Kasama

Escalation in Afganistan: Wrong, Imperialist, Intolerable

Archive for October, 2009

Events Quicken, Conflict Sharpens — Eyes On Nepal!

Posted by Mike E on October 31, 2009

Nepal Maoists Street Demonstration in KatmanduA collision has been building for months — since the Nepali military refused to accept civilian control and restructure along the lines ordered by the Maoist-dominated government. Since then the Maosts resigned from national office and regrouped in a series of strategic meetings. They have called for public actions — suggesting that this might build to the kind of storm that toppled the King a few years ago. The word insurrection has been mentioned.

And meanwhile the reactionary forces have braced themselves and grouped around the military high command. The chances of a military coup, or strike against the Maoists is very real. And there are reports of the Nepali military leaders meeting with the U.S. representatives and other reactionaries.

All of this has been reported here on Kasama or on our sister site Revolution in South Asia. We urge our readers to back up and reread the interviews and analysis we have been publishing. In particular the recent interview with Baburam Bhattarai is worth reading closely and soberly.

Now the talking, planning, and organizing have come to this: the Nepali Maoists have launched their wave of actions. And we should urge everyone to set their eyes onto Nepal, and prepare to speak out in defense of its people and revolutionary movement.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news, CP of Nepal (Maoist), CPN(M), Maoism, Nepal, Prachanda, communism, revolution, south asia | 3 Comments »

Interview with Bhattarai: Fusing People’s War & Insurrection in Nepal

Posted by Mike E on October 31, 2009

NEPAL_ELECTIONS_MAOISTS_Baburam_Bhattarai_UCPN_nepal_revolution_communistsThis article was originally published on the WPRM’s home website.

Nepal: Interview with Comrade Baburam Bhattarai

“…the theory of Protracted Peoples War as developed by Mao was to be applied in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. That’s why the military line adopted in the case of Nepal was basically a line of Protracted People’s War, which we developed through the course of our struggle, applying it very creatively in Nepal for ten years.â€?

* * * * * **

WPRM: Thank you for meeting with us today. In your article in The Worker #4 ‘The Political Economy of the People’s War’ you write that “the transformation of one social system into another, or the destruction of the old by the new, always involves force and a revolutionary leap. The People’s War is such a means of eliminating the old by a new force and of taking a leap towards a new and higher social system.� Why then did the Maoist party enter the peace process and attempt to change society through Constituent Assembly elections?

Baburam Bhattarai: This is a very important question related to the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM). The basic motive force of history is the contradiction between the existing level of productive forces and the production relations within society. At a certain stage this contradiction sharpens and there is a break with the old relationship and a leap to the new one. We call this social revolution. That leap necessarily confronts a certain force, because every set of productive relations is backed by a state, and the state means basically the organised force of the army.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news | 1 Comment »

Basanta Interview: Possible Victory or Collapse in Nepal’s Revolution

Posted by Mike E on October 30, 2009

nepal_basanta_UCPN_nepal_Maoist_revolution_south_asiaThis article was published on the WPRM’s home site.

Nepal: Interview with Comrade Basanta

When we first met Comrade Basanta, together with Comrade Laxman Pant, on the edge of the Thamel area of Kathmandu, we were greatly impressed by their down to earth manner. Comrade Basanta, it would be fair to say, exudes an air of quiet dignity without being distant, taking great pains to accurately put across his points.

“When we were in the government… the reactionaries clearly understood that Maoists were not abandoning revolution but familiarizing their programmes within the masses.”

“Before us there is a big opportunity, but serious challenges also. If we take the correct steps there is a big possibility that we can accomplish New Democratic revolution. But if we make a mistake then the whole revolution can collapse.�

* * * * * *

WPRM: Can you explain the current situation in Nepal since the resignation of Prachanda from the government?

Basanta: First of all I would like to say something about the situation in which we had to enter into this process.

When Gyanendra usurped the whole political power, the contradiction of the Nepalese people with monarchy became the principal political contradiction. It created a situation in which all the political forces that had a certain level of contradiction with the king could come tactically together to fight absolute rule of the monarchy. It was in the Chunwang meeting held in 2005 that we adopted a new tactic of democratic republic, which became a basis for 12-point understanding between our party and other 7 parliamentarian parties.

Everyone in the world knows the result, the unprecedented mass uprising in April 2006. After that the king, relinquished his absolute power and reinstated the parliament. In the Constituent Assembly election, we emerged as the largest party and the king was removed and the country was declared Federal Democratic Republic from the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly.

In fact, it was basically the end of the tactics adopted from the Chunwang meeting.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news, >> communist politics, Basanta, CP of Nepal (Maoist), CPN(M), Maoism, Nepal, communism, revolution | 2 Comments »

Shockwave: The Mixed Experience of Exporting Socialism

Posted by Mike E on October 30, 2009

revolutionary_shockwaveOur discussion of the nature of the post-50s Soviet Union and their bloc is (not surprisingly) producing some strong and differing views. I think we should plan to engage this, with substance and patience, over time. I’m going to argue for my own partisan analysis in these discussions — because i think that having this Maoist pole represented well will draw out opposing views and (hopefully) raise the quality of the engagement.

by Mike Ely

Let’s  take up some of Saoirse’s points (and hopefully others will do it from their perspective).

“Aside from the USSR and China were there any other socialist revolutions?�

I think there were two major socialist revolutions in the last century. The major socialist revolutions intepenetrated with a huge wave of anti-colonial struggles that burst from the exhaustion of Euro-powers during both world wars. And they interpenetrated with the liberation of Eastern Europe from Nazi occupation in 1945. And while many states emerged with socialist coloration from those events (both in the third world and in eastern europe), they were (in most cases, in my view) not able to actually initiate and propell forward a genuinely socialist revolutionary process.

There was a major element of center and periphery in those dynamics — where the emergence of major socialist power greatly influenced the politics at their edges.

I discussed my views on this, in some detail, with in an earlier essay “A Revolutionary People & the Problems at Its Periphery.� I won’t repeat all those arguments here.

But I’m trying to make the point that a major socialist revolution ripples into the surrounding areas in complex ways.

For example, after there was a socialist revolution in the urban heart of the Russian empire it extended its influence (by various political, economic and military means) far beyond the core of its conscious popular support. And the farther you got to the periphery of that influence — the more certain contradictions emerged. Someone above mentioned the armed intrusion of Bolshevik power into Georgia (February 15 – March 17 1921, during the civil war. Another examples: I wrote a book on Tibet where that is the core issue.

Bob Avakian once said (in the early 80s):

“There is nothing wrong with exporting revolution, but there has to be someone there to import it.�

I think that gets it right, and that dilemma is inherent in the spread and consolidation of revolutions. If you think about the complexity and diversity of North America (or even a medium sized country like Columbia), this dynamic of center and periphery will certainly mark any conceivable revolution in the future.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news, Afghanistan, Africa, Chile, Cuba, Czech Republic, Fidel Castro, Korea, Mao Zedong, Maoism, Mike Ely, Russia, Soviet history, Tibet, Vietnam, Vietnam War, capitalism, communism, empire and imperialism, revolution | 8 Comments »

Socialism in East Germany? Is Obama Then Sorta Socialist Too?

Posted by Mike E on October 29, 2009

my_computerclass_1987_in East_Germany

East German family life around a new computer 1987 -- Honecker's so-called "consumer socialism" was not that much different from West European society and life.

In our discussion of Heresy: On New Demarcations & Coherent Theory, a commentator (T1) argued strongly saying that East Germany (the GDR) should be considered socialist. Selucha responded that despite “socialist elements,” East Germany could not be considered a revolutionary society.

* * * * * * *

I would say that the three claims of socialism in East Germany were not that remarkable for capitalist countries:

  • welfare state features,
  • state ownership of industry,
  • government party self-labeling itself “socialist”

And that we can’t consider a society “socialist” based on just the presence of those “features” — i.e. socialism is not defined by either forms or official rhetoric.  And this becomes clear when you start to compare societies.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> communist politics, Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Breshnev era, Czech Republic, Germany, Maoism, Mike Ely, Rosa Luxemburg, Socialism, Stalin and Stalinism, capitalism, civil liberties, communism, empire and imperialism, fascism | 35 Comments »

Antaeus Critiques Maoist Summation of Cultural Revolution

Posted by Mike E on October 28, 2009

red_guard_maoist

Red Guards

We received the following critique from Antaeus a couple months ago.

We have published a previous piece by Antaeus here “Why Did Post-Maoist China Restore Capitalism?

Antaeus wrote in critique of “Mao’s Cultural Revolution Pt. 2: The Sweep of A Revolution, 1966-1976� [written and published by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group]:

“This article belittles the Shanghai Commune; states that the “3-in-1â€? committees were good; is entirely uncritical of Mao right up to his death; and then accounts for the change to overt capitalist policies as a “coupâ€? – which absolves it of trying to explain where it came from, why the Party not only did not oppose this “coupâ€? but supported it; why the Maoists had so little support. In general, it illustrates why there can’t be a Maoist critique of Maoism. What we need is a Marxist, an historical materialist, critique of Maoism.”

Kasama also posted some interviews with Mao Zedong on these matters, combining two excepts into Mao on Supporting the January Storm and New Seizures of Power in 1967.

The following is the response by Antaeus to those Mao excerpts in particular.

* * * * * *

Mao Kills Off the Red Guard Movement, July 28 1968

By Antaeus

In an article titled “2 Excerpts From Mao Zedong: On Dilemmas Within the Cultural Revolution� posted on April 27 2009, Mike E. posted the text of an important interview involving Mao Tsetung, other leading Party officials, and a number of Red Guard leaders.

