Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Nepal: Maoist Central Committee Debates Their Next Moves

Posted by Mike E on July 10, 2009

Offices of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

Offices of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

The meeting of the central committee of Unified CPN (Maoist) started at the office of the party’s sister organisations at Koteshwor Wednesday.

Maoist chairman Puspa Kamal Dahal inaugurates the party’s central…
Today’s meeting opened debate on party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s political document that was passed by the recent politburo meeting. The 19-page political document stresses on Maoist-led national unity government as the immediate priority of the party.

The meeting will also take decisions on the party’s strategies, division of responsibilities to central leaders, management of party whole-timers, integration of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and the party’s general convention.

Party spokesperson Dina Nath Sharma said debate on other issues would start after Dahal’s political document is finalised.

Prior to the beginning the central committee meeting, Dahal inaugurated the party headquarters in the new building at Parisdanda, Koteshwor, which covers large area and houses most offices of the party’s sister organisations.

14 Responses to “Nepal: Maoist Central Committee Debates Their Next Moves”

  1. emil said

    does anyone still believe that there is really or has been any kind of successful revolution in nepal?

  2. Mike E said

    Of course there is an ongoing revolution in Nepal. It started with the outbreak of struggle against the monarchy in the early 90s, took a major leap with the initiation of peoples war in the mid 90s, and is in a state of unstable dual power now (with the inevitable and complex battles between and within the major political forces)

    And the outcome of this revolution remains uncertain (as is, i believe, the nature of all revolutions).

    Emil, it feels like you post the same conclusion every week, with the same assumption that your own personal views should be obviously true to everyone.

  3. emil said

    i think you are simply mistaken, and with the failure of the nepali maoist revolution, i think means the failure of mlm. your project has no future.

  4. emil said

    i think you are also just putting your personal views. this seems a big problem with kasama, although you pretend to be democractic and compared with most marxist websites you are, no doubt, but there is still the unquestioned assumption that MLM is a science and the same kind of rcp cultist putdowns. i think you are honest, and the people who contribute to the site, but i think MLM is a pseudo science that has repeatedly come to the wrong interpetrations of things. i think your project has no future unless it drops MLM.

  5. Tyman C said

    Emil, how many revolution have you outlived? define your successful revolutions and loss struggles and if you ain’t finding democracy in this corner of relatively fair communist site, show me where yours is to check it out. I’m an anarchist totally. But these reds are better than tens I have met before. show me your site so we talk like frank black reds rather than getting into other people’s buiz dishonestly.

  6. Paul said

    Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the comprehensive and all-round development of Marxism-Leninism to a new and higher stage. it is an integral whole; it is the ideology of the proletariat synthesised and developed to new stages, from Marxism to Marxism-Leninism to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, by Karl Marx, Lenin and Mao respectively, on the basis of the experience of the proletariat and mankind in class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment. It is the invincible weapon, which enables the proletariat to understand the world and change it through revolution. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a universally applicable, living and scientific ideology, constantly developing and being further enriched through its application in making revolution as well as through the advance of human knowledge generally. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the enemy of all forms of revisionism and dogmatism. It is all-powerful because it is true.

    If you really do have an idea of an alternative to MLM, please let us know. We can always debate.

  7. nando said

    Paul let me ask you a question about two themes of your comment:

    “It is the invincible weapon… It is all-powerful because it is true.”

    What exactly does this mean? Is anything in this universe “invincible” or “all-powerful”? Clearly the movements adhering to MLM have not proven either invincible or all-powerful — so what does it mean for an ideology to have such features?


    “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the enemy of all forms of revisionism and dogmatism.”

    Is this true? Quite a few of the movements adhering to MLM seem to be marked by revisionism or dogmatism. And some of the assumptions ascribed to MLM have been (in my opinion) dogmatic. (Examples: assuming the universalization of models etc.)

    Isn’t it true that everything divides into two — so that rather than being the “enemy of all forms” of wrong thinking, even the best forms of MLM are contradictory (including both the true and the false)?

    Won’t some aspects of MLM prove (in the future, through struggle and development) to be a basis for revisionism or dogmatism? (Wasn’t that the case with Marx’s work, or Lenin’s?)

    I suspect that the formulation “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” is itself problematic — accepting that communist theory should be pinned to “three milestones” — accepting that complex bodies of theory and practice should be pinned to names of particular people — accepting a kind of linear development (that assumes that new synthesis will probably arise from the next great leaders) etc.

    To be candid, while I am a Maoist, and have a great deal of unity with the theory and practice of that current of modern communism, (in fact, in someways BECAUSE OF my kind understanding of tha theory and practice) — your statement and declaratory tone seems to be (contrary to what you affirm and desire) an example of the kinds of dogmatism that HAVE (precisely) rattled around in the Maoist movement and within inherited forms of MLM.

  8. red road said

    Nando says, “I am a Maoist.” It would be interesting if Nando would spell out what is it, in his view, that makes him a Maoist? What defines a Maoist and distinguishes a Maoist, in his mind, from other terms which people use to define themselves. What does he intend to convey with this term, and who does it convey that meaning to?

  9. emil said

    above-tyman c- i agree this is a good site. there is debate. i only think mlm is a dead end, and has no chance whatsoever in western countries, and ultimately, a false way of thinking. i do not say that people are bad or dishonest. i also have criticisms of anarchism. ie good in theory, unworkable in practice.
    paul-your words prove to me that MLM is not a science and is dead. listen to yourself say or write these things. they are unbelievable and unconvincing, and simply false. MLM is not invincible, and has not been very successful.
    red road and nando- why is being a ‘maoist’ particularly important? i prefer to consider myself a socialist or communist, and see things like trotksyism and maoism as different variations of the same thing, but, in my opinion, ML and MLM have had enough chances, and have not succeeded. i do not consider myself a castroist or a chavist, but i generally support them because they are doing something for the poor, and seem a lot more honest and with less bullshit than MLM, and its all powerful invincible ideology etc.

  10. Mike E said

    [moderators note: Emil, you have posted virtually the identical comment, making the same assertion, almost a dozen times. I think everyone reading this site knows you thinkg “MLM is a dead end” and tat you don’t think it applies to first world countries. At a certain point, simply repeating that, over and over, in almost the same words, does not help our discussion.

    Please continue posting, but find some way to move beyond a “one note symphony” — either by deepening your argument, or by moving on to other matters.]

  11. n3wday said

    Heh, Red Road, you ask an interesting question that I’m rather curious about as well. I used to refer to myself as a Maoist… After all I agreed with quite a bit Mao had to say, and I still believe he developed a genuine revolutionary communist program for Chinese feudal society.

    But, I decided to drop the tag after realizing most of what I agreed about was in regard to method and Communist “philosophy” so to speak. I guess, I feel like regarding myself as a Maoist would require deep unity with political economic strategy (which beyond general adherence to communist political economy doesn’t appear to be very applicable to fully developed capitalist countries), or structures of governance or something like that. So, what I find unity with, I also find in other thinkers in many ways like Gramsci and Sartre, but I certainly don’t call myself a Gramscian or Sartrist even if I think both of them made valuable contributions to communist theory.

    What do you believe defines someone as a Maoist?

  12. nando said

    “Nando says, “I am a Maoist.” It would be interesting if Nando would spell out what is it, in his view, that makes him a Maoist?”

    I definitely think of myself as a Maoist. And I think that Mao is simply “a theorist” or just a thinker. Or that he can be put in some larger category of “post-Marx communist thinkers who made contributions” — as if he is one of many.

    Mao advanced the whole revolutionary project on a world level — in a unique way — solving key problems for the world revolution, making sharp and profound critiques of the previous (inherited) communist thinking (of the comintern), and making pathbreaking new inroads on the socialist path (in both theory and practice).

