Maoists of India on Nepali Events

[Rawthentic]

This article, like many of its kind, come from the South Asia Revolution website at www.southasiarev.wordpress.com (its on my signature)





Maoists of India on Nepali Events (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/maoists-of-india-on-nepali-events/)



http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/cadreofcpim-l2.jpg?w=351&h=251 (http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/cadreofcpim-l2.jpg)Nepal’s Maoists [the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - CPN(M)] have pursued what they have called a hybrid approach to revolution: they have alternated between insurrection and guerrilla war. They have waged armed struggle to consolidate a system of revolutionary power in base areas and then launched political offensives to broaden their support. They have maintained their revolutionary army while participating in historic elections to a Constituent Assembly — legitimizing their claim to popular support and making it more difficult for international enemies to portray them as “terrorists.” All of these methods have been highly controversial — since they have broken with assumptions and models that have been influential among Maoists, and because they have involved (as the CPN (Maoist) itself says) a great deal of political risk.
Meanwhile, the Nepali Maoists have made an effort to assure their large neighbors that a New Nepal will not function as a base for cross border instigation — either into Tibet or into the impoverished areas of nearby India. The Nepali Maoists have ties to Maoist forces within India who are waging a guerrilla war in many part of the country, and they also face the threat of counterrevolutionary actions by the Indian government (which has, at one time or another, invaded or threatened all of its smaller neighbors). This has given rise to a situation where the Nepali Maoists have called for peaceful relations with their non-revolutionary neighbors, while affirming their ideological ties to revolutionary communists world-wide.
This raises in a beginning way a complex and historic issue for the revolutionary movement — how to handle the real contradictions between the state interests of revolutionaries holding power and the strategic interests of revolutionaries elsewhere who are straining to seize power. The Nepali Maoists have not yet seized power (in the sense that they have not yet defeated or dispersed the army that historically supported their oppressors). However they are already seeking to anticipate the problems they will face as they seek to transform Nepal in revolutionary directions — surrounded by powerful states that fear the contagion of revolution crossing their borders.
The following piece is a discussion of these matters from Maoists in nearby India (CPI-Maoist), who have historically criticized the Nepali approach to communist strategy and ideology. The interview appeared in several parts in The Hindu on May 16 and 17, 2008.
CPN(Maoist) Chairman Prachanda said in an interview on May 17 concerning this hybrid approach to “ballot and bullet”:
“There should be a serious discussion in the matter inside the Maoists of India. A strong message has already gone to the Maoists of India and Maoists all over the world about our victory.”
Interviews -Part-1

‘Uphill task for Nepal Maoists’
by K. Srinivas Reddy (from The Hindu, 16-05-08)
Given the present coalition, enacting the much-promised laws will be an almost impossible task. A real, bitter and cruel struggle for power will unfold, says Indian Maoist spokesperson Azad.
Delicate situation: Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) leaders Prachanda (right) and Baburam Bhattarai have to balance powerful forces to carry on with their people’s agenda.
Coalition politics will prove to be the biggest bottleneck for the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to take up the promised reforms in the Himalayan country. A bitter and cruel power struggle will now unfold in Nepal as no radical restructuring of the system can be taken up through state decrees and laws. This sums up the Indian Maoists’ point of view on the emerging situation in Nepal. In a detailed ‘prepared interview,’ in which questions and answers were framed by the party itself, Indian Maoist spokesperson Azad speaks on a variety of issues confronting the Maoists in Nepal. The text of the prepared interview was sent to The Hindu on Wednesday.
Excerpts from the text:
The results of the Nepal Constituent Assembly (CA) polls have been overwhelmingly in favour of the Maoists, a development least anticipated. How does your party in India, the CPI (Maoist), look at the election results in Nepal?
The election results demonstrate the overwhelming anger of the masses against the outdated feudal monarchic rule in Nepal, the domination of India and the U.S., and the feudal parties which betrayed the masses for too long. They are a reflection of the growing aspirations of the Nepali masses for democracy, land, livelihood and genuine freedom from imperialist and feudal exploitation. It is these aspirations that completely trounced the parties that supported the king and the Indian ruling classes.
When an alternative like the CPN(M) came to the fore with an open commitment to abolish the feudal monarchy, abrogate all unequal treaties signed with India, and ensure democracy and equality for all, the masses veered towards it. Our party looks at the results as a positive development with enormous significance for the people of entire South Asia.
What do you think are the reasons for the success of Maoists in elections?
There are six major reasons: One, the masses of Nepal had enough of King Gyanendra’s autocratic and authoritarian rule. When they found an opportunity to throw it, out they grabbed it. There was never such an opportunity during earlier elections. Only the CPN (M) had shown its firm commitment to abolish the monarchy and it became the only alternative.
Two, the masses were fed up with Indian domination. Nepal had suffered too long under the unequal treaties signed with India such as the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the Mahakali Treaty, and so on. India always had an eye on the natural wealth of Nepal, and it supported the monarchy and advocated the so-called two-pillar theory of supporting the King as well as the Nepali Congress. It trained, supplied arms to the Royal Nepal Army, and sent all sorts of aid to contain the Maoist revolutionaries in Nepal. These acts fuelled the anger of the masses. They voted for the CPN (M), as no other party showed the guts to confront India.
Three, Nepal’s masses had enough of exploitation, oppression and intervention of the U.S. imperialists. Throughout the rule of King Gyanendra, and even until today, the U.S. stood by his side. It placed the CPN(M) on its list of terrorist outfits. This was a grave insult to the people.
Four, the CPN (M)’s promise to establish a democratic, federal, secular Nepal with freedom, democracy and equality for all the oppressed sections had an electrifying impact. For the first time, the oppressed sections were represented in the elections.
Five, the most important factor, is the positive impact created by the decade-long people’s war led by the Maoists. The Maoists established control over almost three-quarters of rural Nepal. Through the people’s revolutionary governments in the countryside, they carried out several reforms which brought the masses closer to them. The people’s war raised the political consciousness of the masses, enhanced their assertion, and roused their democratic aspirations. The growth of the mass movement for a CA all over Nepal was a logical offshoot of the people’s war. In this context, the parties that had been staging only shows in the name of fighting for a CA became irrelevant.
Lastly, though a less important factor, the support of local capitalists and a section of the traders who, even though they opposed the Maoists in general, thought that bringing them to power was the only guarantee for peace in Nepal.
Now that the Maoists have come to power, will they be able to carry out their promises?
This is the most difficult question to answer. The immediate problem is to get a coalition of forces that can meet the target of two-thirds majority in the CA to incorporate their radical reforms into the new Constitution. But to achieve a two-thirds majority, they have to rely on parties such as the NC and the social democratic UML. It is impossible to carry through the promised reforms with such a hotch-potch combination of forces. They will not be willing to be a party to the programme of the Maoists and will try to subvert any radical changes aimed at curtailing their own class interests. We believe that no radical restructuring of the system is possible without the militant mobilisation of the vast masses into bitter class struggle. It is impossible to make changes through measures initiated “from above,” that is, through state decrees and laws. To implement these laws, it is imperative to mobilise the masses and advance class struggle. Without this, the liberation of the poor is an impossible task.
And given the present coalition, even enacting the much-promised laws will be an almost impossible task. Hence a real, bitter and most cruel struggle for power will unfold. Lacking a majority in the CA, the Maoists will be powerless. They will have to compromise and adjust, sacrificing the interests of the oppressed in whose interests they came to power. Or they will have to mobilise the people and intensify the struggle through all means, including armed insurrection, to implement genuine democracy and establish people’s power. There is no other alternative.
How do you envisage the future scenario in Nepal? Will India and U.S. imperialism adjust to the new reality and support the Maoist government? Or, will they create hurdles?
We will be living in a fool’s paradise if we believe that the U.S. and India will be comfortable with the Maoists in Nepal or that they will adjust to the new reality. Although they will continue diplomatic relations, they will create an adverse situation if the new government does not obey their dictates. The U.S. tried its best to keep the monarchy alive as the King was a pawn to rule by proxy. As for India, it received a slap in its face when G.P. Koirala and his NC faced a defeat.
However, India has gained on another front. In the Tarai region, it supported the two Madhesi parties which won many seats. India will use these groups to create disturbances, if the new regime does not toe its line. Already, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum has demanded that the Maoists should make their stand clear on the demand for Madhesi autonomy (Ek Madhes Ek Prades) and asked the Maoists to discontinue their relations with international forums like the RIM and CCOMPOSA.
Both U.S. and India can, for instance, hit at Nepal’s belly its economy by paralysing industrial production, blocking trade and supply lines thereby creating food shortages and shortage of consumer goods; in other words, they can squeeze Nepal through an economic blockade. This it will do if it thinks the new regime is going too far.
As it is, the situation in Nepal is delicate with almost 10 hours of load-shedding even in capital Kathmandu and a shortage of essential commodities. Nepal’s powerful neighbours can alter the balance through economic blackmail which could lead to social unrest and massive protests against the Maoists. Acute shortage of essential items and rising prices can lead to disenchantment with the fledgling regime and a dip in its popularity thereby giving an opportunity to the discredited parties to re-establish themselves. Thus the situation in Nepal will remain extremely delicate and unstable even though the Maoists have won an impressive electoral victory.
Comrades Prachanda and Bhattarai know this well and hence they have been appealing for India’s cooperation. They are on record that there will be no stability in Nepal without India’s cooperation. The fact that Nepal is a small country sandwiched between two powerful and big neighbours India and China and that it is a target for the U.S. imperialists make governance quite a difficult proposition. Hence the Maoists face an extremely difficult task ahead in balancing all these forces and carrying on with their people’s agenda.
Part- 2

‘The situation in Nepal and India are completely different’
K. Srinivas Reddy
The Hindu ,17-05-08
The ideological debates and discussions with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have to continue, says Indian Maoist spokespersonAzad.
In a prepared interview, Indian Maoist spokesperson Azad says that just coming to power through Parliament cannot lead to restructuring the system in Nepal. To the extent possible, the Maoists could use their relative control over the state to help the masses in their struggle for freedom, democracy and livelihood, he says. Excerpts from the interview, the first section of which was published on May 16.
Do you mean to say that the electoral victory of the Maoists in Nepal and their capture of state power through parliamentary means is a futile exercise and that it cannot bring the desired radical change in the social system?
I don’t exactly mean that. Control of state power, if they really can control, does give the Maoists a means to defend the gains accrued during the long years of revolutionary war and to effect radical changes in the social system. But this will be difficult to achieve through the type of state power that has fallen into the hands of the Maoists at the present juncture. In fact, even in classical revolutions as in China, where the Communist revolutionaries had seized power through an armed revolution, Mao had warned of the danger of the rise of a new class by virtue of their positions in the state machinery. After Mao, the state had degenerated into a machinery of oppression and suppression of the vast masses. The lesson that we Communists had learnt from this experience is that the party should concentrate on organising the masses and mobilising them to rebel against all types of injustice and exploitation perpetrated by state and party bureaucrats.
In Nepal, where the Maoists came to power in alliance with the ruling classes, it is an even more urgent task to continue the class struggle by organising the masses against all forms of exploitation and oppression. To the extent possible, the Maoists could use their relative control over the state to help the masses in their struggle for freedom, democracy and livelihood. Basic change could be achieved through the continuation of class struggle, for which the state can, at best, render some help.
Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M), [note: this refers to the CPI-Marxist, a non-revolutionary ruling party in West Bengal) among several others, have said that Indian Maoists have to learn from Nepal’s experiences and take the parliamentary road to come to power. What does your party say on this?
Why Yechury alone? Even the police in States where the Maoist movement is strong had said that before. Politicians had been harping on the same theme ever since the revisionists began participating in Parliament in our country. Some said the Maoist victory in Nepal would have a demonstration effect on the Maoists in India.
Those who say this forget that the situation in Nepal and India are completely different. In Nepal the immediate political task was a struggle against the monarchy, which brought about a measure of unity among various parties and a broad section of the people. The king had created a situation where all forces had to close ranks and wage a struggle for democracy.
In India, it’s a fight against the semi-colonial, semi-feudal social system of which the parliamentary system is a part and parcel. All the parliamentary parties obey the dictates of the imperialists, and hence stand in the counter-revolutionary camp. Here the immediate task is a struggle for land, livelihood and the liberation of the masses.
Secondly, these social democrats, in their attempt to laud their parliamentary line, consciously underplay and hush up the experiences of Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc. Nicaragua is an example, where the Sandinista National Liberation Front took power in 1979 by overthrowing the Somoza family. Though the Sandinistas brought massive changes, the U.S. armed and trained private armies called the Contras to fight the Sandinistas and created economic problems by enforcing a trade embargo. The Sandinistas agreed to hold elections in 1990 after peace negotiations with the U.N., but they lost to a right-wing coalition of 14 opposition parties. Massive U.S. funding and support from the reactionary classes of Nicaraguan society, combined with a grave economic crisis, led to the defeat of the Sandinistas.
These social democrats also underplay the tremendous impact of the decade-long people’s war on the Nepali masses. They have over 40 years of experience in parliamentary politics. What basic changes have they brought in the system? Without their support the ruling UPA government headed by Manmohan Singh would not have dared to carry out the anti-people policies.
There is little wonder they have been asking the Indian Maoists to follow suit. Our party firmly believes that a basic change in the system cannot be achieved through the parliamentary path but through class struggle. In our country this takes the form of an armed agrarian revolutionary war. We, of course, do not reject other forms of struggle and organisation, besides armed struggle and armed organisation, and you would have realised this if you are a keen observer of our movement.
The task before the revolutionaries is to destroy and reconstruct the entire economic, social, political, cultural institutions. Just coming to power through Parliament cannot lead to a restructuring of the system.
Prachanda and Bhattarai had declared that they are willing to invite FDI and to create a business-friendly environment in Nepal. They also said that they would encourage capitalism. Is it correct for a Maoist party to invite foreign investment and develop capitalism?
Nepal is an extremely backward country that lacks the minimum infrastructure and industrial production. It is part of the fourth world, if we can call it so. The U.N. has placed it in the category of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Hence the first task in Nepal would be to liberate the vast masses from the feudal clutches and develop industry on that basis. As regards developing capitalism in Nepal there need not be any objection from revolutionaries as long as it is national capitalism and is properly regulated to meet the needs of the masses and is directed towards the growth of the internal economy and not for exports or to serve the imperialists. But if the encouragement is for the inflow of foreign capital it will be detrimental to the interests of the country in the long run.
In the past, the Maoists had opposed private institutions in the health and education sectors. But now Prachanda has promised to remove whatever hurdles that may arise in the private sector. We have been hearing reports of talks between the Maoist leaders and the officials of the World Bank. If these reports are true then it could have dangerous consequences for the future of Nepal.
How do you foresee future relations between your party and the CPN(M)? Given the fact that the Indian state does not want the Maoists of Nepal to maintain relations with Indian Maoists, and considering that the demands made by the MJF in this regard constitute a clear indication of growing Indian pressure, will fraternal relations between the two parties continue as before?
We believe and desire that fraternal relations between the CPI (Maoist) and the CPN (Maoist) should continue as before. As long as both the parties stand firmly committed to proletarian internationalism, international pressures and internal pressures will not come in the way.
Of course, there is bound to be increasing pressure from various quarters on the Nepal Maoists to cut off their relations with other Maoist parties. Particularly India and the U.S. will exert utmost pressure in this regard. We do understand the complexity of the situation. Comrade Prachanda had correctly said that ideological ties between the two parties will remain intact. And we believe the ideological debates and discussions have to continue. The various international forums such as CCOMPOSA [note: a framework for discussion and cooperation between the various Maoist forces of South Asia) should continue with their aims and activities in spite of the new situation that has arisen.
What do you have to say about Comrade Prachanda’s comment in an interview he gave The Hindu: “For the Indian Maoist party, its leaders and cadres, these efforts of ours provide some new material to study, to think about and go ahead in a new way. Our efforts provide a reference point.”?
As Marxists we must study critically any phenomena, particularly new experiences. Yet we should not come to hasty conclusions but must carefully observe the outcome of such efforts. All these need to be assessed from a class viewpoint and not a non-class approach. Marxism is a science and it gives the tools to analyse all social phenomena scientifically. This we need to do for the experiment in Nepal or any other. Of course, we have already many historical precedents. These too should be considered and the Nepal experience seen as part of this and not in isolation.

[Dros]

Welcome back LFTP!

Great article.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks comrade, I've been very busy with other matters that I was not able to post here at all.

What are your thoughts on the article? Disagreements?

[Hiero]

This aritcle is really great. I would first like to contrast it with what the Trotsyist are saying, for instance in this aritcle (http://www.marxist.com/nepal-abolition-of-the-monarchy.htm).

Notice the difference? The Trotksyist and all the revionist critics jump straight to conclusion. I like what Azad said here:


As Marxists we must study critically any phenomena, particularly new experiences. Yet we should not come to hasty conclusions but must carefully observe the outcome of such efforts. All these need to be assessed from a class viewpoint and not a non-class approach. Marxism is a science and it gives the tools to analyse all social phenomena scientifically. This we need to do for the experiment in Nepal or any other. Of course, we have already many historical precedents. These too should be considered and the Nepal experience seen as part of this and not in isolation.

The Maoist approach given by the CPI (Maoist) is correct. It grounds the actions in Nepal to the reality of the situation. So it is trying to work out what is happening before it makes a conclusion. This allows for support and critical thinking at the same time.

The Trotskyist and revisionist approach is not grounded in reality. Take for instance the Trotskyist approach. They still prominent permanent revolution against two stage theory. Trotsky's theory has never been grounded in any real situation. So the Trotskyist only have a fantasy about what revolution really is, a imaginary checklist (as someone noted in another thread) and this fantasy has never been popular even in the most radical situations.

So I like the ideas put forward in this interview. It reaffirms two notions 1) That structural change is only possible through armed revolution against the bourgeois state 2) That relying too much on foreign investment only feeds the demands of the imperialist market.

Secondly, it acknowledges the huge achievement of creating a democratic republic in a semi-feudal like stater. This is progression, and something that the masses have fought hard to win.

And last, it looks at the problems that revolutionary movements face. Noting the examples of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, it shows the danger that the new regime faces if it goes to far. This is something the CPN (M) have to deal with and carefully, because it is not just the political leadership that losses here, it is the masses.

[Dros]

I don't really have time right now but I will elaborate for the moment.

I also very much like the CPI(Maoist) critic of the CPN(M) which is, in my view, dangerously close to revisionism.

[Rawthentic]

What do you mean drosera?

[Dros]

What do you mean drosera?


Azad says that just coming to power through Parliament cannot lead to restructuring the system in Nepal.

This.

There is a complete critic of the CPN(M) made by CPI(Maoist) at singlespark.

Damn. Apparently, their website got taken down. That sucks. They had a lot of great literature available there from CPN(Maoist). If you can get a copy of "The Worker" published by the CPN(M), you should be able to find a criticism by the CPI(Maoist) of the CPN(M). It's quite good and it criticizes them for putting down their guns and entering the parliament.

While parliamentary methods have some viability at certain points in the struggle, I don't see them as effective in the way that the CPN(M) is using them. Instead, they are trapping themselves in a bourgeois democratic system of government where they must now constantly be subject to elections. They will eventually lose. If they do revert to revolutionary methods, they appear to be opportunistic. Either way, they lose viability. And the economic program they're pushing is straight up liberalism.

[Rawthentic]

Hmm. I think you misunderstand the reasoning behind the actions of the Nepali Maoists.

They understand very well, and Prachanda (or Bhattarai I forget) has said that compromising in the electoral arena is their biggest challenge because they will have trouble pushing through their radical agenda, such as land reform and other laws.

One thing to understand about them, something that we should all understand, is that these Maoists are anti-dogmatic. They refuse to believe that revolutions can be copied. Not only do they reject that socialist society HAS to be a one-party state, but they also refuse to adhere rigidly to Mao's theory on people's war, instead opting for a "hybrid model" in which they participate in the government.

I quote Mike Ely:
They have described their tactics as a process of dividing, isolating and exposing all the once powerful political and military forces of the old society -- one after another – and have applied those methods to win over broad sections of people to their side, and to parts of their revolutionary program.

We don't know if these tactics will lead to victory, but we need to support. Thats how it is for every revolution.

[Dros]

They understand very well, and Prachanda (or Bhattarai I forget) has said that compromising in the electoral arena is their biggest challenge because they will have trouble pushing through their radical agenda, such as land reform and other laws.

Exactly why they shouldn't be doing it!


One thing to understand about them, something that we should all understand, is that these Maoists are anti-dogmatic. They refuse to believe that revolutions can be copied. Not only do they reject that socialist society HAS to be a one-party state,

Fine.


but they also refuse to adhere rigidly to Mao's theory on people's war, instead opting for a "hybrid model" in which they participate in the government.

Sounds like revisionism to me. This reeks of Bernstein.


I quote Mike Ely:

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't tell me you've turned into a Menshevik to, Comrade?!


We don't know if these tactics will lead to victory, but we need to support. Thats how it is for every revolution.

Yes we do. They will necessarily fail as I tried to explain in my last post. Of course that's a rudimentary criticism and is only addressing one piece of how these Maoists are headed in the wrong direction. But it is one that needs to be put out very strongly.

[Rawthentic]

Exactly why they shouldn't be doing it!
Since I assume you have led a people's war for twelve years and defeated a 200+ year-old monarchy, you must have a better analysis of the conditions of Nepal to understand how to move forward.

"Concrete analysis of concrete conditions" - Mao

"No investigation, no right to speak" - Mao

Like I said, I do not know if this will be correct or not, but you don't have the right to say that they "are headed in the wrong direction. This is such an idealist outlook, contrary to a materialist one. First off, you can't tell the future. Second off, all revolutions are riddled with these contradictions and each one brings in something new.


Sounds like revisionism to me. This reeks of Bernstein.
Berstein, like all revisionists, think that competing in bourgeois governments will lead to socialism. The Nepali Maoists do not believe that. Participating in the government (which is ridiculous to say it is capitalist given the semi feudal conditions there) is a tactic to achieve New Democracy, not a ends in it itself. They have not given up on armed warfare, and, in fact, maintain their peoples army in case of an invasion or attack by the Nepalese army.


Don't tell me you've turned into a Menshevik to, Comrade?!
Care to explain?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Hmm. I think you misunderstand the reasoning behind the actions of the Nepali Maoists.

They understand very well, and Prachanda (or Bhattarai I forget) has said that compromising in the electoral arena is their biggest challenge because they will have trouble pushing through their radical agenda, such as land reform and other laws.


Radical agenda? These are the same Maoists that favor a capitalist economic development model replete with EPZs?

[subham]

Indian Maoists' analysis of the character of the Indian big bourgeoisie is a sheer travesty of Marxism- Leninism-- Thoughts of Mao-Tse-Tung. Their strategy of boycotting the parliament in India does not go with the Indian context & reflects their delusion & fantasy!

[subham]

As Mao -Tse- Tung has defined, comprador bourgeoisie has no economic base of its own, and merely acts as the agents of imperialists, without having any conflict with imperialism. Indian Maoists led by CPI(MAOIST) feels the same in case of Indian bourgeoisie. What they have failed to understand that in India, bourgeoisie has economic base to some extent & conflict with imperialism reflected in the foreign policy of the government.CPI(Marxist)has rightly categorized them as industrial bourgeoisie characterized by their duality in nature. But at the same time, CPI(Marxist) has observed their reliance upon & alliance with the imperialist camp led by US which is their principal inclination. The failure to do a concrete analysis of the concrete situation has tragically led Indian Maoists towards a state of delusion & fancy.

[subham]

As Mao -Tse- Tung has defined, comprador bourgeoisie has no economic base of its own, and merely acts as the agents of imperialists, without having any conflict with imperialism. Indian Maoists led by CPI(MAOIST) feels the same in case of Indian bourgeoisie. What they have failed to understand that in India, bourgeoisie has economic base to some extent & conflict with imperialism reflected in the foreign policy of the government.CPI(Marxist)has rightly categorized them as industrial bourgeoisie characterized by their duality in nature. But at the same time, CPI(Marxist) has observed their reliance upon & alliance with the imperialist camp led by US which is their principal inclination. The failure to do a concrete analysis of the concrete situation has tragically led Indian Maoists towards a state of delusion & fancy.

[aussiestalinist]

What the left needs right now is for international solidartiy with the Maoists in Nepal. The Stalinist League supports all Maoist and other socialist resistance groups in all countries.


They refuse to believe that revolutions can be copied. Not only do they reject that socialist society HAS to be a one-party state, but they also refuse to adhere rigidly to Mao's theory on people's war, instead opting for a "hybrid model" in which they participate in the government.

The political, social and economic situations are different in every country. Just look at Australia compared to New Zealand. NZ is in a recession and Australia is the greatest nation on Earth. New Zealand cannot compete. That country is a third world one. Not all socialist countries have been one party states. Look at the German Democratic Republic; the GDR had a multi party system. So has the DPR.
Mao Zeadong's theory on people's war should not be given up. All theories and ideas of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao should be kept and up hold.

VIVA STALIN
VIVA LENIN
VIVA MARX
VIVA MAO.

[Plagueround]

The political, social and economic situations are different in every country. Just look at Australia compared to New Zealand. NZ is in a recession and Australia is the greatest nation on Earth. New Zealand cannot compete.


What exactly makes Australia the greatest nation in the world? Not to start some sort of "National Pride" argument because I think national pride is irrational, but what makes you say this?

[Dros]

Since I assume you have led a people's war for twelve years and defeated a 200+ year-old monarchy, you must have a better analysis of the conditions of Nepal to understand how to move forward.

"Concrete analysis of concrete conditions" - Mao

"No investigation, no right to speak" - Mao

Like I said, I do not know if this will be correct or not, but you don't have the right to say that they "are headed in the wrong direction. This is such an idealist outlook, contrary to a materialist one. First off, you can't tell the future. Second off, all revolutions are riddled with these contradictions and each one brings in something new.

First of all, it's ridiculous to say that I haven't done my homework. I've been following these developments in the Nepali press and the CPN(M)'s press for a long time.

Secondly, your argument seems to be that we shouldn't criticize them because they're leading a "revolution". This is absurd. If anything, we are obligated to practice "criticism and self criticism". They have compromised their revolutionary position. A few months ago, they were on the verge of seizing state power! Now, they have limited their political tactics to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Even if they decided to return to revolutionary aims and methods, all that would happen is that they would look like opportunists. And as you should no, no one can stay in power for ever within a bourgeois democratic dictatorship.


Berstein, like all revisionists, think that competing in bourgeois governments will lead to socialism. The Nepali Maoists do not believe that. Participating in the government is a tactic to achieve New Democracy, not a ends in it itself.

It's a failed tactic for numerous reasons and one that can never lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat.


They have not given up on armed warfare, and, in fact, maintain their peoples army in case of an invasion or attack by the Nepalese army.

Come on. They "maintain their people's army" in UN camps with their guns in large UN controlled crates.


(which is ridiculous to say it is capitalist given the semi feudal conditions there)

I said it's a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and it is. Unless this constituent assembly election is a farse put on by the aristocracy!


Care to explain?

Mike Ely has degenerated into narrow economism.

[Rawthentic]

First of all, it's ridiculous to say that I haven't done my homework. I've been following these developments in the Nepali press and the CPN(M)'s press for a long time.

Secondly, your argument seems to be that we shouldn't criticize them because they're leading a "revolution". This is absurd. If anything, we are obligated to practice "criticism and self criticism". They have compromised their revolutionary position. A few months ago, they were on the verge of seizing state power! Now, they have limited their political tactics to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Even if they decided to return to revolutionary aims and methods, all that would happen is that they would look like opportunists. And as you should no, no one can stay in power for ever within a bourgeois democratic dictatorship.I did not say that we couldn't criticize them. I am saying that you shouldn't try to act as if you know more than they do - because they are from there and have a better grasp on the conditions than you do.

The Maoists methods are tactics to lead to New Democracy. Like I said, they aren't ends in and of themselves. This tactic is used to isolate the reactionary political forces and win more people over than would have been possible through the continuation of armed revolution, such as those in the middle strata in the urban areas, as well as urban proletarians. In addition, Nepal is amongst the poorest nations in the world. It has virtually no factories, electricity or heating or plumbing (this is more acute in the rural areas).

There are lots of quotes in the bourgeois press that says the Maoists of Nepal do not intend to immediately abolish capitalism (which is true), that they will allow some foreign investment (as both Lenin and Mao did in the beginning), that their revolution at this stage is not immediately one with socialist tasks… and so on. However, New Democracy is a revolution under the leadership of communists that carries out the bourgeois democratic tasks of the world process. But it is not a “period of capitalist development” — it is rather a period in which the socialist sector emerges (as was the case immediately after 1949 in china, when the bulk of the industrial sector was nationalized).

In The Worker no. 10, they said:
“Remaining clear on the principle that the tactic must serve strategy, our party has viewed the democratic republic neither as the bourgeois parliamentarian republic nor directly as the new democratic one…Certainly, the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as, our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that cam right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend on the then national and international situation and state of power balance.”


In other words, in New Democracy there is capitalism (inevitably and necessarily — including especially in the countryside as a result of “land to the tiller”), but it is not the determining or defining feature of the society. That is because the socialist revolution starts to unfold, and there are rising efforts for rural cooperatives, an initial socialist sector… etc.
In other words what defines New Democracy is that it is a stage in the unfolding of communist revolution, and that it is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
At least, all that was the conception carried out by Mao (and not by all of his fellow leaders of the CCP) in China.

In light of this, I find it disgusting that a self described Maoist can call the Nepalis "opportunists" in event that they return to armed struggle. This is a part of a new approach they forged, free from dogmatic rigidity or prescribed formulas, as you expect them to do.


I said it's a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and it is. Unless this constituent assembly election is a farse put on by the aristocracy!
Oh yes, you said it, so it must be so. Honestly, to call it the dictatorship of the bourgeois is far too simplistic. There are other contending class forces, such as the old feudal and monarchic parties that want the old order back, the proletarian party (the CPN (N) ), as well as revisionist and capitalist parties like the UML and others.

Nepal is going through the process of what we call a "bourgeois democratic revolution", and the Maoists are leading this democratic movement that can open the path to socialism and a new people's power.

Here's what comrade Gaurav (from the International Bureau of the Maoist party)had to say on the reasons for joining the government:


One of the reasons is that it was necessary for us to develop international relations, because we were totally isolated. As I explained, the government had declared us a terrorist organisation. Interpol issued arrest warrants for most of the leaders of our party in more than 120 countries. We had the support of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and some Maoist parties, this is true, but from other international players we were totally isolated. So it was necessary, because we think at present Maoist forces are not very strong internationally compared with the forces of reactionaries. In terms of strength we are negligible, so depending on only RIM and Maoist forces the revolution cannot succeed.

Prerequisites for Maintaining Revolutionary Power
Secondly, we would not be able to sustain our revolution. If we were able to capture power on a certain day, it would be very difficult to sustain it for a long time. We are encircled by enemies, and the strength of the enemy is many times more than the strength of our Maoist forces. So we feel that we should develop relations. We should use the contradictions among different reactionary forces so that they will not be unified to attack our revolution. We also want to increase support from outside. The unity among the RIM forces is fundamental. The unity among Maoist forces that are not in the RIM is also very important. This is an ideological question. Ideologically it is a vital question for us.


In spite of this we should look for support from different circles, which are not Maoist but are progressive forces, who don’t want autocratic monarchy in Nepal, who maybe want bourgeois democracy, democratic rights, prosperity for Nepal. Secondly we should strive to get the support of anti-imperialist forces, because imperialism is the main enemy of the people in the world today. We should seek support from broad anti-imperialist forces, some democratic forces, social democratic forces who claim to be communist though clearly they are not, but at least they support the struggle against the monarchy.
It is also necessary to utilise the contradictions between different states. For example, if we didn’t participate in the government and we were not in the parliament, I would not be able to travel to Europe. It would be simply impossible because we were listed as a terrorist organisation, we could not travel abroad and contact the people to explain our position and get direct support from them. This trip would have been impossible


Nepal is between two big powers, two huge powers, two giants, China and India. Now the relationship between China and India is better than before. There is no war between China and India. In the past there was a war, but now there is not, they have a better relationship, they have trade relations. But still there are differences, there are contradictions between them. So being in the government we are able to use these contradictions....

This is good and bad, there are two aspects. On the one hand it is good, but on the other hand it is bad. It is good because if they will not accept it, we will develop the mass movement. When we have achieved a majority, that achievement will be used against Nepali Congress, and that will develop the mass movement that we have already. It is in our agenda that we work out the plan of the next mass movement to press the government to put forward this proposal in parliament. To make amendments in the constitution by a two-thirds majority will also not really happen, so we can develop the mass movement. We are using this majority, the weapon of the majority, against Nepali Congress. We are making the plan of developing the mass movement and our aim is to seize central power. This is the aim of the mass movement.