That document is titled “Dialogues With Responsible Persons of Capital Red Guards Congressâ€? of July 28, 1968.”

Mike E. introduces this text with the following paragraph:

“The following is an earlier discussion between Mao Zedong and key figures of the Red Guard movement around the issues discussed in the accompanying essay by Antaeus. The figure K’uai Ta-fu mentioned here at the beginning was a key leader of the Red Guards nationally, and one closely associated with the “overthrow all� line that emerged. Mao’s inability to win him over, and the forces he led, was one of the defining moments of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution — indicating that the grand revolutionary alliance Mao envisioned for a rebuilding of the party was not to be.�

I have tried to boldface this line from the quotation: “Mao’s inability to win him over, and the forces he led, was one of the defining moments of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” — for a reason:

The statement is false.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in China, Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong, Maoism, revolution | 2 Comments »

Arundhati Roy on the Poor, the Armed Struggle & the Failure of India’s System

Posted by Mike E on October 26, 2009

This is a 5-part series where writer/activist Arundhati Roy speaks on “Indian Democracy In A State Of Emergency”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news, >> communist politics, Arundhati Roy, CPI(Maoist), India, Maoism, Naxalite, communism, peoples war, revolution | 2 Comments »

Needed Fusion: Profoundly Non-Dogmatic & Starkly Revolutionary

Posted by Mike E on October 26, 2009

Watching her father arrested in federal raid on immigrant workersby Mike Ely

MPBW objected (with dismissive anger) to remarks on the theory and history of Trotskyism. I’m going to set aside the tone of MPBW’s comments, and deal with a few points.

1) I think there is a general problem of “decline” in the forms of radical left activity forged in the previous century. And i think part of what we need to regroup is forces who want to understand and break out of that pattern.

And I believe that is possible because that decline is independent of the acute suffering of the people globally and the very real potential for radical social alternatives. We (the revolutionary left) need to actively press beyond this moment — and pull something new out of this crisis.

2) I suggested that Trotskyism as a trend is deep into disarray and dispersal. And that is hard to deny. The Fourth International was rather still-born already in Trotsky’s life in the 1930s. It found some pockets of intellectual adherents, but shattered as a trend. Its surviving components have maintained themselves largely by taking distance (in some basic ways) from their own initial beliefs.  We could plot the trajectories of Ernest Mandel’s trend,  or de-trotskyization of the Workers World and PSL, or Jack Barnes’ withdrawal from Permanent Revolution, or the flurry around post-Trotskyist formations of the Third Camp kind — but those who are interested in such matters already know about them.

3) Here is the point: I don’t think that this kind of crisis is peculiar to Trotskyism. The various left political trends are different in a number of ways, but they do share the common appearance of crisis. And in this I’m including anarchism (which had a spurt of generational growth in the 1980s). And it is even true of the more electoral left forces identified with the Greens or Nader — for whom the appearance of “spoiler” after the tied 2000 election has proven to be such a trauma.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> communist politics, Kasama, Mao Zedong, Maoism, Marxist theory, Mike Ely, Stalin and Stalinism, comintern, communism, mass line, revolution | 5 Comments »

Chomsky, Roy & Others: Protest Indian Military Counter-Insurgency

Posted by Mike E on October 25, 2009

Meeting of revolutionary farmers in the forest, India

Meeting of revolutionary farmers in the forest, India

This report first appeared in Monthly Review

The Impending Indian Government Offensive against the Adivasi Inhabited Hilly Regions:

Statement of Concern and Protest by Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky and Others

On Monday, October 12th, it was reported that Manmohan Singh — despite the request of air chief marshal P. V. Naik to permit IAF personnel in helicopters to attack inhabitants of the hilly regions — had announced that the armed forces would not be deployed against the domestic left-wing opponents of the regime. On October 8th the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had authorised the home ministry-driven coordinated offensive that will see, along with state police deployment, some 75,000 central security personnel — who are trained alongside the army — and IAF choppers that will “assist in movement of forces.” We shall soon see what the Prime Minister’s reservation means in practice.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bill Martin, CPI(Maoist), India, Maoism, Naxalite, peoples war, revolution | 15 Comments »

Heresy: On New Demarcations & Coherent Theory

Posted by Mike E on October 24, 2009

Demarcations do not require treating people like heretics

Demarcations and differences do not require treating others like heretics from some true religion

By Mike Ely

I’d like to build upon what Tell No Lies just said in our discussion of the mentioning of Trotsky by one of Nepal’s leading Maoists.

First, the point in all of this is that we need to find a way to be clearly,  shockingly revolutionary, but not sectarian. This is a challenge (in a left where anti-sectarianism is the banner of reformism). I think it is possible, and I think many of us are eager for it.

Starkly non-sectarian, fiercely revolutionary. With all that this implies and demands.

TNL said (excerpted from among other things):

“I am quite pleased to see Bhattarai quoting Trotsky, if only to shake up the dogmatists. …  I’d love to see a similar openness to the full range of heretics from Gramsci through Fanon and beyond. Being “on guardâ€? against heretical ideas is deadly to revolutionary theory… A genuinely scientific outlook is unafraid of heresy and knows that seemingly disproven ideas come back to life all the time in the light of new experiences or theoretical advances in other areas. The Trotskyist critique of building socialism in one country was problematic more because it was politically paralyzing than because it was analytically wrong about the limits of what could be achieved and its revival in a much smaller country in a more globally integrated world economy makes complete sense to me.”

I think there are a number of sides to approach here.

1) Treating ideas as heresy has been a way of shutting down debate without engaging deeply with the actual lines. It is a terrible method. Communism is not a religion with religious doctrines, apostates and heretics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Communist Party, Kasama, Krushchev, Mao Zedong, Maoism, Mike Ely, Stalin and Stalinism, Trotskyism, communism, philosophy, revolution, theory, vanguard party | 37 Comments »

Iran: Problems of Moving from Protest to Organized Resistance

Posted by Mike E on October 24, 2009

Teachers protest in Tehran

Teachers protest in Tehran

Here at Kasama we have been publishing documents and reports from a number of different political trends in Iran. Here is a statement from a group called “Call of the Red.”

It critiques various demands that were common in the recent mass protest, and encourages working people to come into the political movement and bring their specific (often economic) concerns with them.

We are offering this message here without endorsing its particular politics and tactics.

It sketches an important problem facing the revolutionary movements in Iran: How to build on a highly spontaneous movement of protest, and develop (out of it) sustained organization that reaches deeper into the working people. How to bring the struggle out from under the wing of the “reform” currents within the regime — and have working people develop an independent and far more radical current.

The translation into English is a bit primitive, but we have not edited it extensively, believing that most of it will be understandable to readers.

12th Public Message from the Call of the Red:

Forward to the November 3 Demonstrations in Organized Manner and With Clear demands!

We are going to welcome the third of November, the National Student’s Day.  Contrary to regime’s fallacious propagandas, this day has not been registered in Iranian history due to regime mercenaries’ taking Americans hostage in their embassy, but, it is the commemoration day for High School students’ support of teachers’ strike, during the revolutionary struggles against the Pahlavi royal dictatorship on November 3rd 1978.  On that day all across the country, students of High Schools and, other levels, came into streets with organization and regardless of their ages, being so young, they showed such endurance as though they were writing the exemplary sheets to their elders. We salute all Iranian students and we are hopeful that on November 3rd 2009, they create another legacy in the revolutionary struggles of Iranian peoples for better living and freedom.

Right now a large variety of political groups are declaring their support for a concentrated and nationwide gathering.  We also invite all peoples of Iran, the workers and red forces in particular, to participate in these gathering to demonstrate alongside of our comrades.  But, at this mark in history, there are few remarkable matters that we need to point out in this message.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Iran | 6 Comments »

On Rumors of Nepali Maoists, Trotskyism and Socialism in One Country

Posted by Mike E on October 22, 2009

Let's not lose a grip on reality -- or a sense of the views of Nepali Maoists

The ideology of Nepali Maoists on display.

By Nando Sims

A bit of a strange speculation has rippled through the world of online Trotskyism. It was triggered by the circulation of an article entitled “Communist Party of Nepal Recognises Role of Leon Trotsky” (including on the Marxmail list).  The authors of the piece are Pablo Sanchez and Kamred Hulaki.

In breathless tones, this piece claims that the world’s most prominent Maoist party has decided Trotsky was right and Stalin was wrong. The article’s opening paragraph reads:

“This summer The Red Spark [Rato Jhilko ...], a journal of the Communist Party of Nepal published an article by Baburam Bhattarai, which stated that, ‘Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat’. This is the result of concrete historical experience that has revealed the real essence of Stalinism and vindicated the ideas of Leon Trotsky, in the case of Nepal in particular of the theory of the Permanent Revolution.” (from In Defense of Marxism, IDOM)

When we first received these claims (weeks ago) here at Kasama, we didn’t feel the need to post them or comment — since on the surface the various claims were hyped, false and even silly. But now this article from IDOM is unfortunately being taken seriously, so some comment is in order.

Just for starters: This piece does not even manage to get the name of the Maoist party right anywhere, including in its headline. There is no “Communist Party of Nepal” — as anyone familiar with Nepal knows. There are many parties with the word “Communist” in their name. The Maoist party is called the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) — a fact apparently unfamiliar to the folks behind this IDOM article.

Such a error is not fatal in its own right — but it highlights that these authors have a real indifference to the most basic facts. This ignorance marks the rest of the piece in perhaps-less-obvious ways.

