Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Basanta: How CPNM Can Open Door for World Revolution

Posted by n3wday on August 26, 2008

“..the end of monarchy was not the end of feudalism, but the end of the central role of the monarchy in the reactionary power…. However, in this situation, a right opportunist trend that understands the democratic republic as the final success of revolution, and a left sectarian trend that minimises this achievement can sometimes be noticed in our party and in the society as well…. Even though the feudal monarchy ended, there has been little change in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial socio-economic conditions of Nepal. Feudalism and imperialism, the targets of New Democratic Revolution, still exist…

“the establishment of Federal Democratic Republic has been accomplished successfully. However, this process has placed the comprador bourgeois class in the dominant position of the reactionary state power. In this situation, to build up a front composed of the entire democratic, patriotic and left forces under the leadership of the party of the proletariat, and move ahead for the final offensive; this is the need of the hour. This and only this can open up the door to eliminating feudalism and imperialism from Nepal, and thereby accomplishing the New Democratic revolution. This is how our party, the CPN (Maoist), a part of the internationalist proletariat, can fulfil its internationalist duty of opening the door for the world proletarian revolution in the first decade of the 21st century.

Present situation and our challenges

By Basanta – central committee member of CPN-Maoist, August 12, 2008

This is an era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. It is known also as the Leninist era. The specificity of this era has been the spread by imperialism through exploitation and robbery of the world, through the economic base of feudalism and the superstructure of bureaucrat and comprador bourgeois in the oppressed countries. Founded on imperialist interests, bureaucratic capitalism, which develops as a result of an unholy alliance between feudalism and imperialism, is against the nation and also the people. Comprador and bureaucratic capitalism does not allow national capitalism to flourish by ending the feudal relations in agricultural production. The expansion of imperialist capital brings about some quantitative changes in the feudal relations of production, but it does not go beyond the interests of the comprador bourgeoisie and imperialism. In this way, it is evident that feudalism and imperialism must be the targets of proletarian revolution in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries.

Nepal is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country. Through the Sugauli Treaty in 1816, the unholy union of British imperialism and the centralised Nepali State that was forcefully unified by Prithvi Narayan Shah, the ambitious king of Gorkha, turned our country into a semi-feudal and semi-colonial one. As a result of socio-economic conditions, feudalism and imperialism and particularly Indian expansionism are the barriers for Nepalese people’s democracy, progress and national independence. Without abolishing feudalism and without bringing to an end to external intervention, the Nepalese people cannot clear the way for real democracy and national independence.

The overwhelming participation of the Nepalese people in progressive struggles, in various forms and essences, from around 1949, expresses their firm resolve for people’s democracy and nationalism against feudal and imperialist oppression. However, the king’s patriotic mask is to hide his feudalistic ultra-nationalism, and the Nepali Congress’s chatter of democracy serves imperialism and, mainly, Indian expansionism; it has succeeded for a pretty long time to divide and confuse the Nepalese people about patriotism and democracy. History is a witness, even as the Nepalese Communist Movement, which made efforts to develop an independent trend by grasping that democracy and nationalism were inseparable from each other, also failed to keep itself free from siding with the monarchy, whenever there was a threat to the nation, and whenever democracy was challenged, trailing behind the Nepali congress,. The political events up to 1990 prove this reality. But it must never forget that the conflict between the monarchy and the Nepali Congress is not to negate one by the other, but only to ensure that the role of each remains decisive in the sharing of power between the two.

The unprecedented supported and participation of the people, in the course of the initiation and continuation of the great People’s War, was successful because of our party’s ability to develop a strong independent trend in favour of democracy and nationalism. This was a breakthrough in the history of the Communist Movement of Nepal. In the situation, when there was once tripartite contradiction among the ultra-nationalist regressive trend of feudal monarchy, the status quo trend of bourgeois democracy of the parliamentarian parties, and our anti-feudal and anti-imperialist progressive independent trend. Our party’s grasp of dialectics, to handle and use the conflict already existing between the monarchy and the parliamentary parties was one of the main reasons behind the development of People’s War. However, without changing the state of tripartite conflict into a bi-polar contradiction, no path would have been open to accomplish new democratic revolution in Nepal.

The development of People’s War, the palace massacre and Gyanendra’s autocratic actions, created an environment that helped bring the revolutionary and status quo forces together. Only after the design, mainly by US imperialism, of building agreement between the regressive and status quo forces, and of using that coalition against the C. P. N. (Maoist) failed, the 12-point understanding between the status quo and progressive trends was reached. In this way, the unprecedented mass movement of April 2006 that developed upon the base of 10 years of People’s War, with the support of the 12-point understanding, has finished off the monarchy in Nepal and made Nepal into a Federal Democratic Republic. It must be understood that the end of monarchy was not the end of feudalism, but the end of the central role of the monarchy in the reactionary power. This is an extraordinary achievement made by the Nepali people.

However, in this situation, a right opportunist trend that understands the democratic republic as the final success of revolution, and a left sectarian trend that minimises this achievement can sometimes be noticed in our party and in the society as well. In the present situation of the International Communist Movement, where right revisionism is the main danger, it is urgently necessary to emphasize struggle against the right trend, in and outside of the party, and to remain attentive towards the loss that the left sectarianism and centrist opportunism can impart to the revolution. Only by struggling against various wrong trends can the revolution be defended and led to victory.

Even though the feudal monarchy ended, there has been little change in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial socio-economic conditions of Nepal. Feudalism and imperialism, the targets of New Democratic Revolution, still exist. The comprador and bureaucrat capitalist class that dominates the Nepalese State represents, internally, the interests of feudalism and externally that of imperialism. Therefore, the Central Committee meeting of our party held last June at the Garden Hotel in Kathmandu has decided that the principal barrier at present for the new democratic revolution in Nepal, are the comprador and bureaucrat bourgeoisie.

Even in this situation, when our party emerged as the largest party, through the Constituent Assembly election, the encirclement that imperialism and Indian expansionism and their Nepalese puppets to not allow the CPN Maoist lead the government manifests the intensity of this very contradiction. The conspiracies that are being hatched not to allow our party to lead government are nothing other than a different type of class struggle between bureaucrat and comprador bourgeoisie and the Nepalese proletariat. Now, under the leadership of the Nepali Congress, which represents comprador bourgeois, the reactionaries have been working vigorously to develop a status quo coalition against our party. There is no doubt that all of this are done under the master plan of US imperialism and Indian expansionism. Thus, it is clear that it can be nothing other than a domestic and foreign reactionary design to prepare for the final offensive against the Nepalese people’s aspirations of real democracy and independence.

Put forward by the second national conference and concretised by the Chunwang Meeting, the tactic of Constituent Assembly, and through this the establishment of Federal Democratic Republic has been accomplished successfully. However, this process has placed the comprador bourgeois class in the dominant position of the reactionary state power. In this situation, to build up a front composed of the entire democratic, patriotic and left forces under the leadership of the party of the proletariat, and move ahead for the final offensive; this is the need of the hour. This and only this can open up the door to eliminating feudalism and imperialism from Nepal, and thereby accomplishing the New Democratic revolution. This is how our party, the CPN (Maoist), a part of the internationalist proletariat, can fulfil its internationalist duty of opening the door for the world proletarian revolution in the first decade of the 21st century.

14 Responses to “Basanta: How CPNM Can Open Door for World Revolution”

  1. Jose M said

    arthur made a good comment in the article “Second positions going to UML.”

    It ties a bit into what cmrd Basanta is explaining here. The reactionary statist quoist forces (ie. the UML, Nepal Congress, and MJDF) have the optioning of supporting and joining the maoist led govt, or forming an opposition? What seems more likely?

    from what arthur said, it seems more likely that an opposition will be formed, thus possibly making it difficult for the maoists’ policies. We’ll see.

    So, if none of these parties form a coalition with the maoist led govt and form an opposition, what will that mean? That within the CA (or whatever governing body they use) the maoists will be faced with higher opposition to their program, or does that mean they will simply not participate at all or form another govt?

    this confused me a bit. I dont understand what level of opposition the reactionary parties will give our maoists.

  2. arthur said

    “History is a witness, even as the Nepalese Communist Movement, which made efforts to develop an independent trend by grasping that democracy and nationalism were inseparable from each other, also failed to keep itself free from siding with the monarchy, whenever there was a threat to the nation, and whenever democracy was challenged, trailing behind the Nepali congress. The political events up to 1990 prove this reality. But it must never forget that the conflict between the monarchy and the Nepali Congress is not to negate one by the other, but only to ensure that the role of each remains decisive in the sharing of power between the two.”

    This seems critically important.

    “However, without changing the state of tripartite conflict into a bi-polar contradiction, no path would have been open to accomplish new democratic revolution in Nepal.”

    Hmmm. Are the contradictions now bi-polar? They look a lot more interesting than that – and the revolutionary forces, like life itself, thrive on the boundaries between order and chaos!

    What are the two poles? If the situation was bipolar then it would not be an 80% majority electing Cde Prachanda while the World Bank pays the PLA’s wages.

    “The conspiracies that are being hatched not to allow our party to lead government are nothing other than a different type of class struggle between bureaucrat and comprador bourgeoisie and the Nepalese proletariat.”

    Ok. So?

    “Now, under the leadership of the Nepali Congress, which represents comprador bourgeois, the reactionaries have been working vigorously to develop a status quo coalition against our party. There is no doubt that all of this are done under the master plan of US imperialism and Indian expansionism. Thus, it is clear that it can be nothing other than a domestic and foreign reactionary design to prepare for the final offensive against the Nepalese people’s aspirations of real democracy and independence.”

    What “leadership of the Nepali Congress”? Koirala?? Deuba???

    How is any of this “master plan” supposed to be “clear” and how has it been clarified by events since this was written?

    Also, if Congress represents mainly “compradors”, who represents feudalists and who does UML represent?

  3. NHorning said

    The poles are the Parties together with the Maoists and the King. That contradiction has likely been resolved. He is not suggesting that the current contradiction is bipolar.

  4. arthur said

    PS I didn’t refresh before posting my comment and had not read Jose M’s comment.

    The current situation is that the UML has decided to join the Maoist led government (together with the MJF and some smaller parties) while the Congress has decided to stay in opposition outside.

    I was not suggesting that the UML (or MJF) will join the Congress in opposition (although they will certainly obstruct within government). On the contrary I was suggesting that Pradeep Nepal’s advocacy of that was “pathetic” – ie not to be taken seriously.

    https://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/nepal-second-position-going-to-the-uml/#comment-504

    All these parties are going through major realignments and possible splits. For Congress and UML see https://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/nepal-second-position-going-to-the-uml/#comment-504

    For MJF see http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=3967

    In that fluid situation it is conceivable the other parties could eventually form a united opposition, though hard to see how they could do it within 2 years. But I simply don’t see any realistic prospect of them uniting to form a government that excludes the Maoists.

    Neil,

    Its hard to follow just what he is suggesting. Its easy to be misunderstood (see PS above for example). But if there is in fact no realistic prospect of the other parties uniting to form a government excluding the Maoists within 2 years that certainly doesn’t seem consistent with any such “master plan”.

    I read it as Basanta advocating a bipolar situation with Maoists and UMLs in a “left front” against the Congress. That may or may not be a good tactical slogan for current agitation at the time it was written (I doubt it but then I wouldn’t know). But it seemed to be put forward as some kind of theoretical analysis and longer term strategy (which would also be its only relevance in posting here).

    At that level it just doesn’t make sense to me.

    Except of course that anyone doubting the Maoists commitment to pluralism can be reassured by seeing the non-antagonistic handling of contradictions within the party leadership itself.

  5. arthur said

    Sorry, the link for Congress and UML realignments should have been to:

    https://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/nepal-rumblings-within-the-nc-and-uml/

  6. Jose M said

    I was debating with a comrade about this article, and he said that, even though he understands that Nepal has to undergo a process of political and economic transformation before the conditions for socialism can be ripe, he does not understand how foreign investment can help Nepal when:

    “Encouraging foreign firms to invest in Nepal will simply strengthen the system of dependency which currently obstructs the development process throughout the developing world, as foreign firms will be able to use their political influence to force the Nepalese government to make economic concessions which enhance the interests of foreign firms (at the expense of ordinary people who are in desperate need of relief from intense poverty) and Nepal will also not be able to benefit from the production of surplus value, because profits will simply be returned to the countries where the firms are based, instead of remaining inside Nepal…” – so this comrade said.

    This is actually a question I am not familiar with either and would certainly love to understand. Can someone help? Where can I read about this?

    thanks

  7. arthur said

    Jose,

    that position is common among “anti-imperialists” and “anti-capitalists”. It is identical in substance to urging workers not to take jobs because it will enrich the capitalists instead of themselves.

    Because capitalists own the means of production workers rejecting employment or countries rejecting foreign investment would be forced to use backward technology while accumulating their own means of production under much harsher conditions than those of workers exploited by imperialist finance capital. Consequently such advocacy has no appeal among workers and landless peasants but only among reactionary romantics.

    “Traditionally” counter-revolutionaries tried to strangle communist led revolutions with economic blockade like the US led isolation of China. That made if necessary to emphasize “self-reliance” and unecessary to refute the absurdities of “dependency theory”.

    Unfortunately the lack of such refutations and the lack of independent analysis then has left a theoretical vacuum in which such tripe flourises. The pseudo-left now invites communists to strangle themselves, and sides with the “anti-imperialist” and “anti-capitalist” kleptocracies of the third world! The sheer absurdity of what passes for “left” analysis of imperialism these days is just a symptom of the absence of an actual international communist movement. It couldn’t be taken seriously if there were communists around ridiculing it.

    For reading, see Lenin’s polemics with the populists (“Narodniks”) in the Russian revolution eg “A Characterization of Economic Romanticism”.

    For a more modern (but less Leninist) elaboration see Bill Warren “Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism”.

    For a specifically Nepalese perspective see “The Nature of Underdevelopment and Regional Structure of Nepal: A Marxist Analysis” by Baburam Bhatterai (now Finance Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal). Chapter 1 dismisses “dependency theory” (Baran, Frank, Wallerstein, Emmanuel, Amin et al).

    BTW Could somebody check the moderation queue. My last visible post in this thread correctss to an incorrect link in my response to Neil and correction of what Jose thought I said elsewhere, which is still listed as not yet moderated and so presumably still invisible to others.

  8. Jose M said

    arthur,

    thanks for that helpful commment.

    Where can I read that work you suggest by Dr.Bhattarai?

  9. n3wday said

    Arthur, you comments have been approved. Sometimes when someone posts multiple links wordpress assumes they are spamming and flags the comment. Sorry for the delay.

  10. arthur said

    No problem with fixed delay. BTW if below shows up twice its because it appeared to have disappeared completely when I first submitted and then treated as duplicate comment when I clicked submit again but still didn’t show up so I’ve repeated it.

    Unfortunately as far as I know Bhatterai’s book isn’t online. 540pp Adroit Publishers, Delhi 2003. Based on Ph D thesis work done during 1980-85. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ABookSources&isbn=8187392398

  11. Jose M said

    So, where can I read it then? Where did you read it?

    Also, arthur, have you read bhattarai’s “Economic-Politico Rationale for Peoples War in Nepal” (i think thats the whole title)?

    It is very good and gets into what we were discussing.

  12. arthur said

    1. click the link to wikipedia ISBN search then look for library or bookshop that has it. my copy was ordered from indian bookshop.

    2 yes i’ve read both – suggest you put up link here to online article for others interested.

  13. Nhorning said

    Bhattarai’s “The Nature of Underdevelopment and Regional Structure of Nepal: A Marxist Analysis” was invaluable for my senior thesis. I believe I use a bit from in in my article here: http://samudaya.org/200604/the-nepali-conflict-a-brief-theoretical-perspective/

  14. Nhorning said

    I sure wish I could edit comments after posting them…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: