CC agrees on Prachanda's paper

[scarletghoul]

After long indecision they have finally decided. Was a few days ago but no one seems to have posted it. The main point is that it lays down plainly the possibility of revolt, apparently.
Maoist CC passes Dahal's paper

KATHMANDU, Dec 18: The UCPN (Maoist) Central Committee meeting on Friday endorsed the political paper of party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal that proposes to go for a revolt if there is any conspiracy against peace and the new constitution.

The CC meeting held at party headquarters, Paris Danda endorsed Dahal´s political paper by voice vote as Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya, who had presented a separate political paper during the Palungtar plenum, supported Dahal, except in his review of the party´s history from the Chunwang meeting to date.


Another Vice-chairman, Dr Baburam Bhattarai, has expressed his disagreement over Dahal´s political paper, saying that it would only encourage counter-revolution but voiced his support for the immediate work plan proposed by Dahal. The three top leaders, however, are in consensus over the party´s immediate work plan as there has been agreement to hold a debate on the differences seen in the political papers of Chairman Dahal and Dr Bhattarai.

“The political paper presented by the chairman at the Palungtar plenum has been endorsed by the CC meeting,” said Maoist spokesperson Dina Nath Sharma after the meeting.

Chairman Dahal and Vice-chairmen duo Baidya and Dr Bhattarai had presented separate political papers at the Palungtar plenum as there was no consensus among the top three leaders on the party´s immediate action plan. The plenum had given responsibility to the party´s CC committee to resolve differences seen in the three separate political papers and come up with a single document on the party´s immediate action plan.

All three political papers mainly dwelt on determining the party´s principal enemy and a review of the Chunwang meeting, among other things. While Chairman Dahal had proposed ´Indian expansionism and intermingling of domestic reactionaries´ as the principal enemy, Baidya and Dr Bhattarai had taken ´India´ and ´domestic reactionaries´ respectively, as the principal enemy of the party.

Friday´s CC meeting endorsed Dahal´s political paper as Baidya agreed to Dahal´s proposal that ´Indian expansionism and intermingling of domestic reactionaries´ be taken as the principal enemy. While proposing to forward a slogan of struggle for peace and constitution, Dahal in his political paper has given emphasis to people´s revolt.

The Palungtar plenum had decided to hold a debate both within and outside the party on differences seen among the top three leaders.
According to spokesperson Sharma, the CC meeting decided to start a new publication, ´Bichar Dhara´, to debate the ideological differences seen among the leaders --something leaders close to Dr Bhattarai have opposed saying that it would close the door for open debate.

Baidya had expressed reservations over the analysis of Dahal and Dr Bhattarai that the party´s political course of peace, constitution and federal democratic republic adopted by the party´s Chunwang meeting was correct.

Among other things, Baidya has said it was mistake on the part of the Maoists to agree to the end of the people´s war in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and dissolution of the Maoists´ self-styled people´s government. He has also criticized the party-led government as a total failure as it could not do anything significant during its leadership.

Vice-chairman Bhattarai has expressed reservations over Chairman Dahal´s political paper. “This action plan will only help counter-revolution if we take into account both the national and international situation,” a CC member quoted Dr Bhattarai as saying. “I may be in a wrong position as well. Despite my reservations, I support the immediate work plan adopted by the party.”

Dr Bhattarai had said at the meeting that the work plan proposed by Dahal would neither bring peace nor ensure promulgation of a new constitution or a revolt.

Maoists to hold struggle programs

As a part of the party´s struggle program for peace and constitution, the Maoists plan to hold rallies starting from December 30 and internal orientation for party cadres until January 14, 2011. Likewise, the party has proposed to appeal people in the streets along with a publicity campaign from mid-January to mid-February and launch a strong struggle from February 13 that coincides with the anniversary of the Maoist people´s war launched in 1996 and take the struggle program to a new height beginning April 7, which marks Janaandolan Day.

Maoists to seek UNMIN term extension

Maoists have decided to seek consent from other political parties for extending the term of UNMIN yet again if the integration and rehabilitation of combatants is not accomplished by the set deadline of January 15, 2011. The Maoists also decided to seek an alternative if there is no consensus with political parties on UNMIN´s term extension.


