CPB-MLM to Launch People's War

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Now this isn't confirmed yet, but I got this message from the Maoist Revolution Bulletin; a yahoo listserve which gives lastest up on worldwide anti-imperialist struggles, in particular, in India, the Phillipines, Peru, Nepal, as well as struggles elsewhere:


Latest yet unconfirmed reports have it that the Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist) has decided to wage an armed struggle ''People's War'' in the Kingdom of Bhutan .

Report citing a high ranking Bhutanese Maoist Leader (name withheld) was quoted as saying that the CPB-MLM was preparing for a "people's War" in Bhutan.

The CPB-MLM was formed in the year 2001 right inside the Bhutanese refugee camps in the Districts of Jhapa and Morang in Nepal .

"In the midst of growing unhappiness among the refugees over the issue of relocating the refugees to the US , the CPB was preparing to stage a peoples' revolt in Bhutan ", he added.

"The revolt will be commenced prior to the general elections in Bhutan ": and added further that "the CPB (MLM) garners comfortable support for the revolution in 16 districts of total 21 districts in Bhutan ".

Bhutan from what I gather is basically a fuedal monarchist state where the people's rights are constantly trampled on, and deep, deep poverty for the masses is the norm.

here's the only online source I can find on this

http://www.topix.net/world/bhutan/2007/08/...hutan?fromrss=1 (http://www.topix.net/world/bhutan/2007/08/peoples-war-prior-to-polls-in-bhutan?fromrss=1)

Now I know this isn't completely confirmed, but if it is, it means something great: First in Peru, then Nepal, now Bhutan, not to mention the continuation in the Phillipines and India; I think this is an important sign of a new wave of proletarian revolution throughout the world.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

If it's a new wave of proletarian revolution, let's rejoice. Also, when I saw the title of this thread, I rushed because I thought the "B" stood for Britain. :P
Anyways, this is good. However, we must monitor this closely before we draw conclusions. Perhaps we should start at the beginning of these modern-times Peoples Wars.

[spartan]

bhutan is a feudal shithole so hopefully our communist brothers can change that.

[Rawthentic]

Haha, I though that same as MVL, I thought it was 'Britain'.

[Colonello Buendia]

if it was britain id be over joyed but even in in a small state like bhutan revolution is a good thing as it spreads the word and shows an example of communist success. :hammer:

[spartan]

if it was britain all british revleft comrades including myself would be in concentration camps now or worse shipped to guantanamo bay.

[IronColumn]

Hopefully these Leninist goons will not be able to enlist the proletariat to die for bureaucratic state capitalism as a supposed advance over feudal monarchism.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:13 pm
Hopefully these Leninist goons will not be able to enlist the proletariat to die for bureaucratic state capitalism as a supposed advance over feudal monarchism.
Assuming this is a success and Marxist-Leninism becomes the state ideology, the end result would be better overall and I'm sure the new leaders would be anti-imperialist.

[spartan]

exactly at least its a progression if it succeeds of course.

[bootleg42]

Great news. PLEASE keep us updated.

Also just a thought, is it so clever to announce such a thing online???? Still, if it's legit, please keep us updated if it's possible.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:32 am
bhutan is a feudal shithole so hopefully our communist brothers can change that.

Indeed.

I have little doubt that the MLM party here can quite easily put them on the road to Capitalism.

They've got an enormous wealth of experience in the matter!

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Make a topic concerning People's War and the Revolutionary Wave, and pin it, and continually update.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+August 21, 2007 09:53 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ August 21, 2007 09:53 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 10:32 am
bhutan is a feudal shithole so hopefully our communist brothers can change that.

Indeed.

I have little doubt that the MLM party here can quite easily put them on the road to socialism.

They've got an enormous wealth of experience in the matter! [/b]
fixed.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:16 pm
Make a topic concerning People's War and the Revolutionary Wave, and pin it, and continually update.
that's a good idea. I don't think anyone will pin it though

[Aurora]

Thanks for posting this,i'll be keeping an eye on it.


Hopefully these Leninist goons will not be able to enlist the proletariat to die for bureaucratic state capitalism as a supposed advance over feudal monarchism.
Firstly they are not 'leninist',maoist would be more accurate.The strength of maoist movements usualy comes from the peasantry and i imagine this is no exception.

There is no 'supposed' advance,i would take maoism over a monarchy anyday.If there is a planned economy there will be increased production which will lead to better standards of living.The people of Bhutan seem to think the same.

[Leo]

I have little doubt that the MLM party here can quite easily put them on the road to socialism.

They've got an enormous wealth of experience in the matter!

fixed.

Ah right, cause China, Albania and Cambodia are glorious examples of socialism today :rolleyes:

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

Its funny how its more likely for a poor country with extremely low literacy ratea to trun communist. I came back from cuba on saturday and what a spirit the Cubans have is so refreshing. Who knows maybe if Britain were a poor country there would be a revolution.

[Louis Pio]

Ah right, cause China, Albania and Cambodia are glorious examples of socialism today

I think it's stupid to think that a revolution will occur just because a small group of people go to the mountains with guns.

However I think we should expect a bit more from mods than stupid oneliners with the only purpose to derail the thread into secterian namecalling...

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 05:37 pm
Ah right, cause China, Albania and Cambodia are glorious examples of socialism today :rolleyes:
Hoxha was more of a Marxist-Leninist than a Maoist if you ask me. Also, Pol Pot was Maoist?

[Leo]

Hoxha was more of a Marxist-Leninist than a Maoist if you ask me.

He was a Maoist for a period, then suddenly decided that Mao was not a revolutionary anymore. The whole history of Hoxhaism is really funny: see Hoxha and Tito had this dispute. Hoxha wanted Kosova to be a part of Albania and Tito in turn wanted Albania to be a part of Yugoslavia - imperialist rivalries among "socialists" - so when in 1948, Tito broke with Stalin, Hoxha immediately sided with Stalin and purged all the Titoists in Albania. Later on, after Stalin died, Khrushchev was trying to warm relations with Yugoslavia - in the meanwhile the Sino-Soviet split occurred and Hoxha immediately sided with Mao, "biting the hand" (a phrase by Khrushchev) of the imperialist who fed him. In the Brezhnev era, Tito once again moved away from the Russian block and established "healthy" relations with the Americans. In the meanwhile, Mao had saw that the idea of establishing a new imperialist block was not really working in that period, so he too established "healthy" relationships with American imperialism, ending up close to Tito (and Tito was the first to go to Mao's funeral if I recall correctly - who would have guessed!). This obviously pissed Hoxha so he split from Mao as well and as a result, because Albania did not have bigger imperialists supporting it, the whole economy collapsed!


Also, Pol Pot was Maoist?

Yeah, sort of.


Also, Pol Pot was Maoist?

It is rather hard to write a paragraph in response to a silly one-liner (actually one-worder).

Yet if you wish, I can back up my assertion about Maoists and socialists: Maoism has historically been very good at suppressing socialist currents instead of building socialism. For example Zheng Caholin's group, International Workers Party which opposed the second imperialist war and considered Mao's China as state capitalist had it's entire membership arrested after few years of revolutionary activity.

Later on there was the Sheng-wu-Lien (Hunan Provincial Proletarian Revolutionary Great Alliance Committee) and they argued that the objective interests of bureaucrats were structurally determined by the centralist state-form in direct opposition to the objective interests of the masses, regardless of however "red" a given bureaucrat's "thought" might be. They argued that "cultural revolution" had to give way to "political revolution" - "in which one class overthrows another class". They called for a revolution which would necessarily involve general strikes, mutinies, weapons seizures, and, ultimately, the merging of the Chinese revolution with a global communist revolution. This organization was formed by a coalition of 20 Red Guard and rebel-worker groups, and it had 2 to 3 million followers. They were entirely suppressed by the Maoist state within months.

As for the other Maoists bands which lead "people's wars", their activities varied from bombing working class districts, aiding American imperialism and staging coup d'etats.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Mrdie+August 21, 2007 11:29 pm--> (Mrdie @ August 21, 2007 11:29 pm)
Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 05:37 pm
Ah right, cause China, Albania and Cambodia are glorious examples of socialism today :rolleyes:
Hoxha was more of a Marxist-Leninist than a Maoist if you ask me. Also, Pol Pot was Maoist? [/b]
No Pol-Pot wasn't a Maoist. This is a racist mistake usually with the implication that because he was asian, he was maoist.

To Leo, No you're right, they aren't socialist now, and Cambodia never was, but they were for some time. The achievements made when they were under socialism were incredible. The fact that they aren't socialist now though is proof that class struggle continues under socialism and needs to be constantly fought, to even greater extents in the next wave of proletarian revolution so the second wave doesn't end up like the first.


Maoism has historically been very good at suppressing socialist currents instead of building socialism. For example Zheng Caholin's group, International Workers Party which opposed the second imperialist war and considered Mao's China as state capitalist had it's entire membership arrested after few years of revolutionary activity.

Later on there was the Sheng-wu-Lien (Hunan Provincial Proletarian Revolutionary Great Alliance Committee)

yeah counterrevolutionaries were suppressed. That's what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat does. These groups were actively working to over the People's Democratic Dictatorship won through years and years of people's war and mass support. These groups like the revisionists, imperialists, and others were trying to restore capitalism in one form or another. The point of the cultural revolution was for the masses to expose these type of groups, and for the masses, in particular the youth through the red guards, to repudiate them. That's what happens under a state. Under the proletarian state the capitalist class and its followers will be suppressed, under the bourgeois one the proletarian is suppressed. This was the former.


As for the other Maoists bands which lead "people's wars", their activities varied from bombing working class districts, aiding American imperialism and staging coup d'etats.

umm no?? where do you get that shit?


I think it's stupid to think that a revolution will occur just because a small group of people go to the mountains with guns.

too bad that's not at all what people's war is.


Mao had saw that the idea of establishing a new imperialist block was not really working in that period, so he too established "healthy" relationships with American imperialism

That's bullshit. Mao only dealt with the American imperialists because his dealings were a major reason why the US would pull out of Vietnam along with the ferocious people's war and rising tide at the homefront, Mao agreed he would not aid vietnamese forces anymore if US imperialism left Vietnam and it was because of this that the US agreed to pull out, the US believed that South Vietnam would still have a chance if it was just the south v. the north.

Also deciding borders between a socialist and revisionist state isn't "imperialist"

[Louis Pio]

QUOTE
I think it's stupid to think that a revolution will occur just because a small group of people go to the mountains with guns.



too bad that's not at all what people's war is.


Mountains or woods it makes no difference.

Btw it's a bad habbit mix to people's post when answering them

[RNK]

Very good news. I'm embarassed to say that I have no idea where Bhutan is, though...

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:07 am
Very good news. I'm embarassed to say that I have no idea where Bhutan is, though...
It's much closer to where I am, but I'd have trouble pin-pointing it on a blank world-map.

Bhutan is a small country.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:07 am
Very good news. I'm embarassed to say that I have no idea where Bhutan is, though...
Same here. Probably somewhere in Asia.

[Ismail]

Above India to the right.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7277/bhutanhe1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[RedHal]

Originally posted by Rhino Thunder [email protected] 21, 2007 11:02 pm
Its funny how its more likely for a poor country with extremely low literacy ratea to trun communist. I came back from cuba on saturday and what a spirit the Cubans have is so refreshing. Who knows maybe if Britain were a poor country there would be a revolution.
because ppl in poor countries are the truly exploited, they live on the brink of starvation, and they need change now! While 1st worlders can afford to wait and wait and wait, while sitting behind their computers waiting for that perfect revolution. :rolleyes:

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Rhino Thunder [email protected] 21, 2007 06:02 pm
Its funny how its more likely for a poor country with extremely low literacy ratea to trun communist. I came back from cuba on saturday and what a spirit the Cubans have is so refreshing. Who knows maybe if Britain were a poor country there would be a revolution.
What are you talking about? Name one poor country that has become communist and I will give you a cookie, and not just a cookie, a golden one. Give me your proof and your address and I will send it to you, I'm not kidding either.

Then I challenge you to find one poor country that has become authentically socialist and lead by the proletariat. That one's more debatable, but regardless I still challenge you.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Some things I know about the country: Bhutan is a very isolated place... more so than Nepal.. There are less than 1 million people there.. Cigarettes are banned, TV and the internet were banned until recently... citizens must wear traditional clothing, the type of which depends on your class and social standing.. a previous king is married to four of his sisters..

In 2005 the gov't created some institutions of bourgeois government, like a congress and prime minister and a process for recalling a king. In 2008 the gov't plans to introduce full on bourgeois democracy..

If this is true, it's similar to the Shining Path's choice to start a 'people's war' right before bourgeois democracy was restored in Peru. Many folks, even Maoists, were critical of that.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

You make starting a people's war sound like hanging out with some friends, you can't just do it whenever, a people's war requires adequate political work before hand and the creation of public opinion for the revolution. The Shining Path spent alot of time before the revolution gaining support, the Bhutanese comrades are the same I assume.

[Leo]

No Pol-Pot wasn't a Maoist. This is a racist mistake usually with the implication that because he was asian, he was maoist.

Please think before you write. Pol-Pot was as Maoist as Hoxha was a Stalinist - meaning: he was allied to Maoist China. This has got nothing to do with him being Asian. Other Asian statesman, such as Kim il Sung, Ho Chi Minh etc. are not called Maoists.


yeah counterrevolutionaries were suppressed.

Except, of course, the ones who were suppressed were the real revolutionaries, and Maoists were the counter revolutionaries.


These groups were actively working to over the People's Democratic Dictatorship won through years and years of people's war and mass support.

Yeah, they were trying to overthrow the state-capitalist regime in order to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Under the proletarian state the capitalist class and its followers will be suppressed, under the bourgeois one the proletarian is suppressed.

Exactly. The Maoist "red" bourgeoisie suppressed those proletarian currents.


umm no?? where do you get that shit?

History. Remember Afghanistan? Remember Congo? Remember Anglola? Those are only a few examples.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 22, 2007 09:45 am



Please think before you write. Pol-Pot was as Maoist as Hoxha was a Stalinist - meaning: he was allied to Maoist China. This has got nothing to do with him being Asian. Other Asian statesman, such as Kim il Sung, Ho Chi Minh etc. are not called Maoists.

yes they are the same people who call pol-pot maoist call Kim il Sung and Ho Chi Minh maoist besides, the PRC gave aid in all forms to all three of these leaders even though they weren't necessarily maoist on the principles of proletarian internationalism and the fact that these leaders were all struggling against imperialism in one form or another.

In Pol-Pot's case, Kampuchea was a fuedal shithole with a repressive absolute monarchy people were treated like slaves to fuedal landlords. It was the PRC's duty to support any group rebelling against this. During the Revolution, mao supported pol-pot not just because of this but because Kampuchea was literally bombed into the stone age by US forces who secretly attempted to sabotage the Ho Chi Minh trail. 250,000 tons of bombs were dropped, everything that wasn't destroyed by the bombings was destroyed in the invasion. Around the same time Pol-Pot seized power, Mao died and Pol-Pot allied himself with the anti-maoist forces in China in order to gain support. Pol-Pot reflected the position of the Xiopingists


Except, of course, the ones who were suppressed were the real revolutionaries, and Maoists were the counter revolutionaries.

yeah because they were the ones destroying hiarchially oppression and exploitation, abolishing private property through the people's communes, organizing worker takeovers of factories, breaking down the wall between mental and manual labor, aiding revolution, anti-imperialist struggle, and national liberation struggles all over the world, providing the masses with universal education and healthcare, housing and food, and building a state where the masses were seizing control in every sphere.

No they weren't those two groups were simply ultra-left groups attacked by the red guards, were there excesses in the way the red guards handled these too groups: probably, there were alot of excesses in the cultural revolution but I think they are outwayed by the successes. These groups, like the straight up capitalists, were fighting against the revolution and fighting to overthrow it. Like the capitalists they attempted to sabotage genuine socialist construction and bring China back to capitalism in one way or another weither it was by straight up advocating "socialism with chinese characteristics" or it was by trying to tear apart the state DoP, it had the same agenda in the end.


History. Remember Afghanistan?

yeah the maoists fought against islamic fundamentalists and soviet imperialists for socialist revolution, how is that anything you said


Remember Congo?

they weren't maoists, once again, Mao aided all anti-imperialist movements on principle, weren't these guys run by guevara anyway?


Remember Anglola? Those are only a few examples.

yeah a Maoist force turned US imperialist lackeys after the end of the Cultural revolution and Xioping Coup.

[Leo]

yeah because they were the ones destroying hiarchially oppression and exploitation, abolishing private property through the people's communes, organizing worker takeovers of factories, breaking down the wall between mental and manual labor, aiding revolution, anti-imperialist struggle, and national liberation struggles all over the world, providing the masses with universal education and healthcare, housing and food, and building a state where the masses were seizing control in every sphere.

You may believe whatever you want, but Maoists were not destroying hierarchy, oppression, exploitation, they absolutely weren't abolishing private property, they weren't organizing worker takeovers of the factories and such.


yeah the maoists fought against islamic fundamentalists and soviet imperialists for socialist revolution, how is that anything you said

Except they fought together with islamic fundamentalists funded by American imperialism against soviet imperialists.


yeah a Maoist force turned US imperialist lackeys after the end of the Cultural revolution and Xioping Coup.

The policy started before Mao died. In fact, the policy of working together as an imperialist power with US imperialism started before Mao died. You think that "everything was going well" before this "great man" died, and after he died suddenly China stopped being "socialist".

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 22, 2007 10:50 pm



You may believe whatever you want, but Maoists were not destroying hierarchy, oppression, exploitation, they absolutely weren't abolishing private property, they weren't organizing worker takeovers of the factories and such.

well if you say so then I guess I'll just become a left communist. :rolleyes:, or I could rely on eye witness accounts, stories from comrades there during the GPCR, and etc...


Except they fought together with islamic fundamentalists funded by American imperialism against soviet imperialists.

no they rejected both, they struggled against both forces in favor of New Democratic Revolution. That has always been the Maoist line


The policy started before Mao died. In fact, the policy of working together as an imperialist power with US imperialism started before Mao died. You think that "everything was going well" before this "great man" died, and after he died suddenly China stopped being "socialist".

no the only dealing the PRC and US made was to negiotiate the pullout from Vietnam. And no, but I do think that it was a major part. Mao, the Gang of Four, Lin Piao and their supporters represented the continuation of socialist revolution in China while Hua, Xioping, Shaqui and others in that clique represented a return to capitalism. within 1975-6 Lin Piao attempted to stage a coup and then died fleeing to the USSR when it failed, Mao died and thus the revisionist bloc was able to take control and arrest the Gang of Four and start the long march back to capitalism now that the leadership of the anti-revisionists had suffered 2 tough blows while the revisionists remained intact. The masses in particular the red guards were dispersed, the people's communes abolished, and sweatshops invited in, before real communists could regroup. By the time they finally did, the new regime was established.

[PigmerikanMao]

This is a good thing if the party wins, though I sincerely hope it doesn't end like Nepal or Peru.

Edit: Forgot the italics! :lol:

[RNK]

but Maoists were not destroying hierarchy, oppression, exploitation, they absolutely weren't abolishing private property, they weren't organizing worker takeovers of the factories and such.

They did all of that and more; they went so far as to attempt to start a movement to once-and-for-all be rid of all class antagonisms, abolish the state and government and usher in a true communist society. I don't see how your accusations have any basis in fact.


Except they fought together with islamic fundamentalists funded by American imperialism against soviet imperialists.

They fought to protect their homes against the biggest threat to their livelihood at the time -- the Soviet-backed autocratic government of Afghanistan which came into power via a coup, not a popular movement. And yes, it was progressive, but no more than capitalism. It's funny how quickly some comrades abandon Marxist principles when it suits their sectarian agenda.


The policy started before Mao died. In fact, the policy of working together as an imperialist power with US imperialism started before Mao died.

Mao was largely a figurehead leader for several years prior to his death. By the time the GPCR started the revisionist neo-cappies had already largely taken control of important sections of the government and were already gearing China down the path it has embraced today (which is one of the important factors which lead to the GPRC in the first place).


If this is true, it's similar to the Shining Path's choice to start a 'people's war' right before bourgeois democracy was restored in Peru. Many folks, even Maoists, were critical of that.


...on the very day the absolute monarchies fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will start. From that day on, the policy of the communists will be the same as it now is in the countries where the bourgeoisie is already in power.

I do not understand where some modern Marxists get this idea that the bourgeois must be allowed to industrialize society before a revolution can take place. There is plenty of oppurtunity under socialism for this to occur (which is spoken of at length in Marxist literature). It may be more beneficial for a revolution to occur in an already-industrializad nation which has experienced bourgeois parliamentarism for x amount of time, but that is by no means a factual prerequisite for revolution.


This is a good thing if the party wins, though I sincerely hope it doesn't end like Nepal or Peru.

That it is happening at all is a lot more than some people can say for themselves. :ph34r:

[Leo]

They did all of that and more; they went so far as to attempt to start a movement to once-and-for-all be rid of all class antagonisms, abolish the state and government and usher in a true communist society.

Again, no matter what you believe, they didn't do any of that.


I don't see how your accusations have any basis in fact.

Oh dear. You are trying to argue that a fully (state)capitalist and imperialist country, with a ruling class (the "red" bourgeoisie"), class antagonisms, class struggle, imperialist ambitions and so forth was socialist. Perhaps we should see some facts and stop hearing what Mao said they were doing in China.


They fought to protect their homes against the biggest threat to their livelihood at the time -- the Soviet-backed autocratic government of Afghanistan which came into power via a coup, not a popular movement. And yes, it was progressive, but no more than capitalism. It's funny how quickly some comrades abandon Marxist principles when it suits their sectarian agenda.

I don't care whether Maoists think that the Soviet invasion was progressive or not. I don't think anything capitalist is progressive in the epoch of proletarian revolutions. To me the war in Afghanistan was an imperialist war, a war fought between Russian imperialism, and the agents of American imperialism, that is the Islamic fundamentalists and the Maoists. I am not saying that they should have been allied to the Russian imperialist block - they already were servants of imperialism, Chinese imperialism which was, at that time, allied to the American imperialism. They didn't aid Islamic fundamentalists because they were bad people - they did it because they were told to do so.

[Thunderbird]

I can back up my assertion about Maoists and socialists: Maoism has historically been very good at suppressing socialist currents instead of building socialism. For example Zheng Caholin's group, International Workers Party which opposed the second imperialist war and considered Mao's China as state capitalist had it's entire membership arrested after few years of revolutionary activity.

Erm, I’m curious as to if you made a serious spelling error – as a google search returns nothing when one types in “Zheng Caholin”. Secondly, I fail to see why this group (although, the only thing I can find on the “International Workers Group” is a New York, USA, group) opposing WW2 is a good thing – China was a victim of Imperialist aggression, pure and simple. If anything, Mao should be commended for the victories his forces had against the Fascist Kuomintang and the Fascist Japanese forces. Mao was hardly a saint, but to say Japanese or Kuomintang Fascism was a better alternative is a questionable position at best.

Secondly, if this group (of which I can find nothing on), was Trotskyist – as its name convention suggests – then it would be surprising if they didn’t get suppressed by the very organization they were trying to overthrow. Same goes for the Sheng-wu-lien; to cry out at the “oppression” of a group that was trying to overthrow a government involves an awkward double standard – the Trotskyist can proclaim his desire to overthrow the government, and when the Government re-acts with the (as to be expected) squashing of the movement, you are surprised?

I’d say these events in China that you’re pointing out just show, more than anything, how the poor tactics used by these Trotskyists (which flows from an incorrect ideological line) resulted in the massacre of those whom the Trotskyists manipulated.


As for the other Maoists bands which lead "people's wars", their activities varied from bombing working class districts, aiding American imperialism and staging coup d'etats.

I think recent events in Nepal show differently. Furthermore, you’re ignoring the failed insurgencies in Thailand and Burma. I suggest you read “International Maoism in the Developing World” by Robert J. Alexander; that book should help inform you on the reality of Maoism in the international world – something that certainly wouldn’t hurt.


No Pol-Pot wasn't a Maoist. This is a racist mistake usually with the implication that because he was asian, he was maoist.

According to the above mentioned Robert J. Alexander book; Hua Guofeng, in fact, proclaimed Pol Pot to be Maoist. Considering Deng outmaneuvered and forced Guofeng into early retirement, you cannot call Guofeng a Dengist.


History. Remember Afghanistan? Remember Congo? Remember Anglola? Those are only a few examples.

Erm…China supported UNITA in the Angolan Civil War. Furthermore, Maoists had virtually no impact on the situation in Afghanistan (at least up until 1996) – if you could find proof otherwise, please post it here with the source. The same goes for the Congo – I have never heard of any Maoist party there of significance.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] August 23, 2007, 05:29 pm

Secondly, if this group (of which I can find nothing on), was Trotskyist – as its name convention suggests – then it would be surprising if they didn’t get suppressed by the very organization they were trying to overthrow.

It was probably an obscure "council communist" group which was of no historical significance to the revolutionary movement. And if they opposed supporting the socialist movements against fascism in World War II, then it must have been a social-fascist organization. Socialist in words, fascist in deeds. Not supporting the war against fascism and standing on the sidelines and doing nothing was akin to supporting fascism, whether the organization was consciously aware of it or not.

[IronColumn]

Bottom line: people pathetic and intellectually bankrupt enough to support one of the various state capitalist dictatorships established under the guise of "Leninism" are also those feeble enough to get excited by promises of "Maoist people's war" in Bhutan.

[Rawthentic]

class antagonisms, class struggle
Leo, are you suggesting that the above are not a part of socialist society?

[Xiao Banfa]

Please think before you write. Pol-Pot was as Maoist as Hoxha was a Stalinist - meaning: he was allied to Maoist China. This has got nothing to do with him being Asian. Other Asian statesman, such as Kim il Sung, Ho Chi Minh etc. are not called Maoists.

This is simply wrong; the name of Pol Pot's ideology was Angkar. It was basically a combination of barrack-type peasant collectivism and Cambodian nationalism.

He wasn't maoist that's for sure. Maoists (despite many of their historical shortcomings) are not in the habit of abolishing technology, evacuating cities and massacring people with glasses.

[Leo]

Leo, are you suggesting that the above are not a part of socialist society?

No, I am suggesting that a society in which the bourgeoisie rules over and exploits the proletariat is not socialism.


Erm, I’m curious as to if you made a serious spelling error – as a google search returns nothing when one types in “Zheng Caholin”.

I did make a spelling error. It should be Zheng Chaolin. http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/334/20327


Secondly, if this group (of which I can find nothing on), was Trotskyist – as its name convention suggests – then it would be surprising if they didn’t get suppressed by the very organization they were trying to overthrow. Same goes for the Sheng-wu-lien; to cry out at the “oppression” of a group that was trying to overthrow a government involves an awkward double standard – the Trotskyist can proclaim his desire to overthrow the government, and when the Government re-acts with the (as to be expected) squashing of the movement, you are surprised?


No, I am not suprised - this is class war, the bourgeoisie, whether "red", "brown" or "blue" suppresses the proletariat especially when the proletariat is working consciously the overthrow it. Had the proletarian currents won, the leaders of the red bourgeoisie will be hanged in the streets of Shanghai and Beijing.


This is simply wrong; the name of Pol Pot's ideology was Angkar. It was basically a combination of barrack-type peasant collectivism and Cambodian nationalism.

I am not talking about what Pol Pot believed in, I am talking about which imperialist camp he belonged to. Yet there is also the small detail that Pol Pot called his "barrack-type peasant collectivism" Maoism.

[ComradeR]

I am not talking about what Pol Pot believed in, I am talking about which imperialist camp he belonged to. Yet there is also the small detail that Pol Pot called his "barrack-type peasant collectivism" Maoism.
This is true but many groups will call themselves whatever it takes to gain the support of a power, in this case Pol Pot was trying and succeed in getting China's support by calling his movement Maoist (even though it was far from anything remotely Marxist/Maoist). Just because a group calls itself something does not make it so, many "Leninist" and "Maoist" groups in the past fall into this category.

[Leo]

This is true but many groups will call themselves whatever it takes to gain the support of a power, in this case Pol Pot was trying and succeed in getting China's support by calling his movement Maoist (even though it was far from anything remotely Marxist/Maoist). Just because a group calls itself something does not make it so, many "Leninist" and "Maoist" groups in the past fall into this category.

What you describe here is exactly Maoism. You can't expect anything consistent from a brutal bourgeois ideology. For Mao's China, Maoism was the ideological explanation of China's different policies, originating from it's imperialist interests and alliences. For Pol Pot, Maoism Maoism was the ideological explanation of Cambodia's policies, originating from it's imperialist alliences.

The same thing goes for "Leninism" and obviously all the "Leninist" bourgeois states. "Leninism" as an ideology was nothing but the betrayal of Lenin the revolutionary, an ideology created by Stalinist counter-revolutionaries, used to justify their actions.

[RNK]

Your idiotic assertions remind me of generic bourgeois anti-communist statements. I must be missing the critical chapter in Mao's writings that state his desire to create a "brutal bourgeois ideology".

Your definition of Leninism is also pretty weak. Leninism is an ideology created by Stalinism? In what frame of mind does that make sense? Leninism is an ideology based on the combined works of Marx and Lenin; just as Maoism is an ideology based on the combined works of Marx, Lenin, and Mao. Is it standard practice for the far left to re-write reality in order to meet their perturbed beliefs?

[IronColumn]

Your unimpressive understanding of Marxism is directly related to your position as a supporter of bureaucratic state capitalist regimes. What Mao wrote or thought is not at all related to whether he is or is not a capitalist (as if capitalist relations consisted in admitting one is a capitalist!) just as what one regime says has no relation to whether they are or are not socialist. Mao's obvious role in running a brutal dictatorship to quickly capitalize China's agriculture and squeeze more surplus value out of proletarians, as well as his notable venality and corruption, should let you know that the man was a capitalist to the core. If you were a Marxist, that is, and not a Leninist joke.

[RNK]

Good job exposing your complete lack of understanding of the revolutionary situation in China. I don't even feel it necessary to respond to any of the points you've brought up -- not a single one of them has any basis in historical fact. Capitalize China's agriculture? Squeeze more surplus value out of proletarians? If anything, you're describing the post-revolutionary tactics of the capitalist roaders which took over China and are in control to this day -- which, again, only shows how ignorant you are of history.


What Mao wrote or thought is not at all related to whether he is or is not a capitalist

You still don't seem to get the point, despite almost bringing it up yourself; whatever "stories" and right-wing propaganda are flying around about Mao and his personal policies, even you refuse to question Mao's literary contribution to Marxist theory. Instead you choose to completely abandon critical thinking and make idiotic assertions that Mao = totalitarian so Maoists = totalitarians. Even if, and only if we stretch the bounderies of reality can we come to this conclusion, Mao was totalitarian and a brutal dictator, that does not change the fact that his contributions and writings have complete justification in global class struggle; nor does it change the fact that modern practitioners of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism are pursuing the most advanced stage of Marxist ideology to date. Denying this on the false basis that Mao himself was this or that is the sign of a very miniscule mind.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Iron, I don't see how Mao "capitalized on agriculture and squeezed surplus value out of the proletarians"

collectivizing agriculture and fighting capitalism through cultural revolution is definately not profitable. Mao's methods were actually probably the most anti-bureacratic. Maoist China was the only government in history to actually encourage people to critiscize the government

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Left Henry
In Pol-Pot's case, Kampuchea was a fuedal shithole with a repressive absolute monarchy people were treated like slaves to fuedal landlords.

An interesting characterisation of the Khmer Rouge regime for a Maoist. I will assume that is what you are talking about as it wasn't called Kampuchea until 1975.

Devrim

[Thunderbird]

No, I am not suprised - this is class war, the bourgeoisie, whether "red", "brown" or "blue" suppresses the proletariat especially when the proletariat is working consciously the overthrow it. Had the proletarian currents won, the leaders of the red bourgeoisie will be hanged in the streets of Shanghai and Beijing.

Are you seriously going to sit back and state the man who was opposed to the N.E.P., the dipshit who delayed getting a peace agreement in WW1, anti-Kronstadt, etc., somehow has the moral high ground to Mao? Why?


You can't expect anything consistent from a brutal bourgeois ideology.

Yeah, because Trotsky always held an incredibly consistent line; Trotsky, Menshevik one moment, Bolshevik the other….

[The New Manifesto]

There were bombings in two large Indian Night Clubs the other night. Does the peoples war have anything to do with it?

[Vargha Poralli]

Well back to topic from sectarian shit-fests.

CdeL is really spot on about the analysis of economic and social structure of Bhutan. And also in his skepticism about what could CPB(MLM) could possibly accomplish given the conditions for Bhutan.

More than that the economy of Bhutan is entirely dependent on its dominating neighbour - India, who would certainly not like another revolutionary situation in its backyard. Another neighbour PRC is also not an beacon to Socialism,and we all know its actions in Nepal.

Socialism is the only possible solution to many problems in Bhutan and only class struggle could help achieving it not some adventure of few guerillas.

[RNK]

And what, exactly, is the class composition of Bhutan? Like China and Nepal, it is primarily peasants with a small urban proletariat. Undoubtedly, like China and Nepal, the revolutionaries are approaching the issue from both aspects and are carrying out the only logical course of action; a revolutionary proletarian movement which focuses on the utilization of the largest and most currently revolutionary class, simeltaneously transforming the peasantry into proletarians while destroying the foundations of capitalism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:02 pm
And what, exactly, is the class composition of Bhutan? Like China and Nepal, it is primarily peasants with a small urban proletariat. Undoubtedly, like China and Nepal, the revolutionaries are approaching the issue from both aspects and are carrying out the only logical course of action; a revolutionary proletarian movement which focuses on the utilization of the largest and most currently revolutionary class, simeltaneously transforming the peasantry into proletarians while destroying the foundations of capitalism.
It is very backward.

Over 80% of the entire economy is based on agrilcuture and forestry; most of the country is composed of peasants and rural proletarians. There is an urban proletariat, but it is very small and demoralized; they are employed in the withdrawing of coal and gysum, the production of cement and ferro chemicals, and are mostly involved in the cotton industry. There is also a large pool of migrant labor that floats in from India.

This is fantastic news - hopefully this will not end up like Nepal.

[Vargha Poralli]

And what, exactly, is the class composition of Bhutan? Like China and Nepal, it is primarily peasants with a small urban proletariat. Undoubtedly, like China and Nepal, the revolutionaries are approaching the issue from both aspects and are carrying out the only logical course of action; a revolutionary proletarian movement which focuses on the utilization of the largest and most currently revolutionary class, simeltaneously transforming the peasantry into proletarians while destroying the foundations of capitalism.

Well the problem here is the foundation of Bhutan's capitalism is in India. Without Capitalism smashed there the chances of socialist Bhutan is almost zero. This is not prejudice but this is mostly a fact. Bhutan's railways services is about to be provided by Indian Railways. And Indian government does contribute largely to Royal Bhutanese army.

IMO a revolutionary change is any of the South Asian countries is directly dependent on two key Countries - India and Pakistan.

[RNK]

So revolutionaries in any of the minor countries must resign themselves to simply waiting for revolutionary change in India, which may not occur in their lifetimes?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:08 pm
So revolutionaries in any of the minor countries must resign themselves to simply waiting for revolutionary change in India, which may not occur in their lifetimes?
No.

They should fight for democratic right. Building a worker's movement takes time,patience and all the thing that could be deemed as reformist but they are a full necessity.

And experiences in Nepal clearly proves my point. The King is still the King and the CPN(M) have just turned in to another Political Party.

[RNK]

That's a bit of a generalization (and a contradictory one at that). While I agree that parliamentarism and platformism are a necessary aspect of the revolution, I also see peasant-based mobile warfare as a necessary aspect.

I feel your statement is contradictory due to the second statement. You admit that:


Building a worker's movement takes time,patience and all the thing that could be deemed as reformist

And yet criticize the Nepali revolutionaries for doing precisely this. The Nepali's are instituting a form of New Democracy -- that is, the advancement of the economic and social structures of the country via inclusion of the "four classes" (peasantry/proletariat/petit-bourgeoisie/national bourgeoisie) under the absolute guidance of socialism. Essentially, it is preparing the groundwork for industrial advancement and carrying out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (destruction of fuedalism/industrialization of economy) under the control of revolutionary forces, as opposed to under the control of the bourgeoisie. This is part of the basis of MLM, that workers need not wait for the bourgeoisie to rise and industrialize, and that the transition from fuedalism to capitalism to socialism can be maintained by the working class themselves.

As for Nepal, I'm concerned about them too. I believe they moved too quickly into the new democratic phase, and have essentially tried to take a "shortcut", and I do believe it is very possible that their premature move will come back to bite them in the ass.

[bootleg42]

Speaking of Nepal, where can I get updates of what's going on there?? Only the BBC seems to mention Nepal and they do a shit job of doing so (along with the fact that they're bourgeoisie press). Where do most of you get your sources of Nepal???

Also any update of this people's war????

[RNK]

This thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70277) was recently created and talks about an interview in which Prachanda answers questions about the present and future situation of the revolution in Nepal.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:56 pm
That's a bit of a generalization (and a contradictory one at that). While I agree that parliamentarism and platformism are a necessary aspect of the revolution, I also see peasant-based mobile warfare as a necessary aspect.


That depends on the situations and conditions. But practically it has been proved futile in South Asia,take a look at the Naxalite Movement.




I feel your statement is contradictory due to the second statement. You admit that:


Building a worker's movement takes time,patience and all the thing that could be deemed as reformist

And yet criticize the Nepali revolutionaries for doing precisely this. The Nepali's are instituting a form of New Democracy -- that is, the advancement of the economic and social structures of the country via inclusion of the "four classes" (peasantry/proletariat/petit-bourgeoisie/national bourgeoisie) under the absolute guidance of socialism. Essentially, it is preparing the groundwork for industrial advancement and carrying out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (destruction of fuedalism/industrialization of economy) under the control of revolutionary forces, as opposed to under the control of the bourgeoisie. This is part of the basis of MLM, that workers need not wait for the bourgeoisie to rise and industrialize, and that the transition from fuedalism to capitalism to socialism can be maintained by the working class themselves.

I did not criticise for participating in Parliamentary bodies or not doing what they cannot do - overthrow the King and capitalism at the same time, but I am criticising for their participation in the government unconditionally.



As for Nepal, I'm concerned about them too. I believe they moved too quickly into the new democratic phase, and have essentially tried to take a "shortcut", and I do believe it is very possible that their premature move will come back to bite them in the ass.


Too early to assume that IMO. If they are concerned about strengthening themselves on the grassroot level they should get out of the Government else the incumbency factor is inevitable.

[RNK]

That depends on the situations and conditions. But practically it has been proved futile in South Asia,take a look at the Naxalite Movement.

India is not Nepal or Bhutan; PPW worked quite well in Nepal, there's no reason to think it will not in Bhutan. Especially not the fact that in India it is less successful (at the moment).


I am criticising for their participation in the government unconditionally.

Who told you they're participating unconditionally? Look at the thread in the link posted for bootleg -- Prachanda makes clear the revolutionaries' positions in relation to the government, the ultimatums and how they are prepared to (and have even already began) pull out of the government and launch a revolutionary civil war.


If they are concerned about strengthening themselves on the grassroot level they should get out of the Government else the incumbency factor is inevitable.

Their entire power base was grown from the grassroots level. Their inclusion in the government is not to grow support, but to better carry out the tasks of the revolution. Though I have doubts about whether it was the right decision.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

A leninist/stalinist Buthan will end up the same way of either Soviet Union and its satelite states or China, Vietnam, etc.

That is not what revolutionary leftists are fighting for, is it? I thought we were fighting for self-emancipation. That can never be done by a party, a "benevolent" leader.

And I thought it was pretty much accepted that such a backward country as Bhutan, where over 80 percent of the population are peasants, doesn't have the technological and societal level to have a socialist or to mention a communist system?

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:23 pm
A leninist/stalinist Buthan will end up the same way of either Soviet Union and its satelite states or China, Vietnam, etc.

That is not what revolutionary leftists are fighting for, is it? I thought we were fighting for self-emancipation. That can never be done by a party, a "benevolent" leader.

And I thought it was pretty much accepted that such a backward country as Bhutan, where over 80 percent of the population are peasants, doesn't have the technological and societal level to have a socialist or to mention a communist system?
Read Mao, Dingus.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I have read both Mao, and chinese history.

Next time, try to be constructive.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:38 am
I have read both Mao, and chinese history.

Next time, try to be constructive.
Never! :lol:

[Comrade Rage]

They have a strong chance of sucess. Bhutan is a small country that is run by a monarch and is desperately behind the times, like 1916 Russia but worse.

Info on Bhutan (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bt.html)

[Rawthentic]

A leninist/stalinist Buthan will end up the same way of either Soviet Union and its satelite states or China, Vietnam, etc.
Easy to say from an armchair, you coward. Those are the real communists out there organizing workers and peasants in the long and arduous process towards socialism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:23 pm






A leninist/stalinist Buthan will end up the same way of either Soviet Union and its satelite states or China, Vietnam, etc.

Real Marxists like the Bhutanese Maoists, recognize that the point of marxism is not to recreate the successes (and failures) of Socialism in the Soviet Union and China, but to go even further even if NWOG is trapped withing the confinements of trolling.


That is not what revolutionary leftists are fighting for, is it? I thought we were fighting for self-emancipation. That can never be done by a party, a "benevolent" leader.

No matter who you are, you are being led by some force under this society and ultimately someone. That's a major part of capitalist relations. If that leadership though is genuinely revolutionary and projects a message of liberation and has broken out of the mold of capitalist thought, leadership can only lead to emancipation. Leadership is necessary, it is what inspires people to action, and that's why the masses never support revolutions without leadership. Both historically and today. What are the so called "libertarian communist" armchair cafe revolutionaries doing as the maoists are actuallly conducting revolution throughout southeast asia and struggling elsewhere???


And I thought it was pretty much accepted that such a backward country as Bhutan, where over 80 percent of the population are peasants, doesn't have the technological and societal level to have a socialist or to mention a communist system?

:lol: haha oh man yeah I can see NWOG in Bhutan now addressing the revolutionary masses there; "umm yeah, you guys are too stupid and backwards to have revolution and uhh you guys are peasants which means you aren't really human and don't experience the oppression of the fuedal-capitalist system and have orange warlock noses sooo umm yeah just wait in capitalism til we anararchistrs decide its time to save you"

BTW that last statement proves you have no understanding of maoism or the New Democratic Revolution in Bhutan

[quirk]

Red Army in the Dragon Kingdom

By Deepak Adhikari

Another Maoist insurgency is going to rock yet another country in South Asia, if the statements made by the leaders of the Communist Party of Bhutan Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (CPM MLM) are anything to go by.

"Preliminary preparations for an insurgency are over. We are going to launch it soon," says Vikalpa, nom-de-plume of CPB MLM General Secretary.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/features/fea...-30/1.jpg Bhutan is holding its parliamentary elections in March and April 2008. But, prior to the election date, CPB MLM plans to launch its 'People's War' in the Himalayan kingdom.

The goal: Abolition of monarchy and establishment of a republic.

Following the footsteps of Nepali Maoists who had submitted a 40-point demand to the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba before launching a 'People's War', CPB MLM faxed a 13-point demand to the Royal Government of Bhutan on March 22, 2007.

The letter stressed the need to "introduce people's democracy in the place of absolute monarchy." The party has asked for multi-party democracy, repatriation of the refugees to their original homes with honor and dignity, release of all political prisoners and to introduce the land reform act etc.

Vikalpa (literally, alternative) says that fulfillment of the demands would have paved the way for a peaceful resolution. "But, the government, rather than taking it seriously, has unleashed terror by arresting commoners, and this has prompted us to wage an armed struggle," says CPB supremo Vikalpa.

The Druk regime is yet to respond to these demands.
The unfolding events suggest that South Asia's only active monarchy that is ruling the so-called 'Last Shangri-La' is likely to take the country into Maoist violence. The eruption of militancy in northeastern South Asia will not only push Bhutan into turmoil but the two biggest Asian power i.e. India and China will have to deal with yet another insurgency in their backyards.

Expanding Network

At a time when Nepal was mired in the Maoist conflict, CPB MLM was announced on April 22, 2003. Pamphlets were widely distributed and posters were pasted in and around the seven refugee camps of Jhapa and Morang districts of Nepal. On the same day, sixteen out of a total twenty districts in Bhutan saw similar activities. That was the occasion of Lenin Day and the official announcement of the first communist party in Bhutan formed two years back.

Following its formal announcement, Bhutanese Maoist leaders zeroed in on two areas: expanding the organizational network and intensifying political and military training. The Maoist cadres overwhelmingly participated in the 'long march' along the Mechi Bridge on the border between Nepal and India last May. The forceful attempt made by the refugees to return to their home country did not succeed. It ended with clashes between refugees and Indian security forces.http://www.kantipuronline.com/features/feature2007-8-30/2.jpg

The unrest triggered by the Maoists in Beldangi camp of Jhapa on 27 and 28 May led to the death of Narapati Dhungel and Purna Bahadur Tamang. The CPB MLM organized a condolence meet for the 'martyrs' in Beldangi and Sanischare camps on June 10. Student leaders Toya Khatiwada, Pasang Rai, Mesh Pathak, Champa Singh Rai delivered speeches during the programme.

An emergency meeting of CPB MLM Central Committee held in the first week of June, following the Beldangi and Mechi Bridge incidents, concluded that the grounds for an armed struggle were ripening. The meeting also decided to launch a 'People's War' at the earliest. Following this, CPB has intensified its activities in all the seven refugee camps. The party has been organizing cultural programmes and closed-door meetings to indoctrinate more refugees for the upcoming 'People's War.'

In this backdrop, the Maoists have maintained a low profile while expanding the party network on a war footing. They have succeeded in drawing huge numbers of disgruntled refugees to their block. These new breed of leaders, unlike hitherto known leaders, are little known but they are spirited youths mostly from a teaching background. While the number of full time party members is still a matter of conjecture, what is obvious is that the party leadership has been rapidly expanding its network.

Since the party is underground, most of its activities are undertaken through its sister organizations. All Bhutan Revolutionary Student Association, its student wing, was formed shortly after the announcement of CPB MLM. Similarly, All Bhutan Women Association was announced just two weeks after the formation of its student wing. All Bhutan Republic Youth Association, all Bhutan Teachers' Association, All Bhutan Peasants' Association, All Bhutan People's Cultural Forum are other sister organizations of the party.
CPB has also adopted the strategy to form independent or literary groups to spread its ideology. The now defunct Communist Study Center led by a refugee from Goldhap camp (who was adept at oratory skills) active in 2003 was one such group.

CPB MLM has also been involved in collecting funds. News sources say, the party has collected donations from Bhutanese teachers working in private schools and plus-two colleges in Kathmandu. Similarly, the party has urged Bhutanese working in INGOs and donor agencies to contribute 5 per cent of their salary. Sources claim the party has been able to collect approximately 14 lakh rupees, some of which was spent on purchasing arms.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/features/feature2007-8-30/3.jpgOrganizing cultural programmes is another way to collect money for the party. All Bhutan People's Cultural Forum organized a cultural programme and a drama titled 'Paristhiti Le Janmaeko Lakshya' (Goal Created by Circumstances) at the Nepal Academy in Kathmandu on May 10, 2007. More than thirty thousand rupees was collected from the tickets of the show and from the sales of the album 'Bidroha Ka Jhilkaharu' (Sparks of Rebellion).

Preparing for 'People's War'

The first national conference of CPB MLM (from January 31 to February 3, 2006) devised an ideological and technical outline for a 'People's War.' According to a party press release, the conference approved the manifesto and the programme and policies of the party. The conference, according to the release, "broke all the large and bulky party committees into a sophisticated one to make a unified force."

The conference also elected Vikalpa General Secretary until the second national conference. "The most important decision was to make party military oriented and military party oriented," argues Vikalpa.

Bhutanese Maoists have followed the strategies adopted by Nepali Maoists. The protracted People's War is divided into three strategic phases: defense, balance and counter attack. Defense is again divided into three sub-phases: preparation, commencement and continuation. Among these, the party is still in its first phase. The preparation phase is again divided into four phases: ideological, organizational, technical and related to struggle. Among these, they have started the propaganda machine through cultural programmes, production of people oriented musical albums and pamphlets and posters. Party mouthpieces such as Vidhyarthi Pratirodh and Naulo Awaj also serve their purpose.

CPB MLM has also applied Chinese leader Mao's doctrine: 'encircling city from village.' It has stressed the formation of an armed force to implement the doctrine. Vikram, one of CPB leaders, says they plan to create a guerilla force that will be technically able to carry out defensive attacks, which, in his words, "will crush the enemy's forces while defending our forces."

What is the military strength? Vikalpa says, "We have a few old and homemade guns. However, our fighters are not trained for hi-tech war. We believe in getting trained in the course of war." He adds, "There cannot be a better training field than the working area."

Made in Bhutan

CPB MLM's working area is none other than Bhutanese soil. Apart from refugee camps, Bhutanese leaders are active in Damak and Birtamode of Jhapa and Siliguri (West Bengal), Sikkim, Darjeeling and Assam in India. They also frequent Kathmandu in order to propagate and collect funds. But they are trying to focus their activities mainly inside Bhutan. CPB leaders claim that theirs is the only party established inside Bhutan. The Central Committee of CPB MLM has five commands (four commands operate in Bhutan and one in the refugee camp). More than one lakh refugees are languishing in the camps while one lakh and eighty thousand Lhotsampas (Nepali speaking Southern Bhutanese) are in Bhutan.

Penetration by its cadres inside Bhutan and their mobilization has been a top Maoist priority. The result: three districts namely Tashigang, Samdrup Jonkhar and Samchi are now Maoist hotbeds. Bhutan's geographical situation (65 percent forest and 80 percent mountainous and hill region), says CPB, is suitable for guerrilla warfare.

Sources say, the party plans to start a 'People's War' from the northern districts of Yangtse, Tashigang and Mongar where the state has a minimum presence. These districts share a porous border with Arunachal state of India, which China claims as its own. The Sarchops (ethnic Bhutanese of the East) are the majority in that region. Sarchops account for 33 percent of the total population and they are coming under the influence of CPB MLM. Sarchop Mukti Morcha, a sister organization of CPB was formed a few months ago. Another organization called Gorkha Rastriya Mukti Morcha led by Amar Chhetri (which demands six southern districts be declared Gorkha Pradesh) has close ties with the Maoists.

However, an analyst warns that the idea to launch the war from the southern stronghold of Lhotsamaps might be counterproductive. The Druk regime has been terrorizing south Bhutan for years. As a result, that part has become an epicentre of rebellion since the early 90s when one lakh Nepali speaking Bhutanse were forced to leave their homeland.

Bhutan State Congress (est. 1952), led by DB Gurung, pioneered the rebellion in 1954 from Sarbhang district of South Bhutan. Interestingly, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala had also taken part in the democratic movement in Bhutan in the early 1950s. He disclosed the fact in his memoir published in Nepal Weekly Magazine (Aug 20-26, 2007). CPB MLM invokes Mahashur Chhetri, killed in 1954 uprising, as an inspiration for their cause.

Nepal Connection

As mentioned above, Bhutanese Maoists have largely drawn the strategy and tactics from Nepali Maoists. Bhutanese comrades have maintained a rapport with the Nepali Maoists since its inception. Nepali Maoists, sources say, provided ideological and material assistance to them. Senior leaders of CPN (M) imparted training on firearms and ideological and cultural issues. With both parties being members of the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPASA), it's easier for them to cooperate, sources privy to the Maoists say. CPB MLM actively participated in an international seminar organized by CPN M between December 26 and 30, 2006.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/features/feature2007-8-30/5.jpg

If CPN Maoist enters mainstream politics shunning violence, they might only share ideological grounds. Nevertheless, if the Constituent Assembly polls did not take place and they adopted a policy of rebellion, relations between these parties might extend to the level of material cooperation. CPB also maintains close ties with the Communist Party of India Maoist.

Violence out of Compulsion?

The Bhutanese refugee stalemate is the main base where CPB aims to launch a 'People's War.' Scholars had predicted that if the refugee impasse remained for a long time, the youths would be drawn to violence. Aruni John, a Sri Lankan scholar, in her research published by Colombo-based think-tank Regional Centre for Strategic Studies as early as August 2000 wrote, "It is likely that the unemployed Bhutanese refugee youths in Nepal will shortly become potential recruits for militant forces that currently destabilized northeast India, southern Bhutan and eastern Nepal."

She concluded, "Frustration with a legal process between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal that appears to be going nowhere, a splintered refugee leadership, a seemingly uncompromising Bhutanese monarchy, and the lack of future options may push these refugee youth to turn to militancy." Many Bhutanese leaders opine that the Bhutan government should take the responsibility for the plight of the refugees. Teknath Rizal, Chairman of Bhutanese Movement Steering Committee, says, "Every person has a limit of tolerance. If that limit is crossed, one is compelled to resort to arms."

The main reasons behind the formation of CPB are the frustration and anger due to the protracted refugee crisis. But will politics of violence be successful? A Bhutanese human rights leader has a few caveats. He says it is problematic for an underground party to wage a war in Bhutan due to the small size and the sparse population of the country. He recollects the arrest of 39 Bhutanese following a cultural programme organized by Maoists in May.

Bhutan with a population of seven lakh and fifty thousand has nearly 22 thousand security forces including the Royal Bhutan Army, Royal Bodyguard and Royal Bhutan Police. Approximately 20 thousand Indian Army personnel are currently stationed in Bhutan. The soldiers are said to be kept in Bhutan for military training, road construction and other development works. This heavy military presence makes it difficult for CPB MLM to launch a 'People's War.' Probably taking its cue from this scenario, CPB has asked other political parties to launch a joint struggle against monarchy. A recent press release undersigned by Vikalpa reads, "We request all the political parties to form a unified front to fight against Bhutan's monarchy, the common enemy of all democratic forces."

Thinley Penjor, chairman of Druk National Congress (DNC), while admitting that the DNC and CPB cadres in Bhutan are working jointly at local levels, hinted at the possibility of unity at the central level. Nepali Maoist leaders had advised Bhutanese Maoists to work with other stakeholders. Ram Karki, chief of Bhutan desk in the International Bureau of CPN M, says, "The Bhutanese movement will succeed only if it joins hands with DNC and BPP (Bhutan People's Party)."

India's Role

Maoist leader Gaurav says, "It's easy to start an armed struggle in Bhutan because the government is very weak. But, it may have to face the military strength of India." Bhutan, surrounded by Indian states fighting an insurgency for decades, is a strategically important region. "That's why," he says, "India will try to prevent a 'People's War.'" Like Nepal, it is sandwiched between China and India. CPB has a nexus with ULFA and Bodo, separatist outfits operating in northeast India.

When Nepal's Maoist conflict reached its apogee, India termed it a common security threat for both countries. If such a Maoist conflict spawns in Bhutan, it will definitely be a trilateral (Bhutan, Nepal and India) issue. "Bhutanese Maoists have to directly confront Indian security forces," says Ram Karki, central member of CPN M.

Indian interest in Bhutan is manifold. However, bilateral treaties bind Bhutan with its southern neighbour. According to the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty of 1949, India has the prerogative over the issues of foreign affairs and security of Bhutan. The treaty was amended in February this year. Firstly, Article 2 has been rephrased and the term 'guided by the advice by GOI' has been replaced by 'friendly cooperation' in the context of Bhutan's foreign relations. Secondly, Article 6 has been revised to the extent that Bhutan can act independently in importing non-lethal equipment, but will still have to go by India's assistance and approval for import of arms, ammunition, machines and warlike materials and stores for Bhutan's welfare and protection. Though, there seems to be some changes in theory, India still plays in practice a significant role in the security and foreign relations of the Druk regime.

India's special relation with Bhutan has irked Bhutanese refugee leaders. Bhutanese leader Teknath Rizal says, "Aren't the issues raised in Terai and ours the same? Why does India keep mum over our issue?" India's diplomatic reticence is obvious given its involvement in hydropower projects and military training in Bhutan. India has established a Military Training Team (IMTRAT) in Ha district of Bhutan. The Indian army is also active in Bhutan under the name of the General Road Task Force.

In early 2003, the Royal Bhutan Army with assistance from the Indian army flushed out the insurgents operating in northeastern India from their base in southern Bhutan. The separatist outfits, United Liberation Front of Assam, National Democratic Front of Bodoland and Kamatapur Liberation Organization, once welcomed by the royal government, were later perceived as threats to the state. But three years after getting rid of the Indian insurgents, the government is likely to confront homegrown militants.

This confrontation can largely be traced to the refugee problem created by Bhutan itself almost two decades ago. In this scenario enters the United States with a proposal to resettle sixty thousand refugees. This proposal, sources say, surfaced after the US detected growing extremism in the refugee camps. Australia and Canada have also shown willingness to take in a few thousand refugees.

But, the advocates of third country settlement have been targeted by the Maoists. Two camp secretaries of Beldangi camp, Hari Adhikari Bangaley and Manorath Khanal, have been frequently assaulted over the last three months. Sources say Maoist cadres were involved in the incidents. The CPB MLM took part in the 'Long March' movement to return home in May this year. A press release of the party dated June 7, 2007 reads, "The organizations privy to our party had to lead the movement in Mechi Bridge due to the failure of the National Front for Democracy."

In the same release, the party has vowed to start an armed struggle. It remains to be seen whether CPB MLM will be confined to mere press releases or carry out yet another 'People's War' in the subcontinent.

[quirk]

"No power can stop people's war" - Vikalp

http://www.apfanews.com/interview/images/130087486__1501100_rebel701768_pwg300.jpg

Communists Party of Bhutan, Marxists-Leninists-Maoists (CPB-MLM), established in the mid 2001 and come into public in 2003, has time and again stated that it would lead 'peoples' war' in Bhutan to uproot the absolute regime and thereafter establish 'peoples' government' in this himalayan kingdom. CPB-MLM is extensively accused of being responsible towards creating havoc inside camps in Jhapa where the exiled Bhutanese have been living. In response to mailed questionnaire of T P Mishra of Bhutan News Service (BNS), the party's General Secretary 'Vikalpa' said his party's mission would continue in under any circumstances to what he said was to establish people's rights. Excerpts:

BNS: Why you felt the need to establish Communist Party in Bhutan?

Vikalp: Where there is suppression, there is revolt. Where there is revolt, it explodes the empire of suppression into pieces and creates the exploitation free society. But to initiate the revolt, a revolutionary party is necessary. Again, to establish a revolutionary party, a revolutionary ideology is necessary. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is only that ideology in this 21st century. For this very reason, we thought of establishing Communist Party in Bhutan. Not only that, the old parties and organizations have reduced themselves into "Manpower Companies" and were engaged in sending their cadres to the foreign lands. They were involved in such works for their selfish dream. This also polarized the cadres into two groups, viz. pro-Bhutan and pro-US. We didn't see the authenticity of revolution without establishing communist party, which is a common institution of freedom loving people in Bhutan and revolutionary exiled Bhutanese, representing the 95 percent down trodden people. Hence, we decided it correct, to establish the Communist Party in Bhutan Marxists-Leninists-Maoists.

BNS: What your party is doing at this period?

Vikalp: At present, the country is in the hand of 5 percent Royal feudalists whereas, our party represents 95 percent of the down trodden people. Hence, our party wants to snatch the state-power from the 5 percent Royal feudalists and handover it to the 95 percent peasants and working class. It is only possible through the 'world shaking gigantic revolution' based on political conscience. Thus, CPB (MLM) is seriously engaged to uplift the political conscience and to fulfill the basic necessity of revolution into the people at this period.

BNS: Why is the CPB (MLM) creating havoc inside camps where exiled Bhutanese live?

Vikalp: Our party is not creating havoc inside the camps. The way the Bhutanese regime created 'silent state terrorism' and tried to accuse the justice loving people as terrorist, in the same way, the agents of domestic feudalism and world imperialism from within the camps, by launching anti-national movement against the national movement of the people, and creating havoc among the nationalists (people who love to return Bhutan), they are trying to accuse the nationalist sentiments (pure Bhutanese people) as the terrorists. They are the enemy of the people and it is the symbol of their low graded conspiracy. These renegades have, somehow, created confusion in some media as well. Bhutanese people will never forgive them.

BNS: What is your party's stand on the US offer of third country resettlement?

Vikalp: At present, the incidents in camps are dramatic. Before the establishment of the CPB (MLM), no party was much concerned with the problem faced by the exiled Bhutanese. But, after its establishment in 2001 and formal declaration in 2003, not only trembled the monarchical system in Bhutan but also brought dramatic changes in the version of India and the US too, regarding the Bhutanese issue. The version of the US diplomat for South Asia, Julia Taft, in the past years and of the Indian security high officer Mr. Brajesh Mishra, on Bhutanese problem, could be traced as the good examples. As a result, the domestic feudalism and the world imperialism, have collectively, been hatching conspiracies to encircle and smash the Bhutanese movement by creating their agents from within exiled Bhutanese community.

The domestic feudalism and the world imperialism, particularly the US, are not only worried but greatly feared to see the people oriented programs and progress of CPB (MLM). They consider the camps as the cadre building centre of CPB (MLM). But they are isolated from the party's activity inside Bhutan due to their metaphysical thought. That is why they want to dismantle the camps by tempting for dollars and jobs abroad. Since it is not possible to carry out such activities by the royal elites and the US personnel, they are making use of compradors those who could be bought in terms of money. This has been proved by the pro-US activities of the so-called some of the leaders of the past who were providing leadership in the democratic struggle.

