Bhattarai comforts Indian capital, slams his Maoist party

[mosfeld]

The renegade speaks:


Bhattarai comforts Indian capital, slams his Maoist party

http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/baburam-maoist-india-social-democracy.jpg?w=326&h=350

This is a disturbing new interview from Baburam Bhattarai, who is vice chairman of the UCPN(M) and now Prime Minister of Nepal. He takes pains to insure Indian capitalists that their investments will be protected, despite the fact that Nepal has already suffered greatly from Indian economic and cultural expansionism. Unfortunately, he is far less generous to members of the UCPN(M).

Bhattarai discusses the radical left within the Maoist party, saying they will be outmaneuvered and marginalized:

“In a communist party, two line struggles are natural and we have successfully managed it so far and we will manage it in the future. I don’t see much obstacle. Even if some leaders and cadre may oppose or some splinter groups may move out, even then it won’t make much impact on the political line followed by the party.”

Bhattarai also claims that the recent decision to hand over the arms of the People’s Liberation Army to a Special Committee was undertaken at his “initiative”. Interestingly, he doesn’t claim that the decision was made through normal party mechanisms.

The interview originally appeared in The Hindu

‘Nepal won’t jeopardize any genuine Indian interest’

In the middle of negotiations over cabinet formation and the future of the Maoist combatants, Nepal’s new Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattaraitook time out for an exclusive interview to The Hindu on Friday afternoon at his office in Singha Durbar, the government secretariat. He spoke about the political challenges, the roadmap to achieve his stated objectives, and relations with India. Excerpts:

You had consistently argued for a consensus government, but are now heading a majority government. Why did efforts at forging a national consensus fail?

I am still for a consensus form of government because according to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution, we need to take major decision through consensus. The Special Committee responsible for the integration process has to function through consensus and the constitution has to be adopted through a two-thirds majority. So to complete major tasks of peace process and write a new constitution, we need a broad consensus among the major parties. If we have a consensus government, it would facilitate those two processes. That conviction still prevails. But unfortunately, since that could not happen, the second choice was to start with a majoritarian and work for a consensus government. Even though I was elected by a majority, my efforts are directed towards forging consensus. Immediately after my election, I reached out to the Nepali Congress, UML and other parties. I hope it will bear fruit soon.

But how will this consensus come about?

I want the support of the major parties basically for the completion of the peace process, especially integration and rehabilitation of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cadres. We have already chalked out a time frame of one and a half months. If we reach broad consensus, we can implement it and stick to the one and a half month deadline. By that time, NC and UML will also join the government and this government will take the shape of a national consensus government. That has been my effort.

Many have termed the Maoist-Madhesi alliance as ‘unnatural’, since the Madhes movement had a strong anti Maoist orientation. What is its basis?

It is my conviction that Maoists and Madhes based parties are natural allies because on many cardinal principles and political line, there is common ground between these two forces. The agenda of the Maoists is restructuring of the state and society. And the Madhes based parties came forward with the agenda of the federal restructuring of the state. These are the basic issues, which the earlier traditional NC and UML could not address. Maoists and Madhesi parties came through People’s War and People’s Movement and have common agenda. This should have happened much earlier. I am confident that this natural alliance has brought a new dawn in Nepalese politics.

Given the tensions in the past, are you confident of the support of your party chairman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’?

I have full support of my chairman, comrade Prachanda. Though we have gone through series of ideological and political struggle, we have been in the same party committee at the leadership level for the last twenty years. We know each other. Despite our differences, there are a lot of commonalities. Our personal capacity is also more in the nature of complementarities, rather than competitiveness. We need each other. I need the chairman and the chairman needs me. Ideologically, politically and personally, continuity between two of us has been prevailing and will prevail in the future. I am fully confident of the full support of the chairman.

What about the third component of the party, senior vice chairman Mr Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’? He has already opposed your decision to handover keys of the arms container.

There was some confusion about this so called handover issue. This is a part of the integration process. It is implied in the CPA, and the earlier schedule worked out by the Special Committee. It is not a question of handover, but taking the process forward. Formally, it had already been decided that the PLA and cantonments would be looked after by the Special Committee but in practice, there were some difficulties. After formation of my government, I took the initiative in consultation with major parties and practically handed over the PLA, cantonments and cadres and weapons to the SC. In that SC, both PLA and Nepal Army are there. It is not a question of surrendering to the state, but handing over to the SC which is a joint committee. So some of our cadres were misled and resorted to opposing the formal decision of the government and the party. The party chairman has issued a statement fully supporting the decision of the SC. I am confident that an overwhelming majority of the leaders and cadre of the party will go along with the decision of the government.

But this goes beyond the key issue. There seems to be a school of thought within the party which is opposed to the whole process. Can they obstruct it, or potentially cause a split?

There has been a consistent two line struggle in the party over the political line followed since 2005. A section of the leadership within the party has had some reservation about the line pursued so far, but the overwhelming majority of the leadership and cadre are firmly behind this political line which has charted out a unique path of political transformation in Nepal. In a communist party, two line struggles are natural and we have successfully managed it so far and we will manage it in the future. I don’t see much obstacle. Even if some leaders and cadre may oppose or some splinter groups may move out, even then it won’t make much impact on the political line followed by the party.

Peace and constitution

What is the meeting point on the contentious issues regarding the future of Maoist combatants?

We have been discussing the basic issues of integration, but have not reached a final agreement. First, as far as modality is concerned, we have more or less agreed that a separate directorate will be created under the Nepal Army. Second, on norms, we have proposed that international norms of security forces will be obeyed by all members to be integrated. But there will be certain concessions on age, education, marital status etc. Third, on ranks, we have proposed that our senior commanders will be brought back for political work and junior commanders can be adjusted. A technical committee consisting of members from both sides can resolve the issue. The fourth issue is package for those opting for rehabilitation or voluntary retirement or golden handshake. We are working out an honorable settlement.

And the last issue is numbers. Once you decide the package going for voluntary retirement and rehabilitation, then those left out with automatically determine the numbers. That way, we proposed a figure between eight and ten thousand. In our agreement with Madhesi parties, the number agreed to is around 7000. Other parties have come to about 6000. We will finally settle around 7000; that should be the compromise number. If that happens, we can immediately start the process of regrouping which can be completed in one month. And then, within two weeks, we should be able to complete the process of integration.

Your party has asked for a combat function for the directorate, while the other parties want to restrict it to relief and development work. What should be the mandate of the force?

Whenever you integrate into an army, then this combatant and non comabatant issue becomes a non issue. The international definition of the army should apply here also. There is no point in raking this issue up. The basic norms and qualifications for the army should apply to everybody.

There is suspicion that a part of the money given to the combatants as ‘golden handshake’ will be used to fill in Maoist coffers.

It is time to get over this kind of mistrust. The Maoist party, being a principled party based on firm political and ideological convictions, does not believe in duping people. The package will be utilized for the welfare of the PLA cadre. There is no question of the party taking away money from them. The main point is whether the state can bear that burden. So we have proposed that the amount can be paid in installments of they can be paid pension. This type of modality can be applied and we are open to it.

One of the points in the agreement with Madhesi parties is withdrawal of cases against all those accused during the war and movements and general amnesty. Isn’t this a grave travesty of justice, and won’t it lead to impunity?

There is already an agreement in the CPA for withdrawal of cases against political leaders and cadres stamped by the old state during the insurgency and People’s Movement. We have only said that we will implement the earlier agreement. Maoists and Madhesi parties have come through struggle and movement. So naturally pending cases should be withdrawn. It happens everywhere. This has nothing to do with human rights issue. We are fully committed to obey human rights. And this does not mean impunity for criminals. This is a question of political cases, and I don’t think there will be any problem in it.

NC has asked for the formation of a state restructuring commission while your party and Madhesi front has rejected it. How will the discussion of federalism go forward?

Since the CA committee on state restructuring has already given a report, forming another commission will be a waste of time. We have instead proposed there should be a committee of experts that can assist federal restructuring. We have opposed it on technical grounds. In principle, we are not opposed to SRC but it is too late.

Is the three month extension of the CA enough?

Three months is not enough. If you go by the schedule of the CA, we need at least six to nine months. Three months is not enough, so we will need another extension. But let us try our best to take this process forward in the next three months and then, if need be, we can extend it again.

Your party has often criticized India for its role in domestic Nepali politics? What was the Indian stance during the government formation process this time around?

Nepal is sandwiched between two huge states of India and China. Historically, our sovereignty and independence has been maintained by having well balanced relations with these two big neighbours. Practically, we are more closely integrated with India, with an open border and closer economic ties. So we have more interaction with India and more problems also, which sometimes creates misunderstanding. The Maoist party and I am personally convinced we need to work more closely with India. Practically, we have to do more business with the government and people of India. Despite certain misgivings in the past, I am confident we will have a very good working relationship in the future. As far as India’s role in government formation is concerned, I don’t think there is any role for any outside power in making and breaking governments in a sovereign country. But at times, certain misgivings arise. My own conviction is that the political process in Nepal should be decided by the people and political parties of Nepal. But we need the goodwill and good wishes of the neighbours like India.

What will be your approach to India’s security concerns that officials usually bring up, like fake Indian currency notes, the use of the open border by militants, lack of movement on extradition treaty?

There are security concerns of both India and China in Nepal. We are sensitive to those genuine concerns and we will address those concerns of both sides. I am confident I can win the goodwill of both our neighbours.

Indian investors in Nepal have often complained of harassment and attacks by the Maoists. What is your stance towards the investors and how will you protect their investment?

Our party’s public position is that we need foreign direct investment in Nepal though the priorities will be decided by the Nepal government. There is no question of blocking the economic investment by Indian businesses or anybody else. Unfortunately, during this transition period, there have been certain misgivings and certain undesirable and unfortunate incidents have taken place. That is not in consonance with the official position of the party. I would like to assure all the foreign investors, both in India and elsewhere, that you are most welcome to invest in Nepal and the government will provide full security. Recently, we have passed a legislation for an investment board to facilitate investment within the country and I am trying to expedite that process.

Are you in touch with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in any way?

No, no. There is no question of our having relations with other revolutionary movement elsewhere. Ideologically and politically, there can be some commonalities. But we don’t have any direct or indirect relation with the ML movement.

China has recently proposed a wide ranging security treaty with Nepal. Will you take that forward?

We will look into all the proposals put forward by both neighbours, India and China. There have been certain treaties and agreements pending for some time. And we will have a fresh look into it, keeping in mind the mutual interests of Nepal and our neighbours. I am very open. With India too, there are certain agreements pending for some time. We will look into it and try to finalise it.

What is your expectation from policymakers in Delhi?

