Kiran accuses Prachanda of “revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty�

[mosfeld]

This is a very interesting development. Thoughts?


Kiran accuses Prachanda of “revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty”

There he said it. It needed to be said. He finally said it. He should have said it months, nay years ago. But Kiran has finally broken his peace. The latest news from the ongoing Central Committee meeting of the UCPN(Maoist) reports that Kiran has tabled a political document that accuses Prachanda of “revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty”. This is perhaps the first time in the long two-line struggle that has characterized the Party’s inner-politics in the last few years that anyone has been explicitly been accused of being engaged in ‘revisionism’ and ‘reformism’, although such epithets have often been bandied about. Furthermore, such denunciations have largely been reserved for Baburam Bhattarai and his line, and have never been addressed at Prachanda himself. However, in recent years one can see a marked change in the personage of Dahal and it is difficult to picture him as the ‘the fierce one’ any longer. It is unlikely that any revolt will occur in the coming months and the Party seems to be nearing a split, although the remarkable thing about the UCPN(Maoist) has been its capacity to reinvent itself through a process of political transformation. There has been a prevalent assumption that if there was to be a vertical split in the Party that it would have resulted in a Prachanda-Kiran faction and a Bhattarai faction, this is no longer the case.

It is no secret that the Bhattarai faction has been calling for a congress for years. However, this is the first time that the Kiran faction has joined that chorus. The Prachanda faction has always opposed a congress as they have the most to lose as many of their faction would have to step aside to make place for a new Party leadership and bureaucracy that will inevitable emerge (the question of how the factions are represented in the Party is already itself a major point of contention that has led to this political impasse). It seems more than likely than ever that a general congress is going to be called to ensure that a premature split does not occur. The ideal situation would be an election of a new leadership and line going forward. Thus, one would ideally see Kiran’s line of general revolt being adopted on the basic revolutionary strategic questions and Bhattarai’s line on inner-party democracy and social programming also being adopted. Prachanda ideally would be demoted from the Chairmanship and would have to engage in a process of clear rectification, as it is the problem of eclecticism and dishonesty that are the most damaging.

That of course is the most ideal situation and the least likely to occur, although if there is a Party in which such a thing could occur it is the UCPN(Maoist). However, the very real possibility of a split looms. It is clear that Prachanda and several of his lieutenants are no longer trusted by either Bhattarai or Kiran and their respective factions, and it would be difficult to imagine him being in either leader’s faction for a very long period of time. Thus, one would imagine a small Prachanda-led party and a small Bhattarai-led party in the electoral sphere, and a Kiran faction in the extra-parliamentary sphere. I have argued that ideally there would be some form of political rapprochement between the Bhattarai and Kiran factions as they have both helped produce a vibrant and dynamic Party and political line which has aided in its political rise. There have been repeated instances in which the Kiran faction has defended Bhattarai from disciplinary action in recent months, despite the fact that at the time it was clear that Bhattarai’s line could have been as easily explicitly been accused of “revisionism” and “reformism”. Indeed, one may be able to accuse Bhattarai of many things, but he has never been ‘eclectic’ or ‘dishonest’. A twist on this could be a situation in which a Party congress occurs and results in the demotion of Prachanda and him walking out of the Party with his faction in protest, and leaving Bhattarai and Kiran in one Party that follows democratic centralism.

It is a pity that it has taken so much time and energy to finally recognize something that both those inside and outside of the Party had realized a ling time ago: the Party needs to have a Party congress to actually map out the way forward. No longer can expanded politbureau, CC, and plenum meetings suffice. The Party should have held a congress many years ago when it entered into the peace process and its failure to do so has reduced it to a dithering Party. However, Kiran finally said it and now the Party can take a collective step forward and reorient itself to the project of revolution and a communist Nepal. This will be a most difficult test of the inner strength of the Party and its capacity to actually engage in the process of ‘unity-split-transformation’ which they have been so proud of.http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/kiran-accuses-prachanda-of-%E2%80%9Crevisionism-eclecticism-reformism-and-dishonesty%E2%80%9D/

[mosfeld]

Hardliners bash Maoist chief

REPUBLICA

KATHMANDU, April 24: UCPN (Maoist) leaders from the party hard-line faction strongly objected to the political document presented by Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal who has proposed deferring the line of revolt and focusing on peace and constitution.

