L-C and events in Nepal/India/Bangladesh

  1. Invincible Summer
    Invincible Summer - 8th November 2009, 10:08
    So, as I'm sure some of you are aware, there has been some Maoist activity going on in Asia.

    What I'm wondering is if these movements are recognized/supported by Left Communists, and if so/if not, please state reasons.

    It was brought to my attention that these movements are not national liberation, but rather anti-imperialist. What is the problem with this, and why does L-C oppose this?

    Thanks
  2. Alf
    Alf - 8th November 2009, 21:24
    'anti-imperialism' - what do you mean by that? Very often it is a code for supporting one imperialist power (usually a weaker or 'socialist' one) against the stronger imperialist power (usually the USA).
    In any case the struggle is certainly a nationalists one - maoists are always rabid nationalists.
    That's why we don't support the Maoists in this or any area. Maoism in power is just another form of bourgeois rule.
  3. Niccolò Rossi - 8th November 2009, 23:26
    Alf, I think Rise Like Lions means the Maoist movements could better be described as being 'anti-imperialist' as opposed to being for 'national liberation' (Maybe I am ignorant on this last point, are there any Maoists fighting in South Asia for secession? I'm not aware of any). Of course, not only are these movements 'anti-imperialist' in a general sense, they do also actually call themselves socialist.
  4. internasyonalista
    internasyonalista - 9th November 2009, 23:36
    In the Philippines, maoists are for the defence of national capitalism against "US imperialism". Is there program socialist? I don't think so. Even the title of their program - Program for a People's Democratic Revolution - is bourgeois. More so in its content.

    Nepal? Is it a "socialist country" or a state leading to socialism? Well, perhaps in their definition of "socialism", banning strikes is one of the requirements.
  5. baboon
    baboon - 11th November 2009, 19:35
    There's been an upsurge recently in Maoist activity in India. Does anyone have any information about how this, and Maoist activity around India's borders, is in any way directed by China?
  6. ls
    ls - 17th November 2009, 11:08
    There's been an upsurge recently in Maoist activity in India. Does anyone have any information about how this, and Maoist activity around India's borders, is in any way directed by China?
    It isn't. It's directed by (as the Maoists themselves say) intellectuals, they can be from anywhere, but the point is they have come there and started the surge by talking/working with the peasants first-off. I had a link before but I can't be bothered to dig it up now.
  7. baboon
    baboon - 7th December 2009, 14:00
    There's no essential difference between all the elements of "national liberation" and imperialism - one flows from the other.

    The Naxalite Maoists are a real threat in India, now controlling large swathes of territory running through Bihar in the north-east down to Andhra Pradesh in the south. A leaked Indian security document (The Observer, 6.12.9) shows that their presence extends to the outskirts of Delhi. There's been more violence recently from them with many schools attacked and other elements of infrastructure. Thousands of paramilitary police have been sent to fight them, no doubt engaging in more atrocities as the masses are squeezed between the two forces. Rahul Sharma, police chief of the Dantewada districts admitted that 40% of his region was in Naxalite control, adding: "It is a full-blown war and the Naxalites are migrating from guerillas to a conventional army.
    The government has ruled out using the army against them at the moment because it is stretched in defending the borders with Pakistan and China, with the added component of the latter increasing its influence within the former. Who gains therefore from the upsurge in Naxalite activity? Who is providing their money and arms?
  8. Red Dreadnought
    Red Dreadnought - 24th December 2009, 17:12
    Absolutelly NO. We doesn't support this false "communist" movement, and we don't think nowadays "national liberation" its possible.

    Only "bordiguists" considered Chinese "Revolution", like anti-proletarian in one sense; but "progressive" in the another like "bourgeoise revolution".

    But their program is nacionalist and for State Capitalism.
  9. Red Dreadnought
    Red Dreadnought - 24th December 2009, 17:14
    I'm refering to "maos" at the last phrase, no to "bordigos", obviously.
  10. Comrade Martin
    Comrade Martin - 26th December 2009, 05:22
    As materialists in the "first world", advocating Maoism would be something like advocating kings or queens and divine right as the social basis of power in our countries.

