---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: john reed <reed2link@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:00 AM
Subject: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] On the debate about Nepal
To: maoist_revolution <MAOIST_REVOLUTION@yahoogroups.com>
On the debate about Nepal:
The developments in Nepal have become highly influential, and hotly
debated, in the international communist movement—embraced and promoted
by some, disturbing and denounced by others. As sharply contending
lines have emerged from the Maoist tradition, the question must be
asked: How do the lines differ? And what will develop from the
different perspectives and lines? Where will the revolutionary
breakthroughs occur, and where will they go astray? These questions
have drawn increasing numbers into new study and consideration of
Maoism, which has become a more prominent political force than it has
been in decades.
The most thorough critique of the UCPNM's course was expressed in
July, 2009 by an Open Letter by the Communist Party of India (Maoist),
which can be viewed at
http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Nepal/OpenLetterToCPNM-090720.pdf.
To date, none of the supporters of the UCPNM's post-2006 line and
practice have addressed and answered this important Open Letter.
Additionally, the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the US, which has
studied major currents and debates in the international communist
movement, recently issued "Which Way Forward for the UCPN(Maoist) and
the Nepali People's Revolutionary Struggle?" It opens with: "The
central question facing the Unified Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist)
(UCPNM) is whether it can develop the political line, strategy and
tactics to conquer state power and wield it in the service of the vast
majority of the people of Nepal and the world.
This question has become the subject of discussion and debate
throughout the world, ever since the Maoists in Nepal signed an
agreement in 2006 to end their 10-year old people's war. Over the
years of the people's war, the revolutionary forces had inspired
people the world over, winning wave upon wave of victories and
building both guerrilla zones and liberated areas which were beginning
the work of a new society. The Peoples War in Nepal, it must be said,
rekindled the spirit and hopes of revolution around the world. Their
successes, winning nearly 80% of the territory of Nepal, had drawn
such attention and acclaim that ending of the people's war with the
peace agreements of 2006 came as a great surprise and shock to many.
The course which has been followed since has been discussed and
debated--and denounced or embraced--by various forces, because the
Maoists had achieved so much prior to the 2006 agreement, and had
seemed to be approaching nationwide victory. Why this change of
course? Was this a departure from a new democratic revolutionary
strategy, or was this a sophisticated move toward successfully winning
the revolutionary struggle for power?
To answer this question, it must be determined whether Prachanda and
the majority of the UCPNM leadership are leading the party and the
masses of Nepal to complete the new democratic revolution and build
socialism, or they are implementing a disorienting strategy—leading to
a political 'package deal' in the next few months--that will result in
a major setback for the Nepali people's revolutionary struggle. "
Read more of this study at:
http://mlmrsg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:which-way-forward-for-the-ucpnmaoist-and-the-nepali-peoples-revolutionary-struggle&catid=25:articles.
-- From: john reed <reed2link@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:00 AM
Subject: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] On the debate about Nepal
To: maoist_revolution <MAOIST_REVOLUTION@yahoogroups.com>
On the debate about Nepal:
The developments in Nepal have become highly influential, and hotly
debated, in the international communist movement—embraced and promoted
by some, disturbing and denounced by others. As sharply contending
lines have emerged from the Maoist tradition, the question must be
asked: How do the lines differ? And what will develop from the
different perspectives and lines? Where will the revolutionary
breakthroughs occur, and where will they go astray? These questions
have drawn increasing numbers into new study and consideration of
Maoism, which has become a more prominent political force than it has
been in decades.
The most thorough critique of the UCPNM's course was expressed in
July, 2009 by an Open Letter by the Communist Party of India (Maoist),
which can be viewed at
http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Nepal/OpenLetterToCPNM-090720.pdf.
To date, none of the supporters of the UCPNM's post-2006 line and
practice have addressed and answered this important Open Letter.
Additionally, the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the US, which has
studied major currents and debates in the international communist
movement, recently issued "Which Way Forward for the UCPN(Maoist) and
the Nepali People's Revolutionary Struggle?" It opens with: "The
central question facing the Unified Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist)
(UCPNM) is whether it can develop the political line, strategy and
tactics to conquer state power and wield it in the service of the vast
majority of the people of Nepal and the world.
This question has become the subject of discussion and debate
throughout the world, ever since the Maoists in Nepal signed an
agreement in 2006 to end their 10-year old people's war. Over the
years of the people's war, the revolutionary forces had inspired
people the world over, winning wave upon wave of victories and
building both guerrilla zones and liberated areas which were beginning
the work of a new society. The Peoples War in Nepal, it must be said,
rekindled the spirit and hopes of revolution around the world. Their
successes, winning nearly 80% of the territory of Nepal, had drawn
such attention and acclaim that ending of the people's war with the
peace agreements of 2006 came as a great surprise and shock to many.
The course which has been followed since has been discussed and
debated--and denounced or embraced--by various forces, because the
Maoists had achieved so much prior to the 2006 agreement, and had
seemed to be approaching nationwide victory. Why this change of
course? Was this a departure from a new democratic revolutionary
strategy, or was this a sophisticated move toward successfully winning
the revolutionary struggle for power?
To answer this question, it must be determined whether Prachanda and
the majority of the UCPNM leadership are leading the party and the
masses of Nepal to complete the new democratic revolution and build
socialism, or they are implementing a disorienting strategy—leading to
a political 'package deal' in the next few months--that will result in
a major setback for the Nepali people's revolutionary struggle. "
Read more of this study at:
http://mlmrsg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:which-way-forward-for-the-ucpnmaoist-and-the-nepali-peoples-revolutionary-struggle&catid=25:articles.
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment