Maoists in Nepal [Archive]

2nd November 2008, 10:34

Isn't that what Lenin did?
No. The Bolsheviks kicked the capitalist state and constituted a workers state, based on soviet democracy (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviets).

did you know that Prachanda is now Prime Minister of Nepal? I didn't know that. I haven't been closely following what's going on in Nepal. anyone care to comment?
I did knew. The Maoists getting elected into power is only showing their major programmatical fail. They believe, like Stalinists do aswell, in the "dual-phase" model of developing society (first you need a fully fledged capitalist society, after that, in some distant future, we can work on socialism) which in fact is an apologist position to defend the capitalist state and divert revolutionary energy away from smashing it.

Where is workers democracy? Where are the workers councils? Why is capitalism not abolished? Why is Prachandra leading a capitalist state?

Instead of putting forward a socialist alternative, the Maoists are just carrying out capitalist policies "with a socialist face".

Didn't the Maoist party get elected into power? That's simply amazing. More countries need to elect their leftist parties into power. It would definitely save the bloodshed of a revolution.
As NHIA already put it, we have no business in a capitalist state. The socialist revolution is not synonymous with a bloody event, despite what western propaganda says - the Russian October Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks and the Soviets took power from the capitalists, actually only killed a few palace guards. The socialist revolution is about the question "which class is in power?" and the working class can obviously not take power by means of using the capitalist state, a state that was designed to rule the masses by a small minority!

JimmyJazz

2nd November 2008, 12:00

I have nothing against revolution. I just feel a win by election would be better for alot of people. If revolution is our only choice then i'm willing to go with it.

This would only be remotely an option in underdeveloped countries, if anywhere. In very industrialized countries, the capitalist class is powerful enough and has the means to steer the country completely away from "democracy" and towards an explicit police state, and will do so, if its power is ever seriously threatened by a revolutionary (I mean social revolution) socialist party coming close to electoral victory.

The problem is, in any country where the bourgeoisie is sufficiently underdeveloped that it can't defend itself against a militant mass movement, the proletariat is also small and weak. The development of the two classes goes hand in hand. So you might have a seizure of power by a "Marxist" group, but all this really signifies is that they think Capital is a good piece of literature, not that it actually describes the objective reality of what is happening in their country.

I'm making these as general comments btw, I've read nothing about the Nepalese Maoists aside from a few threads on here.

Labor Shall Rule

2nd November 2008, 14:19

I did knew. The Maoists getting elected into power is only showing their major programmatical fail. They believe, like Stalinists do aswell, in the "dual-phase" model of developing society (first you need a fully fledged capitalist society, after that, in some distant future, we can work on socialism) which in fact is an apologist position to defend the capitalist state and divert revolutionary energy away from smashing it.

What are you talking about?

Mao started "New Democracy" (a programme to develop native capitalism through privately and publicly owned enterprises) and it ended after five to ten years. You are acting like 'capitalism' (in terms of linear development) is a stage that they can simply skip.

The Maoists' victory is remarkable in a age where Marxism is allegedly dead. It means a lot, not only for Nepal, but for Bhutan, India, and Bangladesh, where left peasant and worker movements are picking up tempo from the example of their Nepalese brothers. It is a beacon of how U.S. imperialism hasn't yet won in this age of so-called "modernity".

Vargha Poralli

2nd November 2008, 14:29

The Maoists' victory is remarkable in a age where Marxism is allegedly dead.

At the same time Maoists victory has nothing to do with Marxism of any sorts.

It means a lot, not only for Nepal, but for Bhutan, India, and Bangladesh, where left peasant and worker movements are picking up tempo from the example of their Nepalese brothers.

Peasants and worker movemnts here had picked up the tempo for a long time. Thay had occasional victories many setbacks but they continue to move ahead with the tempo with or without Maoists and Offical Stalinist parties.

Maoist's victory in Nepal had one good lesson for Indian Movement - that is never to trust the Capitalists with Redpaint - also called Stalinists and Maoists.

LOLseph Stalin

2nd November 2008, 17:58

I am so confused. :confused: If it's not possible to have socialists elected into power to take control how did the Maoists in Nepal get into power?

Labor Shall Rule

2nd November 2008, 18:52

I'm sorry Vergha, but it seems like you think your Marxism is bigger than anyone else's.

Maoist armed struggle is smoldering the dry grass of South East Asia - there is already a prairie fire, and it was lit by the Indian, Bhutanese, and Nepalese dirt farmers.

Nepal, by design of bureaucrat capitalists and royal landowners, has an industrial growth rate of 2.2%, lacks electrical production and consumption, and relies entirely on processing agricultural produce for export to India. India controls 67.9% of their foreign trade. To say that "socialism is possible there" would be incredibly naive.

The CPN(M) will break India's hold, develop native capitalism, and eventually socialize their industry and land. It's probably the greatest thing to happen to Nepal in the past few centuries.

2nd November 2008, 18:54

I am so confused. :confused: If it's not possible to have socialists elected into power to take control how did the Maoists in Nepal get into power?

The question is not so much as to get into power itself. Imagine Brian Moore being elected president of the USA on a radical program. Who will surround him? Reactionary army staff, republicans and democrats in the congress and house of representatives, rightwing high court... not to mention the millions of conservative bureaucrats! He would be countered from day 1. This is the vital lesson of the Paris Commune of 1871: we cannot use the capitalist state for our purposes, we must therefore smash it and replace it with genuine workers rule.

Yehuda Stern

2nd November 2008, 18:54

I am so confused. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif If it's not possible to have socialists elected into power to take control how did the Maoists in Nepal get into power?

They "took control" in a way, but Nepal is still a capitalist state, and there has been no socialist revolution in it, nor will there if the Maoists aren't challenged for the leadership of the mass movement. That some Maoists want to claim that the election of a Maoist party constitutes a revolution just shows that they are in essence reformists.

The CPN(M) will break India's hold, develop native capitalism, and eventually socialize their industry and land. It's probably the greatest thing to happen to Nepal in the past few centuries.Don't hold your breath - you just might suffocate.

LOLseph Stalin

2nd November 2008, 19:01

Thanks guys. I'm less confused now.

So you're saying the Maoists in Nepal can't do anything until they're challenged? I still don't quite get that part.

Random Precision

3rd November 2008, 00:11

Not only are the Nepali Maoists in an incredibly difficult situation, what with their country's economy being completely dependent on India and all, but even worse, they are in this incredibly difficult situation with bad revolutionary theory. Theory that tells them it's the thing to do to develop capitalism in their country rather than turn their sights on the revolution in neighboring countries. Theory that tells them to cooperate with bourgeois parties like the CPN(UML) and Nepali Congress.

It's never been easy for a party claiming to represent the workers' interests to enter a government whose interest is to continue exploitation of the workers- and I don't expect the CPN(M) to emerge out of this dilemma in one piece.

Hiero

3rd November 2008, 00:49

I am so confused. :confused: If it's not possible to have socialists elected into power to take control how did the Maoists in Nepal get into power?
It does sound confusing.

The Maoist have fought a guirrila war, it's support base is the peasantry and proleteriat. Over the years it developed major support because of their progressive politics. The major focus in the country was the removal of the King from power and removal of semi-feudal and religious political structures. This could come with the creation of a Republic.

Finally when all political parties forced elections the Maoist had two options. They could continue to fight for the capital (as some idiot advernturist here belive they should have) or participate in the election. If they continued the war, it would mean the King would stay in power longer, forstalling elections and this would hold back the republic. The CPN (M) decided to join the election. They won the election and have carried forward the popular political goals that people want, that being a republic and removal of feudal and religious political structures.

Now some people on this forum are very stupid about this position. They call for socialism or that the CPN (M) have betrayed something, which is quite contradictory for the same people never supported the CPN (M) earlier, so in their mind what have they betrayed? But why I say they are stupid is because the have no idea of the political context. It was only last month that the governmenmt of Nepal abolished a slavery system that has exist in Nepal for hundreds of years, and they want socialism tomorrow?

Basically Prachanda's line and the major line of that party is that they have to set Nepal up for a socialist revolution. They are not attempting to create socialism at the moment, socialism can only come about by revolution. They putting forward popular reforms to help relieve the people of old fuedal and religious oppression. A party can never just pop socialism out of the ground, that is what people do not understand. The socialist revolution will come when the contradictions between the state and the people, and the bourgeiosie and the proleteriat is at it's highest.

But if you read through the lines of the bourgeosie media (they can not understand the situation and so misreport) you will see this struggle between reformism taking over the party and the line for socialist revolution.

BobKKKindle$

3rd November 2008, 01:42

The CPN(M) has taken power after a prolonged struggle against the feudal monarchy which has only recently been abolished. They are faced with a difficult situation because they have taken power in the midst of a non-revolutionary period which means there are no other countries which can provide them with the resources they need to develop their economy and overcome the intense scarcity which currently exists in Nepal. This means that socialists should not expect the government to take control of every single company and ban foreign firms from investing in Nepal - this simply is not feasible given the current situation both within Nepal and on a world scale. The main objective for the government is to try and develop the productive forces and this objective can only be achieved within the framework of a mixed economy which combines legal protection for workers with limited concessions to private capital - hence the Bolshevik decision to adopt the NEP as a temporary stabilization measure after the carnage of the civil war, which caused a dramatic decline in Russia's industrial production. Although spreading the revolution to other countries would be a better option it is unlikely that any major countries will fall to revolution in the near future and so the pursuit of this option should not come at the expense of pragmatic solutions to Nepal's problems. The best thing the CPN(M) can do on the international front is provide aid to the Maoist guerillas fighting for liberation in India.

JimmyJazz

3rd November 2008, 03:01

Small Geezer

3rd November 2008, 03:52

His paragraphing is god awful though. But good point from BK.

JimmyJazz

3rd November 2008, 04:08

lol

Yehuda Stern

3rd November 2008, 09:33

So you're saying the Maoists in Nepal can't do anything until they're challenged? I still don't quite get that part.

What I'm saying is that the Maoists in Nepal aim for some sort of democratic revolution, which would create the basis for the development of capitalism in Nepal. However, from the beginning of the 20th century, the bourgeoisie of the undeveloped nations has become tied to imperialism and the landlords through all sorts of social relationships. This has made it counterrevolutionary and hostile to the interests of the workers and poor peasants. Therefore, it will always do all it can to prevent any sort of democratic revolution, which it sees as undermining its own interests even more than the continued control of some pre-capitalist elements.

This is the theory of Permanent Revolution in a nutshell, and the conclusion from it is that only the working class can carry out the democratic revolution, but once in power it will continue uninterrupted to the tasks of the socialist revolution. However, the Maoists certainly don't intend to follow this path, and consciously or not are leading the Nepalese workers to defeat.

BobKKKindle$

3rd November 2008, 11:33

3rd November 2008, 12:09

We need to consider the implications of adopting a radical economic policy for Nepal. If the Nepalese government nationalized the entire economy with no compensation then the foreign firms which which currently have investments in Nepal would withdraw all their money and would never want to invest in Nepal again unless the CPN(M) is removed from power, because they won't have a guarantee that their property will be protected against seizure by the state. This would deprive Nepal of the technical resources it needs to develop the economy, especially the energy sector which has the best potential for sustained growth. A radical policy could also cause the outwards migration of Nepal's professional classes which would further damage the government's ability to improve living standards and may even led to setbacks if these professionals cannot be replaced.

You, dear sir, are an apologist for reactionary policies and holding on to capitalism.

As YS has quite correctly pointed out, Nepal can only be freed from capitalism once it breaks with it. Nepal these days very much resembles Russia of 1917, so yeah, it will be difficult to break free from imperialism. But the only way forward is to connect the tasks of the democratic revolution with the tasks of the socialist revolution. This means workers democracy, socialising the economy and workers control and management over the means of production. This will truely shine as a beacon of hope and radicalisation to the workers in the rest of the world and in the Indian Subcontinent specifically. Now, as was the case in 1917, the survival of the revolution would rest on its effect internationally.

Instead in your fear for the power of the multinationals you just follow the Maoists and bow before capital instead of rising up against it. This is quite a cowardice stance not worthy of being called revolutionary.

RedHal

3rd November 2008, 12:18

What I'm saying is that the Maoists in Nepal aim for some sort of democratic revolution, which would create the basis for the development of capitalism in Nepal. However, from the beginning of the 20th century, the bourgeoisie of the undeveloped nations has become tied to imperialism and the landlords through all sorts of social relationships. This has made it counterrevolutionary and hostile to the interests of the workers and poor peasants. Therefore, it will always do all it can to prevent any sort of democratic revolution, which it sees as undermining its own interests even more than the continued control of some pre-capitalist elements.

This is the theory of Permanent Revolution in a nutshell, and the conclusion from it is that only the working class can carry out the democratic revolution, but once in power it will continue uninterrupted to the tasks of the socialist revolution. However, the Maoists certainly don't intend to follow this path, and consciously or not are leading the Nepalese workers to defeat.

I really wish a Trotskyist revolution happens so we can finally see how well his theories work in the real world! Until then I have no faith that these theories will work especially in a small, isolated, backwards, non industrialized country like Nepal. They just abolished slavery in 2008! and you expect them to create socialism tommorrow? Where are they going to get the technology and resources? I'm sure the rich imperialist countries are just lining up to give them a helping hand. No, in fact they have plenty of ways to strangle any type of revolutionary process not just militarily. Nepal has no choice but to play the game, but they have to play it smartly and carefully.

RedHal

3rd November 2008, 12:27

You, dear sir, are an apologist for reactionary policies and holding on to capitalism.

As YS has quite correctly pointed out, Nepal can only be freed from capitalism once it breaks with it. Nepal these days very much resembles Russia of 1917, so yeah, it will be difficult to break free from imperialism. But the only way forward is to connect the tasks of the democratic revolution with the tasks of the socialist revolution. This means workers democracy, socialising the economy and workers control and management over the means of production. This will truely shine as a beacon of hope and radicalisation to the workers in the rest of the world and in the Indian Subcontinent specifically. Now, as was the case in 1917, the survival of the revolution would rest on its effect internationally.

Instead in your fear for the power of the multinationals you just follow the Maoists and bow before capital instead of rising up against it. This is quite a cowardice stance not worthy of being called revolutionary.

LMAO, you are calling the Nepalese Maoists cowards?!?! They fought a people's war for several years, while you and your trot friends shout permanent revolution for years and years! Get the fuck outta here!

Revy

3rd November 2008, 13:10

The Prachanda Path and the Question of Power in Nepal (http://newsblaze.com/story/20081023082101zzzz.nb/topstory.html)

The above is a long read, but interesting. It's obviously from a Trotskyist perspective, calling out the Maoists for having a "Menshevik" position, that Nepal is not ready for socialism but needs capitalist development.

BobKKKindle$

3rd November 2008, 13:36

Nepal these days very much resembles Russia of 1917

No, Nepal is at a lower level of economic development as evidenced by the fact that Nepal in ranked in the bottom ten of countries worldwide in terms of GDP/Capita. In addition, when the October Revolution occurred there were several other countries including Germany which had prospects for revolution, but in the case of Nepal, because the Maoists have taken power in a non-revolutionary period, these prospects do not exist and so the government is faced with the harsh reality of having to build socialism on their own without outside help.

Yehuda Stern

3rd November 2008, 14:32

Labor Shall Rule

3rd November 2008, 15:33

These are the same arguments we hear against socialism everywhere. If a socialist wants to wait until a socialist revolution would be acceptable to the imperialists, then he is going to wait a very long time. All the problems you mention also plagued revolutionary Russia, and despite certain "prospects," the revolution in Germany never materialized. Do you seriously think that if Lenin knew that Germany would have no revolution, than he would support the Mensheviks? That's some real historical revisionism there.

The Mensheviks were right in regards the material conditions not existing for socialist revolution. But Lenin aspired to form a “revolutionary-democratic” dictatorship - the Mensheviks, Cadets, and Social-Revolutionaries did not, despite of their rhetoric.

He feared, of course, isolation, but him and Bukharin knew that their economic program of state-monopoly capitalism was the only course to take in the face of international defeat.

Revy

3rd November 2008, 15:58

The Maoists focus on the peasantry, don't they? Is this the right or wrong thing to do? From my understanding, it was the Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia who got support mainly from the peasantry in the rural areas, and believed that the peasantry was the revolutionary class, instead of the industrial proletariat. They were, unlike the Bolsheviks, the most popular party across the country, while the Bolsheviks were popular in the urban industrialized areas. For example, in the elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly after the fall of the Tsarist regime (the Russian Revolution), the Socialist-Revolutionaries gained the majority of votes (57% to the Bolsheviks' 25%). If not for the Bolshevik Revolution, the Socialist-Revolutionaries would have been in control of the country and would have focused the revolution on the interests of the peasants. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.

Labor Shall Rule

3rd November 2008, 16:32

You are getting this all wrong, Stancel.

“Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes.”It's a crucial part of Marxist dialectics and Maoist political economy to understand that the semicolonial, semifeudal mode of production requires (most often) a strategy of rural military mobilization to counter feudal-bureaucrat power.

Mao, in China, understood that statified capitalism ('state-monopoly capitalism') had to be established as a precusor to democratic control of property and the means of production. His theory, termed New Democracy, stated that radical-democratic goals (such as land redistribution, mechanization of agriculture, control of foreign trade) had to be carried out, for socialist benchmarks to be achievable.

But after 1959, the privately-owned sector, in a response to years of mounting worker's experience and organization (the PRC legalized strikes and started "block committees" and worker plenaries in response to Mao's "move our work from the countryside to the cities" call), was nationalized entirely. In historical comparison, the Nepalese Maoists have more of a connection than the CCP did - the main trade and student unions are in their hands, and they orchestrated the brilliant general strike that brought the monarchy down in the first place.

chegitz guevara

3rd November 2008, 17:22

This is the theory of Permanent Revolution in a nutshell, and the conclusion from it is that only the working class can carry out the democratic revolution, but once in power it will continue uninterrupted to the tasks of the socialist revolution. However, the Maoists certainly don't intend to follow this path, and consciously or not are leading the Nepalese workers to defeat.

Can you point to a Nepali worker class?

chegitz guevara

3rd November 2008, 17:24

The Mensheviks were right in regards the material conditions not existing for socialist revolution.

If they were right, there would have been no socialist revolution. Since a socialist revolution not only occurred, but succeeded, they, therefore, must have been wrong.

Labor Shall Rule

3rd November 2008, 17:39

If they were right, there would have been no socialist revolution. Since a socialist revolution not only occurred, but succeeded, they, therefore, must have been wrong.

If you were to make a split from orthodox Marxism and define the USSR primarily on which class has state power, then yes, it'd be 'socialist' in character, but since the workers were not and could not of been in control of it's state capitalism, then the only thing that makes it 'socialistic' is the fact that a worker's revolution overthrew Kerensky.

Otherwise, Lenin was not lying when he said "state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!" It was clear that, economically speaking, they were presiding over a monolithic radical bourgeois revolution that had the objectives of accumulating state and private capital through the operating of state trusts and syndicates. In that respect, Lenin and Trotsky were very much the Washington and Jefferson of Russia.

chegitz guevara

3rd November 2008, 19:13

One quote taken out of context, does not a state cap regime make. The workers overthrew capitalism and seized power for themselves. They held on to power for 80 years. Obviously, the Mensheviks were wrong. But kudos to you for trying to uphold Menshevism. That's a bold stance.

Labor Shall Rule

3rd November 2008, 22:29

That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.
For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism, condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that socialism cannot be "introduced", etc., in which case we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the "revolutionary-democratic" aspirations of the workers and peasants.

The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism.

"Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt — no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe — but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs."

Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

Are you sure?

Pogue

3rd November 2008, 22:44

It's a load of statist bollocks, another flop, a disappointment and a sell-out. It's reformism. We're revolutionaries. Its capitalism. We're socialists. The 'Maoists' in Nepal are alot more doubtful than Chavez in Venezuela and most revolutionaries doubt him big time too.

Hiero

4th November 2008, 01:47

Nationalising rice paddies and a half arsed industry does not equal socialism. The Khmer rouge tried the isolation method, it didn't work out.

BobKKKindle$

4th November 2008, 01:57

It's a load of statist bollocks, another flop, a disappointment and a sell-out.

Your post was completely devoid of any political analysis. The CPN(M) has never claimed that they were going to introduce socialism as soon as they came to power, and in press interviews Prachanda has consistently argued that the main task for the party is to develop the productive forces by inviting foreign firms to invest in the energy industry and provide Nepal with the technology they need to establish an industrial base. The party has always been completely honest about this issue, so why would people be dissappointed? If the Nepalese people didn't agree with the party's economic proposals the CPN(M) would not have been able to attain a sizeable majority in the elections, and so the fact that they were able to gain such an impressive electoral victory despite the accussations and pessimistic precitions of the bourgeois press shows that the ideas they are advocating reflect the demands and interests of the masses.

In the future, instead of making wildly assertive statements, investigate the situation, and then give your opinion.

redguard2009

4th November 2008, 04:34

CPN(M) is treading on largely unexplored ground. It is a rarity that a revolutionary movement (which does not necessarily mean communist revolution) of this nature succeeds in not only defeating the state power but is then raised to popular power.

We're unlikely to really see any sort of real socialist change occur in Nepal for some time. It is not productively, socially, or economically ready for it; what the CPN(M) did was in effect complete the bourgeois/democratic/industrial revolution by ending the regressive tendency of the Nepaly monarchy and the pro-royal political parties to allow Nepal to finally enter the capitalist phase.

I'll make a prediction; after a few years of sweeping reform (but not revolution) which modernizes Nepal, right-wing oppurtunism will gain such a momentum that they will eventually (probably within the next 10 years) sweep the CPN(M) out of office and take over the mantle of the Nepali state, as progressive as it has become compared to 10 years ago. Only when this occurs does the "real" communist revolutionary movement begin.

This is of course being realistic. Ideally, the CPN(M) would oversee capitalistic development and when the "time is right" enact sweeping revolutionary changes to continue the transformation into socialism (in several decades' time). They will also develop a way to graph wings to pigs.

Vargha Poralli

4th November 2008, 10:51

I'm sorry Vergha, but it seems like you think your Marxism is bigger than anyone else's.

No I think communism is bigger that anything else. I mean communism as defined here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

Maoist armed struggle is smoldering the dry grass of South East Asia - there is already a prairie fire, and it was lit by the Indian, Bhutanese, and Nepalese dirt farmers.

It would be really great to make literary comparison to our struggles but it really requires critical minds to analyse any situation based on facts. Some hard facts like the Maoists have no link with workers and farmers movement in India. And Indian Maoists cannot accomplish more than killing some police officers in some states and Prachanda and co will be just another "Communist" party which we have seen from time immemorial.

Nepal, by design of bureaucrat capitalists and royal landowners, has an industrial growth rate of 2.2%, lacks electrical production and consumption, and relies entirely on processing agricultural produce for export to India. India controls 67.9% of their foreign trade. To say that "socialism is possible there" would be incredibly naive.

I never claimed "socialism is possible there". But I can certainly say that the Maoists are working not and never will work towards socialism over there.

The CPN(M) will break India's hold, develop native capitalism, and eventually socialize their industry and land. It's probably the greatest thing to happen to Nepal in the past few centuries.

Keep dreaming while in reality Prachanda's recent visit to India had clearly shown Maoists have taken the obvious route the only road that is very easy for them to travel - they cannot and have no interest in building whatever you call. And Indian and Chinese bourgeoisie are not obviously benevolent if they give something obviously they have something to take.

The path to communism - for the liberation of humanity from the muck of ages can be achieved only through a strong worker's movement which takes a lot of time and patience to build from grassroots and it requires a lot more sacrifice than it is necessary to take guns and go in to the jungle.It also requires many acts that are labeled reformist in this very site - which cannot be accomplished by the Maoists of Nepal when they themselves are on the side of the ruling classes exploiting workers.

Labor Shall Rule

4th November 2008, 13:57

The path to communism - for the liberation of humanity from the muck of ages can be achieved only through a strong worker's movement which takes a lot of time and patience to build from grassroots and it requires a lot more sacrifice than it is necessary to take guns and go in to the jungle.It also requires many acts that are labeled reformist in this very site - which cannot be accomplished by the Maoists of Nepal when they themselves are on the side of the ruling classes exploiting workers.

Alright, so do the Nepalese wait for the imperialists to free them from the feudal tutelage over the labor process? The royal professional bureaucracy can simply 'industrialize' the country, right?

A 'bourgeois' revolution (a Marxist concept) gives impetus to the money economy, allowing the creation of banks of exchange (and thus) allowing the funding of the indigenous production of goods, and most importantly, creating a flowing pool of labor by laying waste to the apportionment of peasants to self-sufficient, expensive farms.

The path to communism, thus, most go through that first. The Maoists are doing that under the revolutionary leadership of peasants and workers themselves.

Yehuda Stern

4th November 2008, 20:03

I'm hardly surprised that LSR and other Maoists here are supporting the ridiculous notion that the Maoists cannot carry out a socialist revolution because of imperialism's opposition (that would make any proletarian revolution impossible, which is an implicit assumption of said ideology). I am surprised that the same two-stagist crap is supported by supposed Trotskyists like Bobkindles. I guess that the SWP's penchant for supporting whatever movement is popular in the middle class left just takes its toll.

redguard2009

5th November 2008, 22:58

Hi, are you capable of taking part in a discussion without becoming a sectarian troll? Thanks.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the notion; the USSR is the most obvious example of the fact that any sort of socialist state or system will be assaulted mercilessly both militarily, politically and economically from the world-ruling capitalist classes. The USSR with all of its industrialized might and military strength eventually collapsed under the overwhelming pressure; do you really fail to see how little chance a tiny little unindustrialized country like Nepal would have?

It's not Reaganomics here; the bulk of Nepal's economic stability relies on its economic partnership with India, which itself is completely subordinate to US and European capital interests. Trying to liberate its economy from the market would lead to near-instantaneous ruin. Collectivization and nationalisation will and is taking place, but don't expect Nepal to turn into Venezuela overnight; even Venezuela didn't turn into Venezuela overnight (the majority of Venezuela's oil industry is still privately owned or publically owned but completely subordinate to foreign capital interests; Venezuela's largest export partner is still the United States).

Yehuda Stern

6th November 2008, 09:05

Hi, are you capable of taking part in a discussion without becoming a sectarian troll?

If you really mean "are you capable of taking part in a discussion without criticizing others?", which you do, then no.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the notion; the USSR is the most obvious example of the fact that any sort of socialist state or system will be assaulted mercilessly both militarily, politically and economically from the world-ruling capitalist classes.

Of course it will be assaulted mercilessly. That's why a socialist revolution has to defend itself not only militarily, but also by aiding the socialist revolution in other countries, most importantly the imperialist countries. That was always Lenin's line.

It's not Reaganomics here

No, it's a misguided attempt at justifying the reformism of the Maoists.

don't expect Nepal to turn into Venezuela overnight

I don't; then again, I don't want it to either.

redguard2009

7th November 2008, 04:53

That was always Lenin's line.

And Marx's line was that the proletarian movement has to work with the bourgeois movement in order to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution; proletarian revolution can not supercede the material situation necessary for its existence. You're unrealistically expecting the CPN(M) of cooking you a nice chicken dinner before the egg's even been hatched.

And yes, you are a sectarian bigot -- atleast in this post you managed not to resort to "ridiculous Maoists" and blah blah like you did the last two. Not that I'm really surprised.

RedScare

7th November 2008, 05:40

If there were more international revolutions forthcoming, and Nepal were to have a large, industrial ally to assist them, then yes, I would say they are going completely down the wrong path.

