Question for Trots on Nepal?

[RedSunRising]

And in particular for Red Dave.

What do you believe is the correct road for the struggle in Nepal to take at this time?

And please dont just tell us how the UCPN-M is bad and generally crap. Tell us what you would do in the situation as Trotskyites?

[Revolutionair]

Because I think this is an interesting question, I would like to add one more premise. Red Dave, your answer must not be centered around what you would NOT do. So saying: 'What I would do, does not equal what those Maoists are doing, which is selling out the proletariat etc etc' is not allowed.

Instead your answer must be: 'I WOULD try to organize X workers councils who manage the X industry.' If you don't like councils you can replace it with any other organizational structure.


For the Troskyists, don't make this a sectarian shitstorm as you will scare off any potential followers (me). BTW fun fact, my spellchecker proposed "terrorist" as a replacement for "Trotskyist". :D

[graymouser]

I'm not Red Dave, and won't speak for him.

I studied Nepal pretty closely around the time of the 2006 revolution that overthrew the king. It was a pretty amazing thing, and the CPN(M) at the time was a major force in building the general strike.

The problems Nepal faces aren't small. You've got the town/country divide in a severe way between the Kathmandu valley and the rest of Nepal. In a real way, the Maoists were the first political force that wasn't totally focused on Kathmandu. You'd have to solve this with the traditional Bolshevik policy of giving the land to the peasants and forming a worker-peasant alliance. This would be particularly important because Nepal traditionally has a massive inflow and outflow of migrant workers; this would be used strategically to internationalize the revolution, building links between Indian and Nepali revolutionaries and exporting the revolutionary wave into India. There are also a lot of national questions in Nepal, and a number of peasants could be won over through the Bolshevik position on the national question.

Industry could be nationalized, although this would mostly be a Kathmandu-centered move. What would be critical is the fact that a socialist revolution would probably do some damage to the tourist industry that keeps Nepal in a cycle of dependency on "stability." You might have to take a stance like revolutionary Cuba does today, trying to keep tourism alive as a state-run "industry" in order to keep some capital inflows that would allow you to buy raw materials & heavy machinery. You do have some metal manufacturing in Nepal but a lot of current manufacturing is in textiles, which would have to remain an export focused industry. You'd need to make immediate deals with China and possibly take some hard bargains in the process. In Kathmandu and elsewhere you would need to have workers' and peasants' councils which would replace the parliamentary government as the ruling power in the country.

In the long run, revolutionary Nepal would have to be a base for the revolution in India. The insurgents in eastern India would get support from the Nepali people, and would need to link up with revolutionaries in the Indian cities to overthrow capitalism across the subcontinent. There is definitely the crying human need for it. But no vision of a socialist Nepal in isolation is even conceivable, it would have to combine with and ignite the Indian revolution.

Once India overthrows capitalism you've got the basis for a tremendous worldwide revolutionary wave, and socialism would become its dominant trend, almost overnight. At the same time, neoliberalism would enter into an acute crisis if every factory in India were nationalized. The world revolution would have to follow - or else we would be thrown backward into an unending phase of barbarism.

Just some thoughts.

[RedSunRising]

Once India overthrows capitalism you've got the basis for a tremendous worldwide revolutionary wave, and socialism would become its dominant trend, almost overnight. At the same time, neoliberalism would enter into an acute crisis if every factory in India were nationalized. The world revolution would have to follow - or else we would be thrown backward into an unending phase of barbarism.

Just some thoughts.

The thing though is that India already has a pretty developed industry and could be relatively self sufficient. I dont think this is the case for Nepal which is a massive problem facing the class struggle there. The other problem is the danger of Imperialist intervention which Nepal doesnt have the military capacity to resist. These are the two reasons that I personally cant dismiss the UCPN-M as revisionist yet for the raod they have taken.

[RedSunRising]

But no vision of a socialist Nepal in isolation is even conceivable, it would have to combine with and ignite the Indian revolution.


I think that is more or less true, they could of course take the path taken by the Communist Party of Kampuchea but given how that turned out there I can understand why they are not taking it. In the mean time though what should the UPCN-M be doing? (Which you have answered I guess but the question about smashing the state and the capitalist forces needs to be addressed).

[red cat]

But no vision of a socialist Nepal in isolation is even conceivable, it would have to combine with and ignite the Indian revolution.


One military prerequisite of this is having strong PLA bases along the Indo-Nepal border. Just my thoughts.

[mosfeld]

This would be particularly important because Nepal traditionally has a massive inflow and outflow of migrant workers; this would be used strategically to internationalize the revolution

This is a very valid point. I've been wondering whether Maoism might spread over to the Arabian peninsula, considering the fact that massive amounts of Nepalese workers immigrate there. I think that the UAE has great prospects for revolution, considering that the majority of the workforce is composed of South Asians and Filipinos. One example -- in Bhutan, we can see that Maoists are preparing for PPW, with their forces mainly consisting of Nepalese in refugee camps.

Check "Regions with significant populations"
Nepalese People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nepal)
Indian People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_people)
Filipino People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_people)

[red cat]

This is a very valid point. I've been wondering whether Maoism might spread over to the Arabian peninsula, considering the fact that massive amounts of Nepalese workers immigrate there. I think that the UAE has great prospects for revolution, considering that the majority of the workforce is composed of South Asians and Filipinos. One example -- in Bhutan, we can see that Maoists are preparing for PPW, with their forces mainly consisting of Nepalese in refugee camps.

Check "Regions with significant populations"
Nepalese People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nepal)

also,
Indian People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_people)
Filipino People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_people)

In Bhutan the people's war had already started in 2007/2008. After that there was some amount of state retaliation and we haven't been updated on their armed movement since then.

[RedSunRising]

No guidance from Red Dave? :confused:

[mosfeld]

In Bhutan the people's war had already started in 2007/2008. After that there was some amount of state retaliation and we haven't been updated on their armed movement since then. I've always found the situation confusing, and I thought that the armed struggle was in such low intensity that it should be considered in preparatory stages (like Bangladesh)

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I would wage a guerrilla war on the state of Nepal

[red cat]

I've always found the situation confusing, and I thought that the armed struggle was in such low intensity that it should be considered in preparatory stages (like Bangladesh)

Armed struggle in Bangladesh is actually quite developed in some areas.

[Ret]

Armed struggle in Bangladesh is actually quite developed in some areas.
Really? You have some credible evidence for that?

[RED DAVE]

Okay, time for me to wade in on this. Please recall that I am not a member of any organization. As a tendency, I support what used to be called independent socialism or international socialism. Politically, I am closest to Solidarity and the ISO. I will refer to these groups as Trotskyist. If anyone wants to debate that, start a new thread. Please note that this response, which has has been weighing on me for a week, is by no means definitive and could benefit from a lot of hard research and harder thinking, but I do not have the time to do that right now.


And in particular for Red Dave.

What do you believe is the correct road for the struggle in Nepal to take at this time?

And please dont just tell us how the UCPN-M is bad and generally crap. Tell us what you would do in the situation as Trotskyites?First of all, let me say that I believe we are seeing a general crisis of the Left and also a slow rise in working class activity globally. The current tasks involve not only revolutionary activity in all countries but also international solidarity.

It is obvious that, rhetoric aside, Maoism is in a crisis. It is stalled in Nepal and, again rhetoric aside, it is unable in India to move towards the cities. Its struggle in India is rooted in some of the most backward areas of that country and the huge Indian working class is not influenced by Maoism.

Likewise, in Bangladesh, where there is a large urban working class, which engaged in massive protests last summer, not only were the Maoists in Bangladesh not present but the Maoists in nearby Nepal and India did not publicly lend support. Or if they did, it was not present on the English-language website of the UCPN(M). Correct me if I'm wrong. Imagine if there were huge strikes in the maquiadoras in Mexico and an American Leftist group failed to say anything about it in its publications or website. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. It's said that there is a Maoist-led armed struggle in Bangladesh. What is its relationship with the struggle of the urban working class?

So, having crapped on Maoism, let me say a few words about Trotskyism. Again correct me if I'm wrong but no Maoist organization has ever gained even a toe hold in the working class in a major industrial country. Trotskyist groups' success in this area have been uneven, frustrating and have subjected the groups involved to all kinds of reformist pressures. Meanwhile, though, there has been some progress in an effort which, in the case of the ISO and Solidarity in the US, goes back to the late 1960s. (I was there.)

So, to sum up and vulgarize, Maoism, while it has had major successes in rural areas has not been able to "penetrate" the cities. Trotskyism, while having had minor successes in major industrial countries, has not yet built a significant base in the working class (nor has it consistently built rural revolutionary movements). (I will not address the success or lack of success of Trotskyist groups in so-called underdeveloped countries as I do not feel competent to do so. I know there have been movements in the past and in the present. Hopefully, someone will contribute their knowledge in this area.)

With regard to Nepal, again rhetoric aside, let me point to two facts. (a) The rural revolt, headed by the Maoists, never penetrated the major industrial areas and Maoism, while present in the cities, especially in Kathmandu, is not strong enough in the cities to put forth a link between the rural revolt and an urban revolt to form a true revolution in Nepal. This would and must not only wipe out feudal remnants in the countryside but also capitalism, which is more and more dominant in the countryside and is dominant in the cities.

(b) Cheerleading notwithstanding, the general strike of a year ago was a failure. All it accomplished was the overturning of a prime minister. Even on bourgeois terms: the establishment of a stable bourgeois government, drafting of a bourgeois constitution, it was a failure as neither of these are accomplished a year later. there has been no furthering of the revolution. The Maoists are engaged in parliamentary maneuvering which would make any social democratic party proud.

So, what would be a Trotskyist strategy/program for Nepal? Several points seem obvious:

(1) Firmly place the Nepalese working class, urban, rural and overseas, in the leadership of the revolution. The peasantry and petit-bourgeosie must not dominate the revolutionary process. The so-called national bourgeoisie should not be part of the revolutionary process. Let them form their own party and tag along until they're bought out by the international bourgeoisie.

(2) No participation in a bourgeois government. The present fumbling, sputtering government, which the Maoists are part of, is a bourgeois government. The dominant class in the government, in terms of the government's policies, is the bourgeoisie. There has not been one iota of change in the relationship between the exploiting classes and the exploited classes.

(3) Land to the peasants. Rhetoric notwithstanding, the Maoists, in spite of their control of large parts of the Nepalese countryside, did not engage in the redistribution of land in any significant way. This would have meant challenging the rural bourgeoisie and rural petit-bourgeoisie, which, given the ideology of the bloc of four classes, Maoism will not do. Rural committees, based on landless workers and poor peasants, should be built and should control the process of land distribution.

(4) Nationalization of all large- and medium-scale industry, to the extent it exists in Nepal, and nationalization of all foreign-owned industry, all under workers control.

(5) The construction of revolutionary committees in the countryside and in the cities to begin the building of the base of a revolutionary government. An active link between the cities and the countryside must be built, but the working class in the cities must take the lead. These committees must be organs of land distribution in the countryside and workers control in the cities and in the countryside.

(6) Linking up the revolution in Nepal with the Nepalese working class in other countries and with left-wing movements in those and other countries. The revolution must be spread or it will not be at all.

(7) Call for the abolition of the standing army and the substitution of a revolutionary army. If anything, the standing army needs to be integrated into the revolutionary army, not vice versa.

(8) Free public education and healthcare. No effort is more important.

(9) Active solidarity with revolutionary movements around the world. The constant use of media to publicize the revolution in Nepal.

The above is "off the top of my head," by no means well-enough thought out and nonsystematic as I judge it. It is, at best, a beginning. It does not address such issues as the status of women, minorities, federalism, etc. You wanted it; you got it.

RED DAVE

[DaringMehring]

Likewise, in Bangladesh, where there is a large urban working class, which engaged in massive protests last summer, not only were the Maoists in Bangladesh not present but the Maoists in nearby Nepal and India did not publicly lend support.

Good point.



So, what would be a Trotskyist strategy/program for Nepal? Several points seem obvious:




(1) Firmly place the Nepalese working class, urban, rural and overseas, in the leadership of the revolution. The peasantry and petit-bourgeosie must not dominate the revolutionary process. The so-called national bourgeoisie should not be part of the revolutionary process. Let them form their own party and tag along until they're bought out by the international bourgeoisie.


