The Role of a Communist Organization in the Context of Nepal

[Martin Blank]

This thread was inspired by a discussion that began in this thread. The purpose of this is to discuss what the role of a communist organization is in a situation such as that in Nepal, where a popular uprising has overthrown one of the last absolute monarchies in the world and has thrust a self-described Communist Party into political power.

Those of us who began the discussion in the original thread would like to keep it above-board, constructive and theoretical. Please keep one-liners to a minimum; if you want to discuss here, address and engage the theoretical and analytical arguments being made.

[Martin Blank]

Note: The following is a selection of contributions from the original thread on this issue. There are other posts in the full thread, but these represent the bulk of the theoretical discussion that began there. -- HJM

==============================

Nepal: Tea Workers Seize Plantations

Posted by Mike E on August 18, 2008


Clearly these are important developments. Anyone hearing news of these worker takeovers should sent them to Kasama and we will post them immediately. Thanks to Neil’s Nepal blog for pointing this out.

Such actions of worker control are a sign of a deepening revolutionary situation — and (from very scattered accounts) seem to initiative taken by the people inspired by the increasing power of the Maoist party. As we get more facts about this, we will be able to see whether those first impressions are true, and whether such developments are a trend within the sharpening crisis over Nepal’s revolution and its future.


Somewhere Lenin is Smiling: Workers ‘take over’ tea factories, resume operations



RAM CHANDRA ADHIKARI DHANKUTA, Aug 3 - Workers of three big tea estates, which remained closed for the last three weeks due to disputes between the management and workers, have forcefully took control of the processing factories and resumed operations.


The factories of Gurash Tea Estate, Kuwabashi Tea Plantation and Joon Tea Garden were taken into control by the workers on Friday and started tea production from Saturday.


Gopal Tamang, president of All Nepal Trade Unions Federation, a trade union closely affiliated with the Maoists, said the workers have resumed tea production and also started collecting tea leaves from the garden. He said the workers were forced to ‘capture’ the factories after the managements refused to initiate dialogues to end the deadlock and added that the takeover will continue until the managements agree to talk.


The tea estates were closed three weeks back after tea workers started protest programs demanding wage hikes, permanent appointments, and medical insurance, among others. The managements of the tea estates have been refusing to sit for negotiations citing insecurity.

------------------------------

Mindtoaster, the role of the Nepalese revolution at this point starts with the completion of bourgeois democratic tasks, internal peace, amongst other things. It also needs to (and will) develop a capitalist economy to build infrastructure and basically get Nepal out of the feudal quagmire it finds itself in (as defeating feudalism unleashes previously non-existent capitalist relations).

The second stage is basically the advance to socialism.

The question here, however, is whether the Maoists will use their influence/power to compel these workers to turn the plantation back over to the capitalists, in the name of building "national industrial capitalism", or if they will, rather, use their influence/power to support this worker takeover and aid the workers in running the plantation themselves (i.e., not substitute "nationalization" and state management for real workers' control).

The former is what we've seen happen with the "official Communist" parties in the past (e.g., Spain in the 1930s); the latter is what Marx saw as a task of a communist party participating in a democratic revolution and seeking to build that struggle forward in the direction of establishing the transition from capitalism to communism -- that is, building "the revolution in permanence".

------------------------------

Look, I'm willing to give the Nepalese Maoists the benefit of the doubt, based on the fact that they have actually lived up to many of their promises, most notably ending the monarchy and establishing a republic. But now, of course, the real tests begin. The CPN(M) has shown the ability to learn and develop based on objective conditions and general communist principle; let's see if they can continue that process.

------------------------------

I've been trying to read more on what's happening with this situation. Unfortunately, only this article from Kantipur Online and a short blurb from the World Socialist Web Site are available to read (in English, anyway). From what I can see, though, here's what seems to have went down:...

For most of July, these workers staged a run-of-the-mill labor campaign -- strike pickets, informational meetings, etc. Apparently, this campaign went nowhere. So, on August 2, through some process, the union representing the tea workers changed from the old tactics to the "capture" of the factories and production under worker-union control. According to the WSWS report, some workers returned to work "under protest". No further news is available.

So, my main questions are this: What was the process by which the decision was made to move from the "campaign" tactics to the "capture" tactics? Was it a mass membership meeting, or a decision by the union officials? If it was a mass meeting format, were most of the workers there and did they vote in their majority for this action?

Finally, what is being done to make this struggle part of a larger historical shift toward workers' control of production throughout the economy? Has there been a process of organizing workplace committees/councils/communes that are sustained bodies organizing the day-to-day activity of the factories? Or, is this a case where, if the capitalists concede to some of the workers' demands, the union will dissolve workers' control and work to reassert the control of the capitalists over production?

Comrades, this is an important moment for the Maobadi. Much of their relationship to the Nepalese rural proletariat will be shown through this situation. Will they go the route of communists, and use this as an opportunity to open a "school of communism" for our class brothers and sisters? Or will they go the route of social democrats, and use the proletariat as a battering ram against the bourgeoisie for the security of their own power and position?

I am genuinely interested in learning where this struggle is going.

------------------------------

question here, however, is whether the Maoists will use their influence/power to compel these workers to turn the plantation back over to the capitalists, in the name of building "national industrial capitalism", or if they will, rather, use their influence/power to support this worker takeover and aid the workers in running the plantation themselves (i.e., not substitute "nationalization" and state management for real workers' control).

The former is what we've seen happen with the "official Communist" parties in the past (e.g., Spain in the 1930s); the latter is what Marx saw as a task of a communist party participating in a democratic revolution and seeking to build that struggle forward in the direction of establishing the transition from capitalism to communism -- that is, building "the revolution in permanence".

Miles,

The crucial task at this point in Nepal is building "national industrial capitalism", and, no matter how "counterrevolutionary" that may sound, it is the necessary prerequisite (along with the democratic class bloc) to the establishment of socialism (and more thorough, consistent, worker's power).

The takeover of the factory is very important, and shows the increasing relevance and popularity the Maoists are showing in the urban areas, and amongst workers (and goes against the anarchist and trotskyist thought that maoists are peasant rebels that careless about the workers). Will the workers maintain control of the factory and production as it is now? Probably not. This is something that I sincerely cant say because I dont know how things will turn out. Do you think that, considering the conditions of Nepal, direct workers control is possible? Idk.

And I also agree with your assessment as far as the "official Communist parties" goes. I sincerely hope (and it seems as I am correct so far) that the Maoists, with the PM leadership of Prachanda, pursue the correct path of the NDR and maintain on that socialist road (and defeat the growing tendency towards "negotiationism" and other revisionist trends).

------------------------------

The crucial task at this point in Nepal is building "national industrial capitalism", and, no matter how "counterrevolutionary" that may sound, it is the necessary prerequisite (along with the democratic class bloc) to the establishment of socialism (and more thorough, consistent, worker's power).

Personally, I think the hue and cry about "national industrial capitalism" as the economic goal is a bogeyman. Of course most of the economic development in Nepal at this conjuncture will be necessarily "national industrial capitalist" in character! Does anyone honestly expect that the development of the communist mode of production is possible?! The material prerequisites don't even exist for a state-ized capitalist economy in Nepal right now.

But the issue at this moment is not the kind of economy the CPN(M)-led government is going to shepherd, but whether the state they lead will serve the exploiters or the exploited. When Marx and Engels, for example, spoke of "the revolution in permanence" and even the "dictatorship of the proletariat", it was with the understanding that this revolutionary rule of the exploited and oppressed would be over a developing capitalist economy -- that it would be the conscious intervention of the working people's republic into the economy and the systematic uprooting of the capitalist class, that "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie" until classes, class distinctions and antagonisms are abolished.

This is where the issue of the Maobadi-led state becomes important. More to the point, this is where, in the early phases of a working people's republic, political principle -- the extent of the conscious character of the revolution -- becomes central. A communist party at the head of a transitional regime can shepherd a fledgling and developing capitalist economy at the same time as it develops as a working people's republic -- as a state that acts in the class interests of the proletariat. Lenin's understanding of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" for the democratic revolution rests precisely on this point (see Two Tactics for more on this).

A democratic dictatorship of the exploited and oppressed shepherding a developing "national industrial capitalism" is what Lenin saw as the consequence of a 1905-style revolution in Russia, as opposed to Martov and the Mensheviks, who saw the role of the social democrats as shepherding the bourgeoisie into political power. That is, whereas the Bolsheviks saw the role of the social democrats as that of resolving the contradiction that would necessarily arise from the victory of a working people's party in the lead of a democratic revolution in favor of working people's class rule (thus eventually expropriating the capitalist class of its social-economic power), the Mensheviks saw the role of the social democrats as that of resolving the contradiction that would necessarily arise from the victory of a working people's party in the lead of a democratic revolution in favor of capitalist rule (thus eventually expropriating the working class of their political power).

This issue of how this contradiction between the class holding state power and the class holding social-economic power is resolved is especially acute in Nepal. Unlike with Russia in 1905 or 1917, there is not even the hope of a worldwide wave of revolutionary struggle overturning capitalist rule in one or several Great Power states -- not even the "morale factor" exists. This means there is, in fact, less "wiggle room" or "grey area" with the principles and consciousness that guide the revolution. When the Bolsheviks abandoned direct workers' control of production and re-instituted one-person management in 1919, there were many sectors of the party that rationalized it by saying "well, when the workers in Germany rise up and overthrow their ruling class, we will have the means to reinstitute workers' control". That cannot even be said in the case of Nepal today. Thus, while that would seem to demand more overall conciliation from the Maobadi, in fact it demands a greater firmness in principle while also requiring more flexibility in tactic.

That is, if history is any judge of these matters.

The takeover of the factory is very important, and shows the increasing relevance and popularity the Maoists are showing in the urban areas, and amongst workers (and goes against the anarchist and trotskyist thought that maoists are peasant rebels that careless about the workers). Will the workers maintain control of the factory and production as it is now? Probably not. This is something that I sincerely cant say because I dont know how things will turn out. Do you think that, considering the conditions of Nepal, direct workers control is possible? Idk.

Do I personally think that direct workers' control at these three tea factories is possible? I really don't know, either, comrade. The only people who can answer that question are the workers themselves. However, as communists taking an interest in this unfolding revolution, we should be able to answer the corrollary question: Are the Maobadi able and willing, if called upon to do so, or at the very least if sensing the need for it, to create that "school of communism" and provide the political (though not necessarily the practical) leadership necessary to aid the workers in establishing their own control?

If the workers abandon an attempt at workers' control of production, it should be their decision, not that of the CPN(M). They should not be forced to abandon their attempt because the "Maoist Communist Party" refused to help them, just as the "official Communist Party" has already done in past years; they should not be placed in a position where they have to abandon it because the Maobadi could not help them.

In other words, the workers should not be used as pawns by the Maobadi in a larger game. I know that sounds crass, but I cannot think of a nice way to put it right now.

And I also agree with your assessment as far as the "official Communist parties" goes. I sincerely hope (and it seems as I am correct so far) that the Maoists, with the PM leadership of Prachanda, pursue the correct path of the NDR and maintain on that socialist road (and defeat the growing tendency towards "negotiationism" and other revisionist trends).

In many ways, we share the same hopes, even if we come from different doctrinal perspectives.

------------------------------

Don't roll those eyes too hard. Your head might explode.

Workers making an autonomous action against management might have nothing to do with "Maoist Government" (the same one which is not against private property). When workers occupy their workplace, it's not because "Maoist affiliated" union bureaucrat told them to do so.

I have a suggestion for you Mao-lovers: don't get too cocky. The government is not suppressing this because it's not its own capital.

In 1936. French workers occupied when People's Front came to power, believing that the Government might "watch over" this process. It all ended in battles with the "people's government" police.

------------------------------

This is where the issue of the Maobadi-led state becomes important. More to the point, this is where, in the early phases of a working people's republic, political principle -- the extent of the conscious character of the revolution -- becomes central. A communist party at the head of a transitional regime can shepherd a fledgling and developing capitalist economy at the same time as it develops as a working people's republic -- as a state that acts in the class interested of the proletariat. Lenin's understanding of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" for the democratic revolution rests precisely on this point (see Two Tactics for more on this).

I was speaking to Mike Ely on this, since I want to learn more about this as well, and he had some important things to say. To paraphrase him, he said the NDR has socialist elements from the beginning, and, if we seize and divide plantations (policy of land to the tiller), we are eradicating feudalism for small property, and thus clearing the path for socialist transformation in the form of rural communes (which the maoists already have in some rural areas).

The new economy will not ONLY be capitalist, but contain elements of a socialist economy within it, like the hydroelectric project itself, that exists within the NDR. This new democracy eliminate feudalism (so contains small ownership and markets) but contains the seeds of socialism within it.

------------------------------

Well, I appreciate you bringing comrade Ely into this, and hope he eventually finds the time to engage this discussion.

I am perhaps a little confused by the invoking of the "New Democratic Revolution" in the case of Nepal. I had thought that the CPN(M) had decided that it was still to premature to consider the country in the "New Democratic" phase. If I am wrong about this (and I see no reason why I should doubt comrade Ely's insistence that this is in the "New Democratic" period), then it seems to me that it raises a number of new questions.

In his article, "On New Democracy", Mao writes:

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. (Emphasis mine)

I will leave aside for the moment the issue of what exactly constitute "revolutionary classes", since I know that is a longer discussion between our two trends, and concentrate for now on the view, correctly stated by Mao, that a "new democratic revolution", which creates a "democratic dictatorship" of the oppressed and exploited classes, is part of a process of "clearing ... a wider path" for the transition to communism.

Even though I am not a Maoist, I can see that there are definite parallels between his "new democratic revolution" and Lenin's "democratic dictatorship". And, in my view, I can also see that there is a genuine attempt to encapsulate the view expressed by Marx in his "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" of March 1850, and summed up in his slogan of "the revolution in permanence" by Mao (and Lenin). My questions begin at this point: the extent to which the application of this Maoist formulation draws consistently from the communist theory of Marx (and, to a lesser extent, Lenin), and the extent to which the actions of the CPN(M) stand within this consistency.

====================

I'm beginning to think that this discussion, if we agree to go forward with it, will fast outgrow the narrower topic that sparked it. Nevertheless, I think that if you want to continue this theoretical discussion, since it does seem to have piqued your curiosity, we should do so in another thread. We can, of course, link back to this and re-post the discussion elements from here in there, so that there is context and preliminary exchanges made available.

How does this sound to you, comrade?

------------------------------

In 1936. French workers occupied when People's Front came to power, believing that the Government might "watch over" this process. It all ended in battles with the "people's government" police.

Certainly the popular front governments of both France - and perhaps even more so spain - are worth thinking about when trying to make sense of the political situation in Nepal. In the case of the latter, in particular, what we see is largely agrarian, underdeveloped country in which a monarchy was replaced by an asy coalition of left republicans and socialists.

Yet there are also important differences in the Nepali situation. The maoists represent a mass organisation which - unlike either the french or spanish left at the time - has already been through the experience of civil war. Furthermore, physical force in the country is not monopolised by forces hailing from the ancien regime.

It is hard to say how things will develope in Nepal. The idea of building National Industrial Capitalism and intervening in its developement on the side of the workers is not unproblematic. For capitalism to be maintained the government must constantly intervene to protcect property rights. Moreover, it is hard to see how capitalist developement might be achieved without serious foreign direct investment, which again limits the scope of the nepali legislature - in which the maoists are minority - to intervene on the side of the workers.

This is not to say that the Maoists are in any way bound to simply betray and repress the working class, but rather that they will eventually face a stark choice as to the future of nepal.

------------------------------

" Workers making an autonomous action against management might have nothing to do with "Maoist Government" (the same one which is not against private property). When workers occupy their workplace, it's not because "Maoist affiliated" union bureaucrat told them to do so."

It's not a Maoist government right now. What they do at this point in relation to this event will most likely be outside the realm of any official legislation. They don't control the majority when versing the total Capitalist parties of the country.

To CommunistLeague,

I believe you are correct in your view that the CPN(M) does not see themselves as having reached NDR yet. I think they refer to this as a substage, because they are pushing for some NDR policies of bourgeois character such as land reform, development of indigenous capital etc. They obviously do not excersize DoP in any sense of the word... yet. Whether that's written in the future is yet to be seen.

------------------------------

On course the Maoist party in Nepal is completely bourgeois.

There has been no workers revolution in Nepal. There are no workers' councils.

What has happened is that a so-called communist party has been integrated into the existing bourgeois state. The bourgeois state has not been smashed.

The Maoists, of course, are keen to play the role allocated to them. Prachanda leaves no doubt about their intentions:

"Rest assured, we are in favour of the capitalist economy."

“we will not confiscate the properties of the owners contrary to what has been disseminated in order to malign the Maoist party”

Baburam Bhattarai was also very clear:

"the mantle of economic revolution would be handed over to the businessmen/industrialists and that we in the government would only facilitate their march towards economic revolution".

"We would like to assure everyone that once the Maoists come (into government) the investment climate will be even more favourable. There shouldn’t be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that. The rumours in the press about our intention are wrong, there are reports of capital flight, but this shouldn’t happen. And the other aspect is that once there is political stability, the investment climate will be even better. Our other agenda is economic development and for this we want to mobilise domestic resources and capital, and also welcome private foreign direct investment. The only thing we ask is to be allowed to define our national priorities."

"We want to fully assure international investors already in Nepal that we welcome them here, and we will work to make the investment climate even better than it is now. Just watch, the labour-management climate will improve in our time in office. What happened in the past two years with the unions happened during a transition phase...."

I'd like to wait until the CPN(M) actually betrays the workers before casting them out of the communist movement (such as we computer commies have any ability to do so). Until then, I'd like to support them and remain hopeful.

What are you waiting for? These people openly say that they are in favour of capital.

The reality is, of course, that western leftists get excited about people running around with guns and spouting a few leftist slogans.

A couple of red flags doesn't mean that what is happening in Nepal has anything to do with socialism.

Indeed the salaries that these leaders of the 'revolution' are paying themselves in the new assembly where the monthly income of a CA politician is well over three times the annual national average wage, is indicative of their commitment to maintaining capitalism.

Devrim

------------------------------

We have to appreciate the question of economic development of Nepal, its a real question for the former Mountain Kingdom. When you're working class is spread across the world in Britian, Dubai, India, Singapore, etc. and the national economy has a great deal of reliance on remitances we're talking about something that is really different.

I would argue that Nepal's number one export is its labor.

We can't have a view stuck in the 20th century, the Neoliberal process in the world has reshaped Global economy in a way that Imperialism, that the flow of capital is becoming more and more a dichotomy with the metropoles and periphery, it is part of the uneven development of the semi-colonial/semi-feudal nations.

------------------------------

A few things...

After a failed and abortive revolution and more than a decade of holding wooden guns, American Left speaks to the skies of the Zapatistas. We now have a country, after a decade of People's War and several years of protracted political struggle, they are emerging with real power. And silence..chirps..the center of world revolution is South Asia and we're stuck in our deafening silence.

So is this a matter of 'cockiness,' or celebration of real people's victories?

IWW does a wild cat of a Starbucks...perpare to hear about it for a few weeks, people are taking power in Nepal...perpare to get betrayed

I am not objecting to the 'caution,' but to the standard hackneyed line of "BEWARE OF THE BUREUCRATS." Its tiring and boring, no matter what the struggle is, who is leading it, who is involved, its the same exact line.
It negates the actual interpentration of the Maoists and the masses in this recent action.

Or it can be better expressed, Lacan to Orwell, there is no Big Brother.

------------------------------

On course the Maoist party in Nepal is completely bourgeois.

There has been no workers revolution in Nepal. There are no workers' councils.

What has happened is that a so-called communist party has been integrated into the existing bourgeois state. The bourgeois state has not been smashed.

The Maoists, of course, are keen to play the role allocated to them. Prachanda leaves no doubt about their intentions:"

No, the Maoists are communists.

Of course there has been no worker's revolution in Nepal. There are no worker's councils (yet). What makes you think that a country in the conditions Nepal faces can even hope to maintain any real and consistent worker's power? This view is incredible dogmatic and schematic, and ignores the actual processes that the revolution will have to go through in order to reach a socialist phase.

The Maoist party has been integrated into the new bourgeois state of Nepal. But, comrade, is it that simple to say that the state in Nepal is bourgeois, and thus the Maoists are too? What exists in Nepal is more of a dual power, that is, between a necessary coalition between democratic classes that are anti-imperialist and anti-feudal in character, as opposed to the die-hard reactionary, imperialist classes that are opposed to the reforms. The conditions do not exist to overthrow the state and have a seizure of power.

In the theory of New Democracy, as outlined by mao and will (according to Nepal's particularities) be applied to Nepal, the first substage of the NDR is the completion of bourgeois democratic tasks, elimination of feudalism, policies such as land to the tiller, the nurturing of Nepal's capital, as well as the establishment of a federal republic. It is pretty silly and unscientific to say that, because of this, the Maoists are a capitalist party. Of course capitalism needs to be built in Nepal, but this is done alongside a coexisting, fledgling, socialist economy (possible workers power, hydroelectric project, rural communes, etc).

What is wrong with what Dr. Bhattarai said? What makes you think that Nepal DOES NOT need such internal capitalist development of infrastructure. With the eradication of feudalism, capitalist relations open up, and this allows for liberation of productive forces that were previously tied down. Are the maoists building capitalism for its own sake? Or as a necessary step in creating more favorable conditions for socialism and seizure of power? Let us also keep in mind that it is not just developing its capital, but also spreading the seeds of a socialist economy as a part of this NDR.

What your view, and generally that of left-communists, comes down to is a trade unionist view. Basically, you say that because there is a class coalition, and capitalist development (that will of course require negotiations with the national bourgeoisie) that the workers are being betrayed. It does not move beyond the view of "we are workers, they are bosses", so typical of anarchists and others that do not move beyond this narrow viewpoint. It ignores the fact that all revolutions have always been made by a coalition of classes, and ignores the need for such collaboration in order to complete the necessary tasks of the Revolution. Socialism is not, and has never been about workers lining up on one side, and bosses on the other. Reality (and today's class dynamics) are far more complex than what your doctrine makes it out to be. No worker's councils? The Maoists are developing capital? They must be bourgeois. What ignorant and shallow logic.

[Rawthentic]

My take is that the Nepali communists (they are not only self-described, they are) need to maintain a correct, revolutionary path that can continue the New Democratic Revolution according to their specific conditions, and fight against growing revisionist trends towards parliamentarianism and negotiationism.

There are very important happenings that are heating up the contradictions in Nepal. For one, the worker's take over showed two things: that the Maoists have support amongst workers (both urban and rural), and that the people are becoming more radicalized as time passes by.

With the election of Prachanda to PM this past week, an essential part of bourgeois democratic tasks has been completed, namely the creation of a federal democratic republic. This is the role that the Maoists need to play. Maintain the revolutionary road at all costs, keep the sights on the seizure of power. It is a very long, protracted process, due to the backward nature of Nepal. It took four long months for a PM to get elected after the CA elections back in April. The Maoists are expecting at least one more year simply to create the new constitution.

I think that, at this point, and for some time to come, the Maoists will NEED to maintain those pivotal class alliances with the progressive (anti-feudal, anti-imperialist) forces in Nepal, both because they are needed in the economic growth of Nepal, and to isolate the reactionaries that are opposed to the Maoist's rule.

This is what I have for now. What are your thoughts Miles?

p.s. in case you didnt know, I used to be comrade Joe from the CL. Hey man.

[Dros]

My take is that the Nepali communists (they are not only self-described, they are) need to maintain a correct, revolutionary path that can continue the New Democratic Revolution according to their specific conditions, and fight against growing revisionist trends towards parliamentarianism and negotiationism.

So you recognize the revisionist trends then?! That's great news!

Let me ask. Who in the CPN(M) leadership do you see as advancing these tendencies?

Edit: You were in the Communist League?

[Rawthentic]

Dros:

yes, there are definitely revisionist lines in the CPN (Maoist), this is an inevitability, particularly in a communist party facing so many acute contradiction at this time. It is called the "law of politics." As far as who is advancing these lines, I do not know exactly, but there is no doubt that there are those within the party that want capitalism and bourgeois democracy for its own sake, rather than as a necessary stage in the NDR.

And yes, I was in the Communist League, more than a year ago. Since then, I have been a Maoist.

[Winter]

Revisionism is a potential danger in all revolutions, this shouldn't bar us from supporting them.

I think Mike Ely makes a good point about this in this 4th point about why Nepal's Revolution matters.

The link to this full article can be found in my signature.

Reason #4: When people dare to make revolution – they must not stand alone.
These changes would have been unthinkable, if the CPN(Maoist) had not dared to launch a revolutionary war in 1996. And their political plan became reality because growing numbers of people dared to throw their lives into the effort. It is hard to exaggerate the hope and courage that has gripped people.

Events may ultimately roll against those hopes. This revolution in Nepal may yet be crushed or even betrayed from within. Such dangers are inherent and inevitable in living revolutions.

If the Maobadi pursue new leaps in their revolutionary process, they will likely face continuing attacks from India, backed by the U.S. The CPN(Maoist) has long been (falsely!) labeled “terrorists” by the U.S. government. They are portrayed as village bullies and exploiters of child-soldiers by some human rights organizations. Western powers have armed Nepal’s pro-royal National army with modern weapons. A conservative mass movement in Nepal’s fertile Terai agricultural area has been encouraged by India and Hindu fundamentalists.

Someone needs to spread the word of what is actually going on. It would be intolerable if U.S.-backed destabilization and suppression went unopposed in the U.S. itself.

Here it is: A little-known revolution in Nepal.

Who will we tell about it? What will we learn from it? What will we do about it?

*Bold and Italics in the above quote were done by me.