Mike Ely has degenerated into narrow economism.
Yeah, you said that, but didn't explain it.

And please try to answer the post in full, all the facts I have here. Don't nitpick.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

As Mao -Tse- Tung has defined, comprador bourgeoisie has no economic base of its own, and merely acts as the agents of imperialists, without having any conflict with imperialism. Indian Maoists led by CPI(MAOIST) feels the same in case of Indian bourgeoisie. What they have failed to understand that in India, bourgeoisie has economic base to some extent & conflict with imperialism reflected in the foreign policy of the government.CPI(Marxist)has rightly categorized them as industrial bourgeoisie characterized by their duality in nature. But at the same time, CPI(Marxist) has observed their reliance upon & alliance with the imperialist camp led by US which is their principal inclination. The failure to do a concrete analysis of the concrete situation has tragically led Indian Maoists towards a state of delusion & fancy.


Yup and now the Maoists will seek to build industrial capacity within Nepal. From their own public statements it seems that it will involve capitalism and the EPZ variant thereof. I mean export processing zones are the only option anyway, since Nepal isn't much more than a buffer state. So once Nepal has properly developed, will that somehow lead to socialism and communism? Or will the ruling class, satisfied with its accomplishments begin a red capitalist class ala China? I think it will be the latter.

[Dros]

I did not say that we couldn't criticize them. I am saying that you shouldn't try to act as if you know more than they do - because they are from there and have a better grasp on the conditions than you do.

So they have more of an understanding which means our criticism is necessarily invalid? Or are you going to respond to my criticism?


The Maoists methods are tactics to lead to New Democracy.

I've already said why I didn't think that can work.


Like I said, they aren't ends in and of themselves.

Of course not. They are failed tactics.


This tactic is used to isolate the reactionary political forces and win more people over than would have been possible through the continuation of armed revolution,

Oh come on. They could have seized power by now.


such as those in the middle strata in the urban areas, as well as urban proletarians.

They do have a substantial support base in the urban areas as shown by the fact that the Maoists won several seats from Kathmandu, including CPN(UML) Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal's seat.


In addition, Nepal is amongst the poorest nations in the world. It has virtually no factories, electricity or heating or plumbing (this is more acute in the rural areas).

Which is why we should let imperialists in to develop the means of production? Or should we build the economy as revolutionary socialist did. Stalin and Mao didn't start off leading highly developed nations, comrade.


There are lots of quotes in the bourgeois press that says the Maoists of Nepal do not intend to immediately abolish capitalism (which is true),

There are lots and lots of quotes in the bourgeois press that say the Maoists have accepted capitalism and given up their radical agenda, which I'm beginning to believe.


that they will allow some foreign investment (as both Lenin and Mao did in the beginning),

There not talking about "some" foreign investment. It's a very substantial part of their economic plan, which is essentially classic liberalism by the way.


that their revolution at this stage is not immediately one with socialist tasks… and so on.

When will it be one with socialist tasks?


However, New Democracy is a revolution under the leadership of communists that carries out the bourgeois democratic tasks of the world process.

That is correct. The difference here is that in Nepal, the bourgeois democratic task was essentially complete.


But it is not a “period of capitalist development” — it is rather a period in which the socialist sector emerges (as was the case immediately after 1949 in china, when the bulk of the industrial sector was nationalized).

Which they aren't doing.


In The Worker no. 10, they said:
“Remaining clear on the principle that the tactic must serve strategy, our party has viewed the democratic republic neither as the bourgeois parliamentarian republic nor directly as the new democratic one…

Big mistake. It is objectively a bourgeois democratic dictatorship. Any other line is either delusional or revisionist.


Certainly, the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as, our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that cam right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend on the then national and international situation and state of power balance.”

So, what is the class nature of the state at this moment?


In other words, in New Democracy there is capitalism (inevitably and necessarily — including especially in the countryside as a result of “land to the tiller”), but it is not the determining or defining feature of the society. That is because the socialist revolution starts to unfold, and there are rising efforts for rural cooperatives, an initial socialist sector… etc.

1.) That's not the program now being implemented by the Maoists in terms of short term economic goals.
2.) The Maoists already had this! We HAD a people's government, a DoP in the countryside! Socialism was in the process of being developed! That has been destroyed.


In other words what defines New Democracy is that it is a stage in the unfolding of communist revolution, and that it is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

What exists in Nepal is not a dictatorship of the proletariat.


In light of this, I find it disgusting that a self described Maoist can call the Nepalis "opportunists" in event that they return to armed struggle.

I think they should return to armed struggle. I meant that it would delegitimize them by making them appear opportunistic after they formally renounced armed struggle and have accepted bourgeois democratic pathways. That is, that if they were to return, it would appear unprincipled and confusing. Essentially, they should never have stopped the struggle but now that they have, they should start it again ASAP.


This is a part of a new approach they forged, free from dogmatic rigidity or prescribed formulas, as you expect them to do.

How is MLM dogmatic? If you are going to claim that departure from key principles of Marxist science is anti-dogmatic, then you would necessarily have to provide a reason why such principles are no longer necessary or are being approached dogmatically. "Dogmatic" isn't just a word to throw around. It has a meaning.


Oh yes, you said it, so it must be so. Honestly, to call it the dictatorship of the bourgeois is far too simplistic. There are other contending class forces, such as the old feudal and monarchic parties that want the old order back, the proletarian party (the CPN (N) ), as well as revisionist and capitalist parties like the UML and others.

So...

There is a Communist Party in Italy. Is the state of Italy not a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie? Come on. The existence of class struggle is not a negation of class dictatorship.


Nepal is going through the process of what we call a "bourgeois democratic revolution", and the Maoists are leading this democratic movement that can open the path to socialism and a new people's power.

No it's not. On what basis do you claim that it is? What imperialist power is it being liberated from. King Gyanendra is, in my view, not a representative of any actual feudal class but representative of bourgeois and petty bourgeois class interests. Essentially, Gyandendra was a fascist, not a feudal monarch. The Nepali government and the Nepali economy has all of the trappings of a bourgeois dictatorship ruling over a semi-feudal country.


Here's what comrade Gaurav (from the International Bureau of the Maoist party)had to say on the reasons for joining the government:

Okay. So they came out in to the open because they wanted to ally with other bourgeois democratic organizations. So?

In all honesty, I don't by it. The risk of India invading and winning is in my view minimal considering the geopolitical climate in the region and India's problem with the Naxalites and Pakistanis. Secondly, the power of the Proletariat and Maoist People's War on Nepal's home turf, mountainous ground, would have provided them a huge tactical advantage and one that could have led them to win a war even in it did occur. And even if they were defeated, there still would have been a good chance for the seizure of power whereas from here, I see little hope.


Yeah, you said that, but didn't explain it.

They do it better than I could ever hope to. (http://www.rwor.org/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf)


And please try to answer the post in full, all the facts I have here. Don't nitpick.

Have I nitpicked? What have I failed to address in my past posts?

[Rawthentic]

So they have more of an understanding which means our criticism is necessarily invalid? Or are you going to respond to my criticism?They definitely have more of an understanding, but I never said our criticisms are valid. I am the one calling for critical support of the Nepalese revolution - not silence like the RCP.


Of course not. They are failed tacticsEven though they are still undergoing the revolutionary process? Boy, I'd like to buy one of the crystal balls you're using.


They do have a substantial support base in the urban areas as shown by the fact that the Maoists won several seats from Kathmandu, including CPN(UML) Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal's seat.And they tapped into this support and the its potential by the new tactics that emerged.


Which is why we should let imperialists in to develop the means of production? Or should we build the economy as revolutionary socialist did. Stalin and Mao didn't start off leading highly developed nations, comrade.First off, let me remind you that we are discussing Nepal today, not China in '49 or Russia in the 50s. Second, the Nepalis have always maintained that creation of infrastructure will be on Nepali terms and on terms that benefit the development of the Nepali nation. This doesn't mean they are out to create capitalism. It is a process of the bourgeois democratic revolution.


There not talking about "some" foreign investment. It's a very substantial part of their economic plan, which is essentially classic liberalism by the way.Yeah it is a part of their economic plan, but I don't understand how it is liberalism.


When will it be one with socialist tasks?Thats something we will have to wait and see comrade. Critically wait and see. Nobody said they are correct, or they are wrong, or that they will ultimately fail, or succeed, buts its a living process.


That is correct. The difference here is that in Nepal, the bourgeois democratic task was essentially complete.Complete? Only recently did the Maoists win the elections? It is still an ongoing process. The socialist tasks cannot come to the fore without the development of the economy.


Which they aren't doing.Because it has just began. Patience, comrade. I think it is a lot easier for you to say these things from your computer because you aren't in the trenches attempting to decide the future of a nation and the direction of a communist movement. The contradictions are so acute, that things are always a long, arduous process in revolutions. It was in Russia, and it was in China. Neither jumped into socialism in an instant.


Big mistake. It is objectively a bourgeois democratic dictatorship. Any other line is either delusional or revisionist. Well, you assert this quite a lot, but I don't see the evidence. The masses, through the CPN (M) have a strong voice in the government. The Maoists understand better than anyone that they cannot push their radical agenda by means of the parliament, and understand that it will take a mass radical movement to again continue the revolutionary process.


1.) That's not the program now being implemented by the Maoists in terms of short term economic goals.
2.) The Maoists already had this! We HAD a people's government, a DoP in the countryside! Socialism was in the process of being developed! That has been destroyed.I'm sorry, but the most important reform, land to the tiller, is the largest point on the Maoists' agenda, something they are striving to implement, but, understand that the parliament and compromising will get in their way. Also, the Maoists did have base areas in the rural part, and still do, but no state power. The war as at a stalemate and there was no way they could have capture Kathmandu with their forces or the political climate.


How is MLM dogmatic? If you are going to claim that departure from key principles of Marxist science is anti-dogmatic, then you would necessarily have to provide a reason why such principles are no longer necessary or are being approached dogmatically. "Dogmatic" isn't just a word to throw around. It has a meaning.Refraining or participating in elections is not a matter of Marxist principle, it is a tactic that serves the overall strategy. It is wring to elevate tactic to the level of principle. So, to say, that is wrong and revisionist for the Maoists to participate in the government is, well, illogical and not Marxist at all. (btw Marx never said that we should refrain from parliamentarism as a principle)


No it's not. On what basis do you claim that it is? What imperialist power is it being liberated from. King Gyanendra is, in my view, not a representative of any actual feudal class but representative of bourgeois and petty bourgeois class interests. Essentially, Gyandendra was a fascist, not a feudal monarch. The Nepali government and the Nepali economy has all of the trappings of a bourgeois dictatorship ruling over a semi-feudal country. What basis? They just ended a 200 year old monarchy! And they established a federal republic where it had never been before! And they are pushing a radical agenda!

Gyanendra was a Hindu king, a monarch in a semi-feudal country. Calling it fascist is quite moralistic and simply wrong. It confuses people as to the real definition of fascism.


They do it better than I could ever hope to. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.rwor.org/a/polemics/NineLettersResponse.pdf)lol, you are far behind comrade. I have read all of that, and the new one as well directed at their cadre (who disagree with the first response and also with Avakian's 'new synthesis'.

