Nepal: Tea Workers Seize Plantations

[Rawthentic]

Nepal: Tea Workers Seize Plantations (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/)

Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on August 18, 2008
http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/red-flag.jpg?w=195&h=300 (http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/red-flag.jpg)

Clearly these are important developments. Anyone hearing news of these worker takeovers should sent them to Kasama and we will post them immediately. Thanks to Neil’s Nepal (http://neilsnepal.wordpress.com/) blog for pointing this out.

Such actions of worker control are a sign of a deepening revolutionary situation — and (from very scattered accounts) seem to initiative taken by the people inspired by the increasing power of the Maoist party. As we get more facts about this, we will be able to see whether those first impressions are true, and whether such developments are a trend within the sharpening crisis over Nepal’s revolution and its future.


Somewhere Lenin is Smiling: Workers ‘take over’ tea factories, resume operations (http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=155637)



RAM CHANDRA ADHIKARI DHANKUTA, Aug 3 - Workers of three big tea estates, which remained closed for the last three weeks due to disputes between the management and workers, have forcefully took control of the processing factories and resumed operations.


The factories of Gurash Tea Estate, Kuwabashi Tea Plantation and Joon Tea Garden were taken into control by the workers on Friday and started tea production from Saturday.


Gopal Tamang, president of All Nepal Trade Unions Federation, a trade union closely affiliated with the Maoists, said the workers have resumed tea production and also started collecting tea leaves from the garden. He said the workers were forced to ‘capture’ the factories after the managements refused to initiate dialogues to end the deadlock and added that the takeover will continue until the managements agree to talk.


The tea estates were closed three weeks back after tea workers started protest programs demanding wage hikes, permanent appointments, and medical insurance, among others. The managements of the tea estates have been refusing to sit for negotiations citing insecurity.

[Saorsa]

But... but... I thought the Maoists were going to supress this sort of activity in order to placate imperialism! I thought they were "red bureaucrats /traitors/Stalinists/[insert liberal buzzword here]"!

Let's hope that these sort of things continue to occur and grow more frequent, and let's draw hope and inspiration from the Maoist-led revolutionary process unfolding in Nepal.

[Mindtoaster]

Sounds like things are progresisng for the better there. Something I admittedly did not expect. Didn't the party at some point say that they were "committed capitalists?"

[Saorsa]

I'd suspect that's a misquote. The CPN (M) have stated their dedication to building what they call "national industrial capitalism" in Nepal, while continuing to mobilise the workers and peasants to lay the basis for eventual socialist transformation. Considering the severe underdevelopment of Nepal, they have no alternative - there's next to nothing to nationalise!

[Rawthentic]

Mindtoaster, the role of the Nepalese revolution at this point starts with the completion of bourgeois democratic tasks, internal peace, amongst other things. It also needs to (and will) develop a capitalist economy to build infrastructure and basically get Nepal out of the feudal quagmire it finds itself in (as defeating feudalism unleashes previously non-existent capitalist relations).

The second stage is basically the advance to socialism.

[Martin Blank]

Mindtoaster, the role of the Nepalese revolution at this point starts with the completion of bourgeois democratic tasks, internal peace, amongst other things. It also needs to (and will) develop a capitalist economy to build infrastructure and basically get Nepal out of the feudal quagmire it finds itself in (as defeating feudalism unleashes previously non-existent capitalist relations).

The second stage is basically the advance to socialism.

The question here, however, is whether the Maoists will use their influence/power to compel these workers to turn the plantation back over to the capitalists, in the name of building "national industrial capitalism", or if they will, rather, use their influence/power to support this worker takeover and aid the workers in running the plantation themselves (i.e., not substitute "nationalization" and state management for real workers' control).

The former is what we've seen happen with the "official Communist" parties in the past (e.g., Spain in the 1930s); the latter is what Marx saw as a task of a communist party participating in a democratic revolution and seeking to build that struggle forward in the direction of establishing the transition from capitalism to communism -- that is, building "the revolution in permanence".

[Winter]

Wait, I thought Maoism was a peasant movement that neglected the needs of the proletariat!? :rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

Look, I'm willing to give the Nepalese Maoists the benefit of the doubt, based on the fact that they have actually lived up to many of their promises, most notably ending the monarchy and establishing a republic. But now, of course, the real tests begin. The CPN(M) has shown the ability to learn and develop based on objective conditions and general communist principle; let's see if they can continue that process.

[Martin Blank]

I've been trying to read more on what's happening with this situation. Unfortunately, only this article from Kantipur Online and a short blurb from the World Socialist Web Site are available to read (in English, anyway). From what I can see, though, here's what seems to have went down:...

For most of July, these workers staged a run-of-the-mill labor campaign -- strike pickets, informational meetings, etc. Apparently, this campaign went nowhere. So, on August 2, through some process, the union representing the tea workers changed from the old tactics to the "capture" of the factories and production under worker-union control. According to the WSWS report, some workers returned to work "under protest". No further news is available.

So, my main questions are this: What was the process by which the decision was made to move from the "campaign" tactics to the "capture" tactics? Was it a mass membership meeting, or a decision by the union officials? If it was a mass meeting format, were most of the workers there and did they vote in their majority for this action?

Finally, what is being done to make this struggle part of a larger historical shift toward workers' control of production throughout the economy? Has there been a process of organizing workplace committees/councils/communes that are sustained bodies organizing the day-to-day activity of the factories? Or, is this a case where, if the capitalists concede to some of the workers' demands, the union will dissolve workers' control and work to reassert the control of the capitalists over production?

Comrades, this is an important moment for the Maobadi. Much of their relationship to the Nepalese rural proletariat will be shown through this situation. Will they go the route of communists, and use this as an opportunity to open a "school of communism" for our class brothers and sisters? Or will they go the route of social democrats, and use the proletariat as a battering ram against the bourgeoisie for the security of their own power and position?

I am genuinely interested in learning where this struggle is going.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw, thanks for posting this!


Somewhere Lenin is Smiling: Workers ‘take over’ tea factories, resume operations

We just need the same in China, Cuba and North Korea now (and elsewhere, too!).

[Chapter 24]

Does anyone here know much about the Prachanda Path? All I'm getting from it off Wikipedia is that it's based upon the lines of MLM and also influenced by Ho Chi Minh. Obviously they use guerilla warfare as a tactic, but apart from that I'm pretty ignorant on the subject. What do their policies include (land reform, industrialization, etc.) ?

[Rawthentic]

question here, however, is whether the Maoists will use their influence/power to compel these workers to turn the plantation back over to the capitalists, in the name of building "national industrial capitalism", or if they will, rather, use their influence/power to support this worker takeover and aid the workers in running the plantation themselves (i.e., not substitute "nationalization" and state management for real workers' control).

The former is what we've seen happen with the "official Communist" parties in the past (e.g., Spain in the 1930s); the latter is what Marx saw as a task of a communist party participating in a democratic revolution and seeking to build that struggle forward in the direction of establishing the transition from capitalism to communism -- that is, building "the revolution in permanence".

Miles,

The crucial task at this point in Nepal is building "national industrial capitalism", and, no matter how "counterrevolutionary" that may sound, it is the necessary prerequisite (along with the democratic class bloc) to the establishment of socialism (and more thorough, consistent, worker's power).

The takeover of the factory is very important, and shows the increasing relevance and popularity the Maoists are showing in the urban areas, and amongst workers (and goes against the anarchist and trotskyist thought that maoists are peasant rebels that careless about the workers). Will the workers maintain control of the factory and production as it is now? Probably not. This is something that I sincerely cant say because I dont know how things will turn out. Do you think that, considering the conditions of Nepal, direct workers control is possible? Idk.

And I also agree with your assessment as far as the "official Communist parties" goes. I sincerely hope (and it seems as I am correct so far) that the Maoists, with the PM leadership of Prachanda, pursue the correct path of the NDR and maintain on that socialist road (and defeat the growing tendency towards "negotiationism" and other revisionist trends).

[cyu]

The CPN (M) have stated their dedication to building what they call "national industrial capitalism" in Nepal, while continuing to mobilise the workers and peasants to lay the basis for eventual socialist transformation.
Sometimes the party inspires the people. Sometimes the people inspire the party. Here's hoping for some positive feedback.

[Martin Blank]

The crucial task at this point in Nepal is building "national industrial capitalism", and, no matter how "counterrevolutionary" that may sound, it is the necessary prerequisite (along with the democratic class bloc) to the establishment of socialism (and more thorough, consistent, worker's power).

Personally, I think the hue and cry about "national industrial capitalism" as the economic goal is a bogeyman. Of course most of the economic development in Nepal at this conjuncture will be necessarily "national industrial capitalist" in character! Does anyone honestly expect that the development of the communist mode of production is possible?! The material prerequisites don't even exist for a state-ized capitalist economy in Nepal right now.

But the issue at this moment is not the kind of economy the CPN(M)-led government is going to shepherd, but whether the state they lead will serve the exploiters or the exploited. When Marx and Engels, for example, spoke of "the revolution in permanence" and even the "dictatorship of the proletariat", it was with the understanding that this revolutionary rule of the exploited and oppressed would be over a developing capitalist economy -- that it would be the conscious intervention of the working people's republic into the economy and the systematic uprooting of the capitalist class, that "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie" until classes, class distinctions and antagonisms are abolished.

This is where the issue of the Maobadi-led state becomes important. More to the point, this is where, in the early phases of a working people's republic, political principle -- the extent of the conscious character of the revolution -- becomes central. A communist party at the head of a transitional regime can shepherd a fledgling and developing capitalist economy at the same time as it develops as a working people's republic -- as a state that acts in the class interests of the proletariat. Lenin's understanding of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" for the democratic revolution rests precisely on this point (see Two Tactics for more on this).

A democratic dictatorship of the exploited and oppressed shepherding a developing "national industrial capitalism" is what Lenin saw as the consequence of a 1905-style revolution in Russia, as opposed to Martov and the Mensheviks, who saw the role of the social democrats as shepherding the bourgeoisie into political power. That is, whereas the Bolsheviks saw the role of the social democrats as that of resolving the contradiction that would necessarily arise from the victory of a working people's party in the lead of a democratic revolution in favor of working people's class rule (thus eventually expropriating the capitalist class of its social-economic power), the Mensheviks saw the role of the social democrats as that of resolving the contradiction that would necessarily arise from the victory of a working people's party in the lead of a democratic revolution in favor of capitalist rule (thus eventually expropriating the working class of their political power).

This issue of how this contradiction between the class holding state power and the class holding social-economic power is resolved is especially acute in Nepal. Unlike with Russia in 1905 or 1917, there is not even the hope of a worldwide wave of revolutionary struggle overturning capitalist rule in one or several Great Power states -- not even the "morale factor" exists. This means there is, in fact, less "wiggle room" or "grey area" with the principles and consciousness that guide the revolution. When the Bolsheviks abandoned direct workers' control of production and re-instituted one-person management in 1919, there were many sectors of the party that rationalized it by saying "well, when the workers in Germany rise up and overthrow their ruling class, we will have the means to reinstitute workers' control". That cannot even be said in the case of Nepal today. Thus, while that would seem to demand more overall conciliation from the Maobadi, in fact it demands a greater firmness in principle while also requiring more flexibility in tactic.

That is, if history is any judge of these matters.


The takeover of the factory is very important, and shows the increasing relevance and popularity the Maoists are showing in the urban areas, and amongst workers (and goes against the anarchist and trotskyist thought that maoists are peasant rebels that careless about the workers). Will the workers maintain control of the factory and production as it is now? Probably not. This is something that I sincerely cant say because I dont know how things will turn out. Do you think that, considering the conditions of Nepal, direct workers control is possible? Idk.

Do I personally think that direct workers' control at these three tea factories is possible? I really don't know, either, comrade. The only people who can answer that question are the workers themselves. However, as communists taking an interest in this unfolding revolution, we should be able to answer the corrollary question: Are the Maobadi able and willing, if called upon to do so, or at the very least if sensing the need for it, to create that "school of communism" and provide the political (though not necessarily the practical) leadership necessary to aid the workers in establishing their own control?

If the workers abandon an attempt at workers' control of production, it should be their decision, not that of the CPN(M). They should not be forced to abandon their attempt because the "Maoist Communist Party" refused to help them, just as the "official Communist Party" has already done in past years; they should not be placed in a position where they have to abandon it because the Maobadi could not help them.

In other words, the workers should not be used as pawns by the Maobadi in a larger game. I know that sounds crass, but I cannot think of a nice way to put it right now.


And I also agree with your assessment as far as the "official Communist parties" goes. I sincerely hope (and it seems as I am correct so far) that the Maoists, with the PM leadership of Prachanda, pursue the correct path of the NDR and maintain on that socialist road (and defeat the growing tendency towards "negotiationism" and other revisionist trends).

In many ways, we share the same hopes, even if we come from different doctrinal perspectives.

[Rawthentic]

This is where the issue of the Maobadi-led state becomes important. More to the point, this is where, in the early phases of a working people's republic, political principle -- the extent of the conscious character of the revolution -- becomes central. A communist party at the head of a transitional regime can shepherd a fledgling and developing capitalist economy at the same time as it develops as a working people's republic -- as a state that acts in the class interested of the proletariat. Lenin's understanding of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" for the democratic revolution rests precisely on this point (see Two Tactics for more on this).
I was speaking to Mike Ely on this, since I want to learn more about this as well, and he had some important things to say. To paraphrase him, he said the NDR has socialist elements from the beginning, and, if we seize and divide plantations (policy of land to the tiller), we are eradicating feudalism for small property, and thus clearing the path for socialist transformation in the form of rural communes (which the maoists already have in some rural areas).

The new economy will not ONLY be capitalist, but contain elements of a socialist economy within it, like the hydroelectric project itself, that exists within the NDR. This new democracy eliminate feudalism (so contains small ownership and markets) but contains the seeds of socialism within it.

[Crux]

I think the maoist election victory is an inspiration to the workingclass, and inspire's them to do hings such as these, but ultimatly the maoists will not and do not even have an interest in living up to the illusions projected upon them. "national capitalism" is menshevist-stalinist nonsense and ultimatly constitutes a stab in the back of the workingclass and denying the international nature of the socialist revolution. However, as I said, the coming of power of the maoists might be a pretext for something grander. What is necessary of course is to form a real socialist and workingclass alternative that is up to the task, when the maoists fail.

[Lamanov]

Wait, I thought Maoism was a peasant movement that neglected the needs of the proletariat!? :rolleyes:

Don't roll those eyes too hard. Your head might explode.

Workers making an autonomous action against management might have nothing to do with "Maoist Government" (the same one which is not against private property). When workers occupy their workplace, it's not because "Maoist affiliated" union bureaucrat told them to do so.

I have a suggestion for you Mao-lovers: don't get too cocky. The government is not suppressing this because it's not its own capital.

In 1936. French workers occupied when People's Front came to power, believing that the Government might "watch over" this process. It all ended in battles with the "people's government" police.

[Crux]

Don't roll those eyes too hard. Your head might explode.

Workers making an autonomous action against management might have nothing to do with "Maoist Government" (the same one which is not against private property). When workers occupy their workplace, it's not because "Maoist affiliated" union bureaucrat told them to do so.

I have a suggestion for you Mao-lovers: don't get too cocky. The government is not suppressing this because it's not its own capital.

In 1936. French workers occupied when People's Front came to power, believing that the Government might "watch over" this process. It all ended in battles with the "people's government" police. Yeah if the Maoists are pouring their political credentials (oh wait...) onto the nepalese maoists they, like many nepalese, will be sorely dissapointed.

[Martin Blank]

I was speaking to Mike Ely on this, since I want to learn more about this as well, and he had some important things to say. To paraphrase him, he said the NDR has socialist elements from the beginning, and, if we seize and divide plantations (policy of land to the tiller), we are eradicating feudalism for small property, and thus clearing the path for socialist transformation in the form of rural communes (which the maoists already have in some rural areas).

The new economy will not ONLY be capitalist, but contain elements of a socialist economy within it, like the hydroelectric project itself, that exists within the NDR. This new democracy eliminate feudalism (so contains small ownership and markets) but contains the seeds of socialism within it.

Well, I appreciate you bringing comrade Ely into this, and hope he eventually finds the time to engage this discussion.

I am perhaps a little confused by the invoking of the "New Democratic Revolution" in the case of Nepal. I had thought that the CPN(M) had decided that it was still to premature to consider the country in the "New Democratic" phase. If I am wrong about this (and I see no reason why I should doubt comrade Ely's insistence that this is in the "New Democratic" period), then it seems to me that it raises a number of new questions.

In his article, "On New Democracy", Mao writes:


Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of further sub-stages, because of changes on the enemy's side and within the ranks of our allies, but the fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged. (Emphasis mine)

I will leave aside for the moment the issue of what exactly constitute "revolutionary classes", since I know that is a longer discussion between our two trends, and concentrate for now on the view, correctly stated by Mao, that a "new democratic revolution", which creates a "democratic dictatorship" of the oppressed and exploited classes, is part of a process of "clearing ... a wider path" for the transition to communism.

Even though I am not a Maoist, I can see that there are definite parallels between his "new democratic revolution" and Lenin's "democratic dictatorship". And, in my view, I can also see that there is a genuine attempt to encapsulate the view expressed by Marx in his "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" of March 1850, and summed up in his slogan of "the revolution in permanence" by Mao (and Lenin). My questions begin at this point: the extent to which the application of this Maoist formulation draws consistently from the communist theory of Marx (and, to a lesser extent, Lenin), and the extent to which the actions of the CPN(M) stand within this consistency.


====================


I'm beginning to think that this discussion, if we agree to go forward with it, will fast outgrow the narrower topic that sparked it. Nevertheless, I think that if you want to continue this theoretical discussion, since it does seem to have piqued your curiosity, we should do so in another thread. We can, of course, link back to this and re-post the discussion elements from here in there, so that there is context and preliminary exchanges made available.

How does this sound to you, comrade?

[Reuben]

In 1936. French workers occupied when People's Front came to power, believing that the Government might "watch over" this process. It all ended in battles with the "people's government" police.

Certainly the popular front governments of both France - and perhaps even more so spain - are worth thinking about when trying to make sense of the political situation in Nepal. In the case of the latter, in particular, what we see is largely agrarian, underdeveloped country in which a monarchy was replaced by an asy coalition of left republicans and socialists.

Yet there are also important differences in the Nepali situation. The maoists represent a mass organisation which - unlike either the french or spanish left at the time - has already been through the experience of civil war. Furthermore, physical force in the country is not monopolised by forces hailing from the ancien regime.

It is hard to say how things will develope in Nepal. The idea of building National Industrial Capitalism and intervening in its developement on the side of the workers is not unproblematic. For capitalism to be maintained the government must constantly intervene to protcect property rights. Moreover, it is hard to see how capitalist developement might be achieved without serious foreign direct investment, which again limits the scope of the nepali legislature - in which the maoists are minority - to intervene on the side of the workers.

This is not to say that the Maoists are in any way bound to simply betray and repress the working class, but rather that they will eventually face a stark choice as to the future of nepal.

[Devrim]

if we seize and divide plantations (policy of land to the tiller), we are eradicating feudalism for small property, and thus clearing the path for socialist transformation in the form of rural communes (which the maoists already have in some rural areas).

Land for the peasants is a completely bourgeois policy. Not surprising from a completely bourgeois party.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Land for the peasants is indeed a bourgeois policy, that can later to lead to socialist transformation.

I won't answer that silly second sentence.

[N3wday]

" Workers making an autonomous action against management might have nothing to do with "Maoist Government" (the same one which is not against private property). When workers occupy their workplace, it's not because "Maoist affiliated" union bureaucrat told them to do so."

It's not a Maoist government right now. What they do at this point in relation to this event will most likely be outside the realm of any official legislation. They don't control the majority when versing the total Capitalist parties of the country.

To CommunistLeague,

I believe you are correct in your view that the CPN(M) does not see themselves as having reached NDR yet. I think they refer to this as a substage, because they are pushing for some NDR policies of bourgeois character such as land reform, development of indigenous capital etc. They obviously do not excersize DoP in any sense of the word... yet. Whether that's written in the future is yet to be seen.

[chegitz guevara]

I'd like to wait until the CPN(M) actually betrays the workers before casting them out of the communist movement (such as we computer commies have any ability to do so). Until then, I'd like to support them and remain hopeful.

As a wise Maoist once said to me in my young Trotskyist days/daze, "Trotskyists support every revolution except the ones that succeed." Maybe the Nepali revolution isn't perfect. But it's better than anything we've ever done.

[Saorsa]

Trotskyists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

Lol hadn't heard that one, but it's brilliant. :lol: Not all Trotskyists are like that, but of course the ones that aren't get labelled as non-Trotskyists by the more ultra-Trots.

[chegitz guevara]

Unsurprisingly, the comrade who said that is Mike Ely. He once asked me, "What revolution have the Trotskyists ever led." Without hesitation I retorted, "Russia, 1917." ;) That caught him up short.:laugh:

[Devrim]

Land for the peasants is indeed a bourgeois policy, that can later to lead to socialist transformation.

I won't answer that silly second sentence.

On course the Maoist party in Nepal is completely bourgeois.

There has been no workers revolution in Nepal. There are no workers' councils.

What has happened is that a so-called communist party has been integrated into the existing bourgeois state. The bourgeois state has not been smashed.

The Maoists, of course, are keen to play the role allocated to them. Prachanda leaves no doubt about their intentions:"


"Rest assured, we are in favour of the capitalist economy."

“we will not confiscate the properties of the owners contrary to what has been disseminated in order to malign the Maoist party”

Baburam Bhattarai was also very clear:


"the mantle of economic revolution would be handed over to the businessmen/industrialists and that we in the government would only facilitate their march towards economic revolution".

"We would like to assure everyone that once the Maoists come (into government) the investment climate will be even more favourable. There shouldn’t be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that. The rumours in the press about our intention are wrong, there are reports of capital flight, but this shouldn’t happen. And the other aspect is that once there is political stability, the investment climate will be even better. Our other agenda is economic development and for this we want to mobilise domestic resources and capital, and also welcome private foreign direct investment. The only thing we ask is to be allowed to define our national priorities."

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


I'd like to wait until the CPN(M) actually betrays the workers before casting them out of the communist movement (such as we computer commies have any ability to do so). Until then, I'd like to support them and remain hopeful.

What are you waiting for? These people openly say that they are in favour of capital.

The reality is, of course, that western leftists get excited about people running around with guns and spouting a few leftist slogans.

A couple of red flags doesn't mean that what is happening in Nepal has anything to do with socialism.

Indeed the salaries that these leaders of the 'revolution' are paying themselves in the new assembly where the monthly income of a CA politician is well over three times the annual national average wage, is indicative of their commitment to maintaining capitalism.

Devrim

[Bilan]

This pretty much confirms the revolutionary nature of tea.

But quoting DJ-TC, I think this boot licking of Maoists best be done with caution, as DJ said,

Don't roll those eyes too hard. Your head might explode.

Workers making an autonomous action against management might have nothing to do with "Maoist Government" (the same one which is not against private property). When workers occupy their workplace, it's not because "Maoist affiliated" union bureaucrat told them to do so.

I have a suggestion for you Mao-lovers: don't get too cocky. The government is not suppressing this because it's not its own capital.

In 1936. French workers occupied when People's Front came to power, believing that the Government might "watch over" this process. It all ended in battles with the "people's government" police.

Y'all been warned.

[Winter]

I'd like to wait until the CPN(M) actually betrays the workers before casting them out of the communist movement (such as we computer commies have any ability to do so). Until then, I'd like to support them and remain hopeful.

I completely agree. We may be skeptical of some aspects, but we cannot jump to conclusions about intentions and potential revisionism until they give us a reason to.

[Devrim]

I completely agree. We may be skeptical of some aspects, but we cannot jump to conclusions about intentions and potential revisionism until they give us a reason to.

See quotes above.

Devrim

[Incendiarism]

I was under the impression they were stagists, which is what they meant by being ardent capitalists. I'm not sure what to think, though, I mean...on one hand if they are being truthful about applying capitalist measures to lay down the material foundations for socialism, this is a neat opportunity, but on the other hand...well, let's just say a lot of people will have pie on their face.

We must not forget that they apparently condemn homosexuality, which is actually a hot topic a while back, meaning they may not be as progressive as they seem.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well, to me this basically means that as the proletariat in Nepal grows, the revolution will hopefully continue, whether the Maoists back it up or not.

[ShineThePath]

We have to appreciate the question of economic development of Nepal, its a real question for the former Mountain Kingdom. When you're working class is spread across the world in Britian, Dubai, India, Singapore, etc. and the national economy has a great deal of reliance on remitances we're talking about something that is really different.

I would argue that Nepal's number one export is its labor.

We can't have a view stuck in the 20th century, the Neoliberal process in the world has reshaped Global economy in a way that Imperialism, that the flow of capital is becoming more and more a dichotomy with the metropoles and periphery, it is part of the uneven development of the semi-colonial/semi-feudal nations.

[ShineThePath]

This pretty much confirms the revolutionary nature of tea.

But quoting DJ-TC, I think this boot licking of Maoists best be done with caution, as DJ said,


Y'all been warned.

I grow very tired of these hackneyed responses.:sleep:

[Bilan]

I grow very tired of these hackneyed responses.:sleep:

Because some of us think you should be weary before you get to cocky?

[chegitz guevara]

What are you waiting for? These people openly say that they are in favour of capital.

I suppose you're anti-Lenin because of the NEP. I'm not an ultra-leftist. Nepal is not capable of building socialism right now. The only thing they have to share is their poverty.

[ShineThePath]

Because some of us think you should be weary before you get to cocky?

A few things...

After a failed and abortive revolution and more than a decade of holding wooden guns, American Left speaks to the skies of the Zapatistas. We now have a country, after a decade of People's War and several years of protracted political struggle, they are emerging with real power. And silence..chirps..the center of world revolution is South Asia and we're stuck in our deafening silence.

So is this a matter of 'cockiness,' or celebration of real people's victories?

IWW does a wild cat of a Starbucks...perpare to hear about it for a few weeks, people are taking power in Nepal...perpare to get betrayed

I am not objecting to the 'caution,' but to the standard hackneyed line of "BEWARE OF THE BUREUCRATS." Its tiring and boring, no matter what the struggle is, who is leading it, who is involved, its the same exact line.
It negates the actual interpentration of the Maoists and the masses in this recent action.

Or it can be better expressed, Lacan to Orwell, there is no Big Brother.

[Rawthentic]

On course the Maoist party in Nepal is completely bourgeois.

There has been no workers revolution in Nepal. There are no workers' councils.

What has happened is that a so-called communist party has been integrated into the existing bourgeois state. The bourgeois state has not been smashed.

The Maoists, of course, are keen to play the role allocated to them. Prachanda leaves no doubt about their intentions:"
No, the Maoists are communists.

Of course there has been no worker's revolution in Nepal. There are no worker's councils (yet). What makes you think that a country in the conditions Nepal faces can even hope to maintain any real and consistent worker's power? This view is incredible dogmatic and schematic, and ignores the actual processes that the revolution will have to go through in order to reach a socialist phase.

The Maoist party has been integrated into the new bourgeois state of Nepal. But, comrade, is it that simple to say that the state in Nepal is bourgeois, and thus the Maoists are too? What exists in Nepal is more of a dual power, that is, between a necessary coalition between democratic classes that are anti-imperialist and anti-feudal in character, as opposed to the die-hard reactionary, imperialist classes that are opposed to the reforms. The conditions do not exist to overthrow the state and have a seizure of power.

In the theory of New Democracy, as outlined by mao and will (according to Nepal's particularities) be applied to Nepal, the first substage of the NDR is the completion of bourgeois democratic tasks, elimination of feudalism, policies such as land to the tiller, the nurturing of Nepal's capital, as well as the establishment of a federal republic. It is pretty silly and unscientific to say that, because of this, the Maoists are a capitalist party. Of course capitalism needs to be built in Nepal, but this is done alongside a coexisting, fledgling, socialist economy (possible workers power, hydroelectric project, rural communes, etc).

What is wrong with what Dr. Bhattarai said? What makes you think that Nepal DOES NOT need such internal capitalist development of infrastructure. With the eradication of feudalism, capitalist relations open up, and this allows for liberation of productive forces that were previously tied down. Are the maoists building capitalism for its own sake? Or as a necessary step in creating more favorable conditions for socialism and seizure of power? Let us also keep in mind that it is not just developing its capital, but also spreading the seeds of a socialist economy as a part of this NDR.

What your view, and generally that of left-communists, comes down to is a trade unionist view. Basically, you say that because there is a class coalition, and capitalist development (that will of course require negotiations with the national bourgeoisie) that the workers are being betrayed. It does not move beyond the view of "we are workers, they are bosses", so typical of anarchists and others that do not move beyond this narrow viewpoint. It ignores the fact that all revolutions have always been made by a coalition of classes, and ignores the need for such collaboration in order to complete the necessary tasks of the Revolution. Socialism is not, and has never been about workers lining up on one side, and bosses on the other. Reality (and today's class dynamics) are far more complex than what your doctrine makes it out to be. No worker's councils? The Maoists are developing capital? They must be bourgeois. What ignorant and shallow logic.

[Rawthentic]

I'm beginning to think that this discussion, if we agree to go forward with it, will fast outgrow the narrower topic that sparked it. Nevertheless, I think that if you want to continue this theoretical discussion, since it does seem to have piqued your curiosity, we should do so in another thread. We can, of course, link back to this and re-post the discussion elements from here in there, so that there is context and preliminary exchanges made available.

How does this sound to you, comrade?

Miles, I wouldn't mind continuing (and expanding) this topic into another thread. Would you mind creating the thread, according to how you think we should begin?

Thanks.

[Martin Blank]

Miles, I wouldn't mind continuing (and expanding) this topic into another thread. Would you mind creating the thread, according to how you think we should begin?

Thanks.

OK. I'll get it set up in the Theory forum later today. Also, if you begin to think this place is too problematic for continuing the discussion, I can move it to our forum, which is lower volume and less likely to have a lot of counterproductive interjections.

[Rawthentic]

Miles,

I'd rather that was moved to Theory, or, if not, to the Kasama threads, since it is a place where we constantly discuss Nepal with a lot of good participation.

If anything, here on RL is best because of all the audience there is that reads the threads.

[Martin Blank]

Miles,

I'd rather that was moved to Theory, or, if not, to the Kasama threads, since it is a place where we constantly discuss Nepal with a lot of good participation.

If anything, here on RL is best because of all the audience there is that reads the threads.

That's cool. I'll get it set up in Theory later today, after I settle in back at home.

[Martin Blank]

The theoretical discussion has been set up here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/role-communist-organization-t87336/index.html).

[Bilan]

A few things...

After a failed and abortive revolution and more than a decade of holding wooden guns, American Left speaks to the skies of the Zapatistas. We now have a country, after a decade of People's War and several years of protracted political struggle, they are emerging with real power. And silence..chirps..the center of world revolution is South Asia and we're stuck in our deafening silence.

I'm just below that region. We're not stuck in "deaf silence", we're just not going to chappen everything as a victory of the people.
Massive things are yet to be overcome (sheesh, like capitalism), including within ourselves!



So is this a matter of 'cockiness,' or celebration of real people's victories?

Not at all. Infact, I think the seizing of plantations is fantastic, and by all means, support the victory of the Nepalese proletariat.
But I'm not going to lick the boots of new bureaucrats. The emancipation of humanity has a long road a head.



IWW does a wild cat of a Starbucks...perpare to hear about it for a few weeks, people are taking power in Nepal...perpare to get betrayed

Two things: One, this is a forum largely used by people in the West, so we're likely to champion our context much more because we realize how close to home it is (and in some cases, we're involved in it); Two, the nature of these two things is different. Firstly, the first is autonomous action by class conscious workers against the bosses; the second can be, and can be against the entire system, but we know so little about it, bar sloganeering and labels placed on it by sympathisers (Such as "Maoism" and "The Shining Path").

We aren't saying, there is a certainty of betrayal. We're saying, before you bow your asses down (again), be warned.



I am not objecting to the 'caution,' but to the standard hackneyed line of "BEWARE OF THE BUREUCRATS." Its tiring and boring, no matter what the struggle is, who is leading it, who is involved, its the same exact line.
It negates the actual interpentration of the Maoists and the masses in this recent action.


There's a reason we object to bureaucracy; and why throughout proletarian revolutionary history, workers have.
But more, there's a reason why we do now. Prior to the events of the Russian Revolution, of China, Cuba, etc, we didn't know the extent to which the bureaucracy could suffocate the revolution (Though some predicted).

But some words from Marx come to mind..."Hegel remarks somewhere that history tends to repeat itself. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

[Lamanov]

I am not objecting to the 'caution,' but to the standard hackneyed line of "BEWARE OF THE BUREUCRATS." Its tiring and boring, no matter what the struggle is, who is leading it, who is involved, its the same exact line.

We know it's boring... to the Mao/Stalin-lovers on this forum. But it's addressed to workers, who always have to 'beware of the bureaucrats'.

(Just like 40 years ago, we hold the same line: "Beware of all the modernist coopters — including even priests — who are beginning to talk of self-management or even of workers councils without acknowledging this minimum, because they want to save their bureaucratic functions, the privileges of their intellectual specializations or their future careers as petty bosses!" - CMDO (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/SIOnline/si/address.html).)

[avantgarde]

We know it's boring... to the Mao/Stalin-lovers on this forum. But it's addressed to workers, who always have to 'beware of the
''Beware of the bureaucrats' can be translated generally into 'beware of the state', yes the State is bad but it's not something that is going to be abolished overnight. Bureaucracy is a a function of the state, it's not an abstract evil bogeyman that 'takes over' in the middle of the night. Furthermore a bureaucracy takes orders, it follows, it does not lead. bureaucracies are by definition a relay point for information and organization within government. So in the short-term they are needed, but they also must be struggled against. Bureaucracies, like the state, 'wither away' under socialism, that is the line of Engels, Marx and Lenin, a line which Trotsky rejected.

Yes bureaucrat-ism exists, but it cannot be 'abolished' overnight, it must be struggled against over a long period as socialism is constructed.

Opponents of Marxism-Leninism claim bureaucracy exists only in the abstract, and divorce it from the state.

[Lamanov]

So why don't you "whither away" your petty bureaucratic nonsense?

Union bureaucrats betraying and party bureaucrats manipulating workers is a concrete and a real thing, an enemy for that matter, not an "abstract bogeyman" as you claim, and they are clearly not a "state", but they stand outside the state machinery.

[ShineThePath]

This is a political discussion, but the problem that Syndicalists and many Trotskyists have is they don't understand that a broad section of working people just DON'T CARE in any significant way how their workplace operates. I know I sure don't. Workers' control of their workplace is a secondary aspect of changing actual conditions, its symptomatic and not the systematic aspect of revolutionary upheaval and social transformation altogether.

Altogether this analysis of 'bureaucrats' is not political, but is actually a type of liberalism. There is no serious difference between the analysis that Syndicalists, Trots, and Ron Paul have on the matter. It is a result of a certain tendency toward a projection of orders that don't exist. Bureaucracy is problematic in and so far as its conservative, but the more fundamental problem of any organizational form is what are its politics, what does it seek to do, and how is it doing it. Anarchists make this secondary to their analysis, unfortunately.

[Rawthentic]

STP gets it right on.

Communism, and revolution, have NEVER been about factory floor complaints, contrary to what anarchists might want to believe. The fight for a revolutionary society cannot be led by such narrow interests like "i want to control MY workplace, I want better wages", etc. This is, in fact, what Lenin called "trade union consciousness", and is radically different from a communist worldview of society (needed to make a revolution).

Should there be a struggle to lessen or even eliminate bureaucracy under socialism? Of course. But, cannot it be done away with immediately, without regard to material conditions or the gains of the revolution?

So yes, STP is correct, socialism is not and will never a society that has the principal characteristic of worker's control over industry. That is important, and needs to a part of the overall revolutionizing of society, but not the principal one. It ignores how revolutions (yes, including proletarian ones) have always been made with a coalition of classes, always.

This is not about workers lining up on one side and bosses on the other. Class society is far more dynamic than that, and as I said, such a narrow view of the world ignores so much and can never make revolution.

[Martin Blank]

STP gets it right on.

Sorry, STP gets it wrong -- wrong on the theory, wrong on the analysis, wrong on the practice. He might be partially right when it comes to some anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists and their romanticism of workers' control, but his marginalization and dismissal of this central element in the transition from class to classless society is little more than a demonstration of the inherently petty-bourgeois character of his politics.

Revolution is about social relationships and the radical overturning of them. The very reason we proletarians see our revolution as a social revolution (although the term has for some reason fallen out of usage in the 20th century) and not simply an economic or political revolution is because of that basic understanding. Our struggle is a political struggle because it is in the arena of politics -- and particularly in our struggle against the capitalist state -- that the battle is to be decided; our struggle in an economic struggle because it is in the arena of economics -- and particularly at the point of production -- that social relationships find their sharpest expression; our struggle is a cultural struggle because it is in the arena of culture -- and particularly in the battle of ideas among the proletariat -- that the conscious character of the revolution and its advance is to be conceptualized and shaped; our struggle is a social struggle because it is in the arena of social relationships -- and particularly in the relations among classes, which themselves define and shape classes -- that the future relations of human society are to be written.

When speaking of workers' control of production, you are not simply or narrowly speaking of economic relationships, but of social relationships -- of the relations among classes as most sharply expressed at the point of production. To put it another way, workers' control is no "bread-and-butter" demand, but a dagger at the heart of capitalist social relationships. This means relationships not only with the owners and benefactors of exploitation (the bourgeoisie), but also those with the organizers and administrators of exploitation (the petty bourgeoisie). Workers' control challenges and, when applied, overturns the authority and control that these exploiting classes had in a key aspect of society -- just as overthrowing the capitalist state overturns the authority of the exploiters and oppressors in that key aspect.

To blindly declare that "a broad section of working people just DON'T CARE in any significant way how their workplace operates" is, quite simply, to bow down before the more backward and less conscious elements of my class and, what's worse, to foster those retrograde elements of bourgeois ideology and manipulate them for one's own ends. After all, if "a broad section of working people just DON'T CARE in any significant way how their workplace operates", then it is all the easier to impose control over them by an exploiting class hiding behind a stolen flag.

Working people right now may not care, but should ... and must, if a revolution is to succeed. It is a key part of developing revolutionary communist class consciousness, just as convincing working people of the need to overthrow the state and smash it is a key part.

But what does it mean to marginalize workers' control of production, to assign it a "secondary [and] symptomatic" place? The answer lies in the question itself. If the workers are not in control of the means of production, who is in control? If the proletariat seizing power in the economic arena is "secondary [and] symptomatic", and not a primary and systematic element of the proletarian revolution, then we have to wonder who exactly is seizing power from the dispossessed bourgeoisie. More to the point, which class is seizing power from the bourgeoisie in such a revolution (if it may indeed be called that)?

This is where the comment I made above, about "foster those retrograde elements of bourgeois ideology and manipulat them for one's own ends" finds its expression. The lack of workers' control of production robs the revolution of a solid foundation for its advance. It allows elements of the dispossessed exploiting and oppressing classes to reorganize and plan their return to power. This is what happened in the USSR, with the rise of the sovbour after the re-imposition of one-person management in the economy. And if I recall correctly, the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to stem and reverse the tide of such elements in the Chinese economy.

One would think that those experiences would be profoundly educational. They certainly were for me and others I know.

Ah, but we find honesty in the words of the young. Rawthentic provides us with the combination that unlocks the reality of their politics: "It [placing emphasis on workers' control of production] ignores how revolutions (yes, including proletarian ones) have always been made with a coalition of classes, always." It is that last "always" that just gets you, doesn't it?

One would think that comrades defending an old and discredited form of revolution would think before they speak. After all, the models they defend, which "have always been made with a coalition of classes" did not go too well, did they? The USSR? Gone. The "people's democracies"? Gone. "People's China"? Gone. Vietnam? Forget it. North Korea? Are you kidding?! Cuba? On life support (courtesy of Venezuelan oil). That's not exactly a sterling record.

Yes, revolutions in the 20th century that called themselves "proletarian" were all made, more or less, with a coalition of classes. And all of them failed -- degenerated, fell into the hands of revisionists and counterrevolutionaries, collapsed, were overthrown, and capitalism returned. The "when" is not as important here as the "why". Why did they fail? Was it simply "bad ideas"? Did they not try hard enough? Or was it something else? Could it have had a material -- that is, class -- basis? Could it be that the very thing that "always" accompanied these "proletarian" revolutions also was the very thing that always caused them to fail?

That's a question it seems that Rawthentic and others don't want to ask of their leaders. They might not like the answer they get. Then again, given their enthusiasm for making such coalitions with elements of the exploiting and oppressing classes, perhaps they will like the answer, since a "party card" can be a pie card, too.

"This is not about workers lining up on one side and bosses on the other. Class society is far more dynamic than that," says our young comrade. Perhaps it is best to let someone else answer this. Hmmm, who would be a suitable person for this? Oh! I know!


The relation of the proletariat and the poor peasantry,... is such that it is [I]impossible for them to "carry" the bourgeoisie with them. Moreover, the upper strata of the petty bourgeoisie and the more well-to-do strata of the democratic petty bourgeoisie are patently against a new revolution....

The class relations have changed. This is the crux of the matter.

Different classes now stand "on the one and the other side of the barricade".

That is the main thing.

That, and that [I]alone, is the scientific reason for speaking of a new revolution....

The objective relations of the classes, their role (economic and political) outside and inside representative institutions of the given type; the rise or decline of the revolution; the relation of extra-parliamentary to parliamentary means of struggle — these are the chief, the basic objective facts which must be considered if the tactics ... are to be deduced in a Marxist way and not arbitrarily, according to our "sympathies". (Emphasis mine)

In other words: No, comrade, it is not about your idealistic appeal to "sympathies" and "correct ideas" that makes or breaks a revolution, but class relations and the relationship of forces "on the one and the other side of the barricade" -- "workers lining up on one side and bosses on the other". It is about scientific reason and material reality, not wishful thinking and what's in your head.

I had thought that, at one time, Rawthentic understood these things -- I mean, really understood these basics of communist theory. Oh, how I feel I have failed him so.

[Rawthentic]

Miles,

when I was speaking of communist revolutions being made by a coalition of classes, I meant that, even in a country like the US, that would be the case as well. The proletariat would have to ally with certain sections of intellectuals, homeless, unemployed, and all the other strata that do not neatly fit into your outdated and dogmatic methods of class analysis. This is undoubtable. Thinking that the proletariat will go it alone is simply not true, and has never been the case.

And then again you attribute the failure of past socialist societies to this fact. Is that fair? Of course not. Would the Russian Revolution had succeeded w/o the peasantry? Or how about the chinese revolution without the peasants, national bourgeois, and the others oppressed by imperialism? Can the revolution in Nepal win if it cuts ties with the national bourgeois, the pettybourgeoisie, or the peasantry? The answer is: of course not.

lol, did I say that revolutions were not about class relationships? Where does my comment contradict Lenin (that you conveniently posted without regard for today's conditions). I simply said that, when it comes to a communist revolution, things will not be as simple as workers here on one side, and managers and bosses on the other. Where is class society that simple? Nowhere.

When it comes to events such as the chinese revolution, anarchist and other workerist types are never late to cry "class collaboration!" Well, are things that simple? Once again, of course not. This is what I am talking about in terms of "trade union consciousness." It does not leave the narrow framework of the workplace, that is, workers vs bosses, and saying ignorant things like "you ally with the bosses you are the enemy." Understand? This incorrect mentality that calls the alliance of the CCP with the kuomintang, "class collaboration" stems from that mentality.

Is workers control of production necessary for a revolution? Yes, of course it is. Where did I ever imply that it was not? My answer was more of a response to, yes, those stuck within revolution as an economic phenomenon, in its principal form. This is wrong, comrade.

You made a caricature of what I was saying, and responded to something that I never said. You made it seem as if STP and I dont care about worker's control of production, which is of course, wrong. What I said is that this is an overall social revolutionizing, that cannot be deducted into "workers control," when there is a larger society out there that simply not determined by such a narrow framework. It is a part of socialism, it has to be (as ive said).

And yes, you are right, I thought I used to understand communist theory. How wrong you did fail me, that I had to go and learn it on my own.

[Rawthentic]

Just to clarify: worker's control of production is necessary, but I think we have different conception of what that means under socialism (and socialism itself).

I remember Mike Ely writing a lot about this on RL, so I dug it up and found what I wanted to say, but could not sum it up in the correct method:


there are a number of levels to this...

1) I don't believe that socialism equals "direct worker control." It never has, it never will. And there are some deep reasons for that.

First of all, socialism requires that production (the use of society's resources) be developed in the interests of the people and of the people's highest interests (i.e. the ongoing revolution for communism worldwide). And directing production (and all of society) in that direction (on that socialist road) CAN'T simply be done by direct worker control.

there needs to be overall social direction of the process.

For example: Society needs to move away from internal combustion engines toward mass transportation. How is that done? By direct worker control of the auto plants? By a democratic decision made by the transit workers and their representatives? No, clearly such a decision has to be made (and then planned and then carried out) on a society-wide level -- by a political process. It can't be done on the basis of plant floor decisionmaking.

And then, in important ways, those society wide decisions have to be carried out at the plant floor -- even (ironically) if the majority of workers there don't agree.

for example: Strip mining is a capitalist industry that we may not want to continue under socialism -- because it destroys the environment we (the revolutionary people) need to be the custodians of. But (in my experience) strip miners themselves are often pretty "pro-strip mining" because without that industry, they can't stay and live in these rural areas so easily. So the decision about strip mining has to be made at a social level, and then it has to be carried out even if the workers themselves (in one place or another) don't agree with it.

so this is an argument for society-wide political decisions, for a planned economy etc.
and those needs of socialism are in contradiction to making an absolute out of direct worker control.

2) to raise the level of discussion a notch:

we can't resolve the world historic divide of North South (and the "seal of parasitism" on the U.S.) if the working people in the U.S. simply decide ("for themselves") at each point what is in THEIR best interests.

The interests of working people are complex. They have both long term and historic interests (for revolution, socialism and communism) -- but they also often have short-term, sectoral and individual interests. (So that historically white workers on the railroads supported the exclusion of black people and women because the restricted access to the jobs increased their ability to have some limited security.)

On a theoretical level, one way to say this is: If each factory and workplace makes its decisions for itself, and starts from the analysis of its own interests, if we have "worker control" rooted in factory decision making, then (inevitably and pretty quickly) we will have a commodity market in goods, we will have the expansion (not restriction) of the law of value. Ironically a system of "worker control" at the factory level would produce a society wide market system -- and would be a means to restore capitalism (in the most literal sense).

This is not a hypothetical: worker control of factories in Yugoslavia was the form through which capitalism was continued there after world war 2 -- under Tito the national markets were maintained, and factories remained the cost accounting locus of decision making, and "brought their goods to market" and made "their own decisions."

Another famous example: in the Spanish civil war there were notorious examples of "workers democracy" undermining the war effort against the fascists. For example where a shoe factory council voted to produce fashion shoes for export rather than boots for the anti-fascist army -- because it was "in the workers interests" (i.e. the workers in THAT factory) would be able to pay themselves more.

The point here is not that "workers are greedy and should have no say" (not at all!)-- the point is that IF decisions are made locally, at the lowest factory level, you CAN'T have socialist planning and you can't have socialism.

3) so what do you need?

There are three different things that define the relations of production in a society:

a) the ownership system (i.e. who makes the macro decisions of society and on what basis)

b) the relations IN production (the social relations in carrying out production)

c) relations of distribution (how are goods, wages and social wealth distributed to the people and by what standards)

All three of those (together) make up the relations of production. And all three are involved in creating (and deepening) the socialist realtions in a society.

In the soviet union, they thought (wrongly and mechanically) that only the first on mattered.

They thought that if there was state ownership of the land and economy, then you had socialism, and the only other thing to decide was efficiency and motivation. so they nationalized everything, they put everything under state planning -- but the relations of production were not that different from capitalism, and the distribution relations started to widen inequalities (not narrow them) as the 1930 went on.

One of the important lessons we sum up (thanks to Mao and the four) based on theSoviet experience is the importance of working on all three of these aspects of the relation of production.

Because without that the overall relations return to capitalism.

If you have "state ownership" but the intersts of the masses are not really represented by the state -- then how is it socialism?

If you have "worker control" but the proletariat AS A CLASS can't carry out (or plan) the radical historic and internationalist transformations it needs to make, then how is it socialism?

If you have a narrowing of the inequalities, but really it is done through a welfare state where the larger transformation aren't happen, then how is it socialism?

You need a larger planned economy, but in which the relations IN production are a center of revolutionary struggle too. And you need a process where the masses of people are INCREASINGLY politicized, increasingly conscious of the larger line questions of society, and increasingly intervening (directly and indirectly) in the decisionmaking process (not on the basis of their narrow, personal self interest, but with an increasingly CONSCIOUS understanding of the transformations needed to reach communism.)

more:
I have been involved in wildcat strike movements when the workers directly ruled. We would gather in the dark at a bend in the road -- and debate on how to proceed. And there were accepted leaders who handled the details of assigning pickets (and sometimes the quiet negotiations of specific concerns).

But it was as direct as something could be.

However....

A wildcat strike is not a state, or a planned economy or a foreign policy or an army.

I don't believe you can have "direct rule" over the complex issues above the workplace level.

And IF you have "direct rule" even at the workplace (especially the issues of investment, product and price) then you can't have a planned economy. "Worker control" at the factory level is the rule of the market (as many examples in history show, and as we seem to have agreed earlier.)

In other words: i don't think that "direct worker control" has much applicability to socialism -- except for those moments (and I expect there will be many) when our comrades under socialism need to stage a wildcat -- or an impromptu protest against the emergence of capitalist policies and capitalist political forces in high places!!

Put another way: the direct involvement of the masses in politics is a wavelike thing.

It becomes intense during crucial moments of decision and crisis (like the July days 1917 and from there until October). But there are reasons why that level of involvement and mass engagement can't simply be sustained (among other things the heavy pull of personal life and the demands of production). INevitably (and unfortunately) the glare of revolutionary upsurge ebbs, and new institutional forms of continuing the revolution need to kick in.

There is much to say about power and institutions of socialism. But one thing that is fairly clear in history is that you can't run a society (or even an industry!) under "direct worker control."

That does not mean that you can't or don't have a society that is governed by the highest interests of the oppressed, and that you can't have a society where the heights of power are fundamentally "in the hands of the proletariat" -- it means that the way this happens is through the mediation of levels of representation, and dependent on wavelike intersessions of mass struggle and heightened involvement.

What I meant to say is very well encapsulated in Mike's comment here. I agree that there does need to be a degree of worker's control over production, but it needs to be subordinate to the overall, higher needs and aspiration of the masses under a planned economy, something that simply cannot be done with..simply worker control. Like I said, things are more complex.

thoughts?

[Lamanov]

STP and Rawthentic are obviously not in contact with facts. To respond how "revolutions are not about floor complaints" is just cocky and low, because no one ever claimed such a thing. But since you have to evade my arguments on recuperation, I'm not surprised by any low responce.

To claim how workers' control is secondary and how bureaucracy is only malicious if it's "conservative", means completely missunderstanding what socialism is about and how to get there.

I will not even discuss these stupid, infantile, degeneric claims in this thread.

If one of you has the guts to claim how workers' control is secondary and how bureaucracy is not a threat, or how it's "needed", make a new thread and try to argue that position. I'm tired of reading these non argumented keyboard speech attempts.

[ShineThePath]

CommunistLeague puts out a very straightforward Menshevik line.

Let me just take some quotes here


Our struggle is a political struggle because it is in the arena of politics -- and particularly in our struggle against the capitalist state -- that the battle is to be decided; our struggle in an economic struggle because it is in the arena of economics -- and particularly at the point of production -- that social relationships find their sharpest expression

Lenin in section C of the third chapter says


The “activity” you want to stimulate among us workers, by advancing concrete demands that promise palpable results, we are already displaying and in our everyday, limited trade union work we put forward these concrete demands, very often without any assistance whatever from the intellectuals. But such activity is not enough for us; we are not children to be fed on the thin gruel of “economic” politics alone; we want to know everything that others know, we want to learn the details of all aspects of political life and to take part actively in every single political event. In order that we may do this, the intellectuals must talk to us less of what we already know.[12] (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm#fwV05P416F01) and tell us more about what we do not yet know and what we can never learn from our factory and “economic” experience, namely, political knowledge.

he later sattes in section e


Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships of all classes and strata to the state and the government, the sphere of the interrelations between all classes. For that reason, the reply to the question as to what must be done to bring political knowledge to the workers cannot be merely the answer with which, in the majority of cases, the practical workers, especially those inclined towards Economism, mostly content themselves, namely: “To go among the workers.” To bring political knowledge to the workers the Social Democrats must go among all classes of the population; they must dispatch units of their army in all directions.

Now lets get down to this, is worker's management a primary part of socialist ownsership of the means of production? No, it is secondary. Primary of socialist ownsership of the means of production is the ownership being in the hands of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, i.e. their state. This seperates Marxism from Syndicalism.

Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto

the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State.

It is the centralization and monopolization of the means of production in the hands of the state that define socialist ownership, worker's management is secondary.

It is also unfortunate that in essence CommunistLeague falls back on class reductionism as the source for his claim that revolutions of the 20th century were not "proletarian revolutions." But they were indeed Proletarian Revolutions, the Proletariat themselves are no synomous with Industiral Working Class, this is a mistaken notion. Proletariat arises as a social class in the historical epoch of capitalism as a new social class amongst working people, its distinction being it produces surplus value in the production of commodities and this is realize through commodity exchange by Capitalists.

The emergence of the Proletariat themselves means a certain historical contradiction has arisen that can lead toward a classless society. This is however not known or thought innately by the working class itself, this is a synthesis produced from the theoretical examination of Marx that is known as the science of Historical Materialism. Proletariat then must be called a political-historical subject, and class consciousness is a certain viewpoint from which to understand the world based upon the method and science of Marxism.

What does this mean effectively? Marxism is abstracted, its a science not bound to certain sociological distinctions, but it is the living revolutionary consciousness and becomes a global consciousness of revolutionaries. Communists leading Peasants in China ARE leading a coalition of forces under the dictatorship of the proletariat because they are class consciousness, they apply Marxism, and they understand the relationship of what we call 4 alls.

1) The abolition of all class distinctions

2) The abolition of all the relations of production on which these class distinctions rest

3) The abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production

4) The revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.

Communist Parties worldwide represent this class consciousness. The idea that class consciousness mechanically extends from having a lot of workers is just incorrect, by that basis developed Imperialist countries should have the strongest Communist Parties, but they don't. It was where capitalism developed unevenly, because of the Imperialist stage, where the world revolution became centered and still is.

[ShineThePath]

STP and Rawthentic are obviously not in contact with facts. To respond how "revolutions are not about floor complaints" is just cocky and low, because no one ever claimed such a thing. But since you have to evade my arguments on recuperation, I'm not surprised by any low responce.

To claim how workers' control is secondary and how bureaucracy is only malicious if it's "conservative", means completely missunderstanding what socialism is about and how to get there.

I will not even discuss these stupid, infantile, degeneric claims in this thread.

If one of you has the guts to claim how workers' control is secondary and how bureaucracy is not a threat, or how it's "needed", make a new thread and try to argue that position. I'm tired of reading these non argumented keyboard speech attempts.

No it is a question of what is primary, Politics or Form. Trotskyists and Syndicalists a like have fetishized form. Worker's self management becomes secondary to the character of the State and its relation to the means of production. We want to revolutionize and transform ALL social relations, and this means going beyond the narrow economic life of workers.

Secondly, the critique of Bureaucracy is in the same logic. Maoists have long critiqued Bureaucracy, its conservatism, and its inability to transform with the people; however bureaucracy itself is not just bureaucracy, it is a type that has a political character. Bureaucracy that is simply conservative must be taken up as a struggle against a particular form of struggle against tendencies within Socialism and a struggle which is non-antagonistic; Bureaucracy with the political line of revisionism, i.e. Bureaucratic-Capitalist exploitation, is a line that is antagonistic and must be fought. But this fight is not just a fight against a form of bureaucracy, but its political

[Martin Blank]

thoughts?

Yes. Comrade Ely, in his comments, does nothing more than justify the maintenance of classes in his conception of the so-called transition to "socialism" (note: not communism, socialism). In fact, it is apparent that the comrade's definition of "socialism" is not synonymous with anything other than the rule of the managers and administrators -- the organizers of exploitation. After all, the workers, according to Ely, are far too narrow-minded and stupid to be able to control their production, recognize the importance of technological advancement, or coordinate their efforts on a regional, national or worldwide scale.

It is a fundamental rejection of the communist theory developed by Marx and Engels. I would call it a betrayal, but since it represents the theories of the petty bourgeoisie under a stolen flag, there is no treason. Only deception.

If you want anything more elaborated, you'll have to wait a couple of days.

[ShineThePath]

It is unfortunate that CommunistLeague confuses the Marxist theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with that of "workers' self governance." In fact, he substitutes Syndicalism for Marxism, I have shown above that from the Communist Manifesto on, Marx and Engels had no allusions of the need for a revolutionary state. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is itself this very political stage from its emergence to the re-organization of the economy under itself (socialism) and till communism, it is the consolidation of this power that is key. Workers' self governance is not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it can play a functionary role, but what matters is what political line is in command? Is it flunky revisionism or revolutionary Marxism? Is it workerism or class consciousness? These are the first questions.

Engels says

The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into state property Anti-Duhring

What is the problem with the idea of Workers' Self Government and ownership? Without the centralization of ownsership into the hands of the state, we end up having capitalist exchange reproduced. This occurs because rather than having a monopoly ownership of the means of production in the hands of the Communist State, we end up having just collective ownership of accumulated capital in different hands. It means commodity exchange between these different forms of accumulated capital will occur, it means the law of value still operates in commanding Industry.

This is what every Communist country had to deal with with there were pockets of non-state ownership of production. The Kulaks in Russia, being an example.

[Martin Blank]

It is unfortunate that CommunistLeague confuses the Marxist theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat with that of "workers' self governance." In fact, he substitutes Syndicalism for Marxism, I have shown above that from the Communist Manifesto on, Marx and Engels had no allusions of the need for a revolutionary state. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is itself this very political stage from its emergence to the re-organization of the economy under itself (socialism) and till communism, it is the consolidation of this power that is key.

Actually, what is unfortunate is that ShineThePath seems to be incapable of doing little more than regurgitating quotes in defense of his petty-bourgeois reactionary socialism, and is apparently incapable of extracting, understanding and -- most importantly -- applying the method that led those quotations from history to be made.

It is worth pondering this concept of there being a dichotomy between the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "workers' self-governance" that STP advances. For example:


Workers' self governance is not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it can play a functionary role, but what matters is what political line is in command? Is it flunky revisionism or revolutionary Marxism? Is it workerism or class consciousness? These are the first questions.

Yes. And?

Apparently, in all of his headlong rush to condemn communists as "Mensheviks" as a means of justifying his own support for the rule of the administrators (and his own place in that rule -- a party card can be a pie card, after all), STP misses where I wrote: "our struggle is a cultural struggle because it is in the arena of culture -- and particularly in the battle of ideas among the proletariat -- that the conscious character of the revolution and its advance is to be conceptualized and shaped".

The politics and consciousness of the revolution are central to its success and maintenance. That was one of the points I was attempting to get across to you earlier in this thread when talking about the role of the communist organization in a situation like we see in Nepal. This is especially true in a situation like Nepal, where much of the earliest stages of the revolution are predicated on the central role of the conscious intervention of the republic in the economy and society.

No one of these elements alone -- workers' control of production, a working people's republic, a revolution in consciousness among the exploited and oppressed, a radical rupture and revolution in social relationships -- makes for a successful revolution.

Just as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen combine to make glucose and carbohydrates that are essential for sustenance of the human form, so too are all these elements -- in the correct and appropriate formulation -- necessary for the health and maintenance of the revolution. Together they form a systemic whole, each component interacting with the others to become more than the sum of the parts. Take one element away, such as oxygen, and the combination becomes toxic (producing a hydrocarbon, such as methane or benzene). Such is the case with workers' control of production. Remove that essential element from the chemistry of revolution and the amalgam that remains becomes deadly to the exploited and oppressed -- and to humanity as a whole.

But I fear this is lost on our catechismic comrade. He remains long on quotes and short on method ... and, apparently, lacking a basic cross-referencing index. For example, he sputters this great quote from Engels:


Engels says


The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into state property Anti-Duhring

Perhaps Anti-Duhring was the reading assignment of the week, which is why this quote was chosen above others. Personally, when it comes to making this kind of assertive statement, I prefer the one authored by Marx and Engels together, from a more well-known work, which contains a more elaborated concept.


The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Now, perhaps it is my oh-so-Menshevik mind that is playing tricks on me, but to speak of "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" in any meaningful way requires workers' self-government based on its collective class interests and its collective class consciousness -- best expressed, in my opinion, in the theory and practice of communism. But it is clear that this is a disagreement between us. As is typical of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois idealists who reject the materialist conception that social being determines consciousness, you revert to the quasi-religious and metaphysical belief that consciousness determines social being -- that "correct ideas" with no material basis trump the conditions and dynamics of the real world.

This is an old gimmick, but one that has had success in the past. Ask and pope or patriarch of the success of spreading of the "good word" among the uninitiated -- of the triumph of "correct ideas" that have no relationship to reality -- of the success of the benevolent rulers taking their divine place "on behalf of" the uneducated masses.


What is the problem with the idea of Workers' Self Government and ownership? Without the centralization of ownership into the hands of the state, we end up having capitalist exchange reproduced. This occurs because rather than having a monopoly ownership of the means of production in the hands of the Communist State, we end up having just collective ownership of accumulated capital in different hands. It means commodity exchange between these different forms of accumulated capital will occur, it means the law of value still operates in commanding Industry.

This is what every Communist country had to deal with with there were pockets of non-state ownership of production. The Kulaks in Russia, being an example.

Wait. We saw this song-and-dance above. Same old excuses for the same old creation of class rule. Well, let's have a go at it again, shall we?

As was shown above in the quote from Marx and Engels, the communist conception of the "state" is that of "the proletariat organized as the ruling class". How does the proletariat organize itself as a ruling class? Quite simply, by overthrowing and dispossessing all other classes that stand as exploiters and oppressors. That means not only the bourgeoisie, but also the petty bourgeoisie.

Politically, the concrete expression and vehicle for this overthrow begins with the formation of councils and assemblies of working people, based at the workplace and in the district (neighborhood, small community, township, etc.), and unified and organized to the highest possible level (state, region, country, continent, world). These bodies are both participatory (i.e., organized based on direct participation and intervention) and representative (i.e., organized based on representatives chosen by their class brothers and sisters). This system first arose in an incomplete and embryonic form in the Great upheaval and St. Louis Commune of 1877, and found its more complete expression in the Soviets of Russia, the Räten of Germany, the Workers' Councils of Hungary, etc.

At the same time, these political bodies, the basis of the working people's republic (the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition from class to classless society), are interrelated with their economic partner: the workplace committee. Workplace committees are schools of the communist mode of production. They are the concrete form by which workers' control is exercised and developed. They are organized, not simply on an individual plant or enterprise basis, but across the entire economy, encompassing workers in all aspects of economic life, drawing them together to coordinate and develop an economy that works for the benefit of all of society. In the early years of the Soviet proletarian revolution of 1917, such committees, called Factory-Shop Committees, existed and flourished. However, in 1919, just as they were beginning to become effective schools for communism, they were shut down by the Soviet government and the control they exercised was replaced with direct one-person (petty-bourgeois) management.

Interrelated with these bodies is their cultural partner. Cultural commissions, composed of creative and artistic workers from across society would themselves be schools of a new culture and societal dynamic that is a fundamental break from that of capitalism and all previous class-based ideology. These bodies would carry on the work of developing a "culture of liberation" among those who have been liberated from exploitation and oppression. From education to the fine arts to philosophy and scientific advancement, the cultural commissions will work alongside the political and economic bodies to see that not only are these advancements made known and promoted, but are also put into practice. In addition, they will be at the very forefront of future "revolutions within revolutions", as they become a central factor in advancing communist consciousness and initiating the campaigns to break down and eradicate classes by formulating the ideological and cultural contours that sculpt and are sculpted by the political and economic advances.

And it is through all of these that social relations themselves undergo the great and historic revolution that is needed to truly embark on the road to communism and the classless society -- the society of generalized freedom. There are no special bodies needed to accomplish this task, as the omnipresent character of this aspect of society is affected by the coordinated and partnered relationship of the previous three. Each "revolution within the revolution" itself advances the social revolution, and in turn the progress of the social revolution advances those constituent revolutionary transformations, until society reaches the threshold of its future. Beyond that, none of us can properly conceptualize any more than a serf of 9th century Europe could conceptualize modern capitalism.

It would seem that we have drifted from the original point, but this is not the case. On the contrary, all of the above has a direct bearing on the argument at hand.

We enter into this argument with two very different conceptions of the revolution and its course. On one side is the communist conception of the interrelated and dynamic revolutionary struggle, as formulated by Marx and Engels and, in my view, expressed in the theory and analysis outlined above. On the other side is a conception that substitutes the state for the class -- that transforms "state property" from a class-based transition toward the abolition of such property into an end in itself -- that denigrates and marginalizes the subjective role of the proletariat and relegates "the only really revolutionary class" to a "secondary and symptomatic" place -- that substitutes "correct ideas" and wishful thinking for class consciousness and scientific, material reasoning.

To what end -- quo vadis?

Though the comrade would hate to have it brought up again, the answer was given by Rawthentic: "revolutions (yes, including proletarian ones) have always been made with a coalition of classes, always". Indeed, he elaborated on this in a reply:


Even in a country like the US, that would be the case as well. The proletariat would have to ally with certain sections of intellectuals, homeless, unemployed, and all the other strata that do not neatly fit into your outdated and dogmatic methods of class analysis. This is undoubtable. Thinking that the proletariat will go it alone is simply not true, and has never been the case.

Notwithstanding the fact that most of those who are "homeless" or "unemployed" -- especially those who are unemployed -- are themselves proletarians, one has to ask, in relation to an alliance with the so-called intellectuals: Quo vadis? It is clear by its stark omission that Rawthentic, when talking of "intellectuals", really speaks of petty-bourgeois intellectuals. After all, proletarian intellectuals (a very real strata, and an element that will feature greatly in a proletarian revolution) are already included among the proletariat, and there is no real reason to separate them (Or is there? More on this below.)

What is the need for the petty-bourgeois intellectual in the revolution? What do they bring to the revolutionary movement that is lacking or potentially lacking? A knowledge of philosophy or scientific thought? An affinity for the fine arts and scientific development? The power of speech and word? Is there anything "special" that the petty-bourgeois intellectual brings ... that cannot be brought by the proletarian intellectual?

Ah, there is the rub.

Nevertheless, it is amusing to have such a view that petty-bourgeois intellectuals have outlived their usefulness to the proletarian movement as based on "outdated and dogmatic methods of class analysis" -- especially since this love for the intellectual outlaws of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie comes from a book that, though perhaps useful and insightful in its time and place, has no relationship to the reality we face today. To put it another way: You cannot fix a 2008 Chrysler with the shop manual for a 1908 Chevrolet. We have to use the communist analytical method to determine what applies today, not rest on corpses (no matter how well embalmed) for our practical advice.

The comrade accuses me of making a caricature of his position. Comrade, one cannot make a caricature of a caricature. And let me be clear: You are advocating a gross and deceptive caricature of communism under a stolen flag -- one that leads, not to the achievement of a class society, but to the social barbarism of petty-bourgeois rule -- a rule that, as the experiences of the USSR and China have shown, only lead to the most brutal and horrific restoration of bourgeois rule in a relatively short period of time.

Your "socialism" is not synonymous with communism, but anathema to it. There is no distinct mode of production between capitalism and communism. The slogan of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" is a shameful lie. It is apologia for the construction of an unstable and unworkable form of class rule -- a neo-Weberian nightmare that, while allowing those with their party/pie cards to "enrich themselves", spells slavery and subjugation for all but the highest, most privileged layers of the proletariat.

And this is, perhaps, where we get into this question of whether proletarian intellectuals are, in the final analysis, proletarians or intellectuals, in the eyes of these comrades. It is worth noting that each side in this argument used differing criteria to define the social (class) relationships. The communists used production as a defining criterion -- class being defined by relations to production, in addition to relations with other classes. This is the definition used by Marx and Engels, and all other communist theoreticians. Our comrades arguing for petty-bourgeois "socialism" (up to and including comrade Ely) used the market as a defining criterion -- class, and class consciousness, being defined by relations to the market.

This is an old argument. To the point, this is the philosophical argument between Marx and the German bourgeois sociologist Max Weber. It was Weber who, in his definitions of class in relation to the market, separated out differing strata within the proletariat and defined them as distinct class formations. It was Weber who abstracted intellectuals from their class bases and made them a class in themselves. And, sadly, this bourgeois sociological construct was carried into the German Social-Democratic movement and spread among all the other sections of the International, including into the Russian Social-Democratic movement.

Lenin struggled between the two contending conceptions of class. On the one hand, he understood in general the relationship of class to production, and sought at various times to anchor his analysis in that foundation. On the other hand, we find that when he was in a position where he had to resort to looking abroad for theoretical insight, most particularly to Germany and the writings of Karl Kautsky, the Weberian outlook permeated his analysis. In my opinion, Lenin was in many ways a great communist theoretician, but he was also human and made mistakes in that theory, analysis and, perhaps most important of all, practice.

One of Lenin's mistakes in theory was the belief, borrowed from the Germans, that intellectuals stood as a class in themselves and, elaborating from there, that they could stand outside of class relationships based on production. The mistaken implication of this mistaken analysis was that intellectuals could overcome their prejudices and training in bourgeois ideology through force of will (by becoming de-classed) and through epistemological osmosis (by joining the proletarian movement). At no time was communist materialism a part of this analysis. Rather, in its place was a vulgar materialism based on impressionistic relationships defined by the market.

It has been a century since this first mistake was made, and nearly 90 years since it began to gain a hegemonic hold on self-described communists. But the practical effects of this theoretical error are measurable and there to be analyzed by anyone who wishes to do so. Sadly, neither our comrades here nor most of those who define themselves as "Marxists", "socialists" or even "communists" wish to do so. They do not have the stomach for the blood of sacred cows being spilled. Hence, it is an exercise in catechism and repetition.

Nevertheless, such acrobatics cannot paper over the reality of such a viewpoint. The logic of abstracting out "intellectuals" and erasing their social being serves an end. Again, quo vadis? If intellectuals are genuinely free from the ties of social class, then their leadership and rule can be little more than a prismatic reflection of the class they claim to serve. They become an instrument of history and not a maker of it. On the other hand, if intellectuals are bound by class ties and social being -- if, indeed, there are proletarian intellectuals, petty-bourgeois intellectuals and bourgeois intellectuals, and each is a reflection of their class -- then the question arises: Can a leadership composed of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois intellectuals genuinely and accurately reflect the collective class interests and collective class consciousness of the proletariat, as expressed in communist theory, analysis and practice?

And, if not, whose class interests and consciousness do they reflect, and how does that translate, in concrete terms, into their principles, methods and forms of leadership and, ultimately, rule?

Yes, comrades, this is how petty-bourgeois socialism takes root. This is how all of your genuine desires for a communist world are perverted into a barbaric horror -- how you become everything you despise and nothing you uphold.

Theory is the brainpower of the revolutionary movement, for it is the harbinger of consciousness. Without it, no revolution can succeed. But theory for the sake of theory is worthless, as is theory that is not grounded in material conditions and social being. Ideas, especially "correct ideas", do not spring forth like Minerva. They are planted, cultivated and grown like the trees that give us oxygen or the vegetables that give us sustenance. And the soil that gives them life is that of material reality -- of social being -- of class.

You may not understand this, you may even reject this. But history is a harsh and merciless judge, and the proletariat is its executioner. History will never absolve you unless it has forgotten you. And if you ever do succeed in taking power, we proletarians will never forget.

[Rawthentic]

Miles creates these long, "elaborate" posts with quotes from Marx, Lenin, etc. But, in reality, there is little to them, rather than him trying to scare us with his comments or his "theories" (many of which he made up on his own).

In speaking of the need to unite with intellectuals, did I somewhere imply that intellectuals were divorced from class relations (note the caricature again)? At any given time, particularly during a revolutionary movement or time, there will be many intellectuals, yes petty bourgeois and even bourgeois, who theoretically and even practically, side with the cause of the proletariat. Is there something wrong with this? Why should a communist movement reject those who sincerely wish to be a part of creating a new world? Because they are not proletarians and are thus not communists? Wrong. It is in the interests of the proletariat as a class to ally with all those that can be united (to borrow a phrase from the RCP). The only objection someone like you would have to that is that they are not workers. Ok.

Maybe Lenin should have rejected the peasants because they were not workers and thus could not be communists. Or maybe Marx, Lenin, and Mao himself, neither of whom were ever proletarians. And please dont come and throw us your self-made theory of how it was ok for them to not be workers and be communists but it is not acceptable today. Being a communist has several requirements, mainly dedication to the cause and the to the people. Being a worker is not of them. You can jibe all day about "being determines consciousness", but this simply does not relate to this point. The ideology of the proletariat is its ideology as a class, and cannot distorted in a class reductionist manner in saying that only proletarians can be communists.

Just because you are proletarian, does not make you a representative of the class. Holding the correct political theories and lines that correspond to the class interests of the proletariat does that. What you do (in essence) is play with identity politics, in other words, claiming that only those who suffer that direct oppression can understand or act against that oppression. There is nothing you can say that I have not heard before. I know you will come in and say that "being determines consciousness" (which is true but not when it comes to the class ideology of the proletariat when you reduce it to individual proletarians) and that I am a "petty-bourgeois socialist". You'll come in and quote Marx and Lenin again. So be it. I don't care.

Will there be administrators and managers under socialism? Yes, of course there will be. Does this mean that the proletariat will not control production. No. The workers would and should control production, but this is based on several levels of representation, as comrade Mike Ely pointed out. In terms of calling him a "petty bourgeois socialist", I think I'll let him reply to that absurdity.

edit: where did Ely say that class relations were determined by the market?

[Martin Blank]

I know you will come in and say that "being determines consciousness" (which is true but not when it comes to the class ideology of the proletariat when you reduce it to individual proletarians) and that I am a "petty-bourgeois socialist". You'll come in and quote Marx and Lenin again. So be it. I don't care.

That's your problem, Joe. You don't care. You stopped caring about your class and started looking for your pie card. You're a class traitor in the worst sense of the term.

Enjoy your time with the petty bourgeoisie. I guarantee you'll get an education you'll never forget. And, if you actually learn something from it, you're welcome to come back and talk to me.

But something tells me you won't learn anything meaningful.

[Martin Blank]

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention:...


Miles creates these long, "elaborate" posts with quotes from Marx, Lenin, etc. But, in reality, there is little to them

Three words: Pot. Kettle. Black.


rather [it is] him trying to scare us with his comments or his "theories" (many of which he made up on his own).

Quelle horreur! The comrade make a thinkie!

Blasphemer! Blasphemer! How dare thee attempt to think! Burn him! Burn him! He's a witch! A witch! He turned me into a newt! Smite him!

[Rawthentic]

Yeah.

I'm not the only one how knows that those "theories" you hold, are held by you and maybe like three other people that make up the bulk of the failed 'Communist League.'

I responded to you in a few paragraphs, and there was nothing more to do, because there was nothing more to your posts. Sorry, but I don't fall for your gimmicks like others used to. It doesn't matter if you are older or if you learned how to correctly use the quote button on RevLeft, it doesn't scare me, and neither do your "theories" (that people pay little attention to, if any at all).

[Rawthentic]

Enjoy your time with the petty bourgeoisie. I guarantee you'll get an education you'll never forget. And, if you actually learn something from it, you're welcome to come back and talk to me.
I'll tell what I have learned: that the theories you hold so dear (and most have never heard of) do not represent what communist theory is, and they never will.

I said I didnt care because I knew what you were gonna say, it was nothing new. You can call me a class traitor all you want, but I'll be a part of a real revolutionary movement (Kasama) (with a correct theoretical basis), and you can dwell in your split up cave, the Communist League.

What makes you think I would ever come back and talk to you? Are you really that arrogant that you think you hold the key to communist theory and thus Ill have to answer to you? I did not want to end with a note like this, but I think youll agree that you ended the comradely conversation when you said, "I had thought that, at one time, Rawthentic understood these things -- I mean, really understood these basics of communist theory. Oh, how I feel I have failed him so."

Ha, seriously...

[Rawthentic]

Yeah it's awesome! Them joining the capitalist state makes shivers run down my spine!
And therein lies your misunderstanding of the situation. Not only is Nepal's situation or state more complex than it being capitalist, but the Maoists have the ability to lead a nation towards socialism. They have that possibility. I would think someone like you would at least attempt to understand whats really going on in Nepal (and you know it isnt as simple as you put it).

Like I said, I am willing to discuss Nepal and Maoism, but not in the childish manner as you've done.


Ironically the Russian revolution was based on the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution, but I know that's too much historical information for your little Maoist head to grasp.
So? Fine, I concede that a revolution that occurred nearly 100 years ago had an element based off of one of Trotky's theories. What about today? Nothing.

[Rawthentic]

Yes that is very mature, you are definitely not to blame at all for the hostile turn the discussion took.
That was after YOUR comment.

But either way, I apologize for how I reacted, and I wont stoop down to that level again. It is against the Maoist spirit (principled line struggle).

So, if you wanna talk about Nepal, what it means for the communist movement, or anything related to that, bring it on. But let's do it in a civilized way (and simply saying that they joined a "capitalist state" is not how I wanna begin either).

[Led Zeppelin]

And therein lies your misunderstanding of the situation. Not only is Nepal's situation or state more complex than it being capitalist, but the Maoists have the ability to lead a nation towards socialism. They have that possibility.

So Nepal can build socialism by itself then, that is what you are saying? Alright, I'll bite. Explain how Nepal can build up the material conditions of the country to the level required for socialism to exist, that is, up to the elimination of scarcity.

Go ahead, explain how they can do that.


I would think someone like you would at least attempt to understand whats really going on in Nepal (and you know it isnt as simple as you put it).

Like I said, I am willing to discuss Nepal and Maoism, but not in the childish manner as you've done.

Childish manner? Well, you didn't like the tone CommunistLeague took, which was certainly not childish, and you don't like the way I'm arguing, then there isn't much left to discuss now is there?


So? Fine, I concede that a revolution that occurred nearly 100 years ago had an element based off of one of Trotky's theories. What about today? Nothing.

I don't really believe that a take-over of state-power in Nepal vindicates your ideology, especially not when it is headed for the same course as "your" other "take-overs" went.


That was after YOUR comment.

But either way, I apologize for how I reacted, and I wont stoop down to that level again. It is against the Maoist spirit (principled line struggle).

So, if you wanna talk about Nepal, what it means for the communist movement, or anything related to that, bring it on. But let's do it in a civilized way (and simply saying that they joined a "capitalist state" is not how I wanna begin either).

Sure, I want to talk about Nepal, even though this isn't really the appropriate thread for it, the discussion can be split and merged with the other thread later on. Of course I am also willing to be mature and respectul in tone in the discussion as long as it is from both sides.

[chegitz guevara]

Compare and contrast various tendency's lines on Nepal and Venezuela/Bolivia?

[Rawthentic]

Sure, I want to talk about Nepal, even though this isn't really the appropriate thread for it, the discussion can be split and merged with the other thread later on. Of course I am also willing to be mature and respectul in tone in the discussion as long as it is from both sides.
Good then.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok moved the discussion.

[Rawthentic]

I wanna begin with something that comrade Basanta from the CPN-Maoist said:


“..the end of monarchy was not the end of feudalism, but the end of the central role of the monarchy in the reactionary power…. However, in this situation, a right opportunist trend that understands the democratic republic as the final success of revolution, and a left sectarian trend that minimises this achievement can sometimes be noticed in our party and in the society as well…. Even though the feudal monarchy ended, there has been little change in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial socio-economic conditions of Nepal. Feudalism and imperialism, the targets of New Democratic Revolution, still exist…http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/basanta-the-present-situation-and-our-challenges/#more-872

What do people think? I think we all have a basic agreement that Nepal is a nation that is still locked in feudalism and imperialism (hence the Maoists' work begins) and that there will need to be a period where the capitalist mode of production is developed (along with the seeds of a socialist economy) along with the other tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution.

So, this is the Maoist theory of NDR. It is divided into two basic stages, the first of which I have outlined briefly above, the second which is the the concrete building of socialism. It is not as schematic as this, it's just basic theory. So it isn't like capitalism, then socialism, it is developing national capitalism WHILE also developing socialism as a part of that, and NOT capitalism for its sake, but as the path towards socialism.

Thoughts?

[Led Zeppelin]

So, this is the Maoist theory of NDR. It is divided into two basic stages, the first of which I have outlined briefly above, the second which is the the concrete building of socialism. It is not as schematic as this, it's just basic theory. So it isn't like capitalism, then socialism, it is developing national capitalism WHILE also developing socialism as a part of that, and NOT capitalism for its sake, but as the path towards socialism.

Thoughts?

Could you please cite some examples of them "building socialism", such as nationalizations, take-overs of industries by the state, expropriation of capitalists and wealthy land-owners, land-reforms that benefit the peasantry etc.?

After that, could you please explain how it would be possible under and circumstances for Nepal to build socialism by itself? Do you believe it can do so alone?

If you don't, then at least we are in agreement on that. That is not to say that I do not consider what is happening in Nepal to be progressive (as long as it really is progressive, which is why I asked for some examples), that is different from believing in something that is fantasy, such as Nepal being able to build socialism and communism by itself.

There is one other issue I have some questions about. The current government is a coalition, correct? Right now the Maoists are in the leading position, but who is to say that this will stay the same after the next couple elections? The fundamentals of the bourgeois-democratic system have not been changed after all. Representatives of the ruling-classes are still allowed to run in the process, and I'm willing to bet that most other parties in the country are under their wing. It is true that at the moment they are weak, but if they are not dealt with, that can change very quickly.

I don't believe in the "we win bourgeois elections and don't change the system, because we can build socialism without doing that!" nonsense. I don't consider Cyprus to be a "socialist nation" after the so-called communist party won the elections there, and I won't consider the same for any other country unless they can show some concrete examples of actually moving towards socialism (and I understand that mixed state-capitalism can be a part of this development, as long as the state is overlooking this process).

So yeah, could you provide that evidence? If you can, I'll be the last to denounce the movement there.

[Raúl Duke]

Somewhere Lenin is Smiling: Workers ‘take over’ tea factories, resume operations (http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=155637)

RAM CHANDRA ADHIKARI DHANKUTA, Aug 3 - Workers of three big tea estates, which remained closed for the last three weeks due to disputes between the management and workers, have forcefully took control of the processing factories and resumed operations.

The factories of Gurash Tea Estate, Kuwabashi Tea Plantation and Joon Tea Garden were taken into control by the workers on Friday and started tea production from Saturday.

Gopal Tamang, president of All Nepal Trade Unions Federation, a trade union closely affiliated with the Maoists, said the workers have resumed tea production and also started collecting tea leaves from the garden. He said the workers were forced to ‘capture’ the factories after the managements refused to initiate dialogues to end the deadlock and added that the takeover will continue until the managements agree to talk.

The tea estates were closed three weeks back after tea workers started protest programs demanding wage hikes, permanent appointments, and medical insurance, among others. The managements of the tea estates have been refusing to sit for negotiations citing insecurity.

Pretty nice. Quite a bit more revolutionary then what's currently happening in Venezuela it seems.

I don't think running a worker's collective is "uncapitalistic" per se. It could be possible to develop "capitalism" by having collectives run like coperations and compete (However, in a more socialist economy they will of course regulate the competition so to be fair and in a communist one there won't be any money.).

[Rawthentic]

Could you please cite some examples of them "building socialism", such as nationalizations, take-overs of industries by the state, expropriation of capitalists and wealthy land-owners, land-reforms that benefit the peasantry etc.?Sure, I will find examples, I just need to do some research.

But, as far as I know, there are peasant collectives in the countryside (part of the land reform program), and also a hydroelectric project that is either planned or already begun. I dont know of other developments, so I shall do the research. Keep in touch.

Also, no, I dont believe Nepal can build socialism on its own, much less communism. This is one of the contradictions the Maoists have spoken of a lot. But, what are they to do? Abandon the struggle? No, I believe ( i am not so sure) that cooperation with other nations on a basis that benefits Nepal is what the Maoists should do (or plan to do). But, I think we should also keep in mind that the process is just in its beginning, and we need to judge the Maoists based on the promises they make and what they do to fulfill them (on a patient, materialist basis).

edit: and no, I dont think there have been expropriations as far as capitalists and other urban industries go. Have you read Basanta's piece on this question (it is very good): http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/basanta-the-present-situation-and-our-challenges/#comment-519

There is also a great work by Baburam Bhattarai titled: “The Nature of Underdevelopment and Regional Structure of Nepal: A Marxist Analysis”

[Rawthentic]

also, Led, Dr. Bhattari (who is an economist I believe), wrote article that is on our Kasama site called Politico-Economic Rationale of People's War in Nepal: http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/teach-in-politico-economic-rationale-of-peoples-war-in-nepal/

It gets into the theory of it, nepal in relation to imperialism, india, geography, feudal relations, comprador and bureacratic capital, the national question, and the economic developmental policy (includes self-reliance and planned development, land reform, industrialization, etc)