Eyes on the Maobadi: 4 Reasons Nepal’s Revolution Matters
Posted by Mike E on February 8, 2010
Help us circulate this essay widely. Please post it on websites and email it. Print it up using our pdf version. (Greetings to the many people who have started taking up this important work.)
Eyes on the Maobadi: 4 Reasons Nepal’s Revolution Matters
By Mike Ely
Something remarkable is happening. A whole generation of people has never seen a radical, secular, revolutionary movement rise with popular support. And yet here it is – in Nepal today.
This movement has overthrown Nepal’s hated King Gyanendra and abolished the medieval monarchy. It has created a revolutionary army that now squares off with the old King’s army. It has built parallel political power in remote rural areas over a decade of guerrilla war – undermining feudal traditions like the caste system. It has gathered broad popular support and emerged as the leading force of an unprecedented Constituent Assembly (CA). And it has done all this under the radical banner of Maoist communism — advocating a fresh attempt at socialism and a classless society around the world.
People in Nepal call these revolutionaries the Maobadi.
Another remarkable thing is the silence surrounding all this. There has been very little reporting about the intense moments now unfolding in Nepal, or about the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) that stand at their center. Meanwhile, the nearby Tibetan uprisings against abuses by China’s government got non-stop coverage.
There are obvious reasons for this silence. The Western media isn’t thrilled when people in one of the world’s poorest countries throw their support behind one of the world’s most radical movements.
But clearly many alternative news sources don’t quite know what to make of the Nepali revolution. The Maobadi’s mix of communist goals and non-dogmatic methods disturb a lot of leftist assumptions too. When the CPN(Maoist) launched an armed uprising in 1996, some people thought these were outdated tactics. When the CPN(Maoist) suspended armed combat in 2006 and entered an anti-monarchist coalition government, some people assumed they would lose their identity to a corrupt cabal. When the Maoists press their current anti-feudal program, some people think they are forgetting about socialism.
But silent skepticism is a wrong approach. The world needs to be watching Nepal. The stunning Maoist victory in the April elections was not, yet, the decisive victory over conservative forces. The Maobadi are at the center of the political staqe but they have not yet defeated or dismantled the old government’s army. New tests of strength lie ahead.
The Maoists of Nepal aren’t just a opposition movement any more – they are tackling the very different problems of leading a society through a process of radical change. They are maneuvering hard to avoid a sudden crushing defeat at the hands of powerful armies. As a result, the Maobadi of Nepal are carrying out tactics for isolating their internal rivals, broadening their appeal, and neutralizing external enemies.
All this looks bewildering seen up close. This world has been through a long, heartless stretch without much radicalism or revolution. Most people have never seen what it looks like when a popular communist revolution reaches for power.
Let’s break the silence by listing four reasons for looking closely at Nepal.
Reason #1: Here are communists who have discarded rigid thinking, but not their radicalism.
Leaders of the CPN(Maoist) say they protect the living revolution “from the revolutionary phrases we used to memorize.”
The Maobadi took a fresh and painstakingly detailed look at their society. They identified which conditions and forces imposed the horrific poverty on the people. They developed creative methods for connecting deeply with the discontent and highest hopes of people. They have generated great and growing influence over the last fifteen years.
To get to the brink of power, this movement fused and alternated different forms of struggle. They started with a great organizing drive, followed by launching a guerrilla war in 1996, and then entering negotiations in 2006. They created new revolutionary governments in remote base areas over ten years, and followed up with a political offensive to win over new urban support. They have won victory in the special election in April, and challenged their foot-dragging opponents by threatening to launching mass mobilizations in the period ahead. They reached out broadly, without abandoning their armed forces or their independent course.
The Maobadi say they have the courage “to climb the unexplored mountain.” They insist that communism needs to be reconceived. They believe popular accountability may prevent the emergence of arrogant new elites. They reject the one-party state and call for a socialist process with multi-party elections. They question whether a standing army will serve a new Nepal well, and advocate a system of popular militias. And they want to avoid concentrating their hopes in one or two leaders-for-life, but instead will empower a rising new generation of revolutionary successors.
Nepal is in that bottom tier of countries called the “fourth world” – most people there suffer in utter poverty. It is a world away from the developed West, and naturally the political solutions of the Nepali Maoists’ may not apply directly to countries like the U.S. or Britain. But can’t we learn from the freshness they bring to this changing world?
Will their reconception of communism succeed? It is still impossible to know. But their attempt itself already has much to teach.
Reason #2: Imagine Nepal as a Fuse Igniting India
Nepal is such a marginalized backwater that it is hard to imagine its politics having impact outside its own borders. The country is poor, landlocked, remote and only the size of Arkansas. Its 30 million people live pressed between the world’s most populous giants, China and India.
But then consider what Nepal’s revolution might mean for a billion people in nearby India.
