For what it's worth, coming from me, this answer by Mike is very good. The truth is concrete and the future is open. Our more dogmatically inclined comrades need to emancipate their minds and seek truth from facts, Every new revolution breaks the old molds.

Our task is to support and popularize this struggle. I try to do it among people who tend to think anything with 'Maoist' in it can't be serious or important. True sometimes, but far from always. Most important, we need to prepare to block our own government from interventions, intrigues and conspiracies against Nepal and its people.

Mike Ely states he doesn't want a bitter personal debate and then says I am playing in a sandbox. The one part of my post that Mike doesn't go into is the bit where I say that when people have made mistakes they can tend to start lashing out at others before they finally admit they were wrong.

I can't go into everything Mike says in detail now. However, the gist of it seems to be that despite what the UCPN(M) says and does it is still planning to make revolution, it is just not announcing its plans. A revolution is not like a conspiracy to rob a bank. Some (but of course not all) of the preparations do have to be made fairly publicly for the simple reason that you will need to involve the people in order to make revolution. Before the People's War in Nepal there was one year of initiation which the state was certainly aware of. I would like to believe that Prachanda is planning a secret revolution which no-one else has gotten wind of, including the world bourgeois media that continually refers to the UCPN(M) as the 'former rebels'. However, I don't think this is very likely. To go back to the revolutionary path now would require a new political line which would need to be openly announced and then struggled for in the Party and among the masses. This could happen but I see no sign of it at the moment.

I don't think parallels between what the UCPN(M) is doing and the United Front against the Japanese occupation of China are really appropriate. China was under foreign occupation then and you cannot make revolution against your domestic ruling class while ignoring the fact of foreign occupation. (A point many in the West miss when they elevate the 'trade union struggle' in Iraq above the fight against occupation).

The Chunking Negotiations are often cited in support of the UCPN(M). Firstly, we can point out the obvious point that the mooted agreement wasn't actually implemented. Also, Mao agreed to this under pressure from Stalin and the US. I don't think the Chunking Negotiations are really a model to follow or celebrate. Possibly, it is just something that arose from some of the mistakes our movement has made. I think Stalin's tactics at this time need to be analysed in terms of an ambiguity between extending revolution and consolidation of the socialist camp. I think the ambiguity was an error which shouldn't be repeated.

The UCPN(M) does have a lot of influence and power in large parts of the countryside, I'm sure. This is not however the same as having a revolutionary government. A revolutionary government is not some spontaneous thing. It is an overt challenge to the existing political order. It is meant to be giving the masses an alternative to the bourgeois democratic order. If you don't have that political alternative to offer, because you've agreed to dissolve it, I think it's pretty inevitable you'll get sucked into the bourgeois order.

As far as all the personal stuff about 'impotent western critics'...When the then CPN(M) first came out with their bad new line, they called it '21st Century Democracy' later they referred to '21st Century Proletarian Revolution'. They weren't just talking about Nepal. You can't try to promote a line within the international proletarian movement, then complain they have no right to criticise it because they don't come from your country. More seriously, as I hinted at in my article on this, according to the evidence I have seen, many revolutionaries in the imperialist countries have decided to tail Bhattarai's revisionist line on the state. Often these were people who expressed revolutionary ideas in the past and had fought for a revolutionary line for a long period of time. However, now it is impossible for anyone to work with these people to build a revolutionary movement. How on Earth would anyone motivate people in the UK to devote their lives to the creation of some multi-party bourgeois political system when that's what we've got anyway? When bad lines emerge in leading movements abroad it has a hell of an impact on things in other countries, as Mike probably knows from his experience of the counter-revolutionary coup in China. So we have to struggle against bad lines in other parties, it's a matter of self-preservation.

J. Ball:
<blockquote>”When bad lines emerge in leading movements abroad it has a hell of an impact on things in other countries, as Mike probably knows from his experience of the counter-revolutionary coup in China. So we have to struggle against bad lines in other parties, it’s a matter of self-preservation.”</blockquote>

I am not interested in going tit for tat with Mr. Ball, especially since I think Mike Ely has done an excellent job of that, with not only facts, but reality checks. But I’m singling out the above quote from J. Ball because it is so revealing. (Also, the contentious struggle on Kasama isn’t just with some lone individual.)

IMO, J. Ball’s statement is a concentration of individualistic thinking (PERHAPS with a little careerism thrown in), has little if anything to do with being an internationalist, and really turns things on its head.

“When bad lines emerge in leading movements abroad….” What about when righteous revolutionary movements, and attempts at making revolution, involving huge (and growing) sections of the actual people (!) emerge? Is it the role of revolutionaries worldwide to sit on the sidelines and on their hands, and nitpick about every document, etc. until all is laid out with some formulaic analysis that fits their <i>idea</i> of revolution before they jump into the fray?

I’m sorry to be so snarky, but the arrogance gets to me everytime. What have we collectively learned from all the revolutionary struggles that have emerged, with their prolonged processes that certainly include big twists and turns? As die-hard internationalists, and creative revolutionaries, do we just sit around and wait for some tablet to be brought down from on high with some pat outcome, all spelled out for “us” before we unite with the people in <i>their</i> struggle, and be active within the confines of our own capacities?

Does anyone actually believe that if the Nepali revolutionaries and people are victorious <i>at this stage</i> of the "game", that further life and death struggles won't emerge in the future? The naysayers are already "admitting" and even worse promoting defeat. Does not every single revolutionary and progressive struggle contain both victories and defeats? Do people really believe that the current situation in Nepal is some end game? and with whatever outcome, then "we" can just pack up our volumes of Marx, Lenin and Mao, and await the next struggle to come along?

At this point in time, there is no formal or cohesive ICM. There are however, pockets of revolutionary-thinkers and activists worldwide, and there certainly are many pockets and events representing different struggles of the oppressed to varying degrees on a worldwide scale. But our revolutionary sisters and brothers are scattered, although in some places better organized than others and the thrust of their struggle is painted with a more revolutionary brush. This should be a point of celebration and inspiration not demoralization.

The way I see it, the Nepali Maoists are<i>not </i>obligated to “us” most especially, to spell out every tactic and strategy, and moreover since they are in the throes of actual revolution and a revolutionary process. What I have found so encouraging about the Nepali revolutionary communists/Maoists, is the amount of transparency and self-criticism they have engaged in, even in the midst of making and continuing to make revolution, which revolution is unfolding on lots of different levels.

But if we are true internationalists, the onus is on us to educate (both historically and currently) people, to popularize this revolution amongst those we know and those people we’re just coming in contact with, and thus lend real support to the people of Nepal in their tortuous (and not predetermined) revolutionary struggle. It might behoove us to spend less time trying to finitely and dogmatically try and score points with (or against) the leadership of the Nepali communists, as if their revolutionary struggle started and stopped with our finite input, but instead be vigilant, further expose and actually actively struggle against any designs or machinations, coming from our own imperialist “leaders” with any of their attempts to try to turn the tide against the people of Nepal and try and smash the revolution—from without.

In the podcast interviews on May Day/San Francisco Bay Area, KaComrade Luis posed pertinent questions to many of the demonstrators, who were mainly there in support of undocumented immigrants and against the new brutal attacks on mainly the Latino community. He talked about Nepal, got out the Kasama flyer, etc. and basically asked, “What does the revolution in Nepal mean to you? How do you think Nepal impacts on your struggle.” And over and over again, the response was—and to paraphrase somewhat—“If people are rising up against oppression, no matter where, and especially if this movement is coming from the people, I support them. We are part of the same struggle.”

That’s the spirit….

In another recent post re Nepal, Mike was talking about mass line, and (unity struggle unity and) applying the “correct line.” I suppose I am the righteous inheritor of the “agnostic” label, but sometimes I am not sure just who it is that has the correct and thus formulated line…certainly not sure if there isn’t some real-live summation and analysis – bottom up, top down, and an analysis that involves those outside your particular little circle of friends. Where do correct ideas come from?

But here’s something I just don’t understand. While some of the staunch critics are honing in on Nepal, they seem to make excuses for past “errors” by the Indian or Philippine communists/Maoists. Why are they so vehement in their attacks on the Nepali Maoists. I really don’t get it.

And to say that you really do <i>support</i> the revolution in Nepal, while at the same time calling the party (ultimately the whole party) revisionist, or blatantly attacking and criticizing tactics and strategy, and even worse, from afar with some even calling for a split, how does that translate into really supporting the revolution and Nepali masses in the real world? IMO, those folks are only paying lip service to “support.” Do they feel slighted that they’re not included in on Central Committee meetings of the UCPN-M?

Sorry this is so long…but there’s one more thing that has my dander up. Jed Brandt has been reporting from Ground Zero. And his reports are even more invaluable since he isn’t just talking with people who are 100% convinced. (That’s the real world BTW.) And I was taken aback at the lack of enthusiastic financial support for Jed’s outstanding efforts. Maybe contributions were made unbeknownst to moi and others on Kasama main. I certainly hope so.

<blockquote>"'I do believe that there is a problem that some communists have never led anything, never organized anything, never gone beyond words, and so think they can judge the world from their little sandbox. Beyond that, I got no beef.'</blockquote>

If this is me you're talking about, how do you know Mike? I don't give personal details out on the internet so you don't know what I've done in my life and I am not going to be goaded into telling you.

Yes, of course we have to be flexible about principles. But just going with what suits the moment and without any reference to principles is called opportunism. Supporting the UCPN(M) because its a big party with a high profile without reference to the principles that animate it is opportunistic. I don't see how Mike can support a support a party without knowing whether he supports their strategy, tactics or principles. This doesn't leave very much does it? It is fatuous to say that you support the 'people' in a party if you have no idea if you support what they are actually doing.

Line is decisive. We could all support the 'revolutionary people' of the Red Shirts in Thailand if we wanted to. This idea that in any country you can support the worker's struggle but not its leadership is an anarcho-Trotskyist eclectic mess. Revolutions aren't made by accident. There has to be a conscious revolutionary leadership. If the leadership are solely focused on playing bourgeois politics, then no revolution is possible unless the leadership line changes.

Mike,

Does your dismissal of those who critique the political line and actions of the UCPN(Maoist) as being players in sandboxes who have never led revolutions, extend to the Communist Party of India (Maoist)?

Readers can find their polemic against the Prachanda and the leading forces in the UCPN(M) on BannedThought.net and as a Kasama pamphlet.

I hardly think one can compare the situation in Thailand with the Nepal. But OK...so when we get down to it, what do you, J.B., concretely propose we do?

It seems to me that Mike’s overall view on the revolutionary process in Nepal is based on two foundations:
Support it and learn from it.

I’ll take up the question of support and what it entails, later.
So far as learning from Nepal is concerned, how can one learn anything from there even in 50 years time from now, if after 40 years of wearing Mao’s badge and over thirty years from the actual event, they are still incapable of learning and knowing that what happened in Iran in 79 was a revolution and NOT a spontaneous rebellion culminating in the overthrow of the Shah.Shouldn't the difference between these two be part of the ABC's of Maoism?

Mike does not fare much better even when relating some of the lessons and history of revolutions in Russia and China.

I am not even sure anymore if Mike really believes in some of the things that he says or he just finds it expedient to present things the way they were/are not.

with all due respect about self proclaimed and/Or practically informed by living throught those years when...

...despite limits in his progressive line about certian matters in contrast with great fallen comrade Huey P Newton and others' clearer and more constant positions on life and revolution, a single saying of the other late comrade Eldrige Cleaver saying that if you ain't a part of the solution, you Are a part of The Problem... to me is as clear as saying 2 + 2 = 4

Why should you be practically serving the imperialists by instead of supporting a revolution,make negative statements and image about it? This is not a lottery for winning a million dollar check sir, this is lives of poor people in a peculiar part of the planet where, for sure they have had enough time to do their readings of hitory.

Please don't distort or, discourage people who are making revolution, in their own ways.

What i cannot understand is that why a simple associated press piece of news has more clarity and less downgrading balderdash in it than say - the ones who underestimate the value and unique complexity of the revolution up their on the peak of the world.

A friend of mine is translating an article of these ... what's their names and how many schools they might be ..... something Maoist education group of a sort....

Whatever everybody says about what they think is right and wrong but cannot you see in the below article for example that with all imperialism in their support, they don't have the guts to make a scratch upon face of our comrade, Prachanda when he goes to sit down and have a deadline meeting with his serious foes?

If you cannot dig a culture, society and its peculiar, spectacular revolutionary path, even if disagreeing with some aspects of their way of making the revolution but, still support them. Keep your criticism as a footnote, mention them but, please don't serve like - like a Rand Report maker.... don't be uncle sam's think tanker.
please comrades.


Nepal leaders still at odds as crisis looms

PHOTOS
Previous Next

Maoist Chairman Puspa Kamal Dahal peeps out of his car window as the car leaves Maoist party head office after a meeting in Katmandu, Nepal, Tuesday, May. 25, 2010. Lawmakers of Nepal's three major political parties, who are seeking to reach a deal to extend the term of the Constituent Assembly beyond May 28 held high level meetings in the capital, but failed to break through the continuing deadlock. (AP Photo/Binod Joshi)
Maoist Chairman Puspa Kamal Dahal peeps out of his car window as the car leaves Maoist party head office after a meeting in Katmandu, Nepal, Tuesday, May. 25, 2010. Lawmakers of Nepal's three major political parties, who are seeking to reach a deal to extend the term of the Constituent Assembly beyond May 28 held high level meetings in the capital, but failed to break through the continuing deadlock. (AP Photo/Binod Joshi) (Binod Joshi - AP)

A Nepalese policeman stands guard at the entrance of Nepal's constitutional assembly in Katmandu, Nepal, Tuesday, May 25, 2010. The lawmakers of Nepal's major political parties, who are seeking to reach a deal to extend the term of the Constitutional Assembly beyond May 28, delayed a voting on a key bill Sunday to amend the constitution, likely to reach a consensus in a high-level meeting scheduled for Tuesday, according to newspapers. (AP Photo/Binod Josh)
A Nepalese policeman stands guard at the entrance of Nepal's constitutional assembly in Katmandu, Nepal, Tuesday, May 25, 2010. The lawmakers of Nepal's major political parties, who are seeking to reach a deal to extend the term of the Constitutional Assembly beyond May 28, delayed a voting on a key bill Sunday to amend the constitution, likely to reach a consensus in a high-level meeting scheduled for Tuesday, according to newspapers. (AP Photo/Binod Josh) (Binod Joshi - AP)

A Nepalese policeman stands guard at the entrance of Nepal's constitutional assembly in Katmandu, Nepal, Tuesday, May 25, 2010. The lawmakers of Nepal's major political parties, who are seeking to reach a deal to extend the term of the Constitutional Assembly beyond May 28, delayed a voting on a key bill Sunday to amend the constitution, likely to reach a consensus in a high-level meeting scheduled for Tuesday, according to newspapers. (AP Photo/Binod Josh)
A Nepalese policeman stands guard at the entrance of Nepal's constitutional assembly in Katmandu, Nepal, Tuesday, May 25, 2010. The lawmakers of Nepal's major political parties, who are seeking to reach a deal to extend the term of the Constitutional Assembly beyond May 28, delayed a voting on a key bill Sunday to amend the constitution, likely to reach a consensus in a high-level meeting scheduled for Tuesday, according to newspapers. (AP Photo/Binod Josh) (Binod Joshi - AP)


Network News
X Profile
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Reprints

COMMENT
0 Comments
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
By BINAJ GURUBACHARYA
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 26, 2010; 2:58 AM

KATMANDU, Nepal -- Nepalese government and opposition leaders failed Wednesday to resolve disagreements that could leave the Himalayan nation without a functioning legislature by the weekend and heading for political chaos, a ruling coalition official said.

The two-year term of the Constituent Assembly, which was elected in 2008, expires on Friday. The assembly was meant to draft a new constitution to help guide Nepal out of years of civil war and upheaval, but has achieved little due to political bickering.

When the assembly's term expires, so does Nepal's interim constitution. The main opposition party of former Maoist rebels say the current government would lose it legitimacy which could leave the country in chaos.

The government has proposed extending the assembly's term by one year but the Maoists, who control the most seats in the assembly, have refused to support the proposal unless the government resigns and allows their party to lead a new coalition administration.

In a last-ditch effort to forge an agreement, top government party leaders, including Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, met in the capital, Katmandu, on Wednesday with opposition chiefs, including Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

They reached no agreement but would meet again later on Wednesday to try to resolve the deadlock, said Krishna Sitaula, a senior leader of the Nepali Congress, which is part of the ruling coalition. Sitaula was at the meeting.

Earlier this month, the Maoists mounted a general strike that shut down Nepal for a week, and they have threatened to mount more protests. Analysts fear that failure to reach a political resolution could lead to violent conflict.
ad_icon

The Maoists ended their decade-old rebellion in 2006 and joined a peace process. Since then they have confined their fighters in U.N.-monitored camps and joined mainstream politics.

They won 2008 elections and formed a government but it later fell in a dispute with the nation's president over Dahal's attempt to replace the army chief who was resisting the recruitment of former rebel fighters into the military.

In comment #11 I wrote: "So far as learning from Nepal is concerned, how can one learn anything from there EVEN IN 50 YEARS TIME FROM NOW, if AFTER 40 YEARS OF WEARING MAO'S BADGE AND THIRTY YEARS FROM THE ACTUAL EVENT, they are still incapable of learning and knowing that what happened in Iran in 79 was a revolution and NOT a spontaneous rebellion culminating in the overthrow of the Shah. Shouldn’t the difference between these two be part of the ABC’s of Maoism?"

Mike, in comment#12, trunkated it to:

“So far as learning from Nepal is concerned, how can one learn anything from there…if… they are still incapable of learning and knowing that what happened in Iran in 79 was a revolution and NOT a spontaneous rebellion…”

Please note carefully the (capitalised) parts that were ommitted on both sides of the word "if" in the first line.

And then he writes:

"It is hard to believe, but NSPF seems to be seriously arguing that we can assume that there is nothing to learn from the rich Nepal experience because someone there wrote (somewhere) that the Iranian events of 1979 were a 'spontaneous rebellion' not a 'revolution.'

"And therefore (in his view) this OBSCURE COMMENT about Iranian history proves the Nepali revolutionary movement is so devoid of the ABCs of revolutionary theory, that twenty years of revolutionary struggle there cannot have accomplished anything we can learn from."

