news like this makes me wonder whether there really is a revolution in nepal. i admit that i am too far too know, but the majority of the new coming from nepal, including statements by Maoist leaders, does not show that the Maoists are planning revolution. i admit that i am far away, a backseat driver. but what makes people in Kasama believe that there is a revolution in Nepal at all? most of you are also far away backseat drivers. what do you guys make of the above news and similar statements by Maoist leaders? are they lying to everybody and secretly planning a revolution? i am not saying this is impossible, but it just seems increasingly unlikely and hard to believe, thats all. i think the best that we can do is look and see, and the coming events will show whether or not there is a revolution. but to me and to many other people, it looks unlikely.

There has been a revolution going on in Nepal for some time now. Whether or not it is successful in overthrowing capitalism is another story.

this is not spamming but an article in todays nepalnews about the maoist new constitution. it does not sound like a revolutionary constitution, but it does sound progressive, and should be supported i think. anyway, what do you guys think about this constitution. this is what the general strike was about. does kasama think these proposals are revolutionary? or are they merely tactical in order to prepare for a revolution??

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/news-archive/1-top-story/6414-ucpn-m-unveils-its-proposed-draft-of-new-constitution.html

Four hours ago... (that would be 7 am east coast time):
-----------------------------
Nepal PM agrees to resign to avert crisis

By Subel Bhandari (AFP) – 8 hours ago

KATHMANDU — Nepal's prime minister has agreed to resign, his spokesman said Saturday, as the country's three main parties prepared to form a power-sharing government following a deal to avert a political crisis.

Madhav Kumar Nepal said he would step down in a last-minute bid to secure the support of Maoist lawmakers for a bill to extend parliament's term, which was due to end Friday and leave the country without a functioning legislature.

The opposition Maoist party won elections in 2008 and took power for nine months, abolishing Nepal's 240-year-old Hindu monarchy and turning the country into a secular republic.

But their government fell last year in a disagreement over the integration of their former fighters into the national army, and they have been agitating for a return to power ever since.

As the largest party in parliament they are likely to take a lead role in any power-sharing government, but the prime minister's spokesman said there were issues to be addressed before this could happen.

"The prime minister will meet leaders from the different parties throughout the day to discuss how to proceed," Bishnu Rijal told AFP.

"He is ready to resign, there is no doubt," he said, without giving any timeframe.

"He is not going to get in the way. But he wants to make sure that all the outstanding issues arising from the peace process are settled before he resigns."

These include the integration of thousands of former Maoist fighters into the national army and the disbanding of the party's armed youth wing, the Young Communist League, which rival parties say is an obstacle to lasting peace.

The prime minister also wants to address the issue of how land seized by the Maoists during the conflict will be returned to its rightful owners, another key tenet of the peace deal, Rijal said.

The Maoists fought a decade-long civil war against the state before agreeing to lay down their arms in a 2006 peace agreement. But four years later, many of the terms of that deal remain unfulfilled.

The parliament, or Constituent Assembly, was elected two years ago to write a new constitution for the young republic, paving the way for fresh polls and turning the page on the civil war.

But it failed to do so by the May 28 deadline, amid fierce wrangling between the Maoists and the ruling Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and Nepali Congress parties.

The extension agreed late Friday gives the CA another year to complete its mission, and Maoist spokesman Dinanath Sharma said his party had agreed to "take the peace process to a logical conclusion and finish the tasks that remain".

Saturday is a public holiday in Nepal as the nation celebrates its second Republic Day -- the anniversary of the abolition of the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy.

Formal talks between party leaders on forming a new government will begin on Sunday, and the president urged them to put the country before their own interests.

"We have to formulate a constitution as per the desire of the Nepalese people," said Ram Baran Yadav in a message to mark Republic Day, urging politicians to "rise above personal and party interests".

- - - - - - -- - -

Now anybody can call this un revolutionary. some may call it revisionism. whatever they do, that's fine but, how red do you need to make your flag to be sincere? Does it always have to be bloody?

Dear sincere commie friend, enemy backed off.
No. we don't want to and, we don't need to act beyond China on our cultural revoltuion level (like they did in Kampuchea or, did they not?)

In a world full of capitalist propaganda, wining a majority with patience and proper human rights attitude buys you much more power and legitimacy than other way around.

Then your state does not have to lick the shoes or... of Russia to give you a nuke to make you feel happy. Socialism is the art of justice within society. At times it needs armed struggle and at times it needs joyous but intelligent work of people, for the people's cause.

