Nepal rebels expel senior leaders

[Janus]

BBC News

The Maoist rebel movement in Nepal says it has expelled two senior figures for publicly criticising its top leaders.

A central committee statement accused the men, Rabindra Shreshtha and Anukul, of "counter-revolutionary" activities.

On Monday, the pair accused party chairman Prachanda and another senior rebel Baburam Bhattarai of "ideological deviation" and being soft on the king.

The row comes as major towns and cities in Nepal face a blockade called by the rebels in protest against the king.

More than 13,000 people have died in the 10 years since the Maoists began their fight to replace the monarchy with a communist republic.

'Out of the country'

In the statement, Prachanda said both men had already been suspended from the party for "anti-party activities".
He also alleged that the two leaders had served the interests of the royal regime by breaching the Maoists' discipline.

Shrestha and Anukul had accused him of turning soft towards the monarchy, contrary to rebel policy.

They also accused Prachanda and Mr Bhattarai of spending most of their time "out of the country" and not sending their children to the battlefield.

Prachanda, however, refused to respond to any of these allegations.

Last year, he and Mr Bhattarai fell out with each other publicly, but later patched up their differences.

The royal government is yet to comment on the latest row within the Maoist leadership.

They just never remember their lessons do they? :lol: I'm sure that we'll see more of this in the years to come.
Every good Maoist knows that they should never question the party leadership. :lol: How could the great leader ever be wrong? :lol:

[Rosario Central]

Those who were expelled were traitors, and should have been shot. How can you expect to win a civil war, when some scum in your own party are bad mouthing ur leaders. These traitors are monarchist spies sent to destabilize the movement as they know that they are defeated.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Some people never learn. :lol:

Anyway....


Originally posted by Rosario Central+--> (Rosario Central)These traitors are monarchist spies sent to destabilize the movement....[/b]

Uh....


BBC News
Shrestha and Anukul had accused him of turning soft towards the monarchy, contrary to rebel policy.

Monarchist spies who want Prachanda to stop "cosying up" to the King of Nepal? ....there's a huge contradiction in there somewhere, perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out? :lol:

On a side note, doesn't Mao have small shoulders. Certainly small when compared to Stalin's.

[violencia.Proletariat]

On a side note, doesn't Mao have small shoulders. Certainly small when compared to Stalin's.

How dare you! Off to the gulag with your ass. :lol:

I cant really trust either report, whether they were traitors, or whether there was something else going on. I wouldnt doubt if that was an excuse by Prachanda but at the same time he might have had a good reason, who knows.

[Rosario Central]

and everyone wonders why, maoists, stalinists, and students of the juche idea, dont ever take reformists seriously, or work with them in any manner.

[violencia.Proletariat]

and everyone wonders why, maoists, stalinists, and students of the juche idea, dont ever take reformists seriously, or work with them in any manner.

Since when am I a reformist? Never heard of an anarchist who was a reformist. :(

Anyone who supports "juche" is a fucking dumbass, period.

[Rosario Central]

Anarchists are just as bad, Oh yah lets create a society which is free of everything, Dont worry about rooming gangs or anythign tho, And Somalia isnt an anarchist state, even tho they have exactly what we preach. Anarchists= Failure

[Amusing Scrotum]

Is that your whole reply Rosario Central???

An assertion about the political tendency that the posters in this thread adhere to and a fucking picture! :huh:

Cause if it is your "whole reply", then one is left to wonder about the theoretical "strength" of 21st century Maoism. After all, such a weak reply is hardly going to win you - what I think Mao called - the battle of ideas now is it? :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

With regards your latest post, we all know what Lenin looked like, and if anyone doesn't, they can always search on Google image. Therefore, if you could please refrain from plastering Lenin's "mug" all over the board, we all be very appreciative. :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Oh yah lets create a society which is free of everything

No just free of people who pleasure themselves to pictures of mao and stalin :lol:


Dont worry about rooming gangs or anythign tho

Why would I? The volunteer militia would disarm (through violence most likely) this "gang".


