Maoists in Nepal propose ban on strikes

[Devrim]

From a much longer article on Libcom (my emphasis):
http://libcom.org/news/nepal-victory-turns-sour-22012009


Faced with the unrest, Maoist Party leader and Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda proposed to fellow politicians a ban on all public sector strikes, to which the seven major parties all agreed. In a recent press interview, just prior to the agreement, the Maoist governmental Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai tried to justify a ban;
Quote:
Q: The business community's concerns are exactly what you stated. One, they say, the government's attitude to labour issues leaves a lot to be desired and that labour problems are getting worse. Second, there cannot be high growth until there is an adequate supply of power. Bhattarai: I wouldn't say the situation is getting worse. Things were much worse in the past. But the people wanted very fast recovery; that hasn't happened. Things are improving but not to the desired level. Both the management and workers have a common interest now, for the development of the economy. They both fought against the feudalism, autocracy and monarchy. Now, to create a vibrant industrial economy, is in the interest of both the management and the workers. But this reality is not sinking in their minds. This government is playing its role in creating a healthy relationship between the two. There were some disputes, especially regarding the minimum wage issue. This has been solved. So what I appeal to the management is that they should provide the minimum wage. The workers shouldn't resort to bandas and strikes. If this understanding is honoured we'll have a healthy environment in the days to come.
Q: So the party wants to ensure that whenever there is a labour dispute, legal recourse should be taken?
Bhattarai: Yes. At least for some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health, education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors. The government is trying to build political consensus on this issue.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&nid=175026



Devrim

[Pogue]

lMao. Suprise suprise, the bourgeois reformists are fucking over the working class.

History repeating itself anyone? :rolleyes:

[Herman]

At least for some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health, education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors. The government is trying to build political consensus on this issue.

To be fair, he mentions "at least for some time".

But it's obvious why Prachanda would say this. He, like many other maoists, is a believer of that maoist concept of "new democracy", where all anti-imperialist forces, including the national bourgeoisie, collaborate with the workers and peasants to modernize the economy and allow for the necessary material conditions to take root and for socialism to be plant its seed thereafter.

Of course, it's a bunch of crap.

[FreeFocus]

Workers betrayed yet again..not surprising.

[JimmyJazz]

Both the management and workers have a common interest now

heh.

[redguard2009]

Kiran would be rolling in his grave... if he were dead. He isn't, fortunately. Nepali comrades must seek alterior policies to Prachanda and Bharrarai's increasing compromisational attitudes towards Nepali and Indian big business interests and drop this nonsense about a "parliamentary republic".

But this is not "New Democracy". When China began on the path of "New Democracy" the aspects of bourgeois economics were extremely limited to specific industrial sectors, and the bourgeois "slaves" worked with a gun planted firmly against their spine. And while they toiled for the betterment of China, immense projects for collectization were undertaken -- which we are not seeing in Nepal, at all.

It reminds me a bit of Krondstadt. Not quite, but a bit; back last May, Kathmandu suffered a general strike after an influential businessman was allegedly killed by the CPN(M). Family and friends of this business leader organized the strikes against the Maoists.

Not all of the strikes in Nepal these days are politically motivated. One large demonstration was held outside of a movie theatre after the showing of a movie claiming some native religious figure was born in India and not Nepal. Other demonstrations are decidedly anti-Maoist not for class strugglist purposes but organized by 'victims of Maoist excesses'. Supporters of other political parties make up a large part of anti-Maoist protests - both the Nepali Congress and United Marxist-Leninist parties have organized demonstrations against the CPN(M) for its "far-left, anti-business" policies which they blame for Nepal's current economic predicaments. Other protesters include former Police and Army members who are demanding to get their jobs back now that the CPN(M), who scared them from their jobs in the first place, are in power (which led to a couple of funny riots where riot police ended up arresting dozens of ex-cops). Ontop of that, agitation from Nepali Congress and UML members and workers have led to those public sector strikes which have left Nepal "drowning in garbage" as nobody has been picking up trash for over two weeks.

Complicated. We have a Maoist government apparently seeking pro-bourgeois reforms, bourgeois parties organizing strikes to shut the country down, and other "communists" blaming Prachanda's "far-left politics" for Nepal's socioeconomic mess. What is a revolutionary to do!?

[Enragé]

"Both the management and workers have a common interest now"

that's fascist rhetoric, from a maoist! (not that im surprised)


We have a Maoist government apparently seeking pro-bourgeois reforms, bourgeois parties organizing strikes to shut the country down, and other "communists" blaming Prachanda's "far-left politics" for Nepal's socioeconomic mess.

Err yes, that shows how a maoist government is exactly that, a government by maoist party bureaucrats.

[Rawthentic]

Good post redguard. It seems like a lot of people here don't understand the nature of certain strikes, particularly during such situations.

Not to say that I condone this, or that I support Prachanda or Bhattarai.

This has happened elsewhere, such as Russia before (or after?) the October Revolution.

But anyway, I wouldnt expect a deeper level of discussion in a forum like this.

[Wanted Man]

Interesting. Just a month ago, the right was complaining, because the maoists consistently supported strikes. They were "destroying the economy" and "intimidating the industrialists". See: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/12/2008122463044483524.html Apparently, Bhattarai decided to listen to the critics...

By the way, it's true that not all strikes are necessarily progressive. For example, the coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002 included a strike. But that doesn't justify "no-strike" laws by "communists"...

[benhur]

Goes on to show that as long as we have a state, even an alleged workers state, we're gonna have capitalism in some form or the other. Power corrupts, and workers are not immune to it. Once they grab power, they cease to be workers...they become rulers, and so they do the exact same thing as the capitalists to stay in power, which is to exploit the workers! So the real problem is the state, rather than capitalism. Or, why would self-proclaimed socialists act like capitalists the minute they get their hands on power?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Banning strikes? Wow! These people are sell-outs, but I guess that's what happens when "Communists" use bourgeois democracy to gain power. They eventually do things to satisfy the opposition and such.

[Led Zeppelin]

Goes on to show that as long as we have a state, even an alleged workers state, we're gonna have capitalism in some form or the other. Power corrupts, and workers are not immune to it. Once they grab power, they cease to be workers...they become rulers, and so they do the exact same thing as the capitalists to stay in power, which is to exploit the workers! So the real problem is the state, rather than capitalism. Or, why would self-proclaimed socialists act like capitalists the minute they get their hands on power?

God just remove that Trotsky avatar already and add some "A" sign or whatever, you're embarrassing yourself.

[DancingLarry]

"Labour problems." If you're having a "labour problem" you're not a communist. Plain and simple.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

No free market can -exist- without the right to unions and strikes. You take that away and you take away the working classes freedom to conditions that are acceptable to it. And these people claim to communist, which just makes it all the stupider.

[Crux]

Good post redguard. It seems like a lot of people here don't understand the nature of certain strikes, particularly during such situations.

Not to say that I condone this, or that I support Prachanda or Bhattarai.

This has happened elsewhere, such as Russia before (or after?) the October Revolution.

But anyway, I wouldnt expect a deeper level of discussion in a forum like this.
The situation in nepal isn't even remotely comprable to the situation in Russia during the October Revolution. For one thing.
The CPI(m) has shown themself quite willing before to work with boruguise, in fact, many international newspaper raported, after the moaist rise to power, that they are on a market friendly course.
This of course does not mean that things are merely black or white (or that nepal would somehow be a "failed worker's state").
The CPI(m) came to power under pressure from the workingclass and will most likely be forced to make some concessions to the workingclass, but they have shown that they are neither capable nor interested in abolishing capitalism. Would you dispute this?

[More Fire for the People]

I was afraid for when this moment would come, but I knew it'd come.

[Devrim]

Not all of the strikes in Nepal these days are politically motivated. One large demonstration was held outside of a movie theatre after the showing of a movie claiming some native religious figure was born in India and not Nepal. Other demonstrations are decidedly anti-Maoist not for class strugglist purposes but organized by 'victims of Maoist excesses'. Supporters of other political parties make up a large part of anti-Maoist protests - both the Nepali Congress and United Marxist-Leninist parties have organized demonstrations against the CPN(M) for its "far-left, anti-business" policies which they blame for Nepal's current economic predicaments. Other protesters include former Police and Army members who are demanding to get their jobs back now that the CPN(M), who scared them from their jobs in the first place, are in power (which led to a couple of funny riots where riot police ended up arresting dozens of ex-cops). Ontop of that, agitation from Nepali Congress and UML members and workers have led to those public sector strikes which have left Nepal "drowning in garbage" as nobody has been picking up trash for over two weeks.

It is quite a typical argument from bourgeois leftists. It basically amounts to "oh the bourgeoisie are manipulating the workers". It is quite interesting to see that they believe the workers are such pawns that it is so easy for them to be manipulated. One would imagine that a working class that had 'managed to overthrow the government and seize power' only last year would have a little more consciousness and be a little more difficult to manipulate.

Of course, the working class can sometimes be manipulated by bourgeois factions. It is also capable of fighting for its own interests. Let's look at what the strikes have been about:


The demands are equally wide-ranging; wage rises to counter rising food and fuel prices, demands for better public services, local councils in remote rural areas demanding increased funding from central government, calls for land distribution to the rural poor. There are also many short local strikes and actions in protest at attacks, murders and intimidation by political factions; relatives of murdered victims demand compensation and investigation of the crimes. Some strikes are led by different unions (with their various political affiliations, including the Maoists), others actions are self-organised by participants. Therefore some will be a more genuine expression of self-organisation in pursuit of material need - while others may be called as political strikes to pursue, not workers interests, but only political advantages of one party faction over another.

Of course political factions are trying to manipulate workers. However, one would have to ask whether they are manipulating them to strike over wages demands to counter rampant inflation. The seeming difference in class consciousness is easily explained by the fact that the working class did not seize power in Nepal last year. A political gang did.


By the way, it's true that not all strikes are necessarily progressive. For example, the coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002 included a strike. But that doesn't justify "no-strike" laws by "communists"...

Whatever one thinks of the oil strike in Venezuela, it can not be denied that it was a response to massive attacks on the working conditions of oil workers.


Power corrupts, and workers are not immune to it. Once they grab power, they cease to be workers...they become rulers,

But the workers didn't seize power.


...they become rulers, and so they do the exact same thing as the capitalists to stay in power, which is to exploit the workers!

and the Maoist gang that did seize power never had any plans to do otherwise.


"Labour problems." If you're having a "labour problem" you're not a communist. Plain and simple.

It should certainly make you think about which class is in power.


I was afraid for when this moment would come, but I knew it'd come.

I would imagine that most people on here knew it would come. Why 'be afraid' of it though. A bourgeois party takes power, and attacks the working class. It is how capitalism operates.

Devrim

[redguard2009]

It is quite a typical argument from bourgeois leftists. It basically amounts to "oh the bourgeoisie are manipulating the workers"

Fortunately, it beats the all-too-common "workers are infallable" rhetoric spewed by the more ungracious far-leftists who despite decades of history to the contrary still adamantly believe that organized workers can never, ever, ever be wrong.


Let's look at what the strikes have been about:

Congratulations, you did the exact same thing I did, except included more progressive reasons and completely omitted strikes and protests dealing with NC and UML and other anti-labour factions. Of course, we could go back and forth about "well these workers went on strike for increased wages" and "oh yeah, well these workers went on strike because their union bosses are openly pro-NC and anti-Maoist".

Logical far-leftist arguements are few and far between -- I'm mostly agreeing with you here, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a lot of these strikes and protests are being organized by right-wing bourgeois elements; cops, business supporters, political enemies, etc.

What worries me more in this situation is that those right-wing forces, led by the Nepali Congress and to a smaller degree the UML, may succeed in undermining the Maoists' mass support base and bringing Nepal right back to where it was two years ago, and that the CPN(M) is not doing nearly enough to address the issues facing them on an ideological level. The CPN(M)'s current course of action was undertaken by its leadership, Prachanda and Bhattarai, though there has been a lot of left-wing opposition from within the party in both upper and lower cadres.

And it's also probably poignant to note that the CPN(M) does not have total control over the government of Nepal. They have a minority stake in the provisional government, and the NC and UML made it known from the very first day after the elections last year that they will do anything and everything possible to sabotage and disrupt any efforts the CPN(M) makes.

This doesn't excuse the alleged anti-strike laws Prachanda and Battarai want to propose, but being ignorant of the reality of the political situation in Nepal doesn't serve anyone, workers or otherwise.

[Devrim]

Fortunately, it beats the all-too-common "workers are infallable" rhetoric spewed by the more ungracious far-leftists who despite decades of history to the contrary still adamantly believe that organized workers can never, ever, ever be wrong.

As I wrote:


Of course, the working class can sometimes be manipulated by bourgeois factions.


Congratulations, you did the exact same thing I did, except included more progressive reasons and completely omitted strikes and protests dealing with NC and UML and other anti-labour factions. Of course, we could go back and forth about "well these workers went on strike for increased wages" and "oh yeah, well these workers went on strike because their union bosses are openly pro-NC and anti-Maoist".

As I wrote:


Of course political factions are trying to manipulate workers. However, one would have to ask whether they are manipulating them to strike over wages demands to counter rampant inflation.


Logical far-leftist arguements are few and far between -- I'm mostly agreeing with you here, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a lot of these strikes and protests are being organized by right-wing bourgeois elements; cops, business supporters, political enemies, etc.

It is possible, even probable that some of them are. The major public sector strikes seem to be about wage demands. It is very difficult to know the exact details from afar.

However, one thing that we can be completely certain about is that the new Maoist rulers will use this argument to smear all workers struggle. Workers striking in defence of class interests will be condemned by the state as tools of the bourgeois.


What worries me more in this situation is that those right-wing forces, led by the Nepali Congress and to a smaller degree the UML, may succeed in undermining the Maoists' mass support base and bringing Nepal right back to where it was two years ago, and that the CPN(M)

From today's capitalist state instituting austerity measures to a capitalist state instituting austerity measures.

Devrim

[redguard2009]

Yes, yes, "if it isn't perfect, it isn't worth it".

[Devrim]

Yes, yes, "if it isn't perfect, it isn't worth it".

You make it out as if these are some small mistakes made in the construction of socialism. They are not. They are the state attacking the wages, working conditions and living standards of the working class on behalf of capital.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

The view coming from some people on this board is that when workers strike, they somehow "know what they want" in a spontaneous manner.

It is a form of identity politics; saying it is wrong to oppose worker's strikes even when they can sometimes be manipulated by other forces comes from the erroneous view that workers know their highest class interests simply by being workers.

And, like I said, this does not imply endorsement of Prachanda or his policies.

[Bilan]

I don't mean to say we told you so, but...

[Bilan]

The view coming from some people on this board is that when workers strike, they somehow "know what they want" in a spontaneous manner.

It is a form of identity politics; saying it is wrong to oppose worker's strikes even when they can sometimes be manipulated by other forces comes from the erroneous view that workers know their highest class interests simply by being workers.

And, like I said, this does not imply endorsement of Prachanda or his policies.

Yeah whatever. Petit-bourgeois apologist for reactionary pigs.

[La Comédie Noire]

Of course birthing a new nation would give you labour pains. :laugh:

Now everyone please collect the money they put into the "when will the Nepalease Goverment fuck over the workers?" pot.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is quite a typical argument from bourgeois leftists. It basically amounts to "oh the bourgeoisie are manipulating the workers".That's exactly what you and other Left-Communist argue on the issue of national liberation. You assume that the only reason why workers would ever become part of a resistance movement against imperialist aggression like Hamas or support such movements is because they have fallen completely under the influence of bourgeois nationalism and are therefore incapable of recognizing their own interests, and become a tool in the hands of a conflict between rival national ruling classes. Anti-imperialists, on the other hand, argue that even though these movements may not always take a progressive stance on social issues such as womens liberation, workers still support resistance because imperialism is the single biggest threat to the working class of all oppressed nations, and this in turn means that, when workers do choose to resist, as they have done in Gaza for the past month, we should support their struggles, and fight alongside the movements through which resistance is being conducted. How can this (i.e. your position on "bourgeois manipulation") be true in one case, but not in another?

[Die Neue Zeit]

God just remove that Trotsky avatar already and add some "A" sign or whatever, you're embarrassing yourself.

Yeah, what's with that Trotsky avatar, anyway?

[La Comédie Noire]

That's exactly what you and other Left-Communist argue on the issue of national liberation. You assume that the only reason why workers would ever become part of a resistance movement against imperialist aggression like Hamas or support such movements is because they have fallen completely under the influence of bourgeois nationalism and are therefore incapable of recognizing their own interests, and become a tool in the hands of a conflict between rival national ruling classes. Anti-imperialists, on the other hand, argue that even though these movements may not always take a progressive stance on social issues such as womens liberation, workers still support resistance because imperialism is the single biggest threat to the working class of all oppressed nations, and in turn means that, when workers do choose to resist, as they have done in Gaza for the past month, we should support their struggles, and fight alongside the movements through which resistance is being condcucted. How can this (i.e. your position on "bourgeois manipulation") be true in one case, but not in another?

QFT

There is nothing worse in this world than becoming a slave to Imperialism.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah whatever. Petit-bourgeois apologist for reactionary pigs.

This is the thing about RL: the level of discussion is so low that people can no longer address politics fully; it becomes more about personality struggles, and you fall right into it.

I dont have to respond to this shit you write here. You can call me whatever you want.

But my politics are certainly more grounded in reality, and they certainly aren't as narrow as "workers vs bosses." Society is far more complex.

[Annie K.]

There is nothing worse in this world than becoming a slave to Imperialism.It's a matter of point of view. For example, I think that becoming a martyr for some theocratic cause is worse, and I think also that i'm not the only one to think that - even among palestinian workers.

That's exactly what you and other Left-Communist argue on the issue of national liberation. I'm not officially a left-communist, but I doubt that. That's what is to be (and has been) argued on the issue of the hamas resistance, though. But there is a great difference between arguing against the positive effect of joining a resistance movement almost exclusively constituted by reactionnary, theocratic militias that are pathetically helpless for anything that can be called a liberation (granted that we don't believe in any sort of heaven); and prohibiting all strikes indiscriminately on account of an hardly identified bourgeois manipulation threat.
And what you say there get back at your arguments on the national liberation. Imperialism change the rules ?

[La Comédie Noire]

It's a matter of point of view. For example, I think that becoming a martyr for some theocratic cause is worse, and I think also that i'm not the only one to think that - even among Palestinian workers.


I'm not officially a left-communist, but I doubt that. That's what is to be (and has been) argued on the issue of the hamas resistance, though. But there is a great difference between arguing against the positive effect of joining a resistance movement almost exclusively constituted by reactionnary, theocratic militias that are pathetically helpless for anything that can be called a liberation(granted that we don't believe in any sort of heaven); and prohibiting all strikes indiscriminately on account of an hardly identified bourgeois manipulation threat.

Agreed, but in lew of a theoretically pure lone ranger who can do no wrong national liberation struggles have to work with what they can get, that includes raving theocrats and shoddy bombs. Understandably they make you "uncomfortable" as well as others, but people in the shit storm of imperialism don't get to be comfortable, it's do or die. It's not about what they'd perfer or want it's about what they have. The point is we don't get to make that call, nor do I think we ever will in the case of places like Palestein and Nepal. It really is up to them, unless you live there or are planning to organize an armed expedition to the middle east in the near future.

But, in the case of the middle east, there are many secular militias they can join, I've even heard the majority of them are secular and the fundamentalist loonies are being disproportionately represented by the western media.

[Devrim]

The view coming from some people on this board is that when workers strike, they somehow "know what they want" in a spontaneous manner.

It is a form of identity politics; saying it is wrong to oppose worker's strikes even when they can sometimes be manipulated by other forces comes from the erroneous view that workers know their highest class interests simply by being workers.

So class politics have now become 'a form of identity politics'. It could only really come from those sort of 'modernist Maoists' who believe that class struggle is not the motor of history, and it is all about the 'oppressed'. They also believe that workers are just one 'oppressed' group amongst others.

That is the way that the whole communist outlook can be confused as 'identity' politics. It is because these people's politics are completely based around identity, and for them the working class is just another identity that they see it that way.


comes from the erroneous view that workers know their highest class interests simply by being workers.

Of course, we don't say this. We do say that workers in struggle for their own interests are more likely to develop class consciousness and certainly have a better view of their class interests than the leaders of the bourgeois state does.

A question, Rawthentic, do you support workers striking in defence of wages and living conditions in Nepal or not?

Devrim

[Devrim]

It is quite a typical argument from bourgeois leftists. It basically amounts to "oh the bourgeoisie are manipulating the workers".That's exactly what you and other Left-Communist argue on the issue of national liberation. You assume that the only reason why workers would ever become part of a resistance movement against imperialist aggression like Hamas or support such movements is because they have fallen completely under the influence of bourgeois nationalism and are therefore incapable of recognizing their own interests, and become a tool in the hands of a conflict between rival national ruling classes. ...How can this (i.e. your position on "bourgeois manipulation") be true in one case, but not in another?

I think that it is very different. In one case you are discussing workers who are engaging in class struggle on a proletarian terrain, i.e. strikes and mass demonstrations, and in the other you are discussing workers being dragged into a war of national defence. A slight difference I would say. Maybe one that you find difficult to see.

If you went back through the thread, you would see that I noticed that workers can be manipulated. However that doesn't mean that communists should not be suspicious when bourgeois states start accusing striking workers fighting in defence of class interests of being tools of rival factions of the bourgeoisie.

There is an absolute difference in that this argument will be used to justify repression against workers. When we say that the bourgeoisie in Palestine is mobilising workers in the defence of the nation, this argument is not being used to attack workers.


Anti-imperialists, on the other hand,...

We would see ourselves as anti-imperialists. We would see those of your ilk as pro-imperialists.


argue that even though these movements may not always take a progressive stance on social issues such as womens liberation, workers still support resistance because imperialism is the single biggest threat to the working class of all oppressed nations,

We have never argued that the problem with HAMAS is not that they are not progressive on social issues. We have argued that they are mobilising workers do die on behalf of the nation. To clarify, we would be opposed to a 'more secular' nationalism as much as to the religious one.


and this in turn means that, when workers do choose to resist, as they have done in Gaza for the past month, we should support their struggles, and fight alongside the movements through which resistance is being conducted.

It is neccesary to look beyond the socialogical origin of participants in a struggle to analysis it's class basis. Most of the people who died in the First World War for example were workers, on both sides. Does that mean that we should have supported the First World War. Does that mean we should have supported the German army in World War II? After all, many workers chose to join it. There is no real substance to this argument at all.

What one has to look at in a struggle is what class interests are involved.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Agreed, but in lew of a theoretically pure lone ranger who can do no wrong national liberation struggles have to work with what they can get,...

But, in the case of the middle east, there are many secular militias they can join, I've even heard the majority of them are secular and the fundamentalist loonies are being disproportionately represented by the western media.

As I point out above the problem is not that there are fundamentalists involved in national liberation struggles, it is in national struggles themselves.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Anyway could we get back to the point. There are many other threads discussing Gaza.

Devrim

[Red Robespierre]

Uh, most of these criticisms have ignored the fact that the Maoists haven't consolidated the state apparatus underneath it's control.

While I have my doubts, I think it's far too convenient for a bunch of comfortable armchair revolutionary anarchists to speculate on how the Maoists have betrayed the working class.

It's also important to remember that the vast majority of Nepal's working masses are of the peasantry - a historically unreliable base for communist parties as they have traditionally been the reserves for the bourgeois liberals.

The lack of industrial development, along with other material conditions, will make socialist construction difficult.The Maoists will have to consolidate power before they can do anything dramatic.

[black magick hustla]

Uh, most of these criticisms have ignored the fact that the Maoists haven't consolidated the state apparatus underneath it's control.

While I have my doubts, I think it's far too convenient for a bunch of comfortable armchair revolutionary anarchists to speculate on how the Maoists have betrayed the working class.

We don´t speculate because we never thought maoists were communists in the first place. You people are not understanding our argument because you think we are just being "overtly critical" of their efforts, while in reality, we completely rejected their approach from the beginning. There is more to communist movements than a political gang waving the red flag in the name of "new democracy" And there is nothing more comfortable as the seat of a head of a bourgeois state.

[Devrim]

While I have my doubts, I think it's far too convenient for a bunch of comfortable armchair revolutionary anarchists to speculate on how the Maoists have betrayed the working class.

First the persona of the advocate would not in itself make an idea wrong.

Second you have absolutely no idea about the lives of myself or other people arguing on here.

There is no argument here just cheap insults.

Also I don't think that the Maoists 'betrayed the working class'. I think that they were always a thoroughly bourgeois party.



The lack of industrial development, along with other material conditions, will make socialist construction difficult.

There is no 'socialist construction'. There is labour being attacked by capital.

Devrim

[robbo203]

Scratch a maoist and you will find an authoritarian state capitalist underneath

[Crux]

That's exactly what you and other Left-Communist argue on the issue of national liberation. You assume that the only reason why workers would ever become part of a resistance movement against imperialist aggression like Hamas or support such movements is because they have fallen completely under the influence of bourgeois nationalism and are therefore incapable of recognizing their own interests, and become a tool in the hands of a conflict between rival national ruling classes. Anti-imperialists, on the other hand, argue that even though these movements may not always take a progressive stance on social issues such as womens liberation, workers still support resistance because imperialism is the single biggest threat to the working class of all oppressed nations, and this in turn means that, when workers do choose to resist, as they have done in Gaza for the past month, we should support their struggles, and fight alongside the movements through which resistance is being conducted. How can this (i.e. your position on "bourgeois manipulation") be true in one case, but not in another?
It's a shame then that reactionary and petit-bourguise nationalists can't even do national liberation.
Oh and this forum bores me immensly. Debates between ultraleftists and stalinists lose their charm after a couple of hundred pages.

[robbo203]

That's exactly what you and other Left-Communist argue on the issue of national liberation. You assume that the only reason why workers would ever become part of a resistance movement against imperialist aggression like Hamas or support such movements is because they have fallen completely under the influence of bourgeois nationalism and are therefore incapable of recognizing their own interests, and become a tool in the hands of a conflict between rival national ruling classes. Anti-imperialists, on the other hand, argue that even though these movements may not always take a progressive stance on social issues such as womens liberation, workers still support resistance because imperialism is the single biggest threat to the working class of all oppressed nations, and this in turn means that, when workers do choose to resist, as they have done in Gaza for the past month, we should support their struggles, and fight alongside the movements through which resistance is being conducted. How can this (i.e. your position on "bourgeois manipulation") be true in one case, but not in another?


No it is not imperialism that is single biggest threat to the working class but capitalism. Imperialism is only a symptom of a deeper malaise. And supporting so called national liberation struggle is simply a way of prolonging that malaise - capitalism - by diverting the focus away from class and towards the so called nation

[Pogue]

What has Comrade Alistair got to say about this?

[Bilan]

This is the thing about RL: the level of discussion is so low that people can no longer address politics fully; it becomes more about personality struggles, and you fall right into it.

Sorry, but your position on this is absurd, and far from communist.



I dont have to respond to this shit you write here. You can call me whatever you want.

I'm only labelling the reality of your politics.



But my politics are certainly more grounded in reality, and they certainly aren't as narrow as "workers vs bosses." Society is far more complex.

Well, I suppose if realistic communist politics support bans on strikes and attacking striking workers. Alas, the contrary is true.
And excuse me for having class based politics.

[Crux]

No it is not imperialism that is single biggest threat to the working class but capitalism. Imperialism is only a symptom of a deeper malaise. And supporting so called national liberation struggle is simply a way of prolonging that malaise - capitalism - by diverting the focus away from class and towards the so called nation
Taking in part in national liberation struggles does not prolong capitalism. quite the opposite, the only possibility for full national liberation is through workingclass struggle.

"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs."
- James Connolly

[manic expression]

I think the Maoists deserve, at the very least, a little bit of patience. They have fulfilled many of the promises they made to the Nepali people, and many Nepalis are optimistic about what is being done. While this act may very well be a mistake, it's ridiculous to play "gotcha!" and jump to conclusions in a knee-jerk fashion.

[Crux]

Oh and I think conclusions can and should be drawn from how the leadership of the nepalese maoists have acted.
This certainly does not mean that it's somekind of "same old, same old", the potential exists for an evolution towards genuine socialism. Probably not under the leadership of the prachandists though.

[Rawthentic]

syndical:

This is the last post Im going to make in this thread, you've shown the same thing over and over again.

All Im going to say is to please remove "Marxian" from your avatar, because there is nothing marxian or revolutionary about syndicalism.

[Rawthentic]

So class politics have now become 'a form of identity politics'. It could only really come from those sort of 'modernist Maoists' who believe that class struggle is not the motor of history, and it is all about the 'oppressed'. They also believe that workers are just one 'oppressed' group amongst others.

That is the way that the whole communist outlook can be confused as 'identity' politics. It is because these people's politics are completely based around identity, and for them the working class is just another identity that they see it that way.

Class based politics are not identity politics. Do you not know what the latter means?

Where did you ever read that Maoists dont believe class struggle is the motor of history? Why is it not about the oppressed? Oh right, its only about factory workers, since they are the only group in human society that has objective interests in seeing revolution. No wonder you don't exist.

And to us, the working class is not just another identity. It is the only class that can liberate humanity. But that can only be done through political struggle and realization of its highest interests. Claiming that workers are inherently communist distorts this, and it is what I was explaining.

[Rawthentic]

One more point:

in every revolution, line struggles emerge within the leading organization that heatedly debate how (and if) the revolution moves forward. Nepal is no exception. But I do know that my aspirations are connected to that of the nepalese people (in a broader sense).

It is very difficult to know what is really going on in Nepal, which I why I havent wedded myself to one particular line, and also why I think it is unfair to come up with knee jerk reactions when articles like these are posted.

[robbo203]

Taking in part in national liberation struggles does not prolong capitalism. quite the opposite, the only possibility for full national liberation is through workingclass struggle.



Absolutely not the case. The nation state is the territorial unit of capitalism par excellance. National liberation is necesarily a capitalist struggle . it cannot be anything other than that. Worse , it presume a communality of interests within the framework of the spatial unit of the nation vis-a-vis other nations. It therefore directly works against the development of a working class identity which necessarily is transnational in character.

All nationalism, all nationalist liberation struggles cannot be anything other than bourgeois in outlook and even the workers engage in such struggle it is at their expesne as a class. The only principled socialist position on nationalism is to oppose it root and branch

[Wanted Man]

While this act may very well be a mistake, it's ridiculous to play "gotcha!" and jump to conclusions in a knee-jerk fashion.
The triumphalism is kind of funny.

[Pogue]

syndical:

This is the last post Im going to make in this thread, you've shown the same thing over and over again.

All Im going to say is to please remove "Marxian" from your avatar, because there is nothing marxian or revolutionary about syndicalism.

I think you'll find, through study of history (i.e. Anarchist Spain, as one example), and generally reading about revolutionary syndicalism that it call for reovluton conducted through revolutionary unions, and so is very revolutionary. Whats not revolutionary about calling for revolution through unions? I'd quite like to debate this with you, if its a genuine opinion you hold. I'll make a suggestion if you like.

[BobKKKindle$]

The triumphalism is kind of funny. Indeed, it seems that many of those who see themselves as socialists are incapable of making a distinction between constructive criticism and absolute rejectionism. The CPN(M) is faced with an extremely difficult task - they have come to power in one of the poorest countries in the world where the majority of the population still works on the land and lives in conditions of abject poverty due to the effects of imperialism and the mismanagement of the feudal regime, and there is no immediate prospect of the revolution spreading to other countries which might otherwise be able to provide material assistance and help Nepal overcome its underdevelopment and material scarcity. Given these context, combined with the worsening international situation, socialists should be able to understand why the CPN(M) is forced to resort to these drastic measures in order to facilitate national economic development and prevent the economy from collapsing. Socialists should continue to support the CPN(M) and yet also issue criticisms when we feel it is appropriate and helpful.


In one case you are discussing workers who are engaging in class struggle on a proletarian terrain, i.e. strikes and mass demonstrations, and in the other you are discussing workers being dragged into a war of national defence. A slight difference I would say.This is essentially a circular argument - you don't see anti-imperialist struggles as part of a "proletarian terrain" because you don't believe that these struggles serve the class interests of the proletariat, whereas strikes apparently do, a belief which is, in turn, based on the assumption that workers who become part of resistance movements are incapable of grasping their class interests and simply follow the rhetoric of the bourgeoisie. Presumably these workers should sit in their homes, even when Israeli tanks are approaching, and IDF soldiers are shooting their neighbors, and quietly discuss Pannekoek, and write articles to the ICC. You fail to acknowledge the fact that strikes clearly can be used by a section of the bourgeoisie - consider the racist strikes in support of Enoch Powell following his "Rivers of Blood" speech and subsequent sacking in 1968.

[Pogue]

Indeed, it seems that many of those who see themselves as socialists are incapable of making a distinction between constructive criticism and absolute rejectionism. The CPN(M) is faced with an extremely difficult task - they have come to power in one of the poorest countries in the world where the majority of the population still works on the land and lives in conditions of abject poverty due to the effects of imperialism and the mismanagement of the feudal regime, and there is no immediate prospect of the revolution spreading to other countries which might otherwise be able to provide material assistance and help Nepal overcome its underdevelopment and material scarcity. Given these context, combined with the worsening international situation, socialists should be able to understand why the CPN(M) is forced to resort to these drastic measures in order to facilitate national economic development and prevent the economy from collapsing. Socialists should continue to support the CPN(M) and yet also issue criticisms when we feel it is appropriate and helpful.

This is essentially a circular argument - you don't see anti-imperialist struggles as part of a "proletarian terrain" because you don't believe that these struggles serve the class interests of the proletariat, whereas strikes apparently do, a belief which is, in turn, based on the assumption that workers who become part of resistance movements are incapable of grasping their class interests and simply follow the rhetoric of the bourgeoisie. Presumably these workers should sit in their homes, even when Israeli tanks are approaching, and IDF soldiers are shooting their neighbors, and quietly discuss Pannekoek, and write articles to the ICC. You fail to acknowledge the fact that strikes clearly can be used by a section of the bourgeoisie - consider the racist strikes in support of Enoch Powell following his "Rivers of Blood" speech and subsequent sacking in 1968.

Does not detach from the fact that here we have so called socialists saying workers should not be able to carry out action against greivances and their jobs being threatened.

Since when did we support 'leftist' groups who entered bourgeoisie parliaments, anyway? Seems to be one set of beliefs for some countries, different in others. Is this in the name of anti-Imperialism? This party is well on the path towards becoming another ruling class group who do nothing to confront imperialism or socialism, just becoming sell outs, social democrats at best.

This is a group, within the bourgeoisie state, saying that it should ban workers taking direct and bottom up action, strikes, and you say we, as true socialists, should support the bourgeoisie state? Whatever.

I'd have thought, seeing as Maoists want capitalist developement in third world nations, they'd be supportive of strong unioons to prevent workers beign fucked over in the mean time. This appears to not be the case.

Its not triumphanism, its just recognising the beginning of a fuck over, and seeing the obvious problems of what happens when you enter the bourgeosie state, you begin to pander towards capital over workers.

[Crux]

Absolutely not the case. The nation state is the territorial unit of capitalism par excellance. National liberation is necesarily a capitalist struggle . it cannot be anything other than that.
Yeah that's how the mensheviks and the stalinist view it. this view is entirely incorrect. You are making the same mistake.


Worse , it presume a communality of interests within the framework of the spatial unit of the nation vis-a-vis other nations. It therefore directly works against the development of a working class identity which necessarily is transnational in character.
No it does not. National liberation is a question of uniting the workingclass that suffers under the heel of imperialism, it does not have much to do with bourguise nationalism at all. i think it was Engels that remrkaed that a nation cannot be free so long as it opresses other nations. national liberation, of course, is not an end in itself.


All nationalism, all nationalist liberation struggles cannot be anything other than bourgeois in outlook and even the workers engage in such struggle it is at their expesne as a class. The only principled socialist position on nationalism is to oppose it root and branch
So, would you be opposed to, say, anti-racist work or enganing in LGBT-issues? or feminist struggles? Your standpoint would be the eqvivalent of disowning antiracism because there are capitalists that belong to this or that ethnic minority. basicly you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Devrim]

You fail to acknowledge the fact that strikes clearly can be used by a section of the bourgeoisie - consider the racist strikes in support of Enoch Powell following his "Rivers of Blood" speech and subsequent sacking in 1968.

I will come back to the political slander later, as that is what it is, because I certainly don't see any political argument here.

However just to clarify this point earlier in the thread I said:


Of course, the working class can sometimes be manipulated by bourgeois factions.

I think that acknowledges that point.

Now we could say that this was someone jumping into a thread midway through. However, Bob wasn't and was writing in the thread before.

It leaves us with two choices. Either he is too lazy to read other people's arguments and just trots out his line anyway, or he is deliberately lying and trying to misrepresent what people say.

Personally, as I am someone who takes things in good faith, I prefer to believe the former option.

So Bob, please read people's arguments before jumping in and attributing opinions to them that they don't hold.

Devrim

[Red Robespierre]

We don´t speculate because we never thought maoists were communists in the first place. You people are not understanding our argument because you think we are just being "overtly critical" of their efforts, while in reality, we completely rejected their approach from the beginning. There is more to communist movements than a political gang waving the red flag in the name of "new democracy" And there is nothing more comfortable as the seat of a head of a bourgeois state.

Maoism errs in that it puts its faith in the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. As such, the Maoists face a number of difficulties that force them to take a preliminary path for the possibility of socialism. Lenin understood this well,and in his earliest writings sought to show the path of socialism as possible only through the industrial proletariat contrary to the SR's and agrarian-socialists.

That being said the Maoists have undeniably made the mistake to think that socialism can be truly won without an industrialized proletariat; as such, the correct line in Nepal would necessitate either retract from the coalition government and withdraw from politics altogether or renew the people's war, or take part in the Coalition government and consolidate power to (at a later time) root out the bourgeoisie. You cannot go from a quasi-feudal society with a majority peasantry towards socialism. Their politics at the moment are corresponding to the necessary conditions.

After the peasantry has been divided between landed gentry and rural workers, and an urban proletariat develops into a class-conscious force- only then through a class alliance can socialism be sought.

However, the ultra-left idealists have a tendency to reject any and all forms of political involvement that doesn't conform to their ideals of "romanticized revolution." This would also explain the international political impotency (and failures) of Trotskyites and other remnants of the ultra-left.

Maoism is flawed and deserves constructive criticism which you and the rest don't offer, nor have any interest in doing so.

[Bilan]

syndical:

This is the last post Im going to make in this thread, you've shown the same thing over and over again.

All Im going to say is to please remove "Marxian" from your avatar, because there is nothing marxian or revolutionary about syndicalism.

I don't expect you to be able to put the two together, but nevertheless, I suggest you restrict yourself, because there is nothing revolutionary about banning strikes. Your politics are bourgeois, and as a communist, you've displayed you have no political consistency within the class struggle - Who's side are you on? - nor any political integrity

[BobKKKindle$]

Just to be clear, this decision should be condemned, as it says a lot about the general political direction of the CPN(M). However, the point is that just because a political movement makes a mistake, it does not deserve to be rejected absolutely, especially when the movement is question has already introduced progressive reforms such as the abolition of slavery and the implementation of democratic institutions, and is far more progressive than any realistic alternative at the present time, especially in comparison to the previous regime, as in the case of Nepal. Rosa Luxemburg's analysis to the Russian Revolution is an example of how socialists should approach situations in which a movement has come to power with the backing of the working population but has made mistakes owing to the difficult conditions in which it is forced to operate, including a lack of prior examples from which to learn - she felt free to criticize the Russian Revolution in all its aspects, including the Bolshevik decision to disband the Constituent Assembly, and the Bolshevk policy on the nationalities question, but she still acknowledged that the revolution was an extremely important and progressive event from the perspective of the international proletariat and should be supported by socialists throughout the world as the first step towards an international revolution that would liberate the whole of mankind from the chains of imperialism.

[KurtFF8]

Well this article certainly makes it quite hard to be optimistic about the future of Nepal unfortunately.

This reminds me of the "workers state" of Poland in the late 80s that found its downfall due to organized labor, not by capitalist advances (although solidarity was anti-socialist, it's main purpose was to oppose the Polish state).

I fear that the current "workers" state of Nepal is setting itself up for some awkward ideological times if its going to openly oppose workers from the start.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, the Nepalese Maoists are following the line proposed by a certain senile renegade in the mid 20s:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1924/labour/ch02_b.htm#sd


At this conjuncture orderly political administration and consequently a flourishing economic life would be quite impossible, if efforts were made to form a pure class Government. The State and society and all its sections, including the workers, would be overtaken by dire necessity. Civil war, the attempt of one class to suppress its opponents by force, would achieve nothing but complete economic collapse to the extent of what we see to-day in Russia, assuming that this policy was practicable under the developed democratic institutions which we are predicating.

Under these circumstances only two forms of Government are possible: either one of the parties would form a Government with the acquiescence or support of at least one of the opposing parties, whose prejudices would have to be taken into account, or the Socialists would form a coalition Government with one or several of the middle class parties.

[...]

Those who to-day reject the policy of coalition on principle are oblivious to the signs of the times, and incapable of rising to the height of their tasks.

A far cry, indeed, from the anti-coalitionism of the pathbreaking The Road to Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/index.htm). :(

[robbo203]

No it does not. National liberation is a question of uniting the workingclass that suffers under the heel of imperialism, it does not have much to do with bourguise nationalism at all. i think it was Engels that remrkaed that a nation cannot be free so long as it opresses other nations. national liberation, of course, is not an end in itself..

National liberation means uniting the working class with the local capitalist class or comprador bourgeoisie in a joint struggle against other nation states. It is utterly against any notion of international working class solidarity against capitalism.



So, would you be opposed to, say, anti-racist work or enganing in LGBT-issues? or feminist struggles? Your standpoint would be the eqvivalent of disowning antiracism because there are capitalists that belong to this or that ethnic minority. basicly you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


You have proived my point for me. Opposing racism is opposing an imposed division among the working class. Nationalism is another such division. That is why socialist must oppose it

[Rawthentic]

syndical:

who the hell said I supported banning strikes? Who said I supported what the CPN-M is doing in this respect?

All I've said is that there are instances when different sections of the people are manipulated and maneuvered into opposing revolutionary change on faulty premises (and this wouldnt be the only time it has happened). Is this what is occurring in Nepal? Idk. Like I said, it is difficult to know the ground realities in Nepal, and because of this I dont jump to reject the maoists based on one article (because there is sooo much more going on).

But, like I said, your worldview is based on economism, workerism, and reformism, not any sort of revolutionary communist outlook.

[Bilan]

syndical:

who the hell said I supported banning strikes? Who said I supported what the CPN-M is doing in this respect?

By defending the CPN-M. If this is not your position, if you do not support this, I advise you make it more clear to others.



All I've said is that there are instances when different sections of the people are manipulated and maneuvered into opposing revolutionary change on faulty premises (and this wouldnt be the only time it has happened). Is this what is occurring in Nepal? Idk. Like I said, it is difficult to know the ground realities in Nepal, and because of this I dont jump to reject the maoists based on one article (because there is sooo much more going on).

I'm sorry, but maneuvered against revolutionary change? The only people who are being maneuvered and manipulated against Revolutionary change are the CPN-M and their apologists everywhere else.



But, like I said, your worldview is based on economism, workerism, and reformism, not any sort of revolutionary communist outlook.

Reformism? What? Workerism, yes. But I don't see how Workerist politics are reformist, lest you're unsure on what anarcho-syndicalists and workerists actually propose/are.
Your counter attacks are pathetic. The CPN-M is showing to the world how spineless and bourgeois it is; and their apologists, as usual, follow suit.

[Rawthentic]

Wow. This post above highlights the inherent workerism and identity politics of your theory.

What makes you think the people can't be maneuvered against revolution either in a non-revolutionary situation or in one such as in Nepal? Once again, identity politics and workerism come from the deeply erroneous view that workers or other groups inherently know what "they want" in some spontaneous manner, and therefore cannot be maneuvered or manipulated against their interests. It ignores how the consciousness of the people comes to a higher understanding, as well as the need for communist leadership.

There is a line struggle going on in Nepal. Judging from the evidence coming from Nepal, it seems as if Prachanda and Bhattarai are upholding a non-revolutionary, revisionist and reformist line in relation to the continuation of the revolution. There are others, such as Kiran, who are upholding a more thorough revolutionary line. All revolutions go through these waves and stages, and it is important that we understand this. Do you? I doubt that.

And, like I said, I wont jump to conclusions based on one article I read, it isn't fair, scientific, or even valid. There are far more things occuring in Nepal, and I wouldn't expect your hypocrisy to give way to that acknowledgment.

[Bilan]

Wow. This post above highlights the inherent workerism and identity politics of your theory.


I don't think you know what that means.



What makes you think the people can't be maneuvered against revolution either in a non-revolutionary situation or in one such as in Nepal?

Of course they can, but this event does not indicate that. You're stretching your bow so far that the string has snapped.



Once again, identity politics and workerism come from the deeply erroneous view that workers or other groups inherently know what "they want" in some spontaneous manner, and therefore cannot be maneuvered or manipulated against their interests.

No, it doesn't. The right to strike is something which we stand by in all situations, especially those in which there remain class systems. You can't comprehend that because, when push comes to shove, you stand on the other side of the line.



It ignores how the consciousness of the people comes to a higher understanding, as well as the need for communist leadership.

And the Maoist way of achieving this: Kill the non-believers, and ban the strikes! Long live Capita...Communism!



There is a line struggle going on in Nepal. Judging from the evidence coming from Nepal, it seems as if Prachanda and Bhattarai are upholding a non-revolutionary, revisionist and reformist line in relation to the continuation of the revolution. There are others, such as Kiran, who are upholding a more thorough revolutionary line. All revolutions go through these waves and stages, and it is important that we understand this. Do you? I doubt that.

ah, you doubt my understanding because I uphold the right to strike, and declare any who oppose the right to strike as class enemies.
Can you comprehend why? No.



And, like I said, I wont jump to conclusions based on one article I read, it isn't fair, scientific, or even valid. There are far more things occuring in Nepal, and I wouldn't expect your hypocrisy to give way to that acknowledgment.

Oh for fucks sake. You'll jump through rings of fire to defend these bourgeois motherfuckers, even when you're wrong.

[Bilan]

and you even admit in your post that bureaucrats in the CPN-M are towing the 'reformist, revisionist line'. You even admit that there is a turn against revolutionary politics within the upper levels of the CPN-M. Yet, assume that this is the masses being maneuvered against Revolution.
Communist Political integrity, Salut!

[Saorsa]

and you even admit in your post that bureaucrats in the CPN-M are towing the 'reformist, revisionist line'. You even admit that there is a turn against revolutionary politics within the upper levels of the CPN-M. Yet, assume that this is the masses being maneuvered against Revolution.

No, certain leaders of the CPN (M) are putting forward an increasingly reformist, revisionist line, and this is emblematic of that. However, the CPN (M) is a highly democratic organisation with a very healthy internal culture, and the forces within the party most often referred to by the media as the "hard-liners" are organising against this reformist approach. There will be a party congress in June, and as the more revolutionary faction within the party is believed to be stronger than the reformist one, things should be set back on course.

The situation in Nepal is very complicated. The Maoists have been unable to advance their program due to the constraints placed on them by their coalition partners, and they've openly recognised this. Nepal is in an increasingly chaotic state, with both progressive strikes (including a large number carried out by Maoist affiliated unions, which makes this move all the more surprising and more likely to be contentious within the party) and counter-revolutionary forces and organisations are organising strikes for the sole purpose of hampering the efforts of the Maoists in government.

I don't support this move. I think it's wrong, and a sign of how the revolution in Nepal is running into major difficulties that will be very tricky to overcome. However, I'm not going to stop supporting the revolution in Nepal because of this, and I'm hopeful and still confident that the Maoists will be able to continue leading the revolution forward, and that the militant, radical forces within the party will be able to overcome the increasingly reformist forces that are emerging.

[Devrim]

This is the last post Im going to make in this thread, you've shown the same thing over and over again.

You know when somebody writes this that they will be back. If you don't want to write, don't write. You don't need to pompously announce it.

However, given all that, to write the next post only five minutes after boldly declaring that 'This is the last post Im going to make in this thread', and then just to make sure that people realise how absolutely ridiculous you are trying to make yourself look, get in the next post too, not to mention many other on the thread, is to truly strive to make oneself look completely absurd.

Well done, Rawthentic.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I don't support this move. I think it's wrong, and a sign of how the revolution in Nepal is running into major difficulties that will be very tricky to overcome. However, I'm not going to stop supporting the revolution in Nepal because of this, and I'm hopeful and still confident that the Maoists will be able to continue leading the revolution forward, and that the militant, radical forces within the party will be able to overcome the increasingly reformist forces that are emerging.

One can understand the confusion of the Maoists. I love the way that they describe what they call a 'revolutionary party' actively taking anti-working class measures on behalf of capital a 'difficulty'. It must seem very hard for them to understand. They put their trust in the left faction of the party led by Mohan Biadhya without realising that this faction is just as anti-working class as the current party leadersip.

It must be difficult to make sense of it all. However when you reaslise that there hasn't been a revolution in Nepal, and that the Maoists are just another bourgoies party. It does all make sense.

Devrim

[Herman]

It must be difficult to make sense of it all. However when you reaslise that there hasn't been a revolution in Nepal, and that the Maoists are just another bourgoies party. It does all make sense.

It would be easier to brand any movement, party or organization as bourgeois. However that would be simplistic and erroneous, without counting every factor in.

[Rawthentic]

devrim is right: I'll keep my word when it comes to not responding to syndical's one-liners. They aren't needed, and his post doesnt even respond to what I said.

thanks, devrim.

But it is incredibly silly to call the Maoists in Nepal "bourgeois" when there are different lines contending that are radically opposed to one another.

[Charles Xavier]

Banning strikes in the middle of a civil war makes sense but this isn't the case. The Maoists in power are a progressive step forward in Nepal's history but it would be silly to say they are going to achieve socialism.

[Rawthentic]

Why is it silly?

I think there is an evident defeatism amongst many so called revolutionaries. Revolutions proceed in waves. There are setbacks, defeats, victories. They dont proceed linearly.

I think the chances of a revolutionary line emerging and leading nepal are slim.

[Saorsa]

One can understand the confusion of the Maoists. I love the way that they describe what they call a 'revolutionary party' actively taking anti-working class measures on behalf of capital a 'difficulty'. It must seem very hard for them to understand. They put their trust in the left faction of the party led by Mohan Biadhya without realising that this faction is just as anti-working class as the current party leadersip.

It must be difficult to make sense of it all. However when you reaslise that there hasn't been a revolution in Nepal, and that the Maoists are just another bourgoies party. It does all make sense.If everyone except Left Communists are "bourgeois" and incapable of organising revolution, capitalism will be around forever.

You're distorting what I said, and either deliberately or unintentionally misunderstanding it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume the latter, but knowing you it could be either.

I never called this ban on strikes a difficulty. It's a measure taken by the Maoists (and specifically an increasingly reformist current within their leadership) in response to the difficulties they face. They've been prevented from pushing through their program due to the restriants of their coalition partners, and Nepal's economy is in an increasingly dire state with massive electricity shortages and rising chaos, much of it instigated by reactionary forces such as the NC, Madhesi chauvinist parties, CPN UML, and the trade unions affiliated to them.

When the forward motion of a revolutionary process has been halted and it's unable to progress further with the same tactics, it inevitably begins to roll backwards unless there is a change of approach by the forces leading the revolution (which in the case of Nepal is the Maoist party). Left and right lines emerge, with the rightists calling for moderation in order to placate the counter-revolutionary forces (as we see here), and the leftists calling for aggressive militancy to smash the resistance of the counter-revolutionary forces.

These lines are emerging within the CPN (M), and I'm hopeful and confident that the leftist and revolutionary forces will win out.

Throwing ultra-leftist, workerist, economistic, sectarian slander at every revolutionary movement that ever achieves any form of success has always been the Left Communist approach, and I didn't expect to see anything different here. But just saying over and over again that the Maoists are a bourgeois party and that there is no revolutionary process taking place in Nepal will not make the momentous events there disappear. We can all rest easy in the knowledge that while Maoists are leading mass revolutionary movements in many parts of the world, Left Communism is, always has been and always will be irrelevant to the workers and masses in general. Enjoy shouting from the sidelines.

[Leo]

If everyone except Left Communists are "bourgeois" and incapable of organising revolution, capitalism will be around forever.

We get this a lot don't we... Unlike the bourgeois left, we do not see our role as one of "organizing the revolution", we see that revolutions are organized and made by classes, not factions or parties of classes.

Of course we do not think that everyone except us are bourgeois, there is first of all the working class of course, and also there are other groups or individuals who defend internationalism and workers' class interests without being left communists (some anarchists who we consider internationalists and revolutionaries, few other groups).

What we try to do is to approach the issues from the perspective of the interests of the working class, not of self-proclaimed revolutionaries who are attacking the working class. This is not because we think we are the only revolutionaries in the world, it is because we, as marxists see the dynamic of revolutionary change in the working class, thus it's enemies, those who attack it are the enemy for us too.


Throwing ultra-leftist, workerist, economistic, sectarian slander at every revolutionary movement that ever achieves any form of success has always been the Left Communist approach, and I didn't expect to see anything different here.

We didn't expect anything other than a slightly shy apology on attacks the so-called "revolutionary" Maoists are making to the working class.


We can all rest easy in the knowledge that while Maoists are leading mass revolutionary movements in many parts of the world

And the jewel of your crown is banning strikes soon after they took power, yeah way to go.


Left Communism is, always has been and always will be irrelevant to the workers and masses in general.

This too is the old, typical line parroted all too often. As ever our answer is the same: when the working class is strong, we are strong. When it is weak, we are weak. Historically however, left communists formed the majority of the communist parties in Europe, largely contributed to the foundation of the Communist International, had a majority in the Bolshevik Party for a while and played an important role in the first revolutionary wave following WW1.

[manic expression]

We get this a lot don't we... Unlike the bourgeois left, we do not see our role as one of "organizing the revolution", we see that revolutions are organized and made by classes, not factions or parties of classes.

You're totally right, Leo. I mean, imagine if someone wrote a Manifesto for some kind of PARTY that claimed to represent the interests of the proletariat! What kind of bourgeois, anti-worker idiot would do something like that?!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/



This too is the old, typical line parroted all too often. As ever our answer is the same: when the working class is strong, we are strong. When it is weak, we are weak. Historically however, left communists formed the majority of the communist parties in Europe, largely contributed to the foundation of the Communist International, had a majority in the Bolshevik Party for a while and played an important role in the first revolutionary wave following WW1.

As has been said, you have a future in writing fiction. Rewriting history in a delusional and self-aggrandizing manner seems to be something of a hobby within ultra-left circles. Enjoy your irrelevance, you've certainly earned it.

[Leo]

You're totally right, Leo. I mean, imagine if someone wrote a Manifesto for some kind of PARTY that claimed to represent the interests of the proletariat! What kind of bourgeois, anti-worker idiot would do something like that?!

Straw man.

The manifesto summarizes the role we see for the future world communist party quite well, on the other hand:

"The Communists ... have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer."

Funny how it doesn't say something like "communists take state power" or "communists ban strikes" isn't it?


As has been said, you have a future in writing fiction.

You are utterly ignorant in the past, you don't even have any idea what you are commenting on.

[manic expression]

Straw man.

It's called the Manifesto of the Communist PARTY. You just rejected the idea of parties organizing revolutionary activity. Just accept the fact that you aren't a Marxist and move on, it's much better for all of us that way.


The manifesto summarizes the role we see for the future world communist party quite well, on the other hand:

The quotes you used describe what we know as a vanguard party. Sorry.


Funny how it doesn't say something like "communists take state power" or "communists ban strikes" isn't it?

Funny how, if communists are supposed to further the interests of the workers, then it's only logical that they DO take state power, isn't it? Back to the drawing board, Leo.

Oh, and we're not talking about the banning of strikes. I already commented on that and you're more than welcome to respond to that post. Your desperate attempt to divert the argument is quite unsurprising.


You are utterly ignorant in the past, you don't even have any idea what you are commenting on.

More vague, meaningless sloganeering from an ideology that consists of only that. The fact remains that you are only trying to deny and rewrite history, for history itself is far and away the most convincing refutation of ultra-leftism.

[Leo]

It's called the Manifesto of the Communist PARTY.Yes, I am for the communist party as well, I think it is necessary for a revolution to take place.


You just rejected the idea of parties organizing revolutionary activity.Marx does not say that the party organizes revolutionary activity. The role of the communists instead are described as: " The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. "

As you can see here, communists rather than organizing movements of their own participate in the already existing struggles of proletarians, they raise raise questions, push the movement towards a more radical point, towards the realization of the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. Thus communists do not "represent" the proletariat, they "represent" the interests of the proletariat because they are aware of the final international goal and are pushing forward for it. Their immediate aims, being not different than rest of the workers, is the conquest of the political power by the proletariat, not by themselves.


The quotes you used describe what we know as a vanguard party.I am for a vanguard party.

I think you are rather for a bourgeois party rather than the proletarian vanguard party on the other hand.


Funny how, if communists are supposed to further the interests of the workers, then it's only logical that they DO take state power, isn't it?No it is not: it is the proletariat itself that needs to hold political power, not communists, but communists only as workers among the rest of the proletariat.


Oh, and we're not talking about the banning of strikes. I already commented on that and you're more than welcome to respond to that post. Your desperate attempt to divert the argument is quite unsurprising.I don't really care at all about what you commented on it at all. I was merely responding to what you have been saying starting from here: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1341294&postcount=77


More vague, meaningless sloganeering from an ideology that consists of only that. The fact remains that you are only trying to deny and rewrite historyA "fact" you have been parroting for a while, without ever attempting to support it, with anything.

[manic expression]

Yes, I am for the communist party as well, I think it is necessary for a revolution to take place.

Your understanding of such a party is simply superficial, as we will see below.


Marx does not say that the party organizes revolutionary activity.

Semantic argument, one which doesn't hold much water. What's the difference between organization and "[bringing] to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat"? I'll tell you: essentially nothing. Bringing to the front common working-class interests MEANS organizing for revolution, for revolutionary organization is THE foremost method of furthering said interests.
As you can see here, communists rather than organizing movements of their own participate in the already existing struggles of proletarians, they raise raise questions, push the movement towards a more radical point, towards the realization of the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. Thus communists do not "represent" the proletariat, they "represent" the interests of the proletariat because they are aware of the final international goal and are pushing forward for it. Their immediate aims, being not different than rest of the workers, is the conquest of the political power by the proletariat, not by themselves.

Your lack of logic is astounding. Communists, clearly, have no interests separate from those of the proletariat. Thus, if communists "organize movements of their own", those movements have no interests separate from those of the proletariat and are therefore not movements of their own, but of the workers. Your argument here is, in addition to being semantic once again, denying the actual formula put forth by Marx: communists represent the interests of the workers, and so a communist party is merely an organization of the most politically advanced working-class activists.

In short, any victory conquered by the vanguard party is a victory of the workers, by the workers and for the workers. If the party does this themselves is of no concern, for they are doing precisely what Marx intended them to do: push forth the interests of the proletariat. This, in the end, is what you oppose more than anything else.

By the way, your argument asks us to believe that the communist party isn't an organization at all, for if it was an organization, it would be guilty of "organizing movements of its own".


I am for a vanguard party.

See above.


I think you are rather for a bourgeois party rather than the proletarian vanguard party on the other hand.

A typically empty claim, one which is the hallmark of ultra-left desperation. Let me know when you have more behind this than hot air and puritan-like self-righteousness.


No it is not: it is the proletariat itself that needs to hold political power, not communists, but communists only as workers among the rest of the proletariat.

This is contrary to Marxism. If, as Marx said, the communists represent the most politically advanced section of the working class, then a communist revolution would inevitably see the communists' party "in power". Again, Marx consistently states that communists represent the interests of the proletariat and push them forward, and so your position that the party cannot hold power is just anti-Marxist.

Your anarchist tendencies are showing here.


A "fact" you have been parroting for a while, without ever attempting to support it, with anything.

:lol:

Sure, let me quote all of recorded history for you. Listen, that ultra-lefts have been completely irrelevant is something evidenced by the fact that history does not remember them. That's the point. All you have on your side is a bunch of wishful thinking, and that's all the support my side requires.

[Charles Xavier]

Don't organize or do anything until the revolution takes place? Well god damn, you really don't understand what a revolution is, you pretend a revolution is some spur of the moment gun battle. But no its an intense economic and political struggle that takes years to develop and it doesn't necessarily lead to victory, We pass through revolutionary situations all the time in capitalism. Each victory we win and each union struggle we fight is the building of the revolution.

When the revolutionary situation does break way what things come down to is how well organized each side is, how organized the camp of the proletariat and peasantry is and how well organized is the camp of the bourgeioisie. So it doesn't matter if the situation is dire and the people are oppressed if the class forces are not sufficiently organized capital will rule.

I fail to see how one can call someone like Leo a communist. Marx's time the working class movement was in its infancy. The majority of trade unions were hardly more than educational circles were people learned about left politics. Things are much more advanced now. But Marx and Engels was totally in favour of class politics and parliamentarian struggle, for the development of trade unions and worker parties.

The communist party is the party who organizes and works for the working class. I cannot see how you would determine marx would declare that a party of workers organized for the working class is reactionary and anti-worker. That logic is bizzare. You really learned nothing more than philistine phrases and have confused yourself in your learning, its called learning by rote, by sheer memorization without understanding the essense. To call the communist party a bourgeioisie party without actually having bourgeioisie in it or able to enrich the bourgeioisie is very bizarre.

And I know you cannot figure it out in your own head so you will try to refute us by either making more bizzare assumptions or quoting things you don't understand.

I mean even what you quoted you have taken out of context in Marx's own arguments he refutes you.

[black magick hustla]

Sure, let me quote all of recorded history for you. Listen, that ultra-lefts have been completely irrelevant is something evidenced by the fact that history does not remember them. That's the point. All you have on your side is a bunch of wishful thinking, and that's all the support my side requires.

history does not remember "them". what does that even mean? reminds me of how the right wing always speaks about how you stalinist dinosaurs have been defeated and are irrelevant.:lol: That is not an argument, unfortunately, politics for you are a popularity contest.

[Leo]

Semantic argument, one which doesn't hold much water. What's the difference between organization and "[bringing] to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat"?

Oh sure, I don't say that there shouldn't be organizations at all. There certainly should be workers self-organization, workers' councils, soviets. I am simply saying that communists can't organize the entire class themselves and their task is not organizing and directing the entire class, can only participate in their organization. The example of the Russian Revolution show this clearly: the soviets were not, never organized by the revolutionary party, the Bolsheviks; they appeared as a result of workers' own struggle.

All these things are means to the common interests of the world proletariat, helping them materialize their immediate means for the take over of power as well as the revolutionary situation afterwards, and are a product and a tool of the international expansion and unification of workers' struggles.


Communists, clearly, have no interests separate from those of the proletariat. Thus, if communists "organize movements of their own", those movements have no interests separate from those of the proletariat and are therefore not movements of their own, but of the workers.

You embarrass yourself when you try to paraphrase something that you didn't really understand. Communists, having no interests aside from the working class can have no movement aside from the movement of the working class, they don't ""form separate parties"", they participate in the workers movement, intervene, point out workers interests, push for the revolutionary direction from inside class struggle. This said, of course they form organizations and when strong enough they form the class party, but neither the organizations, no matter how small, nor the class party are not separate from the working class but is an organic part of it.


In short, any victory conquered by the vanguard party is a victory of the workers, by the workers and for the workers.

The vanguard party is not capable of conquering any victories itself, it is only capable of agitating among the proletariat for it. October Revolution is a good example: it was a victory of the Petrograd Soviet first and then Soviets in other cities. The Bolsheviks, fulfilling their role as the party admirably, pushed for the Soviets to take power itself. It was the soviets, not the party that took the political power; problems started when the party and the state merged, causing the proletariat to lose it's potentially strongest weapon, it's revolutionary party while defending itself from the state organ which by it's class nature is conservative and easily degenerable if the proletariat did not excercise it's dictatorship over it.


If, as Marx said, the communists represent the most politically advanced section of the working class, then a communist revolution would inevitably see the communists' party "in power".

Exactly because Marx as well as other marxists were and are marxists, rather than Blanquists, this is not the conclusion they reach at all. Exactly because the communists are the most politically advanced section of the working class they know that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself and they want the proletariat itself, as a whole to take political power rather than a small minority of "universal reformers".


Again, Marx consistently states that communists represent the interests of the proletariat and push them forward

Exactly; not that communists represent the proletariat and should take power themselves for their sake.


Your anarchist tendencies are showing here.

There is nothing that is anarchistic about what I am saying.


Sure, let me quote all of recorded history for you. Listen, that ultra-lefts have been completely irrelevant is something evidenced by the fact that history does not remember them. That's the point. All you have on your side is a bunch of wishful thinking, and that's all the support my side requires.

Your lack of maturity sometimes surprises me.


Don't organize or do anything until the revolution takes place?

You didn't really understand what is being said. I am not saying don't organize, I am saying that communists don't organize the struggles of the class but participates in them because the class is capable of organizing it's struggles itself, and the revolution should be organized by the class itself.


I fail to see how one can call someone like Leo a communist.

As unimportant as your opinions are to me, I am not surprised that a Canadian nationalist and first world chauvenist who sees the third worlders to be backwards people and thus supports their rulers like you to have anything but contempt against a communist militant in the middle east.

[Rawthentic]

Leo:

So, communists do not lead the workers in struggle?

And, if they don't, do you think that they spontaneously become communists themselves through struggles based around their immediate interests?

[Charles Xavier]

history does not remember "them". what does that even mean? reminds me of how the right wing always speaks about how you stalinist dinosaurs have been defeated and are irrelevant.:lol: That is not an argument, unfortunately, politics for you are a popularity contest.


Pathetic, you're making fun of someone's English grammar. Its hard to say you're not right wing. Left-wingish arguments to do right-wing actions. If you were really a leftist you wouldn't just make fun of someone for defeating your argument you would self-criticize and sharpen your own argument. Instead you resort to petty insults. Very Mature example of the mod team. I am very impressed someone like you is managing the web forum.

[Leo]

So, communists do not lead the workers in struggle?

Oh yes, the class party does, but it's a political, ideological and theoretical leadership based on the confidence gained by defending the interests of the proletariat intransigently, putting forward the most radical, revolutionary slogans for years. Not a hierarchical bourgeois leadership based on demagogy, jingoism and ordering workers around.

[Charles Xavier]

Oh yes, the class party does, but it's a political, ideological and theoretical leadership based on the confidence gained by defending the interests of the proletariat intransigently, putting forward the most radical, revolutionary slogans for years. Not a hierarchical bourgeois leadership based on demagogy, jingoism and ordering workers around.


Good thing you defeated that straw man political party. They were about to come into existence and lead the world. But they can remain in the land of the make-believe.

honestly though, the communist party is a party of workers and as such we are the working class, we self-organize our class, because we are members of that class.

There isn't three classes in society such as Proletariat, Bourgeiosie and than the Communist Party member. I don't cease being a member of the working class because I'm a communist.

What marx and other leftists were arguing against is these petty-bourgeiosie intellectuals who thought they must lead the ignorance masses to victory, but it is the masses themselves, who organize themselves into political parties, organizations, trade unions, and whatnot, not think tanks. You'd know this if you understood what you read rather than just reading it.

This idea that working people are ignorant dumb factory workers is a factious picture, even historically, working people are just as intelligent as any other class and while they may not have the resources to better themselves they are no slouches. 90% of this forum are part of this class, great minds from throughout the world are from this class.

[Leo]

What on earth are you talking about, all bourgeois parties lead in this manner, not just Stalinist bourgeois parties - it is not a 'phantom' in any way.

[Rawthentic]

What interests should we base our leadership around, Leo (in your opinion of course)?

Focus mainly on immediate interests? Or broader political struggles?

In other words, are you one to believe that we gain the confidence of the workers by appealing to what they perceive to be immediate and then organize for revolution?

[JimmyJazz]

Oh yes, the class party does, but it's a political, ideological and theoretical leadership based on the confidence gained by defending the interests of the proletariat intransigently, putting forward the most radical, revolutionary slogans for years. Not a hierarchical bourgeois leadership based on demagogy, jingoism and ordering workers around.

No kidding.

Leo, I think the reason people find your arguments absurd is that you are repeating obvious truisms which no one on this site disagrees with about what a communist party should look like, then using this definition to condemn virtually every communist party which has ever taken power, without showing one-by-one and in detail that they did not in fact conform to the definition.

Or are you still just talking about the Maoists in Nepal? If you are still just talking about the Maoists in Nepal, then the OP of this thread furnishes plenty of evidence for your characterization of them as anti-worker. But if you're talking about every communist party which has ever taken power--and you seem to be--then people are right to say you've got absolutely nothing.

Some left communist/anarchists like Maurice Brinton have tried to make historical contributions to what is a historical question: were the [insert name of some Communist party] anti-working class? This is valuable. But at the moment you are mostly just repeating slogans, which everyone here agrees with anyway, and which do absolutely nothing to resolve an essentially historical debate.

Have we misunderstood you? Are you only talking about the Nepalese Maoists? Because if so, you should really make that clear.

[black magick hustla]

Pathetic, you're making fun of someone's English grammar. Its hard to say you're not right wing. Left-wingish arguments to do right-wing actions. If you were really a leftist you wouldn't just make fun of someone for defeating your argument you would self-criticize and sharpen your own argument. Instead you resort to petty insults. Very Mature example of the mod team. I am very impressed someone like you is managing the web forum.

you are ridiculous. i wasnt making fun of his grammar, but of the stupid idea that what the mainstream tells as "history" concerns me very little on the issue of whether my ideas are correct or not. Its hypocritical for stalinist fossils to talk about their "position" in history when all mainstream history books today say they lost and are irrelevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While I have said my piece about the CPN(M)'s outright but expected class collaborationism (resulting from its coalitionism), I must say, in response to the off-topic ultra-leftismus infantilis (a disease, as opposed to a mere "disorder") infecting this thread:

"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes [...] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm)"

"That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party [...] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)"

"Educate! Agitate! Organize!"

[Leo]

Leo, I think the reason people find your arguments absurd is that you are repeating obvious truisms which no one on this site disagrees with about what a communist party should look likeAnd then again lots of them support hierarchical bourgeois leaderships based on demagogy, jingoism and ordering workers around, such as Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Vietnam, Albanian Party of Labor, Stalinist parties in Eastern Europe, the Shining Path, FARC, PFLP etc. etc. (I can keep counting, I've seen people here regarding Baath party as truly socialist), regarding them to be truly communist parties.


then using this definition to condemn virtually every communist party which has ever taken power, without showing one-by-one and in detail that they did not in fact conform to the definition.I wasn't telling anything specifically about parties that have taken power even, I was simply trying to outline the difference between the proletarian party and a bourgeois party as I see it.

It is common knowledge that all Stalinist parties were hierarchic, nationalistic and jingonistic (their own term for it was patriotic) and used that demogogy, and their people in charge ordered workers following them. I would be interested in seeing how anyone would try to refute all this.


Or are you still just talking about the Maoists in Nepal? If you are still just talking about the Maoists in Nepal, then the OP of this thread furnishes plenty of evidence for your characterization of them as anti-worker.Well yes mate that was the direct reference.

[BIG BROTHER]

Too many previous posts!!!:bored:

Anyways, I think this is a result from the failed Stalinist theory of "Stagin". Apparently in order to go through socialism the Maoists are now trying to develop capitalism, and what better way to do that than by luring inverters to a country were workers have no right to strike!

Nepal is just following the same path Nicaragua did.

[manic expression]

Oh sure, I don't say that there shouldn't be organizations at all. There certainly should be workers self-organization, workers' councils, soviets. I am simply saying that communists can't organize the entire class themselves and their task is not organizing and directing the entire class, can only participate in their organization. The example of the Russian Revolution show this clearly: the soviets were not, never organized by the revolutionary party, the Bolsheviks; they appeared as a result of workers' own struggle.

Ridiculous, and again you're playing with semantics. When you said that communists shouldn't "organize movements of their own", that is in direct contradiction to Marx's equation that communists have no interests separate from those of the workers. ANY organization organized by communists, then, is effectively working-class organization. The fact that you still can't grasp this, and that you're clinging to almost autonomist conclusions on "self-organization", shows us that you really don't comprehend Marxism.

And the Russian Revolution was led by a vanguard party. It was the vanguard, with the full support of the soviets, which overthrew Kerensky. That is a complete vindication of Lenin's theories on the vanguard (which were basically Marx's theories anyway).


You embarrass yourself when you try to paraphrase something that you didn't really understand. Communists, having no interests aside from the working class can have no movement aside from the movement of the working class, they don't ""form separate parties"",

Exactly, which is why the vanguard party is the party of the working class. That's why communists form parties, that's why they carry out revolutionary organization. Ultra-lefts have always tried to rewrite this part of Marxism.



The vanguard party is not capable of conquering any victories itself, it is only capable of agitating among the proletariat for it. October Revolution is a good example: it was a victory of the Petrograd Soviet first and then Soviets in other cities. The Bolsheviks, fulfilling their role as the party admirably, pushed for the Soviets to take power itself. It was the soviets, not the party that took the political power;

The soviets took political power because the party had conquered it. The party, for its part, was the most politically advanced section of the workers, and thus it was simply the most revolutionary of workers acting as revolutionaries. That's what a vanguard party is.


problems started when the party and the state merged, causing the proletariat to lose it's potentially strongest weapon, it's revolutionary party while defending itself from the state organ which by it's class nature is conservative and easily degenerable if the proletariat did not excercise it's dictatorship over it.

No, problems started with the Civil War, then the betrayal of the German Revolution, and then the isolation of the Russian Revolution. Further, the Russian proletariat had almost been swept to the winds by 1922.


Exactly because Marx as well as other marxists were and are marxists, rather than Blanquists, this is not the conclusion they reach at all. Exactly because the communists are the most politically advanced section of the working class they know that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself and they want the proletariat itself, as a whole to take political power rather than a small minority of "universal reformers".

You're ignoring the consequences of your own conclusions. If, as you state, communists are the most politically advanced section of the working class, then any act which pushes forth their interests is an act which pushes forth all proletarians' interests. Therefore, revolutions are organized and carried out by the party first and foremost.

Your political stance reeks of autonomism and anarchism. The party, being a party of revolutionary workers, struggles for their own class. That is the vanguard.


Exactly; not that communists represent the proletariat and should take power themselves for their sake.

They don't take power for anyone's "sake", they take power in the interests of all workers. Marx's plain words support this, as communists have no interests separate from the proletariat. But keep disagreeing with him.


You didn't really understand what is being said. I am not saying don't organize, I am saying that communists don't organize the struggles of the class but participates in them because the class is capable of organizing it's struggles itself, and the revolution should be organized by the class itself.

Of course communists should and must organize the struggles of the class! What else would the most politically advanced section of a class do? Communists are the most revolutionary workers, and so they need to act like it and organize revolution. You're asking communists to not act like communists.


As unimportant as your opinions are to me, I am not surprised that a Canadian nationalist and first world chauvenist who sees the third worlders to be backwards people and thus supports their rulers like you to have anything but contempt against a communist militant in the middle east.

Again, nothing but puritan-like hot air. A whole lot of buzzwords, not a lot of reason.


history does not remember "them". what does that even mean? reminds me of how the right wing always speaks about how you stalinist dinosaurs have been defeated and are irrelevant.:lol: That is not an argument, unfortunately, politics for you are a popularity contest.

No, history doesn't remember them, because they were never an important factor in working-class struggles. That's precisely the point, that's why they're irrelevant.

The right wing likes to lie about how Marxism has "failed" because they're afraid of it. And you just deputized right wingers, which is quite typical.

Politics for me, like very other Marxist, means class struggle. The reality is that ultra-lefts have never and will never have a role in it.

[REDFOREVER]

Thats really sad.. Regrettably not surprising, but still too bad. At the start, I was hopeful. Depressing!:(

[cyu]

Sometimes you just can't trust elected representatives to do things for you - you just have to do it yourself. Thus the concept of "direct action".

[JimmyJazz]

And then again lots of them support hierarchical bourgeois leaderships based on demagogy, jingoism and ordering workers around, such as Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Vietnam, Albanian Party of Labor, Stalinist parties in Eastern Europe, the Shining Path, FARC, PFLP etc. etc. (I can keep counting, I've seen people here regarding Baath party as truly socialist), regarding them to be truly communist parties.

I wasn't telling anything specifically about parties that have taken power even, I was simply trying to outline the difference between the proletarian party and a bourgeois party as I see it.

It is common knowledge that all Stalinist parties were hierarchic, nationalistic and jingonistic (their own term for it was patriotic) and used that demogogy, and their people in charge ordered workers following them. I would be interested in seeing how anyone would try to refute all this.

Well yes mate that was the direct reference.

More sloganeering, more blanket condemnations of everyone who ever claimed to be Communist. Nice citation of "common knowledge" as evidence, however.

In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much everyone in this thread opposes the strike ban in Nepal--even Wanted Man/This Charming Man, a "Stalinist". So I'm not really sure why you're seizing upon it as a recruiting tool for the ICC.

[Leo]

More sloganeering, more blanket condemnations of everyone who ever claimed to be Communist.

Whatever :rolleyes:


In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much everyone in this thread opposes the strike ban in Nepal

Oh sure but they are excusing it although saying it's not what they would have done.


So I'm not really sure why you're seizing upon it as a recruiting tool for the ICC.

I think it is your mentality that is problematic if you can't see discussion as anything other than a recruitment tool for people.

[black magick hustla]

No, history doesn't remember them, because they were never an important factor in working-class struggles. That's precisely the point, that's why they're irrelevant.

The right wing likes to lie about how Marxism has "failed" because they're afraid of it. And you just deputized right wingers, which is quite typical.

Politics for me, like very other Marxist, means class struggle. The reality is that ultra-lefts have never and will never have a role in it.

I am not going to give you a history lesson because every time i mention something you start covering your ears and claiming lies lies lies.

however:

1) i dont deputize anybody. i am simply stating you are full of fecal matter for accusing someone with the same shit you are accused of by virtually the majority of historians/politicians, or people who teach history. the right wing might be afraid of marxism, but so are leftist capitalists. unfortunately for you, it is the right wing faction of the bourgeosie who triumphed in the terrible debacle between soviet or american imperialists. so, "irrelevance" shouldnt be in your arsenal of political slurs.

[Charles Xavier]

I am not going to give you a history lesson because every time i mention something you start covering your ears and claiming lies lies lies.

however:

1) i dont deputize anybody. i am simply stating you are full of fecal matter for accusing someone with the same shit you are accused of by virtually the majority of historians/politicians, or people who teach history. the right wing might be afraid of marxism, but so are leftist capitalists. unfortunately for you, it is the right wing faction of the bourgeosie who triumphed in the terrible debacle between soviet or american imperialists. so, "irrelevance" shouldnt be in your arsenal of political slurs.

You should stop inventing new social classes, there is no left faction of the bourgeoisie or right faction of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie's position is more profits, bigger profits, cheaper labour, more markets, cheaper resources, bigger loans, control and ownership.

The only time you would see some classes having a more progressive outlook is them seeing their inevitable absorption into the proletariat, and taking a stand for the proletariat.

Your understanding of a class society is non-existant at best and intentionally misleading. When we talk about different cliques of the bourgeiosie we do not talk about 1 more left-wing than the other, we talk about Pepsi's owners versus Coca-Cola's owners, each fighting for supremecy. And honestly though their owners are the banks which control them anyways, so this may be a bad example, but there isn't one that more left ie more progressive than the other. So stop talking about their left versus right bourgeiosie, they don't exist.

The powers that be didn't give us democracy, an 8 hour workday, pensions, welfare, because they were a more progressive part of the bourgeiosie, no it wasn't them so don't give them any credit. It was working people who fought for these demands and won them. This is called the labour movement, the movement of working people. They gave these concessions not out of love for the people or they felt like being a nice imperialist. No rather they were forced into giving them by organized labour. And when in times of weakness they take them away.

So please check yourself into a library and read more about the social classes they are not as you describe.

[RHIZOMES]

I basically support Comrade Alastair's line here. There is no way revos can support a ban on strikes, but naysayers who do nothing but criticize the Nepali Maoists are completely undialectical for not acknowledging the contradictions in the Nepali revolution (And contradictions are going to be present in any revolution) and ignoring the fact that it's only one particular faction of the CPN(M) that is proposing this ban on strikes, which is being struggled against from within. All you first-world leftists do is criticize revolutions in other countries while having no fucking idea how to build one in your own, because the undialectical nature of your criticisms reflects your own undialectical nature on how revolutions actually work.

[Devrim]

You should stop inventing new social classes, there is no left faction of the bourgeoisie or right faction of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie's position is more profits, bigger profits, cheaper labour, more markets, cheaper resources, bigger loans, control and ownership.

The position of the bourgeoisie is 'more profits, bigger profits, cheaper labour, more markets, cheaper resources, bigger loans, control and ownership'. However, it has disagreements about the strategies to achieve this. That is why they have different political parties, and that is the difference between the two major parties in the US. They represent the major left/right divide amongst the bourgeoisie.

Devrim

[Devrim]

but naysayers who do nothing but criticize the Nepali Maoists are completely undialectical for not acknowledging the contradictions in the Nepali revolution (And contradictions are going to be present in any revolution) and ignoring the fact that it's only one particular faction of the CPN(M) that is proposing this ban on strikes, which is being struggled against from within.

But it is the majority of the party, and the strongest part. Also, it is one that the left was suporting only recently.


All you first-world leftists do is criticize revolutions in other countries

I would advise you to drop this line, firstly as as opinions can't be judged on which country the proposer comes from, but more importantly as the main argument against them is coming from Turkey, and with yourself living in New Zealand calling us 'first world leftists' makes you look vaguely ridiculous.

Devrim

[Charles Xavier]

The position of the bourgeoisie is 'more profits, bigger profits, cheaper labour, more markets, cheaper resources, bigger loans, control and ownership'. However, it has disagreements about the strategies to achieve this. That is why they have different political parties, and that is the difference between the two major parties in the US. They represent the major left/right divide amongst the bourgeoisie.

Devrim


This is an incorrect line, these two parties are not factions of the bourgeioisie, the bourgeioisie fund all parties who are going to represent their interest just in case one or the other win. In the United States they made sure their leadership is installed in both parties and that they are calling the shots. They want to be secure if a liberal party wins or a conservative party wins. The only reason one bourgeioisie may support one party rather than the other is because the one party is more likely to get them contracts and more likely to support their corporation with friendlier laws than the other. This is the divide not left-right, but who's bringing me bacon. Their interests in any case is more profits.


Someone who may be a bourgeoisie personal political beliefs on say gay marriage and whatnot may be something else but these are not factions of the bourgeioisie, rather cliques, and they are rather unworthy of actual political discussion, more so celebrity gossip.

[Rawthentic]

devrim:

Simply because you live in what is considered a third world country does not mean that you hold revolutionary politics. That should be clear.

Do I think we judge the correctness of one's politics by their traction? It isnt that simple. The Democrats are clearly wrong. But, there is a correlation, a connection, between a politics that claims to be communist yet has literally no traction where it claims to exist or anywhere else.

But, you are correct in that the bourgeoisie is not one homogeneous group. In fact, inter-imperialist or -capitalist rivarly can be the spark for a revolutionary movement (or revolution).

[Leo]

Simply because you live in what is considered a third world country does not mean that you hold revolutionary politics. That should be clear.

Of course. But it does mean that we aren't "first world leftists" while Arizona Bay is, that is a fact. This is what Devrim said, nothing else.

[Devrim]

devrim:

Simply because you live in what is considered a third world country does not mean that you hold revolutionary politics. That should be clear.


I would advise you to drop this line, firstly as as opinions can't be judged on which country the proposer comes from, but more importantly as the main argument against them is coming from Turkey, and with yourself living in New Zealand calling us 'first world leftists' makes you look vaguely ridiculous.

Exactly what I said. I just added that the allegations also seemed a bit absurd.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Oh, right. My bad.

[Red Dreadnought]

Maoist show their veritable face: a bourgueois current.

If maoist ban strikes, then workers should ban maoists.

[Random Precision]

I'm glad that the Maoists we have on the forum are forward about condemning the actions of the CPN-M here. But I think we have another case of realizing that something isn't right without seeking to understand why. If Prachanda and Bhattarai are promoting a "revisionist line" by seeking to ban public-sector strikes, then why were they not equally condemned when they promised on numerous occasions to promote capitalist economic development in Nepal? It seems to me the Maoists on the board were full of theoretical justifications for the pursuit of capitalist economic development, but they balk when they see what that means in practice.

[Saorsa]

Mao managed to carry out capitalist development without banning strikes. Hell, the Bolsheviks did ban strikes for a period of time, although under very different circumstances. I oppose this because I do not believe it can be the right course to take under the current circumstances, not because I am opposed to restricting strikes under any circumstances.

Promoting capitalist development is totally necessary in a country as underdeveloped as Nepal and in the context of a world without any large socialist states to provide support. However, this can only be done with a strong workers movement and under the watchful eye of a revolutionary state to keep the capitalistic forces in check while simultaneously planting the seeds of the socialist economy. Banning strikes is not the way to go about this.

[Pogue]

Mao managed to carry out capitalist development without banning strikes. Hell, the Bolsheviks did ban strikes for a period of time, although under very different circumstances. I oppose this because I do not believe it can be the right course to take under the current circumstances, not because I am opposed to restricting strikes under any circumstances.

Promoting capitalist development is totally necessary in a country as underdeveloped as Nepal and in the context of a world without any large socialist states to provide support. However, this can only be done with a strong workers movement and under the watchful eye of a revolutionary state to keep the capitalistic forces in check while simultaneously planting the seeds of the socialist economy. Banning strikes is not the way to go about this.

But didn't you expect the Nepalese Maoists to make thse mistakes when they seized control of the bourgeois state? What made you think they would not sell out? Don't we oppose reforism across the world, as revolutionaries?

[Rawthentic]

I think there is a misconception here, and one that both RP and Alastair uphold.

A while back, I was upholding the Bhattarai line on economic development in Nepal, and I must confess that it iss a deeply wrong line to hold. I was upholding precisely a line that was thoroughly refuted by communists in the PRC during the Mao era.

After a seizure of power, socialist development is the norm. It is the means. Advocating capitalist development under the pretense that socialism cannot exist without it has historically been an excuse for revisionists to repress class struggle (since workers dont care about liberating humanity, only production).

Underdeveloped countries begin socialist transformation by staging an agrarian, anti-feudal revolution that liberates the productive forces from imperialist domination. It begins a process of socialist transformation in all spheres (not simply capitalist development; although it will some elements of it will need to be sustained for a while).

[Saorsa]

Underdeveloped countries begin socialist transformation by staging an agrarian, anti-feudal revolution that liberates the productive forces from imperialist domination. It begins a process of socialist transformation in all spheres (not simply capitalist development; although it will some elements of it will need to be sustained for a while).


When I talk about the need to unleash capitalistic forces at the same time as the beginnings of a socialist society are built, that's what I mean. You can't have the dictatorship of the proletariat overnight in a country like Nepal, you need to advance quite a wee way before that's possible. As Mao himself said; http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

- Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of further sub-stages, because of changes on the enemy's side and within the ranks of our allies, but the fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged.

- Although the Chinese revolution in this first stage (with its many sub-stages) is a new type of bourgeois-democratic revolution and is not yet itself a proletarian-socialist revolution in its social character, it has long become a part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and is now even a very important part and a great ally of this world revolution. The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat The revolution will then be carried forward to the second stage, in which a socialist society will be established in China.

That is the path I support for revolutions in the Third World, and I believe it's the only practical and realistic path available. I do not, however, believe that this action by the CPN (M) advances Nepal down this path.

[Rawthentic]

Ok.

The post I responded to did not reveal that, but I understand what you mean now.

[chegitz guevara]

I think, before comrades jump on the bandwagon to claim that the CPN(M) are nothing but class traitors, we should take a look at real history and bourgeois states. From time to time, the bourgeois state is required to take an action against individual capitalists or the whole capitalist class, in order to further the interests of that class as a whole. A case in point would be the FDR administration, which was so detested by the capitalists, that they attempted to orchestrate a fascist coup against him. He was called a traitor to his class, it was claimed he was betraying capitalism. But what would have been the result if he'd continued the ban on unions, for example? Very likely, the workers struggle would have radicalized to the point that revolution was inevitable. It was necessary to overcome capitalist opposition to unions in order to maintain the rule of the capitalist class.

In the case of Nepal, socialism is not on the agenda. It can't be. They simply don't have the development, let alone workers, let alone a worker class movement with enough culture to take on the tasks of developing their country. To move immediately to a state owned society would be to condemn Nepal to a continued lack of development, a shared poverty, and ultimately, capitalist restoration. Given that they are dependent, at this time, on the capitalists and imperialists to provide the capital necessary to develop Nepal, it will be necessary, from time to time, for the workers party to repress the workers, in their own interest. Just as we could never support a racist strike to keep Black workers out of a plant, we need to recognize there must be times when the workers are acting contrary to their own interests, and the workers party must intervene to stop them.

Which isn't to say that a blanket ban on strikes is the proper way to go. The strike is the workers chief weapon, and to unilaterally disarm them ensures that the capitalists will hold the upper hand. Rather, the party and the state need to look at each strike in its context and purpose, and ban only those which set back the interests of the worker class as a whole.

[Coggeh]

In the case of Nepal, socialism is not on the agenda. It can't be. They simply don't have the development, let alone workers, let alone a worker class movement with enough culture to take on the tasks of developing their country. To move immediately to a state owned society would be to condemn Nepal to a continued lack of development, a shared poverty, and ultimately, capitalist restoration. Given that they are dependent, at this time, on the capitalists and imperialists to provide the capital necessary to develop Nepal, it will be necessary, from time to time, for the workers party to repress the workers, in their own interest.

And Russia/China/Cuba etc socialism was never on the agenda ?

Of course it is .If we want socialism in a 3rd world country its going to turn into capitalism ? whats the fucking point so ?
Capitalism has brought nothing but poverty to nepal , this development is not coming anytime soon and it would be massively benefical for the Nepalese people to have socialism , control over their resources etc .

Their really shouldn't be any argument here .

[chegitz guevara]

And Russia/China/Cuba etc socialism was never on the agenda ?

Where did I write "never?" Where did I mention Russia/China/Cuba? Don't engage in strawmen.


Of course it is .If we want socialism in a 3rd world country its going to turn into capitalism ? whats the fucking point so ?
Capitalism has brought nothing but poverty to nepal , this development is not coming anytime soon and it would be massively benefical for the Nepalese people to have socialism , control over their resources etc .

Their really shouldn't be any argument here .

Capitalism, as such, doesn't exist in Nepal. It is newly emerging from feudalism, so to claim capitalism hasn't done this or that is true, only in that capitalism hasn't existed, and therefore been unable to do anything.

There is no USSR or PRC now days to help develop revolutionary Nepal. If Nepal is to develop its economy, so that there is industry, workers, and working class culture, then they are dependent on the capitalists. That is the simple fact. To remain a peasant based economy would destroy any possibility of building socialism.

[Hiero]

If you take time to read the aritcle and if you have a level head you will see it isn't as bad as libcom makes it out to be.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&nid=175026

What Dr Baburam Bhattarai's outlook is, economic development with social benifits. Building the economy while maintaining social welfare and employment. I see this as progressive development against irrational ultra-leftism and rapacious capitalist development under a dictorial party which is common in the third world. So against Pol Potist socialism and something like Mobutu.

On the issue of strikes, there was no mention of baning bandas and strikes (what is a banda anyway?). He mentions there was a problem between management and workers over mimimum wage. Bhattarai says management will be made to accept the minimum wage. He then goes on to say


So what I appeal to the management is that they should provide the minimum wage. The workers shouldn't resort to bandas and strikes. If this understanding is honoured we'll have a healthy environment in the days to come.

No mention of banning strikes or bandas, Bhattarai says they should use the legal system.

I think people's knee jerk reaction shows their infantile ideaology of communism, which is based on nothing more then workers constantly striking. If there is no development under the Maoist government and strikes stop production then the Maoist government will be overthrown by a tyrannical government. The real bourgeiosie nationalist will have to step in to force development through fascist like means, and this will see the end of development with social benifits. I think history has shown this happen when ultra leftists follow ideological dogma over pragmatic development, they end up helping the overthrow of a progressive government by a dictorial party.

Really I am not phased by lib com's stupid analysis of the interview.

[Devrim]

No mention of banning strikes or bandas, Bhattarai says they should use the legal system.

In the OP:

Faced with the unrest, Maoist Party leader and Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda proposed to fellow politicians a ban on all public sector strikes, to which the seven major parties all agreed. In a recent press interview, just prior to the agreement, the Maoist governmental Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai tried to justify a ban;

And the direct quote agreeing with this:


Q: So the party wants to ensure that whenever there is a labour dispute, legal recourse should be taken? Bhattarai: Yes. At least for some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health, education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors. The government is trying to build political consensus on this issue.


If you take time to read the aritcle and if you have a level head you will see it isn't as bad as libcom makes it out to be.

Maybe if you had taken time to read the article you would have seen that there was mention of banning strikes.


(what is a banda anyway?)

It is a 'stoppage' or protest.

Devrim

[Hiero]

Faced with the unrest, Maoist Party leader and Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda proposed to fellow politicians a ban on all public sector strikes, to which the seven major parties all agreed. In a recent press interview, just prior to the agreement, the Maoist governmental Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai tried to justify a ban;

That is from libcom.

No where does Bhattarai say that they parliament is passing a law to ban strikes and bandas. Libcom is using the interview as their source, and no where does it say such a law has been passed. They have made a false claim. If there is another source to prove this libcom should source it or drop the claim. Basically the aritcle is slander.

What you have quoted apart from being out of context does not prove that there is any such law. And if read in full context Bhattarai is talking about the minimum wage issue, which the Maoist government supports. They are basically saying there is no need for a strike or banda as the government will enforce the agreement onto management.

The only thing that is nearing that claim is about the Special economic zones. We will have to wait and see what happens there. However libcom did not source that to their claim that the government has banned strikes and bandas.

[Devrim]

That is from libcom.

No where does Bhattarai say that they parliament is passing a law to ban strikes and bandas. Libcom is using the interview as their source, and no where does it say such a law has been passed. They have made a false claim. If there is another source to prove this libcom should source it or drop the claim. Basically the aritcle is slander.

No, basically the article is true. It is not necessary to source every fact in an article particularly ones that have been quite widely reported in the press.

However, less than one minute's search brought up an article about it:


Major six agree to declare vital sectors 'strike prohibited zones'; NC resists


KATHMANDU, Jan 16 - The major six political parties on Friday reached an agreement to declare the indispensable service sectors such as hospital, industries, transportations and custom offices as shutdown prohibited zones.
...
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=175607

Devrim

[Coggeh]

Where did I write "never?" Where did I mention Russia/China/Cuba? Don't engage in strawmen.
You think Russia in the 5/6 months between Tsar and the bolshevik revolution became capitalism ? or developed ?

It was basically a peasant feudalist society , as was China in many respects .




Capitalism, as such, doesn't exist in Nepal. It is newly emerging from feudalism, so to claim capitalism hasn't done this or that is true, only in that capitalism hasn't existed, and therefore been unable to do anything.

There is no USSR or PRC now days to help develop revolutionary Nepal. If Nepal is to develop its economy, so that there is industry, workers, and working class culture, then they are dependent on the capitalists. That is the simple fact. To remain a peasant based economy would destroy any possibility of building socialism.Firstly maoists believe a peasant revolution is possible , they focus on the agrarian rural basis , this should be a no brainer for them .

The road of Capitalism which you just think needs to happen is a lie and nothing else . Agrarian land reform , seizing of the resources of the feudal capitalist class .Democratic workers’ committees, including armed defence militias, should be formed in the cities, as well as peasants’ committees in the countryside, linked together through a revolutionary constituent assembly. Appeals from such a movement to workers in India, Kashmir, Pakistan and China would get enormous response and spread the struggle for socialism in Asia.

Lenin criticized marx about this issue , that somehow their needs to be capitalism first , this is false and is such a "first worldist" position to have .

[Saorsa]

Firstly maoists believe a peasant revolution is possible

That is false. Please provide a shred of evidence that backs that up. I'm very interested to see all the quotes from Maoist leaders and theoreticians where they say that it's possible to have a revolution led by the peasantry...

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is false. Please provide a shred of evidence that backs that up. I'm very interested to see all the quotes from Maoist leaders and theoreticians where they say that it's possible to have a revolution led by the peasantry...

Well, that is the crux of "New Democracy," isn't it?

[Don't worry, though, because the question here revolves around the "democratic" revolution and not the "socialist" revolution.]

Now, in terms of tying my earlier remarks with this one, I would like to say that Nepal's transition into capitalist development is a good one, contrary to the whining and griping of left-communists in this thread (this I would be consider to be a "national liberation" of sorts for the Nepalese "people"). However, the least the Maoist coalitionists should admit is that they don't represent the interests of a rather tiny working class in that country.

[Saorsa]

Well, that is the crux of "New Democracy," isn't it?

No. The crux of New Democracy is a coalition of all the revolutionary classes (proletariat, peasantry, progressive petit-bourgeoisie and nationalist bourgeoisie) under the leadership of the proletariat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just out of curiosity: what kind of land reforms have been initiated by the CPN(M)?

[Saorsa]

^ So far, none to speak of. A lot of land was seized during the People's War, and so far has not been returned, with conflicting statements about what's going to happen with it coming from different leaders of the UCPN (M). The Committee to oversee the land reform process has just been set up, but due to resistance from the reactionary parties so far nothing concrete has begun.

[Bilan]

No. The crux of New Democracy is a coalition of all the revolutionary classes (proletariat, peasantry, progressive petit-bourgeoisie and nationalist bourgeoisie) under the leadership of the proletariat.

I still love how the Nationalist Bourgeoisie is considered a 'revolutionary class'. :lol:
I think the way Nepal is manifesting under the CPN-M really speaks for itself. I wonder which revolutionary class banning strikes would be in line with. :rolleyes:

[Rawthentic]

Nepal is not exercising New Democracy. It is a bourgeois republic at this stage (where it will go idk).

But, in response to syndicalisme, maoist theory states that the nationalist bourgeois can be won over to radical change since their class status is maintained by imperialism and the comprador bourgeois (which oppresses the nationalist bourgeois by not allowing it to expand and establish an industrial capitalist state - this is, after all, the crux of how the order in nepal is maintained).

Also, every revolution has been made through a coalition of classes. Does this mean class collaborationism? No, it needs to come through a scientific analysis of classes in a given society. It is much more complex than "workers vs bosses".

[Bilan]

But, in response to syndicalisme, maoist theory states that the nationalist bourgeois can be won over to radical change since their class status is maintained by imperialism and the comprador bourgeois (which oppresses the nationalist bourgeois by not allowing it to expand and establish an industrial capitalist state - this is, after all, the crux of how the order in nepal is maintained).

I know what it states - it's just funny because its ludicrous.
Sure, individuals within the 'national bourgeois' can be won over, but the class itself is an absolutely essential part to bourgeois society. Good luck leading the communist revolution with a class which is part of the perpetuation of capitalist society and the subordination of working class people.



Also, every revolution has been made through a coalition of classes. Does this mean class collaborationism? No, it needs to come through a scientific analysis of classes in a given society. It is much more complex than "workers vs bosses".

Every revolution has also failed and degenerated. If China is not a wonderful illustration of why Maoism is wrong, then I'm afraid nothing will ever convince you.
And yeah, the 'analysis of classes' is complex - but the action of the communist revolution is about the self-emancipation of the working class.
It's funny you've called me a 'petit-bourgeois anarchist' back in the day. Aren't the ironic twists of reality fun?

[Hiero]

It is not necessary to source every fact in an article particularly ones that have been quite widely reported in the press.

Yeah actually it is. And it is wrong to claim one fact while using a source that does not back up that claim. Apart from the fact it just doesn't make sense, it is nothing more then slander.

[Pogue]

No. The crux of New Democracy is a coalition of all the revolutionary classes (proletariat, peasantry, progressive petit-bourgeoisie and nationalist bourgeoisie) under the leadership of the proletariat.

That has never and will never work.

[Saorsa]

That has never and will never work.

Unlike anarchism, which always... worked so... well... :S

[Devrim]

Yeah actually it is. And it is wrong to claim one fact while using a source that does not back up that claim. Apart from the fact it just doesn't make sense, it is nothing more then slander.

No, it is not slander. Slander is something that is untrue. This, however, is true as can be seen from the link I provided.

Neither is it usually considered necessary to provide a source for widely known facts.

The quotation illustrates the fact, which does make sense.

Devrim

[Bilan]

Unlike anarchism, which always... worked so... well... :S

Typical bourgeois analysis.
At least we know who our class enemies are; which class is revolutionary and which isn't.

[Saorsa]

At least we know who our class enemies are; which class is revolutionary and which isn't.

You have a simplistic, workerist analysis that leads to wrong conclusions. The more time passes the more this will become apparent. Sure Leninists fuck up sometimes, but that's because our line is correct enough that we actually get into positions where it's possible to both succeed and fuck up, and we do both! Anarchists remain oh so pure and clean because they never move off the sidelines.

[Bilan]

Never did I think I'd see the day when a "communist" accuses me of being led to the wrong conclusion by Marx, Rocker and Pannekoek, when I say that I support the self-emancipation of the working class by the working class itself.
I'm not going to get into a bickering war with you. The actions of Maoists speak for themselves. they do so here, and will continue to do so until it is shelved along with the rest of the failed experiments.

[chegitz guevara]

You think Russia in the 5/6 months between Tsar and the bolshevik revolution became capitalism ? or developed ?

It was basically a peasant feudalist society , as was China in many respects .

No, Russia was a developing capitalist society. Hence the book Lenin wrote twenty years before the revolution, The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Russia was still, largely, a feudal economy, but the most important and dynamic sector was capitalism. This made socialist revolution in Russia possible, but as everyone from Marx to Lenin wrote, only with the aid of the victorious proletariat of Western Europe. Once a workers state was established, it could play the same role to other victorious revolutions, even if peasant based, that the Western proletariat was to have played for Russia. Today, what revolutionary workers state exists to help Nepal?

In the absence of aid from socialist revolutions in Europe, Russia was forced to turn to both the imperialists for capital for development (Armand Hammer ring any bells?). In addition, the NEP was created so that an indigenous bourgeoisie could rise and develop Russia. If Nepal wants to develop industry and a working class, who will give it aid? How are they going to develop without the USSR to help them (assuming that the PRC doesn't provide such aid).

Lastly, while Russia did not develop from feudal to capitalist in the space of eight months (as it was already capitalist in many important respects), the tasks of the bourgeois revolution were carried out. Those tasks must be carried out before a transformation to socialism can begin, although a victorious workers revolution can carry out both tasks.


The road of Capitalism which you just think needs to happen is a lie and nothing else .I never said anything about the road to capitalism. I said that capitalism does not exist in Nepal, and that Nepal needs to develop, and they have no one from whom to get the capital to develop than capitalists. That's not the same thing as saying Nepal needs to develop capitalism before they can become socialist. Unfortunately, they must turn to those who will seek to undermine their revolution and develop a capitalist economy. They must walk a tight rope, and in all probability, they will fall. But we should not be among those casting stones trying to knock them down until we are certain that the road they are taking is indeed the capitalist one. As Zhou En-Lai is reported to have said when asked about the significance of the French Revolution, I also think that with regards to the Nepali Revolution, "it is too soon to tell."

[Killfacer]

You have a simplistic, workerist analysis that leads to wrong conclusions. The more time passes the more this will become apparent. Sure Leninists fuck up sometimes, but that's because our line is correct enough that we actually get into positions where it's possible to both succeed and fuck up, and we do both! Anarchists remain oh so pure and clean because they never move off the sidelines.

Oh boo bloody hoo. If banning strikes is a "fuck up" then i think it's better for the workers around the world if you stop practising your childish theories on them and leave them be. I have always thought that when someone consistantly makes major fuck ups that they should probably give up on it before ruining even more peoples lives.

You talk about "fuck ups" like they are nothing because they have no effect on you and you have no effect on them.

[Rawthentic]

syndicalisme:

The Chinese revolution did not fail, it was defeated. There is a huge difference. It made important breakthroughs in theory and practice that are indeed will be important for the future. I suppose that isn't true for syndicalism.

When a baby is learning to walk and falls, is that failure? Or has he learned certain lessons that will allow him to do better next time? Rejecting his/her actions as failures ignores an important process.

Will anarchism or syndicalism ever gain traction in a country like Nepal? Of course not. It doesn't even happen in industrialized nations.

The national bourgeois are a class that objectively has class interests diametrically opposed the imperialist bourgeoisie (as ive explained but youve ignored) within a nation. If communists can win them over to an at least neutral rather than hostile stance, why isnt that a good thing?

Oh, but of course, revolutions are about workers vs bosses. Workers know what they want since they are workers.

Oh, and btw, working class self emancipation does not mean that it doesnt (or doesnt need to) lead other classes in a revolution. It means that its class interests are at the fore and not led by another class.

Alastair is correct. You have a deeply narrow and economist framework which doesnt allow for any deep analysis of how different societies have different class structures that changes how revolutions come about. For you, whether it is Nepal or Australia, it is "workers vs bosses."

[Rawthentic]

here is a good post that RedFlags made on the Kasama site:


Yes, Nando’s response is excellent – just on general principle.


I’d like to return to the diatribe from libcom, and how amazing it continues to me that libertarian socialists would so casually traffic in what is a baldly anti-revolutionary diatribe. In a kind of funny double-duty, it both criticizes the revolutionary forces for arguing that in some sectors, for some time there should be a curbing of strikes – while equating this (with neither evidence nor example,) the suppression of “genuine” workers organization. Later in the same article they accuse the popular organizations and militias, such as the Young Communist League and the revolutionary unions of “thuggish” behavior. So, when they do strike it’s authoritarian, and when they don’t it’s suppression. In other words, making revolution through actual people is itself authoritarian…


The basic point is the underlying anarchist belief that only issue-based, navel-gazing, what’s in it for me-and-mine in the most stupid sense counts as “genuine” workers organization. Yet the Nepalis are way beyond this. Not only are the workers largely organized, they are politically mature enough to recognize that their interests are political… which is to say that they join and build unions based on their political objectives and class interests. Some of them are revolutionary, some of them are fence-sitters, and others still are counter-revolutionary. But it’s a hell of lot more interesting all around than the pseudo-spontaneous “orgasms of history” that the anarchists fetishize.


This is where ultra-leftism/anarchism shows itself to be the grumbly handmaiden of reformism. Hate the capitalist, fear the power of the people actually exerted as more than a John Halloway-style “scream of No!”. What a crisis of imagination!
When we say “yes” – that’s where so-called authoritarianism begins. The minute the oppressed classes actually have parties, these parties are intrinsically the problem. It’s silly on one level, shocking that anarchists are so uninterested in what people actually do when they are organized!


The libcom authors go on to quote their own predictions regarding Special Economic Zones, with no mention that insofar as they have been discussed, it is for the creation of hydro-electric power – which offers the greatest hope for energy generation and foreign capital. Maybe they are against that on principle, if so – they should just come out and say it. In the meantime, they seem to oppose the land reforms, ignore marriage reforms and seem to not grasp that Nepal has successfully worked to build a republican consensus that overthrew a centuries-old godking through the organized power of the poorest people in Asia. It reads like disinformation of a traditionally Trotskyist method, updated with an anarchist vocabulary. The key is to privilege every particular announcement (or “text”) while utterly ignoring the balance of forces in the country and region – who is actually in conflict? We’d never know from this article. All we know is that the force they really hate is the one that has brought the basic people of Nepal into political life for the very first time.


In each example LibCom offers, a superficial glean of “text” stands in for analysis of which social forces are actually in conflict. This is all the more difficult since the very organizations of workers and peasants that are pushing for the most drastic changes are themselves largely organized by the Maoists! Instead of turning their guns on the urban middle classes, the CPN(M) is working to avoid exactly the high-handed administration that they are here accused of. So they are bad because they are including the middle classes and bad insofar as those middle classes aren’t actually in

charge.


This article reminds me of American cable-news analysis, where “talking heads” are brought onto television to try and cut reality’s feet to fit their most immediate partisan objectives. Since anarchism demands some absurd, “self-organized” (whatever that means) instant everything – literally any event is proof of the perfidy of the non-anarchist. This must be especially galling in a region of the world that has no anarchists, and where revolutionary communists are actually building armies of the people. Maybe if they had a zine convention, listened to old Crass records and so on… after all, they are vegetarians!


It’s just a shoddy article; a pitch-perfect example of dogmatism, which one would think would be apparent to the editors at libcom. Perhaps they’d be interested in actually gathering a serious compilation of reports and information for their readers. Or maybe they are just more interested in proving the validity of their ideology, and ignoring what doesn’t fit. I mean, where have we seen that before?

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/prachanda-nepalese-people-will-seize-power/#comment-11134

[chegitz guevara]

Will anarchism or syndicalism ever gain traction in a country like Nepal? Of course not.

I think that's not borne out by history. Anarchism has managed to take hold of the workers in only two countries, Italy and Spain, and both were of a more syndicalist variant than anarchism per se. Elsewhere, it is the peasants who take up the banner of anarchism. Anarchism, in fact, seems to have had its greatest victories among the peasant masses. Generally speaking, peasant anarchism is a nasty, brutish politics, typified of a hatred towards the cities, seen as cess pools of vice and corruption, and as parasites on the backs of peasants. We've seen in this in the Ukraine, in Manchuria, in Yugoslavia, and in Cambodia.

It is entirely possible for the revolution in Nepal to fall to peasant anarchism, even while wearing the face of communism and in the name of Mao. We saw it with Pol Pot.

[Saorsa]

Oh boo bloody hoo. If banning strikes is a "fuck up" then i think it's better for the workers around the world if you stop practising your childish theories on them and leave them be. I have always thought that when someone consistantly makes major fuck ups that they should probably give up on it before ruining even more peoples lives.

Only we don't consistently fuck up. We consistently struggle and often succeed, and sometimes fuck up. Big deal.

[Pogue]

Only we don't consistently fuck up. We consistently struggle and often succeed, and sometimes fuck up. Big deal.

Succeed in what? Getting strike-banning parties in power in bourgeois elections?

[BobKKKindle$]

That has never and will never work.

What has never worked, exactly? In countries which suffer from a lack of economic development such as Nepal the proletariat comprises only a small part of the population and is concentrated in the cities and so clearly a successful revolution of any kind cannot be carried out by the proletariat acting on its own, but only through a broad united front which is led by the proletariat as the only class with an objective interest in building socialism but also includes other oppressed groups, especially the peasantry. The inclusion of these groups means that the proletariat will need to adjust its aims and policies in order to maintain the cohesion of the front and prevent the peasantry from falling into the hands of hostile class forces such as the imperialist bourgeoisie - this is why the Bolsheviks (and later the CCP) raised the demand of land reform and agreed to distribute land to the peasants instead of pursuing immediate collectivization, despite the fact that collectivization is ultimately the only way to achieve industrialization and eliminate the division between town and country. Whether this front should extend to the national bourgeoisie is another question, and perhaps the crucial difference between Trotskyists and Maoists, but to argue that a united front of any kind has never worked is theoretically and empirically flawed. The alternative - the proletariat trying to create socialism in opposition to all other classes in an underdeveloped state with no immediate prospect of the revolution spreading to other countries - is an absurdity.

[apathy maybe]

Yeah, nothing has fucking brought about a long lasting communist fucking society. Now all of you fuckers arguing the validity of anarchism vs Maoism fuck off into another thread.

I'm sure that this has been covered before, but, a "socialist" party banning strikes? I guess the country isn't socialist yet.

Insert here the anarchist analysis of states and governments (i.e. they don't just give up power, regardless of who is at the helm).

Anyone who expects great things from any government is delusional, whether the government be lead by a bunch of Maoists, or a lesbian who claims to be a socialist.
The most a government can do is reform, and slowly. You want real change? You want change you can fucking believe in? You need a fucking revolution that will get rid of governments, not one that brings another set of arseholes into power.

[Bilan]

syndicalisme:

The Chinese revolution did not fail, it was defeated. There is a huge difference. It made important breakthroughs in theory and practice that are indeed will be important for the future. I suppose that isn't true for syndicalism.

Oh the irony. No, anarchists weren't defeated by a much bigger enemy in Spain - no, no, it was the theories fault.
Your theory and understanding of history is totally bankrupt.



When a baby is learning to walk and falls, is that failure? Or has he learned certain lessons that will allow him to do better next time? Rejecting his/her actions as failures ignores an important process.

You guys don't learn anything, don't kid yourself. You're more like Bart Simpson when he keeps grabbing the muffin, though it is wired with electrical currents which will shock him. "This time..."
If you'd learnt anything from past revolutions, you would have learned that a coalition of classes - or even simply, national liberation - is not an emancipatory process. It infact, without fail, leads workers back into their previous position - total subordination to capital. One set of bosses replaced by another.
One form of subordination replaced by another, with the only difference in manifestation being its location.



Will anarchism or syndicalism ever gain traction in a country like Nepal? Of course not. It doesn't even happen in industrialized nations.

And I suppose it never gained traction in China, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Australia, America, England, Italy, Greece, France...wait...
And whether we manifest in somewhere like Nepal, or infact, anywhere, changes nothing. What counts is the accuracy of the theory, not how popular it is. Populism is not a measure of accuracy.



The national bourgeois are a class that objectively has class interests diametrically opposed the imperialist bourgeoisie (as ive explained but youve ignored) within a nation. If communists can win them over to an at least neutral rather than hostile stance, why isnt that a good thing?
I don't think you know what the bourgeoisie's interests are, nor that of capitalists. Put down your useless Maoist drivel and try reading Marx.



Oh, but of course, revolutions are about workers vs bosses. Workers know what they want since they are workers. Nope, they need pretentious middle class brats to come and lead them, because workers are stupid, worthless parasites. Isn't that right?



Oh, and btw, working class self emancipation does not mean that it doesnt (or doesnt need to) lead other classes in a revolution. It means that its class interests are at the fore and not led by another class.

And so a coalition of classes, petit-bourgeois and bourgeois, are therefore part of this? Do you know nothing about class structures, or have an ounce of class analysis within your politics?



Alastair is correct. You have a deeply narrow and economist framework which doesnt allow for any deep analysis of how different societies have different class structures that changes how revolutions come about. For you, whether it is Nepal or Australia, it is "workers vs bosses."
Alastair, like you, is wrong, again. With no surprises necessary.
You insist that I am 'deeply narrow' in my 'economist framework' because I refuse to support your anti-working class parties and politics. We told you this would happen.
You're just too fucking arrogant to realize it. And now its happening, and you're still seeing rainbows.

[Saorsa]

Nope, they need pretentious middle class brats to come and lead them, because workers are stupid, worthless parasites. Isn't that right?

Luckily there are very few anarchists in Nepal.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Alastair is correct. You have a deeply narrow and economist framework which doesnt allow for any deep analysis of how different societies have different class structures that changes how revolutions come about. For you, whether it is Nepal or Australia, it is "workers vs bosses."

Alastair, like you, is wrong, again. With no surprises necessary.
You insist that I am 'deeply narrow' in my 'economist framework' because I refuse to support your anti-working class parties and politics. We told you this would happen.
You're just too fucking arrogant to realize it. And now its happening, and you're still seeing rainbows.

A pox on the broad economism infecting both of you (and Alastair, three). :D

Carry on. ;)

[Rawthentic]

If you'd learnt anything from past revolutions, you would have learned that a coalition of classes - or even simply, national liberation - is not an emancipatory process. It infact, without fail, leads workers back into their previous position - total subordination to capital. One set of bosses replaced by another.
One form of subordination replaced by another, with the only difference in manifestation being its location. National liberation is not emancipatory?

The fulfillment of bourgeois democratic tasks in a country that has never had them until now (via a maoist peoples war that has awaken millions of people in nepal) is not emancipatory?

Land reform isn't emancipatory?

These tasks, in nepal, are revolutionary.Advocating "love matches" in nepal can get you killed. Being a woman and joining the revolutionary communist forces means you cant go back because your sexual integrity is not "intact." The caste system is embedded the way Jim Crow was in the South.

These tasks, which to us are not revolutionary, are deeply radical in a country like nepal and can only be carried out by radical revolutionary forces: the maoists.

So it isnt as easy as your methods make it out to be. One of the chinese revolutions greatest achievements was its far reaching land reform. It was literally the greatest accumulation of wealth in human history because it brought in millions of new landowners that had their own interests amidst a petty mode of production. Yet the breaking up of this feudal structure was necessary (and IS necessary) to advance to socialism and communism.

The elimination of a monarchy that represented the outdated structure of nepal is not emancipatory?

All these things are elements of national liberation (in nepal). And, to say that they dont represent a great progress shows more than ever that anarchists are not about making revolutions or understanding the complexities of imperialism (and how third world nations make revolutions), but about making simplistic analysis of class relations. To you, nepal and the United States are no different. It is just workers vs bosses.

New Democracy is a theory that was forged through the practice of the chinese revolution. It actually lead to the latest communist seizure of power the ICM has witnessed. It outlines a basic framework that communist revolutions can follow in underdeveloped nations. The maoists in nepal have learned deeply about these experiences and have implemented them to lead millions of workers and peasants into political life for the first time - a life that allows them to see their political and class interests (that reside with the maoist leadership) through class struggle.

To further illustrate your bankrupt and dogmatic methods, you seem to think that a socialist state and capitalist state are the same thing, since socialism still has "bosses" that "subordinate" the workers. What else is there to say? Can others see this crippled method in action? Eww...


And I suppose it never gained traction in China, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Australia, America, England, Italy, Greece, France...wait...
And whether we manifest in somewhere like Nepal, or infact, anywhere, changes nothing. What counts is the accuracy of the theory, not how popular it is. Populism is not a measure of accuracy. Thats right, it didnt. Anarchists dont make revolutions. They preach on the sidelines. Anywhere people are making revolutions (led by communists - and in fact maoists a lot of the time), anarchists dont critically support, examine, or study. They apply their apriori principles that have little connections to the reality facing the revolutionary communists or the people themselves. They are about purity. Of course accuracy is not measured in popularity. But, I am sure there are theoretical issues that prop up when we see that millions of workers and peasants around the world (india, nepal, phillipinnes, etc) that support maoists..and not anarchists. Oh, but wait, why do they support the maoists? Because they are stupid? Because theyve been fooled? Oh, the irony.

Anarchism is more of a moral position rather than social and political program to deal with social, capitalist relationships as they exist. Maoism has historically been a current that has dealth with these issues in practice - sometimes wrong, sometimes not.

I don't think you know what the bourgeoisie's interests are, nor that of capitalists. Put down your useless Maoist drivel and try reading Marx.I at least attempt to dig into political questions. I suggest you do the same, at least out of respect. Address the politics. Make it seem you like you understand.


Nope, they need pretentious middle class brats to come and lead them, because workers are stupid, worthless parasites. Isn't that right?Nope. That is a caricature of revolutionary communism. The people need revolutionary leadership. Without that, there can never be a revolution. Your view that workers come to a communist understanding by virtue of being workers (identity politics) is deeply scarred with a spontaneous view of consciousness. This should seem obvious, but your conceptual framework does not appreciate this.


And so a coalition of classes, petit-bourgeois and bourgeois, are therefore part of this? Do you know nothing about class structures, or have an ounce of class analysis within your politics? Depending on how classes relate to one another in a give society, that may be the case. It requires a concrete analysis of class interests in relation to world imperialism. You do have a deeply dogmatic view of class structures. Every revolution has and will be made by a coalition of classes. Besides workers, we also have peasants, small business owners (depending), intellectuals, lumpen, and the many other strata that exist and have objective interests in seeing communist revolution. Why wouldnt the proletariat want to win them over or least neutralize them?

[black magick hustla]

the problem with maoists, beyond their bad politics and their apologism for bourgeois gangs, all in the name of bourgeois democracy and national liberation, is the fact that their politics reek of dumb partisanism and cheerleading. the CPn and many other maoist gangs are identical to many other left-nationalist parties that do not necessarily wave the red flag. i dont mean this only in the sense that both types of parties are the executive/political arm of certain factions in the boss class, but in terms of platform itself. For example, lets talk about mexico. maoists are not different to the PRD, or the PRI, for example-- the latter who made sweeping land reforms, argues in favor of universal healthcare, and who mandates, or at least used to, the most powerful trade union in latin america. they however, do not call themselves communist, nor do they talk about mao tse tsung and dialectics. the PRI, like the maoists, were very good at murdering communists too, while considering themselves left.

in short the only difference of a maoist gang from other leftist parties is that the former uses different rhetoric, thats it.

[black magick hustla]

and that mike ely article was garbage. its full of spinelessness and it amounts to a dumb jaded ex-party cadre whining about how anarchists have the nerve to actually have a backbone, which is a quality that the maoists do not have.

[Saorsa]

the PRI, like the maoists, were very good at murdering communists too, while considering themselves left.

Provide evidence that the UCPN (M) has murdered other revolutionary communists.

[black magick hustla]

Provide evidence that the UCPN (M) has murdered other revolutionary communists.

i am talking about maoists in general. i dont think i have to talk about shanghai right?

[Killfacer]

Only we don't consistently fuck up. We consistently struggle and often succeed, and sometimes fuck up. Big deal.

You're so painfully deluded. You talk about the maoists in the term "us" when you have nothing in common with them. They would think you are an idiot and you are one. You will have nothing to do with a revolution. Stop pretending to yourself that you are part of some wider movement you delusional idiot.

"Sometimes fuck up big deal" what kind of socialist thinks fuck ups aren't a big deal. Frankly you're a disgrace for thinking you can shit all over people.

[Killfacer]

Luckily there are very few anarchists in Nepal.

Fail.

[Pogue]

It probably is lucky there are very few anarchists in Nepal, no doubt the bourgeoisie state led by the Maoists would attack them in fear that they might struggle for a revolution and communism.

[Bilan]

National liberation is not emancipatory?

No.



The fulfillment of bourgeois democratic tasks in a country that has never had them until now (via a maoist peoples war that has awaken millions of people in nepal) is not emancipatory?

No. I don't think you know what emancipatory means. I'll give you a hint, it does not mean substituting a foreign bourgeoisie for a national one.



Land reform isn't emancipatory?

It can be.



These tasks, in nepal, are revolutionary.Advocating "love matches" in nepal can get you killed. Being a woman and joining the revolutionary communist forces means you cant go back because your sexual integrity is not "intact." The caste system is embedded the way Jim Crow was in the South.

And you're stupid enough to believe national liberation, or land reform, will change this?



These tasks, which to us are not revolutionary, are deeply radical in a country like nepal and can only be carried out by radical revolutionary forces: the maoists.

Inflated self importance is probably one of the biggest issues facing Maoists.
But thank fuck the working class in Nepal has those bourgeois twats to lead them into chains. So long as they're red!



So it isnt as easy as your methods make it out to be.

I'm not suggesting its easy. Infact, I don't think I've even used that word, nor implied such a thing.



One of the chinese revolutions greatest achievements was its far reaching land reform. It was literally the greatest accumulation of wealth in human history because it brought in millions of new landowners that had their own interests amidst a petty mode of production. Yet the breaking up of this feudal structure was necessary (and IS necessary) to advance to socialism and communism.

Jesus christ, you're still an apologist for the Chinese revolution? still?!



The elimination of a monarchy that represented the outdated structure of nepal is not emancipatory?

Yes, that is emancipatory. But it is not socialist. Distinction: necessary.



All these things are elements of national liberation (in nepal). And, to say that they dont represent a great progress shows more than ever that anarchists are not about making revolutions or understanding the complexities of imperialism (and how third world nations make revolutions), but about making simplistic analysis of class relations. To you, nepal and the United States are no different. It is just workers vs bosses.

Firstly, I'm not a spokes person for the entire anarchist movement. You must recognize this, or you will continue to make generalised posts with no substance. Have you not heard of 'anarcho-leftism' or Platformism? Why not ask The Levellers Standard, or the entirety of Anarkismo on their position on national liberation? They support it. Not all anarchists do. I do not.
So keep your generalised sectarian comments to yourself, because you are (unsurprisingly) wrong. Painfully, painfully wrong.

Secondly, they are not all inherent parts of national liberation. The manifestations of national liberation result in different results. They are diverse.
To suggest, for one moment, that they are all part of it is utterly stupid.

Furthermore, the 'good' points of what the Maoists have done is also to be weighed with the bad. What this article illustrates is that the Maoists have anti-working class tendencies, as is perfectly illustrated by their propsal to out-law strikes. Having progressive social policy or land reform does not indicate a push towards socialism, but a push toward bourgeois society - capitalism - in its archaic form, which uses methods of blatant coercian to reaffirm class structures. The banning of strikes is a perfect illustration of this, and of the CPN-M's bourgeois political line.



New Democracy is a theory that was forged through the practice of the chinese revolution.

That's worrying in itself.



It actually lead to the latest communist seizure of power the ICM has witnessed. It outlines a basic framework that communist revolutions can follow in underdeveloped nations.

Which is bogus, considering that an undeveloped country can't socialise its economy. But even so, the Maoists represent the most brutal form of class domination - bourgeois class domination at that.



The maoists in nepal have learned deeply about these experiences and have implemented them to lead millions of workers and peasants into political life for the first time - a life that allows them to see their political and class interests (that reside with the maoist leadership) through class struggle.

Whilst squashing the most basic rights of labour.
Perfectly bourgeois political 'life'. You have the right to choose your ruler - but not to resist them.



To further illustrate your bankrupt and dogmatic methods, you seem to think that a socialist state and capitalist state are the same thing, since socialism still has "bosses" that "subordinate" the workers. What else is there to say? Can others see this crippled method in action? Eww...

...How the hell did you manage to conjour up that utter tripe?
Also, you call me 'dogmatic' and then suggest I think a 'socialist state is the same as a capitalist state because there are still bosses that subordinate workers'.
How can I be dogmatic, and also have a position that doesn't make sense? :confused:
I suppose its more interesting to find out where the hell you got such a stupid idea...
Anyhow, no, a socialist state is not the same as a capitalist state. Had you read Engels, you might have realized that. But thats okay.



Thats right, it didnt. Anarchists dont make revolutions. They preach on the sidelines.

Are you unaware of any part of history what so ever? How can you make such a blatantly stupid statement?



Anywhere people are making revolutions (led by communists - and in fact maoists a lot of the time), anarchists dont critically support, examine, or study.

There is so much contradiction in your post. We're on the sidelines, yet we don't examine or study, yet we preach? What the hell are you babbling on about?

I'm not responding to the rest. It's beyond drivel. Maybe you should try and study, and then spare us the bullshit.

[Bilan]

Luckily there are very few anarchists in Nepal.

And unfortunately there are Maoists.

[benhur]

In my experience, Maoists are as confused as Mao himself.;) They're a bundle of contradictions. On the one hand, they talk of socialism, but their policies are more 'capitalist' than any capitalist country. They speak of workers revolution, but spend all the time aligning with the bourgeois.

Worse still, they justify identity politics, nationalism and other reactionary ideologies under some pretext or the other (such as they're fighting a more dangerous enemy, real or imagined, or this is a lesser evil etc. etc.).

In short, maoists are no different from patriots, except that they're good at manipulating workers for their bourgeois agenda. But why blame them, when their leader Mao was equally confused and foolish, and was a fanatical nationalist rather than a communist?

[Hiero]

No, it is not slander. Slander is something that is untrue. This, however, is true as can be seen from the link I provided.

Neither is it usually considered necessary to provide a source for widely known facts.

The quotation illustrates the fact, which does make sense.

Devrim

Well I can say is you have a low expectation for the quality of good journalism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Mao was equally confused and foolish, and was a fanatical nationalist rather than a communist? Mao made many mistakes, and there are many aspects of Maoism which need to be critiqued and evaluated in light of historical experience, but the fact remains that Mao led one of the most important revolutionary movements in human history in an underdeveloped country suffering from years of war and internal strife, and the achievements of this movement have inspired numerous other struggles against oppression in countries throughout the world and especially in countries which are currently relegated to a position of economic weakness and dependency as a result of imperialism. Given this, it is absurd and despicable that you, someone who has obviously never participated in a revolutionary movement, and has no grasp of the conditions and problems communists have to deal with in underdeveloped countries, feel capable of dismissing Mao and brushing all of his ideas aside because you view him as "foolish". It's very easy to criticize communists who have actually taken state power instead of sitting on an internet forum, and are now faced with the task of building a solid economic base without the aid of other countries and during a period of world economic recession, especially when these communists are forced to make decisions which shatter the illusion that revolution is always going to be a dinner party with no difficult choices or periods of hardship, but despite these serious obstacles the CPN(M) has already made incredible steps forward (the abolition of slavery, in the form of the Haliya system of bonded agricultural labour, and giving formal recognition to Nepal's transgender population, to name but two examples) and there is no reason to assume that they will not succeed in making further advances in the near future. You talk a lot, but you have yet to put forward a clear alternative - we can only assume that you want the CPN(M) to try and build socialism by nationalizing every single factory in the entire country and banning all forms of private enterprise and foreign investment with no exceptions because this is the only course of action which lives up to your ultra-left demands and expectations. Your general approach is clear - you view all movements through an abstract and idealistic prism without seeking to learn from past revolutionary experiments and examine the facts on the ground.


Anyhow, no, a socialist state is not the same as a capitalist state. Had you read Engels, you might have realized that. But thats okay.

If you had read through some of the arguments which have been put forward in this thread, or if you had bothered to do some research before you embarked on your latest ultra-left tirade, you would know that the CPN(M) does not view the current state in Nepal as socialist, and it is questionable as to whether New Democracy has been obtained, as has already been pointed out.

[Pogue]

Mao made many mistakes, and there are many aspects of Maoism which need to be critiqued and evaluated in light of historical experience, but the fact remains that Mao led one of the most important revolutionary movements in human history in an underdeveloped country suffering from years of war and internal strife, and the achievements of this movement have inspired numerous other struggles against oppression in countries throughout the world and especially in countries which are currently relegated to a position of economic weakness and dependency as a result of imperialism. Given this, it is absurd and despicable that you, someone who has obviously never participated in a revolutionary movement, and has no grasp of the conditions and problems communists have to deal with in underdeveloped countries, feel capable of dismissing Mao and brushing all of his ideas aside because you view him as "foolish". It's very easy to criticize communists who have actually taken state power instead of sitting on an internet forum, and are now faced with the task of building a solid economic base without the aid of other countries and during a period of world economic recession, especially when these communists are forced to make decisions which shatter the illusion that revolution is always going to be a dinner party with no difficult choices or periods of hardship, but despite these serious obstacles the CPN(M) has already made incredible steps forward (the abolition of slavery, in the form of the Haliya system of bonded agricultural labour, and giving formal recognition to Nepal's transgender population, to name but two examples) and there is no reason to assume that they will not succeed in making further advances in the near future. You talk a lot, but you have yet to put forward a clear alternative - we can only assume that you want the CPN(M) to try and build socialism by nationalizing every single factory in the entire country and banning all forms of private enterprise and foreign investment with no exceptions because this is the only course of action which lives up to your ultra-left demands and expectations. Your general approach is clear - you view all movements through an abstract and idealistic prism without seeking to learn from past revolutionary experiments and examine the facts on the ground.



If you had read through some of the arguments which have been put forward in this thread, or if you had bothered to do some research before you embarked on your latest ultra-left tirade, you would know that the CPN(M) does not view the current state in Nepal as socialist, and it is questionable as to whether New Democracy has been obtained, as has already been pointed out.

You fail because you said ultra-left. Its not ultra-leftism, its called being a revolutionary and supporting the working class, as opposed to supporting whatever entity has red as its colour and calls itself communist.

Being on the side and part of of the working class, we'll be very critical of people who fuck over our class, such as these Maoists.

[Rawthentic]

syndicalisme:

why don't you actually address what I've said rather than write it off with your one-liners? Can you do better than that?

Address how national liberation does not include and end to bonded labor, slavery, arranged marriages, introduces new political rights, sexuality, and then entire caste system (and then explain how all of this is not liberatory for the nepalese people).

Get into the question of land reform in china that I addressed, dont write it off just like that. Can you?

But I think there is one thing worth responding to in relation to strikes:

First, I am skeptical of all articles that dont (and seemingly cant in many cases) provide a context and background for that strike? Who was leading it? All strikes are led by certain forces or people that have interests embedded in that process, and this is no case.

Or, should we just ignore that and support all strikes? What if these strikes are led by anti-communists in hope of destabilizing the region? What if they are led by anarchists that insist workers need to control the workplace (as if that meant socialism in itself) which implies a setback to much needed economic development.

Dont workers have higher political class interests? I dont think the nepali workers are too narrow to believe that their fundamental interests lie in obtaining higher wages rather than waging class struggle to overcome imperialism, establish bourgeois democratic tasks, get to socialism etc.

Second, this might highlight the emergence of a revisionist line with the maoist party. And this is why I find it crazy to make conclusions based on articles that cant take this into account, because all revolutions (particularly ones that face such complex pulls) have intense line struggles within their parties that can determine the path the revolutiionary party takes.

And there are a lot of examples of pro-maoist worker actions as well:

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/nepal-international-call-of-solidarity-for-the-workers-movement/

http://www.itfglobal.org/solidarity/nepal.cfm

There are lot of other examples ( and idk why I feel compelled to post them when you probably wont read them, or even acknowledge what they represent).

Marmot:

please dont be silly. The Maoists are not the same as the PRI. Those tasks I described (land reform, etc) are not complete in Nepal, and can only be carried out by communists (due to nepal's position in the imperialist system).

PRI might have conducted these tasks in the past, but its pretty ridiculous to equate them with maoists (who seek not only to establish these tasks but see them as an obviously necessary road towards socialism).

Do you really have no ability to distinguish between mexico decades ago and the nepal of today? Geez.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks for the good post, Bob.

I always enjoy reading your posts, even when we come from different political trends.

I think you get at something important (as ive mentioned before): it is easy for anarchists and left communists to come in to internet forums and criticize revolutionaries in the third world for dealing with what are conditions we cant even imagine from where we are. Those trends never deal with capitalist relationships as they exist, but rather as they would like them too.

It has never phased me how deeply anti-maoist and anti-communist this board is, and it certainly becomes easy here to criticize revolutionaries that are out in the real world facing real problems, leading real, oppressed people in struggle.

