Maoists in Nepal [Archive]

WorkerBolshevik

20th January 2006, 06:15

As with all things Maoist, there are ups and downs to the current Revolution in Nepal. First off, to address one of the questions in your post, based on Marxist standards, the Nepalese Revolution would not be classified as Communist. Rather, it is a peasant socialist revolution. Never the less, this does promise a great leap forward from the feudalist nature of modern Nepal. Yes, there is an already rigid beaurocracy in the Nepalese Communist Party, and many of the Maoist volenteers are coerced, or even forced into 'volunteering'. The party has comitted unneccesary acts of violence in the country side, though the reports of such are grossly violated, and do not compare to those commited by the Royal Nepalese army. If this Revolution succeeds, a Workers State will not be the result, and Socialism will likely never directly result from it. Yet, all true Working Class Revolutionaries should support the Nepalese Revolution nevertheless, as it is the fight of the opressed peasantry against the capitalist-back monarchy, it will improve the quality of life of the Nepalese people, begin to industrialize Nepal and therefore create stronger Nepalese Working Class, and will be a great allie to the other Lefist Revolutionaries in the region, specificly in neighboring Indian Provinces. So no, the revolution in Nepal is not Communist, but it will benefit the working class and other opressed peoples, and for that reason should be defended.

Severian

20th January 2006, 08:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:31 AM
Yet, all true Working Class Revolutionaries should support the Nepalese Revolution nevertheless, as it is the fight of the opressed peasantry against the capitalist-back monarchy, it will improve the quality of life of the Nepalese people, begin to industrialize Nepal and therefore create stronger Nepalese Working Class, and will be a great allie to the other Lefist Revolutionaries in the region, specificly in neighboring Indian Provinces.
Which makes about as much sense as expecting the Khmer Rouge to industrialize Cambodia.

Past thread on the Nepalese Maoists. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=0&#entry1291864457)

They are not the expression of the interests of the peasantry - the peasantry is incapable of playing an independent political role. Too dispersed for one thing.

It is a petty-bourgeois sect seeking to impose its utopian dogmas by force and terror against working people. Similar to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or the Shining Path in Peru. Reactionary by its class nature.

There is no substitute for the working class, the only revolutionary class in the world today. There is a working class in Nepal, and that is only force which can lead the Nepalese peasantry to make any kind of progressive revolution.

In that past thread, a number of the Nepalese Maoists' fans tried to justify their terror against workers' organizations including the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), by claiming that party was informing on the Maoists to the royal government.

I wonder what they'd say now that the Maoists have concluded an alliance with that supposedly snitch party and other opposition parties, and promised to suspend their violence against those parties. Meanwhile, those parties are coming under heavy governmental repression for attempting to organize rallies against the absolute monarchy.

In today's news, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4629288.stm) the government has imposed an all-day curfew to try to prevent rallies. In other words, put the whole population of Kathmandu under house arrest.

The potential for mass action by the working class is the main possibility for a way out of the current dead-end situation, where Nepal's working people are caught between two reactionary forces, the monarchy and the guerillas.

WorkerBolshevik

20th January 2006, 20:58

I agree with you in all but your assumptions that the Nepalese Maoists are anywhere close to the level of the Khmer Rouge. However, as Communists, we must always support a more progressive rebelion against a fuedal government. That is why, even though many Palestinians are Muslim radicals, who's views diverge nearly as much as possible from our own, we support their fight for freedom against Israel and world Imperialism, and it is for that same reason that the Maoist rebels must be supported OVER the Nepalese government.

Severian

20th January 2006, 21:10

But of course you haven't shown there is anything progressive about them.

And "feudal" is probably an oversimplification in describing Nepal's social system today.

RebeldePorLaPAZ

20th January 2006, 22:12

http://www.democracynow.org/

I'm not sure if it was todays or yesterdays broadcast but they had an update and an interview with what was going on in Nepal. Worth checking out.

--Paz

kurt

20th January 2006, 22:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:26 PM
But of course you haven't shown there is anything progressive about them.
If the Maoists are victorious, they will throw off the chains of imperialism. That alone makes it progressive.

Andy Bowden

20th January 2006, 23:53

Surely if the Maoists get into power in Nepal they will at least give women equality, and put forward some basic land reform - not a Socialist society I agree, but doesn't that at least make it worth giving critical support?

I mean, I dont think the NLF, or the ANC were Socialist but I'd still give them critical support.

Janus

21st January 2006, 03:41

Yes, the Maoists have their leadership and command structure as does Nepal's other Communist party. The Maoists aren't perfect but they are trying to get rid of the dictator king and the absolute monarchial system. They are also trying to move Nepal past the obsolete and reactionary traditions such as the caste system and the oppression of women. Since the peasantry make up the Maoists' base of support, land reform is another major policy they have discussed of implementing. As you can see, the Maoists are trying to gain equality for the rural, indigenous Nepalese people. These goals are progressive compared to the current state of Nepal. The main reason why the Maoists have been able to gain so much power is that the majority of Nepal is rural and not urban, therefore without much of a working class (3%).

Red Heretic

21st January 2006, 04:31

It said that the revolution had certain leaders. There is no leader in proletarian revolution but the whole of the proletariat itself. "Leaders" in the past revolutionary movements have always created problems (i.e. Pol Pot).

Comrade, you need to understand that bcause of the deep inequalties cased by capitalism, there is uneven development of intellectual fermant among the proletariat, and because of capitalism, certain sections of the proletariat are going to become more advanced and lead the proletariat forward.

Yes, we communists all want a society without inequalities, in which we don't need leaders anymore, but unfortunately we will have to have a world revolution before we can do that. If all of the masses weren't oppressed, and were all intellectually developed, then we probably wouldn't even need a revolution in the first place. The masses aren't going to be able to develop intellectually so long as they are oppressed by this system.

We need to be clear though. Pol Pot hated Maoism, and communists. He was no communist leader. Pol part, and real commnist leaders, like Lenin and Mao, have nothing in common.

Another thing i wanted to discuss was whether or not this could be a Marxist, communist revolution in the first place. According to Historical Materialism, Marx said conflict always created progress of society in the past. Starting in the early 1800's, his idea of societal progress was Monarchy, overthrown to Feudalism, to Capitalism, then finally to Socialism and Communism. Nepal is practically going from Monarchy to Communism. A communist revolution needs the advances of capitalism behind it. Even Marx said he was impressed with the technological advances capitalism gave, and that orthodox revolution went in such an order.

This is true to a large degree. This is why both China and Nepal have what we Maoists call "New Democratic" revolution. This means that under the leadership up of the proletariat and its allies, a revolution occurs against feudalism in order to lay the foundations for a proletarian revolution. The basic timeline goes Fuedalism to New Democracy to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with cultural revolutions until communism(to prevent the restoration of capitalism until communism).

Unfortunately, the world has changed alot since comrade Marx first envisioned the world proletarian revolution. The main change is the rise of imperialism. Because of imperialism, large sections of the proletariat in advanced capitalist countries can be bought of by the crumbs dropped by the world-wide capitalist class, and turned against the fundamental interests of the much larger world proletariat. Things will remain this way until our comrades in the oppressed nations can establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and destroy imperialism.

Victory to the revolution in Nepal!

Severian

21st January 2006, 07:41

Originally posted by comradekurt+Jan 20 2006, 04:31 PM--> (comradekurt @ Jan 20 2006, 04:31 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 01:26 PM
But of course you haven't shown there is anything progressive about them.
If the Maoists are victorious, they will throw off the chains of imperialism. That alone makes it progressive. [/b]
Is Osama bin Laden progressive? Were the Khmer Rouge progressive?

This attitude that anything against imperialism is good, is total crap. It's basically saying, anything's good enough for the wogs.

Whether something's progressive depends on what it's for, not just what it's against.

