The Maoists are prevailing in Nepal!

[The Red Scare]

I'm surprised I couldn't find a thread on this yet (sorry if I missed it). This is a huge victory for anyone who considers themselves a proponent of 21st century socialism.

Although the vote tally is not yet complete, all trend shows that so far the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is routing all opposition. Both the Nepali Congress and the revisionist Communist Party of Nepal (UML) are being crushed in districts they had taken for granted. The Maoists may even win an absolute majority of seats in the constitutional assembly, which will give them a huge mandate to revolutionize Nepalese society.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the political situation in Nepal, and the guerrilla war that the Maoists waged against the monarchy over the past decade, I highly recommend reading this Monthly Review article by John Mage: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0507mage.htm

---

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Nepal_election_Maoists_emerge_major_force/articleshow/2945246.cms

Nepal election: Maoists emerge major force
11 Apr 2008, 1817 hrs ISThttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/images/spacer.gif,http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/images/spacer.gifIANS

KATHMANDU: A ragged group of people who dreamt impossible dreams and dared to take on Nepal's powerful army with homemade guns and bombs, Nepal's Maoist guerrillas established themselves as a formidable force in the 90s when they prevented elections and inflicted punishing losses on the security forces.

Two years after they laid down their guns and marched back to parliament they had derisively branded a "meat shop", the rebels have proved to be an equally formidable political force with the historic constituent assembly elections unexpectedly showing their support.

As counting started amid tight security in 239 constituencies, the trends indicated that while the capital had voted conservatively, returning Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's Nepali Congress (NC) party in most of the 10 seats, the guerrillas were emerging as giant killers in some while sweeping the electorate in the west.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), once the second largest force in the country after the NC, were routed ruthlessly, paying dearly for their failure to have reached a poll alliance with the Maoists.

However, in a country of surprises, there was still scope for unexpected results with counting yet to start in the hilly regions, considered NC strongholds, and in the east where two debutant ethnic parties are expected to challenge the supremacy of the ruling alliance.

The NC tasted the first victory when former physical planning and works minister Prakash Man Singh, a son of Ganesh Man Singh, one of Nepal's most revered freedom fighters, won with overwhelming majority in constituency one humbling current minister for physical education and sports Pradeep Nepal of the UML.

It was a heady moment for Singh, who was jailed for graft during King Gyanendra's absolute rule before being freed by Nepal's supreme court in a landmark judgement that signalled the end of the royal regime.

However, the Maoists were leading in three Kathmandu seats, including constituency two, considered a UML fortress from where UML chief and deputy PM Madhav Kumar Nepal himself was contending.

A little-known Maoist candidate Jhakku Prasad Subedi was leading convincingly, causing stunned disbelief among the ruling parties.

In Kathmandu 10, Maoist chief Prachanda, making his poll debut in a political career of three decades, was leading.

The UML was ahead only in two seats in the capital.

In neighbouring Lalitpur city, Maoists were leading in one seat and the NC in the other while counting was yet to start in the third.

It was a moment of jubilation for Maoist minister for women, children and social welfare Pampa Bhushal, striding ahead of her UML rival former minister Raghuji Pant, who had won the earlier election from Lalitpur 2.

The remote districts in western Nepal, the "land of the disappeared" where the decade of "People's War" led to a stunningly high number of disappearances, arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial killings by security forces, rejected the traditional parties to embrace the Maoists.

Maoists were leading on all four seats in Bardiya district and in three seats in Dang, considered a Maoist stronghold.

Among the frontrunners in Dang is Maoist minister for information and communications Krishna Bahadur Mahara.

In the tourist district of Chitwan, famed for its rhino park, Maoist strategist Ram Bahadur Thapa aka Badal was leading the race on one seat with the NC and UML leading in one seat each.

Even in Palpa district, the site of a devastating attack by the Maoists during the last days of King Gyanendra's rule, the Maoists were well ahead.

In Banke, the Maoists were leading in one seat with two others favouring the new ethnic party, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum.

The debutant party was poised to humble in seat 3 Sushil Koirala, prime minister Koirala's cousin, and deputy chief of the NC.

The Maoists were also leading in seats in Makwanpur and Nawalparasi.

As Maoists routed communists, only a small localised left party stood its ground.

The Nepal Workers and Peasants Party (NWPP), a minor partner in the ruling alliance, held its traditional bastion Bhaktapur town in Kathmandu valley defending it stoutly against both the NC and Maoists.

NWPP chief Narayan Man Bijukchhe was winning from constituency one while his lieutenant Sunil Prajapati was leading over his nearest rival NC man Lekhnath Neupane in constituency two.

[RNK]

A few more numbers:

Last tally from reports from Saturday afternoon indicate that of the 40 constituencies that have so far been officially declared, the CPN(M) had won 20 of them, and according to preliminary reports from about 100 other constituencies which have not yet been officially declared, the Maoists were leading in over 50 of them.

All reports indicate that at the very least the CPN(M) is headed for a minority government, with a very strong chance of a majority in the constituent assembly.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is positive - but if the Maoists are able to attain power, they may choose to moderate their demands and make concessions to private capital.

In interviews Prachanda has suggested that he supports an extended period of capitalism before a transition to Socialism so as to allow for the development of the productive forces, because Socialism is not possible at Nepal's current level of development.

This is indicative of Maoism's "stageist" approach to historical change, and shows a failure to recognize that development is not possible within the constraints of capitalism for nations that have only recently emerged from feudalism. As Trotsky recognized, the bourgeoisie in oppressed nations is not capable of carrying out the historic task of industrial development, such that only the proletariat, by using a planned economy and through cooperation with the peasantry, can establish the material prerequisites of Communism. Therefore it is essential that the Maoists are not restricted to bourgeois-democratic objectives, but should instead extend their demands and so create a permanent revolution.

The fact that the Maoists were not successful in the capital (relative to their dominance in the countryside) suggests that they have not gained the support of the working class, the social base of the party is the peasantry - and the peasantry is, as a class, not capable of leading a socialist revolution.

I don't want to twist this thread into a "stageist" debate, but this is a major issue for me. However, I still welcome the show of public support for the Maoists as they are, in general, a progressive force - although there were also some reports of voter intimidation in the period before the elections.

[RNK]

Can you make one post without dropping the T-Bomb?

You really ought to change your name from "Trotskyist" to "Trotsky's Witnesses".

What Prachanda has suggested is that a republicanism model is in his mind more appropriate for Nepal at this stage in its development. As for this stagist crap, besides the fact that you're trying to imply it as a sell-out to capitalism, it's both retarded and indicative that "as Trotsky recognized" industrial development can occur purely through straight socialism. What Trotsky failed to realize, being a child of the first world, is that development can not simply be conjured up out of thin air through the virtue of a population of workers willing it to be, particularly in a country where virtually all of the economy is foreign-owned by the world's largest imperialist country just a stone's throw from Kathmandu.

Anyway, I'm not surprised. I mean, you can have one guy who's been in power for 8 years and still hasn't enacted a planned economy or collectivization, and you guys will cheer for him until your throats are coarse. But when another, a Maoist, "suggests" that capitalism won't (and can't) be swept away overnight, you're all "Trotsky said this" and "Trotsky recognized that". Trotsky died 70 years ago, and Mao 35 years ago; neither was capable of predicting the material conditions of the future, particularly from a little shack in the middle of Mexico.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is exciting news! Cyprus, Nepal, Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia are all stunning successes on part of the Left. Now if it would only translate in the developed world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is positive - but if the Maoists are able to attain power, they may choose to moderate their demands and make concessions to private capital.

In interviews Prachanda has suggested that he supports an extended period of capitalism before a transition to Socialism so as to allow for the development of the productive forces, because Socialism is not possible at Nepal's current level of development.

This is indicative of Maoism's "stageist" approach to historical change, and shows a failure to recognize that development is not possible within the constraints of capitalism for nations that have only recently emerged from feudalism. As Trotsky recognized, the bourgeoisie in oppressed nations is not capable of carrying out the historic task of industrial development, such that only the proletariat, by using a planned economy and through cooperation with the peasantry, can establish the material prerequisites of Communism. Therefore it is essential that the Maoists are not restricted to bourgeois-democratic objectives, but should instead extend their demands and so create a permanent revolution.

Somebody didn't bother to read Lenin's speech on The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's Mistakes. :( :glare:

Both "permanent revolution" and "new democracy" are utter crock when compared to the historically validated RDDOTPP. :)


You really ought to change your name from "Trotskyist" to "Trotsky's Witnesses".

:laugh:

Does that mean he has to oppose blood transfusions, too? :laugh:


Now if it would only translate in the developed world.

I'm afraid that the first steps to this translation will have to be "KAUTSKYIST" (in the pre-renegade sense, so that's basically synonymous with the entirety of the word "Marxist" :p ) in character.

[BobKKKindle$]

What Trotsky failed to realize, being a child of the first world, is that development can not simply be conjured up out of thin air through the virtue of a population of workers willing it to be, particularly in a country where virtually all of the economy is foreign-owned by the world's largest imperialist country just a stone's throw from Kathmandu.Development cannot occur when a country's resources are owned by a firm which is based outside of that country's borders, because the profits generated from the sale of these resources do not remain within the country where they are extracted, they return to the home country of the firm. The import of manufactured goods from other countries means that developing countries are also unable to progress beyond the production of a small range of primary goods, which attain a low value on the world market and also tend to undergo sudden fluctuations in price. These, and other constraints, make capitalist development impossible. The "stageist" approach to revolution is based on the assumption that development is possible under capitalism, that capitalism is required for development - this shows a failure to adapt Marx's economics to the conditions of the global south, where, unlike the developed countries in the early stages of the capitalist epoch, capitalism is not a progressive force in any way. Capitalism has always been an impediment to development in the global south, such that development can only occur under a non-capitalist economic system.

If this property is nationalized, the government will be able to use the profits for a program of planned economic development. This, in combination with other measures, such as import tariffs, will break the system of dependency which prevents development in the global south.

Prachanda clearly does aim to restrict the "revolution" to limited democratic goals. In an interview with the UK-based newspaper The Telegraph he said that “We will create a conducive atmosphere to have more profit for the capitalist. We are not going to do anything else than that.” This is synonymous with selling-out to capitalism. "Stageism" is also the root of the Maoist preference for popular fronts - and all the problems such fronts can entail.

Trotsky alone recognized the causes of underdevelopment in the global south and his basic position has been supported by the dependency school (Andre Gunder Frank et al.) of development analysis. As such, Trotskyism is the most revolutionary form of analysis for the developing world.


I mean, you can have one guy who's been in power for 8 years and still hasn't enacted a planned economy or collectivization, and you guys will cheer for him until your throats are coarseChavez is a left-populist politician, Venezuela lacks a revolutionary party.