Is it wrong to criticize online? Of course not. It is important and good. But this isnt what happens here. There is no real analysis of what goes on or what has happened. It is all based on infantile application of aprori principles and dogmatic methods (that dont appreciate environment, circumstances, and particularities of different countries and regions.

[Chapter 24]

:rolleyes:


You fail because you said ultra-left. Its not ultra-leftism, its called being a revolutionary and supporting the working class, as opposed to supporting whatever entity has red as its colour and calls itself communist.

Being on the side and part of of the working class, we'll be very critical of people who fuck over our class, such as these Maoists.

Yeah bob, your entire argument completely falls apart because of your terminology. Despite actually looking at objective conditions that take place in Nepal and recognizing the advances made by the CPN (M), your position no longer holds any merit. H-L-V-S's arguments are certainly impressive though.

[Pogue]

:rolleyes:



Yeah bob, your entire argument completely falls apart because of your terminology. Despite actually looking at objective conditions that take place in Nepal and recognizing the advances made by the CPN (M), your position no longer holds any merit. H-L-V-S's arguments are certainly impressive though.

lol, did i strike a nerve

Any statements which mention looking at conditions or something like that seem to be a Leninist justification for any fuck ups. Simple fact is, the Maoists entered a bourgeois government and now attacking workers. Thats got nothing to do with 'objective conditions', its called selling out.

[black magick hustla]

please dont be silly. The Maoists are not the same as the PRI. Those tasks I described (land reform, etc) are not complete in Nepal, and can only be carried out by communists (due to nepal's position in the imperialist system).

PRI might have conducted these tasks in the past, but its pretty ridiculous to equate them with maoists (who seek not only to establish these tasks but see them as an obviously necessary road towards socialism).

Do you really have no ability to distinguish between mexico decades ago and the nepal of today? Geez.

Actually, mexico, especially when the land reform was carried, was under the thumb of american imperialism. The land reform was not undertaken by communists, but by the "corporatists" of the PRI.

You say the maoists and the PRI are different because the former this tasks as necessary for socialism. You are basically saying that the only difference the maoists have is of rhetoric. In short, maoism is just some aesthetic preference.

[Bilan]

syndicalisme:

why don't you actually address what I've said rather than write it off with your one-liners? Can you do better than that?

Because your post is full of inane, sectarian drivel. If you weren't such a dogmatic git, you would realize this and be able to see through your own bullshit.



Address how national liberation does not include and end to bonded labor, slavery, arranged marriages, introduces new political rights, sexuality, and then entire caste system (and then explain how all of this is not liberatory for the nepalese people). I briefly addressed that earlier, when I said it can, but it doesn't mean it will; That those are not inherent parts of national liberation, whilst aligning the bourgeoisie and working class, two classes with interests which are diametrically opposed, and leading to the suppression of working class interests in favour of national ones is.
National interests are not communist interests, they are bourgeois interests.



Get into the question of land reform in china that I addressed, dont write it off just like that. Can you?I did say it can be progressive. Are you intentionally not reading it? I'm not going to post some fat essay using nobelesque language.
It needs to be understood in context of other actions: primarily the systematic destruction of working class power by destroying organs of direct workers power (and now days, by similar actions which are going to flow through Nepal - attacking striking workers, etc).





First, I am skeptical of all articles that dont (and seemingly cant in many cases) provide a context and background for that strike? Who was leading it? All strikes are led by certain forces or people that have interests embedded in that process, and this is no case. The right to strike is something which is to be defended at all costs, irrespective of who leads it. It is part of the rights of labour, and something which should never be given up.
Only the bourgeois support taking away this right - it is a muscle of the working class, and a weakness of the bourgeoisie.



Or, should we just ignore that and support all strikes?It's not about support for 'all strikes', but the right to all strikes.
By what merit are you a communist, when you support disempowering labour?



What if these strikes are led by anti-communists in hope of destabilizing the region? What if they are led by anarchists that insist workers need to control the workplace (as if that meant socialism in itself) which implies a setback to much needed economic development. Lol at the latter. God forbid workers could even think of their emancipation! Fucking worthless scum.
Anyhow, despite your pathetic sectarianism, yes. Even if they're lead by Maoist scum bags, they still deserve the right to strike. Always.



Dont workers have higher political class interests? I dont think the nepali workers are too narrow to believe that their fundamental interests lie in obtaining higher wages rather than waging class struggle to overcome imperialism, establish bourgeois democratic tasks, get to socialism etc. Of course you believe that - You're a patronising, Middle class "socialist".
Although to think that strikes are only linkd with 'higher wages' is the most patronising, stupid shit, I've read in a long time. Class alliances speak for themselves, though, don't they?



Second, this might highlight the emergence of a revisionist line with the maoist party. And this is why I find it crazy to make conclusions based on articles that cant take this into account, because all revolutions (particularly ones that face such complex pulls) have intense line struggles within their parties that can determine the path the revolutiionary party takes. Particularly those revolutions which are part of the systematic disempowerment of working class people.



And there are a lot of examples of pro-maoist worker actions as well:

http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/nepal-international-call-of-solidarity-for-the-workers-movement/

http://www.itfglobal.org/solidarity/nepal.cfmThat's good.



There are lot of other examples ( and idk why I feel compelled to post them when you probably wont read them, or even acknowledge what they represent). I'm sure there are many. That's not really the point, though, is it? We don't allow for just strikes and actions that we like, whilst banning the right to strike from others we don't like.

[Bilan]

If you had read through some of the arguments which have been put forward in this thread, or if you had bothered to do some research before you embarked on your latest ultra-left tirade, you would know that the CPN(M) does not view the current state in Nepal as socialist, and it is questionable as to whether New Democracy has been obtained, as has already been pointed out.


Bob, for heavens sake, if you had been paying attention, you would've realized that was a response to a stupid accusation from Rawthentic, not about the exact nature of the Nepalese state.
And spare me the 'ultra-left' crap. :rolleyes:

[Rawthentic]

Ok, I wanted to keep the discussion going with syndicalisme, but it now seems clear that he puts forward no arguments, only assertions (and one-liners or two liners).

His posts are based on no real analysis of nepal besides the statement on banning strikes.

At least a lot of people read these threads and can see the exposure of bankrupt methods.

marmot:

do you really think land reform is the same thing when carried out by imperialists and communists?

I welcome argument and debate, but only with those who reciprocate. Marmot does it better than syndicalisme.

[black magick hustla]

marmot:

do you really think land reform is the same thing when carried out by imperialists and communists?


:shrugs:, if it walks like duck, speaks like a duck...

its not how people call themselves that really matters, its how they position themselves in the class terrain. the fact is that the things the cpn does, even if they give it a communist makeover, are the things generally left wing bourgeois parties do. nationalization, trade unions adjurned to the state.special economic zones, friendliness to national capitalists - these are things that states that claimed to be anticommunist (like PRI) and that were viciously antiworking class have done. why is the cpn different than them? why is it that maoists waged a guerrilla war in mexico against the PRI?

[Devrim]

Well I can say is you have a low expectation for the quality of good journalism.


No where does Bhattarai say that they parliament is passing a law to ban strikes and bandas. Libcom is using the interview as their source, and no where does it say such a law has been passed. They have made a false claim. If there is another source to prove this libcom should source it or drop the claim. Basically the aritcle is slander.

When you accuse people of telling lies and spreading slander as you did previously, and then are completely proved wrong as you have been, one would think that you would apologise and that talking about 'the quality of good journalism' looks more than a tad hypocritical.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Given this, it is absurd and despicable that you, someone who has obviously never participated in a revolutionary movement, and has no grasp of the conditions and problems communists have to deal with in underdeveloped countries, feel capable of dismissing Mao and brushing all of his ideas aside because you view him as "foolish". It's very easy to criticize communists who have actually taken state power instead of sitting on an internet forum,

It is a typical leftist argument. Basically it says that "you can't criticise because you have never been in a revolution". Of course, it is true that people here criticising have never been in a revolution. I doubt anybody on this board has. Personally, I don't think that anybody in Nepal has been in a workers' revolution either, but that is not the point.

People's arguments must be judged on the strength of their arguments not on them 'never having participated in a revolutionary movement'. This is just moralism.

One could rephrase Bob's arguments here:


Given this, it is absurd and despicable that you, someone who has obviously never participated in a strike movement, and has no grasp of the conditions and problems communists have to deal with in worker's struggles

If you were to take your own advice Bob, you wouldn't be on the other thread accusing striking workers of being reactionaries.

However, I don't think that people should be forced out of discussions by big mouthed moralising.

And then it gets even more absurd:
It's very easy to criticize communists who have actually taken state power instead of sitting on an internet forum,

This is meant to imply that those criticising have no practice and are just some sort of 'internet warriors'.

First I reject the whole approach. To me arguing on the internet is just another way of discussing with people. It is as valid as producing and selling a newspaper for example.

Secondly, it comes across as a bit ridiculous when it comes from a user who has 2,276 posts.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

marmot:

once again, you don't seem to understand how nepal and mexico are different.

Communists leading land reform is made through different methods, practices, theories, and goals.

As I explained above, the breaking up of the feudal structure in china created millions of new landlords and represented one of the greatest private accumulations of wealth. But, were the maoists doing so for its sake and for the sake of modern capitalist development? Or was it to lead to a necessary transition to co-ops, collectives, and communes?

Mexico was far different back in the times of its land reform than nepal is today with its land reform.

These bourgeois democratic tasks can no longer be accomplished by the bourgeoisie. Nepal's position within the imperialist system (maintaining backward structures and skewed development) hasn't allowed it to complete tasks that several countries have already had for decades or longer.

So, no matter what ideological trend you come from (even left communism), there needs to be an understanding that you cannot get to socialism if these tasks arent completed. They are deeply radical tasks in a country like nepal, and only communists can lead them and in the process break literally hundreds of years of outmoded thinking, class structures, and attitudes.

What is your solution to such tasks that havent been completed? It seems like you criticize them, but offer no alternative. How would left communists CONCRETELY deal with these relationships that are the most pressing to workers and peasants in countries like nepal (or other underdeveloped countries)?

did you ask why maoists waged waged a war against the PRI? Well, if that was the question, once again we get to a question of dogmatism and particularities. Maoism is clearly not the same thing in Mexico than in nepal than in the US. Unlike left communism, it not a doctrinaire set of verdicts that are to be applied regardless of conditions. Seeing that many tasks not touched in nepal were completed in mexico, the maoists had a different set of contradictions to deal with (VERY different).

So, your argument that it is futile for maoists to wage war against the mexican state using the idea that such tasks maoists fulfill in other countries have already been done in mexico so that the maoists have no role in making revolution is pretty silly (sorry for the redundance but i think you get it).

[Devrim]

I think that's not borne out by history. Anarchism has managed to take hold of the workers in only two countries, Italy and Spain, and both were of a more syndicalist variant than anarchism per se. Elsewhere, it is the peasants who take up the banner of anarchism. Anarchism, in fact, seems to have had its greatest victories among the peasant masses. Generally speaking, peasant anarchism is a nasty, brutish politics, typified of a hatred towards the cities, seen as cess pools of vice and corruption, and as parasites on the backs of peasants. We've seen in this in the Ukraine, in Manchuria, in Yugoslavia, and in Cambodia.

It is entirely possible for the revolution in Nepal to fall to peasant anarchism, even while wearing the face of communism and in the name of Mao. We saw it with Pol Pot.

This is an outrageous attempt to try to smear anarchism with Pol Pot who was the leader of a party which followed a strategy of national liberation and was supported by the Chinese state.

While there was a peasant anarchism in the Ukraine the other examples are farcical.

Devrim

[Bilan]

Ok, I wanted to keep the discussion going with syndicalisme, but it now seems clear that he puts forward no arguments, only assertions (and one-liners or two liners).

And this post you've made, apart from all the others - this is different?



His posts are based on no real analysis of nepal besides the statement on banning strikes.

What's the title of the thread? What is this thread about? What does it relate too?
If you want to have an ass licking discussion Nepal generally, be my guest, but this isn't the thread.



At least a lot of people read these threads and can see the exposure of bankrupt methods.

...Yeah, they might. Nothing more bankrupt than a "communist" supporting disempowering labour!
Come back when you have some political integrity.

[chegitz guevara]

This is an outrageous attempt to try to smear anarchism with Pol Pot who was the leader of a party which followed a strategy of national liberation and was supported by the Chinese state.

While there was a peasant anarchism in the Ukraine the other examples are farcical.

Devrim

It's hardly outrageous. Socialism is the class politics of the working class. Capitalism is the politics of the capitalist class. Fascism is the politics of the middle classes. Anarchism is the class politics of the peasantry. When peasants take political power, bad things happen. Cambodia was the worst, but the politics were peasant anarchism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's hardly outrageous. Socialism is the class politics of the working class. Capitalism is the politics of the capitalist class. Fascism is the politics of the middle classes. Anarchism is the class politics of the peasantry. When peasants take political power, bad things happen. Cambodia was the worst, but the politics were peasant anarchism.

I'm not so sure about "fascism" here. :(

The small business owners have the politics of Bonapartism, whenever they organize independently of the bourgeoisie. The managers have the politics of "scientific management." The cops, lawyers, judges, artisans, etc. have the politics of fascism.

Also, why "anarchism" for the peasantry? The five forms of modern-day anarchism (utopian, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, and class-strugglist) are much different, no?

[Bilan]

It's hardly outrageous. Socialism is the class politics of the working class. Capitalism is the politics of the capitalist class. Fascism is the politics of the middle classes. Anarchism is the class politics of the peasantry. When peasants take political power, bad things happen. Cambodia was the worst, but the politics were peasant anarchism.

Anarchism is not the class politics of the peasantry. That is beyond nonsensical.
Especially considering the most dominant forms of anarchism are working class forms (anarchist communism & anarcho-syndicalism)

[chegitz guevara]

Anarchism is not the class politics of the peasantry. That is beyond nonsensical.
Especially considering the most dominant forms of anarchism are working class forms (anarchist communism & anarcho-syndicalism)

They are only dominant in in Spain and Italy. Pretty much everywhere else anarchism is the politics of peasant or hooliganism. Neither speaks well of the ideology.

[Devrim]

It's hardly outrageous. Socialism is the class politics of the working class. Capitalism is the politics of the capitalist class. Fascism is the politics of the middle classes. Anarchism is the class politics of the peasantry. When peasants take political power, bad things happen. Cambodia was the worst, but the politics were peasant anarchism.

That is possibly the worst attempt at a political argument against anarchism that I have ever seen, congratulations.


They are only dominant in in Spain and Italy. Pretty much everywhere else anarchism is the politics of peasant or hooliganism. Neither speaks well of the ideology.

Actually, anarchism also had mass influence in the working class in France. When you talk about it being the politics of the peasantry, the only examples that spring to my mind is the Ukraine, but event there it had more of a worker base than you can imagine, and Spain where it was an overflow of their dominance of working class political life.

The only time that Trotskyism ever had a mass influence was in Sri Lanka, where I believe that they joined the government, which put down an uprising. It wouldn't fair well in a similary phrased 'argument'.


The five forms of modern-day anarchism (utopian, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, and class-strugglist) are much different, no?

Jacob, these 'five forms' are a catorgorisation that only exists in your head.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob, these 'five forms' are a catorgorisation that only exists in your head.

Devrim

Actually, Barbarie agreed with me when I stated this a few months back to answer an anarchist's questions. :)

[Rawthentic]

I find it funny to see a left communist talking about "influence" when today they are nothing more than sideline fringe groups.

I find it very valuable to debate trotskyists and social democrats. In a country like the US, I believe is is MAINLY characterized by maoists, trotskyists, and social democrats. I know its a bit crude and I leave other groups out, but Im not gonna account for all of them . Just the main ones.

And, when it comes to left communism, well...it just isnt something communists have to deal with...anywhere (to any significant degree).

[Devrim]

I find it funny to see a left communist talking about "influence" when today they are nothing more than sideline fringe groups.

But then we don't claim anything else. The strength of revolutionary organisations is dependent on the strength of the class. When the class is strong communist organisations are strong, and vice versa.

Historically, as I am sure you know, the communist parties in the two western European countries that came closet to revolution were dominated by left communists.

However, this discussion isn't about who has the most influence. It is about the characterisation of anarchism.

Devrim

[Bilan]

They are only dominant in in Spain and Italy. Pretty much everywhere else anarchism is the politics of peasant or hooliganism. Neither speaks well of the ideology.

Really? I'd say, if we look at the active in anarchists, for example, in the UK, it is quite the opposite.
I can name off the top of my head a few class struggle anarchist groups: such as the Anarchist Federation, SolFed, and Liberty and Solidarity.

In America, there's groups like NEFAC, WSA, and so on.

In Australia, there's group such as the ASF, ASN, SACT, and so on.

So no, you are again wrong.

[Bilan]

Actually, Barbarie agreed with me when I stated this a few months back to answer an anarchist's questions. :)

Those 'tendencies' do exist, but they're not the most accurate characterizations of anarchism.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's hardly outrageous. Socialism is the class politics of the working class. Capitalism is the politics of the capitalist class. Fascism is the politics of the middle classes. Anarchism is the class politics of the peasantry.
But you just said that anarchism, as a form of socialism, was the "class politics of the working class." How does that work?

[Ret]

For anyone still interested; regarding post #144, page 8 on this thread, where 'Rawthentic' reproduces a response to my libcom article by 'Redflags' on Kasama website. I replied to 'Redflags'; mikeely.wordpress . com/2009/01/29/prachanda-nepalese-people-will-seize-power/#comment-11466 (not allowed to post proper link as it's my 1st post here) - and factually refuted the inaccuracies of his accusations and misrepresentations, concluding that; "I’m happy to be corrected where necessary. But, as shown above, it is ‘Redflag’ who has been “shoddy” and committed the “factual errors”, “disinformation” etc he wrongly accuses me of." 'Redflags' didn't reply.
This was followed by a short debate with other pro-maoists which can be summarised by my parting comment;


You are in effect saying that until Nepal has developed sufficient infrastructure to a certain level, the workers must postpone their class struggle and so leave themselves defenceless - and you are trying to justify that by saying that the advancement of that class struggle is secured by the presence of the maoists in the ruling class, who must be free to exploit the workers as part of ‘the building of/struggle for socialism’. Nothing could be more absurd, anti-working class and counter-revolutionary.

If, as is one possibility, there is a maoist state coup - and abandonment of parliamentary democracy - the exploitation of the working classes will continue, justified in much the same pseudo-communist terms.

[manic expression]

But you just said that anarchism, as a form of socialism, was the "class politics of the working class." How does that work?

It's not really that hard to figure out. It was implied that anarchism isn't socialism, in that it is not an ideology of the working class.


But then we don't claim anything else. The strength of revolutionary organisations is dependent on the strength of the class. When the class is strong communist organisations are strong, and vice versa.

You don't claim to be active or significant or helpful? Seems fair to me. However, the rest of your post is just full of excuses. There is a surge in working-class militancy today, and where are the ultra-lefts? Precisely.


Historically, as I am sure you know, the communist parties in the two western European countries that came closet to revolution were dominated by left communists.

More wishful thinking from ultra-lefts. The German communists were not identified as lefts, not by themselves or by their contemporaries. Neither were the Austrian revolutionaries, and neither were the Spanish communists. Even the Italian communists were Moscow-aligned.

[scarletghoul]

LOL, there's a real communist revolution happening, for the first time since the cold war, and you're all talkin about history

[redguard2009]

Pol Pot was an anarchist? That's a new one. I think I'll use that. :)