Published on 2010-12-18 00:00:01
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=26269

[RED DAVE]

It seems obvious that, rhetoric aside, the current program of class collaboration and parliamentary maneuvering will continue.

RED DAVE

[internasyonalista]

Main problem with maoism is their belief of the "two-stage" revolution in backward countries. Through this comes the belief that capitalism in backward countries is still progressive in the era of imperialism thus justifying its alliance with the reactionary national bourgeoisie.

Worst, parliamentarism in alliance with big bourgeois parties is one of their "arsenal of tactics" for the "victory of the democratic revolution" (ie, state capitalism).

While India must be exposed and condemn as an imperialist power interested in Nepal, so as imperialist China and other imperialist powers. Pointing Indian imperialism as the main enemy of the Nepali proletariat is beneficial for Chinese imperialism especially with the counter-revolutionary "united front" tactics of the maoists.

[scarletghoul]

Main problem with maoism is their belief of the "two-stage" revolution in backward countries. Through this comes the belief that capitalism in backward countries is still progressive in the era of imperialism thus justifying its alliance with the reactionary national bourgeoisie.

Worst, parliamentarism in alliance with big bourgeois parties is one of their "arsenal of tactics" for the "victory of the democratic revolution" (ie, state capitalism).
But what would have happened if the Maoists had not allied with the bourgeoisie to overthrow the King and other old feudal forces ? They would have had to fight them and the bourgeoisie all at once, and Kathmandu would have become a bloodbath with no sure victory.

While India must be exposed and condemn as an imperialist power interested in Nepal, so as imperialist China and other imperialist powers. Pointing Indian imperialism as the main enemy of the Nepali proletariat is beneficial for Chinese imperialism especially with the counter-revolutionary "united front" tactics of the maoists.But China is not expansionist. There is no danger of China stealing Nepalese territory. India poses a much more immediate and bigger threat to Nepal..

[RED DAVE]

But what would have happened if the Maoists had not allied with the bourgeoisie to overthrow the King and other old feudal forces ? They would have had to fight them and the bourgeoisie all at once, and Kathmandu would have become a bloodbath with no sure victory.For the working class of Nepal, the victory still has not come as they are still under the yoke of the capitalist class, which the maoists are in bed with. While there is now a degree of political democracy in Nepal, the capitalist class controls the economy and the army. The revolution has hardly begun, and the maoists have already given up the class struggle.


But China is not expansionist.Tell that to the Tibetans.


There is no danger of China stealing Nepalese territory. India poses a much more immediate and bigger threat to Nepal..There is nothing that Nepal can do to stop China or India if either country invades. The only solution is to fight for the revolution in Nepal and spread it to other countries.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

I've already spoken to a couple comrades within the UCPN (Maoist), and they stated the same that they came to a decision of engaging People's Revolt if the recommended Constitution isn't agreed upon by May 28th. The people's revolt will be to bring the Maoists as the ruling class over the Bourgeois State, and from there, they say they'll work closely with private sectors, using the accumulated profits to help spend on social-benefits towards their people. As the ruling party, they hope to gradually transition the mode of production from private hands to public hands. This, like every other socialist organization and/or country, are going about their own experimental way of achieving Socialism. I support them, as should everyone else. I don't expect much from Red Dave.

[RED DAVE]

Sigh!


I've already spoken to a couple comrades within the UCPN (Maoist), and they stated the same that they came to a decision of engaging People's Revolt if the recommended Constitution isn't agreed upon by May 28th.A few missing details.

(1) What if the Constitution is agreed upon, a bourgeois consitution that preserves the hegemony of capitalism in the workplace?

(2) What will be the relationship between the People's Revolt in the countryside and in the cities. Last time they did this, they failed to win an adequate base in the cities.

(3) How will they deal with the 90,000 member army, which will doubtless be propped up by he major powers?


The people's revolt will be to bring the Maoists as the ruling class over the Bourgeois State[.]Which tells us everything we need to know. The Maoists, not the working class and the peasantry, will be the ruling class.


[A]nd from there, they say they'll work closely with private sectors, using the accumulated profits to help spend on social-benefits towards their people.A lovely combination of state and private capitalism. Surplus value will be extracted from the working class to build up an economy and a society controlled by the party and capitalists.


As the ruling party, they hope to gradually transition the mode of production from private hands to public hands.And what, pray tell, is the role of the working class and the peasantry in all this? Note the delightful phrase "public hands." Whatever happened to workers control of production?


This, like every other socialist organization and/or country, are going about their own experimental way of achieving Socialism.Translation: we're going to institute state capitalism. Don't criticize.


I support them[.]I'll bet you do.


[A]s should everyone else. I don't expect much from Red Dave.No, old Red Dave will just pound away at his compute and point out what a miserable bunch of sellouts Maoists are.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

Sigh!

A few missing details.

(1) What if the Constitution is agreed upon, a bourgeois consitution that preserves the hegemony of capitalism in the workplace?

(2) What will be the relationship between the People's Revolt in the countryside and in the cities. Last time they did this, they failed to win an adequate base in the cities.

(3) How will they deal with the 90,000 member army, which will doubtless be propped up by he major powers?

Haven't gotten that info yet. There's only a little amount of time I get to speak with the comrades there. So that'll be my next line of questioning.


Which tells us everything we need to know. The Maoists, not the working class and the peasantry, will be the ruling class.

:laugh:

You make it sound as if the Maoists are a class in itself. lol You continuously want to disregard the fact that the Maoists ARE OF THE WORKING CLASS AND PEASANTRY!


A lovely combination of state and private capitalism. Surplus value will be extracted from the working class to build up an economy and a society controlled by the party and capitalists.

Well given that they never stated that after this revolt that Socialism will be achieved, I think your arguments are quite dogmatic and ignorant. These measures will be put forth to advance forward towards Socialism.


And what, pray tell, is the role of the working class and the peasantry in all this? Note the delightful phrase "public hands." Whatever happened to workers control of production?

More than likely, we'll be seeing a process similar to that of Venezuela. One of them actually mentioned the experiment that Venezuela's going through. Whether they wanted to state that they're interested in conducting a similar line to that of Venezuela's is unknown. Again, it won't be Socialism after the People's Revolt, and they've never stated it will be either. So it appears you're just flapping your old ass jaw for nothing.


Translation: we're going to institute state capitalism. Don't criticize.

Despite the fact that your ideal of "state-capitalism" is quite ignorant, as is everything else when it comes to people like the ISO, no one's stating it'll be Socialism at first. So again, your arguments are irrelevant and ignorant.


I'll bet you do.

I do :thumbup1:


No, old Red Dave will just pound away at his compute and point out what a miserable bunch of sellouts Maoists are.

RED DAVE

That sounds about right, actually.

[scarletghoul]

Sigh!

A few missing details.

(1) What if the Constitution is agreed upon, a bourgeois consitution that preserves the hegemony of capitalism in the workplace?
LOL, the Maoists would not agree to that. If there was a chance of them agreeing to a bourgeois constitution it would have happened by now, wouldn't it.


(2) What will be the relationship between the People's Revolt in the countryside and in the cities. Last time they did this, they failed to win an adequate base in the cities.They've beefed up their force in the cities with the YCL and whatnot. Certainly they have a lot more student support now, and there's no reason to doubt they have at least as much support from the workers as they did back in May. The revolt in the countryside of course will further weaken an already-frail government and liberate territory to support the revolution in the capital.


(3) How will they deal with the 90,000 member army, which will doubtless be propped up by he major powers?We don't know how the army will be used and what its politics are like enough the predict these things tbh. But the Maoists have a lot of support and an army of their own, its not hard to imagine a Maoist victory. But really this is a pretty vague question; we've seen the Maoists beat the national army in the countryside, and they have significant forces now in the city. honestly you could say 'what about the army' as a way to oppose any revolutionary uprising, its a vague and useless point.


A lovely combination of state and private capitalism. Surplus value will be extracted from the working class to build up an economy and a society controlled by the party and capitalists. Lolol here we go again.. when you cant think of any arguments against a revolutionary movement just say it doesnt matter because theyre state capitalists anyway.... really, if you believe the Maoists are just state-capitalists then why are you even interested in Nepal ? Why are you posting here to debate what is apparently just a conflict between capitalists ?