Here is the heart of the matter:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news | 26 Comments »

Mike Ely: On Economic Struggle & Economism Among Revolutionaries

Posted by Mike E on October 20, 2009

serve_the_peopleCelticfire suggested that this is worth revisiting. It was originally posted six months ago. It is part of a larger discussion of “interests” — what kinds of contradictory interests to people (and groups) have and how do various interests play their role in preparing and making revolution.

by Mike Ely

I remember hearing about a campus meeting, where a student stood up very indignant and confronted the communists in the room:

“Serve the people! Serve the people! You say that all the time. But WHAT ABOUT ME? I’m a people.”

The issue around economism is what is the role of self-interest among the oppressed — how do we understand it? Can people make an emancipatory revolution based on their own self-interest? Based on revenge? Based on getting their “seat at the table”? Or do growing cores of people need to see the interests and suffering of other people and strata, including around the world, and take all that to heart, in a way that perceives a larger “historic interest” for the oppressed generally, and that loses narrower conceptions of “self” and “interest”  in that new  identification (which is sometimes called “class consciousness”).

There is a world of difference between “We”ve come for what’s ours” and “Serve the People” — and part of the question is how does broader consciousness grip a revolutionary core of people — a core that can drive politics forward. And what specific forms of consciousness should communists be promoting, and how is such the broad transformation of consciousness influenced by communist work.

Here are some notes I made to open the door further for discussion….

1) There are economic struggles and economist politics. And they are not the same things.

Economic struggles are (as the words imply) struggles waged by people over their conditions of life — wages, work conditions, taxes, housing conditions, unionization, job grievances etc.

Economist politics is a long-standing and rather tenacious current among communists that says that economic struggles are the most fruitful focus (for communists!) in organizing people and specifically for raising their political consciousness (toward class consciousness and socialist politics).

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Mike Ely, V.I. Lenin, communism, revolution, theory | 54 Comments »

Does Nepal’s Revolution Deserve Support or Ambivalence?

Posted by Mike E on October 19, 2009

Armed communist guerrilla fighters waiting

Armed communist guerrilla fighters waiting

Ka Frank posted a criticism of the new FIRE Collective pamphlet “A Revolution at the Brink: Stand With Nepal.” Here Nando replies to that criticism. We urge you to read Ka Frank’s remarks in detail.

* * * * * *
From Nando:

We agree on many things here. But let me for a moment focus on some disagreements:

I like the FIRE Collective’s headline “A Revolution at the Brink: Stand with Nepal.â€?

I think it corresponds with the approach we should take to building internationalist support, and (more to the point here) it represents a correct and dialectical appraisal about what is going on. (And it is not surprising that a short terse headline brings out disputes about what to say and promote.)

They are at the brink of a seizure of power. That doesn’t mean that they will go for it, or that they will win. But it does mean that (for the first time in decades)  communist movement has brought the people within reach of countrywide power. It is a great accomplishment, and needs to be forcefully brought to everyone’s attention.

You write by contrast:

“It is more accurate to characterize the revolution in Nepal as being at a crossroads.�

I think this represents a misread of the situation. It takes a secondary aspect of the situation (the very real two-line struggle in the Nepali Maoist party) and treats it as the principal aspect. (I feel like you don’t think they do anything but fidget nervously and indecisively at this crossroads, much to your disapproval.)

Let’s put it another way: It is October 1917, and our pamphlet can read “Bolsheviks prepare a Communist Insurrection� or “Party Debates Power Grab Amid Deep Disagreements.� Aren’t they both accurate?

In fact, yes, the Nepali party is at a crossroads — which is inherent in every great revolutionary moment.

In fact, can’t you write that same headline about “crossroads” at any moment in their struggle? It actually doesn’t capture the SPECIFICITY of this moment or of their achievement. (This is not just ANY crossroad — it is the one at the brink of countrywide seizure of power… and of preparing all the difficult materials needed to launch and win such an attempt.)

Seeing Revisionist Default, Then Startled at Each New Move Toward the Revolution

Here is the essence of this:

You seem to  feel that this Nepali Maoist party is deep in revisionism, with only occasional sputters of revolutionary impulse. Then when they again start talking in public about insurrection and new armed struggle you get excited and write:

“The new formulation of waging struggle from the government, the parliament and the streets points to such a shift to the Left.�

It is as if you have a negative pessimistic view of their intentions most of the time, as if you think their main leadership core is on the wrong road but under pressure. And then (over and over) when they don’t dissolve their army, or when they leave the government, or when they start talking about new upsurge of militant struggle…. whenever signs of revolutionary advance become visible you excitedly think this is “such a shift to the left.� (i.e. it is a shift from the revisionist default that you seem to see.)

And you have an elaborate analysis that Prachanda had the revisionist plan (of not going for Peoples Democracy) but (under pressure) reached (yet another) compromise. And so on.

Speaking for myself, I have read the same articles, and don’t pretend to know the full picture of what Prachanda thinks (in private). A party leader (as I know from experience in the RCP) is both a point-person for a line, and also a unifying figure. They often can’t (and don’t) say what they are actually fighting for at each point of the inner party struggle –while they unleash those forces who do fight sharply for a particular program. There are wings in this party, and I imagine that Prachanda is a unifying figure in many ways. But I don’t assume that their compromises are all “foul compromises.�

There is a climate among some communists that assumes that all compromises are inherently evidence of lack of clarity on principles. With that approach, we will never organize anything with anybody. Politics is not the simple application of simple self-evident principles (from which compromise can only mean a departure). Politics requires the creation of allignments and programs in a dynamic matrix of events.

Look at what this party has done:

They launched a peoples war, they waged it successfully, they agreed to enter a political offensive (from 2006 til now), they won over remarkable political support, they have deeply “compared and contrasted” the three opposing roads (monarchism, bourgeois democracy and peoples democracy) before the eyes of millions of awakening people, they have withdrawn from the government, and they are now preparing to launch a new test of mass strength through open struggles (perhaps in preparation for insurrection.)

Why do you keep portraying them as lost and aimless in the same old crossroads?

Don’t you see all the progress through VARIOUS crossroads?

I think they might seize power and embark on their idiosyncratic version of socialism, and some would STILL be grumbling that they are still stuck at that crossroads, and haven’t yet made things clear the metaphysical way some think they must be made clear.

Approaching a Real Seizure of Power: Timing, Forces, Conjuncture, Unity, Tactics & the Element of Surprise

To win a revolution, the Nepali communists need to seize overall power. I believe that, you believe that, and I assume they believe that.

But there are sharp materialist questions of assessment. As a negative example, the RCP’s Bob Avakian implies that the Nepalis have suffered a loss of “strategic will.â€? i.e. he sums up that the core problem here is that they have lost their nerve in the face of the dangers. Well, that’s easy for him to say.

But in fact there are material problems: they face a very real army, that they can either defeat or not. They tried it, and pulled back in 2006 based on their assessments then. They also now face mobilizing the population, specifically for a great revolutionary effort and for all the sacrifice that follows — which diverse sections of the population will either embrace or not.

And there are issues of program: seize power for what? What is the state, government and military situation that defines the victory?

A thought: There are forces in the Nepali party who argue that the transitional period should last a while longer. Why do they do that? Is it simply that they don’t appreciate or desire Peoples Democracy? Is it possible that their assessment is that a move from the current unstable bourgeois democracy (coexisting uneasily with a monarchist army) can’t be replaced by peoples democracy (at this particular moment)?  There may be some forces who think it is unlikely that a poor landlocked country like Nepal can aspire to a socialist road for the forseeable future. And it is also possible that other forces think the socialist road is possible, but the insurrection is not yet ripe. These are questions to consider when trying to evaluate “the crossroads” of this party.

In other words, revolutionary timing is not just a matter of will or desire.

To make an actual insurrection you need to count noses, you need (as Lenin said) to launch from a high tide of popular indignation and effort. You need your core social base prepared and eager to take on this new challenge (which they aren’t always prepared or eager for!) And you need a programmatic plan that applies in this particular situation, the will of the revolutionary people, and also serves as a bridge onwards to socialism.

You can’t just pick a day and go — without specific prerequisites in place. I suggest people study the experiences of the German attempts of 1923 etc. which were treated precisely as just matters of will. In Germany the Comintern ordered the KPD to pick a day and launch an uprising. Their advanced forces went into motion, but without mass support. And they were crushed. History is full of shattered movements that thought they could just run on will.

And (of course) the objective difficulties also do fuel backward, capitulationist lines (that tend to exaggerate the desirability and stability of bourgeois democracy.)

But in Nepal, it is not a matter of “better insurrection now than later, better tomorrow than next week.â€? It may very well be that the Maoists objectively can’t seize power right now… and need to buy time and gain forces (â€?hasten and awaitâ€?). It’s not like we can say “they postponed insurrection, that’s a bad sign” or “They are rushing the insurrection, they must now have a better line.” It may be that postponing an insurrection is  correct, for very real material reasons — or they may be able to launch and win one soon. I don’t know, and I don’t know how you can know from afar. This is no game.

In Weimar Germany (1919-1933) the German Communist Party never GOT the prerequisites for an insurrection. They had millions of supporters, they had an intense economic and political crisis. But the elements never came together. Perhaps they could have done some things better, perhaps that might have created an opening. But the fact is that it is not a given that you CAN launch an insurrection when you want one. It is not even a given that you will have one next year. And being impatient, assuming that caution is evidence of betrayal, is really often infantile. Again: go read about 1923. It is sobering.

