Is Nepal Socialist?

[Akshay!]

I haven't followed the movement in Nepal that much.
Have they already had a revolution?
Is Nepal currently a socialist state?
Also, how are its relations with China and India?

[tuwix]

Is Nepal currently a socialist state?


First of all, term 'socialist state' is oxymorone. Socialism in one country is impossible.
Secondly, I don't Nepal is even on the path to socialism. I've never heard of any attmpts to socialize means of productions there.

[Skyhilist]

If Nepal were on their way to anything close to socialism the US military would most likely have numerous military bases there by now...

[Akshay!]

First of all, term 'socialist state' is oxymorone. Socialism in one country is impossible.


So, according to you, Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc.. etc.. were all capitalist states? Nice.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The current rulling party is head by revisionists and social democrats. To quote a recent article:


Talking to journalists at his official residence this afternoon‚ Shrestha said‚ “We have concluded it is not possible to achieve socialism via the model of new-democracy in the current national and global context.” He said as society was preferred capitalism‚ the party had decided to change its ideological course.

To achieve this‚ he said national policy and programmes should be framed and implemented as per the social-democratic way while maintaining the spirit of communism. “We need to maintain the communist spirit‚ but programmes should be social-democratic so that we can achieve socialism via capitalism.” Shrestha defined the new party line for socialism as a significant “departure from the present political line that follows Maoist doctrine.”

The UCPN-M general convention will kick off in Hetauda on Saturday. It’s being held after more than two decades.

Recently there was a Maoist split from them, they seem decent but they have made some mistakes. The two major ones being that they are too nationalist, and that they want to buddy up with China, still they are challenging the ruling class for political power so we'll wait and see.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

So, according to you, Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc.. etc.. were all capitalist states? Nice.

Yes - Cuba and Vietnam most especially.

Centrally planned economies are not fucking socialism.

[ind_com]

I haven't followed the movement in Nepal that much.
Have they already had a revolution?
Is Nepal currently a socialist state?
Also, how are its relations with China and India?

The revolution in Nepal was betrayed by the revisionist leadership of the UCPN(M), starting from 2006. Instead of depending on the working class to seize power in Kathmandu, they not only allied with the parliamentary comprador parties, but also practically surrendered the PLA. Now they have openly denounced the model of the New Democratic Revolution, and instead of taking Nepal to socialism, they have clearly stated that Nepal will be capitalist, that is, it will remain under the imperialist yoke.

The relations between Nepal and India or China are normal, except that the newer Nepali groups in power are bargaining with them and altering the power balance here and there. The present UCPN(M) has placed itself into direct political conflict with the CPI(Maoist) by sympathizing with the Indian ruling classes for their recent losses in a PLGA offensive.

[Akshay!]

First of all, term 'socialist state' is oxymorone. Socialism in one country is impossible.

See, the problem with real world is, this idea that a socialist revolution would take place in all countries everywhere at once and suddenly the whole world would magically become socialist - this idea - wonderful though it may be - doesn't work. In the real world (the exact opposite of the world in which anarchists live) if there's a revolution in one country it tries to spread the revolution to other countries but everyone doesn't lift their hands up and say "ok, since the revolution isn't happening at other places, we should probably become capitalist, after all tuwix has made the ingenious suggestion!" :lol:


Yes - Cuba and Vietnam most especially.

Centrally planned economies are not fucking socialism.

So Soviet Union and China were not centrally planned economies? Why the "most especially"?

[Akshay!]

The two major ones being that they are too nationalist, and that they want to buddy up with China, still they are challenging the ruling class for political power so we'll wait and see.

How are their relations with India though? Doesn't the Indian ruling class feel threatened even if a nominally communist govt. has come into power in its neighbor (and that too an ally of China)?


they have clearly stated that Nepal will be capitalist, that is, it will remain under the imperialist yoke.

Do you mean US Imperialism?


Recently there was a Maoist split from them, they seem decent but they have made some mistakes.



The relations between Nepal and India or China are normal, except that the newer Nepali groups in power are bargaining with them and altering the power balance here and there. The present UCPN(M) has placed itself into direct political conflict with the CPI(Maoist) by sympathizing with the Indian ruling classes for their recent losses in a PLGA offensive.

This question is directed to both - is there anyway in which people who're part of the Maoist split can come into power?

[#FF0000]

Ashkay, what is your definition of socialism? What distinguishes capitalism from socialism?

Whatever your answer is, I'm pretty sure Nepal ain't even close. As soon as the Maoists took power they did what every critic said they would do i.e. not a goddamn thing.

I recall them even making the effort to assure the Indian government that Indian business interests would be safe in Nepal lol

[Akshay!]

Ashkay, what is your definition of socialism? What distinguishes capitalism from socialism?

Whatever your answer is, I'm pretty sure Nepal ain't even close.

But when did I say they were? I simply asked if they were since I haven't been following the movement.

[#FF0000]

But when did I say they were? I simply asked if they were since I haven't been following the movement.

I know. I was just answering your question. The Maoists sold out hard, basically.

[Blake's Baby]

But when did I say they were?...

Nowhere. Are you under the impression that #FF0000 said you had?


...
I simply asked if they were since I haven't been following the movement.

And #FF0000 simply asked you what your definition of socialism was. Are you going to answer?

[Akshay!]

What's my definition of socialism? Dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Goblin]

What's my definition of socialism? Dictatorship of the proletariat.
I agree with that. But did Cuba ever achieve DOTP? Seems to me that the workers of Cuba dont have much to say. Or how about the Soviet Union (after Lenin)? Did the workers own the means of productions there?

[ind_com]

Do you mean US Imperialism?

Not necessarily. China is an imperialist country too. But the UCPN(M) seems to be more aligned with the American bloc.



This question is directed to both - is there anyway in which people who're part of the Maoist split can come into power?

They can come to power as socialist vanguards only if they resume the people's war, re-establish the organs of people's power, and mainly utilize the power of the working class to take over the cities.

[rednordman]

What happened to the Prachanda Path? i agree with skwisgaar that any communist goal they ever had would have been quashed not only by the USA, but also China as well. Its sad that in today's world, no country at all has the right to self-determination. Unless it means they want to go capitalist of course. Basically i don't think the Maoists or other sects sold out, they where basically blackmailed into globalization by the powers that be. That is how it will happen i'm afraid for any land that wants socialism in the future. Unless the to worlds main superpowers loose their power and dominance.

[Brutus]

So, according to you, Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc.. etc.. were all capitalist states? Nice.

Ha! I just bursted out laughing, to which my father gave me a perturbed look. Is this guy serious? So a planned economy means a country is socialist? Ha! They were/are all state capitalist dictatorship which did more to retard class consciousness than any openly capitalist state. Communists don't support one party states (or any bourgeois states) ; or was there no dictatorship- is it all bourgeois propaganda? Ha.

[Per Levy]

See, the problem with real world is, this idea that a socialist revolution would take place in all countries everywhere at once and suddenly the whole world would magically become socialist - this idea - wonderful though it may be - doesn't work.

you know what is funny about this idea? that no one actual belives in it or thinks its possible, neither anarchists, nor leftcoms, nor anyone else.



In the real world (the exact opposite of the world in which anarchists live)

am i allowed to know for how long you were an anarchist? i do remember that you started as an anrachist when you joined here. how come you know so little about anarchism though?

[Brutus]

What's my definition of socialism? Dictatorship of the proletariat.

Even though this is incorrect, we will use it for arguments sake.

In china, the USSR, and all the other third world Asian/Latin American countries you mentioned, the workers owned the means of production? So what happened in China? Did they just give up their control of the factories and hand them back to the bourgeoisie? Where were/are the workers councils in Vietnam?

You guys just crack me up!

[Per Levy]

The two major ones being that they are too nationalist, and that they want to buddy up with China, still they are challenging the ruling class for political power so we'll wait and see.

but these arnt just mistakes, this is counter revolutionary. how can you be a "communist" and buddy up with china? i mean china is capitalist through and through and that sounds to me if they would take over that they would make nepal chinas puppet. also the last things socialism needs is even more nationalism.

[Brutus]

His hate against anarchism is probably because it is proletarian in nature, whilst his beloved stalinism originates from bureaucrats who selectively quoted Lenin in an attempt to prove their 'orthodoxy' to gain power.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

but these arnt just mistakes, this is counter revolutionary. how can you be a "communist" and buddy up with china? i mean china is capitalist through and through and that sounds to me if they would take over that they would make nepal chinas puppet. also the last things socialism needs is even more nationalism.

Fair enough, the C(M)PA already called them out as bourgeois revolutionaries as did the Ecuadorian Maoists, and the Communist Party of India (Naxalbari) sent them a strong worded polemic regarding those problems. Heck, even the RCP-USA sent them a polemic which they published in their newspaper weekly worker style, So in all fairness, I do see your point.

But still, Lenin did return to Russia on a German train, and Trotsky received millions from oil companies in America, so there isn't much that is inherently wrong with it as long as the alliance is temporary and is made on the basis of promoting and advancing the practical needs of the revolution, but of course there is the danger that they will become a puppet. I'm not going to defend it any more than that, when Prachanda called off the people's war there were some western Maoists (you know who you are, yes I bet you are reading this you sly little weasel you) who argued that they were being "creative" and that everyone else was being dogmatic for denouncing them. But of course, like all revisionists, their colors soon showed and those western Maoists opportunistically jumped to the next chance to tail this movement without admitting they were wrong. So personally, I think being dogmatic about anti-revisionism is not a bad thing but a good thing. If I may quote Lenin about people who scream "dogma":



What a handy little word "dogma" is! One need
only slightly twist an opposing theory, cover up this
twist with the bogy of "dogma" — and there you are!


The shouts will rise that we want. to. convert the
socialist party into an order: of "true believers" that
persecutes "heretics" for deviations from "dogma," for
every independent opinion, and so forth. We know
about all these fashionable and trenchant phrases. Only
there is not a grain of truth or sense in them.

So I think that to a certain degree, sectarianism is positive.

However, at the same time, I do hope that I am wrong and that our Nepalese comrades are genuine, I trust them more than Prachanda's clique though that doesn't say much.

[Ismail]

For all the arguments in this thread a really simple answer has been overlooked: no one in Nepal considers it socialist, ergo it is, at the very least, not socialist.


In china, the USSR, and all the other third world Asian/Latin American countries you mentioned, the workers owned the means of production? So what happened in China? Did they just give up their control of the factories and hand them back to the bourgeoisie? Where were/are the workers councils in Vietnam?The only places "workers' councils" and approximate organizations existed were in Yugoslavia, Poland under Gomułka, Algeria, Libya and other regimes which propagated petty-bourgeois "socialism." Not to mention that anyone could easily turn around and ask why Soviet workers supposedly gave up power to the "Stalinist Thermidor" or whatever.

If workers literally had factories which they could "hand over" then you wouldn't have socialism to begin with, since this assumes that one of its prerequisites, socialized property, doesn't exist.

Soviet central planning after the 50's had assumed a capitalist character, to the extent that it could not be said to have actually "planned" much. Profit became the center of the production process.

[Blake's Baby]

What's my definition of socialism? Dictatorship of the proletariat.

Oh good monkeys.

So, as far as you're concerned, socialism is a class society? I mean, I'm used to the usual Leninist incoherence that seeks to equate 'socialism' with the first stage of communist society (when the productive forces are collectively managed but not yet capable of supplying all needs), but you're actually equating socialism with the final phase of capitalist society?

Anyway; if you think that socialism = capitalism, then, I can see why you might need to ask the question, because of course Nepal is capitalist, but even though DotP = capitalism, not all capitalism = DotP; so, no, it isn't the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Ismail]

Oh good monkeys.

So, as far as you're concerned, socialism is a class society?While it's wrong to assume that socialism and the DOTP are synonymous (otherwise Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha would have called their economies socialist within the first year of the revolution), classes do continue to exist under socialism.

"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry.

Both the two classes which exist in the U.S.S.R. are building socialism and come within the system of socialist economy. But although both are in the same system of socialist economy, the working class in its work is bound up with state socialist property (the property of the whole people), while the collective farm peasantry is bound up with cooperative and collective farm property which belongs to individual collective farms and to collective-farm and cooperative associations. This connection with different forms of socialist property primarily determines the different position of these classes. This also determine the somewhat different paths of further development of each of them.

What is common in the development of these two classes is that both are developing in the direction of communism. As this proceeds the difference in their class positions will be gradually obliterated until here too the last remnants of class distinctions finally disappear.

We cannot but realize that this is a long road."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Moscow: Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

It was the Soviet revisionists who declared that the dictatorship of the proletariat, and thus class struggle, does not exist under socialism, hence why they proclaimed that the USSR was a "state of the whole people" and the CPSU a "party of the whole people."