Nepal:Maoists issue deadline for removing the King

[Spirit of Spartacus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6613297.stm


Maoists issue Nepal king deadline

The leader of Nepal's former Maoist rebels has threatened mass protests unless parliament abolishes the monarchy by the middle of this month.

Prachanda told a May Day rally in the capital, Kathmandu, that demonstrations would be held across the country unless a republic was declared.

He gave a fortnight's deadline for his demands to be met.

The Maoists signed a landmark peace deal with the government in November, declaring an end to their insurgency.

'Willingness'

"If the government and political parties do not agree to declare a republic in two weeks then we will begin massive protests in parliament and on the streets," Prachanda told crowds in the capital.

"We still want unity with the seven political parties but it now depends on their willingness to accept a republic," he said.

Nepal's minister for peace and reconstruction, Ram Chandra Poudel, said issues would be resolved through discussion.

"The announcement of these protests is part of the Maoist agenda to achieve a republic," he told the AFP news agency.

"It will be difficult to achieve our goal [of holding elections] if parties lose their patience."

The former rebels have put their arms under lock and key and confined thousands of fighters to camps monitored by the United Nations.

But they say that they are also unhappy that election officials have asked for a delay in holding elections for a constituent assembly.

Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala insists that a decision on the monarchy's future should be left to the constituent assembly as agreed in the peace deal.

At least 13,000 people were killed in 10 years of civil war, after the Maoists launched their rebellion in western Nepal in 1996.


Doesn't look like they're settling in peacefully as parliamentarians, eh? ;)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

we'll see how this develops. I have a feeling that if the New Democratic Stage is betrayed IE the king isn't removed the maoists will look again to people's war

[Rawthentic]

Well, I'm not up to date on whats going on in Nepal, but I'm not about to ask you because you would only exalt their "revolutionary" Maoism and your usual shit.

Are there any good sources out there on this?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that the Maoists declared peace just as they were in a great position to win the war. For the life of me I cannot understand why the FUCK did they do that. They should have advanced to Kathmandu and greeted that son of a ***** king with a bullet to the head.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 02:57 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that the Maoists declared peace just as they were in a great position to win the war. For the life of me I cannot understand why the FUCK did they do that. They should have advanced to Kathmandu and greeted that son of a ***** king with a bullet to the head.
Hmm good plan, I see you are well trained in political and military strategies Napoleon.

Seriously, winning a people's war is a very hard proccess, it involes legal and illegal struggles, violent and non violent means. The Maoist's main goal was to form a republic in Nepal. There method has so far been succesfull, the King has very few allies and is facing pressure from all workers, peasants and most political parties. If the final move to remove the Monarch is peacefull, this will be more favourable then blowing Kathmandu to shit, and killing thousands of workers in the process. The outcome is most favourable, the Maoist were able to enter the city peacefully so they could work with other parties to create a republic.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, that's why I said "correct me if I'm wrong". It wasn't just empty rhetoric - I really do hope that the things I heard about the Maoists giving up with victory at hand were inaccurate. How close were they to launching a successful assault on Kathmandu when the ceasefire was declared?

Now, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that they are endorsing the disastrous strategy of stagism by supporting an essentially bourgeois revolution. Replacing the king with a president means nothing if the rest of society remains the same.

[Cheung Mo]

The conditions that have allowed for the establishment of bourgeois "democracy" were created by the poor peasantry and the proletariat more so than by the bourgeoisie itself (look at the nature of anti-monarchist protests in Kathmandu...Very prole..And I highly doubt the bourgeoisie is behind the liquidation of Brahmins, landlords, and aristocrats that has resulted from the proteacted people's war.), and who's to say they won't lead Nepal further?

If the bourgeoisie were the class leading the revolution, Beijing would not have helped Washington and London fund the RNA. (And for that matter, Washington and London wouldn't have even funded them either.)

[the-red-under-the-bed]

I dont know a huge amount about the nepal situation, but the Maoists might not have been as close to success as it seemed. Firstly, the Maoist did control the vast majority of the country side, as much as 80%, but this might not big as big as an achivement as it seems. Nepal, geographically is jsut about perfect for geurilla warefare, hills, mountains, snow and ice. Mountain people used to this sort of terrain, could have run a devastaing campain against the army. Hiding in the hills and coming out for raids ect, for the Maoists to control the rural areas is achiveable, HOWEVER attacking a city is another story completly. In guerill, because of the movement, and because of the terrain, tanks and artillery, are not very effective. It mostly comes down to troops with small arms. However attacking a city is a completly different situation. Geurilla warfare and a fully fledged seige are too very different kettles of fish.

secondly, within Kathmandu there was massive rallys last year? (year before) that brought the king to abdicate and reinstate the parliament. These rallys were mostly organised by 7 (i think) parties, which were mostly bourgeois. The mood in the coitys may have been very different to the country, and the maoists may not have had populart support, it would have been pointless for them to attack and take over, if they would have to supress the people they have just "liberated"

Im sure the maoists wouldnt have backed down if they were as close to victory as they seemed, only time will tell how the situation unfolds.

[stevensen]

hi all please see my article in the ezine for janauary2006 entitled nepal maoist strategies:strategies and alternatives. i dont know why some members persist in using violence as a means of power capture, rather the strategy is the use of violence at the correct time. by joining the parliament the nepal maoists will get the chance to articulate their demands more freely. i am not an astrologer and sincerely hope that the maoists will expose the sham of parliamentary democracy by participating and using the weapons of the bourgeoise to destroy them, whether they will do so or actually become communist/scoial democrats interested only in pariliamentary privileges remains the same.up till now they have shown no signs of doing it and as i stated in the article this route: destroying parliamentary dempcracy through a participation in the same is the strategy being pursued by the maoists. the stryggle is going in the right direction ..where it goes is a matter of conjecture. until now there are all signs we can hope for the best. nepal is too important to be ignored.
please also have a way at the novel way of weapons management that the maoists have undertaken.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 03, 2007 10:13 am
The conditions that have allowed for the establishment of bourgeois "democracy" were created by the poor peasantry and the proletariat more so than by the bourgeoisie itself (look at the nature of anti-monarchist protests in Kathmandu...Very prole..And I highly doubt the bourgeoisie is behind the liquidation of Brahmins, landlords, and aristocrats that has resulted from the proteacted people's war.), and who's to say they won't lead Nepal further?

If the bourgeoisie were the class leading the revolution, Beijing would not have helped Washington and London fund the RNA. (And for that matter, Washington and London wouldn't have even funded them either.)
good shit. I'm suprised, because most people here don't understand Maoist theory. This is it. Nepal was crying out for change, the question was, do the proletariat and peasantry take control of the change and establish themselves in the government, or do they stay sidelined and let the bourgeoisie take control and put forward and pro-imperialist, and probably fuedal and monarchist agenda? The Maoists chose the former

[Xiao Banfa]

Beijing gives financial support to the moderately 'maoist' Communist Party of India(Liberation) who support the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

The Pakistani secret service offered support at one stage to the CPN(M) during the war.

Pakistan and China have traditionally been allies.

I'm not sure if there is any connection, but that is quite interesting.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 04:21 pm
Well, that's why I said "correct me if I'm wrong". It wasn't just empty rhetoric - I really do hope that the things I heard about the Maoists giving up with victory at hand were inaccurate. How close were they to launching a successful assault on Kathmandu when the ceasefire was declared?


the-red-under-the-bed answered this question. I agree that it would have been a tough fight to take the capital. The army have a better understanding of the city, they would have alot of advantage. The Maoist would have to go all out, a loss over the city could be mean destruction of the armed forces of the CPN (M).


Now, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that they are endorsing the disastrous strategy of stagism by supporting an essentially bourgeois revolution. Replacing the king with a president means nothing if the rest of society remains the same.

It means alot for the rest of society. It would surely abolish any left over feudal codes and laws that are still praciticed. The "rest of society" hate the king, they want to see his removal. It gives more movement for Communist to prepare for the socialist revolution. This is similar to the creation of the Soviet Union.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 02, 2007 08:19 pm
Doesn't look like they're settling in peacefully as parliamentarians, eh? ;)
What are you talking about? Plenty of parliamentary parties sometimes call for demonstrations. You must know this, since you live in Pakistan where bourgeois parties are currently organizing demonstrations against the Musharraf military regime.

The CPN(M)'s action reported here is far less militant and less significant than that. According to AFP there was a rally of only "thousands" outside the parliament today. (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Thousands_of_Maoists_surround_Nepal_05132007.html)

This is really one of the less significant things happening in Nepal right now - for example there's a teachers' strike which seems a lot more important.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

not civil disobedience and blockading the parliament, only parties which have taken to new democracy to abolish the monarchy and fuedalism and will go back to revolution (now with urban support) if they don't accomplish it call mass actions like this. Besides its only the 13th. the deadline is the 15th. Nepal will explode in 2 days

[The Grey Blur]

:lol: "Mass demonstration"? They better get those busses ready...

[UndergroundConnexion]

well there are some strange stories going on about that royal family? didnt one of their sons kill a whole bunch of people some years ago

[Janus]

didnt one of their sons kill a whole bunch of people some years ago
Yeah, the crown prince murdered his parents, siblings, and a couple other royals/relatives which is why Gyanendra was able to ascend to the throne.

[applejacks]

He gave a fortnight's deadline for his demands to be met.

That was on reported on the 1st of May by the BBC. A fortnight is two weeks. Today is May 15th. Looks like today is the big day, tomorrow would be the deadline at the latest.

No big uprisings reported in the press so far.

Let's see who was full of shit in this thread and who was not.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I believe if the king is not removed, the Maoists will prepare for a people's war once again. Who knows? Time will tell.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Severian+May 14, 2007 02:01 am--> (Severian @ May 14, 2007 02:01 am)
Spirit of [email protected] 02, 2007 08:19 pm
Doesn't look like they're settling in peacefully as parliamentarians, eh? ;)
What are you talking about? Plenty of parliamentary parties sometimes call for demonstrations. You must know this, since you live in Pakistan where bourgeois parties are currently organizing demonstrations against the Musharraf military regime.

The CPN(M)'s action reported here is far less militant and less significant than that. According to AFP there was a rally of only "thousands" outside the parliament today. (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Thousands_of_Maoists_surround_Nepal_05132007.html)

This is really one of the less significant things happening in Nepal right now - for example there's a teachers' strike which seems a lot more important. [/b]
Including one founded by Zulifakar Bhutto, a "man" even more wretched than Musharraff. The atrocities he is responsible for in Bangladesh represent the worst of many offences committed by the Pakistani nationstate and the despotic cliques of generals, capitalists, and Islamists who have misruled it from its inception. (Although given that these various bourgeois factions have done the same thing to its more populous neighbour, one could quite reasonably argue that for most of the people living there, India shines about as brightly as Pakistan is pure.)

And if it were not for that same opiate that Washington had helped impose on the Afghan people (Islamism), Pakistan would have entered a revolutionary situation many years ago...It will happen though; for the land that produced Bhagat Singh is a land with infinite potential for a revolution of unparalleled beauty and splendour.

[Janus]

I doubt the Maoists will go back into the countryside and re-launch a people's war. Not only have they insisted that they will not take such actions but they also seem to be much more urban oriented as of late which explains the formation of the YCL and its targeting of political enemies and other tactics meant to give the Maoists an edge in the political arena.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The RCP-CANADA has a really good piece linked here (http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/rfe/004) about how this is just a continuation of the revolution with different tactics. We can sit behind our monitors in our warm apartments and sling shit at the comrades in the CPN-(M) but the reality is that revolution is bloody and if the CPN-(M) is able to dispose of the oppressive monarchy, dispose of fuedalism, and dispose of imperialism, it is a continuation of the New Democratic Revolution in a way where People's War fell a bit short. Let it be known though, that the PLA can be mobilized in 24 hours according to comrade Guarev

[Louis Pio]

Long time since I've written here...
But this topic are always interesting.

Down-For-People's-War! What you say are in fact that Nepals problems can be solved under some strange governement of "independent national democracy".
I know you maoists claim adherence to Marx and Lenin, personally I would argue your ideas are the opposite, however what "ideology" we follow shouldn't stop us from discussing.
I would like to know if you really think that an "independent capitalist Nepal" would solve anything?
As you are probably well aware the weak and small nepalese bourgiosie are tied to international capital in thousand ways. How would they ever be able to build a strong nepalese capitalist production system like the european bourgiosie did a long time ago?
Do you really think that a weak feudal state will be able in this day and age to make that jump?
Personally I think the that Nepals problems can only be solved under socialism, but the fight for socialism is something you and many other maoists seems to think should be postponed untill after some "mythical national bourgiosie" suddenly appears and build a strong capitalist economy...
All in all you just follow the old menshevic stage theory.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Long time since I've written here...
But this topic are always interesting.

Down-For-People's-War! What you say are in fact that Nepals problems can be solved under some strange governement of "independent national democracy".

no I'm just saying its very easy for armchair activists and fake communists (like Severian) to critiscize the tactics of the CPN-M but that this is just a continuation of the revolution.

New Democracy is a joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes led by the communist party and the proletariat and peasantry which according to Mao seeks to nationalize all major industry, distribute land among the peasantry by seizing it from landlords, create a democratic republic, promote co-operation, and stop imperial dominance of wealth.

New Democracy is very different then a Bourgeiosie Democratic Revolution like the one in America or France or whatever because those revolutions were thoroughly led by the bourgieous and bourgeious parties. The New Democratic Revolution is led by a Communist Party with proletariat and peasantry basis. This will inevitably lead to socialist revolution unless the New Democratic Revolution is defeated.

The tactics of People's War gained the CPN-M massive rural support but urban support was lacking. The new tactics have gained the CPN-M mass urban support which will be key for leading Nepal to socialism



All in all you just follow the old menshevic stage theory.

no no no, you have it all wrong. Marx and Lenin and Mao were bolsheviks, it was trotsky who was a major contributor to the mensheviks and a hardcore member and then didn't join the bolsheviks until a little more than a month before the bolshevik revolution.

The Nepalese comrades are following the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory in a similar fashion as it was implemented in China. And it was implemented in China the way it was due to the fact that Lenin called for it. Lenin pledged aid to the Democratic Revolution in China in exchange for co-operation and leadership from the CCP. This led to the KMT policy of "land for those who tilled it" and the purging from the party of right wing bourgeiosie elements.

[Rawthentic]

Marx and Lenin and Mao were bolsheviks, it was trotsky who was a major contributor to the mensheviks and a hardcore member and then didn't join the bolsheviks until a little more than a month before the bolshevik revolution.
Marx was not a Bolshevik.

Both Trotsky and Stalin were bureaucrats, except one got killed in Mexico and another got to lead a huge capitalist nation. Trotsky was more sincere I would say, with his ideas on worker's revolution worldwide, worker's councils, permanent revolution ( as did Marx). Stalin's "socialism in one country" of course only aided the Russian petty-bourgeoisie and official "Communists," and his policies lead to working peoples revolutions in Hungary and Germany for real worker's socialism.

Its beside the thread, but thought I should point it out.

[RedStarOverChina]

So? It's 19th of May now.

How are the Maoists doing?

[Janus]

How are the Maoists doing?

Maoists threaten strike over inhumane camp conditions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070519/wl_sthasia_afp/nepalmaoistspolitics_070519221308)

I believe they promised demonstrations later this month if the monarchy issue isn't decided and since the constituent assembly elections are going to be postponed, this might set the Maoists off.

[Janus]

The Nepalese comrades are following the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory in a similar fashion as it was implemented in China. And it was implemented in China the way it was due to the fact that Lenin called for it.
:blink: Lenin was dead by the time that Mao began to take control of the CCP.


Lenin pledged aid to the Democratic Revolution in China in exchange for co-operation and leadership from the CCP. This led to the KMT policy of "land for those who tilled it" and the purging from the party of right wing bourgeiosie elements.
The GMD never implemented that policy nor were the right wingers ever purged rather the party itself split into two factions.

[AFM]

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070521/43/6g1gf.html

[A.J.]

I would like to know if you really think that an "independent capitalist Nepal" would solve anything?

For a start, it would weaken the world system of imperialism.
This would lead to a diminishing of imperialist super-profits. The bourgeoisie in imperialist countries would as a result be unable to create a labour aristocracy(the social base of opportunism in the labour movement) which would in turn intensify the class struggle in imperialist countries in turn hastening revolution.


Personally I think the that Nepals problems can only be solved under socialism.....[/b]

But then trotskyism posits the construction of socialism can't commence until there has been [simultaneous]revolutions worldwide.
This renders trotskyism counter-revolutionary as you're saying Nepelese workers and peasants should *wait* indefinately for [simultaneous]revolutions in the west(which is quite a long way off to say the least!) before doing anything themselves.


"trots don't create revolutions - they criticise them from the safety of universities" - Some Old Sage

[The Grey Blur]

I would like to know if you really think that an "independent capitalist Nepal" would solve anything?

For a start, it would weaken the world system of imperialism.
This would lead to a diminishing of imperialist super-profits. The bourgeoisie in imperialist countries would as a result be unable to create a labour aristocracy(the social base of opportunism in the labour movement) which would in turn intensify the class struggle in imperialist countries in turn hastening revolution.
You missed the point - the Nepalese bourgeois can't carry out the bourgeois national revolution because they are tied in a thousand ways to international capital, to the imperialists. We need a strong proleterian movement and a push towards Socialism, not stageism.



Personally I think the that Nepals problems can only be solved under socialism.....

But then trotskyism posits the construction of socialism can't commence until there has been [simultaneous]revolutions worldwide.
This renders trotskyism counter-revolutionary as you're saying Nepelese workers and peasants should *wait* indefinately for [simultaneous]revolutions in the west(which is quite a long way off to say the least!) before doing anything themselves.[/b]
No it doesn't, the belief of Trotskyists is that the proleterian movement must remain independent and pro-Socialist, that attemps at alliance with the bourgeois will end in worker's blood. We must be for Socialist revolution, not a prolonging of Capitalism.


"trots don't create revolutions - they criticise them from the safety of universities" - Some Old Sage
"You're a useless sectarian fuckwit" - Me.

[RedHal]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 21, 2007 04:56 pm
No it doesn't, the belief of Trotskyists is that the proleterian movement must remain independent and pro-Socialist, that attemps at alliance with the bourgeois will end in worker's blood. We must be for Socialist revolution, not a prolonging of Capitalism.

What does this mean? Apply it to the situation in Nepal. In Trotskyists' views what should the Maoists and peasents have done?

I'm new to communism and open to the different theories.

[Vargha Poralli]

In Trotskyists' views what should the Maoists and peasents have done?

The peasants and workers of Nepal di the right thing when they started huge protests against the king.

Maoists had no options but to have done what they did. They didn't had the universal support all over Nepal to push the anti king protests to a socialists revolution.

What they did was right to both the Maoists and the workers and peasants. It allows Maoists to reach the section they never tried to convince and also this peacetime without a civil war would allow workers and peasants to organize freely apart from more than a dozen partied that have labeled themselves as Communist or Marxist etc..

If that happens the reaction of Maoists would define what they really stand for.

*****************************



KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Nepal's government will pay an allowance to former Maoist guerrillas and improve conditions in camps housing them, a minister said on Monday, meeting a major demand of the former rebels and averting protests.


Source (http://in.news.yahoo.com/070521/137/6g1rl.html)


IMO it seems other than King, Maoists have hell a lot things running in their minds.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The peasants and workers of Nepal di the right thing when they started huge protests against the king.

Maoists had no options but to have done what they did. They didn't had the universal support all over Nepal to push the anti king protests to a socialists revolution.

What they did was right to both the Maoists and the workers and peasants. It allows Maoists to reach the section they never tried to convince and also this peacetime without a civil war would allow workers and peasants to organize freely apart from more than a dozen partied that have labeled themselves as Communist or Marxist etc..

If that happens the reaction of Maoists would define what they really stand for.


what are you talking about? Those protests were initiated by the Maoists and their people's war.


Lenin was dead by the time that Mao began to take control of the CCP.

yeah but it was Lenin who called for the joint class dictatorship in China.


The GMD never implemented that policy nor were the right wingers ever purged rather the party itself split into two factions.

on the contrary, they did. That was Sun Yat-sen's slogan. And they did purge the right wing KMTers and replace them with communists. This was clearly documented in Red Star Over China in the section where he gives a account of the history of chinese communism. In 1924-7, there was a counter-revolution to the New Democratic Revolution which reversed all of Sun Yat-sen's policies

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:40 am





Marx was not a Bolshevik.

don't be a dick, you know that was a typo.


Both Trotsky and Stalin were bureaucrats

Stalin was elected through democratic centralism. Trotsky broke with democratic centralism and for the rest of his life worked against every revolution he was alive to see, and tried his hardest to break the communist movement.


, except one got killed in Mexico and another got to lead a huge capitalist nation.

bollocks


Trotsky was more sincere I would say, with his ideas on worker's revolution worldwide, worker's councils, permanent revolution ( as did Marx). Stalin's "socialism in one country" of course only aided the Russian petty-bourgeoisie and official "Communists," and his policies lead to working peoples revolutions in Hungary and Germany for real worker's socialism.

Its beside the thread, but thought I should point it out.

No, socialism in One Country was a policy that national determination WAS possible. That a nation COULD build socialism and didn't have to remain in capitalism. Permanent Revolution was the theory that socialism could only be built after revolution had caught on in the imperialist world and that in the mean time, the "third world" countries which had liberated themselves would have to remain in state-capitalism and couldn't progress forward.

[Rawthentic]

Stalin was elected through democratic centralism. Trotsky broke with democratic centralism and for the rest of his life worked against every revolution he was alive to see, and tried his hardest to break the communist movement.
Stalin was an opportunist who murdered his way through to power, took advantage of the power vacuum after Lenin's death. But it doesnt change either of their class character. But I do applaud Trotsky for writing while in Mexico against Stalinism and capitalism around the world.


bollocks
No, Trotsky was murdered in Mexico and Stalin was the leader of the USSR. Whats so bollocks about calling it capitalist?


No, socialism in One Country was a policy that national determination WAS possible. That a nation COULD build socialism and didn't have to remain in capitalism
"Socialism in one country" is an oxymoron. It cannot survive as it obviously didnt in Russia, as it became subject to the laws of capitalism due to its isolation. It only benefits the state bourgeoisie develop itself.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Down-For-People's-War!+May 22, 2007 07:51 pm--> (Down-For-People's-War! @ May 22, 2007 07:51 pm)
The peasants and workers of Nepal di the right thing when they started huge protests against the king.

Maoists had no options but to have done what they did. They didn't had the universal support all over Nepal to push the anti king protests to a socialists revolution.

What they did was right to both the Maoists and the workers and peasants. It allows Maoists to reach the section they never tried to convince and also this peacetime without a civil war would allow workers and peasants to organize freely apart from more than a dozen partied that have labeled themselves as Communist or Marxist etc..

If that happens the reaction of Maoists would define what they really stand for.


what are you talking about? Those protests were initiated by the Maoists and their people's war.[/b]
You are wrong. Maoists didn't had much influence in the main areas and even the areas under their control their positions was not so strong.

If the protests had been inspired by them and their peoples war then they would not have needed join the 7 part alliance.


Permanent Revolution was the theory that socialism could only be built after revolution had caught on in the imperialist world and that in the mean time, the "third world" countries which had liberated themselves would have to remain in state-capitalism and couldn't progress forward.

Prove that you are a total fool and talk a lot of shit without knowing the subject.

Permanent Revolution is different from world revolution. It is a concept of making a workers revolution in a country where bourgeoisie democratic tasks have not been carried out making the revolution permanent. The opposite to this was both Stagist(Menshevists and post 1927 Stalinist) theory.

Past thread discussing it. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62246)
One post clearly differentiating Lenin from Trotsky and Mensheviks/Stalin (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40806&view=findpost&p=1291942537)

LeftyHenry

Stalin was elected through democratic centralism. Trotsky broke with democratic centralism and for the rest of his life worked against every revolution he was alive to see, and tried his hardest to break the communist movement.

Total bullshit. Anyway it was Stalin who did break revolutionary communist movement and replacing with reformists.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

They joined the SPA because the mass upsurge was defeated and the monarchy is there. Plus they did to an extent lack urban support and the New Democratic Stage has given them that support. This is exactly the same strategy that was taken by the CCP in China when they create a joint dictatorship of the classes with the KMT at Lenin's insistance. Even the bourgieousie media recorded that the maoists were largely the pushing force behind the mass upsurge. There were articles online talking about mass rallies the CPN-M was holding, articles in national newspapers talking about how these rallies were attacked and the masses were attacking back. And G.Ram Trotsky was a menshevik who hopped on the bolshevik bandwagon a month or two before the revolution.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Down-For-People's-War!+May 22, 2007 08:36 pm--> (Down-For-People's-War! @ May 22, 2007 08:36 pm)They joined the SPA because the mass upsurge was defeated and the monarchy is there.[/b]

No because they didn't have any means to push for a socialist revolution.


Plus they did to an extent lack urban support and the New Democratic Stage has given them that support.

That was also my point.

[email protected] three posts above

What they did was right to both the Maoists and the workers and peasants. It allows Maoists to reach the section they never tried to convince and also this peacetime without a civil war would allow workers and peasants to organize freely apart from more than a dozen partied that have labeled themselves as Communist or Marxist etc..

We must look forward what Nepali workers are doing so we have to wait till the elections are taking place.


This is exactly the same strategy that was taken by the CCP in China when they create a joint dictatorship of the classes with the KMT at Lenin's insistance. Even the bourgieousie media recorded that the maoists were largely the pushing force behind the mass upsurge.

I don't know why you bring up this in this discussion.



There were articles online talking about mass rallies the CPN-M was holding, articles in national newspapers talking about how these rallies were attacked and the masses were attacking back.

Lets us see how much votes does CPN(M) gets in the elections and that will say who is on whose side.


