Nepal: Dual Power, High Stakes

Prachanda, center, announcing the agreement of the Maoists and the "Seven Party Alliance" for the CPN-M to join the acting government in Katmandu pending a constituent assembly within one year.

Reports are in that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is joining the provisional government pending an "unconditional" constituent assembly. They have offered to sequester their arms under UN (!?) supervision, and to dismantle the popular governments in the countryside to allow open political discussion by all democratic trends.

Pending the re-launch of Red Flags, here's an open Nepal thread to discuss ongoing events, post links to news and discuss the ramifications of what's afoot. India's Naxalite movement continues to expand exponentially, And it's not at all clear what the still-existing (formerly Royal) Nepal Army will do with the Maoist move to the center.

Is this a move towards democratic openness on the part of the rebels? Or a capitulation to realpolitik? What is clear is that the rebels are negotiating from a position of strength. Is this an attempt to ground regime change in popular sovereignty, or have the Maoists accepted democratic (bourgeois) right as the best they can achieve under current conditions? Is this tactical or strategic?

Here's what I know for sure: this is an open university of political line and struggle.

Here's a few key pieces:

Baburam Bhattarai writes on the question of the Democratic Republic

Internal Debate Within the CPN(M)
This debate occured before the massive protests that pushed the king from power and the semi-alliance between the "Seven Party Alliance" and the CPN(M).

Comments

[LS]

Reading Mao's essay On New Democracy http://marx2mao.com/Mao/ND40.html may be useful in shedding some light on what the CPN(M) is doing.

[the burningman]

Indeed. But this is a different situation for a number of reasons, aside from the general principles involved.

At that time in China, they had base areas with (I think) around 100 million people living in them.

Nepal is a very small, extremely heterogenous country without industry and pressed between two major world powers.

How the developments play in the CCOMPOSA, the regional Maoist association, and towards the brewing popular revolts in China remains to be seen.

If the accomplishment of the Nepalese rebels is to demonstrate not just the conceptual validity of People's War, but it's effectiveness -- what still remains to see is how the transition towards social and political hegemony is negotiated.

How will the Maoists effect regime change (the "unconditional" in the unconditional constituent assembly) while bringing the great masses of people INTO political life?

We want socialism -- but a socialism that sweats out of the very pores of society, not a simple grafting of a new regime.

[random red]

Are the Maoists pushing for more than a "democratic republic" come the constituent assembly?

What is the future of the army?

This stuff really isn't clear and the history of pragmatic selling out enough to concern anyone. I hope very much that this is a breakthrough, not a second time farce.

[Klement]

I think the CPN(M) is pursuing a correct strategy. The masses of cadre of the Seven-Party Alliance want a republic and an important question is befriending the leadership and making sure that they know there's a place for them in a new state. Maoists aren't sectarian and they don't propose to immediately impose socialism on a country like Nepal. The task is to unite the progressive classes, which include patriotic capitalists, eliminate feudalism and achieve independence.

I believe this is a strategic line being implemented by the Nepalese Party. But I have no doubt that if they are forced to, they will not hesitate to launch the People's War on an even greater scale than before. This isn't Colombia. This isn't El Salvador. The Maoists want to seize power for the people. The are defining the realpolitik, not succumbing to the situation as they confront it.

[Comrade Zero]

I agree with Klement. Revolution in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country like Nepal will necessarily need to unite the conscious element (the Communist vanguard) with the patriotic national bourgeoisie.

LS is right to point toward "New Democracy". The fact of Nepal's size, its geo-political location, and its relationship to CCOMPOSA all factor into the decision to join the parliament (without lying down guns). Despite the differences between China then and Nepal now, the New Democracy text can provide a useful framework for understanding CPN(M) strategy going into this.

[consciously curious]

"I agree with Klement. Revolution in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country like Nepal will necessarily need to unite the conscious element (the Communist vanguard) with the patriotic national bourgeoisie."

But didn't Marx say that action precedes conciousness?

[okay...]

"Revolution in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country like Nepal will necessarily need to unite the conscious element (the Communist vanguard) with the patriotic national bourgeoisie."

Two separate times I've had former revolutionaries attempt to discuss Mao's unity with Chaing Kaisheck (sp?) to justify working under the ultimate direction of the Democratic Party. "Playing ball."

The question of unity is: "on what terms."

I don't know so much about what is hap[ening on the day to day now in Nepal and I'm picking through their stuff to see what the longer term game plan is.

[observor]

new democracy is not bourgeois parlimentary democracy.

New democracy is a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- based on a revolutionary and dynamic set of alliances possible in a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country.

However, because of the nature of state power and class rule -- the establishment of New Democracy requires the defeat of the oppressors' armed forces, their dismantling, the destruction of the old state power, and the creation of a new state power rooted deply among the revolutionary people and led by their vanguard party.

That after all is the very difference between New Democracy (part of the world proletarian revolutio) and "old Democracy" (emerging out of the bourgeois revolutioin of the 19th century and now tied to the imperialist world order and superstructure.)

[from RIM declaration]

The following is an excerpt from the Declaration of the Revolutonary Internationalist Movement (RIM) on the path to revolution in third world (semi-feudal semi-colonial) countries:

[RIM Declaration excerpt]

http://www.csrp.org/rim/rimdec.htm

1984

Tasks in the Colonial, Semi (or Neo) Colonial Countries

The colonial (or neo-colonial) countries subjugated by imperialism have constituted the main arena of the worldwide struggle of the proletariat in the period since World War II and up until the present day. In this period a great deal of experience has been achieved in waging revolutionary struggle, including revolutionary warfare. Imperialism has been handed extremely serious defeats and the proletariat has won imposing victories including the establishment of socialist countries. At the same time the communist movement has obtained bitter experience where the revolutionary masses in these countries have waged heroic struggles, including wars of national liberation, which have not led to the establishment of political power by the proletariat and its allies but where the fruits of the victories of the people have been picked by new exploiters usually in league with one or another imperialist power(s). All of this shows that the international communist movement has a very important task to critically sum up the several decades of experience in waging revolution in these kinds of countries.

The point of reference for elaborating revolutionary strategy and tactics in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries remains the theory developed by Mao Tsetung in the long years of revolutionary warfare in China.

The target of the revolution in countries of this kind is foreign imperialism and the comprador-bureaucrat bourgeoisie and feudals, which are classes closely linked to and dependent on imperialism. In these countries the revolution will pass through two stages: a first, new democratic revolution which leads directly to the second, socialist revolution. The character, target and tasks of the first stage of the revolution enables and requires the proletariat to form a broad united front of all classes and strata that can be won to support the new democratic programme. It must do so, however, on the basis of developing and strengthening the independent forces of the proletariat, including in the appropriate conditions its own armed forces and establishing the hegemony of the proletariat among the other sections of the revolutionary masses, especially the poor peasants. The cornerstone of this alliance is the worker-peasant alliance and the carrying out of the agrarian revolution (i.e. the struggle against semi-feudal exploitation in the countryside and/or the fulfillment of the slogan "land to the tiller") occupies a central part of the new democratic programme.

In these countries the exploitation of the proletariat and the masses is severe, the outrages of imperialist domination constant, and the ruling classes usually exercise their dictatorship nakedly and brutally and even when they utilise the bourgeois-democratic or parliamentary form their dictatorship is only very thinly veiled. This situation leads to frequent revolutionary struggles on the part of the proletariat, the peasants and other sections of the masses which often take the form of armed struggle. For all these reasons, including the lopsided and distorted development in these countries which often makes it difficult for the reactionary classes to maintain stable rule and to consolidate their power throughout the state, it is often the case that the revolution takes the form of protracted revolutionary warfare in which the revolutionary forces are able to establish base areas of one type or another in the countryside and carry out the basic strategy of surrounding the city by the countryside.

The key to carrying out a new democratic revolution is the independent role of the proletariat and its ability, through its Marxist-Leninist party, to establish its hegemony in the revolutionary struggle. Experience has shown again and again that even when a section of the national bourgeoisie joins the revolutionary movement, it will not and cannot lead a new democratic revolution, to say nothing of carrying this revolution through to completion. Similarly, history demonstrates the bankruptcy of an "anti-imperialist front" (or similar "revolutionary front") which is not led by a Marxist-Leninist party, even when such a front or forces within it adopt a "Marxist" (actually pseudo-Marxist) colouration. While such revolutionary formations have led heroic struggles and even delivered powerful blows to the imperialists they have been proven to be ideologically and organisationally incapable of resisting imperialist and bourgeois influences. Even where such forces have seized power they have been incapable of carrying through a thoroughgoing revolutionary transformation of society and end up, sooner or later, being overthrown by the imperialists or themselves becoming a new reactionary ruling power in league with imperialists.

In conditions when the ruling classes exercise their brutal or fascist dictatorship, the communist party can utilise the contradictions this gives rise to in favour of the new democratic revolution and engage in temporary agreements or alliances with other class forces. However, this can only be carried out successfully if the party maintains its leadership, utilising such alliances within the overall and principal task of carrying the revolution to completion without making a strategic stage out of the struggle against dictatorship since the content of the anti-fascist struggle is nothing other than the content of the new democratic revolution.

The Marxist-Leninist party must arm the proletariat and the revolutionary masses not only with an understanding of the immediate task of carrying through the new democratic revolution and the role and conflicting interests of different class forces, friend and foe alike, but also of the need to prepare the transition to the socialist revolution and of the ultimate goal of worldwide communism.

For Marxist-Leninists it is a principle that the party must lead revolutionary warfare in such a way that it is a genuine war of the masses. The Marxist-Leninists must strive, even in the difficult circumstances of waging warfare, to carry out widespread political education and to raise the theoretical and ideological level of the masses. For this it is necessary to maintain and develop a regular communist press as well as to carry the revolution into the cultural sphere.

The main deviation in the recent period in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries has been and remains the tendency to deny or negate this basic orientation for the revolutionary movement in these types of countries: the negation of the leading role of the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist party; the rejection or opportunist perversion of people's war; the abandonment of building a united front, based upon the worker-peasant alliance and under the leadership of the proletariat.

This revisionist deviation has taken on in the past both a "left" and an openly right-wing form. The modern revisionists preached, especially in the past, the "peaceful transition to socialism" and promoted the leadership of the bourgeoisie in the national liberation struggle. However this openly capitulationist, right-wing revisionism always corresponded with, and has become increasingly intermingled with, a kind of "left" armed revisionism, promoted at times by the Cuban leadership and others, which separated the armed struggle from the masses and preached a line of combining revolutionary stages into one single "socialist" revolution, which in fact meant appealing to the workers on the narrowest of bases and negating the necessity of the working class to lead the peasantry and others in thoroughly eliminating imperialism and the backward and distorted economic and social relations that foreign capital thrives on and reinforces. Today this form of revisionism is one of the major planks of the social-imperialist attempt to penetrate and control national liberation struggles.

In order for the revolutionary movement in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries to develop in a correct direction it is necessary for the Marxist-Leninists to continue to step up the struggle against the revisionists in all their forms and to uphold the work of Mao Tsetung as an indispensable theoretical basis for further analysing the concrete conditions in different countries of this type and developing the appropriate political line.

At the same time it is necessary to take note of other, secondary, deviations that have appeared amongst the genuine revolutionary forces who have strived to carry out a revolutionary line in the colonial and dependent countries. First of all it must be noted that the countries comprising the oppressed nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America are not a monolithic bloc and have considerable differences in relation to their class composition, the form of imperialist domination and their position vis a vis the world situation as a whole. Tendencies to fail to carry out a thorough and scientific study of these problems, to mechanically copy the previous experience of the international proletariat or to fail to take notice of changes in the international situation and in particular countries can only harm the cause of the revolution and weaken the Marxist-Leninist forces.

In the 1960s and early 1970s Marxist-Leninist forces in a great many countries, under the influence of the Cultural Revolution in China and as part of the general worldwide revolutionary upsurge, joined with sections of the masses in waging armed revolutionary warfare. In a number of countries the Marxist-Leninist forces were able to rally considerable sections of the population to the revolutionary banner and maintain the Marxist-Leninist party and armed forces of the masses despite the savage counter-revolutionary repression. It was inevitable that these early attempts at building new, Marxist-Leninist parties and the launching of armed struggle would be marked by a certain primitiveness and that ideological and political weaknesses would manifest themselves, and it is, of course, not surprising that the imperialists and revisionists would seize upon these errors and weaknesses to condemn the revolutionaries as "ultra-leftists" or worse. Nevertheless these experiences must, in general, be upheld as an important part of the legacy of the Marxist-Leninist movement which helped lay the basis for further advances.

In the oppressed countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America a continuous revolutionary situation generally exists. But it is important to understand this correctly: the revolutionary situation does not follow a straight line; it has its ebbs and flows. The communist parties should keep this dynamic in mind. They should not fall into one-sideness in the form of asserting that the commencement and the final victory of people's war depends totally on the subjective factor (the communist), a view often associated with "Lin Piaoism". Although at all times some form of armed struggle is generally both desirable and necessary to carry out the tasks of class struggle in these countries, during certain periods armed struggle may be the principal form of struggle and at other times it may not be.

When the revolutionary situation is ebbing, the communist parties should determine appropriate tactics and not fall into rash and impatient advances. In such situations, political and organisational preparations necessary to carry out protracted people's war should by no means be neglected and forms of struggle and organisation suitable for the concrete conditions should be determined in order to hasten the development of the revolution while awaiting favourable conditions for further advance. It is necessary to combat any erroneous view which would postpone the commencement of armed struggle or the utilisation of any form of armed struggle until conditions become favourable for revolutionary warfare throughout the country. This view negates the uneven development of revolution and revolutionary situations in these countries, in opposition to Mao's statement, "A single spark can start a prairie fire." It is also important to note that the overall international situation has an influence on the revolution in a particular country; not taking this into account leaves the Marxist-Leninists unprepared to seize the opportunity when the revolutionary process is hastened by the developments on the world scale.

Today as the danger of a new imperialist war is rapidly developing, the Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations in the neocolonial countries are also confronted with the urgent task of devoting attention to the struggle against imperialist war. Communists must take into account the possibility that many of these countries may be dragged into the imperialist war according to the position these countries have in relation to the different imperialist blocs. Communist parties must consider the various concrete situations that might arise in the midst of such an imperialist war and develop their thinking in relation to these situations. Given the objective conditions in these countries the masses are generally less aware of the danger and consequences of an imperialist war and the Marxist-Leninists must educate them. In the event of an imperialist war the most important task of the Marxist-Leninists is to utilise the favourable opportunities thrown up by such a war to intensify the revolutionary struggle and turn the imperialist war into a revolutionary war against imperialism and reaction.

The Joint Communique of Autumn 1980 pointed out:

There is an undeniable tendency for imperialism to introduce significant elements of capitalist relations in the countries it dominates. In certain dependent countries capitalist development has gone so far that it is not correct to characterize them as semifeudal. It is better to call them predominantly capitalist even while important elements or remnants of feudal or semi-feudal production relations and their reflection in the superstructure may still exist.

In such countries a concrete analysis must be made of these conditions and appropriate conclusions concerning the path, tasks, character and alignment of class forces must be drawn. In all events, foreign imperialism remains a target of the revolution.

The analysis of the implications of the increased introduction of capitalist relations in the countries dominated by imperialism, as well as the specific case of those oppressed countries which can correctly be termed "predominantly capitalist," remains an important task for the international movement. Nevertheless some important conclusions can be drawn today.

The view that the combination of formal political independence and the introduction of widespread capitalist relations has eliminated the need for a new democratic revolution in most or many of the former direct colonies is wrong and dangerous. This view, promoted by various Trotskyites, social-democrats and petit-bourgeois critics of revolutionary Marxism, holds that there is no qualitative distinction between imperialism and those nations oppressed by it, thus eliminating at a single stroke one of the most important features of the imperialist epoch.

In fact imperialism continues to be a fetter on the productive forces in the countries it exploits. The capitalist "development" which it undeniably introduces to greater or lesser degrees does not lead to an articulated, national market and a "classical" capitalist economic system but to an extremely lopsided development dependent on and in the interests of foreign capital.

