Maoist leader threatens people's revolt

[Saorsa]

People will declare new statute from the streets if CA fails: Bogati
Wednesday, 10 November 2010 16:53

UCPN (Maoist) Secretary Post Bahadur Bogati has warned that if the new constitution is not declared from the Constituent Assembly then the people will declare the new constitution from the streets, and that his party will be the first to endorse it.

Expressing concern at, as what he called, "attempts to impose a presidential rule" in the country and declare a state of emergency to dissolve the Constituent Assembly and curtail the fundamental rights of the people, he said that if Nepali Congress and CPN-UML defend such move then the "people will fight a last and decisive fight".

The Maoists often describe their actions as "people's action" to give credibility to their conduct.

Bogati, who was speaking at a programme organised by Newa Mukti Morcha and Newa Mukti Manka Dabu on the occasion of Nepal Sambat 1131 New Year in the capital on Wednesday, assured that his party has exercised "maximum flexibility" in the ongoing talks between the parties, warning that if the talks fails to forge consensus as expected then the Maoists will wage a strong nationwide movement "to wipe out all forces for status quo".

Expressing disapproval to, as what he called, India's "naked intervention" in day-to-day running of the government as well as central bureaucracy, Bogati urged the people to rise up against such foreign intervention.

Also speaking at the programme, UCPN (Maoist) central member Hit Man Shakya blamed Nepali Congress of trying to turn Nepal into another Afghanistan by allowing foreign intervention to increase in the country and urged his party activists to be prepared to fight against such tendency. nepalnews.com

[The Vegan Marxist]

I really do hope for this comrade, don't get me wrong, but I've heard this threat so many times & over by the UCPN (Maoist). Yet every time the constituent assembly doesn't produce a constitution, they go back to meetings in order to just further their chances of people's revolt. Besides, with the PLA being planted with the Nepalese military, and the Nepalese military being larger than the numbers of Maoist in Nepal, does a people's revolt even have a chance?

[RED DAVE]

I really do hope for this comrade, don't get me wrong, but I've heard this threat so many times & over by the UCPN (Maoist). Yet every time the constituent assembly doesn't produce a constitution, they go back to meetings in order to just further their chances of people's revolt. Besides, with the PLA being planted with the Nepalese military, and the Nepalese military being larger than the numbers of Maoist in Nepal, does a people's revolt even have a chance?If I interpret you correctly, there is every reason to be skeptical. As revealed in another thread, the UCPN(M) is embarked on the state capitalist road. And it is highly unlikely that, from within the party, an independent force is going to arise that will start up the revolutionary war again. In addition, basically, the Maoists have gone as far as they can in the countryside. They need a strategy to "conquer the cities," and that is the realm of the working class and the bourgeoisie. They will make an alliance with one of these classes, and it's pretty obvious which class it's going to be.

Sure I could be wrong, and the UCPN(M) could be a genuine revolutionary party of the working class, but every indication is that this is not so.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Their present situation is a difficult one. But I believe that actually the Baidya tendency aims for a power seizure by way of urban insurrection rather than by way of a final confrontation between the two armies. As I've expressed elsewhere, I have strong doubts about even that idea and really think the party has greatly degenerated ideologically from where they were 5 and a half and 6 years ago, but really believe the main thing here is that they need to get back on the revolutionary road. The Bhattarai line pretty much pushes revolt off indefinitely and Dahal's is kinda...wishy-washy, in-between, basically serving as a kingmaker in any given instance for the policies of the one side or the other. I would say the Bhattarai line represents complete surrender. (Yes the amalgamation of the 19,000 Maoist fighters into the reactionary army amounts to a de facto surrender.) Hence at present the most crucial thing is the ideological defeat of that line.

In the event of a Bhattarai victory, only a cultural revolution in the liberated areas will be able to save Nepal's popular revolution, I believe.

[RED DAVE]

Their present situation is a difficult one.To say the least.


But I believe that actually the Baidya tendency aims for a power seizure by way of urban insurrection rather than by way of a final confrontation between the two armies.Maybe so, but the crucial question is: what is the relationship of the party to the working class? A "power seizure" without roots is the working class, without the working class establishing its own institutions of control and without political independence of the working class, amounts to putschism.


As I've expressed elsewhere, I have strong doubts about even that idea[.]Is this because you oppose the party building a base in the working class or because you think it's impossible?


[A]nd [I] really think the party has greatly degenerated ideologically from where they were 5 and a half and 6 years ago, but really believe the main thing here is that they need to get back on the revolutionary road.This is obvious, but the question is: revolution on what basis? The UCPN(M) has never built a revolutionary base in the working class, nor has it called for the working class to establish its own institutions of power.


The Bhattarai line pretty much pushes revolt off indefinitely and Dahal's is kinda...wishy-washy, in-between, basically serving as a kingmaker in any given instance for the policies of the one side or the other.I previously analyzed, in Maoist terms, Bhattarai as the right, Dahal as the center and Baidya as the left. But this is only in Maoist terms, not objectively revolutionary terms.


I would say the Bhattarai line represents complete surrender. (Yes the amalgamation of the 19,000 Maoist fighters into the reactionary army amounts to a de facto surrender.) Hence at present the most crucial thing is the ideological defeat of that line.The question is, in Marxist terms, which tendency stands for revolutionary victory of the working class. The answer is: none of them.


In the event of a Bhattarai victory, only a cultural revolution in the liberated areas will be able to save Nepal's popular revolution, I believe.What the fuck is "a cultural revolution in the liberated areas"? Sheesh!

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Allow me to respond by getting straight to the substance of your argument:


RED DAVE wrote:
The question is, in Marxist terms, which tendency stands for revolutionary victory of the working class. The answer is: none of them.

Actually, Kiran's (a.k.a. Baiya's) perspective is basically analogous to yours in application. Minus the strict, one-sided nature of your class analysis that considers all non-proletarians to be class enemies and thus surrenders them to the actual class enemy, that is. You would probably favor that the people's war should never have happened at all, correct? So what do you think should be done regarding the fate of the PLA? Is it your view as well that the PLA should be dissolved, being as it mainly consists of peasants?


Is this because you oppose the party building a base in the working class or because you think it's impossible?

The experience of China holds real, historic lessons for the way revolutionary struggles must progress in countries facing ('20s-40s) China-like conditions. In China, they repeatedly attempted your approach, both inside and outside fronts with the Kuomintang, attempting many times to seize power in the urban areas through internal revolution. Each time the result was ultimately the same. Problematically, the enemy occupied the cities in a full-fledged way in China (somewhat unlike in Russia, which had been sort of feudal-imperialist) and you also had foreign armies in the cities to contend with...and the proletariat was just too small to be able to go up against all that successfully. Mao favored the idea of turning to the actual social base of the feudal society, the peasants, as the major fighting force of the revolution. That did not change their class orientation, contrary to your view. The CCP remained a party of the proletariat. But the proletariat also has an interest in victory, after all. Mao's turn was strategic and successful. And the proof is in the outcome...which, of course, you discount as well, which makes it nigh impossible to debate with you.

My point though is that if they attempt to reject the idea of continuing people's war through to conclusion and instead go back to this urban insurrectionist approach, it's probably going to lead to similar results as what you saw in China in the '20s. I believe the historical record shows that I have every reason to be concerned about that prospect.

Those who claim that the October Revolution is a universally applicable model surely must find it painful to admit that the October model has yet to be successfully repeated anywhere (including in countries where workers constitute fully the majority of the population)...unlike the model of people's war, which has already succeeded in multiple countries and gotten very far in many more. The October model could succeed only under very rare conditions that do not appear to exist in today's world. There are no feudal-imperialist countries in today's world that I can think of.


I previously analyzed, in Maoist terms, Bhattarai as the right, Dahal as the center and Baidya as the left. But this is only in Maoist terms, not objectively revolutionary terms.

For the various reasons I have described on this forum, I would regard myself as 60% supportive of Baidya's position, 40% of Dahal's, and 0% of Bhattarai's, if that gives you an idea of my current position.

[IndependentCitizen]

I really do hope for this comrade, don't get me wrong, but I've heard this threat so many times & over by the UCPN (Maoist). Yet every time the constituent assembly doesn't produce a constitution, they go back to meetings in order to just further their chances of people's revolt. Besides, with the PLA being planted with the Nepalese military, and the Nepalese military being larger than the numbers of Maoist in Nepal, does a people's revolt even have a chance?

