The Nepalese Revolution at a turning point : dare the new or « reform » the country? (2005)

The Revolution in Nepal is better and better known all over the world, the hope is great to see it triumphing.

Initiated on February 13, 1996, People’s War has kept expanding.

The freed areas consist of almost all Nepal, there are even great projects in progress like the construction of a main road Nuwagaun – Thawang – Chunwang.

The moment is historical. Will Revolution dare to triumph?
In September we worried about the decisions of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to negotiate at all costs with the traditional political parties, to push them to join the fight against monarchy, thus even declaring a ceasefire, i.e. ceasing People’s War.

We explained in the document « Nepal : lead the Revolution till the end or be defeated by sugar-coated bullets?  » that the comrades in Nepal seemed to backpedal before the seizure of power and advocate from now on a « Democratic Republic », instead of carrying out a Democratic Revolution transforming into Socialism when the old regime completely collapses.

The recent statements and decisions of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) confirm our concerns.
For instance, in mid-October, a Regional Bureau member of that Party, Prakash Subedi, asked the traditional political parties to enter villages in the freed areas and to expand their organizations there.

« Maoists will not put hurdles for the expansion of their organization » he inter alia said. « Political parties and civil society should pressurize the government to extend the cease-fire. »

This concept of « civil society » above classes, which belongs to Subcommandante Marcos’ lexicon and certainly not to Lenin’s or Mao’s, is also asserted by the PCN(m) leader, Prachanda.
In the interview granted to the newspaper Janadesh (September 6, 2005), to the question « Comrade Chairman, why did you declare unilateral cease-fire all of a sudden? », he answered:

« To create an environment at both the national and international level for a forward-looking political way out, to inspire the seven political parties to come in cooperation by clarifying their immediate slogan, to reinforce the movement of civil society, to increase political intervention upon the old State and to consolidate Party’s relation with the broad masses by honouring their sentiment and aspiration etc. are the main motivating reasons behind the declaration of cease-fire. »

Prachanda thus explicitly explains that it can exist a form of fight against the old State which is not also political-military.

And what does this fight consist in? In uniting parties having always supported the Nepalese State, until, about to be overthrown, it centralized its leadership by a coup d’etat among the royal family in 2005 and an increasingly present imperialist leadership (particularly the USA and England).
And why does the CPN(m) want to unite? To oppose « fascism ».

But what is fascism? Is it the Nepalese State open reign of terror since 2005?

No, the Nepalese State has always been a fascistic State, even before 2005, even when there was a constitution.
In most of the « Third World » States, there is a more or less « democratic » constitution, which does not prevent the State from being a fascistic State, dominated by imperialism, bureaucratic bourgeoisie sold to that imperialism and great landowners.

What does uniting traditional political parties then mean, since those parties are useless, discredited as pretending to be progressist but having done nothing against the fascistic State that they even characterised as democratic, and having always opposed People’s War?

Should they be given any credit, under the guise of those puppets’ dismissal by their previous owners?
The tactic now followed by the CPN(m) is thus the Antifascist « Popular Front » used in the 1930s in capitalist countries, it has no relevance in a « Third World » country.

Prachanda’s will to « inspire to change the vacillating and unclear character of the seven parliamentarian political parties » (Janadesh) by ceasing fire is but opportunism.

One cannot speak of « vacillating » parties whereas those parties always supported the fascistic State, against People’s War.

The CPN(m) is a Vanguard, it built on its fight against those traditional political parties’ opportunism, what is the point of reviving them whereas they are historically supplanted?

It is not possible to assert on the one hand that People’s War in Nepal has entered the strategic offensive phase, and on the other hand to stop the armed struggle precisely while the old State has to be destroyed.
The CPN(m) questions the fact that the Party leads the Army and the Front, after having built those three forms in turn.

It places the Army under the guidance of the United Front, and subordinates the Party’s policy to the United Front, which is a questioning of the revolutionary principles.

This conception can only bring the victory of revisionism and the defeat of People’s War, because « without a People’s Army, the people have nothing. ».

This conception is the opportunists’ one, who opposed the edification of Socialism just after the victory of the Democratic Revolution in China in 1949, with the slogans of « consolidation of the New Democracy State », « reinforcement of New Democracy Economy », etc.

This conception is the source of the support now brought to the Nepalese Revolution by organizations which so far supported neither Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, nor People’s War.

Yet it is Prachanda’s conception:

« The Democratic Republic, which we are saying, is the transitional Republic that can address the problems related to class, nationality, region and sex in today’s Nepal. Transitional means, it is a Republic in between a New Democratic Republic and a parliamentary Republic with Nepalese specificity. »(Prachanda, Interview with Janadesh).

This conception opposes the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
« War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes. » (Mao Zedong, Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War )
« Revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society and that without them, it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power. » (Mao Zedong, On Contradiction)
« The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of Revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of Revolution holds well universally, for China and for all other countries. » (Mao Zedong, Problems of War and Strategy)
« In synthesis, we must defend Marxism, Socialism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Party, seeing the great things they have generated, whose interests they served, and counterpoise them to the interests served by capitalism, imperialism, the bourgeois dictatorship and the ridiculous petty parties.

We are not living in ambiguous times. For the Revolution to advance, it requires struggles with violence for great ruptures. Chairman Mao said, ‘Only a great chaos can generate a new order’. We have had insufficient chaos, we must generate more, do it at the level of ideas; moving ideas is vital to shape public opinion; without this we cannot conquer power… » (Communist Party Peru, September 1999)

CPMLM of France, October 2005

=> documents in English