INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

THE KING IS DEAD; LONG LIVE THE KING:

The news tonight is that the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il has gone to join his unlamented father in apotheosis. The Korean regime has in fact gone well beyond the bizarre mutation of a Marxist hereditary monarchy. It has become a modern day version of the Egyptian Pharaohs or the Roman Empire with the happily deceased (to those who were losers in the power plays) elevated to Godhood. Even Stalin at his worst would never have imagined the heights of glorification that the Land of Eternal Famine ,the North Korean state, has bestowed on its head executioner. There is little doubt that Marxist philosophy can lead its believers to strange acts of tyranny when in power and strange acts of justification when not in power. Still it would hard to imagine anything stranger than North Korea.

The NK regime will probably survive, but even that is uncertain. What is sure is that there is only one remaining "communist" dictatorship left in the world- Cuba. I wouldn't count China , Vietnam or Laos because they have retreated from totalitarianism and are now merely "authoritarian". The Cuba regime has much less chance of surviving a visit from the Reaper than North Korea does.

HUMOUR:

MARXISTS PARTY FOR CHINESE NEW YEARS:

Too bad the party was so rowdy. To the delight of the world neighbourhood the Party's over.

ANARCHIST THEORY:

STATE AND CLASS:

I originally saw the following item on the Miami Autonomy and Solidarity site. The original source is an exciting new website Havana Times written from a progressive viewpoint but with none of the displaced mindless patriotism so typical of western leftists who worship foreign dictatorships.

I would certainly not characterize Havana Times as anarchist, but many of the items there are things that few anarchists could disagree with. I found the following interesting despite having my own disagreements with some of the author's opinions. Like many, perhaps most, anarchists the author characterizes state socialist regimes as being essentially "state capitalist". I disagree, and I think "managerial" is a better word just as it is for the societies in which most of us live ie so-called "capitalist" regimes. My reason is the overwhelming way in which prices are set and resources allocated in such regimes, a manner remote from the idealized "capitalism" of a century ago (though "capitalism" was always a mixed economy in any case) where they were supposed to be set by market competition. In the case of Marxist dictatorships the word is even less apt because the supposed labour market consisting of those free to sell their labour to the highest bidder is a total fantasy. The labour "market" under Marxism is closer to that of theocratic slave states or serfdom than it is to "capitalism".

I also disagree that a system of de jure government ownership and de facto self management would be anything resembling a stable arrangement. I admit its theoretical possibility and actual probability over a long term transition to real self management. With the proviso, of course, that the controllers of the state would continually try to expand their power at the expense of actual self managed socialism.

All that being said the following is a perceptive look at the difference between legal fictions of ownership and the actual realities of social power. Well worth reading.

SCSCSCSCSC
State Owned Doesn’t Mean Socialist
HAVANA TIMES, April 27 — Recently in Granma, the newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, an article appeared about the economic efficiency of “socialist government enterprises” in the armed forces (4/16/10).

In the spirit of helping to clarify certain concepts, I have attempted to provide a few, more precise, details here.

Apparently the comrades who wrote about the Military Agricultural Union “socialist government enterprise,” based themselves on the identification of state and socialist property by virtue of the fact that this property belongs to the Cuban state; they assume that all state property is, de jure, socialist. However, what gives a property its social character —be it socialist or capitalist— is the form of its operation and the appropriation of its output, not its legal form.
This confusion was introduced in socialist theory by those who mistook estatización (state ownership) for socialization. They thought that for property to be socialized, it was sufficient to place it under state ownership and then hold the state sacred above the rest of society.

The social character of a company is one thing and the legal structure of its ownership is something else. The social character of property is determined by the form in which it is put to use, by the way in which work is organized, the mode of production (based on slave, serf, wage or freely associated labor) and the way in which the surplus obtained is distributed. This is independent of the property’s legal structure, which can be state-owned, collective or privately owned. This said, the natural tendency is for the content (the social character) of property to determine its legal form (structure), not the other way around.

Certainly, a government enterprise that exploits wage labor can be efficient. There are many examples of this throughout the entire capitalist world , even in the USA, England and Japan.

However, though the legal form of such property is state-owned, those companies are not socialist. They are capitalist because they respond to the capitalist logic of obtaining profits through wage labor, which in this case is appropriated by the state. As a corollary, when that state seeks the “well being” of the workers, with fairer distribution, this is what characterizes social democracy.

So what if the state is in the hands of the workers?” the statists might ask.