Even in the predominantly capitalist oppressed countries foreign imperialism along with its domestic props remain the principal target of the revolution in its first stage. While the path of the revolution in these countries will often be considerably different than those in which semi-feudal relations prevail, it is still necessary, in general, for the revolution to pass through a democratic, anti-imperialist stage before the socialist revolution can be begun.

The relative weight of the cities in relation to the countryside, both politically and militarily, is an extremely important question that is posed by the increased capitalist development of some oppressed countries. In some of these countries it is correct to begin the armed struggle by launching insurrections in the city and not to follow the model of surrounding the cities by the countryside. Moreover, even in countries where the path of revolution is that of surrounding the city by the countryside, situations in which a mass upheaval leads to uprisings and insurrections in the cities can occur and the party should be prepared to utilise such situations within its overall strategy. However in both these situations, the party's ability to mobilise the peasants to take part in the revolution under proletarian leadership is critical to its success.

Due to the establishment of a central state structure prior to the process of capitalist development, semi (or neo) colonial countries, in the main, have multi-national social formations within them, in a large number of cases these states have been created by the imperialists themselves. Furthermore, the borders of these states have been determined as a consequence of imperialist occupations and machinations. Thus it is generally the case that within the state borders of countries oppressed by imperialism, oppressed nations, national inequality and ruthless national oppression exist. In our era, the national question has ceased to be an internal question of single countries and has become subordinate to the general question of the world proletarian revolution, hence its thoroughgoing resolution has become directly dependent on the struggle against imperialism. Within this context Marxist-Leninists should uphold the right of self-determination of oppressed nations in the multinational semi-colonial states.

Thus it can be said that the Marxist-Leninists in the colonial and neo-colonial countries confront a double task on the ideological and political front. They must, on the one hand, continue to defend and uphold the basic teachings of Mao concerning the character and path of the revolution in those types of countries, as well as defending and building upon the revolutionary attempts that (to paraphrase Lenin) accompanied the "mad years" of the 1960s. At the same time, the revolutionary communists must apply the critical Marxist spirit to analysing both past experience as well as the current situation and developments that affect the course of the revolution in these countries.

[Dual Power?]

I think this is where the question of arms comes in. The leadership of the Communist Party of China in the establishment of New Democracy was clear, the other army was chased off to Formosa/Taiwan and Mao announced the birth of the new society from Tienanmen Square.

Also, it is exactly those base communities which will show us the extent and/or reality of the change.

It's got to be more than wiping the word Royal off of feudal property.

We don't want "in".

Also, Prachanda's statements about not "exporting" revolution are hard to read. What will happen with CCOMPOSA if there is one state in the region that has the Maoists effectively directing the state? All this UN talk, especially when the UN is such a blatant tool of the imperialists, is strange.

Chavez has called out the UN pretty sharply... Credit where it is due.

[Comrade Zero]

Are we confusing New Democracy ("a joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes") which formed the basis of the Communist-Kuomintang United Fromt against Japanese Imperialism with the Peoples' Democratic Dictatorship (the dictatorship of "working class, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie...led by the working class...over the running dogs of imperialism - the landlord class and bureaucrat-bourgeoisie"), which the CCP established in 1949?

[Comrade Zero]

Okay: to answer you regarding playing ball - "on whose terms?" Most definitely on the Maoists terms, there clearly represent the principal aspect of the contradiction in Nepal - they are the dominant force - and this shapes their strategy, their ability to opperate.

As for Dems in the U.S., well, the U.S. is not a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country (except, arguably, within the national territory of the oppressed nations), so here the principal contradiction is not the same - it is not that of poor and oppressed people vs. imperialism, but rather bourgeoisie vs. proletariat. That's a different kind of ball game with wholly different rules.

[a commentator]

comrade zero:
in reply to your post on New Democracy.

the chinese revolution (from 1919-1949) was the new democratic revolution. With the victory of 1949 the socialist revolution was put center stage.

The chinese revolution had a "sub-stage" of anti-Japanese struggle (with a corresponding allignment and alliances of forces) -- which included a short period of several years of attempting to carry out a stable anti-japanese united front with the KMT (and correspondingly with the Anglo-American imperialists who were the imperialist backers of the KMT).

However the new democratic revolution was based on the worker peasant alliance (led by the working class and its communist vanguard) -- and its goal was carrying through the New Democratic Revolution (including anti-imperialist struggle for national liberation, and the anti-feudal struggle for revolutonary agrarian reform, AND the transition to socialist revolution). The state set up by the New Democratic Revolution of 1949 -- was a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (It included the left KMT forces, and a very broad array of allied revolutionary forces, led by the van).

*******

On burningman's point about the "efficacy of peoples war"....

It is wrong to put protracted peoples war in a position of being the defining characteristic and key dividing line of revolutionary politics.

The issue here is communist revolution on the planet earth 2006 --which will take different forms, and which (in the two different kinds of countries) takes place through two distinctive paths. It is generally true that the revolutionary struggle need to rely on the masses of people in a fundamental way. (Though here two, the way such things happen will inevitably be different in different countries.)

But the issue is "living link" to communism -- making socialist revolution, and having it really be socialist, not a transition to somethiing else (which will REALLY be one form or another of capitalism).

Every revolution will face that common challenge, and yet will face it in unique and unprecedented ways, and inevitably confusing ways. That (again) points out the need for a class conscious van, for sharp line struggle over road, for real vigilance, and for the grasping and applying of the most advanced synthesis of communist theory.

[Dual Power?]

Good points. But how does that square with what's really unfolding in The Bolivarian Alliance?

[uh ok]

"But how does that square with what's really unfolding in The Bolivarian Alliance?"

It doesn't square. What is happening in venezuela is not revolution, and it will not lead to liberation.

[consciously curious]

"That (again) points out the need for a class conscious van, for sharp line struggle over road, for real vigilance, and for the grasping and applying of the most advanced synthesis of communist theory."

But as my question goes again, aren't the working class already concious due to their "position". This was something Marx believed and certain strains socialism or barbarism after him like "the infantiles" who of course split with the vans. It seems to me that the Vanguards want to have their cake and eat it too in regards to conciousness and action. They rate the role of conciousness higher then Marx and Engles did but not enough to have it precede peoples position in the economic superstructure. Say what you will about the infantiles, at least they are consistant, as are people who say that conciousness precedes action(a view I find best emperically founded). Niether view in its full sense accepts the Vanguard option which believes it can act as an objective agent to change peoples agency.

[conscious]

consciousness doesn't come from "position" -- and that's obvious if you just look around and think about what you see.

Are working people conscious (by virtue of their position)? Are kids conscious simply by virtue of their position?

Actually understanding the world takes more than the personal summation of personal experience -- it takes a study of history, economics, science, previous theoretical work, current events, debates, etc.

[Dual Power?]

Understanding the world takes experimentation.

One thing that hits me about what I've seen of the radical activists in the USA, not entirely but often enough, is the way that they don't experiment with political work, but "read."

Reading is fundamental. Yadda.

[consciously curious]

What conscious appears to be saying is that consciousness precedes action. I agree with him on this point, however if you fully acknowledge these views then you are also acknowledging a split with what Marx and Engles were saying. Something I do not believe the Vanguards are completely willing to do this. They still believe in such things as 'real movements' which stems from the view that peoples views are predicated on their economic position. From this the working class gets a privileged position as those who will dig the grave of capitalism. The Vanguards want to preserve this view by having a privileged class offer direction to those proletarians who are not a organically prone to overthrow capitalism as M&E originally thought. The ultra leftists are somewhat more consistent with what M&E were saying but in practice it leads to waiting in vain. However that is at least better then 100 million dead in a century.

Unfortunately if you believe that consciousness comes first you have to acknowledge that people will always rebel based on their conception of their position in society and not their position. To say otherwise is to assume that you can act as an objective agent on these people. A perfect recipe for totalitarianism. With consciousness comes subjectivity in its full sense.

[the burningman]

I just got the May 2006 copy of the CPN-M's main publication, which is now available at some retailers. Ask around.