Now anybody can call this un revolutionary. some may call it revisionism. whatever they do, that’s fine but, how red do you need to make your flag to be sincere? Does it always have to be bloody? - green red

i quite agree comrade. i dont think that what is happening in nepal is revolutionary, but it is progressive and should be supported.

Now, I've posted this before, but at one point Comrade Tony here said: <i>"are they lying to everybody and secretly planning a revolution?"</i>

I think deception, secret maneuvering, and obfuscation are key elements of obtaining power in politics. If I may quote some key points in Robert Greene's <i>The 48 Laws of Power</i>, which is a very good book that ALL Communists should read:

<b>Law 3: Conceal your Intentions</b>
<i>Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.</i>

<b>Law 12: Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim</b>
<i>One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones. Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people. Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor, you can deceive and manipulate them at will. A timely gift – a Trojan horse – will serve the same purpose.</i>

<b> Law 17: Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability</b>
<i>Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.</i>

<b>Law 35: Master the Art of Timing</b>
<i>Never seem to be in a hurry – hurrying betrays a lack of control over yourself, and over time. Always seem patient, as if you know that everything will come to you eventually. Become a detective of the right moment; sniff out the spirit of the times, the trends that will carry you to power. Learn to stand back when the time is not yet ripe, and to strike fiercely when it has reached fruition.</i>

<b>Law 37: Create Compelling Spectacles</b>
<i>Striking imagery and grand symbolic gestures create the aura of power – everyone responds to them. Stage spectacles for those around you, then full of arresting visuals and radiant symbols that heighten your presence. Dazzled by appearances, no one will notice what you are really doing.</i>

and most importantly, and what the Maoists of Nepal seem to be very good at doing:

<b>Law 48: Assume Formlessness</b>
<i>By taking a shape, by having a visible plan, you open yourself to attack. Instead of taking a form for your enemy to grasp, keep yourself adaptable and on the move. Accept the fact that nothing is certain and no law is fixed. The best way to protect yourself is to be as fluid and formless as water; never bet on stability or lasting order. Everything changes.</i>

...While I don't want to put words in the UCPN(M)'s mouth, or say that this is exactly what they're doing, I must say that perhaps our comrades in Nepal have what it takes to seize power...

Politburo member Gajurel said just a few days ago:

"...they [Congress and UML] are hoping for our last minute acceptance of the extension of the CA’s tenure without our conditions being fulfilled. But I can say this: no, we will not.

"This means there are the following options for what happens after May 28th: one, that the CA’s tenure is extended under our party’s leadership, an option provided for by the interim constitution; two, that the government will declare emergency, in which case the CA’s tenure will be extended by 6 months as per the interim constitution; three, worst of all, that Presidential rule will be established on an unconstitutional basis. If emergency is declared, this will be an unpopular move and we will oppose it. It is supposed to be declared, as per the constitution, based on the fulfilment of one of three conditions: external intervention, uncontrollable internal chaos, or severe economic crisis. If President’s rule is declared, we will oppose it and view it as basically a military coup. Our tactics of opposition will depend on the mood of the masses."

Looks like option one has won out, a victory for the Maoists in an ongoing, complicated revolutionary process. The Constituent Assembly that they pressed for---and which would not exist had there not been a People's War---will continue while a government again headed by Prachanda (or possibly Bhattari) is established, while the YCL and others popularize the UCPN(M)'s draft constitution and maybe organize demonstrations to pressure the Maoists' opponents in the assembly to agree to its provisions.

There will be confrontations ahead no doubt. The question is, has the party as a result of the Comprehensive Agreement of 2006, leadership of government August 2008-May 2009, and subsequent agitation against the "illegitimate" government which they depict as conceding to "military sovereignty" and India, stronger now and in a better position to seize power than before?

So many conjectural possibilities. In truth, there is little basis for any conclusive assessment of this latest agreement. We will see if UML will follow through.

Does the agreement even call for a Maoist-led government, or just the resignation of Nepal? If it's only the latter, couldn't Congress/UML cobble together a majority, or does the defection of the Madhes parties preclude this?

I think that the Maoists were not in as good a position militarily as many imagine prior to the second people's movement of 2006. I do not think that there was really a "strategic offensive" of the people's war, for instance. Nor do I think the Maoists had a good mass base in the cities. The latter has changed now. I do also wonder if new elections might yield a stronger position for the Maoists. But at present, alliance with the Madhes parties would seem to be key. Build a multi-party alliance for governing, WITHOUT Congress or UML. Being in Workers and Peasants Party and CP-United as well. Try to peel away from progressives from the UML. Capture the police and other paramilitary forces. Consolidate the military footing of the PLA and the fighting capacity of all party organizations to prepare what does seem to be an inevitable showdown. But fully leverage the tools of state power that can be grasped for this purpose.