And Somalia isnt an anarchist state

Yes because anarchists want a "state", or course thats not something they oppose, at all :blink:


Anarchists= Failure

Coming from a person who probably proposes putting mao's body back into the central committee and letting it make decisions :lol:

I would not say maoism is a failure, it succesfully industrialized most of China. You can leave obtaining communism to us ultra leftists :D

[Rosario Central]

Why do I have to make a speech about it? Everyone knows how Maoism is growing, Nepal, Turkey, India, Phillipines, Soon here in North America. So if feel that living in your on personal world where its capitalists vs the left. which in your mind is only anarchists and reformists, then go ahead, but when the shit goes down dont say omg i had no idea!

Iam not here to convert people to Maoism, Your beliefs are that of your own, and even tho they are useless and amatuer u are entitled to them.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Everyone knows how Maoism is growing, Nepal, Turkey, India, Phillipines

All countries where Maoism is actually an idea with some merit


Soon here in North America.

Yes you know since we have all those peasants :lol: I'll make a little prediction here, you can hold me to it. I bet you my freedom that maoism will never succesfully work nor even HAPPEN in North America.


Iam not here to convert people to Maoism, Your beliefs are that of your own, and even tho they are useless and amatuer u are entitled to them.

Yes your just here to insult them with your superior knowledge of us anarchists who want to make all these reformist governments :lol:

PS: We are all communists here, save the fucking pictures.

[Rosario Central]

Were all Communists? No, Anarachists are not Communists. And they never will be. Its either u Follow Marx and Lenins teachings or your not a communist, simple.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosario Central+--> (Rosario Central)Why do I have to make a speech about it?[/b]

Well, because this is a discussion forum and generally, it is accepted that the members discuss shit.

In this instance, you came into this thread and made a few statements, to which I offered a reply. In your next post, instead of replying to my arguments, you simply decided to launch a piss poor political attack on the other posters - and whats worse is that you didn't even know what their politics were!


Rosario Central
Iam not here to convert people to Maoism....

Nonsense!

Despite your theological language - "convert" - people, when they come here and post, try to influence the politics of others - influence, not convert.

Therefore, by simply posting in this thread you are obviously trying to influence the politics of other posters, even if you choose not to admit it.

Not only that, but your last post, was an attempt to outline the relevance of Maoism in todays world and by doing this, you are trying to influence other people by stating the "benefits" of Maoism.

Now, if you could stop the silliness and enter into a rational discussion - minus the pictures - then we'd all be very happy.

Okay?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Rosario Central+Mar 15 2006, 01:09 AM--> (Rosario Central @ Mar 15 2006, 01:09 AM) Why do I have to make a speech about it? Everyone knows how Maoism is growing, Nepal, Turkey, India, Phillipines, Soon here in North America.

[/b]
Um, why do you think we find Bob Avakian so humorous?
Rednecks aren't peasants, and they will blow your head off if you were to talk of any of that "Commie-Satanic Blasphemy"

With your brandishing of photos in a blindly patriotic manner its almost like National Bolshevism.


Iam not here to convert people to Maoism, Your beliefs are that of your own, and even tho they are useless and amatuer u are entitled to them.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Polly Wanna Cracker?


nate
Why would I? The volunteer militia would disarm (through violence most likely) this "gang".
Why would anyone want to be in a gang, when you get anything you want to the point that nothing could be considered forbidden fruit.

[Rosario Central]

Ok ,

I think if a maoist revolution were to happen here in North America, that it would be a very interesting thing, as the countries here are already developed and the lack of peasents casues the need to shift the responsibility to others. I think it is very possible, as parties like the RCP USA, and the RCP-OC have made enormous strides. Let me make this clear tho, Just because iam a Maoist , it does not make me hate those who arent, If an Anarchist revolution were to take place , Id be right there along side my Comrades, About my earlier statements, please accept my apologies as I was completely out of line! And I formally retract my previous statements. Iam sorry to those who I offended.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Rosario [email protected] 15 2006, 01:15 AM
Were all Communists? No, Anarachists are not Communists. And they never will be. Its either u Follow Marx and Lenins teachings or your not a communist, simple.
Well Anarchists are Communists, though I'm not sure about Anarachists.

Yes follow the teachings of your saviour devine lord Jesus!

[Rosario Central]

what? Who the fuck are u to call me a christian!

[Janus]

No, Anarachists are not Communists.
Ever heard of anarcho-communists?


