Nepal overthrows monarchy, establishes republic

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7424302.stm

The Himalayan nation of Nepal has become the world's newest republic, ending 240 years of monarchy.
A constituent assembly meeting in the capital, Kathmandu, overwhelmingly voted to abolish royal rule.
The Maoists, the largest party after laying down arms and standing in last month's elections, were committed to ousting King Gyanendra.
People celebrated wildly in the streets of the capital after news of the assembly vote.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7360223.stm

The unexpected victory of the Maoist rebels in Nepal's elections has surprised the former rebels themselves, baffled political observers and stunned the international community. The general expectation was that the rebels would trail behind the country's two largest political parties, the Nepali Congress, and the mainstream-left, the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist.
But both the parties were left far behind the Maoists who won half the seats chosen by the first-past-the-post system and gained about 30% of the votes for seats given by proportional representation.

[...]

The Maoists and the other main political parties agreed in December that Nepal would become a republic after the April vote.

[...]


The Maoist leader, Prachanda, has been quick to try to reassure the public, political parties and the international community about his party's commitment to multi-party and peaceful politics.

[...]

Apart from these challenges, the former rebels will have to deliver peace, stability and "economic revolution", all of which have remained their mantra for several years.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_re_as/nepal

KATMANDU, Nepal - The world's last Hindu kingdom became its newest secular republic Wednesday as Nepal's lawmakers, led by former communist insurgents, abolished the monarchy that had reigned over this Himalayan land for 239 years.

[...]

While the Maoists say they are committed capitalists and have no intention of nationalizing industries or setting up collective farms, they have promised to bring sweeping change to this largely impoverished country that in many place more closely resembles medieval Europe than a modern nation.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Are they committed capitalists or are they Maoists? Is Nepal going to undergo an "economic revolution"? Of what kind?

[BIG BROTHER]

are they going to have a provisional president or what? and now that the monarchy is over i wonder too, what do the maoists plan on doing.

[spartan]

Its about time that they got rid of this outdated institution which stiffles progress at every opportunity it gets (Except for its military that buys modern weaponry from the west).

This is a step in the right direction (Even though the Maoists seem to be anything but) which means that Nepal can hopefully move forward to a brighter and more prosperous future for its people.

And though it would appear that the Maoists have no intrest in making Nepal a Socialist state i suppose that the next best thing that we can wish for is a stable Social Democratic representative Democracy with a mixed economy as it is still far more preferable to an absolute Monarchy that keeps its people in Feudal like conditions (Though i of course hope that the Maoists are just saying this to get support and will instead make a U-turn and nationalise all major industries once in power).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I get the faint impression that the reporter mistook the strategic establishment of a liberal democracy for "commitment to capitalism".

[chegitz guevara]

Are they committed capitalists or are they Maoists? Is Nepal going to undergo an "economic revolution"? Of what kind?

Yes, but not immediately to socialism. They appear to be stagists, and believe they must build capitalism before they can build socialism. Nepal is largely a feudal / peasant nation, and they lack the industrial capacity to create socialism. Further, the CPN(M) only has 1/3rd of all the delegates to the Constituent Assembly. While various Communist Parties of Nepal together hold a majority of delegates, they don't seem to like one another much. I doubt they could force a transition through on their own.

Check out: http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/

[YKTMX]

I get the faint impression that the reporter mistook the strategic establishment of a liberal democracy for "commitment to capitalism".

Sadly, I think the Maoists are claiming to hold what you might call a "Stageist" position. That is, they think that Nepal must pass from feudalism to capitalism before it can become a "communist" society. So, when they say they're "committed capitalists", this is what they mean.

I imagine most members on here would prefer permanent revolution. ;)

[Dominicana_1965]

Nepal will now enter capitalism.

The Maoists are also attempting to give back the land they seized and gave to the peasants back to the landowners.

Interview with Prachanda on May 27th, 2008:




