Log in

View Full Version : Red Star #10:Revolution and Compromise



Rawthentic
26th June 2008, 03:01
Red Star #10: Revolution and Compromise (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/red-star-10-revolution-and-compromise/)

Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on June 24, 2008
http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/xin_122050529032617151052.jpg?w=300 (http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/xin_122050529032617151052.jpg)
This article appeared in the June 16-30 issue of the Nepali Maoist newspaper red star. (http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/)

by Netrabikram “Biplap”Chand (Biplop is a member of secretariat, Central Committee, CPN (Maoist).)




Our revolution is in the stage of negotiation and our party sees compromise as another aspect of the class struggle. The question has not yet been finalised whether the revolution will be accomplished through compromise or it will be pushed towards counter-revolution. There is an incessant and fierce struggle between two different world outlooks that is attracting attention nationally and internationally.


Marxism accepts the possibility of making compromises; however, it considers impossible to accomplish a revolution through too many compromises. Compromise can be useful at a point in the revolution to obtain state power, but it is impossible to secure state power for the proletarian class only through compromise. On the contrary, opportunist and reformist tendencies not only consider compromise as necessary, but consider compromise as everything. They believe that society and state power can be changed and transformed through compromise rather than through revolution, through ‘negotiationism’. These two tendencies are gradually coming to a head in our country.


Our party, the CPN (Maoist), and the Nepali Congress (NC) are at logger heads over the issue of negotiation. From the point of view of class struggle, the NC doesn’t see or believe in the necessity of a revolution in Nepal. The NC, according to its viewpoint, wants to negotiation with the CPN (M), the CPN (UML) and other parties by dividing the ministries. According to the NC’s outlook, it is enough to progress economically. Political revolution is not necessary.


According to the NC’s outlook, the logical debate and planning of revolution is an activity of extremists. They suggest that the CPN (Maoist) should not do the revolution and be satisfied with a share in the government. But the ultimate goal of the CPN (M) is Communism through a People’s Republic and through the stage of socialism. For that, the state must be under the leadership of a Communist party. Therefore, we, the Maoist, should oppose ‘negotiationism’, though we are not against making particular compromises per se.


Due to the impact of class struggle, different views on compromise and ‘negotiationism’ are surfacing within the party; this should not be a surprise. Frankly speaking, the tendency of ‘negotiationism’ is spreading like a viral disease within our party. This type of tendency developing within the party is hundred times more dangerous than the ‘negotiationism’ of the NC. This tendency, through the so called economic ‘revolution’ and power sharing seeks to end the political revolution here. We would consider that it is an extremity of ‘negotiationism’ to depend upon hostile elements by neglecting the compulsory foundations for securing state power.
The NC wants to push the country into counter-revolution. The NC desires that a scientific communist party and the proletarian revolution should sink down into status-quo establishment and into the stagnant pool of the old state. Therefore, it has put forward a seven point demand that includes the dissolution of the YCL, the PLA and a rollback of all the gains made during the Peoples War.


If CPN (M) accepts these preconditions, it can be in the government, if it doesn’t, then it cannot. The purpose of these preconditions is to push the country towards counter-revolution. To accept these conditions is to end the revolution.


We, Maoists, desire to change this compromise into revolution and strengthen the revolution against the counter-revolution. For this, we should expand the means and the foundations of the revolution. Let us consolidate the party, the PLA and the United Front and take them to a new level. Let us establish a clear political and economic outlook and take state power.


We have already dissolved our local people’s power centres. We dissolved the people’s courts and the peoples’ militia. Our co-operatives, communes, health posts and educational institutions, established during the war, are now becoming weaker. In this situation, if we accept the seven-point demand of NC, directly or indirectly, we would declare that the revolution is over. A big debate has not taken place on it, but a tendency considers that it will make no difference if we accept the seven-point demand of the NC. The tendency to be liberal towards these demands is not a revolutionary tendency; it helps the interests of the NC.