Its either u Follow Marx and Lenins teachings or your not a communist, simple.
That's called dogmatism, not communism. Something which Marx was battling against. Also, Marxism and Leninism don't exactly go hand in hand.


Everyone knows how Maoism is growing, Nepal, Turkey, India, Phillipines, Soon here in North America.
Nepal is like the last hope for Maoism (though Prachanda may have doubts about it). I have never heard of the Maoists in Turkey or the Phillipines so they are most likely insignificant. As for India, the Maoists only have a presence in some of the eastern provinces. They are in no condition to challenge the Indian government on an equal level as the Nepalese Maoists are doing. North America? Bob Avakian? :lol: He doesn't even have a chance especially when he's over in Europe.

Oh and as for the civil war in Nepal and why the rebels criticized Prachanda? Read this from the recent Prachanda interview.


When we started the people's revolution and when we first attacked the feudal elements' Royal Army, we believed that we could conquer Kathmandu militarily.

But later, when countries like the US, the UK and India started supporting the Royal Army militarily - against our people's war and the revolt of Nepali people - that has posed some difficulties.

That is why we believe that in today's world it's not possible only to move forward militarily.


We have already clearly said in our 12-point agreement with the parliamentary political parties, as soon as there is a possibility of preparing a new constitution through a constituent assembly, and form a new army, we are ready to call off the war. For now, the bottom line is the agreement with the seven political parties.

It seems that Prachanda isn't even sure of military victory and has been reduced to calling for a democratic republic with multi-party competition. This is probably why the rebel leaders were criticizing him.

This in fact your main political demand - an elected assembly to draw up a new constitution. If that elected assembly drew up a constitution that kept Nepal as a kingdom, with a king, would you be happy?


We have said that there should be a democratic republic in Nepal. Our struggle is for a democratic republic.

But we have said that people should be harmed to the minimum extent possible. And if the problem is solved in a peaceful and democratic way, we are ready for it, and that's why we have called for a constituent assembly.

I also noticed that Prachanda kept on evading questions by repeating this:

We have stated this over and over again. We'll accept the people's verdict. Whatever decision the people should give, we will be ready to accept this.
Ah yes, the mantra of every Maoist since Mao himself. Yet somehow, people still fall for it every time.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:23 PM
They just never remember their lessons do they? :lol: I'm sure that we'll see more of this in the years to come.
Every good Maoist knows that they should never question the party leadership. :lol: How could the great leader ever be wrong? :lol:
I guess Janus has read nothing at all about China, or the fact that the cultural revolution was one big discussion, debate, and class truggle in theory, practice and action. Not too mention free speech and ideas was always allowed to a certain extent, until someone crossed the line.

The most important thing to note here, is that Janus is criticising but has absolutely no ideas for what (he thinks) the right way for the Nepalese revolutionaries to do things. Of course, one has to wonder if he is so right why he is not leading such a succesful revolution himself... I can tell you why, but can someone else guess it?

[Rosario Central]

Iam going to assume becuase he doesnt know shit about leading a revolution.

And did I mention Avakian ? Umm I dont recall I did, so you asssume that iam refering to the rcp usa when i say a revolution in north america, which shows you lack of knowledge about revolutionary parties around the world

[Janus]

My original post was supposed to be a joke and I had no idea that someone like you would take it so seriously.

I guess Janus has read nothing at all about China
Well, you guessed wrong because I'm actually Chinese myself. Take it from someone who has grown up in China and spoken to many people concerning what actually occured during Mao's time rather than reading some RCP article concerning it.


or the fact that the cultural revolution was one big discussion, debate, and class truggle in theory, practice and action. Not too mention free speech and ideas was always allowed to a certain extent, until someone crossed the line.
There is a big difference between what actually occured during the Cultural revolution and what Maoists say occured. Free speech? People were being punished by the Red Guards simply because they didn't have enough of Mao's writings. Of course you may be able to speak your mind but who would dare to?Have you studied the Hundred Flowers Campaign? Speaking out what you thought would get you arrested and thrown in jail. If you were a leader like Peng De Huai, you would just be totally discredited and be stripped of everything.

Discussion? Mao hated intellectuals. The whole point was to do your work and let your leaders think for you. That's what Maoism and Confucianism were all about despite the fact that Confucius was bashed during the Cultural Revolution.


The most important thing to note here, is that Janus is criticising but has absolutely no ideas for what (he thinks) the right way for the Nepalese revolutionaries to do things.
I'm criticizing because I find it funny that these Maoist leaders are advocating the true tenets of Maoism and are being punished for it. I'm not stating that I'm right. Of course the Nepalese should choose their own path. I am simply criticizing because I think that we are to see more of these purges in the future. It first began with Baburam Bhattarai and now it is continuing with other leaders who are criticizing Prachanda for being un-Maoist. If the Nepalese revolutionaries actually take over and establish "socialism" (which Prachanda speaks nothing of) then it would simply get them to the point from which capitalism can develop. A path that would most likely be similar to China's.

[Janus]

Iam going to assume becuase he doesnt know shit about leading a revolution.
And as a Maoist, you know everything about it. What I have learned is that you can't push for a revolution when the material conditions simply don't exist or you'll end up like what occured in China or the USSR.



Umm I dont recall I did, so you asssume that iam refering to the rcp usa when i say a revolution in north america, which shows you lack of knowledge about revolutionary parties around the world
No I know about the different leftist parties around the world and about some of their failures as well. I simply mentioned Bob Avakian because some of his disciples think that he will lead the next revolution in North America. Who were you thinking of. Just because you don't accept Bob Avakian doesn't mean that you're free of the vanguadist mentality.

[Rosario Central]

No some of his followers beleive that he will lead the revolution in AMERICA, not in Canada or Mexico, so i think that you should really read more before u make outragoues statements.

[Janus]

What are you talking about? The US is part of North America. I thought that you were referring to regional areas. Therefore, the RCP is a movement based in North America.


outragoues statements
Outrageous? Telling people that they have to follow Marx and Lenin blindly isn't an outrageous statement?

[Comrade Marcel]

I'm criticizing because I find it funny that these Maoist leaders are advocating the true tenets of Maoism and are being punished for it. I'm not stating that I'm right. Of course the Nepalese should choose their own path.

Leaders being purged from below sounds like a very democratic process to me. But if they didn't do it, then no doubt you would be calling them wrong for that too!

BTW, empirical evidence is valuable, but "I lived there" doesn't cut it. For every 100 Chinese that share your view, 200 have another (figure of speech not ment to be actual numbers).

If I want anti-Mao pro-Deng fiction, I'll read Ke Yan, thank you very much! ;)

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:27 AM
What are you talking about? The US is part of North America. I thought that you were referring to regional areas. Therefore, the RCP is a movement based in North America.


outragoues statements
Outrageous? Telling people that they have to follow Marx and Lenin blindly isn't an outrageous statement?
Which party follows everything Marx and Lenin said blindly? The very notion itse;f is anti-Marxist-Leninist!

I'm not saying there has neve been any dogma in some parties/orgs, but your accusation is itself pure dogma!

[violencia.Proletariat]

No, Anarachists are not Communists.

Anarchists are communists, we want communism.


Its either u Follow Marx and Lenins teachings or your not a communist

I follow a lot of what Marx has to say especially his idea of historical materialism. I do not however follow Lenin, nor see the point. Lenin had nothing to do with communism (he sure didnt create it or even come close) or Marxism as he completely ignored historical materialism.

[Janus]

If I want anti-Mao pro-Deng fiction
What are you talking about? You continually seem to misinterpret more and more of what I say. First of all, I respect Mao and I am not pro-Deng (if I were would I even be here?). It is you who are making outrageous statements. Mao did help the Chinese people but he also made many mistakes which even you must recognize. Many Chinese peasants wish for the old days because they had jobs and weren't ignored by the government back then.


Leaders being purged from below sounds like a very democratic process to me.
Purges usually occurs from the top down and not from the bottom up. There's nothing wrong with deposing a leader unless the people below are blind devotees of the leadership. That's when the problems begin to occur. Besides, it was most likely the leadership who got rid of the two not the regular members.


BTW, empirical evidence is valuable, but "I lived there" doesn't cut it. For every 100 Chinese that share your view, 200 have another (figure of speech not ment to be actual numbers).
I understand. I was simply stating that I know more about Chinese politics and history than you think I do. That's all. Stop misinterpreting my statements. I think even you should recognize that many mistakes were made during the Cultural revolution. China was in total chaos due to the actions of the Red Guards. Many people were hurt by it but it doesn't give one the right to totally bash Mao as Jung Chang did.


Which party follows everything Marx and Lenin said blindly? The very notion itse;f is anti-Marxist-Leninist!

I'm not saying there has neve been any dogma in some parties/orgs, but your accusation is itself pure dogma!
I wasn't talking about parties, my accusation was based on her statement. How was it dogmatic? It was a question directed at Rosario Central. It seemed that he/she felt that her statement shouldn't be disputed at all. That's dogma. He/she said that a communist had to follow Marx and Lenin or else they weren't a communist. That seems pretty dogmatic to me.

Comrade Marcel, why do you keep misinterpreting everything I say and what's with the ad hominem attacks?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Rosario Central
Those who were expelled were traitors, and should have been shot.

Do you realize what you've just done? :o

You have criticized Great Leader Prachanda for failing to "shoot" those "traitors" instead of simply "expelling them".

Lucky for you, the writ of the Great Leader doesn't extend to Canada...otherwise, what would happen to you???

If you're really serious about training yourself to be a good Maoist, then you must learn first of all to always applaud anything said or done by the Great Leader. The only person ever allowed to criticize the Great Leader is Himself!

If you break "Rule No. 1", then you will get the boot. If you do it in a country where the Maoists hold state power, then at best you'll be exiled to the countryside and put to work shoveling pig turds. :o

This is called "Maoist re-education". :lol:

I cannot help but wonder what the ultimate fate of Rabindra Shreshtha and Anukul will be. Will they start a new Maoist party? Will they just "drop out" of left politics and retire into private life? Or go into exile...probably the safest move. Or will they be so embittered by the whole experience that they'll sign up with one of the bourgeois or even reactionary political parties?

You see, that's what's really rotten about Leninist politics. It not only "drives people away" but, worse, it manufactures reactionaries.

You know in the U.S. that some of the leading "neo-conservatives" actually got their start in Leninist politics...and evidently found the experience so demoralizing that they practically turned to fascism!

Maoists (and other Leninists) comfort themselves with the myth that the people they drive away "were really rotten all along".

But they weren't. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[xprol]

Good day to you all,


Every revolutionary communist movement and every member makes mistakes. All agree? But do any of you think this thread is a way of getting to the roots of the problems? If anyone has developed a better position as a result of this argument, would you tell us all about it.

Open polemical struggle for the developing the best theory is the life blood of revolutionary struggle. Can we agree on a common perspective of revolution for the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by xprol
Can we agree on a common perspective of revolution for the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Probably not for a while.

You see, the Leninist paradigm posits that...

>dictatorship of the proletariat = dictatorship of the Party and its Great Leader.<

Many and possibly even most people on this board find that flatly unacceptable&#33;

This thread simply illustrates in a rather dramatic form what is a common manifestation of the Leninist paradigm in practice.

The reason Leninist parties do this kind of shit is because the basic premise is shit.

It&#39;s not "just people in Nepal" or "just Maoists" or "just whatever"...it&#39;s found wherever Leninist parties exist.

Coincidence?

No.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rosario Central]

Well that is coming from an Anarchist so really Xprol, to your question Yes, most of us can agree that dictaorship of the proletaiant is what needs to come.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Rosario Central
Well that is coming from an Anarchist...

Yes, anyone who disputes the Leninist paradigm from the left "must be" an "Anarchist"...it&#39;s one of those formulas that you have to memorize. :lol:

I have rather mixed views of anarchism myself...since anarchism itself is rather mixed.

My Problems With Anarchism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114735057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The Convergence of Marxism and Anarchism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094664165&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Bad "Anarchists" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083588666&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Leninism vs. Anarchism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082916220&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Enjoy. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Red Heretic]

Rosario... you are amking ALOT of mistakes, but I am sure your intentions are the best. I will post some criticisms from a Maoist perspective later.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Marcel+--> (Marcel)....but has absolutely no ideas for what (he thinks) the right way for the Nepalese revolutionaries to do things.[/b]

I think nearly everyone here wants the Nepalese Maoists to chop the King&#39;s head off&#33;

Indeed, it is exactly that that both Shrestha and Anukul seem to be advocating, and based on the most recent interview with "Chairman Prachanda", it appears that he does plan to "cosy up" to the King of Nepal.

Now that, would be treachery&#33;


Originally posted by Marcel+--> (Marcel)Of course, one has to wonder if he is so right why he is not leading such a succesful revolution himself.[/b]


Rosario [email protected]
Iam going to assume becuase he doesnt know shit about leading a revolution.

Have you two been busying reading Tito or Trotsky recently? :lol:


Red Heretic
I will post some criticisms from a Maoist perspective later.

I can&#39;t wait&#33; :lol:

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:23 PM
They just never remember their lessons do they? :lol: I&#39;m sure that we&#39;ll see more of this in the years to come.
Every good Maoist knows that they should never question the party leadership. :lol: How could the great leader ever be wrong? :lol:
The BBC is probably the least reputable sources that anyone can find. It is obviously trying to pit forces within the party against one another, and try to pit the Maoists against a united front. The bourgeois media is going to do everything it can to stop this, and we need to be clear about that.

If this particular incident were true, which I have my doubts about, but if it is, then these members should have been relieved of their positions for acting outside of democratic centralism and potentially jepordizing the entire revolution. This is what we communists call unhealthy struggle. That is, taking contradictions within the party to outside of the party, so that certain sections of the party can be pitted against one another. If this sort of thing is allowed to go unchecked, it could mean the entire party splits, as happened to the Communist Party of the Phillipines just before it could have attained victory. The same sort of split happened to the RCP, USA in the 80&#39;s as well.

It is good for party members to dissent and criticize, but those criticisms need to be taken to the party itself, not to the bourgeoisie. A vanguard cannot lead the proletariat forward if it is composed of factions that are attacking one another from outside the party.

[Red Heretic]

and everyone wonders why, maoists, stalinists, and students of the juche idea, dont ever take reformists seriously, or work with them in any manner.


Anarchists are just as bad, Oh yah lets create a society which is free of everything, Dont worry about rooming gangs or anythign tho, And Somalia isnt an anarchist state, even tho they have exactly what we preach. Anarchists= Failure

Comrade, I know you can do better than that. Yes, anarchists and liberals have an incorrect line. However, that doesn&#39;t mean we should just dismiss their arguements and say "fuck you, you&#39;re an anarchist&#33;" We have to struggle with them in the realm of ideas and win them other to a correct line, or we will never be able to move forward toward a revolution.


stalinists

There is no such thing as a Stalinist, this was a word that was put forward but the Khruschevite revisionists, and later adopted by the Trotskyites. Stalin&#39;s ideology was essentially the same as Lenin&#39;s, and then mixed with mistakes.


students of the juche idea

Juche is an ideology that represents the interests of the Korean bourgeoisie against US imperialism. I encourage you to stay wary of it.


Why do I have to make a speech about it? Everyone knows how Maoism is growing, Nepal, Turkey, India, Phillipines, Soon here in North America.

Because it is the duty of Maoists to debate and struggle with people to see the scientific reality behind things. Yes, there are tremendous advancements toward revolution being made in those countries, but what does that have to do with whether or not we struggle to bring people to correct understanding here in our own countries?

The Bolsheviks didn&#39;t just say "well we&#39;re winning and we have the confidence of the proletariat now, so fuck anyone who doesn&#39;t agree with us, we won&#39;t even engage in a debate." No, they engaged in vigorous ideological struggles within the Soviets, and won the confidence of the proletariat on an even greater scale, and even won over some of the forces of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Not only that, but we must not neglect our responsibility to our comrades in Nepal who need our solidarity more than ever. It is our responsibility as communists to win over people in our own countries to support their revolution, and to defend it against the threat of US imperialism and Indian expansionism. They&#39;re lives, are on the line. As communists, we must do everything withing our power to win people over to their support.


Were all Communists? No, Anarachists are not Communists. And they never will be. Its either u Follow Marx and Lenins teachings or your not a communist, simple.

No, it&#39;s not. Communism is a science, not at religion. Marx, Lenin, and Mao aren&#39;t magical messianic gods that came to save us from our sins. They were scientists, scientists that make mistakes, that can be criticized on some points. Marx made mistakes, Lenin made mistakes, and even Mao made mistakes.

