Prachanda: "no More War"

[Nachie]

Top Nepal rebel says no more war

The Maoist leader in Nepal has given his strongest indication yet that the rebels will not return to violence.

Prachanda said a deal with the new government to hold elections to a constituent assembly meant that they would not go back to war.

He did, however, leave open the possibility of mass street protests if the current peace talks failed.

The rebels and the government agreed a ceasefire two months ago after mass protests ended direct palace rule.

More than 13,000 people have been killed in Nepal since the Maoists began their insurgency 10 years ago.

Situation 'changed'

"We will not go back to war," Prachanda told the AFP news agency in an interview in Kathmandu.

During the insurgency, there have been two other sets of peace talks, three years ago and five years ago.

But this time, Prachanda said, the situation had changed.

He said this was because the rebels and the new government agreed there should be elections to a constituent assembly which would draw up a new constitution.

However, he left open the possibility that if the peace talks failed, he might call for a repeat of the huge street protests that in April forced King Gyanendra to retreat from absolute rule and return power to elected politicians.

"We may appeal to the people for a peaceful movement... but we will not go back to war," Prachanda said.

And he said negotiations with the new government were making progress.

"I am satisfied with the relationship with the political parties. There are ups and downs in relations but basically it is going forward," he said.

Killings denied

Elsewhere in his interview, Prachanda denied allegations by the United Nations that the Maoists had killed nine people during the current truce.

He admitted to only one such killing, saying the perpetrator had been publicly punished.

Under an agreement signed two weeks ago, the Maoists are to enter an interim administration before the polls are held.

They have rejected calls that they give up their arms or renounce violence before entering government.

Some commentators say this is because top Maoist leaders cannot afford to alienate the junior ranks at this stage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5134162.stm

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

My main question to you revlefters here is that elsewhere, there have been rumors of Maoist "disarmament" taking the form of an integration between the PLA and (formally) Royal Nepalese Army. First and foremost I'd like to say that no matter what, the PLA will remain a hierarchal and oppressive institution. But to attempt to merge it with the Nepalese Army, which we know is one of the world's biggest abusers, how can anybody think that the result will be anything other than a repressive state institution in line with the role it has played in the past? Any negotiation which does not dissolve the former RNA will only be a temporary peace at best.

[Janus]

There's still nothing stated about Maoist disarmament which the ruling government right now claims is necessary for the Maoists to join the interim government.

And even if they join the government, how exactly do the Maoists seek to move the country towards socialism without causing conflict with the other parties?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:58 PM
There's still nothing stated about Maoist disarmament which the ruling government right now claims is necessary for the Maoists to join the interim government.

And even if they join the government, how exactly do the Maoists seek to move the country towards socialism without causing conflict with the other parties?
Well, obviously none of us know exactly that the internal strategies of the CPNM are. However, I can tell you how New Democratic revolution leads to socialism.

We'll use China as our model.

In China, there was a New Democratic and anti-imperialist revolution against Japanese imperialism. After the New Democratic revolution was completed, the Chinese Communist Party joined the new coalition government which was composed of both bourgeois political parties (most predominantly represented by the Koumintang and Chang Kai Shek), as well as the proletariat's vangaurd party, the Chinese Communist Party.

Though the CCP joined a bourgeois government, it never ceased to initiate class struggles and to fight the bourgeoisie. Because of these irreconciliable differences between the proletarian and bourgeois political parties, the bourgeoisie inevitably resorted to violence to drive the proletariat out of state power (which of course, inevitably led to civil war betwee nthe proeltariat and the bourgoisie).

New Democratic revolution creates the conditions for socialist revolution (and it does so VERY sharply).

[bayano]

one of several aspects of this story to recall: several of the parliamentarian parties are marxist-leninist as well, so there is already support and has always been for leninist socialism in the quarters of those who always supported parliamentarian strategy

[Burrito]

My main question to you revlefters here is that elsewhere, there have been rumors of Maoist "disarmament" taking the form of an integration between the PLA and (formally) Royal Nepalese Army. First and foremost I'd like to say that no matter what, the PLA will remain a hierarchal and oppressive institution. But to attempt to merge it with the Nepalese Army, which we know is one of the world's biggest abusers, how can anybody think that the result will be anything other than a repressive state institution in line with the role it has played in the past? Any negotiation which does not dissolve the former RNA will only be a temporary peace at best.

There is no disarmament talks. What has been proposed is that a neutral international body monitor both the Royal Nepal Army and the People's Liberation Army while the constituent assembly is forming the new Constitution. This would help avoid deathsquad bullying by the feudalists so that the peoples voice is heard in the new Constitution. The PLA has repeatedly rejected/avoided calls to disarm.

The CPNM has suggested that the PLA merge with a reconstituted National Nepal Army, which necesitates that the Royal Nepal Army (which is an arm of the palace) has been dissolved or dismantled.

You have to remember, the soldiers in RNA are not the real enemy, the bosses' generals are. There has been increasing fraternization between the armies in recent times as well.



one of several aspects of this story to recall: several of the parliamentarian parties are marxist-leninist as well, so there is already support and has always been for leninist socialism in the quarters of those who always supported parliamentarian strategy

It's not that simple. Nepali politics are strange. Most of the so-called Communist Party (United Marxist-Leninist) leaders are actually royalists!

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:49 PM
First and foremost I'd like to say that no matter what, the PLA will remain a hierarchal and oppressive institution. But to attempt to merge it with the Nepalese Army, which we know is one of the world's biggest abusers, how can anybody think that the result will be anything other than a repressive state institution in line with the role it has played in the past?
You seem to be saying they're both bloody-handed enemies of working people. Heck, in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40739&st=0&#entry1291941851) you described the CPN(Maoist) as fascist, and I had to try to explain to you why that was inaccurate.

So why not merge the two armies? Neither can be made worse for it.

Why be disappointed over the end of the civil war, unless you thought there was something progressive about the Nepal Rouge?

You haven't thought things through, and as a result your statements are inconsistent.

The end of the civil war, and the decrease in terror by both anti-worker armies, will create better conditions for working people to act and think indepedently. Heck, this has already begun to happen to some extent; As I pointed out in this thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51437)

Burrito wrote:

This would help avoid deathsquad bullying by the feudalists so that the peoples voice is heard in the new Constitution.

Deathsquad bullying by the CPN(Maoist) is also an issue. Disarmament or confining to barracks of both armies is necessary if reasonably free elections are going to happen.

"When they hold meetings, they come with a big stick and say you must attend or pay us money," said a farmer from Ramawapur village on the fertile Terai plains, bordering India. "When there is voting, people will vote for them out of fear."
Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DEL234924.htm)

[Cheung Mo]

Killing spoiled brahmins is not a fascist act.

[Burrito]

So why not merge the two armies? Neither can be made worse for it.


It's a savvy political move; it highlights the CPNM's desire to move forward to a secular democratic republic, which is the primary demand of the masses at this time; it keeps pressure on the SPA to strip the Royalists of their main power center.

Prachanda is playing the politician right now, and this is a smart tactic.



Why be disappointed over the end of the civil war, unless you thought there was something progressive about the Nepal Rouge?

Such a weak attempt to conflate the popular forces in Nepal with the Khmer Rouge (*mock horror*) does not impress. You only end up burnishing your anti-communist credentials. You'd think a Trotskyite sectarian such as yourself would be an expert in slander and calumny by now :rolleyes:



The end of the civil war, and the decrease in terror by both anti-worker armies, will create better conditions for working people to act and think indepedently. Heck, this has already begun to happen to some extent; As I pointed out in this thread.

The civil war (which is a class war) has not ended; it is raging more than ever. If 'war is politics by other means' then surely politics is war by other means. If you had any kind of grasp on Marxism at all you would know this. But it doesn't surprise me that a degenerated Trotskyite Barnesite hack would not understand what is happening in the real world of class struggle.

The only thing you have successfully pointed out is the continuing failure of the undead zombie personality cult called Trotskyism to not only make headway in the class struggle, but to even comprehend when other forces do so. You're blinkered by your ideology.

[Severian]

Congrats; you managed to respond to what wasn't directed to you; and to avoid responding to the point that was.

As for the content, it amounts to yelling "Trotskyite, Trotskyite, Trotskyite!" Which is usually a content-free meaningless insult on the same level as "revisionist" or "counterrevolutionary maggot." Don't think so? Let's see you define politically what you're trying to say about me by applying that label.

I'm accustomed to this, of course; if fans of the CPN(Maoist) were capable of thinking about Nepal or examining facts coming out of Nepal....then they wouldn't be fans of the CPN(Maoist).

[Burrito]

Let's see you define politically what you're trying to say about me by applying that label.

Lenin said only thing he could count on Trotsky to do was his "insufferable phrase mongering. veering this way and that, never taking a firm position on anything." Nevertheless, there are a core set of political stances:

- Does not believe in "stages of revolution" view of social change
- Adheres to "permanent revolution" theory derived from German anti-communist Parvus
- Pessimism with regards to ability of workers to make revolution
- mechanical and rigid understanding of national question
- Tendency for pathological factionalizing
- Tendency to rely on hermaneutics rather than learning from the masses.
- Bonapartism
- opportunism, entrism, etc.

Barnesism, of course, rejected some of the overt anti-communist views when the hitched their wagon to Castro, one of the more spectacularly opportunist events in the history of the sectarian left. Nevertheless, none of the key pillars of the Trotskyist outlook were jettisoned.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Barnesism, of course, rejected some of the overt anti-communist views when the hitched their wagon to Castro, one of the more spectacularly opportunist events in the history of the sectarian left. Nevertheless, none of the key pillars of the Trotskyist outlook were jettisoned.

Did you ever read the Barnes piece (which I think was originally a speech) "Their Trotsky and ours"? In it, he basically rejected the theory of Permanent Revolution.

[Severian]

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. " -- George Orwell

In this case, an overly long definition of "Trotskyism" serves the same function: generating fog. Cut through the random spray of accusations, and the only political content is "permanent revolution". As CdeL points out, that's inaccurate in my case. And not particularly relevant to the debate on the nature of the CPN(Maoist), even if it was accurate.

You can't deal with the facts of what's happening in Nepal - you still haven't responded to my original point directed to you - so you resort to all kinds of other accusations and insults instead.

[Burrito]

Your wrong, of course.

I don't really have to explain that it's Trotskyism's visceral hatred of Stalin that leads them to avoid his groundbreaking work on oppressed nationalities, thereby contributing to their dogmatic view on the same (Trotsky, as it happens, was terrible on this particular point: Stalin was brutal because of his "oriental" constitution, etc.), and so on for eac of the other points I mentioned - but this thread is case in point of what I am talking about. It's been hijacked into a rearguard maneuvre to disguise your utterly vapid and needlessly sectarian "critique" of the people's movement in Nepal. Classic.

[Burrito]

Did you ever read the Barnes piece (which I think was originally a speech) "Their Trotsky and ours"? In it, he basically rejected the theory of Permanent Revolution.

Correct. I should phrased that last bit as "key pillars of Trotksyist practice" perhaps.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:40 AM
It's been hijacked into a rearguard maneuvre to disguise your utterly vapid and needlessly sectarian "critique" of the people's movement in Nepal. Classic.
I'm not to blame for your decision to hijack this thread by screaming "Trotskyite! Trotskyite!" If you want to put it back on topic....you have only to respond to my original point directed to you.


Burrito wrote:
[QUOTE ]
This would help avoid deathsquad bullying by the feudalists so that the peoples voice is heard in the new Constitution.

Deathsquad bullying by the CPN(Maoist) is also an issue. Disarmament or confining to barracks of both armies is necessary if reasonably free elections are going to happen.

"When they hold meetings, they come with a big stick and say you must attend or pay us money," said a farmer from Ramawapur village on the fertile Terai plains, bordering India. "When there is voting, people will vote for them out of fear."
Reuters
link to Reuters in original post; you might benefit from reading the whole article.

***

And do you even know what "sectarian" means? It means putting doctrine - especially one group's special doctrine - ahead of the general movement of the working class.

What's in debate here is precisely whether the CPN(Maoist) is part of that working-class movement - or a middle-class group carrying out terror against workers and peasants.

****

As for Stalin's "groundbreaking contributions" on the national question - meaning mostly this article (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm) I presume.

What Trotsky actually said about that article is that it was written under Lenin's direct supervision. Certainly it's very different in style and otherwise from Stalin's other writing. And in any case Stalin in 1913 was writing as a representative of the Bolshevik Party and expressing its line on the national question.

So those ideas were in fact incorporated by the early "Trotskyist" parties as the Leninist line on the national question.

Again, the relevance of this to the thread topic is not clear. Yet somehow you accuse me of hijacking the thread.

[Burrito]

I'm not to blame for your decision to hijack this thread by screaming "Trotskyite! Trotskyite!" If you want to put it back on topic....you have only to respond to my original point directed to you.

Only after your ludicrous Stalin-baiting of the Nepali popular movement vis-a-vis calling them PLA the "Nepali Rouge". Hypocrite.



What Trotsky actually said about that article is that it was written under Lenin's direct supervision.


Baselessly, of course.



Certainly it's very different in style and otherwise from Stalin's other writing.


So? Was Trotsky on the other hand born fully-formed from the head of Zeus?



And in any case Stalin in 1913 was writing as a representative of the Bolshevik Party and expressing its line on the national question.


Yes, so what? Trotsky was a Menshevik in 1913, too.



And do you even know what "sectarian" means? It means putting doctrine - especially one group's special doctrine - ahead of the general movement of the working class.

Which is what your parties paper has done with their knee-jerk characterization of the PLA as the new Khmer Rouge - before the "Killing Fields" have even happened. Ironic, considering that Trotsky wrote quite favorably at length about "Revolutionary Terror" and visiting "blood and fire"
on those who would resist the advances of the Red Army :rolleyes:



What's in debate here is precisely whether the CPN(Maoist) is part of that working-class movement - or a middle-class group carrying out terror against workers and peasants.

By "here" you mean Trotskite talking-shops, I presume.