    I think there is profound value in Mao’s theory of peoples war, in his approach of new democracy, in his “mass line,” and in his theory of continuing the revolution (after the seizure of power). His view of ideas and matter — and more. There is a great deal to extract from his method of analysis, and his method of actual political practice — the dealing with real contradictions — in both understanding them and in their transformation in practice. (Knowing things to change things.)

    And often that method is barely sketched out (in his theory or his many famous “pithy sayings”) and has to be creatively extracted from the main body of his work — i.e. leading a quarter of humanity onto the socialist road. (Someone said to me, “i’m a little tired of just the pithy sayings, we actually need the actual theory on the table.” Amen.)

    I could go on in many ways about the specific observations and insights of mao that I think are of value. But again, I’m not pointing to a long list of “positions” that we should pick up and embrace mechanically. Here is someone who, under extremely diverse and changing conditions, pushed forward — in the real world, leading millions, with the most radical politics and goals imaginable. and there is (both in his great victories and in shortcoming we can uncover) a great deal to learn — in ways that don’t simply emerge from this or that thinker or theorist.

    It is a matter of both fusion of theory and practice — and it is a matter of what he represented (in opposition to many other streams of politics, — including orthodox Stalin politics, and the capitalist modernizer forces that have repeated emerged powerfully within all previous revolutions.)

    He didn’t solve all key problems (obviously), and his solutions all also “divide into two” (inevitably).

    Maoism (as it has been formulated) itself needs to be developed, creatively and critically.

    Yes others made contributions (of course) — many others. I am their student. But again Mao is not (i believe) just “one among many.” And his work is not just a matter of contributions here or there — a good idea here, or a good idea there — within a larger mosaic of such “good ideas.” That’s not, i believe, how theory or revolutoin emerge.

    On another level, i think we should tend away from using the names of individual people as our labels — because that can be misunderstood in many ways. And because it has (unintentionally)the feeling of both religiousity and of the past.

    So, i’m not sure we should as a movement publicly define ourselves by such labels (Marxist? Leninist? Maoist?) — this more describes our theory, and not our program. I think that describing ourselves as communist, socialist and revolutionary is quite a bit more descriptive of what we are about. And that we also need new ways (labels, names) of situating ourselves before the people — that will emerge from our coming practice.

    And I really don’t like the “post” labels — like “post-maoist”…. in one sense we are living in a world decades after mao (and in a literal chronological sense, we are post-Mao), but that really doesn’t get at what we ARE, and what we BELIEVE. It is about where some of us have BEEN.

    But the “post-Maoist” label seems to define a movement by “what it came out of” in a backward-looking sense. I mean, who called the Black Liberation struggle “the post-civil rights movement”? And how lame and uninspiring would THAT have been?

    The fact is I am a Maoist, and I think that people should really consider the work of Maoism closely. Mao’s synthesis is a rather indispensable starting point for moving ahead. (And I think that Marxism generally is such an indispensable point of synthesis and departure). And i think that the work done now by revolutionary Maoists (in Nepal and India especially) is on the cutting edge of the kind of radical vision and practice that we need. (As opposed to other movements with a considerably less radical vision and ideology.)

  13. emil said

    mike e- ok fair enough, altho i suppose because i do think mlm is a dead end, there is not further point to continuing with this site for me. i was hoping that you would have a discussion on MLM and why you uphold it and think it valuable for first world countries. but i guess not. good luck tho

  14. nando said

    Emil: there is a misunderstanding, i assume, that forms part of the frustration associated with your posts.

    You talk as if everyone here “upholds MLM” and as if everyone just refuses to discuss that with you.

    But that is your own misread:

    In fact, this is a discussion where people have many different views (different ideologies, tendencies).
    In fact, people don’t need to “uphold MLM” in order to support the revolutions in Nepal and India. They don’t need to “uphold MLM” in order to be curious about these developments — and to see them of international importance.