But again: The Nepali Maoists are farther along than anyone would have expected. They have an army (which the KPD DIDN’T have), they now have experience in local and national power, they have had two years to train their military and political cadre in the skills of government, they have won over new sections of the people… So maybe they will get a chance! The fact that this is possible makes our internationalist work urgent.

I think  the plan  of the Nepali party was all along was to gather necessary forces, carry out countrywide seizure of power and establish a peoples democracy as a basis for the socialist road. I think the 2006 negotiations were a substage toward that (not a confused flirtation with capitulation). Unlike some people I don’t think they ever gave up the road of armed revolution, or intended to dissolve their army, or abandon New Democracy and Socialism. AND i think the evidence has (so far!) confirmed that view (and that is perhaps one of the areas of disagreement, and an area for further exploration).

There were forces inside their party urging caution and going slow (as there inevitably are). I think there have been rightist winds in their party (as there often are in serious parties). I think new people entering their party and some of their leading people flirted with extending the “transition� indefinitely (in a way that would have meant embracing bourgeois democracy instead of peoples democracy).

But in fact, the existence of bourgeois headquarters was inherent in leading a revolution at a countrywide level. And it was persistent through the preparation, the carrying out, the victory and the aftermath of that revolution. It’s no like the Maoists were ever NOT at a crossroads, or that they had to resolve their two line struggle in some metaphysical way (purges? no compromises?) to make any possible advance. No, that assumption would be dogmatic orthodoxy (similar to Hoxha’s some of views) not Maoism.

The revolution does need to advance… and it does need to do that amid great debates and ongoing internal struggles — that will reach temporary resolution over specific decisions and plans, but which will continue for the life of the party.

What Are We Trying to do From Here?

It is not like our main task (internationally) is constantly to announce and publicize  about the existence of this two line struggle. Should our pamphlets and teach-ins sound like some news wire of micro-debates in Nepal — all presented in a fretful air of distrust and disappointment?

Yes  two line-struggle exists. Yes its outcome will determine whether this revolution passes OVER THE BRINK to an actual seizure of countrywide power. Yes our audiences need to know about the substantive issues a revolution faces, and the ways THIS revolution has chosen to debate and resolve them.

Put another way: The phrase “Revolution at the Brink� views the main contradiction as being between the revolution and the old society. The slogan “Revolution at the crossroads� presents the main contradiction as being between revolution and capitulation within the party. Both of those contradictions are very real. They are intensely intertwined.

But our approach to these matters is shaped by our task here: which is building support for a LIVING revolution. What people need to know (especially in a popular pamphlet) is that this revolutionary force has been built, that it has creatively made its way to this point, that it has a vision for the future, that it deserves our active political support, that people need to break the media whiteout, that the Maobadi are not “terrorists” etc. We should not hide the fact that revolutions have internal debates, of course. We should mention it, and we should (when appropriate and possible) help our audiences know what the lines are.

But the task of internationalists is not to produce a day-by-day press service about the health of revisionism in the Nepali communist movement, and that frets daily over whether we think “the good guys� are gaining ground in their debates.

The task of internationalists is to build real support and excitement over this revolution AND train new forces in a scientific view of what a revolution is (including an understanding of the inevitability and decisiveness of line struggle). We should bring out the controversies (and we have on Kasama from the beginning). The key thing here is to actively build support for this revolution’s very real accomplishments and real potential. We should not be naive “cheer-leaders” training others in self-deception and mythic triumphalism. But we should build some much-deserved support and display some much deserved enthusiasm.

Posted in >> analysis of news | 14 Comments »

Nepal: A Revolution at a Political Crossroads

Posted by Mike E on October 19, 2009

Was the Maoist turn in 2006 a serious error that they have not yet recovered from?

Was the Maoist turn in 2006 a serious error that they have not yet recovered from?

The FIRE Collective published a pamphlet “A Revolution at the Brink: Stand With Nepalâ€? — to build support for the revolution in Nepal. Ka Frank posted the following criticism of that pamphlet. In a separate post, Nando replies to Ka Frank’s assessments.

by Ka Frank

October 18, 2009 at 10:25 pm e

This new pamphlet is a welcome addition to the literature on the revolution in Nepal. However, it is an idealized of the current situation in Nepal and within the UCPN (Maoist), which is reflected in the title of the pamphlet–�A Revolution at the Brink.� It is more accurate to characterize the revolution in Nepal as being at a crossroads.

What is missing is a recognition of the ongoing–and decisive– debate in the leadership and ranks of the UCPN (Maoist) about the road forward for the revolution.

