The Vegan Marxist
1st January 2011, 22:31
Thats right, you heard me. Not only are the Unified Communist Party of Nepal Maoist (UCPN-M) waging a revolutionary battle against the Nepali State, it is being waged in order to implement capitalism!
Now, Im sure theres a line of questions thatll be asked due to such statements; such as But dont you support the Maoists?, I thought Socialists opposed capitalism?, How can fighting for capitalism be revolutionary?, and Does the Maoists support capitalism or socialism?. These are, of course, the most obvious questions that I feel will be asked. In which, I then feel obligated to answer in order, for those interested in the Maoist struggle in Nepal, to get a better understanding of what alls going on.
So allow me to begin by answering the first question: But dont you support the Maoists? Why, yes, I do. Ive supported them since the day that I came to learn about their revolutionary struggle. Though, Ill admit that I knew very little then than I do now. Which is why I feel the need of updating everyone on what, exactly, is taking place in Nepal and for what purpose.
To be able to answer the other two questions its necessary to split them into two different categories of information. One being of how the Maoists are fighting towards capitalism, and the other being of why it is still a revolutionary event.
Capitalism
What better way of pointing out the fact that the Maoists are, in fact, fighting towards capitalism than by quoting the Chairman of the UCPN (Maoist), Pushpa Kamal Dahal:
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.1
Im sure if one was to use this quote by itself without even recognizing the important reasons behind such actions, one would develop the idea that the Maoists are traitors to the proletarian struggle. Though, as Socialists, this line of thought shouldnt be proceeded and we must develop a better understanding on why we should support this move by the Maoists.
But, I thought Socialists opposed capitalism? We do oppose capitalism to a certain extent. Though, when we compare feudalism with that of capitalism, we realize the necessary process of supporting the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Even to that of both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, they saw the transition as a progressive event:
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 remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous cash payment. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, 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 Natures 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?2
And so, we then start noticing a glimpse of why such a transition is revolutionary. But, how can fighting for capitalism be revolutionary?
Revolutionary
We must always recognize the struggle towards Socialism as a revolutionary event of actions. Whatever step taken that leads to Socialism is revolutionary, in itself. But I thought the Maoists are fighting for capitalism, not Socialism? This is actually not the case whatsoever. Theyre fighting towards capitalism, but for socialism. To understand this better, we must realize that without capitalism there is no socialism. We cannot simply transition feudalism towards Socialism and not come about a series of detrimental contradictions.
It was Friedrich Engels who stated:
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.3
The revolutionary struggle towards Communism is simply a struggle of gradual steps needing to be taken. Where there is feudalism, the revolutionary struggle for Socialism must call for the transition to capitalism. From there, we then transition towards Socialism, so on and so forth.
New Democracy
So, does the Maoists support capitalism or socialism? Although the quoted statement by Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal that I provided earlier gives a clue to where the current struggle lies, it is no longer a relevant stage partaken by the Maoists. Rather stating that his party wants to over throw the two hundred years old feudal political and economic superstructure and build a [...] new democracy with social justice and inclusion.4
This is where, when we go into discussion of what particular stage the Maoists are waging, we should always recognize the stage of New Democracy, as laid out by Mao Zedong:
The new historical characteristic of the Chinese revolution is its division into two stages, the first being the new-democratic revolution.
[...]
Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degreeeven in the era of imperialismin its opposition to the foreign imperialists and the domestic governments of bureaucrats and warlords [...] and it may ally itself with the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie against such enemies as it is ready to oppose.5
Though, during this periodic stage of New Democracy, there lies a political line between two class contradictions those who support Socialism and those who dont break away from bourgeoisie relations:
At the same time, however, being a bourgeois class in a colonial and semi-colonial country and so being extremely flabby economically and politically, the Chinese national bourgeoisie also has another quality, namely, a proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution. Even when it takes part in the revolution, it is unwilling to break with imperialism completely and, moreover, it is closely associated with the exploitation of the rural areas through land rent; thus it is neither willing nor able to overthrow imperialism, and much less the feudal forces, in a thorough way.
[...]
Possible participation in the revolution on the one hand and proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution on the other such is the dual character of the Chinese bourgeoisie, it faces both ways. Even the bourgeoisie in European and American history had shared this dual character. When confronted by a formidable enemy, they united with the workers and peasants against him, but when the workers and peasants awakened, they turned round to unite with the enemy against the workers and peasants. This is a general rule applicable to the bourgeoisie everywhere in the world.6
To better understand what is to come to Nepal under this New Democracy, we must understand the components of New Democracy, itself. In which is a transitional period under capitalist rule, not to remain static through capitalist rule, but to eventually transition from capitalism to Socialism:
This new-democratic republic will be different from the old European-American form of capitalist republic under bourgeois dictatorship, which is the old democratic form and already out of date. On the other hand, it will also be different from the socialist republic of the Soviet type under the dictatorship of the proletariat which is already flourishing in the U.S.S.R., and which, moreover, will be established in all the capitalist countries and will undoubtedly become the dominant form of state and governmental structure in all the industrially advanced countries. However, for a certain historical period, this form is not suitable for the revolutions in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. During this period, therefore, a third form of state must be adopted in the revolutions of all colonial and semi-colonial countries, namely, the new-democratic republic. This form suits a certain historical period and is therefore transitional; nevertheless, it is a form which is necessary and cannot be dispensed with.
[...]
The state system, a joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes and the system of government, democratic centralismthese constitute the politics of New Democracy, the republic of New Democracy.
[...]
Without a doubt, the present revolution is the first step, which will develop into the second step, that of socialism, at a later date The [...] revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight. We are not utopians and cannot divorce ourselves from the actual conditions confronting us.7
So for all those who oppose the Maoists when they state theyre fighting towards Capitalism, we must then recognize that they are the real traitors of the proletarian struggle, not the Maoists. Socialism will not come to Nepal for many years, but the revolutionary struggle towards Socialism will live on. With the Maoists calling for the agreement of the newly designed constitution, which would place the Maoists as the largest ruling party over the Bourgeois State, under the interest of the Nepali working class and peasantry, those of the current ruling leadership must accept by May 28, or a Peoples Revolt will be waged, as stated by Maoist Vice-Chairman Dr. Baburam Bhattarai:
What will be the role of the president in post May-28 Nepal?
He doesnt 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.8
So whatever may happen, whether the current ruling leadership accepts the new constitution and steps down or the Maoists wage a Peoples Revolt and makes them step down, we must support this ongoing revolutionary struggle.
Red Love & Salutes!
1. Thomas Bell, Nepals fierce one spurns Chairman Mao and claims centre ground in peace talks, The Telegraph, October 31, 2006.
2. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians, Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1849, pp. 38-9.
3. Engels, Friedrich, Anti-Dhring, 1894, p. 251.
4. We want to build a new capitalist and industrial democracy: Prachanda, Nepal Biz News, December 23, 2006.
5. Zedong, Mao, On New Democracy, 1940.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. I am not a revisionist: Dr Bhattarai, My Republica, December 13, 2010.
Now, Im sure theres a line of questions thatll be asked due to such statements; such as But dont you support the Maoists?, I thought Socialists opposed capitalism?, How can fighting for capitalism be revolutionary?, and Does the Maoists support capitalism or socialism?. These are, of course, the most obvious questions that I feel will be asked. In which, I then feel obligated to answer in order, for those interested in the Maoist struggle in Nepal, to get a better understanding of what alls going on.
So allow me to begin by answering the first question: But dont you support the Maoists? Why, yes, I do. Ive supported them since the day that I came to learn about their revolutionary struggle. Though, Ill admit that I knew very little then than I do now. Which is why I feel the need of updating everyone on what, exactly, is taking place in Nepal and for what purpose.
To be able to answer the other two questions its necessary to split them into two different categories of information. One being of how the Maoists are fighting towards capitalism, and the other being of why it is still a revolutionary event.
Capitalism
What better way of pointing out the fact that the Maoists are, in fact, fighting towards capitalism than by quoting the Chairman of the UCPN (Maoist), Pushpa Kamal Dahal:
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.1
Im sure if one was to use this quote by itself without even recognizing the important reasons behind such actions, one would develop the idea that the Maoists are traitors to the proletarian struggle. Though, as Socialists, this line of thought shouldnt be proceeded and we must develop a better understanding on why we should support this move by the Maoists.
But, I thought Socialists opposed capitalism? We do oppose capitalism to a certain extent. Though, when we compare feudalism with that of capitalism, we realize the necessary process of supporting the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Even to that of both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, they saw the transition as a progressive event:
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 remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous cash payment. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, 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 Natures 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?2
And so, we then start noticing a glimpse of why such a transition is revolutionary. But, how can fighting for capitalism be revolutionary?
Revolutionary
We must always recognize the struggle towards Socialism as a revolutionary event of actions. Whatever step taken that leads to Socialism is revolutionary, in itself. But I thought the Maoists are fighting for capitalism, not Socialism? This is actually not the case whatsoever. Theyre fighting towards capitalism, but for socialism. To understand this better, we must realize that without capitalism there is no socialism. We cannot simply transition feudalism towards Socialism and not come about a series of detrimental contradictions.
