Nepal Maoists: We Haven't Compromised on Revolutio

[Red Heretic]

The lie that the bourgeois media is spreading (that the new coalition is a sign that the Communist Party of Nepal is capitulating) is total BULLSHIT! The Anti-Monarchy coalition serves the purpose of driving out the monarchy, it is a united front against the King, NOT A COMPROMISE!

We Haven't Given up Republicanism: Prachanda


KOL Report

KATHMANDU, Nov 25 - Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal, Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda has said that his party has not given up its agenda of republicanism [editor's note: in the context of this article, republicanism refers to the fight for a socialist republic].

"The publicity that we have given up (the agenda of) republicanism can only be a result of not understanding the spirit of the understanding at all. Because, in the understanding, the issue of constituent assembly has been mentioned without any conditions attached to it," Prachanda said in an interview to Krishnasen Online today.

Prachanda's remarks have come at a time when the 12-point understanding reached between the seven mainstream parties and Maoist rebels is being interpreted as the Maoists agreeing to give up their republican agenda.

"Thus, there is no question of it (constituent assembly elections demand without any precondition) creating any problem in moving ahead with our immediate policy of republicanism with determination or we giving up or have given up (the demand of) republicanism," Prachanda said in the interview.

According to him, the "main spirit of the understanding is to create a storm of agitation against autocratic monarchy, form an interim government and create a new people's Nepal by the restructuring of the state through an election to a constituent assembly."

"In other words, its spirit is to establish the sovereign right of the people to decide their own fate and future and to sweep away feudalist autocracy," Prachanda said.

"Objectively and ultimately, the main spirit of the understanding is not to seek compromise with any kind of monarchy but to generate widespread struggle against it," he added.

Responding to a question as to how an understanding between the Maoists spearheading an armed rebellion and the political parties leading a peaceful agitation was possible, Prachanda said, "The understanding stands on the foundation of the historic need of democracy and peace."

"We think that this understanding is in itself a preliminary coalition between the republicanism of the masses and the political parties aspiring for peace. We do not understand why some people fear from the use of the word coalition. Certainly, if all sides move forward the gravity of the subject in a responsible manner, this understanding can rise to a long-term front," the Maoist supremo has said in the interview.

He has also ruled out the possibility of any compromise with the monarchy. "From the end of autocratic monarchy and the establishment of absolute democracy (as mentioned in the 12-point parties-Maoist understanding), our party, certainly does not mean it will compromise for ceremonial monarchy and there is nothing in the understanding that gives that meaning," he said.

However, he said that his party is committed to accept a constituent assembly election conducted in a free, fair and peaceful manner and its result, adding, "the understanding carries this very spirit."

In the interview, Prachanda has also explained the "new peaceful political stream" mentioned in the understanding. "The political stream (that will be) created by the people through the constituent assembly elections is the new political stream."

On the question of whether or not his party would extend the ceasefire, Prachanda said, "Our party is yet to take a concrete decision whether to break the ceasefire or to extend it. The Party HQ will make a decision after considering the overall situation."

He, however, said that government actions like "killing unarmed Maoist activists, abducting them and terrorizing them..." were forcing him to take a "hard decision", adding that the breakdown of the ceasefire will not affect the understanding his party has reached with the seven mainstream parties.

"We have done enough discussion with the parties regarding this. Therefore, even if the ceasefire is broken, it will not have any effect on the understanding," he said.

[JKP]

He compromised on revolution because he isn't advocating it anymore; he is now advocating reformism.

Unless of course he decides to actually continue the struggle.

[Janus]

Perhaps he is looking for alternative solutions in the event that he is unable to topple the monarchy through force. Besides, I doubt the monarchy will even hold elections for an assembly since the king clings so desperately to power. So this extension by the Maoists is most likely only temporary.

[Red Heretic]

JKP, as Chairman Prachanda clearly said, the purpose of the coalition is to create a united front against the king for massive large scale agitation. It in no way represents a turn from arms struggle, revolution, or the possibility of insurrection. This ties into one of the things the Central Committee in Nepal passed, which calls for the combination of insurrection in the cities at the same time as people's war and surrounding the city from the countryside. This is one of the main factors that stresses that this revolution is LED BY THE PROLETARIAT!

I find that this revolutionary strategy seems to be a combination strategy of the Bolsheviks and that of the Chinese Revolution.

[I removed the article after I read it in full, and disagreed with it]

[JKP]

I'm pretty sure it's the vanguard that's making the decisions, not the proletariat (peasants actually, the proletariat is almost non existant in Nepal).

[Red Heretic]

JKP, you just completely ignored my whole post.

There is a proletariat in Nepal in the inner cities. Nepal is a semi-fuedal country, and is (or was, rather) in the trasition from feudalism to capitalism. It is under the leadership of the proletariat that the Nepalese revolution is happening.

The ideology of Prachanda Path is making a lot of contributions as to how we can really bring forward the proletariat and the masses in leading socialist revolution. That is why Chairman Prachanda has advocated a sort of cross between the Bolshevik revolutionary strategy of insurrection in the cities, and combined it with Mao's strategy of People's War and surrounding the cities from the countryside. By surrounding the cities from the countryside, the are sharpening the contributions between the proletariat and the imperialist bourgeoisie within the cities. This new coalition seeks to create an insurrection in the cities with the combined help of the peasantry all of the country. This new coalition seeks not to capitulate, but rather to TAKE STATE POWER!

The masses had more control of society in the People's Republic of China, and in the New Democratic Revolutionary Government in the Nepalese countryside than the masses have ever had in human history. Your claims are utterly false and unfounded, and based on negative bourgeois stereotypes of socialism. The Peasant Associations and the Cultural Revolution prove this.

[Hiero]

Chairman Prachanda also mentioned an interim government.

[celticfire]

The Communsts in Nepal haven't gone reformist at all; they are simply applying the mass line. Was Mao acting as a "reformist" with his New Democracy program? No, it was very revolutionary! Now fo course if they did become reformist, then they deserve criticism, but they haven't! ;)

[Punk Rocker]

The Nepalese Communists aren't going fucking reformist. They wouldn't just abandon the revolution after they've fought for freedom for so long, expecially now that the fascists are weaker than ever.

[Poum_1936]

Interesting to note that the Maoists have taken up the position on the united front. I was under the impression the Maoists disapproved of such ideas.

But what happens once the king is gone? The bourgeois will then begin to undermine the Maoists.

Also, are they tring to vote the king out?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:22 PM
Interesting to note that the Maoists have taken up the position on the united front. I was under the impression the Maoists disapproved of such ideas.

But what happens once the king is gone? The bourgeois will then begin to undermine the Maoists.

Also, are they tring to vote the king out?

Interesting to note that the Maoists have taken up the position on the united front. I was under the impression the Maoists disapproved of such ideas.

Originally the CPNM did not seek to unite with the revisionist communist party and the other political parties because they upheld the semi-feudal system (it was in their interests). The revisionist communist party used to even work with the king to get Maoist leaders assassinated, and was even involved in some actions against the revolution that resulted in the massive systematic raping and burning of entire villages.

In today's Nepal, the situation has changed. The king has banned bourgeois democracy, so the political parties have polarized toward the revolutionary forces (much like they did in places like Spain during the rise of fascism). They and the party have agreed to work together to force the king from power through massive widescale resistance and agitation within the cities, even against the wishes of the UN and the US.

This is not a move away from revolution on the Party's part, but rather a move to unleash both the proletariat in the inner cities and the peasantry simultaneously as a pre-empt to taking revolutionary state power. As I stated before, this is much like the Bolshevik revolutionary strategy of insurrection and wide scale agitation in the inner cities, combined with people war in the countryside, in order to leash an all around revolution that really benefits the masses of Nepal. The people's war in the countryside benefits insurrection within the cities by strengthening class contradictions inside the inner city (when the capitalist system is unable to exploit the masses in the countryside, the capitalists within the inner city are forced to increase their exploitation of the proletariat within the inner cities, thus sparking revolutionary insurrection in the inner cities).

This is NOT a plan to remove the king from power through elections AT ALL. The political parties have openly stated that they will not participate in any election until the King is forced out of power.

What we are seeing comrades, is the emergence of a completely new stage of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with the incredible new contributions of Chairman Prachanda. We are literally watching the birth of the ideology of Prachanda Path and Nepal as the base area for the next wave of world revolution.

[Punk Rocker]

This is NOT a plan to remove the king from power through elections AT ALL. The political parties have openly stated that they will not participate in any election until the King is forced out of power.

The king is a total fascist who said "democracy and progress contradict one another" when he dissolved the republic and made himself dictator.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050405/capt.sge.dyf70.050405053754.photo00.photo.default-305x384.jpg

Look at the bastard, his banner might as well say "I am a fascist dictator".

But hey, if he's seriously going to step down and make way for socialist New Democracy, with free and open elections, thats cool. But that's probably not going to happen, and I hope Prachanda is ready to go back to violent revolution when he realizes this is bullshit.


What we are seeing comrades, is the emergence of a completely new stage of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with the incredible new contributions of Chairman Prachanda. We are literally watching the birth of the ideology of Prachanda Path and Nepal as the base area for the next wave of world revolution.

Cool.

[Red Heretic]

Comrade, Chairman Prachanda never said that the CPNM was going to discontinue armed struggle. People's war is still scheduled to be resumed at the end of the ceasefire, which is Friday (although Chairman Prachanda is considering slightly extending the ceasefire in order to continue the official party work and large scale protests and resistance to the regime in order to unite all forces that can be united before they go for state power). The party wants to do everything it can to ensure it popularity and representation of the masses of Nepal before it takes state power.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 28 2005, 04:36 PM
The lie that the bourgeois media is spreading (that the new coalition is a sign that the Communist Party of Nepal is capitulating) is total BULLSHIT! The Anti-Monarchy coalition serves the purpose of driving out the monarchy, it is a united front against the King, NOT A COMPROMISE!

Have you read the 12-point agreement?

Miles

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2005 02:02 pm
He compromised on revolution because he isn't advocating it anymore; he is now advocating reformism.

Unless of course he decides to actually continue the struggle.
Hey, looks like I was right.


Nepali Govt, Maoists Sign Comprehensive Peace Treaty
http://au.news.yahoo.com/061122/3/11iyw.html

[Severian]

Originally posted by JKP+November 26, 2006 02:51 am--> (JKP @ November 26, 2006 02:51 am)
[email protected] 28, 2005 02:02 pm
He compromised on revolution because he isn't advocating it anymore; he is now advocating reformism.

Unless of course he decides to actually continue the struggle.Hey, looks like I was right.[/b]
Compared to Red Heretic, sure. Not only have they signed a peace accord, but their fighters are gathering to have their weapons locked up. (http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=92307) What's more, they're scheduled to join a coalition interim government. Becoming a minister in a capitalist government has always been considered the ultimate sellout by revolutionary Marxists. (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1901/socialist-crisis-france/ch01.htm)

But you're wrong to suggest they were ever revolutionaries, or that to "return to the struggle" would make them revolutionaries or be a positive development. Far from leading workers and peasants to carry out a revolutionary struggle, they carried out a campaign of terror against working people.

So this is actually a major step forward. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59129) It creates better conditions for working people in Nepal to discuss, organize, and fight for their interests.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Severian+November 26, 2006 03:33 am--> (Severian @ November 26, 2006 03:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 02:51 am

[email protected] 28, 2005 02:02 pm
He compromised on revolution because he isn't advocating it anymore; he is now advocating reformism.

Unless of course he decides to actually continue the struggle.Hey, looks like I was right.
Compared to Red Heretic, sure. Not only have they signed a peace accord, but their fighters are gathering to have their weapons locked up. (http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=92307) What's more, they're scheduled to join a coalition interim government. Becoming a minister in a capitalist government has always been considered the ultimate sellout by revolutionary Marxists. (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1901/socialist-crisis-france/ch01.htm)

But you're wrong to suggest they were ever revolutionaries, or that to "return to the struggle" would make them revolutionaries or be a positive development. Far from leading workers and peasants to carry out a revolutionary struggle, they carried out a campaign of terror against working people.

So this is actually a major step forward. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59129) It creates better conditions for working people in Nepal to discuss, organize, and fight for their interests. [/b]
Because as you know, the king wasn't leading a reign a terror against the working class at all. :rolleyes:

As an anarchist, do I support forms of Leninism such as Maoism? No. But I do recognize (as any Marxist would) that overthrowing semi-feudal relations is a progressive thing.

Your "coke vs pepsi" bias against Maoism doesn't particularly interest me. I'd rather look at this in an objective manner.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 06:17 am

Because as you know, the king wasn't leading a reign a terror against the working class at all. :rolleyes:
Hm - so if both sides are conducting terror against working people, naturally that means we should support one of them. No, wait, something wrong with that logic. Who's being coke vs pepsi, here?

And "the king was leading a reign of terror", past tense - so as I said "So this is actually a major step forward. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59129) It creates better conditions for working people in Nepal to discuss, organize, and fight for their interests."

The end to the civil war ends the terror by one side - and removes the main justification for terror by the other.

On top of everything else, the bourgeois-demoratic government gets credit for negotiating an end to the civil war.....further pushing back the possibility of royalist counterrevolution. Consider that when the king seized absolute power, his excuse was the failure of the politicians to bring an end to the war. (Which he proposed to do through military victory.)


As an anarchist, do I support forms of Leninism such as Maoism? No.

Labelmania, as if ideologies rather than actions were decisive.


But I do recognize (as any Marxist would) that overthrowing semi-feudal relations is a progressive thing.

As with anything, that depends on what replaces 'em. Was the overthrow of semi-feudal relations by the Khmer Rouge progressive?


Your "coke vs pepsi" bias against Maoism doesn't particularly interest me. I'd rather look at this in an objective manner.

Oh. So objectively, what made the guerillas a step forward? Has anyone given more objective facts in support of their viewpoint on Nepal than I have?

No, I'm sorry, it's only bias and labelmania that makes anyone support the CPN(Maoist)...they're labelled Maoist, it must be the same as the Chinese Revolution. Insert standard position here. No need to examine facts or think....

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Punk [email protected] 29, 2005 11:36 am
expecially now that the fascists are weaker than ever.
There are no fascists in this conflict.

[Vargha Poralli]

Taking Indian and Nepalese Maoists as genuine revolutionaries will be a serious mistake guys. Even though they are not as bad as Polpot(by Severian's standard) they are not effective as they project themselves. Even though the bourgeoisie media greatly exaggerates their their brutality they are not saints either. They are all truly manifestations of all that had been wrong with Mao.Obviously there is a hell a lot of difference between what Mao wrote about protracted war and what the Naxals put in practice.

[Janus]

Hey, looks like I was right.
Did you really dig this old thread up just to state that? :lol:

Anyways, it was obvious that the Maoists were going to join the interim gov. after their inability to seize power militarily.

I think we still need to wait to see what the constituent assembly decides on and what will be done with the monarchy. But otherwise, it seems that the Maoists are going to be easing into the interim gov. with little problems now.


There are no fascists in this conflict.
Gyanendra, when he was an absolute monarch, was considered fascist in practice by his opponents.

[SPK]

I bet the RCP-usa has worked itself into contortions over this one...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 01:07 pm

Hey, looks like I was right.
Did you really dig this old thread up just to state that? :lol:
Is that unreasonable? Political charlatans are like a supermarket tabloid psychic: the only way to really check up on 'em is to come back after a while and see if any of their predictions came true.

It's also the scientific method: theories imply predictions, which can be tested.


Anyways, it was obvious that the Maoists were going to join the interim gov. after their inability to seize power militarily.

And yet somehow that wasn't so obvious to Red Heretic or Punk Rocker. Possibly their conclusions were not remotely based on facts?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 02:18 pm
I bet the RCP-usa has worked itself into contortions over this one...
It's even better than that: Their website has nothing new on the subject since May. (http://rwor.org/previous-issues/index.html) That article was apparently written before the king surrender power to parliament.

Predictions wrong? Turns out everything you've said was wrong? No problem!

Nepal? We never heard of anyplace called Nepal.

I notice Red Heretic hasn't posted anything substantive recently giving his view of current developments there, either.....

[Janus]

Is that unreasonable?
No, I was just remarking that it would've been a lot easier just to start a new thread.


Possibly their conclusions were not remotely based on facts?
One could've easily predicted the Maoists' plans by the statement issued while the Maoists were in the midst of the early negotiations after the ceasefire.


Predictions wrong? Turns out everything you've said was wrong? No problem!

Nepal? We never heard of anyplace called Nepal.
Who knows, they might just issue another of these "We haven't compromised on revolution..." statements.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 02:32 pm

Is that unreasonable?
No, I was just remarking that it would've been a lot easier just to start a new thread.
The whole point was to point to what Red Heretic said previously. Not to let the record go down the memory hole.

[Joseph Ball]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 11:33 am




Sevarin-'Not only have they signed a peace accord, but their fighters are gathering to have their weapons locked up.'
Joseph Ball-Yes but the Maoists will have the key to the weapons stores and government troops will be confined to barracks. Maoists are not disarming.

Sevarin-'What's more, they're scheduled to join a coalition interim government. Becoming a minister in a capitalist government has always been considered the ultimate sellout by revolutionary Marxists.'
Joseph Ball-After, 10 years of People's War, the Maoists have power in Nepal. They are joining this government to exercise this power and to attempt to lead the situation in Nepal down a revolutionary path.

Sevarian-'Far from leading workers and peasants to carry out a revolutionary struggle, they carried out a campaign of terror against working people.'
Joseph Ball-The evidence for which is...? Or is this just another case of Trotskyists recycling crude anti-communist propaganda.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I notice Red Heretic hasn't posted anything substantive recently giving his view of current developments there, either.....

He said a while back that he wouldn't be able to post for a while. Let's be fair.


So objectively, what made the guerillas a step forward?

A few things...

This article (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?76) from The Free Press covers some of them..

"In the areas liberated from the monarchy the oppression of women is being overturned. Women are taking up jobs that were previously forbidden to them, men are taking part in housework, arranged marriages and the ban on divorces have been overturned, etc. But there is still a long way to go."

[Severian]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 26, 2006 06:34 pm

I notice Red Heretic hasn't posted anything substantive recently giving his view of current developments there, either.....

He said a while back that he wouldn't be able to post for a while. Let's be fair.
What? No, I mean since June. He's posted plenty since then, including general praise for the Maoists - but no substantive comment on the current events.

None of that in your post, either.


QUOTE
So objectively, what made the guerillas a step forward?


A few things...

This article from The Free Press covers some of them..

"In the areas liberated from the monarchy the oppression of women is being overturned. Women are taking up jobs that were previously forbidden to them, men are taking part in housework, arranged marriages and the ban on divorces have been overturned, etc. But there is still a long way to go."

I'm sorry, but because you say it - or your party's editorials say it - does not make it a fact.

[Hiero]

I'm sorry, but because you say it - or your party's editorials say it - does not make it a fact.

Do you need BBC approval?

The worst thing that I have read so far is the turning over of confiscated property. I am not sure what this means. With the locking up of weapons and soldiers being placed idle in barracks, basically the CPN (M) are turning over everything that have gained and everything that have for protection, just for official political representation.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 09:47 am

I'm sorry, but because you say it - or your party's editorials say it - does not make it a fact.

Do you need BBC approval?

