Nepal: Class struggle in the factories

[Rawthentic]

Nepal: Class struggle in the factories (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/nepal-class-struggle-in-the-factories/)

Posted by n3wday on September 4, 2008
http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/red-rally-katmandu.jpg?w=300&h=211 (http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/red-rally-katmandu.jpg)

This article was published on Neil’s Nepal.
(http://neilsnepal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/maoists-shut-down-dabur-factory-in-nepal/)

Maoists shut down Dabur factory in Nepal

Kathmandu: Even as Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal sought more foreign investment and assured full security to industries, Maoists on Tuesday forced the closure of Indian ayurvedic giant Dabur’s subsidiary in Nepal.
After stopping the Dabur-sponsored annual beauty pageant a few weeks ago, the Maoists-affiliated All Nepal Trade Union Federation Revolutionary on Monday forced shut, indefinitely, Dabur’s main factory in Bara district, 250 km south of Kathmandu.


The union is demanding 10 per cent bonus for the workers and other benefits. The closure has jeopardised employment of over 700 people.

The management’s approach to Labour Minister and Maoist leader Lekhraj Bhatta and ANTUFR’s president and lawmaker Shalikram Jamarkattel failed to yield any result. Addressing a meeting in Kathmandu, senior Maoist leader Khim Lal Devkota on Tuesday said: “It is futile to talk about industrial security until the workers’ rights and welfare are guaranteed.” — PTI

[Sendo]

It's hard to be pessimistic about Nepal when I hear about electoral victories and class struggle.

[Hiero]

And I thought these guys were reformists.

[Bilan]

Please, don't spam this thread.

---

Interesting, I'd like to hear more.



It's hard to be pessimistic about Nepal when I hear about electoral victories and class struggle.

Well, yeah, if you consider electoral victories the road to socialism, indeed.



And I thought these guys were reformists.

Reformists can, and do, go on strike.
See this:

“It is futile to talk about industrial security until the workers’ rights and welfare are guaranteed.”

That is reformism, if you realize and know (which you do) that the goal of the Nepalese Maoists is capitalism.

See this:

The union is demanding 10 per cent bonus for the workers and other benefits.

Reformism.

[Hiero]

The election and strikes are tactics in a larger revolutionary struggle.


That is reformism, if you realize and know (which you do) that the goal of the Nepalese Maoists is capitalism.

Capitalism is still growing in Nepal. Just because the Maoist haven't created peasant socialism doesn't mean their main goal is to maintain a capitalist system. Trying to socialise undeveloped industry and country and isolate it from the rest of the world is a huge error, something similar to what happened to Democractic Kampuchea.

[Bilan]

The election and strikes are tactics in a larger revolutionary struggle.

Of course, I wasn't denying that. The latter is a main tactic of anarcho-syndicalists, and the former (Clearly isn't), but they are not, in themselves, revolutionary. That was my point.




Capitalism is still growing in Nepal. Just because the Maoist haven't created peasant socialism doesn't mean their main goal is to maintain a capitalist system. Trying to socialise undeveloped industry and country and isolate it from the rest of the world is a huge error, something similar to what happened to Democractic Kampuchea.

Hang on a tick, I didn't say it was long term goal, I said it was their goal for now. There's no point in disputing that, as you and I both know that's true.

[Sendo]

I never said that Nepal had achieved some socialist revolution. But what's going on right now, in a country like Nepal, with no socialist states to give it support, is very good, compared to what could be going on. Everything seems to be improving the quality of life. I don't hope to see some drawn out road to socialism via capitalism. I hope to see things accelerate and am pretty pleased with the direction they're going in. Compared that to the USA right now.

I need something besides Cuba to be happy about in the world.

[spice756]

Originally Posted by Hiero
The election and strikes are tactics in a larger revolutionary struggle.
Of course, I wasn't denying that. The latter is a main tactic of anarcho-syndicalists, and the former (Clearly isn't), but they are not, in themselves, revolutionary. That was my point.



Are you saying the Maoists don't have eough members to take over the state ?And are just ally with the capitalists? Demanding unions and better pay?

The Maoists look militant!! Or is this part of the tactics to infiltrate government and businesses with out violence? So when the time is right they will take over?

[Rawthentic]

The maoist's goal as of now is not to create capitalism, but to create new democracy (as opposed to bourgeois democracy). Developing the national infrastructure is a part of the program, but so is "land to the tiller", developing hydro-power, etc. NDR is about defeating feudalism and imperialism to pave the way to socialism, with communist leadership. The communists need to complete bourgeois democratic tasks, things that no longer can be led y the bourgeoisie.

Do people here know what the maoist theory of new democratic revolution is?

[Saorsa]

An immediate transition to socialism from the semi-feudla, extremely backward state Nepal is currently in will result in nothing but poverty and suffering and can only occur in the heads of idealists. The only thing the Nepali people have to share right now is their poverty - the Maoists are taking the correct approach.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think the current situation of Nepal in some ways is similar to Russia after the civil war. Nepal just like russia will need to use capitalism in order to build some infrastructure so they can later on actually nationalize an existing industry.

The question remains on how they plan to do this.

[spice756]

An immediate transition to socialism from the semi-feudla, extremely backward state Nepal is currently in will result in nothing but poverty and suffering and can only occur in the heads of idealists. The only thing the Nepali people have to share right now is their poverty - the Maoists are taking the correct approach.

Who is going to invest money to have industrial revolution ?If it is the US they own the means of production.Just try to take over their factory they would take away the tools and machine needed for production.And no country in the world is self efficient even Cuba.All countries are interconnected with trade and production.

I think you are critical of socialism in one country.Well may be the bigger countries can do it more than the smaller countries .

[cyu]

If it is the US they own the means of production.Just try to take over their factory they would take away the tools and machine needed for production.

If the tools and machines are already in Nepal, how are the "capitalists" going to take them away? The capitalist isn't personally going to be carrying anything - he has to hire other people to do it for him. So the capitalist requires two things: right-wing pro-capitalist grunts that will carry away the tools and machines (I presume they won't be returning to Nepal, because why would they destroy their own economy, then try to live in it?) and they need the force of arms to prevent anybody from stopping them (perhaps they are sending in their own army). Neither of these two requirements are easy to accomplish without some shady dealings.

However, what you say is true of future tools and machines coming into the country. What wealthy capitalist will invest in an anti-capitalist Nepal now? But then again, they already weren't investing in Nepal before the communists took power, so it's no big deal. The main difference now is that what the people of Nepal are producing can be used for their own development, rather than the development of their royal family or former ruling class.

For more information on capital flight, see this article: http://www.infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html

[spice756]

If the tools and machines are already in Nepal, how are the "capitalists" going to take them away? The capitalist isn't personally going to be carrying anything - he has to hire other people to do it for him. So the capitalist requires two things: right-wing pro-capitalist grunts that will carry away the tools and machines (I presume they won't be returning to Nepal, because why would they destroy their own economy, then try to live in it?) and they need the force of arms to prevent anybody from stopping them (perhaps they are sending in their own army). Neither of these two requirements are easy to accomplish without some shady dealings.


The capitalists have private ownership and own the tools and machines not the working class.If a revolution happen they would have to take over the industries before the capitalists remove or destroy the tools and machines .And most countries private ownership is protected under law.The police and army will fight to protected the private ownership .




However, what you say is true of future tools and machines coming into the country. What wealthy capitalist will invest in an anti-capitalist Nepal now?


Why would capitalists industries a country with the Maoists fighters there?So later on they take over and put the capitalists in jail?

[Q]

Maoists shut down Dabur factory in Nepal...

Kathmandu: Even as Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal sought more foreign investment and assured full security to industries...

Maoists on Tuesday forced the closure of Indian ayurvedic giant Dabur’s subsidiary in Nepal...

After stopping the Dabur-sponsored annual beauty pageant a few weeks ago, the Maoists-affiliated All Nepal Trade Union Federation Revolutionary on Monday forced shut, indefinitely, Dabur’s main factory in Bara district, 250 km south of Kathmandu.

The union is demanding 10 per cent bonus for the workers and other benefits. The closure has jeopardised employment of over 700 people.

(emphasis by me)

Two points:
1. Pushpa Kamal Dahal is one of the Maoists, why on Earth is he looking for foreign investment? (i.e.: imperialist intervention).
2. How is closing a factory, indefinantly, jeopordising the employment of over 700 people a good thing?

And where is workers control? Workers democracy? An end to capitalism?
Oh wait... The classical two-stages theory takes effect of course: first they want to develop capitalism before moving on towards socialism.

Sigh...

[Saorsa]

1. Pushpa Kamal Dahal is one of the Maoists, why on Earth is he looking for foreign investment? (i.e.: imperialist intervention).

Because it's kinda hard to build socialism in a country where you're biggest industry is carpet making, you're industrial working class is tiny and your level of infrastructure and development is a joke. The Maoists are intending to unleash the productive forces of capitalism to eliminate feudalism (just as the Bolsheviks did with the NEP), while simultaneously building and maintaining mass popular movements and laying the seeds of socialism, in state projects, peasant communes etc


2. How is closing a factory, indefinantly, jeopordising the employment of over 700 people a good thing?

:lol:

What is wrong with you? Are you seriously willing to stoop to such depths of stupidity to slander the Maoist revolutionaries? This is a capitalist source reporting on an industrial action taken by a radical, Maoist-affiliated union, so of course they're going to paint it in terms like this and use phrases like this. I would have thought any communist over the age of three would be able to see through that, but obviously not...

Every strike "jeapordises employment". That's what a strike is, the withdrawal of workers labour-power in order to pressure the bosses into conceding better terms and conditions. How difficult is this to understand?


And where is workers control? Workers democracy? An end to capitalism?

They havn't even gotten rid of feudalism yet, don't you think your being a wee bit hasty? Stop being such an ultra"left"ist.


The classical two-stages theory takes effect of course: first they want to develop capitalism before moving on towards socialism.

You mean like the Bolsheviks did? You mean like they have to in order to develop the productive forces to the point where there is an economy worth planning? Seek truth from facts, analyse the objective conditions and decide upon your subjective course of action accordingly. Don't be an idealist who starts with a position of "this is what I want to happen" and forces it down the throat of reality.

[cyu]

The capitalists have private ownership and own the tools and machines not the working class.If a revolution happen they would have to take over the industries before the capitalists remove or destroy the tools and machines .

If a revolution happens, one would assume most people support the revolutionaries. If most people support the revolutionaries, then those who try to remove / destroy tools and machines will be putting themselves at risk. The greater the percentage of people who support the revolution, the more likely those who try to remove / destroy machines will be at risk.

If I were a rich capitalist, I certainly wouldn't put myself at personal risk - I'd just pack my bags and leave the country. The only people a rich capitalist would put in personal risk would be his hired goons.



And most countries private ownership is protected under law.The police and army will fight to protected the private ownership .


This would not be true if an anti-capitalist revolution happened.

[Q]

Because it's kinda hard to build socialism in a country where you're biggest industry is carpet making, you're industrial working class is tiny and your level of infrastructure and development is a joke. The Maoists are intending to unleash the productive forces of capitalism to eliminate feudalism (just as the Bolsheviks did with the NEP), while simultaneously building and maintaining mass popular movements and laying the seeds of socialism, in state projects, peasant communes etc
The Bolsheviks instituted a monopoly on trade, but never relied on foreign investment.


They havn't even gotten rid of feudalism yet, don't you think your being a wee bit hasty? Stop being such an ultra"left"ist.
Stop being such an anti-Marxist. Your mechanical thinking of history is reactionary and serving the bourgeoisie. Comparing this to Lenin's NEP is ridiculous.


You mean like the Bolsheviks did? You mean like they have to in order to develop the productive forces to the point where there is an economy worth planning? Seek truth from facts, analyse the objective conditions and decide upon your subjective course of action accordingly. Don't be an idealist who starts with a position of "this is what I want to happen" and forces it down the throat of reality.
The Bolsheviks did nothing of the sort, they rejected the two-stages theory years before the October revolution and embraced the theory of Permanent Revolution instead, which was totally borne out in consequent historical events. It was under Stalin, seeking a theoretical base for his bureaucratic counter-revolution that the two-stages theory became popular again.

Also, your arrogance reveals a clear tendency of the myth of "revolution from above": you know what is best for people, hence democracy from below becomes useless (hell, why even be democratic anyway?). In practice Maoists (and Stalinists for that matter) only seek to derail the movement in their own selfish gains.