And what, pray tell, is the role of the working class and the peasantry in all this? Note the delightful phrase "public hands." Whatever happened to workers control of production? This really is pretty idiotic. 'Public' like 'the people' etc is of course shorthand for workers and peasants. You're criticising a statement because it doesn't qualify itself with a million lines explaining the specific meaning of each word..
If this was 1917 you'd have criticised Lenin's saying 'all power to the soviets'; you'd go "Soviets ?? Whatever happened to workers control of production?".


Translation: we're going to institute state capitalism. Don't criticize. Yes evil state capitalists who fought the bourgeoisie in guerilla warfare for 10 years and stage general strikes etc driven purely by the desire to exploit the entire population with their own evil state capitalist regime..


No, old Red Dave will just pound away at his compute and point out what a miserable bunch of sellouts Maoists are.They say they will launch a revolt and you call them sellouts.. really do you even read anything now or do you just automatically criticise every single thing relating to the Maoists that doesn't fit in with your super-trotsky ideal fantasy revolution.

[RED DAVE]

(1) What if the Constitution is agreed upon, a bourgeois consitution that preserves the hegemony of capitalism in the workplace?
LOL, the Maoists would not agree to that. If there was a chance of them agreeing to a bourgeois constitution it would have happened by now, wouldn't it.A bourgeois constitution is one in which bourgeois property relations are preserved. Show us where, in all the negotiations over the constitution, one of the sticking points is the exploitation of labor by capital.


(2) What will be the relationship between the People's Revolt in the countryside and in the cities. Last time they did this, they failed to win an adequate base in the cities.
They've beefed up their force in the cities with the YCL and whatnot. Certainly they have a lot more student support now, and there's no reason to doubt they have at least as much support from the workers as they did back in May. The revolt in the countryside of course will further weaken an already-frail government and liberate territory to support the revolution in the capital.The devil is in the details. In other words, the UCPN(M) has not deepened its relationship to the working class. There is every reason to doubt that it's support among the workers is as great as at the time of the general strike since the general strike was a massive mobilization that (a) achieved virtually nothing and (b) was not followed up.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

A bourgeois constitution is one in which bourgeois property relations are preserved. Show us where, in all the negotiations over the constitution, one of the sticking points is the exploitation of labor by capital.

Show us where, in all negotiations over the constitution, the Maoists have called for bourgeois leadership and the remainder of predominant private ownership over the means of production!



What’s the difference between federal democratic republic and people’s federal democratic republic?

“People’s” mean oppressed class of people: Peasants, workers, Dalits, women, nationalities. They are called “people”.

What will be the role of the president in post May-28 Nepal?

He doesn’t have any role. If he takes one, that will be unconstitutional. If the constitutional process breaks down, it will lead to a situation “might is right” situation.

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=26116


The devil is in the details. In other words, the UCPN(M) has not deepened its relationship to the working class. There is every reason to doubt that it's support among the workers is as great as at the time of the general strike since the general strike was a massive mobilization that (a) achieved virtually nothing and (b) was not followed up.

RED DAVE

And you attain such knowledge from where? What leads you to believe that, from all of urban Nepal, the Maoists, ranging from the top leadership to the Youth Communist League, haven't increased their support through the working class there?

I was able to have a conversation with a comrade in Nepal, who isn't affiliated with the Maoists, but rather of the Workers Party there, and has specifically stated support in the Maoist's struggle over the constitution, and backing of the possible People's Revolt. This, apparently, ran through the entirety of the Worker's Party as well, according to him.

This odd, mystical power of yours to reach upon the very steps through all of urban Nepal is astounding! The fact (apparently!) that you have no connections with those of urban Nepal (let alone rural Nepal), and yet can be able to determine whether or not the Maoists are strengthening their support base within the working class, all through the lack of constantly updated pro-Maoist media and instead the only source of media in Nepal being that of bourgeois mainstream. I seriously doubt you have a single fucking clue what you're talking about.

[devoration1]

Show us where, in all negotiations over the constitution, the Maoists have called for bourgeois leadership and the remainder of predominant private ownership over the means of production!


Here ya go:




"We are not fighting for socialism," he said ... "We are just fighting against feudalism. We are fighting for a capitalistic mode of production. We are trying to give more profit to the capitalists and industrialists." (Prachanda, Nepalese Maoist Party leader - Daily Telegraph, 31 Oct 2006.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1532891/Nepals-fierce-one-spurns-Chairman-Mao-and-claims-centre-ground-in-peace-talks.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1532891/Nepals-fierce-one-spurns-Chairman-Mao-and-claims-centre-ground-in-peace-talks.html)



Having won the most seats, but without an absolute majority, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) became the leading party in a coalition government in 2008. Even before they entered government the Maoists made it clear they were happy to sign up to a policy to repress militancy in the workplace and discourage strikes; in 2006 they signed a 10-point agreement with other parties to end the decade-old guerilla war and join an interim coalition government. Known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), Point 7 of the agreement declares:

“Both sides believe in the fact that the industrial climate in the country should not be disturbed and production should be given continuity and that the right of collective bargaining and social security should be respected.” Any disputes with employers should be solved “in a peaceful manner”. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/nepa-d11.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/nepa-d11.shtml))
The Maoist position on how state power should be used to deal with strikes is one of the few issues they have remained consistent on since a governmental role became a possibility. This shows that the claim that this attitude originated as a response only to "reactionary strikes" by other rival parties is false.

More here, especially about the ban on strikes supported by the Maoists!:

http://libcom.org/library/myths-realities-nepalese-maoists-their-strike-ban-legislations

[The Vegan Marxist]

Here ya go:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1532891/Nepals-fierce-one-spurns-Chairman-Mao-and-claims-centre-ground-in-peace-talks.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1532891/Nepals-fierce-one-spurns-Chairman-Mao-and-claims-centre-ground-in-peace-talks.html)



More here, especially about the ban on strikes supported by the Maoists!:

http://libcom.org/library/myths-realities-nepalese-maoists-their-strike-ban-legislations


[/INDENT]

Is this ongoing (and tiring!) claim that the Maoists have stated socialism will come after the People's Revolt need to seriously be continued? Those who oppose the Nepali Maoists call them un-revolutionary, or isn't fighting for the working class of Nepal; not wanting to see them into power. Yet, as I've pointed out, this is hardly the fact of the matter.

It was Marx, himself, who stated that it was a revolutionary step to take during the transition from feudalism to capitalism:



The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarcely one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground - what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

(Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, "Manifesto of the Communist Party", 1849, pp. 38-9)

The Maoists have stated a revolutionary transition from feudalism to capitalism - as you've pointed out yourself. Though, they have also called for, as I've pointed out, for their party to be the ruling party - to be under said leadership. The bourgeois state is still up (obviously!), in which I never denied, but leadership wise; ruling party wise; that is a different story altogether.

Is your, along with Red Dave's, plan for Nepal to just completely skip the much needed transition from feudalism to capitalism, and instead go straight towards Socialism? Maybe none of those calling for such really understood the consequence to such when it came to Cambodia!

It was Engels who stated that, without capitalism; without that necessary transition from feudalism to capitalism, socialism would not be:


Only the immense increase of the productive forces attained by modern industry has made it possible to distribute labour among all members of society without exception, and thereby to limit the labour time of each individual member to such an extent that all have enough free time left to take part in the general - both theoretical and practical - affairs of society. It is only now, therefore, that every ruling and exploiting class has become superfluous and indeed a hindrance to social development, and it is only now, too, that it will be inexorably abolished, however much it may be in possession of 'direct force'.

(Engels, Friedrich, Anti-Dühring, 1894, p. 251)

In other words, as loud and "on point" you and Red Dave may think you are, the only people here who are betraying socialism is you two, not the Maoists.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Here ya go:
More here, especially about the ban on strikes supported by the Maoists!:

http://libcom.org/library/myths-realities-nepalese-maoists-their-strike-ban-legislations


[/INDENT]

Nice bullshit article by the way. Given the fact that this is a fallacious lie only supported by the ultra-leftist anarcho-clique:

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/did-the-maobadi-ban-strikes/

[RED DAVE]

[T]he much needed transition from feudalism to capitalism, and instead go straight towards Socialism?(1) As has been demonstrated over and over again, there is little or no feudalism in Nepal. What is present is uinderdevelopment and a largely rural capitalist economy, which is not feudalism. (2) This was basically the bolshevik schema until sidetracked by Stallin (who was imitated by Mao) to institute state capitalism.


