Nepal's Maoist Movement

[Sabocat]

Nepal's Maoists follow Peru's Shining Path game plan


KATHMANDU : The blockade declared by Nepal's Maoist rebels of the ancient capital, Kathmandu, echoes the tactics of Peru's shadowy Shining Path militants -- the ruthless movement upon which they model themselves.

Like the Shining Path rebels, who waged an over decade-long battle to forge a peasant revolution in the South American nation, Nepal's Maoists seek to rule the countryside and now are boldly attacking big towns and even the capital.

Advertisement

The group launched their struggle in 1996 to overthrow the monarchy and feudal caste-ridden system, and to turn the Himalayan country of 26 million, one of the world's 10 poorest, into a communist "People's Republic."

Their leader, Prachanda or the Fierce One, has promised an agrarian takeover in Nepal, nestled among the world's most breathtaking mountains, and has said the red flag will one day fly over Kathmandu.

Analysts see the uprising as the biggest threat to the world's only Hindu kingdom, sandwiched between China and India, since it became a democracy 14 years ago.

New Delhi also fears the revolt could spill over into India where security forces are battling ultra-leftists in the states of Bihar, Jharkand and Andhra Pradesh, creating a "red corridor" from Nepal.

Nepal's rebels get their inspiration from Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong's struggle against landowners that began in the countryside.

But they draw their strategy from the Maoist Shining Path, largely dormant since the arrest in 1992 of their leader Abimael Guzman.

Guzman said the "taking of the cities" in Peru would mark the last chapter of the Shining Path's insurrection.

Nepalese officials say the uprising has claimed at least 10,000 lives, but the toll could be much higher as the Maoists carry off their dead and wounded.

The movement took root in Nepal's remote feudal western valleys and spread as the Maoists, crying, "War, war and war! From the beginning till the end!" began raiding police posts, snatching weapons to build an arsenal.

Now the Maoists say they control 70 percent of the countryside, including the plains and lowlands of the Terai, known as Nepal's breadbasket -- claims contested by the government.

The Maoists run parallel governments in many areas and have set up people's courts to deliver justice. Officials say they have a network of sympathisers in Kathmandu and elsewhere who stage attacks.

Successive revolving-door governments that have earned a reputation for corruption have been unable to suppress the revolt.

Even though Prachanda, a former agricultural sciences student, belongs to the same high castes who govern Nepal and are dubbed "parasite classes" by the Maoists, his support base is among the lowest castes.

Money comes from taxation in the villages and contributions from sympathisers in urban areas.

Nepal has been a fertile ground for unrest. While Kathmandu boasts casinos and packed shops, most Nepalis live in rural areas on an average incomes of around 60 cents a day.

Land ownership is seen as a means to prosperity in Nepal but feudal ownership of land excludes many Nepalis from owning property.

But human rights activists say the Maoists' support has been eroded by merciless killings, intimidation and torture. They round up students in their hundreds to "re-educate" them. Some are freed but others are drafted into their ranks and used as human shields in battle.

"Day by day it's worsening, the Maoists are becoming more and more violent," said Sushil Pyakurel, a member of the National Human Rights Commission. "But the government is also ignoring due process.

Human rights groups say government security forces are guilty of torture and custodial killings.

The revolt intensified after the 2001 palace massacre in which then Crown Prince Dipendra killed popular King Birendra and other royals in a drunken rage before killing himself. The king's successor, Gyanendra, has been unable to command the same wide support, analysts say.

Concerned about the unrest, the United States, Britain and India have been putting their money on the king, increasing aid to the 50,000-strong army that officials say needs everything from boots to helicopters.

Some analysts say observance of the Maoists' frequent strike calls now is more due to fear of retribution than backing for the cause.

This has been seen in the indefinite blockade of the city announced by the rebels that began Wednesday. Witnesses have said the rebels have not set up any physical barricades but few are brave enough to challenge it.

"Security forces may protect vehicles for one or two days but after some time the Maoists take punitive action for defying their orders," said Hira Udas, chief of the Nepal Transport Entrepreneurs Federation.

Peace talks collapsed last year and Pyakurel said he was increasingly worried about the country's fate.

"It (the blockade) may be a Maoist pressure tactic. We hear the government is in contact with Maoist leaders about sitting at the peace table," he said.

"If that's happening, it's good. If not, I don't know about Nepal's future."

- AFP

Link (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/101873/1/.html)

[h&s]

Does anyone know about these people? I heard that much of their reputation for having a poor human right's record is just propaganda. Is this true? Anyway, they will never be successful unless they mobilise the working class in the cities. The Shining Path did start to do this, so maybe they will as well.

[Subversive Pessimist]

The Maoists control 80 percent of the country, and they have created a blockade on the capital Kathmandu. Europe and the United States are giving weapons among other things to the Nepalese army.




KATHMANDU (AFP) - Maoist rebels cut off routes to Nepal's capital Kathmandu in their first blockade of the city since they launched their insurgency to overthrow the constitutional monarchy eight years ago.

Children played on normally busy roads into the ancient temple-studded city of around 1.5 million people that were mostly empty. But the capital's airport functioned normally and residents and tourists were moving around the city.

"No vehicle owners are prepared to put their vehicles into service (outside of the city) because of fears of being attacked by the Maoists," Hira Udas, chief of the Nepal Transport Entrepreneurs Federation, told AFP.

"Security forces may protect vehicles for one or two days but after some time the Maoists take punitive action for defying their orders."

The Maoists, who have been fighting to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and install a communist republic, said they would keep up the blockade indefinitely of the hill-ringed city until their demands were met.

"We are going to impose an effective blockade from today (Wednesday) that will continue indefinitely," Subash Tang, a district Maoist leader, said in a statement to local media.

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba met with the National Security Council, police and army officials to discuss how to break the blockade.

The blockade was seen by analysts as a show of strength by the rebels who have become increasingly bold in attacking the capital. On Monday, they bombed a luxury hotel in the city but caused no injuries.

The rebels already control vast areas of countryside in the deeply poor mountainous kingdom known as a trekkers' paradise that is sandwiched between India and China.

The Maoists are seeking release of jailed militants, details of missing activists and a probe into alleged custodial killings of rebels by security forces. They also want the government to no longer call them terrorists.

Armed police and army personnel were on guard along highways. The move to cut off Kathmandu followed a series of blockades of towns and villages in which the rebels have attacked vehicles disobeying their orders.

The blockade upset people who depended on selling food to truckers.

"There's no sense in blocking the road which has affected people like us who make ends meet by selling tea and homemade cookies," said tea vendor Bhim Narayan Maharjan.

Tour operators feared the new unrest could hurt the flow of visitors to the tourist-dependent nation. Foreign bookings have already fallen since Japan, the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other Western nations advised citizens to avoid Nepal earlier this month.

Police at a checkpoint through which all vehicles pass to the capital said traffic had virtually halted. But army vehicles escorted 28 passenger and goods vehicles from Kathmandu to the southern border area near India and would take the vehicles back to the city with provisions, an army official told AFP.

"This process will continue so the supply of goods isn't affected," he said.

Kathmandu has a 10-week stockpile of vital items such as food and fuel, the Nepal Consumers Forum said Tuesday.

"The Maoist transport blockade in three districts has halted 2,000 vehicles coming and going out of Kathmandu every day," Udas said.

The blockade follows the suspension Tuesday of operations by many top firms after the Maoists accused them of exploiting their employees. Most of the 24 firms have links with the royal family or multinationals.

Peace talks fell apart last August after the government rejected a rebel call for an assembly to draft a new constitution and decide the monarch's fate.

The Maoists have been ruthless as they have taken control of much of rural Nepal, but attacks in Kathmandu and on tourist sites have been rare.

The government has said it is ready to "initiate dialogue" with the Maoists to end the revolt that has claimed nearly 10,000 lives since 1996 and has promised maximum flexiblility.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...st_040818184450

[Louis Pio]

Well it seems they could even take Kathmandu but don't do it.
The thing is that they as far as I know fight for a bourgious democracy, like the 2 stage theory suggests. So they only want the king to go, im not entirely sure about this though.

[Subversive Pessimist]

What do you think is the reason they are not taking the capital? If I were the commander, I would definitaly try to take Kathmandu, or at least areas where there is vital industry, airports etc.

[CubanFox]

The Maoists actually control 40%, not 80%, of Nepal.

I'd say that the blockade is "softening up" Kathmandu. Just as with the castles of old, they will wait until the city gives in, and then they will march through the gates triumphantly.

[h&s]

What do you think is the reason they are not taking the capital? If I were the commander, I would definitaly try to take Kathmandu, or at least areas where there is vital industry, airports etc.

Maybe they are not interested in military gains. Sure that would give them the power to rule, but would it give them the right? For Communism to be successful it has to involve the working class. Peasants alone aren't enough.

[Louis Pio]

Maybe im just highly sceptical but I think they don't take the capital because they don't wan't communism.
It seems more likely that they wan't to arrive at a deal with parts of the bourgiosie, especially since only bourgious democracy seems to be their goal.
But let's wait and see what some of the RCP or other RIM people/supporters say about this.

[Subversive Pessimist]

The Maoists actually control 40%, not 80%, of Nepal.


The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or CPN(M) is a Maoist political party and military organisation founded on April 22, 1949 and led by 'Chairman Prachanda' (real name Pushpa Kamal Dahal). It launched the Nepalese People's War on February 13, 1996, and now controls most of the country. In 2001, the Nepalese Army began a military campaign against the Maoists, especially in the western areas of the country.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...epal%20(Maoist) (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Communist%20Party%20of%20Nepal%20(Maoist))


The central government controls only about one-fourth of the country,

http://www.newslookmag.com/exclusives/stratfor_report01.htm


The Maoist insurgency-hit areas cover 165 of the 205 parliamentary electoral constituencies of Nepal. The insurgency has directly affected the lives of roughly two-thirds of the 24 million people of Nepal.


http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper187.htm



I'd say that the blockade is "softening up" Kathmandu. Just as with the castles of old, they will wait until the city gives in, and then they will march through the gates triumphantly.

I didn't think of it that way. That's one way to look at it. :)

Let's hope it goes that way. However, because the US and the other countries are giving the Nepalese army equipment, I think they need to act fast, depending on how much aid they are receiving, of course.

[Louis Pio]

Strawberry the maoist party wasn't started in the 40'ies, the communist party was however. The maoists are an offspring of them after serious fraction fighting inside the party
Lessons from the history of the Nepalese Communist movement (http://www.marxist.com/Asia/nepal_communist_mov.html)

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 09:44 PM

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or CPN(M) is a Maoist political party and military organisation founded on April 22, 1949 and led by 'Chairman Prachanda' (real name Pushpa Kamal Dahal). It launched the Nepalese People's War on February 13, 1996, and now controls most of the country. In 2001, the Nepalese Army began a military campaign against the Maoists, especially in the western areas of the country.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...epal%20(Maoist) (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Communist%20Party%20of%20Nepal%20(Maoist))


The central government controls only about one-fourth of the country,

http://www.newslookmag.com/exclusives/stratfor_report01.htm


The Maoist insurgency-hit areas cover 165 of the 205 parliamentary electoral constituencies of Nepal. The insurgency has directly affected the lives of roughly two-thirds of the 24 million people of Nepal.


http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper187.htm




I didn't think of it that way. That's one way to look at it. :)

Let's hope it goes that way. However, because the US and the other countries are giving the Nepalese army equipment, I think they need to act fast, depending on how much aid they are receiving, of course.
Considering how isolated and rugged Nepal is, there is probably trouble estimating who controls how much. I was basing my 40% statistic off a BBC article that I can't find at the moment.

By the way, here is another good BBC article, from August 17, that gives some background about the movement: Who are Nepal's Maoist rebels? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3573402.stm)

[Subversive Pessimist]

Considering how isolated and rugged Nepal is, there is probably trouble estimating who controls how much. I was basing my 40% statistic off a BBC article that I can't find at the moment.


Ah, I see. I guess no one can really tell what is being controlled, and not, especially in a country like Nepal.


By the way, here is another good BBC article, from August 17, that gives some background about the movement: Who are Nepal's Maoist rebels?

Thank you. It's interesting reading :)

[Louis Pio]

It seems Nepal is ending up in a situation a bit similar to that of Colombia. In the sense that none is to strong to take complete control, if that's the case then this war can go on for 20 years or more

[Severian]

The problem with Nepalese rebels may go way past effectiveness or whether they can win, or even if they want to make a deal with the government.

If they're like the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge, they have nothing to do with the working-class movement and can be expected to violently suppress the workers...the Shining Path did so even though they hadn't taken power yet. This is beyond ordinary Stalinism, which sometimes misleads a mass struggle of workers and peasants. The Shining Path and Khmer Rouge operated almost solely by terrorizing working people, not mobilizing them.

The Nepalese rebels belong to the same international political organization as Shining Path in Peru - and the U.S. RCP, incidentally. This organization praises the Khmer Rouge IIRC.

I've been reserving judgement on whether the Nepalese Maoists' methods and class character are the same as their Peruvian comrades...good info is somewhat hard to get. Certainly the Nepalese Maoists do have real, widespread, support...but then, so did the Shining Path, at one time. The article posted by Disgustapated, and the tactic of the blockade, seem like supporting evidence that they are.

Consider: it's nothing like a strike, which mostly depends on mobilizing the workers and allied producers, with force supplementing that by intimidating the scab-minded minority. Rather, the blockade depends on terrorizing and intimidating the population at large. The Shining Path was very fond of this tactic as well.

[Hiero]

The country is mostly peasants. Society is also controled by a caste system. So it isnt as simple as most are thinking.

[refuse_resist]

As in other Third World countries, the revolutionaries in Nepal must confront “three mountains” to achieve liberation: Their goals are to overthrow the bureaucrat-capitalist class and state system, which are dependent on and serve imperialism; uproot semi-feudalism; and drive out imperialism. To do this, the CPN (Maoist) is applying Mao’s strategy of a protracted people’s war — establishing base areas in the countryside and aiming to surround the cities, seize nationwide power, and establish a new democratic republic as a step toward building a new socialist society. Their struggle is part of the world proletarian revolution. For the last six years, the government of Nepal has carried out vicious counter-revolutionary campaigns against the People’s War — over 2,000 people have already been killed and many more have been arrested, jailed, and tortured. But in the face of this, the revolution has continued to advance and grow. The People’s War in Nepal has advanced from primitive fighter groups to disciplined and trained squads and platoons. The people’s army has established guerrilla zones and is sinking deep roots among the people. Women continue to play a major role as fighters in the people’s army. And in areas where the People’s War is the strongest — like the Rolpa and Rukum districts in the West — local reactionaries have run away and the police stay away, afraid to patrol. The government of Girija Prasad Koirala has been unstable and fraught with in-fighting over how to deal with the insurgency.

CPN Online (http://www.geocities.com/nepalmaobadi/)

[h&s]

Their methods seem a little dodgy to me.

Originally posted by BBC
Only a few weeks ago, the rebels abducted hundreds of school children for a week long "re-education" course on Maoist ideology right under the noses of the security forces on the outskirts of Kathmandu.


Is this right? Should they be doing that? Part of me says yes, but the other says no.
The BBC also writes; "So powerful have the Maoists become that few dare defy their call for a general strike in Kathmandu" Judging by that, it seems like they are guarranteed victory.....

[Albanian]

does Nepal`s Maoist Movement,has a website ? I want to know more about it... ;)

[Hiero]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 24 2004, 09:04 AM

The BBC also writes; "So powerful have the Maoists become that few dare defy their call for a general strike in Kathmandu"
No thats false other news sources have said that, and shown pictures of people protesting the blockade. If you are going to use bourgoiese sourves you have to read 15 then peace them together and you kind of get the story.

[lord_darg]

I do not really think that the neplese maoists are being all the effective. If they do want the city to capitulate, they should put more force behind their baricade. True, they have been known to burn taxis and bikes that break the occasional bundh, however, this is merely an annoyance to the people of the country. Life will go on pretty much the same for most of the population, no matter what happens in the KTM valley. As far as I can see, and I've lived in KTM for a few years, the entire uprising is mostly a waste of effort. The rich influential people that live in the larger cities are mostly against the maoist efforts, and they are the only ones that will have any weight behind their words, unless the entire population gets together and opposes the army, or at least presents appreciable resistance.

I am also reminded of the novel 1984, in which the theory that war can be used to keep the upperclasses in their position is presented. It is progressing so slowly that I am tempted to say this is true of Nepal. It could be a ruse to distract the people, and to pour more money into the already corrupt pockets of the government.

For anything to really happen in Nepal, they need to sit down at a conference or something of the like, and sort out a deal, and if it fizzles like the last one, then if the maoists refuse to stop, the only outcome is a war like that fought by the Tamil Tigers. The hilly terrain is perfect for that sort of warfare.

[Louis Pio]

The country is mostly peasants. Society is also controled by a caste system. So it isnt as simple as most are thinking.

Ohh you mean like Russia pre 1917?
That did not change the bolshevics attitude, marxism puts workers in the forefront not peasants, the same should be the case in Nepal.
Furthermore it's quite clear that the faith of the Nepalese is closely linked with the rest of the subcontinent, unfortunately the maoists take a typical nationalist outlook.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:50 AM

Ohh you mean like Russia pre 1917?
That did not change the bolshevics attitude, marxism puts workers in the forefront not peasants, the same should be the case in Nepal.
Furthermore it's quite clear that the faith of the Nepalese is closely linked with the rest of the subcontinent, unfortunately the maoists take a typical nationalist outlook.
There was no caste system in Russia. As one person pointed out in this thread or the other the Nepal bourgeoise have bribed off the wroking class which are in the main cities. The maoist control most of the rural are. Why ? because the working class are reactionary and the peasants are progressive.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:43 AM
does Nepal`s Maoist Movement,has a website ? I want to know more about it... ;)
You know, it helps if you read other people's posts before replying..... :)

[Louis Pio]

Very simplistic indeed. And what has the caste system to do with this? There is a caste system in India, that doesn't mean a communist revolution there should only be build on the non castes.
The peasants are not especially progressive, they are just forced to take sides or else they get killed much like the shinning path did, the nepalsese working class faces bad conditions, how the fuck does that make them reactionary?
How will you build socialism on the peasants? Nepal is subjegt to Indian imperialism, that also means that the nepalese revoltion will indeed rest on what goes on in the subcontinent.
The problem with the guerillas is that they are guerillas and thus operate with a very limited democratic structure, the peasants are not in direct participation.

I post a part of an article:
"Marxism has always stressed the power of the working class, even a tiny working class as in Nepal. With only 12% of the population living in the cities and a high rate of illiteracy, (more than 70% amongst women) it is not an easy task to try to organise the working class. But this has never been an “easy” task. The Bolsheviks in Russia faced very similar conditions. They were a tiny minority rooted among the advanced workers in a handful of cities surrounded by a sea of peasantry. In spite of this it was only the Marxist programme that allowed the workers to take power. As Trotsky put it, it was the party of dialectical materialism and not the party of the bomb that made this possible.

The Nepalese Maoists have observed the degeneration of the so-called “Marxists” that used guerrilla forces as the main force of the revolution in the past. Such is the case in countries like China, North Korea and Vietnam. One would have to be blind not to see the monstrous regimes of North Korea, China or any of the others. The Nepalese Maoists have indeed drawn some conclusions from this. They say: “it should be guaranteed that the people’s army of the 21st century is not marked by modernization with special arms and training confined to barracks after the capture of the state power but remains a torch-bearer of revolution engaged in militarization of the masses and in the service of the masses.” (CPN-Maoist 2004: 147)

The Problems of the Armed Struggle

The splits within the communist movement over the question of “armed struggle” on the one hand, and cooperating with bourgeois parties on the other have only benefited the ruling class. Individual terrorism and class cooperation did not allow for the unification of the struggles of the working class in the cities and the peasants in the rural areas. The state has been able to exploit these policies to justify an increase of repressive measures.

Maoism in Nepal, and elsewhere, has the classical limits of all forms of Stalinism. IT still sees things in terms of “national revolutions”, “democratic revolution”, etc. It is thus incapable of understanding that the Nepalese revolution is linked to the revolution in the rest of the sub-continent, and therefore their grandiloquent speeches about working class unity make no real sense whatsoever. They talk about class unity but their confusion over the role of the peasantry and their limited nationalist outlook isolates them from the masses of India or Pakistan. In fact the survival of the guerrilla movement in Nepal, can only be explained by the impasse of capitalism on the South-Asian subcontinent and on a world scale.

The Colonial Revolution, a revolutionary process that took place in the oppressed countries to smash the yoke of imperialism, in many cases took the form of a guerrilla struggle based on the peasantry. But to be successful the national leadership of these movements had to lean somehow on the urban working class. Even in those countries where the idea that the peasant armies alone achieved victory was dominant, they actually were successful thanks to the passive or active actions of the working class. Because the workers had no party of their own they rallied behind the leaders of the peasant armies, or the guerrillas.

As the Marxists said in 1949 “one of the outstanding facts of the situation in China is the relative passivity of the working class (...) the workers, for the lack of a mass alternative, can only rally to their banner” (E.Grant, The Unbroken Thread, page 286, emphasis in the original). But without the direct and conscious action of the working class in these events only a distorted, bureaucratised caricature of socialism, could develop, as we saw in China or Vietnam.

In fact the leadership of the CPN-Maoist is trying to copy the model that brought Mao to power in China in 1949: first, create an army that will liberate part of the country and put the majority of the peasants behind their leadership and then take power, like Mao. If the price the workers pay for this is a process of decades of suffering the Maoist leaders have no problem with it. Instead of basing themselves on the urban proletariat to lead the revolution, bringing the peasants behind them, as the Bolsheviks did, they prefer the longer and more painful process of peasant war.

International observers claim that the guerrillas control about 75% of the country. If the Maoists had a clean record and were a truly revolutionary force they would be able to call on the poor Nepalese to overthrow the present corrupt regime, now that there are mobilisations taking place against the monarchy. At the same time they could call on the Indian proletariat, as well as the Pakistani working class, to mobilise against their own governments that conspire against the Nepalese masses.

But their own methods put them in a blind alley. Years of bombs in Kathmandu and other cities, and killing of the leaders of the CPN-UML and the left in general cannot be understood by the thousands of supporters of the biggest left party in Nepal and the millions of left activists in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

In spite of their declared aims, the Nepalese CPN-M leaders are providing the state with an excuse to strengthen its machinery of repression. On the other hand the CPN-UML leaders, because of their lack of a revolutionary programme, are not in a position to challenge the ruling class of Nepal and provide a real solution to the masses of Nepal.
"

http://www.marxist.com/Asia/nepal_0804.html

[redstar2000]

In spite of their declared aims, the Nepalese CPN-M leaders are providing the state with an excuse to strengthen its machinery of repression.

Anyone catch that? To me, it "jumped off the screen"!

Whatever the shortcomings of the Nepalese Maoists (and I'm sure there are many), that is the most piss poor excuse for a "criticism" that I've seen in a long time!

A reactionary state does not need "an excuse" to strengthen its "machinery of repression"...it does that regardless of the nature of those who struggle against it.

To attack political ideas that you think are wrong is necessary. To assert that someone else's struggles "are providing the state with an excuse to strengthen its machinery of repression" is to say to them, in effect, "stop struggling!"

What monumental arrogance!

Even if successful, the Nepalese Maoist revolution is unlikely to be more than a footnote to history; nevertheless their struggle is just as legitimate as any of the "great" bourgeois revolutions.

To condemn them because, in effect, they're not Trotskyists, is a good illustration of why Trotskyism has never amounted to much.

And probably never will.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

To play the devil's advocate...


To attack political ideas that you think are wrong is necessary. To assert that someone else's struggles "are providing the state with an excuse to strengthen its machinery of repression" is to say to them, in effect, "stop struggling!"

Chinese finger trap? :unsure:

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:16 PM
Whatever the shortcomings of the Nepalese Maoists (and I'm sure there are many), that is the most piss poor excuse for a "criticism" that I've seen in a long time!
so you'd rather the government had the excuse to murder thousands of communists? be them maoist, trotskyist or whatever?

let us not forget how russian marxism was born out of a struggle against individual terrorism. why? is it because we are pacifists? no. it is becuase individual acts of terrorism will accomplish nothing. nothing.

what they will result in is the clamp down on ANY organisation the government sees fit to close. eg how Spain clamped down strong on ETA after 9/11.

What is needed is a mass movement of workers and peasants to overthrow capitalism, not an elite group (be it honest group maybe with good intentions) to take power

are you completely deluded?

i think you should engage in the struggle old man, your isolated from the movement, and have no understanding of how the revolutionary movement is going forward.

Move over.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:16 PM
A reactionary state does not need "an excuse" to strengthen its "machinery of repression"...it does that regardless of the nature of those who struggle against it.
That's nonsense; excuses are very useful to a state seeking to impose greater repression. To pick an obvious example, al-Qaeda has greatly aided the U.S. ruling class in chipping away at democratic rights. The actions of ultralefts are also similarly useful at times, though usually not to the same degree.

If you ignore this reality, and say the state is repressive "regardless" of circumstances, you must have a hard time explaining why capitalist states are not equally repressive in all places and times...

Having made that general point, in this case it's probably far from the main problem with the Nepalese Maoists. It's the kind of criticism that can be made of a workers' or peasants' organization that's making a tactical error.

Khmer Rouge-like or Shining Path-like organizations, however don't just provide excuses that help the capitalists terrorize working people....they do it themselves.

[PRC-UTE]

That's nonsense; excuses are very useful to a state seeking to impose greater repression.


so you'd rather the government had the excuse to murder thousands of communists? be them maoist, trotskyist or whatever?

let us not forget how russian marxism was born out of a struggle against individual terrorism.


The Maoists are fighting against a monarchy, not a modern capitalist state. Not exactly the same. Plus, they're guerillas fighting a "people's war", not using individual acts of terrorism.

The trot's take that line on Puerta Rico, Ireland, China, Afro-America. . . in fact anywhere regardless of material conditions! :lol:

I think they're pretty effed up, the Maoists, but like Redstar said, it's massively arrogant mate to tell them how to struggle.

[Kez]

so instead of advice you let someone fuck up and allow the deaths of millions.

Sorry, but everyone on this site tells others how it should be done.

Old man Redstar tells us we shouldnt bother participating in bourgeoise elections regardless of the purpose...is this arrogance or advice?

And the idea that the monarchy wouldnt use the same tactic of looking for any excuse to repress its enemies is naive.

[redstar2000]

...excuses are very useful to a state seeking to impose greater repression. To pick an obvious example, al-Qaeda has greatly aided the U.S. ruling class in chipping away at democratic rights. The actions of ultralefts are also similarly useful at times, though usually not to the same degree.

What naiveté! If "excuses" are "needed", then they can be arranged -- e.g., the Reichstag fire.

To speak of "democratic rights" in the case of the United States is absurd on its face!

It's understandable that you may have overlooked the imprisonment of American Communist Party members in the late 1940s for the "crime" of being communists.

But how could you forget that American Trotskyists were imprisoned for the "crime" of being Trotskyists during World War II?


If you ignore this reality, and say the state is repressive "regardless" of circumstances, you must have a hard time explaining why capitalist states are not equally repressive in all places and times...

Nothing easier...they are repressive to the degree that they feel necessary and appropriate -- it has nothing to do with what we do or don't do, say or don't say, etc.

Nor does their repressive actions (or lack of same) need any rational justification. Neither American Trotskyists in 1942 nor American Stalinists in 1948 posed any credible threat to ruling class power whatsoever! The "subversive threat" consisted entirely of hot air.

Worse...your position leads directly to the trap of "we mustn't 'frighten' the ruling class with 'ultra-left' words or deeds or we will 'lose' our 'democratic rights'."

We don't have any "democratic rights"...pretending that we do is a bourgeois illusion.

From time to time, we may hire lawyers who will go into court and argue for "our democratic rights". But it's wacko to regard that as anything more than theater...or that the "law" is anything more than the caprice of the ruling class.

The only "democratic rights" that the working class has under the dictatorship of capital are the rights we choose to exercise regardless of the law.

The foremost of which is the right of resistance.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

so your denying you have more democratic rights in a social democrat capitalist country such as Sweden than you do in Islamic Republic Capitalist state of Iran or Turkey?

your seriosuly wrong in the head.

Workers make gains from time to time, to ignore these to justify your smackhead ideas is typical of those who have never been able to uderstanding the real workings of the labour movement internationally.

[h&s]

so your denying you have more democratic rights in a social democrat capitalist country such as Sweden than you do in Islamic Republic Capitalist state of Iran or Turkey?

The point is that we don't have enough democratic rights. Sure we can form our own political parties and make minor gains, but can we actually use them to take power? Without serious money, no. Serious money means we need serious backers, but we don't want support of the rich, and they don't want to support us. The only way you can get in is if you are capitalist, as it is the capitalists who decide who gets the money that gets people into power. That is not democratic.

[Louis Pio]

How abstract this is. Of course we have a big advantage in "democratoc" countries. We can freely organise, demonstrate etc. In countries like Turkey or Iran revolutionaries have to work underground with the threath of being shoot or imprisoned hanging over their head everyday.
Just look at the resent case with the Saghez workers which I posted in practice. Of course this can change, but for the bourgiosie to blow their democratic cover in western countries the situation would have to change drastically, untill then we should use every oppotunity it provides us with.

Considering Nepal, I think the crucial points have been made.


think they're pretty effed up, the Maoists, but like Redstar said, it's massively arrogant mate to tell them how to struggle.

Yeah move over internationalism, we should support all forms of struggle nomatter if we don't agree? Sorry but this is what has made the international movement so impotent the last couple of years. Back in the eearly years of the comintern every section nomatter how small had the right to criticise other sections work, as it should be.
As it is now in Nepal the socalled "people's war" has ended up in a deadend, doing nothing more than getting some farmers, guerillas or soldiers killed once in a while. It has split the communist movement in Nepal so the workers in the cities support the one communist party and the peasants the maoists. Is that really the way to go?

[Kez]

of course we dont live in a democracy, but the point is there are shades of democracy, those fought for by the workers in the past.

e.g. voting rights made for workers due to workers pressue

[redstar2000]

so your denying you have more democratic rights in a social democrat capitalist country such as Sweden than you do in Islamic Republic Capitalist state of Iran or Turkey?

I am indeed!

The capitalist ruling class in Sweden and all other class societies may, at their whim, declare a partial or total "state of emergency" and you can wipe your arse with your "democratic rights"!

Because that's what they'll be worth.


Workers make gains from time to time...

Which have real existence only so long as workers continue to fight for them (and more).

In the law books, they mean nothing at any time the capitalist class says so (and can make that "stick").


Of course we have a big advantage in "democratic" countries. We can freely organise, demonstrate etc. In countries like Turkey or Iran, revolutionaries have to work underground with the threat of being shot or imprisoned hanging over their head everyday.

You think that "can't happen" in the U.S., the U.K., etc.?

You think it hasn't happened?

The British government routinely used torture and murder in Northern Ireland against the IRA...and are probably still doing it. The American government murdered some 21 leading members of the Black Panther Party.

I am telling you that your "democratic rights" are an illusion that will be shattered at any time the capitalist class wishes to do so.


Of course this can change...

At any moment! And, I repeat, without regard to anything we do or don't do, say or don't say.


...but for the bourgeoisie to blow their democratic cover in western countries the situation would have to change drastically; until then we should use every opportunity it provides us with.

Well, that's more complicated. By all means, communists should take advantage of every "legal" way to encourage resistance to the dictatorship of capital.

But we should avoid making any appeal on the basis of "democratic rights"...because that's a lie.

(Which rules out mucking about in the toxic waste dump of bourgeois "elections".)

Instead, we should be honest with our class: everything you have and everything you may possibly gain comes from fighting like hell against the ruling class, period!

There are no "permanent victories" in the class struggle until the capitalist class is overthrown.

Your rights consist of what you are prepared to defend or assert regardless of the consequences.


...we should support all forms of struggle no matter if we don't agree?

Unless they are obviously reactionary, I would say, yes.

That does not mean that we should issue them a "certificate of communist authenticity".

And if they claim they're entitled to one (because they really like "Marxist" terminology and use "it" a lot), we are equally entitled to say no.

In my view, the movement in Nepal is an early stage of a bourgeois revolution...it probably resembles the English civil war (Cromwell, etc.) more than anything else.

I have no problem "supporting" that; may the Nepalese Maoists remove the king's head!

So they're not communists...but they are doing precisely what is needed for that small country in its present historical stage: clearing away the muck of feudalism and preparing to enter the modern capitalist world.

What's wrong with that?


As it is now in Nepal the so-called "people's war" has ended up in a dead-end, doing nothing more than getting some farmers, guerrillas or soldiers killed once in a while. It has split the communist movement in Nepal so the workers in the cities support the one communist party and the peasants the maoists. Is that really the way to go?

Maybe not.

But have you any idea how utterly nonsensical it is to talk about communism and Nepal in the same sentence?

Maybe in 2104 or, more likely, 2204...but now?

Do you imagine that people emerging from serfdom have anything but the vaguest notions of what communism would be like? If China itself is any guide, the Nepalese Maoists probably think "communism" is having "a really benevolent despot".


...of course we don't live in a democracy, but the point is there are shades of democracy, those fought for by the workers in the past.

You mean "shade" in the sense of ghost?

Because that's all it amounts to. The "pro-working class reforms" (such as they are) that are on the law books are indeed ghosts of past struggles. They have only such meaning in the present as workers are willing to fight for them in the present.

Otherwise, as we have seen for the past few decades in all of the advanced capitalist countries, they...fade away.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

oh dear me...

"The capitalist ruling class in Sweden and all other class societies may, at their whim, declare a partial or total "state of emergency" and you can wipe your arse with your "democratic rights"!"

No shit Sherlock. This however isnt the point. The point is the victories of the struggle against the ruling class has given us these medals if you like, these gains, which have been made by the workers. To take these away will lead to workers realising these gains are being lost, and mobilisation, e.g. at the moment the attacks on the workers by Schroeder on working hours. The same goes for democratic rights.

As a result a ruling class cannot easily simply remove these rights. If you believe this, it once again shows your complete isolation from working class struggles and how they work. If you were correct, neither German workers would be on the streets, or would British students have fought (quite pitifully as it turned out due to right wing leadership) against their right to a free education. However, you are wrong, and incapable of commenting or analysing the way these things work. You think the whole world revolves around your keyboard and mouse. Hows about no?

Hence why your comment,
"At any moment! And, I repeat, without regard to anything we do or don't do, say or don't say"
shows immense naivety on your part. Such reactionary counter-reforms ONLY can occur if the working class do not resist or are unable to resist due to poor leadership. The rulling class does not have a free hand. Had you read some basic marxism, you would realise that this is a constant struggle, where each class tries to gain at the other's loss. The ruling class would never try to make a gain if it thought the working class would fight back, therefore it is in fact in the hands of the WORKING CLASS to see what outcome occurs, and i can only believe that your little faith in this working class, is due to your non-involvement in its activities.

Back to Nepal,

If any progressive group is involved in a struggle, it is the duty of marxists to back the correct ideas and methods, but also to EXPOSE the failings. I do not wanna stand by and see the Nepalese be slaughtered, when i know it was due to poor policy, i should do everythin in my duty for these people to see the failings and make these maoists either a) change or b)lose support, and give support to a organisation with correct ideas.

[redstar2000]

As a result a ruling class cannot easily simply remove these rights.

How "easy" or "simple" it may be depends on many circumstances...most notably the reaction of the working class.

But that's not really the point of this exchange.

Should we, as communists, tell the working class that they have "rights" in bourgeois "democracy" that they should "defend"?

If you do that, then what you're really doing, like it or not, is conferring legitimacy on the dictatorship of capital. You are pretending that something is "real" when, in fact, it is not real.

To lawyers, the LAW is "real". To anyone with a Marxist understanding of class society, it is simply appearance.

And that is something that we must tell the working class!


You think the whole world revolves around your keyboard and mouse.

A devastating criticism. :lol:

Here's what I'm actually starting to think: I'm starting to wonder if Trotskyism as a political tendency has not altogether sunk beneath the muck of social democracy.

Think about it. The parliamentary cretinism. The "respect" for bourgeois "legality". The fear and trembling in the face of "ultra-leftism". The enthusiastic support for "left-bourgeois" populists.

It makes you wonder.


If any progressive group is involved in a struggle, it is the duty of marxists to back the correct ideas and methods, but also to EXPOSE the failings.

If you "feel the itch" to advise the Nepalese Maoists on "the best way" to make a bourgeois revolution, be my guest.

But I rather doubt they will be interested in what you have to say...especially if you tell them to "stop struggling" because it's "frightening the old ruling class" into being more repressive.

That is really bad advice...and they should ignore you.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

"Should we, as communists, tell the working class that they have "rights" in bourgeois "democracy" that they should "defend"?"

Of course we should, and the only way to defend the rights is to move towards socialism, and expose why bourgeoise politicians want to reverse our gained rights.

"If you do that, then what you're really doing, like it or not, is conferring legitimacy on the dictatorship of capital. You are pretending that something is "real" when, in fact, it is not real."

why do make everythin so black and white?
Is it not possible to explain to workers that these rights are here due to workers struggle in the past, and will be overturned if workers dont try to defend them? or are the workers too stupid to understand.

"Here's what I'm actually starting to think: I'm starting to wonder if Trotskyism as a political tendency has not altogether sunk beneath the muck of social democracy.

Think about it. The parliamentary cretinism. The "respect" for bourgeois "legality". The fear and trembling in the face of "ultra-leftism". The enthusiastic support for "left-bourgeois" populists."