Q. You've used the term "economic revolution" and said that after forming the government the task is economic revolution. Tell us a bit about your first steps; the economy is in very bad shape.
A. Yes, I think that economic development and sustainable peace have a very compact relation. Without having development it is very difficult to have a sustainable peace. And here in our country there are huge natural resources: for example, we have a huge hydro potential, tourism can be a big industry in this country, this beautiful country. There are so many things we can do.
For the time being what we are seeing is that we should have to follow a mixed economic system. I also want to qualify that it is not exactly a mixed economic system; we are trying to develop some new approaches in our transitional economic policy. We have not completed the democratic revolution, you know. We are in the process of the completion of the democratic revolution. But after ten years of Peoples War we have achieved some political and some socio-economic change, which is already in process. Because that revolution is in the transitional phase we are trying to develop some new tactics and new policy according to the overall economic situation and national situation of the first decades of the 21st century. Therefore we shall have to follow a transitional economic policy. Not exactly the economic policy of the New Democracy, not exactly the economic policy of the bourgeois system, but something in-between. We are saying that this is a transitional economic policy, and we want to decide our own priority by ourselves.
And we want to encourage the national capitalist, or 'national bourgeois' as we say, we want to encourage them to invest and to generate employment, and to invest in the industrial sector, which will create some new possibilities. And through them we want to attract the foreign investment, but according to our decision, according to our priority. Until now, all the decisions have been taken not by the Nepali people and the Nepali government, but by the foreigners and international institutions, like the World Bank. But this time we want to change that pattern. We want to decide our own priorities, we want to encourage our national bourgeois to have a conducive atmosphere for investment and generation of employment, and through them we want to attract the foreign investors according to our decision, according to our priority. In the rural area and in the hydro sector we want to have small hydro projects, medium level hydroprojects, and big hydro projects. Not just the large ones.

Q. One problem is that you are being handed over a practically bankrupt state, one heavily in debt, and that won't leave you much leeway, at least if you work in the old terms, so how are you going to address that?
A. I think it is a challenge, and we are taking it as a positive challenge. The first question is to mobilize the millions of the masses to rebuild this country. Until and unless we mobilize the masses, nothing can be done. We will transparently divulge everything to the mass of the people: this is the situation here in the country, the world government and world state has led this country to this bankruptcy. Now, if everyone of this country, every citizen of this country will not make a commitment to go ahead to build the country themselves, it will be very difficult for us sustain and undertake development. Therefore our first priority will be to educate the masses of people about the real situation of the government and all these things that have happened in the past.
The second point is that we will try our best to mobilize the national bourgeois, the national capitalists. There are so many people who can contribute. If we draw up a scientific plan, an economic plan, according to our situation, we can mobilize those industrialists and those national capitalists or national bourgeois to invest in a more productive way. And I also think that, because we are in between China and India, both of which have very fast growing economies, we can benefit from their growing economies. I myself have tried my best to have serious discussions with China's communist party and China's government. How can they help to rebuild this country? How much will they be able to contribute, and how far can they mobilize their peoples to invest here in our country? And we were also talking with the Indian parties and Indian government officials: how can they contribute to our efforts in rebuilding this country? So I think that from both these countries, according to our plan and according to our priorities, we can mobilize positive economic input. This is something challenging, we know it, but this is something beneficial for this country.


http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/prachanda270508.html

[Hiero]

And though it would appear that the Maoists have no intrest in making Nepal a Socialist state i suppose that the next best thing that we can wish for is a stable Social Democratic representative Democracy with a mixed economy as it is still far more preferable to an absolute Monarchy that keeps its people in Feudal like conditions

We? As in the first world leftist that demand everything but do very little in regards to real structural change.


Sadly, I think the Maoists are claiming to hold what you might call a "Stageist" position. That is, they think that Nepal must pass from feudalism to capitalism before it can become a "communist" society. So, when they say they're "committed capitalists", this is what they mean.

I imagine most members on here would prefer permanent revolution.

Most members here are not part of a revolution, maybe that's why they pefer Trotskys counter revolutionary theory as opposed to what the actual modern communist movement is doing.

The biggest mistake here is how quick people dismiss overthrowing the monarchy. This is a huge thing, 10 000 people died on both sides trying to achieve this, and finally the Nepali people found a peacefull method of removing the reactionary Hindu rule.

And ofcourse 1st world Troskyites have their heads so far up their arse that they can't see real achievements for the working classes. However in Nepal and the surrounding regions Prachanda and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have settled their position in world history as the leaders who brought to end a 239 year old oppressive dynasty, and this is proven seeing how many people voted for, died for and now celeberate the creation of a republic. And what do Trotskyites and their 1st world chauvinist allys do? They sulk. You and your petty ideas aren't worth alot in the revolutionary movement. Go back to selling newspapers.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I've been following the Nepal issue for a long time now with some interest. I must admit that I am frustrated with the outcome while at the same time relieved that the fat bastard is finally out of power.

I remember a couple years ago having many discussions on this forum about Nepal, and at the time the farmers (Maoists) had 80% of the country under their control. The only area not was around Kathmandu.

I think they chickened out. Perhaps they feared a prolonged and brutal violent period (such as seen in Vietnam and Cambodia), but they could have won the war unconditionally.

The important thing, though, is that Gyanendra is out (although he should still be watched. . .wouldn't be the first monarch to step down just to try to come back with force).

Nepal has accomplished some of the the prerequisites to establishing socialism:
1. Getting rid of the current establishment
2. Progressing the state of affairs to the point where you can discuss the possibility of establishing socialism publicly without being ignored, oppressed, arrested or shot.

[the-red-under-the-bed]

I think they chickened out. Perhaps they feared a prolonged and brutal violent period (such as seen in Vietnam and Cambodia), but they could have won the war unconditionally.

I doubt they could have millitarily taken Kathmandu. While they had skillfully using guerilla warefare taken, as you say about 80% of the country into effective (not total) control, the Peoples Liberation Army still only has about 20,000 members, with 12,000 firearms and improvised exploves, where as the Royal Nepalese Army had around 80,000 members and was trained and supplied with everything they need by the US. Force was not an option, at least in the forseaable future.

Besides, the Maoists played a major part in the "Jana Andolan" (peoples moverment). They had blockaded Kathmandu, and then the peoples movement for democracy came about and the maoists, working with other parties, called a general strike across the country that lasted for two weeks and involved millions of people, which caused the King to abdicate.

Why would the Maoists want to stay in the hills when there was 500,000 people in Kathmandu calling for them to come into the cities?

As for people saying that "The maoists should nationalise industry once they consolidate power". THERE IS NO INDUSTRY IN NEPAL! Apart from agriculture, the only other real "industry" is the tourism industry. Nepal is such an amazingly backward and underdeveloped country, most of the nation can only be reached by foot. There is nothing to nationalise.

The Maoists are pragmatic, they realise that they need money to develope the country, and they are trying to find funds to stimulate growth. In the absence in any real block of socialist countries or anything of the like, that capital has to unfortunately come from capitalists. THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR NEPAL. This doesnt mean that the Maoists are sell outs, this purely means the maoists are in touch with the reality of their situation.

[leftspot]

What the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has accomplished in Nepal is world historic. Ending over 200 years of a repressive monarchy is absolutely HUGE. The Trotskyists and anarchists who criticize the CPN(M) for not going far enough all at once are only exposing their idealism and their inability to grasp the actual tasks of making revolutionary change in the real world.

Rather than attacking reality for not fitting some preconceived formula or checklist, revolutionaries have a responsibility to learn everything we can from the revolutionary process happening before our eyes in Nepal. That, and celebrate this great victory for the people of Nepal and the people of the world!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

[Bright Banana Beard]

What the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has accomplished in Nepal is world historic. Ending over 200 years of a repressive monarchy is absolutely HUGE. The Trotskyists and anarchists who criticize the CPN(M) for not going far enough all at once are only exposing their idealism and their inability to grasp the actual tasks of making revolutionary change in the real world.

Rather than attacking reality for not fitting some preconceived formula or checklist, revolutionaries have a responsibility to learn everything we can from the revolutionary process happening before our eyes in Nepal. That, and celebrate this great victory for the people of Nepal and the people of the world!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

You seriously think we reject capitalism as necessary stage. Go read a book. We are aware about the reality & we know Nepal just become a bourgeoisie republic from feudal system, so please shut your tramp against anarcho-trotskyist.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I doubt they could have millitarily taken Kathmandu.
Did I say they could have taken Kathmandu through military might?

Kathmandu was surrounded. The farms where it got it's food was where the revolution sprouted (no pun intended).

A landlocked city in a landlocked country surrounded by hostile forces and with limited means of producing it's own food will have a hard time importing food. Surrender was a matter of when, not if.

[aussiestalinist]

They appear to be stagists, and believe they must build capitalism before they can build socialism. Nepal is largely a feudal / peasant nation, and they lack the industrial capacity to create socialism.


Socialists, once i poer, must implement Karl Marx's transition policy. Thats, from feudal system to capitalism to socialism and then to communism. The Maoist government should do what the Lenin government did in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did between 1922 to 1924. That is to introduce a New Economic Plan (NEP) to get capital to build up present and new industries and technologies in Nepal. This will increase living standards and improve the lives of millions of people in Nepal. The NEP did this in the USSR before it was replaced by the first five year plan under the Stalin government.

[Revolutiondownunder]

Great!!:)

[luxemburg89]

Oh Joy! Another Maoist nation!:) The death of many, many people and the repression of thought are the central tenants of leftism! Surely? At least that's the fucking impression China gives...

[aussiestalinist]

The death of many, many people and the repression of thought are the central tenants of leftism! Surely? At least that's the fucking impression China gives...


Where is you evidence that this has already happen? Even in China? I demand evidence.

[R_P_A_S]

Yes, but not immediately to socialism. They appear to be stagists, and believe they must build capitalism before they can build socialism. Nepal is largely a feudal / peasant nation, and they lack the industrial capacity to create socialism. Further, the CPN(M) only has 1/3rd of all the delegates to the Constituent Assembly. While various Communist Parties of Nepal together hold a majority of delegates, they don't seem to like one another much. I doubt they could force a transition through on their own.

Check out: http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/

So wait.. you believe that the Nepal Maoist will build Capitalism and than the class that "builds it" or is designated Capitalist.. will just relinquish power to the workers in a transition to socialism? really? How long will this take? Im thinking decades by then they won't even bother.

[aussiestalinist]

So wait.. you believe that the Nepal Maoist will build Capitalism and than the class that "builds it" or is designated Capitalist.. will just relinquish power to the workers in a transition to socialism? really? How long will this take? Im thinking decades by then they won't even bother.


Well, the New Economic Plan in the Soviet Union only lasted for two years giving the state and the peoples heaps of industry and capital to launch the first five-year plan. I think the capitalist phase would last two or five years. Then the Maoist government should start the first five-year plan.

[R_P_A_S]

Well, the New Economic Plan in the Soviet Union only lasted for two years giving the state and the peoples heaps of industry and capital to launch the first five-year plan. I think the capitalist phase would last two or five years. Then the Maoist government should start the first five-year plan.

if thats the case it sounds like disaster all over again.

[The Feral Underclass]

Does anyone know where they are going to go?

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, the New Economic Plan in the Soviet Union only lasted for two years

No it didn't, it lasted for 8 years, from 1921 to 1929.

[aussiestalinist]

No it didn't, it lasted for 8 years, from 1921 to 1929.


Sorry about the history mistake.



if thats the case it sounds like disaster all over again.


No it doesn't. The industrial out put increased under the first and second five year plan. In fact, the second five year plan was finished a had of time.

[Plagueround]

I get the faint impression that the reporter mistook the strategic establishment of a liberal democracy for "commitment to capitalism".

When I read the article, I got that feeling too. It's as if the author didn't know what the word Maoist implies.

I'm intrigued to see where this goes, as well as what the international communities response to it will be. (Other than it being likely bourgeois cappie countries will likely start denouncing them soon... :rolleyes:)

[ckaihatsu]

The expectations and hopes of masses of ordinary people will rapidly come into conflict with the program of a new Maoist-led government. The Maoists, who ended their protracted guerrilla struggle in 2006, have been busy pledging to business leaders that they will defend private property and encourage foreign investment. The CPN-M’s program is based on the reactionary two-stage theory of Stalinism, which in the name of clearing away feudal remnants defends capitalism and relegates socialism to the indefinite future.

[...]


Increasingly the Nepali monarchy was an anachronism that frustrated efforts by sections of the business elite to integrate the economically backward country into globalised processes of production. Efforts by the traditional parties—Nepali Congress and its various Stalinist allies—invariably floundered on the vested interests of the royalist cliques and the army hierarchy. With their promises to “fight feudalism” and enact “a radical social and economic transformation” to create a favourable environment for foreign investors, the Maoists are offering a way out of the impasse for the local capitalist class.

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/nepa-m30.shtml

[Ghaile]

[...]
The native national-bourgeois are roughly allied to the Seven-Party-Alliance against the old feudal regime, for now their interests are nationalistic and they support (as does the majority of the country) the new republican order.

Eventually the Maoists will have to fight them, of course, but first things first, the most immediate enemies are the imperialist transnational bourgeois who don't give a crap about the nation and are strongly US-India aligned, it will be these people who will kick up a fuss with investments. A reasonable state-sector needs to be build up before confiscation can begin.

[ckaihatsu]

Nepal will now enter capitalism.

The Maoists are also attempting to give back the land they seized and gave to the peasants back to the landowners.



Dominicana is correct here -- and all we have to do is wait and see. I would *like* to be optimistic about a post-monarchy Nepal, but the situation doesn't warrant it.

Here's the giveaway -- typical politician-speak, patronizing the people of Nepal with "education" about the fight they have just been through. *That's* his _first priority_???!!!!!!



Therefore our first priority will be to educate the masses of people about the real situation of the government and all these things that have happened in the past.

[Hiero]

Did I say they could have taken Kathmandu through military might?

Kathmandu was surrounded. The farms where it got it's food was where the revolution sprouted (no pun intended).

A landlocked city in a landlocked country surrounded by hostile forces and with limited means of producing it's own food will have a hard time importing food. Surrender was a matter of when, not if.

So starve their own people?

Damn the Maoist can't just win. When they were fighting, they were too violent, when they take the oppurtunity to rid the country of the monarchy they are selling out.

[ckaihatsu]

So starve their own people?

Damn the Maoist can't just win. When they were fighting, they were too violent, when they take the oppurtunity to rid the country of the monarchy they are selling out.


Comrade Sweety,

I don't think *anyone* here is contradicting the Maoists' right to use force, or to overthrow the monarchy. The thing is that there are limits to that kind of organization, and we're seeing them reach their limits now.

Time will tell, of course, and part of me wishes they'll find a nationalist-oriented solution, but I know better than to think that it could work. Most likely Nepal could get torn apart by transnational corporations backed by the U.S., India, and China. Just look at what's been happening recently in Tibet...!


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[KrazyRabidSheep]

So starve their own people?

Damn the Maoist can't just win. When they were fighting, they were too violent, when they take the oppurtunity to rid the country of the monarchy they are selling out.
Yes.
Yes, starve their own people.

Is it somehow worse to starve somebody then to shoot them?

Don't get me wrong, when a person dies it is a horrible thing (I see people die on a regular basis. Good people. Innocent people), but people would have died one way or another; failure or success, fighting or not.

Peaceful revolutions are few and far in between.
People will die. Innocent people will die.
May as well starve out the opposition and force the people in the city to choose between supporting the failing monarchy and (helping you) throw the monarchy down.

Killing is a horrible thing. War is worse. War should not be taken lightly, and all alternatives should be sought before one initiates a war.
However, sometimes there is no other choice.
Look at Nelson Mandela. He fought peacefully for decades against apartheid, but at one point, when given no choice, he turned to military action.

When there is no other choice, when one is committed to war, fight the war. Worry about the diplomacy afterward. There is always time for reconsolidation.

[el_chavista]

In http://21stcenturysocialism.com/forum/read.php?1,201 Antonio Mella wrote:

The Maoists combined the healthiest practices of 20th Century Stalinism with a new 21st Century Socialist revolutionary strategy, as recently witnessed in Latin America.

The Stalinist character of the Nepali rebellion was found in uncompromising Maoist attitude towards religious, feudal and royalist character of class oppression in Nepal. The rebels began their armed struggle in combating Hindu cast discrimination. They fought to emancipate Nepali women, empowering women through formal freedoms and equality and by practical example: including women in commanding positions in the rebel army.

The rebels also proved themselves to be 21st Century Socialists by not elevating armed violence and the One-Party State model into a dogmatic principal. They captured the mood of the masses by having the courage and confidence to face the bourgeois and feudalist politicians in pluralist elections. The rebels understood that in order to overturn state power, mass democratic struggle has to spread from the countryside into Nepal’s cities, to include workers, artisans and progressive intellectuals. Neither Kautsky nor Pol Pot would do the socialist movement any good."
This about the 21st century socialism as a "revolutionary strategy" is very appealing to me, but I didn't know there was that "2 stages" Stalinist theory of revolution too. Please compas, who can tell the difference?

[ckaihatsu]

In http://21stcenturysocialism.com/forum/read.php?1,201 Antonio Mella wrote:
This about the 21st century socialism as a "revolutionary strategy" is very appealing to me, but I didn't know there was that "2 stages" Stalinist theory of revolution too. Please compas, who can tell the difference?


This question, from the same forum, is really the most immediate question:

> Will the new Assembly be able to dissolve the Royalist Army into a new combined People’s Republican Army?


The talk about "21st century socialism" is pure marketing, or political opportunism. In other words, it's not really socialism, because they're ragging on armed violence, a one-party state, and dogmatic principles -- this is a blatant political slur against revolutionary socialism. It's purposely confusing means with ends -- there's nothing *inherently* wrong with armed violence, a one-party state, or dogmatic principles, as long as they are all employed to bring the industrial working class around the world to power.

What we've just seen in Nepal is a bourgeois revolution, nothing more, and nothing less. Hold it up to the French Revolution, the American Revolution, or any other and you'll see the hallmark similarities. Nepal is far too late in development and far too un-industrial to have any hopes of spreading a potential popular revolution, despite the best efforts of the Maoists. (This is all in line with Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution.)


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u