This is exciting news! Cyprus, Nepal, Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia are all stunning successes on part of the Left. Now if it would only translate in the developed world.I would hardly include Cyprus and Bolivia in a list of "stunning successes" as the governments in these countries use socialism only as an ideology to gain popular legitimacy, they are not revolutionary. Lenin warned against giving movements a "communist coloration".


Somebody didn't bother to read Lenin's speech on The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's MistakesI've not yet read it - but will do when I have the time.

[RHIZOMES]

Yeah I share bobkindle's concerns, since they've been ELECTED via bourgeoisie-capitalist means, they may be a tad... defanged.

[Saorsa]

The fact that the Maoists were not successful in the capital (relative to their dominance in the countryside) suggests that they have not gained the support of the working class, the social base of the party is the peasantry - and the peasantry is, as a class, not capable of leading a socialist revolution.


Actually I'm pretty certain the Maoists won most of the seats in Khatmandu, thus proving the success of their tactics for the past two years in extending their support from the countryside into the urban areas.

Prachanda has said, as far as I am aware, that he favours SOME public-private partnerships, and allowing private, including foreign, capital access to Mepal in order to develop industry. It's hard to see how Nepal could do this any other way, because unlike Russia in 1917 Nepal lacks any kind of heavy industry, and has next to no medium industry either. The Maoists intend to nationalise the commanding heights of the economy.

This is a hugely positive development, and I'm sure the Maoists will do a hell of a lot more with their state power than Chavez has.

[Saorsa]

Btw, I'm not denying that the danger of moderation exists... but I'm hopeful and to a certain extent confident that it can be avoided.

[BobKKKindle$]

This site has live coverage of the elections, but it's written in the Nepalese language - the first party on the list is the Maoist party, which currently has 50 out of 90 seats. The next party is the CPN-UML which has 15 seats, followed by the Congress with a pathetic 14 seats.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/election/2064/


allowing private, including foreign, capital access to Mepal in order to develop industry.To attract foreign investment the government will be forced to create conditions that are desirable to foreign firms and will allow them to produce at a low cost - in other countries this has led to government reducing regulations on labour standards and allowing firms to withdraw their investments with no financial penalties. This process, of competition between developing countries to attract capital, is known as the "race to the bottom" and has created intolerable conditions in factories producing goods for foreign firms.

Is this what we want for Nepal? Reliance on investment will simply deepen Nepal's current status as a neo-colony.

[Wanted Man]

This is very good news. There has been a lot of silence regarding Nepal. For some reason, the RCP is not reporting on it nearly as extensively as it used to. Also, recall the many people on RevLeft sneering at the Maoists' supposed "lack of popular support". The CPN(UML) chose not to work with the Maoists, now look what's happening.

The Wikipedia article on these elections has an amusing quote on the reason for its postponement:


According to some analysts, the Maoists are worried that they lack support and are trying to avoid suffering an embarrassing election defeat at the polls.

:)

[Dros]

While I have been following these elections since October and while I'm thrilled by the results, I still disagree with the CPN(M)'s decision to end the People's War and I am skeptical with regards to the prospect of socialism emerging in Nepal as a consequence of these elections. More likely, this will be a transitional period and they will then win the revolution and establish New Democracy. However, if they win a majority in the CA, they may be able to "write socialism in" to the constitution.

There's a lot going on here and the coming weeks will be interesting to watch.

[RedStarOverChina]

FUCK YEAH!

If you'd been reading the Western media you'd think no one was gonna vote the Maoists.

[bootleg42]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120809376783810839.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

^^^If the wall street journal is saying it, it's true.

Also this quote pissed me off:


And while the top tier of the Maoist movement has recently voiced support for democracy and market economics, that political rhetoric hasn't been road-tested.

I always hated the way western papers always try to put together "market economics" and democracy.

I'm not a Maoist and I know that they're (along with a huge majority of the left) very dogmatic, but I wish them luck and I hope this turns into a nightmare for the capitalists and I hope it means better and the best for the peasants, workers, and poor of Nepal.

[bootleg42]

I would hardly include Cyprus and Bolivia in a list of "stunning successes" as the governments in these countries use socialism only as an ideology to gain popular legitimacy, they are not revolutionary. Lenin warned against giving movements a "communist coloration".

Whoa!!! Bolivia is not a "stunning success"????? Have you been there???? It's probably one of the best examples of democracy this decade. There are a shitload of poor people, they held an election where the issues actually came up (the gas, poverty, exclusion of the indigenous and black people), and they elected one of their own (a poor union leader from the mountains with no college education). And no one said that situation was communist. It's a democratic revolution that's happening there of no specific ideology.

I don't know about Cyprus. I don't have enough information about it so I can't make a comment on it.

Maybe the problem here is dogma on the left??? I hope this is not the case.

[AGITprop]

It's a democratic revolution that's happening there of no specific ideology.

Maybe the problem here is dogma on the left??? I hope this is not the case.

Bourgeois democracy does not equate to success.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What were you expecting, a worldwide revolution to occur tomorrow? Regardless if the Maoists pursue communism or social democracy from the outstart - they are producing remarkable change. It would be remarkably naive to just look to surpass capitalist development. Nepal barely has any industry.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Their victory, no matter how halfhearted their measures are, would be a blow to Anglo-American interests, not only in Nepal, but in all of Southeast Asia.

Prachanda, however, wants to build Nepal into a cheap labour platform for foreign and local investors. He has addressed the Nepal National Mawari Council with promises of strengthening capitalist development, with no promises of nationalization of certain key industries. Prachanda's deputy, Bhattarai, explained that "after the political revolution is over" a "economic revolution will begin." It seems that 'socialism' is not on the agenda by the CPN(M), and that they have betrayed the democratic and national struggle of the rural poor and urban working class of Nepal.

After the Maoist victory, 'liberated' Nepal will no longer be a tourist destination for the U.S. and India, and though statification of the productive forces will not be carried out, special economic zones and a degree of financial independence will break their semi-colonial, sub-national status.

There is no doubt that the Nepalese Revolution is a bourgeois democratic-revolution, but this is a progressive objective that all Marxists should recognize as necessary.

[Cheung Mo]

Against opposition from revisionist and monarchists and against years of American and Chinese state terrorism against the people of Nepal, victory is still rising.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080413/ap_on_re_as/nepal_elections;_ylt=ApRC4dgIorAKEQY6SlZ99FQBxg8F


Nepal's former communist rebels picked up more seats Sunday as they extended their lead in early returns from elections that will shape the Himalayan nation's political future.

The Maoists — labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. — secured 61 seats out of 115 in constituencies where counting was complete and were leading in most other areas where votes were still being tallied, the Election Commission said.

[Die Neue Zeit]

* Should be merged into The Red Scare's thread *

[RNK]

The "stageist" approach to revolution is based on the assumption that development is possible under capitalism, that capitalism is required for development - this shows a failure to adapt Marx's economics to the conditions of the global south, where, unlike the developed countries in the early stages of the capitalist epoch, capitalism is not a progressive force in any way.

Industrialization did not occur in developed countries until capitalism, not before it; European manufacturing was not unlike current standards in Nepal today in terms of nationally-owned capital and its development.

And New Democracy is not Lenin's or Stalin's stagism. New Democracy does not eradicate the bourgeoisie overnight; the fabric of almost every country's economy in the world is intricately tied to national and international capital. This connection is even more acute in developing countries, which have been inundated by foreign investment to the point that the majority of manufacturing and wealth is owned by entities outside of the country. How, exactly, is a country, deeply embroiled in capitalist modes of production, and deeply stricken by investment, supposed to curtail that domination without first being able to nationalize the industries and secure their continued operation and capital generation with masses of unskilled, inexperienced workers and peasants? What New Democracy is is the aim of establishing the first aspects of the transition to socialism in underdeveloped and developing countries to ensure that the fragile economies of those countries do not simply collapse into a vacuum created by the violent expulsion of all foreign investment, by maintaining aspects of the capitalist market with the end goal being the eventual assimilation and destruction of national and international bourgeoisie.

When Trotsky envisioned "permanent revolution" and first put his objections to stagism to paper, the world was a very different place; foreign investment was in its infancy, and the global market had barely begun to penetrate into Africa, Asia and South America. In the 60 years since his death we have seen capital conquer all of the markets of the world to such a degree that any attempt to irrationally and prematurely circumvent it will result in nothing more or less than utter economic devestation.


since they've been ELECTED via bourgeoisie-capitalist means, they may be a tad... defanged.

Do not forget they were ELECTED after fighting for 12 bloody (literal) years, after the sacrifice of thousands of fighters. They did not, like many, simply show up on election day with empty promises of working for the proletariat. They died for those promises.


In an interview with the UK-based newspaper The Telegraph he said that “We will create a conducive atmosphere to have more profit for the capitalist. We are not going to do anything else than that.”

I'm well aware of all of Prachanda's activities as he toured Europe, idolized Swiss republicanism -- this was in the period immediately after the signing of the peace agreement after the King had sacked parliament and declared marshal law. This attitude was in large part responsible for the stir caused in CCOMPOSA and RIM. However, in one of his interviews (it may even be the same one, I seem to recall it being a British paper) he alluded to the fact that the CPN(M), although at the moment appearing to be docile and committed to peaceful parliamentarism, would not hesitate to pick up arms again if the situation called for it, and that attempts to placate the ruling parties (and the international community) with talks of peace were just that.


Trotsky alone recognized...

Alright, if you're done acting like a pompous ass, I don't think anybody (except other Trotkyists) are interested in how you think Trotsky was the smartest man who ever lived. Trotsky died in some shitty little villa in some shitty little country, whereas the men he and his followers have demonized have helped lead major revolutions in society. And please, don't pull the anarchist "lol look how that turned out".


Prachanda has said, as far as I am aware, that he favours SOME public-private partnerships, and allowing private, including foreign, capital access to Mepal in order to develop industry.

What Prachanda and every other revolutionary who has dealt with real revolutionary experience has said is that the machinations of capitalism can not simply be swept away overnight, and this has only become more true since 1917 with the development of the global market. Nepal can not survive if it immediately collectivizes all industry under worker control; socialism must come in transition.


Prachanda's deputy, Bhattarai, explained that "after the political revolution is over" a "economic revolution will begin."

I don't understand how you can read this and think it's some denunciation of socialism; what, exactly, is an economic revolution?

Prachanda needs to secure economic stability for Nepal. By default, victory for the CPN(M) will see a huge drop in foreign investment which could devestate Nepal and plunge it into complete and utter poverty of Haitian levels. The CPN(M) must tread very carefully in the months and years to come; if they pull the rope of change too quickly, it could snap, and the people of Nepal will lose all faith in their revolutionary vanguard. If they pull too slowly, they will drown revolution in reformism.