The mistake you are making is called dogmatism. I highly recommend you to read Mao&#39;s Red Book and Avakian&#39;s book "From Ike to Mao." Both will help you tremendously.


About my earlier statements, please accept my apologies as I was completely out of line&#33; And I formally retract my previous statements. Iam sorry to those who I offended.

I warmly applaud your self-criticism. That is excellent.


what? Who the fuck are u to call me a christian&#33;

Hahahahahaha, I thought that was fucking hilarious&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:


In closing, I wish you luck in your ideological journey, as I sense that it has just begun. On a side note, will you be attending the First Revolutionary Congress of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Canada (http://www.pcr-rcpcanada.org/en/crc.php), that is coming up?

[cormacobear]

They were kicked out of the party not the country. There are other oparties in Nepal and they can start their own. Since the Maoists have said they would accept the exile of the king any position softer than that is pretty much conceding defeat when the Maoists and democrats have all the crads. They should have been kicked out for their position, not for critisizing the leadership

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:15 AM
They were kicked out of the party not the country. There are other oparties in Nepal and they can start their own.
....and possibly be abducted, tortured, and killed by the guerillas. The CPN(M) may have stopped doing that kind of thing to competing opposition parties for now...but that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;ve changed their spots.

***

None of us really know what the different views were in this factional dispute, or any of the others. It&#39;s incredibly foolish to take sides in such a dispute without even knowing what the issues really are&#33;

It&#39;s possible the ranks of the CPN(M) know even less. It&#39;s not in the Maoist/Stalinist tradition to have a real debate where all sides&#39; views can be known to the ranks.

In the faction fight called the "Cultural Revolution", for example, we still don&#39;t know what Liu Shao-Chi really advocated - we just know what Mao accused him of advocating.

We do know a few things about Prachandra&#39;s and Bhattarai&#39;s views.

Bhattarai wrote in 2001 that "Some Marxist pundits, based on this, called us a pro-monarchy party, and we can now say that we—NCP(Maoist) and King Birendra—had similar views on many national issues and this had created in fact an informal alliance between us."
and
"Despite the differences on many issues, an important contribution of the Shah Kings (from Prithvi Narayan Shah to King Birendra) has been to preserve Nepali independence and sovereign status from the hands of British imperialism and later from Indian expansionism. But, now, if any Shah dreams of establishing a new Rana rule by staging a Kot massacre with the help of expansionists, then there is no question of giving legitimacy to his rule by the Nepali people. The contribution made by kings—from Prithvi Narayan Shah to King Birendra—will be valued highly by the Nepali people for ages, but at any cost they will not accept the new Jigme Sigme who has come to power by staging a Kot massacre. In this context, the RNA (Royal Nepali Army) whose main duty is to serve the King and the country, should re-assess their role after their failure to save the King. "
link (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0601letter.htm) He&#39;s referring to the recently murdered monarch.

On the other hand he wrote in 2005:
"A tendency that sees feudalism as more progressive than capitalism is found in the communist movement. It needs to be fought. The contradiction of the Nepalese people with the monarchy is sharper than with the Indian ruling classes. Any confusion on this will cause harm to the revolution."
link (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0705cpndebate.htm)

Is that an accurate description of his factional opponents&#39; views? (Presumably Prachanda&#39;s?) I don&#39;t know - supposedly the documents from that dispute were to be made public, but none of those I&#39;ve seen lay out Prachanda&#39;s views on feudalism vs India as the main enemy. (And again, who knows if any of this was published in a form where the ranks of the CPN(M) had the chance to read it?)

In any case, probably what we&#39;re seeing here is mostly a zigzag in the CPN(M) - in all its factions - responding to the absolute-monarchist coup. India&#39;s policy, after that point, was to distance itself from absolutism and pressure the regime to restore parliamentary rule. So, from the CPN(M)&#39;s viewpoint, India changes from archenemy to potentially useful mediator.

In any case, actions speak louder - and on that basis, there&#39;s relatively little difference between these different leaders. The factional disputes, and in this case, split, may have some symptomatic significance - that the CPN(M) is feeling a certain pressure.