discussion on imperialism as a world epoch, and why nat lib is wrong

[black magick hustla]

I think one of the reasons we left communists can wrap our minds around internationalism (and I mean the real one - a rejection of all capitalist wars in favor of revolutionary fatalism, including national liberation; not the dilluted version of stalinists) and "leftists" can't is because we have a different understanding of how capital works in its current imperialist epoch.

I think after 1914, capitalism entered in a period of decadence in the sense that bourgeois factions aren't progressive any more. There are many reasons for this, but I think the most important one is the consolidation imperialism as a world epoch. This means that capitalism today is a world system, and that the term "national economy" becomes politically worthless in as much as the economy today is completely interwined in a one big blob of networks, and rather than visualizing it as different national economies, its more useful to visualize it as an organic entity and the nations themselves as different regions of it. This doesn't means that the GDP per capita is the same everywhere; it means that nations today cannot have an independent economy because they have to ally themselves with different imperialisms. The backward countries are completely integreated to the economy - there is no "feudalism". there are just backwaters of capitalism. It would be like saying some regions of tennesse arent capitalist because many good ol' boys leave somewhat self-sufficient lives while in NYC the commodity is generalized.

All nations are imperialistic in as much as the bourgeosie today is extremely agressive. its as simple as seeing how Georgia invaded South Otessia, even when georgia is a small, wealk country.

All of this have certain political implications. For one, it means the revolution has to be international or it is nothing. There cannot be socialism in one country.

There are no progressive sides in capitalist wars. Capitalist wars are the tendency of imperialism approaching barbarism. hence socialism or barbarism. The task of communists is agitating for fraternization, mutiny, or civil war. National liberation is a sham; there is no such thing as a liberated economy today.

The need of a world communist party, centralized internationally - uniting all internationalists, (rejection of all capitalist wars in favor of revolutionary fatalism). internationalists dont necessarily need to be left communists.

What do people think about this? I hope this clarified a bit from where left coms are coming with their posts.

[bayano]

I don't think it does for the most part, speaking as someone greatly influenced by left communism but clearly not a part of it for this reason and others.

so many national liberation struggles weren't completely national. they were connected to other national liberation struggles, and often with a view toward eventual regional integration/i.e. the break down of the very nation-states they were fighting to create. and many of these movements were marxist. now, sure, with the hindsight of history one can attack, but there are two factors among many that i think this kind of narrow politics that left commies have ill put forth. for one, left communism is in many ways more libertarian than many other marxisms, but it is not more liberatory. faced with the far more extreme exploitation and racial subjugation, the massacres and tyranny of so many colonialisms and neo-colonialisms, how can one argue they didnt have a right to find back.

and beyond that, for a more orthodox marxism, it should be understood that colonialism in so many cases stifled bourgeois development, urbanization, infrastructure, social movements, that throwing off colonialism, even if it didn't successfully bring in some kind of socialism, was necessary just to move forward at all.

[black magick hustla]

so many national liberation struggles weren't completely national. they were connected to other national liberation struggles, and often with a view toward eventual regional integration/i.e. the break down of the very nation-states they were fighting to create. and many of these movements were marxist. now, sure, with the hindsight of history one can attack, but there are two factors among many that i think this kind of narrow politics that left commies have ill put forth.
Of course they weren't completely national. no political movement can be in practice today "completely national" - unless of course, it wants to fail. nationalism is just an ideology pushed by a faction of the bourgeosie. National liberation has always been a proxy to an imperialism - before it was generally the american or the soviet one.





for one, left communism is in many ways more libertarian than many other marxisms, but it is not more liberatory. faced with the far more extreme exploitation and racial subjugation, the massacres and tyranny of so many colonialisms and neo-colonialisms, how can one argue they didnt have a right to find back.

Nobody is saying they can't "fight back". There is a difference from "fighting back" rather than being sent to die in the interests of a faction of the bosses. Look at Africa right now, its a horrible place full of kleptocrats and sectarian wars and I doubt national liberation brought the paradise it rpeached.


.

[BobKKKindle$]

Recognizing that imperialism is a global system which integrates every country into a global system of production characterized by the free movement of goods between states and an oppressive global division of labour (whereby developing countries are relegated to a state of permanant dependency on the production of raw materials and other goods which attain a low value on the global market, because they are unable to compete with imported manufactures produced by more advanced capitalist states) is not limited to left communists, instead this recognition has been a consistent feature of other schools of Marxist analysis, and was even expressed in the Communist Manifesto:


The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.

[...]

In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.The Communist Manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians (1848) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)

The fact that you feel the need to make this point (and suggest that left communists are alone in understanding the global character of imperialism) shows that you do not actually understand why Trotskyists choose to offer support to oppressed nations facing imperialist attack, even when the struggle against imperialism is led by movements which are strongly oppossed to social liberation. Our position is not based on the illussion that national independence will allow a country to fully free itself from the constraints of imperialist oppression and achieve economic development. When responding to Rosa Luxemburg on the question of whether communists should support national-liberation movements, Lenin also warned against confusing a country being politically independent, and economically independent, and argued that Luxemburg's position (refusing to support national struggles because national liberation would not allow for development due to the persistence of economic pressures which continue to operate even when a country has gained its formal political independence) was comparable to refusing to support a transition to bourgeois demcoracy on the grounds that the bourgoisie will be able to subvert democracy and unfairly influence the political process:


For the question of the political self-determination of nations and their independence as states in bourgeois society, Rosa Luxemburg has substituted the question of their economic independence. This is just as intelligent as if someone, in discussing the programmatic demand for the supremacy of parliament, i. e., the assembly of people’s representatives, in a bourgeois state, were to expound the perfectly correct conviction that big capital dominates in a bourgeois country, whatever the regime in it.

[...]

It means that “self-determination of nations” in the Marxists’ Programme cannot, from a historico-economic point of view, have any other meaning than political self-determination, state independence, and the formation of a national state.
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, What is meant by the Self-Determination of Nations? (1914) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm)

This position corresponds closely with Lenin's arguments in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, where he suggested that a country could still be dependent economically, even when the country was not part of a colonial empire and had achieved political independence, giving Argentina as an example of this phenomenon:


Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence—the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Division of the World Among the Great Powers (1916) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm)

This clearly shows that Trotskyists recognize the impossibility of economic independence in the imperialist epoch, even in the absence of formal political domination. Trotskyists base their position [of unconditional yet critical support for national-liberation movements] on the class consciousness of workers who inhabit oppressor nations (nations which exercise imperialist oppression). The potential for revolution in the oppressor nations is limited by the influence of bourgeois ideology, which poses the illusion of a unity of interests between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat on the basis of a shared national identity, and so an important task for communists is to try and break these ideological links which obstruct the development of class consciousness and undermine the efforts of the vanguard. The most effective way to achieve this objective and encourage the workers to accept the principles of internationalism (recognition that all workers have the same interests because of their shared class position, regardless of national or cultural divisions) is to offer support for national liberation movements, because to do otherwise would imply the legitimacy of national oppression, which is an important source of nationalist ideology. Marx made this argument to show why communists should support the Irish struggle in the context of Britain, but Lenin applied these principles to national struggles in general, expressed as follows:


The proletariat of the oppressing nations cannot confine itself to the general hackneyed phrases against annexations and for the equal rights of nations in general, that may be repeated by any pacifist bourgeois. The proletariat cannot evade the question that is particularly “unpleasant” for the imperialist bourgeoisie, namely, the question of the frontiers of a state that is based on national oppression. The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that “its own” nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of self-determination who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by “their” nation and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm)The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, The Proletarian-Revolutionary Presentation of the Question of the Self-Determination of Nations (1916) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm)

In the same document [as above] Lenin also dealt with the argument that national struggles can sometimes be used by an imperialist power to advance its own interests:


The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain circumstances, be utilized by another “Great” Power in its equally imperialist interests should have no more weight in inducing Social Democracy to renounce its recognition of the right of nations to self-determination than the numerous case of the bourgeoisie utilizing republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial robbery, for example, in the Latin countries, have had in inducing them to renounce republicanism

[black magick hustla]

Bobkindles you don't need to quote Imperialism in my face. I already read the work. I think you are the one that doesn't understands my perspective. Lenin is also part of my political tradition. I know that lenin recognized imperialism as an epoch. This is where he is correct.

The argument of not supporting national independence is comparable to not supporting bourgeois democracy is wrong. I do not support bourgeois democracy today because today it is not progressive; its an entirely different context to talk about bourgeois democracy on the context of the 19th century.

If we agree that national liberation won't bring economic independence (which is strongly interwined to political independence), then the whole fight against "national opression" amounts to little more than a mystical and vague slogan in favor of national identity. National identity is the grounds for bourgeois platforms -it was in the 19th century and it is still today.

[BobKKKindle$]

If we agree that national liberation won't bring economic independence (which is strongly interwined to political independence)then the whole fight against "national opression" amounts to little more than a mystical and vague slogan in favor of national identity

Why must economic independence and political independence be so "strongly intertwined" given that Lenin was able to make a clear distinction between the two in his debates against other Marxists? In your original post you argued that a nation cannot be economically independent, which is an argument that the whole of the Trotskyist movement would agree with because Lenin was of the exaxct same opinion, you then asserted that because of this, supporting national struggles is invalid, without giving any explanation of how the conclusion logically follows from the premise, especially given that the Trotskyist position is based on tactical concerns which are unrelated to any illussions of economic independence: Lenin clearly explained (following from Marx's position on Ireland) that defending struggles against national oppression and supporting the right of secession is necessary to destroy the nationalist ideological links between the workers and the bourgeoisie in the oppressor nations. This is not "mythical" in any way, but an affirmation of socialist internationalism, because communists cannot claim to be internationalists if they sit back and allow their own governments to conduct national oppression by invading other states and maintaining colonial domination, without criticism.


I do not support bourgeois democracy today because today it is not progressive

So are you suggesting that bourgeois democracy is not preferable to an authoritarian political system such as a military dictatorship? If this is the position you are trying to argue, then does this mean that communists should not participate in campaigns against infringements on our democratic rights, which represent an important part of bourgeois democracy?

[Niccolò Rossi]

the Trotskyist position is based on tactical concerns which are unrelated to any illussions of economic independence: Lenin clearly explained (following from Marx's position on Ireland) that defending struggles against national oppression and supporting the right of secession is necessary to destroy the nationalist ideological links between the workers and the bourgeoisie in the oppressor nations.

Even if we assume that national liberation movements does actually provide revolutionary communists with a break with the nationalist ideology of the bourgeois class of the oppressor nation, supporting national liberation movements has nothing to do with "proletarian internationalism" but rather amounts to nothing more than the support of the nationalist ideology of the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation.


communists cannot claim to be internationalists if they sit back and allow their own governments to conduct national oppression by invading other states and maintaining colonial domination, without criticism.

Nor can they claim to be internationalists when they support (either implicitly or explicitly) the nationalist ideology of the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation.

[BobKKKindle$]

supporting national liberation movements has nothing to do with "proletarian internationalism" but rather amounts to nothing more than the support of the nationalist ideology of the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation.

How does supporting struggles against national oppression entail supporting the ideas which motivate these struggles? Marx was an opponent of liberalism as an ideology based on the class interests of the bourgeoisie but still supported efforts to introduce bourgeois democracy (which is an important component of liberalism) because he recognized that a democratic system of government would allow the vanguard to organize and engage with the proletariat without the threat of violent state intervention, despite the fact that democracy under capitalism is limited due to the influence of private property, which can subvert the democratic process by giving unfair advantages to the bourgeoisie. This shows that supporting the struggles associated with an ideology does not require socialists to accept the ideology itself, a principle which is also applicable to struggles against national oppression.

[black magick hustla]

How does supporting struggles against national oppression entail supporting the ideas which motivate these struggles? Marx was an opponent of liberalism as an ideology based on the class interests of the bourgeoisie but still supported efforts to introduce bourgeois democracy (which is an important component of liberalism) because he recognized that a democratic system of government would allow the vanguard to organize and engage with the proletariat without the threat of violent state intervention, despite the fact that democracy under capitalism is limited due to the influence of private property, which can subvert the democratic process by giving unfair advantages to the bourgeoisie. This shows that supporting the struggles associated with an ideology does not require socialists to accept the ideology itself, a principle which is also applicable to struggles against national oppression.

Marx also said It was ok for the US to invade Mexico because we mexicans are "lazy".

Not that it matters much to me, but I don't think the correct way to approach things is following your fav. theorists line to line.

Again, bourgeois democracy is not progressive in this age. it was bourgeois democracy that was one of the reasons that 100 000 000 died in WWII. It is democratic slogans that are used by the imperialists in Iraq. Your position is not internationalist because rather than calling for workers to turn their rifles against their generals and bosses you are saying that it is ok to die for national opressors, after all you are fighting against national opression.

[Winter]

There are no progressive sides in capitalist wars. Capitalist wars are the tendency of imperialism approaching barbarism. hence socialism or barbarism. The task of communists is agitating for fraternization, mutiny, or civil war. National liberation is a sham; there is no such thing as a liberated economy today.

So a bourgeois democratic revolution is not progressive, even if its objective was to rise out of semi-fuedal enviroments where the vast majority of the people are serfs? First world corporations and empires are powerful and influential indeed, but do you really think even countries with little first world influences would not benefit from a democratic revolution, freeing the serfs?



Again, bourgeois democracy is not progressive in this age. it was bourgeois democracy that was one of the reasons that 100 000 000 died in WWII.

You really can't compare those countries who are at the height of capitalism with those who have very little experience with capitalism. Different stages serve different purposes, the latter stage is imperialistic and destructive.


It is democratic slogans that are used by the imperialists in Iraq. Your position is not internationalist because rather than calling for workers to turn their rifles against their generals and bosses you are saying that it is ok to die for national opressors, after all you are fighting against national opression.

In America and Europe it's right for the workers to turn against bosses and generals. In under-developed countries the workers/serfs must combine their efforts with these people in order to free themselves from outside influences and establish a democratic nation. Only then can socialism be an attainable, realistic goal.

[Niccolò Rossi]

How does supporting struggles against national oppression entail supporting the ideas which motivate these struggles

Bob, why don't you then apply this same line of argument to your above post:


Lenin clearly explained (following from Marx's position on Ireland) that defending struggles against national oppression and supporting the right of secession is necessary to destroy the nationalist ideological links between the workers and the bourgeoisie in the oppressor nations. This is not "mythical" in any way, but an affirmation of socialist internationalism, because communists cannot claim to be internationalists if they sit back and allow their own governments to conduct national oppression by invading other states and maintaining colonial domination, without criticism.

Refusing to give support to national liberation movements is not supporting the same opposition and the same motives of the imperialist "oppressor" bourgeoisie.


This shows that supporting the struggles associated with an ideology does not require socialists to accept the ideology itself, a principle which is also applicable to opposition against national liberation.*Fixed*

So if national liberation today can neither provide economic independence (that is economic imperialism still persists), nor an opposition to the ideology of the imperialist "oppressor" bourgeoisie (which can equally be expressed from an anti-nat lib perspective), then why the support? Unless your a nationalist, class collaborationist like Winter I don't see any.

[Tower of Bebel]

The demand for national self-determination is another democratic demand that favors the proletariat in its struggle against the(ir) bourgeoisie.

So if national liberation today can neither provide economic independence (that is economic imperialism still persists), nor an opposition to the ideology of the imperialist "oppressor" bourgeoisie (which can equally be expressed from an anti-nat lib perspective), then why the support? Unless your a nationalist, class collaborationist like Winter I don't see any.National Self-determination and other such democratic gains allow the proletariat to organize itself with less restrictions while having the most advanced position to strike from against their class enemies (such position is according to Engels something he calls the "democratic republic").

(It also does away with disturbing third parties that intervene during the day to day struggle of the proletariat. That way the national bourgeoisie is - in words and ideas - powerless against the proletariat when it organizes a class struggle; except maybe for "foreign" imperialism which can always be blamed for any internal difficulties.)

[Leo]

So a bourgeois democratic revolution is not progressive, even if its objective was to rise out of semi-fuedal enviroments where the vast majority of the people are serfs?

You would be surprised at the reality of capitalist production relations and modern social classes in third world countries which you dismiss as feudal.

An agricultural worker is not a serf, nor is it possible to live feudalism in a small piece of island: there is not a single piece of land which hasn't been dominated by the capitalist mode of production and social relations, regardless of how backward or undeveloped that example of capitalism is, when compared to it's counterparts in the west.

No a bourgeois "revolution" in such countries is not progressive. The only thing progressive in our epoch is world socialist revolution. It is not in the interests of the third world workers to support factions of their own bourgeoisie who hide under democratic masks.


You really can't compare those countries who are at the height of capitalism with those who have very little experience with capitalism.

Well, fundamentally you can't really compare countries in the current epoch in that sense anyway, they are all part of world capitalism.


Different stages serve different purposes, the latter stage is imperialistic and destructive.

I find this idea that imperialism is a "national stage" to be very obscure. But then again, you see everything on the national scale don't you?

Anyway, all countries that you would consider not to be imperialist are first of all completely subjected to and are a part of world imperialism, are pawns in the struggle between different imperialist powers, and also they have imperialist interests just like the bigger imperialist powers do, but they only pursue those interests on a smaller scale.

Oh, and trust me, you can't imagine how destructive the local, "homegrown" imperialism is in the third world.


The demand for national self-determination is another democratic demand that favors the proletariat in its struggle against the(ir) bourgeoisie.

Not really, it is a demand that calls for the formation of new bourgeois states, which is a contradictory and pointless thing to do when one is struggling against an existing bourgeois state.

What favors the proletarian movement is for workers to oppose oppression based on nationality and call for unity, fraternity and solidarity with workers from backgrounds that face oppression.

[Tower of Bebel]

Not really, it is a demand that calls for the formation of new bourgeois states, which is a contradictory and pointless thing to do when one is struggling against an existing bourgeois state.

What favors the proletarian movement is for workers to oppose oppression based on nationality and call for unity, fraternity and solidarity with workers from backgrounds that face oppression.
I believe your second claim does not contradict what I wrote. Unity has nothing to do with living within the same boarders. What unites the working class are their independent organizations. But for the workers to organize effectively and to start the conquest of power they need democracy. Oppression based on nationality is just one of the hindrances the proletariat has to overcome to achieve such democracy.

[Leo]

Unity has nothing to do with living within the same boarders.

Obviously.


But for the workers to organize effectively and to start the conquest of power they need democracy.

No they don't. Why on earth do you think that they do? Besides, a "democracy" can be as bloodthirsty and oppressive as any "undemocratic" state when threatened.


Oppression based on nationality is just one of the hindrances the proletariat has to overcome to achieve such democracy.

Here's the crux of the issue isn't it: you think that bad things about capitalism, such as oppression, suppression, lack of freedom etc. has got to do with there not being enough democracy. All such issues, you see them being related to things being undemocratic, and thus you think that workers should fight first of all for a "democratic" capitalism and only then it is possible to struggle for socialism, for workers to take power. This is as such nothing but a form of stageism. Alleged defenders of the cause of the proletarait become defenders of the bourgeois ideals of the 18th century, and start aiding the bourgeoisie in saying that a more democratic capitalism is possible, and oppression, suppression etc. is a product of undemocratic capitalists.

In reality, national oppression and democracy have quite a fine relationship themselves. We can see this in the racist campaigns of the democratic western states. The difference I've got from your perspective is that you see national oppression as an issue to demand an end to, an issue to kindly ask the bourgeoisie to stop, in the name of "democracy". For me, I see this as something to be destroyed by workers unity, fraternity and solidarity in the struggle to destroy capitalism, and I think that the only destruction of such things, state suppression, national oppression etc. is the end of capitalism worldwide. So for you it is something to be demanded from the bourgeoisie, for me it's something that has to be done by the working class itself in it's struggle to destroy capitalism, and is nothing but a part of that struggle.

[Tower of Bebel]

No they don't. Why on earth do you think that they do? Besides, a "democracy" can be as bloodthirsty and oppressive as any "undemocratic" state when threatened.
Maybe I was to vague when I wrote democracy. I don't mean bourgeois-democracy.


Here's the crux of the issue isn't it: you think that bad things about capitalism, such as oppression, suppression, lack of freedom etc. has got to do with there not being enough democracy. All such issues, you see them being related to things being undemocratic, and thus you think that workers should fight first of all for a "democratic" capitalism and only then it is possible to struggle for socialism, for workers to take power. This is as such nothing but a form of stageism. Alleged defenders of the cause of the proletarait become defenders of the bourgeois ideals of the 18th century, and start aiding the bourgeoisie in saying that a more democratic capitalism is possible, and oppression, suppression etc. is a product of undemocratic capitalists.

In reality, national oppression and democracy have quite a fine relationship themselves. We can see this in the racist campaigns of the democratic western states. The difference I've got from your perspective is that you see national oppression as an issue to demand an end to, an issue to kindly ask the bourgeoisie to stop, in the name of "democracy". For me, I see this as something to be destroyed by workers unity, fraternity and solidarity in the struggle to destroy capitalism, and I think that the only destruction of such things, state suppression, national oppression etc. is the end of capitalism worldwide. So for you it is something to be demanded from the bourgeoisie, for me it's something that has to be done by the working class itself in it's struggle to destroy capitalism, and is nothing but a part of that struggle.
I don't see democracy as an end or as a definite goal. And I don't care about the bourgeois conception of democracy, because it is not that kind of "democracy" we need. National self-determination, universal suffrage, free health care, free education, workers' control, etc. are a means to achieve the most favorable circumstances for the proletariat to organize themselves and overthrow the bourgeoisie and capitalism. There is no country in the world that is in such a way democratic. Only the October revolution and the Paris Commune were able to achieve this (though lacking the opportunities today's developed capitalist countries have). Of course, those revolutions were proletarian, "socialist" revolutions. Yet, that doesn't mean we have to wait for revolutions to occur before we struggle for a "proletarian" democracy. Workers are not trained in factories alone. They are also trained in their struggle with the bourgeoisie, with the oppressive state for education, universal suffrage, accountability, health care, women's rights, etc.
So both the consciousness many workers can achieve during the struggle for "democracy" (which is not bourgeois democracy as opposed to feudalism, fascism, etc.; e.g. a type of democracy where the bourgeois reigns directly) and the position workers can achieve to strike from at the bourgeoisie, are useful for the struggle for socialism, which is not an entirely separated struggle. That's why Marx, Engels and Lenin wrote democratic demands in some of their works (Critique of the Gotha Programme, Critique of the Erfurt Programme, the Communist Manifesto, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, etc.)... I think :blushing:.

So, to denounce the accusation of stageism; I believe that the struggle for socialism is a "permanent" struggle: it is not divided into different stages. Which means that my perception of the democracy we can struggle for is not a separate stage: most of it will only be achieved during a genuine socialist revolution.
I don't support "stageism" (a bourgeois, mechanical and reactionary view of history). I'm not following the Mensheviks nor Kautsky. They joined hands with the bourgeoisie instead of the proletarians. When they degenerated they only developed bourgeois theories and practiced bourgeois politics.

I don't see what imperialism has to with making old tactics, strategies and demands ineffective and reactionary. Of course the state is far more important and aggressive than it was before imperialism, and of course the state is incorporating and buying out trade unions; but that makes things just harder, not impossible.
That's why I never supported defending the maximum-program alone during my short "left-communist" stage. And that's also why I never supported Trotsky when he wrote that the current period, one of imperialism, made the "division" between minimum and maximum program obsolete. Yet, the idea that minimum demands were the same demands as the demands of today's bourgeois Labour parties made me also denounce the minimum-program... until I saw that Marx', Engels' and Lenin's minimum-demands were entirely different. They were more radical than the demands of social-chauvenists and "progressive" liberals.
Of course I support both transitional demands and the "maximum-program". It's not that I'm a simple reformist or something like that.

I hope I made myself clear, and I hope that some could point out where I could possibly be heavily mistaken.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's the crux of the issue isn't it: you think that bad things about capitalism, such as oppression, suppression, lack of freedom etc. has got to do with there not being enough democracy. All such issues, you see them being related to things being undemocratic, and thus you think that workers should fight first of all for a "democratic" capitalism and only then it is possible to struggle for socialism, for workers to take power. This is as such nothing but a form of stageism.

:rolleyes:

[What Comrade Rakunin said :) ]

What is needed is to separate the "democratic" tasks from the concept of bourgeois revolution. Don't reduce "democracy" - a rather ongoing task - to mere electoralism (like Bordiga did) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1183457&postcount=25).

[Methinks what you've said reveals "broad economism" on the part of left-communists like yourself :( ]

http://www.rdg.org.uk/permrev/documents/dem_perm_rev_2.htm

That was the historical significance of the "social-democratic" November Revolution and of the preceding class-strugglist democracy ("dual power").


That's why Marx, Engels and Lenin wrote democratic demands in some of their works (Critique of the Gotha Programme, Critique of the Erfurt Programme, the Communist Manifesto, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, etc.)... I think. :blushing:

Actually:

Programme of the French Workers' Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)
Draft Program of the RSDLP (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm#v06zz99h-027)


Yet, the idea that minimum demands were the same demands as the demands of today's bourgeois Labour parties made me also denounce the minimum-program... until I saw that Marx', Engels' and Lenin's minimum-demands were entirely different. They were more radical than the demands of social-chauvinists and "progressive" liberals. Of course I support both transitional demands and the "maximum-program". It's not that I'm a simple reformist or something like that.

Comrade, can you please elaborate here? Was it based on my completed work (acknowledged even by the left-communist beltov (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1212878&postcount=5)), on my next work (with that sound-bite quote of Bernstein ;) ), or on the stuff of the Revolutionary Democratic Group and of the CPGB?

[Leo]

Maybe I was to vague when I wrote democracy. I don't mean bourgeois-democracy.

Really? What do you mean then? Feudal democracy? "Socialist" democracy under capitalism? What is the class-basis of your definition of democracy?

Or is your definition of it 'class-free', so to speak? Are you talking about a democracy 'without adjectives'? If that is so, then, I'm afraid your definition of democracy is exactly the way bourgeois-democracy presents itself. This is more obvious later in your post:


National self-determination, universal suffrage, free health care, free education, workers' control, etc.

... is exactly the way bourgeois-democracy presents itself, you can call it social-democracy if you wish.


There is no country in the world that is in such a way democratic.

There is almost no country in the world that is not in such a way democratic. Universal suffrage, free health care, free education exists even in the middle eastern country that I live in, let alone the European countries or even the North American ones. National self-determination is nothing but the self-determination of the bourgeois class of the nation, since from a marxist perspective there is no meaningful entity as the nation as such but classes, and the bourgeois class always determines its destiny regardless of whether it has a state apparatus or a state-like apparatus of it's own. On the other hand, from your perspective, almost every nation, except the few stateless ones, determine themselves.

As for workers' control, under capitalism it's a desperate situation which occurs when the bosses leave a workplace that doesn't profit and workers remain there not to lose their jobs and try to run it themselves.

Or do you mean by workers' control workers voting and stuff?


Only the October revolution and the Paris Commune were able to achieve this

I'll just say this: it is ridiculous to say that those revolutions achieved national self-determination.


Of course, those revolutions were proletarian, "socialist" revolutions.

You are missing the whole point about those revolutions. The relations and mode of production did not change after those revolutions, and they can't in a singe city or a single country, or a region. Nor did the Bolsheviks or communards came and made things "democratic". Saying this might make the history more appealing to liberals, but it fundamentally distorts it. Those revolutions were about the proletarait, as a unified class, taking political power from the bourgeoisie using it's own, independent, class organs. In Russia, the Duma and the Kerensky government were the democrats, and the proletarian revolution did have a fundamentally undemocratic character, it overthrew a democratic regime, and aimed to impose the interests of one class, the proletariat, over the society. This by itself is completely opposed to the democratic ideal, an ideal depending on the supposed will of the entire society.


that doesn't mean we have to wait for revolutions to occur

Yet with all the democratic demands, and struggle for the defense and advancement of democracy, this is all you do.


Workers are not trained in factories alone. They are also trained in their struggle with the bourgeoisie, with the oppressive state for education, universal suffrage, accountability, health care, women's rights, etc.

You are mixing in things that are in the interests of different classes, or that have been put forward as the agenda by different classes as well with things that are simply the natural way of things in bourgeois society. Struggle with the bourgeois, and struggle for the daily interests of workers, such as health care, education, pensions etc. are things related to the interests of the working class and they are unmaintainable by capitalism, thus there is a struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie in regards to those. This is not a "democratic" struggle in anyway, it is class struggle.

Universal suffrage has always been a bourgeois ideal. I'm afraid no one cares about it now except some leftists like yourself talking about democracy.

Woman question is a different one. On the other hand, posing it as a question of "women's rights" is a completely liberal approach (and an approach shared by liberal feminists as well). Marxists pose this question as a question of patriarchy, and see that the only solution to this problem is the abolition of patriarchy, which is only possible through the abolition of family, which is only possible thought the abolition of classes.


I don't see what imperialism has to with making old tactics, strategies and demands ineffective and reactionary. Of course the state is far more important and aggressive than it was before imperialism, and of course the state is incorporating and buying out trade unions; but that makes things just harder, not impossible.

State is not buying out trade-unions, it's has already integrated trade-unions. The state, now a mechanism entirely subordinated to the capitalist mode of production as opposed to being a mechanism that was an arena of struggle between different classes (mostly the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, but even the proletariat at some point) as it was at the time of the ascendancy of capitalism, now dominates social life entirely. No proletarian organization can exist in periods in which the working class is not on the offensive, thus no "independent" or "red" union can really exist: it either is not an actual trade-union, or it is integrated into the state. The working class is no longer capable of maintaining defensive, mass organizations. Trade-unions today are not organizations of the workers but organizations of the bourgeoisie that serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, that mobilize workers for those interests, and that divide workers accordingly to the interests of the bourgeoisie. All this was, of course, very clear to revolutionaries in 1914, when the trade-unions supported the imperialist war.


That's why I never supported defending the maximum-program alone during my short "left-communist" stage.

I don't remember you being a left communist, to be honest.

[ern]

As marmot pointed out at the beginnig the question of decadence is central to this whole discussion.. Marx did support national liberation movements when they lead to the development of the material circumstances favourable to the development of a united proletariat. He called on workers to support such struggles as far as they unified the national economy and thus the proletariat. All of this was with the historical dynamic of spread of capitalism across the world. Once Capitalism had encompassed the world, the only way for a state to survive was through waging war or preparing for war. Each state became imperialist, thus the call for national-liberation became a call for the fomation of a new imperialist state.
The reality of national liberation for the proletariat in the 20th century has been that of a bloodbath. The much celebrate national liberation struggle in Vietnam being a classic example. Millions dead in order that one set of capitalist gangsters could be replaced by another set. Each of these gangsters had their intenational god fathers to arm and support them. And once the North Liberated the South, it then decided to try and liberate Cambodia. In Africa all of the national liberations struggles followed the same sort of pattern, one part of the national bourgeois sort to bring itself to power by gaining the support of one of the superpowers, or to but it the other way the super powers were able to use the ambitions of the local bourgeoisies to their own ends. Thus support for these movements meant support for one or other of the superpowers.
We see the same thing today with 'plucky' little Georgia fighting for its national independence, which in reality means it is being used by the US to put pressure on Russian imperialism

[Rawthentic]

marmot, would you mind explaining how a country like nepal is imperialist, and how the capitalist mode of production exists, as opposed to a semi-feudal one?

Id like that.

[Leo]

First of all, only 38% of the economy (and this is actually quite a big number compared most countries which you would consider "semi-feudal") is based on agriculture in Nepal. 20% of the GDP is composed by the industry and 42% by the services industry. The main industries are carpets, textiles; small rice, jute, sugar, and oilseed mills; cigarettes, cement and brick production (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/np.html).

Thus, Nepal does not even have an economy that is based on agriculture for you to be able to call it a "semi-feudal" system.

The rate of unemployment approaches half of the working-age population. Thus many Nepali citizens move to India in search of work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal#Economy). In other words, the Nepali working population is not bounded to Nepal, and the proletarians in Nepal obviously have family bonds with workers outside. Even on the family level, they are not cut off from the rest of the world.

Nepal imports gold, machinery and equipment, petroleum products, fertilizer worth $2.398 billion and exports carpets, clothing, leather goods, jute goods, grain worth $830 million. There is an unrecorded border trade with India as well. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/np.html). We can very easily say that the Nepali economy is fully integrated into the world market.

The distribution of wealth among the Nepalis is consistent with that in many developed and developing countries: the highest 10% of households control 39.1% of the national wealth and the lowest 10% control only 2.6%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal#Economy)

It is true that most of Nepal's population do work on agriculture, on the other hand, the relations of agricultural production are not, in any way, feudal.

Land ownership in Nepal is concentrated in the hands of a few.
Other than the land owners, there is the agricultural workers, or the "landless laborers" in other words and there is the small land owners. Let's first look at the small landowners. First of all, the concentration index for agricultural land is 0.54 reflecting highly uneven distribution of farm land.Almost half of the holdings are of less than 0.5 ha size, and about 70 percent of landholding is less than of 1.0 ha size. There is something called the "public land" in Nepal which comprises 60 to 80 percent of very small holdings.
This is basically a mixture of state authority over land (for example, any oil found here belongs to the state) with agricultural cooperatives of small land owners. Cooperatives are completely common production methods today, and they are methods that are completely capitalist in relation to the way small land owning producers organized their production. The way cooperatives work is obvious: they put together the microscopic pieces of land owned by lots of produces together, turn most of the producers into the de facto proletarians and and create a small layer of cooperative bureaucrats who run the the land as if it was their property. As for agricultural proletarians, or fame wage-laborers, they are obviously workers, and obviously, since the land owned by the landowning elite is the most massive, and this group can not work all the land on it's own, it would be reasonable to say that most of the population involved with agriculture in Nepal are agricultural workers. (www.rrojasdatabank.org/wpover/sharma.pdf (http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/wpover/sharma.pdf))

Quite obviously, the agricultural products are commodities, they are processed in industry, and are serviced, they are even exported: obviously they are accumulated as well. They are produced to be sold, they are products of surplus value extracted in production, and the landowners operate agricultural production based on profit.

Now, the aim of the feudal landlord was not oriented towards economical but political aims. As capitalist forms of manufacture developed worldwide and trade in agricultural goods increases, landlords begun seeing themselves as businessmen who should aim at higher economic returns. Also political power came to seem to require economic strength, as much or more than aristocratic status. Obviously the agricultural relations in Nepal is no excuse.

Fundamentally, there is no basis whatsoever to say Nepal is feudal or semi-feudal. Saying that Nepal is "semi-feudal" is basically an ignorant approach which basis itself on two things: firstly on the importance of agriculture in Nepal, and secondly on Nepal being much less developed compared to the West. It both ignores the relations of production in Nepal, but more importantly ignores the significance of trade, the world market and it's impact in capitalism and sees every "nation" as completely different and isolated planets.

An example to Nepal's own, tiny imperialist interests that it pursues is the issue it has with India about the border and the 400 square kilometer dispute over the source of the Kalapani River. On the other hand, the issue is not about Nepal invading smaller countries, the question here is that Nepal is a part of world imperialism, and different factions of the Nepali bourgeoisie are pawns of bigger imperialist powers, and it's used in it's tiny way in in international disputes by bigger imperialist powers as well. Nepal has an army of the size of 95.000, and the Royal Nepal Army historically took part in WW1, Afghan War of 1919, WW2 Aand Hyderbad Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Army), which demonstrate it's role as a part of world imperialism and a pawn of certain imperialist powers.

[Rawthentic]

First of all, nobody is contesting the fact that nepal is a part of the world imperialist system. The problem lies in the fact that it is an imperialist oppressed nation.

No one here sees nepal as an isolated planet, i dont see any basis whatsoever for this ignorant comment.

Yes, there are industries, and you named the main ones? So? Where did I mention that nepal did not have industries, or a bourgeoisie, or a proletariat for that matter?

Anyways, Dr. Baburam Bhattaria, finance minister of nepal's federal democratic republic says:


There is no doubt that there is a majority of “owner-cultivators” who own small pieces of land and who work on their own land. However, as even those landlords who own hive than tens of hectares of land and have never stepped onto their farmland are enumerated as “owner-cultivators” according to the official agricultural census, it is impossible to believe that the number of “owner-cultivators” have increased from 60 percent in 1961 to 80 percent in 1971 (see Table-4). That is because in order to circumvent the tenancy law most of the landlords have made false declarations that they have been cultivating their own land and hence the numbers of “owner-cultivators” have been inflated. Similarly even now not only big landlords but also the middle peasants, because of various reasons (for example, because of physical disability due to illness or old age and engagement of other members of the family in other occupations etc.), have hired out lands to tenants for cultivation instead of cultivating themselves, but in government records they have been registered in the name of “owner-cultivators” instead of the tenants. From that point of view the figures provided in the report of a specialist from the FAO, according to which the number of “owner-cultivators” is 65 percent and land cultivated by them is 49 percent, may be accepted as being nearer to the truth (see, Table-5). Except those who cultivate their land through their own family labour, the rest either hire it out to the tenants or get cultivated by different forms of bonded labourers or waged labour. Because up till now the rights of the tenants have not been secured in the country and the number of unregistered tenants exceed far more than the registered tenants, it is not possible to make an estimation of the number of tenants and the amount of land tilled by them. According to the government based agricultural census conducted every decade from 1961 to 1991, the number of tenants as percentage of total cultivating households is shown to vary from a maximum of 40 to a minimum of 10 and the land tilled by them as a percentage of the total cultivable land is shown to vary from a maximum of 25 to a minimum of 6, which as mentioned above is clearly on the lower side. The report of the FAO representative shows the number of tenant households as 30 percent and the land cultivated by them as 24 percent; whereas according to other studies conducted by non-government organizations, the number of tenants are shown as 40 percent and the land tilled by them is shown as 30 percent. From our own practical experience, we feel the latter estimations are more nearer to the truth. By geographical differentiation, the ratio of “owner-cultivators” is higher in the Hill regions and that of “tenants” in Terai and Inner Terai, which is quite natural considering the availability of cultivable land and the pressure of population. According to the conditions of tenancy, nearly two-third of tenants till the land on share-cropping basis and the rest on fixed rent, either cash or kind, and other tenurial conditions. In share-cropping the tenants surrender half of their produce to the landowners, whereas in other parts of the world the tenants give away only one-third to one-sixth of the produce. Although the tenancy system exists under capitalist mode of production as well, however under Nepal’s tenancy system specially in the share-cropping system, tenants are forced to till other’s land for bare subsistence needs rather than to earn capitalistic profit, the rights of tenants are not secure, the rate of rent is high, the tenants are bonded to the landlord with the high interest on loans and other labour service conditions apart from the rent on land. Because of all these, this labour-relation is of a semi-feudal type and of a retrograde nature.

It is thus clear that the principal mode of surplus extraction in Nepali agriculture (and involving all sectors of economy) is the semi-feudal relation and the same relation plays the principal role in the underdevelopment and retrogation of the Nepalese agriculture (and by implication the whole economy). Apart from the owner-cultivators and the tenants, the remaining nearly 5 percent of the landlords use bonded labour and waged labour to cultivate the rest of 20 percent of land. Among them bonded labour system known as Harwa, Kamaiya, etc. exists in the central and western Terai region and a system of farming of land by seasonal waged labour exists in eastern Terai and areas around urban centres. The system of bonded labour whereby the labourers are kept under control as serfs and made to work in the land is a continued form of medieval feudal system and from that point of view this is the most primitive and retrograde labour relation existing in the Nepalese agriculture. Although the waged labour system is basically of a capitalistic nature, however in the case of Nepal its quantitative size is not only relatively quite small, but if one is to analyse it in depth, it will be difficult in most of the cases to accept it as progressive capitalist relation. This is because a majority of those who cultivate this way, do it not with the purpose of expanded reproduction of capital in the agriculture sector itself but do it either for subsistence in a small scale or for investing the agricultural surplus in trade or finance in the urban areas. As a result, this is not found playing any significant role in the development of the productive forces in agriculture. In totality although different labour relations exist in the Nepali agriculture, there is no doubt that the semi-feudal relation remains the principal and determining relation both qualitatively and quantitatively. Here it is necessary to be clear that although numerically the small owner-cultivators are in a majority, since they are tied with various economic and non-economic exploitative chains of the landlords, usurers and feudal tyrants, they are not “free” and have no independent social standing as it outwardly appears to be and they are forced to tow with the laws of the prevailing dominant semi-feudal relations of production.

Besides the ownership of land and labour-relation in the process of production, the characteristic reactionary role of the usury capital, too, has forced the Nepalese agriculture to get stuck to a semi-feudal state and has retarded the process of development. Peasants are usually in need of loan for production and consumption purposes. Taking undue advantage of this situation the feudal-usurers provide credits to the peasants at high interest rates and with oppressive conditions and by entrapping them in a vicious circle of indebtedness they enforce semi-feudal exploitation through interest and labour-service payments. This practice has been going on for a long time in the rural areas. In recent times, the centre of gravitation of this exploitation has been shifting gradually towards the merchant-usurers from the feudal-usurers, without in no way lessening the peasant’s oppression either in quantity or quality. Besides this traditional form of usury capital, for several decades hence the imperialist financial capital has entered into the agriculture sector in the form of bureaucratic capital with the backing of the state. The main vehicle of the bureaucratic capital is the Agriculture Development Bank, which injects imperialist financial capital into backward Nepalese agriculture sector at high interest rates (i.e., 19 percent). This represents 85 percent of the so-called institutional credit. However according to the recent rural credit survey conducted by the Nepal Rastra Bank, even now 80 percent of the rural credit is under the control of traditional usurers and institutional bureaucratic capital is able to snatch away only 20 percent as its share. According to the same survey, more than two-thirds of peasants are caught in the debt trap of “traditional” and “institutional” usurers and that the poor peasants are more depended on “traditional” usurers who charge double (in practice three or four times more) the interest rates than the “institutional” ones. Similarly if one is to analyse by purpose of the credits advanced by the Agriculture Development Bank, it is seen that instead of investing on such sectors like irrigation, etc. which would enhance the development of the productive forces, more is invested in such sectors like “agricultural marketing” which would make the Nepalese agriculture a mere appendage of world imperialism. This way it is clear that in the Nepalese agriculture new bureaucratic capitalist relations have been superimposed on the old semi-feudal relations, but instead of developing the productive forces in agriculture it has only made it distorted and dependent.
http://www.cpnm.org/worker/issue4/article_dr.baburam.htm

TABLE-5
Land Tenure Distribution After 'Land Reform'
Land Tenure % of Households % of Cultivated Area Average Size of Holding (hect.) Total HH HH with Land-Holding I WITH LAND-HOLDING 92.2 100.00 100.00 -- 1. Landlords 1.8 3.31 26.91 18.33 2. Owner-Cultivators 62.0 65.22 49.11 1.67 3. Owner-cum-Tenants 19.1 20.70 15.36 1.64 4. Tenant Cultivators 2.3 10.77 8.62 1.74 II LANDLESS 7.8 -- -- -- Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 -- Source: Zaman, M.A. (1973), op.cit.



I mean, I can post stats all day as well, but that isnt the point. The point is to show how the relations of production in nepal are feudal, not capitalist, and dr. bhattarai has done a swell job of that.



Also, 90% of the people live in rural areas in nepal, and the vast majority of these rely on subsistence farming, away from the cash flow!




Semi-feudal relations still play a significant role in the underdevelopment of Nepalese agriculture and economy of the country. Nearly two-thirds of those who are wholly tenants till the land on a sharecropping basis, with the rest operating on fixed rent, either cash or kind, and other tenurial arrangements. Most tenants are forced to till larger landowners' land and the surplus is not accumulated and reinvested as capitalist profit. They work for bare subsistence family needs. Further, the vulnerable people who gain access to some land can still be tied to landowners through usury and bonded labour conditions.

Capitalist production relations in Nepal are based on the appropriation of surplus labour employed as causal and wage labour. However, the number of people involved in capitalist production relations producing primarily for the markets is very small. The Golchha, Dugar, Chaudhary and Jyoti groups and some members of the royal family are a few examples of employers engaged in such relations. They manage big commercial farms and tea estates, grow off-season vegetables and run cut-flower businesses exclusively for the market, employing once, now displaced, occupational castes who are unable to earn their livelihood in their traditional occupations. In the terai, they also employ a large number of migrant Indian labourers who enter Nepal in the hope of illegally settling down.
http://www.india-seminar.com/2005/548/548%20arjun%20karki.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Really? What do you mean then? Feudal democracy? "Socialist" democracy under capitalism? What is the class-basis of your definition of democracy?

Although Comrade Rakunin has not responded yet (and you haven't responded to my previous post), I direct you to this (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8lPaSAnZg28C&dq):

“But much more important for Marxist thought is Aristotle's account in Books 3-6 of the Politics where he defines democracy as the rule of the poor over the rich whom they can outnumber in the Assembly. Demokratia is taken to be class rule rather than popular government, and demos is understood in the sense of the common people, not the whole of the people as Perikles, Demosthenes, and other Athenians preferred to believe.” (Mogens Herman Hansen)

You are correct in regards to the cultural problems with the English word. :(


There is almost no country in the world that is not in such a way democratic. Universal suffrage, free health care, free education

I think you have a highly economistic definition of "democracy" (don't worry, because unfortunately most claiming to be Marxists do, too :( ). Free health care and free education aren't related much to political democracy (even in its more participatory and then direct forms).


As for workers' control, under capitalism it's a desperate situation which occurs when the bosses leave a workplace that doesn't profit and workers remain there not to lose their jobs and try to run it themselves.

Funny, since in my new work I address this issue as a very radical demand for the modern era, something which is NOT addressed in this particular manner even by typical "left-of-capital" Marxist currents. :glare:

Here's my old work, too:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotsky-gotha-and-t87252/index.html


The encouragement of, and unconditional economic support (both technical and financial) for, worker buyouts of existing enterprises, particularly in light of the recent “occupied factory” movements.

[Leo]

First of all, nobody is contesting the fact that nepal is a part of the world imperialist system.

I am not sure about it.


The problem lies in the fact that it is an imperialist oppressed nation.

No it is not, no "nation" is imperialist oppressed. The ruling class, the bourgeoisie of every nation is a part of the imperialist system, thus not oppressed at all by it. Workers of every country are the ones who are "oppressed by imperialism" as you put it. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie have nothing in common neither in New York nor in Kathmandu.


No one here sees nepal as an isolated planet, i dont see any basis whatsoever for this ignorant comment.

You are only looking at the national conditions of Nepal, and national conditions of Nepal alone: you don't have a perspective of the historical development of world capitalism. Thus while saying that "of course Nepal is a part of imperialism" you can also see no problem in claiming that it is "semi-feudal". Only if you see it as an isolated planet can you claim that it is feudal in any way.

Now let's get to what this Nepali government official says:


Nepal’s tenancy system specially in the share-cropping system, tenants are forced to till other’s land for bare subsistence needs rather than to earn capitalistic profit, the rights of tenants are not secure, the rate of rent is high, the tenants are bonded to the landlord with the high interest on loans and other labour service conditions apart from the rent on land. Because of all these, this labour-relation is of a semi-feudal type and of a retrograde nature.

Then all sharecropping and cooperative farming in the world is "semi-feudal". Most tenants don't earn capitalistic profit anywhere. The line between 'peasants' who work for needs and who work for capitalist profit can drawn at people who own a piece of land that is runnable by their family, those people are the petty-bourgeoisie of agriculture. Tenants are not, they don't work for capitalist profit, that's exactly why they are tenants: them working for bare subsistence needs is exactly why they are tenants. This is a completely capitalist relation.

Now, according to this government official logic, all industries in the world are "of a semi-feudal type and of a retrograde nature". Because workers are forced to work in other’s factories for bare subsistence needs rather than to earn capitalistic profit.


It is thus clear that the principal mode of surplus extraction in Nepali agriculture (and involving all sectors of economy) is the semi-feudal relation

This person clearly doesn't have his terminology straight: extraction of surplus is something to do with capitalist accumulation, it can't be a "semi-feudal" relation in any way.


the remaining nearly 5 percent of the landlords use bonded labour and waged labour to cultivate the rest of 20 percent of land.

You need lots of workers to cultivate 20% of the countries land.


Peasants are usually in need of loan for production and consumption purposes.

Yeah, they are in most countries. That's why middle peasantry is considered a strata with no future, like the petty bourgeoisie.


Taking undue advantage of this situation the feudal-usurers provide credits to the peasants at high interest rates and with oppressive conditions and by entrapping them in a vicious circle of indebtedness they enforce semi-feudal exploitation through interest and labour-service payments.

So let's see what this person is saying: the "feudal-usurers" provide credits to peasants at high interest rates and by entrapping them in a circle of indebtedness they enforce "semi-feudal" exploitation through interest and labour-service payments.So apparently, these "feudal-usurers" enforce "semi-feudal" exploitation with completely capitalist financial mechanisms.


The main vehicle of the bureaucratic capital is the Agriculture Development Bank, which injects imperialist financial capital into backward Nepalese agriculture sector at high interest rates (i.e., 19 percent). This represents 85 percent of the so-called institutional credit. However according to the recent rural credit survey conducted by the Nepal Rastra Bank, even now 80 percent of the rural credit is under the control of traditional usurers and institutional bureaucratic capital is able to snatch away only 20 percent as its share.

Yeah, that's so "feudal", isn't it?

This person has a damn good reason for saying what he's saying: he is the same guy who says "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" and he needs to justify it, of course.

Obviously supporters of the Nepali maoist faction in the West are mostly people who know nothing about the way agricultural production works in most of the world, and don't really think about it as well, thus we have fellas like yourself quoting this official to prove that Nepal is semi-feudal.


Also, 90% of the people live in rural areas in nepal

It is 78% actually, not 90%.

Anyway, you haven't really responded to what i posted, and posted a rather irrelevant passage from a government official in Nepal who argues that sharecropping is a semi-feudal relation.


and you haven't responded to my previous post

There wasn't much to respond to if I recall correctly.


You are correct in regards to the cultural problems with the English word.

As your quote conveniently shows, it is not just about the English world and has got to do with the Greek origins of the word.


I think you have a highly economistic definition of "democracy"... Free health care and free education aren't related much to political democracy

I was responding to the other guy (Rakunin) who said they are related.

I don't have an economic or economistic definition of democracy at all: to me it is quite simply a bourgeois ideology, or even the bourgeois ideology perhaps, which, like all similar ruling class ideologies, basis itself on some real issues, and has it's roots in the historical pretensions of the bourgeoisie, but is fundamentally a false premise used constantly by the bourgeoisie in it's attempts to mobilize the working class for the interests of this or that bourgeois factions, it is the name of all that the bourgeoisie presents as good and reasonable.

[Die Neue Zeit]

“But much more important for Marxist thought is Aristotle's account in Books 3-6 of the Politics where he defines democracy as the rule of the poor over the rich whom they can outnumber in the Assembly. Demokratia is taken to be class rule rather than popular government, and demos is understood in the sense of the common people, not the whole of the people as Perikles, Demosthenes, and other Athenians preferred to believe.” (Mogens Herman Hansen)
As your quote conveniently shows, it is not just about the English word and has got to do with the Greek origins of the word.

You mean you oppose the Greek word specifically (demokratia) because it can denote some form of worker-and-petit-bourgeois populism? :confused:

If not, what's wrong with demokratia?

[Leo]

Actually I misread it, and thought the quote defines democracy in Greece as the rule of the rich over the poor instead of visa versa. My bad.

I was more thinking of Lenin's understanding of Greek democracy really: "Freedom in capitalist society always remains just about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners." It is after all well known that only adult male Athenians citizens who had completed their military training had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, children, women and resident foreigners. Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification. Athenian citizens had to be legitimately descended from citizens on both sides of the family, excluding the children of Athenian men and foreign women or Athenian women and foreign men.

[Rawthentic]

lol, I am sure you have a far better grasp on material conditions in Nepal than Dr.Bhattarai. Why would I claim otherwise? I mean, its not like he spent more than ten years in the rural areas fighting a war, or lived his whole life in Nepal. Nah, none of that.


No it is not, no "nation" is imperialist oppressed. The ruling class, the bourgeoisie of every nation is a part of the imperialist system, thus not oppressed at all by it. Workers of every country are the ones who are "oppressed by imperialism" as you put it. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie have nothing in common neither in New York nor in Kathmandu.
Wrong.

In imperialist-oppressed nations, meaning nations that are oppressed by imperialism, the vast majority of people have a stake in fighting imperialism and feudalism (the latter kept in place by the former). This is why even the national bourgeoisie, that is kept down by the comprador bourgeoisie and not allowed to grow or develop industrial capitalism, has objective interests in seeing a new Nepal. Of course, they cannot be the ones that lead the radical changes that are needed, which is why communist leadership exists.


You are only looking at the national conditions of Nepal, and national conditions of Nepal alone: you don't have a perspective of the historical development of world capitalism. Thus while saying that "of course Nepal is a part of imperialism" you can also see no problem in claiming that it is "semi-feudal". Only if you see it as an isolated planet can you claim that it is feudal in any way.
We are talking about Nepal. The very reason it is a feudal nation is because of its position in the world imperialist system. Do you think that the indian expansionists (backed by larger imperialist powers) have interests in seeing nepal develop industrial capitalism and end feudalism? Of course not. Imperialism keeps feudalism in place.


Then all sharecropping and cooperative farming in the world is "semi-feudal". Most tenants don't earn capitalistic profit anywhere. The line between 'peasants' who work for needs and who work for capitalist profit can drawn at people who own a piece of land that is runnable by their family, those people are the petty-bourgeoisie of agriculture. Tenants are not, they don't work for capitalist profit, that's exactly why they are tenants: them working for bare subsistence needs is exactly why they are tenants. This is a completely capitalist relation.
No.

Bonded labor is not a capitalist relation, thats what it comes down to. Proletarians are "free" in the sense that they are free to choose who shall exploit them.

Let me quote this article again:

Nepalese agrarian production relations can be broadly classified as peasant, semi-feudal and capitalist forms of production. Since the vast majority are peasants who own means of production such as land, farm animals and farm implements, peasant forms of production relation are central to understanding class relations and the political economy of Nepal. They are primarily ‘owner-cultivators', tenant and tenant-cum-owner cultivators who own small pieces of land, produce for their own consumption and depend largely on family or exchange labour, parma , within their own communities. However, in some cases they employ occasional and permanent labourers such as haliya , kamaiyas and haruwas . They maintain patron-client relationships with various occupational castes such as blacksmiths, tailors and sometimes shoemakers. The totally landless poor, whose number is small in rural Nepal, largely depend on wage labour, though tenancy and share cropping may also figure in their livelihoods.

Semi-feudal relations still play a significant role in the underdevelopment of Nepalese agriculture and economy of the country. Nearly two-thirds of those who are wholly tenants till the land on a sharecropping basis, with the rest operating on fixed rent, either cash or kind, and other tenurial arrangements. Most tenants are forced to till larger landowners' land and the surplus is not accumulated and reinvested as capitalist profit. They work for bare subsistence family needs. Further, the vulnerable people who gain access to some land can still be tied to landowners through usury and bonded labour conditions.
http://www.india-seminar.com/2005/548/548%20arjun%20karki.htm

According to the FAO Compendium of Food and Agricultural Indicators on Nepal (http://www.fao.org/es/ess/compendium_2006/pdf/NEP_ESS_E.pdf), 84% of the people in Nepal, live in the rural areas. Thats closer to my estimate, and to reality.


This person clearly doesn't have his terminology straight: extraction of surplus is something to do with capitalist accumulation, it can't be a "semi-feudal" relation in any way.
So, when a landlord demands and takes a surplus from a peasant or bonded-laborer's crop, this is capitalist relation huh?


You need lots of workers to cultivate 20% of the countries land.
Nice. Thats only 20% of the land. 80% still remains outside of that realm.


So let's see what this person is saying: the "feudal-usurers" provide credits to peasants at high interest rates and by entrapping them in a circle of indebtedness they enforce "semi-feudal" exploitation through interest and labour-service payments.So apparently, these "feudal-usurers" enforce "semi-feudal" exploitation with completely capitalist financial mechanisms.
Yes, this is what has been happening since feudalism came into existence! The method by which landlords and creditors (and the reason they were hated so) was because many times, if not all the time, the peasants or bonded laborers were forced into indebtedness, they had no choice! Those peasants need the credit, so the creditors give it at huge interest rates, thus tying the peasants down until they are able to pay it, which is usually, never.

In china, when peasants were going hungry, which was always, they asked for food from their landlord, and the landlord gave it, but not without interest and the obligation to pay it back. This is nothing new, and just reinforces this vicious cycle that peasants suffer.


This person has a damn good reason for saying what he's saying: he is the same guy who says "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" and he needs to justify it, of course.

Obviously supporters of the Nepali maoist faction in the West are mostly people who know nothing about the way agricultural production works in most of the world, and don't really think about it as well, thus we have fellas like yourself quoting this official to prove that Nepal is semi-feudal.

Do you understand the need for an "economic revolution" in nepal? Or what it is being used for?

Dont you think that if nepal threw out the foreign investors now in nepal, would lead to economic disaster? There is a choice and dichotomy (and contradiction ) here. Obviously nepal's primitive productive forces cannot stay the way they are. So, we can be romantics and declare that foreign investment is wrong and unprincipled for nepal, or we can be materialists and understand that foreign investment will be a path towards the development of national infrastructure. The workers can be exploited by what there is today, or by the new investors that will aid in nepal's development. Which option is in the interests of the workers and peasants?

This does not mean that foreign investment is to play a leading role, that it will or should dominate the national economy; on the contrary, it is there to serve it, and the NDR state needs to regulate that. Now, there are particular needs for foreign investment. In the soviet union, it was oil. In china, it was steel.

In Nepal, it is hydroelectric power, nepal's most precious and valuable natural resource. To develop it to a great capacity definitely requires that foreign investment.

Nepal needs (and wants) to find its place within the world system, but to do so, it will need to develop its hydro power.

India monopolizes (thru unfair treaties) this resource (rivers, dams, electricity) that leaves nepal starved for this main resource. Nepal is billions of rupees in debt due to this. See the things that are being contended with?

So when there is talk of foreign investment, bet your ass that it almost certainly has to do with hydro-power. Part of the plan is to have national electrification, most of the countryside does not enjoy this. Plus, it provides nepal with a great and huge source of income (or revenue not sure what the correct term to use is). It can sell this for foreign exchange.

Nepal has the second largest water resource potential in the world, of which only .5% has been tapped into!

This is all a part of the destruction of feudalism and imperialism in nepal that can clear the path for socialist development.

[Leo]

lol, I am sure you have a far better grasp on material conditions in Nepal than Dr.Bhattarai.Not necessarily a far better grasp, I'm sure the government official fella knows more about Nepal, I just have the international perspective of my class, the working class as opposed to his nationalist and nationally bounded bourgeois perspective.

He's basically defining sharecropping and tenant farming as "semi-feudal" relations, which is simply ridiculous.


In imperialist-oppressed nations, meaning nations that are oppressed by imperialismSo you say that the part of the "imperialist-oppressed nation" that is bourgeois is also oppressed by imperialism, while also not doubting that it is a part of imperialism.

I'll leave it to you to work out the contradictions there.


the vast majority of people have a stake in fighting imperialism and feudalismThere is no significant feudalism to fight anywhere, not even in Nepal. You haven't even tried to respond to the arguements regarding the capitalist nature of agricultural relations in Nepal.

As for fighting imperialism, that is world imperialism, a way of behavior of all bourgeois states, all proletarians have a stake in fighting against it in all countries, both in the US and in Nepal and in other countries, and the only way to fight against world imperialism is the internationalist proletarian struggle. No other class is capable of fighting world imperialism.


This is why even the national bourgeoisie, that is kept down by the comprador bourgeoisie and not allowed to grow or develop industrial capitalism, has objective interests in seeing a new Nepal.And there we see the true colors of the "glorious revolution" in Nepal. It is a faction fight between two rival bourgeois gangs, the "comprador" bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, and the workers are getting dragged in it and are tearing each others stomachs for the interests of their bosses. Those bourgeois factions are in reality both "comprador", and have no opposition to imperialism at all. The comments of that Maoist government official Doctor Bhattarai quite clearly verify what they think of the world market and what their stance towards world imperialism is: "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...."


Of course, they cannot be the ones that lead the radical changes that are needed, which is why communist leadership exists. A "communist" leadership "in favour of the capitalist economy", as the new prime minister assured their local and international business partners.


We are talking about Nepal. The very reason it is a feudal nation is because of its position in the world imperialist system. You don't understand a single thing about what feudalism is, do you?

No country that has a "place in the world imperialist system" can be feudal. The first thing about feudalism was that it was a system based on separate, individual territorial economies which interacted only to a limited extent and in which production was overwhelmingly based on internal dynamics. Now there is a world market, when there is world imperialism which national economies of today are part of, their production can't be anything but orientated towards that world market. The overwhelming dominance of that world market forces national production to be made in a mode fit for the needs of that market. There is no feudalism left when you say a country is a part of imperialism: what used to be feudal becomes bourgeois after that point.


No.

Bonded labor is not a capitalist relation, thats what it comes down to. Proletarians are "free" in the sense that they are free to choose who shall exploit them.You don't have a single clue what you are talking about here. You are completely misunderstanding what tenants are. A tenant farmer is one who resides on and farms land owned by a landlord. Tenant farming is an agricultural production system in which landowners contribute their land and often a measure of operating capital and management; while tenant farmers contribute their labor along with at times varying amounts of capital and management. Depending on the contract, tenants can make payments to the owner either of a fixed portion of the product, in cash or in a combination. Tenant farming is distinct from serfdom as in feudalism, where the land and the serfs were legally inseparable. Here there is a "contract" relation, it's just that it is in some cases a bad contract. This is exactly a capitalist relation, and a relation that is very common in numerous capitalist countries other than Nepal. In fact, this has always been one of the favorite agricultural systems of the capitalists: a significant example is how the African population was proletarianized in the 19th century during the colonization. In settler colonies of colonial Africa, sharecropping was a feature of the agricultural life. White farmers, who owned the land, were unable to work the whole of their farms for lack of capital. They therefore allowed black farmers to work the excess on a sharecropping basis.

The "unfreeness" of labor which sometimes takes place is not based on the way production relations necessarily work, but on desperate contracts being made with landowners because of poverty. Landless labor sign up for it willingly because of the conditions they are living in. This "unfree" labor relationship can be said to be similar to the conditions of some immigrant workers in US, which I hope you won't claim them to be feudal as well.


So, when a landlord demands and takes a surplus from a peasant or bonded-laborer's crop, this is capitalist relation huh? Depends on whether it is actually surplus or not. Obviously because the products are used for raw materials for industries as well as commodities to be sold, thus are traded locally and exported internationally, the surplus value is extracted for capital accumulation. This is a completely capitalist relation, and it determines the orientation of production as well.


Do you understand the need for an "economic revolution" in nepal? Or what it is being used for? I don't think there can be an economic revolution in any single country.


Dont you think that if nepal threw out the foreign investors now in nepal, would lead to economic disaster?Yes, that is exactly why your ideas on a "nation's liberation" from "imperialism" is impossible.


Obviously nepal's primitive productive forces cannot stay the way they are. So, we can be romantics and declare that foreign investment is wrong and unprincipled for nepal, or we can be materialists and understand that foreign investment will be a path towards the development of national infrastructure.But then again, according to your logic, that foreign investment, that dependency on imperialism will keep Nepal "feudal", won't it?

See to me, it's all very simple and there is nothing romantic. All these conflicts in Nepal about which some maoists in the west are so excited about was a bloody faction fighting between different bourgeois gangs, something i'm rather used to seeing, and nothing changed or will change in regards to the mode of production in Nepal which is capitalist, or in regards to it being a part of the world imperialist system. Now, it's imperialist masters might change, and if the Maoists reconcile with the other factions of the bourgeoisie they might manage to have some stability and have some very temporary and minor improvements, but then again the Nepali economic system is fully integrated into world economic system, and the world economic system is step by step approaching a major crisis so...


The workers can be exploited by what there is today, or by the new investors that will aid in nepal's development. Which option is in the interests of the workers and peasants?Actually, obviously there is investment in Nepal today, and the Maoists are as far as I understand first of all trying to prevent that investment from leaving.

Anyway, class struggle against whoever is their boss is in the interests of the working class.


This does not mean that foreign investment is to play a leading role, that it will or should dominate the national economy; on the contrary, it is there to serve it, and the NDR state needs to regulate that.Oh how many times I heard Turkish nationalists talk about foreign investment in exactly the same manner.

[Rawthentic]

leo:

I shall reply soon, most likely by tomorrow. But reply I shall, things will not be left like this.

[Rawthentic]

As for fighting imperialism, that is world imperialism, a way of behavior of all bourgeois states, all proletarians have a stake in fighting against it in all countries, both in the US and in Nepal and in other countries, and the only way to fight against world imperialism is the internationalist proletarian struggle. No other class is capable of fighting world imperialism.I agree.


And there we see the true colors of the "glorious revolution" in Nepal. It is a faction fight between two rival bourgeois gangs, the "comprador" bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, and the workers are getting dragged in it and are tearing each others stomachs for the interests of their bosses. Those bourgeois factions are in reality both "comprador", and have no opposition to imperialism at all. The comments of that Maoist government official Doctor Bhattarai quite clearly verify what they think of the world market and what their stance towards world imperialism is: "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...."No, the revolution in nepal is a struggle between two different class interests: that of the proletariat (led by the maoists) and the bourgeoisie (led by the other revisionist parties). The very reason that nepal is in such a "retarded" state in its production relations and productive forces is precisely because of the semi-feudal nature of nepal. That is why it is crucial for the radical overthrow of feudalism as to pave the road to socialism. How else can nepal develop? And, I already explained the nature of foreign investment in nepal, it has nearly everything to do with developing hydro-power.


A "communist" leadership "in favour of the capitalist economy", as the new prime minister assured their local and international business partners.the way in which Bhattarai formulates it is not altogether correct, and even the chairman, Prachanda, has disagreements with this. New democratic revolution is not a capitalist economy. This is precisely wrong (what you say) and has nothing to do with the reality of nepal. It is not about communists leading capitalist development, but about ending feudalism and imperialism to get to socialism.


You don't understand a single thing about what feudalism is, do you?

No country that has a "place in the world imperialist system" can be feudal. The first thing about feudalism was that it was a system based on separate, individual territorial economies which interacted only to a limited extent and in which production was overwhelmingly based on internal dynamics. Now there is a world market, when there is world imperialism which national economies of today are part of, their production can't be anything but orientated towards that world market. The overwhelming dominance of that world market forces national production to be made in a mode fit for the needs of that market. There is no feudalism left when you say a country is a part of imperialism: what used to be feudal becomes bourgeois after that point.The one who doesnt understand it here is yourself.

Your are basing this ignorant comment on the false notion that because the entire world is a part of the imperialist system (true) that capitalist cannot incorporate other modes of production. Lets take an example: a large part of the slave labor in the american south took part in cotton production. By this time (19th century) slavery was completely integrated into the capitalist mode of production. Does this mean that this was no longer slavery (feudalism) but in fact was capitalist? I think not.

Since capitalism's birth, it has always used, integrated, and subordinated other modes of production, as well as forms of robbery, and, as we can see, IT STILL DOES. Take a look at Marx on Vol. 1 of Capital (primitive accumulation) where he talks about accumulating capital in the first place by means of forced enclosure of common land and other methods.

Your idea that capitalist relations are defined by a contract comes right out of Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose." And capitalism does of course require wage labor and capital, and this doesnt mean that capital wont find profit out of unfree labor, but this dont make a peasant or slave a proletarian even if they have signed a contract.

You missed the point in Dr.Bhattarai's speech where he talks about how extortionate 19% interest rates cannot conceivably represent a rate of return on capital invested in 0.5 hectare holdings. Yet traditional usury at much higher rates remains the source of 80% of loans. This is impossible within a fully capitalist economy properly integrated with world imperialism in which capital is free to invest in areas with higher rates of surplus value.

As is clear, debt bondage does exist in nepal and is transitions between semi-feudalism and capitalism. The problem is that nepal has not completed this transition.

Mexican immigrants. Sure, they are a crucial part of american imperialism. But, this super exploitation and "unfree labor" amongst these immigrants and other oppressed nationalities can be scientifically referred to as "semi-feudal", as opposed to slavery or whatnot.

I dont particularly disagree with your arguments on capitalist tenancy, but it just simply doesnt correspond to nepali reality, where the majority of farming is based on semi-feudal subsistence, and where people live outside of the cash economy, the cash flow.

[Leo]

As for fighting imperialism, that is world imperialism, a way of behavior of all bourgeois states, all proletarians have a stake in fighting against it in all countries, both in the US and in Nepal and in other countries, and the only way to fight against world imperialism is the internationalist proletarian struggle. No other class is capable of fighting world imperialism.


I agree.

But you don't, really, do you? You just said that the national bourgeoisie can be capable with fighting imperialism, Mao too says something like that.


No, the revolution in nepal is a struggle between two different class interests: that of the proletariat (led by the maoists) and the bourgeoisie

But Maoists are bourgeois, they are clearly representatives of what you call the national bourgeoisie, their own comments clarify this very much. They not against anything regarding capitalism, neither relations with other capitalist states, nor foreign investment, nor local business, nor private property... they just want "national values" to be "respected".

And again, you said that "even the national bourgeoisie, that is kept down by the comprador bourgeoisie and not allowed to grow or develop industrial capitalism, has objective interests in seeing a new Nepal."

And of course you were saying just before that it was not between class interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, since it was against this vaguely defined "semi-feudalism" as well as supposedly being against imperialism.

So what we have is a "revolution" that is against feudalism, but since there is no feudal class or feudal mode of production, not against feudalism; that is against the bourgeoisie, but it is in the interests of a section of the bourgeoisie that is not against the bourgeoisie; that is against capitalism but since it's not against private property or capitalist exploitation that is not against capitalism; that is done just for the interests of the proletariat but since you claim the proletariat to be so small and Nepal to be a semi-feudal country, not done just or even for the interests of the proletarait; that is done against imperialism but that is desperate to find different imperialist allies and have imperialist direct investments in the country so that can't be against imperialism.

This is what you have been saying or agreeing to. Perhaps it is time for you to do some thinking on what you are saying and defending.


How else can nepal develop?

It can't develop in any other way except as a part of the international development established by the world proletariat building socialism, I'm afraid. That is the case for all countries, "first" world or "third" world. There can be no socialism in one country.


And, I already explained the nature of foreign investment in nepal, it has nearly everything to do with developing hydro-power.

I would like to see sources on whether it has "nearly everything" to do with hydro-power. I would say I'm "nearly certain" that it has got to do with lots of other things as well, Nepal is a small and thus a very dependent country.


the way in which Bhattarai formulates it is not altogether correct, and even the chairman, Prachanda, has disagreements with this.

Surprising, considering he is pro-private property himself. Perhaps we will soon see another vicious struggle for leadership between the two.


New democratic revolution is not a capitalist economy.

It is exactly a capitalist economy. The name itself gives it away.


It is not about communists leading capitalist development

I am not saying they are leading development actually. All I am saying is that they are a capitalist faction, just like the other ones.


Your are basing this ignorant comment on the false notion that because the entire world is a part of the imperialist system (true) that capitalist cannot incorporate other modes of production.

No, I am basing it on that capitalism became a world imperialist system because it expanded on the extra-capitalist markets, thus fundamentally replacing the previous modes of production. So I am saying that capitalism changed the mode of production, and thus the production relations by expanding, it was the expansion of the capitalist market that did the trick. Capitalism, since it overproduced for itself and the capitalist market itself was never enough for it, had to constantly expand it's market to other locations, it was like a hungry monster who, the more it ate, the more hungrier it got, until of the the whole world became that monsters stomach. Fundamentally I see this as the source of imperialism, not the other way around.


Lets take an example: a large part of the slave labor in the american south took part in cotton production. By this time (19th century) slavery was completely integrated into the capitalist mode of production. Does this mean that this was no longer slavery (feudalism) but in fact was capitalist? I think not.

Actually I would say that slavery wasn't integrated or orientated towards capitalism or the capitalist market at all. It was quite the contrary. The interests of the industrialists in the Northeast and even the farmers in the Midwest clashed with the interests of the plantation owners in the South tho where especially the Northern market had not managed to expand to or dominate. The southerner plantation owners did trade with the industrialists to a limited extent, and stayed in the "Union" (which was based on an unstable and distant alliance between different classes) but their production was not oriented even towards trading with and thus towards the interests of the local industrialists and farmers, let alone the world market. There was an economy mainly animated by internal dynamics. Indeed, the plantation owners were struggling against the development of industry and the market, which their opposition to the protective tariffs enacted to assist the growth of the manufacturing sector is an example of.


Since capitalism's birth, it has always used, integrated, and subordinated other modes of production, as well as forms of robbery, and, as we can see, IT STILL DOES. Take a look at Marx on Vol. 1 of Capital (primitive accumulation) where he talks about accumulating capital in the first place by means of forced enclosure of common land and other methods.

And in a nutshell, what I'm saying is firstly when they are integrated, they cease to be what they were because capitalisms expansion imposes it as an orientation of production and thus as a mode of production and as production relations and secondly this expansion ended when there was not a single piece of land to expand into, which resulted in the world war and in the rise of imperialism as a world epoch of capitalism and as a means of every "nation" to survive.


Your idea that capitalist relations are defined by a contract comes right out of Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose."

That's not what I'm arguing at all, that's exactly what you are arguing about ("unfree" labor necessarily being not capitalist and the "freedom to choose" the bosses). I was merely responding to what you were arguing.


You missed the point in Dr.Bhattarai's speech where he talks about how extortionate 19% interest rates cannot conceivably represent a rate of return on capital invested in 0.5 hectare holdings. Yet traditional usury at much higher rates remains the source of 80% of loans. This is impossible within a fully capitalist economy properly integrated with world imperialism in which capital is free to invest in areas with higher rates of surplus value.

No, it is something quite common in capitalism, on a more "industrial" rather than "agricultural" level, it is something done by banks instead of usurers (who still exist in most countries as well). It is a completely capitalist mechanism today, making money out of money, and indeed it has a name: finance capital.

