Reactionary forces sabotage formation of Maoist-led government in Nepal
This new and unexpected development represents a temporary setback to the unfolding revolutionary process in Nepal. But it by no means represents the end of the road – rather, as Chairman Gonzalo famously put it, this is but a bend in the road, a road that leads all the way to socialism and ultimately to communism. If the reactionaries class forces and the parties that represent them will not allow the Maoists to gain state power through peaceful democratic means, there are alternatives the Maoists can turn to – they proved to be extremely good at these alternatives during the decade long People’s War.
The CPN (M) made noises in the lead up to the elections that if it was not able to gain power through the ballot it and it’s fighters would “return to the jungle”. This may now be necessary to smash the resistance of the comprador-capitalist and landlord classes, who are desperately trying to prevent the creation of a Maoist led government that will initiate agrarian reforms based on Land to the Tiller, and will lead a program of idnustrialisation and working-class mobilisation to lay the basis for a transition to socialism.
The Maoists recieved by far the largest vote in the elections, and the efforts by the other parties to block the democratic will of the Nepalese masses only reveals their true and reactionary nature.
In government, the Maoists could have achieved huge things for Nepal, and they were always clear that this would have to be backed up by and carried out through mass mobilisation and class struggle. In opposition, the Maoists may not be able to effect their revolutionary policies, but with their mass support and stunning organisation skills, they have the strength to resist anything the reactionary classes throw at them, and perhaps even to advance their radical agenda outside of the halls of office.
Nobody can say right now where things will go from here, but one things for sure – it’s going to be bloody interesting to watch. All eyes must remain on the New Nepal – Lal Salaam!
The Maoists will not participate in the government of Nepal
10 minutes ago
KATHMANDU (AFP) - The Nepalese Maoists, whose presidential candidate was defeated on Monday, will not participate in the first government of the Republic of Nepal, plunging the country into a new political crisis.
The former rebels communicated its decision, seen as a blow to the peace process in Nepal, a day after his candidate for the presidency was rejected by the Constituent Assembly, which preferred a centrist candidate.
“The party’s central committee decided not to form a government. After the presidential election, it is clear that we have no majority. So we have no basis for forming the future government,” declared to AFP Bhadur Krishna Mahara, spokesperson of the Maoists.
In the April elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Maoists were the next most popular list, but failed to secure the absolute majority. Then insisted that its candidate for president should be elected and they were to form government.
However, in the voting on Monday in the Constituent Assembly, parliamentarians elected as first president of the country to Ram Baran Yadav, the Nepali Congress Party (centrist), the main rival of the Maoists.
The post of president is largely symbolic, but the Maoists said that the election of Yadav will leave little room for manoeuvre if they formed government and little chance to carry out major changes in the country, including an ambitious agrarian reform.
The spokesman of the Maoists qualified that “the door remains open to negotiate with other parties.”
The participation of the Maoists in national politics is seen as crucial to the success of the peace process in Nepal, born of an agreement signed in 2006 that ended an uprising a decade, during which at least 13,000 people died.
At the moment it is unclear whether other parties will be able to forge an alliance between them to achieve lift Nepal’s power vacuum that dominates the country after the abolition of the monarchy on May 28.
“The decision by the Maoists to stay in the opposition is a setback to the peace process. If the Maoists remain in his position will be complications,” said Gunaraj Luitel, editor of Kantipur Daily.
“No party has a clear majority, but being the largest party, the Maoists have the right to form government, and also have to earn the confidence of other parties,” added the editor.
Lok Raj Baral, a professor of political science at Tribhuvan University, said that the other parties “have to bring the Maoists to the government as it is, to keep alive the peace process.”
“A minority government in which the Maoists are not will not be stable,” he adds.
“All political parties are equally responsible for the political confusion, because they are unable to trust each other. Now must understand that there is no alternative to the politics of consensus,” says Baral.
Chairman Abimael Guzman? Jesus Christ dude….
Oliver Woods
July 23, 2008 at 12:55 pm
im not sure how realistic going back to the jungles is. Im not sure what they would have to gain by that for one, and the guns and the PLA are still under UN lock and key in cantonments.
The Peoples War was always against the monarchy and for a nepalese republic, and now that this has/is being realised i dont think returning to the hills to fight against that is a realistic option for the maoists.
That being said, i agree that being in oppersition offers little as well.
I agree 100% though when you say that the maoists have proven to be pasters at overcoming challenges, and if anything can overcome this setback, its the mighty prachanda path.
Ben Peterson
July 23, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“Chairman Abimael Guzman? Jesus Christ dude….”
In a post about an ongoing revolutionary struggle led by a Maoist organisation that’s part of the same International the Communist Party of Peru was, he’s a relevant person to quote.
I definitely think he’s preferable to the mob of liberal bourgeois-nationalists you endorse as you’re ideological allies. Forget all that nonsense about class struggle and the irreconcilable interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, all we need is a better tariffs system and progressive taxation and everyone can live in peace and harmony!
comradealastair
July 24, 2008 at 5:21 am
It’s interesting to notice that Congress is utilizing the Madhesi chuvanism in order to stop Maoists from making the government.
Vidrohi
July 24, 2008 at 6:18 am
“im not sure how realistic going back to the jungles is. Im not sure what they would have to gain by that for one, and the guns and the PLA are still under UN lock and key in cantonments.”
Well one thing they could have to gain is the conquest of state power! But either way, it seems unlikely that there will be a return to armed struggle any time soon, Prachanda has stated that the Maoists will sit in opposition – however, he has also made statements that this “jeapordizes the peace process” and that “The government has stopped providing allowances to the PLA. Our fighters are facing untold miseries and if that continued, it will exhaust our patience”.
Also, it’s not quite accurate that the PLA’s men and weapons are under “UN lock and key”. The cantonments are supervised by the UN, but the Maoists can access their weapons whenever they want to. The agreement states that
“After placing the Maoist combatants within the Cantonments, all the arms and ammunition except those required for providing security to the Cantonments shall be securely stored and the keys to the single lock shall remain with the side concerned [the PLA]. The UN shall monitor the process of placing the weapons under a single lock by keeping records and fitting a device along with a siren. In case of need to examine the weapons placed under the single lock, the UN shall do so under the presence of the concerned side. All the technical details along with camera monitoring shall be prepared under the joint agreement of the UN, CPN (Maoist) and the Government of Nepal.”
The Maoists have a key to the weapons, and a siren goes off if they withdraw them. so if need be the PLA could rearm itself very quickly…
“The Peoples War was always against the monarchy and for a nepalese republic, and now that this has/is being realised i dont think returning to the hills to fight against that is a realistic option for the maoists.”
True, but it was also for a lot more than that. It was also aimed at the destruction of the semi-feudal, sem-colonial social structure Nepal languishes in, and it’s replacement with a New Democratic revolution to eliminate feudalism and drive back imperialism, and lay the basis for a socialist revolution.
The CPN (M) is advancing it’s struggle very carefully, but it hasn’t lost sight of it’s goals – getting rid of the king is only a first step.
comradealastair
July 24, 2008 at 7:47 am
“It’s interesting to notice that Congress is utilizing the Madhesi chuvanism in order to stop Maoists from making the government.”
Yes, it’s very telling isn’t it… It’s quite sad that the Madhesi parties are putting ethnic sectarianism before revolutionary change in Nepal.
comradealastair
July 24, 2008 at 8:51 am
The Shining Path (Camino Luminoso) are nutcases. I’m not saying this as a general statement against Marxists, but I’m saying this as a general statement against anyone who takes what they did seriously.
Abimael Guzman, like Alberto Fujimori, was a beast who cared little for the lives of people. I can’t believe you’re so naive as to take his bullshit seriously.
With stuff like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre …
Wikipedia also adds from it’s main page.
“Shining Path’s attacks were not limited to the countryside. It mounted attacks against the infrastructure in Lima, killing civilians in the process. In 1983, it sabotaged several electrical transmission towers, causing a citywide blackout, and set fire to the Bayer industrial plant, destroying it completely. That same year, it set off a powerful bomb in the offices of the governing party, Popular Action. Escalating its activities in Lima, in June 1985 it again blew up electricity transmission towers in Lima, producing a blackout, and detonated car bombs near the government palace and the justice palace. It also was believed to be responsible for bombing a shopping mall.[24] At the time, President Fernando Belaúnde Terry was receiving the Argentine president Raúl Alfonsín. In one of its last attacks in Lima, on July 16, 1992, the group detonated a powerful bomb on Tarata Street in the upscale Miraflores District in Lima,[25] killing 25 people and injuring an additional 155.[26]
During this period, Shining Path also practiced many selective assassinations targeting specific individuals, notably leaders of other leftist groups, local political parties, labor unions, and peasant organizations, some of whom were anti-Sendero Marxists.[4] On April 24, 1985, in the midst of presidential elections, it tried to assassinate Domingo García Rada, the president of the Peruvian National Electoral Council, severely injuring him and mortally wounding his driver. In 1988, Constantin Gregory, an American citizen working for the United States Agency for International Development, was assassinated. Two French aid workers were killed on December 4 that same year.[27] In August 1991, the group killed one Italian and two Polish priests in the department of Ancash.[28] The following February, it assassinated María Elena Moyano, a well-known community organizer in Villa El Salvador, a vast shantytown in Lima.[29]”
And you reckon they were good old fashioned revolutionaries who had the people in the forefront of their mind?
Oliver Woods
July 26, 2008 at 6:34 am
Let me just say before I begin this that I think it’s much more important to continue our debate over the different approaches of WP and RAM, rather than arguing about things that took place many years ago such as the Peruvian People’s War.
“The Shining Path (Camino Luminoso) are nutcases. I’m not saying this as a general statement against Marxists, but I’m saying this as a general statement against anyone who takes what they did seriously. ”
First of all, there is not and never has been an organisation called the Shing Path, and the fact that you refer to them as such suggests the deep level of ignorance you have about the Communist Party of Peru and the Peruvian People’s War.
I know you’re a Spanish speaker, but translating “Shining Path” correctly into Spanish is kinda pointless considering the fact that the Spanish title “Sendero Luminoso” that the Peruvian regime levelled at the PCP is also innacurate.
You may choose to line up behind the bourgeois slanders levelled at the PCP and their struggle in Peru, but you certainly can’t argue that as an organisation they were insane, or “nutcases” as you put it. They were led by very intelligent, well-educated men and women, who were fully conscious of what they were doing (it wasn’t just mindless violence for fun and profit, it was part of a revolutionary armed struggle aimed at bringing down the state) and planned their operations out very carefully.
“Abimael Guzman, like Alberto Fujimori, was a beast who cared little for the lives of people. I can’t believe you’re so naive as to take his bullshit seriously.”
That’s you’re opinion – it is not the case in reality. The People’s War in Peru was very bloody and resulted in thousands of deaths, but that in no way means that Guzman “cared little for the lives of people.” There has never been a peaceful transition from one socio-economic system to another and there never will be – the ruling class never surrenders without a fight. Slave based societies such as in the Roman empire were brought down by a combination of internal slave revolts and external barbarian invasions, they didn’t gradually and peacefully evolve into feudalism. Capitalism was born on the basis of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in England and France, and in both cases the losing sides were violently exterminated!
Capitalism cannot be destroyed without some form of violent struggle, and in Peru the capitalist state was willing to do just about anything to hang onto power, thus necessitating the violent tactics of the revolutionary forces. In any armed struggle, in any war, there are going to be excesses and people are going to get caught in the crossfire. Innocent people are going to get hurt. But the capitalist system destroys lives everyday, completely unnecessarily, and reducses most people’s lives to misery. Any methods are acceptable to end this insane and inhuman system.
