Nepali Maoism Is Self-Destructing [Archive]

RED DAVE

20th May 2011, 15:31

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoist politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?
It has to do with the difficulties that socialist construction in Nepal faces (the main industry in the country is carpet making and the unhelpful to say the least international situation) as well as the unstable nature of a new democratic alliance. Pretty obvious no?No. You are begging every question I raised.

Marxism is intended to provide an objective analysis of the class forces in a country. This is precisely what the Nepali Maoists did not do. They failed to analyze, accurately, the class forces in Nepal, sticking, instead, to the bullshit about semifeudalism instead of analyzing, concretely, capital development and Nepal in relationship to the world economy, China and India.

They failed to come up with a political strategy other than "peoples war," which led, after their failure to win in the civil war, to blatant opportunism and class collaborationism. New Democracy, the new democratic alliance, peoples democracy, etc., are class collaboration of the most obvious kind, and the Maoists are now falling apart and being pulled apart as a result of this. All they have done is repeat, basically, what happened in China. However, since the economic forces of world capitalism are better developed, and Nepal is not China, they have practically no wiggle room.

Back to basics:

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoist politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?RED DAVE

RED DAVE

21st May 2011, 13:47

This is a paragraph from a document by Kiran (Mohan Baidya), from April 2011, criticizing the current leadership of Prachanda. In my opinion, it already gives away everything by accepting the fundamentals of Maoism and consistently avoiding the issue of the working class. However, it represents a distinct difference, at least on paper, from the current line. The document as a whole can be read in a few minutes. I urge comrades to look at it.

We have now two main problems. They are: problems related to class struggle or national struggle and problem related to two-line struggle in the party. The problem concerning national struggle is related to the problem in correctly identifying the class enemy and the problem in effectively advancing the struggle against it. Now the reactionaries, on the one hand, are conspiring to convert our party — Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) — into a reformist and status-quoist party by pushing it to the grand parliamentary quagmire and should this plan fail, they are plotting to resort to suppression against our party, one the other.http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/nepals-kiran-pressing-toward-the-seizure-of-power/

RED DAVE

DienBienPhu

21st May 2011, 15:43

And what about Bhattarai ? French trotskists brag he is one of them because he said one time that "these days Trotski's analysis are more viable than Staline's ones."

red cat

21st May 2011, 15:57

And what about Bhattarai ? French trotskists brag he is one of them because he said one time that "these days Trotski's analysis are more viable than Staline's ones."

From his actions it is clear that he is one of them. French Trotskyites have correctly recognized their comrade.

RED DAVE

21st May 2011, 16:20

(1) How are these three factions [Pracahnda; Kiran; Bhattarai] differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoist politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?
From his actions it is clear that he is one of them. French Trotskyites have correctly recognized their comrade.How about an answer to these questions, instead of engaging in political cursing?

RED DAVE

red cat

21st May 2011, 16:26

How about an answer to these questions, instead of engaging in political cursing?

RED DAVE

You don't even understand or acknowledge basic Maoist revolutionary tactics, why are you worried about those questions ?

RedSunRising

21st May 2011, 16:31

From his actions it is clear that he is one of them. French Trotskyites have correctly recognized their comrade.

How have his actions been Trotskyite (Im not saying that I havent been, just wondering why, I dont know as much about Nepal as I should)?

RED DAVE

21st May 2011, 16:31

(1) How are these three factions [Pracahnda; Kiran; Bhattarai] differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoist politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?
From his actions it is clear that he is one of them. French Trotskyites have correctly recognized their comrade.
How about an answer to these questions, instead of engaging in political cursing?
You don't even understand or acknowledge basic Maoist revolutionary tactics, why are you worried about those questions ?Way to go avoiding the issue. This is political dishonesty.

RED DAVE

red cat

21st May 2011, 16:37

How have his actions been Trotskyite (Im not saying that I havent been, just wondering why, I dont know as much about Nepal as I should)?

What do you associate most with Trotskyite practice ?

RedSunRising

21st May 2011, 16:39

What do you associate most with Trotskyite practice ?

Unrealistic sloganeering alongside tailing Social Democratic parties and looking for jobs in yellow Trade Unions?

red cat

21st May 2011, 16:40

Way to go avoiding the issue. This is political dishonesty.

RED DAVE

But given that you think of Maoism as something that is meant for preserving the oppressive social order, why are you even bothering about these questions? Whatever happens in Nepal, Maoists will still betray the working class, right ?

red cat

21st May 2011, 16:42

Unrealistic sloganeering alongside tailing Social Democratic parties and looking for jobs in yellow Trade Unions?

Yes, things like that.

yogendra

21st May 2011, 17:15

i m from Nepal and in reality i've seen that it is now impossible under the Prachanda's leadership that there will be a successful revolution in Nepal,he betrayed the people and country.

red cat

21st May 2011, 17:19

Wow. Namaste :)

Are you a Maoist ?

RED DAVE

21st May 2011, 18:09

But given that you think of Maoism as something that is meant for preserving the oppressive social order, why are you even bothering about these questions? Whatever happens in Nepal, Maoists will still betray the working class, right ?Stop crapping around and either answer the questions or admit that you are unwilling to answer them and run like a rat.

(1) How are these three factions [Pracahnda; Kiran; Bhattarai] differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoist politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism? RED DAVE

red cat

21st May 2011, 20:42

Stop crapping around and either answer the questions or admit that you are unwilling to answer them and run like a rat.

RED DAVE

You still fail to give any clear purpose for starting this thread. It is almost obvious that what you are trying to get at is Maoism itself.

gorillafuck

21st May 2011, 20:57

Unrealistic sloganeering alongside tailing Social Democratic parties and looking for jobs in yellow Trade Unions?That's way way way more common in Marxist-Leninist parties, at least nowadays.

RedSunRising

21st May 2011, 21:17

That's way way way more common in Marxist-Leninist parties, at least nowadays.

Name one who does that? (Taking Marxist-Leninist to mean Hoxhaist, Maoist or generally Anti-Revisionist).

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 00:28

Let me reiterate the OP since the Maoists are unable or willing to reply.

A year ago, at the time of the general strike, it appeared that the UCPN(M) was riding high, headed for leadership in the new Nepali government (forgetting how they had led a previous government and the head of their party resigned as prime minister), the largest political party in Nepal. Nepal was the successful test case for 21st Century Maoism.

Now, 4 1/2 years after the end of the civil war, during which the Maoists controlled large areas of the Nepali countryside, but were unable to take the capital city Kathmandu, the UCPN(M)'s fighters languish in cantonments, the trade union federation has just split in three parts and the party itself is split in fact if not formally. There are reports of death threats of one faction against the other.

The three factions are led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, know as "Prachanda," Mohan Baidya, known as ‘Kiran’ and Babu Ram Bhattarai.

Many crucial questions need to be answered. Among them are:

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

Doubtless there are more issues to discuss.RED DAVE

Per Levy

22nd May 2011, 00:47

Name one who does that?

communist parties of germany, france just as an example, i think most european communist parties(who were/are "marxist-leninist") are pretty much reformistic nowadays.

gorillafuck

22nd May 2011, 03:05

Name one who does that? (Taking Marxist-Leninist to mean Hoxhaist, Maoist or generally Anti-Revisionist).That's not what Marxist-Leninist means to any non-Maoists, though. That's what anti-revisionist, Maoist, and Hoxhaist mean.

I think the communist party of south africa is an insanely obvious party described by that. Also pretty much every former ruling party in the former soviet bloc nowadays.

Hiero

22nd May 2011, 03:31

Marxism is intended to provide an objective analysis of the class forces in a country. This is precisely what the Nepali Maoists did not do. They failed to analyze, accurately, the class forces in Nepal, sticking, instead, to the bullshit about semifeudalism instead of analyzing, concretely, capital development and Nepal in relationship to the world economy, China and India.

That has been the failure of Marxism, the belief of Marxists that they provied a objective analysis when in fact the analysis is only a representation of the objective situation. This is the Marxist of "scientific" error of mistaking the analysis for the objective contiditions. The objetive system is highly complicated in it's macro and micro forms. That is the reductionist nautre of some Marxist, that they can deduce what a social group is going to do (it's subjective views and individual and group) actions by provided one analysis of the objective condtions. Marxist often talk about the working class, and conclude what they are should do or will do, without any regard to what working class people say and do in practice. So you talk about what you claim to be objective systems or objective relationships without any regards to what the Nepalese working classes think or do in regards to objective systems and relationships that they live in.

The Maoist in Nepal know the social classes intimately through their struggle and Maoism even in the 21st century often has come to understand the complex nature of class society and it's mutliply contradictions. Hence the reason of conflict in the party apparatuses.

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 04:57

ThThe Maoist in Nepal know the social classes intimately through their struggle and Maoism even in the 21st century often has come to understand the complex nature of class society and it's mutliply contradictions. Hence the reason of conflict in the party apparatuses.if they understand these contradictions so well, why is it that not even one faction is able to come up with an explanation for what has happened to their own party, except to call other factions revisionists, reactionaries, etc. This is political cursing, not political analysis.

It is obvious that the Maoists here are unable to provide, and probably unwilling to accept, that their party is self-destructing.

RED DAVE

Reznov

22nd May 2011, 07:53

Its amazing, neither of you guys answered one another question, only sliding by it with general answers related to that subject.

What is it, its like you guys have a strong dislike of one another. Just debate reguarly and without constant little remarks in posts towards one anothers tendency and we would evolve our conversations so much more than the little slugfests that happen here between rival groups.

red cat

22nd May 2011, 08:03

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 12:14

if they understand these contradictions so well, why is it that not even one faction is able to come up with an explanation for what has happened to their own party, except to call other factions revisionists, reactionaries, etc. This is political cursing, not political analysis.
Or rather your analytical skills are not developed enough to understand their political analysis.Well then, why don't you explain it to us.

The Nepalese CP is self-destructing as much as the original RSDLP did . But I am a little surprised to see that even though you're a Trot you are not at all delighted at the possibility of multiple splits in a party. :(If you want to try to compare the UCPN(M) to the RSDLP, by all means do so. However, that takes more than an off-hand remark. I've provided a set of questions that can start this discussion. Again, I ask you to answer them if you're honestly interested in engaging in political analysis and not just interested to political cursing.

(1) How are these three factions [of the UCPN(M): Pracahnda; Kiran; Bhattarai] differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoist politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?RED DAVE

red cat

22nd May 2011, 13:16

Well then, why don't you explain it to us.

If you want to try to compare the UCPN(M) to the RSDLP, by all means do so. However, that takes more than an off-hand remark. I've provided a set of questions that can start this discussion. Again, I ask you to answer them if you're honestly interested in engaging in political analysis and not just interested to political cursing.

RED DAVE

But then you should understand elementary Maoism first before moving on to more complex topics such as the policies of the UCPN(M). It is impossible to explain calculus to someone who does not understand basic mathematical operations. Start with the class character of colonial and semi-colonial countries first, why they are not capitalist and then the tactics of revolution there. As an exercise you can also analyze the texts of Trotskyite parties of South Asia and try to deduce why they haven't been able to prepare the masses for revolt despite their revolutionary phrase-mongering.

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 13:24

Start with the class character of colonial and semi-colonial countries first, why they are not capitalist and then the tactics of revolution there.

I think its going to far to say that they are not capitalist, capitalist relations do exist within them along side the feudal structures. The point is that bourgeiouse in these countries is either to weak to take a progressive role of abolishing feudal structures of cultural left overs or its serves as compradors to foreign parasitism. What progressive from a bourgeois stand point leaders that do emerge such as Thomas Sankara or maybe in Chavez have to rely heavily working class and poor peasantry, facing stiff opposition from within their class.

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 13:27

It is obvious that the Maoists here are unable to provide, and probably unwilling to accept, that their party is self-destructing.

And in typical idealist fashion you completely ignore the role that the tremendously difficult material situation that the revolution in Nepal finds itself in plays in the internal problems that party faces.

red cat

22nd May 2011, 13:35

I think its going to far to say that they are not capitalist, capitalist relations do exist within them along side the feudal structures. The point is that bourgeiouse in these countries is either to weak to take a progressive role of abolishing feudal structures of cultural left overs or its serves as compradors to foreign parasitism. What progressive from a bourgeois stand point leaders that do emerge such as Thomas Sankara or maybe in Chavez have to rely heavily working class and poor peasantry, facing stiff opposition from within their class.

That is comprador capitalism, backed by imperialist capital. Proper capitalist relations of production, without the involvement of a huge political and military dictatorship almost binding a worker to a factory and slum, are very rare. This implies that communists cannot start with using any political space available in bourgeois democracy by organizing unarmed workers in the cities, without almost always facing total physical elimination. Any struggle in such countries must be armed from the beginning, and must center itself in places where a combined alliance of all oppressed classes led by the proletariat has a clear military advantage over the ruling classes. This is one of the many differences of a new democratic revolution from a socialist one.

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 13:46

But then you should understand elementary Maoism first before moving on to more complex topics such as the policies of the UCPN(M). It is impossible to explain calculus to someone who does not understand basic mathematical operations. Start with the class character of colonial and semi-colonial countries first, why they are not capitalist and then the tactics of revolution there. As an exercise you can also analyze the texts of Trotskyite parties of South Asia and try to deduce why they haven't been able to prepare the masses for revolt despite their revolutionary phrase-mongering.One more time, you're ducking out. And don't condescend to me. I was debating Maoists before your were born.

(1) How are these three factions [of the UCPN(M): Pracahnda; Kiran; Bhattarai] differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoist politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?I'm waiting.

RED DAVE

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 14:16

Pracahnda is a centrist, Kiran is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Bhattarai is a right opportunist....But Red Dave you know all this, dont you?

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 14:55

Pracahnda is a centrist, Kiran is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Bhattarai is a right opportunist....But Red Dave you know all this, dont you?These may be true or not true, but right now, they are assertions, not a priori truths. They require documentation.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

22nd May 2011, 15:35

It has to do with the difficulties that socialist construction in Nepal faces (the main industry in the country is carpet making and the unhelpful to say the least international situation) as well as the unstable nature of a new democratic alliance. Pretty obvious no?

No, not pretty obvious, because socialist construction isn't even on the agenda. The issue is class struggle to take the power.

S.Artesian

22nd May 2011, 15:40

That has been the failure of Marxism, the belief of Marxists that they provied a objective analysis when in fact the analysis is only a representation of the objective situation. This is the Marxist of "scientific" error of mistaking the analysis for the objective contiditions. The objetive system is highly complicated in it's macro and micro forms. That is the reductionist nautre of some Marxist, that they can deduce what a social group is going to do (it's subjective views and individual and group) actions by provided one analysis of the objective condtions. Marxist often talk about the working class, and conclude what they are should do or will do, without any regard to what working class people say and do in practice. So you talk about what you claim to be objective systems or objective relationships without any regards to what the Nepalese working classes think or do in regards to objective systems and relationships that they live in.

The Maoist in Nepal know the social classes intimately through their struggle and Maoism even in the 21st century often has come to understand the complex nature of class society and it's mutliply contradictions. Hence the reason of conflict in the party apparatuses.

So explain the struggle then. And show us your different, more supple methodology for assessing struggle, developing tactics, strategy, and program.

Explain the contradictions, and if possible link those contradictions to the class relations of production.

If you can't, then your just blowing smoke, and creating an ideology out of that smoke.

Reznov

22nd May 2011, 16:00

Wow, you guys still haven't answered eithers question. This is going no where.

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 16:00

These may be true or not true, but right now, they are assertions, not a priori truths. They require documentation.

Dont play coy, you have been following events in Nepal closer than anyone else here.

S.Artesian

22nd May 2011, 16:13

Dont play coy, you have been following events in Nepal closer than anyone else here.

Well, I haven't. So let me ask the questions of our Maoist comrades. Does that make a difference.

If you can't answer them, then just say you can't.

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 16:21

Wow, you guys still haven't answered eithers question. This is going no where.Since (a) I initiated this thread, and (b) red cat's questions are meant to be provociative, not honest, the responsibility for answering questions is on him and his fellow Maoists.

RED DAVE

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 16:31

Well, I haven't. So let me ask the questions of our Maoist comrades. Does that make a difference.

If you can't answer them, then just say you can't.

The coy comment was made to Red Dave. He has a good grasp of all the material in the public eye, and what is necessarily secret even if we knew we wouldnt divulge on a board like this. I suspect that he could well be trying to coax sensitive information out of comrades.

Broletariat

22nd May 2011, 16:32

Red Dave and S. Artesian, Maoist busting duo.

S.Artesian

22nd May 2011, 16:37

The coy comment was made to Red Dave. He has a good grasp of all the material in the public eye, and what is necessarily secret even if we knew we wouldnt divulge on a board like this. I suspect that he could well be trying to coax sensitive information out of comrades.

Oh bullshit. That's just downright insulting. And right out of the capitalist handbook for avoiding actual explanations for political action.

And you never answered my rejection of your earlier "explanation" about problems of "socialist construction" when it's class struggle we're try to grasp.

"Sensitive information out of comrade." Give me a fucking break.

Let me phrase it insensitively for you.

Why has the split developed in the party? What are the future prospects of the struggle?

Or simply admit you don't have a clue.

S.Artesian

22nd May 2011, 16:38

Red Dave and S. Artesian, Maoist busting duo.

Naah... not hardly. I prefer to regard us as friends, who share a certain fidelity to Marxist, that is to say, class analysis.

red cat

22nd May 2011, 17:41

One more time, you're ducking out. And don't condescend to me. I was debating Maoists before your were born.

Probably about complex strategies, instead of learning basic Maoism. That is why you are still a Trot in spite of these decades of debating. All the more reason for you to concentrate on the basic stuff.

I'm waiting.

RED DAVEDon't wait. Start reading here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/date-index.htm).

Red Dave and S. Artesian, Maoist busting duo.

http://www.fantasyecards.com/ecards/pix/hot-pics/dancing-couple-moonlight-dance.gif

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 17:45

Why has the split developed in the party? What are the future prospects of the struggle?

The split has developed due to the nature of a New Democratic alliance, on one side we have the right opportunist Bhattarai who represents the progressive bourgouise and feels that he can achieve his class's aims without further armed struggle and Kiran who represents the working class and poor peasantry. Than you have the immanent threat of invasion and extreme sanctions further into the mix. The prospects for the struggle lie in the continual strenghtening and expansion of counter power, which is going on through expropriations. Whether a revolt is in the offing is not for you or Red Dave to know. I doubt you took much interest in the armed struggle which has gotten the Nepalese masses this far other than to slag it off.

red cat

22nd May 2011, 18:04

The split has developed due to the nature of a New Democratic alliance, on one side we have the right opportunist Bhattarai who represents the progressive bourgouise and feels that he can achieve his class's aims without further armed struggle and Kiran who represents the working class and poor peasantry. Than you have the immanent threat of invasion and extreme sanctions further into the mix. The prospects for the struggle lie in the continual strenghtening and expansion of counter power, which is going on through expropriations. Whether a revolt is in the offing is not for you or Red Dave to know. I doubt you took much interest in the armed struggle which has gotten the Nepalese masses this far other than to slag it off.

A small correction. In Nepal, the big parliamentary parties like the UML and NC are not qualitatively different from the past monarchial regime of Gyanendra. All of them represent the interests of comprador and imperialist capital, along with those of the feudal oppressors. So the elements from the earlier revolutionary bloc or even the CP that are aiming at the dissolution of the revolutionary forces to permanently enter the electoral system are succumbing not to the national bourgeoisie but exactly to the earlier ruling classes which are without some of their old components now. Technically the national bourgeoisie is divided into its left and right wings. Those of its members who do not subordinate themselves to the interests of the working class join feudalism-imperialism and become compradors. They are the right wing. Therefore the elements that are betraying the people's war in Nepal are not "progressive" in any way. Today the national bourgeoisie cannot play any progressive role until it is led by the working class.

S.Artesian

22nd May 2011, 18:06

I doubt you took much interest in the armed struggle which has gotten the Nepalese masses this far other than to slag it off.

You assume way too much, and you know what assuming does, don't you? But I guess it's another good method of subterfuge.

As for my interest in the armed struggle, are you trying to get me to reveal sensitive information?

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 18:10

You assume way too much, and you know what assuming does, don't you? But I guess it's another good method of subterfuge.

I didnt assume anything, I doubted something, not the same thing.

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 18:24

I suspect that he could well be trying to coax sensitive information out of comrades.YOU ARE A LYING SACK OF SHIT.

Typical maoist, stalinist slanders.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 18:28

Now the Maoists are engage in out-and-out slander and obfuscation because unable or willing to reply. So, let me reiterate the OP, which is obviously causing them to crap their pants.

A year ago, at the time of the general strike, it appeared that the UCPN(M) was riding high, headed for leadership in the new Nepali government (forgetting how they had led a previous government and the head of their party resigned as prime minister), the largest political party in Nepal. Nepal was the successful test case for 21st Century Maoism.

Now, 4 1/2 years after the end of the civil war, during which the Maoists controlled large areas of the Nepali countryside, but were unable to take the capital city Kathmandu, the UCPN(M)'s fighters languish in cantonments, the trade union federation has just split in three parts and the party itself is split in fact if not formally. There are reports of death threats of one faction against the other.

The three factions are led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, know as "Prachanda," Mohan Baidya, known as ‘Kiran’ and Babu Ram Bhattarai.

Many crucial questions need to be answered. Among them are:

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

Doubtless there are more issues to discuss.RED DAVE

RedSunRising

22nd May 2011, 18:34

Now the Maoists are engage in out-and-out slander and obfuscation because unable or willing to reply. So, let me reiterate the OP, which is obviously causing them to crap their pants.

Given that Maoists have again and again demonstrated heroic bravery the idea of that the trolling as first world Trotskyites would make us crap our pants is absurd. Both me and Red Cat have replied to your questions.

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 18:44

Given that Maoists have again and again demonstrated heroic bravery the idea of that the trolling as first world Trotskyites would make us crap our pants is absurd. Both me and Red Cat have replied to your questions.(a) You've accused me of being a cop.

(b) One more time, Maoism is exposed as the political child of stalinism.

(c) You have failed to answer my questions and deal with the self-destruction of Nepali Maoism.

So, one more time;

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?RED DAVE

Per Levy

22nd May 2011, 18:50

Both me and Red Cat have replied to your questions.

i dont try to be an ass here, but you didnt awnser much if anything, you were much more interestet in insulting trotzkyists and saying that people on here cant understand whats going if they dont understand and read mao, wich is pretty cheap.

Given that Maoists have again and again demonstrated heroic bravery

and this has to do what with the topic of this thread? so there are brave maoists i dont think that anyone doubtet that.

that the trolling as first world Trotskyites would make us crap our pants is absurd

first of all, its trotskyist, or would you liked to be called maoites, i doubt that. now the op was hardly trolling, it was post with questions about the UCPN(M) and not much more.

red cat

22nd May 2011, 19:09

(b) One more time, Maoism is exposed as the political child of stalinism.

And hence the political grandchild of Leninism.

(c) You have failed to answer my questions and deal with the self-destruction of Nepali Maoism.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/1/129015622776470055.jpg

Okay, we have dealt with it. Happy now ?

Thirsty Crow

22nd May 2011, 19:17

OK, so let us see, in chronological order, these arguments and explanations you and red cat have presented us with:

It has to do with the difficulties that socialist construction in Nepal faces (the main industry in the country is carpet making and the unhelpful to say the least international situation) as well as the unstable nature of a new democratic alliance. Pretty obvious no?

Not an explanation, not by a long shot. Material conditions will be mentioned in every single text dealing with social and economic situation of a country, but this has to be elaborated upon. You cannot expect that anyone would accept such a general, vague "explanation".

You still fail to give any clear purpose for starting this thread. It is almost obvious that what you are trying to get at is Maoism itself.

Total refusal to answer the questions, on grounds of one poster's negative assessment of Maoism. Pathetic.

Or rather your analytical skills are not developed enough to understand their political analysis.
Basically, non-substantiated ad hominem and name calling.

The Nepalese CP is self-destructing as much as the original RSDLP did . But I am a little surprised to see that even though you're a Trot you are not at all delighted at the possibility of multiple splits in a party. :( Nope, no answer here, just the usual ramblings against "Trotskyites".

But then you should understand elementary Maoism first before moving on to more complex topics such as the policies of the UCPN(M). It is impossible to explain calculus to someone who does not understand basic mathematical operations. Start with the class character of colonial and semi-colonial countries first, why they are not capitalist and then the tactics of revolution there. As an exercise you can also analyze the texts of Trotskyite parties of South Asia and try to deduce why they haven't been able to prepare the masses for revolt despite their revolutionary phrase-mongering.

Again, invoking the specter of "trotskyites" with the aim of evading a very concrete question.

And in typical idealist fashion you completely ignore the role that the tremendously difficult material situation that the revolution in Nepal finds itself in plays in the internal problems that party faces.

Again, vague generalities and common places in any kind of revolutionary discourse. Doesn't explain anything.

Pracahnda is a centrist, Kiran is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Bhattarai is a right opportunist....But Red Dave you know all this, dont you?Oh, that's precious. Too bad it doesn't explain anything, for example, in what relation does the centrist wing stand to the left wing (presuming that it would be accurate to conclude that Kiran represents the left wing) and what is the root cause of the factional split within the party.
And again, "material conditions" cannot account for that unless you'd expand on this beginning of an answer.

All in all, you two haven't provided nothing productive when it comes to explaining political phenomena such as this one. All you do is refuse to provide a concrete answer.

thÃ¤lmann

22nd May 2011, 20:29

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 20:39

all of this questions were discussed hundred time in thousand other threads. it doesnt make any sence to talk about it again and again.

@redcat and redsunrising: why are you arguing with these trolls? its a waste of timeOne more for Menocchio's collection in post 59 above.

Translation: The Nepali Maoist party is self-destructing, and we have no analysis. Let's try to tough it and bluff it out.

RED DAVE

DienBienPhu

22nd May 2011, 20:49

I agree with the german comrade...

Per Levy

22nd May 2011, 20:50

all of this questions were discussed hundred time in thousand other threads

allright im not a member here for long, but i doubt that the (possible)split of the UCPN(M) was disscused a "hundred time in thousand other threads", the questions of the op are legit and worth discussing and awnsering.

@redcat and redsunrising: why are you arguing with these trolls? its a waste of time

um what trolls? red dave might be annoying(to some) but his posts are hardly trolling, he just wants honest awnsers, i dont know whats so bad about that.

El Burro

22nd May 2011, 21:01

Many crucial questions need to be answered. Among them are:

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

I think your problem lies with the last question here, it's a little needlessly provocative and kind of irrelevant... How could you possibly measure something like that? If anything, I think these 'splits' really do illustrate how the UCPNM is the political descendant of "classical maoism" in all its forms, for better and for worse.

The other two questions here are great and I'd be really interested in reading an analysis on these issues from those partisan to this movement.

Ret

22nd May 2011, 22:12

I think what I said elsewhere recently remains relevant;
This is how I see it; there is a free-for-all jockeying for power in the Party now between 3 factions. Alliances on specific points regularly shift, position statements change to their opposite rapidly. Baidya is a militarist whose power base and constituency is primarily the PLA, while Prachanda & Bhattarai are now primarily Party politicians. As always, India continues to lay down the law diplomatically to a large degree in Nepali politics; Prachanda, has exhausted all attempts in and out of power to circumvent India's wishes, while Bhattarai has always been a more skilled pragmatist acknowledging that India must accommodated - so they have allied to secure their comfortable parliamentary careers and a role for the Party in Nepali governmental politics. This avoids, for the moment at least, a split in the Party and isolates Baidya. He is seen as yesterday's man; former PLA combatants, wanting to get on with their lives, have drifted away or are bored of poverty and restrictions in the cantons while waiting years for a promised integration solution. (Meanwhile internal Party complaints grow about luxurious lifestyles of the Party leaders.)

The military war is not winnable against the might of a well armed NA and Indian forces - the more realistic realise this, and that there is little popular enthusiasm for the 'revolt' some factions repeatedly pretend to promise so as to rally their troops - or threaten rival parties with as a bargaining chip - but never deliver. The 2010 May protest was a fiasco for the Maoists that revealed the limits of their support and options. Any political mandate they have is far more for reform than revolution; numbers of voters won't translate into anywhere near sufficient number of soldiers, so the military option is unpopular, unlikely and unwinnable. Bhattariai long realised this, Prachanda belatedly and Baidya is now reluctantly considering he may have to accept it. Baidya has probably missed the boat on establishing a credible political career and the NA may not want to offer him a military role. The present Party crisis and the factional splits over strategy are indicative of the historical impasse they've reached.

Whatever rhetoric they occasionally still spout to please the Party left, Prachanda & Bhattarai have accepted that the military war is over, so are trading (an already very declined) military capacity for political goals. That's the deal and they're taking it. But apparent tactics and goals change fast in Nepali politics, with many political factions with competing demands to be negotiated along the way; so it won't be smooth sailing by a direct route. But that is the only realistic option for the Maoists - like most other Nepali parliamentary parties, including the NC, they've had their period of armed struggle and are now, with difficulty, being accommodated into mainstream politics. The guerrilla activity has turned out to be simply the Party leaders' way of demanding entry. (A small armed splinter group could conceivably begin operations, but with even less chance of success than PLA's past efforts.) Those who continue to fantasise about a UCPN(M) led Maoist guerrilla 'revolution' are well past their sell-by date.

Comments on, rather than answers to, Dave's questions;
(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?
Baidya: the pro-maoists' last hope. Unreconstructed militaristic hack; gives appearance that he'd rather heroically and futilely die in an unwinnable war. But this option seems less feasible than ever; the PLA still in cantonments want to get out and earn money, have a future - the PLA leadership are reported to support the integration deal now proposed by the Nepali Army; http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2119333&postcount=206 - so troops are seeing a regular pay packet and career as preferable to return to futile guerrilla war.
Formerly an advocate of 'Prachanda Path'. But Baidya was recently reported to have claimed that Prachanda had him arrested at time of 2005 peace deal, http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2116285&postcount=202 so the rivalries are not new.

Prachanda: vain, power-hungry leader who is now coming round to accepting that compromise with India is inevitable to pursue his ambitions. Like several other Party leaders, reported to have spent most of his time during guerrilla war in India as guest of intelligence services.

Bhattarai: the most skilled politician of the three and seen as most favourable to accommodating India. Incarcerated by Prachanda for a time during guerrilla period.

So you can see that these personal rivalries and strategy disputes have a long history.

All these figures have been vigorously defended in recent years by western pro-maoists as glorious leaders of the Nepalese revolution. Yet now long-simmering disputes are out in the open, pro-maoists are obliged to take sides in disputes that already include allegations of attempted murder of rivals; http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2115043&postcount=199.
(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?
I think you're over-hasty in thinking (if you do) the Party will self-destruct. Splits are possible, but possibilities for armed struggle have receded - so though Prachanda and Bhattarai seem to have long despised each they are pragmatic politicians who recognise there is little prospect of armed revolt, and that alliance against Baidya - now a dangerous liability - is necessary to further their goals (ie, political power & maintaining their wealthy parliamentary careers). They can't beat India, militarily or politically, and they're getting old - and they have cushy careers now.
(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?
What it always did - that it's armed reformism with the goal of capitalist development; and if they treat each other like this, we can imagine how they'll treat the working class in the hyper-exploitation zones of their proposed SEZs. But to call these rivalries 'class struggle within the Party' is another myth; these factional rivalries occur far above the heads of the exploited, who have no more influence on them than on the squabbles of any other party - the masses of poor are mere spectators, even if such power battles are undertaken supposedly in their name. The relationship is the same as between all other political party representatives and their constituencies. The claim that they represent opposing class outlooks is, again, transplanting mystified Marxian terms onto the leftist wing of the bourgeois democratic process and its internal rivalries. All three Maoist leaders are from highly educated, high caste upper class backgrounds.

Maoism largely takes the Marxist terminology originally developed as descriptive and interpretive of 19thC western industrial society and applies it to a very different form of capitalist society where the typical western industrial development and its proletariat is often minimal or absent. This leads to various mystifications, such as the notion that 'marxist' 'revolutionaries' must play surrogate bourgeoisie and force this development. Unlike Maoism, Marx never intended to develop a theory of peasant revolution based on class collaboration; yet his more mature thoughts on rural societies - the Russian mir - saw that there wasn't necessarily an 'inevitable' stage of capitalist development for peasants to go through.

The political horse-trading, 'court intrigues' and diplomatic double-dealing that have dominated Maoist activity in recent years - both in international diplomacy and the parliamentary arena and also internally between the Party's rival factions - are not class struggle, but only political competition within the political elite for possession of the state. http://libcom.org/library/myths-realities-nepalese-maoists-their-strike-ban-legislations But in global terms present events there are a mere geo-political sideshow with little influence on or relevance to the class struggles of the millions of urban workers in Asia - and have even less relevance elsewhere.

RED DAVE

22nd May 2011, 22:15

A year ago I believed Prachanda to be a revisionist. So sorry Red Dave.Uhh, okay. Did you post it here? Did your comrade red cat share your trepidations? Did he post them?

How could it be that such a rampant "revisionist" be the leader of a major Maoist party for so long without anyone noticing that he was a revisionist? Or did he wake up one day in the last year or so and decide to sell out?

And yes people change their line, become revisionist after being revolutionary. Just like you might actually embrace the hard won experience crystalized in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism tomorrow.I'll embrace the hard-won experience of how to engage in class collaboration and pave the way for capitalism when one of Harold Camping's predictions come true.

RED DAVE

CleverTitle

22nd May 2011, 22:28

This thread is a horrible clusterfuck.

RED DAVE

23rd May 2011, 12:28

This thread is a horrible clusterfuck.No, what we are seeing is an inimical conflict between two tendencies over real issues. The Maoists, now that they can no longer engage in cheerleading, are showing their fundamental dishonesty.

See post 59 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2119339&postcount=59) for the low down.

RED DAVE

red cat

23rd May 2011, 14:45

Total refusal to answer the questions, on grounds of one poster's negative assessment of Maoism. Pathetic.

Basically, non-substantiated ad hominem and name calling.

Nope, no answer here, just the usual ramblings against "Trotskyites".

Again, invoking the specter of "trotskyites" with the aim of evading a very concrete question.

No, we have nothing against Trotskyites in general. It is just that the OP not only disagrees with Maoism but is concerned mainly with attacking Maoist movements, to the extent of indicating that some of their articles are reactionary for not mentioning the working class, and even suspecting that a Maoist picture posted here was photoshopped to prove their mass support. We do not take this kind of silly anti-Maoist obsession seriously enough to discuss the state and technical policies of any Maoist CP with him. We generally discuss these with our sympathizers, even from other tendencies, preferably in the MLM group. I repeat, we are not against each and every Trotskyite comrade here and have sympathizers among them.

Thirsty Crow

23rd May 2011, 14:58

No, we have nothing against Trotskyites in general. It is just that the OP not only disagrees with Maoism but is concerned mainly with attacking Maoist movements, to the extent of indicating that some of their articles are reactionary for not mentioning the working class, and even suspecting that a Maoist picture posted here was photoshopped to prove their mass support. We do not take this kind of silly anti-Maoist obsession seriously enough to discuss the state and technical policies of any Maoist CP with him. We generally discuss these with our sympathizers, even from other tendencies, preferably in the MLM group. I repeat, we are not against each and every Trotskyite comrade here and have sympathizers among them.
This basically amounts to the feuds between "child gangs" in which even talking with an "member" of the opposite group is unthinkable.
To reiterate, that's pathetic.

But to take you up on this one, I don't think I've evere done things you accuse Dave of. So by your own standard, you should provide an adequte analysis with regard to my own questions. To be clear, I want to know the answers to the questions Dave posed. How about that, will that suffice to break through the thick layers of your obdscurantism and refusal to debate?

red cat

23rd May 2011, 16:00

This basically amounts to the feuds between "child gangs" in which even talking with an "member" of the opposite group is unthinkable.
To reiterate, that's pathetic.