Andy Bowden:

Surely if the Maoists get into power in Nepal they will at least give women equality, and put forward some basic land reform

Well, I guess men and women were "equally" beasts of burden for the Khmer Rouge, just as male and female livestock may be treated "equally" by some farmers. But I don't see what's progressive about that.

This is not a speculative question. The Maoists currently rule 80% of Nepal. It is known how they treat the population there - as a source of forced labor.

Amusing Scrotum

21st January 2006, 10:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:57 AM
It's basically saying, anything's good enough for the wogs.

So if someone supports the Nepalese Maoists they are guilty of not caring for the "wogs". Where as your back handed support for the Nepalese Monarchy is what? ....progressive? :lol:

Severian

21st January 2006, 12:02

^^.....a figment of your imagination?

Amusing Scrotum

21st January 2006, 12:39

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 21 2006, 12:18 PM--> (Severian @ Jan 21 2006, 12:18 PM) ^^.....a figment of your imagination? [/b]

Really???

Look at the link you provided to the past thread, don't you "support" the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) who think this....

CP-UML
We must transform both sides, although it is true to say that the democracy of the King is better than the democracy of the Maoists.

???

Perhaps maybe you don't "support" the CP-UML, you just identify (or agree) with them on issues regarding the Nepalese Maoists. In this case the question is....

Do you agree with the above statement? ....is the King's democracy "better" than the Maoists democracy?

Plus your opposition to the main force of resistance to the King. Will no doubt leave many with the opinion that you are a de-facto supporter of the Monarchy.

kaaos_af

21st January 2006, 14:47

Here is a breif updates I wrote for my zine:

On January 2, Chairman Prachanda of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) declared the end of the four month cease-fire between the People's Liberation Army and the Royal Nepalese Army, stating "...we urge all to understand the reality on the ground. It would be not only impossible but suicidal to extend the cease-fire in the face of the fascistic new activities of the Royal Army, and we humbly appeal to all to raise their voices against this situation." Stating "the government continued its military operation even during the period of unilateral ceasefire", Chairman Prachanda cited examples of RNA violations of the ceasefire, such as its actions against Maoist cadres in Rolpa, Palpa, Morang and other areas. Calling the cease-fire a "responsible initiative", Chairman Prachanda stated that the cease-fire had given the feudal autocrats a chance to hand over power to the people, a chance that they had not taken.

The ceasefire, which began on September 3, 2005, had the aim, according to Chairman Prachanda in a statement to the Maoist Janadesh newsweekly, of "creating an atmosphere at the national and international level in favour of a forward-looking political exit, inspiring the seven political parties to come to the co-struggle by aiming their tactical agendas straight forward, reinforcing the struggle of various sectors of civil society, increasing the political pressure on the old state and strengthening public relations by respecting the desires and feelings of the broad masses of people." He also made it quite clear that "there is no possibility of a dialogue with the old state, which would be meaningless."

Following the declaration ending the cease-fire on January 2, PLA guerillas set off bombs in Pokhara and Nepalgunj and destroyed several RNA vehicles around the country. On the 3rd of January, PLA guerillas bombed two government buildings in Bhairahawa and Butwal. Nepalgunj was bombed again on the 8th and on the 11th, a Maoist strike on the Dhangadi police headquarters destroyed the office of the Chief District Officer and the district prison, leaving seven policemen dead, according to official sources, while unofficial sources estimated up to 20 policemen dead. Also on the 11th, the District Development Committee Office in Gulariya of Bardiya district was destroyed by two bombs. An armed confrontation took place at Chitrya Bhanjayang on the 12th and the 13th, with 21 RNA troops and an officer killed and the PLA losing 9 troops. On the 14th, a Maoist attack on a police post at Thankot, on the outskirts of Kathmandu, left 11 policemen dead while at Dadikot, 17 police and three men, including a police inspector, were killed, with one policeman being arrested by PLA forces. During both strikes, the PLA suffered no deaths, with only minor injuries. Arms and ammunition were captured in great quantities following the attacks. Four government offices were bombed in central Kathmandu.

The strikes on the 11th was a great blow to the Nepalese monarchy, signalling the PLA's first steps into the capital. Feudal officials were at a loss to explain how PLA guerillas had managed to evade government forces and strike so deep in Royalist controlled territory. Night curfews have been set in Kathmandu with the possibility of daytime curfews being set in the lead-up to the February 8 elections.

kaaos_af

21st January 2006, 14:59

Hey, Severian, where do you get your info? Time Magazine? Reader's Digest? The Epoch Times? Instead of spewing your bourgeois vomit here, why not go and join Gyanenda's RNA death squads, seeing that you love him so much, and help cut off 15 year old girl's feet, and execute them in peasant fields, just like poor Sarala Sapkota?

If you want the real truth on what's going down in the soon-to-be People's Republic of Nepal, read this:
People's Power in Nepal (http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105mage.htm)

LONG LIVE THE GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S WAR!

Janus

21st January 2006, 22:45

Here is a recent event concerning "democracy" in Gyanendra's Nepal

Source: BBC News date:1/21/06

Nepalese police have rounded up scores of opposition activists in clashes on the streets of the capital.
Security forces fired tear gas as pro-democracy protesters hurled stones and scuffled with officers, in protest at King Gyanendra's absolute power.

The government says nearly 200 people were taken away in trucks, but the opposition put the number much higher.

The clashes followed a crackdown on activists on Friday, when protests were stymied by a curfew and mass arrests.

Hundreds of activists were held, while five opposition leaders, including former Prime Minister GP Koirala, were placed under 90 days' house arrest. The government says their freedom of movement could have an adverse effect on peace and security.

Police charges

While demonstrations in Kathmandu are sometimes good-humoured, Saturday's rally had an atmosphere of bitterness, the BBC's Charles Haviland says from the city.

The activists emerged in small groups to confront security forces, in defiance of the new ban on rallies.

"Down with autocracy" chanted protesters, before fleeing down Kathmandu's alleys in a bid to escape police charges.

Police swiftly pounced on some, manhandling and sometimes beating them - and some ordinary passers by - rounding them up and taking them off in police vans.

In what our correspondent says was a rare development, armed soldiers were brought out, but did not intervene.

Protesters hurled torrents of bricks and stones from many directions, and numerous canisters of tear gas were fired in return, sending people hurrying for shelter up the steps of the picturesque pagoda temple lining the central palace square.

Running battles continued for several hours in side-streets and alleys.

The Associated Press reported earlier that 50 people had been injured, including six police officers.

Condemnation

The opposition wants its supporters to boycott local elections next month, which it says are undemocratic and aimed at entrenching the rule of King Gyanendra, who seized absolute power in February 2005.

Nepal's authorities said they had information that Maoist rebels were planning to infiltrate Friday's rally and incite violence.

There was strong condemnation of the arrests from the international community.

"I call on the king urgently to release those arrested, and to find ways to resume dialogue with the political parties," British junior Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells said in a statement.

There has been an upsurge in violence since the Maoists abandoned a four-month unilateral truce earlier this month.

More than 12,000 people have died in Nepal since the Maoists began their fight for a communist republic 10 years ago.

Six police were killed during a Maoist rebel attack in the western town of Nepalganj on Friday.

With this amount of repression and Nepal's small number of workers, I doubt the workers can be the major impetus for change right now.

Severian

23rd January 2006, 00:37

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 21 2006, 06:58 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 21 2006, 06:58 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 12:18 PM
^^.....a figment of your imagination?

Really???

Look at the link you provided to the past thread, don't you "support" the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) who think this.... [/b]
No, I don't support them. My point about the CPN(UML) and the numerous other similar "Communist" parties in nepal, is to oppose terrorist attacks on all workers' parties and organizations. And that it is the working class which represents the way forward.

And if you think the CPN(UML) supports the king....why is the king arresting their leaders and imposing dawn-to-dusk curfews to suppress their protests? Why is the CPN(Maoist) in a sort of de facto alliance with them, suspending its attacks on the opposition parties and endorsing their protests in a statement?