And you’re one to talk about naivety Oliver – didn’t you talk about how great Nelson Mandela and the ANC were, and the brilliant approach they’d been taking in South Africa since the fall of race-based apartheid? The only difference between you and me in that respect is that I choose to believe revolutionaries and progressive people who are struggling to build a better world, whereas you blindly swallow the lies and distortions the capitalist ruling class sells you.
“With stuff like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre …”
There were far more massacres commited by the Peruvian forces, and the vast majority of civilians were killed by them. The PCP admitted responsibility for the Lucanamarca massacre, and stated that what happened there got out of control. I don’ty know the full details of it, but I’m certainly not going to take the word of the capitalist media and the Peruvian state. History is written by the winners – most of the claims about “Shining Path atrocities” come from either “Senderologists” who made a lot of money from screaming about how terrible the PCP was, and from stuff like the “Truth and Reconciliation Committee”, whose reactionary nature is exposed very well at http://www.csrp.org/cmte/Truthcom.htm.
Exactly what is wrong with bombing power pylons and government offices as part of a revolutionary armed struggle against the government? And exactly what is wrong with executing American spies like Constantin Gregory, and Peruvian government spies who were involved in organising the paramilitary groups known as rondas like Maria Elena Moyano was? The PCP was fighting a war – such tactics are part of a war. Deal with it.
“And you reckon they were good old fashioned revolutionaries who had the people in the forefront of their mind?”
Yes. But I don’t think they were perfect – they made a lot of mistakes and put forward some poor political lines, such as with their much too heavy promotion of Chairman Gonzalo as an individual. This worked for them in the short term, as it tied into Indian myths about a great leader who would and liberate them from their sufferings, but when Gonzalo was captured it left a huge void that the PCP proved unable to fill, because of the degree to which they had promoted a cult of personality around him.
The PCP came very close to toppling the Peruvian government – if Gonzalo hadn’t been captured, it’s likely that they would have. Either that or American intervention would have turned Peru into another Vietnam.
comradealastair
July 26, 2008 at 8:24 am
Clearly we’re going to have to very strongly disagree about the Peruvian Communist Party and what they did.
I agree with you the discussion about RAM and the WP’s differing perspectives is important, but there were three questions I wanted to ask you:
1) What are your thoughts about the Communist Party of Kampuchea and it’s track record in Cambodia?
2) In the context of your comment “Capitalism cannot be destroyed without some form of violent struggle”, do you think People’s War as a concept has relevance for New Zealand?
As an secondary expansion of this, do you and/or the Workers Party support armed revolution in New Zealand as your party expands?
3) Did you know that RAM attempted to co-operate with the Workers Party? We sent your party a letter asking for the creation of a line of dialogue. I was very disappointed that we only got silence in response, but then again, I guess we are tools of the ruling class..
Oliver Woods
July 28, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Oliver, you are being deliberately mischievious here – as anyone who has more than a passing familiarity with the ideas of Marx and Lenin well knows, the Pol Pot regime had nothing in common with socialism (grounded in the ideas of technological and human progress) since it sought instead to physically liquidate the working class and return to a feudal agrarian society. This is probably why Pol Pot was backed by the United States and the Dengist regime in China against the Vietnamese communists.
Again, in the case of “Peoples’ War” if you bother to read anything on the subject you will discover that it refers to a definite set of revolutionary tactics to be employed in neo-colonial nations where bourgeois democracy does not exist and where there is a large peasantry. Neither of criteria these apply to an imperialist nation like NZ.
As for the Workers Party “supporting” armed revolution, yes we do think that ultimately capitalism cannot be overthrown by peaceful means. However this does not mean that we think leftists should be donning camo gear and taking to the Ureweras just yet – in order for an armed insurrection to be placed on the agenda the majority of the working class would have to first be convinced of the necessity of revolution and second we would see the capitalist state machine mobilse to prevent the working class from taking power by peaceful i.e. parliamentary means. Until those stages have been passed it is pointless to talk about an insurrection.
Finally re your point about co-operation between RAM and WP, I have not seen or heard of the letter you describe although I do recall Grant Morgan making some verbal comments a few months back about wanting to engage in “dialogue”. Unfortunately I don’t see there being much common ground as WP is unlikely to want to give electoral support to a populist non-class based platform such as RAM’s, while RAM since it is aiming for the parliamentary big time is obviously not much interested in our approach of utilising the elections to win small numbers of individual workers to revolutionary ideas
Tim B
July 30, 2008 at 4:50 am
Thank Christ you’re not interested in co-operation having read your stance on supporting a violent uprising against the Government. That sort of armchair revolutionary talk is pathetic and discredits hard working left-wingers who don’t make excuses for their parties inabilities to win sizable shares of the vote.
Oliver Woods
August 1, 2008 at 5:41 am
“That sort of armchair revolutionary talk is pathetic and discredits hard working left-wingers who don’t make excuses for their parties inabilities to win sizable shares of the vote.”
LOL
You’re hilarious Oliver. Didn’t you guys lose your only Councillor in the last local body elections? Didn’t you fail to achieve any more votes than we did outside of Auckland in the last local body elections, despite you’re watered down liberal politics? Whereabouts are you guys placing in the polls? Excuse all these nasty questions, but it’s not quite accurate to claim that RAM/SW commands a “sizeable share of the vote”.
And we’re hardly armchair revolutionaries. As you see from the top post on this blog, I was personally leading chants on a megaphone at a protest today, when was the last time you did that Oliver?
Workers Party activists, and the WP in general, make struggling against capitalism and imperialism a very large and important part of our lives. Many of us make huge sacrifices and have to compromise the quality of their lives in the course of this, and frankly I find it highly insulting for you to call us “armchair revolutionaries”. In the present conditions, revolutionary activity doesn’t involve automatic weapons – that doesn’t make it any less revolutionary.
Rather than just making unfounded idealistic statements Oliver, how about you explain how you’re going to convince the capitalist class to surrender power peacefully? How are you going to convince the capitalist class to commit suicide as a class without any resistance? How are you going to convince the capitalist class to quietly accept the dismantlign of it’s system and the elimination of it’s privilige and power?
And if you can’t convince it of these things, how are you going to advance you’re struggle against capitalism without using violent methods?
Please enlighten me.
comradealastair
August 1, 2008 at 7:30 am
hmmm.. i thought we were talking about Nepal here. at any rate this comment is very late but thankfully it has the benefit of hindsight.
Having been in Nepal during the elections and ever since that all the comrades reading this comment would be disheartened to know that the Maoist have completely lost the plot.
Soon after being returned as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai (Maoist second-in-command) unveiled the party’s new economic policies. It is the most incredibly petty bourgeoisie economic package i have ever seen. Essentially this policy talks about embracing free market economics and getting money from ‘reactionary and expansionist forces’ like India to run Nepal. In the six or so months they’ve been in power the Maoists haven’t really started on any of their poll promises. The only real change that has been seen in this period is Prachanda’s exploding waistline..hmmm, he might actually be liking the consumerist lifestyle of the capital.
1. They agreed to return all seized properties (many belonging to poor Nepalis and not our favourite punching-bag land owning fedual lords). Instead the Young Communist League is going around capturing more properties.
2. Post-election YCL activities has only risen and the Maoist have shown no remorse at YCL’s wide-scale vigilantism and utter disregard for the human rights of ordinary Nepalis. This also includes repeated attacks on journalists and media houses for ‘daring’ to express their views. So much for liberty and progression!
3. The Maoists are steadfastly maintain they want the PLA fighters to be incorporated in the Nepal Army but have said nothing about letting Madhesi and other ethnic minorities into the army.
4. Militant unions have closed down numerous industries with crazy demands and thereby hurting nepal’s economy.
5. The revolutionaries had to finally join hands with reactionary forces like the UML and divisive regionalists like Madhesi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) to come to power.
Just in case you didn’t know this but most of the Madhesi political leaders are former Maoists who quit after they showed the same (pahadi or hill people) discriminatory tendencies as the Nepali Congress, UML and the monarchy.
They have become suckers for power and haven’t done anything remotely revolutionary. The Nepali electorate voted for them because they were the only party that hadn’t been tried out and they sincerely hoped for change. But I’m disheartened to inform you all that the Maoists are fairing to be no better.
And this talk about going to the jungle for pure talk with no substance at all. If they were so sincere about going back to jungle to ward off petty bourgeoisie politics of Nepal, why did they hang around for 3 months to broker a deal with traitors-to-the-cause like UML and MPRF?
Long Live Trotsky!
Equality, not another hierarchy please!
December 22, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“Soon after being returned as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai (Maoist second-in-command) unveiled the party’s new economic policies. It is the most incredibly petty bourgeoisie economic package i have ever seen. Essentially this policy talks about embracing free market economics and getting money from ‘reactionary and expansionist forces’ like India to run Nepal.”
Considering the severe underdevelopment of Nepal, it’s extremely poor infrastructure and almost complete lack of any national industry, how exactly is it possible for there to be an immediate transition to socialism? That sort of leap can only take place in the fantasies of people like you.
“In the six or so months they’ve been in power the Maoists haven’t really started on any of their poll promises.”
It’s true that they havn’t managed to implement much of their programme, and the Maoists themselves recognise this (http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2008/12/nepal-maoist-leaders-dissatisfied-with.html). However, there have also been many positive reforms – as I wrote in my article “Nepal – A Revolution in Progress” (http://workersparty.org.nz/2008/12/02/nepal-%C2%AD-a-revolution-in-progress/)
“Despite the endless deadlocks caused by the resistance of its coalition partners, the Maoist government has still managed to enact some progressive social change. It has abolished slavery, banning the Haliya system of bonded agricultural labour.
It has also given formal recognition to Third Gender people, with a 21 year old lesbian woman receiving the first identity card stating her gender as “Third” in early September. This is an extremely radical move considering how dominated Nepal is by its feudal culture, with all the backward ideas that entails.
Nepal’s first openly gay MP has been elected to the Constituent Assembly, representing a minor communist party separate from the Maoists. Despite the fact that he is not in the CPN (M), the conditions for his election only exist because of the new, revolutionary culture the Maoists are trying to create.”
The Maoists have a difficult road ahead of them, but it’s far too soon to be accusing them of leaving that revolutionary road entirely.
“The only real change that has been seen in this period is Prachanda’s exploding waistline..hmmm, he might actually be liking the consumerist lifestyle of the capital.”
http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/nepal-plain-living-codes-for-maoist-politicians/
That’s just bullshit personal slander, and typical of the rubbish spouted by the more liberal brand of Trotskyists who endlessly obsess over “cults of personality” and have an anti-leadership tendency. It’s hardly surprising that Prachanda’s waistline has expanded now that he’s not in hiding in the midst of a war! And although there have been problems reported with regard to Maoist CA members taking up affluent lifestyles, the above link shows that the CPN (M) is taking steps to stamp this out.
“1. They agreed to return all seized properties (many belonging to poor Nepalis and not our favourite punching-bag land owning fedual lords). Instead the Young Communist League is going around capturing more properties.”
It takes some cheek to on the one hand accuse the Maoists of selling out the revolution, and then attack them for not returning all the land they seized from class enemies and counter-revolutionaries during the People’s War. I whole-heartedly support the actions of the YCL and the Maoist party as a whole, and I hope that people like Matrika can keep the land struggle alive and well at the same time as the Maoists try to redistribute land through the recently set up Land Reform Commission.