There is a difference between preventing a tendency war and "child gang feuds". If you call that pathetic, then I will be forced to deduce that your intention of posting here is to start the tendency war that we have been avoiding so long. Nevertheless, I will give you the benefit of the slight doubt I have in this regard, and discuss the questions raised by the OP with you.

But to take you up on this one, I don't think I've evere done things you accuse Dave of. So by your own standard, you should provide an adequte analysis with regard to my own questions. To be clear, I want to know the answers to the questions Dave posed. How about that, will that suffice to break through the thick layers of your obdscurantism and refusal to debate?

These are the points in the OP :

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

Since you want to know the answers of the above questions, you should have the pre-requisites to understand them. I will ignore further posts from the OP on this topic and I expect yourself to honestly answer my questions. Please take care to respond swiftly as I will be very busy after a few days.

1) Question 1, of which question 2 is a mere continuation, asks for the political, theoretical and historical differences between the three factions. What do you know about the political and theoretical aspects of MLM and its history in South Asia ?

2) Question 3 is framed like typical high-school exam questions, particularly the ones that make no sense themselves. I would like to know what you mean by "classic" Maoism and where the UCPN(M) has claimed to be "the legitimate descendants of classic Maoism".

These are enough for now and will form the foundation of our discussion.

RED DAVE

23rd May 2011, 16:13

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

Since you want to know the answers of the above questions, you should have the pre-requisites to understand them. I will ignore further posts from the OP on this topic and I expect yourself to honestly answer my questions. Please take care to respond swiftly as I will be very busy after a few days.Translation: I can't answer the above questions, so I'll try one more ploy by trying to turn the whole thing around.

1) Question 1, of which question 2 is a mere continuation, asks for the political, theoretical and historical differences between the three factions. What do you know about the political and theoretical aspects of MLM and its history in South Asia ?Translation: To analyze the three factions would expose the fatal divisions in the UCPN(M), so I won't answer the question, but I'll try to tie you up in a historical discussion.

2) Question 3 is framed like typical high-school exam questions, particularly the ones that make no sense themselves. I would like to know what you mean by "classic" Maoism and where the UCPN(M) has claimed to be "the legitimate descendants of classic Maoism".Translation: To use the division in the UCPN(M) as a test case of Maoism would be extremely detrimental to Maoism, so I'll duck the issue.

You're already in the ditch, red cat, so you may as well keep digging it deeper.

I would like to state that never in my years debating people from every conceivable eft faction, have I ever seen such a pathetic and dishonest performance. The CPUSA in the 60s was more honest than this.

RED DAVE

red cat

23rd May 2011, 16:33

Translation: I can't answer the above questions, so I'll try one more ploy by trying to turn the whole thing around.

Translation: To analyze the three factions would expose the fatal divisions in the UCPN(M), so I won't answer the question, but I'll try to tie you up in a historical discussion.

Translation: To use the division in the UCPN(M) as a test case of Maoism would be extremely detrimental to Maoism, so I'll duck the issue.

Was becoming a professional translator one of your unfulfilled dreams ? Just asking.

You're already in the ditch, red cat, so you may as well keep digging it deeper.

I would like to state that never in my years debating people from every conceivable eft faction, have I ever seen such a pathetic and dishonest performance. The CPUSA in the 60s was more honest than this.

RED DAVEThe negative of negative is positive, but the positive of negative is negative again. Being called honest by you is one of my worst nightmares.

Thirsty Crow

23rd May 2011, 17:07

Th
Since you want to know the answers of the above questions, you should have the pre-requisites to understand them. I will ignore further posts from the OP on this topic and I expect yourself to honestly answer my questions. Please take care to respond swiftly as I will be very busy after a few days.

I'll make you a deal. Let's assume that I do not have these pre-requisites to understand the answers. What I would ask you is the following: post (PM or here) titles of, preferrably, online materials which would enable me to get a grip on that pre-requisites (I'll go over the MLM group here and through your materials; but, please, be aware that I don't have the time to read more than one whole book and that I'm aware of the basic tenets of Maoism as a tendency), and after you've done what you have to do and cease to be very busy, you and I will talk, here, in this thread. What do you say?

red cat

23rd May 2011, 17:16

I'll make you a deal. Let's assume that I do not have these pre-requisites to understand the answers. What I would ask you is the following: post (PM or here) titles of, preferrably, online materials which would enable me to get a grip on that pre-requisites (I'll go over the MLM group here and through your materials; but, please, be aware that I don't have the time to read more than one whole book and that I'm aware of the basic tenets of Maoism as a tendency), and after you've done what you have to do and cease to be very busy, you and I will talk, here, in this thread. What do you say?

MLM is not something that you will be able to grasp by reading a few books, so I suggest that you join the MLM group and ask questions there. If you have a genuine desire for learning then you are more than welcome to join. It is unclear for how much time I will be busy, but that is of no importance because other well-informed comrades will be happy to help you learn. And of course, I am definitely looking forward to continuing our discussion here whenever I get the chance.

S.Artesian

23rd May 2011, 17:32

I'll make you a deal. Let's assume that I do not have these pre-requisites to understand the answers. What I would ask you is the following: post (PM or here) titles of, preferrably, online materials which would enable me to get a grip on that pre-requisites (I'll go over the MLM group here and through your materials; but, please, be aware that I don't have the time to read more than one whole book and that I'm aware of the basic tenets of Maoism as a tendency), and after you've done what you have to do and cease to be very busy, you and I will talk, here, in this thread. What do you say?

And I bet you'll get the same bullshit evasiveness.

The real content of the answer our Maoist comrade gives every time is that Maoism is more closely related to a religion or Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." "In order to understand, you must first believe."

Makes it so much easier, and saves so much time. 'Here, drink this Kool Aid. Then you will have proved that you can be trusted with our sensitive information."

red cat

23rd May 2011, 17:38

I know exactly which posters will thank the above post. :lol:

Thirsty Crow

23rd May 2011, 17:39

MLM is not something that you will be able to grasp by reading a few books, so I suggest that you join the MLM group and ask questions there. If you have a genuine desire for learning then you are more than welcome to join. It is unclear for how much time I will be busy, but that is of no importance because other well-informed comrades will be happy to help you learn. And of course, I am definitely looking forward to continuing our discussion here whenever I get the chance.
So, you want to tell me that you refuse to point out any valuable work that could enhance my understanding? Not a single one, but rather an invitation to join the group. Why do you think that I'd be better off without reading, on my own, something that you'd suggest, and instead merely asking questions there? Do you think others could offer better advice and more links?

If you didn't notice, I'm giving you an undue amount of the benefit of doubt. I could just as easily conclude that you're nothing but a troll for not even mentioning basic texts, which implies that you have no serious wish to point me forward.

I'll consider joining the group.

I know exactly which posters will thank the above post. :lol:
It's not surprising since you feed that kind of attitudes by practically every post you make.

red cat

23rd May 2011, 17:46

So, you want to tell me that you refuse to point out any valuable work that could enhance my understanding? Not a single one, but rather an invitation to join the group. Why do you think that I'd be better off without reading, on my own, something that you'd suggest, and instead merely asking questions there? Do you think others could offer better advice and more links?

If you didn't notice, I'm giving you an undue amount of the benefit of doubt. I could just as easily conclude that you're nothing but a troll for not even mentioning basic texts, which implies that you have no serious wish to point me forward.

I'll consider joining the group.

It's not surprising since you feed that kind of attitudes by practically every post you make.

You said this earlier :

but, please, be aware that I don't have the time to read more than one whole bookMLM is an advancing science. Even if you leave out all of it after Mao, it is not possible to grasp even the remaining part by reading only one or even ten books. That is why I had suggested asking specific questions. Either you do that, or start by reading the "Selected Works of Mao Tsetung" volumes. It's all your choice.

RedSunRising

23rd May 2011, 17:55

http://www.mediafire.com/?xu6e7qk9t5m2x91

This is a good basic introduction created by Indian Communists to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism if you are really interested.

Rooster

23rd May 2011, 18:00

So... has the OP been answered yet?

That is why I had suggested asking specific questions.

Ah, I get it now. Ask only the questions you can answer.

red cat

23rd May 2011, 18:23

http://www.mediafire.com/?xu6e7qk9t5m2x91

This is a good basic introduction created by Indian Communists to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism if you are really interested.

I think that it is aimed more at South Asian Maoists who already have knowledge of the colonial situation through experience. Menocchio is more likely to be wondering about the theoretical validity of semi-feudalism or the resultant tactics etc. For someone living in South Asia this is so obvious that even Indian Trotskyites acknowledge the existence of "landlordism" (they don't use the word feudalism, since they will probably be expelled from the CWI if their theory matches so much with that of Maoists, regardless of its practical importance :p).

So... has the OP been answered yet?

Ah, I get it now. Ask only the questions you can answer.

RRRRIGHT !! :thumbup:

RED DAVE

23rd May 2011, 19:58

For those who have forgotten what this thread was all about in the midst of this Maoist orgy of whining, obfuscation and lying, here's the OP that our mighty Maoists have refused to answer.

A year ago, at the time of the general strike, it appeared that the UCPN(M) was riding high, headed for leadership in the new Nepali government (forgetting how they had led a previous government and the head of their party resigned as prime minister), the largest political party in Nepal. Nepal was the successful test case for 21st Century Maoism.