Plus your opposition to the main force of resistance to the King. Will no doubt leave many with the opinion that you are a de-facto supporter of the Monarchy.

Two-value thinking. The same kind of reasoning behind "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" or "any vote that's not for Kerry is a vote for Bush." Besides the various enemies of the working class, there is the alternative of fighting for working people to take power.

[A.S. quoting the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist)]
We must transform both sides, although it is true to say that the democracy of the King is better than the democracy of the Maoists.

I don't think it's specially useful to try to figure out which evil is greater or lesser. The question is, do you support the lesser evil or fight against both.

You might think for a moment about why a workers' party in Nepal would say that, though, and what that fact says about the Maoists.

Hint: it ain't cause the CPN(UML) is a uniquely evil aberration. They're pretty typical of the numerous parties calling themselves "Communist" in Nepal. Just somewhat larger than the others, so a common target of those who know Nepal only from the guerillas' press releases.

And what's with the weasely "leave many with the opinion"? Is that your opinion, or not?

Severian

23rd January 2006, 00:45

Originally posted by Leninist [email protected] 21 2006, 09:18 AM
Hey, Severian, where do you get your info? Time Magazine? Reader's Digest? The Epoch Times?
I gave numerous sources here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=0&#entry1291864457), same thread link as before,) including webpages of workers' organizations in Nepal. A.S. just quoted one.

In contrast, fans of the CPN(Maoist) can give nothing but Maoist sources. It's not a good idea to uncritically accept what any organization says about itself.

The unprovoked attempt to demonize me is the kind of thing that people resort to when they can't defend a position on its merits...because it has none.

I could ask you - with more justice - why you're not imitating the atrocities of the CPN(Maoist), including abducting and killing members of far-left parties. But that wouldn't exactly contribute to civil discussion, would it?

Comrade Qiu wrote:

With this amount of repression and Nepal's small number of workers, I doubt the workers can be the major impetus for change right now.

If the CPN(Maoist) thought they were capable of taking Kathmandu with their own forces, they wouldn't have concluded an agreement with the opposition parties. The same parties they previously slandered as snitches for the monarchy, and whose activists they previously abducted and killed (the agreement is basically that they'll stop doing that.)

The CPN(Maoist) has run into the great limitation of guerilla warfare: its inability to overthrow a domestic government. To do that a guerilla army must make the transition to conventional warfare (as in China and Vietnam), mass urban insurrection (Nicaragua) or some combination of the two (Cuba.) Otherwise the result is often a long stalemate.

The CPN(Maoist) with its Shining Path hostility to the working class has no prospect of organizing an uban insurrection. And apparently its leaders don't think it can do conventional warfare even against the ineffectual Nepalese royal army.

Amusing Scrotum

23rd January 2006, 12:27

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Besides the various enemies of the working class, there is the alternative of fighting for working people to take power.[/b]

Well you see this is where "two-value thinking" becomes really useful.

Yes it would be nice if there was an "alternative" to the Maoists and if that alternative was a workers movement. However I'm not aware of any serious workers movement in Nepal.

What there is of a workers movement, is very small and very weak. Meaning the Maoists seem to be the only group opposed to the Monarchy who have any chance of removing the Monarchy.

So in this situation there are only two real choices.... the Maoists or the Monarchy. Supporting (or just agreeing with) the small workers movement is no doubt more "ethical" and "principled", but isn't a position of any meaning.

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The question is, do you support the lesser evil or fight against both.[/b]

In this case.... the "lesser evil" gets my support. Why? ....because at the moment they are a progressive force. Of course there's a chance (probably around 1%) that they'll be another Khmer Rouge, but a Khmer Rouge in Nepal wouldn't be much worse than what's already there.

Of course I'd love it if there was a massive workers movement in Nepal and they were on the verge of creating a Communist society, but that ain't happening.

Originally posted by Severian
You might think for a moment about why a workers' party in Nepal would say that, though, and what that fact says about the Maoists.

Well there could be a number of reasons why they'd say that....

1) The Maoists really are nasty bastards towards the Nepalese workers.
2) They are still hung up on the Chinese-Russian split.
3) They're jealous that the Maoists might actually get power for themselves.
4) They want to try and gain (monetary) backing from a foreign country.
5) They actually do support the Monarchy over the Maoists.

There's probably a combination of all five (and more) factors at play here.

[email protected]
Just somewhat larger than the others, so a common target of those who know Nepal only from the guerillas' press releases.

Well I must admit I've only read two or three (tops) press releases from the Maoists, most of the stuff I read about Nepal is from BBC News (and even the BBC is kinder on the Maoists than the CPN(UML)).

Severian
And what's with the weasely "leave many with the opinion"? Is that your opinion, or not?

Well it was a statement (that seems to be backed up by responses in this thread) that your position will leave many under the impression (myself included) that you are giving back handed support to the Monarchy by refusing to take a real position on the issue.

Red Heretic

23rd January 2006, 20:16

Is Osama bin Laden progressive? Were the Khmer Rouge progressive?

As usual sevarian, you are distorting other people's statements to slander them, and to argue against statements they didn't even make.

No one said that any specific organization was progressive. The CPN(M) is EXTREMELY progressive, but that is besides the point. You argued against the notion that all anti-imperialist leaders are progressive, however, what comradekurt said was that all struggles against imperialism are progressive. That statement is VERY different in nature of what you said.

For example, I don't support the leadership of the DPRK, but I sure as hell will stand by my Korean comrades if the forces of imperialism should attack their struggle of national liberation.

The struggle of the Afghani and Iraqi people for national liberation is indeed progressive, even if their tactics and ideology need to be criticized. This is where Unity-Struggle-Unity comes in. Unite with all progressive forces, while keeping open struggle and debate on the areas that the progressive forces do not agree on.

The leadership of the Khmer Rouge was in fact reactionary, but the struggle of the Cambodian people against US imperialism was in fact progressive.

Whether something's progressive depends on what it's for, not just what it's against.

Not true. Many struggles indirectly aid and benefit the interests of the world proletariat, and aid in the world revolution. For example, many of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for a theocracy, which is very reactionary. However, their struggle against imperialism aids the revolution in the first world, and contributes to instability of the imperialist system. Therefore, their struggle is highly progressive.

Well, I guess men and women were "equally" beasts of burden for the Khmer Rouge, just as male and female livestock may be treated "equally" by some farmers. But I don't see what's progressive about that.

You reactionary fuck. Thousands of Nepalese women have fought for and given their lives for the revolution and the emancipation of women. It is the single most powerful expression of women's liberation since the Chinese revolution.

In Nepal, women are fighting back against rape, they're taking up positions of leadership, they're commanding the army, they're smashing the caste system to pieces. You're no better than fucking Bush.

This is not a speculative question. The Maoists currently rule 80% of Nepal. It is known how they treat the population there - as a source of forced labor.

Actually, the Maoist revolution has liberated more than 80% now, but figures haven't been released for a while.

As a source of forced labor?!?! Which bourgeois source did you get that horseshit out of?! It is a disgusting, vile, and reactionary claim. It has been denounced by the hundreds of workers who are working on the vast economic projects to build roads and infastructure in the third poorest country in the world. They have come out and said that they are volunteering their time to work on these projects because they see real hope in the revolution.

The economic projects have been attacked by the bourgeoisie, who claim that no one would ever donate their time to work for the benefit of all of society, and that is their source alone (along with perhaps a couple of quotes that do not have sources).

I am not suprised that you take up every lie spit out by the bourgeois press.

Severian

23rd January 2006, 20:48

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23 2006, 02:35 PM
You argued against the notion that all anti-imperialist leaders are progressive, however, what comradekurt said was that all struggles against imperialism are progressive.
Oh. So is al-Qaeda's struggle against imperialism progressive? Was the Taliban leading a progressive fight against imperialism?