    And even while I responded above, saying I was a Maoist, the very way you talk about “upholding MLM” works implies a dogmatic and quasi-religious approach that I don’t share. (You talk of “upholding MLM” the way Catholics talk about “upholding the trinity” — i.e. as an article of faith.

    But what real creative communist has such an approach to ideas — especially a large and complex body of thought like Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? How can one not both uphold and criticize? Where would be the dialectics, the dynamic formward motion, if the new wasn’t repeatedly challenging the old, and the more true constantly replacing the less true?) Do we actually need to “uphold”the specific formulation and banner (“Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”) — which has very particular roots, and embodies an acceptance of a whole approach to marxist theory (i.e. that assumes that our theory is best identified with the names of a very small number of outstanding leaders… etc.) In the 1920s, the soviet party decided to rename their ideology (from marxism to marxism-leninism) — and then in the mid 1980s, some Maoists decided to embrace that approach, to further it, and invented the formulation Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Ok.

    Are we somehow bound by that? Are we required to “uphold MLM” — in the way the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement chose to formulate it — without critical evaluation and independent discussoin? The Kasama Project is very new, we have just started to open the door of this discussion, and don’t feel a rush to reach a quick resolution, or grab for the most likely answer. Aren’t are there other possibilities and methods, including among Maoists? Personally i think we should uphold and participate in a broad current of communist theory — and expect a range of views to diverge and coalesce in the process of making revolution.

    Let me give you an analogy:

    Galileo performs an experiment on gravity at the tower of Pisa. He drops two balls and compares their fall. Does his science only apply in Italy? Is it irrelevent in Nigeria? Well that depends on whether the phenomena being explored are local or not. And it also depends on whether Galileo’s methods (of experimentation and investigation) apply to issues that ARE local to Nigeria. It is quite possible that Galileo’s specific investigations and conclusions don’t apply, but his scientific method does apply….. right?

    Mao analyzed how to mobilized peasants in central china. Those plans and programs didn’t work a thousand miles away in northern China, where conditions were different. So Mao was constantly adjusting his policies and strategies for time and place (different historical conjunctures, different parts of the country, urban/rural etc.)

    But Mao’s method of analysis had a broader application. His insistence on a dynamic (not mechanical) form of analysis (of rising trends, of new emerging from old, of previous unities breaking down into new conflicts)… all of that applied more widely than china. And was welcome within a world communist movement where the official methodology had become religious, mechanical and worthless.

    Furthermore, mao’s critique of international communist events, and the ideas of the international communist movement had general applicability — and were (obviously) not confined to issues regarding China, and were generally not circumscribed by the local particularities of china.

    So, obviously, there are insights of Mao that don’t apply in the “first world.” I mean, duh. This is not news to any of us. If that is your point, emil, don’t be surprised if no one wants to argue with you. It is kind of obvious. Mao organized a revolution in one of the poorest peasant countries in the world. In a country bristling with very unique and special features. Many things Mao did don’t even apply to other third world countries (and no longer apply).

    But there are huge lessons to learn from the work of starting with a few hundred soldiers and emerging twenty years later having seized power in the worlds largest country. There are matters of “method” (as i said), organization (unity-struggle-unity, unity-criticism-transformation, approach to “two line struggle”), internationalism, political economy (theories of socialism, approach to economics as contradiction, critique of Soviet economics), and much more.

    So it seemed (always) like you had assumed we were idiots, and that you were responding to your misunderstanding of our views with one liners. And now you say you have to leave cuz we are not willing to have a discussion. Well, emil, why don’t you actually join the discussion, instead of this method of “fly-by” quips? Then we might actually dig into something.

    For example: why don’t you explain why Mao’s approach to analyzing contradictions or Mao’s theory of knowledge are not valuable for “first world countries”?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: