Nepal; a nice little earner for the Maoist ruling class - in Lenin's footsteps

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Nepal's Maoist Party has won around 220 seats in the recent Constituent Assembly (CA) election, about one-third of the total. Though the largest party, they don't have an overall majority; they have stated their wish to lead a coalition government.




But as the result became clear Maoist leader Prachanda told journalists “I will be declared the acting President of this country very soon…which will be followed by occupying the post of the all powerful President of New Nepal…this is the peoples’ mandate…no force on earth can disobey this mandate”. (Telegraphnepal.com 26/4/2008); the man who has long talked of his wish to 'abolish royal autocracy' now speaks of his "all powerful" role.

Recent news reports reveal the wages and expenses of the newly elected members of the Assembly. While they spend an indefinite period drawing up a new national Constitution they will be paid - by Nepali standards - enormous wages;
each CA member will receive net salaries of 23 thousand one hundred rupees per month [£176/$345/Eur224]. On top of this they'll get expenses for drinking water, electricity, telephone, rent, newspapers & "miscellaneous". These expense allowances bring the total income of a CA member to 45 thousand 98 rupees [£345/$674/Eur437] each per month.
The CA President (probably Maoist Party boss Prachanda) will have a monthly salary/expenses income of 60,600 rupees [£463/$905/Eur588] - plus a petrol allowance of 24,500 rupees [£187/$366/Eur237]. The vice president will scrape by on a few thousand less.

So the ruling class, led by the Maoist 'proletarian vanguard', feather their nest. These salaries must be compared with the Nepali average wage of just $200 a year [£102/Eur129]; Nepal is the poorest country in Asia. Around 10% of the population takes 50% of the wealth, the bottom 40% takes 10%. 85% of Nepalese people don’t have access to health care. So the monthly income of a CA politician is well over three times the annual national average wage! Jobs within the CA are already being allocated by all the various member parties to their friends and family.
In a public appearance last week Maoist leader Prachanda said, “I had the opportunity to play the role of Lenin itself in Nepal”. With his fat salary and perks he is certainly following in Bolshevik footsteps; Lenin travelled in a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce, as did other government officials. "Autocracy’s main enemy, Vladimir Lenin, had no reservations about inheriting the hated old regime’s automobile collection. Lenin used the Tsar’s Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost to drive around town while his colleagues divided up the rest of the collection among them. But two revolutions and a civil war had taken their toll on the cars, and in 1919 [during a time of famine and extreme hardships for the poor] the Council of People’s Commissars had to order 70 more from London." (Aeroflot site). Lenin moved into a dacha (country house) previously owned by a millionaire, while much of the other Bolshevik leadership took occupation of the luxurious Lux hotel in Petrograd,dining on preferential food rations.[1] Then and now, for those who inherit the State, its perks and luxuries are clearly irresistable and seen as just reward for their conquest and devotion to power. And so the new Nepalese republic is born - the furniture and faces at the top have been shifted around a little, and that is all.
There's another interpretation (though less likely) of the reference to Lenin - as a coded pointer towards a historical precedent; that Prachanda's long-term plan is for the Constituent Assembly in Nepal to share the same fate as it did in Russia. When the Bolsheviks were ready to seize sole power for themselves, a revolutionary guard (led by Anatoli Zhelezniakov[2], an anarchist sailor[3]) dismissed the CA, dominated as it was by indecisive bourgeois moderate politicians. The Bolsheviks saw its dissolution as a decisive step in the progress from a bourgeois to a proletarian revolution (though the fact that, unlike Nepal's Maoists, the Bolsheviks did not emerge victorious from the CA elections may have influenced their choices too). The Maoists might, ideally, like to achieve a neat Leninist orthodoxy by replicating this state of affairs, but they know the necessities of 'realpolitik'. External geo-political pressures and economic realities mean that - for the moment, at least - they need to play the democratic game in order to attract foreign investment, so as to try and build up a sound politico-economic base. A strong and stable State power is always a class relation based on efficient exploitation and its rewards.

=========
NOTES
[1] "Ante Ciliga described what he called the state capitalists' 'morals on the morrow of the October revolution' as follows:
From the first days of the October revolution, the Communist [sic] leaders had shown a great lack of shame in these matters. Having occupied the building, they furnished it with the best furniture from shops that had been nationalized. From the same source their wives had procured themselves fur coats, each taking two or three at a time. All the rest was in keeping. (Ciliga, 1979, p. 121)
Far from the emergence of the privileged consumption enjoyed by the state capitalist class coinciding with Stalin's rise to power, some of the state capitalists of Stalin's day looked back with nostalgia to the comfortable life they had experienced during the early years of Bolshevik rule:
During the winter of 1930 fuel ran short and we had to do without hot water for a few days. The wife of a high official who lived at the Party House was full of indignation. `What a disaster to have this man Kirov! True, Zinoviev is guilty 'fractionism' but in his day central heating always functioned properly and we were never short of hot water. Even in 1920, when they had to stop the factories in Leningrad for lack of coal, we could always have our hot baths with the greatest comfort.' (Ibid., pp. 121-2)
Another illustration that Stalin was not personally responsible for establishing state capitalist privilege in Russia is that during the period 1923-5, when Stalin had only an old car at his disposal 'Kamenev had already appropriated a magnificent Rolls' (Medvedev - 1979, p. 33)."
( State Capitalism - the wages system under new management, Buick & Crump.)
[2] On Zhelezniakov, see; http://libcom.org/library/zhelezniakov-biography-avrich-1917
[3] The Ukrainian anarchist "Makhno defended that action and explained that Zhelezniakov, a Black Sea sailor and delegate to Kronstadt, had played one of the most active roles in 1917. Makhno merely expressed regret that the fiery sailor, who enjoyed great prestige among his colleagues, had not simultaneously seen fit to dismiss Lenin and his "Soviet of People's Commissars" which "would have been historically vital and would have helped unmask the stranglers of the revolution in good time." "
http://libcom.org/library/makhno-bibliographical-afterword-skirda


history repeats itself once more.

[Herman]

They haven't even formed a government yet and you're already complaining?

[BobKKKindle$]

This article criticizes the Maoists before they have even been able to form a government - it would be far more sensible to wait and see how the Maoists behave once they are in power and have been given the opportunity to implement change, before we start making judgements about whether they deserve a high salary. The fact that the Maoists were able to win an election victory shows they have popular support, and no other party has been able to recognize and provide solutions to the problems faced by ordinary people in Nepal.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

This article criticizes the Maoists before they have even been able to form a government - it would be far more sensible to wait and see how the Maoists behave once they are in power and have been given the opportunity to implement change, before we start making judgements about whether they deserve a high salary. The fact that the Maoists were able to win an election victory shows they have popular support, and no other party has been able to recognize and provide solutions to the problems faced by ordinary people in Nepal.

From their statements given to the bourgeois press I would argue it is obvious how they are going to behave.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yes you mean a deep acceptance of multi-party democracy and pluralism.

They gave that as a problem of china, north korea and the USSR etc.
just last week there was a bbc article which had quotes outlining their stance towards democracy with one condition, so long as there was no return of the king, they supported democracy.


Nepal 'boosts global communism'


The leader of Nepal's Maoists has said that his party's recent election victory is a sign of the global resurgence of communism.
But Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, stressed his party believed in retaining multi-party competition.
Prachanda has made it clear that he wants to become the first president of a Nepalese republic.
The Maoists won twice as many seats as their nearest rivals in last month's polls for a constitutional assembly.
Investment priorities
Prachanda's comments are a reminder of the extraordinary way in which Nepal has contradicted the world's move away from communism in the past 20 years.
The leader of the former rebels told the AFP news agency that the Maoists' big poll victory signalled a wave of revolution in developing countries, which he said would spread to the developed world.
But Prachanda stressed that the Maoists did not believe in a one-party state.
He said they had concluded that "multi-partyism is a must, even in socialism" and that without competition, a vibrant society could not be created.
The Maoists have said time and again that such pluralism is necessary.
Another senior Maoist leader, CP Gajurel, recently told the BBC that communism had failed in other countries precisely because it did not allow competition, adding that it would be normal for the party to lose some elections, then come back to win others.
Prachanda also reiterated the Maoists' support for private investment in Nepal, both local and foreign.
But he said Nepal's people and government should decide on investment priorities.
The new assembly is due to sit some time after 20 May and is set to abolish the monarchy.
Discussions are in progress on what should be the composition of the country's new government.
Some in the traditionally biggest party, the Nepali Congress, say the current Congress Prime Minister GP Koirala should continue in the post. But many others ridicule this suggestion.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

That was a recent BBC article. It is amazing and very foresighted to accept pluralism and multipartyism, and brave considering the hostile nature of the world they live in at the moment.

lets celebrate what the maoists have done, becuase we will never witness a perfect party or organisation, but these maoists have got the most important part right!

[Dimentio]

Yes, Nepal must move from the point where it is standing, not try to become some form of Utopia at first without the infrastructure to support it. But what the country needs most of all is land redistribution.

[Zurdito]

In Lenin's footsteps?

Lenin rejected outright the idea of a bourgeois revolution in the era of imperialism. He recognised that in the era of imperialism and monopoly capitalism - the era which itself has abolished private property and has centralised capital under the direction of the bourgeois state, one which exists to socialise risk whilst keeping profit in private hands, including its own - the only move forward to socialism is to dismantle the bourgeois state itself and then to use the new workers state to expropriate all private property.

the maoists in Nepal on the other hand have already called for a utopian "transition" from "feudalism" to capitalism in co-operation with the "national bourgeoisie" and their state, whilst still operating within the framework of imperialist global capitalism.

where is the similarity?

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

In Lenin's footsteps?

Lenin rejected outright the idea of a borugeois revolution, and recognised that in the era of imeprialism and monopoly capitalism, the only move forward to socialism is the overthrow of the bourgeois state itself and then the use of a workers state to expropriate all private property.

the maoists in Nepal on the other hand have already called for a utopian "transition" from "feudalism" to capitalism in co-operation with the "national bourgeoisie" and their state, whilst still operating within the framework of imperialist global capitalism.

where is the similarity?

In the fact that the Maoists are following the historical path set by Lenin and the Bolsheviks of consolidating a wealthy, bureaucratic elite who come to encompass the new ruling class (apart from this time they didn't even need to pretend to stand for social revolution).

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

lets celebrate what the maoists have done, becuase we will never witness a perfect party or organisation, but these maoists have got the most important part right!

What their opportunistic acceptance of bourgeois representative democracy and the cultivation of investment opportunities for Western capital? Hoorah!! Viva la Revolucion! :laugh:

[RedStarOverChina]

In the fact that the Maoists are following the historical path set by Lenin and the Bolsheviks of consolidating a wealthy, bureaucratic elite who come to encompass the new ruling class (apart from this time they didn't even need to pretend to stand for social revolution).
Believe it or not, even that can be considered progressive in this particular case.

Just about anything's better than the feudal mess it is now.

The Maoists, bourgeoisie or not, are going to revolutionize Nepal into something that resembles a modern Bourgeoisie state...And that's good for a country as backwards as Nepal.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Believe it or not, even that can be considered progressive in this particular case.

Just about anything's better than the feudal mess it is now.

The Maoists, bourgeoisie or not, are going to revolutionize Nepal into something that resembles a modern Bourgeoisie state...And that's good for a country as backwards as Nepal.

That is teleological rubbish. Historical dialectics is a failed doctrine. It doesn't stand at all against the patently obvious empirical evidence to the contrary. This is Marxism at its most repugnant. Nothing but a reactionary fairy tale that disguises the consolidation of political elites and the continued exploitation of the working class and peasantry.


"teleological dialectics pose an idea of becoming that simultaneously justifies and annuls the weight of the suffering of history and the significance of revolt." A. Negri

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What their opportunistic acceptance of bourgeois representative democracy and the cultivation of investment opportunities for Western capital? Hoorah!! Viva la Revolucion! :laugh:

Lol "anarchist communism or death!"

right, you are an ultra left so your are in no way able to speak with any authority to be honest.

[Herman]

That is teleological rubbish. Historical dialectics is a failed doctrine. It doesn't stand at all against the patently obvious empirical evidence to the contrary. This is Marxism at its most repugnant. Nothing but a reactionary fairy tale that disguises the consolidation of political elites and the continued exploitation of the working class and peasantry.

What are you talking about? A bourgeois state is far better than a feudal one. Every marxist knows this.

[Zurdito]

What are you talking about? A bourgeois state is far better than a feudal one. Every marxist knows this.

Nepal was not a feudal state, there are no feudal states left in the world today, the Nepalese state existed to provide conditions for and to direct and protect the process of capital accumulation. In this way, it was in direct contradiction to the interests of the majority of the population.

Nepal was a bourgeois state, and will remain so under the Maoists.

[bezdomni]

Nepal was a bourgeois state, and will remain so under the Maoists.
Sorry, but how can you have a bourgeois state with an autocratic monarchy and no substantial urban working class or industry to speak of?

You either don't understand what a bourgeois state entails, or you don't understand how Nepal was structured before the revolution. Nepal was very strongly feudal.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

manufacturing in 2000 was about one fifth of annual GDP. Thats pretty hefty chunk.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Lol "anarchist communism or death!"

right, you are an ultra left so your are in no way able to speak with any authority to be honest.

I am not really sure how in any way that constitutes an argument. :confused:


What are you talking about? A bourgeois state is far better than a feudal one. Every Marxist knows this.

Well actually no. Only Marxists so tied to stageist orthodoxy that they feel it is appropriate to use nineteenth century economic categories previously only applied to pre-modern Western states. "feudalism" is an anachrohism and your 'theory' only seeks to justify the exploitation and disempowerment of the Nepalese people. Nepal is a mixed agrarian economy very much connected to a global capitalist system.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I do not have a positive view of this little victory for the Maoists and, in this case, their reformist counterparts. I know what a nation-state does, and it needs to end ASAP.

Fuck Maoism, fuck Leninism, and fuck any attempt to create a "temporary worker's" government! We all know the failure of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, along with every single one of the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat". Freedom comes after the revolution, not another damn oppressive government.

Oh, and I almost forgot; fuck reformism.

I'm in the mood to say fuck today. O_o

[Zurdito]

manufacturing in 2000 was about one fifth of annual GDP. Thats pretty hefty chunk.


That would be the same proportion as the US and comparable to the UK.


Nepal is a mixed agrarian economy very much connected to a global capitalist system.

And this is the main point: the Nepalese state is a vassal for imperialist capital, a small ruling class bought off by imperialism which exists primarily to oversee the exploitation of Nepal, and enrich itself in the process.

At times they may clash with imperialism - something they are forced to do by the class struggle at home - and demand specific improvements in terms and conditions.

When this happens, we should defend Nepal from imperialist aggression in any form, but we should not raise the illusions that the redundant Nepalese ruling class and its state can provide any long term leadership in this struggle, or that they have any role in the struggle against imperialism except to seek to contain it and lead it to defeat, due to their most basic instinct as a class being the need to defend private property, and therefore defend the global economic system.