And G.Ram Trotsky was a menshevik who hopped on the bolshevik bandwagon a month or two before the revolution
I dont understand what this has to do with the topic at hand

[OneBrickOneVoice]

oh then whatever. I thought you were one of those Severian types

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Socialism in one country" is an oxymoron.

Alot of people miscontrue Uncle Joe's "socialism in one country." I wonder if any of them have read what he actually had to say on it:


Originally posted by Stalin "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists"
In his study of imperialism, especially in the period of the war, Lenin arrived at the law of the uneven, spasmodic, economic and political development of the capitalist countries. According to this law, the development of enterprises, trusts, branches of industry and individual countries proceeds not evenly — not according to an established sequence, not in such a way that one trust, one branch of industry or one country is always in advance of the others, while other trusts or countries keep consistently one behind the other — but spasmodically, with interruptions in the development of some countries and leaps ahead in the development of others. Under these circumstances the "quite legitimate" striving of the countries that have slowed down to hold their old positions, and the equally "legitimate" striving of the countries that have leapt ahead to seize new positions, lead to a situation in which armed clashes among the imperialist countries become an inescapable necessity. Such was the case, for example, with Germany, which half a century ago was a backward country in comparison with France and Britain. The same must be said of Japan as compared with Russia. It is well known, however, that by the beginning of the twentieth century Germany and Japan had leapt so far ahead that Germany had succeeded in overtaking France and had begun to press Britain hard on the world market, while Japan was pressing Russia. As is well known, it was from these contradictions that the recent imperialist war arose.

This law proceeds from the following:

1)"Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the vast majority of the population of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries" (see Preface to the French edition of Lenin's Imperialism.);

2) "This 'booty' is shared between two or three powerful world robbers armed to the teeth (America, Britain, Japan), who involve the whole world in their war over the sharing of their booty" (ibid.);

3) The growth of contradictions within the world system of financial oppression and the inevitability of armed clashes lead to the world front of imperialism becoming easily vulnerable to revolution, and to a breach in this front in individual countries becoming probable;

4) This breach is most likely to occur at those points, and in those countries, where the chain of the imperialist front is weakest, that is to say, where imperialism is least consolidated, and where it is easiest for a revolution to expand;

5) In view of this, the victory of socialism in one country, even if that country is less developed in the capitalist sense, while capitalism remains in other countries, even if those countries are more highly developed in the capitalist sense — is quite possible and probable.

Such, briefly, are the foundations of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution.

...

"Uneven economic and political development," says Lenin, "is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states." For "the free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states."

The opportunists of all countries assert that the proletarian revolution can begin — if it is to begin anywhere at all, according to their theory — only in industrially developed countries, and that the more highly developed these countries are industrially the more chances there are for the victory of socialism. Moreover, according to them, the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, and one in which capitalism is little developed at that, is excluded as something absolutely improbable. As far back as the period of the war, Lenin, taking as his basis the law of the uneven development of the imperialist states, opposed to the opportunists his theory of the proletarian revolution about the victory of socialism in one country, even if that country is one in which capitalism is less developed.

...

How do matters stand with Trotsky's "permanent revolution" in the light of Lenin's theory of the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country?

Let us take Trotsky's pamphlet Our Revolution (1906).

Trotsky writes:

"Without direct state support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to maintain itself in power and to transform its temporary rule into a lasting socialist dictatorship. This we cannot doubt for an instant."

What does this quotation mean? It means that the victory of socialism in one country, in this case Russia, is impossible "without direct state support from the European proletariat," i.e., before the European proletariat has conquered power.

What is there in common between this "theory" and Lenin's thesis on the possibility of the victory of socialism "in one capitalist country taken separately"?

Clearly, there is nothing in common.

But let us assume that Trotsky's pamphlet, which was published in 1906, at a time when it was difficult to determine the character of our revolution, contains inadvertent errors and does not fully correspond to Trotsky's views at a later period. Let us examine another pamphlet written by Trotsky, his Peace Programme, which appeared before the October Revolution of 1917 and has now (1924) been republished in his book The Year 1917. In this pamphlet Trotsky criticizes Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution about the victory of socialism in one country and opposes to it the slogan of a United States of Europe. He asserts that the victory of socialism in one country is impossible, that the victory of socialism is possible only as the victory of several of the principal countries of Europe (Britain, Russia, Germany), which combine into a United States of Europe; otherwise it is not possible at all. He says quite plainly that "a victorious revolution in Russia or in Britain is inconceivable without a revolution in Germany, and vice versa."

"The only more or less concrete historical argument," says Trotsky, "advanced against the slogan of a United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss Sotsial-Demokrat (at that time the central organ of the Bolsheviks — J. St. ) in the following sentence: 'Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism.' From this the Sotsial-Demokrat draws the conclusion that the victory of socialism is possible in one country, and that therefore there is no reason to make the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country contingent upon the establishment of a United States of Europe. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible argument. But this unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of Britain, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa and Asia all these countries represent capitalist 'Europe,' which has grown ripe for the social revolution. That no country in its struggle must 'wait' for others, is an elementary thought which it is useful and necessary to reiterate in order that the idea of concurrent international action may not be replaced by the idea of temporizing international inaction. Without waiting for the others, we begin and continue the struggle nationally, in the full confidence that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if this should not occur, it would be hopeless to think — as historical experience and theoretical considerations testify — that, for example, a revolutionary Russia could hold out in the face of a conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could exist in isolation in a capitalist world."

As you see, we have before us the same theory of the simultaneous victory of socialism in the principal countries of Europe which, as a rule, excludes Lenin's theory of revolution about the victory of socialism in one country.

It goes without saying that for the complete victory of socialism, for a complete guarantee against the restoration of the old order, the united efforts of the proletarians of several countries are necessary.

Bold is mine.

Basically, he said we can and must continue to build socialism in the USSR while we fight for revolutions in other countries.. we can't just give up on building socialism in the USSR because no European countries are yet socialist.

[Janus]

That was Sun Yat-sen's slogan. And they did purge the right wing KMTers and replace them with communists.
They allowed communists into the GMD and although the left faction of the GMD did have greater representation than the right faction though the latter were still dominant in certain cities. Sun would've never actually purged his party as it would've only caused a coup against his shaky authority.


In 1924-7, there was a counter-revolution to the New Democratic Revolution which reversed all of Sun Yat-sen's policies
Launched by the right wing faction as represented by Jiang Jieshi who had never been eliminated and whatever political power the left GMD faction seemed to wield, it was overshadowed by the right's economic and military dominance.

[sexyguy]

CDL,

Good post. No, great counterblast! BUT, have you seen my post: “Stalin Was Wrong”. If you can find it tell me how to. I don’t have a clue how to move around this stuff.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by RedHal+May 21, 2007 11:51 pm--> (RedHal @ May 21, 2007 11:51 pm)
Permanent [email protected] 21, 2007 04:56 pm
No it doesn't, the belief of Trotskyists is that the proleterian movement must remain independent and pro-Socialist, that attemps at alliance with the bourgeois will end in worker's blood. We must be for Socialist revolution, not a prolonging of Capitalism.

What does this mean? Apply it to the situation in Nepal. In Trotskyists' views what should the Maoists and peasents have done?

I'm new to communism and open to the different theories. [/b]
The proleteriat should take the lead, organised in a strong party which pushes for the Socialist revolution, and enthusiastically engage with the peasant masses who in Nepal are extremely discontented due to their oppression by the large landowners. The bourgeois is incapable of carrying out their historical tasks as Marx outlined them (the institution of a bourgeois democracy, the defeat of Imperialism, agrarian revolution) as they are too numerically weak, unconfident and tied to both international capitalism and the large land-owners. Thus the working-class must take the lead in carrying out these tasks by creating an alliance with the poor peasantry and making them see that only through Socialism can they be guaranteed an improvement of their living conditions. Socialists must then institute a mass education of the peasantry and encourage them towards communal techniques rather than individual through dint of example alone.

We disagree with the Maoists in that they focus on the peasantry rather than the working-class which is a complete reversal of Marxism, their individual terror tactics and what can be seen as their gradual transition to just another pro-bourgeois entity.

I don't totally dismiss the PLA in Nepal though - it will be interesting to see if there talk of mass protests and resistance to the government come to anything. I sincerely doubt it though, especially since the Maoists have little or no influence as regards the spontaneous uprisings of the workers and poor against the Monarchy and government.

And CDL I'm disappointed at you posting that shite. Stalin makes no attempt at drawing conclusions himself other than; "Lenin said this so it must be right - Trotsky is an evil renegade". The facts speak for themselves as regards "Socialism in One Country" - an excuse to consolidate the bureaucracy in Russia and to manipulate the revolutionary currents throughout the world. With disastrous results of course, as China showed.

[Labor Shall Rule]

yeah but it was Lenin who called for the joint class dictatorship in China.

I don't think Lenin ever advocated a policy of class collaboration. Guomintang, even before Chiang, was still bourgeois. With the alliance of Comintern with Guomintang, they technically aimed at avoiding a "split" between the Communists and Nationalists, holding back and retarding the actions of the CCP so as not to upset this alliance. This lead to a subordination of sorts--which culminated in the massacre of 1927.


on the contrary, they did. That was Sun Yat-sen's slogan. And they did purge the right wing KMTers and replace them with communists.

Does this mean anything? Whether you like it or not, there was no significant proletarian forces during the democratic revolution. This changed by the 1920's, as class tensions had increased sharply with more strikes and battles in the streets, which lead to Guomintang granting the Communists concessions through a recognition of their growing strength. By this moment though, they had retained a position of organizational independence, and with the death of Sun-Yat Sen, it showed that the national bourgeoisie, with it's close ties to foreign capital, could no longer be entrusted in taking the revolutionary process pass where it was already.

[sexyguy]

...creating an alliance with the poor peasantry and making them see...

Permanent revolution,

"and making them see... "

Examine contemporary Trotskyist literature and see how much of this ’instructionalist’ stuff you put out for the working class.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:57 pm

...creating an alliance with the poor peasantry and making them see...

Permanent revolution,

"and making them see... "

Examine contemporary Trotskyist literature and see how much of this ’instructionalist’ stuff you put out for the working class.
Instructionalist? We don't put ourselves above the working-class but educate them in the ideas of Marxism by struggling side by side with them and through our publications. We present our ideas to the working-class and their allies, we do not presume that they will be accepted without question, this is why a high political level is neccessary of cadres to gain support for the ideas of Socialism. As Trotsky said, despite the importance of correct theory and organisation it is the masses themselves that are the one crucial driving-force of the revolution.

To explain what I meant, since you took it out of context - The peasants are an illiterate class and by definition they are small scale capitalists, thus lending themselvs to the reaction unless the working-class provides a clear and far-sighted leadership, as the one truly revolutionary class. This is why I say the working-class must "make them see" - they must lead the peasant masses and allow them to realise that their descension into the ranks of the proleteriat is a question of when not if and that their interests lie in the Socialist revolution.

[sexyguy]

The not very subtle change of language - “and allow them to realise” as opposed to your original “making them see” does not alter anything. Trotskyist papers and leaflets are overflowing with instructions, but no useful analysis of existing revolutionary conditions.

[sexyguy]

We don't put ourselves above the working-class but educate them I rest my case.

Edit: Tosser
Stronger letter to follow

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And CDL I'm disappointed at you posting that shite. Stalin makes no attempt at drawing conclusions himself other than; "Lenin said this so it must be right - Trotsky is an evil renegade". The facts speak for themselves as regards "Socialism in One Country" - an excuse to consolidate the bureaucracy in Russia and to manipulate the revolutionary currents throughout the world. With disastrous results of course, as China showed.

I'm tired of Stalin's position being misconstrued, and so I let his words clarify. You can say someone stood for one thing, but you have prove it when they themselves say something else.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:56 pm
The not very subtle change of language - “and allow them to realise” as opposed to your original “making them see” does not alter anything. Trotskyist papers and leaflets are overflowing with instructions, but no useful analysis of existing revolutionary conditions.
Don't be fucking stupid, I see nothing wrong with using "making them see" with regards to the example the proleteriat sets for the peasants. This was a basic idea of Lenin's.


I rest my case.
Taking quotes out of context is fantastic, really great. Basically you seem to have you own opinion and you'll twist whatever I say to fit your mad little idea.


Tosser
Same to you.

[sexyguy]

Don't be fucking stupid, I see nothing wrong with using "making them see" with regards to the example the proleteriat sets for the peasants. This was a basic idea of Lenin's.
So if you see nothing wrong with using “making them see” why did you change it to “and allow them to realise”?



Taking quotes out of context is fantastic, really great. Basically you seem to have you own opinion and you'll twist whatever I say to fit your mad little idea.]The quote is just one example in your post which is positively dripping with conceited elitists, condescension towards everyone. Which is most assuredly not “a basic idea of Lenin’s.” as you wrongly say. But it was an ‘attitude’ of Trotsky’ s (e.g. shaking up the unions) which Lenin vigorously opposed. Trying to “big-up-yourself ” with school-teacher haughtiness towards people who are involved in revolutionary fights will just bring deserved derision on the ’communist’ movement as a whole.

The first and best rule about holes is “stop digging when you are in one”.
Grab the nearest pen and underline all the instructionalist language in your Trotskyist literature, starting with your own. Then let us know how many pens you’ve used-up.

[RedArmyFaction]

well done to my maoist comrades

[sexyguy]

Telegraphnepal.com

“The Nepal Maoists' Party International bureau Chief Mr. C.P.Gajurel alias Gaurav has said that the Maoists’ silence over the weeks and months be not taken as a weakness of the party.

“We are as strong even today as we were yesterday”, a beaming Gajurel declared at a program held by the Women’s Wing of the Maoists in the capital yesterday.
He further said that if any thing went wrong with the Maoists, the militias now confined in the cantonments will come to the open within seconds.

“Mind it that the keys of the locked weapons are still in our pockets”, he thundered.
He denied the allegation that the party had come to an agreement with the state which it was not instead it was the state which brought us to the peace agreement.
“We were in control over more than eighty percent of the overall territory and that the Thankot area- near Capital Kathmandu was also in our control, this suggests that we were stronger than the government in Kathmandu prior to the agreement, Gajurel added.

Commenting on the advices to the Maoists to change themselves should not mean that we change to what the Nepali Congress and the UML are today, Gajurel concluded.”
June 24, 2007

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:27 am

Don't be fucking stupid, I see nothing wrong with using "making them see" with regards to the example the proleteriat sets for the peasants. This was a basic idea of Lenin's.
So if you see nothing wrong with using “making them see” why did you change it to “and allow them to realise”?



Taking quotes out of context is fantastic, really great. Basically you seem to have you own opinion and you'll twist whatever I say to fit your mad little idea.]The quote is just one example in your post which is positively dripping with conceited elitists, condescension towards everyone. Which is most assuredly not “a basic idea of Lenin’s.” as you wrongly say. But it was an ‘attitude’ of Trotsky’ s (e.g. shaking up the unions) which Lenin vigorously opposed. Trying to “big-up-yourself ” with school-teacher haughtiness towards people who are involved in revolutionary fights will just bring deserved derision on the ’communist’ movement as a whole.

The first and best rule about holes is “stop digging when you are in one”.
Grab the nearest pen and underline all the instructionalist language in your Trotskyist literature, starting with your own. Then let us know how many pens you’ve used-up.
You're a fucking idiot, read basic Engels and discover that's the language he used when talking about bringing the small peasants over to the side of the proleteriat.

Bye.

EDIT: What is the situation in Nepal now? Where are the mass protests, the siezure of the means of production?