The
following article is from Haghighat- 40 (May 30, 2008).
Haghighat is the central organ of the
Communist Party of Iran
(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)
This
translation is sufficiently accurate but there are some problems that should be
noted. Originally English writings are quoted out of their Farsi translations.
For example articles from awts news service. This may
have caused some differences in form but not content. In future versions of
translation we will rectify this problem by using the originals.
May 30, 2008
Nepal Revolution: Great Victory or Great Danger!
Recent victory of the Communist Party of
Nepal (Maoist) in the Constituent Assembly election and announcement of the
ending of the 240 year old Monarchy and the beginning of the “Federal Republic
of Nepal”, in its first Constituent Assembly sitting (May 28th 2008),
once again have turned eyes to developments in this country. Euphoria has taken
over many revolutionaries and progressive forces of the world and many Left
parties from around the world have sent messages of congratulations to the CPNM
for this electoral victory.
At first glance, this euphoria is understandable. Many are happy that the name communism has
been brought up once again in the new century as a power. They feel this victory of Maoists in Nepal, has once again, brought to minds Communism as an alternative. But the question is, how justified this
euphoria is and what is its objective basis? And whether the future of the
revolution in Nepal
on this path, can be said to be bright?
Of course the fall of Monarchy in Nepal and its abolition as the seat of Hinduism
through the struggle of the workers and peasants of Nepal under leadership of Maoists, is a victory and a happy event. But Nepal’s becoming a “Republic” does
not resolve the fundamental class contradictions that the peoples
war had aimed to resolve.
Our party has not declared joy over this
electoral success. This approach has raised a lot of questions in the minds of
people, given the fact that our party, along with the Revolutionary
Internationalist Movement and all its participating parties and organisations, has been a strong supporter of the people’s
war in Nepal.
This is so especially because in the aftermath of the great April movement in
Nepal (2006) and development in the strength of peoples war, going from the
countryside to the cities, the editorial of Haghighat
(No 30—Oct 2006) predicted eventual victory of Nepal’s revolution and prospect
of establishment of a socialist state there.
Although that issue of Haghighat correctly
pointed to the objective problems that were in the way of this revolution and
existence of some confusion in the strategic thinking of the Communist Party of
Nepal (Maoist) concerning features of the dictatorship of proletariat – considering
the positive and negative lessons of two great experiences of the 20th
century in China and Russia – the
editorial (and its title in particular) promoted the illusion that Nepalese
Maoists were going to seize country wide power soon. The course of events exposed this to be a
premature and one-sided prediction. In practice, the Nepalese revolution faced
very severe and complex problems and the process of seizure of state power came
to a halt.
It has to be emphasized that the revolution
in Nepal
belongs to proletarians and peoples of the world. The International communist movement,
particularly the Maoist Parties are obliged to, while learning from that
revolution and taking joy in its victories, open their eyes and see dangerous
political and ideological bends in its road and play their due role in this regard. Our party has done its share of this task up to
now and will do more. Any sort of
indifference and lack of getting into it under leftist cover (but with deep
rightist nature) like calling for "another revolution" or by wishful
thinking and naively emphasize the "Communist Party of Nepal’s tactical
expertise in making concrete analysis of concrete conditions" is equal to
deserting one’s internationalist tasks, taking an irresponsible attitude toward
defending the achievements of the most important revolution at the beginning of
21st century, and an inability to face the real problems that the proletarian
revolutions of our time are facing.
