Thanks for posting this, it's revealing of the situation revolutionary comrades in Nepal are facing right now.

Are the main reactionary types at this time aligned in the UML and NC camps? It seems that that is mainly who Prachanda is speaking about in this piece.

Interestingly enough, I recently met a Nepalese student that works at a corner store I frequent... we got into a conversation about the current situation in Nepal (he just moved to the States a bit over a year ago) and he had mixed feelings. He expressed, with some hesitation, that he was looking optimistically to what the communists can do with the state but wasn't sure. When I asked about the former parliamentary parties, specifically naming NC and UML he said that they're widely hated for being <i>"power hungry and not caring about the people"</i> and <i>"status quo with no changes for the people"</i>... very interesting.

Does anyone know anything about the ban on strikes being pushed by CPN(M) and how that would relate to/contradict Prachanda's claim that the "people will seize power"?

the only reports I have seen on this ban is here
http://libcom.org/news/nepal-victory-turns-sour-22012009

here's an excerpt:

Faced with the unrest, Maoist Party leader and Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda proposed to fellow politicians a ban on all public sector strikes, to which the seven major parties all agreed. In a recent press interview, just prior to the agreement, the Maoist governmental Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai tried to justify a ban;

Q: The business community's concerns are exactly what you stated. One, they say, the government's attitude to labour issues leaves a lot to be desired and that labour problems are getting worse. Second, there cannot be high growth until there is an adequate supply of power.

Bhattarai: I wouldn't say the situation is getting worse. Things were much worse in the past. But the people wanted very fast recovery; that hasn't happened. Things are improving but not to the desired level. Both the management and workers have a common interest now, for the development of the economy. They both fought against the feudalism, autocracy and monarchy. Now, to create a vibrant industrial economy, is in the interest of both the management and the workers. But this reality is not sinking in their minds. This government is playing its role in creating a healthy relationship between the two. There were some disputes, especially regarding the minimum wage issue. This has been solved. So what I appeal to the management is that they should provide the minimum wage. The workers shouldn't resort to bandas and strikes. If this understanding is honoured we'll have a healthy environment in the days to come.

Q: So the party wants to ensure that whenever there is a labour dispute, legal recourse should be taken?

Bhattarai: Yes. At least for some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health, education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors. The government is trying to build political consensus on this issue.
http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&amp;nid=175026

Yes, we've hear about this and are trying to investigate.

First impression, it strikes me as sketchy. But, if anyone knows of other helpful resources, so we can better understand what's happening, it would be helpful.

Don't forget the time in Venezuela oil workers - through AFL CIO channel of CIA went on strike. Did they say strike forever banned or, during the production of constitution?

And in People's Democratic Republic formed, will there not be a labor dispute taken care of by legal resources still?

I hate to say this, but as much as I have enthusiastically supported the CPN(M) across the past 7 years, I find that each day the Party is going deeper and deeper onto a revisionist road. Prachanda has met with Bush, he has begun receiving aid from the IMF, WTO, and World Bank, and now they have banned workers' strikes.

Comrades: I think it's time to see clearly that we must judge the Nepali movement by their <i>actions</i>, not their words.

I hate to say this, but much as I have enthusiastically supported the Bolshevik party across these past 7 years, I find that each day the Party is going deeper and deeper onto the revisionist road. Lenin send emissaries to negotiate with the German army, he has received capital investments for his oil fields in Baku, he suppressed strikes in Petrograd and in the military base of Kronstadt.

Comrades: Given these events, and given my rather simplistic way of judging such things, I say that 1921 marks the year that we must finally and completely judge these Bolsheviks by their actions, not their fine revolutionary words.

Lenin never said this, even during the NEP:

"Both the management and workers have a common interest now, for the development of the economy."

Let's not forget the fundamental contradiction.

The hammer and sickle on the Soviet flag represent the workers and the peasants.

The four little stars on the Chinese flag represent the "bloc of four classes"- The workers, peasants, national bourgeoisie and the PLA.

See any difference?

Yeah, there is a difference: Russia and China made their revolutions under very different conditions and circumstances.

The bloc of four classes was led by the proletariat and had its allies: peasants, national bourgeois, and the petty-bourgeois. The PLA was not a star. Get your facts straight.

Check yo self before you wreck yo self.

Jose, you are correct about that 4th star. But that only further underscores the problem of class collaboration.

I'm still confused about how the proletariat could simultaneously lead the revolution and be ordered at gunpoint by Mao and the PLA to NOT seize the means of production.

