Massive rally in Nepal

[Janus]

Maoists hold massive Nepal rally (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5039788.stm)

Do you think that the new governemnt will come through on their promises? Or do you think that the Maoists will continue with their war? Discuss...

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I doubt the new government will deliver... well at least not to the standard which the Maoist's want... I can see this peoples' war dragging out quite a while...

[bolshevik butcher]

The maoists could of taking power but failed to seize the opppertunity during the mass demonstrations earlier this year. Are they trying to ally with some sort of progressive bourgeoirse or something?

[Dreckt]

Really, how would a maoist state help the people in Nepal? Of course, if China would help them in their progress then that may be good, but since China distance itself from maoism, and just about any country adopted capitalism, then why would the government become a maoist state? Economically, it does not serve them.

They should get rid of the king though.

[Janus]

The maoists could of taking power but failed to seize the opppertunity during the mass demonstrations earlier this year.
Not really. Even Prachanda has admitted the difficulties behind this. They needed the 7 party alliance.


Really, how would a maoist state help the people in Nepal?
That's not their first goal.


Of course, if China would help them in their progress then that may be good, but since China distance itself from maoism, and just about any country adopted capitalism, then why would the government become a maoist state?
The PRC has supported the monarchy.


Economically, it does not serve them.
It doesn't but they want to improve the situation of the poor rather than boost trade or make a profit.


They should get rid of the king though.
The Nepalese people have.

[bolshevik butcher]

They could easilly ahve taken power surley? The people are apparently behind them enmasse, especially the class conscious workers of katmandhu surley? This nonscense about cross class apry alliances etc is classic of maoists, allying with the progressive bourgeoirse etc was what mao and Moscow always advocated.

[Janus]

They could easilly ahve taken power surley? The people are apparently behind them enmasse, especially the class conscious workers of katmandhu surley?
The peasants may be. However, the recent demonstrations was more of a popular front against the king rather than due totally to the efforts of the Maoists.


This nonscense about cross class apry alliances etc is classic of maoists, allying with the progressive bourgeoirse etc was what mao and Moscow always advocated.
I don't remember Mao ever advocating that. But the point is that 7 party alliance and the Maoists simply united to get rid of the king. The Maoists needed mass support for this and the fact of the matter is that they are not dominant in the cities.

[RevMARKSman]

Hmm...Maoism isn't really my thing, but I'm glad they got rid of the king at least.

[bolshevik butcher]

Janus, when Mao took over he advoacated 100years of capitalism, and actually had the chinese communist aprty set up a range of fake social democractic and other petty bourgeoirse and bourgeoirse parties to simulate such copperation

[Janus]

This nonscense about cross class apry alliances
You see, the Maoists signed the 12 point agreement with the SPA in order to mobilize more support for the Democracy movement. But now that the SPA have taken over, their may be trouble if the Maoists decide to continue the war.


but I'm glad they got rid of the king at least.
The monarchy still exists but it's power will be greatly reduced with the constituent assembly. There are plans to fully remove the monarchy.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 4 2006, 07:48 PM
The maoists could of taking power but failed to seize the opppertunity during the mass demonstrations earlier this year. Are they trying to ally with some sort of progressive bourgeoirse or something?
No way can the Maoists take control in Nepal, they don't have much, if any, support in the cities

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 4 2006, 01:48 PM
The maoists could of taking power but failed to seize the opppertunity during the mass demonstrations earlier this year. Are they trying to ally with some sort of progressive bourgeoirse or something?
Others have pointed out this is mistaken. The wrong premise behind it: that the CPN(Maoist) represent some kind of progressive force, which they don't. They are an anti-working class force which has fortunately been pushed aside as a mass movement has developed and working people stepped forwards as an independent force in recent months.

So it's good that the CPN(Maoist) is increasingly orienting to a negotiated solution and saying things like "We have come to assist the government. We have come here to collaborate with it, not to struggle. We will encourage and assist the government to take a concrete step towards constituent assembly elections. So, the talks this time will be different compared to the past two ones." From an interview in a Nepali newspaper. (What they say for domestic consumption is more significant and necessarily more reality-related than what they say through their "comrades" internationally.) (http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&nid=74512)

The continued abductions and extortion are a concern, of course; the CPN(Maoists) deeds don't fully match its words. But I think statements like that are not just hypocrisy; the CPN(Maoist) knows there is no other road forward for them.

The end of the civil war would be a positive development. It would facilitate working people's conscious participation in politics.

It's significant, here, that under pressure from below the government has been announcing more and more progressive measures; the latest is a proclamation outlawing "untouchability."

****

About the debate on Maoism historically: you know the 4 stars on the Chinese flag? They stand for the "Bloc of 4 classes": workers, peasants, middle class and "national bourgeoisie." That's not hugely relevant to current events in Nepal, though; the CPN(Maoist)'s campaign of terror against working people has little in common with the Chinese Revolution.

[Janus]

you know the 4 stars on the Chinese flag? They stand for the "Bloc of 4 classes": workers, peasants, middle class and "national bourgeoisie."
Not really. There is no official interpretation.

Now that Severian has posted, we're soon gonna see the Maoist counterbarrage.

Anyways, so how exactly do the Maoists seek to establish a socialist state after a multi-party democracy? Do they expect this transition to be peaceful?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:43 AM

you know the 4 stars on the Chinese flag? They stand for the "Bloc of 4 classes": workers, peasants, middle class and "national bourgeoisie."
Not really. There is no official interpretation.

Now that Severian has posted, we're soon gonna see the Maoist counterbarrage.

Anyways, so how exactly do the Maoists seek to establish a socialist state after a multi-party democracy? Do they expect this transition to be peaceful?
What we're seeing now is the stage of New Democratic revolution. It is a revolution against imperialism and semi-fuedalism. After the completion of the New Democratic revolution, the CPNM will continue to lead class wars until it has established the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The transition from New Democracy, in theory, can be peaceful. In theory, many claim the proletarian vanguard party should be able to oust the bourgeoisie from the state. However, when Mao led a New Democratic revolution in China and tried to make the transition to socialism, it led to civil war. I suspect Nepal will follow a similar path.

The proletariat and the bourgeoisie NEVER share state power for long, so this should be a very interesting process.


As for Sevarian, I'm not even going to bother. Get a life.

[Janus]

After the completion of the New Democratic revolution, the CPNM will continue to lead class wars until it has established the dictatorship of the proletariat.
So the people's war will continue?

I'm not sure if China would be an apt comparison to Nepal. In China, the GuoMingDang were united with the CCP because they were the main progressive elements at the time. However, once the GuoMingDang actually united much of the state, they turned on the CCP.

I suppose that it could happen in Nepal as well but I'm thinking that the new government will need to at least consolidate before trying anything.

[Tekun]

The massive rally in Nepal is a good sign for the Maoists and their movement, it shows that the Nepalese are willing listen to their program, and many are willing to lend support

However, the most important thing is that the Maoists convince the ppl to dissolve the government, and then rebuild it according to socialist principles
The talks that are underway are just a ploy to appease the Maoists yet keep the power in the hands of the wealthy and royal fam

The sooner the government is dissolved, the sooner a new and better government for the ppl can be erected

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It's also good to prove to the damn cappies that we're democratic.

[Red Heretic]

So the people's war will continue?

Maybe. Class war in Nepal could possibly lead to the masses siezing power through the leadership of the CPNM controlling the majority of the state, as the other parties continually whither away as the proletariat siezes control of the means of production, or the bourgeois section of the coalition government will refuse to go allow the proletariat to dissolve it, and it will lead to civil war. Every time in history that a cross-class government has been formed, the class contradictions have led to civil war. In my personal opinion, I believe that sooner or later the SPA will turn on the CPNM because of its class interests, and will launch a civil war.

The bottom line, however, is that the CPNM will continually make revolution after revolution until the world gets to communism (whether that revolution be New Democratic, socialist, or cultural).