Mike thinks he can get away with outright distortion, by saying such things as "hard to believe" and "seems to be".
Does Mike assume everyone is suffering from dementia and would not remember that in a thread commemorating 40th anniversary of Kent State massacres he wrote about himself wearing a Mao badge and never taking it off?
Does he seriously assume that everyone visiting these pages would be in such a trance-like state by his sweet talk about revolution in Nepal that would not notice only two days, ago in a thread dedicated to WPRM-Britain's attack on RCP, Mike wrote "I think another important point is this one:
'The thesis of the ‘Nepalese revolution under the leadership of revisionists’ not only shows that the RCP is divorced from reality, but also indicates that this party suffers deeply from poverty of revolutionary theory. The development of proletarian revolution in Nepal is not simply owing to developments unfolding spontaneously out of the concrete conditions, resulting in a revolutionary situation as occurred in Iran in 1979 and the Philippines in 1986, where the outcomes were the fall of the Shah and Ferdinand Marcos.'"?

Why try to slander those who have political differences with you by twisting something that ought to have been absolutely clear to you as "Mike and wprm cannot learn much from the experience of Nepal" in my view, to "there is nothing in Nepal that can be learned from?"

Mike should cease and desist from using this method and start engaging the real issues.

Re 14;

Cleaver's saying if you're not a part of a solution, you are a part of the problem was a right saying.

In today's case it means that when, as self proclaimed revolutionary/progressive group(s) some may end up in practice taking counter productive positions, they are serving Nepalese counterrevolutionary forces and imperialism. as simple as that.

Meaning, if due to - be it feeding one's ego a self coup making party leadership's position gets twisted when it comes to Nepal's revolution, by making any further attempt to intellectualize and justify their negative - not necessarily wrong or right but, negative - anticipations about people's struggle in Nepal is practically in the service of the capitalist ruling calss of Nepal and, their imperialist supporter. If a party, with decades of experience and X numbers of bookstores and small or large groups of supporters all over the US - stops covering news with all its success and limits - the revolution in Nepal then, what difference does it have with the western imperialist media that does not want to truly show how strong our Maoist friends have taken over hearts and minds of people in Nepal from the countryside up to.... streets of Kathmandu?

It is agonizing to see a paper we loved for so many years, Revolution(ary Worker) turn into what it is today that, if you praise writing of its leader, however underdeveolped the status of your revolutionary group/party might be (say Sarbedaran of Iran), then you are an ally and if you dare to not take Avakian's synthesis, then same people who were rationalizing 2006 agreements suddenly you in practice become an echo of imperialist media to say hey, they're not revolutionary at all.

That applies to other negative interpreters of this revolution's course of action, from their own point of view as orthodox Maoists for which, i'll get back in a bit.

regards

I simply do not understand all this bickering and squabble about the revolutionary process in Nepal. I do not have inside information and I do not pretend to a synoptic view of historical precedents.

I hold to two basic positions:

that the underlying thrust and motivation of the Maoist insurgency is fundamentally correct, and apt for Nepal's specific history and predicament, and is an heroic movement towards justice for its people;

and that the revolutionary moment is now in some sort of fierce climax, involving risk and danger and almost certainly ardent disagreements about strategy, not necessarily antagonistic but assuredly focussed on micro-tactics and very detailed appraisals of current factors.

In this it can surely be said, the movement thus far has been deeply serious and committed, and the leadership fully aware of their historic responsibilities.

Of course as an outsider I am not unusual in being most critically anxious about what's happening, which direction in the twists and turns will come into view as the path taken; but it's surely obvious that information cannot be made widely public at this time, we have to hold our breath and hope for strong and wise choices, for the spirit of the whole insurgency to be carried forward towards an outcome that is full of courage but not rashly foolhardy.

We have to support the underlying project and defend it against hostile and carping critics, and not splinter our commitment by mere speculation and aggressive doubts. To want them to succeed is not to claim that you know how they might best do it, or even what a best success might look like, but to hold the line of support and vigilance and not to be blown off course by local turbulence or uncertainty.

They are not running a theatre for some arm-chair audience, this is their real world, the risk is the danger and the danger is the risk, and no precedent that I know of can predict the peculiar features of this current intensity of climax.

Joseph Ball writes :

<blockquote><i>Line is decisive.</i> We could all support the ‘revolutionary people’ of the Red Shirts in Thailand if we wanted to. This idea that in any country you can support the worker’s struggle but not its leadership is an <i>anarcho-Trotskyist eclectic mess.</i> Revolutions aren’t made by accident. There has to be a conscious revolutionary leadership. If the leadership are solely focused on playing bourgeois politics, then no revolution is possible unless the leadership line changes.” [M.A.’s emphasis]</blockquote>

Personally, I have no idea what <i>anarcho-Trotskyist</i> means, nor if it has any real meaning in the real world? And to add to the potpourri, “line is decisive” becomes empty and simple jargon, to some of us, when it appears that whoever is simply stating such thinks they have a monopoly on the “correct and decisive line,” with seemingly little investigation about the objective situation, or subjective forces. (Has the train left the station already?)They seem to offer up little alternative to the “incorrect line.”

On another personal note, and after 50 years of being politically involved (but still making attempts at trying to learn and be open to new things), am totally tired of and actually bored with, all the simplistic labels that are used to sum up very complex situations, the complexities of life, and/or the complexities of humankind.

By “Trot-ting” out these anachronisms, I have to ask, who those doing the trotting out think they’re talking to? Certainly not talking “with.” And in doing so, they tend to make all sound like a fâit accompli.

What is one of the deep-seated contradictions most of us face, and most especially in the U.S., in handling contradictions amongst the people? I think it is the fact that many have bought into the bourgeoisie’s xenophobic line, their jingoism, my personal struggle takes priority, etc. This is an outlook we should be combating. How do we raise the revolutionary spectrum of Nepal or India, with all its complexities, to those same people we are trying to work with and reach, in an attempt to advance the struggle on our own turf?

And without reducing things to its lowest common denominator or talking down to people, is there any attempt by the “pure-ists” to use an in-common language? Is there any attempt to connect with the oppressed, trying to uncover and understand their own travails, and at the same time, helping to broaden their outlook?

To ultimately dismiss an internationalist stance, by summing up that stance as anarcho Trotskyist, or to simplistically sum up the Nepali Maoist leadership’s role as playing bourgeois politics, does a disservice (and IMO is very patronizing) to not only the revolutionary and progressive masses in Nepal, but a disservice to many of our own potential allies wherever we may reside.

To cling to such a pureist view of politics and the world, what revolutionary or progressive struggle would those types support, since nothing is pure nor perfect?

So I will ask once again (but am not going to bother asking thrice)…what do people who share J. Ball’s view, propose that we do, in light of a real and still unfolding revolution in Nepal (and India) if we consider ourselves to be revolutionary activists (whatever form that activism may be)?

What is 'anarcho-Trotskyism'? I don't know if you get it in the US to the same extent we do in the UK but yes, it's a real trend. It's quite common in the Socialist Workers Party (the UK section of the ISO). I should hasten to add that people with this line don't identify themselves as such but the term does reflect the political content of their line. They tend to believe that the revolution is spontaneous and that leadership is not a hugely important factor. What most marks them out is this endless belief that the workers will 'rebel' against a bad leadership and spontaneously organise an unofficial strike or even a revolution, when the current revolutionary leadership has given up. Thus after the 2006 peace agreement the SWP were telling people that the Nepalese workers would not accept this 'sell-out' and would 'push on with the revolutionary struggle' regardless. Of course, nothing like this happened and nothing like this ever does happen in these type of situations. Yes, you get unofficial strikes but they are organised by committees that generally, but not always, include lower-level union officials. (Surprisingly, they often get a nod and a wink from higher up union officials too).

When a revolutionary leadership gives up, then the people can rebel against this line and push on with revolution-but only under a new leadership that is prepared to do this. There can be no spontaneous revolution. The worst aspect of the anarcho-Trotskyist line is the belief many of them have that the workers don't even have to 'rebel' against the bad leadership. Rather, they can simply 'pressure' bureaucrats and reformists into taking a revolutionary stance. This is an absolutely hopeless way of trying to do things.

I call the line anarchist because of the worship of spontaneity and the believe that revolution does not require leadership. It is Trotskyite because these people say they are supporters of Trotsky's line. Of course, Trotsky himself would have nothing to do with such nonsense being himself a fanatical authoritarian.

As for what I think people should do now...First, do no further harm. Don't keep trying to build up support for something that's going in the wrong direction. The main trend in the communist movement is always to do this. Thus most communists backed Khruschev, who set in train a series of events that led to the collapse of communism (Khruschev's policies isolated China and this seriously hampered its economic development opening the way for Deng Xiaoping). Most Maoists, who remained active, went along with the Three World's Theory that came out in the early 1970s and they then supported Hua Guofeng. The RCP-USA (and its forerunner) didn't do any of this stuff, which is why I trust them despite obvious differences in line (e.g. over Stalin).

While, we're on the subject I suppose the question is who 'we' are when it comes to working out what to do. If you're reading this and you're an active supporter of the CPI (Maoist) or RCP-USA, then you're doing the right thing anyway, you're criticising, engaging in line struggle etc.

Beyond, that people can just try and learn from the errors of Bhattarai and try and follow a more revolutionary line in their own national and international struggles. I'm not being partisan here. Yes, RCP-USA has one line that can be followed. So has CPI (Maoist)-in terms of their belief in the dictatorship of the proletariat. (The CPP are revolutionary too but I haven't studied their line in great detail). Don't be afraid to go back to the classical revolutionary strategists Lenin, Stalin and Mao. There a huge amount that speaks to today in their works.