It was Friedrich Engels who stated:
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.3
The revolutionary struggle towards Communism is simply a struggle of gradual steps needing to be taken. Where there is feudalism, the revolutionary struggle for Socialism must call for the transition to capitalism. From there, we then transition towards Socialism, so on and so forth.
New Democracy
So, does the Maoists support capitalism or socialism? Although the quoted statement by Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal that I provided earlier gives a clue to where the current struggle lies, it is no longer a relevant stage partaken by the Maoists. Rather stating that his party wants to over throw the two hundred years old feudal political and economic superstructure and build a [...] new democracy with social justice and inclusion.4
This is where, when we go into discussion of what particular stage the Maoists are waging, we should always recognize the stage of New Democracy, as laid out by Mao Zedong:
The new historical characteristic of the Chinese revolution is its division into two stages, the first being the new-democratic revolution.
[...]
Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degreeeven in the era of imperialismin its opposition to the foreign imperialists and the domestic governments of bureaucrats and warlords [...] and it may ally itself with the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie against such enemies as it is ready to oppose.5
Though, during this periodic stage of New Democracy, there lies a political line between two class contradictions those who support Socialism and those who dont break away from bourgeoisie relations:
At the same time, however, being a bourgeois class in a colonial and semi-colonial country and so being extremely flabby economically and politically, the Chinese national bourgeoisie also has another quality, namely, a proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution. Even when it takes part in the revolution, it is unwilling to break with imperialism completely and, moreover, it is closely associated with the exploitation of the rural areas through land rent; thus it is neither willing nor able to overthrow imperialism, and much less the feudal forces, in a thorough way.
[...]
Possible participation in the revolution on the one hand and proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution on the other such is the dual character of the Chinese bourgeoisie, it faces both ways. Even the bourgeoisie in European and American history had shared this dual character. When confronted by a formidable enemy, they united with the workers and peasants against him, but when the workers and peasants awakened, they turned round to unite with the enemy against the workers and peasants. This is a general rule applicable to the bourgeoisie everywhere in the world.6
To better understand what is to come to Nepal under this New Democracy, we must understand the components of New Democracy, itself. In which is a transitional period under capitalist rule, not to remain static through capitalist rule, but to eventually transition from capitalism to Socialism:
This new-democratic republic will be different from the old European-American form of capitalist republic under bourgeois dictatorship, which is the old democratic form and already out of date. On the other hand, it will also be different from the socialist republic of the Soviet type under the dictatorship of the proletariat which is already flourishing in the U.S.S.R., and which, moreover, will be established in all the capitalist countries and will undoubtedly become the dominant form of state and governmental structure in all the industrially advanced countries. However, for a certain historical period, this form is not suitable for the revolutions in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. During this period, therefore, a third form of state must be adopted in the revolutions of all colonial and semi-colonial countries, namely, the new-democratic republic. This form suits a certain historical period and is therefore transitional; nevertheless, it is a form which is necessary and cannot be dispensed with.
[...]
The state system, a joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes and the system of government, democratic centralismthese constitute the politics of New Democracy, the republic of New Democracy.
[...]
Without a doubt, the present revolution is the first step, which will develop into the second step, that of socialism, at a later date The [...] revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight. We are not utopians and cannot divorce ourselves from the actual conditions confronting us.7
So for all those who oppose the Maoists when they state theyre fighting towards Capitalism, we must then recognize that they are the real traitors of the proletarian struggle, not the Maoists. Socialism will not come to Nepal for many years, but the revolutionary struggle towards Socialism will live on. With the Maoists calling for the agreement of the newly designed constitution, which would place the Maoists as the largest ruling party over the Bourgeois State, under the interest of the Nepali working class and peasantry, those of the current ruling leadership must accept by May 28, or a Peoples Revolt will be waged, as stated by Maoist Vice-Chairman Dr. Baburam Bhattarai:
What will be the role of the president in post May-28 Nepal?
He doesnt 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.8
So whatever may happen, whether the current ruling leadership accepts the new constitution and steps down or the Maoists wage a Peoples Revolt and makes them step down, we must support this ongoing revolutionary struggle.
Red Love & Salutes!
1. Thomas Bell, Nepals fierce one spurns Chairman Mao and claims centre ground in peace talks, The Telegraph, October 31, 2006.
2. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians, Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1849, pp. 38-9.
3. Engels, Friedrich, Anti-Dhring, 1894, p. 251.
4. We want to build a new capitalist and industrial democracy: Prachanda, Nepal Biz News, December 23, 2006.
5. Zedong, Mao, On New Democracy, 1940.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. I am not a revisionist: Dr Bhattarai, My Republica, December 13, 2010.