the reason the Nepal Maoists could not carry out a revolution was due to their bankrupt Menshevik stageist theory,reintroduced by stalin, of first creating capitalism, then socialism, and their perspective of socialism in one country, which obviously couldn't exist in Nepal. The solution to the problems of the Nepali Maoists is the theory of Permanent Revolution put forward by Trotsky, which bypasses menshevik stageism and looks for an internationalist, rather than nationalist, perspective.
You are weighed down by old stalinist propaganda that belongs in the 20th century. For the 21st century, its time to go for international socialism and permanent revolution.
Barburam Bhattari your "Friend of Trotskyism" and Betrayer of the People's Revolution in Nepal was very much a right opportunist stages man like Deng Xiaoping. Bhattarai' right opportunism meets your Trotskyist ultra leftism.Nice to see your apprecation of a betrayer of revolution - must be genetic to trotskyism. In fact Bhattarai was sub stages man in his attempt to subvert revolutionary Maoism in Nepal. However that is not Maoism has you anonymous the Trotskyist caricature it Maoists want an uninterrupted revolution from new democracy to socialist revolution - no Parvusian permanent revolution based on working class in western Europe or simultaneous world revolution fantasies but a regional outbreak of proletarian revolution in South Asia to support Nepalese revolution - yes we plan for that.. No Trotskyist fantasy but Marxism Leninism Maoism based on concrete realities. . Comrade Gajurel a Nepalese Maoist leader correctly put it this way "The old type of bourgeois democratic revolution took place under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but the New Democratic Revolution will take place under the leadership of the proletariat. When it is led by the proletariat it will lead towards socialism and communism. On the other hand, if the bourgeois democratic revolution is being led by the capitalist class, it will either consolidate capitalism or, if it develops at all, it will develop towards imperialism. That is the difference. So New Democratic Revolution in this sense is not a socialist revolution, it is a bourgeois democratic revolution but it is led by the proletariat. And, when the proletariat leads this revolution and the revolution is completed, then immediately it will move towards socialism. It will not consolidate bourgeois democracy, it will move towards socialism. This debate was seriously carried out during 1956 in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). People like Deng Xiaoping said that since it is a bourgeois democratic revolution, it is the time to consolidate capitalism. But, Mao said that it should not be consolidated, it should go forward to socialism. This is the basic division between New Democracy and socialism. And, the question of which class is leading is the fundamental question ". Also see Mao on uninterrputed Revolution http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/PR1979/PR1979-01-Mao-Uninterrupted.pdf Also : Harry Powell on uninterrpted Revolution "Mao was always very clear about the uncertain role of the national bourgeoisie in national liberation struggles. He described them as “flabby” and “vacillating” and pointed out that unless handled very carefully they may well desert to the enemy at a certain point in the national liberation struggle.[3] Nonetheless it is still correct to unite all who can be united in the struggle against feudalism and imperialism to accomplish the tasks of the new democratic revolution, i.e. land reform and the expulsion of imperialists. The correctness of Mao’s policy on national liberation was demonstrated in practice in China where this stage of the uninterrupted revolution was undoubtedly accomplished". https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.ebbingtide/powell-mao.htm Throw off your Trotskyist baggage that owes much to the commercial swindler Parvus and the political swindler Trotsky. It can no longer survive in the 21st century other than by persuading the gulllible that your caricature of marxism can aid social and national liberation - something which you patently failed to achieve has a movement anywhere on this planet - try Mars you might have more success there has nobody has heard of Trotsky there. On this planet he is a known quantity and his card is marked.
Hi Nick what do you make of this, the communist party of Nepal, Maoist leader recognizes Trotsky: http://www.marxist.com/communist-party-nepal-recognises-role-of-trotsky.htm
4 comments:
the reason the Nepal Maoists could not carry out a revolution was due to their bankrupt Menshevik stageist theory,reintroduced by stalin, of first creating capitalism, then socialism, and their perspective of socialism in one country, which obviously couldn't exist in Nepal. The solution to the problems of the Nepali Maoists is the theory of Permanent Revolution put forward by Trotsky, which bypasses menshevik stageism and looks for an internationalist, rather than nationalist, perspective.
You are weighed down by old stalinist propaganda that belongs in the 20th century. For the 21st century, its time to go for international socialism and permanent revolution.
Barburam Bhattari your "Friend of Trotskyism" and Betrayer of the People's Revolution in Nepal was very much a right opportunist stages man like Deng Xiaoping.
Bhattarai' right opportunism meets your Trotskyist ultra leftism.Nice to see your apprecation of a betrayer of revolution - must be genetic to trotskyism.
In fact Bhattarai was sub stages man in his attempt to subvert revolutionary Maoism in Nepal.
However that is not Maoism has you anonymous the Trotskyist caricature it
Maoists want an uninterrupted revolution from new democracy to socialist revolution - no Parvusian permanent revolution based on working class in western Europe or simultaneous world revolution fantasies but a regional outbreak of proletarian revolution in South Asia to support Nepalese revolution - yes we plan for that..
No Trotskyist fantasy but Marxism Leninism Maoism based on concrete realities. .
Comrade Gajurel a Nepalese Maoist leader correctly put it this way
"The old type of bourgeois democratic revolution took place under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but the New Democratic Revolution will take place under the leadership of the proletariat.
When it is led by the proletariat it will lead towards socialism and communism.
On the other hand, if the bourgeois democratic revolution is being led by the capitalist class, it will either consolidate capitalism or, if it develops at all, it will develop towards imperialism.
That is the difference. So New Democratic Revolution in this sense is not a socialist revolution, it is a bourgeois democratic revolution but it is led by the proletariat. And, when the proletariat leads this revolution and the revolution is completed, then immediately it will move towards socialism.
It will not consolidate bourgeois democracy, it will move towards socialism.
This debate was seriously carried out during 1956 in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). People like Deng Xiaoping said that since it is a bourgeois democratic revolution, it is the time to consolidate capitalism.
But, Mao said that it should not be consolidated, it should go forward to socialism.
This is the basic division between New Democracy and socialism. And, the question of which class is leading is the fundamental question ".
Also see Mao on uninterrputed Revolution
http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/PR1979/PR1979-01-Mao-Uninterrupted.pdf
Also : Harry Powell on uninterrpted Revolution
"Mao was always very clear about the uncertain role of the national bourgeoisie in national liberation struggles. He described them as “flabby” and “vacillating” and pointed out that unless handled very carefully they may well desert to the enemy at a certain point in the national liberation struggle.[3] Nonetheless it is still correct to unite all who can be united in the struggle against feudalism and imperialism to accomplish the tasks of the new democratic revolution, i.e. land reform and the expulsion of imperialists. The correctness of Mao’s policy on national liberation was demonstrated in practice in China where this stage of the uninterrupted revolution was undoubtedly accomplished".
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.ebbingtide/powell-mao.htm
Throw off your Trotskyist baggage that owes much to the commercial swindler Parvus and the political swindler Trotsky.
It can no longer survive in the 21st century other than by persuading the gulllible that your caricature of marxism can aid social and national liberation - something which you patently failed to achieve has a movement anywhere on this planet - try Mars you might have more success there has nobody has heard of Trotsky there.
On this planet he is a known quantity and his card is marked.
Hi Nick what do you make of this, the communist party of Nepal, Maoist leader recognizes Trotsky: http://www.marxist.com/communist-party-nepal-recognises-role-of-trotsky.htm
See my reply above about renegade Barburam Bhattarai member of the Trotsky Renegade appreciation Society
Post a Comment