“The new proposal amounts to surrender to regressive forces,” a leader quoted Dev Gurung as saying. He appeared more aggressive than any other leader who spoke on Saturday.

Gurung also accused Dahal of quitting the party´s vital stances since he became the coordinator of the subcommittee of the CA´s Constitutional Committee.
[BREAK]

Similarly, Netra Bikram Chand argued that there was no need to change the party´s line of revolt. “There are no fundamental changes in the objective reality since the Palungtar plenum. So it is wrong to change the line of revolt,” a leader quote Chand as saying.

Chand, who is close to Baidya and is an ardent advocate of revolt, was gentle in his voice but heavily criticized Dahal for changing the line.

CP Gajurel was also very critical of Dahal. “Though we cannot fix a point of time for a revolt, there is no alternative to a revolt. So the party should make preparations and wait for an opportune time,” a leader quoted Gajurel as saying. Gajurel, who is also from Baidya camp, said that the party should formulate policy and programs aimed at achieving the revolutionary goals set ahead of the ´people´s war.

On the other hand, party vice-chairman Dr Baburam stated that he fully supports Dahal´s proposal, and added that the party now needs a new set of leadership on various fronts to implement the party´s programs.

General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa lent support to Dahal, but demanded that the chairman also bring out programs in case the party´s initiatives for peace and constitution fail.

Party standing committee member and Deputy Prime Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara openly supported Bhattarai, while Amik Sherchan and Lilamani Pokhrel did not reveal their leanings to any leaders.http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=30587

[mosfeld]

Baidya document lambasts Dahal
KIRAN PUN

KATHMANDU, April 23:

The chairman has deviated from the party´s revolutionary goals. If the party is to agree on a constitution without ensuring socio-political changes, why did we ask so many to sacrifice their lives?
--Baidya

Expressing dissent over Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal´s political document, Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya presented a separate document at the party central committee (CC) meeting on Friday, demanding preparations for an immediate revolt to capture state power and write a ´people´s constitution.´

“The chairman has deviated from the party´s revolutionary goals. If the party is to agree to a constitution without ensuring socio-political changes, why did we ask so many to sacrifice their lives,” a leader quoted Baidya as saying at the CC.


Baidya was of the opinion that the country already had the 1990 constitution and the sacrifice of so many people cannot be justified if the party is to accept the spirit of that constitution.

In tones of someone badly cheated, Baidya accused Dahal of “revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty”, and said the chairman had betrayed the proletariat and deviated from the party´s goals.

Baidya, who leads the party´s hardline camp, is not for concluding the peace process and constitution drafting through compromises with other parties.

“We should not opt for an integration process that humiliates PLA personnel,” a leader quoted Baidya as saying.

The Maoist senior vice-chairman argued that the Maoist leadership doesn´t want to become mentally prepared to launch a revolt, though the objective situation is conducive for this.

“The reactionary parties are undergoing political crisis while the people are enraged by the government´s inability to solve the problems the country is facing. So the ground is becoming ready for revolt, but the party lacks preparations for that,” he said.

The Baidya faction has argued that the central committee cannot overturn a decision taken by the party plenum. The party CC held immediately after the Palungtar plenum last November endorsed the line of revolt.

"We would not accept an anti-people constitution and the silence of the grave. Otherwise we had better follow the line of Mohan Bikram Singh and Madan Bhandari,” said a leader close to Baidya.

Party hardliners say they would see how the chairman reacts to Baidya´s document and then chart out their strategy.

“The floor is now open. It is yet to be seen how the chairman embraces the message of the Paluntar plenum, and we´ll forge our strategy accordingly,” said Kul Prasad KC of the Baidya faction.

At the CC meeting, Dahal presented his political document proposing that the party defer the line of immediate revolt and focus on completion of peace and the constitution.

Acknowledging deepening differences among the leaders, Maoist Chairman Dahal said that the party can hold a general convention by next February to settle to all outstanding feuds.

General convention will be the right solution to fix ideology differences that has weakened the party and created several cracks, a leader quoted Dahal as saying.

The faction led by Dr Baburam Bhattarai has long been demanding a general convention, which is 20 years overdue. The party establishment has been postponing the general convention citing an unfavorable political situation. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=30572

[mosfeld]

Dahal´s proposal proves divisive at CC meeting

KATHMANDU: Unified CPN-M standing committee members were divided over party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s proposal stating that the party’s official line of people’s revolt be dropped, at the central committee meeting today.

Vice Chairman Baburam Bhattarai said Dahal’s document was basically correct but it should incorporate the issue of forming a national consensus government. He also said the party should change the idea of the principal enemy of the Nepali people.

Vice Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha also said Dahal’s document was correct as it had incorporated neo-Marxism.

However, standing committee member Amik Sherchan questioned where the revolution was heading, while General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa said there was no basic difference between Dahal’s and Baidhya’s documents, so they should be merged.

Secretary C P Gajurel said the party did not have three factions and only a two-line struggle existed. “Now chairman Dahal has adopted Bhattarai’s line deserting Baidhya’s,” he said during the meeting.

Standing Committee member and Deputy Prime Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara confessed he had erroneously presented the draft of the extradition treaty at the legislature parliament, which had now been returned.

Standing committee member Dev Gurung explained the essence and significance of Baidhya’s political document at this critical juncture of the Nepali political scenario. He alleged that Dahal was heading towards ‘national surrender’.

Another standing committee member Netra Bikram Chand alleged that Dahal was more focused on the internal struggle within the party and had forgotten class struggle

The standing committee members on Baidhya’s side were Dev Gurung, Amik Sherchan, C P Gajurel, Netra Bikram Chand and Lilamani Pokhrel; while Shrestha, Bhattarai, Post Bahadur Bogati, Dinanath Sharma, Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, Giriraj Mani Pokhrel and Mahara supported Dahal.

A politburo member close to Baidhya claimed that among the 95 central committee members, who had waged the people’s war, Baidhya had hold on a majority of them.
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Dahal%26acute%3Bs+proposal+p roves+divisive++at+CC+meeting+&NewsID=285245

[DaringMehring]

I have been predicting that the CPN(M) would split on revolutionary and parliamentary lines, reprising Menshevik-Bolshevik positions after the fall of Tsarism & the beginning of the provisional government.

I fully support Baidya. Bhattarai was obviously Menshevik/revisionist/social democrat/whatever you want to call it for some time, now it is clear Dahal has joined him.

[RED DAVE]

The chairman has deviated from the party´s revolutionary goals. If the party is to agree on a constitution without ensuring socio-political changes, why did we ask so many to sacrifice their lives?This is what I have been asserting for over a year: the program of the UCPN(M) does not represent any significant "socio-political changes." It has been part of a bourgeois revolution, which has left the working class at the mercy of the capitalists.

And Maoists here and in Nepal have bullshitted about this under the fantasy of New Democracy, which is Bourgeois Democracy.

RED DAVE

[DaringMehring]

This is what I have been asserting for over a year: the program of the UCPN(M) does not represent any significant "socio-political changes." It has been part of a bourgeois revolution, which has left the working class at the mercy of the capitalists.

And Maoists here and in Nepal have bullshitted about this under the fantasy of New Democracy, which is Bourgeois Democracy.

RED DAVE

But where you were wrong and I was right, was you considered the CPN(M) and the Nepali revolution to be a dead end. You gave no scope for the CPN(M) to do anything other than go down to capitalism.

Your error was that you prioritized ideology over social forces. I pointed out to you several times that by your logic the Bolsheviks could never have overcome the Mensheviks and SRs; Lenin could never have gone from advocating democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants under capitalism to permanent revolution and a full-on attempt at socialism.

Wrong then, wrong now! Right here we see the first signs that the true communists of the CPN(M) and the unsatisfied workers and peasants are looking to Bolshevize or at least to further radicalize. These elements had to exist. They fought a decade long civil war!

[RED DAVE]

But where you were wrong and I was right, was you considered the CPN(M) and the Nepali revolution to be a dead end. You gave no scope for the CPN(M) to do anything other than go down to capitalism.(1) I did this on the basis of (a) the actually policies of he UCPN(M) and (b) the history of Maoism.

(2) I wonder what you are seeing into this development. One faction saays. "Dahal’s document was basically correct but it should incorporate the issue of forming a national consensus government. He also said the party should change the idea of the principal enemy of the Nepali people." A second factions said, "Dahal’s document was correct as it had incorporated neo-Marxism." The third "questioned where the revolution was heading," and "General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa said there was no basic difference between Dahal’s and Baidhya’s documents, so they should be merged."

This hardly looks like a major shift in program.


Your error was that you prioritized ideology over social forces.No i didn't. I pointed out that, concretely, Nepalese Maoism was not based on the working class but on the Maoist policy of the block of four classes." This is exactly the strategy which led to the triumph of capitalism in China.


I pointed out to you several times that by your logic the Bolsheviks could never have overcome the Mensheviks and SRs; Lenin could never have gone from advocating democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants under capitalism to permanent revolution and a full-on attempt at socialism.There is no indicating that the UCPN(m) engages in the kind of internal criticism that Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Show me, here or in Nepal, the kind of criticism that you are talking about.

Maoists here cheerled the UCPN(M); Maoists in Nepal all united around the "Prachandra Path" of class collaboration.


Wrong then, wrong now!Eyes you have, but you see not. Etc.


Right here we see the first signs that the true communists of the CPN(M) and the unsatisfied workers and peasants are looking to Bolshevize or at least to further radicalize. These elements had to exist. They fought a decade long civil war!i have never questioned the revolutionary potential of the Nepalese people; only the sell-out politics of Maoism. If a revolution is to succeed in Nepal, Maoism itself will have to be treated like Menshevism.

RED DAVE

[DaringMehring]

(1) I did this on the basis of (a) the actually policies of he UCPN(M) and (b) the history of Maoism.

(2) I wonder what you are seeing into this development. One faction saays. "Dahal’s document was basically correct but it should incorporate the issue of forming a national consensus government. He also said the party should change the idea of the principal enemy of the Nepali people." A second factions said, "Dahal’s document was correct as it had incorporated neo-Marxism." The third "questioned where the revolution was heading," and "General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa said there was no basic difference between Dahal’s and Baidhya’s documents, so they should be merged."

This hardly looks like a major shift in program.


Baidya surely did not accuse Prachanda of "revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty" lightly. That kind of language signals a major break, combined with the stories of a three-way split forming up in the Maoist trade union, and the contentiousness of the last Party conference, and it seems obvious that major upheavals are going on in the Party.



No i didn't. I pointed out that, concretely, Nepalese Maoism was not based on the working class but on the Maoist policy of the block of four classes." This is exactly the strategy which led to the triumph of capitalism in China.


I also don't believe in the "bloc of four classes" -- for any extended period of time it is poison. That doesn't prove that the workers and peasants can't or won't assert themselves over whatever national bourgeoisie some in the Party leadership may be courting.



There is no indicating that the UCPN(m) engages in the kind of internal criticism that Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Show me, here or in Nepal, the kind of criticism that you are talking about.


Internal is the relevant word. From outside the USSR in the 20s, you'd have little to no hint that major struggles were going on inside the Bolshevik Party. The oppositionists held to Party discipline and did not criticize the Party openly until they were expelled. Remember when Trotsky lied and said Max Eastman's expose of Lenin's will was a fabrication, in order to adhere to Party discipline? So why do you expect that anybody would be able to have that type of knowledge about Nepal. "Revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty" -- isn't that decisive enough?



Maoists here cheerled the UCPN(M); Maoists in Nepal all united around the "Prachandra Path" of class collaboration.


First of all the class collaboration during the People's War was... where? Yes they were based mainly on peasants not workers. That's a peasant country for you, always been a problem for Marxism. But what bourgeoisie sided with them? The collaboration only came when they allied with the SPA and did a deal to end the People's War. At that point, plenty of people Maoist and not criticized them. The RCP (not exactly the most insightful political organization) even criticized them.

But taking that turn, doesn't mean a permanent shift, only the possibility of a permanent shift. Some people within the Party are apparently fighting to reverse course, as I had predicted a year or so ago. Your two sentence dismissal is extremely reductionist and anti-Marxist in its lack of dialectical analysis.



i have never questioned the revolutionary potential of the Nepalese people; only the sell-out politics of Maoism. If a revolution is to succeed in Nepal, Maoism itself will have to be treated like Menshevism.


Maybe that will happen, or maybe a more revolutionary Maoism will be reinvented learning from the mistakes of the past. Maoism has positive aspects that can be built on; though it failed, the Cultural Revolution was a serious theoretical and practical attempt to reach socialism in an underdeveloped primarily peasant country.

The point is, whatever you believe about Maoism and its failings, there are some people in the CPN(M) who are obviously not sell-outs. Baidya is not a sell out. If he wanted to he could chew the fat and become a bureaucrat in a troika with Prachanda-Bhattarai. His followers could avoid having to do any more fighting, or risking of expulsion, and rest on their war laurels. But he is speaking up, struggling against Menshevism/social democracy/revisionism, and that is a positive development.

[mosfeld]

[COLO=RED]RED DAVE[/COLOR]

Best thing to ever happen on RevLeft

[RED DAVE]

Best thing to ever happen on RevLeftfify

RED DAVE

[Imposter Marxist]

Its upsetting that there might have to be a split, but i'm sure it wouldn't happen unless it was important. This seems important. I've been waiting for some conflict between party factions. What do you all think will happen next?

[thälmann]

i hope they kick those responsible for this revisionist desaster out of the party and complete their revolution by smashing the existing state. but i guess this is a dream. what i have read the last years from the ucpn (m), i think the problem is much deeper then just in the leadership.

[RED DAVE]

i hope they kick those responsible for this revisionist desaster out of the party and complete their revolution by smashing the existing state. but i guess this is a dream. what i have read the last years from the ucpn (m), i think the problem is much deeper then just in the leadership.Right. The problem lies with Maoism itself. Remember that all of those who are complaining, very mildly I might add, about the current path, were part of it and declined to criticize it in any serious way up to now.

RED DAVE

[thälmann]

nice try red dave, but that wasnt what i meant. iam not a maoist, but i think the way they went during the peoples war was right, and it would be better to finish it.

[RED DAVE]

nice try red dave, but that wasnt what i meant. iam not a maoist, but i think the way they went during the peoples war was right, and it would be better to finish it.Sorry if I misinterpreted you. I certainly did not think you were a Maoist.

My issue with so-called peoples war is that it neglects the relationship between the countryside and the cities, which means it neglects the relationship between the peasants and the workers. In place of a fighting relationship between the workers and peasants, Maoism has the infamous block of four classes, which means that: (a) the working class, rhetoric aside, is not the leading class of the revolution; (b) the result is capitalism.

In order to "finish" the peoples war, the working class has to be the leading class, and the stated and actual goal has to be socialism, not some kind of New Democracy (New Capitalism) bullshit.

RED DAVE

[thälmann]

i dont know how the situation was in nepal earlier, but in the PWs of the past, the working class was the leading force. but because of the fact that the working class is only a little part of the population in semifeudal countries, the masses in the revolutionary movement are peasents. there is no other way.

i bet someone told you before, but i will repeat it. new democracy is not a way to capitalism, just a stage necesarry on the way to socialism. its not something new from mao, he just made it more concrete. lenin and stalin of course talked about an anticolonial or antiimperialist or nationaldemocratic revolution...

[DaringMehring]

i bet someone told you before, but i will repeat it. new democracy is not a way to capitalism, just a stage necesarry on the way to socialism. its not something new from mao, he just made it more concrete. lenin and stalin of course talked about an anticolonial or antiimperialist or nationaldemocratic revolution...