Agree about the national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie completely. However when it comes to the peasants, the Bolsheviks pretty much determined that poor peasants (bednyaks) were class equivalent to workers, while middle peasants (srednyaks) were vital allies (see Lenin's speech on "The Middle Peasant," it's on YouTube). The poor peasants can play a leading role and the middle peasants shouldn't be alienated.



(2) No participation in a bourgeois government. The present fumbling, sputtering government, which the Maoists are part of, is a bourgeois government. The dominant class in the government, in terms of the government's policies, is the bourgeoisie. There has not been one iota of change in the relationship between the exploiting classes and the exploited classes.


Agree but it also hasn't been a total loss to participate; remember Lenin told the British communists to help Labor to victory then expose it when it did nothing of significance, in order to make parliament "obviously contemptible." CPNM has done that -- so they can say, look how far parliament got us, as a motivator for revolution -- but, as you say, if they stick with parliament they will be utterly finished as a revolutionary Party by it.



(3) Land to the peasants. Rhetoric notwithstanding, the Maoists, in spite of their control of large parts of the Nepalese countryside, did not engage in the redistribution of land in any significant way. This would have meant challenging the rural bourgeoisie and rural petit-bourgeoisie, which, given the ideology of the bloc of four classes, Maoism will not do. Rural committees, based on landless workers and poor peasants, should be built and should control the process of land distribution.


Yes. But this is a move that goes hand-in-hand with opening a new revolution and does not entirely depend on the CPNM -- unless you think Soviets can be created exclusively from above.



(4) Nationalization of all large- and medium-scale industry, to the extent it exists in Nepal, and nationalization of all foreign-owned industry, all under workers control.


That should be the program but that can only occur after the revolution.



(5) The construction of revolutionary committees in the countryside and in the cities to begin the building of the base of a revolutionary government. An active link between the cities and the countryside must be built, but the working class in the cities must take the lead. These committees must be organs of land distribution in the countryside and workers control in the cities and in the countryside.


Yes, but again these alternate organs can't come from the Party alone. There are no such thing as Soviets from above. To some degree, it is a question of whether the Nepali workers and peasants are themselves militant enough to force these developments. And, perhaps they will come up with some other means -- Soviets were a particular invention by a particular working class to solve its particular problems. Maybe the Nepalis will come up with some other form of worker-peasant democracy.



(6) Linking up the revolution in Nepal with the Nepalese working class in other countries and with left-wing movements in those and other countries. The revolution must be spread or it will not be at all.


Yes.



(7) Call for the abolition of the standing army and the substitution of a revolutionary army. If anything, the standing army needs to be integrated into the revolutionary army, not vice versa.


Again this is tantamount to saying "declare a revolution."



(8) Free public education and healthcare. No effort is more important.


Can only come after a revolution (unless you think CPNM can achieve this via parliament, which is probably possible on a Venezuela level.)



(9) Active solidarity with revolutionary movements around the world. The constant use of media to publicize the revolution in Nepal.


Yeah, though do we really know enough given our information and language barriers, to know how active the CPNM is in the regional movement? It seems like they do a decent job of international communist relations.


RED DAVE

So to sum, besides excluding the national bourgeoisie, which is a huge issue where I completely agree with you (as would Lenin, read for instance Cannon's essay on Debs), most of your recommendations come down to
(1) they should start the revolution now; and
(2) they should form the workers' democracy

Certainly I agree in spirit and also many of the details you point out are telling; however, you must admit that no Party can just do both of those things. Those things have to come from the working class and poor peasantry in conjunction with the Party. The question is whether the Party is promoting or holding back the revolutionary class achieving those objectives.

In Nepal, given the backwardness of development (lack of phone & electricity in swathes of the country) it is understandable that the revolutionary class would be slow in getting to the socialist revolution. I think so far, in general, the CPNM has done a decent job of moving forward with the class; though based mainly in the peasantry as partially forced by the industrial demography of Nepal. However, we're reaching a point where the CPNM will soon fall decisively either to the side of holding back the revolution or promoting it, which I think will be based in the first instance on the results of the internal power struggle between Baidya and Bhattarai-Prachanda, and subsequently on whether the working class will be able to impose itself in the Party.

[thälmann]

haha, the trot says we need socialism in one country ( nepal), and the maoists want to wait until the international situation is better.

[DaringMehring]

haha, the trot says we need socialism in one country ( nepal), and the maoists want to wait until the international situation is better.

- Permanent revolution doesn't mean "waiting" for revolution. That is suicidal anyway as any movement lingering indefinitely in capitalism will end up being disarmed, restructured, and "normalized" into uselessness.

- Permanent revolution does say a society can skip social stages and proceed directly from feudalism to socialism -- a key question for a country like Nepal (or the old Russian Empire).

[pranabjyoti]

- Permanent revolution does say a society can skip social stages and proceed directly from feudalism to socialism -- a key question for a country like Nepal (or the old Russian Empire).
Well, that's a theory of Lenin as far as I can remember.

[red cat]

Leaving aside the regular repetition of anti-Maoist rants that have been dealt with multiple times, this needs to be addressed:



(2) No participation in a bourgeois government. The present fumbling, sputtering government, which the Maoists are part of, is a bourgeois government. The dominant class in the government, in terms of the government's policies, is the bourgeoisie. There has not been one iota of change in the relationship between the exploiting classes and the exploited classes.


Since this is being suggested, we need to hear about the global history of Trotskyites regarding participation in bourgeois elections or support of parliamentary parties. Do Trotskyites stay away from parliamentary politics on principle ?

[S.Artesian]

Leaving aside the regular repetition of anti-Maoist rants that have been dealt with multiple times, this needs to be addressed:



Since this is being suggested, we need to hear about the global history of Trotskyites regarding participation in bourgeois elections or support of parliamentary parties. Do Trotskyites stay away from parliamentary politics on principle ?


Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a difference between running working class candidates on a class program in a parliamentary election and entering a government's executive branch as a coalition partner.


Even red cat should be able to recognize the difference, but maybe not.

[red cat]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a difference between running working class candidates on a class program in a parliamentary election and entering a government's executive branch as a coalition partner.


These words can be used to justify anything.


Even red cat should be able to recognize the difference, but maybe not.I am off your ignore-list nowadays ? :lol:

[RED DAVE]

Since this is being suggested, we need to hear about the global history of Trotskyites regarding participation in bourgeois elections or support of parliamentary parties. Do Trotskyites stay away from parliamentary politics on principle ?Trots, in my experience, participate in elections in order to expose the fraud of bourgeois parliamentarism, not to participate in the sharing of power in a capitalist government. To actually take a ministry in a bourgeois government or to take a seat in parliament to help run the show is violation of revolutionary principles.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Trots, in my experience, participate in elections in order to expose the fraud of bourgeois parliamentarism, not to participate in the sharing of power in a capitalist government. To actually take a ministry in a bourgeois government or to take a seat in parliament to help run the show is violation of revolutionary principles.

RED DAVE

So, has it ever happened that Trotskyites actually have won countrywide elections and refused to take part in the government, so that we can verify your claim?

[RED DAVE]

So, has it ever happened that Trotskyites actually have won countrywide elections and refused to take part in the government, so that we can verify your claim?It has probably never happened. A situation where a Trotskyist (that's "Trotskyist," red cat, not "Trotskyite") party won such an election, it would be on the brink of a revolution.

What you are doing is trying to justify the participation of the UCPN(M) in a bourgeois government, a capitalist government, whose purpose is to administer the rule of the capitalist class. A Trotskyist party that did that would not be worth shit. I would be the first to denounce it.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

It has probably never happened. A situation where a Trotskyist (that's "Trotskyist," red cat, not "Trotskyite") party won such an election, it would be on the brink of a revolution.

What you are doing is trying to justify the participation of the UCPN(M) in a bourgeois government, a capitalist government, whose purpose is to administer the rule of the capitalist class. A Trotskyist party that did that would not be worth shit.

This is why Trotskyism is impossible to verify. All the statements are of the form "If A happened, we would do B" where A has never happened so far and is unlikely to happen to Trotskyites.

But it is nice to see that the masses are too clever to fall for your propaganda and elect your parties :)


I would be the first to denounce it.


I doubt this.

[RED DAVE]

This is why Trotskyism is impossible to verify. All the statements are of the form "If A happened, we would do B" where A has never happened so far and is unlikely to happen to Trotskyites.(1) If (A) Maoists take power; then (B) they will eventually institute capitalism.

