Quotations from Chairman Prachanda

[Prairie Fire]

Okay,

It's the general HU outlook that Mao (and by extension, Maoism) is not Marxist-Leninist.

Here are a few pearls from the leader of the CPN(Maoist), now the prime minister of Nepal, Prachanda. These postions have infuriated me so much,that I feel a need to re-post them.

You be the judge.




http://www.nepalnews.com/today/frontpic/2007/feb/feb_13_07_prachanda_a.jpg

Quotations from Chairman Prachanda

On abolition of private property, in favour of public property:

"We do not believe that private property should be abolished."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

On the integration of the bourgeois army with the PLA:

-"...As long as everyone including the army, the
police and the other officials remain committed to the people's mandate on democracy, peace and change, no one needs to feel insecure..."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

-"I never showed such distrust. I never wanted to show any bit of
distrust towards NA (Gyanendras former troops) or police or PLA or armed police."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

On Parliamentary realpolitik:

-"But in course of advancing my
cause, I might have made compromises and come closer to one or another at different times. But there was never any conspiracy there."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

On smashing the bourgeois parliamentary system:

-"We will definitely attempt to establish a People's Republic by
institutionalizing democratic republic and through the legitimate means like elections. "
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

-"Our minimum, bottom line is the election of a constituent assembly, that too under international supervision, either by the United Nations or some other international mediation acceptable to all."
- Interview with The Hindu, February 8, 9, and 10, 2006

-"We have concluded that socialism without multiparty competition and political freedoms cannot survive."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

-"I believe our party will win majority, even two-thirds
majority in the next election. Then, our government will continue for
another five years."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03


On denouncing metaphysical ideas:

-"Communism is something like a heaven where there is neither a class nor a state nor an army."-
Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

On Party responsibilities:

-"Certainly since I will not be able to devote adequate time and energy for the party after becoming the PM, other comrades will have to take more responsibility"
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

On wresting political power from the Bourgeoisie:

- "We will go for the goal of the people's democracy through peaceful means. Today, we are talking of a democratic republic and our understanding with the parties is that the way to realise this is the constituent assembly."
- Interview with The Hindu, February 8, 9, and 10, 2006

On urging Indian Maoists adopting parliamentary democracy:

-"We believe(multiparty democractic participation) applies to them too. We want to debate this. They have to understand this and go down this route. Both on the questions of leadership and on multiparty democracy, or rather multiparty competition, those who call themselves revolutionaries in India need to think about these issues. And there is a need to go in the direction of that practice.
- Interview with The Hindu, February 8, 9, and 10, 2006

[Rawthentic]

I'm no phased at all by any of this; no marxist should.

Nepal is going through a very protracted and complex process of social transformation, that should not be viewed through the narrow lens that you are.

And the way you framed those last two quotes are bullshit. The second to last one is about transforming the current democratic republic into a people's republic, since the maoists are right now leading the government.

The second quote is not telling the indian maoists to stop their war, but to adopt multi party democracy within socialism. I am not endorsing this view, and I am not a cheer leader of the nepalese revolution, but it is more important to understand why the maoists do what they do, than to take quotes out of context of nepali reality.

Most people that read this will be like "what the fuck"! Because they dont understand maoism (neither do you) or what is occurring in nepal and what can be done for it to move forward.

[Winter]

We will wait and see how things turn out in Nepal. What a lot of people fail to do is to examine the situation and conditions Nepal is in. Of course, without this knowledge, these random quotes would cause any Marxist to reply with a big "WTF?"

All we can do is wait and see. I'm not here to defend everything Prachanda may say, but also I am not going to jump to conclusions.

[Rawthentic]

Winter:

I agree.

Of course the maoists right now are not against private property. How could they? In the countryside, the process of "land to the tiller" eliminates feudal relations in agriculture and creates new capitalist ones (because the process gives private plots to peasants, and this then leads to co-ops and communes). What if the maoists began to abolish all private property at this moment? Dont people see how much of a disaster that would be?

There is a need to develop the national infrastructure that has been kept down and dominated by india and other foreign imperialist powers.

What is wrong with compromising as long as you dont compromise strategy or principles? The maoists have maintained that their goal is the creation of new democracy, socialism, and, ultimately, communism.

The maoists bring important lessons for today's communist movement in that they have broken from dogmatic thinking and the use of outdated verdicts. Why are the maoists wrong? is it because what they are doing does not conform to what marx, lenin, or mao said or did in the past? Should we strive to do what they said, or should we strive to creatively apply marxism to the concrete conditions of a given place?

I think it is wrong to judge nepal and the maobadi based on past revolutionary experiences, and act as if that is how things must be done. Lenin broke with marx with the russian revolution, mao broke with lenin and marx during the chinese revolution, and the nepalese are creating their own revolution, based on their own particularities and conditions. This doesnt mean that they are breaking with marxism, on the contrary, they are continuing its scientific and critical spirit. To attempt and "recreate" old revolutions because "that is how lenin did it" would be anti-marxist (and im sure lenin would not be too happy about that either).

[Dimentio]

Chavéz got to power on a platform of privatisation.

Wait some years. Most likely, he's just air. But don't judge him for his words, but for his deeds.

[leftist manson]

Most people that read this will be like "what the fuck"! Because they dont understand maoism (neither do you) or what is occurring in nepal and what can be done for it to move forward.
Thankyou:)

[Prairie Fire]

And the way you framed those last two quotes are bullshit


How so? Often I put a title that was contradictory to the quotation, as a snide way of commenting on what stance they should be taking, but aren't.



The second to last one is about transforming the current democratic republic into a people's republic, since the maoists are right now leading the government.



Right; by way of a multi-party constituent assembly.



The second quote is not telling the indian maoists to stop their war, but to adopt multi party democracy within socialism.


Right; this shows, for starters a profound lack of understanding of the roots of multiparty democracy (as as forum for solving internal quarrels among the factions of the bourgeoisie), but also has no links in the theory of Marxism-Leninism.

Marx talked about a proletarian party; Lenin talked about the vanguard party at the head of the proletariat; Stalin upheld these analysis's....
Only in Maos writings would you find theory that corresponds to this development ("Let one hundred flowers bloom, and one hundred schools of thought contend"), which is part of our general outlook that Maoism is not Marxism-Leninism.

What would be the point of a multi-party system to socialism? Do the proletariat need more than one party? It is our analysis that parties represent class interests. Well, if you concentrate political power into the hands of the proletariat as a class, why would you need more than one party? (Unless, they plan to have a party to represent the national bourgeoisie, which Maoist are known to do. If the national bourgeoisie still holds legislative and political powers in any form, than the Nepalese revolution has no buisness appropriating the mantle of "socialism".).

Now I am more than prepared for a pelting storm of "dogmatist" from the supporters of the Kasama project, but the fact is that there is a reason that Marxism-Leninism espouses what it does; it is a correct analysis of social conditions, how to carry out a revolution, create socialism (and then communism) afterwards, and a criticism of other trends that to this day have never been fruitful.

The CPN(Maoist) can follow what-ever theories they may create, but I would appreciate if they would stop posturing themselves as "communists", because they are only disorienting other communists and struggles around the world.


it is more important to understand why the maoists do what they do, than to take quotes out of context of nepali reality.


Well, I'll bet that I have probably been following the revolution in Nepal longer than you have (I was until very recently a staunch supporter of their struggle,)so I have watched the evolution of their tactics and the evolution of their rhetoric.

Now that Prachanda holds the position of PM in their "new democracy" (quite odd that this new democracy is currently maintaining the old forms of the previous monarchist parliamentary stystem), their rhetoric has changed a bit.

Now, I would like to know how some of these quotes are taken out of context?
When Prachanda says:


"We do not believe that private property should be abolished."

I feel that I am not insinuating anything in this sentence. Now a man named Marx, of course, would disagree with Prachanda:

"In this sense, the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

Now, even in that document, Marx understood that the particular measures of expropriating power from the bourgeoisie would vary from country to country. Never the less, I think that with a statement like the one above, and in light of the CPN(Maoist)'s current tactics, that they are not even meeting the minimum requirements to be considered Marxist-Leninist (although possibly Maoist).

IF the CPN(Maoist) wants to follow a Multi-party "socialism" (on the road to communism), where private property in the form of land ownership still persists (and yet somehow classes are dissolved :rolleyes:), whatever, but it is detrimental to the revolutionary fighters of all countries, that Charlattans like Prachanda in Nepal (as well as Chavez in Venezuela) are disorienting their struggles, and leading them away from atainable socialist models.

[Saorsa]

I will respond to this in detail tomorrow. For the time being though, surely this should be in Politics?

[Rawthentic]

I'll respond pretty soon too.


Marx talked about a proletarian party; Lenin talked about the vanguard party at the head of the proletariat; Stalin upheld these analysis's....
Only in Maos writings would you find theory that corresponds to this development ("Let one hundred flowers bloom, and one hundred schools of thought contend"), which is part of our general outlook that Maoism is not Marxism-Leninism.
The one hundred flowers campaign was about criticizing and eliminating bureaucracy, as well as giving the intellectuals the ability to speak out. What is the purpose of socialism if the people's initiative's and ideas are stifled. They need to be brought out, and, if they go against the current of socialism, be struggled against and won over.

Just as under capitalism, as you said, there are different parties that all represent the basic interests of the imperialists, why not more than one party under socialism? After all, it would be operating within the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. I am not endorsing this view, as I said, but I won't condemn the maoists for experimenting and being creative (after all, what is the purpose of communism and communist theory)?


Now that Prachanda holds the position of PM in their "new democracy" (quite odd that this new democracy is currently maintaining the old forms of the previous monarchist parliamentary stystem), their rhetoric has changed a bit.
You see, these sorts of things show us how little acquainted you are with nepal. The maoists have said the the federal democratic republic is NOT new democracy, but a tactical stage to it.


Now, even in that document, Marx understood that the particular measures of expropriating power from the bourgeoisie would vary from country to country. Never the less, I think that with a statement like the one above, and in light of the CPN(Maoist)'s current tactics, that they are not even meeting the minimum requirements to be considered Marxist-Leninist (although possibly Maoist).
It would be the hugest mistake if the maoists abolished all private property at THIS time. That would mean that the policy of "land to the tiller" would be demolished immediately because it creates private property amongst the peasants (thus losing support for the revolution), driving the national and petty bourgeoisie to the enemy, losing people that have a stake in revolution like peddlers, street vendors, etc.

Nepal must develop its national infrastructure.

This idea of abolishing private property at this time is ridiculous (and worse).

note: you are a dogmatist; just because what the maoists do (according to umm...hoxhaism) doesn't have "links in Marxism-Leninism" does not mean they are not communists or marxist; on the contrary, it shows they can creatively apply communist theory to the real conditions of nepal, rather than relying on old marxist-leninist verdicts, and applying what happened in the past as some form of "proof" that they are more marxist-leninist.

[Ismail]

(according to umm...hoxhaism)http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/hoxhamao.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/hoxhachinesestudents.jpg

"Especially shameless was the behavior of that agent of Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha. He bared his fangs at us even more menacingly than the Chinese themselves. After his speech, Comrade Dolores Ibárruri [a Spanish Communist], an old revolutionary and a devoted worker in the Communist movement, got up indignantly and said, very much to the point, that Hoxha was like a dog who bites the hand that feeds it." - Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers, trans. Strobe Talbott (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1970), 475-476

"an attack on Albania will have to reckon with great People's China. If the U.S. imperialists, the modern Soviet revisionists or any of their lackeys dare to touch Albania in the slightest, nothing lies ahead for them but a complete, shameful and memorable defeat." - Mao. "You may rest assured, comrades, that come what may in the world at large, our two parties and our two peoples will certainly remain together. They will fight together and they will win together." - Hoxha. (Elez Biberaj, Albania and China (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986), 49, 43.)

Mao and Hoxha had quite a relationship after uniting against Khrushchevism and forming the anti-revisionist movement together. (Even though Hoxha knew little about what was going on in China) Hoxhaism and Maoism have a long legacy of feuding with eachother after the 1976 split, so this isn't anything new. Don't suddenly treat Hoxhaism as if it formed a year ago with stuff like "umm..." and so on.


doesn't have "links in Marxism-Leninism" does not mean they are not communists or marxist;Is Khrushchev also a Marxist then? What about Hu Jintao? Whereas the openly anti-revolution types like Palmiro Togliatti had the "parliamentary road to socialism" and other reformist things and negated Marxism-Leninism. Reformism is reformism, and the main way reformism comes in is by saying that large parts of M-L are suddenly outdated.

[Glenn Beck]

What would be the point of a multi-party system to socialism? Do the proletariat need more than one party? It is our analysis that parties represent class interests. Well, if you concentrate political power into the hands of the proletariat as a class, why would you need more than one party? (Unless, they plan to have a party to represent the national bourgeoisie, which Maoist are known to do. If the national bourgeoisie still holds legislative and political powers in any form, than the Nepalese revolution has no buisness appropriating the mantle of "socialism".).

This is off-topic and I don't want to derail the the thread, but how does this square with the idea that there are many parties representing the bourgeoisie in a capitalist state? Is there more than one bourgeoisie? My understanding has always been that the state is run in the interests of the bourgeoisie and the various parties serve to simultaneously decide issues between varying factions and placate the masses that they live in a democracy. Surely there will be disagreements on how to move forward and even disparate interests among different regions, professions, or cultural groups under socialism that will need to be resolved democratically. Why couldn't this be resolved with several workers parties, even if that might not be the optimal solution?

(Not saying that's the situation in Nepal of course, from what little I know the other parties in Nepal are totally reactionary)

[Andres Marcos]

While it may be too early to analyze Nepal at this point, we should not really be surprised if its going to come out like we think it will which is common with all Maoist trends: psuedo-socialist deviationist, voluntarist demagogeury that claims it is Marxism-Leninism(basically gutting Marxism-Leninism for all its worth),


"Just as under capitalism, as you said, there are different parties that all represent the basic interests of the imperialists, why not more than one party under socialism?"Are you implying that the Chinese implemented socialism WHILE Mao was alive? If so, wouldn't this mean the PRC today still is socialist? I believe this is largely incorrect. The PRC was always a hybrid bourgeois state. This can be proven very easily. Maria Macciocci was an italian Eurocommunist who visited China and wrote an interesting book on the Cultural Revolution and Mao Zedong, which is basically a pro-Mao piece of work which praises everything Mao Zedong grasped on. In the book she says this:


"Their strategy of opposition was to give the capitalists virtually unlimited freedom, on the principle of collaboration between public ownership and private profit"Right there, is that the workings of a socialist state? maoists may try to justify this by the NEP but that does not fit, Lenin realized so long as the rural capitalist only had access to agriculture he posed no threat to the socialist state which was in control of industry, in China the bourgeoisie penetrated, or rather was welcomed in all facets of society. Macciocci continues:


"...power wasn't in our possession but was controlled by a handful of capitalist roaders. A textile factory in Shanghai, for example, had been managed in pre-liberation days by a fairly important Capitalist. He had worked out a system of internal administration which was practically a carbon copy of the old capitalist system of managment-with bonuses, fines, and above all, punitive measures against workers who failed to confrom to the pace of production...After Liberation the system had remained in effect, its rules and regulations prominently displayed by the capitalist in his office...this time a number of capitalists were commanding authority and laying down the law in the factories."

M.A. Macciocci, Daily Life in Revolutionary China p. 325this was all going on in the so-called Great "Proletarian" Cultural Revolution which was neither Great nor proletarian as the proletarians and peasentry did not even participate in this, and in fact were resisting the ideological whirlpool of Red Guard students(some who had anarchist, reactionary, and counterrevolutionary views, and they fought amongst themselves).


"After all, it would be operating within the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism."A sympathy which Mao Zedong did not share with you. Mao stated as early as 1940;



"“Just as everyone should share what food there is…there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group, or class”."

Mao Tse-tung, “New-Democratic Constitutional Government”. Mao’s speech was delivered before the Yenan Association for the Promotion of Constitutional Government on February 20, 1940.I encourage you to read this work, if it wasn't for the name of Mao Zedong I would think it was delievered by a Social-Democrat or at best a Democratic Socialist.



"It would be the hugest mistake if the maoists abolished all private property at THIS time."this may be true, but Prachanda did not say that property should be abolished "at this time", but he did not believe in it, which is VERY different. What should be encouraged in the case of the petty-bourgeoisie is voluntary collectivization, and in the case of the national bourgeoisie its penetration in industry THREATENS any pipe dreams the Maoist may have of building future socialism.



