Nepal Maoists plan peaceful protests

[Janus]

Source=AFP

Nepal's former rebel Maoists said they will start nationwide peaceful protests to pressure the government to pick up the pace of crucial election preparations.

Maoist leader Prachanda, and his second in command, Baburam Bhatterai, said protests would start next week as they feared election plans and other elements of an historic peace deal with the government were not being met.

The Maoists "once again find it necessary mobilize people peacefully across the nation in order to defeat regressive forces and take the country towards the path of peace, progress and democracy," they said in the statement released late Monday.

The Maoists and seven-party government signed a peace deal late last year, and the rebels have begun to place their weapons under United Nations monitoring.

As part of the deal that ended a bitter 10-year "people's war", the government has pledged to hold elections to a body that will rewrite Nepal's constitution permanently, a long-held Maoist demand.

A new interim 330-seat parliament was formed in mid-January containing 83 Maoists, but the new cabinet has yet to be named.

"We have sensed serious obstacles in forming the interim government and the holding of constituent assembly elections due to the status quo maintained by the parliamentary parties and the growing conspiracies of regressive forces," the statement said.

"Regressive forces," is a phrase the Maoists commonly use to refer to pro-royalists.

The former rebels will start their 22-day protests in the capital on February 13, the statement said.

Once former foes, the Maoists and political parties formed a loose alliance in late 2005 to counter King Gyanendra who seized direct control of the nation earlier in the year.

They organised mass protests which forced the king to end his direct rule and reinstate parliament in April 2006.

Last year's peace agreement ended the "people's war" that killed at least 13,000 people and decimated the Himalayan nation's already fragile economy.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm wondering if the Nepalese Maoist will go the route of FARC in the early 90's and form a politcal party and particpate in the national government as a legal politcal party?

[Janus]

If they officially join the government then yes I think they'll become an official party again but if negotiations break up then the country will most likely revert to civil war again. A lot of it depends on the constituent assembly and what the interim government decides to do at the moment.

[Guerrilla22]

Do you know when they're supposed to draw up a new constitution and if it would be before or after the next elections?

[Janus]

I believe that the constituent assembly elections will take place in June of 2007.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:45 am
I'm wondering if the Nepalese Maoist will go the route of FARC in the early 90's and form a politcal party and particpate in the national government as a legal politcal party?
I think there is a reason that all of the leaders of the CPN(M) are staying out of parliament. They say this is part of a temporary transition stage leading up to New Democratic revolution.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+February 06, 2007 12:00 pm--> (Red Heretic @ February 06, 2007 12:00 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 06:45 am
I'm wondering if the Nepalese Maoist will go the route of FARC in the early 90's and form a politcal party and particpate in the national government as a legal politcal party?
I think there is a reason that all of the leaders of the CPN(M) are staying out of parliament. They say this is part of a temporary transition stage leading up to New Democratic revolution. [/b]
Kind of like how they said they'd never compromise on revolution right?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:48 pm
Kind of like how they said they'd never compromise on revolution right?
No one can say whether they have or not. You have no idea what kind of internal strategies and thinking are going on within their party.

Look at this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62208) for instance.

We need more information.

[Louis Pio]

No one can say whether they have or not. You have no idea what kind of internal strategies and thinking are going on within their party

Hmm but the image they give is that they have. Shows the huge amount of difference between the bolshevic attitude and groups like this.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:03 am

No one can say whether they have or not. You have no idea what kind of internal strategies and thinking are going on within their party

Hmm but the image they give is that they have. Shows the huge amount of difference between the bolshevic attitude and groups like this.
They have always said (read their yearly journal Worker 10, it explains their thinking) that the constituent assembly elections are only a temporary transition stage needed by the concrete conditions in Nepal. Also, look at the link I just gave.

Like I said before, we need more info.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:03 am

No one can say whether they have or not. You have no idea what kind of internal strategies and thinking are going on within their party

Hmm but the image they give is that they have. Shows the huge amount of difference between the bolshevic attitude and groups like this.
Nepal today =/= Russia in 1917

[Louis Pio]

that the constituent assembly elections are only a temporary transition stage needed by the concrete conditions in Nepal. Also, look at the link I just gave.


However a transition stage is unnessesary. But this is pretty theoretical since the maoists should then have followed a correct politics from the start, refrained from the deadend of protracted people's war. etc etc


Nepal today =/= Russia in 1917

Ahh some similarities, but then again...

[Red Heretic]

However a transition stage is unnessesary.

So you know more about the concrete conditions for revolution in Nepal than communists in Nepal? Maybe all of the communists in the world should stop analyzing the concrete conditions in their own countries and just talk to internet revolutionaries in imperialist countries.


But this is pretty theoretical since the maoists should then have followed a correct politics from the start, refrained from the deadend of protracted people's war. etc etc

Right, because protracted people's war didn't work at all for the Chinese revolution, right?

It sure was a dead end when the Vietcong used it against US imperialism!

[Louis Pio]

I think we differ on the "communist" nature of the maoists, I always try to look for different sources on that situation since everybodys got their oppinion on it and thres lots of dogdy information.


Right, because protracted people's war didn't work at all for the Chinese revolution, right?


The nature of the struggle lead to a rule not very communist, the capitalist restaurations just a continuation of that.


It sure was a dead end when the Vietcong used it against US imperialism!

Even you would have to aknowlegde that the conditions in USA itself had alot do with the withdrawel of US troops. The again has their ever been communism or socialism in Vietnam?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:13 am
Even you would have to aknowlegde that the conditions in USA itself had alot do with the withdrawel of US troops. The again has their ever been communism or socialism in Vietnam?
You didn't challenge the fact that protracted people's war has worked well all over the world. Also, yes, Vietnam was pretty socialist until reconstruction in 1986.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Also, yes, Vietnam was pretty socialist until reconstruction in 1986.

:o Don't let the other RCPers hear you say that!

On the other hand, don't let the WCWers and PSLers hear you say that unless you want to be recruited into their groups. :lol:


It sure was a dead end when the Vietcong used it against US imperialism!

Why do you call them the "Vietcong"? That (well more correctly, Viet Cong) was termed by the imperialist troops and the puppets in the south. I never got that.

They were called "Mat tran Dan toc Giai phong mien Nam Viet Nam", or the "National Front for the Liberation of South Viet Nam." "Viet Cong" was a shortened, sort of pejorative phrase (that pretty much means "Vietnamese Commies"), coming from Viet Nam Cong San (Vietnamese Communist).

Anyway, the war waged in Viet Nam against the imperialists can't properly be called "Protracted People's War" in the war Mao used that term. It was different.

[Red Heretic]

I think we differ on the "communist" nature of the maoists, I always try to look for different sources on that situation since everybodys got their oppinion on it and thres lots of dogdy information.

Ok, so you don't think they're actually communists, wanna tell us why? It isn't just a "matter of opinion." Either it is a concentration of the proletariat in Nepal (with the peasantry as the main force of the proletariat), or it isn't.


The nature of the struggle lead to a rule not very communist, the capitalist restaurations just a continuation of that.

"Not very communist?" So it was sort-of communist? :lol:

There was capitalist restoration in China, but claiming that was bound up with Maoism is totally delusional. Up until the very end of his life, Mao was leading the masses of people in revolution against the restoration of capitalism. It wasn't until the new capitalist class within the party initiated a bloody coup d'etat that capitalism was restored.


Even you would have to aknowlegde that the conditions in USA itself had alot do with the withdrawel of US troops.

Why exactly do you think those conditions existed in the USA and all over the planet? I don't think it's any coincidence that the students in the USA were chanting:

"One side's right! One side's Wrong!
Victory to the Vietcong!"


The again has their ever been communism or socialism in Vietnam?

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with comrade LeftyHenry here. I think that there were sections of Vietnam which were socialist during the revolution, but immediately after the USA was defeated, the Vietnamese economy was subjected to Soviet Social-Imperialism (capitalism had been restored in the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was an imperialist country).

Protracted People's War has nothing to do with Vietnam not becoming socialist (and without it, the Vietnamese revolution never would have happened).

[Red Heretic]

Why do you call them the "Vietcong"? That (well more correctly, Viet Cong) was termed by the imperialist troops and the puppets in the south. I never got that.

They were called "Mat tran Dan toc Giai phong mien Nam Viet Nam", or the "National Front for the Liberation of South Viet Nam." "Viet Cong" was a shortened, sort of pejorative phrase (that pretty much means "Vietnamese Commies"), coming from Viet Nam Cong San (Vietnamese Communist).

Ah, criticism taken. My apologies.


Anyway, the war waged in Viet Nam against the imperialists can't properly be called "Protracted People's War" in the war Mao used that term. It was different.

It was a combination of Chairman Mao's Protracted People's War, and his theory of Tunnel Warfare (which was utilized in the anti-Japanese war). The same basic principles and class nature apply.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Up until the very end of his life, Mao was leading the masses of people in revolution against the restoration of capitalism.

Is that what was going on here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Kissinger_Mao.jpg/250px-Kissinger_Mao.jpg ?

Or when the PRC was backing the FNLA?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by SovietPants+February 07, 2007 01:17 am--> (SovietPants @ February 07, 2007 01:17 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 01:03 am

No one can say whether they have or not. You have no idea what kind of internal strategies and thinking are going on within their party

Hmm but the image they give is that they have. Shows the huge amount of difference between the bolshevic attitude and groups like this.
Nepal today =/= Russia in 1917 [/b]
I don't think that's the case, or at least not yet anyways. It seems the CPN believes that they can take control of the government via democratic elections (at least that's what I've gathered) the problem with this is taking control of the parlimment may prove to be extremely difficult, especially considering the old regime will still be around and in power.

Also, if a new constitution is indeed drafted over the summer and the CPN is left out of the drafting of the new constitution, then the CNP would face the challenge of either accepting the new constitution, which most likely will be set up to protect the old order (similar to what happened in S. Africa) or try to abolish it, which of course can lead to all sorts of problems, that's of course assuming the CNP is able to gain entry into the government in the first place.

[Janus]

You have no idea what kind of internal strategies and thinking are going on within their party.
Right, but this is where praxis comes out. It&#39;s fair for an observer to judge groups based on what they have said and what they are doing simply because we do not and never will be able to read their minds of be privy to their secret talks. Of course, there&#39;s a chance that they&#39;re covertly planning to change their minds but one could wait for this kind of change forever. That arguement could then just as well be used to support and explain why a reformist group hasn&#39;t done anything revolutionary yet (who knows what they&#39;re planning secretly? <_< )


Or when the PRC was backing the FNLA?
The PRC began backing the FNLA after Mao&#39;s death; it was really part of the larger conflict with the USSR.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No.

"Zaire recognized China along with North Korea and East Germany in November 1972, and in the following year Mobutu paid a state visit to Beijing from which he returned with promises of US&#036;100 million in economic aid. The friendship with China deepened when the two countries found themselves supporting enemies of the MPLA in the Angolan civil war. During a second state visit to Beijing in 1974, Mobutu and Chairman Mao Zedong discussed further aid to the FNLA. Mobutu appeared to have been so impressed by what he saw in China and in North Korea that his rhetoric became noticeably more radical. He instituted the takeover of schools by the party and began advocating the establishment of agricultural cooperatives." - http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/...d(DOCID+zr0173) (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+zr0173))

Not only did the PRC under Mao back the reactionary FNLA, they also had warm relations with the counter revolutionary Mobutu.

Also, Savimbi, that vial leader of UNITA, was trained in the PRC, when Mao was still alive.

How did a guy that got the backing of Reagan and the Hertitage Foundation get the backing of a guy who was "leading the masses of people in revolution against the restoration of capitalism"?

[Hiero]

China had a pretty lousy internationalist policy. In some cases they support very good parties, and in others they support people who turned out to be Maoist in disguise. Though this does not always reflect on the situation in China, Mao wasn&#39;t restoring capitalism in China.

[Cryotank Screams]

By large the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces in Nepal depress and disappoint me, where I had once seen much hope for a revolution, I now see compromise, and liberal antics, such as "peaceful," protest, I mean the article suggests that the CPN(M), have given up an armed revolutionary struggle, and the people&#39;s war, in favor of some democratic Socialist approach, which is to say political power from ballots, and not the “barrel of a gun,” however I do see Red Heretic&#39;s point that maybe something different is going on, and more information, would better help figure out the true situation at hand.

[Coggeh]

I don&#39;t support the maoist rebels anymore to an extent , although any pro left movement is a movement in the right direction , they force kids as young as 8 to fight for them take them out of school and put a gun in their hand , it simply flies in the face of everything their fighting for , another purely bureaucratic movement in my eyes.

[The Grey Blur]

“The proletariat cannot seize the ready-made machinery of the State and use it for its own purposes.”

:)

[Comrade_Scott]

I so no love to NMP. they have gone back on everything, they signed away all weapons effectivley cutting off there hands... and when they came in government they were exposed for what they were dogs.. the represion of homosexuals and such other activites have painted them in a bad light (to me anyway) and they therefore get no love and respect or support from me. bassicaly i could not care less about them&#33;&#33; they let me down :angry:

[Red Heretic]

Why is no one looking at the link I posted? I mean, it directly talks about how there might be something else going on here that we don&#39;t even know about&#33;

Gaurav Talking About Resuming Armed Struggle (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62208)

And Janus, the CPN(M) has a great historical record as the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat in Nepal, to just instantly dismiss them when it seems the might be following an incorrect line is very dangerous. What if it turns out that they are following a correct line, and all of the communists around the world have turned their backs to them? This would play right into the hands of the US imperialists.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:24 pm
I so no love to NMP. they have gone back on everything, they signed away all weapons effectivley cutting off there hands... and when they came in government they were exposed for what they were dogs.. the represion of homosexuals and such other activites have painted them in a bad light (to me anyway) and they therefore get no love and respect or support from me. bassicaly i could not care less about them&#33;&#33; they let me down :angry:
You don&#39;t know that&#33; Just because the revolution isn&#39;t marching in a straight single file pre-prescribed line like you want it to means jack shit&#33; No one knows whether they have put all of their weapons in the storage containers (and Gaurav is even implying they haven&#39;t, plus they even have the key to these containers), and no one knows if this is simply a temporary stage in pre-emption to a larger insurrection (as some CPN(M) comrades have implied.)

WAIT AND SEE BEFORE YOU DISMISS THEM&#33;

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+February 07, 2007 11:30 am--> (Red Heretic @ February 07, 2007 11:30 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:24 pm
I so no love to NMP. they have gone back on everything, they signed away all weapons effectivley cutting off there hands... and when they came in government they were exposed for what they were dogs.. the represion of homosexuals and such other activites have painted them in a bad light (to me anyway) and they therefore get no love and respect or support from me. bassicaly i could not care less about them&#33;&#33; they let me down :angry:
You don&#39;t know that&#33; Just because the revolution isn&#39;t marching in a straight single file pre-prescribed line like you want it to means jack shit&#33; No one knows whether they have put all of their weapons in the storage containers (and Gaurav is even implying they haven&#39;t, plus they even have the key to these containers), and no one knows if this is simply a temporary stage in pre-emption to a larger insurrection (as some CPN(M) comrades have implied.)

WAIT AND SEE BEFORE YOU DISMISS THEM&#33; [/b]
You raise some good points on the weapons area... but you have not even mentioned the gay bashing they have done and openly admited to.

[The Grey Blur]

Innocent query: If the Nepalese Maoists have the ability (i.e manpower, popular support, military might) to take power why haven&#39;t they?

[Question everything]

wait, I have heard little about the NMP, all I heard is that they took 3/4 of napal (I&#39;m not sure it they lost it eventually) and signed peace with the gouvernement in exchage for the right to participate in the gouvernement... good to hear they are still active...


Innocent query: If the Nepalese Maoists have the ability (i.e manpower, popular support, military might) to take power why haven&#39;t they?

They have a choice...

1. seize power kick out their oppressor right now. then give the US the chance to denouce the NMP?

2. get elected peacefully, and give the US nothing to denouce it with

[The Grey Blur]

By your logic no country should ever attempt a revolution as the US will just "denounce" it. :rolleyes:

My first question still stands.


If the Nepalese Maoists have the ability (i.e manpower, popular support, military might) to take power why haven&#39;t they?

If noone can answer we must conclude that in fact the Maoists are without any support amongst the urban workers, brainwash and force peasants into fighting for them, have given up their guns to the state, and are fully committed to upholding bourgeois rule in Nepal.


US Ambassador, James Moriarty, claims that the Maoists are preparing themselves for the October Revolution. In this regard, Prachanda clarified, "In our words, October Revolution means the peaceful end of monarchy. Who ever doubts this is against peace."
So they don&#39;t want a revolution which will end Capitalism. Yay.


Prachanda said. "We propose that before the elections the Constituent Assembly, the interim government should be slim, with only four or five ministries. In the ministries that we lead, the senior-most positions should be ours." This is a reflection of how and what they are thinking, according to the leader.
i.e cushy jobs for the Maoist leaders.

Again:

“The proletariat cannot seize the ready-made machinery of the State and use it for its own purposes.”

Luckily for us the Maoists are not part of and do not represent the proleteriat. :)

[Joseph Ball]

I suggest people wait and see what happens in Nepal. The current strategy is to form a united front with bourgeois forces against the royalists and anti-secular reactionaries. The purpose of this is to create a Constituent Assembly and a republic. It seems to be emerging that the bourgeois forces are tacitly siding with the reactionaries to prevent this happening. In this case it will become obvious that only the Party of the Proletariat can lead the bourgeois revolution as the first stage of a process that will lead to socialism and communism.

Don&#39;t forget the Maoists already have power in Nepal, it&#39;s just a case of exercising it in the right way so it can be sustained. Some leftists talk like they want the Maoists to launch an all-out assault on Kathmandu, seize power and arrest all their opponents. When it emerges that the Maoists aren&#39;t going to do anything as foolish as that they label them as sell-outs. Don&#39;t forget how the Maoists achieve formal power is a matter for the Nepalese people, not just the party leadership. The CPN(M) has developed its strategy by talking to the people not just by trying to impose some &#39;paint by numbers&#39; Maoist strategy on the situation.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 07, 2007 09:18 pm
I suggest people wait and see what happens in Nepal. The current strategy is to form a united front with bourgeois forces against the royalists and anti-secular reactionaries. The purpose of this is to create a Constituent Assembly and a republic. It seems to be emerging that the bourgeois forces are tacitly siding with the reactionaries to prevent this happening. In this case it will become obvious that only the Party of the Proletariat can lead the bourgeois revolution as the first stage of a process that will lead to socialism and communism.

Don&#39;t forget the Maoists already have power in Nepal, it&#39;s just a case of exercising it in the right way so it can be sustained. Some leftists talk like they want the Maoists to launch an all-out assault on Kathmandu, seize power and arrest all their opponents. When it emerges that the Maoists aren&#39;t going to do anything as foolish as that they label them as sell-outs. Don&#39;t forget how the Maoists achieve formal power is a matter for the Nepalese people, not just the party leadership. The CPN(M) has developed its strategy by talking to the people not just by trying to impose some &#39;paint by numbers&#39; Maoist strategy on the situation.
seconded

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:18 pm
You raise some good points on the weapons area... but you have not even mentioned the gay bashing they have done and openly admited to.
I responded in the Nepal homosexuality thread already.

First of all, it was never proven that this is actually their line. It has never been shown in any of their documents, and that article was very obscure. The quotations are totally unconfirmed.

First of all, that line isn&#39;t specific to the Nepalese communists, they inherited it from the International Communist Movement. The same position was held by the Chinese communists, the Vietnamese communists, and if I&#39;m not mistaken, for a time the Soviet communists.

There are Maoists waging struggle against this line in the international communist movement. It is an unfortunate line that was based upon misconceptions about the nature of homosexuality. It was never about repressing homosexuals, so much as it was believed that homosexuality was something that resulted from class society, and that homosexuality was something that communists should struggle against like they do male chauvinism. Of course, we know this line is wrong, but the fact of the matter is that this is the line held by the vast majority of the international communist movement, even today&#33; It&#39;s is our duty as communists to struggle against this line.

Thirdly, and finally, whether not a party has a correct line on homosexuality has very little to do with whether or not it is a proletarian vanguard party leading a revolution with the support of the vast majority of society.

It&#39;s like saying "Wait a minute, the Bolsheviks are leading an insurrection? Well, what is there position on homosexuality?" It&#39;s secondary&#33;

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 07, 2007 07:08 pm
Innocent query: If the Nepalese Maoists have the ability (i.e manpower, popular support, military might) to take power why haven&#39;t they?
Will you PLEASE look at the fucking link I keep posting?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+February 07, 2007 11:30 am--> (Red Heretic &#064; February 07, 2007 11:30 am)
No one knows whether they have put all of their weapons in the storage containers (and Gaurav is even implying they haven&#39;[email protected] plus they even have the key to these containers), and no one knows if this is simply a temporary stage in pre-emption to a larger insurrection (as some CPN(M) comrades have implied.)[/b] [/b]
We know large numbers of weapons are being locked up under UN monitoring (the process is still underway and no report&#39;s been issued on the details yet. We know that "almost all displaced police posts have been reinstated," (http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=99731) - that is the bourgeois state machine has been restored in the rural areas.

We know a section of the CPN(M) has split off along nationality lines and is now part of large, violent protests for the rights of the Madheshi nationality in the Terai region - that&#39;s what most Nepali media seem to consider the big story right now. And we know "During a press meet on Thursday, Prachanda suggested a joint military operation of the Nepal Army and the PLA to control the violent demonstrations there." (http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=99495) Which the bourgeois democrats and social-democratic "Communists" considered overly repressive: ""Problems of Madhesh can only be resolved by addressing the demands of the Madheshi people, not by suppressing them with guns."

We know people in some rural areas have mobilized against the CPN(M)&#39;s coercive actions towards them, reclaiming their conscripted children for example.

Given all of that, if the CPN(M) were to return to the armed struggle, they&#39;d be in a worse situation than before they laid down their arms. Given they considered the previous situation unfavorable enough that they chose to negotiate an end to the war - why would they go back to it now? The main people suggesting they might are - the U.S. government and the right-wing of politics in Nepal.

So all in all, despite various sporadic violations of the peace accords by Maoist forces - it&#39;s likely they&#39;ll continue down the road to becoming a parliamentary party. They&#39;ve already joined the interim parliament, and are set to join the interim cabinet soon.

&#39;Course, those sporadic violations were the major delaying factor for the elections - before the Terai situation erupted, that is. So it is a bit ironic to see the CPN(M) calling protests to demand more rapid elections. We&#39;ll see how many people turn out for &#39;em, etc.


Will you PLEASE look at the fucking link I keep posting?

Now you know how I sometimes feel, huh? But seriously, actions speak louder than words. And that&#39;s what you&#39;re link is about, words, a speech by a minor Maoist leader.

And when it comes to gay-bashing, you&#39;re all "We don&#39;t know if that&#39;s the official line", but when it comes to this Guarav guy talking radical to fend off criticisms, we&#39;re supposed to take his statements as significant?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 07, 2007 07:08 pm
Innocent query: If the Nepalese Maoists have the ability (i.e manpower, popular support, military might) to take power why haven&#39;t they?
they have taken 3/4 of the countryside, unfortunatly they have little support in the cities. That is why they can&#39;t just take power. Taking power is not easy. In all of your ideologies exsistance, it has NEVER taken power.


And when it comes to gay-bashing, you&#39;re all "We don&#39;t know if that&#39;s the official line", but when it comes to this Guarav guy talking radical to fend off criticisms, we&#39;re supposed to take his statements as significant?

That&#39;s not a question of line


We know people in some rural areas have mobilized against the CPN(M)&#39;s coercive actions towards them, reclaiming their conscripted children for example.

the PLA can&#39;t force people to fight for a revolution without them actually believing in it. That&#39;s shit slinging.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Luckily for us the Maoists are not part of and do not represent the proleteriat.

False, that&#39;s the entire trotskyite movement.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:23 am
a minor Maoist leader.
He&#39;s a member of the central committee and the head of international relations. How minor.


Anyway, I don&#39;t have time to get into the rest of this because I have a very important test tomorrow.

[Janus]

Not only did the PRC under Mao back the reactionary FNLA, they also had warm relations with the counter revolutionary Mobutu.

Also, Savimbi, that vial leader of UNITA, was trained in the PRC, when Mao was still alive.
I should&#39;ve phrased my earlier statement better. What I meant was that the real aid didn&#39;t start coming in till after Mao died.

Also, it&#39;s very debatable how much of a decision Mao had in such a matter as towards the later part of his reign, he had pretty much ceded day to day matters to others due to his deteriorating condition. But it certainly shouldn&#39;t surprise anyone that Mao would be supporting an anti-Soviet group for purposes of national interest. I certainly think that the latter is more probable.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:59 am

Luckily for us the Maoists are not part of and do not represent the proleteriat.

False, that&#39;s the entire trotskyite movement.
:lol: Still living in 1955?