(2) The proper term is "Trotskyist." If you don't want to be called a "Maoite," please use the proper terminology.


But it is nice to see that the masses are too clever to fall for your propaganda and elect your parties :)Well, we see what Maoists do when they get elected: being the process of instituting capitalism. Given that option, I think that Trotskyists arfe correct in making elections a keystone of our politics.




I doubt [that you would denounce a Trotskyist party that entered into a bourgeois government.Of course you doubt it. You need to believe that every other tendency will sell out like yours does. We have actual documents demonstrating that the Nepalese Maoist party is about building capitalism in Nepal, including SEZs and banning strikes.

I doubt that you will denounce this.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

This is why Trotskyism is impossible to verify. All the statements are of the form "If A happened, we would do B" where A has never happened so far and is unlikely to happen to Trotskyites.(1) If (A) Maoists take power; then (B) they will eventually institute capitalism.

(2) The proper term is "Trotskyist." If you don't want to be called a "Maoite," please use the proper terminology.


But it is nice to see that the masses are too clever to fall for your propaganda and elect your parties :)Well, we see what Maoists do when they get elected: being the process of instituting capitalism. Given that option, I think that Trotskyists are correct in not making elections a keystone of our politics.




I doubt [that you would denounce a Trotskyist party that entered into a bourgeois government.Of course you doubt it. You need to believe that every other tendency will sell out like yours does. We have actual documents demonstrating that the Nepalese Maoist party is about building capitalism in Nepal, including SEZs and banning strikes.

I doubt that you will denounce this.

RED DAVE

[Per Levy]

But it is nice to see that the masses are too clever to fall for your propaganda and elect your parties :)

yeah, the masses are so clever that they mostly voted for centrist and reactionaries parties in the last election. good that they were to clever to vote for more left partys right?

[red cat]

(1) If (A) Maoists take power; then (B) they will eventually institute capitalism.

No, they will invite Trots to do that.


(2) The proper term is "Trotskyist." If you don't want to be called a "Maoite," please use the proper terminology.


First ask your comrades to stop referring to Marxist-Leninists as Stalinists.


Well, we see what Maoists do when they get elected: being the process of instituting capitalism.

Apparently working class actions lead to capitalism. :rolleyes:


Given that option, I think that Trotskyists arfe correct in making elections a keystone of our politics.

The keystone of Trotskyite politics in south Asia seems to be posting blogs. :lol:


Of course you doubt it. You need to believe that every other tendency will sell out like yours does.

And live in mansions, while writing for the bourgeois press. Sure.



We have actual documents demonstrating that the Nepalese Maoist party is about building capitalism in Nepal, including SEZs and banning strikes.

I doubt that you will denounce this.

RED DAVE

You also have "actual" documents demonstrating that MLs and Maoists killed twenty-five billion Trots all around the world. Who cares ?

[S.Artesian]

And that, comrade Red Dave, is why Red Cat is on my ignore list. Never a concrete answer to a concrete question about actual class politics, actual class programs, just posturing and posing.

[red cat]

S.Artesian

My views a bit different than most others, I know, since I think that almost from the getgo the Bolsheviks did almost everything wrong- [except insist on making peace, no matter what, with Germany, and fighting the civil war], but that's not at issue here. This mythology that after the defeat of the revolution, not only in the advanced countries, but also in the less advanced countries, somehow the Bolsheviks strengthened socialism, is counter-factual.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/international-revolution-t150402/index.html?p=2028494#post2028494

That is your class politics.

P.S. I'm amused to see that you read every one of my posts despite keeping me in your ignore list. :)

[S.Artesian]

Foolish pollyanna me, I was hoping you might exhibit a bit of intelligence. Sue me for being the incurable optimist.

In any case, I certainly stand by those class politics. I do not agree that sacrificing the left communists in Turkey to the nationalists strengthened socialism. I do not agree that the militarization of labor strengthened socialism. I do not agree that either 5 year plan strengthened socialism. I do not agree that actions of the the Third International in Germany 1921, 1923, 1929 strengthened socialism. Likewise for Spain, China, Vietnam, France.

Don't worry your little head about it though, you're back on the ignore list. Maybe I'll unthaw you in a year or two to see if you're exhibiting anything more than a pulse.