But that's not the case. Nepal is, for all intents and purposes, alone. What they've done is a very far cry from ideal, but unless there is a successful revolution in India, or China has a Maoist revival, this path seems simply the best that can be done in the current situation.

redguard2009

7th November 2008, 10:53

Maoists have this phrase, no investigation, no right to speak.

It's not coincidence that the bulk of literary criticism of the Maoist movement over the past 40 years has come primarily from socialist-leaning professors, teachers, and other pundits whose only experience in actual revolutionary events comes from their own literature and the occasional involvement in some mass movement or another. As Maoists fought and died in China, the Philippines, Peru, India and Nepal, these established "theoreticians" sat in comfortable studies and living rooms typing out page after page of angry rhetoric, slander, accusations and general hatred.

Frankly, I'd much rather follow someone who has fought and is willing to die for this cause than someone whose only risk is developing carpel tunnel syndrome from their busy literary revolutionary career.

But what I find most outrageously ironic and idiotic at the same time is the level of hypocrisy bursting from these people. We have:

1) Those who criticize the Nepali Maoists from fighting in the first place on the reasoning that Nepal is not ready for revolution;

2) Those who criticize the Nepali Maoists for violent tactics and accuse them of being terrorists;

3) Those who criticize the Nepali Maoists for entering the political arena peacefully;

The ironic part is that all three lines of criticism often come from the same person. Before the 2005 peace accords, the Maoists were declared fools for attempting to carry out a "revolution" when Nepal was not ready; after the peace accords, the Maoists were called violent criminals, thugs, gangsters and terrorists; after their entry into the Nepali elections they were called reformists, oppurtunists and betrayers of the cause. And barely 6 months after their minority victory in the Nepali consituent assembly elections (not even the formation of a true government, but an assembly which will write a new Nepali constitution and only then form a lasting voernment) everyone is all up in arms that Nepal is not yet a socialist paradise of equality, despite the fact that they have achieved more in those 6 months than most of your mother parties have achieved in their entire history.

But whatever. Progress in Nepal will not be stopped by a few disgruntled white westerners lambasting them for this or that.

Yehuda Stern

7th November 2008, 21:49

Marx's line was that the proletarian movement has to work with the bourgeois movement in order to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution; proletarian revolution can not supercede the material situation necessary for its existence.

The line was applicable arguably in Marx's time (not really though), but Lenin and Trotsky realized its irrelevance in the epoch of imperialism.

You're unrealistically expecting the CPN(M) of cooking you a nice chicken dinner before the egg's even been hatched.

I don't expect anything of the CPN(M), let alone that they make a revolution (although a dinner would be nice; I'd have to make sure the chicken isn't poisoned or anything, and if they throw in a movie too I'd be very thankful). I am exactly saying that the Maoists are incapable of that and that the Nepalese workers should have no faith in them.

And yes, you are a sectarian bigot -- atleast in this post you managed not to resort to "ridiculous Maoists" and blah blah like you did the last two. Not that I'm really surprised.

I know this was supposed to be a mildly sophisticated paragraph on how I'm a sectarian, but it ends up sounding like you're actually not surprised that I didn't like a sectarian. So, in your own twisted way, you did tell the truth in the end.

Pogue

7th November 2008, 22:34

Ok so apparently I'm devoid of political analysis. I'll put it more simply. I don't get excited about national reformist 'socialist' movements popping up all over the place.

BobKKKindle$

7th November 2008, 23:26

I don't get excited about national reformist 'socialist' movements popping up all over the place.Since the CPN(M) has gained power, the first elections in more than a decade have taken place without widespread abuse, workers in the tea industry have taken control of their farms and driven out the old caste of managers, the traditional form of bonded labour known as "haliya" which previously subjected around twenty thousand people to the most brutal form of servitude imaginable has been completely abolished, freedom of speech has been restored allowing independent journalists to voice their opinions on how the revolution should move forward and how the people were mistreated and exploited under the rule of the monarchy, sexual minorities have been granted rights for the first time in Nepalese history, small loans to farmers have been written off, the government has promised safe drinking water for the whole of the population within five years of taking office, the former members of the royal family have been forced to pay the bills they accumulated during the long period of misrule, and wireless networks which allow remote villages to communicate with each other and share their experiences have been legalized and promoted by the government.

These, and many other changes, have all been achieved since this bunch of "reformists" toppled feudalism after a long period of military struggle. They would not have been possible if the CPN(M) did not command the overwhelming support of the working masses, especially the impoverished and oppressed peasantry. Of course there are also some mistakes, and arguably the CPN(M) should be placing more emphasis on providing support to movements fighting against capitalism in other countries instead of trying to build an advanced economy within the borders of one country by accepting investment and allowing capitalism to continue operating. However, given what Nepal was like under feudalism, these reforms still represent an enormous step forward, as communists should give enthusiastic support to the CPN(M) as an organization committed to overcoming poverty and oppression.

But unfortunately the CPN(M) are not getting the support they so rightly deserve. Instead, fake communists are deriding the brave individuals who lived for years in the jungle and had to make do with the most rudimentary weapons whilst they were being repeatedly attacked by a well-equipped army. This is evidence of the complete political bankruptcy of so many so-called communists in the first world.

Pogue

9th November 2008, 23:36

Who are these 'fake' communists and why are they fake? Surely they're just revolutionaries who've seen the failure of national authoritarian statist reformist movements throughout history, and are also wary of a movement which talks about how bad homosexuality apparently is?

BobKKKindle$

9th November 2008, 23:50

Who are these 'fake' communists and why are they fake? Fake communists are people who use revolutionary language but refuse to give support to movements which are actually fighting against imperialism instead of sitting behind a computer and complaining about how these movements don't correspond exactly to your personal expectations of how a movement should operate. You have failed to even acknowledge the incredible achievements of the CPN(M) and in a recent thread you described imperialism of not being a major concern. This is undeniable evidence of your complete isolation from the world revolutionary movement.

about how bad homosexuality apparently isTry doing some research before you make assertions which bear no relation to reality. Homosexuals and all other sexual minorities have already been granted the same rights as all the other citizens of Nepal, which is a major advance given that South Asia has traditionally been associated with conservative social attitudes and homophobic discrimination. This decision was actually taken before the elections, but the CPN(M) still had a role in campaigning for the extension of rights to homosexuals, and arguably without their support the Supreme Court would not have ruled in favour of legal reform (Source: BBC World, Nepal court rules on gay rights (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7156577.stm)) More recently, the speech given by the finance minister concerning the upcoming budget allocated resources to improving the rights and social position of sexual minorities, which is further evidence of the government's commitment to overcoming discrimination. (Source: Budget Speech of the Fiscal Year 2008 - 2009 (http://www.mof.gov.np/publication/speech/2008_1/index.php))

Pogue

9th November 2008, 23:56

So they're actually pro-gay rights, are not homophobic, etc? As we'd say, socially liberal, economically socialist? They're commited to creating socialism and spreading it? Because we know the failure of socialism in one country. And reformism, we've seen the fialures of that too.

View this as educating someone who knows nothing as opposed to attacking someone.

BobKKKindle$

10th November 2008, 00:13

So they're actually pro-gay rights, are not homophobic, etc?

As a Marxist, I develop my ideas by examining the facts. At the moment, the facts seem to suggest that the CPN(M) are not homophobic.

They're commited to creating socialism and spreading it?

The CPN(M) does not aim to adopt a socialist economic program immediately because their main task is to try and develop the productive forces, and if the government took a radical approach and abolished capitalism by expropriating the means of production and outlawing private ownership, Nepal would not be able to gain access to the technical resources it urgently needs to sustain economic growth, as foreign firms would be discouraged from investing in Nepal, and the country's technical experts would possibly choose to migrate elsewhere in pursuit of higher wages. Instead, the CPN(M) is adopting a program based on Mao's theory of New Democracy whereby the government will pass laws to protect the interests of workers and limit the intensity of exploitation, but will also work alongside the capitalist class. This may appear to be a reformist or opportunist position, but it is actually the best approach under the circumstances, as it is unlikely that the revolution will be able to spread abroad and so the CPN(M) has to do as much as they can within the borders of Nepal until revolutionary prospects arise.

A revolution in the real world will not always follow our predictions and hopes, so we have to learn to be flexible and closely evaluate the situation when discussing the actions of a revolutionary movement. This is something you have not been able to do, and you continue to criticize the CPN(M) despite their achievements just because they have not carried out a socialist revolution on the same scale as the Bolsheviks.

View this as educating someone who knows nothing as opposed to attacking someone

If you're conscious of your own political ignorance, don't make sweeping statements like describing the CPN(M) as a load of "reformist bollocks". Ask questions, and listen to what other people have to say.

Pogue

10th November 2008, 00:24

Oh I see - class collaboration and capitalism, that thing which all true revolutionary communists support, which never ever leads to fully blown capitalism or authoritarianism as was not seen in China. :rolleyes:

I don't think its a matter of me not understanding or appreciating this, I think its just I can see through a steaming pile of samey horseshit when I see it.

I don't support capitalism or class collaboration so I don't support this movement.

BobKKKindle$

10th November 2008, 00:32

I don't support capitalism or class collaboration so I don't support this movement.

It's very easy to condemn the CPN(M) by using slogans, but you have not been able to give any concrete suggestions of what they should do in place of their current policy. Until you do this, you are not making an argument. Attempting an immediate transition to socialism would create huge difficulties, especially the refusal of any foreign firms to invest in Nepal and the rapid withdrawal of the small amounts of investment that Nepal has already received. The best way for Nepal to develop its economy is to expand the hydroelectric sector which has the potential to turn Nepal into one of the region's most important producers of electricity and would allow the government to accumulate foreign exchange which could be used to supprt manufacturing industries at some point in the future and improve the conditions of the masses in the short term. However, how will Nepal be able to expand this sector without investment from foreign firms? Nepal on its own does not have sufficient technology or scientific knowledge, and there is no other socialist state which can come to Nepal's assistance and provide resources. The CPN(M) has come to power in the midst of a non-revolutionary period and so prospects for spreading the revolution to other countries are poor. New Democracy is the best route for Nepal at the present time, based on an objective analysis of the situation.

Pogue

10th November 2008, 16:40

I'm just saying that I don't support a party in bourgeoisie government, in control of a bourgeoisie state, which is then going to encourage capitalism.

I would have thought that was pretty obvious seeing as I'm a Communist :confused:

Charles Xavier

10th November 2008, 17:03

Doesn't sound very communist if you think Nazi Germany is the same type of state as Venezuela, Nepal. But I doubt the Maoists are going to create change, they are pretty opportunist and will turn into a party of reaction over the coming years. I mean they used to kill trade union leaders.

BobKKKindle$

10th November 2008, 17:56

I'm just saying that I don't support a party in bourgeoisie government,The CPN(M) is not a bourgeois party and so because they are the largest party in the government at the present time, it makes no sense to dismiss the Nepal government as bourgeois, even though they have come to power through a political process which is normally associated with the bourgeoisie. The events in Nepal vindicate Trotsky's observation that in a developing country where democratic tasks have not yet been fulfilled, the bourgeoisie is closely tied to the remnants of feudalism and the interests of foreign capital, and so cannot carry out these tasks on its own, such that the democratic revolution will inevitably fall to the proletariat and the peasantry. Now that these tasks have been accomplished and the feudal fetters on the productive forces have been removed, the economy will be able to grow, allowing for dramatic improvements in the conditions of the Nepalese masses. All of your criticisms consist of shallow accusations which do not take account of the objective reality of the situation in Nepal, as explained in my previous post concerning the need to attract foreign investment as a means of developing the economy, and you have not yet offered any suggestions on what should be done instead of the current economic policy. You are not any kind of communist, but a first-world opportunist.

which is then going to encourage capitalism

Encouraging capitalism is consistent with communism, when a country is not ready for an immediate transition to socialism, and capitalism will allow for improvements in the conditions of the masses. The Bolsheviks adopted capitalism for a limited period of time after the civil war as a means of restoring stability to the economy which had suffered greatly during the war, and improving relations between the government and the peasantry.