[Guerrilla22]

I'd say it's a bit premature to start analyzing the course the CPN Maoist and the elventeen other CPN factions will set for Nepal.

[bezdomni]

I do not have a positive view of this little victory for the Maoists and, in this case, their reformist counterparts. I know what a nation-state does, and it needs to end ASAP.

Fuck Maoism, fuck Leninism, and fuck any attempt to create a "temporary worker's" government! We all know the failure of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, along with every single one of the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat". Freedom comes after the revolution, not another damn oppressive government.

Oh, and I almost forgot; fuck reformism.

I'm in the mood to say fuck today. O_o

You represent everything that is petty-bourgeois and annoying about anarchism. You just dismiss, you never think.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

You represent everything that is petty-bourgeois and annoying about anarchism. You just dismiss, you never think.

I think I have actually presented a pretty sophisticated argument (from an anarchist perspective) against the new Nepalese ruling elite. You on the other hand have displayed nothing but a penchant for tired orthodox categories and sterile Marxist formula. Explain to me how in any sense a dismissal of the continued and persistent opportunism and reactionary character of Bolshevik regimes and a principled stand for social revolution can in any way be categorised as "petty-bourgeois".

[The Advent of Anarchy]

You represent everything that is petty-bourgeois and annoying about anarchism. You just dismiss, you never think.

How is anarchism petty-bourgeois? Tell me that. We are for worker's self management, we are against capitalism, and we are against the nation-state. Tell me how we're petty-bourgeois, reactionary, or whatever else you accuse us of being?

[BIG BROTHER]

I personally think that a revolutionary should set an example for the rest of the people. If its supposed to be a "vanguard" of the proles, then they should live with the same hardships that the averige nepalise suffers.

I mean, if they expect the people to adapt to socialism and learn to sacrifice for the common, when they are having privileges, then more than one person is goin to resent them.

Even though it doesn't make any difference they still have my support though.

[RNK]

Sophisticated? If capitalism isn't abolished by tomorrow afternoon, I'm going to throw an internet fit!

Yeah, real classy. You meropic idiots really ought to fuck off with the belief that revolutions occur after a couple dozen molotov cocktails and half an hour's worth of economic work. If you're ready to crucify a movement after two weeks then you really ought to gtfo, as you're never going to benefit anyone in any real way, and more than likely will just fuck up anything you're ever involved with.

So go back to college, study harder, and give up the fucking fantasy.

[BIG BROTHER]

are you refering to me? whats so fantasizing about the Nepalist-Maoist declining most of their pay?

And anyways, that's why i said that even though it doesn' make a difference I still support them.

[bezdomni]

I think I have actually presented a pretty sophisticated argument (from an anarchist perspective) against the new Nepalese ruling elite. You on the other hand have displayed nothing but a penchant for tired orthodox categories and sterile Marxist formula. Explain to me how in any sense a dismissal of the continued and persistent opportunism and reactionary character of Bolshevik regimes and a principled stand for social revolution can in any way be categorised as "petty-bourgeois".
I wasn't talking to or about you.

But anyway, let me answer your question with another question - so far, what gains have been made from the "principled stand" for social revolution as practiced by anarchists? As for anarchism itself being petty bourgeois...why is it that there are more anarchists on the campuses than there are in the slums? Not that anarchists don't think they are for the working classes, but where does their ideology actually come from and who are its primary proponents?


How is anarchism petty-bourgeois? Tell me that.
I'd say your avatar about sums it up...


We are for worker's self management, we are against capitalism, and we are against the nation-state.
What if the workers want to organize their organs of power into a state apparatus to...you know...fight the bourgeoisie and suppress the use of violence by reactionaries? Cos, historically, that seems to be the case.


Tell me how we're petty-bourgeois, reactionary, or whatever else you accuse us of being?
I am accusing you in particular of being an individualistic, petty-bourgeois, unthinking philistine.

[Saorsa]

The achievements of the Maoists speak for themselves. Unlike our anurkist friends here, the Maoists have done more than smoke a few joints and throw rocks at the local McDonalds, before getting their middle class parents to bail them out (again).

To name but a few of their many achievements, they have taken great leaps in the emancipation of women, Dalits and ethnic minorities, they have liberated the peasants from feudal oppression and are in the process of implementing "land to the tiller", they have greatly improved literacy levels amongst the masses, they have improved infrastructure in the liberated areas, they have fought against backward superstitious practices and ideas, and above all they have mobilised and revolutionised the working people of Nepal and laid the foundations for the long, difficult and arduous transition to socialism.

In the meantime, the anurkists smoked pot, cut themselves and *****ed about Spain.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Sophisticated? If capitalism isn't abolished by tomorrow afternoon, I'm going to throw an internet fit!

Yeah, real classy. You meropic idiots really ought to fuck off with the belief that revolutions occur after a couple dozen molotov cocktails and half an hour's worth of economic work. If you're ready to crucify a movement after two weeks then you really ought to gtfo, as you're never going to benefit anyone in any real way, and more than likely will just fuck up anything you're ever involved with.

So go back to college, study harder, and give up the fucking fantasy.

Now who is having an "internet fit". I can't really enegage with anything you have said here. It is nothing more than unfounded vitriol. I do like your supposition that one has to have a greater higher education to understand revolutionary processes. I say that speaks volumes for what you stand for.

[Saorsa]

I can't really enegage with anything you have said here. It is nothing more than unfounded vitriol.

His line boils down to an accusation that anarchists are subjectivist, and that they put a minimal amount of into the struggles they participate in and when these struggles fail to achieve instant world wide revolution, they denounce them as "bourgeois".

He's also accusing you of being ultra-critical in condemning a movement for enjoying the baubles of office, when it hasnt even entered the office yet ffs!

It really wasn't that difficult an argument to understand. Response?

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I wasn't talking to or about you.

I am aware of that. But when you make generalised statements about anarchists they apply to all of us.



But anyway, let me answer your question with another question - so far, what gains have been made from the "principled stand" for social revolution as practiced by anarchists? As for anarchism itself being petty bourgeois...why is it that there are more anarchists on the campuses than there are in the slums? Not that anarchists don't think they are for the working classes, but where does their ideology actually come from and who are its primary proponents?

Comparatively very much. Bolshevism has only ever produced either social democratic bourgeois parties, minor agitational factions that swipe at major political groupings and, in the worst cases, one-party dictatorships. Anarchism has never sought to endorse or promote any of thse "aberrations" and understands true social revolution when it sees it. I would argue that is invaluable. Historically speaking, the uncompromising stand of anarchists have led to concrete historical gains (Mexico, Ukraine, Spain) these unforunately have been followed by massive oppression from the combined force of the statist left and the bourgeois class.

Why are there more anarchists in the campuses in the slums? That is a crass generalisation and not even really true. Try these on for size - http://www.zabalaza.net http://www.afed.org.uk It is not made anymore credible given that your doctrine was developed by a bourgeois academic who worked only one day in his life and lived largely on his families inheritance (assisted of course by a factory owner). Developed further by a lower middle class lawyer who openly argued that the working class was incapable of developing class consciousness and only bourgeois experts were capable of bringing the docile masses out of their stupour. If we are going to tlk about class origins I suggest you get your house in order first.



I'd say your avatar about sums it up...


:laugh: what that I am not a total politico who actually has other interests? Maybe I should have gone for a "forward Russia" style Soviet piece. Would that be more suitably proletarian? Just a ridiculous statement.



What if the workers want to organize their organs of power into a state apparatus to...you know...fight the bourgeoisie and suppress the use of violence by reactionaries? Cos, historically, that seems to be the case.


There is an issue of semantics here. "all power to the soviets can be interpreted in many ways". I would contend that that has not been historically the case and that workers have sought to consolidate their own gains into their own organs of power and have typically rejected the state form as an unwelcome intrusion by political factions. Likewise, people's militias (the Ukranian Free Army) never required a state form and proved pretty successful in besting the Whites and the Red army.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

His line boils down to an accusation that anarchists are subjectivist, and that they put a minimal amount of into the struggles they participate in and when these struggles fail to achieve instant world wide revolution, they denounce them as "bourgeois".

No, that is untrue. I will not participate in any programme that seeks to block the path to liberation for the working class. I personally put a lot into the struggles I participate in, they just often appear to be diametrically opposed to the aims and methods of the rest of the left who have their own, cynical agenda.



He's also accusing you of being ultra-critical in condemning a movement for enjoying the baubles of office, when it hasnt even entered the office yet ffs!

It really wasn't that difficult an argument to understand. Response?

It wasn't really an argument. That involves a rational set of propositions. His was just crude stereotypes pieced together to look like an argument. And I have already stated (in fact you can read it in the article already posted on this thread) that the Maoists have made it crystal clear what their intentions in office are. A lucrative investment opportunity for Western capital in an effort to follow the "successes" of the Chinese model. Unless they are madmen who do exactly the opposite of what they claim they are going to do, the course of history in Nepal for the next few years is entirely predictable and open to criticism.

[Zurdito]

He's also accusing you of being ultra-critical in condemning a movement for enjoying the baubles of office, when it hasnt even entered the office yet ffs!

ummm, the MAoists in Nepal have already said they stand for the development of capitalism in Nepal. It's therefore quite easy to judge them before they come to power.

what would be wrong would be to sow the illusion, for even one second, that they can ever be anything more than bureaucratic parasites and traitors. of course we should condemn them before they get to power, otherwise you're left looking like an idiot when they then go and do everything they always said they would and act ina ccordance with their degenerate understanding of "socialism".

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

what would be wrong would be to sow the illusion, for even one second, that they can ever be anything more than bureaucratic parasites and traitors. of course we should condemn them before they get to power, otherwise you're left looking like an idiot when they then go and do everything they always said they would and act ina ccordance with their degenerate understanding of "socialism".

well said.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well actually no. Only Marxists so tied to stageist orthodoxy that they feel it is appropriate to use nineteenth century economic categories previously only applied to pre-modern Western states. "feudalism" is an anachrohism and your 'theory' only seeks to justify the exploitation and disempowerment of the Nepalese people. Nepal is a mixed agrarian economy very much connected to a global capitalist system.

To anarchists, history is nothing but a conspiracy of leaders plotting between each other to enslave mankind. Their view of history is much like any shitty super hero movie, where there is a bad guy sitting behind a desk, twiddling his fingers while laughing like a evil lunatic while he signs death warrants for the good guys in the story. In the Marxist analysis, there is no 'orthodoxy' involved, it's purely scientific - history takes place at a certain time, in a certain place, with a certain level of technological advancement, and with certain classes existing alongside each other due to their relationship to the productive forces. That might be 'boring' or 'not fun' in the long run - but it's reality.

Nepal is semi-feudal. The Maoists recently defeated a 'god-king' that descended from a lineage of hereditary premiers. The dominant local potentates and commercial circles with foreign ties presided over a nation in which Western tourists enjoyed mountainous scenery while tenant farmers were taxed into submission. They are in the lowest quintile when it comes to life expectancy, literacy, and employment.

The 'stageist orthodoxy' is what has happened in Nepal - it can't be explained by crying how these evil bourgeois rulers are resurrecting hierarchy, but by closely analyzing why it turned out this way. It had nothing to do with 'tricking the people', but with the native bourgeois and petite bourgeois working towards the creation of a independent capitalist state, the ultimate precursor to worker's self-ownership.

[Os Cangaceiros]

To anarchists, history is nothing but a conspiracy of leaders plotting between each other to enslave mankind. Their view of history is much like any shitty super hero movie, where there is a bad guy sitting behind a desk, twiddling his fingers while laughing like a evil lunatic while he signs death warrants for the good guys in the story. In the Marxist analysis, there is no 'orthodoxy' involved, it's purely scientific - history takes place at a certain time, in a certain place, with a certain level of technological advancement, and with certain classes existing alongside each other due to their relationship to the productive forces. That might be 'boring' or 'not fun' in the long run - but it's reality.

Nepal is semi-feudal. The Maoists recently defeated a 'god-king' that descended from a lineage of hereditary premiers. The dominant local potentates and commercial circles with foreign ties presided over a nation in which Western tourists enjoyed mountainous scenery while tenant farmers were taxed into submission. They are in the lowest quintile when it comes to life expectancy, literacy, and employment.

The 'stageist orthodoxy' is what has happened in Nepal - it can't be explained by crying how these evil bourgeois rulers are resurrecting hierarchy, but by closely analyzing why it turned out this way. It had nothing to do with 'tricking the people', but with the native bourgeois and petite bourgeois working towards the creation of a independent capitalist state, the ultimate precursor to worker's self-ownership.


Hmm.

Many of the anarchists that I've talked to around this site support historical materialism as a means to view history.

[Marsella]

To anarchists, history is nothing but a conspiracy of leaders plotting between each other to enslave mankind.

And to Leninitsts, history is nothing more than a series of betraryals of this or that 'reformist.'


In the Marxist analysis, there is no 'orthodoxy' involved, it's purely scientific - history takes place at a certain time, in a certain place, with a certain level of technological advancement, and with certain classes existing alongside each other due to their relationship to the productive forces. That might be 'boring' or 'not fun' in the long run - but it's reality.

Agreed.


The 'stageist orthodoxy' is what has happened in Nepal - it can't be explained by crying how these evil bourgeois rulers are resurrecting hierarchy, but by closely analyzing why it turned out this way. It had nothing to do with 'tricking the people', but with the native bourgeois and petite bourgeois working towards the creation of a independent capitalist state, the ultimate precursor to worker's self-ownership.

I'm impressed LSR, you're beginning to sound like a vulgar materialist Menshevik though. :lol:

I wonder if you would extend the same materialsit approach to Russia; since 1917 Russia was just as backward as Nepal in 2008.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not a single developed nation-station currently sustains a socialist economy, and yet people are expecting the Maoist Party to avoid capitalist development? How is there going to be industrial democracy when 80% of the country is barely adept at using the iron plow? How is there going to be direct political democracy when the people of Nepal are accustomed to taking orders? The Soviet Union suffered through a similar consequence. Inevitably the centralized power remained intact, even thought it was initially a progressive force on the economy and social relationships. Anarchist examples in Spain and Latin America sufficiently manage(d) firms - increasing production all across the board - but there was/is little to no expansion of industries. One could argue these example groups were isolated, but I think an agrarian-based economy acts as a hindrance much like a capitalist economy. The proletariat do not look to increase a profit return and dominate labor markets; the bourgeoisie do. As land reforms occur and improvements in agriculture grow, the peasants will leave for the cities and small population centers. There they will contribute their labor to the small markets, bloating up development while (hopefully) avoid neo-liberal claptraps. The Maoist Party's primary goals should include 1.) securing political democracy 2.) bringing Nepal outright development and 3.) preventing neo-liberalism from infecting the economy too much so that it doesn't peddle backwards into a state like Haiti.

I am appalled to read about these wage benefits, but some of these acquisitions are teetering on absurdity. I also have to remind myself that there are other parties involved in the process and that we can't be sure the Maoist Party openly embraced such high benefits. One-third is not a majority, after all.

As a non-Leninist I view multi-party democracy as a step above the existing alternative of centralized democracy - but that's a personal matter. The title of the piece is quite misleading considering the different approach.

[Herman]

Not a single developed nation-station currently sustains a socialist economy, and yet people are expecting the Maoist Party to avoid capitalist development? How is there going to be industrial democracy when 80% of the country is barely adept at using the iron plow? How is there going to be direct political democracy when the people of Nepal are accustomed to taking orders?

Exactly. There is no "socialist" culture to begin with. In order to foment a direct democracy, even a participatory one, requires that a certain level of political culture exist. Nepal still holds to feudal culture, and it is now when it has begun to adopt a capitalist/bourgeois culture.

In a globalized world, where capitalist relations have become immensely international, it's quite hard to construct a socialist economy.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Hmm.

Many of the anarchists that I've talked to around this site support historical materialism as a means to view history.

Absolutely true. I am a historical materialist. I deny both the empirical validity and the political usefulness of dialectics. They are different frameworks and need to be seperated from each other. The previous posts consistently demonstrate the danger of this rigid, unfounded (supposedly scentific) approach to the political universe. It justifies reformism and capitalist development in the hope that one day these invisible processes will somehow birth a proletarian revolution. I am sorry to disapoint you "comrades" but history is on our side with this one. Communist instigated "bourgeois revolutions" have only ever produced an over-inflated bureaucratic elite and a rigidly, politically controlled labour force. Dialectics has repeatedly and consistently failed to produce your proletarian revolution. Largely because it denies working people the organs for democratic control as "pre-mature". Lets stop putting our faith in invisible forces and back into the revolutionary agency of the people and their desire for emancipation.

And some of us do not want a "socialist economy", we want communism and social revolution.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

To anarchists, history is nothing but a conspiracy of leaders plotting between each other to enslave mankind. Their view of history is much like any shitty super hero movie, where there is a bad guy sitting behind a desk, twiddling his fingers while laughing like a evil lunatic while he signs death warrants for the good guys in the story. In the Marxist analysis, there is no 'orthodoxy' involved, it's purely scientific - history takes place at a certain time, in a certain place, with a certain level of technological advancement, and with certain classes existing alongside each other due to their relationship to the productive forces. That might be 'boring' or 'not fun' in the long run - but it's reality.

Nepal is semi-feudal. The Maoists recently defeated a 'god-king' that descended from a lineage of hereditary premiers. The dominant local potentates and commercial circles with foreign ties presided over a nation in which Western tourists enjoyed mountainous scenery while tenant farmers were taxed into submission. They are in the lowest quintile when it comes to life expectancy, literacy, and employment.

The 'stageist orthodoxy' is what has happened in Nepal - it can't be explained by crying how these evil bourgeois rulers are resurrecting hierarchy, but by closely analyzing why it turned out this way. It had nothing to do with 'tricking the people', but with the native bourgeois and petite bourgeois working towards the creation of a independent capitalist state, the ultimate precursor to worker's self-ownership.


Nothing more than ill-informed waffle that exposes a monumental ignorance of anarchist philosophy.

[RNK]

It's always funny to see these Platoistic theoreticians lambast and condemn movements, quite often before they even get off the ground or have time to accomplish anything, on the basis that their actions do not fit perfectly with their cookie cutter illusions of how things should be. And it's funny that those that make these nonsensical anti-observations fly in the face of every single real-life experience of revolution that has ever existed.

Unfortunately for you, revolutionary movements that occur in reality are not some mathematical formula that can be so easily picked apart by conventional science after half an hour of reading news articles on the internet. Frankly, I have more reason to trust a revolutionary movement which has actually been struggling for 15 years, most of the time violently, in order to carry out their revolutionary tasks, than I have reason to trust a 20-something year old "internet prophet".

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

It's always funny to see these Platoistic theoreticians lambast and condemn movements, quite often before they even get off the ground or have time to accomplish anything, on the basis that their actions do not fit perfectly with their cookie cutter illusions of how things should be. And it's funny that those that make these nonsensical anti-observations fly in the face of every single real-life experience of revolution that has ever existed.

Unfortunately for you, revolutionary movements that occur in reality are not some mathematical formula that can be so easily picked apart by conventional science after half an hour of reading news articles on the internet. Frankly, I have more reason to trust a revolutionary movement which has actually been struggling for 15 years, most of the time violently, in order to carry out their revolutionary tasks, than I have reason to trust a 20-something year old "internet prophet".

:laugh::laugh::laugh: "internet prophet" :laugh::laugh::laugh:
That was precious. Maybe you should have a lie down after that one..

So you are saying despite the fact that the intentions of the movement have been made crystal clear in their statements to the bourgeois press, the historical lessons that can be taken from "communist parties" entering into bourgeois governments, the historical failures of both Bolshevism and its Maoist variant to manufacture any truly revolutionary society in the hands of the working class, the repeated failures of this very movement during its fifteen years of struggle we still... after all this ... have to wait and see if just this once Leninism gets something right. Excuse me if I am not waiting with baited breath.

[ChairmanArt]

And what "historical failures" are you referring to? The "failures" experienced by Bolshevism and Maoism was that it was overturned by the revisionist pigs Xiaoping and Khrushchev, not that they themselves did not make great advancements in carrying forward socialist transformation and putting state power in the hands of the people.

Forgive me, but it seems a little counterproductive to accuse Leninism and Maoism of being unable to rupture with the bourgeois right while using the same pragmatic arguments ascribed to by the bourgeoisie themselves in simply dismissing the Bolshevik and Maoist revolutionary governments as just being "failures".

[bezdomni]

what that I am not a total politico who actually has other interests? Maybe I should have gone for a "forward Russia" style Soviet piece. Would that be more suitably proletarian? Just a ridiculous statement.

I wasn't talking to you. I was, once again, referring to Advent of Anarchy. You can figure this out because I said that as a direct response to something he had said above.

I'll respond to the rest of your misdirected drivel later.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

What if the workers want to organize their organs of power into a state apparatus to...you know...fight the bourgeoisie and suppress the use of violence by reactionaries? Cos, historically, that seems to be the case.
Historically, you've always failed. But if an Anarchist Workers Revolution occured, I doubt the proletariat would switch to your ideology when what they fought for was anarchy. But let's go back to the failure thing. What happened to the Soviet Union? Disassembled a year before I was born, and at the end of that year, it was completely gone. The PRC? One name: Deng Xiaoping. The eastern front? Gone the way of the USSR, which went the way of the dodo.


I am accusing you in particular of being an individualistic, petty-bourgeois, unthinking philistine.

And I'm accusing you of being a tyrant-supporting (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc), state capitalist, counterrevolutionary imbecile.

I've got more insults if you want to continue. But if you, like me, want to rethink this and have a more mature debate instead of both of us acting a bit immaturely, then let's do so.

[RNK]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: "internet prophet" :laugh::laugh::laugh:
That was precious. Maybe you should have a lie down after that one..

So you are saying despite the fact that the intentions of the movement have been made crystal clear in their statements to the bourgeois press, the historical lessons that can be taken from "communist parties" entering into bourgeois governments, the historical failures of both Bolshevism and its Maoist variant to manufacture any truly revolutionary society in the hands of the working class, the repeated failures of this very movement during its fifteen years of struggle we still... after all this ... have to wait and see if just this once Leninism gets something right. Excuse me if I am not waiting with baited breath.

You sure are fucking boring for an anarchist. And I find humourous irony in an anarchist using the term "historical failures".

[The New Manifesto]

You sure are fucking boring for an anarchist. And I find humourous irony in an anarchist using the term "historical failures".
:laugh:


I find it quite funny, that not one Anarchist has addressed the point made on the first page: Nepal has

no substantial urban working class or industry to speak of


And, btw
Historically, you've always failed. But if an Anarchist Workers Revolution occured, I doubt the proletariat would switch to your ideology when what they fought for was anarchy. But let's go back to the failure thing. What happened to the Soviet Union? Disassembled a year before I was born, and at the end of that year, it was completely gone. The PRC? One name: Deng Xiaoping. The eastern front? Gone the way of the USSR, which went the way of the dodo.

What do you expect the result of your first(assuming you reach that stage)revolution to be?

[Herman]

Going back on-topic, i'd recommend those who view the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) in a negative light should just wait and see what happens before criticizing harshly.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

:laugh:
I find it quite funny, that not one Anarchist has addressed the point made on the first page: Nepal has

And, btw

What do you expect the result of your first(assuming you reach that stage)revolution to be?

Well actually I have fully addressed this point if you actually read my posts. In that I emphatically deny that
1. That this is the case. Nepal has a working class, it has a mixed agrarian economy. And therefore has a mixture of agrarian and industrial workers.
And following from this -
2. That stageist orthodoxies are totally misplaced (relating only to the development of Western capitalism over the feudal period), empirically unsound (they don't relate to the actual situation in the country) and expose a reactionary agenda (the entrenchment of Western finance into Nepalese industry).

Your second question is irrelevant as I deny that "bourgeois" revolutions can be marked as progress at all.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

You sure are fucking boring for an anarchist. And I find humourous irony in an anarchist using the term "historical failures".

That's a swing and a miss.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

And what "historical failures" are you referring to? The "failures" experienced by Bolshevism and Maoism was that it was overturned by the revisionist pigs Xiaoping and Khrushchev, not that they themselves did not make great advancements in carrying forward socialist transformation and putting state power in the hands of the people.

Forgive me, but it seems a little counterproductive to accuse Leninism and Maoism of being unable to rupture with the bourgeois right while using the same pragmatic arguments ascribed to by the bourgeoisie themselves in simply dismissing the Bolshevik and Maoist revolutionary governments as just being "failures".

So simply stating the basic fact that Lenin gradually centralised power away from the workers councils and democratic bodies of workers power and into the control of his own minor political faction is bourgeois? Likewise that Mao's undemocratic and over-centralised dictatorship oversaw the death of an estimated 2 million workers simply because some hack in the central committee decided to prioritise heavy industry over feeding their own people.
In all these cases "the people" (as you put it) were so disenfranchised, so fundamentally removed from state power they were incapable of halting such disasters. My agenda is with the empowerment of the working class. What is yours?

[RNK]

Your second question is irrelevant as I deny that "bourgeois" revolutions can be marked as progress at all.

Then talking to you would appear to be completely pointless, since you fail to recognize even this most basic of historical truths. You're yet another anarchist kid who's got all the questions but none of the answers.


My agenda is with the empowerment of the working class. What is yours?

The same; we've just got the sense to look beyond the length of our own arm when pursuing this agenda.

Anyway, run along now.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Then talking to you would appear to be completely pointless, since you fail to recognize even this most basic of historical truths. You're yet another anarchist kid who's got all the questions but none of the answers.

The same; we've just got the sense to look beyond the length of our own arm when pursuing this agenda.

Anyway, run along now.

How in any way does that constitute an argument? I have noticed a distinct tendency with you that when you are apparently incapable of engaging with the issues (and actually substantiating your own claims) you choose to instead simply utilise a bunch of tired stereotypes and attack me individually. That may hold truck on the rest of the Leninist left, but I am afraid that I only deal with actual debatable positions.

I stand by my claim. Sure in the broad historical sense (as Marx described) the transition from feudalism to bourgeois society did mark progress. But you are applying broad illustrative, historical categories in a manner which is innapropriate and actually displays a misreading of Marx. Marx made it absolutely clear that a stage of development cannot be reversed and that its effects are all encompassing. We live in a global capitalist economy according to Marxian categories. Claiming that there still exist pockets of feudalism that need to be revolutionised is just false, even by your own analysis. Applying this process of "bourgeois revolution" is just dressing up a modernisation programme that seeks to make a state capitalist economy more competitive.

[Devrim]

I stand by my claim. Sure in the broad historical sense (as Marx described) the transition from feudalism to bourgeois society did mark progress. But you are applying broad illustrative, historical categories in a manner which is innapropriate and actually displays a misreading of Marx. Marx made it absolutely clear that a stage of development cannot be reversed and that its effects are all encompassing. We live in a global capitalist economy according to Marxian categories. Claiming that there still exist pockets of feudalism that need to be revolutionised is just false, even by your own analysis. Applying this process of "bourgeois revolution" is just dressing up a modernisation programme that seeks to make a state capitalist economy more competitive.

It is not only an anarchist position. The communist left has similar views. No faction of the bourgeoisie is progressive today. That obviously includes the ones currently in government in Nepal.

Devrim

[RevolverNo9]

Yes, this title is very misleading... and what's more ultra-left in the truest sense. DC, as advocates of emancipation we must look towards society as it actually is, and not as we wish it ought to be (the lesson that many leftists must learn about the Middle-East, we simply can't afford to get it wrong there).

Also, if anyone has access to the New Left Review, check the last edition (49 Jan/Feb 2008) for Achin Vanaik's excellent historical sumamry and contextualisation of events in Nepal. It's the best introduction you will find.

DC, I am not unsympathetic to some of your views (I resisted Leninist organisation for some time) and this shouldn't be the time to rehearse the old arguments about the role of the revolutionary party but I think your argument does suffer from a blanket anti-Leninism, that is, your perspective is obsuring the image of the social movements on the ground.

What leftists have to recognise is that the CPN(M) has been carried to the position it now enjoys through the popular struggles of ordinary people. Out in the countryside, where cripplingly burdensome rural expropriation is the dominant economic fact, the Maoists are fantastically popular and enjoy a level of support you woefully underconsider. For decades they waged a popular war - something only possible with roots in genuine mass support - and made tremendous gains for the oppressed, who in Nepal are some of the most deprived populations in the world. Furthermore, they overthrew an authoritarian monarchical regime, the excesses of which were devestating to ordinary people.

This is a huge gain for the ordinary people of Nepal. There's no other way of looking at it. And what you need to recognise is, by condeming the movement, you are condeming a popular struggle carried out by the oppressed. That's a fact. The social movement was with the CPN(M) - you may not like that but that is the reality of the situation. I'm certainly no fan of Maoists! Chinese Maoism was a travesty and their creepy followers in the West are... well, I needn't go into it. But what I try to understand is, that in certain concrete political conjunctures in other parts of the world, Maoist movements carry forward the struggle of the oppressed, just as in the Middle East elements within the Islamic movement express the form of popular resistance.

Now what happens now is unclear. It certainly seems possible that the CPN(M) will develop into a reformist political player, which is regrettable. However it takes an ultra-leftism of a certain type not to recognise that this is progressive and the events won through struggle by the CPN(M) will lead to a highly positive amelioration of the lives of millions. This isn't about stale Marxist orthodoxies or whatever 'dialectic' it is you go on about... its about an honest assessment of the material forces on the ground. There is nothing to suggest that at this moment Nepal could carry through a successful revolution that would move beyond capital.

So by all means criticise and criticise again what the CPN(M) do with their political power -but do not condemn a movement that is rooted in genuine popular action - the movement of the oppressed.

Also, yes, as has been said... 'in Lenin's footsteps'?? What on earth is the parellel? Lenin's Bolsheviks did push for a revolution - I know we can argue about what that meant and what that achieved, but it certainly bears no resemblance to the practice of the CPN(M). Moreover their organisational practices are utterly different and they find themselves situated in very different places at very different times.

[Zurdito]

Going back on-topic, i'd recommend those who view the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) in a negative light should just wait and see what happens before criticizing harshly.

well no, because as has already been stated in this thread several times, they have already stated what they will do, and it is not remotely revolutionary.

[Herman]

well no, because as has already been stated in this thread several times, they have already stated what they will do, and it is not remotely revolutionary.

Yes, because they might improve the living conditions of the ordinary worker. The fact that they want to first create a bourgeois state in order to have a fully developed working class is a good thing. As it is right now, the working class could never take control.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

So much for anti-imperialism ay?


US soon to lift 'terror tag' on Maoists in Nepal
The United States is all set to revise its Nepal Maoists policy, say latest reports.
“We are currently involved in sorting out some technical issues involved in removing the Maoists from our terrorist list”, said Williams S. Martin the head of the political and economic section at the US embassy in Kathmandu.
According to reports Mr. Williams said this talking to the Chief of the NCC (Nepal Chamber of Commerce), Mr. Surendra Bir Malakar, on Monday May 5, 2008.
“The US is also preparing to release a new travel advisory for Nepal updating the improved peace and security situations in the country”, Mr. Williams disclosed.
“We are eagerly waiting for the formation of the new government in Nepal…we acknowledge that the Maoists have emerged as the largest party in the Constituent Assembly”, Williams said further.
“The US government will respect the verdict of the Nepalese people and hope that the Maoists Party will change its behaviors in the future”.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

DC, I am not unsympathetic to some of your views (I resisted Leninist organisation for some time) and this shouldn't be the time to rehearse the old arguments about the role of the revolutionary party but I think your argument does suffer from a blanket anti-Leninism, that is, your perspective is obscuring the image of the social movements on the ground.

This seems to suggest that we should not as revolutionaries, criticise what is obviously a reactionary political programme simply because the group in question happens to be the one that has consolidated the most power. That is a relativistic outlook that leads down a potentially very dangerous path and has in the past has led to blanket apologies for the most oppressive of regimes.



What leftists have to recognise is that the CPN(M) has been carried to the position it now enjoys through the popular struggles of ordinary people. Out in the countryside, where cripplingly burdensome rural expropriation is the dominant economic fact, the Maoists are fantastically popular and enjoy a level of support you woefully underconsider. For decades they waged a popular war - something only possible with roots in genuine mass support - and made tremendous gains for the oppressed, who in Nepal are some of the most deprived populations in the world. Furthermore, they overthrew an authoritarian monarchical regime, the excesses of which were devestating to ordinary people.

That opportunism and populism is a means of winning mass support for any political programme is no basis for uncritical support.



This is a huge gain for the ordinary people of Nepal. There's no other way of looking at it. And what you need to recognise is, by condeming the movement, you are condeming a popular struggle carried out by the oppressed. That's a fact. The social movement was with the CPN(M) - you may not like that but that is the reality of the situation. I'm certainly no fan of Maoists! Chinese Maoism was a travesty and their creepy followers in the West are... well, I needn't go into it. But what I try to understand is, that in certain concrete political conjunctures in other parts of the world, Maoist movements carry forward the struggle of the oppressed, just as in the Middle East elements within the Islamic movement express the form of popular resistance.

This cannot, as the article and the repeated statements of the party have outlined, be considered a "huge gain" for the ordinary people of the Nepal. It represents only the consolidation of economic and social power into the hands of a bureaucratic elite and opportunities for investment for Western capital. I measure the gains of ordinary people by democratic control and concrete improvement in conditions, neither of which is apparent (or likely to be ) in this case. The kind of blanket anti-imperialism that you display deeply undermines the integrity of our politics and leads to support for anything from homophobic, patriarchal and even fascistic social movements.



Also, yes, as has been said... 'in Lenin's footsteps'?? What on earth is the parellel? Lenin's Bolsheviks did push for a revolution - I know we can argue about what that meant and what that achieved, but it certainly bears no resemblance to the practice of the CPN(M). Moreover their organisational practices are utterly different and they find themselves situated in very different places at very different times.

It follows in Lenin's footsteps in terms of the blatantly contradictory behavior of this political party to the ideals and social system they claim to espouse.

[The Feral Underclass]

So much for anti-imperialism ay?

You can't invest in a country where you class the government as terrorist.

[Zurdito]

Yes, because they might improve the living conditions of the ordinary worker. The fact that they want to first create a bourgeois state in order to have a fully developed working class is a good thing. As it is right now, the working class could never take control.

The working class could take control, there is no reason why not. The working class took control in Russia in 1917, under a leadership whcih rejected any notion of a "capitalist stage of development".

Also as has been shown in this thread, proportionally more people are employed in manufacturing in Nepal than are in the USA.

In any case, you are right one thing: they might improve the living conditions of the ordinary worker in some ways. Many bourgeois nationalist third world governments have done this, as have many social democrats int he first world? Did revolutionaries therefore become cheerleaders for them?

Our job as revolutionaries is to keep agitating for working class and peasant independent organisation and internationalism. We obviously cannot purely denounce all bourgeois/bureaucratic leaders, we instead must relate to the day to day demands from which the reformists gain their support: this is where Trotsky's transitional programme comes in.

However the whole "wait and see" attitude to bureaucrats and the bourgeoisie only serves to disarm workers and peasants to sectors who have only ceded certain demands in the first place out of fear of a radicalised working class. So it is a self-defeating strategy.

[RevolverNo9]

That opportunism and populism is a means of winning mass support for any political programme is no basis for uncritical support.

DC: I'm in a rush so haven't got to time to respond more roundly but this is where the root of the error in your argument lies. The CPN(M) have - whether you like it or not - been the dominant expression of popular struggle. The struggle of ordinary people to overthrow the monarchy, those perpetrators of brutal killings, political intolderance and massacre, was realised through the CPN(M). I'm afraid we can't navigate around this issue. The Maoists are not in the place they are today due to electoral opportunism but rather as a result of their leadership within a social movement. They led an armed, people's war... they were indeed in a position to overthrow the state by force, but recognised that both the human cost and the wider international conjuncture would have put society under possibly unbearable strains.

Also I fail to remember where I gave uncritical support. I give no such thing.


I measure the gains of ordinary people by democratic control and concrete improvement in conditions, neither of which is apparent (or likely to be ) in this case.

If revolutionaries don't support the material gains of workers and the oppressed because they are short of revolutionary change they are condemning those very people in whose name they fight. Not only is this extreme of ultra-leftism misguided, the consequences can be barbaric. If the CPN(M) succeed in pushing a programme of land-reform through, the results will be substantial. Also to equate the rule of a tyrannous monarchy which kept lodged iron feudal relations and an energised pattern of extra-economic exploitation with a bureactatic, reformist government is absurd, and again very harmful to the material conditions of ordinary people.


The kind of blanket anti-imperialism that you display deeply undermines the integrity of our politics and leads to support for anything from homophobic, patriarchal and even fascistic social movements.

Absolutely not what I am proposing. First of all we are not dealing with anti-imperialism. Nepal belongs to that exclusive catagory of less-developed nations which wasn't directly colonialised. Also your charge would imply that I give uncritical support to non-socialist social movements, which I don't - and have not done here, or elsewhere. However you are refusing the recognise the conrete reality of the situation... one cannot conjure up a revolutionary movement, and nor do revolutionaries alone make revolutions. We have to recognise where the class is, and what forms of expression the popular struggle of the oppressed. This is does not preclude intervention on the behalf of the revolutionary left but this must done with immense sensitivity (CPGB take note!). The position that you have expanded upon in this thread leaves you ignoring real historical circumstances and resorting to an idealistic, voluntarist plea. This is not the wager with which revolutionaries must work. We must intervene but (to quote some old German) not under the circumstances of our choosing!

Plus facsistic movements?? Who? Is that a seriously critical assessment of whoever you are describing, or, more likely I suggest, are you uncritically reproducing shoddy liberal charactarisations of a complex and contradictory social movement that is forced to appear as a homogenous block of... 'evil'? (And this is where the AWL present themselves as a perfect lesson in how not to form an 'analysis'!)


It follows in Lenin's footsteps in terms of the blatantly contradictory behavior of this political party to the ideals and social system they claim to espouse.

Oh come on - you can do better than that! I could apply that description to any leftist organisation or party that claimed to be revolutionary but that I didn't consider to be fulfilling its claims. So what? An anarchit could conceivably say - for the sake of argument - that Class War follow Lenin 'in terms of the blatantly contradictory behavior of this political [organisation] to the ideals and social system they claim to espouse.' Yet what would be the utility of that? All you have proposed is that - by your (highly contestable) reckoning - both the CPN(M) and the Bolsheviks are/were self-proclaimed revolutionary organisations that do not behave as a revolutionary organisation should...

***

On a side note, interesting development: the CPN(M)'s victory seems to point towards a likely successful intergration between the PLA and the RNA. This would give a Maoist government an army that would be at least neutral, allowing the goverment to carry out land reform and assualts on feudal order.

[RevolverNo9]

So much for anti-imperialism ay?

Also this is just plain silly! Holding on to 'official terrorist status' is not the watermark of anti-imperialism! The withdrawl of terrorist status by the US is a demonstration that the US has been forced to recognise different political terrain (and as TAT said - so they can invest!)

By your logic Hamas would no longer be anti-imperialists because they negotiate with the US by proxy through Egypt...

Odd argument.

[RNK]

How in any way does that constitute an argument? I have noticed a distinct tendency with you that when you are apparently incapable of engaging with the issues (and actually substantiating your own claims) you choose to instead simply utilise a bunch of tired stereotypes and attack me individually.

Close. When I'm unwilling of engaging in the same tired, strung-out bullshit debates and whiny anarchist tantrums, I do utilise a bunch of tired but completely accurate stereotypes and attack your general ignorance.

So yeah, I really don't have the patience or will to argue anything with you. Whether or not I convinced you of anything, or you convinced me of anything, it's a completely pointless endeavour which does nothing but waste both of our times, when I'd much rather spend my time enjoying myself and not popping blood vessels over insignificant shit, like your worthless opinion of the CPN(M). Yeah, another future college dropout wants to flail his little girl arms on the internet from the safety of his retard throne, the latest in a long line of moron simpletons and losers who have nothing better to do than try and seriously engineer the future of human society on an entertainment-themed roleplaying message board where we all get to don the cliche uniforms of our favorite life-changing superheroes.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather avoid yet another stupid worthless debate and let you believe I'm conceiding defeat by my "inability to respond".

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Close. When I'm unwilling of engaging in the same tired, strung-out bullshit debates and whiny anarchist tantrums, I do utilise a bunch of tired but completely accurate stereotypes and attack your general ignorance.

So yeah, I really don't have the patience or will to argue anything with you. Whether or not I convinced you of anything, or you convinced me of anything, it's a completely pointless endeavour which does nothing but waste both of our times, when I'd much rather spend my time enjoying myself and not popping blood vessels over insignificant shit, like your worthless opinion of the CPN(M). Yeah, another future college dropout wants to flail his little girl arms on the internet from the safety of his retard throne, the latest in a long line of moron simpletons and losers who have nothing better to do than try and seriously engineer the future of human society on an entertainment-themed roleplaying message board where we all get to don the cliche uniforms of our favorite life-changing superheroes.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather avoid yet another stupid worthless debate and let you believe I'm conceiding defeat by my "inability to respond".

You have some serious issues. I suggest you get a grip.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Also this is just plain silly! Holding on to 'official terrorist status' is not the watermark of anti-imperialism! The withdrawl of terrorist status by the US is a demonstration that the US has been forced to recognise different political terrain (and as TAT said - so they can invest!)

By your logic Hamas would no longer be anti-imperialists because they negotiate with the US by proxy through Egypt...

Odd argument.

I will respond in full to both of your posts but I am a bit pushed for time now.

As a short rebuttal I would say that it is no coincidence that the US government has changed this organisations "terrorist" status in line with its changed approach towards Western capital. The fact that they have made this step and are encouraging investment demonstrates that they are sure this new regime will not be anti-capitalist and will not present a threat to an American neo-liberal agenda. Hamas are not anti-imperialists by my understanding (but that one is for another day and I think I have made myself clear on what playing toy soldiers with these movements actually means you are supporting). It was just a general observation.

[Illus]

Actually, those who uphold Stalin also uphold Hoxha, who condemned Maoism and the 'Three Worlds Theory' as reactionary and anti-Marxist, a position that 'Stalinists' (ML) uphold to this day. I suggest you read Hoxha's work 'Imperialism and the Revolution'.

I think it's remarkably opportunistic, not to mention extremely generalizing and absolutist, to link the counter-revolutionary Maoists in Nepal to Stalin. It seems the sectists will do anything these days to get the knife in the back whenever the opportunity arises.

[manic expression]

This cannot, as the article and the repeated statements of the party have outlined, be considered a "huge gain" for the ordinary people of the Nepal. It represents only the consolidation of economic and social power into the hands of a bureaucratic elite and opportunities for investment for Western capital. I measure the gains of ordinary people by democratic control and concrete improvement in conditions, neither of which is apparent (or likely to be ) in this case. The kind of blanket anti-imperialism that you display deeply undermines the integrity of our politics and leads to support for anything from homophobic, patriarchal and even fascistic social movements.

You previously cited the Soviet Union and PRC as examples of "failed" attempts of communism, and now you "measure the gains of ordinary people by...concrete improvement in conditions". Interesting. So the way in which the Soviet Union and the PRC massively improved living conditions for the workers has no relevance here, does it? You show a complete ignorance to the fact that Cuba has maintained unprecedented rates in healthcare, education, women's rights, living standards (housing, food, etc.) acceptance of homosexuality, artistic freedom and more, and it's precisely this sort of black-and-white puritanism that makes anarchism so impotent and naive.

You want improvement for the lives of the workers, but when the workers improve their lives with a socialist state, you denounce them. Pathetic.


It follows in Lenin's footsteps in terms of the blatantly contradictory behavior of this political party to the ideals and social system they claim to espouse.

Would you like to try to prove this? You won't, because you can't. Since you forgot: Lenin and the Bolsheviks ushered in an era of intellectual and artistic growth during the 1920's. Those are Lenin's footsteps, in case you wanted to know where they led (although you've made it abundantly clear that you don't).