“2. Post-election YCL activities has only risen and the Maoist have shown no remorse at YCL’s wide-scale vigilantism and utter disregard for the human rights of ordinary Nepalis. This also includes repeated attacks on journalists and media houses for ‘daring’ to express their views. So much for liberty and progression!”
Are you serious? You actually claim to be a Marxist and a Trotskyist, yet you attack the “vigilantism” of revolutionary communist youth seeking to continue the struggle against reaction, protect the people and improve the lives of the masses. You’re a pathetic liberal, what do you think the Red Guards were doing in Russia in 1917? Was that violating the “human rights” of ordinary Russians? How ridiculous. Thankfully true communists aren’t scared by militancy and struggle when it actually takes place in real life, away from the pleasant and dangerless fantasies within the heads of people like you.
“3. The Maoists are steadfastly maintain they want the PLA fighters to be incorporated in the Nepal Army but have said nothing about letting Madhesi and other ethnic minorities into the army.”
You are either ignorant or a liar, and in all likelihood you are both. In Issue 18 of The Red Star, November 16-30, an article by Maheshwar Dahal titled “On the question of army integration” contained this paragraph;
“Fifth, the question of the integration of the army is closely related to abolishing discrimination in the state and making it inclusive. A national army, representing the national interest, cannot be made without the integration with PLA that has the inclusive representation of women, Dalit, Madhesi and other nationalities and marginalized groups.”
For someone who has supposedly spent so much time in Nepal you sure don’t have a clear picture of what’s going on there.
“4. Militant unions have closed down numerous industries with crazy demands and thereby hurting nepal’s economy.”
Oh, this just keeps getting better
Those greedy unions, why don’t they just accept their lot in life and get back to work! I’m somewhat dubious of your claim to be a Trotskyist.
“5. The revolutionaries had to finally join hands with reactionary forces like the UML and divisive regionalists like Madhesi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) to come to power.”
Indeed they did, and the wisdom of that strategic decision is yet to be decided upon. However, considering the counter-revolutionary rubbish you’ve spouted in this post, I don’t value your judgement on the matter that highly.
“Just in case you didn’t know this but most of the Madhesi political leaders are former Maoists who quit after they showed the same (pahadi or hill people) discriminatory tendencies as the Nepali Congress, UML and the monarchy.”
I’m fully aware of this, and I’m intrigued as to what information you have regarding the supposed discriminatory tendencies of the CPN (M). In every revolutionary party and every revolution individuals and factions will split off for various reasons – in this case, backward ethnic chauvinism. It doesn’t worry me in the slightest, and nor should it worry the Maoists.
“They have become suckers for power and haven’t done anything remotely revolutionary.”
Considering your opposition to militant demands from trade unions and land seizures, I don’t think you’re opinion on what is or isn’t revolutionary is worth shit.
“The Nepali electorate voted for them because they were the only party that hadn’t been tried out and they sincerely hoped for change. But I’m disheartened to inform you all that the Maoists are fairing to be no better.”
When a person like you says that about the CPN (M), it’s more of a compliment than anything else. And that should have been spelled “faring to be no better”.
“And this talk about going to the jungle for pure talk with no substance at all. If they were so sincere about going back to jungle to ward off petty bourgeoisie politics of Nepal, why did they hang around for 3 months to broker a deal with traitors-to-the-cause like UML and MPRF?”
They did that in order to achieve state power and try to implement their programme of radical social change. I say we let them do that, and support leaders of theirs like Kiran that are stating their goal to have a People’s Republic in Nepal within a year and a half.
“Long Live Trotsky!”
Every Trotskyist in the world today is insulted by your use of his name. Do you actually know anything about his ideas and actions?
Alastair Reith
December 23, 2008 at 2:19 am