The worst thing that I have read so far is the turning over of confiscated property. I am not sure what this means. With the locking up of weapons and soldiers being placed idle in barracks, basically the CPN (M) are turning over everything that have gained and everything that have for protection, just for official political representation.
But with them they done and accomplished nothing. This is really a good thing actually. Maoists had no cred in the uprising against the king >It was done by sheer will of the people.and i am sure if king carries out any misadventure again he will not be alive for long.MAoists tooo can benefit from it.With out weapons and by taking part in administration the people might gain confidence with them.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph Ball+November 26, 2006 06:17 pm--> (Joseph Ball @ November 26, 2006 06:17 pm) Sevarin-'Not only have they signed a peace accord, but their fighters are gathering to have their weapons locked up.'
Joseph Ball-Yes but the Maoists will have the key to the weapons stores and government troops will be confined to barracks. Maoists are not disarming. [/b]
Yes, those are part of the agreement on weapons management, which binds both sides roughly equally....except the government's army, unlike the CPN(M)'s, isn't required to lock up all it's weapons. It's a good thing, of course, that both are being prevented from intimidating the population, especially before the elections to the Constituent Assembly.

But what's your overall point here - what, do you think they're planning to renege on the spirit of the agreements they've signed? Are the guarantees insufficient to prevent that?

I don't think so, and nobody in Nepali politics seems to think so. For starters, the government wouldn't have signed the accords if they thought the Maoists were planning to back out of 'em.

Technically they could try to go back to war - but they'd face all the problems that forced them into peace negotiations - plus even more popular revulsion, for that act of treachery. They'd be seen as responsible for restarting the bloodshed.


Sevarin-'What's more, they're scheduled to join a coalition interim government. Becoming a minister in a capitalist government has always been considered the ultimate sellout by revolutionary Marxists.'
Joseph Ball-After, 10 years of People's War, the Maoists have power in Nepal. They are joining this government to exercise this power and to attempt to lead the situation in Nepal down a revolutionary path.

A platitude, not a serious and concrete response.

In reality, they're dismantling the power they've held in most of rural Nepal - their "People's Government" is being shut down as part of the accords.

And please, explain how you can make a revolution through a coalition government where bourgeois politicians hold most of the seats. And which heads the old, bourgeois-feudal, state apparatus. Were the Mensheviks right?


Sevarian-'Far from leading workers and peasants to carry out a revolutionary struggle, they carried out a campaign of terror against working people.'
Joseph Ball-The evidence for which is...? Or is this just another case of Trotskyists recycling crude anti-communist propaganda.

If by "crude anti-communist propaganda" you mean, every source of information other than the CPN(Maoist) and its fans internationally, then yes.

I gave a great many sources throughout the three pages of this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386) Bourgeois media, Nepali labor unions, you name it. Of course, all of those were rejected by people who prefer to believe everything in CPN(Maoist) press releases. This is simple psychological denial. I don't expect you do be any different.

I also pointed out in that thread - in May 2005 - to a longtime RCP member, Flyby:
Our different assessments of the CPN(M)'s character lead to different predictions. It's a teensy bit like a testable hypothesis. You say "but if you are close to seizing power (as they are in Nepal)", and gaining support from broader forces. I say they're losing support, are unlikely to take power, and will eventually go the way of Sendero.

Let's see whose assessment is closer to reality. Time will tell.

And about a year later - the CPN(M)'s course towards negotiating a compromise was clear. Turned out my hypothesis was right, and Flyby's was wrong. Frankly, I didn't expect confirmation that quickly.


Hiero.
With the locking up of weapons and soldiers being placed idle in barracks, basically the CPN (M) are turning over everything that have gained and everything that have for protection, just for official political representation.

Yup. For that, plus amnesty. This way Prachandra won't end up in jail like "Chairman Gonzalo" in Peru. It's probably the only way not to.

They question is, why couldn't they find any other way forward? None of the CPN(Maoist)'s fans can explain that.

Here they had the military strength to hold most of the countryside. Then there came a mass upsurge in the cities against the same regime they were fighting for. Yet they couldn't ride this situation forward - instead they're negotiating terms which leave the propertied classes in power.

I can explain why not - heck, I predicted and explained it in advance. Throughout the turbulent events of earlier this year, (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=49182) my understanding gave me a handle on events while others were clueless again and again.

The CPN(Maoist) are alien and hostile to the working masses, especially in the cities. Not going to benefit from an independent mass upsurge - plus the peasants under their rule are becoming more and more resentful of it. Their ability to fight was beginning to disintegrate - as an early symptom, they had to begin conscripting fighters. Even the stalemate couldn't be continued forever.

But if you think there was something revolutionary about them, this course of events it wholly inexplicable. Which is why their fans don't even try to explain it.

[Joseph Ball]

.

Sevarin-'What's more, they're scheduled to join a coalition interim government. Becoming a minister in a capitalist government has always been considered the ultimate sellout by revolutionary Marxists.'
Joseph Ball-After, 10 years of People's War, the Maoists have power in Nepal. They are joining this government to exercise this power and to attempt to lead the situation in Nepal down a revolutionary path.

Sevarin-'A platitude, not a serious and concrete response.

Joseph Ball-I was in Nepal during the April movement and it was obvious that the Maoists controlled the country, outside the major urban areas (i.e. in 80% of the country). The new agreement just consolidates their power. The old state is finished. It has been destroyed by 10 years of people's war. Non-proletarian classes that have a progressive role to play are joining with the party of the proletariat-the Maoists-to create a new political set-up. This is the strategy of New Democracy developed by Mao.

Sevarian-'Far from leading workers and peasants to carry out a revolutionary struggle, they carried out a campaign of terror against working people.'
Joseph Ball-The evidence for which is...? Or is this just another case of Trotskyists recycling crude anti-communist propaganda.

If by "crude anti-communist propaganda" you mean, every source of information other than the CPN(Maoist) and its fans internationally, then yes.
I gave a great many sources throughout the three pages of this thread. Bourgeois media, Nepali labor unions, you name it. Of course, all of those were rejected by people who prefer to believe everything in CPN(Maoist) press releases. This is simple psychological denial. I don't expect you do be any different.
Joseph Ball-There's nothing about this in this thread. There are a lot of pro-imperialist 'human rights monitors' hanging around in Nepal and drawing their fat salaries for nothing. Marxists like you should understand that we want rights for the proletariat which will entail the suppression of the bourgeoisie. If you do not accept the latter, then you are in favour of the suppression of the proletariat. Which side are you on Sevarin?


Sevarin-'Here they had the military strength to hold most of the countryside. Then there came a mass upsurge in the cities against the same regime they were fighting for. Yet they couldn't ride this situation forward - instead they're negotiating terms which leave the propertied classes in power. '
Joseph Ball-The Maoists led the upsurge in the cities. The upsurge in the cities only became successful when the Maoists led the rural masses into the cities to protest during the 19 day general strike. The sight of the rural masses returning from the countryside after the successful movement was heartening to see. I was in the towns before this and the urban population was too weak on its own to defeat the state.

Sevarin-'The CPN(Maoist) are alien and hostile to the working masses, especially in the cities.
Joseph Ball-Here we have classic Trotskyism, the urban masses are everything and the peasants nothing. It's the typical snobbery of the urban elites.

Sevarin-'Their ability to fight was beginning to disintegrate'
Joseph Ball-This statement has absolutely no basis. Pure Trotsky-imperialist nonsense. Where's the evidence for this? In April the Maoists were carrying out massive attacks. Sevarin can't even quote a bourgeois media source for this she/he is just making up this bourgeois propaganda as she/he goes along.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph Ball+November 27, 2006 05:51 pm--> (Joseph Ball @ November 27, 2006 05:51 pm)
Severian

I gave a great many sources throughout the three pages of this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386) Bourgeois media, Nepali labor unions, you name it. Of course, all of those were rejected by people who prefer to believe everything in CPN(Maoist) press releases. This is simple psychological denial. I don't expect you do be any different.
There's nothing about this in this thread. There are a lot of pro-imperialist 'human rights monitors' hanging around in Nepal and drawing their fat salaries for nothing. [/b]
Look at that! Another successful prediction!

Everything else in your post has been previously claimed by others, and I've previously refuted it.

And, like all other fans of the CPN(M), you're unwilling to give any serious explanation of current events. If the CPN(M) was so powerful, so popular, and led the April upsurge as you bizarrely claim - how come they aren't in power? How come they're surrendering in exchange for a place in the bourgeois order, rather than making their own new order?

You claim to have been to Nepal, but of course I have no way of verifying that. In any case, you give few specific facts that might contradict the overall picture I've received from many other sources, including people who live there.

And you strike me as a lot like the 1950s Maoist you once cited, who managed to visit China during the Great Leap Forward without seeing any signs of a famine. What's the point of having eyes if you refuse to use them?

[Joseph Ball]

Sevarin-'And, like all other fans of the CPN(M), you're unwilling to give any serious explanation of current events. If the CPN(M) was so powerful, so popular, and led the April upsurge as you bizarrely claim - how come they aren't in power? How come they're surrendering in exchange for a place in the bourgeois order, rather than making their own new order?'
Joseph Ball-As I keep saying, they're not surrendering. Part of the agreement they have made is that neither side in the war will seek tactical advantage from the confinement of Maoists to cantonments and the National Army to barracks. As the Nepalese (anti-Maoist) news agency Ekantipur reported on 28.11.06 the agreement between Maoists and the government specifies that 'Neither of the parties shall engage in movement or redeployment of forces resulting in tactical or strategic advantage.
So, if the National Army does try to move into base areas, the agreement ends, the Maoists can unlock their weapons (they will have a key to the weapon stores) and the NA's aggressive move can be countered.
Sevarin-'You claim to have been to Nepal, but of course I have no way of verifying that. In any case, you give few specific facts that might contradict the overall picture I've received from many other sources, including people who live there.'
Joseph Ball-Unlike some people whose whole political universe ends at the borders of the imperialist nations and who think Yankee proletarians on 30 or 40,000 dollars a year are in the vanguard of world revolution, I have actually visited oppressed nations, including Nepal. If you have listened to people who have been to Nepal whose views contradict mine, I would be genuinely interested to hear what they have to say.
Sevarin-'And you strike me as a lot like the 1950s Maoist you once cited, who managed to visit China during the Great Leap Forward without seeing any signs of a famine. What's the point of having eyes if you refuse to use them?'
Joseph Ball-Felix Greene saw food shortages but not famine. This could easily be explained by the fact he did not go to famine hit areas. In Mao's China non-famine areas had to give up some of their food to assist famine areas. This would explain the food shortages he saw in the non-famine areas he visited. If anything, his observations confirm the eqalitarian, socialist nature of Mao's China.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 29, 2006 06:23 pm
Sevarin-'And, like all other fans of the CPN(M), you're unwilling to give any serious explanation of current events. If the CPN(M) was so powerful, so popular, and led the April upsurge as you bizarrely claim - how come they aren't in power? How come they're surrendering in exchange for a place in the bourgeois order, rather than making their own new order?'
Joseph Ball-As I keep saying, they're not surrendering.
Do you claim the CPN(Maoist) is lying when they say the civil war is over? If so, on what basis?

And if not, if the civil war is over, it's clear which state machine retains power.

The Nepalese army has no need to make any aggressive moves, that's just a distraction you're throwing up.


If you have listened to people who have been to Nepal whose views contradict mine, I would be genuinely interested to hear what they have to say.

You've already proved that a lie. I've given plenty of sources - in the thread I linked earlier, among others - who have not only been to Nepal, they live there. Nepali individuals, organizations - including workers' organizations - and media. You were not any kind of interested.


Felix Greene saw food shortages but not famine. This could easily be explained by the fact he did not go to famine hit areas.

Is that a fact? Can you prove it? Could there be another explanation - that as a True Believer he did not want to see anything that contradicted his faith?

That's certainly my experience with most Maoists, and with you.

[Joseph Ball]

Sevarin-'Do you claim the CPN(Maoist) is lying when they say the civil war is over? If so, on what basis?
And if not, if the civil war is over, it's clear which state machine retains power.
The Nepalese army has no need to make any aggressive moves, that's just a distraction you're throwing up.'

Joseph Ball-The Nepalese army has no power or freedom of movement outside the towns as I observed very clearly in April. Therefore the semi-feudal state machine hardly has 'power' in Nepal. If they try to use the agreement to claw back their power, then the agreement is null and void.

Obviously, when you win a war you tend to declare it's over. I know Trotskyists get confused about related matters and start declaring 'neither war nor peace' when their army has collapsed and is retreating in disorder but for most people these issues are clear cut.

Sevarin-'You've already proved that a lie. I've given plenty of sources - in the thread I linked earlier, among others - who have not only been to Nepal, they live there. Nepali individuals, organizations - including workers' organizations - and media. You were not any kind of interested.'
Joseph Ball-I've looked in vain for all of this, you'll have to link to it again.

Sevarin-' 'Joseph Ball-Felix Greene saw food shortages but not famine. This could easily be explained by the fact he did not go to famine hit areas. '

Is that a fact? Can you prove it? Could there be another explanation - that as a True Believer he did not want to see anything that contradicted his faith?
That's certainly my experience with most Maoists, and with you.'

Joseph Ball- I used to believe in the rubbish about the Great Leap Forward too until I scientifically analysed it, so the chain of causation was the other way round. I became a Maoist because I came to believe he had not killed tens of millions, rather than it being that I decided he had not done this because I became a Maoist. The evidence I present for this is in the article 'Did Mao Really Kill Millions In The Great Leap Forward?' at www.monthlyreview.org, in the 'Commentary' section.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 30, 2006 03:25 pm
Sevarin-'Do you claim the CPN(Maoist) is lying when they say the civil war is over?
Joseph Ball.....Obviously, when you win a war you tend to declare it's over.
You never did directly answer my question, but I guess this means the war's over and the CPN(Maoist) won. You don't seem to be claiming that they are lying or that they will break the accords. So is this victory and power?

Nobody else seems to think so. Does this really need a refutation? Well, what the heck.

Text of the Peace Accord (http://www.kantipuronline.com/englishagree.php)
Relevant sections:

5.1.6. Nepal Police and Armed Police Force shall give continuity to the task of maintaining legal system and law and order along with criminal investigation as per the norms and sentiments of the Jana Andolan and peace accord as well as prevailing law.
.....
5.1.8. Both sides agree to maintain a record of the government, public, private building, land and other property seized, locked up or not allowed to use in course of the armed conflict and return them back immediately.

5.2 Situation Normalisation Measures:
5.2.1.Collection of cash or kind and tax collection against one's wish and against the existing law shall not be allowed.
.....
5.2.11. Both sides agree not to create any kind of obstacle and allow any kind of obstruction to be created in the independent traveling, assuming of duties and executing of work by the Government of Nepal and Public Bodies' employees and assist them in their work.

5.2.12. Both sides agree to allow unrestricted traveling as per the law within the state of Nepal to the United Nations, International Donors Agencies and Diplomatic Missions based in Nepal, National and International Non-Government Organisations, Press, Human Rights Activists, Election Observers and foreign tourists.
.....
They agree to put to an end, on an immediate basis, activities like taking the educational institutions under control and using them, abducting teachers and students, taking them under control and making them to disappear, and to not to establish barracks in a way that it would impede them.
....
10.5. The concept of 'two sides' as mentioned in this agreement would automatically cease to exist after the constitution of the Interim Legislature -Parliament. Thereafter, all the responsibility of implementing the obligations stated in this agreement shall be as per the arrangements made by the interim Council of Ministers.

Emphasis added. Clearly, it's the Kathmandu government which will be administering the country, including tax collection, policing, and the legal system. They don't need to send the army out to the whole country - they didn't before the civil war began (or even when it was first getting going!)

There are other interesting provisions of this accord, including the removal of all power and even property from royal control. But nothing outside the limits of bourgeois democracy. Indeed, the whole accord is a clear affirmation of bourgeois democracy.

[Joseph Ball]

All Sevarin's post does is show that the peace accords give power to the government. Yes, but the Maoists are going to be part of the government and will struggle to lead this government. The real wildcard is the role of the ex-royal army. They still have some power in the cities and could pose a threat. Hence the agreement to keep them confined to barracks and prevent them seeking any tactical advantage. Sevarin does not really show an understanding of politics. Mao said 'Power comes from the barrel of a gun'. He did not say, 'All there is to power is pointing a gun at someone's head.' The fact that the Maoists have achieved so much in Nepal shows the genius of the Prachanda line, building on the example of Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

[Louis Pio]

Just a small question Mr Balls: does this mean in your oppinion that the traditional reformist struggle for government seats are justified?
Btw I have a very hard time understanding how succumbing to the bourgious state is a victory, but looking forward to be "enlightent".


The fact that the Maoists have achieved so much in Nepal shows the genius of the Prachanda line, building on the example of Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Ahh please don't call old Lenin reformist, he's suffered enough abuse already.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 30, 2006 06:15 pm
All Sevarin's post does is show that the peace accords give power to the government. Yes, but the Maoists are going to be part of the government and will struggle to lead this government.
Yup, the ol' social democracy. This Menshevik perspective is a step forward for the directly antiworker CPN(Maoist), to be sure - but it's still a Menshevik perspective.

Again, joining capitalist governments has always been rejected by revolutionary Marxists. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1901/socialist-crisis-france/ch01.htm)

The discussion now in Nepal is on whether the monarchy will be abolished (probably it will) - not on whether capitalist rule will end.


Mao said 'Power comes from the barrel of a gun'. He did not say, 'All there is to power is pointing a gun at someone's head.'

How ironic that you would say that. 'Cause in fact, that's the only kind of power the CPN(Maoist) has ever excercised. Without it, they're largely screwed.

There's a real question whether the CPN(Maoists) cadre are going to be the target of revenge by the rural population they've abused. Already there have been mobilizations by peasants to un-conscript their children. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59129)

Maybe they'll hold onto enough of a following to be a significant parliamentary party. Or maybe not. Certainly they will be a minority in the constituent assembly, and no contender for power.

Oh, I just did a sort of index to my sources on Nepal: here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59129&st=0&#entry1292220117)

[RNK]

Prachanda isn't advocating reformism. From what I've gathered from my own Party (which is close to the CPNM), this current strategy is, in effect, the "end game" strategy by Prachanda. He believes that the fighting war is over, that his forces have emerged as the dominant power, and most importantly he believes that his movement is now strong enough to sweep into government and take full control of the country with the consent of the Nepali people, who have largely rallied behind Prachanda's Maoists. Anyone who honestly believes that suddenly, on the eve of victory (and the Maoists were undeniably on the eve of victory), Prachanda would abandon people's revolution to pursue reformism seriously needs to open their eyes.

Just realized you're a Trotskyist, Severian.. That explains a bit.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:50 am
Prachanda isn't advocating reformism. From what I've gathered from my own Party (which is close to the CPNM), this current strategy is, in effect, the "end game" strategy by Prachanda. He believes that the fighting war is over, that his forces have emerged as the dominant power, and most importantly he believes that his movement is now strong enough to sweep into government and take full control of the country with the consent of the Nepali people, who have largely rallied behind Prachanda's Maoists.
Have they? How do you know? Well, let's say for the sake of argument that they might win a majority in the Constituent Assembly. I doubt it, for reasons given earlier, but let's go with the assumption.

This remains a reformist perspective, to think that majority can be translated into fundamental change.

Note that the CPN(M) isn't particularly leading any mass actions or anything at this time; they're just trying to turn themselves into an electoral party.


Just realized you're a Trotskyist, Severian.. That explains a bit.

Am I? What do you mean by that statement, how do you know it's true, and what does it explain? Other than helping you ignore facts by demonizing the messenger, that is.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 28, 2005 11:12 pm
JKP, as Chairman Prachanda clearly said, the purpose of the coalition is to create a united front against the king for massive large scale agitation. It in no way represents a turn from arms struggle, revolution, or the possibility of insurrection. This ties into one of the things the Central Committee in Nepal passed, which calls for the combination of insurrection in the cities at the same time as people&#39;s war and surrounding the city from the countryside. This is one of the main factors that stresses that this revolution is LED BY <s>THE PROLETARIAT</s> CHAIRMAN PRACHANDA&#33;

fixed.