[RNK]

More news:

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=3259

According to this report, the CPN-UML has decided to quit the government entirely!


Nepal’s namesake Communist Party, the UML (United Marxist Leninist) central committee members have decided to quit the government.

The UML sources have it that the CA poll debacle for the party meant that the party do not have the popular support thus the decision to withdraw from the government.

According to this source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=anS9bDc.Q0aY&refer=asia

The CPN(M) as of Sunday evening had secured 70 seats, compared to the Nepali Congress' (formerly the dominant political party) 21 seats and the CPN-UML's 20 seats.

Lastly, according to this article: http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14648551 posted only a half hour ago, the CPN(M)'s tally is up to 89 seats, with the NC rising to 28 and the UML to 23.

[Janus]

Merged.

[Dimentio]

Development cannot occur when a country's resources are owned by a firm which is based outside of that country's borders, because the profits generated from the sale of these resources do not remain within the country where they are extracted, they return to the home country of the firm. The import of manufactured goods from other countries means that developing countries are also unable to progress beyond the production of a small range of primary goods, which attain a low value on the world market and also tend to undergo sudden fluctuations in price. These, and other constraints, make capitalist development impossible. The "stageist" approach to revolution is based on the assumption that development is possible under capitalism, that capitalism is required for development - this shows a failure to adapt Marx's economics to the conditions of the global south, where, unlike the developed countries in the early stages of the capitalist epoch, capitalism is not a progressive force in any way. Capitalism has always been an impediment to development in the global south, such that development can only occur under a non-capitalist economic system.

If this property is nationalized, the government will be able to use the profits for a program of planned economic development. This, in combination with other measures, such as import tariffs, will break the system of dependency which prevents development in the global south.

Prachanda clearly does aim to restrict the "revolution" to limited democratic goals. In an interview with the UK-based newspaper The Telegraph he said that “We will create a conducive atmosphere to have more profit for the capitalist. We are not going to do anything else than that.” This is synonymous with selling-out to capitalism. "Stageism" is also the root of the Maoist preference for popular fronts - and all the problems such fronts can entail.

Trotsky alone recognized the causes of underdevelopment in the global south and his basic position has been supported by the dependency school (Andre Gunder Frank et al.) of development analysis. As such, Trotskyism is the most revolutionary form of analysis for the developing world.

Chavez is a left-populist politician, Venezuela lacks a revolutionary party.

I would hardly include Cyprus and Bolivia in a list of "stunning successes" as the governments in these countries use socialism only as an ideology to gain popular legitimacy, they are not revolutionary. Lenin warned against giving movements a "communist coloration".

I've not yet read it - but will do when I have the time.

Not that I like capitalism, but is not Prachanda obliged to say that in order to not create panic? Chávez said that he supported privatisations in the 1998 election.

[Herman]

Not that I like capitalism, but is not Prachanda obliged to say that in order to not create panic?

Something which many people here don't understand.

[wes]

More news:

According to this report, the CPN-UML has decided to quit the government entirely!



With the CP-UML withdrawing what happens to the seats they won?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

CPN-(M) now has 110 seats NC has 32 and CPN-UML has 27 MJF has 17 NWPP has 2. This is great news although if the CPN-UML quits the government, that may hurt the maoists as won't this give non-communists in the NC more power ?

[Saorsa]

What Prachanda and every other revolutionary who has dealt with real revolutionary experience has said is that the machinations of capitalism can not simply be swept away overnight, and this has only become more true since 1917 with the development of the global market. Nepal can not survive if it immediately collectivizes all industry under worker control; socialism must come in transition.

I'm not attacking the CPN (M) here, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of them. I agree with what you've said up there.


This is great news although if the CPN-UML quits the government, that may hurt the maoists as won't this give non-communists in the NC more power ?

That's not an issue - The CPN UML are communists only in name, and are no better or worse than the NC is. The Maoists don't need them, and will be better off without them.

[chegitz guevara]

This is very good news. There has been a lot of silence regarding Nepal. For some reason, the RCP is not reporting on it nearly as extensively as it used to.

The reason, dear comrade, is because the CPN(M) decided to fight the people's war by other methods. Avakianism is reductionist, and when the CPN(M) recognized that victory would mean defeat (as Indian and American imperialism would come down on them), Avakian withdrew his rhetorical support (cuz let's face it, we first world commies don't have much influence on our states). Revolution was ordered to stop discussing it. For a couple years, the RCP acted as if Nepal didn't exist. They have started discussing it again recently, most likely as a result of the criticism of Kasama and Kasama's coverage of the South Asian struggles.

----

bobkindles misunderstands permanent revolution. It is not that the bourgeoisie in the colonial world is incapable of carrying out development. The Asian tigers are proof of that. It is that the bourgeoisie in the colonial world has no interest in carrying out the bourgeois democratic revolution. Thus, that task is left to the proletariat to carry out. We have seen this over and over.

Trotsky's leap was to understand that once the proletariat had carried out the bourgeois democratic revolution, rather than hand power over to the bourgeoisie, that they needed to continue the revolution, make it permanent (hence the name), and go forward to a workers' state.

The CPN(M) has a dilemma. They have almost half the population behind them. This is a revolutionary situation. Although they certainly understand the balance of forces better than I, I would be rather inclined to argue they need to take the mandate handed to them and make the revolution permanent.

[Wanted Man]

Comrade, I know the reason*, but I decided not to go on about it, to avoid taking this off-topic. Anyway, I do agree about what you call the CPN(M)'s 'dilemma'. It will be very interesting to see how the situation pans out.

*There seems to be very circumstancial evidence that there was actually a 'withdrawal of support'. But the 2-year radio silence about such an important series of events is damning enough in itself.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Good job to the Maoist in Nepal. I know that western-style capitalism is a nessecary first to advance socialism in the future then to communism.

[Global_Justice]

does anyone know anything about the nepali military? surely after 10 years of fighting the maoists there not going to roll over and let them get into the government without attempting a coup??

[chegitz guevara]

does anyone know anything about the nepali military? surely after 10 years of fighting the maoists there not going to roll over and let them get into the government without attempting a coup??

As Weber noted, no elite has ever handed power over without a fight. If the Nepali comrades are serious about building socialism, the Nepalese military will revolt. The question is, are the comrades ready for this fight?

[RNK]

Some new updates:

As of the latest counting I'm aware of, the Maoists have gained 116 seats total, the Nepali Congress 32 seats and the CPN-UML 28 seats (iirc) in the open vote, of which there are a total of 240 seats to be had -- meaning the Maoists are 4 seats away from a majority.

335 other seats in the Constituent Assembly (of 601 in total) will be decided to proportional representation. According to recent reports, the Maoists are leading in returns from that process as well, although the margin appears to be smaller, with the Maoists ahead of the NC and UML by only a few percentage points.

The last 26 seats will be appointed by the Prime Minister (at this point likely to be Baburam Bhattarai, second-in-command after Prachanda).

As for the RNA, representatives from the People's Liberation army, the Royal Nepal Army, and the United Nations met today, I believe, and the Army affirmed its commitment to complying with the government. Reports from sources close to the King hint that he may be looking to leave the country to India to avoid any legal action (he had made contingency plans for such a move, even securing a house, a few years ago during the anti-monarchy demonstrations).

It will have to be seen. Surely there will be some Generals who will refuse to obey the Maoists, and I wouldn't be surprised if some actively resisted. They will obviously have to be replaced in any case. Up until now the RNA has been a tool for the monarchy; they are abolishing the monarchy outright, and will have to abolish its army.

[Awful Reality]

Why is the consensus here that we support a movement taking power through parliamentary process?

[Herman]

Why is the consensus here that we support a movement taking power through parliamentary process?

Because achieving power through parliamentary means, is better than not taking power at all.

[Saorsa]

Why is the consensus here that we support a movement taking power through parliamentary process?


As usual, the Trotskyist proceeds from dogmatic ideology to reality. It's more important that what we do fits in with our selective quotes from Marx, Lenin or Totsky, than that it allows us to advance the revolutionary struggle in objective reality. The Maoist's tactics have allowed them to seize the reigns of state power, and opens up a huge array of possibilities for them in the future.

Trotskyist dogmatism (as well as dogmatism of other breeds, to be fair, but Trotskyism incorporates dogmatism as an integral part of it's ideology to a much greater extent than most other currents on the left)), on the other hand, has never accomplished anything like this and never will.

[RHIZOMES]

As usual, the Trotskyist proceeds from dogmatic ideology to reality. It's more important that what we do fits in with our selective quotes from Marx, Lenin or Totsky, than that it allows us to advance the revolutionary struggle in objective reality. The Maoist's tactics have allowed them to seize the reigns of state power, and opens up a huge array of possibilities for them in the future.

Trotskyist dogmatism (as well as dogmatism of other breeds, to be fair, but Trotskyism incorporates dogmatism as an integral part of it's ideology to a much greater extent than most other currents on the left)), on the other hand, has never accomplished anything like this and never will.

I agree with you on Trotskyism, but surely it'd be a bit more difficult to build socialism through parliamentary means than other means?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Avakianism is reductionist

Tit for tat, comrade! I took some good contributions from you, and you've taken mine (problems with traditional schematism). :D ;)


bobkindles misunderstands permanent revolution. It is not that the bourgeoisie in the colonial world is incapable of carrying out development. The Asian tigers are proof of that.

Perhaps I was mistaken in my views of the RDDOTPP, then (cuz I always thought that the peripheral bourgeoisie were incapable). :confused:


It is that the bourgeoisie in the colonial world has no interest in carrying out the bourgeois democratic revolution. Thus, that task is left to the proletariat to carry out. We have seen this over and over.

Except that, save for the Russian case, it's usually the peasants doing the job, no? :confused:


Trotsky's leap was to understand that once the proletariat had carried out the bourgeois democratic revolution, rather than hand power over to the bourgeoisie, that they needed to continue the revolution, make it permanent (hence the name), and go forward to a workers' state.

I don't think it's a good "leap," though. :( Lenin recognized that, although handing power over to the "national bourgeoisie" after the completion of the democratic tasks was out of the question, a second social revolution (not just a political one) was still needed.

[Herman]

I agree with you on Trotskyism, but surely it'd be a bit more difficult to build socialism through parliamentary means than other means?

They could not win through arms alone. What makes you think they could do that now? Leaving the parliament and parliamentary means would be the biggest and most stupid mistake they have ever done. Now, they have a chance.

[apathy maybe]

They could not win through arms alone. What makes you think they could do that now? Leaving the parliament and parliamentary means would be the biggest and most stupid mistake they have ever done. Now, they have a chance.
Wait, what? A chance to do what?

Honestly, while I think this is generally a good thing, it isn't going to bring about communism.

At most, it will bring about a nicer kinder capitalism.

So yeah, interesting times ahead, but it ain't going to be communism.

[Hiero]

Yeah I share bobkindle's concerns, since they've been ELECTED via bourgeoisie-capitalist means, they may be a tad... defanged.

Which they fought for by violent tactics for over 14 years.

I do not personally have the experience of being a paticipant of armed revolutionary struggle, but I highly doubt that the militant cadre of the CPN(Maoist) will lose their revolutionary spirit overnight from one election.

The election results are only just being counted, there is no telling what the king and Royal Army will do if the Maoist following the trend to victory. I think we have to wait till after the counting before we speculate what the CPN(M) is going to do.

[Dros]

Revolution was ordered to stop discussing it. For a couple years, the RCP acted as if Nepal didn't exist. They have started discussing it again recently, most likely as a result of the criticism of Kasama and Kasama's coverage of the South Asian struggles.

This is speculative at best and untrue at worst. You should refrain from stating your speculations as fact, especially when it is patently obvious that there is no way that you could know what you're talking about.


The reason, dear comrade, is because the CPN(M) decided to fight the people's war by other methods. Avakianism is reductionist, and when the CPN(M) recognized that victory would mean defeat (as Indian and American imperialism would come down on them), Avakian withdrew his rhetorical support (cuz let's face it, we first world commies don't have much influence on our states).

Again you have no idea what was actually going on there. I think you are incorrect on several levels.

1.) Why the newspaper briefly stopped reporting on Nepal is very complicated and has nothing to do with what you are saying it has to do with.

2.) There is absolutely no analysis behind the fact that India and America would "come down on" them and if they did, that they would win. I have been discussing this with my comrades, and we believe that CPN(M) made a huge mistake.

I do not believe that what is happening in Nepal can result in socialism or in New Democracy. The parliamentary channels are fundementally not capable of creating a socialist state and what I think will happen in Nepal will be yet another disappointment for the people. I hope very much that I am wrong, but as the CPN(M) rhetoric becomes more revisionist and reformist all the time, I wouldn't be surprised and I hope you won't be if all of this eventually fizzles out. I hope I'm wrong, but there you have it.


Avakianism is reductionist

1.) There is no such thing as "Avakianism".
2.) Please explain why this is true.

[Sendo]

drosera, i feel conflicted and wonder about the good of this decision. I was reading up more on this and seems that the Maoist leader Prachenda (sp?) will not be in office himself and that it might be No2 guy, perhaps freeing Maoists for outside agitation.

But if you know that you can win an election, is it really wrong to do what reforms that you can? I don't mean put your best efforts toward electoralism and I don't mean lose sight of revolution, just realize that you can get some tangible improvements by fielding Parliamentary candidates like the full abolition of the monarchy. Why wait? If you don't lose sight of greater goals, why not?

I normally sponsor abstentionism and parallel governments but when you win a 50% + majority I can't come down on it.

I do agree that this cannot result in socialism in and of itself, but it might pave the way a little bit...the country still has some feudal characteristics it could be throwing off.

[RNK]

The consensus here is not simply supporting them winning by electoral means. It's bad enough there is a long-standing misconception of MLM and other far-leftists that we totally shun electoral politics.

We do not. What we do is not limit ourselves to one strategy or another; we analyse a particular political, economic and social situation to determine the best strategy, and then reanalyse it continuously.

This is what the Maoists have done. In 1995 when their struggle began, Nepal was completely dominated by the priviledged class through its monarchy, its beauraucracy, and its army, much like it is in the West. Under such circumstances, parliamentarism was impossible (as it is usually the case, a fact Marx and even Lenin could probably not have comprehended, atleast to the degree it currently is). So the struggle was launched in a physical way, to beat back the domination of the priviledged class and emancipate, if not materially than psychologically, enough of the workers and peasants in order to bring about a revolution in society -- albeit not a communist revolution, and some would argue against calling it a socialist revolution.

But the fact remains that anti-parliamentarism isn't a policy, it is one of many tactics that revolutionaries must be considerate of.

And I'd like to bring up another point: I think it is very interesting that in the majority of the press, from the NYT to Indian and Nepali newspapers and everyone inbetween, the overriding attitude has been one of acceptance if not outright excitement.

And it got me thinking: I would have thought, like happened with Hamas, that they would be villified in accordance with the future plan to have them ousted at some point. So why does everyone seem so glad to welcome them?

The media has made a lot of noise about the "ballots over bullets", the "shunning of violence" and "embracing of peaceful democracy". And while some, like who posted in this thread, will provide plenty of quotes from Prachanda and Bhuttarai to back such a line up, the fact remains that while the CPN(M) has generated rhetoric towards reformism, they have never denied the responsibility for a revolution, violent if need be.

But it's interesting because of its effectiveness; the media is spending so much effort making the CPN(M) out to be former rebels who've turned around and embraced peace, I believe in an effort to illegitimize them in the eyes of other "rebellious" figures; by speaking for the CPN(M) they're able to make them seem like sell-outs and reformists.

But in the end, this is not a real revolution -- atleast, not a socialist revolution. But it was a necessary step. As mentioned in this thread, nationalist bourgeoisie in underdeveloped and developing countries have no real will to carry out the tasks of bourgeois revolution, to usher in industrialization and abolish fuedalism; for the moment, they are content reaping enormous benefits, having their pockets stuffed with cash by foreign investors who sweep in and industrialize certain, very specific sectors, such as oil and diamond mining, or material production, but prevent any of that leading to the benefits that swept the western world during our industrial revolution.