Anyway, the 19% statistic, I didn't see that in the speech you posted, by itself it is not a meaningful figure though, is it 19% in what sort of period? What sort of an interest rate is it? All the government official guy was quoted saying is that the interests rates are high. This is hardly anything unique.


As is clear, debt bondage does exist in nepal

And you think there is a single country on earth where it doesn't exist?


Mexican immigrants. Sure, they are a crucial part of american imperialism. But, this super exploitation and "unfree labor" amongst these immigrants and other oppressed nationalities can be scientifically referred to as "semi-feudal", as opposed to slavery or whatnot.

I would refer it as capitalist exploitation, because, scientifically, that is what it is, just like how it is in Nepal.


I dont particularly disagree with your arguments on capitalist tenancy, but it just simply doesnt correspond to nepali reality, where the majority of farming is based on semi-feudal subsistence

You have yet to prove the "semi-feudal" thing, but tenant farmers do it for their subsistence everywhere, it is not a preferable thing to do at all otherwise in the overwhelming majority of the cases.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually I misread it, and thought the quote defines democracy in Greece as the rule of the rich over the poor instead of visa versa. My bad.

I was more thinking of Lenin's understanding of Greek democracy really: "Freedom in capitalist society always remains just about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners." It is after all well known that only adult male Athenians citizens who had completed their military training had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, children, women and resident foreigners. Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification. Athenian citizens had to be legitimately descended from citizens on both sides of the family, excluding the children of Athenian men and foreign women or Athenian women and foreign men.

Yeah, but he used the term proletarian democracy quite explicitly, didn't he?

I must say, though, that it is an inaccurate term compared to the contracted proletocracy. :D

[Rawthentic]

But Maoists are bourgeois, they are clearly representatives of what you call the national bourgeoisie, their own comments clarify this very much. They not against anything regarding capitalism, neither relations with other capitalist states, nor foreign investment, nor local business, nor private property... they just want "national values" to be "respected".

And again, you said that "even the national bourgeoisie, that is kept down by the comprador bourgeoisie and not allowed to grow or develop industrial capitalism, has objective interests in seeing a new Nepal."

And of course you were saying just before that it was not between class interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, since it was against this vaguely defined "semi-feudalism" as well as supposedly being against imperialism.

So what we have is a "revolution" that is against feudalism, but since there is no feudal class or feudal mode of production, not against feudalism; that is against the bourgeoisie, but it is in the interests of a section of the bourgeoisie that is not against the bourgeoisie; that is against capitalism but since it's not against private property or capitalist exploitation that is not against capitalism; that is done just for the interests of the proletariat but since you claim the proletariat to be so small and Nepal to be a semi-feudal country, not done just or even for the interests of the proletarait; that is done against imperialism but that is desperate to find different imperialist allies and have imperialist direct investments in the country so that can't be against imperialism.

This is what you have been saying or agreeing to. Perhaps it is time for you to do some thinking on what you are saying and defending.Listen, I dont think you are understanding what new democracy means, particularly in nepal's case.

Developing the national infrastructure is an important part of this whole process, it is absolutely necessary to do so as a part of paving the road to socialism. It is the elimination of feudalism that can then release the new productive forces that have been stunted due to the reactionary social relations and imperialism's role in that. But isnt just that. It is eliminating the above while incorporating and building on the socialist elements, such as peasant co-operatives, and the hydro power project.

The problem with you, and left communism in general, is that there is no "concrete analysis of concrete conditions" as Mao said. For you, the bourgeoisie in new york is the same as the bourgeoisie in kathmandu (!). First all, the bourgeoisie in the united states is an imperialist bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeois in nepal is a class that does have objective economic interests against imperialism and its lackeys in nepal, the comprador bourgeois.

So, there are bourgeois democratic tasks in nepal that in america have been completed long, long ago. But, can the bourgeoisie lead these needed changes? No, that is why the maoists in nepal (reps of the world proletarian revolution) are the only ones that can lead these massive changes in nepal. Bourgeois democratic tasks like the liberation of women from feudal relations, land to the tiller, elimination of the monarchy (and creation of democratic republic), basic health, education (and literacy), etc, etc.

The national bourgeoisie is not an imperialist class. If and when the maoists invite new foreign investment into nepal, it will not be on the old basis it was done under, but under conditions that are more favorable for the development of nepal.

Mao said in "On New Democracy":

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.


Such a revolution attacks imperialism at its very roots, and is therefore not tolerated but opposed by imperialism. However, it is favoured by socialism and supported by the land of socialism and the socialist international proletariat.


Therefore, such a revolution inevitably becomes part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution.
If that isnt clear i am sorry.


I would like to see sources on whether it has "nearly everything" to do with hydro-power. I would say I'm "nearly certain" that it has got to do with lots of other things as well, Nepal is a small and thus a very dependent country.
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/search/label/Natural%20Resource%20Economics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20sources%20on%20wheth er%20it%20has%20%22nearly%20everything%22%20to%20d o%20with%20hydro-power.%20I%20would%20say%20I%27m%20%22nearly%20cer tain%22%20that%20it%20has%20got%20to%20do%20with%2 0lots%20of%20other%20things%20as%20well,%20Nepal%2 0is%20a%20small%20and%20thus%20a%20very%20dependen t%20country.)

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/teach-in-politico-economic-rationale-of-peoples-war-in-nepal/

These are two very good sources, but, I mean, you can also refer to what i wrote a few posts ago about this and search www.southasiarev.wordpress.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.southasiarev.wordpress.com) and the internet in general it is there.

The most important resource nepal has is by far hydro power.


Actually I would say that slavery wasn't integrated or orientated towards capitalism or the capitalist market at all. It was quite the contrary. The interests of the industrialists in the Northeast and even the farmers in the Midwest clashed with the interests of the plantation owners in the South tho where especially the Northern market had not managed to expand to or dominate. The southerner plantation owners did trade with the industrialists to a limited extent, and stayed in the "Union" (which was based on an unstable and distant alliance between different classes) but their production was not oriented even towards trading with and thus towards the interests of the local industrialists and farmers, let alone the world market. There was an economy mainly animated by internal dynamics. Indeed, the plantation owners were struggling against the development of industry and the market, which their opposition to the protective tariffs enacted to assist the growth of the manufacturing sector is an example of.I still dont think you understand what happened.

The products of slave labor, such as tobacco, cotton, indigo, rum, lumber, and others, were increasingly sold as commodities, we know this (including the world market). Slave owners borrowed money from capitalist banks and put their funds in capitalist banks as well. Slave traffic was conducted by capitalist merchants and all kinds of capitalist concerns arose and prospered on that traffic. (John Locke famously invested money in a firm that transported slaves from Africa to the Americas.)

But, did that mean that the social relations within the plantations were capitalist?

You are correct to say that world capitalism has changed feudal like relations in agriculture into capitalist ones, but this is not uniform and definitely not absolute. It is true in india, and in many other places, but it doesnt mean that feudal relations do not exist in nepal's ghorka district or any other one.

The nepal maoists draw a line between feudalism and semi feudalism. The latter was a new appraisal after imperialism came to dominate the nations that where previously the former, thus creating new dynamics. Take tibet, for example, whose social relations were never really vastly transformed or impacted by european colonialism, as opposed to china which was (in some instances) directly led by foreign imperialist power (in some areas).

And there is a difference in nepal, which was never fully colonized, the british were never really able to take a hold over it, and thus maintained a feudal monarchy for such a long time (until the ppw began).

Maoists, or anybody calling himself a marxist, cannot deny that nepal is a fully integrated element of the world imperialist system. Its loans (and consequently its huge debt) comes from the imperialist finance system; the factories in the cities and rural areas are of course capitalist and tied to foreign interests (mainly india, which, with the backing of imperialist powers, dominates most of its main industries).

But, the feudal relations that still exist in the countryside cannot be denied either. In many of its highland areas, feudal relations take on the character of money lenders robbing the people and oppressor gangs killing and extorting the people (places where not too many landlords exist). In the lowlands, feudal relations are much more "classic"as is also the case in india's tea plantations.


You have yet to prove the "semi-feudal" thing, but tenant farmers do it for their subsistence everywhere, it is not a preferable thing to do at all otherwise in the overwhelming majority of the cases.
You dont get what i mean by "subsistence." This means that the people live OUTSIDE of the cash economy and flow, and rely on their crops for their living (and, as ive explained, are extorted and robbed). These are not capitalist relations at all.


Anyway, the 19% statistic, I didn't see that in the speech you posted, by itself it is not a meaningful figure though, is it 19% in what sort of period? What sort of an interest rate is it? All the government official guy was quoted saying is that the interests rates are high. This is hardly anything unique.
Its in the second link I posted, search for it.

Can you prove this otherwise?
:extortionate 19% interest rates cannot conceivably represent a rate of return on capital invested in 0.5 hectare holdings.

[Leo]

Developing the national infrastructure is an important part of this whole process, it is absolutely necessary to do so as a part of paving the road to socialism. It is the elimination of feudalism that can then release the new productive forces that have been stunted due to the reactionary social relations and imperialism's role in that. But isnt just that. It is eliminating the above while incorporating and building on the socialist elements, such as peasant co-operatives, and the hydro power project.

What you are talking as "socialist elements" are simply capitalist measures.


The problem with you, and left communism in general, is that there is no "concrete analysis of concrete conditions"

But there was a concrete analysis of the concrete conditions, and you completely ignored it, and you are still talking about "fighting feudalism" in Nepal without managing to support that there is a feudalism to fight with.


For you, the bourgeoisie in new york is the same as the bourgeoisie in kathmandu (!).

It is obviously not the same, since one is obviously the bourgeoisie in new york while the other is the bourgeoisie in kathmandu. Neither is better though, we don't pick our exploiters.


First all, the bourgeoisie in the united states is an imperialist bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeois in nepal is a class that does have objective economic interests against imperialism and its lackeys in nepal, the comprador bourgeois.

This is starting to get repetitious.

To this I had replied that ""And there we see the true colors of the "glorious revolution" in Nepal. It is a faction fight between two rival bourgeois gangs, the "comprador" bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, and the workers are getting dragged in it and are tearing each others stomachs for the interests of their bosses. Those bourgeois factions are in reality both "comprador", and have no opposition to imperialism at all.""


So, there are bourgeois democratic tasks in nepal that in america have been completed long

And when I say you see different countries as isolated planets, you say you don't see any basis for it. You are only looking at the national levels of development while completely ignoring the international development of the capitalist market and the impacts of this development.


that is why the maoists in nepal (reps of the world proletarian revolution)

It is ironic that you believe people who are not opposed to private property are "reps of the world revolution".

Would you say that a socialist in America who says "rest assured, we are not opposed to private property" is a "rep of the world revolution"?

Obviously you wouldn't.

Now, is it because the Nepali workers are so "backwards" that they are "unworthy" of the abolition of private property while the western workers can manage it themselves?

This is the oldie menshevik argument, turned upside down.

Don't take this personally, but beyond the vicious support for third-world nationalism of the western leftists, all I see is first world chauvinism.


Bourgeois democratic tasks like the liberation of women from feudal relations

What enslaves women is not "feudal relations", it is the patriarchal family which existed in all class societies. The only liberation of of women from patriarchy is through the destruction of world capitalism and abolishing of classes, nothing less.


land to the tiller

That is hardly a "bourgeois-democratic" task: in fact the capitalist agricultural production has always been based on this or that for of landless farmers, not giving land to the tillers.


, elimination of the monarchy (and creation of democratic republic)

Something purely formal, and not meaningful at all. None of the active monarchies in the world are what they used to be, they are not aristocratic classes anymore, they are basically "traditional symbols", figureheads if you will of "old values". They are not much different from the local equivalent of the "great leader" figure, which again is a capitalist one.

Now that is a relation that is fully integrated into capitalism, like the Queen of England.


basic health

Again, while calling this a "bourgeois-democratic" task, you completely missing the conditions which lead to the establishment of basic health care in other countries.

In any way, there can't be a capitalist country without basic health services (not necessarily in the welfare dept. but nevertheless) and Nepal is no exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Nepal


education (and literacy), etc, etc.

Literacy rate is around 50% in Nepal, which is not that high, but it's not like... feudalism either.


The national bourgeoisie is not an imperialist class.

It is as imperialist as what you call the comprador bourgeoisie. It has to be, otherwise it cannot survive.


If and when the maoists invite new foreign investment into nepal, it will not be on the old basis it was done under, but under conditions that are more favorable for the development of nepal.

First of all, they are trying to maintain the old basis it is done under at the moment, they are trying to prevent previously existing foreign direct investment from leaving, they want it to stay exactly the way it is.

Secondly, again, this rhetoric, I'm sure you believe it, and I've heard the exact things from Turkish nationalists so many times.

And when I come to think of it, the arguements of the Nepali Maoists are incredibly similar to the arguements of the "Workers'" Party in Turkey which is coming from Maoism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_(Turkey))


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

Enough said, all the rest is meaningless rhetoric about vague future "stages" from Mao who was nothing but a bourgeois nationalist.


(http://www.revleft.com/vb/I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20sources%20on%20wheth er%20it%20has%20%22nearly%20everything%22%20to%20d o%20with%20hydro-power.%20I%20would%20say%20I%27m%20%22nearly%20cer tain%22%20that%20it%20has%20got%20to%20do%20with%2 0lots%20of%20other%20things%20as%20well,%20Nepal%2 0is%20a%20small%20and%20thus%20a%20very%20dependen t%20country.) http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/search/label/Natural%20Resource%20Economics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20sources%20on%20wheth er%20it%20has%20%22nearly%20everything%22%20to%20d o%20with%20hydro-power.%20I%20would%20say%20I%27m%20%22nearly%20cer tain%22%20that%20it%20has%20got%20to%20do%20with%2 0lots%20of%20other%20things%20as%20well,%20Nepal%2 0is%20a%20small%20and%20thus%20a%20very%20dependen t%20country.)

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/20...-war-in-nepal/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/teach-in-politico-economic-rationale-of-peoples-war-in-nepal/)

These are two very good sources, but, I mean, you can also refer to what i wrote a few posts ago about this and search www.southasiarev.wordpress.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.southasiarev.wordpress.com) and the internet in general it is there.

The most important resource nepal has is by far hydro power.

That may be so, nevertheless they do import gold, machinery and equipment, petroleum products, fertilizer and export carpets, clothing, leather goods, jute goods, grain. All this come and go with investment necessarily.


The products of slave labor, such as tobacco, cotton, indigo, rum, lumber, and others, were increasingly sold as commodities, we know this (including the world market).

There obviously was trade, but it wasn't to an extent large enough for the production to be orientated accordingly to nevertheless. The basic orientation of the plantation-based production was based on two factors: expanding the plantations and the slave market, both purely internal dynamics feeding each other until they reached their natural limits, which obviously was bound to happen. Thus in a way it was a production relation with no future.


Slave traffic was conducted by capitalist merchants and all kinds of capitalist concerns arose and prospered on that traffic. (John Locke famously invested money in a firm that transported slaves from Africa to the Americas.)

Again, obviously it interacted with capitalism, but it was not based on fulfilling the needs of capitalism, and capitalism couldn't manage to "get in" until destroying that production relation. So while capitalists prospered in transporting slaves from Africa, the internal slave market was as capitalist as the Roman slave market, and the relations with capitalism in this regard was similar to and as limited as other countries trafficking slaves to Rome.


The nepal maoists draw a line between feudalism and semi feudalism.

Really, there is no such thing as "semi-feudalism", it is a meaningless phrase.


The latter was a new appraisal after imperialism came to dominate the nations that where previously the former, thus creating new dynamics.

Actually, it is quite dubious to say Nepal ever had a feudal mode of production as opposed to an Asiatic mode of production, but I don't wanna go in to that debate.

But regardless, there can be no semi-feudalism, because when the world market dominates, it changes the orientation of the way owners of the means of production want produce accordingly to. There can be no "half-way" integration: it is either an economy based on solely internal dynamics, or on the world market in which internal dynamics themselves are oriented towards and integerated into that world market. There can't be a "half-isolation".


feudal relations take on the character of money lenders robbing the people

Which is a completely capitalist relation.

Considering that feudal relations were based on serfdom, obviously you can't lend to serfs and rob them using interest rates.


and oppressor gangs killing and extorting the people

Uh, is this supposed to be something so outside capitalism?


You dont get what i mean by "subsistence." This means that the people live OUTSIDE of the cash economy and flow, and rely on their crops for their living (and, as ive explained, are extorted and robbed). These are not capitalist relations at all.

Tenants who rely on their crops and work for subsistence too is a capitalist relationship, and although in appearance they are outside the cash flow, in reality they are not, since their contract with the landlord, the share the landlord takes, what the crops they will grow will be, how much they are going to take are all completely dependent on the cash flow. Their share of the crops is practically the wage given by the landowner to them.


Its in the second link I posted, search for it.

Can you prove this otherwise?

I am not doubting what you are saying, I was saying that by itself it is not a meaningful figure though, is it 19% in what sort of period? What sort of an interest rate is it? Is it cumulative interest? Is it simple interest rate? Is it compounded interest rate? If so is it continuously compounded or not? Is it nominal interest rate of effective annual interest rate? Is that number with or without the inflation? Is that the average of different interest rates? On how much loan is this 19% put as an interest rate?

Interest rates are a very complicated subject, and simply a figure of 19% doesn't really tell anything by itself.

[Winter]

Subjective Forces Needed for Nepal’s Revolutionary Transformation (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/nepal-interview-the-indian-ruling-class-bahaves-with-big-brother-arrogance/)

Posted by n3wday on September 6, 2008
http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cpn-flag-fist.jpg?w=300&h=195 (http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cpn-flag-fist.jpg)
Interview with Mohan “‘Kiran” Baidya (a senior leader of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist)
“In this critical situation, it is necessary to analyse how to fulfill the strategies of the Peoples Republic and what the tactics will be to reach the destination…
“The objective situation for revolutionary transformation is very suitable. However, there are not subjective forces suitable to identify and handle the contradictions correctly…. Analysing the situation to this point, the traditional and status quo forces will be against the constitution written according to the aspirations of the people.”
“.…the responsibility to write a new constitution in upon our shoulders. The responsibility of political, social, economic and cultural change is also upon us….
“The present government is an interim government. The transitional period is being prolonged. Foreign intervention is not only in rather the sectors afore mentioned; it is in the politics, economy, society, culture and others.”
* * * * *

This interview was first published in the Nepali Maoist English-language newspaper Red Star (http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue14/interview-kiran.htm). Its original title was: The Indian ruling class behaves with ‘big brother’ arrogance.“

How do you analyse the present political situation of the country?

The situation of the country is still in the condition of semi-feudal and semi-colonial. There is still the existence of feudal bureaucrat and comprador bourgeoisie in the country, and there still is the necessity of political, economic, social, and cultural change.

In this transitional period, the new government has been formed under the leadership of our party. People are expecting many things from our party.
On the other hand, how does the government work when it is not fully formed? It is good news that our party became the largest party in the Constituent Assembly (CA); however the formation of a coalition government has been necessary according to the mandate of the people. How the political development will move ahead is still uncertain.
In this critical situation, it is necessary to analyse how to fulfil the strategies of the Peoples Republic and what the tactics will be to reach the destination. We are advancing through these types of situations.
From the point of view of revolution and entire transformation, there are many more contradictions. The objective situation for revolutionary transformation is very suitable. However, there are not subjective forces suitable to identify and handle the contradictions correctly. We can advance ahead only after we are able to unite the people and lead them ahead correctly. There is still a struggle between the progressives and the status quo.

Is the obstacle to forming the government only in power sharing or are there other reasons behind it?

The ideological differences are clear in themselves. Along with this, technical problems exist. The technical problems are related to power sharing. These two things are obstacles in the way of forming the government and of progress.

How much possibility is there to run the government with the MJF if the CPN-UML is not involved?

This is a very complex situation. We held many debates and discussions with the CPN-UML. However, their central committee has taken a decision for the second post of Prime Minister. They will not be involved in the government if we do not agree with their decisions. We will discuss this issue in our party meeting. We will think about it because we have to create an environment of consensus. We are always ready to run the government with the CPN-UML. I think it is impossible to run the government only with the MJF, without the participation of the UML.

There are still problems left after giving full shape to the government because every political party has its own ideology and destination. How will the government be able to write a new constitution addressing the mandate of the People?

Analysing the situation to this point, the traditional and status quo forces will be against the constitution written according to the aspirations of the people. The task of forming the government is still incomplete and there is still debate and bargaining. A convincing environment and basics have not yet been created. If a convincing political situation is created, there is the possibility to create a new constitution, otherwise it will be difficult.

The political parties have different opinions about writing the constitution. The clear reflection of differences was clearly seen in the struggle over power sharing. New opinions have not yet been fully victorious and the old opinions have not been fully defeated. Compromise is still necessary in this situation. However, the result of the compromise is not so satisfactory. Our effort to create a new constitution will be forever.

There is a dispute over the PM’s visit to China. Is the visit to China breaking with tradition, of the traditional first visit to India?

The diplomatic relations between the two neighbours remains the same as it was before. And also, no difference will take place in the diplomatic relationship with other foreign countries. Foreign diplomatic relationship will be on the basis of co existence, equality, and the five principles.

We are behaving responsibly with our neighbours from the perspective of good neighbours. We want to make a relationship of equal-distance. So far, as our party chairman and PM Com Prachanda’s first visit to China is concerned, the reason for his visit is the Olympic Games. The issue of tradition and traditional legacy has been raised. Here, we want to make clear that the decision about the visit of the head of any government will be taken by his own-country or by the government itself. No other country needs to direct or decide.

Decision making rights are in the hand of the Nepalese people. The priority of the visit is also the priority of the head of the state. Intervention has been concealed within dependency. This visit is in the interests of the Nepalese people, though the chance has come coincidentally.

What is the real reason behind India’s desire for a special bilateral relationship?

The India ruling class has always seen Nepal and the Nepalese through the eye of big brother arrogance.

There are so many reasons hidden behind this opinion. There is a series of unequal treaties since the Sugauli treaty, which we want to review and make new treaties based on equality. It is a false opinion of India to take such ideas to guide: If India adapts the norms and values of democracy, accepts the sovereignty,

independence, and regional integrity, India should be serious on this issue. Therese types of expression are even against diplomatic norms. Another thing, Nepalese rulers have always bowed down before Indian rulers to get power in Nepal, and begged their blessings to be in power.

A question raised has been about the handling of party and government in your party. In the party document, “Democracy in the 21st century’ there is a clear view that the party should handle the government. But now, the party leadership is in the government. How will you manage to implement the very decisions of the document?

The views expressed in ‘Democracy in the 21st century’ are the principle views to be implemented after the whole country becomes a People’s Republic. Now, it is not applicable in this political situation.
The second thing is that the responsibility to write a new constitution in upon our shoulders. The responsibility of political, social, economic and cultural change is also upon us. In this situation, we went to the government to carry the peace process and the task of writing the constitution ahead towards the logical end. Along with it, we are of the opinion that the spirit of the document about the relations of party and government should be implemented. If we cannot follow it, this will be a principal mistake.

The party is party, and government is government, the party directs the government but the government does not direct the party. The government should be under the control of party. We will take a decision about it in our Central Committee meeting.

The people and the cadres of most of the parties complain that even the big parties have no plan to address the issue of nationality. Has the CPN Maoist any policy and plan to address the question of nationality?


Yes, the question of nationality is now critical. We cannot say that what we can do immediately.

Some burning issues such as border encroachment, the breaking down of barrages, such as the recent Koshi barrage, and unequal treaties stand before us.

The present government is an interim government. The transitional period is being prolonged. Foreign intervention is not only in rather the sectors afore mentioned; it is in the politics, economy, society, culture and others. We are aware of these actions. It will not be acceptable for us if any foreign intervention is applied in our conception of security defence and natural resources, especially water. We have to talk about these all with our partners in the government, and the parties that are revolutionary, progressive, and patriotic. We have publicised a Common Minimum Programme. The question of nationality is top priority

[Guerrilla22]

How can the German be interested in the emancipation of the Jew if the Jew is not interested in the emancipation of the German?

[Die Neue Zeit]

WTF does Marx's On the Jewish Question have to do with this thread? :confused:

[Vargha Poralli]

^^^ Surprised you can't understand the analogy in that post.That has nothing to do with Jewish Question.

Overall there is no feudalism in any part of south Asia to begin with. It has been eradicated both by the British Colonialism and subsequent rise of indigenious capitalist class which waters down most of hatalavictoria's arguments.



Thus, Nepal does not even have an economy that is based on agriculture for you to be able to call it a "semi-feudal" system.

Good work with those statistics.:)

[Guerrilla22]

WTF does Marx's On the Jewish Question have to do with this thread? :confused:

My point was, that one nation likely won't support the liberation of another nation if the latter is only interested in the liberation of itself and not the prior as well. Liberation has to occur on the universal level, not just the national level.