J Ball- Not to pick nits, but the SWP is not the UK section of the ISO.

Joseph Ball, are you the author of the piece "Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?" (at http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm )?

asked only in good faith for clarification..

<blockquote>Communists need to critically study and assimilate the whole process in nepal of seeking, creatively and fearlessly, to reimagine a revolutionary process (which is the most Maoist thing about these Maoists). Don’t we all need to do our own version of such re-imagining?</blockquote>

With a caveat as to how much lessons from Nepal can apply to the U.S., I think this is exactly right. And the query at the end nails down what I and my comrades try to do, day in and day out, figuring out the revolutionary path under our own non-revolutionary, but nonetheless crisis-ridden, complex and dynamic situation.

JB's notion of joining with the RCP and 'doing no harm' but dropping support, other than, I suppose, giving them 'ideological support' but sending them a letter with AvakianThought on how to change the course of their revolution, is simply, well, 'ludicrous' is the kinder word I can come up with.

I've been following this thread to learn from those who have familiarity with what seems a question of interpreting, or building on, maoist theory.

Mike E. makes the point that to build your understanding around a theory, instead of adapting your theory by critical study and assimilation, is not a revolutionary path. This has to be right.

In another thread, I posted this from Einstein which I felt reflected the same approach to theory:

<blockquote>"Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought… The sense-experiences are the given subject-matter. But the theory that shall interpret them is man-made. It is… hypothetical, never completely final, always subject to question and doubt." </blockquote>

Einstein may not have been a dialectician, but he knew a little bit about how to think.

The people of Nepal serve the rest of us by inspiration. Some humility is called for in analyzing their course.

Lastly, I would suggest to Carl Davidson that his "revolutionary path," which has produced the glorious result of helping to elect Obama, does not reflect much critical study, either of the past 35 or so years or of the present.

I hesitated to post this, since everything does not need to be about Carl Davidson, but his endless self-promotion needs calling out. Just where does humility, let alone critical study or self-criticism, begin in Beaver County?

clarification continued:

That said about rcp ites.
About those who were answered in a piece (was it called once kiss my butt or ...?) same applies.

what's the use of being an intellegnet orthodox MLM fellow whom, by picking up the negative sounding excerpts from (ex) minister of finances to make it sound like our Maoist Nepalese comrades are not communist enough? What is wrong to say that they can build a state better than or, alike Switzerland where the latter is a part of imperialism and its banking system and positions and attitude in world economy is self explanatory (including Nazi times) while, by collective people's endurance, by proper and, modern and, advanced interpretation of Mao Tse tung Thought (and reading out rights and wrongs of the past both in Russia and China and everywhere else,) you think they cannot make a socialst state that still lets tourists come and visit it? Why should everybody in the world be frightened of entering a socialist country as a tourist during visiting Himalyan mountatain and, lots of other whys about Ka Frank (and associates who helped in writing it or..??) writing that, to make it fair may be worth translating for Iranian community to read it. But doesn't change the fact that trying to be "anticipating" causes of a revolution's possible failure is not an action of solidarity. In my humble but fierecly passionate heart, it is a service to the imperialism and, discouragement toward our comrades in Nepal

And the last part, taking a piece of news from Associated press...

I am saying that even imperialist media's presentation of the revolution is sometimes more friendly than RCP and, other critical thinkers who don't do a S--- for people's struggle in the world if they don't meet their feeding their own f---- egos.

Fair enough Mike? Clear enough?

Seeing as how none of us has any 'glorious results' from our diverse workings on our revolutionary paths in this country, I would only suggest that humility be spread around, so as to temper the strategic audacity inherent in what we are all working on, whether we agree with each other or not.

With some 'revolutionary paths' it is better to have tried and failed, than it is with others to have tried and succeeded (that would be Obama).

Zizek's best one liner: "fail again; fail better."

Lighten up, JP. Whatever your view on whether it was appropriate to join the forces working for Obama over McCain, none of us that I know of claimed it as 'revolutionary.' In any case, the debate over tactics regarding the 2008 election were well hashed out here. We can continue in regard to 2010, if you wish, but then we shouldn't hijack this thread on the matter. Start a new one instead.

Carl Davidson, on a website whose masthead now reads "They are killing the earth," let's 'lighten up'?

Given your well-trumpeted previous exposition of your obama line, your insistence that "...what I and my comrades try to do, day in and day out" is "figuring out the revolutionary path..." deserved and deserves to be called out.