There's no strategy in numbers. Insurgency's not one of those things you can simply charge with bayonets and tanks.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Numbers can be built upon. They are not frozen in ice. But the key is how you go about doing that toward the achievement of a revolutionary objective. Consistent failure leads to demoralization. This and more are real problems confronting the revolution in Nepal (such as it is presently) at this point. I'm not sure there are simple answers.

[Lyev]

Actually, Kiran's (a.k.a. Baiya's) perspective is basically analogous to yours in application. Minus the strict, one-sided nature of your class analysis that considers all non-proletarians to be class enemies and thus surrenders them to the actual class enemy, that is. You would probably favor that the people's war should never have happened at all, correct? So what do you think should be done regarding the fate of the PLA? Is it your view as well that the PLA should be dissolved, being as it mainly consists of peasants?Well actually for communists the working class are the only objectively revolutionary class, capable of expropriated the bourgeoisie and establishing the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. The peasants simply cannot expropriate their landlords in the same way a worker seizes a factory. I think I am right in saying that the peasant owns part of her own land, or the "middle" or "higher" peasants even employ menial labourers in some cases. The heart of capitalism is in the city; not with the farmer in the countryside. Farmers and peasants cannot overthrow capitalism: the very social relations which underpin their existence are the leftovers from an antiquated mode of production, feudalism. Indeed, a big reason why the Bolshevik revolution degenerated the way it did was because, in a country where the working class were only a tenth of the total population to begin with, millions of the most resolute and militant workers and communists died in the civil war. In short, sstablishing proletarian democracy - a big part of communism - is hard if there is a lack of proletarians. I think I remember rightly that the industrial w/c population in Nepal is roughly 7 or 6%. Hence why such a big emphasis needs to be put on the city and factory. Having said this, of course, in a place like Nepal where the class antagonisms are perhaps a little more strained and frayed than in Europe or the US, the success or failure of the Marxist project lies heavily on the peasants shoulders. I was reading the Jean-Paul Sartre's intro to The Wretched of the Earth, where he describes the peasantry as a revolutionary class, his rationale being almost entirely reducible to "because they're oppressed". Although this is a stirring piece of rhetoric, it's not really Marxist. This is the sort argumentation employed by Maoists and the like. Anyway, although this was perhaps a bit tangential, it's important. On the actual OP itself, social revolution will not suddenly happen because the UCPN "threatens" a people's revolt: the "people" (although that is quite an ambiguous term) themselves should threaten a revolt.

[Queercommie Girl]

I was reading the Jean-Paul Sartre's intro to The Wretched of the Earth, where he describes the peasantry as a revolutionary class, his rationale being almost entirely reducible to "because they're oppressed". Although this is a stirring piece of rhetoric, it's not really Marxist. This is the sort argumentation employed by Maoists and the like.


Objectively it is true that peasants have a different economic role to the proletariat. But the economic quality in itself is not sufficient either. You need both factors to be present. If one is not sufficiently oppressed in the literal sense of the word, one will not be revolutionary. Yes, it is psychological to a significant extent, the psychological and cultural aspects cannot be ignored, Marxism is much more than just abstract economics. This is why as Lenin said, the labour aristocracy in Western countries, (i.e. relatively well-off middle class workers) though objectively proletarian in the economic sense, are generally not subjectively revolutionary. In fact, poor peasants in Third World countries would generally be subjectively more revolutionary despite objectively only being semi-proletarian.

It is an objective mistake to label poor and middle peasants as non-proletarian, in fact they are semi-proletarian, and therefore Maoists believe they are the semi-leading class while the urban proletariat is the leading class.

[scarletghoul]

Anyone who says the peasantry can't be a revolutionary class is in denial. What the hell happened in China ? I've never heard anyone deny that it was a revolution.

Whether or not the peasantry can lead a socialisat revolution is another story..

[Ocean Seal]

Anyone who says the peasantry can't be a revolutionary class is in denial. What the hell happened in China ? I've never heard anyone deny that it was a revolution.

