Prachanda: Nepal’s Maoist Leader and His Work
Posted by Mike E on April 20, 2008
Prachanda, the leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is now poised to become the president of Nepal. And he is emerging as the most prominent and influential Maoist leader in the world. However there has been, so far, little in depth study of his views (of the Marxist synthesis known as Prachanda Path). We would like to offer some of Prachanda’s essays and interviews, and analyses written by other Maoists leaders about Prachanda Path. (Thanks to the Learn from Nepal site for gathering these materials online.)
Prachanda from Problems and Prospects of Revolution in Nepal (2004)
- New Democratic Revolution and the Theory of People’s War
- Significance of Struggle against Reformism and Liquidationism
- Marxism-Leninism-Maoism or Revisionism?
- Question of Ideological Struggle Brought Forward by the People’s War
- Down with Parliamentarism! Long Live New Democracy!
- UML Government: A New Shield of Feudalism and Imperialism under Crisis
- Problem of Ideological Deviation in the Nepalese People’s Revolution
About Prachanda Path
 |
|
|
- Philosophical Concept of Prachanda Path – Kiran (Problems and Prospects, 2004)
- International Dimension of Prachanda Path – Basanta (Worker, #10, May 2006)
About Current Strategy and Tactics
- Hoist the Revolutionary flag on Mount Everest in the 21st Century – Prachanda (Worker, #10, May 2006)
- New Tactics: challenges and opportunities— Gaurav (Worker #11 July 2007)
- No revolution can be replicated but only developed— Basanta (Worker #11 July 2007)
Ka Frank said
Thanks for posting these writings by Prachanda and other leaders of the CPN(M).
I’ve looked through The Worker #7, 9, 10, 11 (back to 2002) to look for references to how the new democratic revolution will be developed in Nepal, and found relatively little. The sense I get is that in the early 2000s, the struggle against the monarchy and for a republic was seen as a sub-stage of the new democratic revolution—that New Democracy would commence, and a new democratic state would begin to rule, with the overthrow of the monarchy and defeat of its armed forces. By 2003, the CPN(M)’s emphasis shifted to the demand for an interim government and Constituent Assembly as part of a bourgeois-democratic revolution.
Although Guarav writes in #11 (included in the post above) that the immediate aim of the party is a new democratic state, this is either a different line in the party or left verbiage to play to the PLA, YCL and the party’s mass base. Parvati seems to be more on point in her December 2007 interview (posted on Kasama recently) in which she says that New Democracy is not on the current agenda, but a struggle for “radical reforms.” This is in line with the 2006 and 2007 Central Committee (CC) Resolutions.
From The Worker #11 (July 2007):
In “New Tactics: Challenges and Opportunities” Guarav writes (p. 13) “Our immediate aim is to overthrow the autocratic monarchy and establish the New Democratic State.” But how this is linked to the Constituent Assembly elections is not explained, other than to state that if the left forces win a majority, a “People’s Democratic Republic” will be established.
The April 2007 Resolution of the CC does not refer to the new democratic revolution. It speaks of the goal of establishing a federal democratic republic along with “forward-looking restructuring of the state.” p.60 It also says that “the party should maximally emphasize on the question of transforming that republic into People’s Republic.’ p. 63
From The Worker #10 (May 2006):
From the 2006 Resolution of the CC. In relation to the proposal for a constituent assembly:
“Noteworthy to mention is that the then slogan of republic was neither a slogan of new democratic republic nor that of bourgeois parliamentarian one. In fact and in essence, that slogan was the one of multiparty republic that by means of constituent assembly could bring about an extensive change in the state structure by addressing the problems related with class, nation, region and sex prevailing in the country.” p.8
Note on p. 10 of the CC Resolution that the CPNM was still talking about “dissolving and disarming the royal army.”
On p. 36 of his interview in this issue of The Worker, Prachanda discusses plans for the United Revolutionary People’s Council, which was the rudimentary form of the new democratic state in the areas controlled by the Maoists. As I understand it, these councils/committees have been dissolved as part of the peace process–so you have a situation in which a step backwards from new democracy in many local areas has taken place in order to take new initiatives at the national level.