A new Nepal would have a long open border with some of India’s most impoverished areas. Maoist armed struggle has smoldered in those northern Indian states for decades – with roots among Indian dirt farmers. Conservative analysts sometimes speak of a “red corridor” of Maoist-Naxalite guerrilla zones running through central India, north to south, from the Nepali border toward the southern tip.
Understanding the possibilities, Nepal’s Maobadi made a bold proposal: that the revolutionary movements across South Asia should consider merging their countries after overthrowing their governments and creating a common regional federation. The Maobadi helped form the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) in 2001, which brought together ten different revolutionary groupings from throughout the region.
A future revolutionary government in Nepal will have a hard time surviving alongside a hostile India. It could face demands, crippling embargos and perhaps even invasion. But at the very same time, such a revolution could serve as an inspiration and a base area for revolution in that whole region. It could impact the world.
Reason #3: Nepal shows that a new, radically better world is possible.
Marx once remarked that the revolution burrows unseen underground and then bursts into view to cheers of “Well dug, old mole!”
We have all been told that radical social change is impossible. Rebellion against this dominant world order has often seemed marked by backward-looking politics, xenophobia, lowered sights and Jihadism. And yet, here comes that old mole popping up in Nepal — offering a startling glimpse of how people can transform themselves and their world.
Some of the world’s poorest and most oppressed people have set out in the Nepali highlands to remake everything around them — through armed struggle, political power, and collective labor. Farming people, who are often half-starved and illiterate have formed peoples courts and early agricultural communes. Wife beating and child marriage are being challenged. Young men and women have joined the revolutionary army to defeat their oppressors. There is defiance of arranged marriage and a blossoming of “love matches,” even between people of different castes. There is a rejection of religious bigotry and the traditions of a Hindu monarchy. The 40 ethnic groups of Nepal are negotiating new relations based on equality and a sharing of political power.
All this is like a wonderful scent upon the wind. You are afraid to turn away, unless it might suddenly disappear.
Reason #4: When people dare to make revolution – they must not stand alone.
These changes would have been unthinkable, if the CPN(Maoist) had not dared to launch a revolutionary war in 1996. And their political plan became reality because growing numbers of people dared to throw their lives into the effort. It is hard to exaggerate the hope and courage that has gripped people.
Events may ultimately roll against those hopes. This revolution in Nepal may yet be crushed or even betrayed from within. Such dangers are inherent and inevitable in living revolutions.
If the Maobadi pursue new leaps in their revolutionary process, they will likely face continuing attacks from India, backed by the U.S. The CPN(Maoist) has long been (falsely!) labeled “terrorists” by the U.S. government. They are portrayed as village bullies and exploiters of child-soldiers by some human rights organizations. Western powers have armed Nepal’s pro-royal National army with modern weapons. A conservative mass movement in Nepal’s fertile Terai agricultural area has been encouraged by India and Hindu fundamentalists.
Someone needs to spread the word of what is actually going on. It would be intolerable if U.S.-backed destabilization and suppression went unopposed in the U.S. itself.
Here it is: A little-known revolution in Nepal.
Who will we tell about it? What will we learn from it? What will we do about it?
* * * * *
Mike Ely is part of the Kasama Project (http://mikeely.wordpress.com) and has helped create the new Revolution in South Asia (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/ ) resource. Mike’s email is m1keely (at) yahoo.com
Joseph Ball said
Mike writes
‘This movement has overthrown Nepal’s hated King Gyanendra and abolished the medieval monarchy. It has created a revolutionary army that now squares off with the old King’s army. It has built parallel political power in remote rural areas over a decade of guerrilla war – undermining feudal traditions like the caste system.’
In the recently released ‘Present Situation and Historical Task of the Proletariat’, the UCPN(M) states:
‘After we entered into the peace process, as a result of dissolution of people’s power, people’s court and militia, and centering of PLA in cantonments and no formation of local bodies after the constituent assembly election also, thousands of district and local level cadres had to become unemployed.’
Also Mike’s post talks about the ‘suspension’ of the People’s War. This document talks about it in the past tense throughout, e.g.
‘When the great people’s war was advancing towards its climax,…’
Mike’s line is base on an unrealistic assessment of what has actually happened in Nepal since 2006.
celticfire said
Joseph,
I think you’re wrong. There is a deep ideological dogmatism that runs through this kind of thinking. Considering the fact that Nepal is in the midst of new movement that could possibly be the beginning of what Bhattarai has said will be a “movement with aspirations of general insurrection to finish the parliamentary order for New Democracy.”
The question of state power in Nepal is obviously in a tenuous place. So arguing that the Nepalese have diverted from some game plan developed by Mao in the 40′s for how state power is won, is kind of ridiculous.
This was a big problem, imho for the CPUSA in the 60′s. They came out of the 50s pretty beaten up, and they were looking for a socialism that looked like their perception of Stalin’s Russia, and were unprepared for the NCM, the Panthers, or Mao.
My point is that if you’re looking for China in 1949, you’re not going to find it.
Stiofan said
The leaflet above is not and was not meant to be a comprehensive study of the revolution in Nepal. The observations lay out the overall importance of the revolutionary struggle of comrades in the poorest country in Asia. Should this be supported? Do you remember the bourgeoisie triumphalist line of the death of Marxism and the ‘end of history?’ Obviously the people suffering under capitalist and semi-feudal oppression didn’t get the word
I believe that this revolutionary struggle should not just be studied but that forms of political education and mobilization be started to extend our solidarity to them. What would this mean in practice?
* denouncing the attempt to criminalize revolutionary movements through designating them as ‘terrorist.’ The list maintained by the State Department is an odious attempt to impose the American imperial will on the political struggle of numerous peoples.
* sponsoring educational programs on campuses and in communities
* debating the the right wing enemies of liberation movements
* compiling materials for use by teachers in their classes examining contemporary political issues
* exposing and opposing the US government support for the intelligence and military services of India and Nepal under the guise of combating terrorism.
* delegations to visit, report on, and eventually to provide assistance to the people of Nepal in areas such as rural education, agriculture, construction.
For those willing to take on this internationalist challenge, now is the time to get started.
Otto said
This is a good article and all four points are good ones, especially the first. Many of us have struggled with the idea that socialism should be radical, yet we need a political system that isn’t repressive to those intelectuals who don’t completely except the official party line.
If this revolution fails, it will be a major setback. In the US we still have a long way to go before we on the left are taken seriously, but when or if that day comes, we need to show people that a better system is possible. We need good examples and this is one.
John C said
Comrades,
Getting the word out about the events in Nepal is indeed critical work. As Mike correctly points out, the Maobadi have received almost no coverage here in the US – and while this is unsurprising in the bourgeois press, the fact that the silence reaches deep into the Left press and party publications (search the CPUSA and PSL websites and see if you can find one word about Nepal) is both troubling and telling …
On Mike’s 4 points: I’m in philosophical agreement, even if I don’t agree with every specific point he makes, especially on the question of multi-party governance. Merleau-Ponty asked the famous question, in “Adventures in the Dialectic”, who is going to tell the Party when it’s wrong? That’s a fundamental question, and a serious one, but I see no particular reason to think that the answer is to let feudal and capitalist parties use socialist democracy to openly organize counterrevolution.
What is essential is to teach and show that this is a step toward liberation, to begin to rebuild the link between socialist revolution and the deepest aspirations of those who struggle against the capitalist system on EVERY front. We all know what the hammer and sickle meant to hundreds of millions of people around the globe, in the 1920s and 1930s … If what we’re selling is a reprise of the grim, stagnant societies of the tail end of the Soviet era, complete with ritual invocations of diamat, then I think our experiences as militants tell us that nobody is buying.
Alastair Reith said
//That’s a fundamental question, and a serious one, but I see no particular reason to think that the answer is to let feudal and capitalist parties use socialist democracy to openly organize counterrevolution.//
The Maoists have been quite clear that their vision of multi-party democracy does not extend to feudal and comprador parties.
Joseph Ball said
Celticfire said: ‘My point is that if you’re looking for China in 1949, you’re not going to find it.’
My point was you cannot find Nepal in 2003 anymore. The revolutionary governments are gone, as the article I quoted indicates. No strategy is being advanced by the leadership for revolution. We have to get realistic about the actual prospects here.
Li Kui said
Nepal in 2003 was not so one-sided though. The UCPN(M)’s understanding of the dialectic between war and peace was already clear, as was the crucial concept that no revolution can be copied but must be developed. It was already clear that in a country like Nepal the revolution was not going to proceed in a straight line through the gradual build up of the strength in rural areas.
Just as Nepal in 2003 was not simply an example of a successful “tradtional” PW, with army, base areas, people’s power etc, so Nepal in 2010 is not simply a semi-colonial, semi-feudal state, which the UCPN(M) is trying to change. In this situation the struggle between the old state and the new state, as witnessed by the continued dominance of the UCPN(M) in the old base areas, the importance of the YCL and many other examples, is increasingly evident. The situation with the PLA and the PW is complicated to say the least. But if this (public) party document writes “suspension” of PW, what will the enemies of the revolution say?
The UCPN(M) is projecting itself as the party of peace. And against the reactionaries of the NC and UML, not to mention the imperialists, who would argue the Maoists are not the party of peace, in the long term for sure? But if war comes again, what role will the PLA, who have a decade of practical training and a few years of pent-up frustration in the cantonments, play? The possibilities in Nepal are staggering, especially compared to anywhere else in the world.
There are certain things which could happen that would allow us to conclude the UCPN(M) has turned revisionist, such as the complete dissolution of the PLA or the acceptance of a constitution which enshrines bourgeois democracy into law. Before this, even the most pessimistic revolutionary around the world should rally support around the revolution in Nepal.