The leadership of the Khmer Rouge was in fact reactionary, but the struggle of the Cambodian people against US imperialism was in fact progressive.

Oh. So they were the inadequate leaders of a progressive struggle? That does seem to be the RCP's attitude, judging by their ideological criticism of the Khmer Rouge for having an incorrect line.

Was their victory a step forward for working people in Cambodia, in your opinion?

Seems obvious to me it wasn't. In fact, the working class in Cambodia was destroyed as a class, and the peasantry reduced to the status of beasts of burden, and not very well cared-for cattle either.

Whether something's progressive depends on what it's for, not just what it's against.

Not true. Many struggles indirectly aid and benefit the interests of the world proletariat, and aid in the world revolution. For example, many of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for a theocracy, which is very reactionary. However, their struggle against imperialism aids the revolution in the first world, and contributes to instability of the imperialist system. Therefore, their struggle is highly progressive.

And there you have it. Whether their struggle aids or hurts the working-class movement in Iraq...is simply not mentioned as a factor.

Anything is good enough for the wogs.

And it "not true" that it matters what they're for? How about fascists, then? They're against the U.S. government too, which some of them call the "Zionist Occupied Government."

Thousands of Nepalese women have fought for and given their lives for the revolution and the emancipation of women.

Plenty of women support Islamic fundamentalist groups too - more Palestinian women than men support Hamas, according to opinion polls. Plenty of women support anti-women's rights groups.

The appeal of the CPN(Maoist), like that of its Peruvian comrades the Shining Path, is in some respects similar to that of such rightist groups. From a pamphlet on the Shining Path:

Above all what Shining Path offers is "order." The group sets up its so-called people's committees in rural villages that establish strict rules for conducting local affairs and organizing agricultural work. The committee of five is run by a Sendero
cadre, who "represents the proletariat," as one of its documents states.

A New York Times reporter recently described his visit to Raucana, a shantytown outside of Lima that is run by Shining Path. "Protected by high walls, watchtowers and trenches, squatters collectively dug wells, raised light poles and laid out streets," he observed. "A square was designated for people's trials
and public whippings of prostitutes, thieves, homosexuals, drug users and wife beaters."

The appeals to order, stability, a strict moral code, and quasi-religious worship of a "wise" supreme authority, President Gonzalo, are particularly directed to women. The burden of the social breakdown falls especially hard on women in the
countryside, who are responsible not only for child-rearing but often for feeding the family as men migrate to the cities in search of work. source (http://groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.progressive/tree/browse_frm/thread/66024e43ffbac1a7/9828c8bf9a58d8a5?rnum=1&hl=en&q=Koppel+%22shining+path%22&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fmisc.activism.progressive%2Fbrows e_frm%2Fthread%2F66024e43ffbac1a7%2F9828c8bf9a58d8 a5%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3DKoppel+%22shining+path%22%26hl% 3Den%26#doc_9828c8bf9a58d8a5)

And while I'm at it: somebody linked an article by a CPN(Maoist) leader in the semi-Maoist Monthly Review.

Here's an article from Monthly Review on the Shining Path, by a frequent visitor to Peru. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n10_v44/ai_13607596) Unfortunately MR's become less inclined to critical thought with time and distance, and have taken to reprinting CPN(Maoist) press releases rather than independent accounts from Nepal.

As a source of forced labor?!?! Which bourgeois source did you get that horseshit out of?! It is a disgusting, vile, and reactionary claim. It has been denounced by the hundreds of workers who are working on the vast economic projects to build roads and infastructure in the third poorest country in the world. They have come out and said that they are volunteering their time to work on these projects because they see real hope in the revolution.

I could give a source - and have in the past - but you've made it clear you believe no source but the CPN(Maoist). Peasants in the "liberated areas" are not free to criticize their "liberators" without getting a bullet in the head...and that is well-documented from numerous sources. See earlier thread.

The economic projects have been attacked by the bourgeoisie, who claim that no one would ever donate their time to work for the benefit of all of society, and that is their source alone (along with perhaps a couple of quotes that do not have sources).

So you admit they're not paid. You might want to consider how close Nepalese peasants are to the margin of survival, and whether whole villages would voluntarily spend days away from their own fields working on road-building projects.

I am not suprised that you take up every lie spit out by the bourgeois press.

And I'm not surprised you uncritically believe everything the CPN(Maoist) puts out, and assume out of hand that anything contradictory is a lie.

Severian

23rd January 2006, 20:53

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 23 2006, 06:46 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 23 2006, 06:46 AM)
Severian
You might think for a moment about why a workers' party in Nepal would say that, though, and what that fact says about the Maoists.

Well there could be a number of reasons why they'd say that....

1) The Maoists really are nasty bastards towards the Nepalese workers.
2) They are still hung up on the Chinese-Russian split.
3) They're jealous that the Maoists might actually get power for themselves.
4) They want to try and gain (monetary) backing from a foreign country.
5) They actually do support the Monarchy over the Maoists.

There's probably a combination of all five (and more) factors at play here. [/b]
Pretty much nobody but Maoists is still fighting the Sino-Soviet split.

Was the CPN(UML) pro-Soviet? Certainly some of the workers' parties in Nepal weren't. There are Maoist groups other than the CPN(Maoist).

And nevertheless: there is the CPN(Maoist) on one side, and every other group on the other. Every other group is a target for their terror, or was before the recent agreement.

Your other explanations 3 through 5, are pretty superficial; they certainly can't explain the behavior of multiple groups.

Janus

24th January 2006, 00:06

Originally posted by Severian
The CPN(Maoist) with its Shining Path hostility to the working class has no prospect of organizing an uban insurrection.

The Nepal Maoists have called for strikes and most of them have been successful. However, many of the workers participate out of fear rather than actual conviction. Like I said, the objective material conditions don't really exist right now for a workers' revolution since they are so few in number and many of them have gone to seek jobs in India.

Severian

24th January 2006, 07:46

"However, many of the workers participate out of fear rather than actual conviction. "

Exactly. They're not strikes at all - not worker actions. They're threats of violence against workers by a guerilla army.

Sendero had a similar tactic, described in another Monthly Review article:

One effective Sendero tactic has been the "armed strike," which it declares over a specific area such as a city or department for a set time. Anyone violating the dictum and caught working faces immediate reprisals, sometime execution on the spot. These actions have, in some instances, virtually shut down provincial cities and surrounding areas and have even had an impact in Lima. Bus and truck drivers in particular are vulnerable, and the reduction in motor transport keeps people from getting to work.
link (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n8_v43/ai_11809975/pg_3)

Nothing Human Is Alien

24th January 2006, 07:52

The Sectarian emphasises the absolute truth of its principle over any other, finds in every small disagreement the seeds of fundamental difference, see the most deadly foe in the closest rival, puts purity of dogma over tactical advantage, refuses to compromise or modify their aims and is proud of being against the stream. Simply put, sectarianism is the breakdown of solidarity.

Does that apply to anyone in this thread? I can think of someone.

Communists support the working class and its oppressed allies any gains they make by whichever means arise.

Are the working class and its allies making gains in Nepal? Of course!

For an example, see: The struggle for women's rights continues in Nepal (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fp16g.html)

Severian

24th January 2006, 09:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:11 AM
Are the working class and its allies making gains in Nepal? Of course!

That is "of course" the question in dispute here. And all you have to say about it is "of course" one side is right. This is known as begging the question. (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging)

Your link adds nothing factually either on the questions in dispute, beyond repetition of Maoist press releases. Why did you even post if you have nothing to say about the subject? But you do give me a chance to point out the basic politics here.

***

Taking sides on a class basis, rather than say, whatever's against Uncle Sam, is not sectarianism.....it is communism.

Communist politics say: if something helps build the class-consciousness of the working class, and advance our interests, our power, our line of march towards self-liberation - then we are for it. If it does the opposite - we are against it.

Communist opposition to imperialism, or anything else, is derived from this class perspective, and subordinate to it.

The other perspective advocated here is that "all struggles against imperialism are progressive" as Red Heretic put it, or in practice, anything that happens to be in conflict with U.S. imperialism or the "Bush regime" is progressive.

This has nothing to do with a communist perspective; it is the perspective of left radicals becoming ex-leftists, who have lost their moorings and aren't sure what they stand for anymore.

It's the perspective of those who pin their hopes on anything and everything but the working class, who've rejected the communist perspective of the fight for workers' power as a realistic guide to action today. At best they postpone it to the far future. If you accept that, the rest follows naturally enough...including signing on to every reactionary force in the world, except the one designated the greatest evil.

(And that's subject to change as well; who knows if in a few years, something else may become the greatest evil in the eyes of the left, and U.S. imperialism, especially under a Democratic president, may be seen as a lesser evil to be supported as the only realistic alternative?)

Hiero

24th January 2006, 14:29

This is not a communist view. This is a middle class parasite view from the imperialist country. Someone who does not care for the liberation of peasants in the 3rd world.

Severian has opposed nearly every move towards liberation of the 3rd world and covers his position with bourgeoisie standards and claims of human rights, just like the imperialist do for justification for imperialism.

Red Heretic

24th January 2006, 20:33

"However, many of the workers participate out of fear rather than actual conviction. "

Exactly. They're not strikes at all - not worker actions. They're threats of violence against workers by a guerilla army.

BULL FUCKING SHIT! The general strikes in Kathmandu have been happening for YEARS, which up until a week ago had never been touched by the People's Liberation Army. How is it that the workers in the cities who have never even seen the People's Liberation Army, and are constantly beaten, raped, tortured, "dissappeared," and summarily executed by the Royal Army, are some how terrified of the People's Liberation Army that they have never even seen?

You're full of shit!

The workers risked their lives to participate in the general strikes, not the other way around, Sevarian.

Amusing Scrotum

24th January 2006, 22:49

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 23 2006, 09:12 PM--> (Severian @ Jan 23 2006, 09:12 PM)Pretty much nobody but Maoists is still fighting the Sino-Soviet split.[/b]

I don't doubt that, but there is another split that I forgot to mention.... the Trotsky-Stalin affair.

As I understand it, within Trotskyist circles Mao (and "Mao's China") were "Stalinised" (i.e. "deformed workers states"). That would likely still be a point of friction, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by [email protected]
And nevertheless: there is the CPN(Maoist) on one side, and every other group on the other. Every other group is a target for their terror, or was before the recent agreement.

Yet they all agreed to the recent agreement to become a broad coalition? ....odd.

Severian
Your other explanations 3 through 5, are pretty superficial; they certainly can't explain the behavior of multiple groups.

Well I think explanation 3 is perhaps the best. We all know how political Parties act, and what their aims are. The CPN(Maoist) is the biggest and most powerful (?) and this no doubt annoys the smaller parties.

Severian

25th January 2006, 09:32

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 24 2006, 05:08 PM
Yet they all agreed to the recent agreement to become a broad coalition? ....odd.

More accurately: And yet they all agreed to a non-aggression pact in which the Maoists would stop abducting and killing their activists....not odd at all.

It is kinda a problem for the Maoists' justifications for why they've been doing that, though, i.e. your suggestion that the opposition parties are pro-monarchy. How is the current situation possible, then? You and everyone else has been carefully avoiding that question since I asked it near the beginning of this thread.

I don't doubt that, but there is another split that I forgot to mention.... the Trotsky-Stalin affair.

Not terribly relevant. So's the stuff about the PRC being a "deformed workers state"- my whole point here is that the CPN(Maoist), like the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge, is not in the process of creating any kind of workers state.

"Trotskyist", for many people, is just a curseword like "revisionist", "reactionary", "fuck", or "reactionary fuck" to quote Red Heretic. It rarely carries any definite political meaning, and I doubt you could explain what you are saying about my politics by labelling them as "Trotskyist." Other than "I don't yike it!" I've asked Redstar more than once without getting a response; and where the Pope is silent the parrot-like disciple can hardly be expected to answer.

Y'all can call me a reactionary revisionist Trotskyist goatfucker till Doomsday, but it'll remain just a distraction from your unwillingness to engage any kind of fact about what's happening in Nepal.

Amusing Scrotum

25th January 2006, 16:48

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)More accurately: And yet they all agreed to a non-aggression pact in which the Maoists would stop abducting and killing their activists....not odd at all.[/b]

Well if that's what actually happened, I don't see how anyone could dispute that this was essentially a good thing.

If the CPN(Maoists) were being very aggressive towards other Parties and Nepalese workers, then surely an agreement to stop doing that is preferable?

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)It is kinda a problem for the Maoists' justifications for why they've been doing that, though, i.e. your suggestion that the opposition parties are pro-monarchy. How is the current situation possible, then?[/b]

Well I don't know "how" this situation was made possible. No doubt there were a variety of factors involved and both the CPN(Maoists) and the other Parties have agreed to compromise.

As for the other Parties being "pro-monarchy". Well I was just referring to a quote (from your source?) where the CP(UML) declared the Monarchy was better than the CPN(Maoists).

Personally I don't have any sectarian principles "riding on Nepal". If another "Communist" Party was to launch a major offencive against the Nepalese Monarchy, I'd support them as well.

The "King's democracy" is not "better" (in any way) when compared with the "democracy" of the Nepalese Communist groups. Meaning all of them would lead to progression in Nepal (note: this has nothing to do with "opposing Uncle Sam" as you've suggested, because "Uncle Sam" doesn't really make any money in Nepal. I just want an end to the Monarchy).

[email protected]
....my whole point here is that the CPN(Maoist), like the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge, is not in the process of creating any kind of workers state.

Well I'm supporting them because I think they'll create a "workers state". I'm supporting them because I think they'll be progressive for Nepal.

Plus, I seriously doubt your Khmer Rouge comparisons, because I really don't think it's very likely that that's what they'll do.

Severian
....and I doubt you could explain what you are saying about my politics by labelling them as "Trotskyist."

Well I wasn't referring to your politics, I was speculating as to whether the Stalin-Trotsky affair had some relevance to Nepal, i.e. are there Totskyist Parties there that oppose the CPN(Maoist) because they consider them a Stalinist group. The same way the CPN(Maoist) would oppose any Trotskyist groups.

However I gather that you would know with for me to discuss exactly what I consider "Trotskyist politics"?

Well I'll be brief, but Trotskyists are Leninists who also adhere to the theory of permanent revolution and entrism (is that the right word?).

I won't go any deeper because "Trotskyist politics" are rather complicated. There are Social Democratic Trotskyists, "Ultra-Left" inspired Trotskyists, Revolutionary Trotskyists, etc. etc.

And it seems (to me at least) that no one has really come up with a (relatively) coherent definition of what Trotskyism actually is. There are over 40 (I think) Trotskyist Parties in Britain, and no doubt they all disagree with everyone about who the (real) Trotskyists are.

Someone looking from the outside of this whole process (like myself) is no doubt rather confused by the whole thing. So generally I just take it at "face value", if someone says they are a Trotskyist, then that's what I'll think they are (providing they agree with Trotsky himself on a few things of course).

If you have a more coherent definition for me, I'll be all ears.

Red Heretic

25th January 2006, 20:29

More accurately: And yet they all agreed to a non-aggression pact in which the Maoists would stop abducting and killing their activists....not odd at all.

It isn't called the Seven Party Non-Aggression Pact. It is called the Seven Party Alliance. It is called the Seven Party Alliance specifically because it is an alliance.

It is an alliance against the monarchy with the sole purpose of completely isolating the regime from all other political forces in the country so that it can be easily driven from power, as Chairman Prachanda has repeated time after time again.

More accurately: And yet they all agreed to a non-aggression pact in which the Maoists would stop abducting and killing their activists....not odd at all.

Isn't it funny how the person making these accusations is a priveleged (probably white male) in America?

Sevarian completely disagrees with nearly all of the political forces in Nepal, and parades around about something which happened both years ago, and didn't happen at all like Sevarian says.

The UML and most of the other political forces engaged in covert operations for the king to attempt to crush their largest political opponent, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Many of the worked as spies and informers, and were responsible for the killings of hundreds of people. These spies and informers were put on trial, and the ones that were found guilty were executed.

They were guilty of horrors and unspeakable crimes against the people.

Things have changed drastically since the coup of february 2005. The king turned his back on these people, and began attacking them and oppressing them. They have repolarized and come to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) for support, and a real way out.

is not in the process of creating any kind of workers state.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) understand the limitations of a fuedal country, and has set the chief task to New Democratic revolution in preparation for Socialist revolution, just like China did. It will create the neceassary conditions to build socialism in Nepal.

Red Heretic

25th January 2006, 20:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:00 AM
This is not a speculative question. The Maoists currently rule 80% of Nepal. It is known how they treat the population there - as a source of forced labor.
A new account came out today from an American who organized a group to go do volunteer labor on the new economic projects that one bourgeois magazine (and the a few others followed suit) claimed contained "forced labor" (ie. volunteer labor that no one is forced to work on, but the bourgoiesie doesn't understand why people would work for free for the good of the revolution).

------------------------------------------------------------

Building a Road into the Future –
First Team of International Volunteers Returns from Nepal Liberated Area,
And Calls for Future Volunteers

In November 2005, a group of seven volunteers from Australia, Britain, Canada,
Colombia, Germany and Norway went to the liberated Rolpa district in mid-western
Nepal and worked on the road that is being built there under the leadership of the
regional people’s power, the Magarat Autonomous Regional Government (MARG). We
travelled thousands of miles to answer the MARG’s Call to work together with
Nepalese from all over the country to build a 90-km road through mountainous
terrain. This project is a part of the efforts of the new revolutionary power to
forge a self-reliant economy, free of the chains of imperialist domination.

Our numbers were few, but we represented the sentiments of millions more back
home. Many who knew about Nepal understood what we were up against and helped
support our trip. The reactionary monarchy ruling Nepal has received hundreds of
millions of dollars in weapons and financing from the Western powers and India,
and has compiled one of the worst records in the world for disappearances,
extra-judicial executions, and other types of bloody repression. Despite all this
it has failed to suppress the desire for liberation of the millions of people in
Nepal, and most of the population now live in areas liberated by the revolutionary
forces.

The arrival of this first organised group from abroad to help with the
road-building effort struck a deep chord among the people of Nepal. Some Nepalese
working on the road who at first did not know what we had come for were almost
incredulous to see a group of foreigners pick up tools and begin to shovel dirt
side-by-side with them. Their incredulity turned quickly to unbridled enthusiasm
and good-natured attempts to help our initially clumsy efforts – it was an
experience marked by the deepest kind of internationalist solidarity between
people.

The monarchy and some of the media have been trying to slander the road-building
effort as “forced labour”. But we saw with our own eyes that there was nothing at
all “forced” about the combination of good humour and serious dedication with
which people went about their work. We saw and experienced many new things that
had been impossible under the old regime. And we returned with heightened sense of
responsibility to strengthen solidarity with the struggle in Nepal – a revolution
had suddenly moved off the news pages and acquired faces, names, and voices. Those
of us from the imperialist countries in particular have deep concerns at the
thought of what it means when our own governments provide weapons to the RNA. Are
US or British-supplied cluster bombs and bunker busters the next weapons to be
used against the people we’d been with – for the “crime” of taking their destiny
in their own hands and building up their own self-reliant economy and society?

This first group showed the great, untapped potential for future groups of young
people to participate in this project. Our team brought together youth from both
the wealthy imperialist countries and oppressed countries to stand together with
the people of Nepal.

The countries of the world are divided into two, into a handful of rich countries
and a great mass of countries that are kept shackled in poverty and dependence on
the wealthy imperial powers, which have a whole range of so-called solutions for
“third world development”. The problem is that none of these actually work for the
masses of people. Even though years of Western-style development have left Nepal
one of the poorest countries in the world, with people’s life expectancy in the
50s, it is still claimed that there is no alternative to Western-style
development, built on the “free market”!

Yet what we took part in was a completely different path: some of the poorest
people on earth were breaking with age-old traditions and the established way of
doing things and relying on their own efforts to forge their future. This was
leading to real changes in their lives, and we had become part of that – and we
see the potential for many others to want to do the same.

The conflict is sharpening between the new-born revolutionary regime centred in
Nepal’s countryside and the decrepit monarchy backed by the West. We know that
even though the road effort is a development project, those who oppose it and all
the other revolutionary transformation going on in Nepal will try to slander and
misrepresent it as something other than it is. The road project is one important
way to spread the truth about what is really going on in Nepal; it is a way to put
the lie to the charges of “terrorism” and build people-to-people solidarity.

The people of Nepal that we spoke with are eagerly hoping that more groups of
volunteer road-builders will be coming soon. We are calling on others from around
the world to take part in this project.

For more information about volunteering to go to the liberated area to work on
the road, email: [email protected]

Please note that the reactionary Nepalese monarchy is still being backed, behind
the scenes, by the big imperialist powers. These governments extensively monitor
the Internet and have every interest in blocking efforts to build solidarity
between the Nepalese people and people abroad and/or distort and attack this
effort as “aiding terrorism”. So even though our project is completely peaceful
and legitimate we suggest you use a pseudonym (a “handle”) and avoid giving
details or emailing in a way that would make it easy for them to prevent you (or
others) from travelling. Also please indicate your general availability (minimum
three weeks including travel time) up through the end of 2006.

Source (http://www.awtw.org/news/index.html)

Janus

25th January 2006, 22:51

Exactly. They're not strikes at all - not worker actions. They're threats of violence against workers by a guerilla army.
These worker strikes are usually called for by the Marxist-Leninsts and the other opposition parties. The Maoists generally support it as part of a united front against the king. I was simply trying to provide evidence that worker actions are within the Maoist agenda but I do agree with you that the Maoists tend to ignore the workers, from which a real revolution should spring from. Also, the comparison between the Maoists and the Khmer Rouge is a bit too extreme since the Maoists have feasible goals on what they will do if they topple the king unlike the Khmer Rouge who actually believed in a peasant utopia.

Red Heretic

26th January 2006, 04:26

These worker strikes are usually called for by the Marxist-Leninsts and the other opposition parties.

First off, they aren't "opposition parties" anymore (and they won't be, at least until the king is toppled). They are united around the CPNM(Communist Pary of Nepal Maoist)'s program for New Democratic revolution and driving the King from power.

Second of all, none of the political parties besides the CPNM called general strikes until the seven party alliance. You are living in a dream world.

Until the King's february coup, they had supported and upheld the monarchy. The did lead any sort of resistance movement or call for general strikes. That was all from popular support of the CPNM.

As a side note, we need to be clear that the UML is NOT Marxist-Leninist, it is a revisionist party which rejects revolution (at least until recently) in favor of "peaceful transition." They remind me of Kautsky. Remember comrade, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an expansion of Marxism-Leninism, not a completely separate ideology.

I was simply trying to provide evidence that worker actions are within the Maoist agenda but I do agree with you that the Maoists tend to ignore the workers, from which a real revolution should spring from.

The Maoists "don't care" about workers? What the hell?! So can you explain why the Maoists declared a 4 month cease-fire that aimed at being able to go into the cities and win the support of workers?

Look, Nepal is a feudal country. Peasantry are the vast majority in Nepal. Any sort of revolution that wants to really win must win their support, and the cities must be surrounded from the countryside. At the same time, the revolution needs to be under the leadership or the proletariat.

