Are Nepalis feeling Revolution Fatigue?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/asia/2011/03/201135111519301101.html

I think after a revolution, you run the risk of forgetting the people and their immediate demands. This obviously isn't just true of the Maoists, but every other party in Nepal. Wouldn't it behoove the Maoists to accept a reduced political role in the short term, in alliance with another force, to ensure that the material needs of the Nepali people are met in the short term? A political version of New Economic Policy, if you will

[RED DAVE]

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/asia/2011/03/201135111519301101.html

I think after a revolution, you run the risk of forgetting the people and their immediate demands. This obviously isn't just true of the Maoists, but every other party in Nepal. Wouldn't it behoove the Maoists to accept a reduced political role in the short term, in alliance with another force, to ensure that the material needs of the Nepali people are met in the short term? A political version of New Economic Policy, if you willWhat you are talking about, and which I believe the Maoists are flirting with, is state capitalism.

The material needs of the Nepali people are not going to be met by capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's easy to say "The material needs of the nepali people are not going to be met by capitalism" when you're hungry, jobless, and your kids not in school. Food and some kind of civil society trump theoretical and abstract considerations, and no political organization either (1) claiming to help those people and (2) seeking to create a bond of loyalty between the people and the party would be wise to blow off social and economic needs for the people.

This is regardless of the economic system in place. I'm not saying you quit the revolution halfway through, just that it is tactically necessary as well as morally proper to put aside other considerations in favor of ensuring a certain minimum social standard.

[RED DAVE]

It's easy to say "The material needs of the nepali people are not going to be met by capitalism" when you're hungry, jobless, and your kids not in school.That's what capitalism does.


Food and some kind of civil society trump theoretical and abstract considerations, and no political organization either (1) claiming to help those people and (2) seeking to create a bond of loyalty between the people and the party would be wise to blow off social and economic needs for the people.(1) It is precisely because of these needs that we are socialists. (2) Are you trying to say that capitalism in Nepal is or will satisfying these needs?


This is regardless of the economic system in place.What you're saying here is, again, that capitalism in Nepal is okay, leave it alone for awhile and let it feed the people. That's liberalism.


I'm not saying you quit the revolution halfway throughActually, you are.


just that it is tactically necessary as well as morally proper to put aside other considerations in favor of ensuring a certain minimum social standard.That's why the revolution is being made in the first place: capitalism does not supply this "minimum social standard."

RED DAVE

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

(1) It is precisely because of these needs that we are socialists. (2) Are you trying to say that capitalism in Nepal is or will satisfying these needs? (1) Yes, this is why the increasing feeling of economic malaise should be worrying to us, especially because we know that it is the failure to answer the social question that leads to revolution and counterrevolution.
(2) No, not at all


What you're saying here is, again, that capitalism in Nepal is okay, leave it alone for awhile and let it feed the people. That's liberalism. Not at all. I'm not saying Capitalism needs to be left alone. On the contrary, what I'm saying is that political squabbling is doing nothing to replace Capitalism, while merely making its flaws that much more painful for the masses. If anything, the political squabbling might make economic revolution less possible by discouraging them.

The problem there right now isn't just capitalism, it's capitalism and instability, which is a deadly combination in these poor countries. Instability exacerbates the wrongs and failures of any economic system, Capitalism included, and because Nepal is such a poor country, any problems will be felt even more acutely by the people.


That's why the revolution is being made in the first place: capitalism does not supply this "minimum social standard."No, but when living standards have dropped below what they were at the outset of revolution, or if they stop rising so fast, then people will lose enthusiasm or faith in the revolutionary process or its leaders. And when a family makes a subsistence level income, the parents are likely to care much more about calories and electricity right now over some vague socialist ideal tomorrow.


Dave, it seems like you are minimizing the tactical and political necessities here. If a few Communist leaders squabble nonstop amongst themselves and a few other parties for political power, while people are seeing their actual living standards drop, the masses could become disengaged with the process since it's not seeing any results. I don't think that political fighting between the UML and the Maoists is doing anything to make their country socialist. However, the squabbling very well might result in a counter revolution, either in favor of the monarchy or another regressive force.

[smk]

I completely agree with the OP. It is horrible to see that the Maoists in Nepal aren't doing anything to help the people, in fact they are only hurting them so far. whether this is because they don't have the resources, because they wont reconcile with 'other forces', or because they are no longer interested in helping the people, but rather gaining power, is open to interpretation. it is probably a combination of all three.

[red cat]

I completely agree with the OP. It is horrible to see that the Maoists in Nepal aren't doing anything to help the people, in fact they are only hurting them so far. whether this is because they don't have the resources, because they wont reconcile with 'other forces', or because they are no longer interested in helping the people, but rather gaining power, is open to interpretation. it is probably a combination of all three.

I disagree. The Nepalese Maoists are not one bit like the crook in your avatar.

[smk]

in what way could you ever call nehru a "crook"? why do you disagree with my statement?

[red cat]

in what way could you ever call nehru a "crook"?

I have few other words to describe such a loyal agent of British imperialism.



why do you disagree with my statement?

The past and present actions of the Nepalese Maoists prove you wrong. While they have adopted various tactics from time to time they have always remained firmly committed to preparing the masses for revolution.

[smk]

I have few other words to describe such a loyal agent of British imperialism.



The past and present actions of the Nepalese Maoists prove you wrong. While they have adopted various tactics from time to time they have always remained firmly committed to preparing the masses for revolution.

after the overthrow of the king, they weren't elected because people wanted a communist revolution. they were elected because they promised a better life for the Nepalis. poverty, unemployment, and inflation are all increasing as a result of the new government led by communists. Because they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing, they fail.

and do you have any actual examples of Nehru being loyal to the British?

[red cat]

after the overthrow of the king, they weren't elected because people wanted a communist revolution. they were elected because they promised a better life for the Nepalis. poverty, unemployment, and inflation are all increasing as a result of the new government led by communists. Because they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing, they fail.

Communists are not supposed to be attempting the impossible task of "making life better" under a colonial dictatorship in a third world country; they are supposed to be organizing the masses for revolution and that is exactly what the Nepalese Maoists are doing.


and do you have any actual examples of Nehru being loyal to the British?All that Nehru ever did was engaging in countless reactionary activities like leading a political party founded by agents of British imperialism, calling revolutionaries terrorists, continuing the imperialist exploitation of India after its conversion to a neo-colony, using state forces to crush peasants' and workers' rebellions and every other possible activity that could ruin the Indian masses and benefit imperialism. Do you want me to give examples for each of these ?

[smk]

Communists are not supposed to be attempting the impossible task of "making life better" under a colonial dictatorship in a third world country; they are supposed to be organizing the masses for revolution and that is exactly what the Nepalese Maoists are doing.

So their motives are different from what they promised. They are actually attempting to bring the country into capitalism as some sort of gradual transition many years into the future as a socialist state. The UCPN has even said they arent fighting for socialism. I can guarantee that what elected officials are supposed to do is what the people who elected them want. SO they are SUPPOSED to be making life better (their purpose for being elected.) To some extent this is done with the abolishment of the monarchy, but since then, their promises have gone unfulfilled. Revolution means nothing if conditions dont improve.

[red cat]

So their motives are different from what they promised. They are actually attempting to bring the country into capitalism as some sort of gradual transition many years into the future as a socialist state. The UCPN has even said they arent fighting for socialism. I can guarantee that what elected officials are supposed to do is what the people who elected them want. SO they are SUPPOSED to be making life better (their purpose for being elected.) To some extent this is done with the abolishment of the monarchy, but since then, their promises have gone unfulfilled. Revolution means nothing if conditions dont improve.

So you expect communists to publicly declare while joining a bourgeois government that they are doing so with the sole motive of overthrowing it ? Or do you somehow believe that "life" can be somehow "made better" without overthrowing the imperialists who survive by keeping it the way it is ? Or do you want communists to betray the Nepalese masses by following the footsteps of Nehru ?

