Here are a series of short but relevant articles (pending more substantive analysis and statements from the revolutionaries themselves). They were originally gathered at Nickglais’ Democracy and Class Struggle blog.
The ruling Unified CPN (Maoist) has advised the government to suspend General Katawal from the post of army chief if his clarification is not deemed convincing.
A meeting of the party’s Central Secretariat held today morning at the Prime Minister’s official residence to discuss the government’s decision to ask General Katawal to furnish clarification had reached to this conclusion.
The meeting also concluded that the government had the constitutional rights to seek clarification from its army chief and also decided to hold a mass meet in the capital city today in support of the government’s decision to ask General Katawal to furnish clarification on the controversial issues related to the army.
————————————————————————————-
Latest News: Lt General Kul Bahadur Khadka is soon to replace Rookmangud Katawal as the Chief of the Nepal Army say sources.
————————————————————————————-
The Ministry of Defense has given a 24 hour ultimatum to Chief of Army (CoAS) Staff Rookmangud Katawal to furnish clarification on three controversial issues related to the army.
The Defense Ministry has given this ultimatum in a letter it sent to the CoAS Monday seeking clarification on issues related to recruitment in Nepal Army (NA), retirement of eight army generals and boycotting of National Games by NA.
The letter has been formally registered at the NA Headquarters in Bhadrakali, Kathmandu, a ministry source said.
Accusing the CoAS of challenging people’s supremacy by repeatedly disobeying the government orders, a cabinet meeting on Sunday had decided to seek clarification from CoAS Katawal.
The defense secretary had personally called up the CoAS to acknowledge the receipt of the letter, according to reports.
The cabinet decision comes as part of a plan of the Maoist led government to relieve Katawal from his position, it is learnt.
According to a military by-law, the government can relieve the CoAS from his position if the latter does not furnish clarification within 24 hours or if the government is not convinced with the clarification.
The CoAS is normally appointed for three years, but the government can retire him if it deems necessary, the by-law states. However, the CoAS should be given a chance to furnish clarifications on the charges he is accused with.
CoAS Katawal had called on Prime Minister Pushpa Prachanda on Sunday. The PM asked the CoAS to quit and offered to appoint him as an ambassador or the security advisor to the PM if he quits voluntarily, reports say. CoAS Katawal refused PM’s offer, it is learnt.
————————————————————————————————-
Pokhrel of the UML added said his party has not been informed formally what clarification Katawal has been asked to furnish by the government.
He further said Nepal Army, as an arm of the government, should obey to orders of the civilian government without condition.
————————————————————————————-
On Monday, India’s ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood met Prime Minister Prachanda after indications that the government was planning to fire the current Nepal Army (NA) chief, Gen Rookmangud Katawal.
Katawal, a graduate of India’s National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy is due to vacate post in August but becuase of defiance of Government has been asked to leave early.
Prime Minister Prachanda has informed the Nepal President of the letter to Army Chief and Army chief has responded today with clarification of his defiance of government.
The Army chief went ahead with the recruitment of some 3,000 personnel despite the government directive to freeze recruitment
The Army chief asked eight retired generals, whose case is sub judice in the Supreme Court, to continue in office
The Army chief ordered the Army boycott of the National Games to protest PLA participation – again in defiance of the directive from the prime minister, who is patron of the National Sports Council
* * * * * *
Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai has on Monday warned that the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) would be sacked if he failed to furnish clarification for defying a series of government orders.
The Maoist-led government has already asked general Katawal to produce clarification for recruitment of 3010 soldiers, reinstatement of the eight retired brigadier generals sans the approval of the Defence Ministry and boycotting the National Games by 10 am Tuesday.
Dr Bhattarai, who is also a senior leader of United CPN (Maoist), told media persons in Nepalgunj that if the CoAS failed to defend himself against the charges for “grossly” defying the government orders, he would be relieved of his duty.
The rebel-turned-minister also accused CoAS Katawal and few other Army generals of mocking the people’s sovereignty by going against the law and the constitution.
* * * * *
Republica in Nepal , Blaze in USA and some Indian Media are out to create confusion about the situation in Nepal.
The Nepalese Army has consistently ignored the orders of the civilian government and the UCPN Maoist have recently recieved further endorsment of their policies by the people in by elections.Without the army being under civilian control democracy in Nepal is a mockery.
You would not hear any of this in the rants that come from Italy, USA and India but truth will out and the army will come under civilian control and Nepal will build New Democracy.
Tell No Lies said
This is very exciting and I think confirms the folly of coming to premature verdicts on this complex and rapidly developing situation. I think it is interesting the role that the issue of participation in the National Games is playing here. Clearly the Maobadi saw an opportunity to force the question of civilian control around a seemingly trivial question that would nonetheless have considerable patriotic resonance and be broadly understandable amongst the people. I think this illustrates the importance of both attention to questions of popular culture and the careful timing of confrontations. A confrontation (or capitulation) over the issue of the army was clearly inevitable, but I think its fair to ask now of those who have been so critical of the Maobadi’s practices if they think the Maobadi really should have rushed into this confrontation earlier, before the Nepali people had an opportunity to see the issue framed clearly. In numbers and arms, the NA is clearly stronger than the PLA making the role of the masses critical in this confrontation. It is too early of course to predict how things will go, but it seems to me that there was considerable wisdom in allowing the situation to ripen before striking.
Gary said
I sense that things may be coming to a head here. (And no, that is not a “scientific” manner of expression at all). But having not been able to follow events carefully, it seems to me that the big picture’s always been since the electoral victory the fact that there are the two armies and the unresolved issue of state power. This confrontation with this Gen. Katawal figure, previously unknown to me and probably everybody else reading this site, could be the start of phase two.
Jaroslav O. said
‘…but I think its fair to ask now of those who have been so critical of the Maobadi’s practices if they think the Maobadi really should have rushed into this confrontation earlier, before the Nepali people had an opportunity to see the issue framed clearly.‘ [emphasis added]
This sounds really condescending to me. Nepali people, not only being intelligent human beings but also going through politicisation of democracy movement followed by a decade of people’s war, need some parliamentary manoeuvring & sports scandal before they see the light?
I am not saying UCPN(M)* is revisionist, I’m not sure enough to make this kind of judgment. However you seem quite sure. Your unsureness of prediction seems to be only about whether they will be successful, due to balance of forces etc. But to me it is an open question whether UCPN(M) will make socialism out of a victory, or do something else with that victory.
Very ironic, that this battle is about UCPN(M) demanding a convincing clarification from RNA. How about a convincing clarification from UCPN(M)?
* By the way please stop with the ‘Maobadi’ term, it’s ridiculous. It just sounds like fetishisation, &/or trying to seem as if you know more about Nepal than others just because you know how to say the word ‘maoist’ in Nepali. Are UCPN(M) people using the word ‘maobadi’ to describe themselves in English-language speeches or writings? Otherwise stop being silly please. ‘Maoists’ or using the party’s name will do just fine.
Or should we apply this universally? No more ‘Chinese communists’ or ‘CCP’, it’s ‘Gongchanzhuyizhe’ from here on out. And don’t forget we can distinguish Nepal from India by calling CPI(Maoist) the ‘Maowadi’ — well, at least in Hindi/Urdu-speaking regions. By the way, John Reed didn’t go far enough when he says ‘Bolsheviki’ instead of ‘Bolsheviks’ for plural; after all one must for example say ‘Bolshevikov’ for genitive plural (‘of the Bolsheviks’), or should we say ‘of the Bolshevikov’, maybe that’s repetitive though? But then again I don’t know the grammar rules for unnecessary use of foreign words in the Fake-like-you-an-expert dialect of English…
Another possibility is that you are conceding — in a really, really, really subtle way — that UCPN(M) is not actually maoist, they are ‘maobadi’ which would be shorthand for ‘follower of maoism with Nepali characteristics’ (as in ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ said by DXP)?
To clarify, I think foreign borrowed words are great when there really (truly, actually) is no good equivalent. For example ‘Bolshevik’ instead of ‘Majoritarian’.
Tell No Lies said
There is nothing condescending at all about suggesting that the timing and framing of issues in popular consciousness is important in the outcome of actual confrontations. This is just as true in the US as it is in Nepal or anywhere else on earth. What you characterize as “parliamentary maneuvering” and a “sports scandal” are actually the tactics of a revolutionary movement waging a struggle for public opinion, and something we could stand to learn from. Why did the Bolsheviks seize power in October of 1917 rather than September? Is it condescending towards the Russian people to suggest that there was a process of ripening of public consciousness and that the timing rightly reflected an attention to this? Does it deprecate the accumulated wealth of experience of the Russian proletariat to acknowledge this? Look, the level of political consciousness among different sections of the Nepali people is, as is true everywhere, uneven. There are undoubtedly many Nepalis who have been able to see the situation clearly for a long time while there are others who have only recently come into political consciousness and who are still learning. A serious strategy for the seizure of power should be attentive to the level of consciousness of all sections of the people and not just the most experienced and advanced. If a “sports scandal” brings the question of the real nature of the NA into clearer focus for a section of the Nepali people, as is suggested by Prachanda’s seizing on this question, I don’t see anything condescending in recognizing this. (I can name several sports-related events that propelled forward popular consciousness of racism in the US.)
I feel no certainty whatsoever about how all of this is going to play out, and if in my excitement over the events of the day it appeared that I did, I assure you that I have no such faith in my own predictive powers. What is true is that I am excited to see the issues of agrarian revolution and the army being joined. While I have been critical of those who have run around denouncing the UPCN(M) as revisionists I have also been eager to see a forceful demonstration of their determination to carry things forward on these critical questions. It is of course entirely possible that the decision to do so at this particular momenet, rather than last month or a year from now, is mistaken and will blow up in the UCPN(M)’s face. I sincerely hope not.
As for my use of the term “Maobadi,” it was not my intent to represent myself as any sort of expert, much less a Nepali speaker. Rather I started using the term only after the CPN(M) became the UCPN(M) because I thought that more casual readers of this site who missed that event might be confused by the changing initialograms and because of my own propensity for bungling the order of groups with more than four initials. Its a term used by lots of people here, but if others agree that it sounds silly or pretentious I’ll stick with UCPN(M) or “Nepali Maoists.”
nando said
It is fine to say “Maobadi” — and rather sterile to always refer to political movements by an alphabet soup of initials. I.e. bolsheviks is better than RSDLP(b). Often when movements actually take root among the people they receive such names — shining path, maobadi, bolshevik, sandinista, zapatista, naxalites, and so on.
IMHO it is neither pretentious or silly. And more to the point, there is a particularity to this movement. (They are not merely the Maoists of Nepal, who are interchangable with the Maoists of India or Turkey. Nor are they really captured by the changing initials. In fact, one of the reasons movements like the Shining Path, Naxalites or the Maobadi receive the popular names is that their initials are virtually indistinguishable from four or five other parities in their country who (for historical reasons) claim virtually the same name.
Ka Frank said
I want to take a step back from the immediate controversies swirling around the Chief of Staff of the Nepalese Army, the retirement of 8 brigadier generals and the recruitment of 3,000 new soldiers into the Nepalese Army.
Since the November 2008 conference of the UCPN (Maoist), the tactical view of the party has been that the struggle to continue the peace progress to the end (which is now concentrated around integrating the two armies) and writing a new constitution would be led from the party, the Constituent Assembly and “the streets.” However, since then, there has been plenty of words spoken by the government, the parties, the Supreme Court, the Nepalese Army and the PLA, but little in the way of mass mobilization by the UCPN (Maoist). The masses are basically spectators in these events.
In the absence of revolutionary mobilization which is done as preparation of the masses and the party for the armed seizure of power, the UCPN (Maoist) is left with trying to “democratize” the Nepalese Army, the center of reaction in the country, by government edict. Even with the retirement of a few generals, there is no way that this reactionary army can become a progressive force. The integration of the PLA into the Nepalese Army will not accomplish this either, but will only split up the PLA and prevent it from exercising the revolutionary independence and initiative that it must have in the critical period ahead. The Nepalese Army must be defeated/dissolved by the armed forces of the people.
Thus, the leadership of the UCPN (Maoist) centered around Prachanda and Bhattarai is continuing to pursue a revisionist line of restructuring the bourgeois/feudal state by peaceful means. This line is revisionist because it denies the need for the armed overthrow and smashing of the reactionary state, and for its replacement by a new revolutionary state (in the case of Nepal, a new democratic state) that can transform society in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. This is a crucial line of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism.
Is this a “premature verdict,” as Tell No Lies argues? I think this conclusion can be drawn from the theory, strategy and practice of the CPN (Maoist), and now the UCPN (Maoist), since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2006. As the paper, “Revolution and State Power in Nepal,” by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group argues, this is not a creative development of MLM for the 21st century.
Has the revolution been defeated, as the RCP argues? No, there is still significant line struggle within the party, and there have been important resignations by leaders and sections of the party’s mass base–and not just Matrika Yadav’s forces centered in the Terai. It will require a fundamental reversal in the political strategy of the UCPN (Maoist) and the development of a new revolutionary wave of struggle to complete the new democratic stage of the revolution and move forward to a socialist Nepal.
Dirgha Raj Prasai said
Dear editor,
I can not support your the aggresive Maoist party’s dicesion about Nepal Army. Nepal Army has its own rules and regulations, which they follow it strickly not the parties instruction. Gen. R.M Katuwal is one of the honest nationalist, I request all the political parties including Maiosts not to muck army and to insult them.
Thank You
Dirgha Raj Prasai
Ka Frank said
Mr. Prasai: Have you posted before on this site advocating the return of the monarchy? This site hailed the overthrow and destruction of the monarchy, and has focused its attention, discussion and debate on the road forward for the revolution in Nepal.
emil said
check out this from kathmandu post. it is hard to believe that there is a revolution in nepal.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=190520
shinethepath said
I am for one completely confused about what comradeds like emil would suggest to the Nepalis to do in light of the weakness of socialism in the global context, as well as the incredible uneveness of development of capital in Nepal? Let’s be straight to the point, the Nepalese suffer from havong little valued fixed capital. Its relations to global capital have always been its exportation of workforce – this is true of many semi feudal & semi colonial nations, including the Philipines. Important exception being there is no national industy of any sort besides small textile industry that’s tied to Indian capitalism (if you can imagine they need even cheaper labor).
Emil and others to me seem confuused themselves. The development of capital itself, even though contradictorily, has been a major part of socialist revolution in the periphery of global capital, whether we speak of NEP capitalism in Soviet Union or state managed capitalism in China to liquidation and collectivization of all assets of bourgeois classes, followed by a period of industrialization, this was all done through the facilitation and use of capital. It is sometimes even hard to admit but some of that was done through harsh exploitation unthinkable to any process that is serious about socialism in the 21st century.
How does Emil suggest the Nepalese begin revolutionizing the relations of production in Nepal without the development of capital itself? Is there any other course that wouldnt simply maintain the current status quo, where agriculture is the largest employing industry – even though such a small section of the land is able to be cultivated – and remitances of exiled Nepalis around the world account for a huge section of GDP or simply make Nepal into the new DPRK, alone, isolated, its people deprived of the basic necessities of health by Imperialism (if you can imagine it was Nepal running medical teams tto DPRK for simple surgery as cataract extractions)
emil said
perhaps both shine the path and i are confused because MLM is a confused pseudo scientific ideology.
zerohour said
Emil -
Why don’t you tell us what a revolution is supposed to look like, and how the Nepalese can get there?
Tell No Lies said
Emil,
While my verdict is more mixed, lets stipulate that MLM is confused and pseudo-scientific. Now what? How do you propose that Nepali society be revolutionized and on what material basis? The problems of its lack of capital are not trivial. They lie at the heart of the challenges that any theory of revolutionary transformation would have to confront and resolve. It easy (and lazy) to take potshots. What do YOU propose?
Mike E said
I just want to caution that we don’t know (with any precision) what these events mean. And shouldn’t assume we do.
However it does look like this summer may (may!) be a showdown point — and with that possibility (possibility!) i think we really need to think through how we would respond.
When events in Nepal kick themselves into the headlines, there are many openings for us. And we need to be able to move and act (have materials ready, have worked through unity and plans and division of labor).
This was true in regard to the constituent elections — which we knew would be a big deal and which we tried to work in the context of. We have many more forces now, and a much more developed sense of things — so let’s not JUST be observors of this, and let’s not get trapped in speculations, but lets also think about what will be needed (in the U.S. andmore broadly) if a showdown happens….. (an event that could go several ways, and an event sure to be showered with disinformation of many kinds).
And what should we be doing (and writing) now to be in position?
emil said
i think the nepali revolution is a bourgeois revolution, and the russian and chinese were also bourgeois revolutions. this is progressive for nepal, so it is ok. only, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the maoists policies and that of the UML party. i think there was an article in the red star that did say this.(negation of the negation) i think also the UN view is right. that is the maoists have joined mainstream politics, and accepted democracy, human rights, etc ie bourgeois law, and the WB paying the PLA etc to be reintegrated into society to help build a modern multi party capitalist nation state. this is the view, more or less, of the UN, US, and the other imperialist powers on nepal,and is what the maoist leaders have agreed to. most of the maoist leaders do say this, as the above article that i posted shows. at worst, as some quarters are saying from nepal, the maoist leadership have simply agreed to be the ‘paid representatives of capital’, just like the UML party did before them. but let us see. i am not doing an rcp and denouncing them, if they can build a good modern capitalist nation state, then that is good for the nepalis. but i think that is all that is realistically possible, and most of the maoist leaders, especially Bhattarai and Yami, do say this quite openly. (we will leave communism for our grandchildren…). let me ask you guys? do you think the promises the maoists made to the UN, Jimmy Carter etc are not binding? If they have really agreed to those things, then there is no revolution. if business is carrying on as usual, then the achievement of the maoists is to have got rid of the king. this is a great thing. it is slightly hard to believe that there could be radical communist measures with the UN in the country, and with all the agreements that have been made.
shinnethepath said
There is just straight up dogmatism here, almost of the cliche type. I’ll just stipulate that the development of capital, in a place of Nepal, is of course at some level and degree in itself “progressive” considering its relative backwardness with nearly most other countries that constitute the periphery – if the UML or Congress had some development programs in the country it would probably had changed the conditions some what of people there. But lets not get fooled, the Maoists offer something significantly different, a new democratic state with the orientation towards socialism – i.e. to turn a Leninist point here, the Maoists are considering their struggle pregnant with two revolutions, one of a national character that will effectively eliminate all forms of feudal oppression and modernize the country as well as one that will begin revolutionizing all relations of society.
But the thick of dogmatism I think extends from the assumptious character of the State in Nepal. The head of state, its executive King Gyendra, was overthrown in the democratic upheaval of the seven party alliance, an alliance that was pushed forward by the strategic equilibrium reached between the Royal Nepalese Army and People’s Liberation Army. Why is this important to emphasize, it is because the executive of the State is in fact the central coordination of it (going back to Marx’s simple point that the executive is the committee for the daily operation of the ruling class). Who is the executive now? It is the Maoists, they are in the position to mostly dictate the terms of the political struggle and that’s exactly whats been happening.
I am unfortunately not convinced by the dogmato-idealism of comrades who insist that just because the State wasn’t crushed in a daring attempt to storm the palace that its reified logic exists still. This is unfortunately not a materialist assessment and is clearly just beholden to particular historical models in a way that is not in fact revolutionary, but merely nostalgic.
Lets deal with the concrete points to question – The Maoists are dealing with the existence of Two Armys’, and there is a question of IF intergration we’re to happen how would it in fact occur? On a Revolutionary basis which would keep in tact the revolutionary command of the PLA and keep in tact its units or one that will essentially liquidate the PLA in actuality (emphasize point, not its abstractedness – i.e. keeping its name isn’t how we should look at it).
On the United Nations and World Bank – There are significant issues here, while it is correct for us to see these institutions as not neutral points, but it is also wrong to see these institutions as the big boogey men that comrades often do. In fact these institutions in the current moment are very weak and suffering paradigm shifts in orientation because of the crisis. The United Nations has on the floor of Nepal a small contingent investigative unit, its not armed, and it can’t keep constant vigilance over cantonments – at any moment either side could quite easily break out the guns. This idea of the soldiers of either side being locked away their guns destroyed is just not the case.
The World Bank paying off the PLA, nearly one year ago, was essentially the Bourgeois answer in delaying the talk of integration of the armies under the revolutionary basis provided by the Maoists. It wasn’t a pay off to get the Maoists into the Bourgeois order but a pay off to keep them from exploding back into open arms, it was a stall tactic to delay the inevitable confrontation of the Maoists against the National Army and its defenders in the Bourgeoisie.
nando said
It doesn’t surprise me that emil thinks that all previous socialist revolutions were not socialist but bourgeois. And it is helpful that this is out in the open.
He is not just convinced that the Nepalis not making socialist revolution (he thinks the whole world communist movement has just been making capitalist revs).
Just to deal with two points in passing:
On “we will leave communism for our grandchildren…”
One of the lessons of the last century is Mao’s point that the transition to c. is a long one. We will all leave “communism to our grandchildren” in the sense that the transition from socialism to higher forms of communism will not happen for a hundred years (i.e. it requires victory on a world scale, and much more).
This is not some strange statement. This is what communists have all seen and understood for over a century.
Emil writes: “let me ask you guys? do you think the promises the maoists made to the UN, Jimmy Carter etc are not binding?”
Of course they are not binding. What planet do you live on?
Tell No Lies said
Mike poses the question of how we should respond to events in Nepal. This is I think the right question. After reading the international capitalist media coverage of the possibility of the sacking of the head of the NA it should be quite clear that there will be a big fight for international public opinion in the event of an actual showdown in which the Maobadi will be demonized and the NA represented as the defenders of democracy and stability. The fact that the Maoists are the democratically elected government of Nepal gives us an important advantage in joining this fight and winning people over to a sympathetic view towards them. Many liberals and progressives who are skeptical of Maoism will nonetheless be receptive to the principle of democratically elected civilian control over the NA. I think a big task before us is to aggressively put out an analysis of the situation broadly in left and grassroots liberal circles. Kasama can be a critical tool in this respect in so far as it carries analytical pieces that can be crossposted to other left and liberal blogs and websites.
Beyond waging an information campaign in cyberspace there is a pressing need I think to build and network Nepal solidarity committees that have a real potential to attract participation beyond the tiny explicitly pro-Maoist forces in the US, that is to say something more akin to the broadly anti-interventionuist Central America solidarity groupings of the 1980s than say the extended shadow of the RCP that the Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru seemed to be.
nando said
i think we need among other things
* a study plan — to help interested peole get an overview
* a portable teach-in
* flyers of various kinds
* a “question and answers” document
nando said
plus:
* I also think we need a document of controversies …. i.e. a pamphlet with various polemical examinations of nepal.
Jaroslav O. said
OK I know this issue seems nitpicky, but it makes a difference to the tone…
Nando says: ‘Often when movements actually take root among the people they receive such names — shining path, maobadi, bolshevik, sandinista, zapatista, naxalites, and so on. IMHO it is neither pretentious or silly. And more to the point, there is a particularity to this movement. (They are not merely the Maoists of Nepal, who are interchangable with the Maoists of India or Turkey.’
I agree that alphabet soup is no good either. But, on one level: Kasama avoids this by not having an alphabet soup name in the first place, whereas UCPN(M) does not so what are we supposed to do about that, they picked the name for themself why do you know better how to represent them? In other words, the ‘sterile’ accusation goes to the people who made the sterile name up, not those who accurately repeat it.
On another level: as I asked before ‘Are UCPN(M) people using the word “maobadi” to describe themselves in English-language speeches or writings?’ What is the origin of this particular nickname? Because all the other names in your list (bolshevik, zapatista, etc) originate in some way from the group itself. (I only say ‘in some way’ because e.g. PCP preferred — as far as I’ve heard — to be called PCP but they did genuinely invent the phrase ‘sendero luminoso’.) Yes they surely call themselves ‘maobadi’ in Nepali — since it means ‘maoist’ !!! — but do they do that in English? Otherwise they are not using it as a nickname.
This leads into your other point, that this UCPN(M) movement is particular, so it would be nice to have some name that sets them apart from not only other communist-named groups in Nepal but also from other maoist-named groups internationally. But this name can’t just be made up artificially. I mean why ‘maobadi’? Why not ‘prachandistas’ or ’21st century communists’, how bout the ’21-C’ for short? I’m kidding about these suggestions of course, but why ‘maobadi’ in particular as opposed to any one of infinite possibilities? More importantly, again, what is the origin of this term, i.e. whose suggestion is it to start calling them this?
In addition it would be good to have a consistent name, since this core movement has merged & developed over the years, changing its alphabet soup name at various points. But again this can’t be made up artificially.
* * *
On the actual issue of revolution…
My understanding is that socialism, being a transition phase from capitalism to communism, is best defined in its direction. That is, if the society is purposely heading towards communism (as the overall trend, since there is always twists & turns, fallbacks) then it can be called socialist. Also the society should not just be heading towards communism but planning to go all the way there. For example even in China today there are some collective villages, & other ‘socialistic elements of society’ if you will, but in no way does it add up to the country decidedly moving in direction of communism. Obviously we have to see the forest for the trees.
Nobody is claiming that Nepal is socialist now, this is not the argument, everybody (serious) knows that being the government’s majority party is not the same as having state power. But I remain unconvinced that UPCN(M)’s vision, as well as actions in recent years, point towards socialism even if they win these battles & get their way.
Also I stick by my position that ‘before the Nepali people had an opportunity to see the issue framed clearly’ comment is condescending. But not just that on the part of TNL him/herself, this is a neverending perception of UCPN(M) itself. There is & has been huge support for the Maoists, yet they continually do these political manoeuvres to shore up even more support by proving that monarchy &/or other parties are the real warmongers, the real obstacles to ‘political solution of the country’s problems’ & democracy, etc. It is like they want to get 95% of population’s strong support before getting state power (BTW don’t take that number as exact…).
This is unrealistic. It is like saying we can’t teach evolution or comprehensive sex ed until all the PTAs agree it’s good. Switzerland voted only 51% for universal health care in 1994 but now that they’ve had it for over a decade everyone loves it, even conservatives. (Not saying we’d model socialist health care on that, just talking about the dynamic of getting support before/after something’s in effect.) Also it is too much playing the enemy’s game. And why, to expose them as bad guys? Who doesn’t see that shit yet? It would only be people who either (a) do see the reactionaries as reactionaries but for various reasons don’t support the maoists as a solution or (b) simply support whatever status quo happens to be or (c) will only be convinced when real results come i.e. after state power is gained & big, relatively permanent changes are being made to the country.
Asking for ‘convincing explanations’ from RNA butchers will not remedy this situation. After all that is implying that he could possibly have a good explanation. And what then? He gets to keep on recruiting & whatever else he wants to do, if he is able to smooth talk in a way such that maoists are unable to publicly show him up as a liar? This is missing the point. This legalism — not just using legal tactics but raising it to level of pathological ism — completely negates the truth of ‘political power flows from the barrel of a gun’. Not that military struggle on means you’re good & off means you’re bad, but this legalism assumes that a series of negotiations & public relations ‘battles’ coupled with large peaceful demos will lead to a seizure of power.
Shinethepath, & the UCPN(M) on many many occasions, talk about ‘the weakness of socialism in the global context’. OK well how is it going to get out of this state of weakness anyway? Not by using weakness (lack of power) as an excuse to not take power… Although it’s certainly false that ‘revolution is the main trend in the world today’ as some maoists allege, it is also true that both economic & subjective forces are strongly crying out for communism (if not by name). Land, peace, & bread — this is the top of the majority of the world’s desire, & capitalism is seen as an obstacle to this (especially viewing ‘land’ as environmental question, collective ownership & use not just distribution privately).
Tell No Lies said
So its not just me that is being condescending towards the Nepali people! Its the leadership of UCPN(M) who don’t realize that the Nepali people, maybe not 95% of them but enough, are ready ready ready for a decisive showdown with the Army. On what basis Jaroslavl makes this assessment he doesn’t say. Me, I trust the guys who actually led a peoples war, built an alliance with the parliamentary opposition, brought down the monarchy and won, against all expectations, the elections to the Constituent Assembly to have a better handle on the actual level of political preparedness of the Nepali people than some blogger in the US who like me, as far as I know, has never been to Nepal and doesn’t even speak the language(s). I’m not saying their judgement is infallible, but I know who I take more seriously as experts.
Jaroslavl’s certainty that the Nepali people have had all the political education they need to pull off a seizure of state power is just something he pulls out of the air. Its got no basis in a serious on the ground investigation of the question. Its really something he just wants to believe. And so do I, of course. But in the real world the struggle for public opinion is key and doesn’t unfold by our desires or decrees.
Prior to 2006, the UPCN(M)’s presence in Katamandu was, as far as we know, thin and neccesarily wholly clandestine. It has clearly built up its support in the capital since then, but it does not follow from this that it commands a sufficient level of support there yet to pull off a seizure of power. This is a practical and empirical question that can only be answered satisfactorily by a close and intimate knowledge of the actual situation on the ground, something that none of us here have.
The UCPN(M) didn’t win a majority in the Constituent assembly, they won a purality. Not even everybody who voted for them is neccesarily automatically willing to follow them into the streets in a fight with the NA. Ka Frank is convinced that they have failed to sufficiently mobilze the masses in prepapration for such a showdown but its not at all clear to me how he makes that determination. That the UPCN(M) hasn’t led enough street demonstrations for our taste tells us nothing about the quiet but critical organizational work being done (or not) in Katmandu where the Maoists are weaker than elsewhere in the country and where such a showdown is likely to be resolved. While I’d love to read a report on such work it is entirely understandable to me that, under the circumstances, one has not been forthcoming. Jaroslavl and Ka Frank may well be right and the UPCN(M) may be blowing the chance to make a socialist revolution, but they really present no evidence that really proves this.
I feel like I’m sitting in a sports bar with a bunch of guys yelling at professional athletes on the boob tube that they don’t know what they are doing.
Jaroslav O. said
I am not saying they had all the education they need for seizure of power, I’m saying that what UCPN(M) is doing now is not contributing to any further education. Either people get it & it is repetition, or they don’t & it’s not helping.
You’re right I don’t have evidence about their quiet organisational work for mass uprising or who knows what, that may or may not be going on. Since we are viewing this from afar we do not have such details (& if we did it’s not necessarily good to share those details with the world), we can only go on what we do know, & withhold claims of 100% certainty on things. As in science, not having evidence doesn’t mean something is true, doesn’t mean something is false, it just means not having evidence to decide.
So a ‘wait & see’ attitude is called for. But within that, we could be either supportive or not. It makes a difference. With what we do know, not just by facts but also by theory in terms of the UCPN(M)’s vision/plan of socialism that they’ve so far spelled out, I think there’s not enough there to make me a supporter. That means that whereas supporters are getting excited at every potential new development (like in the original news article posted here), supporters are seriously studying new pronouncements by Prachanda & Bhattarai et al as a positive learning experience that may have lessons for non-Nepalis also, supporters are popularising this as a real communist revolution, etc etc; as a non-supporter I am disappointed in what has happened thus far & what the future tendency seems to be, though y’know anything could happen, if it turns out UCPN(M) really is building a base area for world revolution to communism, once that is apparent then I will be pleased. It would be a surprise for me though, whereas for the supporters it would be an ‘I told you so’ moment.
In fact this uncertainty is extremely important to note for what it is. Because of uncertainty about their positive progress, we cannot say that what they are doing is a good example or not. Therefore I especially disagree with any calls to ‘learn from Nepal’ or the like.
Also, after so many fake ‘revolutionary’ organisations in history, I think the burden of proof lies with the revolutionary, not with the skeptic observer.
.
.
PS. ‘Jaroslavl’ (with an L at the end) is the name of a city, not a person. I can’t claim to represent a whole town full of people.
emil said
yes, it is out in the open, but it is actually the case. what is china now? didn’t Mao prepare the way for a modern china. what is Russia now and when did the USSR stop being ‘socialist’? there are some communists who still say socialism ended with the fall of the USSR. the end results of both the russian and chinese revolutions were bourgeois but independent nation states. Mao and the 49 revolution certainly liberated china from colonial domination, and extended the borders of china, but i do not think there was socialism in china. as ‘shinethepath’ implied earlier, both the NEP in the USSR and the NDR in China were attempts to build capitalism and develop the state. i do not think that either in russia or china they got beyond that.
but regarding nepal, i think if the maoists can break their dependence on imperialist powers and build a modern nation state, that is a good thing. this is not socialism, but it might be a step forward. i think the idea of ‘base area of world revolution’ is rather far fetched, but let us see. but i think there is more hope than anything else. hope disguised as science.
future's ours said
Four things:
1. Emil actually represents a trend very well known as anarchism. Because in all his posts two characteristics stand out.
2. One is the absolute inability to analyze and to weigh the positive and the negative in all events. And Marxism demands this from us. If you judge history and all you see is the negative part, and you don’t see any positive contributions to revolution, then you are not being dialectical. Mao tells us the positive part outweighs the negative part much much more. See yourself, you are also full of the positive and negative aspects. If you only see the negative ones, you become an impatient person, a person who only knows negation, but not construction.
Mao says: it is much easier to destroy, but construction, that is the difficult part.
3. The other characteristic of an anarchist is that he doesn’t understand that history doesn’t develop on a straight line. There are advances, and also failures, retreats. Victory is built on a long stairway of failures. But we collect the positive lessons. And we don’t throw away our valuable Marxist Leninist Maoist legacies. The anarchists fight and fight and fight, and they always stay in the same place.
4. So your position, the anarchist position, is very much in favour of the bourgeosie. The bourgeosie is very happy if everyone thinks anarchistly. Because then they don’t have a perspective. Because they only knows how to destroy, to say no. And to propagate a lot of confusion. Marx is wrong. Lenin is wron. Stalin was only a dictator. Mao was only a bourgeois.
And so the remedy is to evaluate our long world revolution asking the questions of what positive things we have learned, we have practiced, we have achieved. How to avoid the negative ones. And to understand that we will fail again and again and again. But futur’s ours.
What we have gained until now, is that we have Marxism, Leninism, Maoism. Please we must cherish, and put it into practice.
Tell No Lies said
Future’s Ours,
Yes Emil is probably an anarchist and his inability to see the real attempts to pursue the socialist path in Russia and China that failed reflect an inability to really grasp the dialectical, that is to say the always contradictory and developing, nature of revolutionary processes.
But we must do much more than cherish and put into practice the advances of marx, lenin and Mao. We must make our own advances on terrain that their thoughts and deeds can only partially prepare us for. Emil smells pseudo-science in what most people mean by MLM, and on this point I think there is more than a grain of truth in his perspective. (You see we also have to understand Emil in a dialectical manner and not just label him an anarchist and be done with it, but also understand him in his own contradictoriness and draw out of that what is most advanced in his thinking.)
Mike E said
i don’t agree with Emil (obviously) — but there is little value in a method that (very formulaicly) says:
* we have the answers
* Emil had different views
* we can therefore label his views and based on the label dismiss them (as bourgeois)
* affirm to ourselves that we have the answers and need to cling to them.
This is a non-dialectical AND non-materialist view of both things under discussion here: Emil’s views and MLM.
The truth or falsehood of an idea needs to be uncovered by comparing it to reality, not by comparing it simply to our own preconceptions. If we apply the method of comparing everything to our own preconceptions we will be incapable of learning, or self-correcting, or developing our theory — or making revolution. (And this is true even if Emil’s views are overwhelmingly wrong.)
In fact the future is not automatically “ours.” Seizing the future is a long shot, and requires creative thinking — not an application of inherited thinking plus a faith in inevitable progress.
anarchist lurker said
Well I can’t speak for Emil but I would like to address the futures falshoods on anarchism
To suggest that anarchists think in straight lines is to not have paid attention to the developement of anarchist theory which has always been grounded in a sense of everyday struggle. If you look at contemporary forms of anarchism which have incorporated post structural and situationist forms of thought into their discourse you’ll find anything but a straight line of though on the question of revolution. Most smart anarchists don’t even believe in the term ATR. It is the vulgerist of marxist thought on the other hand that has a linear fetish. I don’t believe for example that modernism is inherently better or worse then feudalism or slavery. This is sacrilage in these circles to say but its true. Things like positive and negative in regards to the human condition is always grounded in objective everyday paradigms and subjective analysis of them particulary from differing historical paradigms(modern to feudal).
Unfortunately for MLM what you have is a straight line for theory and a flat line for practice. Since 1989 we anarchists have been providing the defibrillator to the idea of revolution so horribly posionded by the 20th century. Places like Greece provide a positive uptick of what could be. And I don’t need to tell you which tendency dominates down there.
Oh and btw I would not be so quick to lump Marx in with those other two failed tendencies. He’s not giant on the level of a Stirner or Nietzsche but he had his insights and they deserve better representation.
Tell No Lies said
“On the level of a Stirner.” Thanks for the chuckle.
But to clarify the point here, the view that because China today is unarguably capitalist that there wasn’t a socialist revolution there is what is rightly being called out as an example of a linear understanding of the revolutionary process. In contrast with that, I think actual investigation of the history (rather than logical derivations backed by little or no actual investigation) shows that the Chinese Revolution contained both socialist and capitalist trends and that there was an intense struggle between them that culminated in the Cultural Revolution. This is an extraordinarily complex history that can only be understood by serious reading. In my observations the methodology of anarchism (and its analogs) largely obviates the need for actually studying history (learning truth from facts) because all the correct verdicts can be determined in advance with the proper assignment of labels to the actors. That there are a lot of people who call themselves Marxists (including some on this site) who proceed in a similarly scholastic manner is not a secret. But I think closer attention to the debates here will show that such methods are fought against.
nando said
Anarchist lurker:
Did I miss something? What is ATR?
Anarchist lurker:
That wold be hard to deny, almost by definition — i.e. it would be the linearity that defines them as vulgar marxists (as opposed to creative ones) right? We don’t get very far by spending precious time on “Future’s Ours” mechanical logic, or superficial claims about anarchism.
Anarchist lurker:
I’m not sure what any of that means. (are you equating socialism with modernism? is this a critique of industrial society? How does “modernism” relate to socialism?)
Can you break down what you are saying?
* * * * *
Emil writes:
Like TNL, I don’t follow the argument here. In some ways your argument is like looking at a human corpse and arguing “this person’s life just prepared the way for his death. So in the end, he was never alive, he was just in preparation for death.”
That is undialectical. The fact that both china and USSR ended up capitalist — doesn’t mean they weren’t for a period, socialist.
At all points in socialist transition there are two roads in contention: the socialist road to communism, and the capitalist road back to capitalism. If there is capitalist restoration, the accomplishments of previous decades is used as a basis for that capitalism. If capitalist restoration is defeated, the accomplishments of the socialist period are used as the basis for the next advance toward communism.
anarchist lurker said
Nando unless your talking about the precious few socialists in history that we’re utopian and had a more ludic view of human existence(Fourier) as opposed to industrial productionist worker centered socialism then I pretty much think socialism is synonomous with modern bourgeois ideology. To cut to the chase I think all ideologies that are fundamentally connected with the discourse of 1789 are in someway or another forms of capital.
ATR=After The Revolution
TNL
Your welcome but I’m actually serious. To be a giant in the world of thought one must define critique or anticipate an entire paradigm of human discourse. Max did this in 250 plus pages, Marx wrote alot of pages about a specific type, albeit important function, of modernity but not the whole thing. He certainly did not lay waste to the foundations.
As far as China goes, it is indeed complex but socialism and capitalism are not. Socialism is a not the paradigm shift you make it out to be. It is simply another default way that capital manifests itself. I suspect that people who have a hard on for socialism really are only critiquing finance capital. They are not taking on the whole thing by any means. The analysis of the likes of Lenin and Mao really wasn’t any more radical then some of the american revolutionaries among other early bourgeois ideologues some of them had a problem with finance capital as well. Its no coincidence that the term imperialism and opposition to it has replaced an analysis of capital something that Marx but started, and we’re not even talking about other things like the question of work or technology.
So yes China, complex but the reasons why its capitalist today..not so much.
Tell No Lies said
I’m probably one of the few people here who has actually read “The Ego and Its Own.” It was not time particularly well spent. You may “supect” that “people who have a hard on for socialism really are only critiquing finance capital. They are not taking on the whole thing by any means.” But such suspicions would be hard to square with an actual reading of, say, even just Volume 1 of Marx’s Capital.
You are absolutely correct that for many the critique of imperialism has displaced that of capital and this is in my view a profound error. Another error, however, is the denial of the specificity of finance capital and imperialism and how they shaped the revolutionary tasks that confronted semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries. Without seriously understanding these particularities it is easy to come to the view that socialism is “simply another default way that capital manifests itself.” As Mao explains quite clearly, this is an important PART of the equation. Socialism is not an end state, it is a period of transition towards, or more precisely of struggle for, communism. It is a period in which the capitalist state may have been overthrown but the capital relation continues to reproduce itself and insinuate itself back into the party, the state and all the realms of activity sometimes called the “superstructure.” The capital relation is not, unfortunately, something that can simply be uprooted in a day or a year.
We can problematize mao’s analysis in all sorts of ways and point out how he doesn’t go far enough in grasping the extent to which the party and the state are compromised, but what we can’t do is avoid the concrete problem that he was grappling with of the neccesity and contradictory character of a period of transition by decree.
The capital relation doesn’t just reproduce itself within the party and the state. It reproduces itself in EVERY oppositional project, in every squat and band and anarchist collective. If you are serious about wanting to be rid of it you need to articulate a coherent strategy for navigating the unavoidable process of transition, whether you want to call it socialism or not. That Marx, Lenin, Mao, the russian and Chines masses, and everybody else has so far failed to show an unambiguous path out of these dilemmas does not mean that they don’t represent real advances on the problem. To put it bluntly Lenin and Mao failed to solve problems that anarchism never had the opportunity to even confront. They initiated protracted processes of transition that ultimately proved abortive but which constitute a foundation for going forward a hundred times richer than the always contained or defeated experiments of the anarchists. Thanks to them we can study the causes of their failures instead of simply spinning our wheels. (Which is not tosay that many marxists don’t spin their wheels as well.)
anarchist lurker said
Well I’ve read a chunk of the capitals though not quite all. The truth is not all analysis are created equally from important works. Stirner for some odd reason inspired some anarcho capitalists to actually exist. Marx gave the world Lenin. I would dear say there is a qualitative difference between the ultra left marxist tendencies ,as well as anarchists of course, who took marx to better levels as opposed to the bourgeois authoritarian technocratic scumbags of Lenin’s ilk. It didn’t help that Marx’s productionism lent itself to these deformed ways of thinking, but there can be so much better done with the man(putting Max first comes to mind;)) The current head of the IMF(or is it WTO or World Bank) is a former Marxist who actually speaks of him positively to this day(regarding his analysis of capitalism) Marx always had a problem putting the hammer down on Modernity and the existence of those who only critique finance capital or even reconcile themselves to it entirely did not necessarily miss volumes 1 2 or 3.
I also think I’m quite comfortable with seeing socialism as another form of capital. People who are serious about revolutionary transformation do not obfuscate their task with tasks. Real revolutionaries dance as a great woman once said. In essence if there is no self enjoyment and imagination then your just another civilized agent of change no different at your core then genghis khan or napoleon. Experts and specialists need not spoil the party and it is a party. There’s also no such thing as a transitional period, this is bourgeois ideological bullshit at its best and worst. There was no transitional period between the paleolithic and neolithic period neither the feudal to industrial period. These changes that happened simply happened through a multiplicity of events with not alot of intentionality involved as far as general everyday relationships go(individuals are different). You might be confusing a transitional period with an intermediary period where the dice is still rolling. If there is a downsizing of capital to come I would not be surprised to see accompanying eras of mutualism or workers councils and syndicalism but THESE ARE NOT TRANSITIONAL PERIODS! Its just a shaky dice with no thrower in particular that may or may not land in a particular direction but an intermediary period if it even comes to that is all it is, they are not necessary or inevitable.If this era of modern relationships come to an end then in all likelyhood it will be to a certain degree by accident just like the last times. It will be the case of an active imagination sweeping over the current every day decadence of our times and suplanting it. Where the sparks come they will come but it will certainly not be from a group of experts and specialists who have no conception of the revolution of everyday life. None of us know exactly how it will come to an end, only hindsight will answer this question, Marx thought he could get around this with his faulty conception of the real movement(idealism if I ever heard it from some one who is neither materialist or idealist), but really he’s as stunted as anyone else on this question. In any event the anarchists of the idea should simply do what they do best and hope to inspire others. Keep your means and ends intact, have fun and actually alow yourself to be surprised by events.