*****
It is obvious that the victory of Maoists in
the Constituent Assembly and their turning into the ruling party in the government
is not equal to their seizing of political power. Entrance of the Nepalese Communists in the
regime is not birth of a new revolutionary state. Their entrance into a feudal comprador state
does not turn that state into a revolutionary state under the leadership of
proletariat. The difference between state
and government is one of the most basic elements of the theory of State
and Revolution in revolutionary science of Marxism. State is an instrument of political,
economical and social domination of one class over the other. Government is a form that any state can take
in the context of different historical political conditions. For example, the governments of the bourgeois
ruling class can take the forms such as bourgeois republic, monarchy, or
fascistic theocratic regimes (like in Iran.) Proletarian states also can take the forms of
People's Democratic Republic or Soviet
Socialist Republic
or Federal forms. Changing the form of a
regime from one to the other does not means change of the state system. Historically we have seen numerous times when
regimes (or governments) have changed without the class character of the state changing
at all. In Iran's 1979 revolution the Shah's
regime fell without destruction of the rule of capitalist and big land owning
classes. Shah's regime was overthrown without a state of the working class in
alliance with all other oppressed and toilers, being established. Only by
having this kind of state was it possible to reorganize the society on a
completely new economic, social and cultural foundation. The state system that
the Shah's regime had relied on (concretely the Army, Security system and its
organs, prisons, justice, international relations, etc.) not only was not
destroyed, but was only reorganized as part of the process of consolidating a reactionary
theocracy regime. The new regime not only was not a New political power, but in
fact, having its religious label, it became even more reactionary and was more
efficient than before in suppressing the majority of the oppressed peoples of Iran and women
in particular. Not only the economic-social
foundation of the state was left untouched, but also due to people’s hopes
about "revolution", it was save from their angry attacks and in this
way gained time to reconstruct and consolidate itself. Its deep dependency to imperialist
capitalism that had shaped the Iranian state not only remained intact but was
hidden from the eyes of the masses with a cover of "independence". The reason of our emphasizing on that experience
is to point out that changing of a government should not be mistaken with the
change of nature and character of the states. That is why the communists have always
defined victory of a revolution with “complete smashing of the state”. In Nepal, a new revolutionary state has not yet
been born out of smashing the old state.
In 2006 the Communist Party of Nepal signed
an agreement called "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" with parliamentarian
parties of that country. The aim of this
agreement was establishment of peace and beginning of a peaceful process of
establishing the Constituent Assembly and forming a bourgeois republic based one
multi party elections including among them the Maoist party. Maoists declared that people's war had ended
and People's Liberation Army was put into camps under the observation of the
United Nations.
At the time, the Central Committee of our
party wrote a private letter to CPNM seriously criticizing and warning against
this policy while pointing out the truths which has been born out of bitter and
bloody experiences of the struggles of the proletariat and people's of the
world, including the experience of the 1979 revolution in Iran. (2) In
opposition to the tactics of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) based on
"Comprehensive Peace Agreement" our leadership warned about the
danger that:
“… this tactic of your party can give a new life to the enemies
of the revolution and help them to come up with a clever strategy for building
a viable and efficient state. Don't
forget that one of the main reasons the people's war was able to spread very
quickly was due to this state’s instability and incoherence."
"…the anti people and reactionary class alliances
that had taken place in Nepal
since 1990 in
the form of
parliamentarian democracy, could not consolidate the state due to
inherent contradictions of those alliance and more so due to people's war. Now, they are trying to carry out this
consolidation process through, on the one hand, pushing out the King and
pushing out the people’s war, on the other hand. And if they achieve this the
result will be a feudal comprador republic state. his process could go
through a lot of ups and downs, since they have to convince the king and;
should satisfy trends such as the UML (the revisionist party that is in the
regime) or, kick it out.etc. But, the main thing in making the whole deal
successful is to pull the Maoists into this and enlist their help in implementing
it.” (2)
That letter also warned about the aims that
the ruling parties in Nepal
and India
are seeking through signing this Agreement:
“their aim is to push out both the King and
the revolutionary people's power which has been formed through 10 years of people’s
war in the base areas; and reorganize the old state as a comprador-feudal Republic
around the axis of the Congress Party (pro-India ruling party) and the
Maoists—of course if the Maoists transform from a party waging people's war
into a political party within the system.” (2).
The Central Committee's letter asks the CPNM’s leadership:
"Is it impossible for them (for the
ruling classes of Nepal and India and US imperialism) to achieve this?
No! Of course it is possible that the
king and a part of the feudal compradors who are the
base of the King as well as the Nepali military generals might resist this plan. But, even in the example of Iran in 1979 we
saw that the American generals convinced the Iranian Army generals to let the
Shah go and take the side of Khomeini.
In Nepal
also it is possible that the Nepalese generals might let the King go and take
the side of the Congress Party.” (2)
Then the letter brings out another question:
“Is it impossible for them to allow the Maoists
into a new state structure which has a form of Republic but the content of dictatorship
of the comprador bourgeois class?”
“We are aware that the Indian state and part
of the feudal comprador class of Nepal represented by the Congress
Party think that there is a good chance for this. We know that the ruling classes of India has done this before in India and are
aware of magical force of co-opting the ex communists in the state structure
and by doing so they can give a new life to the old state. Through the history
of their rule, the ruling classes of India have been able to reorganize
and renew their state through co-opting the ex communists and part of
representatives of the movements of the oppressed into their existing state. And
by doing so, they have managed to turn from an inefficient and unstable dictatorship
into a more efficient reactionary dictatorship against the masses. The suffocating role of various
"communist" parties in India in mitigating the rebellious impulse
of the masses has been no less than destructive role of religion and other
ideological elements of the reactionary classes. Reactionary classes of India are old
hands in turning communists from old foes into present partners. And right now they are trying to do the same in
Nepal."
The Letter, after analyzing the strategic
plan of enemy in signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the Maoists,
says:
“This strategic plan is dependent on the
working of two tactical wings. First,
turn this provisional feudal comprador regime into a permanent one after the Constituent
Assembly elections. Second, detach the Maoists of Nepal from revolutionaries in
India
and around the world.”
The Letter clearly states that, "Use of
such strategy by the reactionary ruling classes is nothing new. Lenin had named it ‘Constitutional Solution’
by the old state to solve its dead ends and crisis of legitimacy.” (2)
Participation of the Communist Party of Nepal
(Maoist) in the interim government of Nepal does not change the feudal
comprador class nature of that state. With legal abolition of the Royal
regime and declaration of republic, the class nature of that state will not
change. A change in the form of
government is not same as smashing the state of the feudal comprador classes
and breaking away from imperialist domination. This is a fact that normally the
leadership of Maoist Party should know and it has to inform the rank and file
of party and revolutionary and oppressed masses of Nepal of this fact.
Even if the Constituent Assembly passes some
political, social and economical "rights" for the workers, peasants,
women and oppressed nationalities and designated them as masters of society, up
until the heart of the reactionary state – i.e. reactionary army – has remained
intact, the real meaning of these laws will be to spread illusion among the
masses and take away the real rights that they have gained through the people's
war. As long as the army is in the hands of the exploiting classes and the main
means of production under their ownership and control, Constitutional promises
about safeguarding people's interest is unfounded. The role of Constitution in
bourgeois republics is exactly to guarantee and serve the foundations of
economic exploitation. Even in most
democratic bourgeois republics the people's rights are confined in this frame.
If the rights which are promised to people come into contradiction with this
basic aim they would easily be trampled upon.
Clearly, the communists of Nepal launched
the people's war with the task that is universal to all proletarian revolutions
i.e. "smashing the machinery of the state" and seizing power. And they
applied this line for 10 years. But today, considering the difficulties that
have come up on the way, they think they can pursue the aim of establishing a
revolutionary state through a peaceful road. But this is impossible! No class in history has seized political
power peacefully. This much of power also have been
gained in the course of 10 years of people’s war waged by the workers and
peasants of Nepal
under the leadership of Maoists. This much of power is not expressed through
the seats gained in the Constituent Assembly but basically through the
revolutionary political and economical transformations which was achieved in
the course of ten years of armed struggle.
But this power, without taking over the whole country, is unstable and
in danger of being lost for ever. The central question is, whether participating
in the state and trying to change it from within will strengthen the political
and economical power of the workers and peasants of Nepal, or will it lead to its
complete annihilation? Will ten years of
people's war be used to perfect the reactionary state or for its destruction? If the outcome is establishment of a
bourgeois republic, then the sacrifices of the masses will serve the perfection
and modernization of the means of oppressing the masses, not the establishment
of a new society with new political power, new economy, new social relations
and new culture.
If the comrades of Nepal continue on the path
they have taken up, that much of political and economic power gained by the workers
and peasants of Nepal will not only not be consolidated but will be lost. And
instead there will be a feudal bourgeois republic dependent on India, China or both of them.
*****
To prove this, it will suffice to Point to
the dominant balance of forces. The Royal
army has remained basically intact and enjoys the support of India, the US and big ruling parties. The people's
war came to a halt before smashing the backbone of the old state. If we look at
the economic situation of the country, how this small country is in the fangs
of Indian state and international economic centers, then the real dimensions of
this unfavorable balance of forces will come to. Is it possible to cut off
these fangs just by being in the government, and without a proletarian state?
What is political
power and the state of dictatorship/democracy of the proletariat necessary
for? It is necessary for destroying feudalism, bureaucrat capitalism and dependence
to imperialism, and transforming Nepal into a proletarian
revolutionary red base area in the world.
That's why destruction of the existing state machinery can not be
limited to and reduced to overthrowing the monarchy. The target of New
Democratic Revolution is the whole bureaucrat– comprador and feudal classes and
their foreign and imperialist supporters, not just the Monarchial part of it. The
slogan of abolition of Monarch was and is correct but this has to be done as a
part of a New Democratic Revolution and establishment of a New State.
One can not reduce feudalism in Nepal to the
institution of Monarchy. Feudalism is
the land ownership relations and the pre-capitalistic mode of exploitation. For
the peasants to be emancipated, this ownership relations
ought to be definitely destroyed.
Simultaneously the politico-economic domination of the Indian state on Nepal which is
in behalf of world capitalism must be ended. It is impossible to carry out this
process without relying on the broad masses and their conscious and organized struggle.
In the imperialist era it is not possible to
uproot feudalism without simultaneous expropriation of the bureaucrat
capitalism. This capitalism also ought to be confiscated; its nature be altered and turned into the interest of development of a
self sufficient economy that has the goal of meeting the needs of the masses.
Which class and with what economic plan will
take hold of bank holdings and other wealth of the country? Will the World Bank
and IMF, wielding strings of "financial aid" and "foreign
investment" continue running the Nepal economy? If these financial institutions call the
shots and India continue to keep hands on the throat of the country, then even feudalism
cannot be abolished, because, in the era of imperialism, feudalism does not
have a life independent and separate from workings of capitalism. The
bureaucrat capitalism (dependent on the world capitalist system) and the capitalist
system overall (be it through Indian or Chinese capitals or, through
"aid" from the World Bank) have transformed and subsumed feudal mode
of exploitation in its service. Whatever is left of feudal mode of exploitation
(including its social relations) is turned to serve profitability of bureaucrat
capitalism. Today, uprooting of feudalism in Nepal requires revolutionary
distribution of land in Terai (the area which is a
main source for Nepalese people's nutrition.) People's War has done whatever possible
in the mountains and hills. But to prevent
feudalism’s resurrection in reformed shapes or capitalist exploitation taking place
of the pre capitalist exploitation, the power should be in the hands of the state
of proletarian dictatorship/ democracy in order to carry out a movement of
socialist ownership in areas where the land revolution has occurred.
No coalition government with participation of
parts of the bourgeoisie (or participation of part of remnants of the previous
regime) will implement such a plan, because private property plays a central
role in capitalist system and the bourgeoisie of a country like Nepal has deep
links with land ownership. Moreover, the exploiting classes, due to their
general fear of the poor of the countryside, will never support a revolutionary
land reform. It is true that revolutionary land reform program is still within
limits of bourgeois democracy. But its implementation in a revolutionary manner
is only possible by the proletariat. Only in this way can the small working
class of Nepal
lay the basis for independent and rapid development of
the country. Only land revolution can become the basis for rapid development,
voluntary cooperation and collectivization, which has a central role in
uplifting the stage of revolution to that of socialist stage.
If there is to be a victory, one can not
short circuit this program or invent a “transitional period” for implementing
it. It is not possible to make “transition” to New Democratic Revolution by
relying on bourgeois republic. As the letter of our leadership to CPNM puts it:
“What you will achieve by restructuring of
the state through this “provisional” step will not even be a bourgeois
republic. It will be a feudal comprador republic. This republic will weaken the
new Nepal that has been born
out of old Nepal
by the force of revolutionary violence but has not yet been able to completely
destroy the old one. The provisional government will open the way for the new Nepal being swallowed by the old Nepal.” (2)
Establishment of a "transitional" bourgeois
republic is not a tactic that can serve to propel the strategy of New
Democratic Revolution. But it is a tactic that serves the strategy of reforming
feudal comprador state. This tactic is very fatal and destructive and could
destroy all the hopes and achievements of the Nepalese people. Confining the People's
Army and calling for a single new army through integration of the two is the
most damaging aspects of this tactic. (3).
******
Congratulations and compliments sent by the
communist parties, Left and progressive organizations and individuals to CPNM
for this electoral victory only covers up the above mentioned fundamental
issues. Without deep and all around understanding
of the objective obstacles in the way of the revolution in Nepal, one can not help the comrades of Nepal.
Making revolution in a poor, small, and
economically backward country such as Nepal
which is sandwiched by two big powers such as China
and India, and is in danger
of invasion by India
at any moment, has a lot of complexities. Moreover, the revolution in Nepal is alone in
the world and the balance of the forces internationally is not favorable to it.
The combination of these factors has placed numerous constraints on its advance
and developments. (4) In any revolution, different lines raise their heads when
revolutions faces difficulties and complexities and in response to those. What is
most disturbing for communist forces internationally is the line that the Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) has adopted regarding how to advance the revolution in
that country. Historical experience has shown that revolutions can be defeated
even if the revolutionaries did not make mistakes. In this case the cause of
their failure would be unfavorable balance of forces. But when the party which
is leading the revolution commits errors and errs in distinguishing the friends
and foes, then the revolution will definitely fail. This is the main danger! Wrong
political line and policy will enforce the unfavorable factors even more and will
make the balance of forces even more unfavorable. Strategic orientation
influences the balance of forces positively or negatively, because sooner or
later it becomes a material force. When a strategic orientation and its
corresponding tactics are wrong, not only it sets into motion the downward spiral
of a revolutionary process but in the long run this regression influences the
communists negatively—if sows seeds of confusion and enforces revisionism among
them.
Revolution in Nepal is in great danger. It is internationalist
duty of all communists of the world to pay attention to this. Struggling to
face the dangers threatening the revolution in Nepal from inside and outside, undoubtedly
will raise the understanding of all communists in the world of the complexities
and difficulties of making revolution in today’s world.
But the end of the revolution in Nepal has not
been written yet. This revolution has gone through many twists and turns and
without wanting to predict its future, by looking at the bigger picture, i.e. changes
in the world situation which provides the context for Nepal
revolution-- we can still see a storm building up. This revolution can, and
must continue.
The bourgeois parties in Nepal have
accepted to let Maoists to take over the helms of their regime at a time when scarcity
and hunger due to workings of capitalist system is on the way. Nepalese
reactionaries have organized fascist paramilitaries to carry out the plan of
assassinating revolutionary Maoists. The Indian state has stopped export of
rice to Nepal under the
guise of preventing hunger in India.
They, along with the Us Imperialists would like to shift the burden of social
problems to the Maoists and channel the anger of the masses towards CPNM. Simultaneously,
by ways of conspiracies they try to use existing divisions among the people
(such as division among nationalities) in order to fan flames of discord among
them and through different ways and means enforce insecurity and instability in
the country. It is possible that such crises could change the "peaceful evolution
of revolution" into a “non peaceful” one. Hard realities of class struggle
may help the CPNM to rupture from the present path as soon as possible. To
rectify a trajectory always requires waging a conscious and all around
ideological and political struggle.
In Nepal and among the ranks of CPNM
it is not a secret that there are differences and line struggles among the
Maoists of the world over the trajectory that the CPNM have taken up. The
leaders and spokespersons of CPNM have pointed to these differences in their
open publications several times. For example Prachanda
(the chairman of CPNM) made an interview in 2007 and talked about opposition of
the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and Communist Party of India
(Maoist) with the current line of CPNM. Or another Maoist leader in Nepal, in
an interview with Red Star said: “For us criticisms by Bob Avakian
(Chair of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) and Ghanapaty
(Chair of the Communist Party of India – Maoist) is more pleasant and
productive than the compliments coming from George Bush and the Indian
Government.”
It is noteworthy that the Communist Party of
Nepal (Maoist) has usually revealed the line struggles within the international
communist movement and among the party leaders, for the party supporters, and
has been a good example in this regard. But informing and sharing matters with
the masses is one thing and launching and spreading a serious theoretical
debate and discussions among them around these line differences which have life
and death importance for the ICM, is another thing.
Today, the main duty of the international
communist movement regarding the revolution in Nepal is not praising partial and
temporary victories. Even when the masses (and leaders of revolution) become
fascinated by such "victories" and close their eyes to the long term
interests, one must draw attention to fundamental truths and the laws governing
class struggle. Especially because this “victor” is a poisonous honey that can
have disastrous consequences for this revolution and naturally for the whole international
proletariat. As it was said in the A World to Win News Service article titled:
“On 12th Anniversary of the People's War in Nepal and its
Unknown Result" (February 11-2008):
“At any time, there is no guarantee for victory
of revolution in Nepal
or any other country. But it could be said that however difficult and horrible
the road to complete victory of the revolution may be, still, that is the only
real and possible way for changing Nepal. It is necessary for the
communists persevere on this orientation and lead the masses in materializing
it.”
Haghighat 40- CPIMLM- May 30th 2008
Notes:
1 – It is interesting to note that most of
the congratulating parties had not supported the 10 years of people's war under
the leadership of the Maoists in Nepal as much. Some of them have
happily praised this electoral victory so much that had never done a fraction
of it for past victories of Maoists in Nepal! Are these kind of
parties happy that one can be simultaneously a “communist” and join the typical
bourgeois political games? That one can dream of bringing about a radically new
society but at the same time put a limit on the long and arduous class struggle?
One can see dangerous illusions in these congratulatory messages (especially in
those issued by the Communist parties): the illusion that as though struggle
for revolutionary change of the society can go through participation in
mainstream bourgeois politicking. And even worse, as if the goal of revolutionary
struggle is to get accepted into the circles of mainstream politics and get
recognition from the system. But these roads have been tested many times before
in history and have proved to be failure. This same road was taken by the
Communist Party of Indonesia. As a result the Indonesian party experienced such
a tremendous defeat that it could not raise its head again. Moreover, the
impact of that disastrous defeat did not stay within the confines of Indonesia but was grave for the whole communist
movement in the world and even was a big blow to socialist China. A
victory in Indonesia
could positively influence the balance of forces in favor of the communists but
its defeat turn the situation around and made a plus for the imperialists.
2 – This letter was sent from the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) to the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in November 2006. Its full text will be published when the time
is right.
3 – One of the articles of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement in 2006 was to confine the People's Liberation Army and have
their weapons under the surveillance of the United Nations. This more than
anything gave legitimacy to the army of enemy. The Communist Party of Nepal
(Maoist) also wanted to dissolve both armies and form a single one. But this
was not do-able and did not happen. In
January 2008 the chief of the reactionary Military Forces openly opposed this suggestion.
This shows that reactionaries never get confused about what is their most
pivotal means of exercising power.
4 – For further discussions on this question
you can refer to previous articles in Haghighat:
- Different articles in Haghighat
No. 30 – October-2006
- Nepal Revolution: complex problems;
facile answers! Haghighat 31
- Complexities of a revolution becomes a justification to attack the Maoists. Haghighat 32
- 12th anniversary of the people’s war in Nepal and its unsettled outcome; 11
February 2008. A World to Win News
Service.
- Nepal, the People's Expectation Horizon Getting Wider. April 14th 2008, A World to Win News
Service
These articles are available in the site of
Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)