Clearly there is a lot we not know about recent developments.

I am going to throw out a few things - I have been reading over different articles and posts. Some are directly related to Nepal - others not but I thought relevant. Here we are trying to make sense of what we know. All this is coming after the Jed Brandt reports on May Day and after.
In the Letter from Kathmandu in the section on May 28th - Deadline for the Constitution, Jed says "What they have come up with, and this has been noted in every conversation I've had, is that without revolution coming from the conscious activity of the most oppressed. the working people and democratic intellectuals freed up from the feudal autocracy, communism would not be worth the word. That's what they have learned from 20th century socialism, and its good to hear from the leaders and members of a communist party contending for power."

And in another section Jed says "The masses are the makers of history" is how Mao put it, advice Prachanda's'party apparently heard well."

From the reports in the NY Times and similar news reports the people of Nepal are left out of the picture. Not surprising. We will get these reports elsewhere and as Jed said "If the mass media won't show what is happening , I hope someone is writing it on the walls."

Internationalism has to be the word here. Mike Ely says this in post #26 in "US left group accuses Nepali Maoists of Revisionism" , in response to this new polemic by the RCP which is an attack on revolutionaries at a time when everything is on the line for these revolutionaries.

Mike says in this post "This is the first communist revolution in decades. At least. to be precise it is the first revolutionary situation, with dual power, and chances of an actual communist revolution in decades. What do we need to do? I think we need to oppose U.S. intervention - we need to expose the U.S. role here, and we need to demand that the Nepali Maoists are taken off the "terrorist" list. And we need to do extensive educational work - simply to inform radical and oppressed people that this (ignored and hidden) revolutionary movement even exists.
For more on this read http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/u-s-left-group-accuses-nepali-maoists-of-re...

We are lucky to have Kasama reporting the news. We are lucky to have Jed reporting the news. We are lucky to have this revolution in the world today. This is a new challenge for revolutionaries.

There is something to learn here. It may be like the Lenin article where it is more difficult going downhill than up.

And when Jed returns I think it would be great to have a speaking tour.

More later.

Maybe the problem is that some people are trying to impose historical templates inappropriately.
The overthrow of the Nepalese monarchy was, by any objective historical standard, a bourgeois democratic revolution.
Just as the English Civil War, the French Revolution and the February Revolution in Russia were.
Even those Tea-party people in the US still like to big-up their rr-revolutionary credentials by associating themselves with the the American "War of Independence"
(even though they're more like contras)

Whether Nepal is heading towards a socialist revolution is a different question entirely and depends on subjective questions like political leadership
According to the agenda the Maoists operate on, not necessarily.
Traditionally, such organisations see the formation of a "New Democracy" as being their current political task.
Nepal is overwhelmingly a peasant country with limited industry and a small urban working class.

At best, they can aspire to a workers and farmers government, which nationalises basic industries and enacts redistribution of land in favour of the poor and middle peasants.
They would also need to maintain a regulated internal market behing a state monopoly of foreign trade.
Quite probably there would also need to be state contracts with foreign companies for investment.
Nepal is certainly not going to be able to build a socialist society within its own borders.
If it tried to, the result could end up being a debacle like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

The evidence is that the UCPN(M) are a politically sophisticated movement and well aware of that danger.
They are operating in a restrained and realistic fashion.
Although they won the majority of seats in the Assembly, they don't control the state, in the form of its army.
There's also a danger that India might invade if it didn't like developments there.
There are no rival institutions of political power like the Soviets in Russia.

So, they still want to work through the Constituent assembly.
Simultaneously, they have sought to build mass support through the proposals on regional autonomy and the organisation of a general strike.
It seems to me that the current situation is a stalemate in a war of manouevre.
The UCPN(M) are not strong enough to take power independently, their rivals are not strong or politically cohesive enough to form a coalition against them.

But there does seem to be evidence of back-tracking on the part of the UCPN(M) leadership.
For instance, at the conclusion of the General Strike, the UCPN(M) were reported as saying that they would "impose" their own constitution.
The fact that this hasn't happened seems to reflect internal differences on the advisability of such a course.
They were unable to pressurise the other parties to concede to a new constitution, but in reality aren't strong enough to impose what they want.

The biggest danger in such a situation would be that they fritter away mass support after promising to do things they can't deliver.
Having called one General Strike and backed down, they may not be in a position to get so many people out on the next one.
It's the well known "Grand Old Duke of York" problem.

I don't think the solution is to be be "Machiavellian" at all - leave that to the Pinochets of this world.
I just can't take this "George Kuznetsnov" character at #5 seriously.
Anyone who appears on the web with such tosh, calling everyone "comrade", is almost certainly a cynical right wing troll.

The problem is a real political problem endemic to such situations that has been repeated in numerous situations since World War 2.
Such as in Bolivia in the 1950's, in Sri-Lanka during the Bandaranaika government.|
Namely, how a socialist oriented organisation with mass support relates to other politcal forces and what programme it needs to fight for.
They have to be as up-front about that as possible.

"Although they won the majority of seats in the Assembly"

They didn't win an outright majority. They hold about 40% of the seats.

*ahem* Моя имя <b>Андрей</b>, товарищ. Anyway... what's wrong with at least learning from Machiavelli? Without state power, all is illusion, right? Should we not understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that it is a game that we must play in order to win?

I'm sorry, but the idea that we should lay out all of our intentions to the world at every point in the struggle- no offense to ol' Charlie Marx when he said "Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims"- makes it seem like Communists view politics as some kind of game, or fantasy role-play.

However, Prianikoff, I must agree with you here:

<i>The biggest danger in such a situation would be that they fritter away mass support after promising to do things they can’t deliver.
Having called one General Strike and backed down, they may not be in a position to get so many people out on the next one.
It’s the well known “Grand Old Duke of York” problem.</i>

It's a thought that might have some validity to it... The wants and needs of the masses still need to be taken into account through all of this.

Моя имя Андрей, товарищ.

Oh sorry Andrei, I wrote George for some reason.

Well even if you genuninely believe in it, who the hell is Robert Greene?
Furthermore, how can his "48 laws" be anything other than complete abstractions, which no one who claimed to be a Marxist would take seriously?
Engels wrote a lot about the power in anti-Duhring and rejected such notions.
Unless we're back to the famous Mao quote about gun barrels - which isn't even true!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greene_%28American_author%29

What did Engels say in Anti-Duhring? I've not read that one in a good while... And how was Mao's quote about political power growing out of the barrel of a gun not true?

This may seem a bit off-topic, but I think it's important for us to understand the nature of what power <i>is</i> as our friends in Nepal are struggling for it.

So it seems that Prime Minister Nepal intends to cling to power unless the YCL is dissolved and the PLA is destroyed. Do we have any additional indications how this may play out?

I'm not a spokesman for the Nepalese Maoists. I have no insider knowledge of their tactics.
Anything I say is speculative and general.

It seems to me though, that the level of mass support a party, or coalition of parties has, is the most crucial factor in such situations.

If reaction tries to coalesce against further democratic and socialist measures, e.g. in the form of the PM refusing to stand down, or an armed coup against the UCPN(M).
If so, then it will need a broad united front to stop it.

The UCPN(M) would certainly would be ill advised to disband their PLA militias under such circumstances. But the militias alone can't determine the outcome of events. Otherwise why did they enter into a "peace process"

In the interview from MR magazine with Chandra Prakash Gajurel, he said " NC, UML and India are continuing to hope that we will change our minds at the eleventh hour. Even if we deny this now, they are hoping for our last minute acceptance of the extension of the CA’s tenure without our conditions being fulfilled. But I can say this: no, we will not."

Well it appears that they will. So evidently, something has changed -either in the balance of forces, or within the Maoist leadership.

I'm wondering if this indidcates that the UCPN(M have to break the logjam by adopting a united front approach to the base of the UML. This is something hitherto outside the vocabulary of such "anti-revisionist" Communist Parties. Doing so would require a tactical agreement on broad issues that could unite a majority against the most reactionary elements opposed to them.

Dave D., I second you on your 7th statement for sure but, on the 15th i have not seen such saying outright indicated.

without counting tons of hidden cards in the sleeves of our smart comrades like Andrei Kuznetsov who say things in ways i find not need being said. No. End does not justify the means. They surely know what they are doing and, further than that, one of our arch critical thinker, Ka Frank in one of his writtings quotes Lenin as the following about revisionism of his time: “A natural complement to the economic and political tendencies of revisionism was its attitude to the final aim of the socialist movement. ‘The movement is everything, the final aim is nothing’—this catch-phrase of Bernstein’s expresses the substance of revisionism better than many long arguments. To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chops and changes of petty politics, to forget the basic interests of the proletariat, the main features of the capitalist system as a whole and of capitalist evolution as a whole; to sacrifice these basic interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment—such is the policy of revisionism. And it patently follows from the very nature of this policy that it may assume an infinite variety of forms, and that every more or less ‘new’ question, every more or less unexpected and unforeseen turn of events, even though it may change the basic line of development only to an insignificant degree and only for the shortest period of time, will always inevitably give rise to one or another variety of revisionism.” (V. I. Lenin, “Marxism and Revisionism”, cited in “Lenin on the Struggle Against Revisionism”, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1960, pp. 11-12)

Now what do you want to read out of such quotations?

Sir, we simply do not know and, for now do not need to know what "Michavelian" means and so forth but comrade Tony, our enemies don't have guts to corner down us up there all the way on top of the highest mountatins of the world.

To make it simple, remember: These communists have played with cleanest possible hands the history has ever seen in the history of the world. That is what makes imperialists less able to do direct military attack or, what have you. But the fight is not about how or when comrade Prachanda's party is going to win. They know and, the world knows that they have won. The more graceful, the more artistic, the more bloodless they take this other next step that everybody makes a big deal out of, better it shall come about for how that coming to power state shall be treated or, mistreated by the powers around it.

They can always put Nepal in a blockade or something of that sort or could they not? They can do many things but, like Art of War, there are Art of Policies comrades and, Comrade Land, i am here with you all the way.

They know and, the world knows that they have won- green red

this seems like wishful thinking. nice if it were true, but it ain't. they might win,but they have not won yet.

this is the editorial in today's Kathmandu post, detailing the compromises the various parties are negotiation for to make a new unity coalition government. the maoists are calling for a system with an executive president and federalism. their demands are progressive, but not revolutionary, and have been accomplished under different progressive bourgeois governments around the world ( ie ANC) anyway, i do not find in these articles any news about any 'revolution in nepal' what am i missing?

http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/05/30/editorial/three-things/208860/

does the kasama site as a whole believe that the nepali maoists are preparing revolution in secret, or is it just Andrei?

Revolution is a process through which the working masses become powerful and through which the ruling classes become powerless. The Bolsheviks didn't seize power until the Petrograd garrison was theirs and the Provisional Govt was powerless. The Nepal Army is not declaring loyalty to the UCPN (M)!

The masses in Nepal, organised in and around the UCPN (M), have substantially weakened the oppressor classes and substantially empowered themselves. But obviously, the party does not yet feel that the situation is ripe for an outright seizure of power.

There is no rule that says this has to be done rapidly, or in one particular act. The revolutionary process in Nepal appears to be moving forward and gaining ground quantitatively at least, and qualitatively it is hard to tell.

The revolution continues.

The revolution continues'.Alastair Reith

lets hope so, but there is not much more than hope. again, the Nepali Maoist leaders are not talking about revolution. it is you and the Kasama site that are. i repeat the question; does the kasama site believe that the Nepali Maoists are planning for a revolution in secret?

more precisely, what does this mean? ' a package deal for the Maoists' this is a phrase that the Nepali political leaders are throwing about a lot, and seems to mean the terms for the integration of the PLA into the national army, and the handing back of land ceased, the dismantling of the YCL etc. how do you guys understand this?

I think you'll find the Maoists are talking about revolution a fair bit.

http://krishnasenonline.org/epaper.php?pub=87 />
They just happen to have some aspects of their revolutionary plan that they haven't yet revealed. Why should this be so surprising?

Yes comrade Alstair and Tony, we shall be paient.

But Alstair, Russian revolutionary happened in a very peculiar corner of history. Lots of Leninist try to evade or, to deny it but, by 1921 when their hopes of seeing revolutins win in other western countries and, under severe presseure from above, to make things happen swiftly, they had to impose lots of regulation upon their own people. It was a long war with foreign states and, civil war. But at some point in Petrograd workers expressed their disapointment since party had taken away the indepencence and value of their Soviets and, in Kernstadt the unthinkable for communists took place.
Bokharin said something like; we won the war but, we lost the proletariat... and, Lenin agreed upon that.

But none of us are in that part of the hiostory. We are watching the on going battle on one side by showing force and on the other side on negotiation table and look friendds:
Even, even if in the end it does not become an overnight hardcore attempt to build socialism, even step by step and bits by bits changes come around, it is as good as the fruits can be on a tree in its own geographical and historical position. We learn and, we have our own roads to walk and, hills to climb to do anything at all.
Let's not evaluate Nepal or, anything in the history as win and lose. Every moment of struggle is a session of a classroom, for revoltuionary people, to search and build their egalitarian societies.

They just happen to have some aspects of their revolutionary plan that they haven’t yet revealed. Why should this be so surprising? - Alastair Reith

its not surprising, but it is hard to believe that the bourgeoisie, the imperialists, the UN, the US, UK, EU, India etc are also unaware of these plans,and that you and the kasama project know. i looked at the link, but quickly, so i might have missed the places where they talked about revolution. lots on 'carrying the peace process to its logical end'. perhaps you or someone could compile the bits where they are talking about revolution and give us a clearer view. because at the moment, it seems like the kasama project is saying that the nepali maoists are going to do a revolution in secret, but the nepali maoist leaders are not saying that in most of their statements, at least in the papers such as nepalnews and kathmandu post.

Alastair,

i've been looking at the red star link you posted. i really dont see much talk about revolution at all. an article about struggle in a new form talks about the objectives being the peace process and writing the constitution. this seems to also be the objective of the Nepali Congress and the UML and the UN and everyone else. i'm afraid i dont see what you are talking about. please give some examples.

Tony:

Make a quick read of the bolshevik writings in 1917 or Mao in 1949... and find how many times their declarations have public buzzwords (like dictaorship of proletariat, and armed revolution, etc.) Lenin wrote State and Revolution for those close to his party -- as a theoretical piece.

But if you read the public works of parties approaching power, you discover the role of transitional demands -- where the immediate seizure of power and deeply felt demands of the people-in-crisis are bound closely together.

The writing of the constitution (and a PARTICULAR constitution -- peoples democratic constitution) has emerged as a transitional demand (comparable to bread, peace and land in russia). For example, the Maoist versions of the new constitutional order include a commitment to radical agrarian revolution -- though I confess I have not had time to delve deeply into exaclty how that is expressed or contested in the constitutional debates.

The "peace process" is not (as its name implies) just about "peace" (i.e. the prevention of war). In fact the "peace" rally in Kathmandu was an anti-maoist rally precisely because "peace" in their eyes means the status quo. The allusions to the "peace process" are an allusion to the joint commitments of a specific moment -- which include anti-monarchist conceptions, a very controversial sense that the people get to decide the future, and a very radical notion that the army in Nepal should be under popular, civilian control.

So in many ways too, the fight for the "peace process" (the unfulfilled objectives of that process that made it so popular) is (like the demands for a radical new constitution) part of the transitional demands around whih an anti-government new impulse of revolution may congeal.

So it is part of the problem we are facing: that when revolutionaries demand "carrying through the peace process" and "completing the constitution," some folks (around the world) do not have a sense of the particularlity of this moment -- and so don't see how such things <em>are</em> the way the revolutionary demands are shaping up. These are demands that are "solved" by revolution (potentially).

And for some reason, there are a lot of people who imagine that socialist revolutions are carried through under only relatively abstract banners (i.e. demands for "revolution" or "socialism" or "overthrow bourgeois right") -- when in fact Marx and Lenin and Mao had a quite living sense of how highly radical revolutions emerged organically out of the living needs and demands of real people (through the creative mass work of communists and their mass line).

I can imagine someone saying "Lenin's people are just fighting for bread, peace and land".... how is that different from any other reform and pacifist movemen? Or Mao (at the podium of a victorious revoluton) proclaimed "The chinese people have stood up!" And that cry, which echos through history, and which made hundreds of millions of chinese catch their breath, and which legitimized communist revolution for decades, <em>could</em> be treated with a yawn by some, who could say "that doesn't even mention revolution or socialism! Where is the targeting of class enemies?"

We are struggling with a problem that too many people have not even <em>thought about</em> how real revolutions emerge -- what transitional demands and revolutionary situations consist of. And so the very real struggles, disputes and creativity of real revolutionaries gets projected on a wall where only cartoons and silly romances appeared before -- and too many people don't even know how to evaluate the contradictions of the real thing.

Again Tony, you wrote:

<blockquote>"i’ve been looking at the red star link you posted. i really dont see much talk about revolution at all."</blockquote>

Let me put it to you a bit plainly: The whole thing is about revolution. Every article is a sharp polemic about the revolution. Every issue discussed there takes one side or another in major disputes about a living revolution.

And if you evaluate it merely in terms of seing "talk about revolution" you will never understand real politics, or see the meaning and real events reflected in the words.

I am tempted (and have been tempted) to write an essay called "How to Read A Communist Document," where I take one of the wonderful essays emerging from South Asia (India or Nepal) and simply dissect it line by line -- to show what each line means, how it exists in polemic with other lines, how it implies specific strategic directions, and how it leaves some things carefully UN-said (in ways that have deep significance as well).

We have to learn to read living public documents. It is a different language from the largely INTERNAL essays (like What is to be Done?) that we also read.

