huray

[Organic Revolution]

hurray the maoist in nepal are at it again... site (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/06/27/nepal.rebels/index.html)... doing some dumb shit to piss people off.

[Bolshevist]

Its interesting to see how closer the Maoists move to victory, the bourgeious press advances their campaign of lies. In other words, it looks as if they are getting afraid :)

[h&s]

Or maybe, just maybe, this could be true?
Maoism is based on installing a new ruling class, not the peasants and workers. TO do this they need to enforce their power. Its nothing new.

[More Fire for the People]

Wow, you obviously have read all of Mao Zedong's works and are fluent in Maoist theory.

I doubt the Maoist abducted them, more likely the state did and blamed it on the Maoist like they always do.

[Severian]

Why would anyone call this lies? Even the RCP - the Nepalese Maoists' comrades - have acknowledged that similar abductions have happened. They posted an Agence France-Presse article on a mass abduction of students a while back, seemed to regard it as favorable 'cause the Maoists didn't shoot students who critized them...that time. Here it is, posted on the RCP's website (http://rwor.org/a/1248/nepal_peoples_war_students_kidnap.htm)

AP reports these students have been released. (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/06/27/nepal.rebels.free.ap/)

Background: Nepal's children forced to fight (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p06s03-wosc.html)

Rebels seize children as recruits in Nepalese civil war (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/28/wnepal28.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/28/ixworld.html)

[viva le revolution]

The only difference between Maoism and marxism-leninism is that they give more weight to the peasants and beleive in guerilla warfare in the countryside and restricting the army in towns and cities. then with the proper strength overrun these. More than the proletariat they focus on the countryside. That's the only difference between the two. The end result is the same. So arguing that they beleive in something different end result is just uninformed.
&nsbp;&nsbp; Let's face it the Maoists control more than 70% of the country, so this is just the dying monarchies' effort to blacken the Maoists reputation so they can get outside help and win international attention and undermine the maoist's credibility. But i am sure you guys thought of that before.

[romanm]

Actually what makes Maoism a third stage of Marxism iisn't its theory of new democracy or peoples war. Although these are important contributions, one could accept ND and PW and not be a Maoist.

Mao took ML to a whole new level with his theory of a bourgeoisie arising inside the party itself and how to fight it with cultural revolution. This is what makes Maoism universal.

[viva le revolution]

But the end result is the same right? a worker's state.

[romanm]

Well, cultural revolution is about defending a workers state. The problem is that a new bourgeoisie shows up within the communist party itself and it needs to be combated. This why it is so important to have cultural revolution.

Maoism is all about how to protect the revoltuion and push it forward after you already have state power. This is why we say that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is the farthest advance toward communism in humyn history.

marxleninmao.proboards43.com

[viva le revolution]

So you could say that it's not the end result, but the means of achieving that end that differs from Marxism-leninism.

[h&s]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 28 2005, 09:11 PM
But the end result is the same right? a worker's state.
How can a worker's state be created from a movement based on the peasantry?
To think such a thing is absurd.
Only the working class can create a worker's state (its in the name for god's sake!)


The only difference between Maoism and marxism-leninism is that they give more weight to the peasants and beleive in guerilla warfare in the countryside and restricting the army in towns and cities. then with the proper strength overrun these. More than the proletariat they focus on the countryside.
Which makes them go against the main point of Marxism - that the proletariat is the class that needs to change society.

[More Fire for the People]

The Chinese peasantry were similar to proletarians (in fact they were sefs) in that they did not own the means of production.

[Anarchist Freedom]

the Maoists in nepal are notorious for abducting students for "Re-Education".

[Red Heretic]

How many times do we have to go over this. No students are "abducted" from schools. What HAS happened in the past is there are revolutionary youth who organize walk-outs to go meet with speakers from the CPNM so that the CPNM can refute the lies that they are being told in school about the ideology of the CPNM, or to go see revolutionary cultural programmes. No students are forced to attend.

The bourgeois press loves to try to profiteer off of these events and use slanderous words such as "abduction" to make it appear as if the students were somehow kidnapped. Such thing has NEVER happened.

[Red Heretic]

In response to the bullshit reactionary articles that Sevarian posted, I dug up a couple old articles refuting those lies:

Nepal: Children in the War Zone

by Li Onesto

Revolutionary Worker #1274, April 10, 2005, posted at rwor.org

The following is a chapter from the book Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal.

Out of Nepal's 23 million people, almost eleven million are under 16 years old.

Nepalese officials, newspapers in Nepal and internationally, and various human rights organizations have claimed that the insurgency in Nepal is responsible for the deaths of many children and accuse the Maoists of 'recruiting child soldiers' and using children as 'human shields.' There have also been widespread reports that thousands of youth have fled their homes in the countryside, allegedly to avoid being 'press-ganged' into the People's Liberation Army.

The official policy of the CPN (Maoist) is that no one under the age of 18 is allowed to join the People's Liberation Army, and minors who have responded to recruitment calls have been told they cannot join the PLA and people's militias. At the same time, the CPN (Maoist) organize youth under 18 to support the People's War in many other ways. An article in The Worker (an official publication of the CPN [Maoist]), says: 'While they have been strictly forbidden to join people's armed force, they [the minors] have been organized under Akhil Bal Sangathan, a children's organization which takes care of the overall development of children, including their right to express their solidarity to what they consider is good, including the People's War ...'1

In February 2003, a report by the Child Workers in Nepal (CWIN) Concerned Center, widely cited in the press in Nepal and internationally, asserted that: 'The death toll for children under 16 has reached 96 as a consequence of the war between the Maoists and the government' and 'nearly 3,000 children have been displaced from their homes and at least 1,500 have been orphaned following the conflict.'2

News articles about 'children being harmed by the Maoists' assert statistics like: '168 children have been killed in the Maoist insurrection.' But such reports don't actually say these children have been killed by the Maoists. In fact, the government's own statistics show that it is the police and Royal Nepal Army that have been responsible for killing thousands of people, including many children.

It was widely reported that, by December 2002, more than 7,000 people had died in the conflict between government forces and Maoist guerrillas, and that over 4,000 of these deaths had occurred since November 2001. The vast majority of these deaths were at the hands of the police and RNA soldiers. Government sources say that of the 4,366 people killed during the year following November 2001, 4,050 were Maoists. But as many human rights groups have pointed out, most of these victims were civilians targeted for their real or perceived support for the Maoists. Human Rights Watch reported that in the first few months after the State of Emergency was declared in November 2001, over 1,300 'suspected Maoists,' including 'civilians once associated with Maoists as well as those possessing Maoist literature,' had been killed by government security forces. Between November 2001 and October 2002, 4,366 people had died in the conflict, compared to around 2,700 deaths in the previous five years.3

In other words, more people had been killed by the police and RNA in this one year than the total number killed in the first five years of the insurgency.

Those arguing that the 'Maoists are killing children' fail to mention that even those human rights groups that reported that '168 children had been killed in the Maoist insurgency' also reported that government forces had unjustly killed many people, including children, using the pretext of 'skirmishes' or 'encounters' with rebel forces.

A lot of human rights groups, either consciously or not, help spread disinformation and confusion about the situation in Nepal by 'evenhandedly' criticizing the government and the Maoists for 'human rights violations', even though by their own statistics, the overwhelming majority of those killed have died at the hands of government forces. But these groups do cite and chronicle many cases in which the state has killed children accused of supporting the Maoists. They have also reported on the abuse of children held in jail on suspicion of being rebel soldiers.

One RNA officer admitted that in the heat of battle, government soldiers rarely distinguish between men, women, and children. One army captain told a reporter, 'Anyone with a gun is an enemy.'4 Furthermore, any discussion about the plight of children in Nepal needs to look at the semi-feudal and capitalistic system under which millions of children live in dire poverty and brutal servitude. This is the very system the Maoists want to do away with.

For example, in Nepal, there are 32,000 child laborers working in 1,600 stone quarries. Almost half of these children fall ill soon after starting to work and regularly suffer from coughs, backache, fever, visual impairment, and joint and muscle pain. Almost all of them have had accidents and injuries while working to excavate and extract stones and boulders from quarries, loading goods on trucks, or crushing boulders into gravel. One news article recounted the story of a 13-year-old boy who goes to school in the morning and on the way home stops at a quarry site and crushes stones for hours. He earns between 20 and 30 rupees a day (less than 50 cents), which helps his family of five survive.5

A nationwide study by Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu reported that more than 27 percent of the children in Nepal—some 2.6 million children—work as child laborers and that 60 percent of the children are between 6 and 14 years old. Almost one million work without pay and many work as bonded laborers, forced to work for an employer for a specific period of time, without any rights. Deep poverty is also responsible for the suffering of millions of children in Nepal. It is estimated that 50 percent of the children in Nepal are afflicted by malnutrition. And because of the lack of clean water, sanitary conditions, and health care in the countryside, many children die of common, curable diseases.6

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:25 PM
Wow, you obviously have read all of Mao Zedong's works and are fluent in Maoist theory.

I doubt the Maoist abducted them, more likely the state did and blamed it on the Maoist like they always do.
Most likely the case, either that or no one really disappeared at all and themNepalese government reported that something happened for propaganda purposes.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 28 2005, 03:42 PM
Or maybe, just maybe, this could be true?
Maoism is based on installing a new ruling class, not the peasants and workers. TO do this they need to enforce their power. Its nothing new.
This coming from someone with the name "Revisionist" in his title doesn't surprise me.

The report on CNN is based on a report from the Royal Terrorist Army who censors and misreports literally hundreds of articles a day. They are viewed by journalists around the world as being the epidemy of the enemy of journalists and the leaders of censorship in the world. Why is it that you want to believe the accounts of people who are known for committing the systematic rape (LITERALLY) and burning of entire village over the accounts peasants fighting a brutal system of feudal oppression?

Your "summary" of Maoism is one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen. Maoism is based on Marxism-Leninism with the added ideas of promoting dissent and criticism from the masses, among many other expansions of traditional Marxist-Leninist theory.

[rise_up]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:25 PM
I doubt the Maoist abducted them, more likely the state did and blamed it on the Maoist like they always do.
wooo!!!! yet more government scapegoats.

[redstarshining]

"Last year, rebel leader Baburam Bhattarai took exception to the word "abduction," saying the children are taken for cultural campaigns and indoctrination sessions, and usually sent home in a few days."

I highly doubt that he really used the term "indoctrination sessions". Either he&#39;s not very competent in dealing with the media, or this has been intentionally mistranslated <_<

Things like that make me very sceptical of sources like CNN.

[h&s]

The Chinese peasantry were similar to proletarians (in fact they were sefs) in that they did not own the means of production.
The peasantry is not anywhere near similar to the working class. They are oppressed, true, but they do not have the class consciousness to do anything about it.


This coming from someone with the name "Revisionist" in his title doesn&#39;t surprise me.
That title is a joke. I asked for it to take the piss out of Stalinist fools who actually use that term.


The report on CNN is based on a report from the Royal Terrorist Army who censors and misreports literally hundreds of articles a day. They are viewed by journalists around the world as being the epidemy of the enemy of journalists and the leaders of censorship in the world. Why is it that you want to believe the accounts of people who are known for committing the systematic rape (LITERALLY) and burning of entire village over the accounts peasants fighting a brutal system of feudal oppression?
OK, so I didn&#39;t look at the source (i didn&#39;t even know it was CNN :rolleyes: ) - but even the Maoists admit to doing things like this, and I wikll always condemn them.

[Red Heretic]

No, the Maoists do not "admit" to "abducting" students. No youth are EVER forced to attend cultural programs or speeches. These things are completely voluntary.

When you say you will:always condemn them" you are only revealing your reactionary, and sectarian nature. You might as well replace the hammer sickle in your avatar with a dollar sign.

It is the duty of all communists and internationalists to stand in soldiarity with all struggles against imperialism, while at the same time criticizing any ideological differences that one may have with those struggling against imperialism. This is why we support the masses of Iraq struggling against US imperialism even when a large majority of them a religious fundamentalists.

Now, the people of Nepal are nowhere near religious fundamentalism, and their ideology is absolutely glorious. How can you stand in solidarity with the struggles against US imperialism carried out by islamic fundamentalists, and then not stand in soldiarity with the struggles against imperialism carried our by communists? You are only revealing your own sectarian and dogmatic nature when you do this kind of reactionary, harmful bullshit.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 1 2005, 03:45 PM

The peasantry is not anywhere near similar to the working class. They are oppressed, true, but they do not have the class consciousness to do anything about it.




The Chinese revolution proves otherwise. After all, in all fairness, Mao was from a rural peasant family.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; There is of course Vietnam, North Korea, the communist guerillas in Malaya and the Philipines.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; All these are mainly agrarian countries with the vast majority of it&#39;s leaders and the bulk of it&#39;s communist forces from the rural areas.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; Give more weight to the proletariat or the peasantry that&#39;s your call but don&#39;t dismiss them as useless because history has proved otherwise.

[h&s]

Originally posted by viva le revolution+Jul 1 2005, 09:52 PM--> (viva le revolution @ Jul 1 2005, 09:52 PM)
h&[email protected] 1 2005, 03:45 PM

The peasantry is not anywhere near similar to the working class. They are oppressed, true, but they do not have the class consciousness to do anything about it.




The Chinese revolution proves otherwise. After all, in all fairness, Mao was from a rural peasant family.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; There is of course Vietnam, North Korea, the communist guerillas in Malaya and the Philipines.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; All these are mainly agrarian countries with the vast majority of it&#39;s leaders and the bulk of it&#39;s communist forces from the rural areas.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; Give more weight to the proletariat or the peasantry that&#39;s your call but don&#39;t dismiss them as useless because history has proved otherwise. [/b]
:lol:
That list of countries has just proved my point&#33;
Thankyou. Why the fuck should I support anyone who sets up an undemocratic Stalinist beaureacracy like those in the countries you have mentioned?
I work for worker&#39;s power, not Stalinist state power.


It is the duty of all communists and internationalists to stand in soldiarity with all struggles against imperialism, while at the same time criticizing any ideological differences that one may have with those struggling against imperialism.
Yes, I support the fact that they are anti-imperialist, but the ideological differences I have with them are massive.
People round here are obsessed with defeating imperialism and just that. I am after the workers, not any Stalinist vanguard that claims to represent them, gaining power.


How can you stand in solidarity with the struggles against US imperialism carried out by islamic fundamentalists
I don&#39;t. I suport the masses of Iraq.


You are only revealing your own sectarian and dogmatic nature when you do this kind of reactionary, harmful bullshit.
Why is it sectarian for me to oppose a group that I consider to be an enemy of the working class?
The working class will gain from a planned economy under Maoist rule, but they will be no closer to real socialism, let alone communism.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by h&s+Jul 2 2005, 08:46 AM--> (h&s @ Jul 2 2005, 08:46 AM)
Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 1 2005, 09:52 PM

h&[email protected] 1 2005, 03:45 PM

The peasantry is not anywhere near similar to the working class. They are oppressed, true, but they do not have the class consciousness to do anything about it.




The Chinese revolution proves otherwise. After all, in all fairness, Mao was from a rural peasant family.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; There is of course Vietnam, North Korea, the communist guerillas in Malaya and the Philipines.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; All these are mainly agrarian countries with the vast majority of it&#39;s leaders and the bulk of it&#39;s communist forces from the rural areas.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; Give more weight to the proletariat or the peasantry that&#39;s your call but don&#39;t dismiss them as useless because history has proved otherwise.
:lol:
That list of countries has just proved my point&#33;
Thankyou. Why the fuck should I support anyone who sets up an undemocratic Stalinist beaureacracy like those in the countries you have mentioned?
I work for worker&#39;s power, not Stalinist state power.


