Showdown in the factories: Maoist trade unions threaten strike against Maoist-led gov

[mosfeld]

I believe that this topic deserves its own thread because it's very important to distinguish between genuine Maoists and the revisionists ("establishment Maoists") in Nepal, and realize the coming class struggle.

-----
Showdown in the factories: Maoist trade unions threaten strike against Maoist-led govt

Posted by Winston on October 3, 2011

By Winston
A new confrontation is looming in Nepal’s workplaces and streets.
Nepal’s Maoist movement and its sister organisations are currently going through a bitter struggle over the path forward, and nowhere is this more apparent than within the Maoist-affiliated All Nepal Trade Union Federation. The union has split, and there have been violent clashes between rival factions. The establishment faction under ANTUF Chairman Jammarkattel (considered close to Prachanda) has been accused of sending thugs to attack grassroots leaders of the emergent radical union faction.
The radical union faction commands serious weight. In allegiance with Madhesi unions in the southern Terai belt, it has previously carried out strike waves that crippled industry across large swathes of Nepal – and these were strikes explicitly called in defiance of the ANTUF establishment, which struck deals with employers and the government that the union radicals felt delivered too little to the workers, and conceded too much.
Decades of revolutionary struggle and the overthrow of a dynasty that declared itself to be divine have left the Nepali working-class with very high levels of militancy and knowledge of its own power. Strikes and bandhs are everyday occurrences, and the trade unions commonly operate as wings of the various political parties. The ANTUF is arguably the strongest of the trade union federations, and over the past years has certainly been the most militant… However, many within the Maoist trade unions argue this is now no longer the case.
The central leadership faction of the ANTUF has just agreed, along with the unions of the right-wing Congress and UML parties, to sign a set of accords that promise no industrial action in the coming years. In practice, such an agreement will almost certainly prove unenforceable, but more controversially, the union leaderships have agreed to a “No Work, No Pay” policy for their own members. This is a radical departure from previous practices, where unionised workplaces in Nepal would demand that their members receive payment even for days when they were protesting in the streets, or staying home due to a bandh called by a different union or political party. Previous attempts to enforce ‘no work, no pay’ have been met with resistance by the unions, but in exchange for wage rises, the central leadership faction of the Maoist union federation has given that up.
The Himalayan Times reports that UCPN (M) Vice-Chairman and Nepal Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai personally chaired the meeting that oversaw this deal;

KATHMANDU: The government today endorsed the March 24 agreement between employers and major trade unions that proposes implementing ‘No Work No Pay’ policy and providing social security allowance to workers.
Endorsing the deal, today’s meeting of Central Labour Advisory Committee, held under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who is also looking after the Labour and Transport Management Ministry, made a four-point pact to maintain industrial peace.
…
The meeting agreed to form a Minimum Wage Board and enforce the ‘industrial peace year’ declaration that envisages banning industrial strike for the next four years.

Reports from Myrepublica indicate that the deal also includes union endorsement of ‘hire and fire’ practices, presumably referring to increased casualisation of the workforce.

… the workers will get better pay among the two pacts and in return, trade unions promised not to call any industrial strike for four years. They also agreed to ´conditional´ hire and fire and no-work, no-pay regime.
… “We agreed not to go on strikes for four years and expressed openness to no-work, no-pay, hire and fire and restricting workers participation in political activities,” said Ramesh Badal, secretary of GEFONT.
… PM Bhattarai instructed the Labor Ministry to take serious initiatives to introduce the Social Security Act. He also instructed officials concerned to finalize flexible labor law.

This deal does not appear likely to pass quietly. A coalition of eight unions has emerged, comprising the radical faction of the Maoist union movement (now calling itself the ANTUF – Revolutionary) and a number of unions based in the Terai districts. It has condemned the deal and intends to launch a campaign of protests and industrial action against it.

“The agreement goes against the interest of workers. We will strongly protest the decision,” said Badri Bajagain, coordinator of ANTUF- Revolutionary.

According to the Himalayan Times, the militant unions issued a statement saying the following;

“The decision of committee is against workers, so trade unions will not obey it. Adaptation of ‘No Work No Pay’, ‘Hire and Fire’ and restriction in strikes shows that Dr Bhattrai government is not worker friendly.”

The Himalayan Times further reports that employer associations are urging the government to crack down on the radical unions and enforce the new arrangements – but their calls have been met with defiance by Bajagain and the eight-union alliance, who promise to resist with strike action after the end of the Nepali holiday of Dashain;

Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) has urged the government to take legal action against the ultra-leftist and Madhesi trade unions that are protesting the landmark agreement between government, trade unions and employers on Friday. Eight trade unions — including Badri Bajagai faction of All Nepal Trade Union Federation (ANTUF) — have threatened to go on strike immediately after Dashain against the decision of Central Labour Advisory Committee.
…
The Bajagai led ANTUF faction — close to UCPN-Maoist leader Kiran Baidhya — and seven other trade unions close to Madhesi parties have been demanding not to endorse ‘No Work No Pay’ and four years long industrial peace period. “It violates individual rights to protest,” Bajagai said.