It is also riddled with misconceptions. PM me, and I would be glad to discuss this with you, or we can do it on AIM.

From Worker #11:

The fact that has been objectively proved is that the people’s war waged under the leadership of our party had been making qualitative leaps one after another in the past and has now reached at the threshold of seizing central power. But, the present process of negotiations to clear the way for restructuring the state power through constituent assembly election has created confusion within the contemporary communist movement. Some of our comrades have even termed this process as a deviation from the basics principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Not only at this time, there were confusions over some of the political steps our party had adopted in the past too. For instance, some of our fraternal parties had disagreement when we had united with known right revisionists, the Fourth Congress group led by Nirmal Lama, and when we had partially used parliamentary election, in the beginning of nineties. Apart from this when we had entered into peace negotiations in the past some parties thought that CPN (M) would not keep on with people’s war and take up the revolutionary agenda again. It was a surprise for our fraternal comrades, for the end result did not come out as they speculated but gave rise to a qualitative leap of people’s war after each negotiation. What we firmly believe is that the present process of negotiations too will be a surprise for our comrades, who have doubt on our line, because it is not a deviation from the fundamentals of MLM but a mandatory course that the Nepalese revolution has to go through to seize central power in the present world situation.


Undoubtedly, the concern our fraternal comrades have shown is positive. We have high regard to their sincere criticism. But, why do such confusions arise at the particular junctures of revolutionary process, mainly during the period of political offensive? Why our fraternal comrades have failed to understand the dynamism of revolution we are leading? We think that this gap is the result of differences we have in grasping the historical and dialectical materialism, the Marxist philosophy. More precisely, this gap exists mainly because our comrades take a look at our people’s war from pragmatic and militarist angle and draw conclusion based on dogmatic grasp of our ideology, the MLM. A brief study of how our party, the CPN (Maoist), grasped MLM correctly and applied it creatively in our concrete condition in the past and how we have been linking that with present practice to seize power can help understand us in a correct way. This article will try to focus on some such points.


If one looks at the history of the international communist movement nobody will find any party sailing smooth. None does so. Every party passes through a tortuous road, so many ups and downs, twists and turns and victories and defeats in its course. Ours was such a party that had gone basically along the right revisionist track for a long period of more than 40 years since its formation. Only in the later part of 80s we came to realize that the way we understood MLM and applied it in our revolutionary life was wrong. It was definitely a strenuous task and a big challenge before the revolutionaries to bring it back along the correct MLM track. Without having a decisive rupture from the wrong legacy of the past it was quite impossible for us to transform. Only the correct grasp of materialist dialectics on the part of our party and its creative application in two-line struggle helped us move forward along the revolutionary path.
emphasis added

What I want to get at with this is that, like I said, the Nepalese communist revolution, like any other, is full of "...so many ups and downs, twists and turns and victories and defeats..." and that what is occuring now is precisely that in Nepal. Revolutions always go through this.

[Rawthentic]

Here is a piece by Mao titled: "New-Democratic Constitutional Government".

It bears striking resemblance to what is occuring in Nepal. I encourage others to see the parallels and what we can deduce from it. Not to say that this is exactly how Nepal is, but to show how, like the Nepalis, Mao as well had his share of twists and turns that the revolution he led faced.


Armed resistance to Japan, which we all support, is already being carried out, and the question now is only one of persevering in it. But there is something else, namely, democracy, which is not being carried out. Both are of paramount importance to China today. To be sure, China lacks many things, but the main ones are independence and democracy. In the absence of either, China's affairs will not go well. And while there are two things lacking, there are also two superfluous ones. What are they? Imperialist oppression and feudal oppression. It is because of these two superfluous things that China has become a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. The principal demands of the nation today are for independence and democracy, and therefore imperialism and feudalism must be destroyed. They must be destroyed resolutely, thoroughly, and without the least mercy. Some say that only construction is needed, not destruction. Well, we should like to ask: Shouldn't Wang Ching-wei be destroyed? Shouldn't Japanese imperialism be destroyed? Shouldn't the feudal system be destroyed? Construction is certainly out of the question unless you destroy these evils. Only by destroying them can China be saved and construction be set going; otherwise, it will all be an idle dream. Only by destroying the old and the rotten can we build the new and the sound. Combine independence and democracy and you have resistance on the basis of democracy, or democracy in the service of resistance. Without democracy, resistance will fail. Without democracy, resistance cannot be maintained. With democracy, we shall certainly win even if we have to go on resisting for eight or ten years.

What is constitutional government? It is democratic government. I agree with what our old Comrade Wu[1 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/NDCG40.html#en1)] has just said. What kind of democratic government do we need today? New-democratic government, the constitutional government of New Democracy. Not the old outmoded, European-American type of so-called democracy which is bourgeois dictatorship, nor as yet the Soviet type of democracy which is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Democracy of the old type, practised in other countries, is on its way out and has become reactionary. Under no circumstances should we accept such a reactionary thing. The sort of constitutional government which the Chinese die-hards are talking about is the old type of bourgeois democracy found abroad. But while they talk about it, they do not really want even that; they are using such talk to deceive the people. What they really want is a one-party fascist dictatorship. The Chinese national bourgeoisie, on the other hand, does want this type of constitutional government and would like to establish a bourgeois dictatorship in China, but it can never succeed. For the Chinese people do not want such a government and would not welcome a one-class dictatorship by the bourgeoisie. China's affairs must be decided by the vast majority of the Chinese people, and the monopoly of government by the bourgeoisie alone must be absolutely rejected. Then what about socialist democracy? Of course, it is very good, and will eventually prevail throughout the world. But today this type of democracy is not yet practicable in China, and we must therefore do without it for the time being. Not until certain conditions are present will it be possible to have socialist democracy. The kind of democratic government we need today is neither democracy of the old type nor yet democracy of the socialist type, but New Democracy which is suited to the conditions of present-day China. The constitutional government to be promoted is new-democratic constitutional government.

What is new-democratic constitutional government? It is the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes over the traitors and reactionaries. Someone once said, "If there is food, let everyone share it." I think this can serve to illustrate New Democracy. Just as everyone should share what food there is, so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class. This idea was well expressed by Dr. Sun Yat-sen in the Manifesto of the First National Congress of the Kuomintang:


The so-called democratic system in modern states is usually monopolized by the bourgeoisie and has become simply an instrument for oppressing the common people. On the other hand, the Kuomintang's Principle of Democracy means a democratic system shared by all the common people and not privately owned by the few.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/NDCG40.html

[Dros]

They definitely have more of an understanding, but I never said our criticisms are valid. I am the one calling for critical support of the Nepalese revolution - not silence like the RCP.

I too am calling for critical support. Don't get me wrong, I hope that the Maoists win. I hope this is just a New Democratic transitional phase. But I seriously doubt it.

Any response to my brief criticism would be helpful for the debate.


Boy, I'd like to buy one of the crystal balls you're using.

:lol::lol::lol:

Don't worry they're free! It's called "materialism" and you can find it at your local Revolution Books.


And they tapped into this support and the its potential by the new tactics that emerged.

Or they could have seized state power.


First off, let me remind you that we are discussing Nepal today, not China in '49 or Russia in the 50s.

Thanks. That clarified some things for me.:rolleyes:


Second, the Nepalis have always maintained that creation of infrastructure will be on Nepali terms and on terms that benefit the development of the Nepali nation.

And they will do that... how?


This doesn't mean they are out to create capitalism. It is a process of the bourgeois democratic revolution.

That might not be their goal but that surely will be the result.


Yeah it is a part of their economic plan, but I don't understand how it is liberalism.

It's classical liberal (in the IR sense of the word) economic policy!


Thats something we will have to wait and see comrade. Critically wait and see. Nobody said they are correct, or they are wrong, or that they will ultimately fail, or succeed, buts its a living process.

I'm saying they are wrong. I don't see how the current tactics will ever lead to them being able to complete the socialist revolution.


Complete? Only recently did the Maoists win the elections? It is still an ongoing process. The socialist tasks cannot come to the fore without the development of the economy.

The CPN(M) being elected occurred within a state that was already bourgeois democratic.


Because it has just began. Patience, comrade. I think it is a lot easier for you to say these things from your computer because you aren't in the trenches attempting to decide the future of a nation and the direction of a communist movement.

Sadly, no one is in those trenches anymore! That's the problem!


The contradictions are so acute, that things are always a long, arduous process in revolutions. It was in Russia, and it was in China. Neither jumped into socialism in an instant.

Of course not! But the respective parties adopted a revolutionary theory and a revolutionary strategy that eventually led to socialism!


Well, you assert this quite a lot, but I don't see the evidence. The masses, through the CPN (M) have a strong voice in the government. The Maoists understand better than anyone that they cannot push their radical agenda by means of the parliament, and understand that it will take a mass radical movement to again continue the revolutionary process.

The existence of parties expressing a proletarian outlook, and even a party having that outlook, does not change the class nature of the state.


I'm sorry, but the most important reform, land to the tiller, is the largest point on the Maoists' agenda,

Not New Democracy? Not socialism? Narrow economic reforms?


something they are striving to implement, but, understand that the parliament and compromising will get in their way. Also, the Maoists did have base areas in the rural part, and still do, but no state power.

Right. So they were actively ruling large sections of Nepal before and now they are operating in a political system that everyone knows will prevent them from accomplishing their goals.


The war as at a stalemate and there was no way they could have capture Kathmandu with their forces or the political climate.

Don't by that at all.


Refraining or participating in elections is not a matter of Marxist principle, it is a tactic that serves the overall strategy.

Correct. And it is one that will necessarily fail in this instance.


It is wring to elevate tactic to the level of principle.

Agreed!


So, to say, that is wrong and revisionist for the Maoists to participate in the government is, well, illogical and not Marxist at all. (btw Marx never said that we should refrain from parliamentarism as a principle)

Nor even did Lenin. What is revisionist is to believe that the New Democratic or the socialist task can be accomplished through that.


What basis? They just ended a 200 year old monarchy! And they established a federal republic where it had never been before!

In name. However prior to Gyanendra's seizure of power, there was a constitutional monarchy. Is Australia capitalist? Or are they still feudalist because the monarch has power in the government?


And they are pushing a radical agenda!

They are pushing a populist/liberal agenda.


Gyanendra was a Hindu king, a monarch in a semi-feudal country. Calling it fascist is quite moralistic and simply wrong. It confuses people as to the real definition of fascism.

Not really. Gyanendra did not represent a feudal aristocracy. Gyanendra's rule was characterized by bourgeois and petty bourgeois collaboration, restriction of bourgeois democratic rights, and a certain nationalism. To me, that is fascistic to an extent.


What I want to get at with this is that, like I said, the Nepalese communist revolution, like any other, is full of "...so many ups and downs, twists and turns and victories and defeats..." and that what is occuring now is precisely that in Nepal. Revolutions always go through this.

That's just a pretty sentence with very little meaning. The tactics used by the CPN(M) will fail. Watch.

[subham]

The MAOISTS OF NEPAL HAS SUCCESSFULLY SHOWN THE LENINIST THEORY OF REVOLUTION. HAVING DONE A CONCRETE ANALYSIS OF THE CONCRETE SITUATION THEY HAVE OPENED NEW VISTAS IN THE THEORY OF MARXISM LENINISM. THOSE WHO DENOUNCED THEM AS REVISIONISTS ARE LIVING IN A WORLD OF DELUSION AND FANTASY INDULGING IN SECTARIAN POLITICS.

[Dros]

the Maoists Of Nepal Has Successfully Shown The Leninist Theory Of Revolution. Having Done A Concrete Analysis Of The Concrete Situation They Have Opened New Vistas In The Theory Of Marxism Leninism. Those Who Denounced Them As Revisionists Are Living In A World Of Delusion And Fantasy Indulging In Sectarian Politics.

My, That Was Enlightening! Thank You For This Beautiful And Well Explicated Argument Proving The Validity Of PRACHANDA PATH!

Ps: Why Are We Yelling?

[Rawthentic]

subham, I agree with what you say, but it is important to show how this is true, not simply stating it.

[N3wday]

Greetings everyone!

This is my first post on this site. I apologize. I am unfamiliar with the format of this and wrote a response only covering the first page of replies (without recognizing there was a second!). Hopefully it will contain fresh insight (I'm rather tired now, so I'll save writing more for later!).



“Berstein, like all revisionists, think that competing in bourgeois governments will lead to socialism. The Nepali Maoists do not believe that. Participating in the government is a tactic to achieve New Democracy, not a ends in it itself.”

“It's a failed tactic for numerous reasons and one that can never lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

It is a tactic that was used in the early 90’s by them as well, and did not by any means fail. You’re right, it will not lead to the DOP in itself, but it can be utilized to expose the thoroughly reactionary character of the leading party’s to those in Nepal who are not convinced (and judging by the outcome of the CA elections there are many which could be won over). Before the peoples war they used the Nepali “parliament” to push through a few reforms and build support for the revolution (through virtue of the objective limitations of what was possible under that type of government). Can we really say that they are not using this tactic again to build support for a final insurrection?

To quote the CPN out of the Maoist information bulletin 2007 (I don't have 25 posts so I can't include links - moderator anti-spam rules, however all the quotes I include can be found at the SARev site).


“Before the initiation of the people’s war a small number of comrades were sent to the then parliament and some of our revolutionary comrades from fraternal parties vehemently criticized us for this. Not only that we were expelled from the “Revolutionary Internationalist Movement”. Subsequent development on our part proved that we could initiate a war by protecting revolution from the revolutionary phrases we used to memorize in the early period.”

And (from a different article):


Prachanda: “…we believe that once we are in the government we’ll take so many decisions, important decisions, in favor of the masses of the people and in favor of our nation, and that those kinds of decisions will allow us to have a broader mass base and broader organization and will ultimately help us to move ahead.”


Quote: They have not given up on armed warfare, and, in fact, maintain their peoples army in case of an invasion or attack by the Nepalese army.

Response: Come on. They "maintain their people's army" in UN camps with their guns in large UN controlled crates.

My understanding of the UN camps is that they are not by any means fortresses and that it would be very possible to seize the arms back if necessary. They have not disbanded their army or given up their arms.

In the same article as above Prachanda says:
We will not disband our army. How could we agree to disband our army or destroy our arms? It has been formally agreed that both the armies should be integrated and a new national army should be established and organized. And we have never agreed to go with DDR, you know, this DDR formula [Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration]. What we said is that, here in Nepal it is quite necessary that both armies should be integrated to form a new army.

It should be noted that the PLA has for many years carried out Maoist propaganda work and could be used to transform the character of the army after they are integrated. If this proves to be impossible, none-the-less they will still control a significant section and will have easy access to weapons should they need to be mobilized. There are many difficult contradictions involved here, but I see no reason to believe they cannot be overcome.


In light of this, I find it disgusting that a self described Maoist can call the Nepalis "opportunists" in event that they return to armed struggle. This is a part of a new approach they forged, free from dogmatic rigidity or prescribed formulas, as you expect them to do.

LFTP – I unite with your view of our Nepali comrades, but is strong language such as “disgusting” necessary? These are very real and legitimate concerns. The road forward is not as clear as you paint it to be.


Yup and now the Maoists will seek to build industrial capacity within Nepal. From their own public statements it seems that it will involve capitalism and the EPZ variant thereof. I mean export processing zones are the only option anyway, since Nepal isn't much more than a buffer state. So once Nepal has properly developed, will that somehow lead to socialism and communism? Or will the ruling class, satisfied with its accomplishments begin a red capitalist class ala China? I think it will be the latter.

So once Nepal has properly developed, will that somehow lead to socialism and communism? I don’t think anything the Nepalese have argued for relates in any way to your accusation of economic determinism. Development doesn’t lead to socialism but it does provide modern goods for the people. To the latter half I can only answer by saying that depends on the subjective actions of our comrades. Is it possible? Sure, no argument there. But I think that speculation isn’t grounded in much.


Quote: This tactic is used to isolate the reactionary political forces and win more people over than would have been possible through the continuation of armed revolution,

Response: Oh come on. They could have seized power by now.

You’re quite right, they could have. Perhaps they see reason to further build popular support. There are many national and international reasons for this. The world is watching, Nepal is a tiny, politically isolated, impoverished country. I think they need overwhelming support to survive (not 25%, not 50%).


Quote: In addition, Nepal is amongst the poorest nations in the world. It has virtually no factories, electricity or heating or plumbing (this is more acute in the rural areas).

Response: Which is why we should let imperialists in to develop the means of production? Or should we build the economy as revolutionary socialist did. Stalin and Mao didn't start off leading highly developed nations, comrade.

Is there any flexibility here? Is it possible to utilize foreign investment without becoming subservient to it?


Quote: that they will allow some foreign investment (as both Lenin and Mao did in the beginning),

Response: There not talking about "some" foreign investment. It's a very substantial part of their economic plan, which is essentially classic liberalism by the way.

I’m not entirely familiar with the nuts and bolts here. Perhaps you can provide links with descriptions/statistics? Your fear is that they will become dependent/subservient to the foreign capital they allow in?


Quote: that their revolution at this stage is not immediately one with socialist tasks… and so on.

Response: When will it be one with socialist tasks?

I think the entire framework here is wrong. Are socialist tasks not being carried out? Were communes and cooperatives not established? Don’t they have a land redistribution plan? Are there not plans to greatly expand the cooperatives (even if they are putting a hold on expanding communes)?


Quote: However, New Democracy is a revolution under the leadership of communists that carries out the bourgeois democratic tasks of the world process.

Response: That is correct. The difference here is that in Nepal, the bourgeois democratic task was essentially complete.

When? Can you develop your line of thought further?


Quote: But it is not a “period of capitalist development” — it is rather a period in which the socialist sector emerges (as was the case immediately after 1949 in china, when the bulk of the industrial sector was nationalized).

Response: Which they aren't doing.

What do you envision they should do differently at this moment (please say more than, “seize power”. I would like to hear concrete, even if vague, plans for development that are applicable to their country, and how that is in opposition to what the Nepalese are planning). I think there is a lot of negotiation and political gridlock occurring right now. Things are tense. They could lead to revolution or they could lead to politics within the current framework (and if they stay on the rev path, then rev later). What should be getting accomplished right this moment?


Quote: In The Worker no. 10, they said: “Remaining clear on the principle that the tactic must serve strategy, our party has viewed the democratic republic neither as the bourgeois parliamentarian republic nor directly as the new democratic one…

Response: Big mistake. It is objectively a bourgeois democratic dictatorship. Any other line is either delusional or revisionist.

Do the bourgeoise have a complete monopoly, or “dictatorship” on power at this moment? Is it that clear cut?


Quote: Certainly, the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as, our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that cam right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend on the then national and international situation and state of power balance.”

Response So, what is the class nature of the state at this moment?

I see it as unclear. I see two powers contending for the future. I see new forms of power emerging (and plans for developing them and putting the proletariat fully into power).


Quote: In other words, in New Democracy there is capitalism (inevitably and necessarily — including especially in the countryside as a result of “land to the tiller”), but it is not the determining or defining feature of the society. That is because the socialist revolution starts to unfold, and there are rising efforts for rural cooperatives, an initial socialist sector… etc.

Response: 1.) That's not the program now being implemented by the Maoists in terms of short term economic goals.

2.) The Maoists already had this! We HAD a people's government, a DoP in the countryside! Socialism was in the process of being developed! That has been destroyed.

1.) The CPN(M) is calling this a sub stage of NDR.
2.) My understanding is that after a period of struggle it was decided that these new emerging powers were not to be dismantled. There is not a DoP right now. That is very true. But there are strides being made towards one (assuming the CPN(M) stays on the revolutionary road) and various organs of power in place that could take up that role.


Quote: In other words what defines New Democracy is that it is a stage in the unfolding of communist revolution, and that it is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Response: What exists in Nepal is not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Agreed.


Quote: In light of this, I find it disgusting that a self described Maoist can call the Nepalis "opportunists" in event that they return to armed struggle.

Response: I think they should return to armed struggle. I meant that it would delegitimize them by making them appear opportunistic after they formally renounced armed struggle and have accepted bourgeois democratic pathways. That is, that if they were to return, it would appear unprincipled and confusing. Essentially, they should never have stopped the struggle but now that they have, they should start it again ASAP.

They won’t have appeared to have opportunistically renounced armed struggle if the reactionaries are thoroughly exposed as hindrances to progress. Assuming our comrades carry out effective propaganda/political work, this can be done, and power can be seized through insurrection.



Quote: This is a part of a new approach they forged, free from dogmatic rigidity or prescribed formulas, as you expect them to do.

Response: How is MLM dogmatic? If you are going to claim that departure from key principles of Marxist science is anti-dogmatic, then you would necessarily have to provide a reason why such principles are no longer necessary or are being approached dogmatically. "Dogmatic" isn't just a word to throw around. It has a meaning.

MLM is not dogmatic as they are demonstrating. What key principles are they diverging from that cannot be reconciled with their current program?


Oh yes, you said it, so it must be so. Honestly, to call it the dictatorship of the bourgeois is far too simplistic. There are other contending class forces, such as the old feudal and monarchic parties that want the old order back, the proletarian party (the CPN (N) ), as well as revisionist and capitalist parties like the UML and others.
So...

There is a Communist Party in Italy. Is the state of Italy not a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie? Come on. The existence of class struggle is not a negation of class dictatorship.

That’s not the point. Does the bourgeoise currently have fundamental control of the reigns of power? I believe that’s very murky. This is class struggle, but it’s also unclear who has fundamental control.


Quote: Nepal is going through the process of what we call a "bourgeois democratic revolution", and the Maoists are leading this democratic movement that can open the path to socialism and a new people's power.

Response: No it's not. On what basis do you claim that it is? What imperialist power is it being liberated from. King Gyanendra is, in my view, not a representative of any actual feudal class but representative of bourgeois and petty bourgeois class interests. Essentially, Gyandendra was a fascist, not a feudal monarch. The Nepali government and the Nepali economy has all of the trappings of a bourgeois dictatorship ruling over a semi-feudal country.

My understanding is relations with imperial powers are being renegotiated in favorable terms. How do you propose they “liberate” themselves from imperialism differently? Their sandwiched between China and India? What should they do?


Quote: Yeah, you said that, but didn't explain it.

Response: They do it better than I could ever hope to.

You’re setting the bar low. :)

On a side note. This is a learning process for me. As you all can probably tell I am generally favorable of the CPN(M), but I am still learning. So including links with enlightening information along with your responses would be greatly appreciated.

[N3wday]

Greetings everyone,

This is my second time posting on this site and unfortunately I don't have the ability to include links in my posts yet (anti-spam rules I'm assuming), but all the documents I quote are available on the Revolution in South Asia website.

Also I wrote this response before realizing there was a second page, so I apologize for re-stating points already made. Hopefully some fresh information is included here.


“Berstein, like all revisionists, think that competing in bourgeois governments will lead to socialism. The Nepali Maoists do not believe that. Participating in the government is a tactic to achieve New Democracy, not a ends in it itself.”

“It's a failed tactic for numerous reasons and one that can never lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat.”It is a tactic that was used in the early 90’s by them as well, and did not by any means fail. You’re right, it will not lead to the DOP in itself, but it can be utilized to expose the thoroughly reactionary character of the leading party’s to those in Nepal who are not convinced (and judging by the outcome of the CA elections there are many which could be won over). Before the peoples war they used the Nepali “parliament” to push through a few reforms and build support for the revolution (through virtue of the objective limitations of what was possible under that type of government). Can we really say that they are not using this tactic again to build support for a final insurrection?

To quote the CPN out of the Maoist information bulletin 2007:


“Before the initiation of the people’s war a small number of comrades were sent to the then parliament and some of our revolutionary comrades from fraternal parties vehemently criticized us for this. Not only that we were expelled from the “Revolutionary Internationalist Movement”. Subsequent development on our part proved that we could initiate a war by protecting revolution from the revolutionary phrases we used to memorize in the early period.” And (from a different article):


Prachanda: “…we believe that once we are in the government we’ll take so many decisions, important decisions, in favor of the masses of the people and in favor of our nation, and that those kinds of decisions will allow us to have a broader mass base and broader organization and will ultimately help us to move ahead.”
Quote: They have not given up on armed warfare, and, in fact, maintain their peoples army in case of an invasion or attack by the Nepalese army.

Response: Come on. They "maintain their people's army" in UN camps with their guns in large UN controlled crates.My understanding of the UN camps is that they are not by any means fortresses and that it would be very possible to seize the arms back if necessary. They have not disbanded their army or given up their arms.

In this article Prachanda says:
We will not disband our army. How could we agree to disband our army or destroy our arms? It has been formally agreed that both the armies should be integrated and a new national army should be established and organized. And we have never agreed to go with DDR, you know, this DDR formula [Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration]. What we said is that, here in Nepal it is quite necessary that both armies should be integrated to form a new army.
It should be noted that the PLA has for many years carried out Maoist propaganda work and could be used to transform the character of the army after they are integrated. If this proves to be impossible, none-the-less they will still control a significant section and will have easy access to weapons should they need to be mobilized. There are many difficult contradictions involved here, but I see no reason to believe they cannot be overcome.


In light of this, I find it disgusting that a self described Maoist can call the Nepalis "opportunists" in event that they return to armed struggle. This is a part of a new approach they forged, free from dogmatic rigidity or prescribed formulas, as you expect them to do.LFTP – I unite with your view of our Nepali comrades, but is strong language such as “disgusting” necessary? These are very real and legitimate concerns. The road forward is not as clear as you paint it to be.


Yup and now the Maoists will seek to build industrial capacity within Nepal. From their own public statements it seems that it will involve capitalism and the EPZ variant thereof. I mean export processing zones are the only option anyway, since Nepal isn't much more than a buffer state. So once Nepal has properly developed, will that somehow lead to socialism and communism? Or will the ruling class, satisfied with its accomplishments begin a red capitalist class ala China? I think it will be the latter. So once Nepal has properly developed, will that somehow lead to socialism and communism? I don’t think anything the Nepalese have argued for relates in any way to your accusation of economic determinism. Development doesn’t lead to socialism but it does provide modern goods for the people. To the latter half I can only answer by saying that depends on the subjective actions of our comrades. Is it possible? Sure, no argument there. But I think that speculation isn’t grounded in much.


Quote: This tactic is used to isolate the reactionary political forces and win more people over than would have been possible through the continuation of armed revolution,

Response: Oh come on. They could have seized power by now.You’re quite right, they could have. Perhaps they see reason to further build popular support. There are many national and international reasons for this. The world is watching, Nepal is a tiny, politically isolated, impoverished country. I think they need overwhelming support to survive (not 25%, not 50%).


Quote: In addition, Nepal is amongst the poorest nations in the world. It has virtually no factories, electricity or heating or plumbing (this is more acute in the rural areas).

Response: Which is why we should let imperialists in to develop the means of production? Or should we build the economy as revolutionary socialist did. Stalin and Mao didn't start off leading highly developed nations, comrade.Is there any flexibility here? Is it possible to utilize foreign investment without becoming subservient to it?


Quote: that they will allow some foreign investment (as both Lenin and Mao did in the beginning),

Response: There not talking about "some" foreign investment. It's a very substantial part of their economic plan, which is essentially classic liberalism by the way.I’m not entirely familiar with the nuts and bolts here. Perhaps you can provide links with descriptions/statistics? Your fear is that they will become dependent/subservient to the foreign capital they allow in?


Quote: that their revolution at this stage is not immediately one with socialist tasks… and so on.

Response: When will it be one with socialist tasks?I think the entire framework here is wrong. Are socialist tasks not being carried out? Were communes and cooperatives not established? Don’t they have a land redistribution plan? Are there not plans to greatly expand the cooperatives (even if they are putting a hold on expanding communes)?


Quote: However, New Democracy is a revolution under the leadership of communists that carries out the bourgeois democratic tasks of the world process.

Response: That is correct. The difference here is that in Nepal, the bourgeois democratic task was essentially complete.When? Can you develop your line of thought further?


Quote: But it is not a “period of capitalist development” — it is rather a period in which the socialist sector emerges (as was the case immediately after 1949 in china, when the bulk of the industrial sector was nationalized).

Response: Which they aren't doing.What do you envision they should do differently at this moment (please say more than, “seize power”. I would like to hear concrete, even if vague, plans for development that are applicable to their country, and how that is in opposition to what the Nepalese are planning). I think there is a lot of negotiation and political gridlock occurring right now. Things are tense. They could lead to revolution or they could lead to politics within the current framework (and if they stay on the rev path, then rev later). What should be getting accomplished right this moment?


Quote: In The Worker no. 10, they said: “Remaining clear on the principle that the tactic must serve strategy, our party has viewed the democratic republic neither as the bourgeois parliamentarian republic nor directly as the new democratic one…

Response: Big mistake. It is objectively a bourgeois democratic dictatorship. Any other line is either delusional or revisionist.Do the bourgeoise have a complete monopoly, or class “dictatorship” on power at this moment? Is it that clear cut?


Quote: Certainly, the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as, our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that cam right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend on the then national and international situation and state of power balance.”

Response So, what is the class nature of the state at this moment?I see it as unclear. I see two powers contending for the future. I see new forms of power emerging (and plans for developing them and putting the proletariat fully into power).


Quote: In other words, in New Democracy there is capitalism (inevitably and necessarily — including especially in the countryside as a result of “land to the tiller”), but it is not the determining or defining feature of the society. That is because the socialist revolution starts to unfold, and there are rising efforts for rural cooperatives, an initial socialist sector… etc.

Response: 1.) That's not the program now being implemented by the Maoists in terms of short term economic goals.

2.) The Maoists already had this! We HAD a people's government, a DoP in the countryside! Socialism was in the process of being developed! That has been destroyed.1.) The CPN(M) is calling this a sub stage of NDR, there is an explanation in a book they published in April of 2007 entitled, 'Some Important Documents of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 2004'. Unfortunately I just ordered and haven't been able to find it online. Does anyone have access to this?
2.) My understanding is that after a period of struggle it was decided that these new emerging powers were not to be dismantled. There is not a DoP right now. That is very true. But there are strides being made towards one (assuming the CPN(M) stays on the revolutionary road) and various organs of power in place that could take up that role.


Quote: In other words what defines New Democracy is that it is a stage in the unfolding of communist revolution, and that it is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Response: What exists in Nepal is not a dictatorship of the proletariat.Agreed.


Quote: In light of this, I find it disgusting that a self described Maoist can call the Nepalis "opportunists" in event that they return to armed struggle.

Response: I think they should return to armed struggle. I meant that it would delegitimize them by making them appear opportunistic after they formally renounced armed struggle and have accepted bourgeois democratic pathways. That is, that if they were to return, it would appear unprincipled and confusing. Essentially, they should never have stopped the struggle but now that they have, they should start it again ASAP.They won’t have appeared to have opportunistically renounced armed struggle if the reactionaries are thoroughly exposed as hindrances to progress. Assuming our comrades carry out effective propaganda/political work.



Quote: This is a part of a new approach they forged, free from dogmatic rigidity or prescribed formulas, as you expect them to do.

Response: How is MLM dogmatic? If you are going to claim that departure from key principles of Marxist science is anti-dogmatic, then you would necessarily have to provide a reason why such principles are no longer necessary or are being approached dogmatically. "Dogmatic" isn't just a word to throw around. It has a meaning.MLM is not dogmatic as they are demonstrating. What key principles are they diverging from that cannot be reconciled?


Oh yes, you said it, so it must be so. Honestly, to call it the dictatorship of the bourgeois is far too simplistic. There are other contending class forces, such as the old feudal and monarchic parties that want the old order back, the proletarian party (the CPN (N) ), as well as revisionist and capitalist parties like the UML and others.
So...

There is a Communist Party in Italy. Is the state of Italy not a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie? Come on. The existence of class struggle is not a negation of class dictatorship.That’s not the point. Does the bourgeoise currently have fundamental control of the reigns of power? I believe that’s very murky. There are two armies, the Maoists have the largest elected party. This is class struggle, there is also no DoP nor DoB.


Quote: Nepal is going through the process of what we call a "bourgeois democratic revolution", and the Maoists are leading this democratic movement that can open the path to socialism and a new people's power.

Response: No it's not. On what basis do you claim that it is? What imperialist power is it being liberated from. King Gyanendra is, in my view, not a representative of any actual feudal class but representative of bourgeois and petty bourgeois class interests. Essentially, Gyandendra was a fascist, not a feudal monarch. The Nepali government and the Nepali economy has all of the trappings of a bourgeois dictatorship ruling over a semi-feudal country.Relations with imperial powers are being renegotiated. How do you propose they “liberate” themselves from imperialism differently?


Quote: Yeah, you said that, but didn't explain it.

Response: They do it better than I could ever hope to.

This sounds familiar...

I'm still in the process of learning about Nepal so if people responding would we willing to post links to helpful articles that further expound your arguments I would appreciate it greatly!

