the history of Nepal over the last 15 years. In the final years of the war, the king had suspended the parliament and declared himself the absolute ruler of the country precisely in order to quell the rising tide of revolution. The effect was that of declaring martial law. Meanwhile, the United States was threatening that they would not "allow" the Maoists to establish a people's republic...or, in other words, they were threatening to invade Nepal if the Maoists came much closer to success in their struggle. These were not exactly easy realities to confront! The implications were that the people's war might have to drag on a lot longer than previously expected, going through shifting phases of resistance struggle and liberation struggle, and might get a lot bloodier accordingly. Surrender was the easy and very tempting option; the path of least resistance, clearly.

Again, it wasn't principally wrong for them to reach an agreement (wherein the respective sides retained their political and military independence) with the reactionary, parliamentary parties toward the specific objective of the defeat of the monarchy and/or an imperialist invasion and occupation and then go their separate ways. The problem lies in the terms they agreed to as a result of Bhattarai's "new type of state" conception, wherein the transition to socialism becomes little more than a parliamentary game. They reached an agreement that objectively was clearly far more than tactical: they agreed to end their people's war and place the PLA under UN supervision as part of an overall process of integrating the PLA into the regular army and thereby establishing a national unity government. According to Bhattarai's theory, supposedly this fundamental compromise of political and military independence on the part of the communist side somehow cripples the bourgeois state, barring it from preventing a relatively peaceful seizure of power at some vague point by the revolutionaries.

Lapsing into revisionism is always very tempting when one comes under unexpected, intensive pressures. That doesn't justify such a response, of course, but the problem with your line of thinking is that it fails to understand what conditions led to this situation. Circumstantially, it was obviously tempting to keep things toned down with the displaced reactionary elements even after the immediate obstacle, the king, had been defeated. If you look at their rationale for jumping into the elections, it also had to do with the idea of keeping the tone low such as to avert a U.S. invasion. But that's surrender logic, not a revolutionary strategy.


RED DAVE wrote:
The national bourgeoisie is always the enemy of the working class.

Actually, in a global sense, the heads of the capitalist system that enforce it -- the imperialist states -- are the principal enemy, not domestic factors of third world countries that may actually be interested in resisting imperialist oppression.

Not that it's perfectly analogous since the KMT was an element of the comprador bourgeoisie rather than the national bourgeoisie, but the point I'm about to make here stresses the importance of correctly grasping who is the main enemy:

Looking back at China's revolutionary struggle in World War 2, there were practically two different CCPs at the time: one based in Manchuria that was supported by the Soviet Union, and the one based in Yenan under Mao's leadership. The former applied the approach of focusing on attacking the KMT rather than the Japanese enemy. They were consequently destroyed. Actually, they had only survived up to that point in the first place by way of relying on Soviet support (which the Yenan-based CCP didn't have much of). They were sold out though when the USSR agreed to a non-aggression pact with Japan in April 1941. That was what motivated them to switch to the anti-KMT focus that would see them destroyed in another year.

[RED DAVE]

Posting more of your provocative, troll posts, won't help you much in anything. I won't answer her outside the MLM group because I want my comrades only, and not trolls like you, to take part in the discussion that will follow.Take

a

flying

fuck

at

the

Moon.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Way to copy precisely the tactics being protested, RED DAVE.

[Saorsa]

It's not wishful thinking. It's an assessment of the situation.

And it's incorrect.


Consider what has happened since Prachandra took the prime ministership a year and a half ago and the UCP(M) has actively participated in a bourgeois government. (That is, they are members of, and sometimes the leaders of, a government whose purpose is the maintenance of capitalism in Nepal.)

No, they are not. This is a conscious distortion of the situation. Your only agenda when it comes to Nepal is to split, divide and ultimately wreck the emerging international solidarity network. You slander, you lie, you distort events and it is infuriating to see.

This is a perfect example. You are claiming in this thread and others, again and again, that the UCPN (M) is 'a part of' a bourgeois government. When I challenged you on this in another thread, you backed down and changed your position to that the UCPN (M) is 'supporting' the current government.

Both statements are ridiculous. There has been wave after wave of protests and strikes in Nepal over the past two years, each one larger than the last. The people are mobilising, organising and testing their own strength against the forces of the government. Another wave of mobilisations will betgin within the next month, and in less than a month the most important party meeting in years will take place and the strategic and tactical line of the party will be decided upon.

If these events were taking place in France you would be shitting yourself with joy. But because the movement is led by a party that calls itself Maoist, you not only refuse to support it but actively devote your energies to slandering it.

The UCPN (M) is not a part of the government in Nepal. It is not a part of the state. It has constructed and continues to maintain a parallel system of governance in Nepal, and effectively controls most of the country. The state presence in the countryside and in particular in the remote hill areas is minimal to nonexistent, and in the cities there is a situation of dual power where the YCL and the Maoist unions can challenge the power of the police, government deparments etc and get away with it. Poor people go to the Maoists with their problems, not the state. And of course, there is the continued existence of a well trained, well armed, politically educated and 100% battle ready People's Liberation Army.

To claim that the Maoists are just another bourgeois party jockeying for power within the system is a gross distortion of the situation.


What has happened to further the revolutionary process? The revolution either goes forward or backward. A condition of dual power is unstable and must go either way.

A huge amount has happened. It has been discussed in this forum for years. Reread the threads - I'm not going to detail it all over again for you. I wrote a book on the subject, which you've read. You're fully aware of what has been achieved and what continues to be achieved. Dual power is unstable, which is why Nepal is so unstable! After months of trying the country can't even cobble together a government. They are likely to miss the deadline for a new constitution twice.


Well there has been a general strike. Yes, there has. What did it accomplish? The resignation of a bourgeois prime minister. So? Was he replaced by a Marxist heading a Marxist regime? He wasn't even replaced by a Marxist heading a bourgeois regime as a year before. There have been sixteen or so votes for a new prime minister, and there isn't one yet. It is said that the bourgeoisie is in disarray. Well, maybe.

What a bizarre paragraph. As you've pointed out, there have been a ridiculous number of unsuccessful attempts to cobble together a government. The bourgeois state cannot fulfil the constitutional requirements for its own maintenance. Nepal is in a political crisis and both sides - revolutionary and reactionary - are circling each other with loaded guns, waiting for an opening in the enemies defenses.

Having noted this, are you really going to say the bourgeoisie is "maybe" in disarray? Really?!?

If a workers and peasants movement managed to create a political crisis that prevented a government from being formed for months in some Western country, you'd be all over it. Why the double standard with Nepal?


But meantime, capitalism and the capitalist state are rolling on in Nepal. Time is not on the side of the revolutionaries.

Complete rubbish. The economy is going down the toilet, the political arena is in complete chaos and the police and military do not have an exclusive claim to monopoly over the use of force and exercise of power. Nepal fulfills all the criteria of a failed or failing state - the only question is what lies ahead.


There have been land seizures. Yes, there have been, but they have been local and minor. Has the balance of class power shifted in the countryside? Four years ago, the UCP(M) controlled the countryside. What has happened since they began to engage in bourgeois politics? You tell me.

They still control the countryside, for the most part. The balance of class power shifted long ago and is still in the process of shifting back and forth, with different degrees of shift in different areas. Revolutions are not simple, straightforward processes. They are always difficult to understand and questions about them are difficult to conclusively answer except in retrospect.

They never had complete control of 80% of the country - that is a myth. People who know nothing about recent Nepali history see some figure that says 80% of the country was liberated and just assume it to be true. The situation was far more complex than that. It's not like there were little borders with barbed wire that marked Maoist territory and where it ended. If the state wanted to go somewhere, it did, and wherever the soldiers were was under state control. Now in many areas there would be a high chance the soldiers would be attacked, and the villagers would send information about their movements to the Maoists etc, but the Maoists never became stronger than the state militarily. They didn't have military aid from the imperialist West to prop them up!


There are public divisions within the UCP(M) that were not present (or at least not apparent) two or three years ago.

Dave, you don't know what you're talking about. That's your biggest problem. Criticism of the Maoists should be encouraged - they themselves encourage it! But uninformed and completely inaccurate statements like this reveal a sectarian agenda that is not based on any desire to learn the facts.

The UCPN (M) has always had public divisions. It was born out of a process of splits and mergers, it was built on that basis and it continues to move forward on that basis. Two or three years ago, i.e. in 2007/2008, there were very major differences. Over the peace process, over land reform, over whether to prioritise Indian expansionism or domestic feudalism as the main enemy, over the question of federalism and oppressed nationalities... the list goes on. You need to do more study and make fewer statements about things you clearly haven't studied.


It has been said that this is normal for a revolutionary party: getting rid of the bad blood, etc. Well, maybe, but in the meantime, I don't see any signs of increased strength.

They mobilised 500,000 people in a series of rallies and strikes that shut down Kathmandu. This coincided with similar rallies and strikes around Nepal. Five years ago, ten years ago, they could not have done that. the movement is stronger than it has ever been.


The UCP(M) has "locked up" its fighting force in camps. They have been ambiguous about maintaining it as an independent force.

Actually they've been very, very clear. The aim is to dissolve the former Royal Army and create a new army made up of former state soldiers, PLA soldiers and new recruits. This army will not be controlled by the royalist officer corps, which will be broken and scattered. That's the demand they have put forward from day one and continue to put forward. And they have been quite clear that until that happens, the PLA will not be dissolved.

The PLA is not locked up. It can leave the camps at any time. it still has its weapons, it still has its ideology. It is still a battle ready fighting force.


It is not clear what the current role of the YCL is.

That is not true. There is a huge amount of information available about the YCL. I wrote about it in my booklet, which you claim to have read.

If you want to know more, do some reading. (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/nepal/terroristoutfits/YCL.html)


Confusion and lack of direction. Show me that I'm wrong.

It's not my job to do so. The oppressed people of Nepal are showing everyone who cares enough to see that you are completely and utterly wrong.

They may lose. They may be defeated. Most revolutions are defeated. But Nepal is a beacon of hope the likes of which we haven't seen in decades, and at this point we should not be assuming and hoping that the revolution will be defeated.

You are not fulfilling an internationalist role. Internationalism would require you to try and spread awareneness amongst US workers about this unfolding revolution, and you would be trying to campaign to have the Maoists taken off your nation's terrorist organisation list. That would be the principled thing to do... why aren't you doing that?

[Saorsa]

For the Maoists to make a major political point of blocking with this class will, on the basis of their illusions, lead them into a political alliance with the large bourgeoisie, which is what is going on how.

Really?

What is your evidence that such a bloc exists?

The big Nepali bourgeoisie would appear to disagree with you.

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=23602

http://bizbrandclick.blogspot.com/2009/11/fncci-concerned-over-maoists-protest.html

http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/04/27/business/fncci-urge-maoists-to-shun-donation-drive-extortion/313179/

http://202.166.193.40/2009/12/25/business/fncci-shut-down-businesses-protesting-maoist-excesses/305104/

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/business-a-economy/2358-fncci-asks-maoists-not-to-involve-workers-in-protest-.html

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/business-a-economy/9364-fncci-decries-maoist-threat-to-block-hydro-work-.html



The fact that the Maoists are, right now, full members of a bourgeois government, based on capitalist economic relations, jockeying for power in that government, is a disaster.

They are no 'full members' of any such government. You are telling lies.


The Maoist strategy of the block of four classes is an illusion. There is no native bourgeoisie that is independent of imperialism to block with. The Maoists, as we are seeing in practice, are blocking with the bourgoisie itself.

How are we seeing this in practice? I don't see how the hundreds of thousands of militant Maoist union members in Kathmandu alone are 'blocking with the bourgeoisie'. The bourgeoise certainly doesn't feel all that friendly towards them!

[RED DAVE]

For the Maoists to make a major political point of blocking with this class will, on the basis of their illusions, lead them into a political alliance with the large bourgeoisie, which is what is going on how. Really?
What is your evidence that such a bloc exists?The UCPN(M) are politely engaged in debate with the Nepali bourgeoisie over the formation of a government based on the exploitation of the workers and peasants by the capitalists and landlords.


The big Nepali bourgeoisie would appear to disagree with you.And yet they engage in negotiations.


The fact that the Maoists are, right now, full members of a bourgeois government, based on capitalist economic relations, jockeying for power in that government, is a disaster.
TThey are no 'full members' of any such government. You are telling lies.They are in support of the caretaker government. They are participating in the fun and games of the constituent assembly and the building of a bourgeois constitution. They are engaged in direct negotiations with the Congress Party. That sounds like participating in the government to me.


The Maoist strategy of the block of four classes is an illusion. There is no native bourgeoisie that is independent of imperialism to block with. The Maoists, as we are seeing in practice, are blocking with the bourgoisie itself.
How are we seeing this in practice? I don't see how the hundreds of thousands of militant Maoist union members in Kathmandu alone are 'blocking with the bourgeoisie'. The bourgeoise certainly doesn't feel all that friendly towards them!Stop playing verbal games and trying to play tough guy. We are talking about the UCPN(M): the Maoist party. They are actively participating in a bourgeois government, negotiating with bourgeois parties. And now one of their leaders, for the the fifth time is off to China.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

The UCPN(M) are politely engaged in debate with the Nepali bourgeoisie over the formation of a government based on the exploitation of the workers and peasants by the capitalists and landlords.

Politely engaged?

If you really think that mobilising hundreds of thousands of supporters to force the government to resign through strikes, rallies and street fighting is a 'polite engagement', you're insane.


And yet they engage in negotiations.

What's your point? :confused:


They are in support of the caretaker government.

No, they are not. They are preventing the caretaker government from functioning, they are refusing to allow it to pass a budget, and they turned the caretaker govt into a caretaker govt in the first place! The whole point of it is that it is an ex-government, a government which has resigned, a government in transition to another formation... how is it even possible to be 'in support' of that?


They are participating in the fun and games of the constituent assembly and the building of a bourgeois constitution.

They are not fighting for a bourgeois constitution. You have had this explained to you countless times. Furthermore, it is arrogant beyond belief for you to talk about the CA being all 'fun and games'. Tens of thousands of Nepali workers and peasants gave their lives in a decades long struggle for a Constituent Assembly, a struggle which took a fullblown democratic revolution to achieve. It is not a game to them. It's literally a life or death struggle.


They are engaged in direct negotiations with the Congress Party.

Um... so?


That sounds like participating in the government to me.

Wtf? No, it doesn't. It sounds like you listed two things they are doing - trying to get a constitution written, and negotiating with the Congress party. Neither of those mean they are participating in the government. That would be obvious to a five year old child, I don't understand why this is confusing you so much.


We are talking about the UCPN(M): the Maoist party.

Yes, we are. Well done.


They are actively participating in a bourgeois government,


No, they're not. You are telling lies.


negotiating with bourgeois parties

This is not proof that the UCPN (M) is in a 'bloc' with the bourgeoisie. It is proof that the UCPN (M) is negotiating with bourgeois parties - end of story. You're going to have to try just a little bit harder Dave.


And now one of their leaders, for the the fifth time is off to China.

I suppose Trotsky's trip to Germany during WW1 proves that he was a German imperialist collaborator and the Bolsheviks were in a bloc with German imperialism/the bourgeoisie/international Zionism/Martians.

This is ridiculous. Present some actual arguments with some actual evidence, or I'm just going to walk away from this increasingly stupid debate.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm sure if the UCPN(M) just changed its name to UCPN(T) there would be no more of this nonsense from RED DAVE.

Just admit that this is sectarianism, pure and simple. Nothing the Maoists do will satisfy you.

[RED DAVE]

I'm sure if the UCPN(M) just changed its name to UCPN(T) there would be no more of this nonsense from RED DAVE.

Just admit that this is sectarianism, pure and simple. Nothing the Maoists do will satisfy you.BL, while don't you stop taking sectarian swipes and answer my points?

Fact is, there is every reason to be concerned about the course of the UCPN(M), unless you think that a revolutionary party participating in a capitalist government is cool.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

BL, while don't you stop taking sectarian swipes and answer my points?

This is funny coming from the guy who just deliberately didn't respond to about half the points I made in my last two posts.


Fact is, there is every reason to be concerned about the course of the UCPN(M), unless you think that a revolutionary party participating in a capitalist government is cool.

The UCPN (M) are doing in the CA what the Bolsheviks did in the Duma. The key difference is that the Maoists are far more popular and well organised than the Bolsheviks were. The agenda is the same - discredit and weaken the structures of the bourgeois state from within and without while preparing for revolt.

[RED DAVE]

This is funny coming from the guy who just deliberately didn't respond to about half the points I made in my last two posts.There are no points that I didn't answer.


The UCPN (M) are doing in the CA what the Bolsheviks did in the Duma.Absolutely not. Do I have to post it again? The Bolsheviks in the Duma were there to disrupt the government. The Maoists in the Nepal Parliament are there to play a role in the government. This is painfully obvious as they negotiate with the bourgeois parties.


The key difference is that the Maoists are far more popular and well organised than the Bolsheviks were. The agenda is the same - discredit and weaken the structures of the bourgeois state from within and without while preparing for revolt.(1) The Bolshevik Party at the time of the insurrection had about 80,000 members, most of whom were workers. They were extremely well organized. The had no intention of weakening the bourgeois state "from within." They were urging the working class, using its own organs of power, the soviets, to seize state power. They were not collaborating with bourgeois parties to form a constitution.

There is every reason to be concerned about the current course of the UCPN(M). Only cheerleaders keep cheering when their team is behind 40-0 and the two minute warning just went off.*

RED DAVE

* For those who don't understand the US religion of football, when there are two minutes left in a game, a horn sounds: the two minute warning.

[DaringMehring]

I think Red Dave's concerns are legitimate. The parliamentary games have been sapping Maoist support and unfocusing the Party, taking it down the road to Menshevism. Just look at the statements of intention and aim of the Maoist leaders themselves - ending feudalism, becoming capitalistic, getting a constitution that protects workers and peasants, etc. -- not seizing the state and replacing capitalism with socialism.

On the other hand, I don't share Red Dave's pessimism that this is the end phase of the revolution. The current politics of the CPN(M) leadership are not classically Marxist, but the Party is an organization of the workers and peasants, and they are important in determining its direction. The CPN(M) can be radicalized by its base, or some Bhattarai could lead the whole thing down the path of Menshevism. The future is not predetermined.

[RED DAVE]

The CPN(M) can be radicalized by its base, or some Bhattarai could lead the whole thing down the path of Menshevism. The future is not predetermined.One can only hope for this to happen. However, given the history of Maoist parties, this is not likely.

In the meantime, it is absolutely necessary for all leftists to (1) support the Nepalese Revolution; (2) maintain a critical attitude towards the UCPN(M).

RED DAVE

[DaringMehring]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nepal-unfinished-revolution-t144005/index.html --- my thoughts

[Saorsa]

The Maoists in the Nepal Parliament are there to play a role in the government. This is painfully obvious as they negotiate with the bourgeois parties.

They are preventing a government from being formed in the first place. They are refusing to allow the government to pass the budget - the state will run out of money in about a month. You don't think that's disruptive?

[Barry Lyndon]

They are preventing a government from being formed in the first place. They are refusing to allow the government to pass the budget - the state will run out of money in about a month. You don't think that's disruptive?

They will only become revolutionary if they dissolve themselves and submit to the leadership of the ISO, which will take up the you know what burden and teach them the right way to have a revolution via blogs from Brooklyn.

This is obvious.

[RED DAVE]

They are preventing a government from being formed in the first place. They are refusing to allow the government to pass the budget - the state will run out of money in about a month. You don't think that's disruptive?The US Republican Party did the same thing in, I believe, 1993. It wasn't a revolutionary tactic for them, and it isn't one for the UCPN(M).

One more time, a party embarked on a revolutionary course does not participate in a bourgeois government. Planning a bourgeois constituion; assuming the prime ministership of a bourgeois government; negotiating with bourgeois parties; does not make a revolution.

RED DAVE

[Homo Songun]

In the meantime, it is absolutely necessary for all leftists to (1) support the Nepalese Revolution; (2) maintain a critical attitude towards the UCPN(M).

RED DAVE
Heh. This reminds me of...
http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/trot_right.jpg

[Paul Cockshott]

I asked the Cheng Enfu from the Chinese Marxism institute what the Chinese attitude was to the coming to power of the Nepalese Maoists, and he said that it was not yet convenient for the Chinese government to openly support the Maoist revolution there, but that within the Chinese Communist Party the Nepalese and Indian Maoists had a lot of sympathy.

[RED DAVE]

I asked the Cheng Enfu from the Chinese Marxism institute what the Chinese attitude was to the coming to power of the Nepalese Maoists, and he said that it was not yet convenient for the Chinese government to openly support the Maoist revolution there, but that within the Chinese Communist Party the Nepalese and Indian Maoists had a lot of sympathy.Could you specify (1) which elements within the CCP and (2) on what political basis would they support a UCPN(M) regime?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/trot_right.jpg


In fact, [Denver] Walker's principal interest often seems to be taking the piss. As a writer on the New Worker (which I think was the one set up by the splitters who left the Communist Party in protest at the adoption of Eurocommunist theory in the late-1970s), he's essentially a Stalinist and regards all Trots as juvenile, ego-driven grandstanders. He thinks much the same of Trotsky himself, as it happens.

Despite the good-humoured banter, however, there's something a bit more serious going on as well. Underlying it all is a deep fury that anyone calling themselves a Marxist could dare to criticise - let alone oppose - the workers' paradise that is (or rather, was) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For Walker such talk is effectively treason. And nothing arouses his wrath so much as any left group venturing its support for a figure like, say, the trade unionist Lech Walesa, or the writer Solzhenitsyn - 'That's no dissident, that's a whinger,' he spits in ill-mannered spite. As he points out repeatedly, such support places Trots shoulder-to-shoulder with Thatcher and Reagan. (Having a go at China is perfectly alright, of course.)

Unfortunately he then simultaneously reveals his ignorance and undermines his own position by denouncing the work of Martin Barker (of the SWP). Now, Barker wrote a fantastic and highly recommended book in the early-1980s entitled A Haunt of Fears, which examined the horror comics of the 1950s and the campaign to stamp them out. Apart from providing a serious analysis of a neglected art-form, the book also exposed the role of the Communist Party in the suppression of free speech - this in response to the Kremlin line of defending native nationalist traditions: Morris dancing and sea shanties were ideologically sound, whilst rock & roll and Hollywood were capitalist exploitation. In this context, the comics were apparently to be regarded as Yankee imperialism and an attack on British culture, rather than as the subversive and sideways attacks on bourgois complacency that Barker identifies.

Moving on from that work, Barker turned his attention to the then-current campaign against video nasties, which was following much the same trajectory as the earlier witch-hunt. In particular, he produced a superb analysis of I Spit On Your Grave, which - despite the dodgy title - is a fine, and exceptionally harrowing, movie. (At least that's how I remember it from the eraly-1980s - it's back out now, and maybe in retrospect it's not lasted too well, I don't know.)

But for Denver Walker, such talk is deeply offensive. 'I haven't seen the video,' he says in the time-honoured tradition of pompous piety and blinkered bigotry, before complaining that Martin Barker is 'silly' and a supporter of 'sadistic American filth' (so much worse than other sadistic filth, apparently). In other words, Walker places himself shoulder-to-shoulder with, er, Margaret Thatcher and Mary Whitehouse.

The truth is, of course, that trying to smear someone by pointing at their alleged bed-fellows is a poor substitute for argument. There's not a single idea in the history of humanity that hasn't at some time been espoused by a scoundrel. Walker's dislike of Trots, for example, doesn't exactly distance him from the Daily Mail.http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/trot.html

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

I can only say that they describe themselves as the Marxists within the party, but the remark about it not yet being opportune indicates perhaps there is covert support going wider than that.
I was very impressed by the millitant speech given by Cheng in Mexico yesterday, even if I dont support market socialism myself, it is clear to me that there are some very committed communists in the CPC who do support it and on other grounds are militantly anti-imperialist. He was speaking on a forum along with the Indian, Brazillian and Russian ambassadors on the rise of th BRIC nations. He was militantly anti imperialist, denouncing US imperialism, saying China would not tolerate US intervention in Korea, and confidently asserting the superiority of socialism. The Brazillian ambassador also militantly anti US but of course not marxist, The Russians and Indians saying nothing that might be anti-US

[RED DAVE]

I can only say that they describe themselves as the Marxists within the party, but the remark about it not yet being opportune indicates perhaps there is covert support going wider than that.Yes, but it could also indicate that their Marxism is academic.


I was very impressed by the millitant speech given by Cheng in Mexico yesterday, even if I dont support market socialism myself, it is clear to me that there are some very committed communists in the CPC who do support it and on other grounds are militantly anti-imperialist.In what meaningful what are members of the CPC anti-imperialist when China and the US are major trading partners.


He was speaking on a forum along with the Indian, Brazillian and Russian ambassadors on the rise of th BRIC nations. He was militantly anti imperialist, denouncing US imperialism, saying China would not tolerate US intervention in Korea, and confidently asserting the superiority of socialism.Trivial pursuit. The US has no intentions of intervening in Korea. Again, in what way are the Chinese anti-imperialist? The US is engaged in two imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are the "anti-imperialist" Chinese doing about it?


The Brazillian ambassador also militantly anti US but of course not marxist, The Russians and Indians saying nothing that might be anti-USThe Chinese statements would seem to be pro forma as they are trading billions of dollars a year with the US.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

The US has no intentions of intervening in Korea.

What have you been smoking?

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

[RED DAVE]

The US has no intentions of intervening in Korea.
What have you been smoking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_KoreaSomehow I don't thing that the 28,500 US troops in South Korea, the same number, more or less, that has been there for decades (a number of personnel somewhat smaller than the NYC Police Department), represents a major imperialist threat. The North Korean Army is somewhat over 1 million, backed up by the Chinese Army, which has about 2.3 million.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I guess it must be easy to downplay the foreign military presence in Korea when you live in the country that military comes from.

The point (and the reason your statement was so bizarre) is that there is an ongoing US imperialist intervention in Korea. Over 20,000 soldiers are stationed there, and numbers could be very rapidly increased if conflict broke out again. To claim the US has no intention of intervening in Korea flies in the face of reality.

[RED DAVE]

Saorsa, do you really believe that after the experience of the Korean War where the US got involved in a war with China, that they would do it again? Those troops have been sitting there for over 55 years.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I don't think it's likely to happen, no. I'm making only one point: there is an ongoing and very real imperialist intervention taking place in Korea, militarily, culturally, economically and politically. If you talk to Korean leftists a very large part of their politics is about opposition to the American domination of their country.

Anyway, perhaps this discussion belongs to a seperate thread.

[RED DAVE]

I don't think it's likely to happen, no. I'm making only one point: there is an ongoing and very real imperialist intervention taking place in Korea, militarily, culturally, economically and politically. If you talk to Korean leftists a very large part of their politics is about opposition to the American domination of their country.

Anyway, perhaps this discussion belongs to a seperate thread.Fair enough. Not much disagreement here.

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes, but it could also indicate that their Marxism is academic.

In what meaningful what are members of the CPC anti-imperialist when China and the US are major trading partners.

Trivial pursuit. The US has no intentions of intervening in Korea. Again, in what way are the Chinese anti-imperialist? The US is engaged in two imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are the "anti-imperialist" Chinese doing about it?

The Chinese statements would seem to be pro forma as they are trading billions of dollars a year with the US.

RED DAVE
I had been about to intervene and make similar points when in response to another questioner, Cheng said that the existing trade relations with the US were exploitative in that the US got real labour and resources in return for worthless dollar credits. He went on to say that the position of the dollar had to be attacked, that the chinese development model should now shift to one that was no longer based on exports to one based on increased internal consumption based on rising wages. He said that in the early stages of Deng the opening policy had been useful to aquire technology, but that china now was in no need of foreign capital, and that the investment by foreign capital was exploitative. China should aim to get the dollar replaced by a single world money - a world version of the Euro and should advocate a single world language to foster international understanding, perhaps Esperanto or something similar.

I found, a bit to my surprise, that his criticisms of Chinese economic policy were in many respects in alignment with what I would have made, not identical of course, but overlapping on many points.

What was interesting to me was that there was a section of the Chinese party that has these views and is deliberately reaching out to make international contacts.

[RED DAVE]

Yes, but it could also indicate that their Marxism is academic.

In what meaningful what are members of the CPC anti-imperialist when China and the US are major trading partners.

Trivial pursuit. The US has no intentions of intervening in Korea. Again, in what way are the Chinese anti-imperialist? The US is engaged in two imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are the "anti-imperialist" Chinese doing about it?

The Chinese statements would seem to be pro forma as they are trading billions of dollars a year with the US.
I had been about to intervene and make similar points when in response to another questioner, Cheng said that the existing trade relations with the US were exploitative in that the US got real labour and resources in return for worthless dollar credits. He went on to say that the position of the dollar had to be attacked, that the chinese development model should now shift to one that was no longer based on exports to one based on increased internal consumption based on rising wages. He said that in the early stages of Deng the opening policy had been useful to aquire technology, but that china now was in no need of foreign capital, and that the investment by foreign capital was exploitative. China should aim to get the dollar replaced by a single world money - a world version of the Euro and should advocate a single world language to foster international understanding, perhaps Esperanto or something similar.

I found, a bit to my surprise, that his criticisms of Chinese economic policy were in many respects in alignment with what I would have made, not identical of course, but overlapping on many points.

What was interesting to me was that there was a section of the Chinese party that has these views and is deliberately reaching out to make international contacts.What this sounds like is that China is determined to take its place as a major capitalist power with imperialist aims of its own.

What does this have to do with revolutionary Marxism?

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

I do not see what in Chengs words leads you to that conclusion. In fact he said that china was consistent in renouncing hegemonism.

[RED DAVE]

I do not see what in Chengs words leads you to that conclusion. In fact he said that china was consistent in renouncing hegemonism.Paul, with all due respect, how naive can you be? China is a fully capitalist nation. Yes, it has a strong state capitalist element, but so does Russia, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. State capitalism is a form of capitalism.


Cheng said that the existing trade relations with the US were exploitative in that the US got real labour and resources in return for worthless dollar credits. He went on to say that the position of the dollar had to be attacked, that the chinese development model should now shift to one that was no longer based on exports to one based on increased internal consumption based on rising wages. He said that in the early stages of Deng the opening policy had been useful to aquire technology, but that china now was in no need of foreign capital, and that the investment by foreign capital was exploitative. China should aim to get the dollar replaced by a single world money - a world version of the Euro and should advocate a single world language to foster international understanding, perhaps Esperanto or something similar.Now, what does that read like? That China is trying to get out from under the imperialist domination of the US? Sure. But what else? If, in fact, "a single world money" were introduced, who would control the money supply of the world? The major capitalist countries. The weaker countries in Europe, like Greece, are finding out what it means to surrender control of their own currencies: just another way of getting screwed by Germany, France, etc.

Cheng remarks are exactly what you would expect a liberal state capitalist to say. Again, what does this have to do with revolutionary Marxism?

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

He is a market socialist, I am not one, but I view market socialism as having been and still being being a valid tendancy in the socialist movement.

[RED DAVE]

He is a market socialist, I am not one, but I view market socialism as having been and still being being a valid tendancy in the socialist movement.What you are saying is that a system that involves the exploitation of workers by the state, which I would call state capitalism, is a "valid tendency in the socialist movement." I'd love to see what their trade union policy is.

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

What you are saying is that a system that involves the exploitation of workers by the state, which I would call state capitalism, is a "valid tendency in the socialist movement."
RED DAVE Obviously, otherwise you exclude 95 percent of the historical socialist movement.

[RED DAVE]

Obviously, otherwise you exclude 95 percent of the historical socialist movement.Yeah, well, up to a certain point of time, the mistakes of Stalinism/Maoism, were understandable. But in this day and age, to call market socialism a valid Marxist position, is dubious.

It's time to understand that any system not based on workers control of industry, bottom to top, is not socialism.

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

well that is something to try and persuade people of, but there is lots of room for argument on what workers control is.

[RED DAVE]

well that is something to try and persuade people of, but there is lots of room for argument on what workers control is.That's true, but what it's not is anything that existed in the USSR post-1928, China post-1949, Eastern Europe post-1948 or Vietnam post-1975.

In order to continue this discussion, which has wandered quite far from Nepal in 2010, I'm starting a new thread in Theory.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-controli-t144527/index.html?p=1917183

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Paul, you need to define what "market socialism" is. David Schweickart's "economic democracy" model and even the Yugoslav model are quite different and much more pro-worker than the Chinese assertion of so-called "market socialism."

One programmatic fault I will say about genuine market-socialists: they didn't come up with Minsky's public-employer-of-last-resort-for-consumer-services program to scrap structural and cyclical unemployment before that son-of-a-Menshevik did. :(

They'd still have their labour market, but one very tilted towards labour's bargaining power.

[scarletghoul]

What you are saying is that a system that involves the exploitation of workers by the state, which I would call state capitalism, is a "valid tendency in the socialist movement." I'd love to see what their trade union policy is.

RED DAVE
union action is not the definition of revolutionary socialism

[RED DAVE]

What you are saying is that a system that involves the exploitation of workers by the state, which I would call state capitalism, is a "valid tendency in the socialist movement." I'd love to see what their trade union policy is.
union action is not the definition of revolutionary socialismIt is certainly not a complete definition, but it certainly has to be part of a definition.

RED DAVE