Consequently, sometimes the innocent people in the camps are prompted to fill-up the forms secretly to go abroad for jobs and handsome salary and sometimes they create havoc and instigate incidents through their compradors and try to blame our party. Sometimes they even misinterpret the media and push them towards the 'yellow journalism'. They are prompting CPB (MLM) cadres to commit some mistakes on which they can create terror among the people and separate us from the masses giving all its blame to the CPB (MLM). In other words, they are trying to pull the party in a deciding war and smash it in a budding stage. This has polarized the people in the camps into a handful of pro-US elements and pro-democratic Bhutanese groups. Although it has a little negative impact now, it has served a great in the Bhutanese revolution by making clear distinction between the foe and friends.

BNS: Is it possible to make your party cadres (who are in exile) to reach inside Bhutan?

Vikalp: "Where there is will, there is a way" is an old saying in our community. If the commitment is from the inner core of the heart, nothing can obstruct it. Moreover, CPB (MLM) is the first and only party which has been formed within Bhutan. Most of its cadres are already engaged within Bhutan. It is the main aspect of our revolution. Bhutanese living in camp in exile is only the supplementary aspect.

BNS: How does this party see the future of people inside Bhutan?

Vikalp: There is no future of the Bhutanese people unless the downfall of the absolute monarchy. Around 50 percent of the southern Bhutanese, including Sadhri speaking and Tshangla speaking people, have been scheduled F-4 and F-5 in the new census program which was conducted a few months ago depriving them from the Citizenship Rights and the enrolment of the names in official records. They have no rights to claim for any kind of state facilities. It has been unveiled that the conspiracy has been hatched to evict them from the country.

BNS: When will your party declare to what you call 'Civil War'?

Vikalp: It is not the Civil War but the 'Protracted People's War' that our great and glorious party CPB (MLM) is preparing for. But the policy of fusing of the nation's freedom movement and the class struggle has been made public, for its effective advancement. If there is foreign interference, it may take the form of National War, in which a national front can be formed against the foreign element even with the state power (monarchy), including all other parties and organizations. But if state power (monarchy) deceives, at last, there will remain no option other than the Civil War for safeguarding sovereignty of Bhutan and Bhutanese people.

BNS: Does this party have any connections with radical forces in Nepal and India?

Vikalp: CPB (MLM) is not a parasite and it does not believe in foreign aided movement. It is a self supported party and sets forth the example in its own creativity. As far the relation with the so-called radical forces in Nepal and India, we don't have any connection with them. But from among the communist forces, there is moral support, since we have the common ideological ground.

BNS: How much area is under your party's influence inside Bhutan?

Vikalp: Our party successfully carried out the programs of wall painting, pestering, pamphletting, hosting of flags and cross-road and closed room meetings in 16 districts out of 20 in Bhutan and in all the seven camps in exile at a time, when it was declared in April 22, 2003. This reflects the influence and capability of this proletariat party. After that, in the course of nearly four years, our party, both quantitatively and qualitatively, has made its strong hold in the masses. But it is not the right time to disclose in how many districts we owe the strongholds. We will disclose it, too, when time ripens.

BNS: What are your party's strategies to overcome Indian intervention, which is certain?

Vikalp: Though the people of India are on our favor, the feudalist monarchical system of Bhutan is backed by the Indian expansionists and world imperialists because of which our party has been providing orientation to party cadres to remain prepared mentally from now onwards to face those two powers later while combating the absolute monarchy. It is already mentioned above that the war may take the form of National War, Civil War if the situation demands. We are well equipped with the scientific war-art of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism of the 21st century because of which the interfering element has to, by any means, downfall if the Civil War breaks out. These sorts of elements have to learn lesson from the past history of Vietnam, China, Cuba and many more. Those elements shall be outraged by the sovereign people of Bhutan.

BNS: Even other political parties formed in exile are opposing the CPB - MLM. Why couldn't your party accommodate under the BMSC?

Vikalp: We have been approaching these parties time and again for a democratic alliance but in vain. We can also produce the copy of our proposal which we have proposed for. But the political parties and organizations in exile don't want, in reality, to sweat for the masses. They just want to beat around the bush. Neither they take us into their front nor do they want us to enter into.

They ought to end such tendency which is inherent within them. As far as BMSC is concerned, the first thing is that it is not clear in its ideological ground. The other thing, it does not contend the peoples' sentiments. In addition, we were not bothered and kept isolated while it was established. Moreover, we have seen the BMSC like an organization of the evicted Bhutanese confined only in the paper works in exile. There is no meaning of making alliance with those elements that confine themselves within the paper works and isolate themselves from the People's War fearing state suppression.

We strongly proclaim that no other political party, except CPB (MLM), has any hold in Bhutan and we are not in favor of alliance with those elements who confine their struggle only in exile. If the BMSC is set for the cause of people inside Bhutan, then it has to reduce its distance with CPB (MLM) and make ready for both legal and illegal struggle. It is because the objective and subjective condition of Bhutan is in such a state that no progress can be achieved without the application of force. There will be a real meaning in the alliance between the CPB (MLM) and the BMSC, only if the latter comes forward for such alternative.

BNS: How do you see the proposed 2008 election in Bhutan?

Vikalp: There seems no legitimacy in conducting election by compelling the anti-people constitution by means of application of force. In past, when there was no constitution, there was illegal autocracy but from 2008 onwards, there will be legal autocracy (over the people) under the veil of constitutional monarchy. This election has no other meaning than to eye-wash the international community.

BNS: Why has movement for democracy in Bhutan always failed? How much optimistic is your party towards establishing democracy in Bhutan?

Vikalp: There are many reasons behind the failure of movement for democracy in Bhutan but 'poverty of ideology' is the main thing among them. Chairman Mao-Tse-Tung has said that all things are determined by the righteousness and wrongness of the ideology. If the ideology is correct, all requisites will be fulfilled one by one but if it is incorrect, the thing in possession will also be lost in the course of time. The same thing is reflected in Bhutanese revolution.

Old political parties and organizations have been lambed due to the lack of correct ideology and tactics. Neither they enjoy the people's support nor do they possess any military might. They have been lost in the maze failing to recognize the basic components of the Bhutanese revolution. The feudalist monarchical system has been humiliating over Bhutanese democratic struggle because of these sorts of shortcomings. But CPB (MLM), based on the scientific ground of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, has been formed to stop such activities and to provide correct direction in the Bhutanese revolution. It has truly recognized the basic components of Bhutanese revolution and provided correct direction towards building a new and beautiful Bhutan.

It will be crystal clear if 'five synthesis and the three directives on Bhutanese revolution' produced on and recommended by the historic 9th CC meet, is seen. It is the correct handling of the correct situation. Since our party is based on the correct ideological ground and enjoys the mass support from the people, we are in full hope that our party should play the leading role in establishing the peoples' government and making them the real owner of the country.

BNS: How can you claim, you can be victorious?

Vikalp: Revolution in Bhutan is not a vested responsibility of a single party. All the political parties, organizations and individuals, those who are in favor of the freedom loving people and oppose to absolute monarchy, are suppose to be united in a single platform at this juncture. If the organizational and individual shortcomings (political) of the past could be realized and dare to come under a strong unity, the puppet and the tiny dictator of Bhutan can be made melted like wax. Foreign provocation can also be strongly checked in this kind of struggle.

Since no revolutionary spirit is found in other political parties and organizations, the CPB (MLM) has been playing a leading role in building such democratic front. Though some of the political parties have not responded yet, on such subject proposed by our party, I heartily call upon them, on behalf of CPB (MLM), to come in time for such a glorious start, without any vested interest and doubt, for the absolute change in the soil of Bhutan. CPB (MLM) has also faxed a very flexible demand letter to the king of Bhutan, recently. I, once more, warm heartedly suggest him to consider the matter seriously and release the government version in time. If it is considered as our weakness, then the 'state-power' has to be ready to face any circumstances meted. No power can stop the people's struggle for justice and change. Any reactionary forces would be swept away by the cyclone of the people's struggle.

[RNK]

Thanks tremendously for that, quirk.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by devrimankara+August 26, 2007 08:56 pm--> (devrimankara @ August 26, 2007 08:56 pm)
Left Henry
In Pol-Pot's case, Kampuchea was a fuedal shithole with a repressive absolute monarchy people were treated like slaves to fuedal landlords.

An interesting characterisation of the Khmer Rouge regime for a Maoist. I will assume that is what you are talking about as it wasn't called Kampuchea until 1975.

Devrim [/b]
i meant cambodia pre-rev

[Comrade_Scott]

kick ass power tp the people and the struggle against the imperialist swine may the revolution in Bhutan be short and a decisive victory to the left cause..... now if only i could help them out *sigh*