Prachanda: We will not follow a path of parliamentary democracy

[Saorsa]

Prachanda dreams of a new kind of democracy
17 Sep, 2008, 0343 hrs IST,Abhishek Srivastava, ET Bureau








<img alt="Pushp Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'" title="Pushp Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'" align="left" border="0">

Nepalese Prime Minister Pushp Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda' says that his nation would not follow traditional parliamentary democracy. He is continuously experimenting to restructure the country's socio-economic fabric towards a new form of democracy aimed at peasants and workers. Prachanda was addressing a delegation of Indo-Nepal People's Solidarity Forum at the Nepalese embassy. Excerpts :

What will be the exact nature of your new democracy?

We know that formation of a communist republic is not possible in Nepal due to the current international scenario. Neither will we maintain a status quo in parliament. We are in constant search of a structure aimed towards workers and peasants. If we fail to do so, it will be unfortunate not only for Nepal, but also for India, South Asia and the whole world.

Will you review recruitment of Gorkhas into the Indian Army?

We are trying to review each and every treaty with India since 1950. Today, we will release a joint statement with the Government of India. Issues such as water resources, Gorkhas recruitment into the Indian Army, smuggling on the Indo-Nepal border will be considered. I assure you that status quo will not be maintained regarding these issues.

What do you have to say about Indian Maoists and terrorist attacks?

Indian Maoists are on their own way and we have no right to dictate to them. We have created a balance between political and military offensive to reach this stage of peace in Nepal. If they or any other Maoist party in any part of the world feels that our strategy was relevant, they are free to appreciate it. Each and every country's internal situation is completely different and their is no common blueprint for change. No need to say that we will have to fight terrorism.

Do you see formation of any South Asian level communist organisation, as they have done in South America?

We want a union to be formed at the South Asia level. We plan to call a conference of all Maoist parties of the world in the near future to create solidarity and lend a helping hand to the transitional phase of ideology, philosophy and science with which we are in continuous experimentation in Nepal. We are playing a very risky game, but we are confident.

What was the delay in government formation?

During the four months of negotiations with other political parties, we witnessed a new form of class struggle where every single party wanted to defend its class interest. They could not dream of the CPN (Maoist) coming to power. The pressure of the Nepalese masses which defied them.


What do you have to say about the apprehensions in that CPN (Maoist) is heading towards revisionism?

We are neither going towards parliamentary democracy, nor trying to revive any traditional form of democracy in Nepal. In the current international political scenario, we have to make a breakthrough on the basis of revolutionary and reactionary political tradition of the 20th century, right from the October revolution to Chinese revolution.

Concrete analysis of the present situation will chart out a way for new Nepal. When we concluded a 12-point agreement, three years ago, and continuously stressed on the formation of constituent assembly, our masses knew very well that this was a strategic compromise, not defeat. Time has proved that we were right in our approach. Basically, every ideology and science has to change with changing times. What we are doing is just an ideological and scientific experiment which is very risky.

[Saorsa]

May the CPN (M) comrades keep up the good work, he says in a shameless ploy for his 400th post.

[piet11111]

well its good that they reject parliamentary democracy because obviously it was never meant to represent everyone equally.

but its a shame thatPrachanda does not talk about what they do have in mind.

[BIG BROTHER]

perhaps he doesn't have anything in mind yet. I mean i ain't a maoist but I do give those guys a break, the fact that they just recently banned slavery in Nepal shows how backward the country is.

[KurtFF8]

perhaps he doesn't have anything in mind yet. I mean i ain't a maoist but I do give those guys a break, the fact that they just recently banned slavery in Nepal shows how backward the country is.

Exactly, so it will be quite hard for them to build a socialist state in the near future. Hell people often claim that Russia was too undeveloped for true socialism to develop, and Nepal is probably about as developed at Russia in 1905. Well maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but either way, Nepal will have a hard time ahead of it. But one thing I think we can all agree on is that it is better to have a Maoist party ahead of its next phases of development than a Feudal or Capitalist ruling class.

[Yehuda Stern]

Hell people often claim that Russia was too undeveloped for true socialism to develop, and Nepal is probably about as developed at Russia in 1905.

So what's the conclusion? Prachanda is making excuse for why his counterrevolutionary party speaks about socialism but in fact derails the revolution to a parliamentary direction.

[KurtFF8]

So what's the conclusion? Prachanda is making excuse for why his counterrevolutionary party speaks about socialism but in fact derails the revolution to a parliamentary direction.

Isn't this thread about him claiming he is not taking the country to a parliamentary direction?

How do you see his party as counter-revolutionary? There has already been progress made with the Maoists in power (there are various threads on RevLeft that talk about things going on in Nepal right now)

[Abluegreen7]

Prachanda is a intresting man. Its going to take time to play out. This could be a start of somthing new.

[reddevil]

nobody wanted them to set up a representative democracy. however, i would still hope that they will not be totalitarian rulers- they should allow free speech, free press, free movement, freedom of religion etc. they also need to seriously expand direct democracy as the centralisation of power is always bad for a revolution.
i have a bad feeling about htese guys but i'm supporting them anyway because it's what the nepalese want

[Abluegreen7]

Where is your bad feeling?

This makes a bright smile on my face. This man could be the thing to spark a movement.

[reddevil]

because i'm afraid the new regime will create an animal farm. it's happened thousands of times before: in the ussr, china, zimbabwe, the congo.....we have to be careful when collaborating with stalinists.
but for now i'm giving them a cautious thumbs up.

[Abluegreen7]

An Animal Farm?

Now I think your views are very Biased on the USSR.

I bet you think Stalin was a heartless murderer too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyhLtd0DEuE

Watch this.

[reddevil]

i'm not really convinced. the production has given very little in the way of reliable sources to back up its claims.

[Abluegreen7]

There are many other recources you can find. Just dig a little bit.

The Stalin Society has good evidence.

[RHIZOMES]

i'm not really convinced. the production has given very little in the way of reliable sources to back up its claims.

You should read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens.

[DiaMat86]

You should read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens.

Professor Grover Furr published a bestseller in Russia that proves each one of Kruschevs assertions in the Secret Speech were lies. He uses all primary sources. I hope it gets published in English this year.

[Abluegreen7]

Here is the link to Another View Of Stalin http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html.

Enjoy!

[manic expression]

This is getting off topic, but serious scholarship on Stalin agrees with neither the capitalist bullsh*t of Conquest and the "Black Book of Communism" nor the claims of the Stalinists today. Arch Getty and others have done a lot of real objective research on the USSR during Stalin's period of leadership, I suggest people read some of his work. He, on the one hand, shows that the claims of the anti-communists are flagrantly wrong, and on the other, reveals the extent to which the purges WERE completely delusional projects that cost many people their lives.

On Prachanda, I understand he may not want to reveal what the Maoists have in store for Nepal, and I support the struggles of the Nepalese toilers 100%. In an article I'm going to publish on my campus in the next week, I use the Nepalese Maoists as an example of the resurgence of the revolutionary socialists around the world. However, my fear is that the Maoists will be more worried about so-called "revisionism" than establishing working-class state power and socialism (which is a problem shared by most Maoists). Instead of looking for allies in Cuba and elsewhere, they'll probably continue the insular course that Mao himself was so fond of, and that is a shame. That being said, I wish the Maoists the very best and hope they tirelessly further the interests of the Nepalese workers.

[Abluegreen7]

To me Prachanda does not seem like an Orthodox Maoist. Which is not exactly a bad thing. But could be the bloom of an entire new flower.

[manic expression]

I don't think that matters. If one struggles for revolution, then one is following the road of Marxism whether or not they happen to self-identify as a Marxist. As Che said of the Cuban Revolution, revolutionaries eventually discover Marxism by their own methods.

[Abluegreen7]

Manic we must srive for revolution freedom from Imperialism.

[Saorsa]

Prachanda is making excuse for why his counterrevolutionary party speaks about socialism but in fact derails the revolution to a parliamentary direction.He's saying and doing the complete opposite. An immediate leap to socialism can only occur in your head and the heads of both the other people in your international.


However, my fear is that the Maoists will be more worried about so-called "revisionism" than establishing working-class state power and socialism (which is a problem shared by most Maoists).It's a danger that exists, but I'm reasonably confident. Prachanda explicitly stated that theyr inted to set up a "structure aimed towards workers and peasants", so the will is there.


Instead of looking for allies in Cuba and elsewhere, they'll probably continue the insular course that Mao himself was so fond of, and that is a shame.I think it'd be great if some kind of links were set up between the Maoists and other anti-imperialist states like Cuba and Venezuela. But so far neither Cuba nor Venezuela have said anything about the Maoist victory that I'm aware of... Historically Castro hasn't had espescially friendly relations with Maoism, and the RIM which the Nepalse Maoists are part of has labelled Cuba as state-capitalist in the past, and called Castro a revisionist. It'll be interesting to see what happens in that area of things.


To me Prachanda does not seem like an Orthodox Maoist. Which is not exactly a bad thing. But could be the bloom of an entire new flower.The CPN (M) calls it's ideology Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Prachanda Path. Prachanda Path is the application of MLM to the unique objective conditions of Nepal. So yeah, they don't just rigidly apply Mao's strategies to the letter, they take a creative approach, and so far it's worked for them. May it continue to do so.

[Abluegreen7]

I consider myself a fan of the prachanda path. I wonder how the CIA feels about it.

[Saorsa]

The CIA think they're terrorists.

[Yehuda Stern]

Isn't this thread about him claiming he is not taking the country to a parliamentary direction?

Words, words, words. Though to credit the Stalinists, they usually have a very, someone here said, interesting alternative to a parliament.


How do you see his party as counter-revolutionary? There has already been progress made with the Maoists in power

A party is counterrevolutionary if it acts to stall the socialist revolution. Prachanda does it not by explicit repression but by giving certain democratic reforms to the masses to give an illusion of change. The role of the party in preventing the developing of a revolutionary consciousness among Nepalese workers is infinitely more damaging than the advantages that Prachanda's reforms have brought.


i have a bad feeling about htese guys but i'm supporting them anyway because it's what the nepalese want

What sort of bullshit rationale is that for anything? If you were Israeli, would you support Zionism, because that's what Israelis want? Do you support Obama because that's what Americans want?


He's saying and doing the complete opposite. An immediate leap to socialism can only occur in your head and the heads of both the other people in your international.

Another wiseass who thinks that he knows what international I'm from. Anyway, this rationale has been used by many to dismiss the possibility of a socialist revolution in 1917 in Russia. And look at that - it happened. Your two-stage conception is, like it always was, an adoptation from Menshevism, which has nothing to do with Leninism.

[Saorsa]

The role of the party in preventing the developing of a revolutionary consciousness among Nepalese workers is infinitely more damaging than the advantages that Prachanda's reforms have brought.

Preventing the development of a revolutionary consciousness among Nepalese workers?!? What have you been smoking?!? Maoist affiliated trade unions are seizing control of factories, land is being seized by squatters and peasants, and you accuse the Maoists of preventing any kind of struggle and revolutionary consciousness from emerging? You're a sectarian, dogmatic douchebag. The Maoists REPRESENT the revolutionary consciousness of the Nepalese masses, and have been continuously working to heighten and advance said consciousness.

And you can hardly accuse a party that led a decade-long armed struggle and continues to maintain a paramilitary wing in the form of the YCL as being a "reformist" organisation!


Anyway, this rationale has been used by many to dismiss the possibility of a socialist revolution in 1917 in Russia. And look at that - it happened. Your two-stage conception is, like it always was, an adoptation from Menshevism, which has nothing to do with Leninism.

This is not Russia in 1917. This is Nepal in 2008. The two situations are very different and require a different approach. Stop rigidly applying the blueprints from Russia to a terrain where they simply won't work.

[reddevil]

What sort of bullshit rationale is that for anything? If you were Israeli, would you support Zionism, because that's what Israelis want? Do you support Obama because that's what Americans want?

the current government is the most progressive in nepal's history. religion has been seperated form state, slavery has been banned, women are gaining more rights, the monarchy has been abolished and children can now attend school free of charge and see a doctor if they fall ill.
should i oppose all the wonderful things they have done for the people of nepal just because they aren't 100% ideologically pure?
nobody can deny that maoism, as practiced in the PRC, was pretty nasty. if they're going to establish an identical society i will oppose them without hesitation. but so far there is little sign of this. they have shown a respect for the democratic process and have formed a government which includes socialists of both stalinist and anti-stalinist schools.
i still have my concerns. but if the welfare of the nepalese peasants (a significant urban proletarian class has not yet been established) are priority then they represent the best hope.

[cyu]

We are neither going towards parliamentary democracy, nor trying to revive any traditional form of democracy in Nepal.

Since I've never had this dicussion with other leftists before, what is the general criticism that leftists have against parliamentary democracy? I already know about the anarchist opposition against relying on letting other people (representatives) to implement your policy, because they can be corrupted or have hidden agendas.



The CIA think they're terrorists.


Maybe they think the CIA are terrorists. :cool:

[Yehuda Stern]

the current government is the most progressive in nepal's history. religion has been seperated form state, slavery has been banned, women are gaining more rights, the monarchy has been abolished and children can now attend school free of charge and see a doctor if they fall ill.
should i oppose all the wonderful things they have done for the people of nepal just because they aren't 100% ideologically pure?

It is the most progressive government in the history of Nepal precisely because it has the difficult task of diffusing a militant mass movement and preventing it from reaching a revolutionary socialist consciousness. Of course it would be insane to oppose the progressive reforms made by the Prachanda government - but that doesn't mean that we should support the Maoists! Marxists should support the reforms itself, all the while indicating what they lack, what the government is incapable of doing, all the while endeavoring to show the Nepalese workers that the Maoists are giving them reforms today only to crush them tomorrow, or to allow someone else to do the job. That is a basic lesson of the postwar colonial revolutions.

[Winter]

It is the most progressive government in the history of Nepal precisely because it has the difficult task of diffusing a militant mass movement and preventing it from reaching a revolutionary socialist consciousness. Of course it would be insane to oppose the progressive reforms made by the Prachanda government - but that doesn't mean that we should support the Maoists!

The CPN(Maoists) are the ones introducing these reforms! This is like saying we should support Darwin but not his theory of natural selection.



Marxists should support the reforms itself, all the while indicating what they lack, what the government is incapable of doing, all the while endeavoring to show the Nepalese workers that the Maoists are giving them reforms today only to crush them tomorrow, or to allow someone else to do the job. That is a basic lesson of the postwar colonial revolutions.

Where do you see evidence of this occuring? How can you jump to such presumptuos conclusions?

I hate to get all sectarian, but this is all most of you Trots do, you sit in the background critiqueing every revolutionary movement with expectations for the worse. I'm sorry to have to tell you guys this, but theories do look better on paper when you don't consider the situations of certain enviroments. Just because revolutions may not occur as ideal as you would want them to does not mean they are going to be an utter failure.

[IrisBright]

Comrade Alastair, props to you for posting all this news on Nepal.

This is a fascination developing--I support the CPN(M), and hope the people push for a revolutionary road!

Have the folks with objections to halting the people's war read Prachanda's explanation for the peace agreement? That they didn't have enough urban support; that the military situation was growing stagnant, and that a bloodbath was in the works, as the CIA was assisting the Royal Army?

I hope comrades with objections are reading the news at Kasama Project and Red Star, as criticisms without such research would be a great disservice to the Nepalese people's struggles.

[manic expression]

It's a danger that exists, but I'm reasonably confident. Prachanda explicitly stated that theyr inted to set up a "structure aimed towards workers and peasants", so the will is there.

I agree, hopefully that confidence is well-placed. We will see, and until then I will support their efforts (with constructive criticism if needed).


I think it'd be great if some kind of links were set up between the Maoists and other anti-imperialist states like Cuba and Venezuela. But so far neither Cuba nor Venezuela have said anything about the Maoist victory that I'm aware of... Historically Castro hasn't had espescially friendly relations with Maoism, and the RIM which the Nepalse Maoists are part of has labelled Cuba as state-capitalist in the past, and called Castro a revisionist. It'll be interesting to see what happens in that area of things.

I think RIM has been far more sectarian than Cuba ever has, but that's my impression. The whole Sino-Soviet split is long gone IMO, and it was mostly a factor because the Cuban communists were fighting on the ground in Angola against right-wing paramilitaries that China supported.

Castro put out articles in Granma supporting China during the most recent Tibet controversy, Cuba has has supported the governments of both China and North Korea. Heck, Cuba has even extended an olive branch to South Korea (hoping for unification of the country under the authority of the Korean people); I don't think Nepal is too much of a stretch. You are right that Cuba has been focusing more on victories in Latin America than in Asia, but I don't think that's from sectarianism, it's just that the Cuban revolution has a much more important place in the former than the latter.

Basically, my impression is that if the Nepalese communists reached out to Cuba, they'd find a very willing ally. However, if they don't reach out, I hope the reason is that the CPN(M) is doing OK on their own. It's just that unity between them and Cuba would be a huge step forward for our movement that's been far too fractionalized since 1928.

[Sendo]

I can't believe all of the nay-saying on this board towards the CPN-M. I would expect every commie to give it critical support at the very least. It's one thing for anarchists to oppose parliaments based on principle and on history, it's quite another when people moan about Leninism and correct paths and whatnot. They haven't messed up yet and I can't rationally suggest that people start another civil war so soon because they want perfection. I don't know, maybe people are criticizing the CPN-M because some of us praise it, the same way that you diss a movie just because people go obscenely apeshit over it...like "Dark Knight".

[Abluegreen7]

I love CPN! I love Farc-EP too. Your struggle is mine comrades.

[Saorsa]

I think RIM has been far more sectarian than Cuba ever has, but that's my impression. The whole Sino-Soviet split is long gone IMO, and it was mostly a factor because the Cuban communists were fighting on the ground in Angola against right-wing paramilitaries that China supported

I agree, it would be extremely positive if the revolutionary left could practically overcome the divisions that still exist as a legacy of struggles that finished long ago. The USSR's gone and China's restored capitalism, so it would be ridiculous for Cuba and Nepal to not set up at the very least friendly relations between two countries with revolutionary governments.


Castro put out articles in Granma supporting China during the most recent Tibet controversy, Cuba has has supported the governments of both China and North Korea. Heck, Cuba has even extended an olive branch to South Korea (hoping for unification of the country under the authority of the Korean people); I don't think Nepal is too much of a stretch. You are right that Cuba has been focusing more on victories in Latin America than in Asia, but I don't think that's from sectarianism, it's just that the Cuban revolution has a much more important place in the former than the latter.

All true, but I think that actually raises some questions about Castro's silence on Nepal. If he's willing to publicly back up the Chinese regime over Tibet, why has he not extended at least an equal level of support to the communist revolutionaries who've just become the government of Nepal? It's very strange, and I'd be bloody disappointed in Castro if he chooses not to back up the CPN (M) due to his historically bad relations with Maoism.


Basically, my impression is that if the Nepalese communists reached out to Cuba, they'd find a very willing ally. However, if they don't reach out, I hope the reason is that the CPN(M) is doing OK on their own. It's just that unity between them and Cuba would be a huge step forward for our movement that's been far too fractionalized since 1928.

I hope they reach out to Cuba too, but Cuba's a well established socialist country. The revolutionary government in Cuba ahs been in power for more than forty years, so as the older party here it should be their responsibility to initiate relations. It wouldn't take much for them to have at least put out a statement saying "well done people, hope things go well for you".


I don't know, maybe people are criticizing the CPN-M because some of us praise it, the same way that you diss a movie just because people go obscenely apeshit over it...like "Dark Knight". http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1243659)

They're dissing it because they're sectarian, dogmatic, idealist idiots.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is a progressive development, as it shows that the CPN(M) aims to move beyond the limits of bourgeois democracy and create a revolutionary political system based on the participation of the working masses, which will allow the workers to take control of their own affairs and ensure that future political developments are consistent with the collective interests of the working class, united with the impoverished peasantry. The experience of the CPN(M) shows that there is no universal strategy for economic and political development, rather communists should examine the unique conditions of each country and develop a strategy which is appropriate for each country's level of economic development and geopolitical position. This is exactly what the CPN(M) has done in Nepal, and is a valuable lesson for all future revolutionary struggles, as well as the ongoing struggles in Colombia and India.


The party is counterrevolutionary if it acts to stall the socialist revolution.How exactly is the CPN(M) trying to "stall" the socialist revolution? The current level of economic development in Nepal is clearly not sufficient to support socialism which is why the most important objective for the CPN(M) is to develop the productive forces and thereby eliminate material scarcity, which can only take place by maintaining certain aspects of capitalism such as allowing foreign investment, subject to government regulations and consistent with the desires of the Nepalese working masses.

[RHIZOMES]

This is getting off topic, but serious scholarship on Stalin agrees with neither the capitalist bullsh*t of Conquest and the "Black Book of Communism" nor the claims of the Stalinists today. Arch Getty and others have done a lot of real objective research on the USSR during Stalin's period of leadership, I suggest people read some of his work. He, on the one hand, shows that the claims of the anti-communists are flagrantly wrong, and on the other, reveals the extent to which the purges WERE completely delusional projects that cost many people their lives.

On Prachanda, I understand he may not want to reveal what the Maoists have in store for Nepal, and I support the struggles of the Nepalese toilers 100%. In an article I'm going to publish on my campus in the next week, I use the Nepalese Maoists as an example of the resurgence of the revolutionary socialists around the world. However, my fear is that the Maoists will be more worried about so-called "revisionism" than establishing working-class state power and socialism (which is a problem shared by most Maoists). Instead of looking for allies in Cuba and elsewhere, they'll probably continue the insular course that Mao himself was so fond of, and that is a shame. That being said, I wish the Maoists the very best and hope they tirelessly further the interests of the Nepalese workers.


Yeah we shouldn't be concerned about revisionism at all! I mean the USSR did so well from Khruschev onwards didn't it? :rolleyes:

[reddevil]

a new piece by india's socialist alternative accuses the cpn (m) of revisionism.

Maoists election victory in Nepal

Need for socialist programme to break with landlordism and capitalism

Per-Ake Westerlund (CWI Sweden)

www.socialistworld.net (http://www.socialistworld.net/)
The Maoists won a spectacular victory in the Nepalese elections. In a shock for regional and global powers, the Prime Minister as well as ministers of Finance, Defence and the Interior, will now belong to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) who received over a third of the votes. Bear in mind the humiliation, given that the US Embassy had predicted the Maoists would get at most 8-10 per cent of the vote. Workers and poor in Nepal, however, should not expect socialist policies from their new leaders.
By Monday 21 April, the CPN-M had won 120 seats out of 239 so far counted for the new Constituent Assembly (CA). The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, the two parties that have dominated most governments since 1990, had 37 and 33 seats respectively. Royalist parties have no seats so far, while new parties representing the Terai population in the South, have almost 40 seats. The Maoists have won half of the 240 directly elected seats. In total the CA will have 601 delegates, of which 335 are proportional and 26 allocated by the interim government.
When the counting is finished, the Maoists are forecast to have about 33 per cent of the proportional votes and more than a third of all seats. In their strongholds in western Nepal, especially Rolpa and Rokum, the Maoists as expected won all seats, but even in Kathmandu, the capital, they secured seven out of the 15 directly elected seats.
More than 2,000 election observers were in place and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the poll as "orderly and peaceful". The Maoist leader received congratulations from the ambassadors of India, Japan and other countries.
It is a remarkable sea-change when the CPN (M) leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal - known as 'Prachanda' - is the most likely future president of a Nepali republic. Only a few years ago, the government issued a 5 million rupee reward for him, dead or alive. Even earlier, before the start of the 'People's War' in 1996, the party could "hardly muster a presence at its public meetings" (Deepak Thapa, "A Kingdom Under Siege"). It is also only three years since King Gyanendra in a coup, abolished government and parliament in an attempt to re-establish the absolute monarchy.
The Nepalese Congress Party and the Communist Party (Unified Marxist-Leninists) that have dominated governments since the 1990 people's power revolt, and up to now have been described as the "main parties", are now in deep crisis. The CPN-UML has already announced they are resigning from government.
Enthusiasm and hopes are widespread in Nepal as well as in neighbouring India, especially in the countryside. The Maoists are seen as fighters for land reform and known for cancelling poor families' debts when they controlled areas of the country. At the same time, governments and capitalists are fearful for what kind of model the Maoists will follow now.
More farsighted analysts, however, stress that the Maoists are the 'new mainstream', indicated by Prachanda's conciliatory victory speech. He underlined the need for "good neighbourly relations" with India and China. Meetings between the Maoists and US ambassador, Nancy Powell, have also been reported. "We are trying to establish close links with the US", commented Maoist central committee member C. P. Gajurel. "Nepal Maoist win rings false alarm bells abroad", concluded Reuters, the news agency, while the ultra-capitalist Economist stated "there are grounds for enthusiasm". This on the basis that the Maoists "are above all nationalists, not leftists" with economic policies that "seem quite liberal". Monday 21 April, a business website reported, "Nepal's stock market has recovered as the reconciliatory rebels pledged to promote a pro-industry, capitalist economy".
The war years

The Maoists launched their 'People's War' in February 1996, but especially since 2001 their intention had been to reach a negotiated settlement. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) that year launched the Prachanda path as an amendment to Maoism. One of its cornerstones was "dialogue" with other parties and even the monarchy! By then, the Maoists had already established strongholds particularly in the west, but found it harder to find new fighters. The pressure for the fighting to end was strong. The Maoists and the government conducted several rounds of talks in 2001-03.
It was particularly the '9/11' events in the US that prolonged the war, with Western governments supporting the Nepalese government's own 'war on terror'. The same year, in June, king Birendra and his whole family were killed in a massacre. He was replaced by his more confrontational brother, Gyanendra. In November 2001 the Royal Army entered the war. The army was expanded from 50,000 to 75,000 troops and received major support from the US, Britain, India and China.
It is often repeated that 13,000 people were killed in the war 1996-2006, but 10,000 of these were after 2001, when the army launched its offensive. State forces killed four times as many as the Maoists. Many of the army's victims were civilian supporters of the Maoists. Especially in the beginning of the war, the established parties, particularly Congress, were responsible for torture, arrests of journalists and police campaigns.
The peak of the state's armed offensive was the king's coup in 2005. The coup was in response to a strong mass movement in April 2004, when more then ten people were killed in daily clashes in Kathmandu, but also as a reaction to previous governments' failure to crush the Maoists. However, the King's power was finished within a year by the "April revolution" of 2006, a mass movement that surprised all parties, including the Maoists. In November the same year, the established parties and the Maoists agreed to a Seven-Party Alliance which established a coalition government and a temporary parliament.
Prepare for further turn to the right

An election is now being held now for a Constituent Assembly in which the Maoists will be the biggest party. The comments of Baburam Bhattarai, number two in the hierarchy of CPN(M), in an interview with Indian journalists indicate the Maoists are preparing for further shifts to the right.
First, Bhattarai plays down the historic significance of the Maoists' election victory: "I have observed how popular waves have swept parliamentary elections in India. In 1977, Indira Gandhi was defeated. Similarly, sympathy votes after her tragic death helped Rajiv Gandhi to sweep the 1985 parliamentary elections. I had seen such mass hysteria earlier."
Baburam Bhattarai then stresses the Constituent Assembly will work under an Interim Constitution from 2007 that demands political 'consensuses'. The Maoists stress they want a coalition government with all parties in the Assembly. This Assembly, according to Bhattarai, will work for two years to draft a new constitution. Apart from deciding for a republic and asking the king to leave his palace, in one of its first sessions, the Assembly will work slowly.
"I take it as a great responsibility because we have to restructure the 250-year-old feudal system. You cannot expect it to happen overnight. Secondly, while restructuring the state, we have to take into account different aspects such as poverty, illiteracy, health and others. We don't have enough resources and skill to reorganise the country in the way we want to. It may take at least 10-15 years to do it", Bhattarai stated.
It it trues that Nepal is a poor country with a small working class, and the masses will not expect miracles. However, waiting "at least 10-15 years" is not part of a successful revolutionary process in any country. The Russian Revolution in 1917 showed the way forward and the decisive role of the proletariat. While the tsar was overthrown in February, all major democratic tasks of the revolution were still unsolved – there was no land reform, the war with all its sufferings continued and the national oppression was actually increased. Lenin and Trotsky in the leadership of the Bolsheviks explained that the working class taking power was the only solution. The landlords, the capitalists and imperialist powers were all intertwined and united against the workers and peasants. The democratic tasks of the revolution were therefore closely linked to the socialist. The working class in the cities, above all in Petrograd, were won to this revolutionary programme, and supported by the mighty uprisings on the countryside, they could establish a workers' government. All along, the Bolshviks also emphasised that the socialist revolution is an international revolution, especially crucial in underdeveloped Russia. These lessons from the Russian Revolution were summarised in advance in Leon Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution.
While the accumulation of contradictions and dissatisfaction in Nepal can take some time, it is rather the rapid events involving the masses that have changed the country. The struggles in the end of the 1940s and early 50s, then again in 1990 and 2006, achieved more than decades of 'gradualism'.
The movement in Nepal in April 2006 "had many classical revolutionary features. A general strike originally called for 6-9 April was extended indefinitely, involving civil servants and bank, telecommunication, education and health service workers. "Porters, street-vendors, taxi-drivers, factory-workers and small farmers have put their work aside to take part," reported Nepalese journalist, Anuj Mishra.
The general strike gave confidence to the masses of youth, poor and peasants to participate in demonstrations in Pokhara, Chitwan and other towns. When the answer from the regime was shoot-to-kill curfews and brutal attacks on peaceful demonstrations "something snapped", Times of India concluded in an editorial. It became "a popular insurrection" (Financial Times) with the aim to reach the royal palace in Kathmandu and overthrow monarchy. Staff from the cabinet secretariat, "business associations… and even the families of security personnel …started supporting the movement" (International Crisis Group, ICC). In total, six million people participated." (From Socialism Today, May 2006).
Today, Bhattarai wants patience while negotiating with corrupt party leaders in the Assembly. "What we need right now is political stability", he says. But for any party calling itself socialist or communist, the question of democratic control from below is a key factor..
The state

This is particularly the case since the old economic and state powers are fundamentally intact. During their 'People's War' campaign, the Maoists established a de facto separate state apparatus in areas under their control. Their armed forces ruled through 'people's committees' and a number of front organisations, such as the 'All Nepal Women's Organisation' and liberation fronts for minorities. It this way, the Maoists were able to abolish feudal powers and rules; cooperatives and collective farms were introduced; a third of the Maoist fighters were female in a country with the biggest inequality between the sexes in South Asia; debts were abolished; workers' received support in their struggle for higher wages; ethnic groups and castes that had been discriminated against were promoted. These attractive pro-poor policies could only be achieved through struggle against the ruling elite. Now, however, the Maoist leadership seem to believe they can cooperate with the economic and political elite.
Bhattarai speaks about a 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' as well as "integration of the security force". The latter is a long standing demand from the Maoists, of a merger between their 29,000-strong People's Liberation Army and the former Royal Army with 100,000 troops. Previous statements from the Maoists against the need for a big army are now changed. "The strength of the security forces after the two are combined would be roughly over 100,000. Going by the country's population, such a number may appear necessary. But we have to reduce the size of the army in the long term. I think that instead of having such a huge number of army, we could go for trained militias who would defend the country at times of war. I think it would be useful to train such a force. We should mobilise them during emergencies", Bhattarai says. A costly army of 100,000 in one of the poorest countries in the world and militias to be mobilised "during emergencies"! Not a word about democratic control or what kind of "emergencies". The officers of the national army (the title 'Royal' was abolished last year) have been trained in the war against the Maoists. In any capitalist country, the role of the army is to be the final defender of the capitalists' power and a constant threat against movements from below. In South Africa, the real role of the 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' was to give the impression that the old oppressors would be dealt with and the poor masses would gain something. In fact, it was a cover for a new layer of capitalists developing from those who claimed to represent the workers and poor who had done away with the old regime. For the Maoists in Nepal, it also seems to be an attempt to escape their 'terrorist' label internationally.
Maoism

Nepal is a very poor country, ranked 158 out of 179 in GDP per capita, according to the World Bank. Its GDP per capita is only a fifth of China's and less than half of India's. The total state budget is only 1.2 billion US dollars, of which western aid accounts for 30 per cent. Hundreds of thousands of young people can not find jobs, and 80 per cent still work in agriculture. One third of the population of 27-29 million, live on less than one dollar a day.
This is what global capitalism has offered Nepal. The Maoists have never understood or advocated the need for a publicly owned, democratically planned economy. Essentially, Maoism is a variant of Stalinism. Stalinism, in turn, was a u-turn away from Marxism and Bolshevism in order to preserve the power of Stalin and the bureaucracy that arose after the isolation and exhaustion of the Russian Revolution.
Stalinist policies in the neo-colonial world are marked by several key features. One is nationalism, including the absence of a perspective of spreading the struggle against capitalism beyond national borders. Secondly there is the idea that the revolution has two stages - first, a democratic stage conducted in alliance with the 'national democratic' capitalists, taking precedence over the supposedly later, socialist phase. Thirdly, it involves party and state structures that allow for no democracy or real debate and decision-making in the hands of the working class.
In Nepal, the first communists, as well as the Nepal Congress, started with armed struggle in the late 1940s (they were labelled 'terrorists' by the British colonial power). In 1959, the monarchy had to accept the election of a Congress government. But only 18 months later, the king established his dictatorship, 'panchayat' that lasted until 1990. Initially, The Moscow bureaucracy and leading Nepali communists supported the King's coup against the Congress. This led to a split in their ranks and subsequently to a series of communist parties that looked to China as a model.
Traditionally, communist parties in Nepal have emphasised the demand for a Constituent Assembly and a republic, and opposed to India's dominance and the monarchy. While many politicians in today's Congress Party participated in the 'panchayat' system, the communists were totally opposed. To the state's slogan of 'one nation, one language' in a country with more than 40 ethnic groups and many languages, the small communist parties counter-posed the demand for autonomy and rights for minorities.
Just before the movement that overthrew the panchayat system in 1990, there were three Maoist parties. Prachanda had become leader in one of them in 1989, while Baburam Bhattarai was in one of the others. However, they played little or no role in the movement and failed to make gains in the coming elections despite their criticism of Congress' and CPN(UML)'s compromises with the king.
The new CPN(M) party in 1995 had a traditional Maoist-Stalinist programme. They wanted to achieve a "new democratic state" and pointed at six groups in society as their allies. After the working class and poor peasants, they also wanted an alliance with "rich peasants" and "the national bourgeoisie", the latter as opposed to the comprodor bourgeoisie or direct brokers of imperialism, and the bureaucratic king. At that stage, they named the Congress leader Giriija Prisad Koirala, a "Nepali Hitler". Ironically, since 2007, Koirala has been prime minister in a government with five Maoist ministers.
The CPN (M)'s 40-point charter from the start of its 'People's War' in 1996 included key democratic demands against discrimination and for improved living standards. How these could be implemented, however, was left open. Demands for nationalisation included only the "comprodor capitalists".
The economy

The vagueness of the Maoists in the 1990s regarding economic and explicitly socialist demands has today been replaced with an open call for alliances with capitalists. Bhattarai wants to follow a Chinese capitalist model, but says the "age-old feudal system" will limit the possibilities for "rapid economic progress". He does not hesitate on what road to take: "Once we restructure the state and involve the private sector, it will be possible to achieve rapid economic growth. We would implement a transitional economic policy during such an interim period which involves public and private partnership... So, we will follow the policy of attracting domestic and foreign investments... From our side, we have to provide security to investors and create a conducive environment for domestic and foreign financiers."
The Maoists do not advocate nationalisation or a planned economy: "The state will play the role of facilitator. The state cannot intervene in business activities. It will encourage investors to raise productivity and generate employment opportunities."
In words, this does not differentiate the Maoists from most governments. Remaining on the capitalist path, in order to attract foreign investments, Nepal will have to offer low wages and bribes to transnational companies. Experience, however, shows that improvements in the lives of ordinary people have come only as a result of struggle against local and global powers.
In a further astonishing statement, Bhattarai says, "And I also think that we will be able to resolve the differences between labour and management." He does not elaborate how this will be achieved. The conflict between the capitalist class and the working class is the main political conflict in capitalist society. It is not a 'technical' issue between "labour and management" that a government can solve, especially if the government does not clearly take the side of the working class.
Maoist government

Are the Maoists a completely different party? Are they only taking a "tactical pause" before pushing ahead to abolish capitalism? Has Nepal been changed forever by these elections?
On the first question, the Maoists will for a long time claim to be different. The Constituent Assembly will decide on the republic which will symbolise a big change and a victory for the Maoists. The CA might also pave the way for Prachanda as president. If other parties object, or, as in the case of CPN (UML), maybe leave the government, the Maoists will no doubt threaten to use their traditional methods of mass protests. They will also be imprecise on whether at some stage they again can take up armed struggle.
The Maoists can, for a while, rest upon the hatred against the other parties. The movement in 1990, however, holds many lessons for the coming period. Congress and especially the CPN (UML) had strong support for a period. But their neo-liberal policies increased the gap between rich and poor. "It was as if the 1990 movement, which people expected so much of, had never happened", Deepak Thapa writes in his book. Already in 1992, a People's Movement Day was organised, with a bandh (general strike). More than ten people were killed in clashes with the police.
1990 to 2003 saw thirteen governments in Nepal, all of them extremely corrupt and incompetent. The trend of increased inequality has never been broken. In absolute numbers, there were more poor people in 1999 than in 1970. Today, the problems of infrastructure, agriculture, industry are more acute than ever.
In decisive fields, the Maoist leadership have proven that in policies they are not so different from other parties; they will try to use a coalition government and demands for consensus to say they can't implement the policies they really stand for. But as shown above, their policies on the state and the economy are almost the same as other parties.
Over the last weeks, police in Kathmandu have several times clashed with Tibetan demonstrators. Most recently, Nepali police announced they will 'shoot to kill' any protesters that try to climb Mount Everest, where the Olympic torch will be go on its global relay. The Maoists have sided with the state forces and criticised the Tibetan demonstrators. Despite their previous view that China is capitalist, they now repeat their admiration for Mao – and China.
The question of autonomy for ethnic groups will also be a litmus test for the Maoists. There were strikes for more than two weeks in February in the Terai area on the border with India. The Terai/Madhesi people, which account for half Nepal's total population, have never had any influence on politics in Kathmandu. In this election, there were strong calls for a boycott, but the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party contested after receiving promises of autonomy. Whether a Maoist-led government will grant this remains to be seen. More likely is that the Terai will be the region where struggle and problems for the new government will occur first.
There are no signs of the Maoists just taking a "tactical pause", as some people would credit them with. Even if Mao himself in the 30s made deals with Chiang Kai-shek's capitalist regime, against imperialism, he never gave up his armed forces or areas under his control. When Mao came to power in 1949, he soon found out that his power was incompatible with the remains of capitalism. Today, the Maoists in Nepal, on the contrary, seem to believe they can stay in power by not breaking with global capitalism.
Real Marxists, as opposed to Maoists and Stalinists, would follow the tradition of Lenin and the Russian Revolution. They would have the declared aim, basing themselves on the small but decisive working class, of carrying through the full programme of socialist transformation and spreading the idea to the workers of neighbouring countries and beyond. If temporary tactical retreats and compromises on implementing this programme were necessary, then they should not be concealed, or presented as something else. They should be openly explained and discussed in the party and among the organised masses of the people. If the masses in Nepal believe the Maoists have full control and a secret tactic, and only 'appear' capitalist to fool the enemy, this will only act to confuse and pacify them.
Pressure from the masses and the global economic downturn may put pressure on the Maoists to turn to the left again. It could also lead to splits among them, with rank and file forces demanding land reform and nationalisations. A big obstacle on this road, however, is the military, bureaucratic tradition of decision-making within the Maoist movement. Real socialist forces of workers and youth will therefore be needed to challenge the new government.
Despite its relatively small population compared to its neighbours India and China, events in Nepal have an important influence in Asia, as an example of mass struggle overthrowing a brutal dictatorship. This is also the reason behind the interest in the elections from world powers. Basically, these election results are like a roar expressing the hatred of the masses towards capitalism and the established powers, as well as the urgent need for revolutionary parties for workers and poor peasants fighting to abolish capitalism and establish socialism throughout South Asia. Nepal shows the potential for such forces.

[Yehuda Stern]

The CPN(Maoists) are the ones introducing these reforms! This is like saying we should support Darwin but not his theory of natural selection.

No, it's like saying we should support the theory of natural selection, but not Darwin himself, who was a reactionary in his political views. Nice try though.


Where do you see evidence of this occuring? How can you jump to such presumptuos conclusions?

Every national liberation struggle in the 20th century used socialist rhetoric only to later crush the working class. I am not a fatalist regarding these struggles - I still think military support should be given to them. But when political control is left in the hand of the nationalists (including Stalinists), the workers are crushed and dictatorial regimes arise (China, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, etc.). I simply take those revolutions as lessons for the current situation in Nepal. Of course, since you sport a picture of one of the worst dictators in history in your avatar, I suppose you view these events differently.



I hate to get all sectarian, but

I love sentences that start like that. At any rate, I've heard it all before, and am not interested in hearing it again. You can justify your beloved mass murderers all you like - I prefer to leave my banner clean of the blood of workers.

[IrisBright]

Posted by Mike Ely on September 18, 2008



The Nepali Maoist newspaper Red Star ( Issue 13, August 18) has reprinted (as an “opinion” piece) the following article from a European communist newspaper. This article originally appeared in La Voce (29 July 2008), the review of the (new) Italian Communist Party. The piece was originally entitled, ‘Nepal – The First Great Victory of International Communist Movement in the XXI Century’, CARC Party – International Relations Department.


Several things are significant about this re-printing: The article includes some pointed appraisal of the various “coordinations or aggregation” that have organized communist movements into international networks. The Nepali Maoists CPN-M have been part of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement RIM, an international Maoist network that describes itself as “the embryonic center of the world’s Maoist forces.”


For that reason it is striking that the following article says that sectarianism marks “the attitude of the great coordinations of the International Communist Movement towards Nepali revolution.” The article pointedly says that “the existing coordinations and aggregations of the International Communist Movement do not yet express themselves on the meaning of Nepali revolution.” And it adds: “According to us, it shows their limit.”
As is well known to readers of this site, the RCP,USA and the closely-alligned Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement have maintained a stunning (even shocking) silence as Maoist comrades have dared to reach for power in Nepal.


And it is hard not to see the following passage as a criticism of the RIM and then of the RCP (with its escalating cult of personality around Bob Avakian:
“None of the various aggregations of Communist parties and organizations can set itself even as an embryo of a new International if it does not overcome this difficulty, if it just restricts itself to denounce revisionism and imperialism, if it does not propose a course that could lead Communists to victory, in the imperialist and the semi colonial and oppressed countries, according to the specific conditions of the ones and the others. Such proposals do not rise from some individual genius, nor from the particular qualities of a single party or organization.”
The full article follows here.

Opinion:The ICM and the Nepali revolution

Ongoing revolution in Nepal is raising many reactions within the international communist movement. Many are positive, others positive with reservations, and some negative. These many reactions demonstrate the importance of Nepali revolution, and it is best they will develop and relate each other, and that an open and frank debate will develop within the many forces of the International Communist Movement. The open and frank debate is a necessary means for overcoming sectarianism, that is, in this case, the attitude to ignore each other, each one shut in its ideological or national ambit.


Sectarianism is a weakness of the International Communist Movement, persisting in this beginning of the new wave of proletarian revolution. Concomitant expression of this weakness is the attitude of the great coordinations of the International Communist Movement towards Nepali revolution.


In fact, for decades, some great coordinations or aggregation have been existing, constituted in contrast with modern revisionism, that are collecting Communist parties and organizations all around the world. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) itself joins one of these coordinations, and our Party joins another. These coordinations or aggregations do not yet clearly express themselves on the meaning of Nepali revolution. The only one that did it was the International League of People’s Struggle, (ILPS) , that, however, is an aggregation of mass organizations, and not of political parties and organizations.


The fact that the existing coordinations and aggregations of the International Communist Movement do not yet express themselves on the meaning of Nepali revolution is important. According to us, it shows their limit.


All these coordinations, in fact, set themselves up and got importance as means of struggle against modern revisionism. They have been useful in fighting this enemy of the Communist movement that, however, in many countries has ended its days. It keeps up strength in the international ambit, and in many nations (i.e. in India, where it slaughters the people’s masses, as it did in Nandigram, or in China, where it rules the country). However, elsewhere, revisionists are no more or hardly existing. Some are vanished with the collapse of the first socialist countries. Some are vanished in the imperialist countries, as it happened in Italy with latest elections. Some keep on existing but they have been crushed, as it happened in the elections for the Constituent Assembly in Nepal. The more revisionists withdraw, the less anti revisionism is a sufficient means for uniting the various communist forces.


The many existing international aggregations are ideologically different among them (Marxist – Leninist, Marxist – Leninist with a positive attitude towards Mao Tse – tung’s thought, Marxist – Leninist – Maoist). Anyway, they have had anti revisionism as common character and strong point. The more this character looses importance, the more they lose it as a strong point and factor of aggregation.


Today, the various international aggregations of communist parties and organizations cannot say only who they are fighting (revisionism, imperialism, etc.), but they have to say what they are fighting for. They have to mark out a course for advancing. The fact that they are able to denounce revisionists’ lies and imperialists’ crimes, but they are not able to give their opinion, or stutter about the situation in Nepal, where Communists are advancing, is a sign of their difficulties.
None of the various aggregations of Communist parties and organizations can set itself even as an embryo of a new International if it does not overcome this difficulty, if it just restricts itself to denounce revisionism and imperialism, if it does not propose a course that could lead Communists to victory, in the imperialist and the semi colonial and oppressed countries, according to the specific conditions of the ones and the others.
Such proposals do not rise from some individual genius, nor from the particular qualities of a single party or organization. They rise from the open and frank debate among the various Communist parties and organizations on the international level. This debate, then, must be united to the practical organizations in all the struggle fronts (against imperialism, for defending the conquests of the working class and the people’s masses, the oppressed people and nations, women, young people, environment, etc.), and to mutual solidarity. So doing, the debate cannot be reduced to an empty and abstract talking: the common practice will confirm which positions are right and which are not.


Open and frank debate, common practice and solidarity are the pillars that support the main road of the unity of the International Communist Movement.



This article has been taken from the issue 29 of La Voce (29 July 2008), the review of the (new) Italian Communist Party entitled ‘Nepal – The First Great Victory of International Communist Movement in the XXI Century’, CARC Party – International Relations Department.

[manic expression]

Yeah we shouldn't be concerned about revisionism at all! I mean the USSR did so well from Khruschev onwards didn't it? :rolleyes:

Off topic again, but I would like to disagree here. The USSR made it their policy to support progressive national liberation struggles during Khruschev's years, whereas China supported some of the most repugnant and reactionary factions on the face of the earth. While China was supporting Pinochet, the USSR was fighting apartheid and imperialism in South Africa. Further, the USSR improved living conditions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during this time, whereas PRC was descending into complete chaos from which capitalist restoration would arise. I'll take so-called "revisionism" over the mess the PRC became any day of the week and twice on Saturday.

And really, what does "revisionism" really boil down to? Not giving teary-eyed praise to Stalin and his policies, that's what. You talk of "revisionism", but the fact of the matter is that the self-proclaimed "anti-revisionists" revised quite a bit of history and Marxism.

The worst part about this fallacy is that it gets in the way of solidarity. I give lots of support to Maoist movements, I respect many of Mao's ideas and I uphold the monumental contributions he made to the struggle of the working class. For crying out loud, I even marched with the RCP. However, where there should be a rational debate and an honest discussion of our movement, we get sloganeering and name-calling. I'm more than willing to have constructive dialogue with Maoists, and more than that I would like to work with them in practice, but I cannot handle the mantra of "revisionism", for it unfortunately accomplishes precisely what it is employed to do: to end all argument. That doesn't help our movement whatsoever.

By the way, here's a short article I found from Granma on Nepal.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/junio/vier6/nepal.html

It doesn't out-and-out praise the CPN(M), but I think it casts them in a very positive light and underlines the progress they are making for the Nepalese toilers.

[Saorsa]

By the way, here's a short article I found from Granma on Nepal.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/junio/vier6/nepal.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/junio/vier6/nepal.html)

It doesn't out-and-out praise the CPN(M), but I think it casts them in a very positive light and underlines the progress they are making for the Nepalese toilers.

Hey, thanks for finding that, that's good to see. Even if it's only an article portraying rhem in a good light, hopefully it opens up the possibility of cooperation in the future.

[RHIZOMES]

Off topic again, but I would like to disagree here. The USSR made it their policy to support progressive national liberation struggles during Khruschev's years, whereas China supported some of the most repugnant and reactionary factions on the face of the earth. While China was supporting Pinochet, the USSR was fighting apartheid and imperialism in South Africa. Further, the USSR improved living conditions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during this time, whereas PRC was descending into complete chaos from which capitalist restoration would arise. I'll take so-called "revisionism" over the mess the PRC became any day of the week and twice on Saturday.

Fair point.


And really, what does "revisionism" really boil down to? Not giving teary-eyed praise to Stalin and his policies, that's what.

Peaceful coexistence, parliamentary road to socialism, etc. Stalin wasn't the greatest leader ever, but he was leading the USSR in the right direction. That is why I consider myself an anti-revisionist.


The worst part about this fallacy is that it gets in the way of solidarity. I give lots of support to Maoist movements, I respect many of Mao's ideas and I uphold the monumental contributions he made to the struggle of the working class. For crying out loud, I even marched with the RCP. However, where there should be a rational debate and an honest discussion of our movement, we get sloganeering and name-calling. I'm more than willing to have constructive dialogue with Maoists, and more than that I would like to work with them in practice, but I cannot handle the mantra of "revisionism", for it unfortunately accomplishes precisely what it is employed to do: to end all argument. That doesn't help our movement whatsoever.

No disagreements here either. I must have misunderstood you. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Off topic again, but I would like to disagree here. The USSR made it their policy to support progressive national liberation struggles during Khruschev's years, whereas China supported some of the most repugnant and reactionary factions on the face of the earth. While China was supporting Pinochet, the USSR was fighting apartheid and imperialism in South Africa. Further, the USSR improved living conditions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during this time, whereas PRC was descending into complete chaos from which capitalist restoration would arise. I'll take so-called "revisionism" over the mess the PRC became any day of the week and twice on Saturday.

And really, what does "revisionism" really boil down to? Not giving teary-eyed praise to Stalin and his policies, that's what. You talk of "revisionism", but the fact of the matter is that the self-proclaimed "anti-revisionists" revised quite a bit of history and Marxism.



And speaking of "revisionism":

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/737/stalinistillusions.html



Stalinist illusions exposed

Mike Macnair explodes the myths about the ‘gains’ of the USSR


The utopian ideologies had both rightist technicist (‘revisionist’) and ultra-left voluntarist (Stalinist-proper) sides. These were repeated in the history of both China and (more mildly) Cuba. In each case, the ultra-left voluntarist side was disastrous for the country, for the workers and peasants, and even for the state apparatus; it was for this reason that in each case it was abandoned, leading to an underlying tendency for the rightist side to be strengthened and the victory of ‘revisionism’. Comrade Clark adheres to the ultra-left, voluntarist side of Stalinism against the ‘rightist’ side of this same tendency. But, since this is utopian and can lead only to disasters, this adherence will inevitably lead only to new victories for the rightist side, ‘revisionism’.



[No offense intended to Maoists in this thread]

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I personally think the peaceful and cooperative experiments going on in Nepal only serve to help the communist movement by moving away from the politics of the 20th century. The EZLN, Nepal, Cuba, and Venezuela - all flawed to certain degrees - exemplify a much more humanitarian and (I believe) realistic approach. Hopefully the Left can resurges to a predominant level of activity and create an international support network. We see Latin American at least responding to American hegemony.

[RHIZOMES]

[No offense intended to Maoists in this thread]

No offense taken, since I don't actually understand what the hell that quote is talking about. :lol: Is Mike McNair one of the influences for your writing style? :tt2:

[Saorsa]

I personally think the peaceful and cooperative experiments going on in Nepal only serve to help the communist movement by moving away from the politics of the 20th century.

Um, they're hardly peaceful. The Maoists only got elected because the of the mass support they built up in the course of their decade long revolutionary war, and to this day there are violent clashes between supporters of the various parties, with the YCL acting as the paramilitary wing of the Maoists.


exemplify a much more humanitarian and (I believe) realistic approach.

What do you mean by "humanitarian"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

No offense taken, since I don't actually understand what the hell that quote is talking about. :lol: Is Mike Macnair one of the influences for your writing style? :tt2:

Not really (re. Mike Macnair). ;)

I finished CSR before I got to read his theoretical material-turned-book on "the revolutionary party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32)" and the necessity of a Kautskyan-but-internationalist approach to party-building, mass support, etc. while not being as cozy to bureaucracy as the historical center tendency was.