Wednesday 12 November 2008

An Analysis On Nepal.

By Me.

I have recently heard comments made by the Maoist leaders in Nepal, Bhattarai, Prachanda and various other leaders, that they intend to seize power in Nepal in open collabaration with the capitalists, not in opposition to them. I feel that it is very clear that this so-called "New Democracy" is nothing but a blueprint for bourgeois democracy.

I had also came across a website called http://alternatives-international.net/article2489.html that further explains the essence of this "New Democracy".
This article states that the Nepali government is the dictatorship of two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat:

"The new Maoist government in our country is also different in the sense that it is based on the joint dictatorship of both the proletariat and the bourgeois class. There are not any references of such kind of joint dictatorship in any of the Marxist thesis; the Marxist principle that the joint dictatorship of two antagonistic classes in the state is impossible. However, the experience of Nepal has shown it otherwise. The philosophical and theoretical base of the Nepali experience and experiment will have to be synthesized in the days to come. History has put the onus to justify dual dictatorship of the state on the shoulders of Maoists of the twenty first century.”

So in just a few sentences, this particular comrade has completely forgot about and shoved aside a century and a half of the experience of the class struggle. Basic Marxist theory teaches that we cannot reconcile the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

On the pretext of the national peculiarities of Nepal, a roadmap for unbridled capitalist development has been prepared, which expresses support for local and international capitalists. Following this road, the Maoist leadership is behaving as the agency of these capitalist interests, equipped with an agenda of class conciliation to ensure the development of Nepal on a capitalist path. This will inevitably open up divisions within the Maoist party and even at a certain stage will open up conflict between the government and the masses.

The “national revolution” of Nepal, unfolding in the world of the 21st century, cannot take one further step forward, even an inch, in alliance with the bourgeois. In alliance with this class it can only advance in the opposite direction. The bogus and unrealisable slogan of the combined dictatorship of the “bourgeoisie and proletariat,” is nothing but the proclamation of the domination of the bourgeoisie, an outright betrayal of the revolution.

Revolutionary advances aside, even the petty reforms allowed within this context are slipping off the agenda of the Maoists. Peaceful economic growth, i.e. the capitalist advance of the economy is becoming the only objective. They are striving to attract the investments of world capital to Nepal and are reassuring the imperialists that they are no longer those old-style Marxists of yesteryear to worry about, but pragmatic “Marxists of 21st Century”. The Maoist leaders are in fact issuing cynical warnings against any attempt to thwart this national progress, which according to them is the common agenda of all classes in Nepal.

Is this what the revolutionary masses and the rebel army fought for? Are these policies preparing victory or paving the way to disaster? In spite of all this, revolutionary ferment in society is still powerful. The masses have only given their support to Prachanda because they believed that decisive change would soon be forthcoming. If Prachanda were to move against the vested interests of the bourgeoisie and the imperialists, he would receive the overwhelming support of the masses. If, on the contrary, as unfortunately it seems clearly their intention, the Maoist leaders follow the bourgeois path they will inevitably clash with the aspirations of the masses and divisions will develop within the Maoist movement itself on which way to go forward. My advice to the Nepali revolutionaries that are looking for a way out of this dilemma is to orient towards the working class and build on the tradition of the 2006 uprising in opposition to those who want to capitulate to the bourgeoisie.

4 comments:

nickglais said...

Comrade the quote you use from this writer Pant is not the postion of the Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist).

The current debate in Communist Party of Nepal Maoist is falsely presented has being between a Bourgeois Democratic State supposedly argued for by Prachanda caricatured in the Pan article and a Peoples Republic argued for by Kiran et al.

In fact it is for a new type of Nepalese Peoples Democratic State that reflects Federal realities in Nepal and have nothing in common with the formal democracy of Bourgeois parliamentarism.

You can see some of the debate on the nature of the new state in Nepal on my site Demoicracy and Class Struggle.

nickglais said...

The concept of New Democracy aims to overthrow feudalism and/or achieve a country's national independence from colonialism, but it bypasses the rule of the capitalist class that usually follows such a struggle, claiming instead to seek to enter directly into socialism through a coalition of classes fighting the old ruling order. This coalition is subsumed under the leadership and guidance of the working class and its communist party.

It is not a joint dictatorship of working class and bourgeoisie has falsely presented by Pant - that is a complete misreading it is coalition led by a Communist Party.

nickglais said...

I have checked and Laxman Pant is a member of CPN Maoist but the man responsible for Foreign International Relations is C.P. Gajurel and the Laxman views are not his views.

nickglais said...

The Laxman Pant article you quote is an OPINION piece from RED STAR and is NOT the line of the CPN Maoist.

The source of this is the Trotskyist In Defence of Marxism site who regularly and dishonestly distorts the position of the CPN Maoist.

Laxman Pant is from Nepali Peoples Protection Committee - India and it is CP Guarel who is reponsible for Foreign Relations of CPN Maoist and he is a supporter of comrade Kiran who directly opposes this personal view of Laxman Pant.

Trotskyists should stop fabricating stories about CPN Maoist and deal with its real positions has expressed in offical documennts and not opinion pieces.

C P Guarel is head of the Foreign relations Bureau of the CPN Maoist and not Laxman Pant.

Add New Comment: