Maoists Sign Peace Treaty; Let's Hope this Pays Off
26 Comments Published by LeftyHenry on Tuesday at 8:44 PM.
After Ten years of a protracted People's War,
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has signed a 'permanent' truce which allowed them to join the government in exchange for locking up their arms and weapons. The Maoists took up arms to liberate Nepal; one of the poorest countries in the world, by ending the monarchy, establishing New Democracy, and bringing equal rights to Woman and better living standards to workers. After years of revolution, and popular uprisings; King Gyanendra was forced to restablished parliament. Now, a interim democratic government has been formed by a seven party alliance led by the CPN-M. All socialists and communists should support the CPN-M and their struggle even now.
For a while I've been hearing trash talk from Trots, Sparts, and Anarchists and all I can say is where is your solidarity? Weither or not choosing a path of peace was right or wrong, I trust the CPN-M and I think they know what they're doing. While on the topic, I'd like to bring up my recent change in ideology. I used to be a trotskyist but as of recent, I have found myself moving farther away from trotskyism, and towards Maoism. I had always liked Maoist theory, and have found more and more problems with Troskyism. For example, in every country, there are about 10 trot parties that all claim to be a vanguard and disagree only minimally. It is for this reason, that there has never been a trotskyist revolution, but there have been many Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Revolutions. Even today, Maoism is the the ideology of major revolutionary organizations in India, Peru, and of course, Nepal. In anycase, the situation in Nepal is an important one that we, socialists, must watch carefully, and support. Solidarity to the Workers, Students, and Peasants of Nepal. Here is an old interview with CPN-M Chairman, Prachanda, which I've dug
up for those interested.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has signed a 'permanent' truce which allowed them to join the government in exchange for locking up their arms and weapons. The Maoists took up arms to liberate Nepal; one of the poorest countries in the world, by ending the monarchy, establishing New Democracy, and bringing equal rights to Woman and better living standards to workers. After years of revolution, and popular uprisings; King Gyanendra was forced to restablished parliament. Now, a interim democratic government has been formed by a seven party alliance led by the CPN-M. All socialists and communists should support the CPN-M and their struggle even now.
For a while I've been hearing trash talk from Trots, Sparts, and Anarchists and all I can say is where is your solidarity? Weither or not choosing a path of peace was right or wrong, I trust the CPN-M and I think they know what they're doing. While on the topic, I'd like to bring up my recent change in ideology. I used to be a trotskyist but as of recent, I have found myself moving farther away from trotskyism, and towards Maoism. I had always liked Maoist theory, and have found more and more problems with Troskyism. For example, in every country, there are about 10 trot parties that all claim to be a vanguard and disagree only minimally. It is for this reason, that there has never been a trotskyist revolution, but there have been many Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Revolutions. Even today, Maoism is the the ideology of major revolutionary organizations in India, Peru, and of course, Nepal. In anycase, the situation in Nepal is an important one that we, socialists, must watch carefully, and support. Solidarity to the Workers, Students, and Peasants of Nepal. Here is an old interview with CPN-M Chairman, Prachanda, which I've dug
up for those interested.
In Nepal, the Maoists are applying, the two stage revolution theory. If the second stage ever comes, I'd be surprised. In practice it's a manifestation of socialism in one country.
I was in Peru, just missed a Shining Path bomb.
In the USA, the RCP is leading the reformist Impeach Bush movement.
If you go in the direction of Maoism, I recommend http://celticfire.blogspot.com . Celticfire is Maoist, but not dogmatic. He is close to you politically. At my links check out Adarna's blog. She is a Maoist from the Philippines, who has been friendly to my blog.
There was a revolution, led by followers of Trotsky. It was Russia 1917.
It is a good thing that nepal will have a parlement and a democracy again! But I hope that nepal does not become a communist nation because then there would be an economic disaster which would be very unfortunate for a country as poor as nepal, which has had a history of poverty. So let us pray for the people of nepal and hope that they can form a stable government.
Anon, Economic disaster? I don't think so. Capitalism and Feuadalism have been the reason for Nepal's poverty. Socialism is a proven antedote to poverty. My grandfather who is now very old, talked once too me when I was younger about what life was like back in Czechoslovakia. Socialism educated him, industrialized the country, and pulled Slovakia out of the 14th century.
Ren,
Thank you for the links. I have seen Celtic's blog and I just checked out Adarna's Attic.
I know little about the Shining Path. I do know that they did use some agressive and unconvential tactics, but from what I've heard their targets were plantation masters and government regime buildings.
The RCP isn't leading the WCW, but they have endorsed it just for practical reasons. The WCW is mostly made up of radical leftists and liberals and the RCP presense is a way of making people more aware about socialism for those lefists sick of the democrats.
The bolshevik revolution was led by Vladmir Lenin's followers. That included trots but also Stalin's followers so I don't think that really counts.
There was a revolution, led by followers of Trotsky. It was Russia 1917. LMAO!
All of Renegade eye's humor aside, as a Maoist I am bit nervous about the tactics of the CPN(M). I don't think their actions warrant a revisionist label, but they certainly have me worried when they agreed to disband the systems of People's Power, like the People's Courts and local elected governments.
But I think any communist aiming higher then just achieving another Soviet Union, even a Trotskyite one, would applaud the efforts to overcome the Stalinist errors of the past. I uphold Stalin. But I don't want to repeat him.
The WCW is an extension of the RCP's apparition of the chicken-little methodology, it is an attempt to "win over" some of the middle strata to defeat the fascist Bush regime - of course, they leave out a great deal of detail - like how fascism could arise in the U.S. without knocking down the social basis for it.
Celticfire,
well said. I agree completely.
Sonia,
Cuba, Soviet Union, China, etc.. the list goes on. Sure those countries did/have poverty, but the living conditions under socialism were dramatically better under socialism and in such a short period of time. Every field from life expectancy, to literacy, to sanitation improve a astonishing amount under socialism. I think you're wrong about Czechoslovakia. They were and have been terribly poor under capitalism.
Lefty,
Every field from life expectancy, to literacy, to sanitation improve a astonishing amount under socialism.
You're right about literacy and sanitation. A socialist totalitarian system needs people healthy to be be productive slaves and literate to read their propaganda...
But I thought we were talking about POVERTY. Socialism is all about keeping poeople poor and dependent on the state, so that they won't rebel...
Two questions: When did your grandfather left Czechoslavakia ? And why ?
People NEVER leave capitalism for socialism. Always the other way around. And not a single person actually living under socialism praises that system out of their own free will.
People are in poverty because they lack those type of things; healthcare, sanitation-housing, and etc...
I didn't notice your sly nazi comment but here's an article I'd check out.
The Outrageous Equating og Nazism with Communism
My grandfather left Czechoslovakia, I think, in the 70s. I don't know exactly why he left, and I've heard several stories. One was that his cousin told him that every in the US had ten of everything. The other was that his cousin needed help. He has always said that socialism was a good thing for Slovakia as it industrialized the country and brought things like stores and factories. He also said that because of socialism, he was able to get a quality education; something a poor peasant like him would not have been able to do.
As for people never leaving capitalism for socialism, that is true. Why?
Because socialism has only appeared in the third world. People flee from capitalist third world counries to capitalist 1st world countries as well. That has little to do with ideology.
Sonia is right. I can't think of the last "communist" country that significantly reduced poverty while still maintaining a good level of freedom.
Nations like Sweden, however removed from true socialism they may be, have the right idea. Are they revolutionary? Not at all. Have they achieved true socialism, even democratic socialism? Nope. Still, the fact that they are prospering so well with the public ownership they have, as well as the establishment of a welfare state is enough evidence for me to believe that democratic socialism can and will work without compromising the integrity of the people.
Disappointing that you having turned Maoist. I was beginning to warm up to Trotskyism myself. Is it only the disunity in Trotskyist parties that turned you off or the ideology itself?
socialism has only appeared in the third world
Not true. Before Communism, countries like Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland had the same standard of living as Belgium, Denmark or France, and far HIGHER standard of living than Spain, Italy or Ireland.
I agree that equating Communism with Nazism is outrageous. Communism is far worse. Of course, morally, Nazism is far more ugly. But precisely because of its ugliness, Nazism is nowhere as dangerous as Communism. Nazism is an ugly, fire-breathing monster, scaring everybody in sight. Communism's beautiful facade is so appealing, millions of people fell under its poisonous charm and didn't realize their mistake until it was too late. I was one of them....
People flee from capitalist third world countries
Not really. Few people flee from Singapore, South Korea, South Africa, Chile, Taiwan - i.e. countries with genuinely free market economies. People only flee from third world countries like Mexico or Haiti - countries whose economies were destroyed by misguided socialist (or 'revolutionary') experiments... Haiti had its revolution in 1804. Mexico in 1916. Those are not free market economies...
Dave,
I did not turn from Trotskyism soley because of its disunity. I had agreed with alot of Maoist theory for some time; i.e. the need for a cultural revolution and the idea that class struggle continues during socialism. I also upheld Cultural Revolutionary China as the farthest advancement towards communism because it was both socialist and very democratic. People were encouraged to "bombard the headquarters [of the government]." Also I realized that trotskyism has the merits of anarchism in that it hasn't acheived a revolution. Meanwhile Marxist-Leninist revolutions continue in this day and age in Peru, Nepal, India, Columbia and other places.
It's good to here that you are warming up to trotskyism, as I still think its a good ideology.
Sonia,
Not true. Before Communism, countries like Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland had the same standard of living as Belgium, Denmark or France, and far HIGHER standard of living than Spain, Italy or Ireland.
is that a joke? Higher standards for who? The Nobles and monarchs? Perhaps but for the vast majority, things as basic as clothing and household items were, if you needed them, made at home. Things like "stores" and "factories" were almost non-exsistant. When Hitler invaded Poland, the Polish army consisted of horsemen with spears. When he invaded the USSR and the "16 Republics", he faced tanks, advanced weaponary (Germans copied their semi-automatic rifles off a captured Russian model) and etc...
You cannot compare pre-socialist capitalist/feudal countries to the socialist versions. Just look at life expectancy; it doubled under socialism in the USSR from 35 to 65. That definately says something about living standards, no?
As for Nazism being similiar to communism, that is bull. Nazism had a capitalist based economy. Also, that doesn't explain why they fought each other to the death. 75% of German casualties were on the eastern front.
many people may have died during socialism (although those figures are greatly exagerated), but just as many if not more have died because of capitalism. Once capitalists apologize for slavery, fascism, nazism, Pinochetism, Batistaism, Sweatshops, rape of the third world, starvation in Africa, Hunger in America, and so many other cruel sadist practices, communists will apologize for any crimes of communism.
celticfire: I guess I was wrong. Stalin organized the Red Army and led the October Revolution. Trotsky played a minor role.
I don't believe in a revolutionary culture. Art, literature, film have there own vocabulary. There is no such thing as revolutionary art, just as there is no such thing as proletarian surgery. That doesn't mean you don't have a political context to judge art. You can only have a revolutionary art, after capitalism is completely abolished. I would call the Soviet Union a transitional economy under Stalin, not a socialist society.
Hi LeftyHenry,
I Live in India a country closer to Nepal and a influence of day to day activities of this country's influence of Nepalese politics is better understood to me. renegade eye is right about the CPN's view . More trouble is that CPN seems to be following the advice and directions from the CPI and CPI(M).We may never know the behind the scene politics. But i am sure that CPN(M) has just missed an golden oppurtunity by signing pact with the burgeoise parties in Nepal. In my view history has repeated the revolt against that monarchy is very much comparable to the february revolution . But the ending so far is not similar to it. The King is still the head of the situation he is not deposed and the military is still under his command.the Irony is that CPN(M) had failed to do what the Bolsheviks had done. They have taken the Menshevik's line . What i am really waiting for is if the second stage did come what will they do ? That i think could only be answered by time. The big concern for me is that they have also surrendered the weapons. I serioulsly doubt about the capacity of Maoists now ! How will they manage to carryout the task with out the weapons ? many many questions to be answered but too early to expect the answers any way.....
Higher standards for who? The Nobles and monarchs? Perhaps but for the vast majority, things as basic as clothing and household items were, if you needed them, made at home. Things like "stores" and "factories" were almost non-exsistant.
Russia in 1913 wasn't like that. There were plenty of factories there. And you're missing the point. The point is that Italy in 1913 was poorer than Russia in 1913. That's a fact (there were noblemen and beggars in both countries, but Italy WAS poorer, MUCH poorer). More than 70 years of Communism in Russia later (and capitalism in Italy), Italy was FAR richer than Russia in 1991.
When Hitler invaded Poland, the Polish army consisted of horsemen with spears
It doesn't prove anything about Communism. It just proves that capitalist Poland didn't spend any money on the military...
When he invaded the USSR and the "16 Republics", he faced tanks, advanced weaponary (Germans copied their semi-automatic rifles off a captured Russian model) and etc...
...while Soviet Union spent ALL its money on the military...
Just look at life expectancy; it doubled under socialism in the USSR from 35 to 65. That definately says something about living standards, no?
No, it doesn't. A well-fed, well-treated slave is still a slave, even if he lives to be 110 years old... I would rather be a beggar on the street, without any health care protection, but FREE...
Nazism had a capitalist based economy
Then why Goring was in charge of the Five Year Plan ?
That doesn't explain why they fought each other to the death.
Vietnamese Communists fought against Pol Pot's Communists as well...
Once capitalists apologize for slavery (...)... communists will apologize for any crimes of communism.
That's a false dichotomy, a bit like saying 'once Condi Rice apologizes for Iraq... George W. Bush will apologize for it as well...'
Capitalist imperialism is simply a softer, gentler version of communist imperialism... It's pointless to support one against the other. Both should be opposed, communism first, capitalist imperialism later...
Anon,
it's good to see someone from the area giving their insight. You are right. I'm skeptical of this move but we will see what'll happen
Sonia,
Russia in 1913 wasn't like that. There were plenty of factories there. And you're missing the point. The point is that Italy in 1913 was poorer than Russia in 1913. That's a fact (there were noblemen and beggars in both countries, but Italy WAS poorer, MUCH poorer). More than 70 years of Communism in Russia later (and capitalism in Italy), Italy was FAR richer than Russia in 1991.
Yeah it was. Life expectancy was 30 years. No one knew how to read. It was a completly agarian based economy. It lacked any infrastructure.
Russia ceased to be socialist after Khruschevs reforms when he introduced credit, interest, firing and hiring and certain private property rights. It was state capitalism. Besides, I was under the impression that the USSR was a world superpower, not Italy, and that the USSR was providing foreign aid for many countries not Italy. If you look at Italy and Russia when Russia was still socialist (1917-1956), Russia was much wealthier and was a fast growing economy while Italy was a slum. Besides, Italy wasn't in a arms race.
It doesn't prove anything about Communism. It just proves that capitalist Poland didn't spend any money on the military...
...while Soviet Union spent ALL its money on the military...
No because living standards in the USSR were far higher than in Poland. Literacy and healthcare were universal, factories were everywhere, stores were everywhere, meanwhile Poland was just farms...
No, it doesn't. A well-fed, well-treated slave is still a slave, even if he lives to be 110 years old... I would rather be a beggar on the street, without any health care protection, but FREE...
workers under socialism were not slaves. Slaves appear under capitalism. In the sweatshops and plantations. Slavery is the product of a tough competitive market in a nation with few labor laws that calls for cheap labor. Under socialism, workers are the direct benefactors. You cannot compare the living standards of a third world socialist worker and a third world capitalist worker. The socialist worker is not treated like an animal the way the capitalist worker is; living in twig houses with no heat, running water, and etc and not knowing when their next meal will be.
For woman especially, socialism has been liberating. In China for example, arranged marriage and polygamy were ended as well as foot binding. For the first time in the history of China, woman were told they were equal to men.
Is that not liberation?
Then why Goring was in charge of the Five Year Plan ?
what does that have to do with socialism?
In Nazi Germany, there was
--Private property
--social classes
--unequal wages
--corporate rule
all capitalist.
Vietnamese Communists fought against Pol Pot's Communists as well...
Pol-Pot wasn't a communist. He acutally recieved a good portion of aid from the US and US backed UN resolutions.
Hi leftyhenry i am the person from india and thanks for the response for my comment.Any how as i have noticed in revleft forum i suspected that u have turned to maoist which you have confirmed in this post. I am a former Marxist Leninist . i have not fully renounced it fully but disagree with many for the wrong decisions made by Mao and his worshipers. Unfortunately u have turned in to one. I 100% agree with what Deng said about Mao(not that i am a Deng's supporter) that he is 70% right and 30% wrong.I generally consider 30 % wrong of Mao greatly outweigh the 70% good side of him.pls consider your position regarding Mao . pls don't reject my advise by thinking that i am a trotskyist because i am not a trotskyist as i don't know everything that Trotsky stood for , i am still learning him or an anarchist because i am not an anarchist since i think anarchism is as good as a fort in the sky.since i have lived in India i have more knowledge about the all the communist groups here and every body is a big failure including Maoists. some millions of Indian proletariat and roughly half a billion peasantry clearly lack leadership a task which Maoists failed miserably. believe it or not The great chairman Mao himself is responsible for that failure.
regards
g.ram
P.S: What happened to revleft ? its not accessible for about 5 days here. Can you access it ? looking forward for your reply !
Rev,
The point isn't how corrupt or inept Nepal is right now. My point is that the country will be far worse off under Maoist.
It's a bit like debating a sick patient. You're proposing to give him poison. I don't have any medication to propose, but I am highly skeptical of your 'medecine'...
Leftyhenry,
Russia... completly agarian based economy. It lacked any infrastructure
Watch 'Strike' by Einsenstein and 'Land of Promise' by Wajda, both set in pre-1914 Russia in highly industralized settings...
Khruschevs reforms... it was state capitalism.
It was even more 'capitalist' under Lenin and Stalin. Under Lenin, it was NEP (only dismantled in the late 20's) - far more capitalist than Russia in the 1960-80's. And under Stalin, there were private factories all over Russia run by American billionaires friends of Stalin like Armand Hammer.
Again, watch 'Dodesworth' (set in 1936) - an American billionaires discussing setting up a profitable business venture in Russiaunder Stalin. Fidel Castro didn't invent his business ventures with Western capitalists...
The process is simple. Sooner or later, all those Communist dictators discover that purely socialist economy actually run by workers, doesn't work at all (nobody actually works!). So they either increase discipline in the state-run factories (making them more oppressive than capitalist ones) or they rely on foreign ventures (calling them 'rare', 'exceptional' and 'temporary', even though they contribute up to 80% of actual revenues...)
In China for example, arranged marriage and polygamy were ended as well as foot binding.
That had nothing to do with Communism. There are no foot binding in capitalist Hong Kong and Taiwan neither...
Slavery is the product of a tough competitive market
Wrong. Tough competitive market RAISES saleries and work standards. Slavery (whether capitalist or Communist) is a result of monopolistic practices.
Pol-Pot wasn't a communist
Mao's China was the only country that recognized his regime. And he was much purer ideologically than other Communists (no Armand Hammer factories under the Khmer Rouges!). And US sent him money because he was fighting Vietnam, not because of ideology...
In Nazi Germany, there was
--Private property
--social classes
--unequal wages
--corporate rule
That's a perfect description of Russia under Stalin and Cuba under Castro as well.
Private property: Western investors running the only profitable sectors of economy.
Social classes: actually under Hitler, there were only three social classes: Germans, non-Jewish non-Germans and Jews. Under Stalin, there were three classes as well: Party members, non-Party members and Gulag prisoners. Under Castro, there three classes as well: people with relatives in the US, Party members, non-Party members...
unequal wages: I think only Pol Pot managed to 'equalize' them perfectly.
corporate rule: that's the defining characteristic of Communism. Pure communism is an entire country run like a private corporation... Politburo being the Board of Directors, people being workers, KGB being overseers, etc...
Rev,
The point isn't how corrupt or inept Nepal is right now. My point is that the country will be far worse off under Maoist.
no it won't. Unless you consider democracy, woman's rights, and massive rapid industrialization complete with education and healthcare a bad thing...
It's a bit like debating a sick patient. You're proposing to give him poison. I don't have any medication to propose, but I am highly skeptical of your 'medecine'...
eh? That's one extremely messed up analogy
Leftyhenry,
Watch 'Strike' by Einsenstein and 'Land of Promise' by Wajda, both set in pre-1914 Russia in highly industralized settings...
Movies are movies. They aren't always true, in this case; they aren't.
That is why the catch line of the five year plan was something like, 'not industrializing and staying backwards would be as good as death' also, that was the whole point of 'socialism in one country'
to build up infarstructure in Russia before spreading the socialist revolution.
admittedly, there was basic industry but Russia was truly an agarian based economy.
It was even more 'capitalist' under Lenin and Stalin. Under Lenin, it was NEP (only dismantled in the late 20's) - far more capitalist than Russia in the 1960-80's. And under Stalin, there were private factories all over Russia run by American billionaires friends of Stalin like Armand Hammer.
The NEP was hardly capitalist. It set up high work quotas which restricted any capitalist activity. Plus, it was temporary and was quickly stopped once it was realized that it yielded very slow growth.
Armand Hammer was there during the NEP for a few years and all he did was import and export pencils. He eventually moved out of the USSR because he made no profit.
Khruschev's reforms of 1966 introduced credit, interest, private ownership of the means of production, and it was only at this time that the communist party became the ultra wealthy class that you hear about.
Like I said, Armand was one guy who distributed pencils for a few years when the USSR wasn't even established. Hardly an example of Soviet capitalism.
Khruschev paved the path to the USSR's fall with the reforms of 66.
The process is simple. Sooner or later, all those Communist dictators discover that purely socialist economy actually run by workers, doesn't work at all (nobody actually works!). So they either increase discipline in the state-run factories (making them more oppressive than capitalist ones) or they rely on foreign ventures (calling them 'rare', 'exceptional' and 'temporary', even though they contribute up to 80% of actual revenues...
But that's false and has been proven false time and time again.
1) There was pretty much no private enterprise in the USSR. Everything was state-run under the 5 year plan and that was America's beef with socialism; while America was in a great depression, the USSR was growing and thriving and INDUSTRIALIZING, while at the same time fighting class war.
2) if no one was working than explain why Russia was growing into a super power while the US was in decline after the USSR became established and completely socialized?
Also explain the Venezulan co-operatives and the Soviet Co-operatives which kicked out the managers/ or started up factories that had previously been closed down and worked them themselves.
That had nothing to do with Communism. There are no foot binding in capitalist Hong Kong and Taiwan neither..
Maybe now, but It was Jiang Jishi who let the those practices continue.
Wrong. Tough competitive market RAISES saleries and work standards. Slavery (whether capitalist or Communist) is a result of monopolistic practices.
Why would they do that? In a tough market you're trying to keep the prices as low as possible, and the profits as high as possible; that DEFINATELY cannot be accomplished through paying workers decent wages. Look at Wal-Mart for example.
Mao's China was the only country that recognized his regime. And he was much purer ideologically than other Communists (no Armand Hammer factories under the Khmer Rouges!). And US sent him money because he was fighting Vietnam, not because of ideology...
No, actually Pol-Pot often bashed Mao, but when Deng Xiopang came into power and started opening up the markets and paving the way to capitalism; he praised Deng.
And plus, the US was sending it before Vietnam invaded.
That's a perfect description of Russia under Stalin and Cuba under Castro as well.
Private property: Western investors running the only profitable sectors of economy.
Um no, there were/are no western investors, remember the blockade and cold war? The only industry where there is private investment is tourism but even there, the Cuban government owns the land and has in the past decided not to renew contracts allowing hotels to stay.
Social classes: actually under Hitler, there were only three social classes: Germans, non-Jewish non-Germans and Jews. Under Stalin, there were three classes as well: Party members, non-Party members and Gulag prisoners. Under Castro, there three classes as well: people with relatives in the US, Party members, non-Party members...
That's like saying in the US tere are three social classes; politicans, people, and prisoners.
No. There are the Rich, the middle class and the poor.
Unlike in Nazi Germany and the US which had the three classes listed above,
Russia only had the working class while it was socialist. Khruschev's reforms of 66 yielded 'the party as the bourgieous
g.ram,
Yes, I am a maoist, and I've seen you on revleft (which is back up today I think) I was on it last night. Trotskyism is basically Marxist-Leninism but that thinks that every country that didn't follow trotsky's ideas was a deformed worker state. I'll respond with more later.
I am glad to see your blog is getting some healthy feedback. There is a good discussion here, but I think I find it odd that there is a great deal of confusion. A talk that developed from the Maoists into Nepal develops into the question of the legacy of the Communist International is quite important...for what in Nepal they are doing is challenging the whole orthodoxy of the International Communist Movement.
There is a great deal of misconception and concern about what the Maoists led by Prachanda are doing. I have the same concerns as Celticfire; however I think we are seeing the beginnings here of a new approach to Marxism that isn't stuck in the dogmatism and sectarianism of the past, and isn't apologetic about our history.
The history of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the history of Socialism and so-called Socialism, needs to be throughly analyzed...so I think it is right for people to ask questions about Stalin and Mao, and yes you Trotskyites...even Lenin and the Bolsheviks. For a long time each grouping has taken an apologist attitude and dogmatic attitude toward history that has done no good. People were either saints or demons, states were great liberators and infallible, or they were Bourgeois dogs. Part of the vision of "21st Century Communism" is challenging this attitude toward our history. There is a lot to be said about Stalin, Mao, (and yes even Lenin and the Bolsheviks) on what were their mistakes and how are they relevant to us today.
That is what Maoists in Nepal are doing today...and it shows the huge divergent shift in analysis, compared to that of lets say Renegade Eye, who rightfully criticzes (Lampooning here) the Maoists in Peru and the RCP, USA, but when it comes to the Soviet experience..."There was a revolution, led by the followers of Trotsky." Oh...the blissful romantic nostalgia for our knight Trotsky. Some followers of Trotsky those Bolsheviks were I guess? They must be very ungrateful followers I believe...they did in fact expel him from the Party?
Also I like to point out, and this is not putting the blame solely on Trotsky's shoulders, that the Bolshevik Revolution had its share of blood and massacre...it wasn't this pure revolt. Just ask Anarchists, Sailors, and Ukrainians.
I know a lot more is said here on the subject of Trotsky and Trotskyism, but to add my two cents...Trotskyism is really quite a relevant ideology any longer. The advocacy of Permanent Revolution, emphasizing revolution to occur in the Western world, and of course a complete mechanical 19th century understanding of class society and the development of Capitalism has no relevance to the continuing revolutionary struggle across the world. Trotsky was a good organizer and Red Army commissar, but how does that give him a mantle to understand society today or know what to do with the USSR? Trotskyites...like Renegade Eye talk of his career as a revolutionary as something that should have crowned him leader of the USSR..well sorry, the Party disagreed. So to sum up, Trotsky's Marxism is bad Orthodoxy and has lost practicality (the continuing splits in whatever group calls themselves the 4th International proves that). So I say to people in Nepal, revolt...don't wait for the saviors of the 4th International in the US.
Now Dave comments on "Democratic Socialism" being achieved in Sweden and etc. etc....but these so-called "Socialist" states are not socialist. A state like Sweden, with all its welfare opportunity, is not Socialist...Sweden and the Western European states can maintain such living standards percisely because they are IMPERIALIST-CAPITALIST. They are leeches of the Third world, and give a good proportion of that exploitation to their citizens...however there is someone being exploited by the Swedish bourgeois...they are either working a factory in Southeast Asia or a Guest Worker in their land being used as cheap labor. Some Socialism.
Sonia states:
"Not really. Few people flee from Singapore, South Korea, South Africa, Chile, Taiwan - i.e. countries with genuinely free market economies."
This made me laugh..I am not sure Sonia, if you have ever traveled to these "genuinely free market economies." It is indeed true that people are not fleeing across the border to the US from there, but is that saying much? In Chile there is great wealth disproportion and the rural areas are vestiages of Pinochet styled shanty towns. The "economic miracles" in these nations are evident if you only peer into the nice districts of Santiago or Johannesburg; however Capitalism lets a lot to be desired.
Leftyhenry,
you consider democracy, woman's rights, and massive rapid industrialization complete with education and healthcare a bad thing
There is no democracy and there cannot be any democracy under Communism. The state is too powerful and the people are too weak. The state owns everything. People own nothing. No opposition candidate can emerge. Nobody can finance him. There is no free press to give him exposure.
As for women's rights, they mean nothing. Ask a Cuban woman who clean the hotels after Canadian women about her women's rights...
Rapid industalization ? To produce what ? Tanks and guns ?
Education to learn how to read Mao's Red Book ? Free health care not to miss a day of work getting paid in Communist currency that isn't worth anything ?
NEP was hardly capitalist... and was quickly stopped once it was realized that it yielded very slow growth.... USSR was growing and thriving and INDUSTRIALIZING
False. Thanks to NEP, Russia managed to rebuilt its economy after the devastation of the War Communism era (1917-1921). But NEP produced a class of rich, prosperous paysants (known as kulaks) who began to rebel against Communist tyranny. So Stalin exterminated them, destroying Russian agriculture in the process (just like Mugabe just did in Zimbabwe). Then, he set out to built heavy industry, totally bankrupting the country. When Hitler invaded in 1941, almost everybody in the Soviet Union welcomed him with opens arms as a liberator. But the West saved the Soviet Union in 1941-45 by sending money and weapons and food and trucks and everything, rebuilding the Soviet economy in the process. But after 1945, the economy was in the freefall again, despite close to 10 millions of gulag prisoners working as slaves for no money. Things improbcved omewhat in the late 50's thanks to Khrushev's reforms, but after Brezhnev came to power, the Soviet economy began to stagnate again...
Khruschev's reforms of 1966
In 1966, Khruschev was no longer in power.
I lived in the Soviet Union in the early 80's. There was no private property. All stores were state-run. All industry was state-run. Nothing was private.
it was only at this time that the communist party became the ultra wealthy class that you hear about
Communist party members were never wealthy, neither under Stalin nor under Khrushev. They didn't own anything. If they run a factory or a state farm, they couldn't pass it to their children. And so they didn't care if it was run well. It wasn't theirs, they neglected it. That's Commnunism. That's why it doesn't work. People don't give a shit. They don't work, they drink and they don't care...
Russia was growing into a super power
Soviet Union was never a super power. It had rich natural resources (diamonds, oil, gold, silver, platinum), mostly in Siberia, exploited by slave labor in gulags. By selling its diamonds, gold and oil, Soviet Union was able to invest in tanks, nuclear weapons and space technology, creating an illusion that it was a super power. But it wasn't. If ever the Cold War became a Hot War and international trade stopped, Russian people would have starved and froze in a few months, because their economy wasn't self sufficient in food, clothing and other consumer items. Russian planes were crashing all the time. Tu-144, a Russian Concorde was a total fiasco.
In a tough market you're trying to keep the prices as low as possible, and the profits as high as possible
You might be trying, but you won't succeed. In a competitive (i.e. free) market, you get the largest profits by getting the best workers and you get the best workers by paying them more than your competitor. Salaries rise. That's why workers under capitalism are paid hundered times more (in real wages) for the SAME WORK than workers under socialism.
The only industry where there is private investment is tourism.... Cuban government
Tourism is 90% of the Cuban economy... Coincidence ? There are Cubans with PhDs who work as tour guides because their salaries are 20 times higher than those of teachers or doctors...
I shy away from debates, involving 100 issues at once. I'll try to deal with the issue of Pol Pot. Pol Pot grew from the policies of Nixon and Kissinger and the Maoists from China.
Cambodia was neutral during the Vietnam war, under Sihanouk. He allowed the Vietnamese to have supply lines, and allowed US troops to fight Vietnamese, without interference. In 1970 Sihanouk was overthrown by the USA, and replaced by Lon Nol. At the same time Lon Nol fought the Khmer Rouge while the US fought Vietnamese. From 1969 to 1970, US dropped 3x more bombs on Cambodia, than all the bombs dropped during WWII. This destroyed the fabric of society, and created the conditions of the craziness of Pol Pot. To this day, some parts of Cambodia are uninhabited.
Pol Pots army grew from 5,000 to 70,000 people and defeated Lon Nol.
Pol Pot became influenced by Maoists. In Stalinist fashion, he purpetuated ideas that have no basis in the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky, and called them communist. Marxism is for urban culture, and the fluorishing of science, art and commerce. Pol Pot's base was the most backward peasantry. His ideas were a mixture of Maoism, xenophobia, and peasant radicalism.
As early as the 1950s, some of Pol Pot's aides had plans for a peasant based culture, with no money or urban life.
Marxism is for the highest development of productive forces, democratically controlled by workers.
With the fabric of society destroyed, instead of organizing the feeding of society, they ordered the evacuation of the big cities. Many died of overwork and disease, slaving away at these rural schemes. Others were killed for taking part in cultural and intellectual life. This policy is certainly anti-working class and not the Marxism I've come to know. Marxist writing is aware of the backwardness of peasantry. The people in the Khmer Rouge were almost on a tribal level.
The Khmer Rouge due to their xenophobia, attacked Vietnamese living on the border, near Vietnam. That brought the Vietnamese intervention.
The peasantry as the foundation of the revolution, is central to the Shining Path in Peru, the Maoists in Nepal before they latched on to the urban movement and other Maoist formations.
When I was in Peru, I remember the Shining Path did actions against transportation workers.
The logic of my argument, is if you're Maoist, you should support Pol Pot. He was supported by Mao, and it is a peasant based philosophy, as is Maoism.
I actually think it's a myth, that the Chinese revolution was peasant based. It attracted large enough working class elements, to win.
There is no democracy and there cannot be any democracy under Communism. The state is too powerful and the people are too weak. The state owns everything. People own nothing. No opposition candidate can emerge. Nobody can finance him. There is no free press to give him exposure.
quite untrue. Every system is a dictatorship of one class over another. Capitalism is a dictatorship of the bourgieous. Sometimes it is literal (Pinochet, Batista, Somoza, etc) Sometimes it is not. In every case, however, only the bourgieous can lead, look at the US for example. At least 90% of all politicians were/are in the "upper class" of society.
Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the masses, the people. They are the direct benificiaries. That is why in socialism we see much higher standards of living than in capitalist counterparts. ie Cuba vs. Dominican Republic.
Sure, there have been literal despotisms but there have also been socialist democracies. Look at Sandinista Nicargua. Look at Cultural Revolutionary China. Look at Nepal now.
As for women's rights, they mean nothing. Ask a Cuban woman who clean the hotels after Canadian women about her women's rights...
There is a reason why the older generations in socialist countries are often the most hardcore socialists. The reason is that they know that they are ten times better off now than they were before the revolution.
Rapid industalization ? To produce what ? Tanks and guns ?
Yes but also things like "electricity" and "cars" and "tractors" and "indoor heating/plumbing" all kinds of things that only appeared in fairy tales under the capitalist and feudalist systems pre-revolution.
Education to learn how to read Mao's Red Book ? Free health care not to miss a day of work getting paid in Communist currency that isn't worth anything ?
That's quite shallow. The same could be said about capitalist welfare programs.
In 1966, Khruschev was no longer in power.
whoops, typo. I meant 1956, with the 20th Party Congress.
False. Thanks to NEP, Russia managed to rebuilt its economy after the devastation of the War Communism era (1917-1921). But NEP produced a class of rich, prosperous paysants (known as kulaks) who began to rebel against Communist tyranny. So Stalin exterminated them, destroying Russian agriculture in the process (just like Mugabe just did in Zimbabwe).
The Kulaks were there before the NEP. NEP growth was very slow compared to the growth that occured under the 5 year plan. The situation in Zimbabwe is quite different. Mugabe tried capitalism; look at the Econmic Structural Adjustment Plan he tried which was recommended by the World Bank. It privatized major industries resluting in a 32% drop in productivity.
Then, he set out to built heavy industry, totally bankrupting the country. When Hitler invaded in 1941, almost everybody in the Soviet Union welcomed him with opens arms as a liberator. But the West saved the Soviet Union in 1941-45 by sending money and weapons and food and trucks and everything, rebuilding the Soviet economy in the process. But after 1945, the economy was in the freefall again
what a load of bull. The west didin't help the USSR at all. That was one of the things that lead to the cold war; attacking sicily before Normandy not creating a second front, and not supplying the USSR with aid. The USSR developed their own weapons and tanks and if it wasn't for their rapid industrialization, the world would now be ruled by Nazis as 75% of German casualties were on the eastern front. The truth was that the US had little aid to give the the USSR, as the US was forced to socialize in order to create economic growth after the great depression. Meanwhile the USSR had seen nothing but economic growth in the past decade.
I lived in the Soviet Union in the early 80's. There was no private property. All stores were state-run. All industry was state-run. Nothing was private
That is a characteristic of state-capitalism.
Communist party members were never wealthy,
look at the nomenklatura. Those guys only appeared under Krushchev
You might be trying, but you won't succeed. In a competitive (i.e. free) market, you get the largest profits by getting the best workers and you get the best workers by paying them more than your competitor. Salaries rise. That's why workers under capitalism are paid hundered times more (in real wages) for the SAME WORK than workers under socialism
Again, I call bullshit. Revolutions occur because workers are sick of being slaves. Perhaps if you compare 1st world capitalist workers to third world socialist workers, but otherwise, socialist workers reap benefits like garunteed food and housing, healthcare, shorter workweeks, subsidized goods etc, etc..
And thats false. You get the largest profits by selling the most. You sell the most by selling for the least. You sell the least by cutting costs. You cut costs by paying you're workers as little as possible. That is the whole reason why jobs are being outsourced now.
Ren,
Pol-Pot called Maoism "Counter-revolutionary" Pol-Pot was no communist or socialist. Just some opportunist maniac who seized power in a country that was in ruins.
in socialism we see much higher standards of living than in capitalist counterparts. ie Cuba vs. Dominican Republic.
A very wrong example. Dominican Republic is hundred times richer than Cuba. No Cuban can afford to go to their own tourist resorts. In Dominican resorts, roughly 25% of torists are from the Dominican Republic. In Cuba, roads are completely empty. People travel by riding like cattle on pick-up trucks. In the Dominican Republican, the traffic is atrocious. Cars and motocycles are everywhere. The country is noisy, messy, but alive. People sell, buy, etc. In Cuba, there is only rice and beans in local stores. In tourist stores, you can only buy with convertible pesos and Cuban workers are paid in non-convertible pesos that aren't worth the paper on which they ae printed.
There are almost gas stations in Cuba. You cannot buy gas with non-convertible pesos (and that despite all the oil that Chavez is sending to Cuba - all this generosity is completely wasted, because the economic system DOESN'T WORK and CANNOT work, despite all the genuine efforts of Cuban Communists who are really committed and ideological, but powerless to do anything - it's a hopeless struggle against nature.)...
Are you joking? Cubans have yearly vactions. In Cuba, almost everyone owns a car. There are internet cafes and computer colleges all over Cuba while students in the Dominican Republic don't even have desks. Perhaps in the countryside Cubans travel by pickup truck but the same goes for the DR. Unempllyment in the DR is almost 20% while in Cuba its under 2%. Every Cuban has healthcare and the right to education, however those things are unheard to people living in the DR. When I was in Cuba, I saw quite a few gas stations and there were many packed streets. Cuba's standards of living are much higher than the Dominican Republics'
In Cuba, almost everyone owns a car
I wasn't talking about toy cars...
When I was in Cuba...
I don't believe you. If you've actually been to Cuba, you wouldn't have written what you did. You would have blamed all that misery and poverty on US sanctions, but you wouldn't deny the obvious - the poverty itself.
Oh yeah, and it would have been nice if a Cuban - any Cuban - could say 'When I was in...(pick any country)...'. But they can't. No Cuban can leave his country (and those few faithful Party members who travel occasionally can't leave without leaving their wife and children behind as insurance that they will come back)... Too many have defected for Castro to trust them (close to 2 millions in Miami alone...)
Unemployment in the DR is almost 20% while in Cuba its under 2%
Wrong. Cuba has O% unemployment, while in Dominican Republic it's probably closer to 30%. But an unemployed person in the Dominian Republic gets far more money (in real wages) than a doctor in Cuba...
There are internet cafes and computer colleges all over Cuba
No Cuban has access to the internet. I've never had a hit on my blog from Cuba. Tehran yes, Occupied Palestinian Territories yes, but never Cuba. Not once.
I don't believe you. If you've actually been to Cuba, you wouldn't have written what you did. You would have blamed all that misery and poverty on US sanctions, but you wouldn't deny the obvious - the poverty itself.
You don't need to believe me, but you're background and what you have written are at least 10 times more unbelievable.
I am not denying that there is poverty in Cuba, of course there is poverty. What I'm saying is that compared to other similiar countries, the living standards are 10 times better in Cuba.
Oh yeah, and it would have been nice if a Cuban - any Cuban - could say 'When I was in...(pick any country)...'. But they can't. No Cuban can leave his country (and those few faithful Party members who travel occasionally can't leave without leaving their wife and children behind as insurance that they will come back)... Too many have defected for Castro to trust them (close to 2 millions in Miami alone...)
Cubans can leave the country. They can acquire Visas. I know a cuban who has such a pass. They are rare, yes and for very special cases but so what? If you go to the dominican republic or haiti or even Mexico most people can simply not afford to go on vacation, Cubans on the other hand have yearly vacations.
Wrong. Cuba has O% unemployment, while in Dominican Republic it's probably closer to 30%. But an unemployed person in the Dominian Republic gets far more money (in real wages) than a doctor in Cuba...
It's actually 1.9% but whatever. Almost everything in Cuba that you need on a daily basis, ie electricty, running water, food, etc is free or subsidized. Someone may make 30 pesos a month but an electric bill is like 5 pesos and everything else is free. In the DR however, nothing is free or subsidized. Thus you see mass poverty, and the unemployment just makes matters worse.
No Cuban has access to the internet. I've never had a hit on my blog from Cuba. Tehran yes, Occupied Palestinian Territories yes, but never Cuba. Not once.
That's some straight-up bull. Have you ever gotten a hit from Haiti or the DR? Besides, Cuba can only get internet through satelite feed which makes it extremely slow and expensive compared to the rest of Latin America thanks to the blockade.