I'm not sure if China would be an apt comparison to Nepal. In China, the GuoMingDang were united with the CCP because they were the main progressive elements at the time. However, once the GuoMingDang actually united much of the state, they turned on the CCP.

Actually, China is nearly a perfect example. Chiang Kai Shek and the Koumintang in China represented the forces of the national bourgeoisie in China, and entered into a coalition government with the proletariat, when they shared state power with the CCP. However, once te coalition had smashed Japanese imperialism, the bourgeoisie inevitably turned on the proletariat and launched a civil war. Of course, as we all know, the Chinese proletariat and their vanguard kicked the Koumintang's asses.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:16 AM
It's also good to prove to the damn cappies that we're democratic.
Of course. The proletariat is the most democratic class in human history. The proletariat's demoracy is to be shared for all of the proletariat, while the bourgeoisie's democracy is a democracy shared only by its handful of rich capitalists.

[Red Heretic]

Kathmandu Witnesses Unprecedented Maoist Rally

5 June 2006. A World to Win News Service. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)
held a mammoth public meeting in Kathmandu 2 June, the likes of which the country
has never seen before. This was the first time the Maoists have been able to hold
any public activity in the capital in years. Estimates of the crowd size range
from “at least 200,000 people” (BBC) to half a million. Traffic was redirected
from the city centre because of the huge crowds spilling into the streets.
Hundreds of borrowed public transport vehicles brought people from revolutionary
base areas and elsewhere in the countryside throughout central Nepal. Many had
never been to the capital before. Hotel rooms were offered at special rates, and
tents were pitched everywhere. Among the urban dwellers who came, many were Maoist
supporters, while others wanted to hear what the Maoists had to say.
Responsibility for protecting the crowd and keeping it organized and disciplined
was handled by thousands of
volunteer youth, including a great many young women, all wearing red t-shirts with
a picture of CPN(M) Chairman Prachanda. Government forces had set up dangerous
concertina wire, and heavily armed security forces were on hand to prevent the
crowd from marching on the royal palace only a few hundred metres away from the
rally site.

The location had great political significance. The crowd vastly overflowed the
open theatre and burst into the Tudikhel, a military parade ground behind the
theatre never before open to the public. Until now, it served exclusively for the
king’s ceremonies. People sat on the chairs which until now have seldom held
behinds other than those of the king and his feudal generals. They pitched red
communist flags on the parade ground stand that until now has never seen any other
than that of the feudal Shah dynasty.

In addition to music and dance performances, the main speech was given by Kirshna
Bahadur Mahara, head of the team preparing for negotiations between the CPN(M) and
the newly reinstated parliament. He criticized the parliamentary parties for
backing away from the 12-point agreement with the CPN(M) that led to countrywide
upheaval against the king, including their stubborn reluctance to dissolve
parliament and call elections for a constituent assembly.

Photos With the Article:
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/140/a7ap.png

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/1176/a13yl.png

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:16 AM
It's also good to prove to the damn cappies that we're democratic.
Of course. The proletariat is the most democratic class in human history. The proletariat's demoracy is to be shared for all of the proletariat, while the bourgeoisie's democracy is a democracy shared only by its handful of rich capitalists.

Hopefully we'll better them and allow even the most intolerant asses to speak so we can laugh in their faces :lol:

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:46 AM
Hopefully we'll better them and allow even the most intolerant asses to speak so we can laugh in their faces :lol:
Couldn't agree more! :D

[Axel1917]

I doubt the government is going to get anywhere. The Maoists would be losing support if they were getting somewhere (unless there was an actual Marxist tendency around that would be attracting the workers, thereby increasing its influence).

The discredited Stalinist-Menshevik two-stage "theory" is not helping things out for the Maoists.

It would be interesting, given that the Maoists seized power, if the permanent revolution would at least manifest itself in a peculiar way, as was the case in places like Cuba and China.

[Janus]

Actually, China is nearly a perfect example. Chiang Kai Shek and the Koumintang in China represented the forces of the national bourgeoisie in China, and entered into a coalition government with the proletariat, when they shared state power with the CCP.
There really wasn't much power to begin with. Party lines weren't all that clear back then.


However, once te coalition had smashed Japanese imperialism, the bourgeoisie inevitably turned on the proletariat and launched a civil war. Of course, as we all know, the Chinese proletariat and their vanguard kicked the Koumintang's asses.
The civil war began before the Japanese invasion and the Japs were never really smashed.

Proletariat? You mean the peasants who made up the large part of the revolution?

[Dreckt]

That's not their first goal.

Yes, but if they do adhere to maoism then sooner or later that will be their goal.


The PRC has supported the monarchy.

Yes I know, but my meaning was that the people has no reason for going into maoism - the political parties as well. I think it would be China all over again, maybe not as long as it took for China to become capitalist, but it would certainly not benefit the people in any way.


It doesn't but they want to improve the situation of the poor rather than boost trade or make a profit.

Yes - just like Mao wanted with China. The leader now may be honest about doing this, he would most likely develop an economic policy that does serve the people. My question is - what happens next? What of the next leader? Will Nepal have a democratic system, or will there be just one party?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:30 PM
My question is - what happens next? What of the next leader? Will Nepal have a democratic system, or will there be just one party?
As for new leaders, the CPNM is planning to implement a new programme within its own party to train new leadership while curret leadership plays its role, and also to increase the power of the central committee (in order to lesson the threat of revisionism when a leader dies). However, the CPNM wants to find a way to do away with life time leadership all together, because it believes that such a thing gives fertile breeding ground to revisionism.

In addition, The CPNM on countless occassions has argued for a multiparty dictatorship of the proletariat with competition between parties. Obviously, a multiparty dictatorship of the proletariat would not contains these current bourgeois parties however.

The way I see it, they may try to implement that theory by allowing the proletariat to form new political parties within the new socialist state, but of course, I'm speculating, and we'll just have to wait and see how they make this new socialist model work.

What is most important for now is winning the New Democratic revolution and abolishing fuedalism. Of course, after the victor of the New Democratic revolution, it will be a whole new ball game, as I have explained earlier.

[bolshevik butcher]

I can't believe that a two stage solution is being argued for by people who calme to be followers of bolshevism.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 7 2006, 06:59 PM
I can't believe that a two stage solution is being argued for by people who calme to be followers of bolshevism.
Well first of all, do you think the bolsheviks thought it was possible to leap from fuedalism to socialism?

Further more, it isn't just "two stages." There are going to be a LOT of stages to EVERY revolution. That is, after socialist revolution there will continue to be cultural revolutions until communism. Until we ge to communism, there will always be the threat of capitalist restoration, and thus, always a need for cultural revolutions. It's not just Mao that claims this either, but also Lenin.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:14 PM
I doubt the government is going to get anywhere. The Maoists would be losing support if they were getting somewhere
The Maoists are, and have been for some time. One symptom: they no longer get enough volunteers, and have had to begin conscripting fighters.

That's why they entered into the pact with the seven-party alliance, which they used to vilify and physically attack. Because the Maoists knew they were not getting anywhere on their own.

To pull together this large mobilization, they had to bus people in from the countryside, as the article mentions. Earlier rallies in the capital were much smaller.

I'm not sure what you mean by the government "getting somewhere", so I can't comment on that part.


It would be interesting, given that the Maoists seized power, if the permanent revolution would at least manifest itself in a peculiar way, as was the case in places like Cuba and China.

It's debatable whether that's an accurate description of what happened in Cuba or China. Uninterrupted revolution in the general Marxist sense, yes; permanent revolution in any specifically Trotskyist sense, no.

But anway, it's highly improbable that would have been the result if the CPN(Maoist) had somehow taken power. (Past tense as that's no longer a prospect - even the Maoist leadership admits it.)

The CPN(Maoist) is analagous to the Shining Path in Peru - as the acknowledge themselves - or the Khmer Rouge. Not misleaders of a revolutionary process, but straight-up enemies of working people and workers' organizations.
Details on this were given in this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=0&#entry1291864457)

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 8 2006, 01:59 AM
Well first of all, do you think the bolsheviks thought it was possible to leap from fuedalism to socialism?
Lenin argued that working people needed to take power. Even in backward, semi-feudal Russia.

He was for a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." Later, the Communist International - in Lenin's time - advocated "workers and peasants governments" and Soviets of the peasants and other toilers even in very underdeveloped countries.

Nothing about "New Democracy" - a term without explicit class content. Nothing about coalition governments with capitalist parties.

t was the Mensheviks and SRs who joined a coalition government with the capitalist parties. Analagous to what Mao and Stalin advocated with the Kuomintang.

Do I need to point out that the Bolsheviks bitterly opposed this.

A workers and peasants government would not instantly leap to socialism, of course. It would begin by taking on feudalism and imperialism, and gradually move on to socialist tasks.

But only the workers and peasants can take on feudalism and imperialism! No bourgeois government or capitalist party will do so.

That's what happened in China, even. Every time the Kuomintang made a deal with the CCP, it was only to set up a backstab quickly afterwards. In '49, it rejected all the CCP's offers to set up a coalition government. When it was overthrown, the CCP set up a government in which it was the only real power - the bourgeois parties in the "coalition" were just for show.

And within a couple years, the "New Democratic" phase was over - the People's Republic moved rapidly - and without civil war - from land reform to the nationalization of all capitalist property in 1950, IIRC, 1951 at the latest. Spurred by the Korean War and the imperialist threat to China.

[WorkerBolshevik]

He was for a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." Later, the Communist International - in Lenin's time - advocated "workers and peasants governments" and Soviets of the peasants and other toilers even in very underdeveloped countries.
Let us clarify this. If Lenin had died in 1916, this is what he would have been known for, the idea of a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." However, 1917 changed many things for Lenin. With the start of the first interimperialist war in 1914, Lenin was the first to correctly analyze the new stage that capitalism had entered, the age of Imperialism. However, even then, Lenin's analysis of Imperialism was far from complete. When the bourgeois came to power in Russia in February, Lenin saw that they were incapable of making progressive reforms as had happened during the age of the rising bourgeoisie. Instead, the capitalists were far too weak and were connected to the old feudalistic order "by a million strings." In an era where the proletariat was already powerful, the bourgeoisie couldn't take the same risks it had before, and as a result would not bring reforms and would not improve the situation in Russia. In response to this, Lenin abandoned his theory of a democratic dictatorship and called for "all power to the soviets."


t[sic] was the Mensheviks and SRs who joined a coalition government with the capitalist parties. Analagous to what Mao and Stalin advocated with the Kuomintang. What Mao and Stalin did during the Chinese Revolution of 1925-27 was a far more series crime than those commited by most Mensheviks or Right SRs. In 1925, the Chinese Communist Party was the largest communist party on earth, with more members even than the Russian CP at that time. However, reserecting Lenin's old theorey of the democratic dictatorship (bourgeois rule), Stalin encouraged the KMT and the Chinese CP to merge and demanded an end to proletarian revolts, which started in 1925. However, the majority of the Chinese CP was still Leninist (as opposed to Stalinist) at that time, and resisted the demand's of Stalin's Comintern to submit to the KMT. In response, Stalin supported the complete crushing of the Chinese workers' revolution by force, sending arms and giving political support to the KMT. Four out of Five Chinese CP members were killed during the period from 1925-1927. The only major section of the party (Chinese CP) which survived was the minor bureaucratic clique centered around Mao Zedong. Mao opposed the workers' revolution from within the party; supporting the KMT and Stalin in their effort to crush it. Trotsky used this experience to apply the lessons of the Russian Revolution (that the bourgeoisie will no longer accomplish its traditional tasks during the age of imperialism) to the entire world.