Now, 4 1/2 years after the end of the civil war, during which the Maoists controlled large areas of the Nepali countryside, but were unable to take the capital city Kathmandu, the UCPN(M)'s fighters languish in cantonments, the trade union federation has just split in three parts and the party itself is split in fact if not formally. There are reports of death threats of one faction against the other.

The three factions are led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, know as "Prachanda," Mohan Baidya, known as ‘Kiran’ and Babu Ram Bhattarai.

Many crucial questions need to be answered. Among them are:

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

Doubtless there are more issues to discuss.Still waiting for a straightforward, honest answer.

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

23rd May 2011, 20:06

As the above posts show, Dave, you have failed in your fundamental responsibility to ask only those questions Red Cat can answer.

chegitz guevara

23rd May 2011, 20:26

And what about Bhattarai ? French trotskists brag he is one of them because he said one time that "these days Trotski's analysis are more viable than Staline's ones."

Yes, enough about our failures. What about this duck!

You're avoiding Dave's points, which should be easy enough to dispatch without resorting to logically fallacious arguments.

RedSunRising

23rd May 2011, 20:36

"Red Dave versus the Maoists".....It could be a Godzilla type 50s monster movie!

chegitz guevara

23rd May 2011, 20:40

A year ago, at the time of the general strike, it appeared that the UCPN(M) was riding high, headed for leadership in the new Nepali government (forgetting how they had led a previous government and the head of their party resigned as prime minister), the largest political party in Nepal. Nepal was the successful test case for 21st Century Maoism.

Now, 4 1/2 years after the end of the civil war, during which the Maoists controlled large areas of the Nepali countryside, but were unable to take the capital city Kathmandu, the UCPN(M)'s fighters languish in cantonments, the trade union federation has just split in three parts and the party itself is split in fact if not formally. There are reports of death threats of one faction against the other.

The three factions are led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, know as "Prachanda," Mohan Baidya, known as ‘Kiran’ and Babu Ram Bhattarai.

Many crucial questions need to be answered. Among them are:

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

Doubtless there are more issues to discuss.

RED DAVE

First, it's not that the Maoists were unable to take the capital. Their analysis was that they could not do so without a costly and bloody battle.

First, while we can't discount reports of what's going on, we shouldn't be so eager to accept them. One of the sources is a known agent of imperialism. The capitalist press is also quick to play up rumors of differences.

1) I don't know.

2) It's a confirmation of Mao's claim about a two line struggle in even the most revolutionary parties. Capitalist hegemony exerts a powerful force on all.

3) It says about as much as Sri Lankan Trotskyism or Posadaism says about Trotksyism.

RED DAVE

23rd May 2011, 22:23

"Red Dave versus the Maoists".....It could be a Godzilla type 50s monster movie!http://i56.tinypic.com/jv6hd2.jpg

:D

RED DAVE

Ret

23rd May 2011, 22:44

what we are seeing is an inimical conflict between two tendencies over real issues
I've only posted once on this thread (though it may be the longest post) - but I'm neither a Trotskyist/ite or Maoist.

First, it's not that the Maoists were unable to take the capital. Their analysis was that they could not do so without a costly and bloody battle.
It may be the official claim, but I'm unconvinced that's the real reason - in the leaked video, Prachanda admits that guerilla numbers at ceasefire were only 7,000 (see below) - hardly really enough even to encircle the KTM valley! The PLA was also not well armed, carrying many old weapons, and wouldn't have been any match at all in direct confrontation on the urban plains (unlike rural guerilla skirmishes in hill terrain) with the well equipped professional 105,000-strong Nepali Army and Air Force, plus whatever help the Indian military would've certainly contributed if necessary.

a video of Prachanda speaking to the Maoist guerilla PLA commanders was released anonymously to the media(1). Recorded after the Maoists had signed the peace deal and promised their commitment to parliamentary democracy, it showed Prachanda telling the faithful that this was all a clever ploy, a temporary tactical move to capture sole state power for themselves. He jokes about how they manipulated the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) verification process of registering troop numbers, as part of the peace deal. He reveals that the real guerilla strength was only 7,000 rather than the 35,000 actually registered. This would help them later claim more places for loyal ex-guerillas within the Nepalese Army - as part of the 'integration' process - as a means to take control of it.

The video broadcast by Image Television for the first time on Monday after Dahal stepped down from the government over the Chief of the Army Staff’s dismissal controversy was reportedly shot at the UNMIN monitored Shaktikhor cantonment on Jan. 2, 2008 before the historic Constituent Assembly elections.
Admitting that the real strength of the PLA was around 7000, Dahal who was the supreme commander of the PLA said the Maoists, however, managed to show the figure as 35,000 to the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), and got 20,000 verified.
“Before the compromise was made in fact we were few. We were about 7,000,” says Dahal in the video talking about the UNMIN verification results, “We managed 35,000 in the camps and it (figure) came around at least 20,000.”
“We shall not say this to others,” the then PLA chieftain said with smiles and added, “But this is the fact.”
Stating had the party shown the PLA’s real strength after the verification the count would drop to 4000, Dahal said, “Our leadership shrewdly made up the regular army from 7,000 to 21,000,” ... (eKantipur.com - 5 May 09)
http://libcom.org/news/fierce-one-speaks-forked-tongue-nepalese-maoists-leave-government-sackings-lies-videotape-1

Hiero

27th May 2011, 06:50

RED DAVE

27th May 2011, 12:43

If they understand these contradictions so well, why is it that not even one faction is able to come up with an explanation for what has happened to their own party, except to call other factions revisionists, reactionaries, etc. This is political cursing, not political analysis.

It is obvious that the Maoists here are unable to provide, and probably unwilling to accept, that their party is self-destructing.
Well maybe they dont. My point was they engage in praxis, what you proposed is the usual reductionist and disengaged theoritical approach that replaces analysis with actual objective situations and subjective opinions/actions of people.Gobbledy-gook.

Praxis is the unity of theory and practice. The Maoist practice in Nepal is parliamentary maneuvering. They need to revise their theory to come up with a parliamentary road to socialism. They can start here:

Bernstein – Evolutionary Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1899/evsoc/trans.htm)

RED DAVE

Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame

27th May 2011, 13:12

RED DAVE

27th May 2011, 14:59

Hiero

30th May 2011, 14:21

Gobbledy-gook.

Praxis is the unity of theory and practice. The Maoist practice in Nepal is parliamentary maneuvering. They need to revise their theory to come up with a parliamentary road to socialism. They can start here:

Bernstein – Evolutionary Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1899/evsoc/trans.htm)

RED DAVE

You must have missed the last 15 years.

Also I made a mistake "that replaces analysis with actual objective situations and subjective opinions/actions of people" should be reversed. Analysis which replaces the actual objective situations and subjective opinions/actions of people.

What you do is provide stale theory, which is prior to history of conflict, ie Trotskyism/1900s Leninism, to the actual conditions and actions of people that will have real affect.

RED DAVE

30th May 2011, 14:49

Praxis is the unity of theory and practice. The Maoist practice in Nepal is parliamentary maneuvering. They need to revise their theory to come up with a parliamentary road to socialism. They can start here:

Bernstein – Evolutionary Socialism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1899/evsoc/trans.htm)

You must have missed the last 15 years.Just call me Rip van RED DAVE. :D

Also I made a mistake "that replaces analysis with actual objective situations and subjective opinions/actions of people" should be reversed. Analysis which replaces the actual objective situations and subjective opinions/actions of people.

What you do is provide stale theory, which is prior to history of conflict, ie Trotskyism/1900s Leninism, to the actual conditions and actions of people that will have real affect.More gobbledy-gook, which ends up with justifying the Nepalese Maoists in a bourgeois government.

RED DAVE

Hiero

31st May 2011, 05:20

Just call me Rip van RED DAVE. :D

More gobbledy-gook, which ends up with justifying the Nepalese Maoists in a bourgeois government.

RED DAVE

So with your profound knowledge, what is the explanation for the Maoist phenomenon in Nepal.

RED DAVE

4th June 2011, 13:25

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?
More or less the majority of factions within the current Nepali Maoist Movement originate from Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention) and other Nepalese Communist Parties.

While they may differ on certain political issues for the most part much of the factionalism is more or less Sectarianism and other parties considering themselves to be representing the Nepali People with a distinct wish to continue Factionalism in order for them to subjugate political power as opposed to pushing forward Proletarian Objectives within Nepal.But you are begging the question. Where did this "Sectarianism" come from? Who are the "other parties ... with a distinct wish to continue Factionalism"?

And how did these "parties" get into the UCPN(M) in the first place if it was, in fact, a revolutionary proletarian organization?