Neil Horning said
As of 5 months ago, the United Revolutionary People’s Council’s were not dissolved. They were dissolved as part of an agreement and then started back up again when the parties failed to meet certain requirements. I don’t know what the current situation is.
May I add that the URPC has a very nice flag.
Ka Frank said
Neil–Thanks for the updated info on the URPCs. Having spent some time in Nepal recently, your input in these discussions is valuable.
Nando said
this is very helpful.
1) It underscores that the goal of this movement is a New Democratic anti-feudal rev as a transition to socialism. And that the state they seek is a new state based on the overthrow of the old monarch and the old parliamentarism.
2) They seem to have seen the anti-monarchy struggle (and the mass movement to overthrow the king) as an important substage of the New Democratic revolution — during which the question gets posed of which kind of democratic federal state should replace the autocracy — a western/Indian style parliamentary state, or a people’s democratic state. This has (as far as I can tell) not been pushed off into the future — but was a key part of the CPNM’s agitation on the ground (around the CA elections), and a key differentiator with the other parties (even if this is often not reflected in the western press accounts we receive).
3) There does not seem to be clear public articulation of their conception of how to transition from this moment to the victory of New Democratic revolution — which, given their repeated discussion of insurrection — may not mean that they don’t HAVE such a clear conception.
4) There is most likely sharp struggle within the CPNM about timing and tactics for the next wave of rev advance. There was earlier over whether to enter negotiations, there has been over whether to accept the cantonment of their troops. And historically, there has been sharp struggle (within genuinely rev forces) over whether to advance on the socialist road or on the capitalist road. The Maoist analysis of “bourgeois democrats becoming capitalist roaders” captures something profound about the class struggle within parties like the CPNM leading revs in a feudal or semi-feudal country.
5) The one thing i would be cautious about is Ka Frank’s “Although Guarav writes in #11 (included in the post above) that the immediate aim of the party is a new democratic state, this is either a different line in the party or left verbiage to play to the PLA, YCL and the party’s mass base.”
Guarav’s quote in context reads like this:
“We have entered into the process of this negotiation keeping the three magic instruments: The Communist Party, the People’s Liberation Army and the Organ of the Revolutionary United Front intact. Our party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has definitely changed the tactical line and the form of struggle temporarily, but its basic line remains unchanged, its political and military strategy is same. Our immediate aim is to overthrow the autocratic monarchy and establish the New Democratic State. Keeping the three magic weapons intact, we are proceeding to the election of the constituent assembly, which will be instrumental in establishing the democratic republic by overthrowing the 239 [year] old monarchy. This is definitely a new and risky experiment. It can be a big blunder to decide the policy by fully depending on the possibility that the election will be held, because the monarchy, US imperialism and Hindu fascist forces of Indian ruling class are doing their best to disrupt the process of election by creating chaos, unrest and anarchy in Tarai or Madhes. Therefore our party is prepared for the other option.”
Though there are clearly different lines in play, I think that we can also consider that this may be the dominant line, and that that party expects to overthrow the monarchy and one way or another move to New Democracy (in some relatively immediate way).
Suggesting that Guarev is the one using “left verbiage” to essentially placate or fool the PLA, YCL and the party’s base– seems unlikely and even unfair to me. First because it assumes that the party’s base is more left than the party’s leadership, which is not a reasonable assumption (both in general and in particular). This party has grown extremely rapidly, including by absorbing forces that have come out of other “m’ist” movements in Nepal (somewhat like the way V.I’s movement absorbed Trotsky’s interboroughites.) My sense is that the party leadership has carefully maintained, schooled and mobilized the PLA and YCL — seeing them as a core constituency for the next rev advance. From some reports the PLA solders are being trained as a wave of rev activists for the next advance — the way MTT’s soldiers fanned out into China’s countryside to spur the final years of agrarian revolution.
There are statements made about “this stage is not yet about socialism” and other statements that “new democracy is our goal” — why imply that the first ones are sincere and the second ones are not?
6) The assumption that the rev people’s power in the countryside was dissolved flows from a similar (and perhaps common) assumption that the CPNM was retreating from rev, and dismantling its own instruments of rev power (the “three magic weapons”). Some people took at face value that the rev army was being dismantled, that rev power was being dismantled, and that ultimately the CPNM was offering to be shuffled in as just another parliamentary group.
I think events have proven these assumptions wrong — and at this late date, it seems important to remind everyone that these organs of power were never dissolved in the countryside. They formally stepped back as public organs of power (during the negotiations) and then were brought back publicly as Neil points out.
The whole sour mood (promoted by the RCP in the U.S.) of assuming that betrayal was going on was really a case of “jumping to conclusions” (often with very very little real investigation or appreciation of what a real approach to power looks like, or the complexity of the line struggle within such a growing and straining party.)
VI wrote in LWC-ID about what such transitions require — their complexity, their zig-zags, their need to neutralise opposition and win over wavering forces. I think we need new appreciation of some of those inherent issues.
How things work our are not written, and don’t flow from documents and statements but from the actual struggle over line and between real political forces. (i.e. let’s not get lost in the fetish of the word!)
This is the real world, folks, and we need to take a close look at how real life poses these questions, and what “drawn and quartered” actually looks like.
Anon said
JMS Gives his congratulations (From MaoistRev):
*ILPS CONGRATULATES THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF NEPAL (MAOIST)*
*AND THE NEPALI PEOPLE FOR VICTORY OF DEMOCRATIC CAUSE*
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison*
Chairperson, International Coordinating Committee
International League of Peoples’ Struggle
19 April 2008
As chairperson of the International Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the
International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS), I hereby convey the
warmest congratulations of the ICC and participating organizations of
the ILPS to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the people of
Nepal for their victory in the elections for the Constituent Assembly.
We are jubilant over this highly significant victory of the
anti-imperialist and democratic cause. It spells the abolition of the
monarchy and establishment of the democratic federal republic and opens
the way for the undertaking of basic democratic reforms towards the
completion of the new democratic revolution. We anticipate that under
the leadership of CPN (Maoist) the new broad-based government shall
carry out basic democratic reforms soon in the field of politics, social
economy, culture and international relations in response to the urgent
demands of the people.
To comply with previous agreements of the CPN (Maoist) and the
Seven-Party Alliance (SPA), the bureaucratic and military apparatuses
of the state need to be re-oriented and restructured, allowing the
integration of the revolutionaries, in order to consolidate the
conditions of peace and advance the national and democratic interests of
the Nepali people. Subsequent to the integration of the
revolutionaries, the army can be systematically downsized as the
people’s militia is developed in order to support the basic democratic
reforms on a wide scale and reduce and make more efficient the cost of
defense.
In response to the strong urgent clamor of the peasant masses, land
reform needs to be carried out as the main substance of the democratic
revolution and the main self-reliant support for economic development.
National industrialization can be undertaken in concert with land
reform and the promotion of agricultural production. A national,
scientific and mass culture needs to be propagated and developed. An
independent, peace-loving and development-oriented foreign policy needs
to be adopted against imperialism and reaction.
We express to the CPN (Maoist) our best wishes in carrying out the
mandate from the people of Nepal and in leading them to still greater
victories in realizing basic democratic reforms and in carrying the new
democratic revolution forward. We hope that the CPN (Maoist) and the
people of Nepal will play a crucial role in promoting the advance of
movements for national liberation, democracy, social justice,
development and peace against imperialism and reaction.
The International League of Peoples’ Struggle shall always cooperate
with the patriotic and progressive forces and broad masses of the
Nepali people in mustering international support for all their efforts
aimed at national and social liberation and in building international
solidarity against imperialism and reaction and in raising the level of
revolutionary struggle and achievement in the world to a new and higher
one.
—-
I’m wondering how long BA can hold out on saying anything about this before it gets weird kind of weird.
Anon said
AHH. You know what I meant!^^^
Maz said
It would seem that these links have gone dead with the dissolution of the Single Spark collective. Anybody know if anyone else is hosting these writings?
Mike E said
i believe I have file copies of all of these.
Perhaps we should consider just posting them, one by one on the SARev site?
Maz said
That would be great. It would also be good if as many issues of The Worker as possible were online – especially #10 – which has important theoretical pieces from Bhattarai and Prachanda. I have hard copies of most of these, and could PDF them if no one else has already done so. Oddly, I also noticed that A World to Win #29 (the major theme of the issue is Nepal) has been taken offline from aworldtowin.org.