You are wrong. Lenin abandoned his version of "New Democracy" -- democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants under capitalism -- as false. Why do you think the USSR was formed the way it was? The USSR was not formed as a "New Democracy" inclusive not just of Mensheviks, SRs and other pseudo-socialists, but also outright capitalists. The USSR was not a "New Democracy;" Lenin did not believe in "New Democracy."

Anti-colonial, or anti-imperialist wars, are different from "New Democracy." Anti-colonial wars are something for Marxists to support even though they are not socialism and may be led by bourgeoisie, not something for Marxists or the working class to aspire to. Our goal is socialism not just getting rid of foreign domination. The fact that anti-colonial struggles and "New Democracy" are different, is obvious from the fact that anti-colonial struggles are generally not led by anyone who has a care for "New Democracy." "New Democracy" is a Marxism-specific theory of how to get to socialism in an underdeveloped country.

So far, historically, "New Democracy" is a total failure. Certainly, it failed in China. We can also compare it to other Menshevik theories that failed in the west -- as put into practice by the SPD or the Labour Party. Is it really any surprise, that even under the political dominion of supposed socialists, capitalism leads to... a capitalist class and, more capitalism?

They are learning this lesson in Nepal; their transition period of several years already looks too long and likely to lead to nowhere to some, like Baidya. Victory to this man, may he be the Lenin of his country -- the one whose first move was to expropriate the bourgeoisie!

[thälmann]

oh..and the ussr is still socialist??

but i will not discuss this further with you...otherwise this thread will be fucked up like others.

[mosfeld]

RED DAVE, everybody knows what you think of the UCPN(M) and everyone in it. There's not a single thread on Nepal where you haven't commented on what you think. Could you maybe just once chill out a little and just not participate?

More news:
"Bhattarai: Revolt impossible, forge consensus (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/bhattarai-revolt-impossible-forge-consensus/)"
"Majority in UCPN(Maoist)’s CC in Favour of Peace (http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/majority-in-maoist-cc-for-peace-statute/)"

[RED DAVE]

RED DAVE, everybody knows what you think of the UCPN(M) and everyone in it. There's not a single thread on Nepal where you haven't commented on what you think. Could you maybe just once chill out a little and just not participate? You first. :D

RED DAVE

[mosfeld]

You first. :D

RED DAVE

I've been abstaining from Nepal discussions for like months now. :glare: The Li Onesto thread and this one are probably the only mentions I've made of Nepal.

[RED DAVE]

I've been abstaining from Nepal discussions for like months now. :glare: The Li Onesto thread and this one are probably the only mentions I've made of Nepal.Perhaps yo need to join a 12-step group: Maoism Anonymous. :D

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Trotskyism Anonymous has only one step. ;)

[RED DAVE]

The whole speech is worth reading to get an idea of what, Marxist rhetoric aside, the UCPN(M) is actually doing.

Baburam Bhattarai: Post-Conflict*Restructuring


The ultimate objective cause of any social or political conflict is the economy. The 10 years of armed conflict was fuelled by rampant poverty, unemployment, inequality and dependency. It is, therefore, imperative that the prevailing semi-feudal and semi-colonial socio-economic formation be restructured progressively. Transformation of the traditional agriculture sector into a modern industrial sector should top the agenda of economic restructuring. A radical land-reform programme with judicious redistribution of land and promotion of modern farming systems should be implemented. Promotion of cooperatives among small producers should ensure reasonable growth with substantial social equity. The next focus should be a campaign of national industrialisation based on the principle of public-private partnership. The current Kathmandu-centric development model must be reversed to make maximum utilisation of local resources and potentials. Also, Nepal should follow a strategy of taking maximum advantage of the rapid economic development of both China and India. Only through a strategy of rapid economic restructuring and development can the democratic change be sustained and institutionalised. Democracy amidst rampant poverty, unemployment and inequality will be ever susceptible to revert to autocracy.http://theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/baburam-bhattarai-post-conflict-restructuring/

RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

Trotskyism Anonymous has only one step. ;)

You suck as a human being, you know that?