While I'm not denying that Nepali Maoism is in the interest of the ProletariatMaybe you ought to think about that.

or that Maoism itself is inherently ReactionaryMaybe you ought to think about that.

its rather undeniable that if Sectarianism and Factionalism isn't quelled; The Working Class will have no benefit from this and it will only allow for a further rise of the decaying and Counter-Revolutionary sentiments within the Nepalese Revolution.What indication do you have that what you call "Sectarianism and Factionalism" isn't, in fact, the heart of the party and its political essence? What tendencies are there in the UCPN(M) that could be identified as proletarian?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?
As Factionalism had began to develop from when the Revolution against the Monarchy was successful and the Monarchy was abolished.Again, you are begging the question. How did this "Factionalism" develop? Who were the factionalists? How did they get into the party in the first place?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?
It simply more or less shows the dangers of Sectarianism and Factionalism within a organizationAre you saying the S & F are inherent in organizations? Are we dealing with sociology or Marxism? What class forces were involved/ Which individuals or factions represent which classes.

it doesn't at its own characterize Maoism however, as various ideologies and organizations are capable of facing the same issues.But every Maoists group that has either come to power or within pissing distance of it has basically, become capitalist, with no internal fight for the interests of the workers.

Nor does it simply mean that the Nepali Maoist Movement is 'doomed' to carry out this legacy throughout its entire existence, Factionalism and the Sectarianism can be corrected.By who? What class forces? What tendencies? It's all floating in the air according to your analysis.

And the beat goes on. Check out these new items.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/news-nepal-continued-t141446/index.html?p=2132360

RED DAVE

Delenda Carthago

10th June 2011, 23:41

I dont get why maoists support the revisionists of Nepal. Seriously, I dont want to support the trots(:D) but the Nepal dudes are nothing but revisionists. Far fuckin away from what I know of as maoist. I dont know if there is a tendecy that is radical and... communist, but the things I ve read until now on their programs,is nothing but this.

RED DAVE

11th June 2011, 00:11

I dont get why maoists support the revisionists of Nepal.Why not ask them? ALthough the most voluble defender of tne UCPN(M) banned himself voluntarily recently.

Seriously, I dont want to support the trots(:D) but the Nepal dudes are nothing but revisionists. Far fuckin away from what I know of as maoist. I dont know if there is a tendecy that is radical and... communist, but the things I ve read until now on their programs,is nothing but this.You might want to face the possibility that what you are calling revisionism is really part of the essence of Maoism.

RED DAVE

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 00:16

Why not ask them? ALthough the most voluble defender of tne UCPN(M) banned himself voluntarily recently.

The only Maoists who have defended uncritically what is going in Nepal have been the Kasama Project.

And Red Cat asked to be banned because they were in the process of banning him anyone because of a campaign of slander and distortion that guess who was behind?

RED DAVE

11th June 2011, 00:26

The only Maoists who have defended uncritically what is going in Nepal have been the Kasama Project.So would you care to give us your analysis?

Here are the issues raised by the OP:

A year ago, at the time of the general strike, it appeared that the UCPN(M) was riding high, headed for leadership in the new Nepali government (forgetting how they had led a previous government and the head of their party resigned as prime minister), the largest political party in Nepal. Nepal was the successful test case for 21st Century Maoism.

Now, 4 1/2 years after the end of the civil war, during which the Maoists controlled large areas of the Nepali countryside, but were unable to take the capital city Kathmandu, the UCPN(M)'s fighters languish in cantonments, the trade union federation has just split in three parts and the party itself is split in fact if not formally. There are reports of death threats of one faction against the other.

The three factions are led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, know as "Prachanda," Mohan Baidya, known as ‘Kiran’ and Babu Ram Bhattarai.

Many crucial questions need to be answered. Among them are:

(1) How are these three factions differentiated politically, theoretically and historically?

(2) How did it come to pass that the party split so rapidly and badly?

(3) What does this say about Maoists politics, as the UCPN(M) claims to be the legitimate political descendants of classic Maoism?

Doubtless there are more issues to discuss.RED DAVE

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 00:28

So would you care to give us your analysis?

RED DAVE

Not to you. Nepal is only to be discussed in the M-L-M group.

Tim Finnegan

11th June 2011, 00:36

And Red Cat asked to be banned because they were in the process of banning him anyone because of a campaign of slander and distortion that guess who was behind?
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/2006pierre/images/rasputin2.jpg

At least, if this turns out to be anything like your other conspiracy theories...

RED DAVE

11th June 2011, 00:42

Not to you. Nepal is only to be discussed in the M-L-M group.What a cowardly, chicken-shit you and your ilk are.

You don't have the guts to debate political issues in public.

RED DAVE

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 00:45

At least, if this turns out to be anything like your other conspiracy theories...

What other conspiracy theories? :rolleyes:

Ret

11th June 2011, 01:30

Tim Finnegan

11th June 2011, 01:32

What other conspiracy theories? :rolleyes:
Well, the last one was about the CWI palling up with some unidentified loyalist paramilitary group for reasons of mumblemumblemumble.

Of course, for all I know, old Gregori there is behind that one too. It's a sinister web indeed!

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 01:43

I hope RedSunRising is not implying I was acting as part of any campaign to get red cat banned; his way of responding to disagreement left a lot to be desired, but I challenged his claims about Bangladesh only because there was no evidence to back them up. But why would he "ask to be banned"? Can't he trust himself to just stop posting voluntarily?

Because he was going to be banned anyway because of Red Dave's sinster distortion of things that he had wrote in the CU so he asked to be banned himself.

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 01:55

Well, the last one was about the CWI palling up with some unidentified loyalist paramilitary group for reasons of mumblemumblemumble.

Uh they brought a UVF member on a lecture tour!

The links between the CWI (which after all had a prisoner officer speak at its SPEW conference) and Loyalism should be easy enough to verify for someone living in Scotland.

But like Trotskyites working with fascists in the USSR to plant no warning bombs to rip out the lungs of Soviet children from their tiny rib cages you will probably choose to turn a blind eye.

Tim Finnegan

11th June 2011, 03:06

Uh they brought a UVF member on a lecture tour!

The links between the CWI (which after all had a prisoner officer speak at its SPEW conference) and Loyalism should be easy enough to verify for someone living in Scotland.
They brought a PUP member and former UVF member into a public debate. While that is, I would agree, a rather tasteless move- not least because, as I understand it, he was being implicitly presented as speaking for the Unionist working class- it's hardly the same thing as bank-rolling some sort of lecture tour for balaclava'd Loyalists, as you seem to insist.

But like Trotskyites working with fascists in the USSR to plant no warning bombs to rip out the lungs of Soviet children from their tiny rib cages you will probably choose to turn a blind eye.Was that before or after Sauron invaded Gondor? I'm just trying to get my mythical villain chronology straightened out, here.

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 03:10

Was that before or after Sauron invaded Gondor? I'm just trying to get my mythical villain chronology straightened out, here.

The evidence presented in Soviet courts was pretty overwhelming.

Tim Finnegan

11th June 2011, 03:20

The evidence presented in Soviet courts was pretty overwhelming.
Well, the Soviet judicial system was renowned throughout the world as a paragon of thorough and conscientious impartiality. http://www.racunalniske-novice.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/SmileyHmm.gif

S.Artesian

11th June 2011, 04:14

Why anyone wastes time arguing with these Stalinist clowns is beyond me. For the record, Red Cat indeed was about to be banned, but Red Dave had nothing to do with it. Red Cat had everything to do with that by making it pretty clear that he thought the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers was not a crime as serious as other rapes. That's what did it.

Several moderators had intervened in the the thread and the thread was being watched closely by moderators and administrators.

Nobody had to say a word to any of the moderators about Red Cat. They can, and did, read what was written for themselves. Red Cat decided to bug out for reasons he may have shared with others.

The mods and admins were so incensed by the content of what some had written that they banned Nolan and Tippler. And Revleft is much better off for it.

There was no whispering, smear campaign against Red Cat, Tippler, or Nolan. Action was taken on the basis of what they had written.

Of course, those who believe that Bukharin, Radek, Preobrazhensky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc etc etc were actually fascist agents have to have a conspiracy to believe in.

I do not understand how and why Revleft ever allowed the so-called M-L-Mers to participate in the forums.

Impulse97

11th June 2011, 04:31

Eh? I kinda liked Toppler and Nolan. How where they punished for red cat's actions?

S.Artesian

11th June 2011, 05:08

Eh? I kinda liked Toppler and Nolan. How where they punished for red cat's actions?

The ban was issued based on their own postings, not Red Cat's.

Impulse97

11th June 2011, 06:20

Could you link the posts?

DaringMehring

11th June 2011, 06:24

Could you link the posts?
Seconded.. I missed that thread

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 11:00

Red Cat had everything to do with that by making it pretty clear that he thought the rape of German women by Red Army soldiers was not a crime as serious as other rapes. That's what did it.

Obviously any crime preformed by proletarian forces against the class enemy is less serious in the same way that crimes against animals are less serious than crimes against humans. We dont believe in the full humanity of the class enemy. He did however say that those rapes should be punished and there plenty of people on this forum who believe that any rape should go unpunished. His words were twisted into making out that he supported rape, or was an apolagist for it, which is a vicious lie.

RedSunRising

11th June 2011, 11:08

Of course, those who believe that Bukharin, Radek, Preobrazhensky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc etc etc were actually fascist agents have to have a conspiracy to believe in.

De classe and middle class intellectuals are often very revolutionary under capitalist and semi-feudal conditions but once proletarian power is established they often turn on it, I dont see what is so bizzare or strange about that fact.

RED DAVE

11th June 2011, 14:08

Getting back to Nepal, the following article, first posted in the news thread by ret, reveals the depth, on a political level, without a class analysis, of the divisions within the UCPN(M).