I'm not a member of WIL but I agree with their analysis of the Chinese Revolution. Here is an excerpt:

"When Mao's peasant armies arrived at the cities, and the workers spontaneously occupied the factories and greeted Mao's armies with red flags, Mao gave the order that these demonstrations should be suppressed and the workers were shot."

"Initially, Mao did not intend to expropriate the Chinese capitalists. His perspectives for the Chinese revolution were outlined in a pamphlet called "New Democracy" in which he wrote that the socialist revolution was not on the order of the day in China, and that the only development that could take place was a mixed economy, i.e. capitalism. This was the classical "two stage" Menshevik theory which had been adopted by the Stalinist bureaucracy and had led to the defeat of the Chinese revolution in 1925-27. But under the concrete conditions that had developed, Mao was forced to expropriate capitalism."

http://www.socialistappeal.org/faq/china_maoism.html

[moderator note: we posted a version of <a href="/http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/dissecting-one-easy-rejection-of-nepals-revolution/" rel="nofollow">Nando's response to FKAR and Bryan</a> as its own post and thread.]

Thanks a lot Nando for making comprehensive point come across so lucidly.

Nice chapter, Nando.

Here's a brief response that people who aren't internet warriors can read quickly: Nepal is a bourgeois republic. It is not evolving towards something else. Prachanda's goal is to stabilize a bourgeois republic with himself as the head of state.

Nepal under Prachanda = Bourgeois republic. USSR under Lenin = workers state. Parliament and soviets are two institutions that politically reflect opposing classes.

Way to add zero to the discussion, Bryan.

Why not back up your statements with more than just equal signs?

Redflags: "trotskyist, anarchist, bourgeoisie, navel-gazing, reformism . . . rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant, rant."

I’m not sure why the suggestion the CPN(M) has called for a ban on strikes should be a cause for such anxiety. Prachanda has repeatedly stated that he intends to create a positive environment for foreign capitalists in Nepal and obviously disciplining and repressing the workers is going to be an important part of that.... I see nothing mysterious here.

I think the more difficult issue is unpacking the argument that supporting capitalism in Nepal is a way of supporting communism in Nepal; that capitalism equals communism.

Thanks a lot Redflags for what said above.
Trotskists and Anarchists sometimes deny imperialism too.
And no, it wasn't ranting. Synicate activities at best is still economism. left or right, still singular entity interest.

And be it some workers in Russain revolution wanting to make eveybody boss overnite being propaganda fed by White Russian forces or...

Thanks also for mentioning Venezuela.
That is not to say that more radicalization withint Venezuela could be suggested and Maoist organizing of massive groups in relative support but critical of Chavez is impossible.

But with that stand on Israel, they sure commnnable act.

Red flags, it’s difficult to understand why an incidental post on an incidental anarchist website should be so troubling for you.

If there is a revolution of world historical proportions under way in Nepal then surely it’s not so fragile that a post on Libcom will do it damage, right? Do you think that Libcom has a lot readers in Nepal?

I suspect that what bothers you is that this article points to a fact that is difficult to reconcile with the idea of Maoism as a revolutionary doctrine.

Specifically, the CPN(M) has stated that it intends to encourage the development of capitalism in Nepal and this necessarily requires the repression and domestication of the working class.

So, then, as a Maoist and supporter of the CPN(M), you need to explain how crushing the working class is a way of advancing its interests; how fighting for capitalism is a way of fighting for communism.

Good luck!

Green Red Rev,

Trotskyists do not deny imperialism, ever. They just don't always understand how it plays out, and that occasionally, it is necessary for successful revolutions to make concessions rather than flame out in a blaze of glory. The truth is, though, no one current in Marxism is free from this sort of oversimplification. The politics of the PRC under Mao re: Cuba, the USSR, and Angola are instructive in this case, where in the last case, Mao and his government even supported Mbutu backed anti MPLA rebels in Angola!?!

I think the fact that Kasama is dealing in the complexities of reality and is largely Maoist is largely accidental, but flow out of a reaction to the absurd oversimplification in the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA).

Salute Comrade Che G.

The truth is, though, no one current in Marxism is free from this sort of oversimplification. The politics of the PRC under Mao re: Cuba, the USSR, and Angola are instructive in this case, where in the last case, Mao and his government even supported Mbutu backed anti MPLA rebels in Angola!?!

My observation of certian particular so called Trotskists - of whom sometimes good things have come out as well, for example Gerry Foley's stand on Chechnya (of Socialist Action - one of the tons of SWF offsprings) and his stand on national liberations in several other cases.

I self Criticize my inadequate judgmental ....overstatement? in regard to peoples I have fought along against things but, a particular party WorkerCommunistParty of Iran Hekmatist and all their poodles who have a bloody cult of personality for Hekmat makes me allergic. It is over simplification, and please acknowlege my routine self criticizm in serene honest Written Manner. I am fighting for a precedinet bro.

But re Angola. No way to deny that. Let's see if courageous fellow comrade Mike makes a definite stand on this one.

And reducing matters to Cho en li fault etc. doesn't balance off a whole policy. and Che G, why don't we ask Mike to someday come and dig into great comrade Che Guevara for that matter?

I stand solidly with Chairperson Sison of CP of Philippine that, although his understanding of Mao Tse tung Though (MT3 as appose to Maoism) was incomplete, immature of a sort but, his dedication and - where he was standing thence - was definite commie solid stuff. (I'll try to type up and send few paragraphs of his books to these guys to dig us a bit!)

Live long and Che alike attitude! - in terms of dedication - not necessarily what tools chosen at what place.

Re Chuck, anarchists, Red Flag's stand.

Anarchism is inently justified class status post modern denial. They have occasional value, they at times act like revolutionary elements but, they have their limits. Don't get angry with them. at some point brother RedFlag, they ought to take a stand and differentiate between Me Me Me , and Us Us US bottomline.

Hi Irisbright,

I don't mean this defensively, but what exactly did you hope that I'd comment upon? I'll do my best if you can be more specific.

I know I'm a little late to this thread, but i have a question for Jose (and I presume others) which is: in what real sense can you say that the proletariat led the Chinese Revolution? This seems to me a bit of doctrinaire nonsense. Certainly the CCP built up a proletarian base before the smashing of the Shanghai Uprising in 1927 and some of that base fled to the countryside to join the work amongst the peasantry. I also know that special efforts wer made to recruit "rural proletarians." But nobody really disputes the fundamentally peasant composition of the organized forces that made the revolution. So is the claim here that the leadership of the CCP was significantly of proletarian origin or just that it "represented" the proletariat by virtue of its ideology? If its the latter, to say its metaphysical would be kind. What this stance has always signalled to me, and this was always part of my reluctance to call myself a Maoist, was a dishonest capitulation to the reigning orthodoxy of the Stalin-era Comintern in the face of obviously contradictiry facts, namely the actual class composition of the leadership and the base of both the CCP and PLA.

To my mind this sort of invocation of the proletariat did damage to the neccesary theorization of the historical fact of a peasant revolution under the leadership of the intelligentsia in which the actual proletariat was (as might be expected in a country like China where it was puny and politically weak) relatively marginal. This bowing to the supposedly unique revolutionary character of the proletariat leaves the theory and practice of new Democracy more open to these obviously quite shallow criticisms. It also leads to real muddle about what precisely it means to speak of the proletariat, something that always seemed much more a moral category than a political-economic one in how it was used by the RCP.

Curiously, I think the proletriat itself will prove to be much more important as a revolutionary force in the 21st century than it did in the 20th when the actual center of gravity was with ethe colonial and semi-colonial peasantry, talk of "the era of proletarian revolution" notwithstanding.

"in what real sense can you say that the proletariat led the Chinese Revolution?"

I think we should take care not to conflate this question with what I consider more relevant: was the Chinese Revolution a socialist one? In the same vein, how does one consider the French Revolution a bourgeois one? The nature of a revolution is not to be found in demographics of the bulk of its participants but it's socio-economic program, and the class relations it seeks to establish. Mao broke away from the linear notion that a predominant working class was needed to overthrow the state, then establish its hegemony. In this case, a communist-led peasant army overthrew the state and laid the groundwork for widening proletarianization. The "logical" order of Marxist orthodoxy was reversed.

I don't want to divert the discussion so I won't comment further on this score.

Good post, Zero.

I also dont want to divert this discussion, but I do want to add something.

Even when the CCP was driven from its urban base, it organized the peasantry with the understanding that it would need to amass it forces within the 80% of the populace and then surround the cities (to put it crudely).

Now, when the communists were conducting land reform and the civil war (largely fought by peasants) were they not waging a struggle that was led by the historic interests of the proletariat? Without this understanding, would the chinese revolution have taken a socialist road?

I think a lot of people - self-described anti-revisionist communists - would be very distressed by Mao Zedong's actions in the united front with the KMT during the War of Resistance. Has anyone read "On New Democracy?" Enver Hoxha put forth many of the same criticisms being put forth here. In fact, even the Soviet revisionists said Maoism was a radical veneer for pro-imperialist social democracy.

The fact is that dual power exists in Nepal. An anti-imperialist democratic revolution is being carried out under the leadership of a communist party. The PLA has not been dissolved, and the YCL and other formations serve as adjunct forces that can defend that new power. The reactionaries in Nepal are constantly agitated because these forces exist and defend the gains of the People's War and the old state hasn't been able to consolidate under the leadership of the exploiting classes.

Some people have some foggy notion that the Bolshevik Revolution definitively smashed all the instruments of the old state power. No such thing. Thousands of old state officials, army officers, and bureaucrats were retained in the service of the new power after November 7, 1917. Yes, the armed force of mutinous military regiments and Bolshevik red guards defended new authority like the Revolutionary Military Committee and its decrees, but there really isn't something worlds away from the Nepalese experience in this. If the Constituent Assembly passes an anti-imperialist, new-democratic constitution, and the PLA and old state army are merged, it is entirely possible that the socialist road can be ultimately taken. The years of armed struggle paved the way for these victories. The Bolshevik Revolution was comparatively bloodless, in fact. State power is the highest organized political power. In many ways, the YCL exercises state power in its activities. Let's not get too dogmatic because things don't "look" a certain way on the surface.

Clearly we will not convince each other over the difference of opinion as to whether maoism can be a vehicle for working class emancipation, genuine revolutionary change, the abolition of society etc. So I'm not interested in rerunning that debate here. But, as author of the article in question, I feel obliged to correct some of 'Redflag's' slurs and untruths.

Some of 'Redflag's' inaccuracies;
<i>"Since LibCom is the only source for this so-called ban,"</i>
Untrue; 1) I didn't say the maoist leadership had already banned strikes. I said - in the 1st sentence - that they'd <i>agreed to ban strikes</i>. The article was later reproduced by others with the headline 'Maoists ban strikes'. 2) Regardless, the two news items I quoted clearly show that the maoist leadership certainly desire to ban strikes and are legislating for that.

<i>"criticizes the revolutionary forces for</i> arguing<i> that in </i>some <i>sectors, for </i>some<i> time there should be a curbing of strikes"</i>
The maoist-dominated government is enacting legislation - the SEZ Act - that enshrines anti-strike laws in those zones. So it's not merely an "argument" for "some time".

Yet again we have a kind of 3rd Worldist leftism with double standards. If anyone proposed any banning of strikes in the West these Western leftists would be the first to talk of class oppression - but clearly, in places like Nepal it's supposedly in the interests of the workers themselves to have their strikes banned. We've been here before, and we know where it leads...

<i>"The libcom authors go on to quote their own predictions regarding Special Economic Zones, with no mention that insofar as they have been discussed, it is for the creation of hydro-electric power"</i>
Wrong again; the SEZ project was begun in 2004 by an earlier bourgeois government and the maoists are only continuing it, and it was always intended for a variety of industries;
"Hence, entrepreneurs, both national and foreign, who can invest capital as well as bring modern technology and market, are invited to invest in various sections of service, manufacturing, agro, forest and minerals based industries." http://seznepal.gov.np/welcome_to_website.htm
One can find other discussions in the Nepali media along similar lines that contradict 'Redflag's' assertion.

<i>"Making allegations, for example, that just because Prachanda is the Prime Minister that “Prachanda and co.’s ruling elite are comfortably settled in their lucrative governmental positions…” What is that if not stupid? It’s a back-handed allegation of corruption based on… nothing."</i>
Wrong yet again; I linked in footnote 4 to an earlier article that showed that "the monthly income of a CA politician is well over three times the annual national average wage! Jobs within the CA are already being allocated by all the various member parties to their friends and family.
So the ruling class, led by the Maoist 'proletarian vanguard', feather their nest. These salaries must be compared with the Nepali average wage of just $200 a year [£102/Eur129]; Nepal is the poorest country in Asia. Around 10% of the population takes 50% of the wealth, the bottom 40% takes 10%. 85% of Nepalese people don’t have access to health care." Sohttp://libcom.org/news/nepal-a-nice-little-earner-maoist-ruling-class-lenins-footsteps-12052008

I never insinuated any "corruption" - wrong again. I described in the quotes above an economic manifestation of a class relationship. With massive salaries like that they hardly need corruption (though that doesn't mean it won't occur). But ex-maoists (and others) have alleged corruption and/or similar. Only yesterday maoist leader Matrika Yadav split from the party; "He claims that favoritism and nepotism has engulfed the party tip to toe". (Telegraphnepal.com 12 Feb 09)

<i>"Let’s go back to the article. same article attacks the YCL for mobilizing people to directly confront the upper classes "</i>
Wrong again; nowhere do I denounce the YCL for doing that - it would be inappropriate, as my interpretation of their role is quite different. As I described in the article - and also linked to an earlier with more detail; http://libcom.org/news/democratic-stresses-nepal-its-regional-implications-21062007

<i>"The LibCom article holds up electrity problems on one hand, and then opposes development of hydro-electric power on the other. So, which is it? Or is the point really to shoot a hundred bullets and hope one hits?"</i>
If anyone is not shooting straight it's 'Redflag'- please begin to read more carefully. More untruths; I never said anything in the article remotely suggesting that I oppose hydro-electric development. All I said on the subject was that "India is downstream from the untapped hydro-electric potential locked in Nepal's great Himalayan water systems, has longed wanted to exploit it and can offer investment and expertise."
But, such a development would not be without potential problems, depending on how it was executed. A few years ago there were popular protests against an Enron-led proposal for such developments in Nepal, on the ground that there would be great ecological damage and destruction of rural villages. Another factor to be taken into account is the accelerating melting of Himalayan glaciers - which could have disastrous effects for many countries in South Asia.

I'm happy to be corrected where necessary. But, as shown above, it is 'Redflag' who has been "shoddy" and committed the "factual errors", "disinformation" etc he wrongly accuses me of.

RM,

"Jobs within the CA are already being allocated by all the various member parties to their friends and family."

For clarification, this includes the Maoists? Who?

Also, thoughts on the plain living codes? Clearly the maoists aren't requiring their members within the CA to live in the same conditions as the rural peasantry, but it's also unfair to characterize the situation as if they haven't done anything to address the issue you've raised.

"Yet again we have a kind of 3rd Worldist leftism with double standards. If anyone proposed any banning of strikes in the West these Western leftists would be the first to talk of class oppression - but clearly, in places like Nepal it’s supposedly in the interests of the workers themselves to have their strikes banned."

I think this steam rolls over the particularity of the situation in Nepal. We live in a country with far greater wealth with entirely different sets of problems. Right now there is 16 hour load shedding occurring (when was the last time that happened in the good ol' US of A?). I believe I read recently that they are expecting (assuming nepalnews is accurate) it to take 5 years minimum to eliminate, assuming there are no major problems in establishing secure power sources. In light of this, I don't think it's off base to say the workers and CEO's interests temporarily align. The people need regular power for decent hospitals, comfort, etc. The CEO's need a reason to invest in Nepal (high chances of their investments paying off). This is objective. I think any time such phrases are used, or there is talk of banning strikes, we should be very suspicious. But, I think the way you've posed things is very one-sided.

(Side note: I've tried looking at the actual draft of the law that outlines the workers contracts for working in these zones, but the link on the gov site is dead, if someone has another way to access it, it would be appreciated).

So, I would ask. How could they reconcile this contradiction without having to make sacrifices? Say fuck the CEO's and wait 10-15-20 years for developing power sources without foreign investment? The country is in a rocky period. Things are unstable, reactionaries are everywhere. Discontent will be readily exploited if the lives of people don't improve soon (not to say the relief measures in the budget count for nothing, if it ever gets implemented). I'm perfectly willing to accept I may be wrong about this, but from where I'm sitting SEZ's appear to be necessary evils.

While I disagree with RM's absolutist position on the question of strikes, I think its important to recognize the principled nature of his enagement here. We should be careful not to shoot from the hip in response to these sorts of criticisms and to really try to get to the bottom of things both in terms of the actual facts, but also in terms of drawing out the underlying political questions. Under capitalism the right to strike is something that radical s and revolutionaries rightly regard as so fundamental that it is understandably difficult to grapple with the possibility of strikes being used for counter-revolutionary purposes and the possible need to supress them.

I don't have any particularly privileged access to the actual facts in this situation and basically think more investigation is in order. Headlines like "Maoists Ban Strikes," while clearly intended to reinforce anarchist preconceptions about the "real" character of the Maobadi shold not be responded to so defensively. whether we agree with their take on it or not, LibCom is advancing the discussion by putting this information out their and forcing us to speak to it. We should welcome the opportunity not simply to shoot down their position but to really think about our own.

Just because a strike is objectively counter-revolutionary doesn't mean it should automatically be suppressed. It seems to me that there is a real need to treat the right to strike as a democratic right and to understand the pernicious effects that bans on strikes can have in terms of chilling out the initiative of workers. Just because a strike has a deleterious economic effect on a revolutionary regime in a difficult situation doesn't mean that all or even most of the workers involved are subjectively counter-revolutionaries. When strikes are suppressed it radically limits the opportunities to struggle with people using persuasion in a way that actually moves their consciousness forward. I think there are clearly going to be times when strikes do have to be supressed, but I also think the history of building socialism in the 20th century should teach us the high price of the quick resort to repression.

While I think we who are sympathetic with teh CPN(M) need to get much more deply into this, my question for RM then is this: do you recognize that strikes can sometimes be used for counter-revolutioanry purposes and are their circumstances under which you can imagine supporting the suppression of such a strike?

"Both the management and workers have a common interest now, for the development of the economy." - Maoist governmental Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai.
To clarify; 1)the maoist govt. Ministers have proposed that workers should cease striking for the sake of some supposed "common interest" with their bosses, as Bhattarai put it.
2) They are also enacting legislation for SEZ's where strikes will be banned. This is continuing a project formulated in 2004 by an earlier incarnation of the capitalist state. But - for those who would have earlier denounced the policy as class oppression and as further proof of the need for a maoist seizure of power - with a wave of the maoist magic wand it now becomes a radical policy in the best interests of the same working class it is oppressing. Try and dress it up as 'dialectics' if you must...

For those who want to know what the real conditions for proletarians are in SEZ's; take a look at this article I wrote about Bangladesh (where they call them EPZ's) - which is a somewhat wealthier country than Nepal, and with which Nepal would have to compete in the race to the bottom as cheapest global labour source; http://libcom.org/news/bangladesh-militarized-factory-visions-devouring-demons-capital-15092008
If that is a "necessary evil" then let's just drop any pretension to be discussing working class interests right now and admit that the maoists and the rest of the state faction of the Nepali ruling class are in the business of regulating the exploitation of the working classes. For their own good, obviously - and despite the periodic 'false consciousness' of the exploited in failing to see how much good it's doing them. You couldn't make it up...

In reply to TNL; yes, strikes in certain could be counter-revolutionary, but from my perspective existence of a state presupposes a ruling class, so it is not counter-revolutionary for workers to resist BAMN the exploitation of that class relationship. Yes, not all workers in a revolution will be revolutionary and it is possible there could be clashes between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary workers in certain situations. But this question is here inappropriate really, as the maoists have not cited security measures or counter-revolution as reasons for a strike ban. They have been quite open that they want the ban in the interests of maximum profits for capitalists - the supposed "common interest". Yes, that same 'work harder, swallow austerity in the national interest' we reject as laughable when our own rulers spout such anti-working class "counter-revolutionary" bullshit.

3) I reject the notion that the Nepalese nation state is in the middle of a necessary process of passing from feudalism to capitalism on its way to communism. (Nor is it necessarily orthodoxly 'Marxist' to claim this 'necessity'. Marx noted in his late writings that under certain conditions a revitalised Russian peasant commune ('mir') could be a means of avoiding the 'necessity' of going thru full capitalist development in 19thC Russia before creating communism.) It's in the interests of the Nepal maoists to claim this categorisation and 'necessity' and so portray themselves as masters of historical progress and try to justify their statist exploitation. As I said in the article, I see Nepal as an underdeveloped capitalist state with certain feudal hangovers that are in the process of adapting to modern norms. Feudal hangovers in a new context can be found in many capitalist states; one can still find social relations originating in feudalism in India and Bangladesh, but it's hardly accurate to say they are at present 'emerging from feudalism'.

Nepal is sandwiched between the two largest and expanding Asian industrial economies, India and China. If one rejects the notion of necessary/inevitable historical stages within narrowly national frameworks one can see that advanced capitalist means of production are present in the region - and their artificial scarcity imposed by present social relations could readily be overcome, and so communised and spread by a revolutionary social movement that refused to be bound by nationalist ideology, national borders or particular state interests and forms. That is more difficult than a vanguard party seizure of national political power (i.e., a mere change of administration rather than proletarian revolution of social relations and conditions - leftist bureaucratic power v proletarian autonomy), but in my opinion is the only realistic means of self-emancipation for the working classes; i.e. the abolition of class society. Even if that is off the agenda, the immediate interests and confidence of the working classes can only be defended and advanced by recognising the reality of their class relations in Nepali society; that there is a ruling class that seeks to exploit them, and that some of them call themselves maoists. Even without completion of large infrastructure projects, the improvement of health and food provision could be greatly improved in the short-term by a redistribution of the existing wealth presently colonised by the ruling class, including the afore-mentioned govt. maoist bureaucrats taking monthlysalaries 3 times the national annual average wage.