You asserted that none of us have had many victories, but in fact, Obama supporters did succeed, and quite handily. I said: "With some ‘revolutionary paths’ it is better to have tried and failed, than it is with others to have tried and succeeded (that would be Obama)." 'Lighten up' now passes for rebuttal?

Obama had many supporters, JP, with many different and often conflicting goals. But as I said, if you really want to get into this, post your views on how we should approach the upcoming 2010 elections, and I'll be glad to respond.

Re: I am saying that even imperialist media’s presentation of the revolution is sometimes more friendly than RCP and, other critical thinkers who don’t do a S— for people’s struggle in the world if they don’t meet their feeding their own f—- egos.

and humility:

unlike the most already - inherently murky minded fellows who may under or over estimate their guesstimations,

given the above statement I could have very well meant:

I am saying that even imperialist media’s presentation of the revolution is sometimes friendlier than RCP and, other critical thinkers who don’t do a SANE SORT OF ACTION for people’s struggle in the world if they don’t meet their feeding their own FETISHIST egos.

alike Beatniks (that's what an ex navy co worker classified me, i'd never met the pre hippies' culture) words can be this or that so, it is technically a win, win situation.

back on the subject, if you are not aiding a cause, your indifference has its consequential afterward results, fair enough now?

hey guys,

what do you guys think of this analysis ( a trotskyist one) on Nepal. this organization has a branch in Nepal and is arguing for a true revolutionary line in Nepal.

http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/nepal-general-strike-fails-win-support

I think the analysis is terrible, and typical of the desires of far too many Trotskyists to stage a reenactment of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, rather than actually pull off a succesful 2010 Nepali revolution.

Why on earth does the L5I think it has the right to advise the Nepali Maoists on what their mistakes are, and what they should do instead? What has the L5I ever built?

It seems that a Trotskyist group's knowledge of what is to be done overseas grows in inverse proportion to it's failure to build any kind of workers movement at home.

What I think is that entering a discussion, posting an empty comment with only a link (to your favorite group) and "what do you think about this?" .....

I think that is basically spamming us.

Post substantive comments yourself about the content and your views on it.

Just a short note. While this debate is very interesting, I suggest we try to move on from the polemics against opponents of the UCPN(M) line. There is no way they will be won over and it is distracting from the principal task at hand.

It is right and just to polemicise against these opponents, but we should also be aware that this can become a kind of personal struggle between only a few people. It would be good to allow for more people to join in a positive and constructive kind of debate over issues of how to build internationalist support for the Nepalese revolution and also what we can learn (both positive and negative) from the theory and practice of the UCPN(M).

sorry if you regard it as spamming. there is a section of 'revolution' in Nepal, although it is not very big.

there doesnt seem to be any revolution however in nepal. it seems to me that it is mainly the kasama project that are talking about revolution, conjuring one out of air. the Nepali Maoist leaders are not, they are talking about national unity coalition government, and the bourgeois press also know there is not a revolution. i think that unless there really is a revolution in nepal in the future, which looks really unlikely, then the kasama site will look a bit silly.

A revolution is when a people rise. That's happening right now in Nepal. Stop looking to the past - live in your time.

In this and couple of other threads, Mike has come up with a lot of opportunist nonsense to cover his own track record of cheerleading revisionism and now presenting it as proletarian internationalism.

Mike is quite aware that my position on the need and correctness of supporting the revolutionary process in Nepal has been different to that which Joseph Ball holds, even while I agree with some of his assessments of the line in command of ucpnm and quite possibly disagreeing on prospects and possibilities of a correct line winning in the end. This is not surprising given how I and Joseph Ball differed on our assessment of last year’s upheavals in Iran and the correctness of supporting it without cheerleading the reactionaries like Mousavi and Karoubi. Similarly, one could talk about the Tiananmen Square events in 89 and see if the RIM’s position was right or wrong.

But none of those excuses Mike for quite opportunistically and instrumentally reducing proletarian internationalism to international solidarity and then under the guise of international solidarity quite underhandedly cheerleading for a revisionist line.

I don’t see why it is wrong to try to persuade Mike and Kasama that even while international solidarity is good and is a necessary aspect of proletarian internationalism, and even while communists should be open and welcoming to seek support that is not even based on proletarian internationalism, it does not mean that they should be obligated to put up with and shut up about instances when this solidarity and support is misused and abused like a Trojan horse to defeat and replace proletarian internationalism.

So let me make it clear for everyone that Proletarian Internationalism is at the core of my differences with Mike and Kasama and when Mike talks about Kibbitzerism and backseat driving he is actually pissing on Proletarian Internationalism and all those who uphold it, including CPI(Maoist).

Right now I’m a bit busy but those interested should visit this thread in a couple of weeks time to see my detailed arguments and reasons for this assertion.

so, nspf, Bob Avakian was right after all, eh?