Nepal Maoists party likely to split, Dahal plotted Baidya’s arrest in India

Senior Vice Chairman of Nepal Communist Party Unified Maoist Mohan Baidya ‘Kiran’ has claimed that it was Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda who had plotted arrest of some of the party top hats while being in Indian exile.

This Baidya claimed at the ongoing secret meeting of his panel held somewhere in Baneshwor-Kathmandu, claims one of the leading daily news papers.

Hilarious revelation. Better late than never.

Including Baidya, Secretary C.P. Gajurel, Kul Prasad K.C. and Matrika Yadav were mysteriously arrested by the Indian police while in exile just ahead of the extended plenum meeting of party’s central committee held in Chunbang at the fag-end of the peoples’ revolt.

To recall, Baidya while on his way to an eye hospital in Siliguri was all of a sudden arrested by the local Indian police. Similarly, C.P. Gajurel was arrested at Chennai Airport for possessing a fake passport. Matrika Yadav, Suresh Aley Magar and K.C. were arrested from New Delhi.

Later Matrika and Magar were deported to Nepal during the Royal regime.

Prior to the arrest of the selected Maoists’ leaders in India, another vice chairman Babu Ram Bhattarai, Dina Nath Sharma, Hisila Yami and others were kept under detention by the Dahal panel.

Later the Indian establishment through India’s so-called Nepal expert S.D. Muni and his ilk convinced Dahal to release Babu Ram Bhattarai and his supporters from the party detention.
India’s foreign secretary then Shyam Saran too had played a key role.

Immediately after Bhattarai’s release, the spree of arrest took place in India, which allowed Dahal to swiftly manage to switch from the Revolt line to DemocraticRepublican line envisioned by Bhattarai. With Baidya arrested, Bhattarai managed to convince Dahal of his line through the effective use of the Indian machination.

The Rajdhani Daily, May 19, 2011 adds, it was after the party became a part of the peace process the leaders who were detained by India were released.

Thus a republican order appears to have been imposed on Nepal by the Indian regime through the kind courtesy of Bhattarai.

“Chairman Prachanda plotted our arrest (Baidya and C.P. Gajurel) in India and got the Democratic Republican line passed by the Chunbang meet”, Baidya is quoted as saying by a central committee member present at the secret meeting.

“We need to be very cautious and take our steps carefully because Prachanda is a person who could go to any extent”, Baidya is further quoted.

Is Prachanda so dangerous then? When Baidya says so then let’s believe his explanations.
Baidya also instructed his men to remain ever vigilant because Prachanda was in a mission to finish them.

Baidya followers from various parts of the country have been invited to the secret meeting.

Senior leader Dev Gurung and other leaders such as Netra Bikram Chand and politburo members Pampha Bhusal and Dharemendra Bastola are also some of the participations of the meeting.
This perhaps speaks of the “internal” state of the Maoists party as of now.

“During the revolt, Prachanda feared that if Comrade Badal (General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa) led front continued to succeed in the attack on state forces, Badal would be powerful enough to capture the party leadership. Thus Prachanda manufactured stories linking Comrade Badal with Comrade Ms. Pampha Bhusal. Similarly, Prachanda is also blaming Comrade Gaurav (Gajurel) of being influenced by the Europeans”, Baidya also said.

Netra Bikram Chand informed at the meeting that Dahal had requested him not to take on to the course of party split until May 28, 2011.

“I told him that if differences persist it is better to split the party to preserve ideology”, Chand added.

“Prachanda fears party split but he is planning to capture the party headquarters if that eventuality takes a shape”, Chand revealed at the meeting.

He also held that secret meetings are on in Prachanda’s camp not to allow us to capture the party headquarters.

Another leader however, says that the possibility of party split is remote in the present context.

“We prefer to create another party within the party itself but do not favor a vertical split”, Rajdhani quotes the leader as saying.

In the secret meeting, senior leader Dev Gurung expressed that Comrade Prachanda at one instance had kept him in the dark and misled him to get the UML-NC agenda approved by the constitutional committee.

The meeting reports the Rajdhani daily, has also devised an intelligence mechanism under the leadership of Netra Bikram Chand that will collect information from the grass root and pass it on to the central leadership.

Analysts expect some more thrilling stories in the days ahead.

Every heaght has a fall, it has rightly been said.http://www.telegraphnepal.com/headline/2011-05-19/nepal-maoists-party-likely-to-split-dahal-plotted-baidyas-arrest-in-india

RED DAVE

S.Artesian

11th June 2011, 14:23

Could you link the posts?

Toppler deleted his post after running into a buzzsaw of condemnation.

This the thread: read it and weep.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-red-army-t155381/index.html

RED DAVE

14th June 2011, 03:16

The process continues. Any Maoists care to comment?

Baidhya now has his workers´ body

Added At: 2011-06-14 12:20 AM
Last Updated At: 2011-06-14 12:20 AM

HIMALAYAN NEWS SERVICE

GORKHA: About a week after UCPN-M Vice Chairman Baburam Bhattarai met cadres of his group separately, workers supporting Vice Chairman Mohan Baidhya [Kiran], organised a district meeting here today.

Though the party had dissolved the two parallel workers’ bodies at the central level, Baidhya faction organised a separate district meeting of workers. The first district meeting of Nepal Revolutionary Metal Workers’ Association, affiliated to Federation of All Nepal Revolutionary Trade Union, organised its first district meeting today.

Member of central secretariat of the Federation Revolutionary Trade Union Yogendra Kumal and Tamuwan State Committee member Narayan Adhikari, among others, attended the meeting. Likewise, central chairman of All Nepal Revolutionary Metal Workers Association Sunil Silwal, Chitwan In-charge of Federation All Nepal Revolutionary Trade Union Surya Baral and central deputy chairman of Revolutionary Metal Workers Association Jit Bahadur BK were also present.

Central secretariat member Yogendra Kumal said the other group had formed a separate organisation — Federation of All Nepal Trade Union — which had been attempting to weaken the movement of workers by cooperating with entrepreneurs, so, he said,’’ We were compelled to form a separate organisation due to some persons who earned a lot of money using the organisation as a ladder.’’

Meanwhile, Narayan Adhikari said they were compelled to form a separate organisation as intra-party conflict had not been resolved.

The meeting formed All Nepal Revolutionary Metal Workers Association with 11 members under Kamal Sunar’s leadership. Sunar said the leadership had been informed about the meeting, but Maoist district secretary Chudamani Khadka said the organisation formed today was not official.http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Baidhya+now+has+his+workers% 26acute%3B+body&NewsID=291720

RED DAVE
(http://www.statcounter.com/blogger/)

yogendra

17th June 2011, 06:42

yep...i am the supporter of maoists but now general people are quite sad about their activities

RED DAVE

17th June 2011, 14:36

yep...i am the supporter of maoists but now general people are quite sad about their activitiesWelcome, Comrade. Can you, please, give us some details on what is going on?

Especially, what is the UCPN(M), and its various factions, doing outside of parliamentary maneuvering?

RED DAVE

Ret

17th June 2011, 21:24

(I originally posted this on the wrong thread - duh...)

The process continues. Any Maoists care to comment?

Well, this is what their former main spokesperson here was saying not long ago;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2106938&postcount=9
Red cat 10 May 2011
If you look at the present line of the UCPN(M) you will notice that it is far less revisionist than what it had become in 2006. The UCPN(M) is slowly but steadily returning to a revolutionary path. So it is the duty of every communist to primarily defend it against the usual accusations of pseudo-communists, and then criticize it for its errors.
This is obviously revealed to now be, er, inadequate to explain recent developments. The Revleft pro-maoists' 'line' is apparently to now only have internal offline discussions on Nepal. A retreat in the face of a history that has outflanked them and is not living up to their fantasies of the return of a final victorious armed struggle. Their great red hope, Baidya, is obliged to mouth off about how he upholds the pure revolutionary path of armed revolt; but he knows it's not on the cards, it doesn't have sufficient backing within the Party - and has never had much support at all in the wider society. But that is the defining character of his leadership and his image; his role as the fiery Party leftist must be maintained, because;
a) it is the unifying ideology by which he groups his Party constituency around him, and it defines him politically in contrast to his rivals.
b) The threat of a return to armed struggle still gives his Party rivals and the wider political class the jitters; his repeated threat to restart it is his main bargaining factor in the politics of Nepal. While futile and unlikely - insofar as it would only be a return, with weaker forces, to the guerrilla struggle they could never previously win - it would destabilise the delicate political situation and split the Party.

The pro-maoists here have long and regularly heaped slander and distortion on anyone who suggested that the present developments were a likely outcome. They accused anyone who criticised their Party heroes (who were all previously advocates of 'Prachanda Path' but are now viciously criticising each other) of 'knowing nothing about the real situation in Nepal'; yet their 'superior knowledge' leaves them now so lacking in explanation for what is occurring. Duh...

One wonders if the factionalism is having a similar effect on some Maoist supporters in Nepal? After devotedly following for years the line of the leadership of a supposedly "Unified" Party, now it's all unravelling into a maze of conflicting lines. The psychological security of the loyal follower is cast adrift...