Therefore it is necessary for such changes to be forced. And I don't know about you, but I would much rather progressive socialists usher in the changes necessary for the development of society than the bourgeoisie, who, if they ever do get around to it, will undoubtedly benefit from centuries of experience of their western counterparts to design a system even more exploitive and oppressive.

[RedHal]

The media has made a lot of noise about the "ballots over bullets", the "shunning of violence" and "embracing of peaceful democracy". And while some, like who posted in this thread, will provide plenty of quotes from Prachanda and Bhuttarai to back such a line up, the fact remains that while the CPN(M) has generated rhetoric towards reformism, they have never denied the responsibility for a revolution, violent if need be.

But it's interesting because of its effectiveness; the media is spending so much effort making the CPN(M) out to be former rebels who've turned around and embraced peace, I believe in an effort to illegitimize them in the eyes of other "rebellious" figures; by speaking for the CPN(M) they're able to make them seem like sell-outs and reformists.

because it is a nice story from a Western liberal standpoint, ballots over bullets, but wait for the constitution to be written and if there's anything socialist, you can expect the shit to hit the fans with the media campaign against the Maoists.

[Red Heretic]

The only way to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat is to smash the reactionary state power.

If comrades read what the CPN(M) is saying, they have never articulated that this is socialism. It will be interesting to see how things develop.

The question of revolution in Nepal is unsettled!

[RNK]

The CPN(M) has stated via Bhuttarai that this phase is the "political revolutionary phase", where politics in Nepal must be secured and stabilized, to abolish fuedalism and introduce democracy. Next will come the "economic revolution", which will seek to overhaul capitalism to take the country on the path to socialism.

Still, very exciting times.

[A.J.]

As such, Trotskyism is the most revolutionary form of analysis for the developing world.

Perhaps then you could explain why trotskyism is seemingly confined to snooty middle class students in anglo-saxon countries (http://www.ssy.org.uk/forum/)......












....and France:laugh:

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

There is every indication that the Maoists will follow the Chinese model of creating a lucrative investment market for Western capital and a strong bureaucratic social democratic state. It is clear from the remarks of the party leadership that this will take on an explicitly anti-class character. From LibCom -



"The Maoists central leadership has said that the party which has swung the country’s politics during the freshly concluded CA poll will not deviate from the “globalization and liberalization” process that was on in the world today.Outlining the would be economic policy of the Maoists party when in power, Comrade Prachanda said that “we will not confiscate the properties of the owners contrary to what has been disseminated in order to malign the Maoist party”. According to him, after the political revolution that has just finished, the Maoists will henceforth concentrate its entire efforts aimed at bringing about what he called “economic revolution in the country”.“Rest assured, we are in favor of the capitalist economy”, Prachanda said.Talking on the Maoists militias, Prachanda said that they could be used as “industrial security force” time permitting."


I agree with Libcom's analysis that this could potentially mean the conversion of a de-militarised Maoist guerilla force into an organ of the state to maintain labour discipline. This is not communism, it isn't even socialism. An entirely backwards step for the Nepalese working class.</p>

[RHIZOMES]

There is every indication that the Maoists will follow the Chinese model of creating a lucrative investment market for Western capital and a strong bureaucratic social democratic state. It is clear from the remarks of the party leadership that this will take on an explicitly anti-class character.

Lol no.

[RNK]

Actually, Dionysian, this is a progressive step for Nepalese workers. What we have seen in Nepal the past few days is the democratic revolution; it is the process of the final abolition of fuedalism and its replacement by democracy, industrialization and, yes, capitalism.

Surely, you understand that capitalism, that the "bourgeois revolution" is and was a progressive step from fuedalism?

Surely you understand the necessity for the development and amalgamation of the forces of production through a democratic revolution?

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I understand that any kind of socially progressive step must be judged by the extent to which the class is able to take control of the means of production and control their own destiny. It is clear that the victory of a certain political sect means nothing for the emancipation of the class and in fact in the statements given it is clear that this is entirely reactionary.

To classify Nepal as "feudal" because it is a predominantly agrarian economy is entirely fallacious. It is a capitalist state. Nepalese agrarian workers are members of the working class and entirely capable of taking control of the means of production.



We want to fully assure international investors already in Nepal that we welcome them here, and we will work to make the investment climate even better than it is now. Just watch, the labour-management climate will improve in our time in office. What happened in the past two years with the unions happened during a transition phase....

[Hiero]

To classify Nepal as "feudal" because it is a predominantly agrarian economy is entirely fallacious. It is a capitalist state. Nepalese agrarian workers are members of the working class and entirely capable of taking control of the means of production.

They call it the underdeveloped world for a reason. Collectivising a few rice paddies is not socialism.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

They call it the underdeveloped world for a reason. Collectivising a few rice paddies is not socialism.

And fostering good relations with Western investment capital is?

[Hiero]

And fostering good relations with Western investment capital is?
No.

This is the democractic revolution.

[che_diwas]

Hope that the Maoists Army wont be turned into some state terror mechanisms like the post Soviet Union Red Army was used by the russians to "control" its citizens nor like the Junta Army used currently in Burma....

Maoists have won the maximum seats but I'm still waiting to see which agendas they will put forth radically... because if they become just a revisionist force, its a danger that they will end up like the UML or other revisionist force which are good for nothing...

The Maoists have embraced capitalism for time being because the country has not been able to produce adequately for its own citizens and the industrial revolution hasn't been started yet.. hope they move forward in this directions in the near future...