It should also be noted that this is cited in <i>The Red Star</i>, which is a Maoist publication but seems to publish articles from different tendencies and viewpoints. For example, there was the bizarre editorial praising North Korea, but in the same issue went on to discuss genuine revolutionary theory.

While I still find it a bit odd (and worrying) that such a high-up cadre would praise Trotsky at all, it is true that IDOM has taken quotes out-of-context or warped them into what they WANT them to say in the past.

The UCPN(M) has never <i>acted</i> Trotskyist before, and I see no reason for them to put forward any Trotskyist positions; but that does not mean that we as Maoists should let down our guard against Trotskyist thinking in our movement.

I think---what with all this talk about not putting real-life situations in already manufactured boxes---it would be a mistake to dismiss or try to re-interpret what Bhattarai said in his controversial quote. I know, back when I considered myself a Maoist, and didn't know about New Democracy, and I heard Bhattarai's quote about how he was going to bring capitalism to Nepal, I tried to do the same thing, and pretend it wasn't true. In fact, Bhattarai is an extremely savvy and intellectual professional politician who knows exactly what he's talking about and doesn't go around providing off-the-cuff soundbites for the media.

If Bhattarai meant what he said, then here's why I agree with him: when I was in Nepal, in June, I spoke to one of Bhattarai's assistants and found out just how serious their plan for developing tourism was. Nepal is not counting on tourism to bring them consumer revenue, the way cities do when they want the Olympics. Nepal is counting on tourism to provide them with production. Currently, Nepal is so poor that most parts of the country don't have roads. This is more serious than it sounds, being that every single economic plan I heard being thrown around (or came up on my own) required roads. The only way Nepal can get out its current situation is to build roads. But it is too poor to do this on its own. Therefore, it is counting on the international bourgeoisie to build it roads, in an effort to exploit Nepal's insanely beautiful scenery by building tourist houses on these roads: and then, once there are roads, the Nepalis will be able to use these roads too. As you may have noticed, this plan involves the Maoists developing even stronger ties to the international bourgeoisie: the exact opposite of New Democracy. True, once these roads are built, then maybe they can have a revolution and take them over again. But the more internationally developed infrastructure goes up, the more of a claim the international community has to invading Nepal if the Maoists do rebel. The Maoists will not just be up against the UML, the Congress Party and India, but Germany, the US and everyone else.

I remember thinking, when I heard this, that it was a ridiculous plan, and couldn't believe this is what Bhattarai's office was putting forth as a way of running a revolutionary government. Therefore, I'm glad to hear that Bhattarai is reconsidering the importance of revolution in India and elsewhere, especially because he makes it very clear ("In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution.") that he thinks socialism is still possible in some countries, as long as those countries are more like Russia than Nepal.

As someone (relatively) new to this. I'm curious to get some background. I've mingled with Trotskyists who have said that 2 stage revolution is developing capitalism for the capitalists, as opposed to 1 stage which is developing socialism for socialists. Totally reducing the argument down and I know many will have gone over and over this. But as someone who hasn't gone through that. I'd be curious at least to get some perspectives here.

I'm glad you've addressed this on Kasama. When I saw the article link posted on Marxmail, I checked this site to see if it had been covered, and noticed that while you'd covered Bhattarai a few months ago, the Trotsky issue hadn't come up,so I assumed it was not significant to your project.

But Kasama needs to speak up on these issues - how about a response on the Marxmail list? I, for one, am new to the maoist viewpoint, and I have found it unexpectedly different from the traditions I've been familar with, and all the more valuable for that. I've also noticed some unexpectedly hostile reactions to those referred to as maoists - but I guess every current takes its licks.

I find the Trotsky-Stalin debate valid to entertain (as I would find most history - to understand what human culture is capable of, not as a prescriptive), and the maoist perspective a fresh wind in that (for me , at least).

Mike, don't underestimate the ability of people to sort things out. Just provide the analysis. Admittedly for fans of Trotsky, or Stalin, whose historical narrative is fully-formed and unassailable,no analysis will persuade.

Does Kasama find it not productive to debate these points, or is such a debate not welcome at the other, non-maoist end? (that's a real question.)I think the analysis presented here by Nando was enlightening, and deserves wider circulation.

Louis Proyect posted this in (indirect but useful) response to the question of a maoist/trotskyist divide:
"I don't think that there is much point in battling over Lenin's successor. Down in New Zealand Maoists and Trotskyists came together in a new formation that puts these sorts of questions on the back burner,where they belong. It is no accident that they have established some ties with the Nepalese Maoists" and he gave this link:

http://workersparty.org.nz/spark-archive/party-history/fusion-forms-new-group-revolutionary-workers-league/
Fusion forms new group – Revolutionary Workers League

From that article:
"Differences continue to exist over historical questions such as the degeneration of the Soviet Union and the Stalin/Trotsky debate and some aspects of the Chinese revolution. It was agreed that these are not sufficient to prevent principled revolutionary unity and can be discussed at leisure in the future by members of the RWL, including publicly in the organisation's press. Differences over current issues, which cut across the WP/revolution divide anyway, can also be aired publicly in the new RWL's publications.