It was Engels who stated that, without capitalism; without that necessary transition from feudalism to capitalism, socialism would not be[.]And it was Lenin and Bolsheviks who demonstrated that under conditions of imperialism the bourgeoisie was no longer capable of modernization.


In other words, as loud and "on point" you and Red Dave may think you are, the only people here who are betraying socialism is you two, not the Maoists.No, by making an alliance with the bourgeoisie, the Maoists are consciously and deliberately betraying the working class. This is exactly what happened in China.

RED DAVE

[Homo Songun]

(1) As has been demonstrated over and over again, there is little or no feudalism in Nepal.

You are confusing the word "demonstrate" with "assert", as in "to assert an ideological axiom". In your particular case, that feudal relations have absolutely no bearing on the predominant mode of production in Nepal. This, even in the face of newspaper stories like this:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/03/3295572/activists-in-nepal-make-inroads.html

Or, the fact that serfdom was legal in Nepal until 2008.


What is present is uinderdevelopment and a largely rural capitalist economy, which is not feudalism.To say that Nepal is being underdeveloped into a largely rural capitalist economy is basically the essence of the Maoist terms "semi-feudal" or "dominated by comprador capital", etc. Since their usage of the term "semi-feudal" seems to be a sticking point for you, it would be great if you could provide a source quote from them that would vindicate this idea of yours that they intend something that is other than essentially capitalistic with the term.


And it was Lenin and Bolsheviks who demonstrated that under conditions of imperialism the bourgeoisie was no longer capable of modernization.Exactly. But what is your point? Where has this been contradicted by Mao or the UCPNM? I'm not a Maoist, but I've read my fair share of their literature and I've never once seen them say that the bourgeoisie could lead another revolution, if that is what you mean by "modernization".

[gorillafuck]

Nice bullshit article by the way. Given the fact that this is a fallacious lie only supported by the ultra-leftist anarcho-clique
I honestly find it really funny that an American Maoist would call anarchism a clique. Calling a political tendency a clique is a stupid thing to do in the first place, but if you're a western Maoist doing it then you have no ground to stand on.


Exactly. But what is your point? Where has this been contradicted by Mao or the UCPNM? I'm not a Maoist, but I've read my fair share of their literature and I've never once seen them say that the bourgeoisie could lead another revolution, if that is what you mean by "modernization".I'm under the impression that the Maoists want a revolution for domestic Nepali capitalists? That's what supporters of them say now.

[Homo Songun]

I think they intend the revolution "for" Nepalese workers, not "for" Nepalese capitalists. But, it is true that they claim the bourgeoisie can't prosecute "their" revolution any more.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I honestly find it really funny that an American Maoist would call anarchism a clique. Calling a political tendency a clique is a stupid thing to do in the first place, but if you're a western Maoist doing it then you have no ground to stand on.

Good thing I'm not a Maoist, eh? lol I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Though, I sympathize with the Maoists and understand the conditions in which they're waging against. So I stand by my remarks on anarchism.


I'm under the impression that the Maoists want a revolution for domestic Nepali capitalists? That's what supporters of them say now.

They're still pro-socialist. They're still communists. They just know that, with capitalism not really developed in Nepal yet, it's pretty much a factor they need to consider if they ever want to see Socialism in Nepal. You can't just lay down a checkers board and yell "KING ME!" without making the right moves first.

[RED DAVE]

They're still pro-socialist. They're still communists. They just know that, with capitalism not really developed in Nepal yet, it's pretty much a factor they need to consider if they ever want to see Socialism in Nepal. You can't just lay down a checkers board and yell "KING ME!" without making the right moves first.Stuff and nonsense.

What you can't do is be "pro-socialist" or "communist" and make an alliance with the enemy of socialism or communist, the bourgeoisie.

The true class nature of Maoism is becoming clearer and clearer: it is a petit-bourgeois front, using Marxist rhetoric, for state and private capitalism.

If, in fact, Maoism were some kind of leftist force, Maoists would have fought against the growth of private capitalism in China, split the party, called for the workers to arise, started civil war, etc. Instead, they either welcomed it or, at best, grumbled.

RED DAVE

[Homo Songun]

If, in fact, Maoism were some kind of leftist force, Maoists would have fought against the growth of private capitalism in China, split the party, called for the workers to arise, started civil war, etc. Instead, they either welcomed it or, at best, grumbled.

:lol:... ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?

Your arguments against Maoism might gain a little more credibility if you ever decide to study Chinese history past the year 1927.

[RED DAVE]

If, in fact, Maoism were some kind of leftist force, Maoists would have fought against the growth of private capitalism in China, split the party, called for the workers to arise, started civil war, etc. Instead, they either welcomed it or, at best, grumbled.
:lol:... ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?Are you seriously asserting that the Cultural Revolution was a workers rising against capitalism led by Maoists?

If so, what mass social force in China were the anti-Maoists able to raise up that defeated the working class?


Your arguments against Maoism might gain a little more credibility if you ever decide to study Chinese history past the year 1927.Yours would gain credibility if you had the slightest idea was Marxism was all about.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

Are you seriously asserting that the Cultural Revolution was a workers rising against capitalism led by Maoists?
Yes, of course it was.

If so, what mass social force in China were the anti-Maoists able to raise up that defeated the working class?
You're essentially asking why the GPCR failed, which is the trillion dollar question. Imho it was because since '69 the struggle was kept largely within the party itself, and the 'anarchic' spirit of challenging all authority of the GPCR-proper was repealed and toned down. In other words Mao wasn't willing to challenge the authority of the Party itself, he instead thought it would be possible to steer the Party back on track from within, so there was no strong extra-party force. This meant that the capitalist roaders just needed to take control of the Party to win.. If however Mao had been less timid in encouraging outside forces to keep the Party leadership in check, things could have been very different.

Yours would gain credibility if you had the slightest idea was Marxism was all about.
I absolutely love the hollow meaninglessness of this line.

[BIG BROTHER]

Good thing I'm not a Maoist, eh? lol I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Though, I sympathize with the Maoists and understand the conditions in which they're waging against. So I stand by my remarks on anarchism.


A Leninist that apparently never read Lenin's "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. Nor read anything about the Russian Revolution.




They're still pro-socialist. They're still communists. They just know that, with capitalism not really developed in Nepal yet, it's pretty much a factor they need to consider if they ever want to see Socialism in Nepal. You can't just lay down a checkers board and yell "KING ME!" without making the right moves first.
Here you might wanna read this before you speak again.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

And seriously, you are starting to sound like a Menshevik defending the provisional government, except at least Mensheviks got credit for being active in the class struggle as opposed to some other pseudo-revolutionaries.

[RED DAVE]

Are you seriously asserting that the Cultural Revolution was a workers rising against capitalism led by Maoists?
Yes, of course it was.Let's see your evidence.


If so, what mass social force in China were the anti-Maoists able to raise up that defeated the working class?
You're essentially asking why the GPCR failed, which is the trillion dollar question.For you Maoists it sure as shit is.


ImhoYour opinion. It would be nice to have some facts to back it up.


[I]t was because since '69 the struggle was kept largely within the party itself, and the 'anarchic' spirit of challenging all authority of the GPCR-proper was repealed and toned down. In other words Mao wasn't willing to challenge the authority of the Party itself, he instead thought it would be possible to steer the Party back on track from within, so there was no strong extra-party force. This meant that the capitalist roaders just needed to take control of the Party to win.. If however Mao had been less timid in encouraging outside forces to keep the Party leadership in check, things could have been very different.In other words, it was an intra-party struggle that didn't involve the working class at all. You can't have a workers revolution, rising, rebellion, what have you, without workers.

You've made my point.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

In other words, it was an intra-party struggle that didn't involve the working class at all. You can't have a workers revolution, rising, rebellion, what have you, without workers.

You've made my point.

RED DAVE
What the fuck are you talking about. Just because the struggle is within the party doesn't mean workers are not involved. The Party was made up almost entirely of workers and peasants.

You seem to have this problem where you assume everything is anti-worker unless it explicitly refers to the 'working class' etc all the time. Its weird.

[RED DAVE]

In other words, [the Cultural Revolution] was an intra-party struggle that didn't involve the working class at all. You can't have a workers revolution, rising, rebellion, what have you, without workers.

You've made my point.
What the fuck are you talking about. Just because the struggle is within the party doesn't mean workers are not involved. The Party was made up almost entirely of workers and peasants.Show us the characteristic forms of workers struggle: strikes, demonstrations, and how about a workers program? Until a few years ago, the Democratic Party in the US was made up almost entirely of workers. That didn't make it a workers party.


You seem to have this problem where you assume everything is anti-worker unless it explicitly refers to the 'working class' etc all the time. Its weird.You seem to have this problem where you don't understand that to be pro-worker is to advocate workers control of society. There is no evidence that the CCP ever fought for this.

ETA: And yes you pretty much have to refer to the working class all the time. We are, as Marxists, concerned with the working class as the revolutionary agent. The party is only worth anything if it is intimately connected to the working class and is the designated leader of the working class. The peasantry as a class require another class, an urban class, to lead them. This is either the bourgeoisie itself, the petit-brougeoisie or the workers.

Any schema in an underdeveloped that does not advocate a revolutionary alliance of the workers and peasants led by the workers is not Marxist. And schema in a developed country that does not place the working class as the leading class of the revolution is not Marxist.

RED DAVE

[gorillafuck]

Good thing I'm not a Maoist, eh? lol I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Though, I sympathize with the Maoists and understand the conditions in which they're waging against. So I stand by my remarks on anarchism.
Oh.

What I said still applies to standard Marxist-Leninists in the west, unless you're delusional.

By the way, you're arguing for menshevism, not Marxist-Leninism. Honestly I find both ideologies terrible, but you're basically arguing for menshevism and I wish to point it out.

[Homo Songun]

If, in fact, Maoism were some kind of leftist force, Maoists would have fought against the growth of private capitalism in China, split the party, called for the workers to arise, started civil war, etc. Instead, they either welcomed it or, at best, grumbled.
:lol:... ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?

Your arguments against Maoism might gain a little more credibility if you ever decide to study Chinese history past the year 1927.
Are you seriously asserting that the Cultural Revolution was a workers rising against capitalism led by Maoists?

If so, what mass social force in China were the anti-Maoists able to raise up that defeated the working class?
I am not in fact interested in discussing at this particular moment whether or not "the Cultural Revolution was a workers rising against capitalism led by Maoists", partially because I'm not interested in having you restate your basic set of ideological axioms one more time. You've stated them plenty of times already. You have your minority opinion, whereas myself and millions of other communists world-wide have mine. Fine.

But mainly I am not interested because that was not your original assertion. Your original assertion was that if "Maoism were some kind of leftist force", they would have done things like "fought against the growth of private capitalism in China, split the party, called for the workers to arise, started civil war", and so on. These are altogether different propositions with much lower burdens of proof. Like, Wikipedia low. The fact that you even raise such a question, regardless of rhetorical intent speaks volumes. Life did not end in 1927, and like it or not the Chinese revolutionary process continued well after Chen Duxiu. The Cultural Revolution was one of the most profound and drawn out processes of the last century regardless of ones personal stance on Mao or anything else to do with Chinese history, and that includes whether or not it receives a proper treatment in whatever pamphlet by Tony Cliff you seem to be taking your cues from. I would suggest you actually investigate the ideology you are arguing against in order to be taken seriously.

[RED DAVE]

I would suggest you actually investigate the ideology you are arguing against in order to be taken seriously.Having read the works of Mao and watched the political actions of Maoists for a very long time, I would suggest to you that you do the same. The current events in Nepal demonstrate, right in front of our eyes, even better than the Little Red Book or the Cultural Revolution just what Maoism is.

RED DAVE