Mike E said
all of this argues for a more organized work of developing theoretical archives (because sites come and go).
I also think we need a reading list on Nepal and India’s revolutions — sharing basic documents, analyses and controversies.
In some ways, the unorganized mass of materials is hard to master.
emil said
i think you guys are assuming there is a revolution is nepal. however, there seems to be a government led by the Maoist, not really any kind of revolution. you also ignore things like the pla getting paid by the world bank. this may be psychologically uncomfortable for you guys, but realistically, if the UN is overseeing the PLA and they are gettinng paid by WB, there is no revolution. the idea that the maoists are somehow ‘tricking’ the imperialists in not believable. i do not think we need to denounce, as the rcp have done, but it is somewhat hard to believe there is or has been any revolution in nepal.
Mike E said
Well, we will see what unfolds.
But clearly in both Nepal and India there are powerful movements of people pressing for quite radical change — and their struggle is continuing. In that sense there are revolutions going on in both Nepal and India.
There are organized revolutionaries trying to fight through to strategies for victory. There are powerful masses bases among the deeply oppressed and impoverished. In both questions fundamental problems of existing society are on the table == and the revolutionaries are seeking to resolve them through radical changes.
So in that sense there are revolutions in these countries — and we should be supporting those struggles. And also finding the ways of calling attention (of radical and progressive people here in the U.S.) to those struggles — and to the living issues and proposals such mass revolutionary movements churn up.
In other words, there is a revolutionary process in development (in both Nepal and India) — and in some ways its existance is (for the moment at least) very real, regardless of what we may or may not think of particular policies of those leading the revolution.
As for your recurring issue of where the logistics for the PLA camps come from (i.e. the Nepalese government, which has borrowed the money) — it seems like a non-issue. So what? There are many times and places where revolutionary movements have gotten “support” in complex and ironic ways — without it being some fundamental sign of betrayal or change in essence. The Chinese guerrilla war against Japan received help from the U.S. Dixie airlift. The soviet war against Hitler relied heavily on U.S. Lend-lease support of trucks, jeeps, and other war materiale.
I plan to write on this more: but you can’t approach complex phenomena with a simple personal “litmus test.” I.e. “I heard that the shining path executed four leftists in xxxx, what more do I need to know.” Or this revolutionary leader said he will seek investment for hydoelectric plants, “what more do you need to know?” Or “they have called a halt to their peoples war and entered negotiations, what more do you need to know?” Or “they say their revolution is bourgeois democratic anti-feudal changes as the first stage of a socialist revolution, and that there is therefore room for capitalism in the New Nepal, what else do you need to know?”
In fact there is no single litmust test, and in fact you always need to be evaluatng revolutins and their development (and their possible reversal) from an overall perspective. And if you have such a simplistic method (where you establish personal litmus tests in such a way) it is natural that at the end you will say “it is somewhat hard to believe there is or has been any revolutoin in nepal.”
It is true that there has not yet been a revolutionary VICTORY in nepal. Few argue that (including the nepali maoists). But there is an ongoing protracted revolutionary process — moving in complex ways, trying to find a way forward — that has not yet been decisively defeated or set back.
emil said
Mike – yes i agree there is no litmus test. this is why i think the rcp letter, altho interesting, is misguided in several ways, but also it is not right to say that Nepal is a successful revolution. but i dont think the pla getting paid by world bank or the SEZ plan is a non issue or the continuation of gorkha recruitment is a non issue. i think it may be THE issue because the possibility that the Maoist leadership have been bought out is an issue, and there are more things pointing to that than to revolution. this has happened before, such as in Latin America. but i agree that it is better to wait and see.
you talk about my simplistic method, but i have no method. what is your method, and is it any different from the standard RIM MLM method? if so, you may have faith in this method, but i do not, it is not really scientific and it is possible to bullshit about anything using MLM.( the posts by ‘jon’ for instance) Marx himself says that ‘money is the universal pimp’ the bourgeoise know this very well. if the WB are paying the PLA, then i think they do not fear any revolution from them, they have control over them and their leadership. but let us wait and see. i look forward to your article, and it will be better to comment than rather than now. but i hope that you do mention the WB issue and try and deal with it rather than dismissing it as a non issue. billions of dollars coming from imperialists are not a non issue whatever your method.
zerohour said
“you talk about my simplistic method, but i have no method.”