Who gives a shit what you think old man. Your not involved in any workers movement, so you can lie all you wish, you'll only misinform a few members of che-lives, who if they join a real workers movement in the future, will be exposed to falsifications such as yours, no worries.

ive stated clearly a 100 times that we must participate in any forum of debate to spread marxism, but "not to become involved in parliamentary cretinism" yet you decide that as your losing an argument to simply do what stalin did, lie.

ultra-leftism...bah, do what you wish old man, remember you'll accomplish piss all.

as for enthusiasm for Left bourgeoise politics....your boring me, im not the one giving my hugs and kisses in an envelope to maoists who dont even have the support of the population itself.

"But I rather doubt they will be interested in what you have to say...especially if you tell them to "stop struggling" because it's "frightening the old ruling class" into being more repressive."

No body is saying stop, were saying there are aspects which they are incorrect on, eg not caring about workers support, individual acts of terrorism and so on.

as for being ignored, only those not involved in the workers movement will be ignored, so if i were u, id cut my loses and not waste my breath anymore old man.

[Kez]

just to make it clear:

Maoists do not have/want mass support, particualarly the workers. If we look at history with the Narodniks in Russia, peasants can lead a revolution, only workers can.

Bourgeoise governments regardless of size of threat will try to repress

if Maoists had mass support, this repression would be inneffective, however, they do not.

The repression will be effective, killing many communists and maoists and workers who simply helped them to get a better life.

now, do we want a group not fighting for mass support, or should we say that a organisation can only be successful if they have mass support?

[Hiero]

Kez are you assuming that the Maoist of Nepal do not have mass support or are you believing the bourgiese media, either both are foolish. The country are mostly peasants, Moaist ideology includes peasant in the leading of the revolution. Now commonsense would tell us that people generally wont to improve them selfs. But alas your a military and political genious, maybe we should send you to Nepal were you can lead the people to vivtory, you seem to know so much more then the revolutionaires.

[redstar2000]

why do make everythin so black and white?

I believe Kez meant to say "why do you make everything so black and white?".

That's a real good question and one that real communists are often asked.

You see, being a communist is not simply a matter of memorizing certain formulas and trotting (:lol:) them out on ritual occasions.

It's a matter of learning how to think like a communist; to look at contemporary social phenomena from a Marxist standpoint.

Why is communism "so black and white"? Because it analyzes social life from a class perspective.

We are "one-sided" -- we are for the working class and the oppressed masses all the way.

We see nothing legitimate or worthwhile in the dictatorship of capital (bourgeois "democracy"). And we see no reason to tell people anything different!

This is something that Kez and many who think of themselves as "communists" find difficult to grasp. They've learned some "Marxist lingo" and some "Marxist formulas"...but their thinking has not really changed -- their "mind-set" is still bourgeois.

They learned in high school that they have "democratic rights"...and they still, in the backs of their minds, really believe that. They still think in terms of "elections", "parliaments", and "laws" as if all that crap really meant something.

As if it all had some kind of "real existence"...like the law of gravity or something.

To see past appearances to actual social reality is still a real struggle for too many folks...especially Leninists.


Who gives a shit what you think, old man?

Beats me! :D

I tell the truth as best I can and leave it to others to decide if I've said anything useful or not.

I will continue to do so.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

fuckin borin, your like an extremely old broken record.

Not everythin is black and white, we live in a complex world, and if you think everything is either a) or b) then your deluded to say the least.

When the only unions in Russia were STATE CONTROLLED unions controlled by the police, dogmatic fools such as your self would shit out statements like "We see nothing legitimate or worthwhile in the dictatorship of capital (bourgeois "democracy")" However, Lenin decided this was a channel for agitation, and succeeded. He and the organisation managed to agitate so successfully the union controlled by internal affairs police, was forced to make strikes against its own state. This is where there is a divergence between nostalgic dreamers such as yourself who are quite happy to sit nice and snug and babble bollocks, and real revolutionaries.

"We see nothing legitimate or worthwhile in the dictatorship of capital (bourgeois "democracy"). And we see no reason to tell people anything different!"

-so youd rather ramble on bollox on your website than engage in debate where people turn for options, very good, very secterian, keep it up.

"This is something that Kez and many who think of themselves as "communists" find difficult to grasp. They've learned some "Marxist lingo" and some "Marxist formulas"...but their thinking has not really changed -- their "mind-set" is still bourgeois."

- Nice patronizing tone, typical of the older generation who THINKS they know it all, yet....actually know fuck all. keep it up

"To see past appearances to actual social reality is still a real struggle for too many folks...especially Leninists."
-The irony.

"I tell the truth as best I can and leave it to others to decide if I've said anything useful or not"
-again, irony, as this is infact ANOTHER lie.

Move Over Old Man.

[redstar2000]

When the only unions in Russia were STATE CONTROLLED unions controlled by the police, dogmatic fools such as yourself would shit out statements like "We see nothing legitimate or worthwhile in the dictatorship of capital (bourgeois "democracy"). However, Lenin decided this was a channel for agitation, and succeeded. He and the organisation managed to agitate so successfully the union controlled by internal affairs police, was forced to make strikes against its own state. This is where there is a divergence between nostalgic dreamers such as yourself who are quite happy to sit nice and snug and babble bollocks, and real revolutionaries.

Funny that you suggest that I'm a "nostalgic dreamer" (not to mention "dogmatic fool") when you dredge up an example more than 90 years old. Even older than me. :lol:

Item: the Bolsheviks already had a base in the working class when the police-controlled unions were organized...participation was an "easy" step to take. But had that base not already existed, would it have been the sensible thing to do?

Item: the police-controlled unions did indeed, after a year or two, begin to strike against the wishes of its police-agent leadership. Was that due to Bolshevik agitation or did it simply reflect the on-going radicalization of the urban working class in extremely repressive conditions?

Item: the German communists (KPD) attempted to use the Nazi labor organization as a vehicle for organizing working class resistance to the Nazis...good idea?

Finally, I note that you have "cleverly" switched the focus of this controversy...from the political institutions of the bourgeois dictatorship to the arena of trade unions.

Today's unions are not "police-controlled"...though they are certainly dominated by bourgeois "labor aristocrats". It's not my place to develop a "general line" of how communists should participate in contemporary unions...except to remind you that nothing is ever gained by lying to people.

If you, consciously or unconsciously, fall into the trap of telling workers that "more militant leadership" (you?) is "all that's needed", you will have sunk into reformism again. If you suggest to them, even indirectly, that a "better contract" will "do the job", you are lying. The truth of the matter is that "signing a good contract" is the beginning of the struggle; without a willingness to take direct action to enforce the terms of that contract, it will be eroded away.

I repeat the general principle: what the bourgeoisie agree to "on paper" is meaningless unless the workers are prepared to fight like hell!


Move Over Old Man.

No. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Sabocat]

Another interesting article.

Invisible blockade of capital 100 percent successful

By Deirdre Griswold

There were no barriers. No vehicles. No shots were fired. No people appeared on the roads. But the Maoist blockade of Kathmandu, capital of the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal, was 100 percent effective. For a whole week, beginning Aug. 18, nothing moved on the roads leading to the capital, according to all the international media. Then the revolutionary guerrilla movement suspended its blockade on Aug. 24, allowing food and fuel to reach the city of 1.5 million people.

They had made their point.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has become the undisputed authority throughout the countryside of this impoverished land of 25 million people. The monarchy of King Gyanendra, who gained the throne in June 2001 after most of the royal family were murdered, is supported almost exclusively from the outside--by the U.S., Britain and India. A revolutionary crisis is growing, spurred on by entrenched poverty, control of most productive land by the rich, and the elites' monopoly on political power.

The CPM (Maoist) launched a guerrilla war eight years ago, after the strategy of the traditional left to bring about reforms through parliamentary means failed. In April of this year, the whole country was virtually closed down by a general strike, called by the Maoists to protest the killings, arrests and disappearances of the group's leaders and activists. For two days, Nepal reportedly "came to a standstill" as the strike closed "almost all shops, schools, businesses and factories." (French Press Agency, April 7)

This was compelling evidence that urban workers and elements of the middle class, as well as the peasantry, were looking to the Maoists for leadership in the struggle for social change. The other left parties issued a statement of support for the Maoist-called strike. The guerrilla movement's leader, Prachandra, or "The Fierce," called for "unity among all political forces" against the king.

But, once the strike was over, the government seemed to think it could resume business as usual. With the help of U.S.-provided helicopters and advanced weapons, it "disappeared" more revolutionary activists. The Maoists are demanding the release of political prisoners and an accounting of all the missing.

The monarchy accuses the Maoists of wanting to fight rather than negotiate. But it also has characterized them as "terrorists," thus making it impossible for any of them to come forward. If they appear in public, they are subject to arrest. However, it is clear that these revolutionaries move freely among the people in most parts of the country, where the elitist government has lost control.

The Nepalese monarchy is following the lead of the Bush administration in Washington, which has put the Maoist organization on its list of international "terrorists." In so doing, Washington is criminalizing the struggle of the masses for revolutionary change in one of the most oppressed, downtrodden countries in the world.

Is this struggle relevant to workers in the United States? Absolutely. An article in EcommerceTimes.org on Aug. 24 warned U.S. investors: "Disintegrating Nepali Monarchy a Threat to Out sour cing." Saying that "The Rana monarchy in Nepal is collapsing" and that "A military solution is no longer possible," business analyst Anthony Mitchell concludes that "Recent events in Nepal could spill over into India and hurt technology and financial firms in the United States and UK."

Of course, he's talking about profits for U.S. and British investors, not jobs for the workers. U.S. workers have every reason to hope that revolutionary change favoring the masses will sweep the Indian subcontinent.

Link (http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/nepal0902.php)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:43 AM
What naiveté! If "excuses" are "needed", then they can be arranged -- e.g., the Reichstag fire.
That one was actually not a total success. Even at a trial held in the emerging Third Reich, some of the defendants were acquitted.

The tremendous errors of the CP of Germany - at the time following an ultraleft policy ordered by Stalin - were far more useful to Hitler than the staged Reichstag fire. Which came after he'd already become Chancellor, in any case.


To speak of "democratic rights" in the case of the United States is absurd on its face!

It's understandable that you may have overlooked the imprisonment of American Communist Party members in the late 1940s for the "crime" of being communists.

But how could you forget that American Trotskyists were imprisoned for the "crime" of being Trotskyists during World War II?

Uh, what? It's absurd to speak of democratic rights in the U.S.....because some people were imprisoned for their ideas decades ago? That's beyond absurd. We're both excercising those rights at this moment, without particularly having to worry that the FBI"s gonna bust down our doors tomorrow. (And don't think they don't have the technology to trace your identity.)

Those trials did not, in fact, shut down all political space for communists or destroy the Bill of Rights...even at the time. I suppose if the SWP was as foolish as you, they might have drawn that conclusion and gone underground....the CPUSA did partially attempt to do so, later. Cowardice and foolishness on their part.

The SWP, however, fought back and successfully defended its right to exist and publicly defend its ideas.



If you ignore this reality, and say the state is repressive "regardless" of circumstances, you must have a hard time explaining why capitalist states are not equally repressive in all places and times...

Nothing easier...they are repressive to the degree that they feel necessary and appropriate -- it has nothing to do with what we do or don't do, say or don't say, etc.

Which is an evasion, not an answer. Why do they "feel it necessary and appropriate" to be more repressive in some circumstances than others? Wait, it has nothing to do with circumstances. Or else the actions of working people are not a significant factor in the circumstances facing the ruling class. They are all-powerful and can impose however much repression they please; we are powerless and our actions have no effect, so we can do whatever we feel like without needing to take any responsibility for any consequences.

Eh, never mind. There's no point in trying to follow your logic because you don't have any.

Oh, this exchange with Kez was priceless:


I believe Kez meant to say "why do you make everything so black and white?".

That's a real good question and one that real communists are often asked.

You see, being a communist is not simply a matter of memorizing certain formulas and trotting () them out on ritual occasions.

It's a matter of learning how to think like a communist; to look at contemporary social phenomena from a Marxist standpoint.

Why is communism "so black and white"? Because it analyzes social life from a class perspective.

Oh, fer crying out loud. Someone who's really understood the Marxist method, and not just a few memorized formulas, certainly does not look at things as "black and white". First off, there are not just two classes. The intermediate classes and social layers are not "one reactionary mass." See Marx vs Lasalle on this.

Second off, the essence of the dialectic method is that everything is changing, that it does not fit into neat categories for all time. It's the opposite of thinking everything is "black and white" - rather the universe comes in infinite colors.

I think you've just summarized what's so anti-Marxist about your whole method of thinking and how you "analyze social life".