What is agitation? What is programmatic work? What is the relation of immediate programs and ultimate programs -- and how to they develop in an actual rev situation as the communists come to the fore as the only force that can run society, meet the peoples needs, and represent a liberating future.

It is ok NOT to yet know "how to read a communist document" -- it take practice and real work. But it is not OK to simply discard the real revolutions of our time, cuz you have spent too much time on the rubber dolls of revolutionary fantasy.

Accusing the ruling alliance of "betrayal", Nepal's main opposition Maoist party today issued a 48-hour ultimatum to the embattled prime minister to quit, warning that the failure to do so would result in a "serious crisis" in the country.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/nepal/Maoists-give-48-hour-ultimatum-to-PM-Nepal-to-quit/Article1-551206.aspx

Nando's harking back to history is important.

For a short while I too was an opponent of the Nepali revolution, but as a historian, I began to realize that, frankly, a lot of what the UCPN(M) is doing right now <i><b>isn't really anything that new.</b></i>

The Bolsheviks took part in the 1909 and 1912 Russian elections, they organized the Red Guards around March of 1917 but Lenin ordered them multiple times to stave off seizing power, Lenin would often talk about "peace" and "waiting for the Constituent Assembly in December" to his supporters shortly after the "July Days" debacle... Heck I think I remember Lenin at one point saying something (but not really meaning it) about the possibility of having Left-SR's or something in the Soviet cabinet (that was, until the Left-SR's all went to the Whites)?...

Regardless, my point stands: if you read the history of our class's experience in 1917 Russia (which I do an inordinate amount!), you'll see that the Bolsheviks, like the UCPN(M), were innovative in ways that gave many of their international supporters reason for concern and gave many a "militant hardliner" many a heart attack!

guys,

nando- an esoteric reading of political texts so they say what you want them to say. very clever, but it is only convincing if you are already convinced. i am not a nay sayer- i dont know enough- but i am saying that the documents an outsider like me may read do not suggest revolution at all. if the maoists are writing in a secret language only known to a few initiates, that maybe, but i do not really understand. this maybe my failing. if so i admit it. but i know how easy it is to read into things which might not be there. perhaps you are reading into the nepali situation a revolution which is not really there. or perhaps i am wrong. if so, then the following events will prove that i am wrong, and i will be happy to be wrong. but i dont think that either the nepali maoist documents and speeches,nor the articles in the bourgeois press really talk about revolution. they are talking about package deals, national unity etc. if this is a prelude to a revolution, then i am completely wrong. maybe. but maybe not also.

i suspect though a problem with the red star articles posted above is that the level of english is not high, i suspect the translation is not very good unlike in the bourgeois papers such as the kathmandu post.

please post 'how to read a communist article'. perhaps i can learn something. if you can tell me a bit more about the secret language of communisms and how to correctly interpret it, to have the only correct interpretation, then that would be most useful.

also, there is no need for insults nando. i may annoy mike and others but i have not insulted him nor anyone else here. usually people resort to name calling when there is not much of an argument. i may have spent too much time on rubber dolls of revolutionary fantasy, but so have you, and so has everyone else who comes to sites like these. again, comments like these only show a lack of argument, and only convince you of your own rightness but do not convince those unconvinced at all. ( dont think and evaluate, just support.) is speech like this part of the secret language of communists?

Tony, do you really believe that you can tell whether a revolution is or is not happening in Nepal by whether the word 'revolution' is used often enough for you by Maoist leaders?

This is utterly ridiculous. The leaders of the UCPN (M) do not have to 'earn' the support of communists in the West, it is our *duty* to support them.

If the Maoists were white and leading a revolution in a country like Greece they would have almost universal support. There is an almost racist arrogance here.

I have never read much about John Stewart Mills or whoever that might have something to do with "utilitarianism". comrade Barry whose respect and kindness is intact (although he still follows RCP line) said once that there must be a "revolutionary utilitarianism" within Maoism.

How much can they gain, how much 'freedom' can be brought around, i don't know. But what i do know is that, a bit of something is better than nothing. In a land placed in such difficult standards of life (where there is only one red light in the capital city that is never working anyhow,) improvements may be gradual but, fundamental.

Do not ask me to defend Great Leap Forward.
Don't ask me to estimate how long it took for innocent people to stop killing birds to evade having seeds eaten and the result? were they grasshoppers or what that came and destroyed the agriculture?

Running on toes causes superficial economical growth but, their counterproductive features value in environmental level and, among everything else the human rights, is in astronomical level.