The outlook and methodology of the proletariat needs to be the leading force, leading the peasentry into revolution. Even if the majority of the masses taking part in a revolution are peasantry, it can still be a proletarian revolution if the proletariat is the force leading the revolution.

For example, in the American and French revolutions, the bourgeoisie was a relatively small minority. However, the bourgeoisie was the class leading those revolutions, and ultimately the class that gained control of those societies, making them bourgeois revolutions.

Even if the proletariat is in the minority, it can still lead a proletarian revolution that serves its interests, and creates a society where it is the class that holds power.

Severian

26th January 2006, 09:57

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 02:48 PM

More accurately: And yet they all agreed to a non-aggression pact in which the Maoists would stop abducting and killing their activists....not odd at all.

It isn't called the Seven Party Non-Aggression Pact. It is called the Seven Party Alliance. It is called the Seven Party Alliance specifically because it is an alliance.
Why yes. But the Maoists are not part of that alliance.

The seven party alliance was formed in May of 2005 (http://insn.org/?p=1137). Seven parliamentary opposition parties belong to it, including the Congress Party and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) plus the Communist Party (this) and the Communist Party (that.)

In November of 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4467408.stm) the seven-party alliance, on the one hand, and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), on the other hand, signed an agreement. The BBC reported:

The opposition parties and the Maoists are not using the word 'alliance'.

But they have agreed to "attack the autocratic monarchy" from their own positions.

The Maoists have also agreed to allow political parties to conduct their activities without intimidation or violence.

And no, the seven parties did not accept the Maoists' program. On the contrary:

However, the 12-point common agenda made public this week suggests the possibility of some major shifts in position.

It does not even mention the word 'republic'. It talks only about ending the "autocratic" monarchy. That, analysts say, clearly implies the acceptance of a ceremonial, or constitutional monarchy.

The other 11 points of the joint programme indicate other compromises.

The Maoists have pledged not to engage in violence if their demand for the election for a constituent assembly to chart a fresh political course for Nepal is met.

They have not decided to surrender their arms but have agreed to place them under the supervision of a credible international force during such an election. The opposition parties have now for the first time agreed among themselves on the need for a constituent assembly.

So there were compromises by both sides...but mostly by the Maoists. There's little question why the seven parties agreed to this, since they agreed to little they weren't already doing....the question is why did the Maoists. I think I explained this adequately in one of my responses to Comrade Qiu.

Bottom line: everything Red Heretic says is a complete garbling of the facts.

Let's see...Red Heretic also says:

The UML and most of the other political forces engaged in covert operations for the king to attempt to crush their largest political opponent, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Many of the worked as spies and informers, and were responsible for the killings of hundreds of people. These spies and informers were put on trial, and the ones that were found guilty were executed.

They were guilty of horrors and unspeakable crimes against the people.

Thanks for the Exhibit A, this is the kind of thing I've been referring to.

Maoists have been slandering these opposition parties in this fashion for all this time, but now suddenly the CPN(Maoist) has reversed itself and made an alliance with these parties. How is this possible? It's like the bit in 1984 where Oceania is suddenly at war with Eurasia rather than Eastasia, and always has been.

Red Heretic attempts a bit of retcon:

Sevarian completely disagrees with nearly all of the political forces in Nepal, and parades around about something which happened both years ago, and didn't happen at all like Sevarian says.
....
Things have changed drastically since the coup of february 2005.

So in RH's language, "years ago" means since february 2005 - less than a year ago by my count.

But in fact the Maoists didn't agree to stop killing members of the opposition parties 'til November of 2005, see the BBC article linked above.

And there were complaints from the parties that some such killings continued for a period afterward. I haven't seen anything on that for a while....so I'm not sure whether or not that's wholly stopped even now!

****

His article successfully proves that road-building labor is voluntary...for 7 volunteers from abroad. Other than that...still waiting for you to cite some source that isn't Maoist.

It's like arguing with a Bible-thumper. "How do you know that?" "Because the Holy Scripture says so." "How do you know Holy Scripture's true?" "Because Holy Scripture says so." "That's circular reasoning." "Here, let me quote some more Holy Scripture at you."

And anything that contradicts Maoist literature is automatically dismissed as a lie.

Even your Chairman Bob says you're supposed to stop doing that. (http://rwor.org/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm)

But the only RCPer on these board I've ever seen even try to apply it was 1949, who hasn't been around for quite a while.

Severian

26th January 2006, 10:18

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24 2006, 02:52 PM
BULL FUCKING SHIT! The general strikes in Kathmandu have been happening for YEARS, which up until a week ago had never been touched by the People's Liberation Army. How is it that the workers in the cities who have never even seen the People's Liberation Army, and are constantly beaten, raped, tortured, "dissappeared," and summarily executed by the Royal Army, are some how terrified of the People's Liberation Army that they have never even seen?

You're full of shit!

The workers risked their lives to participate in the general strikes, not the other way around, Sevarian.
Oh. So the Royal Nepalese Army executes people for not going to work? Haven't seen any mention of that anywhere else.

You can't mean they kill workers on the picket lines, since there are no picket lines or other overt workers actions associated with the Maoist-called "strikes".

The Maoists, on the other hand....I did a little digging, to find out if your statements had some basis in fact. Turns out...no.

Like many Nepalis, one shopkeeper selling shawls and rugs said he was too afraid to open during the strike, despite being just metres (yards) from a major tourist hotel.

“I can’t open tomorrow. The Maoists might firebomb,” he said. “If they don’t bomb, they might chop me.”

Said one bookshop owner: “I don’t want to close, I can’t afford to close. But what choice do I have?.from 2002 (http://www.dawn.com/2002/04/23/int2.htm)

While the Maoists don't have the capacity for major military operations in Kathmandu, bombings of civilian targets are much easier.

But their capacity for violence in Kathmandu is less than elsewhere, I admit. Which may be why their strikes are sometimes less succesful in Kathmandu...

A strike called by Maoist rebels had limited effect in Kathmandu on its third and final day Saturday, as four more people were reported dead in the insurgency elsewhere in Nepal.
.
After being deserted for two days, Kathmandu’s streets showed some signs of life, with a significant number of shopkeepers opening for business and a downtown trolley resuming service.

Public buses ran on a limited schedule and some three-wheel taxis and cars plied the roads. Security remained rigid, with armed troops and police patrolling the streets, frisking pedestrians and searching their bags.
....
While the strike passed peacefully in Kathmandu, officials said 34 people have died elsewhere in the kingdom since Thursday as rebels and troops clashed and Maoist activists attacked people defying the shutdown.lfrom 2004 (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-9-2003_pg4_11)

Now this is what an actual strike looks like:
Protester shot as strike shuts down Nepal (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-26T092158Z_01_SP171828_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NEPAL.xml&archived=False)

That's a strike called by the seven-party alliance. Some of those parties, like the CPN(UML), lead trade unions.

At the end of the article, it's mentioned the Maoists are calling a separate "strike" starting Feb. 5.

Amusing Scrotum

26th January 2006, 13:09

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 25 2006, 05:07 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 25 2006, 05:07 PM)
Severian
....my whole point here is that the CPN(Maoist), like the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge, is not in the process of creating any kind of workers state.

Well I'm supporting them because I think they'll create a "workers state". I'm supporting them because I think they'll be progressive for Nepal.[/b]

Just noticed a major mistake in this sentence, I should have said....

Well I'm not supporting them because I think they'll create a "workers state". I'm supporting them because I think they'll be progressive for Nepal.

Plus Severian, I guess my post (and my definition of what Trotskyism is) must be adequate as you've not replied?

Janus

26th January 2006, 21:13

The Maoists "don't care" about workers? What the hell?! So can you explain why the Maoists declared a 4 month cease-fire that aimed at being able to go into the cities and win the support of workers?
I never said that the Maoists totally ignored the workers. I was simply stating that the workers respond to these calls for strikes out of fear rather than from a sense of actual support for the Maoists. Don't get me wrong here, I do support the Maoists because they seem to be the only movement that can get rid of the oppressive monarchy at this point and are planning to help move Nepal forward from its current state.

Red Heretic

27th January 2006, 04:47

Why yes. But the Maoists are not part of that alliance.

Hrm. I confused the 12 point agreement with the seven party alliance. That was a mistake on my part, and I take credit for that.

And no, the seven parties did not accept the Maoists' program.

I never claimed they did. However, it is my personal opinion that you are confusing tactical maneuvers and work toward New Democratic revolution (as a pre-emt to socialist revolution) with capitulation. The compromises have successfully isolated the king, and many of which obviously could never be upheld by the enemy, and therefore were merely tactics and not even compromises.

Thanks for the Exhibit A, this is the kind of thing I've been referring to.

How about next time you use my quotes you use the whole thing instead of taking it out of context?

It's like the bit in 1984 where Oceania is suddenly at war with Eurasia rather than Eastasia, and always has been.

That's just fucking ridiculous. The pary clearly explained the very stark differences and contradictions with the UML before and after the coup.
I was explaining the situation before the coup and repolarization of the political parties. I was not attacking them on the basis of today.

stop killing members of the opposition parties

One distortion of the facts after another. I get really tired of resonding to this shit. You are practically a professional at bourgeois "doublespeak."

You sum everything thing up to "the CPNM are murderers and no one ever collaborated with the king and murdered their leadership." You tell bourgeois lies even better than the bourgeoisie.

But in fact the Maoists didn't agree to stop killing members of the opposition parties 'til November of 2005, see the BBC article linked above.

It is true that there was a delay in the CPNM's position during the time period after the coup in which the party was both watching and analyzing the new situation. It's not like they were going to wake up the next morning and do a 180 without first fully understanding the situation and watching the repolarization.

His article successfully proves that road-building labor is voluntary...for 7 volunteers from abroad.

The article contains an account from the volunteers from other countries clearly stating that there was NO forced labor in Nepal, period. Earlier you complained about not enough eye witness accounts from Nepal. I find you an eyewitness account, and now you say it doesn't count because its just an eyewitness account.

It's like arguing with a Bible-thumper. "How do you know that?" "Because the Holy Scripture says so." "How do you know Holy Scripture's true?" "Because Holy Scripture says so." "That's circular reasoning." "Here, let me quote some more Holy Scripture at you."

And anything that contradicts Maoist literature is automatically dismissed as a lie.

Even your Chairman Bob says you're supposed to stop doing that. (http://rwor.org/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm)

As much as it might make you sound good, I have never treated Maoist literature like gospel. I view it critically. I struggled to understand the 12 point agreement. I do alot of mental struggle between Avakian's new expansions on Maoism vs. Mao's original line. Alot of that doesn't come but on this board because in many ways this isn't the right outlet for it. I don't have the answers to these questions, and I'm not an RCP member, even though many people on this board stereotype me as one. When I speak, things get stereotyped back to the RCP, and that really bothers me.

I personally make many mistakes in both my line and explanations for things. Because of that, I do not disclose many of my own personal struggles until I believe I have a firm grasp on things and a correct understanding.

RedStarOverChina

27th January 2006, 07:29

Severian I'm quite surprised you could actually say things like that. I havent seriously looked into this site for a long time, and is it just me or did your world view change drastically in the past few months?

How could you oppose a movement to overthrow an oppressive king? Heck, I'd even support a bourgeoisie movement to bring down a feudal, militaristic despot!

And dont read too much from the bourgeoisie media if you actually take them seriously.

Severian

27th January 2006, 07:32

I took me a while to research and respond to RH's posts, so I didn't get to yours before.

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 25 2006, 11:07 AM
If the CPN(Maoists) were being very aggressive towards other Parties and Nepalese workers, then surely an agreement to stop doing that is preferable?
Glad we agree it's not odd, then.

Well I wasn't referring to your politics, I was speculating as to whether the Stalin-Trotsky affair had some relevance to Nepal, i.e. are there Totskyist Parties there that oppose the CPN(Maoist) because they consider them a Stalinist group. The same way the CPN(Maoist) would oppose any Trotskyist groups.

C'mon. Trotskyism among the major parties in Nepal? I suspect there's the same number of self-described Trotskyists in Nepal as in Antartica. Most CPs there seem to be Chinese-influenced in some way, as you'd expect in a country bordering China.

Well I'll be brief, but Trotskyists are Leninists who also adhere to the theory of permanent revolution and entrism (is that the right word?).

Wow. Those are three political concepts, and Trotsky actually advocated the first two. I'm pleasantly surprised, and I owe you an apology.

Of course, I only agree with Leninism of those three, so if that definition's correct, the Maoists and ex-Maoists oughta stop calling me a Trotskyist.

And it seems (to me at least) that no one has really come up with a (relatively) coherent definition of what Trotskyism actually is.

I agree! In fact, that's what I was just saying.

Severian

27th January 2006, 08:53

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 26 2006, 11:06 PM

Thanks for the Exhibit A, this is the kind of thing I've been referring to.

How about next time you use my quotes you use the whole thing instead of taking it out of context?
And what did you just do?

Anyone who wants to read your whole post can scroll up and do so.

I find you an eyewitness account, and now you say it doesn't count because its just an eyewitness account.[/b]

No. Because it's more Holy Scripture from the Maoist faithful.

As much as it might make you sound good, I have never treated Maoist literature like gospel. I view it critically.

Then why do you assume its assertions about Nepal are all true, even though every other source of information says the opposite? Your faith is sealed against outside contamination from the material world.

Only the internal contradictions of your Holy Scripture can disturb you - like the conflicts between Mao and Avakian you mention, or the change in line over the 12-point agreement. Similarly, the only way to argue about religion with a believer is to point out the internal contradictions in the Bible.

***

Anyway, you're apparently saying the seven parties stopped being bad after the February 2005 coup, and the Maoists changed their attitude because of that. Which leaves unanswered, why the monarchy would need to suppress parties which were supposedly supporting it, and snitching out the Maoists for it.

It's also contradicted by this:
August 16, 2005 (http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2005/08/17/nation/nation3)

Leaders of chief political parties of the kingdom have said that co-work with the Maoists is impossible at present because of the marked disparity between the speech and deeds of the group.

Speaking at a face-to-face programme at Reporters� Club Nepal here yesterday, the leaders said the parties could not co-work with Maoists at present opposing the sentiment of their party workers who are still living in afflictions occasioned by the Maoist cruelty and terrorism.

So, were the seven parties lying, in which case they still had not repented of their sinful ways about 3 months before the agreement was signed, when the Maoists were already trying to reach an agreement with them, and claiming to have stopped the attacks?

Or were they telling the truth, in which case the Maoists are lying?

This is the great problem with slandering your opponents. It's very hard to back out of the slander without admitting you yourself have committed vile acts.

(I think this article is what I was thinking of earlier when I said they were still attacking the parties after the November 2005 agreement. So I was off on the dates there -but not on the essentials.)

Oh, and here's a bad translation of the text of the 12-point agreement. (http://www.saag.org/%5Cnotes3%5Cnote281.html) If you have a better one, I'd appreciate it.

Still strikes me that the CPN(Maoist) is giving up more than the 7-party alliance.

And it says:

5. CPN-M has agreed to create conducive atmosphere to allow all leaders and cadres affiliated to other democratic forces and common people, who were displaced from home during the conflict, to return to their respective places with full respect. The Maoists have also agreed to return the houses and physical properties of people and party cadres seized unjustifiably. People will be allowed to take part in political activities without any hindrance.

6. CPN-M has also agreed to criticize itself for its past mistakes and has expressed commitment not to repeat them in future.

In the spirit of that 6th point, shouldn't you stop pretending the CPN-M has never done anything wrong, and stop slandering its victims in order to maintain that pretense?