    But in Nepal, like in Russia, overthrowing monarchs and "storming the palace" seems to be a preoccupation of theirs.

    I think that's great - Capitalism is much better than Feudalism!

    The abolition of Feudalism and the kicking out of Imperialism all tend to follow any sort of Leninist (or Leninist inspired) revolution.

    That's progress for those societies... and we Communists are all about that.

    But as soon as they gain power and make those changes, there will emerge a proletariat that unites to fight the new "Communist Party" or whatever it dubs itself... And we'll be on their side straight away.

    History demands nothing less of us.

    I would, however, write off these struggles as serious incidents which require our attention... we have a lot to do ourselves!

    And it won't resemble anything they do.
  11. Comrade Martin
    Comrade Martin - 26th December 2009, 05:24
    Marx supported the northern United States invading the south and abolishing slavery... I support the Naxalites "invading" from the jungle and abolishing Feudalism in their villages.

    I think we would be stubbornly ahistorical and idealistic not to.
  12. zimmerwald1915 - 26th December 2009, 08:49
    As materialists in the "first world", advocating Maoism would be something like advocating kings or queens and divine right as the social basis of power in our countries. But in Nepal, like in Russia, overthrowing monarchs and "storming the palace" seems to be a preoccupation of theirs. I think that's great - Capitalism is much better than Feudalism! The abolition of Feudalism and the kicking out of Imperialism all tend to follow any sort of Leninist (or Leninist inspired) revolution. That's progress for those societies... and we Communists are all about that.
    One of the fundamental acquisitions of the workers' movement at the turn of the twentieth century was to see that capitalism had become a world system. That, in fact, by process of imperialism, capitalism had effectively done away with pre-capitalist social systems. Of course, there are all the old familiar proofs that the British left "native" chiefs in power in most of their colonies, or that, outside the plantations or mines, the natural economies were largely untouched. Bosh. Capitalist world trade ruled the economies of the colonies, and if production hadn't developed beyond certain locales in accordance with the demand of trade, it would soon enough given time, according to the laws of capitalism itself. Nepal and rural India may not sport mile-long assembly lines, but it is capitalist relations of production, where people confront each other as buyers and sellers of commodities, that are in place. Simply put, there is no feudalism now to overthrow.

    What social force, then, do the Naxalites and the Nepalese Maoists represent? What they are not doing is overthrowing feudalism and installing capitalism. Capitalist relations of production were firmly in place before Maoism was ever thought of. Russia, too, had capitalist relations of production in place before the Revolution, and was industrializing as well. No feudalism. What's left? In Nepal and Russia, what was left was a regime without a social basis, and which crumbled easily enough when pushed by maoist rebellion or workers' revolution respectively. In India, there exists a modern capitalist state which is proving rather more resiliant. What happened in Russia was a revolution, wherein the state was torn down and a new society was attempted in its place. The experience of China and Nepal shows that maoists are, nowhere, about smashing the state. In China, the CCP for the most part co-opted structures put in place by the KMT, even going so far as to protect the property rights of major capitalists (I believe there's a quite recent thread about this somewhere, search BobKKKindles' posts). In Nepal, they head up the Government, the same institution they have been fighting. In short, the social force the maoists represent is the same social force the Republicans in the USA represent: a part of the bourgeoisie that is out of power.

    But as soon as they gain power and make those changes, there will emerge a proletariat that unites to fight the new "Communist Party" or whatever it dubs itself... And we'll be on their side straight away.

    History demands nothing less of us.

    I would, however, write off these struggles as serious incidents which require our attention... we have a lot to do ourselves!

    And it won't resemble anything they do.
    Damn right the proletariat in those countries will be forced to resist the maoists should they get into government, just like they will be forced to resist the current governments should they remain in power. However, the chain of logic that leads you to this conclusion is fallacious. Left Communists resist maoists because they are part of the bourgeoisie, and thus counter-revolutionary. You support maoists until they get into power, at which point you switch to opposition, because they are bourgeoisie and are progressive up to a certain point. Thing is, in this day and age, there is no such thing as a progressive bourgeoisie. "Resisting imperialism" means only tail-ending some other imperialism or, if your country is powerful enough, carving out a niche of your own. In addition, support of part of the bourgeoisie until it gets into power has historically been disastrous for the proletariat. Devrim or Leo could tell you better than I how disastrous it was for the Turkish proletariat that the Russians supported Mustafa Kemal, and the CCP's decision to dissolve into the KMT in 1921(?) made it all but impossible for it to resist the KMT's attacks on the working class leading up to 1928.

    As for what we folks can do, one must act where one is. To be internationalist, to really support efforts of workers elsewhere, one must struggle in one's locale, and spread that struggle.

    Marx supported the northern United States invading the south and abolishing slavery... I support the Naxalites "invading" from the jungle and abolishing Feudalism in their villages.

    I think we would be stubbornly ahistorical and idealistic not to.
    Or, it would be ahistorical and idealistic not to recognize that it is capitalism, and not straw man, extinct, feudalism, that must be fought.
  13. ern
    ern - 3rd January 2010, 10:58
    Rise like lions

    This recent article on the role of Maoism in the Philippines should interest you
    Philippine Maoists show their true color: enemy of the proletarian revolution: http://en.internationalism.org/node/3393
  14. baboon
    baboon - 7th April 2010, 13:15
    In relation to the question of a pamphlet on Maoism as well: the recent attack on the Indian army by the Naxalites (the Indian bourgeoisie has up to now denied that the army was in this region - only paramilitary police) shows that this group has indeed emerged from a guerilla force into an army. I think that China must be involved in this transformation which would take a lot of money and arms.
  15. internasyonalista
    internasyonalista - 8th April 2010, 06:37
    I think Baboon's observation on China "funding/arming" the Indian maoists should be taken seriously as far as getting hard evidence. Is China covertly supporting the armed maoist groups inside its rivals? In the Philippines, the maoists brag that in 5 years (2015) they will leap to "strategic stalemate". But the people who have knowledge on guerilla war advancing to regular war know that these guerilla forces need monetary and arm support from outside because internal resources is really not enough to win a war.
  16. baboon
    baboon - 8th April 2010, 21:53
    The Indian Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, after the report of 75 soldiers ("policemen", "men") killed by Naxalites, said he may now have to "revisit" the option of using the Indian Air Force, i.e., warplanes and helicopter gunships, against the guerillas. I think that the US has been restraining them from this option up until now.
    Late last year (November), the Nepalese Maoists stated that they had "extended our full support and cooperation" to the Indian Maoists who "are launching armed revolt". Chidambaram also mentioned the possible supply of arms to the Naxalites from China, which ties in with Indian security assessments of a "transformation" in Naxalite organisation around the time of the Nepalese statement.
    Reports a couple of days ago, talk of a major cyber-espionage attack emanating from Sichuan on Indian security, defence and diplomatic structures, assessments of the Naxalite and Maoist movements and other important stuff on the USA and Russia. These involved hacking into Indian embassy computors across the world.
    Rediff Indian Abroad reports that Indian intelligence agencies has proof that Naxalites are being used by the Pakistanit ISI, which provides them with sophisticated weaponary.
  17. automattick
    automattick - 13th May 2010, 00:16
    There was a great article by Arundhati Roy published not too long ago: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264738

    It is a very informative piece about how the Maoists were originally a group "looking for a cause" as they had been beaten back in recent decades in India. While the Maoists were able to do away with some feudalistic and religious aspects of the impoverished farmers, at the same time I wonder whether this outsider force would ultimately act as opportunistic if victorious. In other words, begin to dictate terms to these farmers and their communities and ultimately act as yet another bully in their fight against oppression.