[smk]

So you expect communists to publicly declare while joining a bourgeois government that they are doing so with the sole motive of overthrowing it ? Or do you somehow believe that "life" can be somehow "made better" without overthrowing the imperialists who survive by keeping it the way it is ? Or do you want communists to betray the Nepalese masses by following the footsteps of Nehru ?


people live in the short term. communism is a long term solution, but the maoists need to do whatever they can to help people in the short term as well. of course I believe that life can be made better without revolution. however, to reach the greatest level of human development, revolution is needed. is a police state equal to a liberal democracy? no. it's pretty clear that a liberal democracy is preferable, (once again, not in the long term.) that communism is not the only short term solution is something that you and many others on revleft fail to understand.

[red cat]

people live in the short term. communism is a long term solution, but the maoists need to do whatever they can to help people in the short term as well. of course I believe that life can be made better without revolution. however, to reach the greatest level of human development, revolution is needed. is a police state equal to a liberal democracy? no. it's pretty clear that a liberal democracy is preferable, (once again, not in the long term.) that communism is not the only short term solution is something that you and many others on revleft fail to understand.

You do not understand the present situation in the third world. A place which is subject to the extraction of super-profits by imperialist capital always has to be a police state, with conditions similar to bourgeois-democracy prevailing partially only in certain urban areas. To make conditions better by even one bit for the masses, a revolution is required. And that revolution will be the first one in a series of revolutions leading to communism. So far whatever gains the Nepalese masses have won for themselves have been achieved through revolutionary struggle against the state; even now with a considerably large red army they are having to push through the state machinery with huge strikes for wage raises. Therefore it is wrong to think that imperialism will allow them them to live better lives if they abandon the struggle.

[thälmann]

yeah but what the nepalese maoists are doing is the exact opposite. they have stopped the armed struggle, although it worked very well. and then they started working with and inside of the pro imperialist semifeudal comprador state. of course they can not serve the peoples needs, thats the reason why an antiimperialist democratic revolution is necesarry. only this could solve todays problems, and open the path to socialism. now the maoists are leading a state against the masses, and with time the people will change their positive view on the party. they choose the party because of their revolutionary programm, not because they want the old state and system with prachanda as president..

[smk]

yeah but what the nepalese maoists are doing is the exact opposite. they have stopped the armed struggle, although it worked very well. and then they started working with and inside of the pro imperialist semifeudal comprador state. of course they can not serve the peoples needs, thats the reason why an antiimperialist democratic revolution is necesarry. only this could solve todays problems, and open the path to socialism. now the maoists are leading a state against the masses, and with time the people will change their positive view on the party. they choose the party because of their revolutionary programm, not because they want the old state and system with prachanda as president..

is there anything about the structure (not composition) of the Nepali government which makes it more semifedual and pro-imperialist than democratic? If there truly is a major structural issue with the set up of the nepali government, a political revolution is necessary. If there isn't, which I believe to be the case, some measure of progress can be made still without revolution.

[red cat]

yeah but what the nepalese maoists are doing is the exact opposite. they have stopped the armed struggle, although it worked very well. and then they started working with and inside of the pro imperialist semifeudal comprador state. of course they can not serve the peoples needs, thats the reason why an antiimperialist democratic revolution is necesarry. only this could solve todays problems, and open the path to socialism. now the maoists are leading a state against the masses, and with time the people will change their positive view on the party. they choose the party because of their revolutionary programm, not because they want the old state and system with prachanda as president..

The UCPN(M) is observing a ceasefire, which is a part of the war. If they had chosen to continue armed struggle when the monarchy was tumbling down in 2006, the bourgeois parties would have been able to pose as "anti-monarchist national-liberators", turn a large portion of the masses against the Maoists and even call for imperialist military intervention against them. By joining the peace process the UCPN(M) has been able to increase their mass base not only in villages but also in cities to a great extent. Although they have not succeeded in influencing the RNA yet, if they end the ceasefire now, they will be at a much more advantageous position than they would have been in 2006.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What you are talking about, and which I believe the Maoists are flirting with, is state capitalism.

The material needs of the Nepali people are not going to be met by capitalism.

RED DAVE

I think Nepal needs independent working-class political organization for the proletarian demographic minority, Urban Petit-Bourgeois Democratism, and the specific Peasant Patrimonialism that is, to significantly correct Lassalle, a "social[ly radical] and [politically] revolutionary people's [non-hereditary, elected, party-accountable, and de facto] monarchy" - in short Caesarean Socialism.