"note: you are a dogmatist; just because what the maoists do (according to umm...hoxhaism) doesn't have "links in Marxism-Leninism" does not mean they are not communists or marxist"I believe this is an excuse for revisionism. Well can you prove your ideology is not really voluntarist(and thus anti-materialist), demagogeury, AGAINST proletarian dictatorship and anti-marxist? Not in your words(although a lot of what Mao says damns him) but in deeds. The questions which should be presented are this:

1. Why does Mao Zedong Thought take an anti-materialist voluntarist stance by placing Marxism on its head by placing the primacy of willed social change as a precondition for economic change. Which as a result, man's social being does not effect his concious but vice-versa! which would mean socialism could exist in ANY time period according to Mao Zedong Thought even when the bourgeois does not exist, which has its similarities to the Trotskyite theory of Permanent Revolution and basically if you take this to its logical limit can mean the bourgeosie may willingly give up its power if it really wants to(which assumes it wants to), this is pure idealistic wishful thinking. This was the line of the PRC, which believed the National bourgeoisie could be used to build socialism by some links it formed with the masses during the Liberation War, this is absurd and it is sad because we know the results of this, people like Deng Xiaoping after being purged 3 times and being re-admitted were allowed to easily take power with little resistance against it, after all EVERYTHING Deng did could find basis among Mao and Zhou Enlai, on contrast in Albania the Ramiz Alia clique, in two strong arm purges purged all ministers the 1990s along with all the leaders of the rural party branches. The bourgeoisie weren't touched in the factories and kept their leadership, while proclaiming fealty to socialism, broke from this as soon as the Four Modernizations were implemented.

2. Can you provide any solid explanation on how the PRC is not Maoist, when this form of joint-capitalist enterprise was existent throughout ALL its history.

[Winter]

Marx talked about a proletarian party; Lenin talked about the vanguard party at the head of the proletariat; Stalin upheld these analysis's....Only in Maos writings would you find theory that corresponds to this development ("Let one hundred flowers bloom, and one hundred schools of thought contend"), which is part of our general outlook that Maoism is not Marxism-Leninism.

What would be the point of a multi-party system to socialism? Do the proletariat need more than one party? It is our analysis that parties represent class interests. Well, if you concentrate political power into the hands of the proletariat as a class, why would you need more than one party? (Unless, they plan to have a party to represent the national bourgeoisie, which Maoist are known to do. If the national bourgeoisie still holds legislative and political powers in any form, than the Nepalese revolution has no buisness appropriating the mantle of "socialism".)

The Communist Party of China achieved a great victory against imperialists and reactionaries in 1949 by introducing the People's Republic of China. Imperialist, reactionaries, and counter-revolutionaries were still a huge threat. The classes that were united against these counter-productive forces still needed one another at this point. The proletariat didn't need more than one party, but Maoism believes you can't shove Marxism-Leninism down the throats of the people and that they must voluntarilly accept it. Mind you, national and petty bourgeois were still allowed to operate small businesses, large businesses were slowly being taken by the state. With their existence still an issue, they were allowed to be vocal of their opinions by forming parties. But Mao and the CCP knew the vast majority of the population were peasants and workers whose interest the CCP primarilly worked for. Mao knew in the end that the Communist Party would prevail in this comparison of ideas because he had the support of the masses.

Here is a quote from On the Correct handling of Contradictions amongst the people by Mao:




People may ask, since Marxism is accepted as the guiding ideology by the majority of the people in our country, can it be criticized? Certainly it can. Marxism is scientific truth and fears no criticism. If it did, and if it could be overthrown by criticism, it would be worthless. In fact, aren't the idealists criticizing Marxism every day and in every way? And those who harbour bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas and do not wish to change -- aren't they also criticizing Marxism in every way? Marxists should not be afraid of criticism from any quarter. Quite the contrary, they need to temper and develop themselves and win new positions in the teeth of criticism and in the storm and stress of struggle. Fighting against wrong ideas is like being vaccinated -- a man develops greater immunity from disease as a result of vaccination. Plants raised in hothouses are unlikely to be hardy. Carrying out the policy of letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend will not weaken, but strengthen, the leading position of Marxism in the ideological field.
What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned, the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech. But incorrect ideas among the people are quite a different matter. Will it do to ban such ideas and deny them any opportunity for expression? Certainly not. It is not only futile but very harmful to use crude methods in dealing with ideological questions among the people, with questions about man's mental world. You may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas will still be there. On the other hand, if correct ideas are pampered in hothouses and never exposed to the elements and immunized against disease, they will not win out against erroneous ones. Therefore, it is only by employing the method of discussion, criticism and reasoning that we can really foster correct ideas and overcome wrong ones, and that we can really settle issues.




Now I am more than prepared for a pelting storm of "dogmatist" from the supporters of the Kasama project, but the fact is that there is a reason that Marxism-Leninism espouses what it does; it is a correct analysis of social conditions, how to carry out a revolution, create socialism (and then communism) afterwards, and a criticism of other trends that to this day have never been fruitful.

No way. China was well into the creation of Collectives, Communes and Townships. The road to Socialism was being treaded at a great rate. The New Democratic stage does not last as long as you may think it does. It's a mix of capitalist and socialist elements and slowly evolves into full on socialism. There's really nothing foreign about New Democracy, look at the New Economic Policy the Bolsheviks introduced, same concept. A backwards country needs a stimulated economy to advance...you dogmatist... :tt2:





Now that Prachanda holds the position of PM in their "new democracy" (quite odd that this new democracy is currently maintaining the old forms of the previous monarchist parliamentary stystem), their rhetoric has changed a bit.

Wrong. Check out the Common Minimun Program: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/new-nepals-common-minimum-program/ which include:
• Special programs and mechanisms shall be constructed, focusing to balanced development of Tarai (Madhes), hill, mountain, village and urban centers including Karnali areas and mid-and-far western Nepal.
• The country shall be declared free from untouchability.
• All kinds of discrimination such as rape, domestic violence and trafficking against women shall be ended.
• Special training and opportunity for employment or pension to disabled persons shall be managed.

OH, and they just abolished slavery: http://www.revleft.com/vb/slavery-criminalised-nepal-t88920/index.html?p=1237877


Now, I would like to know how some of these quotes are taken out of context?
When Prachanda says:
I feel that I am not insinuating anything in this sentence. Now a man named Marx, of course, would disagree with Prachanda:

"In this sense, the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

Marx was speaking in the context of an already first world Capitalist country.



IF the CPN(Maoist) wants to follow a Multi-party "socialism" (on the road to communism), where private property in the form of land ownership still persists (and yet somehow classes are dissolved :rolleyes:), whatever, but it is detrimental to the revolutionary fighters of all countries, that Charlattans like Prachanda in Nepal (as well as Chavez in Venezuela) are disorienting their struggles, and leading them away from atainable socialist models.

You do not have a correct understanding of Maoism, that's why you are confused.

[Dros]

PF:

You've come to a very important conclusion: The leadership of the CPN("M") is no longer Communist!

This is not so much a refutation of Maoism so much as a refutation of all the bullshit Prachanda thinks is Maoism. It would almost be like saying that Stalin was a revisionist because of Khrushchev.

[Andres Marcos]

large businesses were slowly being taken by the state.

This really I would say is disingenious, the economy was socialist in form, but bourgeois in reality(according to a report in the 9th congress of the CCP) up to the time of Mao Zedong's death the bourgeoisie recieved up to 1/4 of a factories total profits for doing virtually nothing. The logical result is the open bourgeois seizure of power which was in the making since the failure of the Great Leap, capitalisms nature is monopolistic it seeks to achieve maximum profit not the average, one cannot be surprised on what China is today since Mao's words can be used to justify "Socialism with chinese characteristics".


Mao and the CCP knew the vast majority of the population were peasants and workers whose interest the CCP primarilly worked for.In terms of politics this is very debatable, Jd peasentry themselves.
ames Slavyanski in his talks with Vijay Singh, a veteran Indian Marxist-Leninist, discussed the role of the bourgeosie in the Peoples Communes, where the bourgeosie were given leadership roles in the People's communes, if in enacting land reforms, health care, abolishing sexism then yes this benefited the Chinese people as a whole and it is indeed honorable the CCP took this position as opposed to what China was before, but this however does not in theory mean the PRC acted on the whims of the proletariat and peasentry.


No way. China was well into the creation of Collectives, Communes and Townships. Socialism was a reality. The New Democratic stage does not last as long as you may think it does.
In truth, the New Democratic Stage could last as long as you wanted it to, china as of now proclaims it was still in this stage using a quote from Mao which stated New Democracy could last ten, one hundred, or one thousand years, Zhou Enlai stated to Edgar Snow that China was not yet a Communist country and that it would never be one if Mao's policies are implemented. Go figure. I believe this was published in Le Monde but I am not sure, it is quoted in Imperialism and Revolution however.



It's a mix of capitalist and socialist elements and slowly evolves into full on socialism. There's really nothing foreign about New Democracy, look at the New Economic Policy the Bolsheviks introduced, same concept. A backwards country needs a stimulated economy to advanceThis would be true except the NEP was seen as a means to stimulate the economy, not that itself was used to "evolve" into socialism, A two step forward and one step back as Lenin and other supporters said of it, Lenin in response to the notion that it would threaten the dictatorship of the proletariat stated no danger would occur so long as the proletariat was in control of industry(as a result in control of the factories which produced the tractors the bourgeoisie kulaks would use). We cannot say this of the PRC as I just showed in the book I quoted above, factories were in control by the bourgeosie including its absurd rules, while they were later removed, this was no exception as Macciocci explains and went on throughout the Cultural Revolution.



Marx was speaking in the context of an already first world Capitalist country.This is innaccurate, even in Marx's time the only nation to be "first world" was England. france had a majority of its population as peasents at the time of the Commune, and Germany was still a fuedal state(to which Marx encouraged the proletariat to side with the bourgeoisie to overthrow fuedalism, and establish bourgeois democracy which would in effect give birth to the proletarian revolution see the Communist manifesto) as a result for this, According to Erik Van Ree in his essay "Stalin: As Marxist", Marx and Engels changed their position that the proletariat needed to constitute a majority to build socialism but that it needed to merely take a leadership role or in his own words "an important position" in society. Similarly, Lenin said when no property exists among the majority of the peasentry(when there is no rural petty-bourgeoisie in the majority) then it should be up to the socialist state to collectivize agriculture taking advantage of the fact that there is no private property for 9/10 of the population(this existed in Mexico for example around the early 1900s when all land was owned by a white criollo Hacienda owner), if however it does exist(as in the U.S. among the petty-bourgeois farmer class) then the socialist state should first encourage voluntary cooperatives and then collectivization, this would not seem to be the role the Maoists are playing in Nepal, although as of right now I think its too early to call, but history is not on their side in regards to these practices being implemented before and failing due to the grevious errors and very easy preventable faults of the CCP and Mao Zedong.

[Saorsa]

On abolition of private property, in favour of public property:

"We do not believe that private property should be abolished."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

Abolishing private property right now in Nepal would be a disaster, as Rawthentic and Winter have pointed out. Prachanda is obviously not going to go around calling for the expropriation of the expropriators right now, when the Maoists have only just attained a degree of power and have only just begun advancing their anti-feudal, democratic agenda.


On the integration of the bourgeois army with the PLA:

-"...As long as everyone including the army, the
police and the other officials remain committed to the people's mandate on democracy, peace and change, no one needs to feel insecure..."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

-"I never showed such distrust. I never wanted to show any bit of
distrust towards NA (Gyanendras former troops) or police or PLA or armed police."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

Think about this. The Nepal Army, which is made up of soldiers who are largely from the working cass and the peasantry, is going to have a mass influx of commited, militant revolutionary communists. These people are going to be able to spread their ideas to the other soldiers, and while obviously this won't win all the troops over immediately, it may well at the least neutralise the threat of a military coup. As the Maoists have said, the NA needs to be democratised, and the PLA needs to be professionalised. the Young Communist Leauge now effetively acts as the Maoists paramilitary wing, and is heavily made up of former PLA combatants.


On Parliamentary realpolitik:

-"But in course of advancing my
cause, I might have made compromises and come closer to one or another at different times. But there was never any conspiracy there."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

Um, what exactly is wrong with this? The Maoists have shown themselves to be very adept at playing their enemies off against each other and exploiting the contradictions between them, and have formed and broken alliances in order to isolate and attack the biggest enemy at any given time. This is a smart approach, and isn't even one that is in any unMarxist!


On smashing the bourgeois parliamentary system:

-"We will definitely attempt to establish a People's Republic by
institutionalizing democratic republic and through the legitimate means like elections. "
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

If and when you can advance through peaceful means, it is wise to do so. You can hardly accuse the Maoists of following a parliamentary path to socialism though - the CA and the present Maoist-led government only exist because of the situation created by the decade long peoples war. The present task is to build and lead a democratic revolutionary process, and the Maoists are doing that.


-"Our minimum, bottom line is the election of a constituent assembly, that too under international supervision, either by the United Nations or some other international mediation acceptable to all."
- Interview with The Hindu, February 8, 9, and 10, 2006

The Constituent Assembly has been a demand raised by Nepali communists for decades, and its creation by the Maoists is a great achievement. The UN is already in Nepal, it's running the PLA cantonments! Prachanda stating that he's happy for the UN to be involved in the CA election is a perfectly acceptable statement, and the Maoist victory in said elections shows how valif the Maoist strategy is.


-"We have concluded that socialism without multiparty competition and political freedoms cannot survive."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

They've also said that under socialism, these partys will have to be "pro-people" and have platforms and policies that benefit the people. The Maoists have distanced themselves from the excesses and mistakes that occured during Stalin's leadership of the USSR, and they are proposing multi-party competition as a means of avoiding these mistakes. Time will tell how valid their line is, but the loss of socialism in the USSR following Stalins death (and in Albania following Hoxha's) shows that a one party state and a nice dose of Purges isnt enough to prevent the restoration of capitalism. Something new has to be tried.


-"I believe our party will win majority, even two-thirds
majority in the next election. Then, our government will continue for
another five years."
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

Wow, how revisonist. He's predicting that they will retain popular support.


On denouncing metaphysical ideas:


-"Communism is something like a heaven where there is neither a class nor a state nor an army."-
Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

Heaven is used in the same way as utopia or paradise, to indicate its a dream for the future (that flows from a scientific analysis of reality). The guy isnt a native English speaker - let him off if occasionally his words have double meanings he doesnt grasp.



-"Certainly since I will not be able to devote adequate time and energy for the party after becoming the PM, other comrades will have to take more responsibility"
-Interview with BBC news,2008/09/03

So he's admitting that he wont be able to adequately fulfill his role as Chairman, and is stepping aside and allowing someone else to take the job. Wow. He's totally betrayed his Party! How dare he be honest and want the job to be performed well!

On wresting political power from the Bourgeoisie:


- "We will go for the goal of the people's democracy through peaceful means. Today, we are talking of a democratic republic and our understanding with the parties is that the way to realise this is the constituent assembly."
- Interview with The Hindu, February 8, 9, and 10, 2006

I've covered this already. Fulfill the democratic revolution before beginning the socialist one.


On urging Indian Maoists adopting parliamentary democracy:

-"We believe(multiparty democractic participation) applies to them too. We want to debate this. They have to understand this and go down this route. Both on the questions of leadership and on multiparty democracy, or rather multiparty competition, those who call themselves revolutionaries in India need to think about these issues. And there is a need to go in the direction of that practice.
- Interview with The Hindu, February 8, 9, and 10, 2006

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/04/prachanda-we-want-new-unity-on-new.html

What we are doing in Nepal is in keeping with the needs and sentiments of the Nepali people. So we are not going to tell anyone that you should also do what we are doing. We don’t have the right to say such things and we don’t wish to say such things either. But I do feel that what we are doing will send a strong message not only to Indian Maoists but Maoists worldwide — about how the Nepali Maoists have gone from bullet to ballot, how they have influenced and won the hearts and minds of the Nepali people, and how they have come to the position of leading the government and building a new constitution. This will be the subject of very big debate, and this will have a positive impact on Maoists everywhere because we have not betrayed our basic theory, we have developed it based on the changed situation in the world, and tried to move ahead on that basis. For example, even when the People’s War was going on, we concluded that multiparty competition is a must even in socialism. Not only in the phase of democratic revolution but also in the phase of socialism, if multiparty competition is not there then a vibrant society will not be possible. This is the conclusion we have drawn from the great revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th century. And on the basis of those conclusions we are moving forward. So I feel that for the Indian Maoist party, its leaders and cadres, these efforts of ours provide some new material to study, to think about and go ahead in a new way. Our efforts provide a reference point.

Prachanda and the CPN (M) aren't telling the Indian Maoists how to run their revolution. If they did, the CPI (M) wouldn't listen - they are an independent and strong organisation which has publicly disagreed with the CPN (M) in the past.

[VILemon]

The Maoists in Nepal are doing exactly what I thought they would, and largely are consistent with what they've said that they would. Mao didn't call for the immediate abolition of private property, and even claimed that the "national" or "patriotic" bourgeoisie would be necessary for building socialism (these capitalists are what one of the stars on the chinese flag stands for).
But eliminating private property...seriously?...this country was a feudal kingdom two minutes ago. They are not traitors to the revolution just because they aren't willing to make awful decisions for the sake of utopian frolic.

[spartan]

Nepal, like Russia before the revolution, is in a state of Feudalism or semi-Feudalism (in between Feudalism and Capitalism).

Prachanda, like Lenin before him, realises that Nepal can't go from Feudalism straight to Socialism when they don't even have a large industrial base and urban proletariat (as well as recovering from a long civil war).

Lenin too realised that Russia couldn't go straight from Feudalism to Socialism, even saying "we are not civilzed enough for socialism", referring to the fact that Russia was still a primarily agrarian nation, with a very small urban population and a weak industrial base, which did not meet the economic criteria necessary for full socialism.

Which is why he brought in the NEP.

It seems that certain Socialists seem to have too high standards when it comes to real revolutionaries who have just fought an armed struggle which has ended an oppressive Feudal monarchy.

One step at a time and all that, Nepal isn't even in the capitalist, or as they are Maoists New Democracy, stage yet!

[KurtFF8]

We will wait and see how things turn out in Nepal. What a lot of people fail to do is to examine the situation and conditions Nepal is in. Of course, without this knowledge, these random quotes would cause any Marxist to reply with a big "WTF?"

All we can do is wait and see. I'm not here to defend everything Prachanda may say, but also I am not going to jump to conclusions.

Exactly my sentiment.

That said, I don't think we should continue to be so quick to dismiss the gains of parties like CPN(M) and even movements like Chavez's government in Venezuela. I would say it's more harmful to dismiss and throw no support behind a potential seemingly revolutionary movement that isn't so revolutionary than it is to support/give a chance to those who are actually just reformists. Because in the end of the day if they turn out to just be reformists/social dems, etc. then you can simply withdraw your support, but if you blew a chance on supporting revolutoinary change, that's much worse.

Granted voicing a yay or nay opinion on a message board isn't very significant, but I'm of course talking about the left as a whole.

[Prairie Fire]

More great quotations from chairman Prachanda in NY:

"We are fully confident that we are developing the ideology from Lenin,
not from Stalin."

"Because Stalin had made a serious mistake of ideology, in
philosophy, in science- and all of the workers movement has taken so
much loss from this deviation from dialectical materialism."

( The Maoists adjust their views on Stalin to suit their own ends; in the 60's and 70's, they picked up Stalin to snag more ideological allies. Now, in the face of bourgeois smear and propaganda, they drop him like the oppurtunists that they are.).

"At that time we have a serious discussion and what we devised is that
if Lenin had lived another 5 or 10 years he would also introduce
multiparty competition, this is my understanding."
(based on no historical precendent , in fact,contrary to Lenins theory and actions)


Before any of the Kasamites attack me, these quotations are from the Kasama project site itself.

[Mindtoaster]

More great quotations from chairman Prachanda in NY:

"We are fully confident that we are developing the ideology from Lenin,
not from Stalin."

"Because Stalin had made a serious mistake of ideology, in
philosophy, in science- and all of the workers movement has taken so
much loss from this deviation from dialectical materialism."

( The Maoists adjust their views on Stalin to suit their own ends; in the 60's and 70's, they picked up Stalin to snag more ideological allies. Now, in the face of bourgeois smear and propaganda, they drop him like the oppurtunists that they are.).

"At that time we have a serious discussion and what we devised is that
if Lenin had lived another 5 or 10 years he would also introduce
multiparty competition, this is my understanding."
(based on no historical precendent , in fact,contrary to Lenins theory and actions)


Before any of the Kasamites attack me, these quotations are from the Kasama project site itself.


Good.

I can understand if you want to defend Stalin, but why would you even care whether or not they try and make their policies mimic his?

[RedScare]

Way to early to judge Prachanda. Let's see how things turn out over the next few years.

[cyu]

"At that time we have a serious discussion and what we devised is that if Lenin had lived another 5 or 10 years he would also introduce multiparty competition, this is my understanding."
(based on no historical precendent , in fact,contrary to Lenins theory and actions)



Personally, I don't see multiparty democracy as a bad thing. Maybe everyone wants to end poverty, but different groups have different tactics on how to get there. I don't see any benefit in forcing everyone to have to agree on the same methods.

But if he supports multiparty democracy, I don't see why he has to drag Lenin into this. Is Lenin supposed to be the God of Communism or what? If he believes multiparty democracy is right, then he should just state the reasons why he believes it's better. If it turns out that Lenin agrees, who cares? If it turns out Lenin disagrees, then he should just say, "Screw Lenin". Hero-worship is for suckers.

[The Author]

"We are fully confident that we are developing the ideology from Lenin,
not from Stalin."In truth, they are not developing their ideology from Lenin either. They say they follow Lenin, but so did revisionists of other colors.


"Because Stalin had made a serious mistake of ideology, in
philosophy, in science- and all of the workers movement has taken so
much loss from this deviation from dialectical materialism."The workers movement lost so much due to deviations from the Khrushchevites, and from Mao's erroneous policies of mixing Marxist dialectic with Confucianism and Taoism as opposed to the proper Marxist-Leninist view of the dialectic method.


"At that time we have a serious discussion and what we devised is that
if Lenin had lived another 5 or 10 years he would also introduce
multiparty competition, this is my understanding."The dictatorship of the proletariat involves unity. Not reconciling bourgeoisie with proletarians with aristocrats, and so on. And it involves unity in strategy and tactics. Lenin never would have advocated multiparty parliamentarianism as Prachanda is attempting to present here.