[red cat]

Foolish pollyanna me, I was hoping you might exhibit a bit of intelligence. Sue me for being the incurable optimist.

Sorry, I choose to remain unintelligent :)


In any case, I certainly stand by those class politics. I do not agree that sacrificing the left communists in Turkey to the nationalists strengthened socialism. I do not agree that the militarization of labor strengthened socialism. I do not agree that either 5 year plan strengthened socialism. I do not agree that actions of the the Third International in Germany 1921, 1923, 1929 strengthened socialism. Likewise for Spain, China, Vietnam, France. :lol:


Don't worry your little head about it though, you're back on the ignore list.Yay !


Maybe I'll unthaw you in a year or two to see if you're exhibiting anything more than a pulse.Please don't waste your time, I will not abandon worker's class struggle for bourgeois intellectualism till my pulse stops beating.

Swell dialogue ! In reality I will probably become a left-com and join you as soon as Maoists begin the city insurrections. :D

[RED DAVE]

Please don't waste your time, I will not abandon worker's class struggle for bourgeois intellectualism till my pulse beats.Well, since your pulse is beating, I guess you have abandoned working class struggle. I suggest you go out and get a tweed jacket and a pipe ASAP.


I will probably become a left-com and join you as soon as Maoists begin the city insurrections.I wouldn't wait too long for the Maoists to begin city insurrections. They haven't done it in 60 years, so I don't think they're going to start soon.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Well, since your pulse is beating, I guess you have abandoned working class struggle. I suggest you go out and get a tweed jacket and a pipe ASAP.

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj225/t00ny45/Avatars/FFUUUU.png





I wouldn't wait too long for the Maoists to begin city insurrections. They haven't done it in 60 years, so I don't think they're going to start soon.

RED DAVE

You got the logic right, but substituting Maoists with Trotskyites will set the facts straight.

[TheLeftStar]

I'm new to Trotskyism and therefore not a Trotskyite. I think the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists), Nepali Congress, royalists and the United Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninst) must forget their differences for a united Nepal, make King Gyanendra the head of state like in Britain, abolish the post of Prime Minister, retain Presidency. Adopt socialism+welfare state model and ban capitalism

[agnixie]

I'm new to Trotskyism and therefore not a Trotskyite. I think the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists), Nepali Congress, royalists and the United Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninst) must forget their differences for a united Nepal, make King Gyanendra the head of state like in Britain, abolish the post of Prime Minister, retain Presidency. Adopt socialism+welfare state model and ban capitalism

That proposal is so outlandish I'm not even sure it's a troll......

[red cat]

That proposal is so outlandish I'm not even sure it's a troll......

He is more likely to be serious and not much familiar with revolutionary communism. His line more or less matches what parliamentary revisionists of India have distorted the idea of communism into.

[RedSunRising]

Trots, in my experience, participate in elections in order to expose the fraud of bourgeois parliamentarism, not to participate in the sharing of power in a capitalist government. To actually take a ministry in a bourgeois government or to take a seat in parliament to help run the show is violation of revolutionary principles.


LOL....The CWI, the largest Trot group internationally and basically what most of us think of when we talk about Trotskyism believed that the Imperialist Labour Party in England would be the verhicle for introducing socialism there.

[S.Artesian]

LOL....The CWI, the largest Trot group internationally and basically what most of us think of when we talk about Trotskyism believed that the Imperialist Labour Party in England would be the verhicle for introducing socialism there.

Reference, please.

[RedSunRising]

Reference, please.

I will try to dig something up, they argued that a Labour government could call a "state of emergency" in case reactionaires tried anything on. Of course they lie about it now, just as they lie about what they said in the 1980s about the north of Ireland and the Malvinas/Falklands war. Just as they lie about the fact that one of their leaders went on television after the Poll Tax riot and offered to rat people up.

[S.Artesian]

I will try to dig something up, they argued that a Labour government could call a "state of emergency" in case reactionaires tried anything on. Of course they lie about it now, just as they lie about what they said in the 1980s about the north of Ireland and the Malvinas/Falklands war. Just as they lie about the fact that one of their leaders went on television after the Poll Tax riot and offered to rat people up.


References for all of that might be nice-- especially for those of us who don't follow these sort of groups.