It is the duty of all communists and internationalists to stand in soldiarity with all struggles against imperialism, while at the same time criticizing any ideological differences that one may have with those struggling against imperialism.
Yes, I support the fact that they are anti-imperialist, but the ideological differences I have with them are massive.
People round here are obsessed with defeating imperialism and just that. I am after the workers, not any Stalinist vanguard that claims to represent them, gaining power.


How can you stand in solidarity with the struggles against US imperialism carried out by islamic fundamentalists
I don&#39;t. I suport the masses of Iraq.


You are only revealing your own sectarian and dogmatic nature when you do this kind of reactionary, harmful bullshit.
Why is it sectarian for me to oppose a group that I consider to be an enemy of the working class?
The working class will gain from a planned economy under Maoist rule, but they will be no closer to real socialism, let alone communism. [/b]
You still have not answered my question. If the peasants have no class conciousness, how did they rise up in the first place?

[h&s]

You still have not answered my question. If the peasants have no class conciousness, how did they rise up in the first place?

They rose up, but did they take power? No - they gave it to another oppressive ruling class.
The class conciousness of the proletariat means that they can rise up and actually take power for themselves - the peasantry is too opportunistic and individual (not a dig) to do this.

[viva le revolution]

No proletarian uprising by the proletariat has given power to the people. Take Russia for example. The proletarians rose up under Lenin but Stalin then took over. and we all know how that ended up. A beurocracy just like that of China, North Korea or Vietnam was given total power. Be it proletarian or peasant, each rise to power brings the same corrupting influences with it.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;So to state that stalinist states arise out of peasant not proletarian uprisings is incorrect, because the very concept Stalinism took root in Russia.

[farleft]

The Nepalese Maoists DO kidnapp people, they admit this themselves and it is a good thing to try to re-educate these people who have been brain-washed by the governments propaganda.

[h&s]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 4 2005, 08:45 PM
No proletarian uprising by the proletariat has given power to the people. Take Russia for example. The proletarians rose up under Lenin but Stalin then took over. and we all know how that ended up. A beurocracy just like that of China, North Korea or Vietnam was given total power. Be it proletarian or peasant, each rise to power brings the same corrupting influences with it.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;So to state that stalinist states arise out of peasant not proletarian uprisings is incorrect, because the very concept Stalinism took root in Russia.
That&#39;s not quite what I&#39;m saying. I&#39;m saying that peasanst uprisings, when they are revolutionary left-wing, are always used to create Stalinist states.
Proletarian uprisings can lead to Stalinism, as happened in Russia, but they have the capability of doing much more.
In these revolutions working class people actually take power into their own hands (with the peasants), which is a key difference.
What happens afterwards, after the violent counter-revolution depends on whether the revolution spreads to the working class in other countries or not.
The point is that peasant uprisings are guarranteed to create Stalinism, working class ones are not.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:50 AM
The Nepalese Maoists DO kidnapp people, they admit this themselves and it is a good thing to try to re-educate these people who have been brain-washed by the governments propaganda.
Hmmm...who has been brainwashed, Nepalese young people, or the posters in this thread who insist on denying things admitted by the Maoists themselves?

And why can&#39;t the Maoists, who control 80% of Nepal, get people to listen to their propaganda voluntarily?

[farleft]

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 5 2005, 03:37 PM--> (Severian @ Jul 5 2005, 03:37 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 07:50 AM
The Nepalese Maoists DO kidnapp people, they admit this themselves and it is a good thing to try to re-educate these people who have been brain-washed by the governments propaganda.
Hmmm...who has been brainwashed, Nepalese young people, or the posters in this thread who insist on denying things admitted by the Maoists themselves?

And why can&#39;t the Maoists, who control 80% of Nepal, get people to listen to their propaganda voluntarily? [/b]
True, blindly trying to defend the maoists when you are against kidnapping is rediculous, those leftists saying that need to research the revolutionary situation in Nepal properly.