How long &#39;til the Nepalese Maoists become "revisionists" as well? Once the great chairman says so?

[Janus]

And Janus, the CPN(M) has a great historical record as the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat in Nepal
As far as I&#39;m aware, the CPN (M) is a predominantly peasant, rural force with little basing among the urban proletariat.


to just instantly dismiss them when it seems the might be following an incorrect line is very dangerous. What if it turns out that they are following a correct line, and all of the communists around the world have turned their backs to them? This would play right into the hands of the US imperialists.
Obviously, I wasn&#39;t trying to state that we should simply ignore them. However, we shouldn&#39;t be too optimistic about their goals based on the recent trends.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 07, 2007 04:11 am


:o Don&#39;t let the other RCPers hear you say that&#33;

On the other hand, don&#39;t let the WCWers and PSLers hear you say that unless you want to be recruited into their groups. :lol:
why not? The RCP supported the Vietcong and Vietnamese revolution. And I don&#39;t get the PSL and WCW statement.


Still living in 1955?

How long &#39;til the Nepalese Maoists become "revisionists" as well? Once the great chairman says so?

Such shows your lack of knowledge of Marxism-Leninism; trotskyites are the ones who blindly right off worker movements.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:01 am
why not? The RCP supported the Vietcong and Vietnamese revolution. And I don&#39;t get the PSL and WCW statement.
I believe he meant PSL and WWP, because they both believe that Vietnam was a socialist country when it&#39;s economy was under the control of Soviet revisionism (and I think they might think it is STILL a socialist country).

Anyway, as far as the RCP&#39;s line goes, they supported the Vietnamese revolution, but believe it was only socialist until they defeated US imperialism. Immediately after that juncture, it&#39;s economy was then placed under the boot of Soviet social-imperialism (which makes it an oppressed country).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

true which is why I didn&#39;t say socialist. Also I just felt like contradicting Teis :D

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I believe he meant PSL and WWP, because they both believe that Vietnam was a socialist country when it&#39;s economy was under the control of Soviet revisionism (and I think they might think it is STILL a socialist country).

They still do.


Anyway, as far as the RCP&#39;s line goes, they supported the Vietnamese revolution, but believe it was only socialist until they defeated US imperialism. Immediately after that juncture, it&#39;s economy was then placed under the boot of Soviet social-imperialism (which makes it an oppressed country).

Yeah, that makes sense. Very easy, one day "the economy was placed under the boot of Soviet social-imperialism." Sort of like China, socialist right up until the day Mao died, then capitalist... and the USSR, socialist right up until the day Stalin died.

Property relations transform themselves based on the death of a country&#39;s leader. Very simplistic, and eliminates the need for any kind of Marxist analysis.

[Red Heretic]

Yeah, that makes sense. Very easy, one day "the economy was placed under the boot of Soviet social-imperialism."

Well, was Vietnam&#39;s economy under the dictates of Soviet social-imperialism or wasn&#39;t it?


Sort of like China, socialist right up until the day Mao died, then capitalist...

No, that is not the RCP&#39;s line. The People&#39;s Republic of China was still socialist until Deng Xaioping orchestrated a capitalist coup. This didn&#39;t happen "the day of Mao&#39;s death" but rather shortly after Mao&#39;s death. The capitalist class within the party led by Deng Xaioping had been trying to seize power since the 1950&#39;s, and saw Mao&#39;s death as an opportunity to stage their coup, seizing power from the communists in the communist party, and replacing them with the new capitalist class that had emerged within the party.


and the USSR, socialist right up until the day Stalin died.

That isn&#39;t the RCP&#39;s line either. The Soviet Union remained socialist for two years after Stalin died until Khruschev orchestrated a capitalist coup, ousting Malenkov.


Property relations transform themselves based on the death of a country&#39;s leader. Very simplistic, and eliminates the need for any kind of Marxist analysis.

You are missing the entire point. It isn&#39;t "oh, our leader died so this isn&#39;t a socialist country any more." It goes back to the point that Marx made, that as long as you have commodity production, this constantly pushes things back to capitalism.

The production of commodities under socialism constantly generates a new bourgeoisie within the communist party itself, and it is up to be the communists within the party, and the masses themselves to wage revolution against this new capitalist class, and to constantly defend socialism from capitalist restoration.