Compromise is an unusual condition for revolution. Things seem peaceful in the period of agreement and negotiation but it is just an illusion. Two rival thoughts, tendencies and forces are fighting terribly behind a thin curtain. They both are trying to win under the cover of compromise. Each wants to destroy the other; one becomes bigger than the other, a process of swallowing begins. When the one about to be swallowed isn’t safe, then it breaches the norms of accord and begins to protect itself through struggle. If protecting itself becomes impossible by defending itself, it is obliged to start the confrontation between revolution and counter-revolution. Then the compromise will end and the balance of two opposed forces breaks down. This has happened previously in our country. Until now, the NC and the imperialists thought that they would be able to destroy the CPN (M) before the election. The masses and the fraternal parties and organisations of the world had thought that somewhere the CPN (M) would be swallowed! But in the election, the people protected the CPN (M) like their own children, and the NC and the imperialists failed in their mission. As a result, the NC has now put forward its seven point demand. We have defeated the NC in the election, but if we cannot protect the revolution, we will be ruined in no time. This conflict, indeed, is related to the series of compromises we have made. Now, we should direct our attention towards the defence of the revolution by ending the situation of compromise.
The issue of compromise is a common issue related to the world revolution, if we accept that the Nepalese revolution is a part of the world revolution. If we want to learn the lessons from communist states of the past century, the issue of compromise must be a common topic for all the revolutionaries of the world. It means that we should think deeply and develop a new ideology and knowledge to solve the problems before us and for the protection of the Nepalese revolution. Even though it has not been enough to tackle , the present necessities and possibilities to this date, we have been encouraged by the suggestions and participation of the RIM committee, the RCP and the CPI (Maoist).


In short, compromise is possible in a revolution, but revolution is not possible only through compromise. The imperialists and reactionaries want to push the revolution towards counter revolution, but revolutionary communists want to change the compromise into revolution. The conspiracy to change compromise into counter revolution is vigorously going on in Nepal. We should make this conspiracy fail by uniting the revolutionary forces of the world. Fighting against the reactionary forces, we should defeat them. Any revolution in any part of the world is a part of the world revolution. Likewise, any compromise also a part of the world revolution. Therefore, the revolutionaries of the world should make a joint effort to change the compromise into revolution. Revolution is compulsory but the ‘negotiationism’ is impossible.

Joe Hill's Ghost
26th June 2008, 06:09
I'm sorry but these are the same guys pushing capitalism in order to "properly" develop Nepal. They shouldn't be talking about counter-revolution.

Saorsa
26th June 2008, 07:02
The "national industrial capitalism" the Maoists talk of is a very different system to the comprador-bureaucratic capitalism that would exist without the development of the Nepalese revolution. Nepal is not ready for socialism. Basic fact. You cannot jump straight to a socialist society from a backward, semi-feudal economy where the largest and heaviest industry is carpet making. Nepal does not have any industries to nationalise!

If the Maoists immediately did away with all forms of capitalism and the market very quickly, they would not have enough national surplus-value on offer to develop the country, and with the intervention of foreign imperialism the experiment would be a dismal failure.

The Maoists have analysed the concrete, objective conditions in Nepal and put forward concrete proposals that flow from that analysis. They have sought truth from facts - they have not drawn 90% of their revolutionary program from any book by Trotsky/Mao/Bakunin/[insert name here], but have instead applied revolutionary Marxism in an original and creative manner to the real conditions in Nepal.

While this has predictably drawn condemnation from dogmatic, ultra-leftist types on First World internet forums and university debating groups, it has resulted in an openly Marxist-Leninist Party coming to the threshold of state power on the back of massive popular support, something which we have not seen especially often for quite some time.

Ultimately, I think that's much more important and noteworthy than the fact that they havn't copy+pasted their program from a copy of Trotsky's "Transitional Program", or "State and Revolution" or whatever.

There are no blueprints - all revolutions must find their own road. Our duty is to support them in that, not pretend that we know more than they do!

One of the distinguishing characteristics of the dead-end left sects here in New Zealand - CWG, IBT etc - are that they set themselves up pompously and ludicrously as "experts" on Nepal, Venezuela, the Congo etc, enter imaginary "military blocs" with all and sundry and so on, yet are totally incapable of building anything in NZ, let alone anything in the working class. Their "expertise" on revolutions a long way away is in direct, inverse proportion to their inability to do anything in NZ. Indeed, these sectlets are so out-of-touch with NZ reality that they think Labour is still some kind of "workers party"!

The moment we pull out of the protracted downturn in class struggle we've been experiencing here in New Zealand, these sectlings will be swept away and rendered totally irrelevant. The Workers Party, of which I ama member, will grow and recruit widely, as we've been doing the hard work in developing links with the working class here in New Zealand, rather than pretending that we know how the workers and peasants of Nepal should run their revolution.

I would suggest that others on this forum can learn a few things from our approach.

dirtycommiebastard
26th June 2008, 07:09
There are no blueprints - all revolutions must find their own road. Our duty is to support them in that, not pretend that we know more than they do!


Of course revolution will take place in a different manner in every country, but to dismiss the study of historical analysis of the past revolutionary movements and claiming that we should blindly support groups is simply wrong.

You say all revolutions must find their own road, and this is correct. You cannot impose the Bolshevik model of 1917 on Nepal. But what you must do is develop the theories of the Bolshevik revolution to learn how to properly move forward in your own country.

If you do not develop ideas of the past, how will you succeed when you must reinvent the wheel at every turn?

Saorsa
26th June 2008, 07:43
Of course revolution will take place in a different manner in every country, but to dismiss the study of historical analysis of the past revolutionary movements and claiming that we should blindly support groups is simply wrong.

I agree totally with you're post. I did not dismiss studying the historical experiences of previous revolutions, nor did I claim that we should "blindly" support groups that are leading revolutions. What I was saying was that we should draw inspiration from the revolutions of the past, we should try to learn from their mistakes and build on their successes, but we should not try to apply the Bolshevik program of 1917 (or the anarchist programme of... oh wait, there's never been a half-way successful anarchist revolution) to Nepal in 2008, and what's more we should not condemn the Nepalese Maoists for developing a programme that accurately reflects the reality of their country!

Dros
26th June 2008, 18:55
I'm sorry but these are the same guys pushing capitalism in order to "properly" develop Nepal. They shouldn't be talking about counter-revolution.

I hate to say it but I agree with you.

I think history will show that the Maoists are not going to get to New Democratic economics but will simply arrive back at (a perhaps better developed) bourgeois capitalism.

Joe Hill's Ghost
26th June 2008, 19:41
The "national industrial capitalism" the Maoists talk of is a very different system to the comprador-bureaucratic capitalism that would exist without the development of the Nepalese revolution. Nepal is not ready for socialism. Basic fact. You cannot jump straight to a socialist society from a backward, semi-feudal economy where the largest and heaviest industry is carpet making. Nepal does not have any industries to nationalise!

If the Maoists immediately did away with all forms of capitalism and the market very quickly, they would not have enough national surplus-value on offer to develop the country, and with the intervention of foreign imperialism the experiment would be a dismal failure.

The Maoists have analysed the concrete, objective conditions in Nepal and put forward concrete proposals that flow from that analysis. They have sought truth from facts - they have not drawn 90% of their revolutionary program from any book by Trotsky/Mao/Bakunin/[insert name here], but have instead applied revolutionary Marxism in an original and creative manner to the real conditions in Nepal. You do understand that when you introduce capitalism you can’t undo that, right? Whatever fancy little brand name you want to put on it, its still capitalism. Capitalism entrenches itself and doesn’t go away. It’s a social cancer that metastasizes until it’s killed its host. This belief that the Nepalese Maoists can transition to socialism/communism after all their leadership accrue wealth and power from new “national-industrial capitalism,” is incredibly naive.

You only need to look at the history of the Iroquois people to see that this historical reductionism is silly. Societies have utilized communal ownership of the means of production without industrialization. They don’t have to transition; the transition is the whole fucking problem. Because during that “transition” nothing seems to be in transit! Give it 10 years and Prachanda will be living large off the benefits off of red capitalism, just like Den Xiaoping. There’s nothing concrete about the Maoists, they just want power and a nice slice of the pie. Why else do the Maoist CA members take a salary which in one month pays 3 times as much as the average yearly wage in Nepal.


While this has predictably drawn condemnation from dogmatic, ultra-leftist types on First World internet forums and university debating groups, it has resulted in an openly Marxist-Leninist Party coming to the threshold of state power on the back of massive popular support, something which we have not seen especially often for quite some time.

Ultimately, I think that's much more important and noteworthy than the fact that they havn't copy+pasted their program from a copy of Trotsky's "Transitional Program", or "State and Revolution" or whatever.

There are no blueprints - all revolutions must find their own road. Our duty is to support them in that, not pretend that we know more than they do! Well you can call me whatever names you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the “communists” of Nepal are instituting capitalism. And when you institute capitalism, it takes on a life of its own. Yes there are no blueprints, but the Maoists are obviously using a really bad one.


One of the distinguishing characteristics of the dead-end left sects here in New Zealand - CWG, IBT etc - are that they set themselves up pompously and ludicrously as "experts" on Nepal, Venezuela, the Congo etc, enter imaginary "military blocs" with all and sundry and so on, yet are totally incapable of building anything in NZ, let alone anything in the working class. Their "expertise" on revolutions a long way away is in direct, inverse proportion to their inability to do anything in NZ. Indeed, these sectlets are so out-of-touch with NZ reality that they think Labour is still some kind of "workers party"!

The moment we pull out of the protracted downturn in class struggle we've been experiencing here in New Zealand, these sectlings will be swept away and rendered totally irrelevant. The Workers Party, of which I ama member, will grow and recruit widely, as we've been doing the hard work in developing links with the working class here in New Zealand, rather than pretending that we know how the workers and peasants of Nepal should run their revolution.

I would suggest that others on this forum can learn a few things from our approach. No one’s attacking the people of Nepal, just these idiots who happen to own all the guns.

*shrugs* Yeah so? I’m an anarchist, I spend most of political work organizing shit for the long haul. I do this internet thing because its fun and it keeps Leninists honest. Its no big surprise that most Marxist groups wouldn’t know revolution if it hit them on the head, they’re usually designed that way. But don’t act like your shit smells any better than anyone else’s. Your party might grow, it might not grow. But it’s not a good sign if you’re cheerleading a bunch of bureaucrats as they usher their people into fancy new sweatshops.

BobKKKindle$
27th June 2008, 06:59
You cannot jump straight to a socialist society from a backward, semi-feudal economy where the largest and heaviest industry is carpet making. Nepal does not have any industries to nationalise!

The theory of "New Democracy" is based on the assumption that it is possible for a country to develop within the framework of capitalism, and capitalism allows for the rapid development of the productive forces. This is an assumption which should be carefully evaluated, because arguably it does not account for the external obstacles to development posed by the advanced capitalist nations.

An important aspect of capitalism which is maintained during the period of "New Democracy" is foreign ownership. The CPN(M) has consistently stated that the government will allow foreign firms to conduct investment in Nepal. However, foreign ownership means that the surplus value generated from the production of goods will not remain in the country where production takes place and so will not be able to contribute to economic development. In addition, to make Nepal an attractive location for firms to base production, the government will be forced to diminish standards controlling the conditions of workers, and make other concessions such as reducing tax, a process known in popular discourse as the 'race to the bottom'. It therefore remains unclear as to how allowing foreign investment will improve the conditions of the working masses or establish the material prerequisites for Socialism.