Of course you have a method and it’s been revealed over several of your posts. Anything that challenges your preconceived notions and requires serious consideration is bullshit. Claiming one has no method is a surefire sign of denial and refusal to do any serious work.
“if the WB are paying the PLA, then i think they do not fear any revolution from them, they have control over them and their leadership.”
Really? The US military partially subsidizes MIT. Noam Chomsky is paid by MIT, and subsequently the US military. Therefore, he is obviously a mouthpiece for US imperialism.
Mike E said
I agree with Zerohour (obviously).
Emil write:
Well, duh. that is why no one says it is. The Nepali Maoists were able to lead an anti-monarchist revolution and (as a result) ended up leading a government without overthrowing the old state (and without giving up their army).
this is not a successful revolution (in the sense of moving society onto the socialist road) — though there are certainly successful and revolutionary elements in the overthrow of the monarchy.
Emil writes;
Sure. That is why no one says they are “non-issues.” The Nepali maoists have themselves made gorkha recruitment a political issue (from the beginning). The fact that they have not been able to abolish it yet (before seizing power, and before winning over the gorkha people to supporting that) is an example of both the need for revolution and the need for a mass line.
As for what you call “the SEZ plan”: it is also not a non-issue. How to handle the sharp necessities of a poor landlocked country, and how to handle the encirclement of an imperialist world economy are life-and-death questions for a socialist revolution. But again there is no simple litmus test — and it is hard to judge before the process and agreements etc are worked out. Lenin got foreign investment to jumpstart his oil industry. Mao left all of Hong Kong as a defacto “SEZ” for the whole twenty year socialist period in China (choosing not to liberate Hong Kong, leaving it as a British colony, for economic advantage and geo-political purposes.)
emil said
Of course you have a method and it’s been revealed over several of your posts. Anything that challenges your preconceived notions and requires serious consideration is bullshit. Claiming one has no method is a surefire sign of denial and refusal to do any serious work.zerohour
sounds a lot like the rcp cult stuff to me, but could say the same back to you. this kind of argument does not resolve anything, especially as we do not know each other, so i do not wish to descend to this level. if it makes you feel more confident in your ideology, then fine. but maybe one of your preconcieved notions is that the leadership of a maoist party cannot sell out. what if they can and have?? time will tell. but let us wait for Mike’s article. with or without method, i would say that you guys have ‘faith’ in nepal more than any kind of real ’scientific’ understanding.
emil said
Zerohour- what is your method which you have done serious work over? would it be the same as the RCP or RIM but without Avakian? i think a good debate would be ‘IS MARXISM REALLY A SCIENCE?
emil said
‘Really? The US military partially subsidizes MIT. Noam Chomsky is paid by MIT, and subsequently the US military. Therefore, he is obviously a mouthpiece for US imperialism.’ zerohour
can you not see the difference between one lone intellectual and a supposed peoples army? furthermore, should it not raise some questions? or should all questions be shouted down? so far, so rcp. as for chomsky and academia in general, most universities have some connection with the state, military etc in most western countries. for that reason, i would suspect Badiou, Zizek etc for partly being promoted by western academia and i do doubt their wordy academic radicalism. chomsky as well, but chomsky’s work is actually useful because it contains much factual information. i would not look for a political line from chomsky, and chomsky does not really give one. however, i think one must be very naive if they think that the World Bank are not out to buy out and corrupt and destroy the revolution. this is their job. perhaps this is what is happening.but as i said, let us wait and see.
Mike E said
How about this attemt to apply your logic to history, Emil?
>>>”Mao pledges to support the National Government of the reactionary GMT butchers — and abandons agrarian revolution. U.S. sends arms and supplies to Mao’s army based in Yenan in early 40s. U.S. sends political delegations (headed by VP Wallace) to meet with the Maoist leadership and explore plans for long time post war alliances. Mao’s army fights Japan with U.S. backing, radios, funds and supplies (in addition to material captured from the enemy). Mao is obviously a tool of U.S. imperialism in the Western Pacific.
In any real and living struggle, with twists and turns, tactics and compromises, it is possible to dismiss any revolutinary movement as betraying a litmus test. This method has been used to renounce to every revolutinary movement (discussions of Kronstadt anyone?) — it is done all the time.
The old joke is: Some people support socialism everywhere, except where it is actually coming into being.
emil said
there is more than one logic of history, and i do not have one particular one to share. the other example often used is that of Lenin going back to russia with German imperialist help. but china and russia are different historical experiences, especially regarding world war.
so, let me get this straight. You think that the PLA getting paid by world bank is nevertheless a way of doing revolution, because Mao took support from the US at one time, and i think the Khmer rouge also did. this is not much of an argument. all you are saying is that it is possible to take imperialist cash and do revolution. OK, but is the situation the same? IS there any invasion of Nepal by foreign powers, despite all the talk of ‘indian expansionism’? let me ask you- why do you think the WB are paying the PLA? what do they get out of it? do the WB also want to see revolution? on the other hand, the US probably did want to see Japan defeated at that time. i get the feeling that the arguments put forward are excuses rather than anything else.
Is socialism coming into being in nepal? are you quite sure of this or do you simply want to believe it? do you think our support really means much compared to the big bucks of the world bank?? what does support mean, blind support? i have been saying only, wait and see, but the way things seem to be going does not seem to be toward revolution. but let us see…
nando said
Let me be clear on this:
History is not a filedrawer of legal case studies. “If lenin did it it is ok. If he didn’t do it, it is not ok.”
that is not my point.
My point is that if you apply your method to literally any real class struggle in history — you will end up declaring them all sellouts. and (in fact) there were plenty of people who did.
Look at how the Kronstadt events are used to argue that the Bolshevik revolution was never a revolution.
I feel like we answer the same issues over and over.
Of course we are not sure of this. The future is unwritten. Most revolutions fail.
Emil writes:
You seem to assume that because the Nepali government feeds the encamped Maoist soldiers with borrowed funds from the World Bank that therefore (a) the world bank must think the maoists are toothless, and (b) the Maoist soldiers must be soft on the world bank.
This is mechanical in every imaginable way. World Bank supported this because they hoped it would lead to the dissolution of the Maoist army (in the negotiations that was the hope and goal of the reactionary side). And what the Maoist soldiers believe will be seen at some point (but i don’t assume their political loyalties are defined by who gave loans to buy their rice — that was zerohour’s chomsky point).
What does the world bank want out of it? well we know what they want. But that doesn’t mean they get it. It doesn’t mean that they don’t say (at the end) “what a disaster that decision was?”
Here too the example of china is instructive: the U.S. ruling class (at the highest levels) approved the aid to the Maoists — and then after the victory of the revolution, everyone associated with that decision was purged and demonized (”who lost china?” was the mccarthite slogan.) The U.S. had something they wanted to ‘get out of” their aid to Mao — they got part of it (a defeat for Japan) but they didn’t get their larger goal (a U.S. dominated and exploited china after World War 2).
And there is a value of looking at history: in the middle of world war, revolutionary armies got substantial support from very reactoinary forces — and (at least in the case of the Maoist army) then went on to make one of history’s most radical revolutions.
You ask if those are the same situations. No, obviously not. Nothing is ever repeated. These are all unique situations, with some common features.
Jose M said
emil:
the use of historical references in explaining to you the complexities of making revolution are not cop outs or excuses for revisionism. It is an attempt to show you that even socialist states (of which, no, nepal is not a part) dealt (in large part) with imperialist states in political and economic issues, and that putting Nepal up to one of your litmus tests is in fact a narrow and dogmatic way of looking at the situation. It underestimates Nepal’s role within the larger imperialist economy and its dire need to develop (which will include imperialist aid).
Why do you think the PLA are being paid by the WB? Is it some secret conspiracy? Is this really a way of proving that the revolutionary process in Nepal is over? Shouldn’t we then, denounce Mao for allowing the US to partially fund his revolutionary army?
We aren’t saying or implying that socialism will come into fruition in Nepal. But we are saying that this (obviously) complex and far away situation needs to be approached with a critical and open mind. Sure, many of us have been trained in knee-jerk reactions and conclusions, so it’s easy to deride the Maoists on the basis of them not conforming to a set of principles, but we also need to understand how the maobadi are experimenting with new methods and tactics in a particular national and world situation.