Whether or not the peasantry can lead a socialisat revolution is another story..
To be quite frank the peasantry have been the base of most successful socialist revolutions.
Cuba
Russia
China
Vietnam
Laos
Just to name a few, and while it is true that at times they have sided with the fascists this expounds exactly why this element should not be ignored. The peasantry is exploited and therefore a friend of the revolutionary left.

[RED DAVE]

It is an objective mistake to label poor and middle peasants as non-proletarian[.]You have not demonstrated this in the least. The proletariat as a class derives its income from the sale of its labor power. Neither poor nor middle peasants do this. While poor peasants do sometimes sell their labor power, they are, n fact, nonproletarian.

There is a rural proletariat which derives its income from the sale of its labor power in the countyrside, and there is a gradation between this class and poor peasants, just as there is a gradation between poor peasants and middle peasants and middle peasants and rich peasants. However, on the whole, there is a class difference between the peasantry and the rural proletariat.


n fact they are [I]semi-proletarian, and therefore Maoists believe they are the semi-leading class while the urban proletariat is the leading class.And, of course, the Maoists are dead wrong as history has shown. The peasantry can and does participate in revolution, but under no circumstances is it the leading class.

Get over it, Iseul. It's the working class that leads a socialist revolution. A revolution led by petit-bourgeois elements, as in China, etc., is not a socialist revolution. This is shown unequivocally when the society established by such a revolution does not base itself on workers control of the economy and then morphs itself into private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

To be quite frank the peasantry have been the base of most successful socialist revolutions.
Cuba
Russia
China
Vietnam
LaosWhat is your justification for calling these societies (except for Russia before the Stalinist-led counter-revolution) socialist in that in none of them did the working class control the economy.

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

You have not demonstrated this in the least. The proletariat as a class derives its income from the sale of its labor power. Neither poor nor middle peasants do this. While poor peasants do sometimes sell their labor power, they are, n fact, nonproletarian.


The world is not black-and-white. It's dialectical. Lower peasants exhibit partial proletarian qualities. Therefore they are semi-proletarian.



There is a rural proletariat which derives its income from the sale of its labor power in the countyrside, and there is a gradation between this class and poor peasants, just as there is a gradation between poor peasants and middle peasants and middle peasants and rich peasants. However, on the whole, there is a class difference between the peasantry and the rural proletariat.
There is in fact a class difference between poor/middle peasants and rich peasants/small landlords.



Get over it, Iseul. It's the working class that leads a socialist revolution. A revolution led by petit-bourgeois elements, as in China, etc., is not a socialist revolution. This is shown unequivocally when the society established by such a revolution does not base itself on workers control of the economy and then morphs itself into private capitalism.
Yet I would have more faith in a peasant-led revolution than a revolution led by the Western labour aristocracy - i.e. relatively well-off middle income white collar workers in the West who are objectively still proletarian in the economic sense.

Of course, neither are as good as a revolution led by poor low-income urban industrial blue collar workers.

As I said, Marxism is not pure economism.

Peasant-led revolutions might degenerate to bureaucratism, but it might not. White collar-led "revolutions" always degenerate to reformist social democracy.

[Amphictyonis]

To be quite frank the peasantry have been the base of the (failed) socialist revolutions.


Fixed. Socialism isn't a system meant to develope the industrial means of production- it's a system meant for workers to take over industry after capitalism has advanced (in whatever region).

The 'peasantry' can only create socialism in backwards nations if the advanced capitalist nations are also turning to socialism.


This isnt to say we shouldn't support struggle in non advanced capitalist nations it simply means we will most likely not see communism manifest from the third world. :) This will piss some MTW's off.

[RED DAVE]

You have not demonstrated this in the least. The proletariat as a class derives its income from the sale of its labor power. Neither poor nor middle peasants do this. While poor peasants do sometimes sell their labor power, they are, n fact, nonproletarian.
The world is not black-and-white. It's dialectical. Lower peasants exhibit partial proletarian qualities. Therefore they are semi-proletarian.And therefore, at best, they are semi-revolutionary.


There is a rural proletariat which derives its income from the sale of its labor power in the countyrside, and there is a gradation between this class and poor peasants, just as there is a gradation between poor peasants and middle peasants and middle peasants and rich peasants. However, on the whole, there is a class difference between the peasantry and the rural proletariat.

