Maoist Debate over Nepal Revolution: The Sarbedaran Critique
Posted by Mike E on September 29, 2008
Fighters of the Peoples Liberation Army in Nepal
The following article is an explicit polemic by the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) — targeting the path taken by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
It has long been clear that there are sharp divisions between the Maoist political forces formerly gathered in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. It has been evidenced by the long sour silence of the Revolutionary Communist Party concerning the political developments in Nepal. A World to Win News Service published an article in February 2008 that embodied an elaborate set of criticisms and cautions concerning the Nepali revolution — but the critique was covert, not open.
Now Kasama has received an English translation of this article from Haghighat , the central organ of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). The article share extensive passages from a previously unpublished letter of the CPI(MLM) Central Committee to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) sharply questioning their path.
This Iranian Maoist group CPI(MLM), known as the Sarbedaran, is one of the few organizations among Maoists internationally closely alligned with the RCP,USA.
This article expresses views that the CPNM have been criticizing as deeply dogmatic, rooted in schematic thinking, and opposed to analysis of specific concrete condition and the creative development of paths to revolutionary power.
The following is translated from the Farsi version, so some quotes from English language sources may have differences with their originals.
* * * * *
Nepal Revolution: Great Victory or Great Danger!
Haghighat #40 — May 30, 2008
Recent victory of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the Constituent Assembly election and announcement of the ending of the 240 year old Monarchy and the beginning of the “Federal Republic of Nepal”, in its first Constituent Assembly sitting (May 28th 2008), once again have turned eyes to developments in this country. Euphoria has taken over many revolutionaries and progressive forces of the world and many Left parties from around the world have sent messages of congratulations to the CPNM for this electoral victory.
At first glance, this euphoria is understandable. Many are happy that the name communism has been brought up once again in the new century as a power. They feel this victory of Maoists in Nepal, has once again, brought to minds Communism as an alternative. But the question is, how justified this euphoria is and what is its objective basis? And whether the future of the revolution in Nepal on this path, can be said to be bright?
Of course the fall of Monarchy in Nepal and its abolition as the seat of Hinduism through the struggle of the workers and peasants of Nepal under leadership of Maoists, is a victory and a happy event. But Nepal’s becoming a “Republic” does not resolve the fundamental class contradictions that the peoples war had aimed to resolve.
Our party has not declared joy over this electoral success. This approach has raised a lot of questions in the minds of people, given the fact that our party, along with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and all its participating parties and organisations, has been a strong supporter of the people’s war in Nepal. This is so especially because in the aftermath of the great April movement in Nepal (2006) and development in the strength of peoples war, going from the countryside to the cities, the editorial of Haghighat (No 30—Oct 2006) predicted eventual victory of Nepal’s revolution and prospect of establishment of a socialist state there. Although that issue of Haghighat correctly pointed to the objective problems that were in the way of this revolution and existence of some confusion in the strategic thinking of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) concerning features of the dictatorship of proletariat – considering the positive and negative lessons of two great experiences of the 20th century in China and Russia – the editorial (and its title in particular) promoted the illusion that Nepalese Maoists were going to seize country wide power soon. The course of events exposed this to be a premature and one-sided prediction. In practice, the Nepalese revolution faced very severe and complex problems and the process of seizure of state power came to a halt.
It has to be emphasized that the revolution in Nepal belongs to proletarians and peoples of the world. The International communist movement, particularly the Maoist Parties are obliged to, while learning from that revolution and taking joy in its victories, open their eyes and see dangerous political and ideological bends in its road and play their due role in this regard. Our party has done its share of this task up to now and will do more. Any sort of indifference and lack of getting into it under leftist cover (but with deep rightist nature) like calling for “another revolution” or by wishful thinking and naively emphasize the “Communist Party of Nepal’s tactical expertise in making concrete analysis of concrete conditions” is equal to deserting one’s internationalist tasks, taking an irresponsible attitude toward defending the achievements of the most important revolution at the beginning of 21st century, and an inability to face the real problems that the proletarian revolutions of our time are facing.
* * * * *
It is obvious that the victory of Maoists in the Constituent Assembly and their turning into the ruling party in the government is not equal to their seizing of political power. Entrance of the Nepalese Communists in the regime is not birth of a new revolutionary state. Their entrance into a feudal comprador state does not turn that state into a revolutionary state under the leadership of proletariat. The difference between state and government is one of the most basic elements of the theory of State and Revolution in revolutionary science of Marxism. State is an instrument of political, economical and social domination of one class over the other. Government is a form that any state can take in the context of different historical political conditions. For example, the governments of the bourgeois ruling class can take the forms such as bourgeois republic, monarchy, or fascistic theocratic regimes (like in Iran.) Proletarian states also can take the forms of People’s Democratic Republic or Soviet Socialist Republic or Federal forms. Changing the form of a regime from one to the other does not means change of the state system. Historically we have seen numerous times when regimes (or governments) have changed without the class character of the state changing at all. In Iran’s 1979 revolution the Shah’s regime fell without destruction of the rule of capitalist and big land owning classes. Shah’s regime was overthrown without a state of the working class in alliance with all other oppressed and toilers, being established. Only by having this kind of state was it possible to reorganize the society on a completely new economic, social and cultural foundation. The state system that the Shah’s regime had relied on (concretely the Army, Security system and its organs, prisons, justice, international relations, etc.) not only was not destroyed, but was only reorganized as part of the process of consolidating a reactionary theocracy regime. The new regime not only was not a New political power, but in fact, having its religious label, it became even more reactionary and was more efficient than before in suppressing the majority of the oppressed peoples of Iran and women in particular. Not only the economic-social foundation of the state was left untouched, but also due to people’s hopes about “revolution”, it was save from their angry attacks and in this way gained time to reconstruct and consolidate itself. Its deep dependency to imperialist capitalism that had shaped the Iranian state not only remained intact but was hidden from the eyes of the masses with a cover of “independence”. The reason of our emphasizing on that experience is to point out that changing of a government should not be mistaken with the change of nature and character of the states. That is why the communists have always defined victory of a revolution with “complete smashing of the state”. In Nepal, a new revolutionary state has not yet been born out of smashing the old state.
In 2006 the Communist Party of Nepal signed an agreement called “Comprehensive Peace Agreement” with parliamentarian parties of that country. The aim of this agreement was establishment of peace and beginning of a peaceful process of establishing the Constituent Assembly and forming a bourgeois republic based one multi party elections including among them the Maoist party. Maoists declared that people’s war had ended and People’s Liberation Army was put into camps under the observation of the United Nations.
At the time, the Central Committee of our party wrote a private letter to CPNM seriously criticizing and warning against this policy while pointing out the truths which has been born out of bitter and bloody experiences of the struggles of the proletariat and people’s of the world, including the experience of the 1979 revolution in Iran. (2) In opposition to the tactics of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) based on “Comprehensive Peace Agreement” our leadership warned about the danger that:
“… this tactic of your party can give a new life to the enemies of the revolution and help them to come up with a clever strategy for building a viable and efficient state. Don’t forget that one of the main reasons the people’s war was able to spread very quickly was due to this state’s instability and incoherence.”
“…the anti people and reactionary class alliances that had taken place in Nepal since 1990 in the form of parliamentarian democracy, could not consolidate the state due to inherent contradictions of those alliance and more so due to people’s war. Now, they are trying to carry out this consolidation process through, on the one hand, pushing out the King and pushing out the people’s war, on the other hand. And if they achieve this the result will be a feudal comprador republic state. his process could go through a lot of ups and downs, since they have to convince the king and; should satisfy trends such as the UML (the revisionist party that is in the regime) or, kick it out.etc. But, the main thing in making the whole deal successful is to pull the Maoists into this and enlist their help in implementing it.” (2)
That letter also warned about the aims that the ruling parties in Nepal and India are seeking through signing this Agreement:
“Their aim is to push out both the King and the revolutionary people’s power which has been formed through 10 years of people’s war in the base areas; and reorganize the old state as a comprador-feudal Republic around the axis of the Congress Party (pro-India ruling party) and the Maoists—of course if the Maoists transform from a party waging people’s war into a political party within the system.””(2)
The Central Committee’s letter asks the CPNM’s leadership:
“Is it impossible for them (for the ruling classes of Nepal and India and US imperialism) to achieve this? No! Of course it is possible that the king and a part of the feudal compradors who are the base of the King as well as the Nepali military generals might resist this plan. But, even in the example of Iran in 1979 we saw that the American generals convinced the Iranian Army generals to let the Shah go and take the side of Khomeini. In Nepal also it is possible that the Nepalese generals might let the King go and take the side of the Congress Party.” (2)
Then the letter brings out another question:
“Is it impossible for them to allow the Maoists into a new state structure which has a form of Republic but the content of dictatorship of the comprador bourgeois class?”
“We are aware that the Indian state and part of the feudal comprador class of Nepal represented by the Congress Party think that there is a good chance for this. We know that the ruling classes of India has done this before in India and are aware of magical force of co-opting the ex communists in the state structure and by doing so they can give a new life to the old state. Through the history of their rule, the ruling classes of India have been able to reorganize and renew their state through co-opting the ex communists and part of representatives of the movements of the oppressed into their existing state. And by doing so, they have managed to turn from an inefficient and unstable dictatorship into a more efficient reactionary dictatorship against the masses. The suffocating role of various “communist” parties in India in mitigating the rebellious impulse of the masses has been no less than destructive role of religion and other ideological elements of the reactionary classes. Reactionary classes of India are old hands in turning communists from old foes into present partners. And right now they are trying to do the same in Nepal.”
The Letter, after analyzing the strategic plan of enemy in signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the Maoists, says:
“This strategic plan is dependent on the working of two tactical wings. First, turn this provisional feudal comprador regime into a permanent one after the Constituent Assembly elections. Second, detach the Maoists of Nepal from revolutionaries in India and around the world.”
The Letter clearly states that, “Use of such strategy by the reactionary ruling classes is nothing new. Lenin had named it ‘Constitutional Solution’ by the old state to solve its dead ends and crisis of legitimacy.” (2)
Participation of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the interim government of Nepal does not change the feudal comprador class nature of that state. With legal abolition of the Royal regime and declaration of republic, the class nature of that state will not change. A change in the form of government is not same as smashing the state of the feudal comprador classes and breaking away from imperialist domination. This is a fact that normally the leadership of Maoist Party should know and it has to inform the rank and file of party and revolutionary and oppressed masses of Nepal of this fact.
Even if the Constituent Assembly passes some political, social and economical “rights” for the workers, peasants, women and oppressed nationalities and designated them as masters of society, up until the heart of the reactionary state – i.e. reactionary army – has remained intact, the real meaning of these laws will be to spread illusion among the masses and take away the real rights that they have gained through the people’s war. As long as the army is in the hands of the exploiting classes and the main means of production under their ownership and control, Constitutional promises about safeguarding people’s interest is unfounded. The role of Constitution in bourgeois republics is exactly to guarantee and serve the foundations of economic exploitation. Even in most democratic bourgeois republics the people’s rights are confined in this frame. If the rights which are promised to people come into contradiction with this basic aim they would easily be trampled upon.
Clearly, the communists of Nepal launched the people’s war with the task that is universal to all proletarian revolutions i.e. “smashing the machinery of the state” and seizing power. And they applied this line for 10 years. But today, considering the difficulties that have come up on the way, they think they can pursue the aim of establishing a revolutionary state through a peaceful road. But this is impossible! No class in history has seized political power peacefully. This much of power also have been gained in the course of 10 years of people’s war waged by the workers and peasants of Nepal under the leadership of Maoists. This much of power is not expressed through the seats gained in the Constituent Assembly but basically through the revolutionary political and economical transformations which was achieved in the course of ten years of armed struggle. But this power, without taking over the whole country, is unstable and in danger of being lost for ever. The central question is, whether participating in the state and trying to change it from within will strengthen the political and economical power of the workers and peasants of Nepal, or will it lead to its complete annihilation? Will ten years of people’s war be used to perfect the reactionary state or for its destruction? If the outcome is establishment of a bourgeois republic, then the sacrifices of the masses will serve the perfection and modernization of the means of oppressing the masses, not the establishment of a new society with new political power, new economy, new social relations and new culture.
If the comrades of Nepal continue on the path they have taken up, that much of political and economic power gained by the workers and peasants of Nepal will not only not be consolidated but will be lost. And instead there will be a feudal bourgeois republic dependent on India, China or both of them.
* * * * *
To prove this, it will suffice to Point to the dominant balance of forces. The Royal army has remained basically intact and enjoys the support of India, the US and big ruling parties. The people’s war came to a halt before smashing the backbone of the old state. If we look at the economic situation of the country, how this small country is in the fangs of Indian state and international economic centers, then the real dimensions of this unfavorable balance of forces will come to. Is it possible to cut off these fangs just by being in the government, and without a proletarian state?
What is political power and the state of dictatorship/democracy of the proletariat necessary for? It is necessary for destroying feudalism, bureaucrat capitalism and dependence to imperialism, and transforming Nepal into a proletarian revolutionary red base area in the world. That’s why destruction of the existing state machinery can not be limited to and reduced to overthrowing the monarchy. The target of New Democratic Revolution is the whole bureaucrat– comprador and feudal classes and their foreign and imperialist supporters, not just the Monarchial part of it. The slogan of abolition of Monarch was and is correct but this has to be done as a part of a New Democratic Revolution and establishment of a New State.
One can not reduce feudalism in Nepal to the institution of Monarchy. Feudalism is the land ownership relations and the pre-capitalistic mode of exploitation. For the peasants to be emancipated, this ownership relations ought to be definitely destroyed. Simultaneously the politico-economic domination of the Indian state on Nepal which is in behalf of world capitalism must be ended. It is impossible to carry out this process without relying on the broad masses and their conscious and organized struggle.
In the imperialist era it is not possible to uproot feudalism without simultaneous expropriation of the bureaucrat capitalism. This capitalism also ought to be confiscated; its nature be altered and turned into the interest of development of a self sufficient economy that has the goal of meeting the needs of the masses.
Which class and with what economic plan will take hold of bank holdings and other wealth of the country? Will the World Bank and IMF, wielding strings of “financial aid” and “foreign investment” continue running the Nepal economy? If these financial institutions call the shots and India continue to keep hands on the throat of the country, then even feudalism cannot be abolished, because, in the era of imperialism, feudalism does not have a life independent and separate from workings of capitalism. The bureaucrat capitalism (dependent on the world capitalist system) and the capitalist system overall (be it through Indian or Chinese capitals or, through “aid” from the World Bank) have transformed and subsumed feudal mode of exploitation in its service. Whatever is left of feudal mode of exploitation (including its social relations) is turned to serve profitability of bureaucrat capitalism. Today, uprooting of feudalism in Nepal requires revolutionary distribution of land in Terai (the area which is a main source for Nepalese people’s nutrition.) People’s War has done whatever possible in the mountains and hills. But to prevent feudalism’s resurrection in reformed shapes or capitalist exploitation taking place of the pre capitalist exploitation, the power should be in the hands of the state of proletarian dictatorship/ democracy in order to carry out a movement of socialist ownership in areas where the land revolution has occurred.
No coalition government with participation of parts of the bourgeoisie (or participation of part of remnants of the previous regime) will implement such a plan, because private property plays a central role in capitalist system and the bourgeoisie of a country like Nepal has deep links with land ownership. Moreover, the exploiting classes, due to their general fear of the poor of the countryside, will never support a revolutionary land reform. It is true that revolutionary land reform program is still within limits of bourgeois democracy. But its implementation in a revolutionary manner is only possible by the proletariat. Only in this way can the small working class of Nepal lay the basis for independent and rapid development of the country. Only land revolution can become the basis for rapid development, voluntary cooperation and collectivization, which has a central role in uplifting the stage of revolution to that of socialist stage.
If there is to be a victory, one can not short circuit this program or invent a “transitional period” for implementing it. It is not possible to make “transition” to New Democratic Revolution by relying on bourgeois republic. As the letter of our leadership to CPNM puts it:
“What you will achieve by restructuring of the state through this “provisional” step will not even be a bourgeois republic. It will be a feudal comprador republic. This republic will weaken the new Nepal that has been born out of old Nepal by the force of revolutionary violence but has not yet been able to completely destroy the old one. The provisional government will open the way for the new Nepal being swallowed by the old Nepal.”(2)
Establishment of a “transitional” bourgeois republic is not a tactic that can serve to propel the strategy of New Democratic Revolution. But it is a tactic that serves the strategy of reforming feudal comprador state. This tactic is very fatal and destructive and could destroy all the hopes and achievements of the Nepalese people. Confining the People’s Army and calling for a single new army through integration of the two is the most damaging aspects of this tactic. (3).
* * * * * *
Congratulations and compliments sent by the communist parties, Left and progressive organizations and individuals to CPNM for this electoral victory only covers up the above mentioned fundamental issues. Without deep and all around understanding of the objective obstacles in the way of the revolution in Nepal, one can not help the comrades of Nepal.
Making revolution in a poor, small, and economically backward country such as Nepal which is sandwiched by two big powers such as China and India, and is in danger of invasion by India at any moment, has a lot of complexities. Moreover, the revolution in Nepal is alone in the world and the balance of the forces internationally is not favorable to it. The combination of these factors has placed numerous constraints on its advance and developments. (4) In any revolution, different lines raise their heads when revolutions faces difficulties and complexities and in response to those. What is most disturbing for communist forces internationally is the line that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has adopted regarding how to advance the revolution in that country. Historical experience has shown that revolutions can be defeated even if the revolutionaries did not make mistakes. In this case the cause of their failure would be unfavorable balance of forces. But when the party which is leading the revolution commits errors and errs in distinguishing the friends and foes, then the revolution will definitely fail. This is the main danger! Wrong political line and policy will enforce the unfavorable factors even more and will make the balance of forces even more unfavorable. Strategic orientation influences the balance of forces positively or negatively, because sooner or later it becomes a material force. When a strategic orientation and its corresponding tactics are wrong, not only it sets into motion the downward spiral of a revolutionary process but in the long run this regression influences the communists negatively—if sows seeds of confusion and enforces revisionism among them.
Revolution in Nepal is in great danger. It is internationalist duty of all communists of the world to pay attention to this. Struggling to face the dangers threatening the revolution in Nepal from inside and outside, undoubtedly will raise the understanding of all communists in the world of the complexities and difficulties of making revolution in today’s world.
But the end of the revolution in Nepal has not been written yet. This revolution has gone through many twists and turns and without wanting to predict its future, by looking at the bigger picture, i.e. changes in the world situation which provides the context for Nepal revolution– we can still see a storm building up. This revolution can, and must continue.
The bourgeois parties in Nepal have accepted to let Maoists to take over the helms of their regime at a time when scarcity and hunger due to workings of capitalist system is on the way. Nepalese reactionaries have organized fascist paramilitaries to carry out the plan of assassinating revolutionary Maoists. The Indian state has stopped export of rice to Nepal under the guise of preventing hunger in India. They, along with the Us Imperialists would like to shift the burden of social problems to the Maoists and channel the anger of the masses towards CPNM. Simultaneously, by ways of conspiracies they try to use existing divisions among the people (such as division among nationalities) in order to fan flames of discord among them and through different ways and means enforce insecurity and instability in the country. It is possible that such crises could change the “peaceful evolution of revolution” into a “non peaceful” one. Hard realities of class struggle may help the CPNM to rupture from the present path as soon as possible. To rectify a trajectory always requires waging a conscious and all around ideological and political struggle.
In Nepal and among the ranks of CPNM it is not a secret that there are differences and line struggles among the Maoists of the world over the trajectory that the CPNM have taken up. The leaders and spokespersons of CPNM have pointed to these differences in their open publications several times. For example Prachanda (the chairman of CPNM) made an interview in 2007 and talked about opposition of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and Communist Party of India (Maoist) with the current line of CPNM. Or another Maoist leader in Nepal, in an interview with Red Star said:
“For us criticisms by Bob Avakian (Chair of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) and Ghanapaty (Chair of the Communist Party of India – Maoist) is more pleasant and productive than the compliments coming from George Bush and the Indian Government.”
It is noteworthy that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has usually revealed the line struggles within the international communist movement and among the party leaders, for the party supporters, and has been a good example in this regard. But informing and sharing matters with the masses is one thing and launching and spreading a serious theoretical debate and discussions among them around these line differences which have life and death importance for the ICM, is another thing.
Today, the main duty of the international communist movement regarding the revolution in Nepal is not praising partial and temporary victories. Even when the masses (and leaders of revolution) become fascinated by such “victories” and close their eyes to the long term interests, one must draw attention to fundamental truths and the laws governing class struggle. Especially because this “victory” is a poisonous honey that can have disastrous consequences for this revolution and naturally for the whole international proletariat. As it was said in the A World to Win News Service article titled: “On 12th Anniversary of the People’s War in Nepal and its Unknown Result” (February 11-2008):
“At any time, there is no guarantee for victory of revolution in Nepal or any other country. But it could be said that however difficult and horrible the road to complete victory of the revolution may be, still, that is the only real and possible way for changing Nepal. It is necessary for the communists persevere on this orientation and lead the masses in materializing it.”
Haghighat 40- CPIMLM- May 30th 2008
Footnotes:
1 – It is interesting to note that most of the congratulating parties had not supported the 10 years of people’s war under the leadership of the Maoists in Nepal as much. Some of them have happily praised this electoral victory so much that had never done a fraction of it for past victories of Maoists in Nepal! Are these kind of parties happy that one can be simultaneously a “communist” and join the typical bourgeois political games? That one can dream of bringing about a radically new society but at the same time put a limit on the long and arduous class struggle? One can see dangerous illusions in these congratulatory messages (especially in those issued by the Communist parties): the illusion that as though struggle for revolutionary change of the society can go through participation in mainstream bourgeois politicking. And even worse, as if the goal of revolutionary struggle is to get accepted into the circles of mainstream politics and get recognition from the system. But these roads have been tested many times before in history and have proved to be failure. This same road was taken by the Communist Party of Indonesia. As a result the Indonesian party experienced such a tremendous defeat that it could not raise its head again. Moreover, the impact of that disastrous defeat did not stay within the confines of Indonesia but was grave for the whole communist movement in the world and even was a big blow to socialist China. A victory in Indonesia could positively influence the balance of forces in favor of the communists but its defeat turn the situation around and made a plus for the imperialists.
2 – This letter was sent from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in November 2006. Its full text will be published when the time is right.
3 – One of the articles of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006 was to confine the People’s Liberation Army and have their weapons under the surveillance of the United Nations. This more than anything gave legitimacy to the army of enemy. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) also wanted to dissolve both armies and form a single one. But this was not do-able and did not happen. In January 2008 the chief of the reactionary Military Forces openly opposed this suggestion. This shows that reactionaries never get confused about what is their most pivotal means of exercising power.
4 – For further discussions on this question you can refer to previous articles in Haghighat:
- Different articles in Haghighat No. 30 – October-2006
- Nepal Revolution: complex problems; facile answers! Haghighat 31
- Complexities of a revolution becomes a justification to attack the Maoists. Haghighat 32
- 12th anniversary of the people’s war in Nepal and its unsettled outcome; 11 February 2008. A World to Win News Service.
- Nepal, the People’s Expectation Horizon Getting Wider. April 14th 2008, A World to Win News Service
These articles are available in the site of Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)
Carl Davidson said
Back in the days of the CPML, I had the task for a while in our ‘Liasion Dept’ where there were a seemingly endless supply of letters and polemics back and forth like these, and all sorts of alliances being formed and unformed around them.
I hated these letters and the replies, even though I enjoyed meeting with people from other parties in their countries, learning things from them, and in turn hosting them here, so they could learn some things for us.
How Maoists in Iran, who have very difficult conditions even in getting a grasp of their own realities, are supposed to be grounded enough in the concrete conditions of Nepal to make these kind of polemics with the communists there, is beyond me.
I’ll withhold a firm judgment here, but this stuff back in our day wasn’t politics. It was faux politics, cafe chatter and a tempest in a teapot all in one.
Get focused on revolutionary work where you are, share your lessons modestly, help others where you can, and avoid judgments and verdicts from afar like the plague.
Mike E said
Carl writes:
Debate over the Nepali revolution is not faux politics. it is a real debate among maoists with real implications.
The Nepali Maoists face difficult choices. And we have much to learn by watching what they do, and how it turns out. And along side the chances of victory are also great chances for betrayal or defeat.
But revolutoinaries outside nepal have choices too: Where will we stand? Will we be internationalists as this great movement struggles for its life and as communist springs from the soil? Or will we hunker in a suspicious wait-and-see crouch, waiting for it all to fail to garner some points from “i told you so”?
The Iranians are articulating the justifications for the RCP’s hostile silence. And it gives us a chance to dig out and examine the toxic dogmatism at its root.
yes, there is little glimmer of respect for reality here — its complexity and particularities — even as the iranians do poke their fingers into the many (rather well known) dangers and dilemmas of the Nepali situation. . but it does so in the service of a sterile methodology — so that its verdict and argument is ultimately severed from reality and rooted in simple mechanical assumptions.
The Nepali Maoists head the government, but have not yet overthrown the old state. They have won elections and lead coalitions, but still confront a reactionary, feudal army that outnumbers the sequestered revolutionary army. This is still a pre-revolutionary moment. And it is (like all moments of revolution) riddled with contradictions and dangers.
We will see what the Nepali Maoists and people now do –and whether new leaps of revolution can break the series of log-jams and encirclements they face.
And we need to ask what we will now do — to learn from this experience, to help people outside our ranks appreciate the revolutions of Nepal and India, and to spread the message that living popular revolution is possible in the 21st century.
Carl Davidson said
You can debate it all you want.
But on what basis?
Newspaper articles and polemics from afar?
Please.
If you really want to help Nepal, dig out how the US is trying in intervene, and oppose it here, at the source.
NSPF said
But Carl, how would you know “how the US is trying to intervene”? Does a US citizenship suffice or does one have to live within a certain distance of DC?
What you are suggesting is almost pre-historic.
On your previous post:
You charge the Maoists from Iran for lack of modesty. You are right. In fact I’d go so far as to say all Maoists suffer from this disease. It is usually accompanied by another virulent one: Ambition. And the Maoists are always insistent on infecting others. Didn’t you know that?
Watch out! Kasama site is infected with it too!
You could even say the Iranian Maoists, rightly or wrongly, are criticising the Nepalese Maoists for not being infected enough; they are telling the Nepalese, watch out! the vaccination army is getting close.
And you know what the Nepalese reply is? WTF; we are carriers of a much more virulent strand of the two virus; a mutated form resistant to any known vaccine. And I for sure want to know who is right and eagerly waiting for an in-depth critique of the CPIMLM document.
If Maoists were not infected, we wouldn’t be talking about Nepal. Some even would have difficulty pointing to it on a map.
Modesty is a code-word for selfishness. Under the guise of “don’t know can’t know”, ambition is first ostracised, and then eventually politics is modified and reduced to localism and neighbourhood-watch politics.
Watch out! The Chinese are coming.
TellNoLies said
Carl has a point. What is the basis of this polemic? Is it really grounded in a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, in a real investigation? Or is it based on preconceptions and a collection of news reports from afar? (What the Trots call “rewriting the NYTimes”) I agree with Mike that it is important for us to pay close attention to what is happening in Nepal, to learn from it and to struggle over the correct lesons. But that last part must be grounded in ways this polemic isn’t and really can’t be at this moment. We need to be able to respond quickly to rapidly unfolding events, but that doesn’t mean we should rush into verdicts when we don’t have the basis to really form them. Down the road we will want to assess whether the path presently being followed by the CPN(M) is correct, but today our responsibility is to pay close attention and to defend the CPN(M) from imperialist attacks. This piece is of interest mainly as curiosity and a negative example. Its fine to post it, but I frankly learn more reading the capitalist press out of India. Lets be bold and ambitious in the face of our enemies, but humble before the people.
NSPF said
“Carl has a point. What is the basis of this polemic? Is it really grounded in a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, in a real investigation? Or is it based on preconceptions and a collection of news reports from afar?” And then you answer a few lines down:
“This piece is of interest mainly as curiosity and a negative example.”
This answer is pretty much preconceived without any real investigation or consideration of any other possibility than “collection of news reports”. Frankly, I would be surprised to hear anything but this, given the killer introduction by Mike. Especially so, given the pigonholling of it as a hidden appology for the rcp. It was doomed to be dismissed without any real consideration. This is a method I disagree with and I think it is not a good basis to look at any document.
Now, I don’t know a definit answer to your question, but given the two parties and even the personalities involved on the two side, who have been associated with each other tightly, and I use this word advisedly, since 1984, and were singing each others praises, I would not dismiss those questions so lightly with your answer.
On another level also, I would argue against being selectively dismissive of preconceptions as if this is a sin against science. Everyone holds preconceived ideas and starts assessing concrete things with a certain yardstick. Do you think that the Nepalese comrades went into their study and investigation like a blank sheet? I ask myself, you and everyone else, what concrete analysis of the concrete conditions of Nepal has been laid on the table for us to so enthusiastically support their line? singing the praises of concrete analysis is not the thing itself. And if the answer is none, then what we are saying is line questions aren’t that important; so long as you have prooved to have good intentions, we are going to support you come what may. Is this the lesson we have learnt from all those failiors and mistakes and the “little” successes like the cultural revolution? The very least that can be done is to tear this CPIMLM document apart if you think it is wrong because it is going to influence people who are damn serious about revolution and if they make mistakes real people pay the price with their flesh and blood; this is what I understand from “being humble before the people.”How could you consider other peoples mistake, if that is the case, as curiosity and call for humbleness?
I have GREAT respect for both peoples and more; that’s why I will not let go of this discussion. And I mean this with all my heart.
NSPF said
“Down the road we will want to assess whether the path presently being followed by the CPN(M) is correct, but today our responsibility is to pay close attention and to defend the CPN(M) from imperialist attacks.”
Concerning imperialist attack:
Does it only take shape in the form of a military action of one sort or another? Isn’t it possible they could use other tactics and attack you mainly ideologically and politically and even diplomatically to prepare for the killer blow if and when necessary?
I say the Nepalese have been under constant ideological and political bombardment for the past few years in a qualitativly different form than the pervious period.
How have we prepared ourselves to defend our comrades from these attacks?
Are we waiting for the “event” to play itself out and then sum up? Is that the extent of our learning and support short of a military attack?
At what point along the road is it possible to assess?
Can’t we at least investigate to find out if their present line is a tactical one or a strategic orientation? What do they say themselves? Is it correct to insist that it is tactical when they themselves say its strategic? Is it correct to say that its particular when they themselves say its universal?
Is it correct to create a decades long peacefull preliminary phase and prelude to a new democratic revolution?
How can a multi-party democracy as strategic orientation mitigate the need for land reform?
On the basis of what concrete analysis revolutionary land reform is dismissed as outmoded and unnecessary?
In what way the arguments for the abandonment of the peoples war is different than the lines of M.B. Singh and Nirmal Lhama?
What is the difference between the justifications of the CPNM with that of Madhan Bhandari regarding multi party system and socialist competition?
Can we ask these questions without being labled dogmatic? Didn’t those people call you dogmatic when you raised questions as to the soundness of those political lines?
Was all those sacrifices and bloodshed necessary to reach at where they were 15 years ago?
Addis Ababa Maoist said
We Maoists criticize comrades because we care about them. To allow comrades to go astray without criticizing under the disguise of “modesty” or “not rushing into verdicts”, can never be out of care of comrades.
Carl Davidsson “[hates] these letters and the replies”. It must be the content of them that he hates: It must be the two-line-struggle he hates. Did he also hate the “letters and the replies” of the Great Polemic? Should CPC not have been more “modest” in dealing with Krushchev, especially “from afar”? Was Chairman Mao and the leadership of the CPC “[hunkering] in a suspicious wait-and-see crouch, waiting for it all to fail to garner some points from “I told you so”?”.
And as for this new found Prachanda-parroting of “concrete analysis of concrete conditions; have we heard it before? “Seeking truth out of facts”, anyone? Teng Hsiao-Ping, anyone?
Our Iranian comrades are right to the point in issuing this warning to our Nepali comrades. So are our Peruvian comrades of MPP when they say:
“We reject and condemn the sinister ongoing plan of imperialism, principally yankee, to spread capitulation all over the world in its desperate and impossible attempt to annihilate the world revolution, using, for that purpose, their miserable revisionist and opportunist lackeys. They apply their politics of “peace accords”, and present a domesticated so-called “Maoism” – a “Maoism” without people´s war, without new power, without the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the role that new revisionism plays in Nepal and in the world…”
nando said
Actually it was Mao who said “seek truth from facts” — in his long difficult battle (with dogmatists of the Chinese Communist Party, and the forces of “whateverism” who parroted whatever they were told by the Soviet party, regardless of concrete reality). It is true that Teng adopted that phrase and made it his banner. But the issue of “seeking truth from facts” is central to materialism, and is a timely matter today.
I don’t see anything wrong with raising criticisms and struggling over views among communists. It is necessary. And it is not a matter of modesty or immodesty. In identity politics, it is considered offensive for others to comment on “your struggle” because it is assumed that situations as SO particular and humans are SO subjective that only the direct participants have any right to speak. This runs against our understanding of the world, and often is the ultimate debate-stopper.
The issue is not whether to have polemics — the issue is sorting out right and wrong.
And central to this debate is the issue of the state, the army, and the question of models. Does our understanding (that you can’t just lay hands on the old state and make socialism with it) mean that there are particular universal models of seizure that should be followed?
It would have been deeply wrong if the Nepali Maoists had abandoned their army as they entered the current complex political approach to state power. Everything they have, and everything the people have, is rooted in the accomplisments of the peoples war — in the existance of the people’s liberation army and the experience of the liberated zones. This is what aroused trained, armed and attracted the people to the revolutionary pole.
But they have not abandoned their army — and the conflict over the former Royal Army obviously lies just ahead.
So for me the question is not “do the iranians have a right to comment on the revolution in nepal?” Of course they do. And communists have often been correct in their polemics-from-afar. (Stalin argued that American communists and socialists were chauvinist towards Black people — and it was literally a turning point in the revolutionary politics of the U.S.)
Why not dig into the substance of the iranian comments? Why not consider what these comrades are raising?
Are they pointing to real problems and dangers? I think they are pointing at many of the key problems and dangers facing the Nepali revolution.
Are they raising important ideological matters — of the state, seizure of power, continuing revolution, need for socialism to liberate the people? I think they are pointing to crucial ideological matters for revolution.
And I think, it is still unwritten whether the Nepali Maoists will be able to pull a successful revolution out of their situation.
But for all of that I think this iranian polemic is essentially wrong in its assessment. For reasons we should discuss.
[I won't comment much on the note above, from Addis Ababa Maoist who wants to end by upholding the rather bizarre forces of MPP (the Peru-identified exile forces in Europe) who have applied even more dogmatic and mechanical approaches to the political crises among Peruvian maoists, and who certainly have made a principle of seeking their truths from anything-but-facts -- including when they insist that their Chairman Gonazalo is not the author of the calls for peace accords.]
N3wDay said
“Is it correct to insist that it is tactical when they themselves say its strategic?”
Your going to have to be clear about what you mean here. Do you mean their current engagement in bourgeois politics? Do you think that they believe that no further social transformations are needed and the character of the electoral system doesn’t need to change for Socialism to exist? Please explain and justify your statement.
“Is it correct to say that its particular when they themselves say its universal?”
I think their tactical path as of RIGHT NOW is particular, and I believe they think that as well. Envisioning competition among political groups when Socialism is actually established I’m not sure about, they think it’s universal, I don’t know whether I agree or not.
“Is it correct to create a decades long peacefull preliminary phase and prelude to a new democratic revolution?”
It’s not like that was an easy choice. They were dealing with major internal differences within the party, military demoralization, and it looked like many of the gains they made were going to roll back. Do you think they can simply go back into the jungle now and win just like that? I don’t think this was an easy choice at all. I believe they see the possibility of some ND tasks being accomplished now and they are seizing on it. Whether the on the ground practice of their cadres is being conducted on a revolutionary basis or not is still a question. But I think depending on the objective situation it could be justified easily.
So concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Nepal has no coast. Meaning no international waters. Meaning everything that is going in or out has to be shipped through India or China. Neither of which are friendly to Maoism (a euphemism). India has constantly being trying to undermine what the Maoists are doing through the Madheses, now not allowing rice to be shipped in under the guise of “feeding the poor” (yeah right!).
Also Nepal is incredibly poor, they can’t afford to fund the projects they need to develop, hence the reason for creating a “favorable climate” for investment. Some people I’ve talked seem to think it’s as easy as collectivizing agriculture and all of a sudden Socialism and development pops out. Maybe in gigantic countries rich in resources, but we’re not dealing with that here.
They only got 30% of the vote. Meaning 30% give or take a little of the country supports revolutionary socialism. What would they do if they tried to implement a full Maoist program? How would they deal with the food riots when India and China blocked trade? How would they develop? What in the world would they do when the Madhese regions went on strike?
I think if they had successfully overthrown the entire state comrades would still be calling them revisionist.
I realize completely how dangerous what they are doing right now is. But I think it’s a legitimate decision considering their situation. Development in itself will never lead to socialism, but it can certainly help when you’re in the position they are.
“How can a multi-party democracy as strategic orientation mitigate the need for land reform?
On the basis of what concrete analysis revolutionary land reform is dismissed as outmoded and unnecessary?”
Please justify this statement. They have plans for land reform.
“In what way the arguments for the abandonment of the peoples war is different than the lines of M.B. Singh and Nirmal Lhama?
What is the difference between the justifications of the CPNM with that of Madhan Bhandari regarding multi party system and socialist competition?”
For those of us not familiar please explain or recommend readings.
“Was all those sacrifices and bloodshed necessary to reach at where they were 15 years ago?”
Are you serious? Do you think no social transformations have occurred because of the peoples war?
Linda D. said
My starting point with all this is encapsulated in what Mike E. had to say:
At least this line struggle is more out in the open. And I agree that the RCP’s silence has been hostile. Whether or not I agree with the Iranians’ assessment—“Nepal Great Victory or Great Danger” I do have respect for them (as revolutionaries and communists) to open “Pandora’s box” in the first place.
I even started to go back over some of the articles – mainly by Larry Everest – in assessing the revolution in Iran. (In particular, http://revcom.us/a/095/iran-pt5-en.html Part 5: The 1979 Revolution and the Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism (Part 5 examines how both the 1979 revolution and the U.S. response fueled the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.) All the while really trying to find some archive from Revolution magazine, right after the Iranian revolution, and from what I recall—a revelation of the underestimation of the Khomeini forces (and the U.S. imperialists flexibility after the overthrow of the Shah), as well as the communists’ relation to the Khomeini and Islamic forces. Many (“many” an understatement) of our more than dedicated Iranian comrades and communists paid with their lives.
But Sarbedaran, in its critique says (in small part):
“What is most disturbing for communist forces internationally is the line that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has adopted regarding how to advance the revolution in that country. Historical experience has shown that revolutions can be defeated even if the revolutionaries did not make mistakes. In this case the cause of their failure would be unfavorable balance of forces.”
I would like to know from our historical experience, what revolutions have been defeated even if “revolutionaries did not make mistakes.” How is it possible for revolutionaries to not inevitably make errors? Hopefully those errors are not grave errors, but while we have an historical experience, isn’t it necessary for communist revolutionaries to be able to make an analysis of the concrete conditions and contradictions they are facing at different moments in time, while always keeping the larger goal in mind?
But I think my stand around Nepal’s revolution is perhaps tainted with my staunch stand as an internationalist. And since I am just learning about the concrete and changing conditions in Nepal (after years of their revolutionary struggle), to put it somewhat absurdly, and perhaps some would say naively, am giving the CPN(M) the benefit of the doubt, especially since the new developments are in their infancy. One of the questions that all this has raised for me is trying to better understand “new democracy”—not just in some sweeping or mechanical way, but how that applies to the situation that the Nepali communists face at this stage, what is their objective situation (with both the favourable as well as unfavorable contradictions) and within that an assessment of the subjective forces?
In a way I can understand what Carl points to:
“How Maoists in Iran, who have very difficult conditions even in getting a grasp of their own realities, are supposed to be grounded enough in the concrete conditions of Nepal to make these kind of polemics with the communists there, is beyond me…
“…Get focused on revolutionary work where you are, share your lessons modestly, help others where you can, and avoid judgments and verdicts from afar like the plague.”
For me, and I suspect for others, I don’t feel qualified to pass judgments or weigh in on verdicts (lots of those verdicts appear to me to be preconceived) around Nepal’s revolution or path. But the polemics and the need to raise line struggle are not beyond me like they are for Carl. I think the polemic (and life and death struggle) around Nepal is part of our revolutionary work whether we are in Tehran, Kathmandu, or Toledo, Ohio. Having said that, I am mainly looking at this from how Mike summed it up in his last paragraph, in Comment Nª 2, keeping in mind, and am happy to say, that the verdicts are not in yet!:
“And we need to ask what we will now do — to learn from this experience, to help people outside our ranks appreciate the revolutions of Nepal and India, and to spread the message that living popular revolution is possible in the 21st century.”
Joseph Ball said
Let’s assess the article by the CPI-MLM for what it is. Mainly, its a criticism of those parties that congratulated CPN-M on their election victory. Implicit in this criticism is an assumption that the CPN (M) is going down the path of supporting bourgeois democracy and that congratulating them on the election victory just encourages this trajectory.
If you read back copies of the Worker (10&11 especially), then you will see that the party’s strategy has always been to establish the Dictatorship Of The People, though they believe there will be room for some kind of multi-party competition within that. I think this article by CPI-MLM needed to grapple with this fact.
Since this article was written, two lines have emerged in the CPN (M). One line is status quoist and wants no further political progress, concentrating instead on economic reforms. The other line, represented by those such as Netrabikram Chand (‘Biglap’) wants to push forward to New Democratic revolution.
I don’t think the anti-status quoist line had a problem with standing in elections. The point was always to defeat the King first before starting a new fight against the pro-imperialist, pro-feudal political forces. Everyone accepted that the demand for a Constituent Assembly was part of that fight, including those who now oppose the status quoist line.
The problem is what happens now. If the status quoists win, then the revolution is lost. The new constitution will entrench bourgeois democracy. It will be impossible to bring in measures like land reform in the current political set-up as Matrika Yadav has recently found out. Nepal will remain a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country and the CPN (M) will not have achieved any of its revolutionary goals. It’s our job to really get behind those who oppose status quoism in the CPN (M). We can do this principally by assuring them we will build support in our own countries against the foreign intervention Nepal would inevitably suffer if the anti-status quoist line wins. I trust that CPI-MLM is with us on this.
Carl Davidson said
To the Addis Abba Maoist:
I have no hatred of polemics or debates. Goodness know, I participate in enough of them.
What I hated was how vacuous these were, how much they were full of pompous phrasemongering back and forth between ideologues who had no grounding or substantial knowledge of the conditions they were carrying on about. Then on the basis of this weirdness, all sorts of intriguing, factionalizing and conspiring would go on, about who was lined up with whom, mainly among organizations that, in most cases, had never even led a successful strike, let alone won and election or taken over a government.
I’m not applying this directly to the Iranian group here, but of an earlier milieu in the 1970s. But I doubt that they know that much about the actual conditions, and the ebb and flow of struggle in Nepal.
Draw the lesson or not, but I’m prepared for the Nepal comrades to develop something new under the sun, something that doesn’t fit anyone’s preconceptions. Lenin often quoted Goethe to the effect that ‘theory is grey, but life is green.’ I’m not saying keep you mouth shut or don’t question; but especially for those in this country, it’s wise to sit on a little of the superpower arrogance towards other peoples that’s bred into us when you do.
land said
In reading over the Sarbedanan Critique:
Only have a few minutes but:
I do not think the analogy to Iran’s 1979 overthrow of Shah can be used to make a criticism of the Nepal comrades today.
There was no people’s war in Iran. There was no Maoist Communist Party In Iran at the time.
Khomeni’s forces taking over cannot be compared to Prachanda and the people of Nepal.
This was 1979 and Iran is a totally different country than Nepal with totally different relationships.
As Mike said in quote #2 yes there will be contradictions and dangers. Will they be able to break the logjams and encirclements they face? And for us what will we do. How do we spread the message of this revolution with all its contradictions? What does a New Democratic Revolution look like in real life?
I want to read more carefully the statement from the Iranian comrades.
There does need to be discussion of this.
But my first impression is that there is too much “this is how it should be and it isn’t”, There is a blueprint kind of tone to it. At the same time this is important to dig into. I think overall it is dogmatic. But the questions they are raising are real.
It has everything to do with can we make revolution in the 21st century and how.
r said
can someone explain why the they chose to entered parliament and the importance of addressing the role of monarchy first?
Mike E said
I think there is value to these questions, R.
* The Maoists actually entered the parliment in the mid 90s as part of their plans to launch a peoples war. In fact something little understood internationally, is that the peoples war took root in its core areas — Rokum and Rolpa — because those were areas where the Maoists won the parliamentary elections, and were then violently attacked by the previously dominant congress party. One of the key demand of the uprising was an end to the suppression of Maoists who had won the parliamentary elections.
* there has been a fifty years struggle in Nepal against the feudal monarchy, and that struggle is the “engine” that has fueled the revolutoinary movement. It was the anti-monarchist movement of 1990 that gave shape to the great upsurge and turmoil that the Maoists shaped into their people’s war a few years later. and then, their people’s war helped give rise to an upsurge against the monarchy — after the notorious palace massacre that left the most anti-people royal figure sitting on Nepal’s throne.
* The recent events are not (as somepeople think) the Nepali Maoists entering parliament. The election of last April was (above all) to create a Constituent Assembly — a body and process OUTSIDE the parliamentary process. For fifty years, Nepali communists have demanded a Constitutent Assembly — in OPPOSITION to the parliamentary road advocated by forces like the Nepali Congress and the revisionist UML party. They did not abandon the peoples war — since they still have their army and the ability to retake the road of armed struggle. They did not “enter the parlimentary process” — since the heart of the elections was for a CA that is the basis for rewriting the process (i.e. the constitution that defines Nepali politics).
* The Maoists decided to view the anti-monarchist struggle as a separate stage in their revolutionary process because objectively there was a great upsurge of struggle against the monarchy — with very deep roots among the people, especially in urban areas where the Maoist forces have historically been weak. by entering that upsurge, by uniting with the complex forces in motion, the Maoists laid the basis for winning broad new support in areas they previously had not reached.
Ka Frank said
Thanks for clarifying this point about the history of Nepal’s parliamentary path vs. the demand for a Constituent Assembly. Having said that, isn’t it the case that “working within the Constituent Assembly” (as the CPN (M) is today) is essentially the same as “working within parliament” as we understand forming a government with ministers etc.? Other than the fact that the Constituent Assembly is tasked to write a new Constitution in the next two years, is the Constituent Assembly/
parliament distinction an important one in today’s political landscape?
Ka Frank said
And I would add: The CPN (M) is now centering its work within this government to consolidate the current stage of development rather than stepping up the level of struggle among the masses to achieve the goals of the new democratic revolution. I’m particularly looking to the National Conference in early November to see whether there is a significant change in direction.
Mike E said
Ka frank writes:
No. The two are fundamentally different.
A parliament is (as everyone knows) an institution for carrying out the current political and economic system. communists have (at various times) carried out revolutionary political work from within parliaments especially in those situations where parliaments are relatively new, fragile, unexposed and under attack (i.e. in Tsarist russia, Weimar Germany, and in Nepal at times).
However a Constituent Assembly is explicitly an extra-parliamentarly gathering — drawn from the peole in unprecendented and proportionate ways — for changing the existing political system. For overthrowing the previous political system — and developing a new one.
This assembly already abolished the monarchy (which is a major change in the society)…. and it will now debate what kind of federal democratic republic should replace the monarchy.
The two colliding visions are a bourgeois republic (of the Indian model) and a peoples republic (of a revolutionary kind).
I don’t see why we should assume in any way that this is the equivalent of a parliament.
Now to be clear: The Maoists in Nepal often point out that participating in parliament was no crime under their conditions… and that their controversial participation in the 1990s elections was a key development that laid the basis for their launching of people’s war. And they point out that this was very controversial within the RIM at that time. (and was seriously played down in Li Onesto’s book on Nepal — so that many people internationally don’t really understand the rather unique ways that the Nepali Maoists ued an electoral process to directly prepare and trigger success in armed struggle).
But even beyond that: Constituent Assemblies have been demands of revolutionaries in several of the world’s great revolution — including the Bolshevik revolution.
Having a constituent assembly does not mean (obviously) that this is the arena where power is decided (it is not). It does not mean that the final govenrmental form will be agreed upon by the Assembly (it may not, and it was not for example in russia).
But it is a way that the different programs for a new Nepal can be presented and debated, and through which all kinds of people can be drawn into the process.
If the CA in Nepal ends in a stalemate (which is very possible) — then something will break that stalemate, and one program or another will emerge victorious.
I have often heard communists in the U.S. claim that the Nepali maoists “entered the system” after abandoning the armed struggle. this shows a great deal of confusion — and a rather startling lack of investigation.
The CA is not “the system” in Nepal (which was a monarchy with a fragile and occasional legalization of parliamentary politics). It was the plas where the existing system was formally and finally abolished.
Even parliamentarism is (in nepal) hardly “the system” — since the parliamentary parties have routinely been criminalized in nepal (and even the moderate parlimentarians often have a history of imprisonment for their politics.)
On the contrary, for many year (even decades) the conservative parties in Nepal rejected the very idea of a CA…. and the demand by the Maoists for a CA was one of the dividing lines on the political landscape. so the decision (the concession) by other politial forces to agree to CA elections was a result of the peoples war and the strength of revolutionary politics. The reactionaries tried over and over again to prevent the CA elections, postponing them, sabotaging them… until the CPNM threatned to stage an insurrection (first in December then again in April) if the CA elections were fucked with, yet again.
SO yes, i think the distinction between CA and parliament is very real and important in today’s political landscape.
do you think we will have a revolution in the U.S. without some huge, wooly, unpredictable process equivalent to a Constituent Assembly to give the new society form and legitimization?
Mike E said
Ka Frank writes:
I think this is very mechanical — it is mechanical enough that it is misleading.
How do you know this? On what basis? How do you know?
First it is quite possible that the communists who are planning “stepping up the level of struggle” are talking in public about “consolidating the current stage of development.”
What was Lenin and his party saying publicly as they prepared for the October uprising? the German Communist Party said in 1930 their Rot Front militia was for defending the workers from fascist gangs, but Rot Front was really for preparing an insurrection.
sometimes i think: “Some Communists seem to be the only people who actually believe you can tell what political forces are planning by hearing what they say.” Isn’t politics more complex — especially the very difficult maneuvers of a revolutionary situation?
also as a very separate matter: it is very very clear that there are distinct wings within the CPNM who are distinguished precisely by their differences over whether to consolidate or transcend the present situation.
so it is mechanical there too to act like “the CPNM is now consolidating, and it may be changing its approach in its national congress.” No, that is the wrong view.
The CPNM is sharply divided about how to proceed — as every revolutionary party in history has been at such moments. And that division is being fought out in a number of ways — and if it is not resolved before the next National Conference then that conference will prove to be a new battle ground in that sharp (and decisive) two line struggle.
r said
without a party (in the us) to uphold the correct line it seems most is lost.. clearly democratic and liberating actions are taking place (the all Nepal womens organization) exposition, struggle and demand around the beauty pageants (several articles below) is a REAL concrete inspiring pole. Objective conditions are clearly different, and we can’t be dogmatic in pursuing the future.
Ka Frank said
Mike: I don’t advocate always taking the statements of CPN(M) leaders at face value, though they do usually tell us something about the political line and policies they are following and pushing. Isn’t that why we are studying the statements of various leaders of the CPN(M) carefully on Kasama? Isn’t that the basis for us saying that there are different and opposing lines within the CPN(M) on the way forward for the revolution? Beyond such statements, we should be looking at the policies and actions of the government and the CPN (M)–on land reform and the armed forces especially–very carefully and critically.