Doesn't sound very communist if you think Nazi Germany is the same type of state as Venezuela, Nepal. But I doubt the Maoists are going to create change

Nobody in this thread has ever suggested that Nazi Germany is the same type of state as a country like Venezuela, and so it seems that this comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion and a waste of space. Concerning the issue of change, the CPN(M) has already introduced a large number of exciting and progressive reforms even though they have only been in power for a few months, as described in the previous page of this thread in one of my posts.

Random Precision

11th November 2008, 03:46

The events in Nepal vindicate Trotsky's observation that in a developing country where democratic tasks have not yet been fulfilled, the bourgeoisie is closely tied to the remnants of feudalism and the interests of foreign capital, and so cannot carry out these tasks on its own, such that the democratic revolution will inevitably fall to the proletariat and the peasantry.

But the crucial part of Trotsky's analysis was that the proletariat of underdeveloped nations would have to press on to the socialist stage of the revolution quickly so that the gains of the revolution could not be rolled back by remaining reactionary elements, or by the peasantry, which would not ultimately find its interest in constructing socialism. It's this part of his analysis that makes it the revolutionary Marxist viewpoint as opposed to Stalinist stage-ism, which I'm afraid you're more or less endorsing here.

The Nepali Maoists right now are in what might be described as a holding pattern between their socialist convictions and the realities of their position. No one is saying that they're not in a difficult position. The question is how long they can remain in the holding pattern until breaking for one side or the other. I think it will very much be a matter of either pressing onto the socialist revolution despite the very real problems that presents, or allowing themselves to become fully integrated into the bourgeois state as they try to develop national capitalism. Right now I'm pessimistic about the chances that the Maoists will choose the former, or that they'll even know how to given their ideology, but I haven't yet given up on them completely.

Reclaimed Dasein

11th November 2008, 08:30

But the crucial part of Trotsky's analysis was that the proletariat of underdeveloped nations would have to press on to the socialist stage of the revolution quickly so that the gains of the revolution could not be rolled back by remaining reactionary elements, or by the peasantry, which would not ultimately find its interest in constructing socialism. It's this part of his analysis that makes it the revolutionary Marxist viewpoint as opposed to Stalinist stage-ism, which I'm afraid you're more or less endorsing here.

The Nepali Maoists right now are in what might be described as a holding pattern between their socialist convictions and the realities of their position. No one is saying that they're not in a difficult position. The question is how long they can remain in the holding pattern until breaking for one side or the other. I think it will very much be a matter of either pressing onto the socialist revolution despite the very real problems that presents, or allowing themselves to become fully integrated into the bourgeois state as they try to develop national capitalism. Right now I'm pessimistic about the chances that the Maoists will choose the former, or that they'll even know how to given their ideology, but I haven't yet given up on them completely.

I'm not entirely sure I think Trotsky is necessary for the events unfolding in Nepal. For the record, Mao seems the better choice. That being said, I generally agree with your "wait and see position." It ain't over 'til it's over. All we can do now is hope for the best.

redguard2009

11th November 2008, 11:38

I mean they used to kill trade union leaders.

And the problem with that is...?

I'm going to assume you're too young to have witnessed the beauraucratic sell-out that trade union leadership has become these days, so I'll let that pass.

Nobody in this thread has ever suggested that Nazi Germany is the same type of state as a country like Venezuela,

?!?!?!

No one is saying that they're not in a difficult position. The question is how long they can remain in the holding pattern until breaking for one side or the other.

In my opinion, the CPN(M) must act quickly to further capitalize on the gains they were afforded through their insurrection and subsequent takeover in order to "shore up" support. They are in a very precarious position in terms of authority in Nepal -- they do not have a majority government and the opposition parties, particularly the Nepali Congress seems to be doing everything in it's power to try and throw wrenches into the machinery of change. If the NC and other pro-royalist and bourgeois parties and groups manage to somehow gain an upper hand, it could topple the Maoist-led government. Therefore, I am in support of the CPN(M) "treading carefully", avoiding taking overly-dramatic action in favour of shoring up that support until such a time that they can bring about changes unopposed.

If one could put a "timetable" on it, the CPN(M)'s true test will come if and when they occupy the majority of the seats of power.

Pogue

11th November 2008, 19:05

Sorry Bob Kindles, but it boils down to me not supporting another party which enters the bourgeoisie parliamentary system and then adovcates foreign investment from capitalists. Because I believe in communism I'm not going to support a party who wants to carry out class collaboration by recognising the bourgeoisie instruments of state and using its authority to encourage investment.

It wont work. As Marx said, the proletariat can't just seize control of the bourgeoisie state apparatus and use it as it is. These guys are reformists who are going to encourage capitalism - at best thats social democracy but in order to encourage capitalism I imagine they'll be low taxes and the like, so its more akin to neo-liberalism.

Oncemore, I'm a communist so I don't support capitalism or bourgeoisie elections and parliaments, and I think this party has a clear destiny ahead of it, where it'll become another sell out capitalist state such as China or the USSR.