There is in fact a class difference between poor/middle peasants and rich peasants/small landlords.In fact, this is so, but this does not obviate the fact that the poor peasants are not proletarians and can't, therefore, be the leading class of a socialist (or any other) revolution.


Get over it, Iseul. It's the working class that leads a socialist revolution. A revolution led by petit-bourgeois elements, as in China, etc., is not a socialist revolution. This is shown unequivocally when the society established by such a revolution does not base itself on workers control of the economy and then morphs itself into private capitalism.
Yet I would have more faith in a peasant-led revolution than a revolution led by the Western labour aristocracy - i.e. relatively well-off middle income white collar workers in the West who are objectively still proletarian in the economic sense.Dream on: the peasantry cannot lead a revolution. They can play a role in the revolution, but the leadership, as shown in every revolution since 1776, must come from an urban class: bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeosie, proletariat. The so-called aristocracy of labor (which is rapidly vanishing) can retard a revolution, but there is no evidence that they, as a stratum of the working class, are analogous to the peasantry.


Of course, neither are as good as a revolution led by poor low-income urban industrial blue collar workers.The workers' flag is deepest red ...


As I said, Marxism is not pure economism.No, but it does contain a method of distinguishing between classes, which Maoists consistently violate.


Peasant-led revolutionsDon't exist.


might degenerate to bureaucratism, but it might not.Revolutions in so-called third world countries where the peit-bourgeoisie is the leading class, will rapidly become state capitalism.


White collar-led "revolutions"Never happened.


always degenerate to reformist social democracy.What "white collar-led" revolutions are you talking about?

RED DAVE

[Ocean Seal]

Fixed. Socialism isn't a system meant to develope the industrial means of production- it's a system meant for workers to take over industry after capitalism has advanced (in whatever region).
The 'peasantry' can only create socialism in backwards nations if the advanced capitalist nations are also turning to socialism.
This isnt to say we shouldn't support struggle in non advanced capitalist nations it simply means we will most likely not see communism manifest from the third world. :) This will piss some MTW's off.
What is a successful socialist revolution then?


What is your justification for calling these societies (except for Russia before the Stalinist-led counter-revolution) socialist in that in none of them did the working class control the economy.
RED DAVE
They were socialist in ideology, imperfect in implementation, but nothing of this takes away from the necessity of keeping the peasantry on our side.

[Saorsa]

Decisions that affect all of society cannot be made on a workplace level. Not all people can or should make all decisions. Democracy involving millions of people inevitably must become representative democracy, not direct democracy - something the Soviets themselves never were.

The perfect socialist society in which all decisions are made by factory workers during their tea breaks is something that can only exist in the deluded fantasies of people like Dave. As I just stated in the News from Nepal thread, he is politically and personally dishonest and the best policy you can take towards him is to ignore him.



The UCPN(M) has never built a revolutionary base in the working class.


We all know this is a lie. A cursory glance through this sub-forum will quickly show this is a lie. The UCPN (M) is the party of the Nepali proletariat and has been for many, many years, and it is quite simply the only party in Nepal that enjoys mass support amongst any section of society, not just the urban proletariat.

Dave is fully aware of this. We are left with two conclusions:

1: He is deliberately spreading lies about the UCPN (M) to try and put people off supporting the Nepali revolution and trying to build solidarity with them.

2: He is insane. He is capable of knowing something to be false, yet very vocally claiming that it is true.

Let's go with option 1 for the time being.

Please everyone - don't feed the trolls.

[RedZelenka]

To be quite frank the peasantry have been the base of most successful socialist revolutions.
Cuba
Russia
China
Vietnam
Laos

Outside of an explicitly socialistic or communist context, the farmers and yeomen of the Netherlands, the United States and France were essential in both starting and carrying through the revolutions those lands undertook in the early modern age. Although largely directed by the middle class and elements of the aristocracy (and, let's be honest, every revolution is) the peasant-farmer was essential to the cause.

It's really only in modern, Western economies where agribusiness has totally usurped any sort of peasantry or farmer-class and put them into perpetual welfare-peonization that the farmer has been removed as an element for revolutionary action.