I would like to appeal to our friends in India that Nepal is not anti-Indian. We want to have good friendly relations with India. Historically, we have had very good relations with the people of India. I myself studied and spent 12-13 years in India. There is a lot of room for cooperation between the two countries. I would like to assure that Nepal won’t jeopardize any genuine interest of India in Nepal, security or economic or otherwise. What I expect is we need cooperation to stabilize peace, democracy and development in Nepal. Being a sovereign, independent country, we would like to maintain balanced relations with all our neighbours. And that should not be seen as being anti-Indian. We have no intention of being anti-Indian and want to be good friends with India.

On a personal note, you mentioned you studied and spent many years in India. Any fond memories that you want to share?

I have a lot of fond memories. Firstly, I went to Chandigarh to study architecture in 1972 under the Colombo Plan scholarship. I spent five years there. In 1977, I came to Delhi and did my masters in town and country planning from the School of Planning and Architecture. In 1979-80, I joined Jawaharlal Nehru University and stayed till 1985 to complete my PhD. What I am today is because of the academic qualifications and political training I got. I will never forget those good experiences, especially those formative days in JNU where we used to have heated and intense political and ideological debates. That played a big role in charting my political career. I will always carry fond memories of my association with JNU.

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/bhattarai-comforts-indian-capital-slams-his-maoist-party/

[RED DAVE]

This is the living heart of Maoism: as it actually its, as it works out in practice. This is the so-called block of four classes in action: capitalism.

Many of us have been predicting exactly this for years. And there have been dozens of actions on the way that were about as hard to interpret as a STOP sign. But Maoists on this board have been lying and bullshitting about these clowns.

And don't look to Kiran as a revolutionary alternative. His big beef is that he's on the outs and Bhattarai and Prachanda have him against the ropes. He's been in bed with Prachanda and Bhattarai for years. And now that they've kicked him out, he's weeping and wailing.

RED DAVE

[Rodrigo]

This is the living heart of Maoism: as it actually its, as it works out in practice. This is the so-called block of four classes in action: capitalism.

Many of us have been predicting exactly this for years. And there have been dozens of actions on the way that were about as hard to interpret as a STOP sign. But Maoists on this board have been lying and bullshitting about these clowns.

And don't look to Kiran as a revolutionary alternative. His big beef is that he's on the outs and Bhattarai and Prachanda have him against the ropes. He's been in bed with Prachanda and Bhattarai for years. And now that they've kicked him out, he's weeping and wailing.

RED DAVE

So Bernstein is the heart of Marxism. And Khruschev is the heart of Marxism-Leninism. And then, you are forced to say the Nepalese are the heart of Maoism. These phrases sound coherent to you? Of course not, they're all bullshit.

I'm still expecting a serious analysis of Maoism from anti-Maoists, but they always come with fallacies.

[RED DAVE]

So Bernstein is the heart of Marxism. And Khruschev is the heart of Marxism-Leninism. And then, you are forced to say the Nepalese are the heart of Maoism. These phrases sound coherent to you? Of course not, they're all bullshit.You had better start understanding what my politics are before you run off the way you are doing. I am politically very far from Bernstein, a social democrat, or Khruschev, a stalinist. Actually, Maoism is close to both of these as is demonstrated in Nepal.


I'm still expecting a serious analysis of Maoism from anti-Maoists, but they always come with fallacies.The fundamental fallacy of Maoism is the block of four classes. You invite the bourgeoisie into the revolution, and then you're surprised when they take over.

Meanwhile, the Nepalese Maoists, right in front of your eyes, have sold out big time. How, tell us please, did that happen?

RED DAVE

[Rodrigo]

You had better start understanding what my politics are before you run off the way you are doing. I am politically very far from Bernstein, a social democrat, or Khruschev, a stalinist. Actually, Maoism is close to both of these as is demonstrated in Nepal.

Khruschev "stalinist"? Wow, post of the year, dude. :glare: Maoists, like Hoxhaists, are based on Marxism-Leninism; and Khruschev's group destroyed it in USSR!


The fundamental fallacy of Maoism is the block of four classes. You invite the bourgeoisie into the revolution, and then you're surprised when they take over.

The fallacy is considering Maoism as the "invitation" of the "bourgeoisie" into the "revolution". And that's very dogmatic, since I showed you what Mao said about his theory of New Democracy and it has nothing to do with these things, which are just a word game to deceive newbies.

What "revolution"? The "communist revolution"? Of course not, comrade. When a country is struggling for national liberation, the antagonistic contradiction is between the nation and the imperialist, so the leading communists fire anti-imperialism, anti-feudalism and anti-colonialism, which the bourgeoisie is, generally in those countries, against. Then, we must use this aspect in the favor of our struggle. This is the democratic revolution (which I think in my country wouldn't be necessary), ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS LEADING THE PROCESS, CONTROLLING THE SITUATION. Mao made this fact VERY CLEAR. And then, when this contradiction against imperialism is surpassed, one then a stable dictatorship of the proletariat is possible. Mao said this dictatorship would be possible only after the democratic revolution contradictions were overcome, but later, when we study the party's actions in practice, with the GPCR and GLF mass movements -- campaigns against rightists, Confucianists, the creation of People's Communes -- he realized that was wrong to think of the revolutionary process as simple steps. As in fact, it's a wrong thought.


Meanwhile, the Nepalese Maoists, right in front of your eyes, have sold out big time. How, tell us please, did that happen?

Not every Nepalese Maoist in UCPN supports Prachanda's deviationism (Kiran, for example) or the UCPN itself (Matrika Yadav, for example) as we know, so stop this nonsense. Prachanda's Maoism is a new form of Maoism they called the "Prachanda Path". Considering it the one and only Maoism of our present days is a big lie. There are very combative Maoists here in Brazil, the most revolutionary movement our left has, there are active Maoism also, as far as I know, in Peru (Sendero Luminoso), Bolivia, Venezuela (more active in favelas), Turkey/Kurdistan (PKK guerrilla), Philippines and India (CPI-Maoist). What the Trots, social-democrats and revisionists are doing for the revolution here at where I live (and that's what matters anyway)? They support the national elections and parliamentary "socialism"! Even the Hoxhaists from PCR did that, when they begged for votes on Dilma Rousseff -- very incoherent for so-called Leninists. And anarchism is dead since the 20's, today only a movement for petty-bourgeois kids and little rioters who like to get into fights with NS skinheads at hardcore music concerts. LOL

[#FF0000]

What the Trots, Hoxhaists, social-democrats and revisionists are doing for the revolution here at where I live (and that's what matters anyway)? They support the national elections and parliamentary "socialism"! Brilliant! About anarchism, it's dead since the 20's, today only a movement for petty-bourgeois kids.

i hate to break it to you but the maoist guy goin buckwild with AKs in the woods is accomplishing about as much and has as much to do with working people as the student who heads the ISO group on his college campus

[RED DAVE]

You had better start understanding what my politics are before you run off the way you are doing. I am politically very far from Bernstein, a social democrat, or Khruschev, a stalinist. Actually, Maoism is close to both of these as is demonstrated in Nepal.
Khruschev "stalinist"? Wow, post of the year, dude. :glare: Maoists, like Hoxhaists, are based on Marxism-Leninism; and Khruschev's group destroyed it in USSR!It is politically valid to consider Stalinsm, Maoism and Hoxhaism as the same phenomenon: varieties of state capitalism. And Khruschev certainly falls under this rubric.

If you want to debate this, start a thread on it.

Getting back to the OP, we are seeing the Nepalese Maoists instituting either state capitalism or private capitalism as fast as they can.


The fundamental fallacy of Maoism is the block of four classes. You invite the bourgeoisie into the revolution, and then you're surprised when they take over.
The fallacy is considering Maoism as the "invitation" of the "bourgeoisie" into the "revolution".When the block of four classes is advocated, it sure looks like a political invitation to the bourgeoisie to join the revolution.


And that's very dogmatic, since I showed you what Mao said about his theory of New Democracy and it has nothing to do with these things, which are just a word game to deceive newbies.Who gives a fuck about what Mao said? We are talking abut what Maoists do. And what they do is subordinate the working class to the block of four classes, which means, in the long run (China) or the short run (Nepal), the bourgeoisie triumphs and either state or private capitalism rears its ugly head, with private capitalism appearing at the end.


What "revolution"? The "communist revolution"? Of course not, comrade. When a country is struggling for national liberation, the antagonistic contradiction is between the nation and the imperialist, so the leading communists fire anti-imperialism, anti-feudalism and anti-colonialism, which the bourgeoisie is, generally in those countries, against.This is the fundamental fallacy of Maoism: that in the name of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism," the working class can yoke itself politically to the bourgeoisie of its nation. The results of this we know in China, Vietnam and now Nepal.


Then, we must use this aspect in the favor of our struggle.Nice slogan, but it can't be done. The working class is not the only class that believes in international solidarity. The so-called native bourgeoisie will ally itself with the comprador bourgeoisie or the international bourgeoisie in a hot second against the working class.


This is the democratic revolution (which I think in my country wouldn't be necessary), ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS LEADING THE PROCESS, CONTROLLING THE SITUATION.This, of course, is Menshevism: the "democratic revolution" is divorced from the socialist revolution. This is the exact opposite of what the Bolsheviks did: they tied the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution together.

And, of course, in Nepal we see a "COMMUNIST PARTY LEADING THE PROCESS, CONTROLLING THE SITUATION," and we see the consequences of this: capitalism.


Mao made this fact VERY CLEAR.So then why did the Chinese Reolution become capitalism? Where did the bourgeois elements come from? From within the Communist Party itself. Same thing in Nepal as was predicted by others and myself years ago.


And then, when this contradiction against imperialism is surpassed, one then a stable dictatorship of the proletariat is possible.What you mean is a stable dictatorship over the proletariat by the state bureaucracy.


Mao said this dictatorship would be possible only after the democratic revolution contradictions were overcome, but later, when we study the party's actions in practice, with the GPCR and GLF mass movements -- campaigns against rightists, Confucianists, the creation of People's Communes -- he realized that was wrong to think of the revolutionary process as simple steps. As in fact, it's a wrong thought.All of Maoism is based on this "wrong thought": that the working class of any country and its so-called national bourgeoisie have anything in common. And if Mao thought all this was "wrong thought," why did he climb in bed politically with Richard Nixon, the corrupt leader of world capitalism?


Meanwhile, the Nepalese Maoists, right in front of your eyes, have sold out big time. How, tell us please, did that happen?
Not every Nepalese Maoist in UCPN supports Prachanda's deviationismBut they all supported it until a few months ago. To go into opposition like that without analyzing one's own course that led to the opportunism (you would call it "revisionism") is opportunist. Maoism is incapable of criticizing the flaw in its own origin: class collaboration.


(Kiran, for example)Kiran is an opportunist who supported Prachanda and Bhattarai practically until yesterday. He has still not broken from the party, and he is not opposed in principle to disarming the Peoples Liberation Army. He's just worried about the pace of it.

His opposition is based on the fact that now, politically, he's on the outs. A year ago, he and Prachanda were politically best buddies.


or the UCPN itselfThe party as a whole is backing Prachanda and Bhattarai.


(Matrika Yadav, for example) as we knowMatrika Yadav is not a member of the UCPN(M). He is a member of a different party, the CPN-Maoist. He's such a great revolutionary that he served as a minister in Prachanda's bourgeois government.


5so stop this nonsense.The nonsense is that Maoism is a revolutionary proletarian tendency.


Prachanda's Maoism is a new form of Maoism they called the "Prachanda Path".Now you're opposing it? Did you or your party oppose it two years ago when Prachanda was the prime minister of a bourgeois government?


Considering it the one and only Maoism of our present days is a big lie.Unitl a few months ago, the UCPN(M) were the big heroes of Maoism. Now that their opportunism and pro-capitalism are clear to you, you oppose it. However, this bullshit was clear to others years ago.


There are very combative Maoists here in Brazil, the most revolutionary movement our left has, there are active Maoism also, as far as I know, in Peru (Sendero Luminoso), Bolivia, Venezuela (more active in favelas), Turkey/Kurdistan (PKK guerrilla), Philippines and India (CPI-Maoist).The politics of each of these groups needs to be analyzed separately and together before you can make any political claims about them.

Start a thread about it.


What the Trots, social-democrats and revisionists are doing for the revolution here at where I live (and that's what matters anyway)?I don't know. Which parties, specifically are you talking about? Start a thread about them.


They support the national elections and parliamentary "socialism"! Even the Hoxhaists from PCR did that, when they begged for votes on Dilma Rousseff -- very incoherent for so-called Leninists.Again, we would have to look at the behavior of each group instead of making broad remarks. I suggest you start a thread about this.


And anarchism is dead since the 20's, today only a movement for petty-bourgeois kids and little rioters who like to get into fights with NS skinheads at hardcore music concerts. LOLTalk to the anarchists. They seem alive and well to me.

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Kurdish PKK are not Maoists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Maoists have had some excellent opportunities for advancement in recent years, but lets face it, they've pretty much squandered them. Take India and Bangladesh, two regions that people on this site claim have substantial Maoist presences (which is certainly true in India, but Bangladesh...probably stretching it). Anyway, India has huge industrial centers that are prime targets for operating & agitating in...there was a huge trade union march in India within the last year or so that drew half a million partipants. This was denounced by Maoists on this board because the trade unions are supposedly in the pockets of the Indian state. OK, I can accept that, but is what you're endorsing really more proactive than trying to radicalize the membership of trade unions? The Naxalites have about zero chance of ever seizing state power in India. If you want to massacre the odd batch of cops or soldiers, that's great, but lets not pretend that you're at the gates of New Delhi.

As far as Bangladesh goes, the militant garment workers set a pretty impressive example for workers across southeast asia with their actions, but we were told on this board that this was nothing compared to the "protracted people's war" going on in that country, which from what I could tell only amounted to a couple Maoists shooting at each other in the woods every month or so.

I guess it's all irrelevant though, as the working class isn't even the focus of Maoism. It's weird that India has this huge urban population, but I haven't read one thing on this site about the Naxalites trying to tap into it. Not even Sendero Luminoso (who I criticize regularly) made that mistake...they sent their operatives into the slums outside Lima.

[thälmann]

of course the indian maoists have organisations and influence in the cities. not so much as in the 70/80s but much more then we all in europe and us can dream about.
that they have to become much stronger in the cities especially among the working class, is what they said themselves. this is the document for their city work http://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/maoist/documents/papers/Urbanperspective.htm

regarding the pcp ( sendero). they had probably the most advanced city organisations in comparison to other maoist parties. the slums, which they controlles politically, where the place were a big part of the working class were living. 80 percent of the peruvian workers were poor " precarious" ones. but they had also significant influence in the big industries, for example the factories near lima, the state said they totally controlled the mining workers movement. so the problem in peru wasnt the lack of city work, which is also not a strategic problem in india.
in nepal is the problem that the leadership are revisionist traitors.

to say that the working class isnt important for maoists is obviously wrong, they always mention that the working class must lead the revolution, in imperialist and in semifeudal countries.

[mosfeld]

The objective situation in Peru was also fairly different, since Peru was and is a much more urbanized society than both Nepal and India -- different situation, different tactics.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Urbanized_population_2006.png/800px-Urbanized_population_2006.png

[RED DAVE]

this is the document for their city work http://satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/maoist/documents/papers/Urbanperspective.htmThe document is typically Maoist in that it is clear that the urban struggle of the working class is subordinated to the rural struggle. This is the reversal of Marxism, which pins the future of mankind on the working class. Here's a typical quote:


"However, we should not belittle the importance of the fact that the urban areas are the strong centers of the enemy. Building up of a strong urban revolutionary movement means that our Party should build a struggle network capable of waging struggle consistently, by sustaining itself until the protracted people’s war reaches the stage of strategic offensive. With this long term perspective, we should develop a secret party, an united front and people’s armed elements; intensify the class struggle in the urban areas and mobilize the support of millions of urban masses for the people’s war." [Pages 69-70, S&T].(emph added)

This is the standard Maoist formula, to which we add two elements: the block of four classes and capitalism to come


to say that the working class isnt important for maoists is obviously wrong, they always mention that the working class must lead the revolution, in imperialist and in semifeudal countries.They can "mention" whatever they want, but it is clear from Maoist practice in China and Nepal, and from the quote above that the working class will lead no revolution if their leadership is Maoist.

RED DAVE

[Rodrigo]

I lol when I see whole big countries painted with just one color on these maps. Here in Brasil, for example, there's inequality in every aspect between different regions. I'd go further, mosfeld: Different situations require different tactics + similar situations require similar tactics.

[Rodrigo]

The Kurdish PKK are not Maoists.

It isn't true that most PKK members are --or were-- inspired by Maoism? (Not talking about Apo here)

[Os Cangaceiros]

To add to what Red Dave said above:

The historical thrust of Indian Maoism throughout it's history has been the glorification of the rural struggle and "protracted people's war", at the expense of all other struggles, namely the struggle of the Indian working class, which is quite large. I believe that Charu Mazumdar made it quite clear when he said "We must build our party basically amoung the peasant masses." Back in the 70's, during Calcutta's so-called "Cultural Revolution", know what he endorsed? That rebellious students abandoned the universities, an entire sector of struggle, to go out into the countryside and read Mao to the peasants!

As far as Sendero goes, although they did make some incursions into the cities, the Lima zone and Laura Zambrano's operation were just a way for them to provide cadres to the countryside (this was it's stated goal), as per Maoist quasi-religious orthodoxy. Peru's urban working class never had any significant degree of support for SL, in fact SL was involved in attacks on the "filthy revisionist traitors" who held positions in Peru's trade unions.

A user who used to post on this board, red cat, basically admitted in one post that Maoism doesn't really have anything to offer the working class in, say, industrial centers and/or developed nations. He said that plain ol' vanilla Leninism is relevant in these situations. Which is pretty much the undeniable truth, in that Mao didn't really advance or even attempt to address traditional prole struggles, instead focusing on the peasants or simply "the masses".

[Roach]

If the UCPN was really commited to a revolutionary cause, they would have expelled Bhattarai back in 2009 when he said that:


“Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat” — Dr Bhattarai in “Red Spark,” 2009.

But wise Comrade Prachanda prefered to stick to the great Maoist concept of the ''two-line struggle inside the party''.



There are very combative Maoists here in Brazil, the most revolutionary movement our left has.

There certainly are, but to what extent are they the most revolutionary force in the country? Even though the whole left here has to recover from the wounds sustained during the Military dictatorship, the maoists dont seem to do much political struggle compared to others, instead they focus on publishing their newspaper, art groups or founding ''revolutionary schools'', in other words, they focus more on super-structural issues rather than an actual revolutinary change at the economic base, kind of like an GPRC during capitalism, for me it looks like a pretty petty-bourgeois approach.



Even the Hoxhaists from PCR did that, when they begged for votes on Dilma Rousseff -- very incoherent for so-called Leninists.

I think its far more incoherent the so-called anti-revisionist Maoist position of refusing to organise their movement into a vanguard party, almost bordering on left-communism.

Oh I almost forgot http://pcrbrasil.org/dilma-defende-empresa-de-telemarketing-e-recebe-vaias/ the PCR cleary does not hold any illusions on the PT.

[thälmann]

red dave: ignored

rodrigo: the pkk was never maoist or ML in any other kind. maybe they had such members, but the maoists in turkey were in the tkp/ml.


To add to what Red Dave said above:
A user who used to post on this board, red cat, basically admitted in one post that Maoism doesn't really have anything to offer the working class in, say, industrial centers and/or developed nations. He said that plain ol' vanilla Leninism is relevant in these situations. Which is pretty much the undeniable truth, in that Mao didn't really advance or even attempt to address traditional prole struggles, instead focusing on the peasants or simply "the masses".

if mao found something new for the working class in imperialist countries or not, has nothing to do if this movment is good or bad for the working class.

[RED DAVE]

red dave: ignoredFigures. mosfeld has me on ignore as well. Typical of your punk-ass politics.


To add to what Red Dave said above:
A user who used to post on this board, red cat, basically admitted in one post that Maoism doesn't really have anything to offer the working class in, say, industrial centers and/or developed nations. He said that plain ol' vanilla Leninism is relevant in these situations. Which is pretty much the undeniable truth, in that Mao didn't really advance or even attempt to address traditional prole struggles, instead focusing on the peasants or simply "the masses".
if mao found something new for the working class in imperialist countries or not, has nothing to do if this movment is good or bad for the working class.It's obvious from the course of Maoism vis-a-vis the working class, that it is the enemy of the working class.

Ask the workers of China and Nepal.

RED DAVE

[Ret]

Renegade?? There's little, if any, new revelations in the Bhattarai interview. All the policies have been part of the official Maoist program since at least the ceasefire;

1) attracting and reassuring foreign investors -


MARCH 2008
In March the Maoists published their party manifesto for the upcoming Constituent Assembly governmental election, clearly stating their programme of capitalist development centred around attracting foreign investment in SEZs;
Foreign investors who specially invest in industries that provide substitutes for import shall be welcomed. Joint investment with 51% national investment shall be highly emphasized. Keeping in mind the large market in India and China, `special economic area’ shall be established in major Southern and Northern border areas to establish export-oriented industries. (New ideology & new leadership for a new Nepal: commitment paper of the CPN(M) for the CA election, March 2008; http://www.cffn.ca/historicdocs/0803...nifesto-EN.php)
APRIL 2008
After the Constituent Assembly election of April 2008 the Maoists became the leading party of the coalition government. The development of SEZs were again emphasised as a key part of Maoist economic policy. As Maoist party chief and new Prime Minister Prachanda made clear, the Chinese model of hyper-exploitation of the working class is the preferred path to 'socialism' for the Maoists;
“We will build special economic zones like China,” Prachanda said. “The special economic zones stimulated China’s economic development, and we want to learn from China. China’s experience is really helpful for us.” In the interview, Prachanda emphasized the geographic proximity between China and Nepal, and the high respect that Nepalese people have for China and Chinese people. “For Nepal’s national independence, it is critically important for Nepal to maintain intimate relations with China” (Nanfang Daily, June 30 2008). (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/ch...gle/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=5029&tx_ttnews=168&no_cache=1)
[B]OCTOBER 2008
When the Maoist-led government set their first Budget in October they stated;
"... The Act relating to the special economic zones will be enacted in this Fiscal Year. Necessary provisions are made in the accompanying Finance Act for providing customs and income tax exemption facilities in the special economic zones." (Oct 6 2008) (http://neilsnepal.wordpress.com/2008...-by-socialism/)
So despite their regular 'anti-imperialist' rhetoric the Maoists were bending over backwards to invite foreign capital to exploit the cheap labour of the country (and in the process make the Nepali ruling political and economic elite richer).

[...]
APRIL 2008
In a TV interview a week after their election victory in April 2008, the Maoists again reassured the Nepali ruling class it would be business as usual;
Baburam Bhattarai, the deputy chief of the Maoists, ... “Our party has no plans to confiscate private property,” Bhattarai said, marking a change in the philosophy of an armed party that had in the past said it would seize the excess land of capitalists and aristocracy and distribute it among the landless in a revolutionary land reformation measure.
“We promise full security to private ownership, property and investment.”
The architect-turned-revolutionary said the new vision for a “new, affluent and developed” Nepal included transforming the current agro-based economy into an industrial one.
“We envision a pro-industry, capitalist economy with more investment in tourism, hydropower, medicinal herb-based industries and agro-based industries,” Bhattarai said.
He said the government led by his party would encourage private investment in productive sectors so that more jobs were created while discouraging investment in non-productive sectors.
He also tried to allay fears of labour militancy under a Maoist government.
“The government will bring together labourers and owners and the tripartite negotiations will come up with a new labour act,” he said. (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/nepal-market-rebounds-as-maoists-pledge-economic-revolution_10039967.html- April 20th, 2008)

http://libcom.org/library/myths-real...n-legislations
All this was openly stated when the Party last led the govt, with Bhattarai & Prachanda both expressing enthusiasm for the policies - and Baidya, then and for a long time after, was a loyal promoter of the 'Prachanda Path' dogma. This was at a time when western pro-maoists gave full support to the Nepali Maoists and their policies.

2) It's always been known by all concerned - and Bhattarai hasn't concealed it - that he has a more openly sympathetic relationship with India.

To try and portray any of this now as 'disturbing' or 'a new right turn' is either historically uninformed or a deliberate distortion on behalf of one Party faction against another. And/or an attempt by western pro-maoists to pretend that accommodation with blatantly pro-capitalist policies weren't always part of the Party program but are only a 'deviation' by a faction of 'capitalist-roaders'.


As far as Bangladesh goes, the militant garment workers set a pretty impressive example for workers across southeast asia with their actions, but we were told on this board that this was nothing compared to the "protracted people's war" going on in that country, which from what I could tell only amounted to a couple Maoists shooting at each other in the woods every month or so.
Worse - red cat actually claimed there is "an ongoing revolution" occurring in Bangladesh! See; http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-war-bangladeshi-t154532/index.html

Maoists; think back to not very long ago when you vigorously defended these leaders and their Party as great revolutionary heroes and scorned the idea that they had anything to do with compromise with, or advocacy of, capitalism...

[Rodrigo]

There certainly are, but to what extent are they the most revolutionary force in the country?

At the extent of acting with these organizations: trade union (Liga Operária), peasant's movement* (Liga dos Camponeses Pobres), student's movement (Movimento Estudantil Popular Revolucionário), women's movement (Movimento Feminino Popular), ILPS-seção Brasil (Liga Internacional de Luta dos Povos), Frente Revolucionária de Defesa dos Direitos do Povo (FRDDP) -- don't know much about that one --, Núcleo de Estudos do Marxismo-leninismo-maoísmo. And at the extent of not being deluded with bourgeois politics and their elections, like other leftists. Also let's not forget Manoel Lisboa was a Maoist. But the current PCR -- different from the PCR form the 70's -- deny this truth. * He said, for example, in the Northeast there's the biggest contradictions of our country, and also the biggest antagonistic contradiction is between estate landowners and poor peasants. But the current PCR doesn't give a s**t to Manoel Lisboa's ideology, even using his face picture on the website, on their wears, etc.

Well, the actions of PCR and its linked movements also doesn't provoke much "revolutionary change at the economic base", if we compare to other leftist movements out there. They focus on publishing their newspaper, supporting bourgeois politicians or even taking part into the bourgeois elections, and pushing its student's movement into failed UNE.

MLB and MLC has its merits as the Maoist movements I cited before also has theirs, I just don't see how they're really "revolutionary changing at the economic base". As you said, the left here has to recover from the wounds sustained during the Military dictatorship.

And it's not the fact of Maoists not having a formalized political party that they don't want a vanguardist organization. I'll talk more about it later, got to go now.


Oh I almost forgot http://pcrbrasil.org/dilma-defende-empresa-de-telemarketing-e-recebe-vaias/ the PCR cleary does not hold any illusions on the PT.

I know it doesn't hold illusions on the PT, but it held illusions on Dilma with the excuse of making a "tactical movement". I imagine what strategy would require such a tactic.

[RED DAVE]

Note that the Maoists are now going through a whole list of organizations in Brazil while complete ignoring the massive Maoists sell-out in Nepal.

RED DAVE

[Roach]

Also let's not forget Manoel Lisboa was a Maoist. But the current PCR -- different from the PCR form the 70's -- deny this truth. * He said, for example, in the Northeast there's the biggest contradictions of our country, and also the biggest antagonistic contradiction is between estate landowners and poor peasants. But the current PCR doesn't give a s**t to Manoel Lisboa's ideology, even using his face picture on the website, on their wears, etc.

They dont deny that their organisation wasn't originaly influenced by Maoism, even claiming on their website that one of its founding members received training in China, but there is no reason for them to go back to Maoism, to declare a people's war on some absurdely miserable and oppressed part of the country, and after actually making advances in that region, raising class consciousness and spreading the parties ideological positions, have all their members butchered either by the police and the army back in the 70s or the militias and coronéis today, just to have all the advances erased from history like they never happened. It was pretty clear after that it is nescessary to built a revolutionary mass movement before getting into armed struggle.

The Norheast still is the main base of main base of the PCR's activities, from what I see, the PCR upholds Lisboa and its other founders as well as Che in some kind cult of martyrdom, without nescesseraly upholding their ideas, being foco or Maoism.


I know it doesn't hold illusions on the PT, but it held illusions on Dilma with the excuse of making a "tactical movement". I imagine what strategy would require such a tactic.

They cant close their eyes and pretend that the UNE and the elections are irrelevant, the way they tried to justify the support to Dilma might not have been the best, it is true but pushing their movement in the UNE as well as having candidates in the elections is just a plataform to win mass support, again not the best, but under the precarious conditions of a movement in reconstruction there arent many options.

[Roach]

Note that the Maoists are now going through a whole list of organizations in Brazil while complete ignoring the massive Maoists sell-out in Nepal.

RED DAVE

Actually you have a point here, this discussion is going completely off-topic.

[RED DAVE]

I think we can safely conclude that at this juncture that:

1) The leadership and main tendency of the Nepalese Maoist party has sold out the Nepalese Revolution;

(2) There is no major tendency in the party opposing the leadership principly and systematically;

(3) It is reasonable to believe that certain central notions of Maoism itself, e.g. the block of four classes and so-called New Democracy, are responsible for this betrayal;

(4) Prior to the current situation, there was little or no criticism of the Nepalese Maoists on this board on the part of the resident Maoists.

More?

RED DAVE

[Ret]

1) The leadership and main tendency of the Nepalese Maoist party has sold out the Nepalese Revolution;
If I understand your meaning; I think this could only be true if one believed 1) an actual revolution has occurred or is in motion, & 2) that the Maoists were ever capable of/conceived of a proletarian revolution but were somehow led off-course by theoretical errors. As you put it;

(3) It is reasonable to believe that certain central notions of Maoism itself, e.g. the block of four classes and so-called New Democracy, are responsible for this betrayal; But if the above is intrinsic to Maoism there is no 'sell out' or "betrayal"; Nepalese Maoism did not "betray" but (regardless of what it thought itself doing) fulfilled its role as the armed faction of the anti-monarchist pro-bourgeois democratic movement ('revolution' is arguably stretching definitions too far).

One can only see the Maoists as "selling out" if one thought them capable of "buying in" to a proletarian revolution as a vanguard party leadership. But if one believes the self-emancipation of the working classes could only begin to develop within a different historical process - one diametrically opposed to the Maoist Party and their kind of conceptions of change - this is largely beside the point. Given these conceptions, present events were not only predictable, but embedded in the hierarchical practice and program of the Party from the beginning.

But disillusionment can breed clarity. The perpetual intense competition of left and right factions of Nepali politics for control of the state has dominated society to the extent that it's tended to subordinate all other struggles to these organisations' goals. But historically recent developments could be seen as perhaps beginning to 'clear the decks' for what is always ultimately necessary for struggles of the exploited; to recognise that those who seek to rule over 'the masses' in their name are often the greatest obstacle to radical social movements and must be opposed as the aspiring left wing of the ruling class. The self-organisation of struggles must be a struggle against such enemies as much as any other; how many among the Nepali exploited will draw this conclusion and use it to inform their future practice is too early to say.

The armed struggle is over (unless Baidya's faction were to make a last desperate attempt) and has paved the way for the Maoist majority to be integrated into parliamentary politics. So far there has been no "Nepalese Revolution" to sell out; even in Maoist terms they've failed to get anywhere near their oft-expressed and dubious conception of 'revolution' - ie, the Party's exclusive seizure of state power. (Some will claim they are still progressing through the 'necessary stages' towards that.) They can't even claim sole credit for overthrow of the monarchy - that was achieved in alliance with a wider pro-democracy movement. Nor can they claim any evidence for a revolutionary sentiment among the vast majority of the poor; the leaked video revealed the PLA strength at ceasefire as only 7,000; http://libcom.org/news/fierce-one-speaks-forked-tongue-nepalese-maoists-leave-government-sackings-lies-videotape-1 . So I don't see no 'revolution'. I also think it's misleading to talk about 'a sell out of the Nepalese Revolution' as this implies that the Maoists co-opted/recuperated/led astray a larger revolutionary movement. But there was no such movement pre-dating the Maoist guerrillas - and, as recent events show, the Maoists' activity was an armed reformism.