This is just the latest move by the Bhattarai government to be denounced and opposed by left-wing factions within the Maoist movement. With Maoist radicals threatening to prevent his government from returning land seized during the People’s War and union militants promising a wave of strikes in the weeks ahead, it would appear his government does not have an easy road ahead of it.

[RED DAVE]

This wave of working class militancy is wonderful and should be supported by all revolutionaries everywhere. No problem.

But the issue begs certain questions which must be addressed and which Maoists are ducking consistently.

It is now revealed that, for all practical purposes, the entire leadership of the Nepali Maoist party has sold out in the most thoroughgoing way. After having been the poster child for world Maoism, the UCPN(M) is now riddled with factions, several of which have denounced each other. The standard charge against the leadership, by the those who were following this leadership until the day before yesterday is: REVISIONISM (gasp).

Now, whence cometh this revisionism? Since the people now being so heavily denounced were, a scant few months ago, leaders of world Maoism, the answer must be: from Maoism itself. There is something within Maoism which is producing revisionist leaders. The precedent is China. Nepal is the next occurence.

To just denounce these sell-outs as sell-outs, and use the term "revisionism" to analyze what they've done is less than useless: it's a cover-up for what happened. In fact, this course of Nepali Maoism, and Maoism all over the world, is inherent in Maoism itself. A key tenet of Maoism, the bloc of four classes, put the working class in Nepal into an alliance with its worst enemy, the bourgeoisie, both in the society in question and, ultimately, within the party itself. Maoism calls this, another of its key tenets, the "two-line struggle": a struggle against capitalist forces both within society itself and within the Maoist party.

What kind of left-wing party, I wonder, has to place the struggle against capitalist elements within its ranks not only as a task within the party (all left-wing parties have to deal with this), but as a key tenet of its functioning? The answer is: a party that is extremely open to such elements due to its own strategy: the bloc of four classes. The bloc basically sets up a situation of class collaboration, within the society and within the party, that the working class is bound to lose.

The working class can only call on its own resources, and the resources of other impoverished classes, primarily the peasantry, to defeat the bourgeoisie, plus whatever resources it can get from other countries, which is this period is scant. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, can call on the resources of the world bourgeoisie, which, although it is in crisis, can easily lend a material hand to its comrades, the bourgeoisie in any country in danger of working class revolution.

This is the condition the Maoists have created through their own principles.

The second issue during this new labor uprising is that it is against Maoists but led by Maoists. What is the alternative that these new Maoists are putting forward? Are they denouncing the bloc of four classes? Are they opposed to Maoists heading up a bourgeois government as the Nepalese Maoists have done? If all they have to offer the insurgents workers is more Maoism, then what's the point? Their new leadership will, since they have not honestly understood the root of their party's error, in Maoism itself, be compelled to repeat the same mistakes with results we know.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

Good to see RED DAVE applauding the actions of Maoists, in any case. Too bad he doesn't understand that internal contradictions are bound to exist within a revolutionary movement, but oh well, hopefully he will learn some day. I guess thats the difference between a dialectical and a metaphysical outlook.

Also interesting is that he ascribes the revisionist elements of the movement to Maoism, but not the anti-revisionist ones, as if the maoists threatening to strike are secretly trotskyists or something.

[RED DAVE]

Good to see RED DAVE applauding the actions of Maoists, in any case. Too bad he doesn't understand that internal contradictions are bound to exist within a revolutionary movement, but oh well, hopefully he will learn some day. I guess thats the difference between a dialectical and a metaphysical outlook.

I understand contradictions within a revolutionary movement quite well. And what I understand that is that Maoism is the Menshevism of our time.

Also interesting is that he ascribes the revisionist elements of the movement to Maoism

Sure do. That's what they call themselves. Are you implying that Bhattarai, Prachanda and Kiran are not Maoists?

but not the anti-revisionist ones, as if the maoists threatening to strike are secretly trotskyists or something.

I addressed this directly. I wrote: "The second issue during this new labor uprising is that it is against Maoists but led by Maoists."

What I addressed above was that the opposition to the Maoist leadership of the UCPN(M) is itself Maoist. And therefore, the same class-collaborationism is inherent in their tendency.

RED DAVE

[Red Future]

I don't usually agree with Dave on many issues..but I agree with him ..there is something "sick" with the UCPN leadership.And I am Pro Maoist.

[Ret]

In allegiance with Madhesi unions in the southern Terai belt, it [ ie, Baidya faction] has previously carried out strike waves that crippled industry across large swathes of Nepal

But mosfeld fails to mention above that the Bhattarai faction of ANTUF also originally opposed the no strike agreement in an alliance with the Baidya faction (as shown in the March 2011 article linked to in the quote). This was at a time when these factions found it opportune to temporarily ally politically against Prachanda's clique as all 3 factions competed for influence over Party policy and control of the union. A few months later and, having become PM, Bhattarai signed the same anti-strike deal his union faction had once opposed. The opportunism and cynical shifting alliances of all the Maoist leaders is shameless; eg, in 2008, when Prachanda was PM and endorsed strike ban legislation there were no reports of objection from Baidya. Instead Baidya was then promoting 'Prachanda Path' dogma as the world's great new revolutionary theory;

‘Just as Marxism was born in Germany, Leninism in Russia and Maoism in China, Prachanda Path is Nepal’s identity of revolution.' (Baidya)

Kathmandu, Jan 2 (ANI): Senior Maoist leader Mohan Baidya today said that his party will not unify with any other party at the cost of 'Prachanda Path', which has been the party's guiding ideology for the past few years.
Baidya clarified that his party cannot do without Prachanda Path ... (Baidya 2009) http://news.oneindia.in/2009/01/02/m...ys-baidya.html

Baidya was then happy to support the policies now associated with "revisionism"; his weakened position now - chief of an 'army' with their weapons confiscated - demands a different approach.

When the libcom articles exposing the strike ban proposals were published various excuses, lies, distortions and slanders were used to try to discredit them and to hotly deny that such proposals were characteristic of the Maoist Party or of any anti-working class 'revisionism'. Some claimed that a strike ban would be justified under some circumstances. Yet now the same pro-maoists ask us to believe that such policies are revisionist and characteristic of the Party majority; weak logic and as shamelessly opportunist a change of line as that of the Party leaders.

But the mere fact that some Maoist unionists are now against a strike ban is not a sign of any revolutionary credibility, as may be implied here by Baidya devotees - for most workers, it's always been the most basic form of working class defence of interests and solidarity! That Baidya's supporters can try to cite this most basic position as a measure of radicality against a rival Party faction only shows how lacking in radicality they all are. Nor are they the only ones opposing a ban or "leading" this opposition - the unions close to ethnic/regionalist Madhesh parties also oppose it.

Why is the Baidya faction and their supporters now more concerned about strike bans now than in the past? Unions affiliated to parties decide labour policy at least partly according to political goals of its Party or its controlling faction, often over and above the economic interests of workers. When in govt the Maoist leadership has sought to ban strikes, when in opposition it has used them as a weapon against its political rivals. Now the minority faction within the Maoists is likely to play the same game against its majority Party rivals.

But food inflation across Sth Asia is hitting the poor hard and there would be worker unrest regardless of Maoist leadership; as seen by strikes among non-Maoist workers and unions. (Nor are the majority of ANTUF worker members necessarily Maoists.) The real question for the working class - and interested observers - is whether the unions of all colours can continue to control and limit the class struggles - or whether more autonomous struggles will break out, asserting their independence from all the Party rackets, their factions and unions. It's not as if Maoist unionism has such a proud history; the Baidya & Bhattarai factions have accused the former ANTUF leadership, loyal to Prachanda, of long-term corruption, intra-union violence and attempted murder, "using the organization to carry out extortion and robbery" and secret financial deals with bosses. http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=27760
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/ful...&NewsID=287910
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/in...&news_id=30231
These corrupt practices were reported to be going on for years now, with accusations flying back and forth between rival factions; from 2008-

Maoist union leaders charged with corruption
PARSA, July 21 – Maoist cadres who were sacked on the charge of assaulting party leaders and disrupting the party's program here, on Sunday accused members of Federation of All Nepal Trade Union (ANTU) of being involved in corruption and misleading party politics. Bhojpur Sub-Regional Committee secretary, Prabhu Shah said in the statement that central vice-president of ANTU Badri Prasad Bajgain, Birodh Sharma and Ganga Basnet were sacked from their respective posts and detained on the ground of their involvement in anti-party activities and corruption. Shah charged that Bajgain had collected huge chunks of money from Birgunj-based industrialists and misused it by involving party leaders, and organized the training program without informing the Maoist district in-charge and Shah. They have also demanded stern party action against Maoist central member Netra Bikram Chand.On Saturday, over two dozen members of Young Communist League had disrupted the program and assaulted Chand and other members of the union. On the other side, three out of seven detained YCL members were sacked, while the others were released. http://hamropalo.com/nepal_news/maoi...orruption.html

March 2011;

The Bajgain and Nembang factions have also accused Jammakattel of sellout. "The union calls a strike at workplace and suddenly calls it off without getting its demands fulfilled. The reason is that the leadership receives money from the owners," says a senior union leader adding that the senior union leaders also join hands with the industrialists in sacking the employees. http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/in...&news_id=29147

These factional conflicts continue to run through the various Party organs, not just unions - radio stations; http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/in...&news_id=36820
- and even sport; http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=36810