This is seen as being more in line with the practice of Lenin and the Bolsheviks than the kind of dogmatic, monolithic 'culture' that pervades much of the Marxist left, both 'Stalinist' and 'Trotskyist'. "

This seems like a productive attempt at realignment to me - but it happened 5 years ago, and I can't say what its status is currently, although I notice they post Kasama pieces. Is something like this not possible now in the USA?

The Workers Party is still going strong. We have NEVER had any kind party conflict, let alone a split, that went along pro-Mao/pro-Trotsky lines. We have a lively internal culture with plenty of debate and disagreement, but it revolves around the issues concerned, not what Trotsky or Stalin had to say on a similar matter in Russia almost a hundred years ago.

We've grown steadily ever since our formation and we're now the largest radical left group (Marxist or anarchist) in New Zealand, as well as the only one that could really be said to have a nationwide reach. Keep in mind that in the small communist movement we have here that means three branches and about 40 or 50 cadre, but in a country of 4 million proportionally we're doing ok

A fundamental point the WP always united around was that small communist groups in the first world should not tell revolutionaries leading actual mass struggles in the third world how to make revolution. We don't have to uncritically endorse everything the UCPN (M), or Chavez, or the Philippinos or whoever say, but it's not our place to 'show them the light'. The more someone claims to know about how to make revolution in the Congo or in Nepal, the less they tend to know abut building a revolutionary group and a workers movement in New Zealand.

Hi All.

Just a couple of things. Firstly the people that have really jumped on this at IDOM are not worth looking into. They have the most dogmatic veiw of the world, and quite frankly are incapable of understanding the processes in Nepal in any meaningful way.

That being said, i think these comments shouldnt be too easily dissmissed.

Your absolutely correct in saying that *Permanent Revolution* is not on the cards here. Particularly in a third world country, it just isnt a relevant theory, and no-one is advocating that. But there is more to *trotskiism* then the permanent revolution.

The influence of Trotskiism is more in his no-so-discredited work around the need to fight bureucracy, and the need for more international solidarity for Nepal to succede. THATS the trotskism thats useful today for revolutionaries and its on those questions where there is a trotty influence in sections of the party.

Trotty is a wonderful word Ben

better trotty then notty

I'm struck by the differences in Andrei and Ben's posts. Andrei finds the use of the Trotsky quote "worrying" and warns against letting "our guard" down against Trotskyist ideas. Ben, by contrast, distinguishs between different elements in Trotsky's thinking and suggests that some might be of value even if the theory of permanent revolution is not. As should surprise nobody, I agree with Ben.

I am quite pleased to see Bhattarai quoting Trotsky, if only to shake up the dogmatists. I believe UCPN(M) leaders have made similar comments about Rosa Luxembourg (whose political economic work on accumulation bears re-reading). I'd love to see a similar openness to the full range of heretics from Gramsci through Fanon and beyond.

Being "on guard" against heretical ideas is deadly to revolutionary theory. As anyone who has worked security should know there is a logic to being a guard and that is that it is always best to err on the side of keeping a potential troublemaker out rather than to catch hell if they actually cause trouble wen they get in. And this is the same mentality that prevails in political sects that instruct their members to be on guard against this or that heresy.

A genuinely scientific outlook is unafraid of heresy and knows that seemingly disproven ideas come back to like all the time in te light of new experiences or theoretical advances in other areas. The Trotskyist critique of building socialism in one country was problematic more because it was politically paralyzing than because it was analytically wrong about the limits of what could be achieved and its revival in a much smaller country in a more globally integrated world economy makes complete sense to me.

I wrote this before Mike's post, but I think I'll post it anyway.

The Troskyist movement was one of the earliest spits in the international communist movement.(not counting Kautsky) It was historical but also theoretical. These splits have become less important as time has moved on, but can't be ignored. There is no pro-soviet factions left, nor is there really a pro-china faction. There are Troskyist, Stalinist and Maoist (who may or may not like Stalin).
On a practical level, I’ve noticed that Troskyist groups are largest in developed countries, such as Spain or Japan, although they do have a presents in parts of Latin America. They have supported the Moslem revolution in Iran. Maoism seems more popular among the poorest countries, in Asia especially, but also in parts of Latin America.
Troskyist also hate anarchist and Maoist not so much. Some Maoists, including myself, started out as anarchists. Troskyists I’ve met do seem willing to work with Maoist, so that’s a good thing.
For some of us ideology is an important first step to developing a sense of direction, strategy and goals. I suppose for some it is just “geriatric scholastics.” Ideology can become dogmatic and counter-productive, but it is not a bad thing.
Of course it never hurts to read other ideas. Even Trostky wasn’t always wrong. Gramsci’s picture still appears on the Italian Maoist websites. Writers as he have their place and can be useful.