The reason I think is that Nepal is not industralised like the UK or USA, in Nepal everything revolves around the capital city, so if you dont have that, you dont have the "main" say in the country.

[Severian]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 5 2005, 09:10 AM
That&#39;s not quite what I&#39;m saying. I&#39;m saying that peasanst uprisings, when they are revolutionary left-wing, are always used to create Stalinist states.
The Cuban Revolution? The Nicaraguan Revolution?

Both had significant working-class participation, but began as rural guerilla wars.

Lemme suggest that workers&#39; states are Stalinist from the start...when the revolution is under the leadership of Stalinist parties.

And a danger of Stalinist degeneration is present...depending on the objective conditions.

That fully fits, and is enough to explain, the experience of revolution so far.

***

I don&#39;t think this is hugely relevant to Nepal, however, since what&#39;s going on there cannot be described as any kind of revolution. Revolutions are "festivals of the oppressed" to borrow a phrase from Lenin; they involve millions of people becoming actors in history; they mark a major step forward for the oppressed even when the revolutions are misled.

None of that is true of these reactionary sects which use terror against working people, like the Nepalese guerillas or the Shining Path in Peru. Their methods are reminiscent of the Khmer Rouge, whose takeover certainly did not represent any kind of step forward for working people in Cambodia.

[bolshevik butcher]

Wether it happened or not, the maoists are oging to control tibet soon, so im interested to know, what will theybe doing when they control it? Democracy or stalinist dictatorship?

[Organic Revolution]

most likley a dictatorship in true maoist fashion

[h&s]

Both had significant working-class participation, but began as rural guerilla wars.

Lemme suggest that workers&#39; states are Stalinist from the start...when the revolution is under the leadership of Stalinist parties.

I know what you are saying, and I agree, but I am trying to make the point that purely peasant uprisings are not be successful without statist leadership, but working class ones happen with little leadership for the majority of the struggle.
Stalinism happens later.

[viva le revolution]

Communism must change and evolve with the times. The past experiences of revolutionary practice took place under the influence of the soviet union so they modelled themselves after it. Comintern anyone?
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; Mao expressed admiration for Stalin during the early days and met with Soviet leaders during the course of the Chinese revolution. Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam was present at various Comintern meetings alongwith Mao.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; Kim Il Sung in turn was helped by the Chinese and the influence of the USSR rubbed off on them.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; However after the collapse of the soviety union and the demythification of Stalin, there is hope that any future revolutions will model themselves differently.
&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp;&nsbp; In today&#39;s day and age the vast majority of the thirdworld comprises not of industrial powers but agrarian ones supplying the developed world with raw materials and exporting cheap labour. In my view, any revolution will need proletarian and peasant backing. Both are equal participants as victims of exploitation and government corruption. so to say that a revolution will only be spearheaded by the proletariat assumes that the peasantry is only capable of dormancy until such a vanguard is formed is baseless because despite the failure of past revolutions, the majority of them had rural backing suggesting otherwise.

[Severian]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 6 2005, 09:20 AM

Both had significant working-class participation, but began as rural guerilla wars.

Lemme suggest that workers&#39; states are Stalinist from the start...when the revolution is under the leadership of Stalinist parties.

I know what you are saying, and I agree, but I am trying to make the point that purely peasant uprisings are not be successful without statist leadership, but working class ones happen with little leadership for the majority of the struggle.
Stalinism happens later.
Hm. Certainly if a leadership discourages worker involvement and mobilization, preferring a purely peasant war, that&#39;s a very bad sign. Has been historically, and for a party today to remain hostile or indifferent to the working class, which has grown so much throughout the "Third World", is even worse.

It&#39;s likely that future revolutions will more resemble the "classic" Russian Revolution approach, or to put it another way will grow out of mass actions like those we&#39;ve seen in Bolivia, Argentina, etc. in recent years.

***
There was, I think, some worker involvement in the Stalinist-led revolutions in Yugoslavia and Vietnam - I remember the NLF commando unit which took the U.S. embassy during Tet, was recruited in Saigon. There was also worker involvement, at least as much as peasant involvement, in the stage-managed overturns of capitalism in the Red-Army-occupied countries of Eastern Europe.

I really expect in future we&#39;re not likely to see Stalinist-led revolutions. Partly I agree with "viva la revolucion" - it&#39;s simply that the influence of Stalinism in the world has greatly weakened. Partly it&#39;s that Stalinism has always been a counterrevolutionary tendency, akin to social democracy, and it was only in the exceptional conditions coming out of WWII that it stood at the head of revolutions.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by rise [email protected] 5 2005, 09:54 PM
most likley a dictatorship in true maoist fashion
yeh, i can&#39;t help but feal that.

[h&s]

In today&#39;s day and age the vast majority of the thirdworld comprises not of industrial powers but agrarian ones supplying the developed world with raw materials and exporting cheap labour. In my view, any revolution will need proletarian and peasant backing. Both are equal participants as victims of exploitation and government corruption. so to say that a revolution will only be spearheaded by the proletariat assumes that the peasantry is only capable of dormancy until such a vanguard is formed is baseless because despite the failure of past revolutions, the majority of them had rural backing suggesting otherwise.

In Russia in 1917 the proletariat made up a tiny minority of the population - something like 5%.
They managed to seize power themselves without a peasant guerilla movement. They were allied with the peasantry - the hammer and sickle - , which was needed for both. Of course the peasantry must be included in revolutionary struggle as they are exploited too (despite their semi-capitalist nature), but they are not capable of overthrowing capitalism.
It is the working class that has the power in their hands (right now) to do this - the proletariat makes society run, and therefore they have the power to rule.
Take the Nigerian oil workers - they hold up the Nigerian economy - if they decide to switch off the tap in a general strike (which I can&#39;t remember whether they did or not) they freeze the whole country&#39;s economy.
It is that sort of power that makes them easily the most powerful class (the capitalist&#39;s gravediggers&#33;) and it makes them the people who can overthrow capitalism without the need for any Stalinist influence.

I also think Severian has it right - Stalinism ahs, and always will be, counterrevolutionary, and the working class know this, and will not tust them.
This means that the Stalinists must look elsewhere to fuel their lust for power, hence the peasantry and Maoism

[viva le revolution]

I understand what you are saying and i agree with you and severian about the power of the proletariat to overthrow capitalism. However i also beleive in the power of the peasantry and their inclusion in the struggle. a purely proletarian movement will harbour deep distrust in the peasant population. Case in point, Russia. After the bolsheviks took power, the peasant Kulaks(rich peasants) were overthrown and their property confiscated. however since the bolsheviks had no clear programme for the peasnts, focusing mainly on the proletarian aspects of the revolution, the poorer peasants assumed they too would be made kulaks or something of that nature. However due to a lack of planning as regards the peasntry, the peasants were dissatisfiedand soon rebelled with some joing the white army in Russia to counter the bolsheviks. True this displayed a segment of the peasantry as counter-revolutiuonary and individualistic but this arose not from their general nature or attitude but as a result of lack of proper planning as regards the peasantry and the purely proletarian beginnings of the movement.
Hence my position that any struggle has to take place with bothe peasant and proletarian beginnings and backing otherwise one of these is bound to resist and tuirn counter-revolutionary giving the need for a strong &#39;iron hand&#39; , i.e. Stalinism to control it.

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree that the peasants have a prt to play and should be accomidated and planned for. However the protaletariat is the driving force behind a revolution.

[viva le revolution]

Both have an equal part to play.
The proletariat to rise up in the urban areas to take control of the means of production from the bourgeois and the peasantry to rise up to take control of the raw materials that sustain the means of production and industry as a whole.
Thus even if the counter-revolutionaries succeed in one area they still have the other to contend with.
This is especially true in the third world that consist mostly of agrarian economies. for example, in Pakistan that has a vast textile industry, the proletariat can take control of the factories but the raw materials will still lay in the hands of the bourgeois. If the raw materials are taken away then the industry will be crippled. only joint action will prove effective in any struggle.