Prachanda Path....

[Fruit of Ulysses]

I dont wanna flog a dead horse if this has olredy been talked about but besides reading paragraph long shit about how he "firmly graps the material realities of marxist-lenninist truth" and shit like that I havnt been able to find out any doctrinal ideosyncracies of Prachanda Path. does he hav any phrases hes coined or ideas considered by adherants to be "new developments"? i basicaly want to know if theres anything more to it than "maoism applied to nepali material conditions", cuz thats ina gist the only answer i get when i try to find out what Prachanda path is. thankyouthankyou! like sum folks call him a revisionist, what were his actual policies? his actual philosophy?

[Ret]

You're really a bit late with this - a couple of years ago the (now-silent) revleft pro-maoist posse would've been queueing up to tell you how great Nepali maoism was, the shining revolutionary light of the world etc. Since then, the accumulating evidence to the contrary means even they have had to admit - after years of denials - that Prachanda, his Path dogma and his followers were only leading to a comfortable and lucrative integration into parliamentary bourgeois politics. Which was always quite predictable for those not wearing blinkers;
http://libcom.org/library/myths-realities-nepalese-maoists-their-strike-ban-legislations

http://libcom.org/news/predictable-rise-red-bourgeoisie-end-mythical-nepalese-maoist-revolution-24022012

[keystone]

For an overview of Prachanda's viewpoints, you can find the following article online: "The International Dimensions of Prachanda's Neo-Revisionism" by Comrade Basanta (published in Maoist Outlook, organ of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist).

[Leftsolidarity]

I had some really awesome discussions about Nepal with this communist I stayed with from Nepal for a few days but I can't remember a damn thing about who was who or what was what and now I'm extremely frustrated with myself.

But yeah, there used to be a lot of Maoist users on here and there was threads like this a long time ago so if you search for key terms you might be able to find an old thread that answers your questions.

[Ostrinski]

didn't he move into a luxurious mansion or something?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You're really a bit late with this - a couple of years ago the (now-silent) revleft pro-maoist posse would've been queueing up to tell you how great Nepali maoism was, the shining revolutionary light of the world etc. Since then, the accumulating evidence to the contrary means even they have had to admit - after years of denials - that Prachanda, his Path dogma and his followers were only leading to a comfortable and lucrative integration into parliamentary bourgeois politics.

1) This is because Maoists are not dogmatic and are open to new ideas in how Marxism applies to a specific slice of land.

2) The modern rejection is because Pranchnda was revealed to be revisionist nonsense. This is to be expected as theory grows and is critiqued.

For a critique see here: "Nepal's Basanta: Re-evulating Prachanda and his Path (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/basanta/)"

[Ret]

Maoists are not dogmatic and are open to new ideas in how Marxism applies to a specific slice of land.
Yes, even as they talk of defending 'the universality of Mao's thought'.

The modern rejection is because Pranchnda was revealed to be revisionist nonsense. This is to be expected as theory grows and is critiqued. The Party programme of 2005 long ago made obvious any "revisionism" only now become visible to former submissive followers - ie the integration into parliamentary politics, the greedy accumulation of wealth by Party leaders, promotion of SEZs to help foreign capital exploit the Nepali poor, strike bans, effective disarmament in the cantons etc (see articles linked to above). Yet Baidya & co were then loyally claiming this 'Prachanda Path' "nonsense" as the great new revolutionary theory with no complaints about any of these policies. Those who pointed out the counter-revolutionary nature of such policies - eg, in libcom articles and in revleft debates - were condemned by the pro-maoist faithful who for years also shouted about the wonderful qualities of this "revisionist nonsense". Yet history has fully verified our critique - and shown that the pro-maoists' slavish obedience to a Party line leads only to blindness and theoretical paralysis.

The Baidya faction split because their power base remained in the military PLA sector of the Party rather than the political heights scaled by their rivals. Now final disarmament has further eroded this base, Baidya begins to try to enter politics with his own new Party, rather late in the day. The threat of renewed guerrilla action is unconvincing - even if attempted, it would have less chance of success than ever. Baidya was naïve; he failed to realise that for Prachanda and Bhattarai - both former minor parliamentary politicians - cessation of guerrilla war was a route to a greatly enhanced political power gained partly at his expense. So he's been left behind. Baidya also represents the anti-India Maoist faction, seeing Prachanda & Bhattarai as weakening Nepal's supposed 'national sovereignty' with their Indo-centrism. Mirroring the political opportunism of his rivals, this leads him - the supposed great foe of revisionism - to begin cosying up to those long denounced as anti-Maoist counter-revolutionaies, the present-day 'arch-revisionists' of the Chinese state;

http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/07/26/top-story/china-against-foreign-interference-in-nepal-baidya/357769/

26 July 2012

China against foreign interference in Nepal: Baidya

KATHMANDU, JUL 26 - CPN-Maoist Chairman Mohan Baidya on Thursday said that China does not want to see foreign interference in Nepal in the name of federalism.

Baidya made such remarks upon his arrival in the Capital on Thursday after completing a 10-day trip to China. He had gone to China on the invitation of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

According to Baidya, the Chinese communist leaders have said that their relation with CPN-Maoist would remain sound.

During Baidya’s meeting with the International Department Chief Wang Jiarui and communist leader Ai Png, the leaders said that they want to see peace and political stability in Nepal. Baidya had left for China on July 15.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yes, even as they talk of defending 'the universality of Mao's thought'.

This is a mischarchterization but an understandable one. We defend the universal applicability of Mao's thought. We believe that the dialectical materialism exposed by Mao provides a valuable methodology that can be applied to all circumstances, this doesn't mean that the whole world is alike, but just like every other strain of Marxism we know that capitalism represents a global mode of production that can be analylized in every context it emerges. So there is really no difference in believing in the universal applicability of Mao Zedong Thought than believing that Marxism is a valid framework for analysis outside of Germany, which I think any Marxist worth his muster would argue.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yes, even as they talk of defending 'the universality of Mao's thought'.

Universal application is different from dogma. For something to be universal it must be allowed to breath and fit in to that area's specific conditions, something dogmatist oppose.


The Party programme of 2005 long ago made obvious any "revisionism" only now become visible to former submissive followers - ie the integration into parliamentary politics, the greedy accumulation of wealth by Party leaders, promotion of SEZs to help foreign capital exploit the Nepali poor, strike bans, effective disarmament in the cantons etc (see articles linked to above). Yet Baidya & co were then loyally claiming this 'Prachanda Path' "nonsense" as the great new revolutionary theory with no complaints about any of these policies. Those who pointed out the counter-revolutionary nature of such policies - eg, in libcom articles and in revleft debates - were condemned by the pro-maoist faithful who for years also shouted about the wonderful qualities of this "revisionist nonsense". Yet history has fully verified our critique - and shown that the pro-maoists' slavish obedience to a Party line leads only to blindness and theoretical paralysis. Some comrades have a stronger theoretical sense than others. Some can critically evaluate other theories while some cannot. Maoist doctrine says that oppositional statements must be allowed to flourish due to the fact that those who hold different opinions than you still hold valid points. I was not around during such debates so I cannot truly comment but it sounds like the Maoist contingent here before were far more dogmatic than what is required. Occasionally the opposition holds a true point, in terms of the topic at hand they were correct. Yet despite this I do not see how you believe this to be a weakness of Maoism in general.

It is impossible to say how the new struggle will play out and what will occur. The only way to know is to watch events as they transpire. Indeed nativity runs in all great struggles but the point is to surpass this nativity, not wallow in it. Currently this is what we are seeing in Nepal. History may show that Baidya is not the man for the job in which case another will rise up and continue where he left off.

[hetz]

Come on, Prachanda and Company are complete traitors and enemies, as comrades elaborated above.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A lot of the pro-Nepali Maoists were banned for being apologists for sexual assaults by the Soviet Red Army during WWII and Stalin's seeming refusal to punish it. I don't think a whole lot of them would be missed. There were also some Tankies who had no grasp of theory, who I guess were either banned or "matured" to some equally reactionary way of interpreting the world

There are lots of theoretical problems with Maoism, which may stem in part from the way that they are pursuing revolution in fairly backwards countries, which lead them to revisionism. The high amount of centralization and party hierarchy as well as the fact that these revolutions happen in poor, peasant-based countries mean that various collectivization efforts are ineffective to the point of causing famine and severe economic inefficiency and the institutionalization of power leads to the enrichment of bureaucrats who act as the early bourgeois did in post-feudal pre-industrial Europe. Also, the ineffectiveness of the Nepali state at answering the people's concerns and the fact that the Maoists themselves seemed to take part in that ineffectiveness undermined them.

It seems like the ideas of "New Democracy" which are the most problematic.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It seems like the ideas of "New Democracy" which are the most problematic.

This is an understandable opinion. Lenin once said that 50 years after his death that Marxists didn't understood Das Kapital because they didn't read Hegel. I feel like the same applies to people trying to understand the theory of New Democracy without reading On Contradiction. It simply doesn't make sense because you don't know the dialetical method used to formulate it. I know this is an inadequate response but I am going to go out soon so I'll try to remember to respond to you more in depth later.

[hetz]

Lenin also once said that you can't actually fully understand Marxism if you haven't read Hegel's Logic.
On a side not, how many people here read that one?
:lol:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A lot of the pro-Nepali Maoists were banned for being apologists for sexual assaults by the Soviet Red Army during WWII and Stalin's seeming refusal to punish it. I don't think a whole lot of them would be missed. There were also some Tankies who had no grasp of theory, who I guess were either banned or "matured" to some equally reactionary way of interpreting the world

For the better than, cannot say I will miss rape apologists.


There are lots of theoretical problems with Maoism, which may stem in part from the way that they are pursuing revolution in fairly backwards countries, which lead them to revisionism.There are problems with each tendency. No single one has all the answers and attempting to find one which does will only lead to disappointment (or an infinite search which involves tedious switching every time some new piece of data presents itself, as some comrades of mind on Facebook are prone to).

Perusing revolution in backward areas... is impossible not to do when you actually live in a backward area. You talk as if the whole Maoist tendency is focused on these supposed backward areas instead of their own areas. This simply isn't true.


The high amount of centralization and party hierarchyHaving a tightly organized party, especially when dealing with areas of "backwardness" is a vital tool in overcoming tight opposition. This is revealed most wonderfully in military situations where lacking a tight centralized hierarchy one will find defeat rather close by. Yet regardless of what one's position on this point is it does not mean it is a "problem" but rather a theoretical difference.


as well as the fact that these revolutions happen in poor, peasant-based countries mean that various collectivization efforts are ineffective to the point of causing famine and severe economic inefficiencyThat is a huge leap in logic: due to collectivization a famine occurs? How so? I do not cliam to have massive amounts of knowledge but I know enough to say that the collectivization in both China under Mao, and Russia under Stalin, produced great results in terms of grain output. Similarly, this increased economic efficiency.

Even if they were severely ineffective how would this cause famine? Since they are so ineffective one would figure that life would simply trudge on instead of taking a nose dive.


and the institutionalization of power leads to the enrichment of bureaucrats who act as the early bourgeois did in post-feudal pre-industrial Europe."Power corrupts" theory, I think I have heard this language before from less revolutionary sources. Needless to say I am not very impressed. Bureaucracy is a two-edged sword: to an extent it is needed to carry out construction yet if it grows to big it degrades the whole revolution. The trick is finding a balance between what is needed at the moment and what is needed at the future. But likewise I do not have great vats of knowledge on this area either so I cannot say much.


Also, the ineffectiveness of the Nepali state at answering the people's concerns and the fact that the Maoists themselves seemed to take part in that ineffectiveness undermined them.Nepal is in a state of transition and conflict; struggle between revolutionaries and revisionists have created an unstable situation and serving the people can sometimes unfortunately be cast aside while political strife happens.


It seems like the ideas of "New Democracy" which are the most problematic.I haven't studied this area yet so I cannot comment.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lenin also once said that you can't actually fully understand Marxism if you haven't read Hegel's Logic.
On a side not, how many people here read that one?
:lol:

Haven't read it yet but all in good time.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Lenin also once said that you can't actually fully understand Marxism if you haven't read Hegel's Logic.
On a side not, how many people here read that one?
:lol:

That's the quote I was getting at, thanks.

And yea, guilty as changed :P

But I think he was referring to the dialectic of Hegal which he viewed as essential, not the Hegelism it's self. So I feel like studying Marxist Dialectics would suffice in this situation.