As for North Korea, can we really support it's downfall?

I am not saying that we shouldn't engage with Trotskyist forces, or that I'm against "heresy". What I <i>am</i> against is falling into incorrect ideas that will not get us to revolution.

Permanent revolution, the theory of productive forces, the theory of the deformed workers' state, and euro-centric view on revolution are not just "heresy", they are theories that have been proven wrong by history. The fact that an actually-revolutionary force would invoke such a thoroughly incorrect doctrine is wrong, although I will concede that such a thing may not be exactly what Bhattarai said.

There are definitely numerous sides to approach here, and I hope to be able to contribute a bit more to the discussion in the near future. For now I will just post the following point springing off of the second and third points in Mike's (excellent)post:

There seems to be a notion held by some that if you were to take sect X and mash it together ideologically and organizationally (note the absence of political considerations when discussing a group that lacks a mass base and mass political practice) with sect Y and sect Z, that somehow this would really amount to anything more than a slightly larger sect. One of the problems with this assumption is that one is encouraged to draw attention to the sects' attitudes and methods of "work" towards each other (and at that on a very superficial and abstract level - "hey, you're all socialists!") as what comprises their essential defining flaw condemning them to be a sect, rather than their approach towards politics and the masses generally (and how that is ideologically informed).

There are different varieties of Trotskyists just as there are many tendencies that call themselves "Maoist." Some years ago, Jack Barnes, the leader of the Socialist Workers Party of the U.S., which was then one of the more significant Trotskyist groups in the world, caused a big sensation in a speech entitled "Their Trotsky and Ours," where he distanced himself from some traditional Trotskyist positions while reaffirming others. While this was occasioned by the SWP's positive assessment of revolutions in Nicaragua, Grenada and El Salvador that were not led by "Trotskyists", the SWP has since become an irrelevant little sect that no one pays any attention to. So having a "correct position" isn't an end-all and be-all!

While I don't share the "Maoist" perspective of the people who are part of Kasama (and what do all these labels mean in this day and age, anyway?), I appreciate their free and open-minded attitude toward other groups and individuals who don't share their perspective. A welcome change from the old days when left groups spent as much time fighting each other as the real enemy!

Alan Woods and the leaders of http://marxist.com/ said that as bad as zionists and US imperialists are, we should not support islamic fundamentalist isolated groups like Hezbollah or Hamas, u see simple people have a simple world view, and if Bush was evil, Obama must be good. and same happens in middle-east. If Israel is evil, Hamas must be good, but both are evil

Important to look clearly at this: Hezbollah seems much more sophisticated politically than Hamas, and these should not be paired like twins. To say both Israel and Hamas are evil without reference to their actual and respective actions is, as a world view, as simple as they come.

A discussion on Marxmail about golf courses in Vietnam has produced some relevant posts on how socialism can devlop, but see especially this: http://www.marxmail.org/msg68741.html which refers to "Mike Ely's comments on the Nepal Maoists issue" regarding ... aspects of "Trotskyism..."

He was clearly using this as a provocative analogy to counterpose a rigid "socialism in one country" to a more globalized understanding of the two streams of world revolution (national democratic/proletarian socialist). The Nepalese comrades have long made these arguments. This does not mean they will embrace the historical role of Trotsky or Trotskyites who acted as agents of counterrevolution, anticommunism, and reaction.

David_D said
<blockquote>"The Nepalese comrades have long made these arguments. This does not mean they will embrace the historical role of Trotsky or Trotskyites who acted as agents of counterrevolution, anticommunism, and reaction.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Enough with the bullshit generalisations? There were definitely problems within the Trotskyist movement, there have been some interesting constructive posts made within Kasama on that point.

But making generalised statements like those helps no one.

Nando,

You have neither read the Baburam OPUS (Raato Jhilko, ie the Red Spark, that was published in Nepali language last August), nor have taken trouble to verify our article with the UCPN (M) itself. What you are doing is speculation, without knowing the facts.