---

Clearly, Nepal has a lot to learn in the years ahead if this is the sort of political ideology that is involved in the communist movement.

[RedHal]

The workers movement lost so much due to deviations from the Khrushchevites, and from Mao's erroneous policies of mixing Marxist dialectic with Confucianism and Taoism as opposed to the proper Marxist-Leninist view of the dialectic method.

say what? When did Mao endorse Confucianism and Taoism? If I'm not mistaken, part of the Cultural Revolution was to smash these backwards beliefs.

[Labor Shall Rule]

But, you see, multi-party democracy now is a very bad thing.

The 'parliamentary path' has shown that the adoption of a progressive constitution is nearing a path of impossibility, with the Congress Party blocking any and all moves to carry out land reform, solve the double-digit inflation crisis, or to provide aid to families inflicted by booming petro and food prices. It's tied CPN(M) to an obligation that is becoming a fetter to the program of a people's republic.

The old state power must be smashed - the abolition of the feudal monarchy is simply not enough.

[Saorsa]

The CPN (M) is not in coalition with the Congress Party, so the Congress Party can't block anything much. It's more the CPN (UML) and the Madhesi/Terai MJF parties that are forcing it to make some concessions. But they are continuing to advance.

[cyu]

multi-party democracy now is a very bad thing.


You have to look at the context and environment in which it exists. For example, an axe in the hands of an axe-murderer is a very bad thing, however, an axe in the hands of a lumberjack or fireman isn't such a bad thing.

The multi-party democracy that exists under capitalism is not the same as a multi-party democracy that exists without capitalism. While it is true that people still vote in both cases, under capitalism, only candidates with rich backers or personal fortunes can amass the necessary resources to get on the ballot. Under capitalism, the issues and policies being discussed are decided by those who own and control the mass media - who do not represent the people of the nation.

Without capitalism getting in the way, ideas would be judged based on their own merits, not by how much money their wealthy backers have. Without capitalism, what is discussed and reported in the mass media will not first be filtered through the lense of a major stockholder or CEO, but instead will be filtered through the people themselves.

[Herman]

You have to look at the context and environment in which it exists. For example, an axe in the hands of an axe-murderer is a very bad thing, however, an axe in the hands of a lumberjack or fireman isn't such a bad thing.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Labor Shall Rule]

You have to look at the context and environment in which it exists. For example, an axe in the hands of an axe-murderer is a very bad thing, however, an axe in the hands of a lumberjack or fireman isn't such a bad thing.

The multi-party democracy that exists under capitalism is not the same as a multi-party democracy that exists without capitalism. While it is true that people still vote in both cases, under capitalism, only candidates with rich backers or personal fortunes can amass the necessary resources to get on the ballot. Under capitalism, the issues and policies being discussed are decided by those who own and control the mass media - who do not represent the people of the nation.

Without capitalism getting in the way, ideas would be judged based on their own merits, not by how much money their wealthy backers have. Without capitalism, what is discussed and reported in the mass media will not first be filtered through the lense of a major stockholder or CEO, but instead will be filtered through the people themselves.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Please refrain this if you want to make a good point, I'm all ears.

There is no 'without' capitalism in Nepal - the bourgeois state (and it's instruments - the Royal Army [!]) is still in place, and India still holds a tight foreign grip around the country (which is re-enforced by the investment into the new hydro-electric plan coming from them and other imperialist financiers).

[Saorsa]

the Royal Army [!]) is still in place

Actually it's now called simply the Nepalese Army, now that the monarchy's been abolished and all. And the Maoists are planning on having the entire PLA integrated into the national army within six months. This may sound terribly unorthodox to everyone, but think about it this way - the Nepalese Army is going to have a massive influx of passionate revolutionary communists into it's ranks, who will recieve all the benefits of advanced military training and access to better weaponry than they had before. I doubt very much that the Maoist soldiers wouldn't be able to win over to their cause at least a small percentage of the NA soldiers, who are after all mostly workers and peasants themselves.

It's a risky experiment, but the aim and likely result of it is that the army will be neutralised as a threat to the unfolding revolution. If the reactionary forces didn't realise this, how come all the major reactionary parties (CPN UML, Nepal Congress and MJF) are so bitterly opposed to the integration of the armies?


India still holds a tight foreign grip around the country (which is re-enforced by the investment into the new hydro-electric plan coming from them and other imperialist financiers).

The Maoists havn't even implemented their first budget. The revolution in Nepal has only just begun, and their not yet in a position to implement full blown socialism (this should be bloody obvious). If the Maoists just threw out all foreign capital immediately, the countries economy would be fucked. There's no USSR or socialist China to support them, and they don't have the level of infrastructure or industrial development to build up their country on a socialist basis purely by themselves. Nepal requires foreign investment for the time being, and the best the Maoists can do is play a balancing act between China, India and the other imperialist forces interested in Nepal to ensure that no one power gains control of them. The revolutionary government is pursuing an independent path, and is no longer subservient to Indian expansionism. But throwing out all Indian capital right now would be suicidal madness.

The hydro-electric plan should bring much greater prosperity to Nepal, and will hopefully allow the Maoists to develop the country and gradually move beyond the point where foreign investment is necessary.

[cyu]

There is no 'without' capitalism in Nepal - the bourgeois state (and it's instruments - the Royal Army [!]) is still in place, and India still holds a tight foreign grip around the country (which is re-enforced by the investment into the new hydro-electric plan coming from them and other imperialist financiers).

I wasn't trying to say Nepal is already free of capitalism. My point was that truly free democracy can only exist without capitalism. Even if the people are wary of communism, if they wanted real democracy, they would still have to get rid of capitalism first to achieve it.