Instead of calling something a hundred percent valid revolution or, forty percent revisionist or thirty seventy Stalin standard, why don't we value what there is and await its blossom but then, focus more on our own movement, right here, in the belly of the beast.

we cannot wait for the revs to happen in the world to surround the first worlders like, Lin Piao thought.

To make it serene and simple, i don't mind nor, do i care what you want to call it. Let's appreciate it and, let's do something better, right here or, wherever you might be. As much can be done, without arms and otherwise, that is out of, our 'jurisdiction'

I second you, mein Freund

i surely second you on your 34th statement. of any race, if it is communist, many want to runaway and, few self assured commies expect an excellent, spectacular thing they were they were taught to appreciate. Their problem is, that they never understood dialectics and changes enough to, not to, have a solid and, mechanical, understanding.

The leaders of the UCPN (M) do not have to ‘earn’ the support of communists in the West, it is our *duty* to support them- alistair reith

i agree, they dont have to earn the support of communists in the west. but this is not my point. my point is whether there actually is a REVOLUTION IN NEPAL AT ALL. even the various maoist parties seem confused on this issue. i have said honestly I DONT KNOW. but the majority of the sources that i read with the exception of the kasama site would suggest there is not, and it is mainly the kasama site that says there is. the program of the Nepali Maoists is not particularly revolutionary, altho it is a good left reformist program. this would also be worth supporting, as far as that goes.

as for our 'duty'- this whole language of duties is suspect to me, but i get your drift.

the problem i have is not with the nepali maoists, but with kasama who seem to suggest that the Nepali Maoists are going to take over the state in secret. if this is what you believe, then please state so rather than insulting people who cannot see what you are getting at. the problem does not seem to me that the nepali maoists are trying something new and radical, but rather that they could not win the Peoples war and now are going for parliamentary struggle, with the UN and everyone else there to see that this goes smoothly. this is what most of the interviews with the nepali maoist leaders seem to suggest, and the bourgeois press speaks of 'ex rebels' etc. if the nepali maoists are trying something radical and new, and not just entering into reformist politics, then that would be interesting. but it is not clear that this is really happening. i repeat I DONT KNOW. i am not convinced there is a revolution in Nepal, but i could be wrong, and i would be happy to be wrong.

greenred-

i dont really understand what you are saying.

to clarify the kind of difficulties i have with believing there is a revolution in nepal, when i read articles such as this one, todays kathmandu post editorial. i know that the kathmandu post are a bourgeois newspaper, but the impression i get from reading this editorial is that the three parties ( maoist, uml, nc) are hustling for power inside a new bourgeois democratic system overseen by the UN. there does not seem to be a fear of revolution as such, but rather a debate on who leads the government. now, what am i supposed to make of stuff like this? are the maoists tricking the bourgeois parties and the UN and everyone else? or is it that they have accepted bourgeois democratic politics and are hustling to form a national unity government with a progressive constitution? I admit I DONT KNOW. but, Nando, what do you make of editorials such as this one:

http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/06/01/editorial/get-to-work/208929/

One of the many pieces of news reads:

Political dishonesty slur on NC, UML

Last Updated : 2010-06-04 12:07 AM

Himalayan News Service


KATHMANDU: The main opposition, Unified CPN-Maoist, today said the ruling CPN-UML and Nepali Congress showed “political dishonesty” by breaching the three-point agreement reached among the three major parties on May 28.
A standing committee meeting of the party held in Paris Danda concluded that the ruling parties misinterpreted the unwritten understanding that the prime minister of the coalition government would quit within five days from the date of signing the agreement.
“Ruling parties’ dishonesty clearly showed that they are not sincere towards the peace process and constitution,” party’s vice-chairman Narayankaji Shrestha told mediapersons at the end of the meeting.
He said the parties’ “unethical” behaviour would ultimately jeopardise the possibility
of forming a government on consensus basis, without which the peace process would not be concluded and constitution would not be promulgated on time. He added that the NC and UML’s intention was to isolate the Maoists from peace and constitution-making processes.
He warned that future talks among the parties would be adversely affected if the three-point agreement were not implemented sincerely.
He, however, said the May 28 agreement would have a far-reaching impact on Nepal’s politics. He said they would continue their agitation until conducive environment was created for peace, constitution and formation of a national unity government.
A statement issued by party chairman Prachanda at the end of the meeting stated that the government showed its true colours by conferring awards on persons involved in suppressing the Janaandolan II.
Meanwhile, the ruling NC and UML leaders who held a bilateral meeting this morning asked the government to prepare budget for the net fiscal.
They said the new national unity government would present the budget if it was formed on time, otherwise, the present government would carry the business.