But proletarian self-organisation and communisation is all very far from the state capitalist and/or SEZ pretensions of the Nepali state. Capitalist development is capitalist exploitation in motion and it is an error to equate the presence of leftist parties within the state/increased bureaucratic power with an actual seizure of productive forces by an insurgent proletariat themselves. The mere fact that a party may have mass support from the lower classes is irrelevant - so does Obama and no one here's calling him a communist or an incarnation of proletarian interests being pursued. It is the content of the class relations that counts.

Under normal conditions working class interests/demands are partially expressed via organisations such as unions and parties that seek to limit those demands to whatever maintains/re-establishes equilibrium within capitalism. But if one talks of a radical social movement; either the working class/poor peasantry leads its own struggles as a process of self-organisation outside and against all separate powers or it submits itself to class domination. This view has been caricatured as a fetish of spontaneism - but I see it as a latent tendency that ebbs and flows with varying force in class struggle and taking varying organisational forms; e.g., it exploded in the emergence of the workers and student 'red rebels' during the Cultural Revolution who developed a practical critique of all factions of the state bureaucracy. They were repressed for criticising bureaucratic privilege and making working class demands that the state dismissed as 'economism'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPCR_Ultra-Left
The fear that an increasingly autonomous class struggle may now emerge and call their bluff in Nepal is a likely reason for the present anti-strike enthusiasm of the maoists.

But the discussion too often fails to acknowledge that Nepal is a small fish in a big pond and outcomes will not be determined solely by the chosen ideological policies of one national party; whoever controls the Nepali state, the interests/demands of greater external powers and wider geo-political forces - such as India, China, US, EU, IMF etc - will have to be taken into account and accomodated.

I hope at least I've clarified my outlook to correct the distortions of 'Redflag'. But I really only came here to correct his/her slanderous untruths and inventions .... not to get into an endless debate.

I concretely described the hypocrisy, and likely consequences for proletarians, of advocating SEZ's and strike bans;
I gave a reasoned critique of the 'feudal stage' theory;
I described a different conception of class struggle to the vanguardist one;
None of this is any more ideological (considerably less in many cases) than much of this site's content.
You have chosen not to "concretely" respond to these points.

If one is to deal with the realities of class society, one has to try to strip away the 'ideological' mystifications that help maintain it, including leftist ones. My descriptions of the relationships between contending political forces and classes in Nepal is "concrete" and applicable to the present situation. You equate the best interests of the exploited classes with a maoist ruling party that is becoming every bit as autocratic as the 'royal autocracy' they denounced and replaced - a party that wants to ban workers' strikes. To me, that is an "abstract" "fantasy land".
I made no "insinuations" - I only repeated what the maoists have said - that they wish to ban strikes to increase capitalist profitability. Yes, my interpretation of that is different from their justifications of a supposed 'common interest' between exploited and exploiters. You can claim the necessities of 'realpolitic' justify this - I won't agree.
And no, we can't be sure what the maoists ministers within the CA do with their massive wages - but we do know that such immense financial power is part of how the ruling class rules. Possibly throwing a few crumbs here and there to those below doesn't change that.
Yes, there are two main political forces in Nepal - and both have shown that they are a ruling class who want the working classes to remain as a constituency under their control, functioning as labour power to be exploited. Hence, strike bans. The ideal - though unlikely - for the Nepal maoists (or at least one faction believes so) would be classic bureaucratic state capitalism masquerading as 'communism' as under Mao. Then,as now, <i>real</i> communism/true working class interests would be best served by an autonomous class struggle against the state capitalist regime - similar to that described in the 'Left Communism in China' article I linked to. (I should also point out that such views are far from exclusively anarchist - most currents of non-leninist marxism might subscribe to them. Many users of libcom are more non-leninist-marxist or
-communist than anarchist.)
I reject the claims of an identity of interest between the maoist party and the exploited classes, so you resent that I refuse to reduce all working class interests to the advancement of that party. It is quite inacurrate to say I've failed to discuss the "political possibilities for the UCPN(M) (or any revolutionary group that swapped positions with them) at this moment." You just don't like the evidence I am showing that it is to remain a ruling class, whether in coalition or as autocracy: a class of exploitation. I think you also fear that the evidence for that is getting harder to refute.

SEZs are 'necessary evils'? Are you insane?

N3wday, really, if somebody had said this to you like 5 years ago, what would your response have been? Are you anti-capitalist -- hell, even just anti the more extreme bits of capitalism, or not?

I think you done slipped on that slippery slope.

"I think you done slipped on that slippery slope."

Lolz, I'm perfectly willing to accept that you're correct. But, if I don't say it forcefully, I have doubts I'll ever hear about alternatives.

RM,

A few questions for clarification.

Do you believe a revolutionary country can be built and sustained through long periods of general scarcity?

If yes, then we'll be having an entirely different conversation.

If no, do you believe Nepal has the ability to develop infrastructure, hydropower, etc within a reasonable amount of time without foreign investment/technical assistance/supplies?

If yes, how (keeping things such as brain drain, and the, in my view, necessary technical expertise of the little existing national bourgeoisie in mind)?

If no, how would they go about achieving this on terms that are acceptable (keeping in mind there has not yet been a full revolution, which excludes the possibility of expropriation of the wealth of the bourgeois/comprador groups, etc)?

N3wday asked;
<i>Do you believe a revolutionary country can be built and sustained through long periods of general scarcity?</i>
I don't believe in socialism in one country. I don't believe a revolution has ocurred in Nepal - the ruling class is still in power, now joined by a maoist parliamentary faction. I don't see that or the guerilla war as a revolutionary process - as a revolutionary strategy, the maoists themselves abandoned the war as unwinnable. (Which doesn't preclude at least a maoist faction going back to it, or the continued militarisation of Nepal by various ethnic, separatist and party paramilitary groups leading to a possible new civil war.)
Note that the ruling class is not experiencing much scarcity.

<i>If yes, then we’ll be having an entirely different conversation.

If no, do you believe Nepal has the ability to develop infrastructure, hydropower, etc within a reasonable amount of time without foreign investment/technical assistance/supplies?

If yes, how (keeping things such as brain drain, and the, in my view, necessary technical expertise of the little existing national bourgeoisie in mind)?

If no, how would they go about achieving this on terms that are acceptable (keeping in mind there has not yet been a full revolution, which excludes the possibility of expropriation of the wealth of the bourgeois/comprador groups, etc)?</i>

It should be clear from my previous comments that answers to these questions will be different depending on whether they are confronted as problems for the ruling class to solve in their pursuit of profits or as the problems for an insurgent proletarian movement as it communises social relations. Merely because there are maoists in Parliament, you talk as if this difference does not exist. But the proposed strike ban makes it clear that it does. While they are posed as problems for the ruling class the working classes can only defend themselves within the class relation. (By your own logic, if Nepal was not the poorest country in Asia - and so rock bottom on labour costs at present - it would be legitimate for it, in the cause of supposedly 'building socialism in one country' - within a class society! - to now import cheaper immigrant labour to work in SEZ's so as to lower the general wage levels.) When workers have defended their interests against the dictates of 'socialist vanguard' bureaucracies they have often been accused and repressed for the supposed crime of a narrow 'economism'. Ironicly, it is the maoist defender here who is reducing all social questions to a crude maoist 'economism' :

The ruling class, whether left or right/maoist or congress party, will experience much the same difficulties in development of the nation state and its infrastructure. You want me to prescribe the most efficient use of the working class reduced to the commodity labour power. But I have no interests in prescribing profitable solutions for the ruling class - that is an inversion of perspective. Whoever is in power, the working classes are obliged to defend themselves within that class conflict. A proletarian movement would face its own problems and need different solutions (some of which I have already hinted at earlier), but to radicalise itself would have to eventually expand beyond national borders and national economic interests.

<b>You are in effect saying that until Nepal has developed sufficient infrastructure to a certain level, the workers must postpone their class struggle and so leave themselves defenceless - and you are trying to justify that by saying that the advancement of that class struggle is secured by the presence of the maoists in the ruling class, who must be free to exploit the workers as part of 'the building of/struggle for socialism'. Nothing could be more absurd, anti-working class and counter-revolutionary.</b>

If, as is one possibility, there is a maoist state coup - and abandonment of parliamentary democracy - the exploitaion of the working classes will continue, justified in much the same pseudo-communist terms.

As I originally said, I only came here to refute certaion misrepresentations. But I think I have now explained my views sufficiently here so do not intend to continue this exchange. I will continue to occasionally report on Nepal on libcom, and I'm sure the future will clarify much for us...