It's essential reading with discussion of 10 years of people's war, material from various South Asian party's, including the CPIndia-Maoist, and a sort of who's who of different articles by leading cadre of the Maoist movement.

[Klement]

"Also, Prachanda's statements about not "exporting" revolution are hard to read. What will happen with CCOMPOSA if there is one state in the region that has the Maoists effectively directing the state?"

I don't think it's hard to read. The CPN(M) was never trying to "export" revolution. It maintain friendly relations with other communist parties in south Asia and elsewhere. When it leads the state, the new state will seek to have relations on the basis of the five principles of peaceful coexistence. This is a Maoist position. China joined the UN. It recognized reactionary states while simultaneously supporting communists struggling under those regimes. There is no problem with this.

[the burningman]

The UN China joined (on the security council) was different. It is now directed by the US, and imperialism in general with no counterforce within.

I think a correct position on "exporting revolution" is that "you can only export revolution if there's somebody there to import it."

Also, China's history on this stuff was mixed. They often made allies and enemies based on whether parties took aid from the Soviet Union, not whether they were revolutionary or advanced forces. See Chile and some real shady shit in Africa... Also, Bangladesh. The "Three Worlds Theory" was poisonous.

That a Maoist movement is developing along revolutionary communist ideological lines, among living peoples, not merely as a "China" based orientation, is cause for celebration.

China, like the Soviet Union before them, made serious nationalist errors. Grafting national state imperatives into the international movement was not healthy then -- and the track record suggests that its a major danger ALWAYS.

[Klement]

BM: I certainly am not advocating the Three Worlds Theory. But I also don't think there was anything wrong--in itself--with China recognizing Marcos or the Thai government, while supporting the communists in those countries at the same time. There is a distinction between Party and state international relations, just as there is a distinction between the Party and the state generally. What would be wrong, as you pointed out, would be for a new state to follow the position that its national interest was identical to the interest of the world revolution.

[the burningman]

Or the Shah of Iran? And then there's Bangladesh, which I don't pretend to be an expert in but does seem pretty problematic in terms of "chinese" needs versus revolutionary imperatives.

In the newest edition of The Worker, which is the "statement" of the CPN-M going into this turbulent period, they say what Klement is saying.

They have established diplomatic, effectively state-to-state ties with the Indian government, yet are "ideologically" in accord with the Communist Party of India-Maoist and the associated parties and organizations of the South Asian CCOMPOSA.

There are political facts, and dealing in the world of the real is one of those things governments of ALL kinds are engaged in by necessity. Recognizing isn't upholding.

This copy of The Worker is among the most exciting collections of political documents I have ever read. I started reading last night and it kept me up late.

The Worker discusses the situation in Nepal, with an extensive time-line history of the People's War. There is also a significant amount of discussion on the international situation, especially in terms of tendencies in the ICM (International Communist Movement).

There's talk from the Naxalites and the CPN-M about the RIM, Avakian's piece of epistemology, and my favorite saying in a minute:

"Science is not a sacred cow. It's a horse. Don't worship it. Feed it."

It's an old aphorism that Prachanda shared in his extensive interview.

From the collected documents, which include several bylines beyond just Prachanda and Bhattarai, are mostly produced by the CPN-M.

Articles include: the Dalit question, cultural change, Prachanda Path's international implications, "democracy" and class dictatorship, use of parliamentary forms in light of their experience with parliamentary democracy in the years before the People's War was initiated, and a consistent thread of arguing for openness, science (not scientism), the importance of the practice of making revolution and not just "defending" ideology.

It's also apparent that the RIM's critique of Stalin's methods, which is coming mainly from the RCP, USA and the CPN-M, is in conflict with the current Naxalite position. The Naxalites say they think this is a comrades struggle with "unity-struggle-unity" the basic orientation.

The CPN-M also says they think that the RIM has been a crucial force in the refoundation of revolutionary communism, and that they will operate through the RIM ideologically, but that a deeper development is necessary.

This "10 Years of People's War" edition of the Worker is a document that anyone reading THIS very shorthand gloss should try to get. Check around for it. Revolutionaries of all kinds will gain from a knowledge of what's coming out of Nepal, and the richness of the orientation they are promoting.