Now the situation is finely balanced between the possibility for successful people’s movement for New Democracy and between grave defeats for the revolutionary forces, including the possibility of open invasion by (US-sponsored) India. It is therefore crucial that, as mentioned in previous posts, we not only debate questions of strategic importance in the Nepalese revolution, but also organise support in whichever country we are in.
In London on Monday we are carrying out a first demonstration linking the menace of Indian expansionism in Nepal and the war against its own people being carried out by the Indian government in Operation Green Hunt. I urge people to take this issue seriously and rally behind support of the oppressed peoples of South Asia!
WPRM-Britain
Alastair Reith said
//My point was you cannot find Nepal in 2003 anymore. The revolutionary governments are gone, as the article I quoted indicates. No strategy is being advanced by the leadership for revolution. We have to get realistic about the actual prospects here.//
They said they’d return the land, but never did. Why should we assume that a similar thing has not taken place with the revolutionary governments? After all, if the local cadre who ran them remain in the area it is relatively simple for the old networks to continue to operate albeit in a more subtle and clandestine way. And let’s look at the facts here. Nepal has been without local government since the peace accords. Due to disputes over the form the new local governments should take, they simply haven’t been formed leaving an obvious void at the local level. What would fill this void? Well, it’s hard to say from afar, but it seems reasonable to assume that direct enforcement of power by the local police, traditional power structures and any recent power relations would all play a role. And I’m sure there are plenty of villages in rural Nepal where the poor villagers continue to go the source of authority they know will favour their side – i.e that of the Maoists, who have their own police force in the form of the YCL. Dual power is still very much a reality in Nepal. The state only holds power on the basis of it’s claim to hold a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. And in Nepal, the Maoists have received the obvious mandate of the people to employ (and define) legitimate violence. The fact that so many Nepalis voted for them after the decade of violence, and the fact that so many Nepalis *participated* in that decade of revolutionary violence is testament to this.
Why should we assume that dual power requires legal, formal governmental structures to be a reality? All power is ultimately based on violence, who exercises violence and in whose interests, and in Nepal the state is not the only force capable of doing this. As a result, the interests it represents are on unsafe ground politically, economically and even physically.
I don’t think Bhattarai was kidding around when he said that the Maoists aren’t forming a parallel state, the government is running a parallel state to the Maoists. Telegraph Nepal reported in August last year that “when asked by a journalist that the Maoists’ are also forming departments similar to those in Sing Durbar Dr. Bhattarai said, they are not new, we are only giving continuity to them.”
http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6223
I think there’s a rather flawed inaccurate view amongst many of us of how a revolution happens. Too many of us see it as some kind of mechanical, linear process (which always happens more or less the same), where base areas develop, cities get surrounded etc, parallel state is formed, and then parallel state crushes reactionary state.
This is not how it happened in Russia, and I don’t believe it’s really how it happened in China either. We should not view revolution as an uprising against the reactionary regime – instead, I believe, we should view it as the development of a situation in which the reactionary regime, seeing its power and authority crumble away from underneath it, is forced itself to rise up against the power of the revolution. Revolution is a shift in the power balance, the successful resolution of the contradiction between revolution and reaction in favour of the former, and the revolutionaries do not necessarily have to seize power in a surprise attack, striking the first blow.
While I disagree with a lot of what Arthur has to say, a lot of his comments on the current situation in Nepal have been very valuable in my opinion. I recently read ‘Ten Days that Shook the World’ for the first time, and it struck me reading it how in many ways the development of revolutionary power in Petrograd mirrored the development of revolutionary power by the Maoists in Kathmandu. The Provisional Government was not overthrown, it was *rendered meaningless and powerless*. By the time the Bolsheviks had won the support of the Petrograd garrison, the PG had no power to enforce it’s will with violence, and thus no power at all. The Bolsheviks were just recognising what was already the reality by the time they launched their insurrection and declared all power to the soviets.
The Bolsheviks did not throw themselves against the capitalist state in the streets of Petrograd at a time when it’s military was still firmly under it’s control, as some are urging the Nepali comrades to do in the streets of Kathmandu. There was a long period of time, at least from the July days onwards and really from before that, right back to February, in which the Bolsheviks made DEFENSIVE PREPARATIONS and denied any intention or made any attempt to seize state power. They waited until the balance of power had decisively shifted in their favour, and only then moved. The provocations and desperate attempts to crush the revolution of Kerensky and the PG made the PG appear to be the aggressor in many ways, and once it had alienated or otherwise lost it’s support base and basis for power the PG was swept aside. It was not powerless across Russia of course, thus the civil war, but in what the Bolsheviks saw as the primary arena (Petrograd and similar areas), Bolshevik power was a reality before they declared it to the world.
Arthur has made many very useful comments about the defensive preparations the Maoists are taking, while adopting a line that revolt should only be launched if the constitution writing process and the peace process are derailed. They are waiting until they feel that the masses are with them and are prepared to support their revolt and *take part* in their revolt – the Maoists do not seek to launch a military coup.
Their line of army integration should be seen in this light. The state’s power rests, as I said, on its monopoly over legitimate violence. If the institution which exercises this legitimate violence, i.e. the military is neutralised, the state is powerless, particularly in a situation where *politically* and *organisationally* it is weaker than a force like the Maoists. The YCL could sweep aside the police in five minutes and Maoist power structures and organisational networks could mobilise the masses in a way the oppressive institutions of the state never could. Army integration is not a surrender, and it is not some ridiculous idea the Maoist leaders have cooked up for fun. It is a very deliberate, and obviously very carefully thought out tactical move as part of a wider strategy to undermine the power of the state. The reactionaries in Nepal know this, which is why they’ve resisted army integration so fiercely. As anyone who’s read the comments of the discharged PLA “minors” will know, these young warriors are passionately loyal to the Maoist cause and would take that into the ranks of the PLA, at worst neutralizing the threat of an effectively carried out coup and at best totally neutralising the army as an effective fighting force for reaction.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88008
Joseph, if you can honestly say that the Maoist leadership have no strategy for revolution, you simply haven’t been paying attention. You can DISAGREE with their strategy from afar, that’s your right I suppose, but to claim they don’t have a strategy at all is very strange in light of such things as the WPRM interview with Bhattarai and the recent document “on the current situation and tasks of the proletariat”.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/interview-with-nepals-bhattarai/
http://kasamaproject.org/2010/02/09/nepal-major-maoist-analysis-of-situation-tasks-ahead/#respond
Finally, I’d like to briefly speak to your comment about how we ‘cannot find Nepal in 2003 anymore’. To put it bluntly, no shit. 2003 was seven years ago for one thing, and an enormous amount has happened and changed since then. More importantly however, why on earth would we want to go back to the situation in 2003? The UCPN (M) did not view the situation in 2003 as favourable to a revolutionary seizure of power. As late as 2006, they felt that the masses in the urban areas did not support the Maoist movement in enough numbers and that the power of the state was too strong for the PLA to conquer the cities. As Bhattarai recently said in his interview with the WPRM, “what we have been doing since 2005 is the path of preparation for general insurrection through our work in the urban areas and our participation in the coalition government.”
Their goals since 2005 have been to strengthen their base in the urban areas. It is completely undeniable that they have succeeded in this. The line of the party has been correctly implemented and the revolution is steaming ahead. We should spend more time listening and learning and less time lecturing.
Joseph Ball said
In the recently released ‘Present Situation and Historical Task of the Proletariat’, the UCPN(M) states:
‘The reactionary force, domestic and foreign, is now seeing their superiority in war, autocracy, national capitulation and military supremacy while quite contrary to it the force of proletariat and the revolutionary masses is seeing their interest and superiority in peace, constitution, national self-respect, democracy and civilian supremacy.’
I don’t see any revolutionary aims here.
It’s all right to say that the Maoists still have some power at local level but this is not revolutionary government. Establishing revolutionary government means establishing institutions that explicitly and openly challenge the existing state by presenting themselves as a replacement for it. Maoists having influence over local community affairs is not revolutionary government. The revolutionary governments were all dissolved as per the agreement with the Seven Parties.
I don’t think it really helps the UCPN(M) for their supporters to talk as if they are doing something that they are not doing. The only hope is to struggle with them over the issue of revolutionary line.
Alastair Reith said
//I don’t see any revolutionary aims here.//
There are none blinder than those unwilling to see.
Ffs man, if you base your analysis of what’s happening in Nepal off words on paper, off public declarations (very tactical ones at that) by the UCPN (M), your not going to end up with an accurate idea of the situation. The Chinese party suspended it’s entire program of class struggle and land reform in the countryside to fight the Japanese – does this make them bourgeois nationalists? No, it was a tactical move so that firstly, the CPC could drive out the invaders, and secondly so that the CPC could be the end of the war appear to all Chinese as the premier force fighting for national liberation, the saviour of China. This was a decisive factor in the defeat of the GMD.
People need to study what actually happened in previous revolutions. Looking back on it decades later it may appear very clear to us what was happening and why, and the various tactical shifts can be seen in the context of the overall revolutionary strategy, but things were not nearly so clear and simple at the time.
NSPF said
Re. comment #11:
Appart from three short sentences, Alastair gets everything else wrong; both in China and Nepal.
Indeed “there are none blinder than those unwilling to see.” But what if one saw and still refused to comprehend or acknowledge?
It is true that we all “need to study what actually happened in previous revolutions.” And because I have done so, I know that your version of what happened in China is a modified one to suit your ends regarding your version of what is happening in Nepal.
“…if you base your analysis of what’s happening in Nepal off words on paper, off public declarations…, your not going to end up with an accurate idea of the situation.”
This is true as far as it goes, but even here Alastair (and some others, I might add) preaches what he does not practice. On the one hand we are told not to read and deduce too much from public statements of party leaders, on the other hand, we are selectively reffered to what they have anounced or asserted; and then constantly assured that what they say is a ploy to trick the enemy. How ironic! What is more puzzling indeed, is that we are then reffered to ravings and rantings of the reactionaries against the Maoists as the gospel truth and the proof of why the reality is opposite of what the Party leaders say. Has it actually occured to some people that the imerialists and reactionaries might be exagerating the “menace” of the Maoists for their own reactionary reasons as they have always done when it was needed, for example regarding Russia, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, etc…?
there is also a degree of whateverism involved in certain assessments of what is actually happening in Nepal to a degree that even when the Party comes up with a blatant attempt to rewrite history to portray itself a possessor of a continous grand master plan stretching back to 91-95, and that parliamentary reformism was not an acute problem, a lot of people fall for it because perhaps it could be used to attack rcp with. No investigation, no questioning, nothing of the sort was done to find out that this was an absolute fib designed to shoot two birds with one stone: rewrite history and provide amunition to hit rcp and other critics with. I am referring to that paragraph in the cpnm response to rcp where it says “you never understood us”, to paraphrase.
now, I will put it to you Alastair that because you haven’t investigated the situationa in Nepal (and China) deeply, widely and accurately enough and because of your method, it may seem to you that some people are unreasonably “suspicious”, insulated from reality and what not.
This is the real reason why you think Arthur has had some positive contributions and get frostrated with Joseph.
Arthur said
If ones concept of “revolutionary line” consists of writing essays with militant phrases, then of course there is much the Nepalese Maoists could learn from being “struggled with” by people who are good at that. But if one is interested in the experiences of people who have actually organized a People’s Liberation Army, fought a People’s War, won an election and know how to organize millions rather than dozens of people in a complex and acute struggle, then it might be more useful to learn from them.
Joseph Ball said
‘ if you base your analysis of what’s happening in Nepal off words on paper, off public declarations (very tactical ones at that) by the UCPN (M), your not going to end up with an accurate idea of the situation.’
You either evaluate a party’s practice by its words or by its deeds or you can evaluate both simultaneously. I see nothing in either the party’s words or deeds to give much hope. Don’t forget we are talking about whether the party will make revolution, we are not talking about whether it can carry out reforms or keep some semblance of its previous practice here and there.
The debate reminds me of the debate after the defeat of the so-called Gang of Four. Some still wanted to uphold China as socialist because there was still some state ownership of industry and the rulers still talked about socialism and Marxism now and then. I don’t think anyone really thinks China is still socialist apart from a hard-core of true believers. The same is true of the UCPN(M). A tiny hard-core of supporters around the world still uphold it as revolutionary. The rest acknowledge the truth about it. Occasionally some Nepalese scandal sheet might raise the bogeyman of ‘communist takeover’ but the right-wing press in the UK used to say the same thing about the Labour Party in the 1980s. We can’t read too much into this kind of thing.
Alastair Reith said
“The same is true of the UCPN(M). A tiny hard-core of supporters around the world still uphold it as revolutionary.”
You seem to be forgetting (or just ignoring) the minor detail of about 20-30 million Nepalis. I suppose their opinion are less relevant than the opinions of those who subscribe to the eternal glory of the New Synthesis.
Arthur said
Its an unfalsifiable position. Actually changing things would only prove that they are reformist. Only remaining totally isolated and gloriously accomplishing nothing would prove that they are “our” sort of revolutionaries – the kind counter revolutionaries don’t lose much sleep over.
BTW this stuff does go back to the defeat in China. Most people who refused to follow the whateverists or Hoxhaites were still delighted to ditch Mao’s “embarassing” shift to identifying social imperialism as the main enemy and building a united front against it. At first they pretended that line, which they had never understood, but only reluctantly parrotted, came from the Dengists. It didn’t take long for them to trace this “three worlds” deviation all the way back to Mao’s line in the war against fascism and reject that too. This way of thinking with no interest in actually defeating actual enemies was thoroughly consolidated in politically irrelevant sects long before they turned into outright cults.
Li Kui said
The constitution is supposed to be finished in May, and when it is not (because it can not be written under the current balance of forces in the CA), there will be time for great changes, even the possible coming into being of a revolutionary situation.
The UCPN(M) is not only grappling with this situation on the ground, but also advancing new ideas, especially around democracy and cultural revolution. Indeed, this should work in a dialectical way. If you don’t think the program of the UCPN(M) is about revolution at all, then I suspect your view of revolution is so narrow that we can’t expect any success in the 21st century or beyond.
The new CC document published by the party is fascinating and it is good to see a party genuinely summing up its experiences and doing real self-criticism. The UCPN(M) does not know exactly how things will turn out, but so far they have had great success in every strategic move they have made. That doesn’t mean we should blindly support them. But at the moment there is much that should be studied and debated, especially the existence of dual power with the embryonic Maoist state in the making referred to by Alastair.
At a time when greater worldwide proletarian support for the Nepalese revolution is becoming of even greater significance, we still busy ourselves in unconstructive criticism and splittism, the curse of the left for so long. If we had learned anything from the CR we should have learned to properly divide one into two and to carry out serious unity-struggle-transformation. Unfortunately, because of this serious deficiency, whereas the Nepalese are grappling with revolutionary practice as well as new ideas, we are still stuck in the past.
NSPF said
Li Kui’s comment is interesting and merits close attention. I’ve just read it quickly and intend to read it again more carefully when I have a bit more time.
For now a quick question:
It seems you think a revolutionary situation does not exist in Nepal at the moment and yet talk about the existence of dual power. Can you explain this a bit further?
Otto said
It seems to me that the UCPN(M) has a strategy. They may have made some mistakes and have had to deal with unexpected events. I don’t think they expected the other political parties to hijack their revolution and after winning a clear majority in the elections, and then have to struggle outside of the system they created. They seem to have under-estimated the military’s resistance to change. But I’ve noticed they are quick to reorganize and rethink their strategy. They are giving every move they make cafeful consideration. They are in a delicate situation.
Of course like many others, I have to observe what happens in Nepal from the other side of the world. It’s hard to say what a small group of people in any one country outside Nepal can do to help their revolution, if anything. It’s more a case of watching to see what happens. We can support and educate people here about their revolution, but there is little we can do right now to stop our own government’s interference.
Li Kui said
re: comment 18
What I see existing in Nepal at the moment is that on the one hand there is the old, reactionary, semi-feudal/semi-colonial state apparatus, which the UCPN(M) has also entered into for tactical reasons, and on the other the embryo of a New Democratic Maoist-led state. Evidence of this revolutionary state can be found in the strength of the UCPN(M) throughout the country, in the old base areas in particular, where they really run the place, but also mainly the existence of the YCL, which acts not just as a youth organisation but as a weapon against feudal and imperialist culture and practice, and almost as a new state apparatus in its carrying out of social projects and legal arbitration. And this is without even mentioning the PLA, which obviously exists outside of the state structure at present.
Whether we call this dual power or not I’m not sure. This is not a case of two states in existence at the same time. The latest UCPN(M) document makes it crystal clear that the current state is a semi-feudal/semi-colonial state. Therefore, for the UCPN(M) to succeed in its task, it will have to smash this old state machinery. However, as the process of destruction and construction proceeds in a dialectical way, while destruction is still the principal aspect necessary for NDR, the construction of an embryonic future state is under way. And an understanding of this process I think is crucial to an understanding of the revolution in Nepal, or indeed anywhere. The state will not be smashed if there is nothing new to put in its place.
Moreover, I don’t think the dismantling in name of the base areas means that NDR has been put back. While in Rolpa recently, it was clear that the area is massively under the control of the UCPN(M), with the NC office flying its flag for ceremony only (www.wprm-britain.org for reports). In China too, the process of making revolution was not simply the gradual development and consolidation of the base areas, and in fact even Yan’an was given up at one stage of the war against the Guomindang. So we have to try to look at the issues of base areas and so-called dual power by dividing into two. The “peace process” so far has involved much compromise by the UCPN(M), but by keeping up the mass line and uniting with all who can be united with, the balance of forces nationally is now very much in its favour.
But a revolutionary situation will not come into existence until some sort of crisis in the old state appears, and then people will be on the streets in their thousands. It is when this situation comes about that we will be able to see whether the UCPN(M) can advance to NDR or will be defeated by the reactionaries at home and abroad. To reiterate once again, this is why revolutionaries around the world should now be uniting towards, and developing, support of the Nepalese people in making the first revolution in the twenty-first century.
And with the constitution deadline looming, there is the chance that things will come to a head sooner rather than later.
http://www.wprm-britain.org
Joseph Ball said
Li Kui said:’The constitution is supposed to be finished in May, and when it is not (because it can not be written under the current balance of forces in the CA), there will be time for great changes, even the possible coming into being of a revolutionary situation.’
Many times since 2006 we have heard that this or that dispute over the political process in Nepal would lead to revolution. I must admit I propogated similar illusions myself until last year so my comments shouldn’t be taken as a personal criticism of anyone. I really don’t think we can carry on with this approach. I don’t think its a very good idea for Marxists to try to create a revolutionary situation by pushing for reforms the system can’t or won’t meet anyway. This approach tends to give the initiative to the reactionaries who can pick their own time to launch coups or mass round-ups of communists. I don’t really think this is exactly what the UCPN(M) is doing in any case. I think they’re just trying to win reforms.
Li Kui: ‘If you don’t think the program of the UCPN(M) is about revolution at all, then I suspect your view of revolution is so narrow that we can’t expect any success in the 21st century or beyond.’
So many times in my life-time I have heard communist parties and Marxist thinkers claim they have developed some wonderful new approach to Marxism. The old British Communist Party did this, we had ‘reform communism’ (Gorbachovism), before that there was ‘Euro-communism’ and so on. Every time those that opposed these deviations were accused of living in the past and not wanting to try a new approach to building socialism. But what were these wonderful ‘new things’. Bascially, they were bourgeois parliamentary democracy and market economics. In fact the ‘new things’ were really very old things, the ideas of the original founders of bourgeois democracy and the original theorists of capitalism like Adam Smith.
Mao, by upholding something ‘old’-the line of Lenin as upheld by Stalin in the USSR created a very new thing-the Cultural Revolution that brought very positive benefits for the proletariat and peasantry of China. The UCPN(M) as a whole ditched the approach of Cultural Revolution for the old bourgeois ways.
People take heart from Bhattarai’s comments in one interview on this subject. I’m not being dogmatic here-I think it’s possible for the line of the UCPN(M) to change and I will welcome it if it does. But there needs to be a lot more than one interview before we can say the line has changed.
NSPF said
As ever, and contrary to Alastair’s view, I find ALL Arthur’s comments highly poisonous and extremely pernicious. The only positive or constructive role it can unwittingly play here is for vaccination purposes.
Take the comment #13 for example: A single short paragraph that on the surface seems a passionate defense of the revolution in Nepal.
He is full of passion alright, but only because deep down he thinks UCPNM has entered into a strategic alliance with capitalism/imperialism against what he would have us believe as the only real enemy, that is Feudalism. This is what he really wants us to learn from Nepal. Quite different from those who yearn for real revolution.
Some people may think he is wobbly and inconsistent; defending revolutions hither, supporting invasions thither. Wrong. Has anyone heard him utter a single word in support of the revolution in India or the Philippines?
But even if somehow all the above could be dismissed as fanciful or he had made this comment about a revolutionary process in Mars, it would still be poisonous, pernicious and full of poppycock.
The ICM, with some exceptions, went through a long period of uncritically and (frankly) slavishly following Soviet Union and Comintern exactly under the same false premises and it took a long process of struggle to get over it. If learning from Nepal or anywhere else that has had some success in something is used as a back door to reintroduce the same phenomena, it would be a disaster. For me, any learning process always involves critical appraisal.
In the eighties some honest people were suggesting the same type of “learning from Peru”. Was that right?
If Lenin had followed Arthur’s Advice in 1914, he would have had to “learn” from Kautsky and co. But then again, Arthur wouldn’t mind, would he.
John C said
Comrades,
To quote Joseph:
“So many times in my life-time I have heard communist parties and Marxist thinkers claim they have developed some wonderful new approach to Marxism … Bascially, they were bourgeois parliamentary democracy and market economics. In fact the ‘new things’ were really very old things, the ideas of the original founders of bourgeois democracy and the original theorists of capitalism like Adam Smith.”
I think that what Joseph observes is true in 99 cases out of 100. There is all the difference in the world between extending and deepening Marxism by a more rigorous application of its principles in new historical circumstances (e.g. Lenin’s theory of imperialism, Mao’s GPCR), and calling the very abandonment of those principles “new thinking”.
This is precisely what’s been happening in the CPUSA for decades now.
Ludo Martens of the Workers’ Party of Belgium, in The Collapse of the Soviet Union (a book I don’t necessaily endorse on every particular), remarks: “For the bourgeoisie living under socialism, the key question is this: how to enlarge democracy? For them it is very important to create a legal space for their old parties, crushed during the revolution. For the proletariat and the workers the key question is as follows: how to ensure that the Communist Party maintains its revolutionary spirit, its socialist line and its relations with the masses?”
This sums up the whole question very neatly, I think. The political tasks of proletarian rule represent challenges that have not been met with unqualified success, though we can look to the GPCR and the early days of Soviet power for important guideposts going forward to future struggles. There is every reason for Communists to debate those truly proletarian tasks in good faith and with a critical scientific spirit.
But we have to work to distinguish, at every step in theoretical struggle, between THESE tasks and those of the bourgeoisie, which are different in nature.
hari pathak said
Dear comrades…
as a nepali maoist i have noticed that UCPN MAOIST have played a very creditable role to highten the history of international communist movement. in this suffocating 21st century capitalistic world its really harsh to sustain and institualize the achievements of the revloution so i think nepali communist movement deserves a international support to resist against the growing imperialism.
bijay kc said
the article was a bittoo optimistic abt the intention n the way the revolution was conducted…..myself being one of the individual active protestors of the revolution of the anti-monarchy campaign in the valley,i realiose whow much role the UPC(M) had to play in it….i think we gotta see the dark sides as well!!but still i do have my fingers crossed!!