A workers and peasants government would not instantly leap to socialism, of course. It would begin by taking on feudalism and imperialism, and gradually move on to socialist tasks.
Though you are correct in your assumption that a workers' revolution in a backwards nation will have much to do, it is important to clarify your statement. No matter in what country, the workers' revolution does not immediatly bring about socialism. In all cases, the dictatorship of the proletariat, a transitionary stage between capitalism and socialism, must occur to transform society. Several tasks must be accomplished during this period, and will require more work the more backwards a country. First, all resistence (from former classes) must be crushed. Second, a surplus of all goods must be produced. Third, all members of society must have the ability to manage society, thereby removing not only classes but hierarchel relations. Only when these three things are accomplished can the state fade away, for there is no need for a state where there is noone to opress, no scarcity to manage, and when everyone is skilled. In doing so, the goals of capitalism (equality and democracy for all) are accomplished, though it is ironic when real democracy is finally achieved is right as the state dies out. When this occurs is when Socialism begins, and when society can break free from capitalist relations (which still are the driving forces in the dictatorship of the proletariat) and begin to be shaped by a new society. When, after several generations, social relations have adapted to this new climate is when the level of communism is at last reached.

[Red Heretic]

Lenin argued that working people needed to take power. Even in backward, semi-feudal Russia.

He was for a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." Later, the Communist International - in Lenin's time - advocated "workers and peasants governments" and Soviets of the peasants and other toilers even in very underdeveloped countries.


Of course, but he also implemented the NEP which laid the foundations for the dictatorship of the proletariat, by allowing the bourgeoisie to develop under the rule of the proletariat.


Nothing about "New Democracy" - a term without explicit class content. Nothing about coalition governments with capitalist parties.

New Democratic revolution is a revolution led by a proletarian vanguard party, but forms a coalition with the national bourgeoisie against fuedalism and imperialism. Once complete, the proletarian vanguard party holds onto power until it comes under attack by the bourgeoisie, and then launches socialist revolution (see China).


But only the workers and peasants can take on feudalism and imperialism! No bourgeois government or capitalist party will do so.

You don't think the national bourgeoisie hates fuedalism? How exactly do you think it is that the majority of the world overthrew fuedalism?

Also, the national bourgeoisie (other than the comprador section of it) hates being oppressed by imperialism. It wants to take control of it's own country so that it can exploit the people inside of it.


And within a couple years, the "New Democratic" phase was over - the People's Republic moved rapidly - and without civil war - from land reform to the nationalization of all capitalist property in 1950, IIRC, 1951 at the latest. Spurred by the Korean War and the imperialist threat to China.

What exactly do you think the civil war between the CCP and the Koumintang was? The Koumintang was the vanguard of the national bourgeoisie, and that war was directly over which class would rule.

[WorkerBolshevik]

Of course, but he also implemented the NEP which laid the foundations for the dictatorship of the proletariat, by allowing the bourgeoisie to develop under the rule of the proletariat.
Comrade, its all good and fun to be rapid, blind ideologues at times, but the fact of the matter is that without a jumpstart to the peasant economy in 1921, the Russian Workers' State wouldn't have made it to 1922.


You don't think the national bourgeoisie hates fuedalism? How exactly do you think it is that the majority of the world overthrew fuedalism?
Yes, the bourgeoisie hates fuedalism, but what it hates even more is the abolishment of all forms of private property. During the era before there was a strong proletariat, during the ascendancy of the bourgeois class, the bourgeoisie had no obstacle in its path to shuck off the fetter of fuedalism. However, during the era of imperialism, by overthrowing the old order, the bourgeoisie risks radicalizing the proletariat and as a consequence would face being overthrown themselves. As a result, during the age of imperialism the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class, but a reactionary class; clinging to fuedalism (where it hasn't been overthrown) in order to retain stability and protect private property.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:20 AM
The Maoists are, and have been for some time. One symptom: they no longer get enough volunteers, and have had to begin conscripting fighters.
Yeah, they're so unpopular.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5963/post3211498316861dd.jpg
(Maoist Rally This Week)

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/7079/post3211498317436ti.jpg
(Another Angle of the Maoist Rally)

[Janus]

What Mao and Stalin did during the Chinese Revolution of 1925-27 was a far more series crime than those commited by most Mensheviks or Right SRs.
Mao? Mao led the Autumn Harvest Moon Uprising in 1927, that was pretty much it as he was inactive for a few years before that.

In 1925, the Chinese Communist Party was the largest communist party on earth, with more members even than the Russian CP at that time. However, reserecting Lenin's old theorey of the democratic dictatorship (bourgeois rule), Stalin encouraged the KMT and the Chinese CP to merge and demanded an end to proletarian revolts, which started in 1925.
They were already united. The alliance had occured during Sun Zhong Shan's time. It didn't end 'till 1927. There really weren't any prole revolts in 1925, there were some in 1927 though.

However, the majority of the Chinese CP was still Leninist (as opposed to Stalinist) at that time, and resisted the demand's of Stalin's Comintern to submit to the KMT.
Submit, a lot of members were dual members. That's how the CCP grew.


In response, Stalin supported the complete crushing of the Chinese workers' revolution by force, sending arms and giving political support to the KMT. Four out of Five Chinese CP members were killed during the period from 1925-1927. The only major section of the party (Chinese CP) which survived was the minor bureaucratic clique centered around Mao Zedong.
The white purges was mainly the work of Jiang Jieshi though you could say that Stalin had taken part since some arms did come from the USSR. But those supplies were originally intended for the Northern Expedition.

Mao opposed the workers' revolution from within the party; supporting the KMT and Stalin in their effort to crush it.
Where did you get this? Mao was politically inactive during this period. He had no major clout in the party anyways. The revolt he led in 1927 consisted of both workers and peasants.


I have to agree that the Maoists do seem quite popular since they are active participators of the anti-King and democracy movement, which they have ridden the wave of.

[WorkerBolshevik]

Comrade Janus, I would reccommend that you review your history of the Chinese Revolution of 1925. It was one of the most important proletarian revolutions of the era, and yet remains almost forgotten, or at the very least (as in your case) the details are elusive. The most useful book on the subject, I have found, is Harold Isaacs' The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution. I am not sure where you could find a copy, the issue I have in the 1966 Antheneum printing. However, if you are able to locate any copies, try to get a hold of the Second Revised Edition, as there are significant changes over the original edition.

[Janus]

Which part? Mao didn't take part in the revolution during those years.

I am aware of the general things that happened during those years as the CCP was led by Chen DuXiu during that period. Of course, later leaders place a lot of blame on him even though he had only been following orders from ComIntern.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 8 2006, 07:43 PM
Of course, but he also implemented the NEP which laid the foundations for the dictatorship of the proletariat, by allowing the bourgeoisie to develop under the rule of the proletariat.
Red herring. Yes, the NEP allowed a certain amount of economic space for the bourgeoisie - under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

So it has nothing to do with "New Democracy", since that refers to something other than the dictatorship of the proletariat obviously.


New Democratic revolution is a revolution led by a proletarian vanguard party, but forms a coalition with the national bourgeoisie against fuedalism and imperialism.

Which is obviously not what the Bolsheviks projected or did. They treated the Kadets - the Russian Kuomintang - as enemies. Kerensky formed a "New Democratic" coalition with the "national bourgeoisie."


You don't think the national bourgeoisie hates fuedalism? How exactly do you think it is that the majority of the world overthrew fuedalism?

"The majority of the world"? No. In Europe, before the 20th century, the bourgeoisie overthrew feudalism. Now it fears the working class more than it hates feudalism and imperialism. Lenin and even Marx explained this many times.

Read "Two Tactics of the Democratic Revolution" by Lenin for example, or Marx on "Revolution and Counterrevolution in Germany" (1848.)


What exactly do you think the civil war between the CCP and the Koumintang was?

I think that occurred before 1949 - when Mao proclaimed the People's Republic was a "New Democracy." Please read my posts if you're going to respond to them.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:07 PM
Let us clarify this. If Lenin had died in 1916, this is what he would have been known for, the idea of a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." However, 1917 changed many things for Lenin.
It sure did. But he never rejected the idea of "democratic dictatorship" - he wrote it had been partly fulfilled in the form of dual power, and partly given a more concrete form - the demand of all power to the soviets.


When the bourgeois came to power in Russia in February, Lenin saw that they were incapable of making progressive reforms as had happened during the age of the rising bourgeoisie. Instead, the capitalists were far too weak and were connected to the old feudalistic order "by a million strings." In an era where the proletariat was already powerful, the bourgeoisie couldn't take the same risks it had before, and as a result would not bring reforms and would not improve the situation in Russia.

Lenin and even Marx was aware of this long before. See my reading suggestions to Red Heretic.


In response to this, Lenin abandoned his theory of a democratic dictatorship and called for "all power to the soviets."

Half right - he called for "all power to the soviets". But this was the realization, not the abandonment of his theory of democratic dictatorship.

"The class origin and the class significance of this dual power is the following: the Russian revolution of March 1917 not only swept away the whole tsarist monarchy, not only transferred the entire power to the bourgeoisie, but also moved close towards a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. The Petrograd and the other, the local, Soviets constitute precisely such a dictatorship (that is, a power resting not on the law but directly on the force of armed masses of the population), a dictatorship precisely of the above-mentioned classes."


In claiming that Lenin abandoned his earlier perspective, it's traditional to quote this sentence, "The old traditional formulas (dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry) no longer meet the changed conditions." But this out-of-context juggling: the next sentence is "A revolutionary-democratic dictatorship has been established but not in the form we envisaged: it is inter locked with the dictatorship of the imperialist bourgeoisie."[url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/14g.htm]April 14, 1917. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch03.htmfrom "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution[/url)

Sorry for the exegesis, but bodysnatching has to be countered. And it's traditional for supporters of "Permanent Revolution" to try to bodysnatch Lenin.

In reality, it was Trotsky who went over to Lenin's perspective, not vice versa. From 1917 to 1928, he wrote little about "Permanent Revolution." Later he went back to his pre-1917 position.

In the light of historical experience since, this was clearly an error.

While Lenin's position is closer to Permanent Revolution than to the Menshevik-Stalinist policy of alliance with the bourgeoisie, it is different than either. And more correct.


the dictatorship of the proletariat, a transitionary stage between capitalism and socialism, must occur to transform society. Several tasks must be accomplished during this period, and will require more work the more backwards a country. First, all resistence (from former classes) must be crushed. Second, a surplus of all goods must be produced. Third, all members of society must have the ability to manage society, thereby removing not only classes but hierarchel relations. Only when these three things are accomplished can the state fade away, for there is no need for a state where there is noone to opress, no scarcity to manage, and when everyone is skilled. In doing so, the goals of capitalism (equality and democracy for all) are accomplished, though it is ironic when real democracy is finally achieved is right as the state dies out. When this occurs is when Socialism begins, and when society can break free from capitalist relations (which still are the driving forces in the dictatorship of the proletariat) and begin to be shaped by a new society. When, after several generations, social relations have adapted to this new climate is when the level of communism is at last reached.

Right, but I'm talking about something else. Before those tasks can be seriously taken on, it's necessary to deal with the unfinished business of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions.

Based on the experience of all anticapitalist revolutions so far, the "workers and peasants government" described by the early Comintern is the most common type of government immediately following a victorious revolution. It initally concentrates on democratic tasks. It may nationalize some capitalist property, but not all.

In the case of Russia, the Soviet government rapidly moved towards smashing capitalist property - it was forced to do so by the Civil War. Still, both Lenin and Trotsky pointed out the revolution was not fully a proletarian revolution until the poor peasants committees in mid-1918. Before that, the working class was marching against feudalism together with the whole peasantry - including the rich peasants, who were the rural bourgeoisie. The political expression of this was the alliance with the Left SRs.

In the case of China, the workers and peasants government took power in 1949, and the dictatorship of the proletariat was inaugurated in 1950, with the nationalization of most capitalist property in response to the Korean War.

Similar observations can be made about other revolutions. In Algeria and Nicaragua, the revolution never advanced to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and as a result eventually lost power.

But people who can't distinguish between the democratic and the socialist tasks of the revolution - never take power at all. The democratic tasks of the revolution are essential to mobilizing the masses into a revolutionary offensive.