[Dros]

N3wday, I appreciate your post but don't have time to respond at the moment as it's getting late. I will try to respond tomorrow or sometime this week. Sorry but it's exams and I'm really busy at the moment but I think the substance of your post deserves a response.

[N3wday]

thanks, lookin' forward to it!

[N3wday]

They definitely have more of an understanding, but I never said our criticisms are valid. I am the one calling for critical support of the Nepalese revolution - not silence like the RCP.

Response: I too am calling for critical support. Don't get me wrong, I hope that the Maoists win. I hope this is just a New Democratic transitional phase. But I seriously doubt it.I think an important thing we should get into is how we define support. Do we define support as telling our revolutionary buddies that we support the revolution in Nepal, or do we define support as trying to popularize it in the eyes of the public in order to create public support against coups and interventions. There's a big difference there.

Also the RCP isn't silent on Nepal, they speak through AWTW and put out a definite "line" even if overtly just appears as reporting. I wouldn't call it critically supportive, because I see support as an action word. It's more along the lines, of not supportive but willing to wait and find out (that means doing no solidarity work and just allowing whatever happens to happen).

Quote:
Boy, I'd like to buy one of the crystal balls you're using.
:lol::lol::lol:

Don't worry they're free! It's called "materialism" and you can find it at your local Revolution Books.Jeez LFTP haven't you heard B.A.'s a fortune teller? If you doubt it just check out his "new synthesis"! It only makes sense that it would rub off on supporters after they've thoroughly immersed themselves in his body of work / method and approach. It's not subjective idealism (or utopian socialism) it's "materialism" (emphasis on the quotes)!

My bad, I couldn't help but join in!:laugh:

[repeater138]

I would note that the Bolsheviks participated in the Duma (Russian Parliament), and in fact did so on grounds that were far more under the control of the enemy than the Nepalese are currently doing. In other words, Drosera (as per usual), doesn´t know what he´s talking about. In fact if you read the wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) on "bolshevik" you´ll see that it was Lenin´s faction that supported entry into the Duma.

There is no principle against participation in electoral politics.

[leftclick]

This struck me as an example of not seeking the truth from the facts: "Oh come on. They could have seized power by now."

Their assessment was that they could not. The CPN[M] have already explained that the RNA had taken up defensive positions that would have been extremely difficult to dislodge, if it could even be done. They estimated that continuing the armed struggle would have led to an indefinite, bloody stalemate, resulting in much unnecessary killing and a high risk of losing support. The best available solution was therefore a political one.

If you have information that contradicts this assessment, please share it with us.

But let's say you're right, and they could have defeated the RNA. How would this change the conditions they have to face and transform, or the sets of alliances they have to make?

[N3wday]

Their assessment was that they could not. The CPN[M] have already explained that the RNA had taken up defensive positions that would have been extremely difficult to dislodge, if it could even be done. They estimated that continuing the armed struggle would have led to an indefinite, bloody stalemate, resulting in much unnecessary killing and a high risk of losing support. The best available solution was therefore a political one.

Admittedly, all I had heard was that they controlled the vast majority of the country and were in the position to capture the cities, unfortunately it was word of mouth and not backed up by anything. :confused:

[IrisBright]

An interview with Comrade Guarav from Kasama, where he explains the Nepali Maoist decision to enter into the peace agreement (can't do links yet, just search this post):

Posted 4-9-08 at Kasama: Guarav on the Revolution in Nepal

It was feared, after the RNA recieved assistance from the US imperialists to dig into bunkers surrounded by mines, and without popular support in the urban centers, the PLA would fail or be absolutely crushed after long drawn out stagnation. The statement "oh come on, they could have finished it" hints at a sort of flippant contempt for our Nepalese comrades and their particular difficulties. All the RCP cadre/supporters I know personally know little up-to-date info on Nepal (what we can get) outside what they were recieving until Spring 06. I am definitely still learning-- but,

No investigation...

[IrisBright]

I don't want to paint you wrong Drosera. To be more specific, I think (I could be wrong) that the RCP's problem with the Nepalese (the reason for all their veiled non-committal polemics) is the tentative Nepalese rejection of one-party states. And cadre have been at the least very uncomfortable in discussions about this or at the worst, angry and dismissive. Come out with it already, state your position! An old Revolution article from April 2006 is not an answer, people!

And Drosera--I mention the RCP because I find it hard to believe that anyone outside the cadre/"Revolution Clubs" would seriously recommend the Official Response to 9 Letters to Our Comrades. I have friends who have supported Revolution News and the P for a while, who are shocked and appalled at the contempt shown for the reader's intelligence in the Response. The angry, illogical (and, stunning developments: a threatening and cheer-leading message to 'Menschevics' inside the P!) piece by the Party is very sad--regardless of the content of the 9L. This last bit--regarding the need for good, thorough public polemics to be put out--is what is being spit on by the RCP.

[Prairie Fire]

This is a part of a new approach they forged, free from dogmatic rigidity or prescribed formulas, as you expect them to do.


I love when Maoists talk about being" free from dogmatism" or "non-dogmatic", because it always ends up being a blanket term to not only pardon their revisionism, but also to claim that they are still Marxist-Leninist.

Why did the CPN(M) overturn land-redistribution in the countryside?

Why did they disarm their peoples army?

Why did they settle for parliamentary democracy?

Why is land reform the major task of CPN(M)? That is petty bourgois in nature, hardly a step towards abolition of private property in the form of land ownership.

That is what I mean, that in the past whenever Maoists (and Mao Tse Tung himself,) have made bold moves that are at best erroneous, at worst blatanlty anti-socialist, they always explain it away, by painting all of their revolutionary critics as "dogmatists".

In the case of CPN(M), they are "free from dogmatism" in the sense that Prachanda and his apparatchiks have liquidated revolutionary communism, in theory and in practice, and are completely disregarding Marxism-Leninism (even Maoism :lol:) in their liberalization of tactics, motives and goals, but they can't just come out and drop Marxism, because probably a good 90% of their international support base are Marxist-Leninists.

That's what he means when LFTP says that they are free of "Dogma", and now CPN(M) apologists are trying to strangle Marxist-Leninist criticism, by appealing to liberal-bourgois gains (abolition of monarchy, parliamentary democratic victory, petty bourgois land reforms) of CPN(M), and trying to point out that "technically it isn't over, so just wait and see", as though Nepal, with a Maoist parliament, is going to be a shining beacon of socialism and proletarian power because of legislation passed by the CPN(M) :rolleyes:.

This is the same thing that revisionists of all stripes do, wether it be Soviet, Cuban, Chinese,North Korean, Vietnamese, etc: pointing to liberal/social democratic gains to try and stiffle debate about the actual progress of socialism in a particular country. "So what if Cuba has a profit motive, some private property, and investment of foriegn capital into industries ?They have first rate health care, and it's nationalized!"


Unless a rectification movement is lead in Nepal, the CPN(M) will go the way of the Tigrayan Peoples Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigrayan_People%27s_Liberation_Front), quickly abandoning any reference to communism after getting their chunk of parliament.

[leftclick]

I have seen a lot of criticism of the CPN[M], but it always comes from a place of abstraction. They were wrong to do x and y because that's not what Lenin or Mao would have done; they have deviated from some mysterious formula for successful revolution.

What is absent from such discussion is Nepali reality. I have no problem with criticism of the Nepali comrades, but such criticism would be more productive if they would take into account the development of the political-economic situation in Nepal and perhaps suggest viable, concrete alternatives.


I love when Maoists talk about being" free from dogmatism" or "non-dogmatic", because it always ends up being a blanket term to not only pardon their revisionism, but also to claim that they are still Marxist-Leninist.

Why did the CPN(M) overturn land-redistribution in the countryside?

Why did they disarm their peoples army?

Why did they settle for parliamentary democracy?

Why is land reform the major task of CPN(M)? That is petty bourgois in nature, hardly a step towards abolition of private property in the form of land ownership.

That is what I mean, that in the past whenever Maoists (and Mao Tse Tung himself,) have made bold moves that are at best erroneous, at worst blatanlty anti-socialist, they always explain it away, by painting all of their revolutionary critics as "dogmatists".

In the case of CPN(M), they are "free from dogmatism" in the sense that Prachanda and his apparatchiks have liquidated revolutionary communism, in theory and in practice, and are completely disregarding Marxism-Leninism (even Maoism :lol:) in their liberalization of tactics, motives and goals, but they can't just come out and drop Marxism, because probably a good 90% of their international support base are Marxist-Leninists.

That's what he means when LFTP says that they are free of "Dogma", and now CPN(M) apologists are trying to strangle Marxist-Leninist criticism, by appealing to liberal-bourgois gains (abolition of monarchy, parliamentary democratic victory, petty bourgois land reforms) of CPN(M), and trying to point out that "technically it isn't over, so just wait and see", as though Nepal, with a Maoist parliament, is going to be a shining beacon of socialism and proletarian power because of legislation passed by the CPN(M) :rolleyes:.

This is the same thing that revisionists of all stripes do, wether it be Soviet, Cuban, Chinese,North Korean, Vietnamese, etc: pointing to liberal/social democratic gains to try and stiffle debate about the actual progress of socialism in a particular country. "So what if Cuba has a profit motive, some private property, and investment of foriegn capital into industries ?They have first rate health care, and it's nationalized!"


Unless a rectification movement is lead in Nepal, the CPN(M) will go the way of the Tigrayan Peoples Liberation Front, quickly abandoning any reference to communism after getting their chunk of parliament.

[Rawthentic]

I agree with you, leftclick. The very reason that our Nepali comrades are making break throughs is because they discard and protect against formulas, in favor of creatively developing every revolution according to its own conditions. Hmm...basic Maoism (living Marxism).

The CPN has not overturned land reform in the countryside. In fact, it is the number one thing on their agenda as they time comes to create a new constitution. Land reform is a major task of the Maoists because....are you seriously wondering why? You must really be oblivious to the situation of the Nepali people. Most of those people who farm in the countryside don't even own one hectare. Every living socialist revolution has had land reform as a major issue.

And, have they settled for bourgeois politics? Or is this a new stage in the whole process of their revolution? Do you really understand the reasons behind their choosing to enter the government? First of all, they could not have captured Kathmandu with the forces they had and the stalemate that the PW was in. Secondly, the did not have the necessary urban support and alliances with other forces to overthrow the reactionaries. These are main purposes of their involvement in the government: to isolate and expose the reactionary forces, make alliances with all progressive and radical forces, and win over crucial urban support. The Maoists understand better than anyone that the revolution cannot continue by means of the parliament. They have stated repeatedly that they know the other parties will not allow the Maoists to follow through with their radical policies so they will have to rely on the mobilization of the masses to carry forward the movement.

I would like to recommend this: http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/new-nepal-leaflet-by-kasama-philly/

and this:http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/pdf-available-4-reasons-nepals-revolution-matters/

This is a great work by Baburam Bhattarai titled " The Question of Building a New Type of State" - http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/category/maoist-theory/

And Basanta's important article on "Revolutions can't be copied, Each one needs to be creatively developed." - http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/nepals-maoists-revolutions-cant-be-copied-only-developed/