At the National Convention of the party in November 2008, Chairman Prachanda’s views came under public criticism from a number of senior party leaders, including Kiran (Mohan Baidya), Guarav (CP Gajurel) and Biplap (Netra Bikram Chand). The main issue of political strategy was whether the party should go for a People’s Republic, completing the new democratic revolution through the seizure of state power, or Prachanda’s revisionist position that the party should consolidate the present bourgeois republic and limit itself to a process of state restructuring. (See Bastola’s “Historic National Convention: Milestone of Revolution,� in the December 1-15, 2008 Red Star, and CP Gajurel’s “The Role of Major Tactical Line in Developing a New Constitution� in the January 16-31, 2009 Red Star.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news | Leave a Comment »

Rehab’s “Graffiti the World”

Posted by Mike E on October 19, 2009

Posted in >> analysis of news | Leave a Comment »

Mike Ely: On Real Limits and Real Value of Our Theory

Posted by Mike E on October 19, 2009

hammer_and_sicklehammer_and_sickle_warholFirst posted in May.

By Mike Ely

TNL writes:

“The problem in this, of course, is that sinking roots involves making an assessment of where to sink them in anticipation of future upheavals and such assessments are more likely than not to be wrong.�

Chuck Morse writes:

This very honest comment by TNL reflects a basic lack of confidence in Marxism as a tool for social analysis. . . You have big problems if your social theory is likely to be wrong about when and where social conflicts are to occur and, in my opinion, it would make more sense to confront those problems directly than to lose yourself in labyrinths of strategic conjecture.

It is true that TNL’s “very honest comment” delineates the limits of existing social theory. Let me add to his honesty….. and then (in the second half of below) deal with some implicatoins.

No Grounds for Arrogance

Our Marxist social theory has proven to have a very limited predictive value. Certainly that is my experience. Just some salient examples:

1)  In the 1970s, communists expected the next wave of rebellion to spread from the Black Liberation struggle to the industrial workers. That didn’t happen, instead the 60s upsurge essentially ended after 1973. (The RCP created a huge scandal in 1974 by saying the movement was going into an ebb. Not only was there no prediction, but few recognized the decline as it started.)

2) The eruption of the 1992 LA rebellion is an example of TNL’s point — that we can identify faultlines, but really do not have any predictive power to identify timing or specific events.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Karl Marx, Maoism, Marxist theory, Mike Ely, comintern, communism, methodology, revolution, theory | 9 Comments »

Terry Bisson: John Brown — 150 Years After Harpers Ferry

Posted by Mike E on October 18, 2009

John_Brown_PaintingIntroduction by the editors of Monthly Review

October 16, 2009, marks the sesquicentennial of the attack by John Brown and his forces on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. The attack itself was carried out by nineteen men, while three remained as a rear guard. Brown was captured, executed, and buried — along with ten men who died as a result of the attack, including one of his sons — at his farmstead in North Elba in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. His burial was within the African American community in which he had lived for a time, Timbuctoo.

Over the years, Brown has been eulogized by Frederick Douglass, Walt Whitman, W. E. B. Du Bois (who wrote, “Has John Brown no message — no legacy then, to the twentieth century? He has, and it is this great word: the cost of liberty is less than the cost of repression.�), the poet Muriel Rukeyser, and Malcolm X (who wrote, “if you are for me…then you have to be willing to do as old John Brown did�), among others.

But perhaps his lasting legacy is found in his own words, delivered moments before his hanging:

“Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life, for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and MINGLE MY BLOOD FURTHER WITH THE BLOOD OF MY CHILDREN, and with the blood of millions in this Slave country, whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments — I say LET IT BE DONE.�

* * * * * * *

John Brown — 150 Years After Harpers Ferry

by Terry Bisson

I dreamed I saw John Brown last night.

No surprise. The old man is still very much with us. What some saw as his madness, and others as his martyrdom, is still discussed and debated, celebrated and vilified in scores of new articles and books every year. Save perhaps for Lincoln, no American of his day has had more words thrown at him than Old Captain John Brown: the scourge of white supremacy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news | 6 Comments »

Howard Zinn Introduces John Brown’s Words

Posted by Mike E on October 18, 2009

captain_john_brown_slave_revoltVideo version from Democracy Now.

HOWARD ZINN: John Brown, more than any other white American, devoted his life, and finally sacrificed it, on behalf of freedom for the slave. His plan, impossible and courageous, was to seize the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia with a band of black and white abolitionists and set off a revolt of slaves throughout the South. The plan failed.

Some of his men, including two of his own sons, were killed. John Brown was wounded, captured, sentenced to death by hanging by the state of Virginia, and with the enthusiastic approval of the government of the United States. When he was put to death, Ralph Waldo Emerson said, he will make the gallows holy as the cross.

Here, John Brown addresses the court that ordered his hanging.

HARRIS YULIN: [reading John Brown] Had I interfered in the manner which I admit…had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, [either] father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right, and every man in this Court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in >> analysis of news | 2 Comments »

October 16, 1859: Raid at Harpers Ferry to Rouse Slave Revolution

Posted by Mike E on October 18, 2009

Posted in John Brown | Leave a Comment »