The fact is that, last September, Baburaam Bhattarai's article ('Contemporary Marxism') in the Maoist quarterly Magazine "Raato Jhilko", was distributed to the Nepali Media with much fanfare, in the presense of the Maoist supremo Prachanda himself. Prachanda had himself commented on Baburam OPUS and said this: "Comrade Bhattarai is of course our senior party leader, and what he has written reflects the line of our party. But, I have also told him, that, when he talks about the issues of Stalin-Trotsky, we must be careful". Baburam's position that, "Trotskyism is more relevant than Stalinism" was also widely debated within the Nepali intellectual circules as well as the Maoist press here. Eg. Mr Kushal Pradhan (Maoist CC Member) wrote an article in www.lalrakshak.com against the position of Baburam Bhattarai. Whereas other prominent political analysts have commented on the remarks of Dr. Bhattarai. If anyone among the Eruo Maoists can read Nepali language, I can send the Raato Jhilko to them for verification of the Truth.

Nando, you have thus, truly mastered the Stalinist-Maoist school of dishonesty and falsification, without even trying to verify our article published on IDOM with the original source.

I'm a little confused by the anger and charges in Kamred Hulaki's comment above.

Kamred writes:

<blockquote>"You have neither read the Baburam OPUS (Raato Jhilko, ie the Red Spark, that was published in Nepali language last August), nor have taken trouble to verify our article with the UCPN (M) itself."</blockquote>

This is true. I have not read the articles in the Red Spark. (And neither have many of the people who reported sobreathlessly on Bhattarai's remarks.)

Perhaps it is not clear, to Kamred, that most of us here cannot read the Nepali language, and have no access to people who do. And so when announcements are made about various developments in the Nepali political scene, it is simply wise to wait for confirmation from other sources.

Giving us links to articles in Nepali doesn't help unfortunately. Could you translate for us brief specific passages that are relevant to this discussion?

Kamred writes:

<blockquote>What you are doing is speculation, without knowing the facts."</blockquote>

On the contrary, what I am doing is arguing <em>against</em> speculation (and jumping to conclusions) in the absence of confirmed facts.

In a world of class struggle, with lots of lies and disinformation about living revolutions, it makes sense to be cautious and reserve judgement pending confirmed facts.

I wurge Kamred to respond to the core of my remarks, which sought to situate Bhattarai's remarks within the main line questions of the Nepali revolution (some of which have been widely available and documented).

In particular, I argue that Bhattarai has not been making a case for an approach of "permanent revolution" (i.e. the trotskyist view of one stage socialist revolution in semifeudal countries). He raises the problems of "socialism in one country" in the context of debating how long the current bourgeois democratic "transition period" should be allowed to continue. Is that not true?

Finally, that bluster about "the Stalinist-Maoist school of dishonesty and falsification" is uncalled for. It doesn't help create the kind of political discussions and exchanges that we all can learn from. We am not part of school "school of dishonesty and falsification" and I don't think that the Maoist movement historically has been either.

Why not deal with the actual arguments made, and point out any errors that they contain. I would love to learn from your future remarks.

Dear hateful comrade, Kamred Hulaki, once,
same individual, Ms/Mr. Nando whose nationality is still not clear for me but, has been acting productive in this site, in regard to my low searched assumptions about certain popular matter, Star Trek, that i had made a rough, jumpy assumption based on not the maker of the movie but, names and grouping of the ones who are - well, a number of the writers specialy the ones writing about my favorite charchter, Mr. Spock, happen to be Jews.

Nando had written a response saying that although he doubts it but, my writing might imply anti semetic emotions of a sort.

Guess what, without reading the rest of the text, i was not in my rightest mode, i think i wrote somethings negative to him/her and later, when i rephrased the matter and truly got into the matters of the discussion, s/he was nice and said something like thanks to come back rational.

You say about her/him acting on
Stalinist-Maoist school of dishonesty?

Right now, I am reading a book by an author called Antoy Beevor, the book called Stalingrad, the fateful siege: 1942 - 1943

Many times, when talking about Stalin (whom then was refered to as Uncle Joe in the US, even,) and generally the Soviet Union, I talked of Stalingrad as a glorious part of a history that, although in the west we hear only about the Six Millions killed innocent Jewish/Gypsy/Gay people and so forth, howcome they don't talk about the 20 million people of the Soviet Union? (and later I discovered how large the number of people of China was killed by the Japanese)....

During the reading, I see things i had heard before and tried to ignore such as, with Bria, many innocent people were put in bad conditions. And even the Russian prisoners of wars were treated like traitors and, hurt or killed.

And there are other sayings about misdeeds of Stalin (and/or to an extent Mao and ...)

Therefore, what if, neither Bhattari was talking about permenant revolution nor, socialism in one counry? What if he was referring to Stalin's rough attitude toward many of his own comrades?

But, beside this all, the reason i have chosen this site as my favorite left site is their exactly not having those attitude that you labled:
Stalinist-Maoist school of dishonesty
Right now I am not defending or defaming neither Mao or Stalin. I am trying to say, dishonesty is the least i can think of, in this very site. Rephrase your debate and arguments and you will see how well you shall be received.