Rules of the road


On the Shelf

« Israel Kidnaps PFLP's Sa'adat from Palestinian Jail | Main | Chicago in the house! 100,000+ March Against Anti-Immigrant Hysteria and For Dignity »

March 15, 2006



this is interesting, because it seems like the positions held be the expelled pair are exactly those of extreme left of Maoists in the West against the CPN(M)'s conciliation to the parties and representative democracy. I find it rather worrying that Maoists on the ground in Nepal are making such criticisms, though of course this blockade is a heartening development.

scene of the dime

interbreeding: what "Maoists in the West" have issued statements critical of the recent moves in Nepal?

I haven't a negative assessment from anywhere really.

The CPN(M) is also not becoming a liberal party. If you think that's what's happening, you are mistaken.

The communist army is going to become the national army. The exploiter's state forces will be dismantled root and branch, as will the existing state structure entirely.

The Maoists have called for a constituent assembly, and like every communist movement worth its salt, they are republicans. Will this be a People's Republic? Will the national flag be red?

These two choices will tell us a lot.


hey, I'm adopting a wait-and-see approach, which is what I've always had towards the CPN(M). Generally, I've liked what I've seen.

I suspect that anyone who disses the CPN(M) you will turn around and accuse of not being a 'real' Maoist. Nevertheless, in last month the French PC(MLM) put out a statement calling Prachanda an 'adept of modern revisionism':


Is this it? Could be. In the last detailed AWTW statement about Nepal, there was talk of April being a time when things may come to a head. It's almost April...let's see what happens.


Hmm, that "PC(MLM)" statement also accuses the RCP, USA of being revisionist because, according to them, Bob Avakian is tailing after bourgeois democratic sentiments, which, of course, is ridiculous.

I think the BBC report is pretty much useless for telling us why these two members were expelled. If their past record is any judge, we can hardly rely on them to clearly explain a communist line dispute.

As for the communist army becoming the national army, is there anywhere where Prachanda clearly lays out that it will remain under communist *leadership*? I haven't seen this from him yet.

the burningman

I'm not generally an "adept" of who is "real" or not. As Dave Chapelle says, sometimes "keeping it real goes too far."

On my shelf, I have a copy of an old Rampars magazine anthology called "Two, Three, Many Vietnams." Among the many articles are one piece by David Horowitz, current neo-McCarthyite, and another that valorizes the Khmer Rouge. History is funny like that. People can talk smack all day, but like Marley said, we'll see whose the real revolutionary.

I tend to distrust polemics when the first time I hear of an organization is when it's spitting at someone else. There's been plenty of that. It doesn't mean they're wrong (I think that French group would be in this case, particularly considering Maz's observations of their general sloppiness).

Regarding the army, when Prachanda "invites" other political parties to discuss integrating into their forces and on what terms, it's fairly clear who the host is, and who is writing the invitations.


Right Burningman. The point is: are you negotiating from a position of power or weakness. Obviously the Maoists are in control of the situation. I recently read Edgar Snow's "Red Star Over China." I think all those trying to understand what's going on in Nepal right now would really benefit from reading that book. Mao and the CCP's United Front strategizing, with a much more dispicable ally (the Kuomintang) than the Nepalese Parties, led to a revolution. And just like in Nepal, there were comrades in the Red Army that did not understand United Front tactics. But through further political work most were won to see that "revenge politics" was not in the long term interests of the revolution. What's important though is that the communists have an indefinite blockade on the capital, rebel activity is picking up in India, and hundreds of thousands of immigrants came into political life in Chicago. It looks like it might be a good spring and summer for the people.


you wrote: "Obviously the Maoists are in control of the situation."

I think that is deeply naive, and misses the major picture.

Nepal is a small and very poor nation -- sandwiched between two huge and ambitious powers.

They have come a long way... but the very fact that they are on the outskirts of Kathmandu raises the question, "What happens when countrywide power is seized?"

In other words, there are huge pressures on them, because they would be seizing power in a global context where the ability of the peopleof the world to rally to their support is not at a high tide (regardless of those people who fantasize that "revolution is the main trend in the world today").

A great deal of the politics of Nepal right now, including I imagine the inner-party politics of the Maoists, is colored by the fact that victory over the King might quickly mean invasion by india, backed by the U.S. And difficult though it might be to defeat the Nepali army... it is just a small hurdle compared to fighting and defeating India.

In short, if you think the Maoists are simply "in control" or if you think THEY believe they are simply "in control" -- then you can't possibly be dealing with the riptides of necessity that are pulling at them, and inevitably intensifying the struggle over how to advance.


You're right. And that difficult world situation is why they're engaging in united front tactics in the first place. I meant they were in a position of power in relation to the political parties that they are negotiating with -- not in relation to India or the U.S. They have momentum in relation to the parties, just like the CCP did in relation to the KMT in the late 30s as they faced the Japanese menace.

Jaroslav O.

The PC(MLM) & their newspaper "l'Étoile Rouge" [see their site at for yourself]is definitely sloppy in their criticisms. In addition to their line problems, of course. The two problems are surely linked as well. Anyway, for example, here is from their intro page to English-speakers:

"5.Has the CP(MLM) a connection to the RIM?
"We think it is correct that all the MLM parties work together, get some connection, etc.
"But the RIM upholds that people's war is not universal; for some of the parties in it (like the MKP from Turkey) revolution in capitalist countries is impossible.
"We don't think we have to wait for the revolution in the oppressed countries or to wait for a huge imperialist war to make an insurrection.
"However we uphold the global resistance that existed in Europe in the 1970's-1980's (like the autonom movement in Germany); for the RIM, in a classical 'ML' tradition, it has no interest.
"The RIM was never interested in Europe."

In German intro they just have a nasty quip: "We therefore have no interest in neither MLPD nor the RIM adherents, who look like folklore-people to us (and folklore is usually counter productive)." (Note: preceding "therefore" there's no mention of "RIM adherents", only pro-USSR/DDR forces, so they really have no right use the word "therefore"...)

As Burningman & most commenters on this site probably know (I hope so anyway!), much of the above quote is obvious bullshit at even first glance. You can have differences if you want, but twisting the truth & putting words into others' mouths is a no-no.

Also these cowards don't say the MKP slander in the Turkish or German intro-pages.

On a side note, there is also a party called "Parti Communiste de France (maoïste) (en formation) [PCF(M)]", whose newspaper is "Le Drapeau Rouge" -- but they don't have a webpage so I don't know much about them. From the couple things by them which I've read they seem to be closer to RIM position on things -- but I can't make any other than surface observations with little infos. Also the *newspaper* "Le Drapeau Rouge" is PCF(M) organ, whilst there is a *journal* in Québec by same name supporting PCRC(CO).

Again, to me it seems PC(MLM) is lame, whereas jury is still out but has positive eye on PCF(M).

Just letting y'all know, that if you see something "maoist" from France, should double check if it's PC(MLM) or PCF(M).

Back to Nepal tho, to reply to zz-top's comment, Prachanda has spoken to just such contradiction. This is why the CPN(M) line on necessity of "Soviet Federation of South Asia". Of course, this pressure is true on world scale also, not just in "poor small countries". Avakian & others have talked about it, i.e. the Stalin-Trotsky debate on "socialism in one country". To sum, you need to go ahead with socialism in one country, but it will only be temporary. Not only must communism (as in "we have reached level of 'communist society'") be worldwide, but even a country's socialism cannot last eternally if isolated. However, it can last & make advances "on its own", you don't have to bet on your neighbour-country making revolution next week or all bets are off type of thing. And the advances of socialism in one country are not just good for its own citizens, but help advance world revolution (not automatically/identically like Stalin & 3rd International line, rather this task must be done consciously & involve sacrifices on part of already-socialist societies).

pRocess pOint

There is no jury.

It is not my understanding that there is a "necessity" of a Soviet Union of South Asia, but this idea has been discussed and is in the air.

According to Prachanda's recent statements to the international media, there is no operational coordination between the regional parties, while there is discussion and political support.

And I imagine a fair amount of excitement and debate right now.


Regarding the position of Nepal, while it is a nation in the sense in which Stalin defines a nation, it is nevertheless a weird exception geographically. Culturally and linguistically, the Nepalese are Indian - of course, many minority groups in Nepal aren't, but the majority are either Nepali (which is an Indian, Indo-European language) or just straight Hindi-speaking Indians.

Now, the reason that Nepal is an indepedent state and not part of India is that it is hard to control. The British couldn't conquer it, so they just made it a dependency. The legend is that this is because the gurkhas are just so tough, but I think we all know that, while there may be some truth to this, in reality its the terrain of Nepal that made it unconquerable even by the technologically advance British infantry. The same consideration meant that the independent India also could not consolidate it, so was staisfied with using it as a buffer and satellite.

For these reasons, I think we can say two things about Nepal. Firstly, that a socialist Nepal should be able to repel attacks from without. Of course, economic isolation would make it difficult for an independent Nepal to do well, but still. Secondly, Nepal would be perfect as a base area for South Asian revolution.


This is such a exciting time. I look with much hope to this revolution. Can't wait to see what developes from this.

Young Comrade

Next year in Katmandu!

V is for Victory

This report from the International Nepal Solidarity Forum says the blockade has been called off, with the Maoists supporting urban protests by the 7 parties:


The deadlock between the seven-party alliance and the CPN (Maoist) was finally broken. The same statement was released in a “seven-plus-one” formula, i.e. one by the seven-party alliance, and another by the Maoists (the seven-party alliance signed statement is on insn under documents).

A meeting of the SPA leaders at Nepali Congress (NC) President Girija Prasad Koirala’s residence in Kathmandu made public the second MoU. The Maoists made public the same separately through a statement issued by their leader Prachanda alias Pushpa Kamal Dahal later in the afternoon.

As the first move, in a statement dated, Chaitra 6 (March 19), the CPN (Maoist) declared that it is calling off the six-day blockade that crippled life in Nepal. The statement also said that the Maoists are suspending an indefinite general strike that was to begin on 3 April. The statement said that it endorses and supports the April 6-9 general strike called by the seven-party alliance against royal autocracy.

The statement of the CPN (Maoist) also called on all sister organizations of the Maoist party including ethnic, regional fronts, professional organizations, civil society, the media and common people to extend their active support to the parties’ upcoming protest programmes in the capital.

The CPN (Maoist) party could announce new protest programmes in the future “as per the need”.

the burningman

Related to the question of the expulsions, the CPN(M) has posted their analysis in Maoist Information Bulletin #14:

The comments to this entry are closed.

Hot Shots