The same thing would happen as what has occurred in every “worker’s state”: the workers would continue being paid a wage (which would not be determined by the level of production), they would have no ownership or usufruct relationship with the means of production, and they would not participate in the distribution of profits.


On behalf of socialism, all those tasks would be overseen by a bureaucratic stratum, which in the long run —as has always occurred— winds up as the bureau-bourgeoisie (“the accidental class,” as described by Russian academics) who appropriate the means of production and the surpluses, and plunge the working class into deeper misery.

That “working class,” harnessed to their new capitalists (the bureaucrats), would not bring new production relations with them, since these laborers still would not have understood their need to liquidate themselves as a working class and become a new class of freely associated workers…of cultured cooperativists, the new class that bears the new production relations.

The government enterprise that exploits wage labor, seeks profits and concentrates the surplus in a few hands is in fact a state capitalist company given its content…given its social character.

Its juridical state form doesn’t matter. This was what all the confusion was around concerning “state socialism,” which never transcended the limits of state monopoly capitalism. This clearly occurred in Russia but also in Cuba.

Wage labor is what characterizes the form of capitalist exploitation, while freely-associated, cooperative or autogestionario (self-managed) work is the generic form of organizing socialist labor.

For the social character of a company to be described as socialist (it doesn’t matter if the property legally belongs to the state or the collective of workers) it must be managed through socialist methods – not capitalists ones; this is to say, with cooperative and self-managerial forms of work and management by freely associated workers who are directed and managed in a collective and democratic way by the workers themselves.

This would even include the election of management, which should be revolving, and the equal distribution of part of the profits (after paying taxes and other expenses due to the state and leaving another part for the extended reproduction of the company, emergency funds and other reserves).

Even under capitalism there are properties that are legally collective, but that in and of itself doesn’t make them socialist. This is the case of the corporation, which legally belongs to its community of shareholders, a few or many of whom might work for that same company. However by organizing itself into a capitalist form of operation —that’s to say with wage labor, with hierarchical forms of management and control of the surplus by a group of owners who control most of the shares— it continues essentially as a capitalist company given its social character, even when it constitutes the first form of the decomposition of capital.

This is what they deceivingly refer to as “popular capitalism,” which capitalists sought to present as an alternative to cooperativist socialism.

Likewise, there exists property that is private by its legal form and socialist by its self-managerial social form of operation. This is the case of many small family-owned businesses, which manage the company democratically, distribute the profits equally and do not exploit wage labor.

Socialist government enterprises would be those where the state maintains the ownership of the means of production in a legal form, but where the social form of its operation is carried out in a socialist, self-managerial and cooperative manner. This would be the case of a type of company that is co-managed between the state and the workers.

By the same token, just as cooperatives are socialist firms in capitalist countries, it’s possible for there to exit in socialist countries reminiscences of capitalist companies (not in name, but because some day cooperative and self-management types of freely associated production relations will prevail), be they state, private or mixed ownership.

The interesting experience of Perfeccionamiento Empresarial (Managerial Improvement), originally conceived and applied in the Cuban armed forces (MINFAR), was a step forward in connection with the traditional statist wage-labor scheme, though still without breaking from it.

ANARCHIST THEORY:

ANARCHIST ALTERNATIVES BY WAYNE PRICE:

I originally thought to publish the following piece by Wayne Price because, from the title, I thought it was a criticism of the apocalyptic viewpoint that far too many anarchists and leftists in general fall into. As will be obvious from the article below it is no such thing. In terms of that question it is, at best, a caution to not try and set timetables that are "imminent". That part is fairly obvious as the history of the left, anarchist and otherwise, is littered with predictions of the imminent demise of capitalism over the last 150 years. Littered to the tune of 100,000s of wrong predictions to be exact. The author still believes that such a collapse is inevitable, and in the long term he will inevitably be right because no social system lasts forever. Many points for noticing the obvious. The worm in the apple is that said economic and political system will collapse for reasons utterly outside the theories of leftists. NONE of the great founts of leftist wisdom predicted how the recent economic crisis would come about, and no legitimate economists and few investment advisers did any better. Reality has a habit of putting simplistic theories of complex phenomena to hard tests that they inevitably fail.

The Marxist economics that the following author thinks is so illuminating failed its test over 100 years ago as every single prediction that Marx made was falsified. Not one. Not some. Rather all. The whole matter was dealt with by Bernstein very thoroughly in 'Evolutionary Socialism' at the turn of the 20th century. As a "scientific" theory that can make testable predictions Marxism has been proven an abject failure for an incredibly long time.

I recognize that present day Marxists, the few of them that are left, hardly are not tremendously concerned with subjecting their beliefs to a scientific test. To them it is both a matter of faith and, to their minds, an "organizational necessity" to make their predictions. When they are proved wrong they sometimes resort to causisty of one sort or another to explain away the failure. More commonly they simply ignore their previous infallible predictions.

As may be apparent I disagree profoundly with what follows, especially as I am one of those dreaded "gradualists" and very unapologetic about it. Quite frankly it would take examples from real economics, real history and real sociology , as opposed to Marxist fantasies, to convince me that I was wrong. Predictions of 'inevitable collapse' even when intelligently put off into a nebulous future are not convincing arguments to my mind.

So, for what it is worth, here's the article.It is intelligently argued, but the premises are faulty. The following has been slightly edited for English spelling. The original is at the Anarkismo site.

@@@@@@@@@@
Are the Alternatives Really Socialist-Anarchism or Barbarism?
Is a Workers’ Revolution Necessary to Prevent Catastrophe?

Responds to arguments that it is not necessary to show that capitalism leads to social and ecological catastrophe in order to be a revolutionary anarchist.



A statement on the nature of the period and the economic crisis was published by US-NEFAC (US-Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists) (1). It resulted in a lot of discussion on at least one site (e.g., Anarchist Black Cat). While the majority of those who accessed that` site checked that they agreed with the statement mostly or somewhat, most of those who bothered to write a comment expressed varying degrees of disagreement. I am going to summarize the discussion, as I understand it, and make some remarks.

The basic view of the US-NEFAC statement is that capitalism as a world system is not doing too well and will be doing worse in the not-too-distant future. It does not deny the possibilities of short-term improvements, such as a relative recovery from the Great Recession, but it expects that the overall direction of the economy is downhill. There will be no return to the prosperity of the 50s or even of the 90s. Reforms and benefits may yet be won by the people, but over time the workers and oppressed will be faced with the alternatives of revolution or destruction. Without predicting just when there will be widespread reaction, it did expect an eventual popular radicalization and rebellion.

As evidence for the long-term crisis, there has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Wars continue, raising the dangers of world war and of a civilization-destroying nuclear war. Also there are deepening ecological and energy crises, especially global warming, which are acknowledged by almost everyone—and which is another aspect of the capitalist crisis.

For example, I happen to have in front of me a statement by the Green activist, Lorna Salzman (not an anarchist or socialist of any kind), who writes, “Expert scientists and scientific bodies now unanimously agree that we have less than ten years to reduce the CO2 concentration to 340 ppm…Beyond this period, irreversible and uncontrollable feedback will occur from disappearing ice sheets, melting permafrost, and ocean warming, reducing biodiversity, destroying coral reefs, acidifying the oceans, raising sea level, and leading inevitably to crises in drinking water, food production, land use, and public health that will cost societies far more than it will cost to mitigate or avoid these impacts” (2). Clearly great suffering is predictable for many people, because industrial capitalism has unbalanced the ecology and cannot repair it.

I am giving a very condensed review of the NEFAC statement’s viewpoint; I expanded on it, from my perspective, in an essay, “Socialism or Barbarism! Anarchism or Annihilation!” (3). Also see my review of a book on the causes of the Great Recession (4). I have argued that we are living through a reassertion of the basic conditions of the epoch of capitalist decay, such as had been apparent to all from 1914 to 1946.

The Future is Unpredictable….
Against this viewpoint, opponents made essentially three arguments. First, it was denied that it was possible to make such predictions with any confidence. Sure, things might get worse, but they also might get better. Who could say? After all the Great Depression and World War II were followed by a prolonged period of relative prosperity, from 1947 to about 1970. Throughout the Cold War, the big imperialists avoided nuclear war. And perhaps the international bourgeoisie will wise up and do something about the environment and energy.

The analysis of the downward slide toward destruction is based on Marxist economics (or, more precisely, on Marx’s critique of political economy). A humanistic, libertarian-democratic, interpretation of Marxism overlaps with class-struggle anarchism. The analysis is also based on the study of ecology and energy, integrated with Marxism and with anarchism (5). Some of our critics reject Marxist economics particularly, and others do not seem to know much about it or care to learn. Obviously it would take much more space and time than I have here to discuss the labor theory of value, the nature of surplus value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the causes of business cycles, the epoch of monopoly capital and imperialism (and imperialist wars), as well as the causes of the limited prosperity after World War II and why this had to end. But neither have the critics spent time in expounding what is wrong with these conceptions.

Even integrated into an ecological awareness, these concepts do not lead to specific predictions, comparable to the natural sciences. Over the last decades, I have felt like a geologist who is predicting an eventual huge earthquake in California (the “big one”), and urges people to build more safely—but who cannot predict when the earthquake will occur—in a month, a year, a decade, or many decades. Social predictions are especially uncertain, since, unlike geological strata, classes are composed of people with consciousness and the ability to make choices (“free will”). But it has been possible to say, with reasonable confidence, that social earthquakes are coming.

The alternate view is scientifically nihilistic. It denies that groups of human beings act in repeatable patterns (“laws” or tendencies) about which we may generalize into probabilistic predictions. This belief in unpredictability is consistent with a liberal view: perhaps the state can, after all, be used to end exploitation. Who knows? Perhaps capitalism can peacefully and gradually evolve into libertarian socialism? Supposedly it cannot be predicted otherwise. Unfortunately such views disarm us before capitalist disaster.
Only a Moral Judgment is Required….
This leads into the second argument used against our view. Some say that we do not need to know that capitalism is going to cause catastrophe unless a revolution is made. It is enough, they say, to judge that anarchist-communism would be morally superior to capitalism. Among other anarchists, this view is held by Murray Bookchin and his followers.

I do not deny that libertarian socialism would be better than capitalism as a way for human beings to live and work. I insist on it. I reject any arguments—particularly from Marxists—that it unnecessary to make such a moral evaluation. But a moral argument is not enough, not by itself. It could just as well be used to justify a gradualist, reformist, program—and it often has. Once we have decided on a social goal, for moral reasons, we have to then decide how to reach this goal—by reformism or by revolution. This requires as objective as possible an analysis of how the system operates and what can be done to change it.

To take a revolutionary position requires something more than only moral judgment. It requires a belief that a revolution would not only be good but that it would be necessary. A revolution, even the most nonviolent, would involve mass struggle, suffering, bloodshed, and destruction. It is irresponsible to advocate revolution unless we believe that it is absolutely necessary. Nor would many people join one unless they were convinced that they had to. And they would be right not to.
It is Enough to Know Workers’ Consciousness….
Another argument which was raised also claims that it is not necessary to know the nature of the period or the tendency of capitalism toward self-destruction. What is necessary, this argument says, is to know the level of popular struggle, what issues excite workers, and what a revolutionary minority can do to join in popular struggles.

This argument is not so much wrong as one-sided. There are two possible unilateral positions which a revolutionary minority may take, both wrong. One is know-it-all, feeling that it is sufficient to know that socialist revolution is necessary. Then the revolutionaries go to preach to the unenlightened masses, telling them The Truth. As is well known, this is realistic picture of various sectarians.

The reciprocal error is to start from wherever the people are and build a program only as an elaboration of popular consciousness. It is certainly true that revolutionaries need to know what non-revolutionary workers and oppressed people are thinking. We need to know how to talk to them about our ideas. But we cannot just expand on their current consciousness. Popular consciousness is a very mixed bag, with progressive and reactionary ideas jumbled together. Working people are influenced by many sources, including the mass media, the church, and schools. These inculcate reactionary ideas along with positive beliefs in democracy, freedom, and fairness. Workers develop ideas based on their experiences, which include pushes toward radical consciousness, such as their oppression and their working collectively with others. But they also have experiences which push in other directions, such as job distinctions, some apparently decent jobs, demoralizing overwork or unemployment, etc. All-too-often these lead to racism, conservatism, sexism, superpatriotism, and religious superstition. But these can change drastically and quickly during periods of upheaval.

The revolutionary program cannot be based on workers’ current consciousness. That effort has historically been called “tail-endism” or “rank-and-fileism.” That is the approach, for example, of the US Solidarity group. Rather than sectarianism, in practice this is what is wrong with most of the Left.

Instead, the revolutionary program is based on the objective conditions, which means on the need for a socialist-anarchist revolution. In fact, the socialist-anarchist revolution is the program, the whole of the program. But to express the need for revolution requires breaking it up into specific planks, specific demands, slogans, and proposals. And how to explain these planks, demands, slogans, and proposals is based on the interaction between the objective analysis and popular consciousness. The revolutionary minority must be in a constant dialogue with working people—especially (but not only) with the most militant, active, and radicalized workers and youth.

As brief examples, faced with an assault on workers’ wages and conditions on the job, we should undoubtedly defend the workers’ demands for better pay, no givebacks, better conditions, and union protections—standard reforms. But we also propose that workers should make additional demands: that supposedly unprofitable businesses and industries, instead of be allowed to cut workers’ wages and/or firing workers, should be taken away from the bosses (expropriation) by the state. They should be turned over to the workers and local communities to run democratically. We add that they should not become competitive producers’ cooperatives but should coordinate with each other to create useful products and to improve the environment.

To support workers’ goals, even the most mild reform goals, we support union strikes and boycotts. But we also argue that mass picketing, plant occupations, and general strikes are needed. (And so on.) When and how to say such things depends on circumstances…but they must be said.

This is precisely the issue which divides anarchists and libertarian Marxists into two tendencies, those who believe that revolutionary libertarian socialists should organize themselves into distinct political groups (with clear, revolutionary, programs), and those who want them to dissolve into the broader movement. It is because the program is not simply the sum total of the workers’ demands that a special organization needs to be organized around it. Otherwise, why bother?

A revolutionary approach is a complex interaction of various aspects: objective prediction, moral judgment, necessity, and response to worker’s concerns. Nothing by itself will be enough. Only everything is enough.

References

(1) US-NEFAC (2010). “Nature of the Period; Background and Perspectives”
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16222

(2) Salzman, Lorna (5/3/2010). “An Open Letter and Appeal to Bill McKibbin and 350.org” Advt. The Nation, v. 290, no. 17; p. 19.

(3) Price, Wayne (5/28/2010). http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16212

(4) Price, Wayne (6/1/2009).
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13296

(5) Bookchin, Murray (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal-Buffalo: Black Rose Books.

Foster, John Bellamy (2000). Marx’s Ecology; Materialism and Nature. NY: Monthly Review Press.

written for http://www.anarkismo.net/

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

THE FALL OF THE WALL-20 YEARS ON:

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the end of the Berlin Wall as an effective barrier between East and West Germany. This sudden collapse of one of East Germany's main controls on its citizens was certainly not the first, the last or even the most important event in the relatively fast crumbling of the Soviet Empire and the Marxist Leninist system of rule that underpinned the Empire.

The end of the Empire wasn't necessarily an unalloyed good, and many elderly people in the successor states long for the stability and security that dictatorship provided. Many are also offended by the conspicuous nature of inequality that has grown up. Not that the old communist ruling class wasn't just that- a ruling class with all the perks of same. It's just that they tended to flaunt it far less than the nouveau riche in eastern Europe today. On balance the end of central planning probably has improved the economic situation of the average person, but it certainly hasn't improved it as much as some might have thought it would at the beginning of the transitions.

The end of the Soviet Empire was also either the beginning of the end or the hastening of disintegration for a vast sea of communist parties that existed in countries where they didn't have state control. Most of these are pale shadows of their former selves. Some are certifiably dead. Others have successfully jettisoned their Marxist Leninist ideology to become ordinary social democratic parties. This implosion wasn't confined to the 'Moscow Line' Leninists. While the Maoists were already in a state of decline before the late 80s the fall of their supposed enemy led to a much more rapid decline. People (rightfully) saw that there was little difference between these two forms of Stalinism, except that the Maoists had a far greater potential for brutality in power. Even the Trotskyists saw their decline accelerated. Even though they were not Stalinists their Leninism tarred them with the same brush.

Today Leninist parties are pretty much a dead issue except for some very isolated situations. None, outside of Nepal, have even the remotest chance of becoming the new ruling class. Even being junior partners in coalition with other parties is becoming less and less common. Only North Korea stands as an horrible example of what Stalinism was in its full "glory". Many states (China, Vietnam, Laos and, to a large extent Cuba) maintain a Leninist concept of dictatorship while abandoning more and more of the economic fantasies that underlaid Marxism in power. These states may still be Leninist, but they can hardly be called Marxist anymore.

Not that the corporate managerialism of 'the West' is without its own problems, as citizens of the ex-communist states soon found out. This type of society also generates its own opposition, but the end of the Marxist dreamworld has left others to take up the fight. There have been many different beneficiaries of the disillusionment with Marxism. Anarchism (which was already growing) became even more attractive to radicals and potential radicals as the anarchists definitely had the best "I told you so" record in regards to the communist states. Green/ecology parties also experienced a boost as, for at least awhile, it seemed that their main competitors on the left were totally discredited. After an initial period of confusion and a certain anxiety left social democracy has also made a comeback, especially in South America. It often does this by borrowing/stealing mightily from the rhetoric and rarely the actual programmatic content of the anarchists and the ecologists.

Of course there are illusions and then there are illusions. Right wing commentators who were breaking their arms patting themselves on their backs about their 'great triumph' or 'the end of history' were given only a few years grace before history came back to bite, both politically and economically.

The fall of the Soviet Empire, and all the changes it set in motion, was, on balance, beneficial. Nobody can tell what new forms of class rule and opposition to class rule the future will hold. What is certain is that no grand political theorist or movement even foggily predicted the timing and manner of the end of the Empire. This should give anyone pause when confronted with those who, like the commies of old, claim to have a hidden key to the course of history in some sacred text. Beware of too much certitude.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS-CHINA:

AMNESTY CONDEMNS CHINESE CRACKDOWN IN XINJIANG:

The following statement from the Philippine branch of Amnesty International was recently published at the Manila Indymedia site.

HRHRHRHRHRHRHR

China: Fair and impartial investigation must be launched in Urumqi:
Date: 6 July 2009
By Amnesty International
Amnesty International today called on the authorities in Urumqi to immediately launch an independent and impartial investigation into reports that 140 people were killed when a protest turned violent late on Sunday.

"The Chinese authorities must fully account for all those who died and have been detained. Those who were detained solely for peacefully expressing their views and exercising their freedom of expression, association and assembly must be released immediately. A fair and thorough investigation must be launched resulting in fair trials that are in accordance with international standards without recourse to the death penalty”, said Roseann Rife, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director Asia-Pacific.

“There has been a tragic loss of life and it is essential that an urgent independent investigation takes place to bring all those responsible for the deaths to justice”, said Roseann Rife. “Violence and abuses from either the authorities or protestors is in no way justified.”

Amnesty International urged the authorities to respect their obligations under domestic and international law which protect peaceful freedom of expression and assembly, prohibit arbitrary arrest and torture or ill-treatment in custody. The organization also called on the authorities to allow free access for domestic and foreign journalists and independent observers to report on the incident.

Xinhua, an official state news agency, reported that police in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) and home to over 8 million Uighurs, have arrested several hundred participants, including more than ten key figures that were accused of instigating the unrest, and are still searching for approximately 90 more.

The protests are reported to have begun with non-violent demonstrations against government inaction after a violent riot at a factory in Shaoguan, Guangdong province, resulted in two deaths. On 26 June, hundreds of Uighur workers clashed with thousands of Han Chinese workers at a factory where Uighurs had been recruited from the XUAR. Police have reportedly detained the man, a laid-off employee from the same factory, who circulated rumours which provoked the deadly clash. The official response to the violence in Guangdong was to impose an information black-out on the incident, with websites and online discussion boards instructed to delete posts related to the clash.

Beyond responding to the immediate outbreak of violence, authorities need to address issues that have given rise to tensions. Since the 1980s, the Uighurs have been the target of systematic and extensive human rights violations. These include arbitrary detention and imprisonment, incommunicado detention, and serious restrictions on religious freedom as well as cultural and social rights.

Chinese government policies, including those that limit use of the Uighur language, severe restrictions on freedom of religion, and a sustained influx of Han Chinese migrants into the region, are destroying customs and, together with employment discrimination, fuelling discontent and ethnic tensions. The Chinese government has mounted an aggressive campaign that has led to the arrest and arbitrary detention of thousands of Uighurs on charges of “terrorism, separatism and religious extremism” for peacefully exercising their human rights. http://www.amnesty.org.ph/

HRHRHRHRHRHRHR

Molly Notes:

This sort of thing, racist and xenophobic violence , as well as heavy handed government repression, is, of course, an all too familiar story. The sad thing is that such feelings of nationalism-on both sides- are an eternal guarantee that a free and egalitarian society is still very far away. All of the "national liberation" movements of the last century, and there were dozens and dozens of them, utterly failed in building a free society of equals. When something has been tried close to 100 times and it never works, one should consider the possibility that it simply cannot work.

As I have expressed earlier on this blog the decades of communist propaganda in countries such as China and the ex-Soviet bloc demonstrably failed to raise a generation which wasn't ready to go at each others' throats over atavistic ethnic identifications. Such "socialist paradises" were, of course, somewhat different in practice than they were in either rhetoric or in the glowing descriptions of them by their leftist sympathizers elsewhere in the world. Never forget that while idiotic leftists in North America and Europe were trumpeting the virtues of Maoism some decades ago the repression against ethnic minorities in China was at least 10 times worse than it is today. The fact that the propaganda of the Marxist regimes was at such variance with the reality of their rule was probably a factor in the inability of their propaganda to "take hold". The same can be seen today in countries such as Venezuela where the quasi-Marxist ruling class trumpets things such as "self-management" while doing its best to sabotage many efforts at same, while, at the same time, allowing corrupt plunder of state revenues on the part of its friends, known in that country as the 'Boli-Bourgeoise'. In the inevitable end the "hangover" will destroy the possibility for any sort of socialism, libertarian or otherwise, in that country for many years.

There is little doubt that the Chinese state is the major offender in the events in their western provinces, just as they were the major offender in Tibet. That recognition, however, shouldn't blind an objective observer from seeing that 1)the pre-communist state in such areas was no paradise either, and that in some ways it was worse than what exists today and 2)any state built by the ethnic minorities should they achieve the almost hopeless goal of succession will probably be no paradise either and may also be worse than what exists there today. Worse from the point of view of everyone besides the ambitious new ruling class of the right ethnicity who would rise to power in such a situation.

The history of the last century has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the idea that a group that is temporarily on the losing side (known as "oppression" in leftist parlance) has absolutely no claim to be morally superior to their temporary oppressors. When the tables are turned the new ruling class raised by "liberations" doesn't just turn the tables on the old enemy. Often they unite in solid bonds with the old "oppressors" when they begin to oppress yet others in their turn. The idea of the moral superiority of the 'losers' is a common myth, held in place by nothing but emotion and virulent intolerance of dissent amongst the left- especially the American left.

Events such as those in Xinjiang, however, should not evoke a "pox on all their houses" attitude. There is a way to oppose the power of a ruling class without demanding a belief in myth- a myth that merely reinforces the probability of the recurrence of such events in the future with different actors. Organizations such as Amnesty tread this line very well. What they try to do is propagandize for "rules" that ruling classes will have to obey because of public opinion.

Is this unrealistic ? I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other. What I do know beyond the shadow of a doubt is that it is far more realistic than opting to follow some party of "revolutionaries" who say they won't repeat the errors of the past because "they are the good guys". THAT is unrealistic almost to the point of insanity.

My own opinion, for what it is worth.... I hate to sound like a Marxist here, but I do tend to agree with a certain lazy, mooching, nasty, over-rated, conspiratorial old German philosopher here when he said that no mode of production (and class rule) passes away until it has exhausted all the possibilities of its development. Modify that in that I a)think the word "probably" should be put in front of "never",b)have totally different reasons for believing this than the pathetic philosophical fashion of one country for a short period of time and c) the completion of a historical "mission" certainly means more than the production of more widgets and pet rocks.

I tend to see the state socialist experiments (and their fascist mirrors) as inferior examples of the transition from capitalism to managerial society. I think that the managerial societies that have been evolved in North America, Europe and parts of east Asia are far more advanced in solving the problems of "oppression" that bedevil the left today. I think that the internal dynamics of developed managerial societies, given their essential meritocratic basis, are capable of either "solving" such questions of oppression or totally defanging them by offering opportunities for the most intelligent and energetic of the "oppressed" to enter the ruling class, thereby depriving the oppressed of their natural leaders. How close this will approximate to a real solution depends, of course, on the particular oppression in question.

I call this "completing the managerial revolution" in the same sense as socialists used to argue for support for "bourgeois democratic demands", as they called them before the Leninist purgatory of dictatorship. Thus I see nothing wrong, and everything right, about supporting demands for such things as "ethnic rights/national liberation" as long as it is bound by enough rules to inhibit any new ruling class from behaving just as it so will. The accumulation of such "rules" is an essential trend of modern managerialism, and, just as "bourgeois democracy" was a great gain for the working classes in earlier times, The historical gains of such struggles are worthwhile struggling for whether or not they lead directly to some sort of socialism.

The whole matter of "oppressions" is a source of endless agony for leftists, anarchist or otherwise. Some try to deny their importance entirely. Some try to desperately concoct some sort of ideological fantasy of ultimate interconnection of such things and a equally fantastic vision of a "movement" that is an alliance of all such things. This often runs aground when the group interests of one oppressed sector run counter to that of another. Be around the left long enough and you'll be able to find multiple examples of such, and they all add to the cacophony that passes for theory amongst leftists. Then there is the "ideological parrot" response that tags onto everything that "it will only be solved with the overthrow of the capitalist patriarchal state. I beg to differ. I would say that the "solution" of such problems is a still distant requirement for socialism and not a consequence of some mystical movement to socialism/anarchism. At least in the USA, and to a lesser degree in other countries-depending on how much they are influenced by American leftism- , this is compounded by what can only be described as a love of guilt. I can hardly object to the weird personal psychology of medieval flagellants or some Shiites today of whipping themselves or the example of Opus Dei with their "self-torture undergarments" on anything but aesthetic grounds, but I am absolutely convinced that it ain't politics.

Honest to Lord Jesus (or whatever your choice of poison is) you can indeed object to the actions of a foreign government against minority ethnic groups without going the whole pig and engaging in some fantasy of "solidarity" that covers up the sins and possible sins of the side you have chosen as the "good guys". Can I raise my tiny little voice to say that I have yet to see any examples in my lifetime where opponents were easily divided into good guys and bad guys. Maybe before I was born, but not since the Second World War.

TO SUM UP:

1)History has shown that "national liberation" is a deadly card to play, with the consequences often worse than the previous domination.

2)This doesn't mean that oppression of any sort should not be protested, but rather that the nature of the protests should be to put as many restraints of the exercise of power rather than mindlessly parroting the aspirations of new rulers who inevitably want to come to power using the emotions of "the oppressed"

3)This means that one can protest and try to modify the actions of power holders without acting like you support the other side totally and without ignoring their faults- however unpopular this may be amongst those who often gravitate to such campaigns.

4)There are parallels between "national liberation" and other struggles against "oppression".

5)The struggle against various "oppressions" is not only possible of resolution via some sort of "revolution" but is rather the struggle for the improvement of our present system of class rule ,such that the transition to a socialist/anarchist society is both possible and easier. These "liberations" precede rather than follow the struggle for a fully egalitarian and free society. They are important for the eventual goal as the laying of a good foundation is for building a good house.

Boy, I've been long winded on this one.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-VIETNAM:

WORKERS' STRUGGLES IN A 'WORKERS' PARADISE':



The days of state socialism are pretty well over and done. About the only adherent to the full blown Marxist dream left in power these days is the increasingly bizarre and vicious ruling class of North Korea. Many countries, such as those of the ex-Soviet bloc, have abolished the old system of class rule lock, stock and barrel. Others have abolished the economic reality of managerial control without any way of gauging prices but have kept the old dictatorial political systems. Even the darling of leftists worldwide, the Castro dictatorship, has advanced very far along this road.




Vietnam is one such country, and like China it has managed to combine what is possibly the worst of both old style Communist managerialism and the so-called 'capitalist' managerial system. Looking at the ocean of debris left floating after the storm that wrecked the SS Marxism, one is generally struck by the extraordinary nastiness that the new ruling class (usually very much the old one with only an exchange of the tools of power) exhibits. So far only the countries of eastern Europe that the EU has been able to bribe into at least a moderate semblance of civilized political behavior have been able to escape this general trend. The old communist corruption, however, has been less touched by this bribery than the political facade has been.




What is the problem here ? Molly submits that the systematic use of the Marxist "propaganda model" failed in its ostensible goals, but "succeeded" in producing some unexpected side effects. Some of the failures are glaringly obvious. Despite decades of propaganda about "internationalism", once the lid was opened on the pot various nationalisms exploded in many such places. The "proletarian brothers" were not just unsympathetic to those in far distant corners of the world. No, they began to slaughter their neighbours. Decades of the propaganda had precisely the opposite effect than that intended. Because the class rule of the managers was built on such obvious lies about the economy, and because it was enforced by state terror, generations grew up believing that all of what the ruling class said was a lie, including their pious proclamations of "brotherhood".




Vietnam is one of those countries that has opened its doors to western management while retaining the anachronistic old political regime. The ruling class retains all of the viciousness that it once had, but this is becoming less and less effective. The working class of Vietnam, just like that of China, is turning its anger to what will hopefully be a more productive end than racial pogroms (though that may be a far shot in China), the defence of its own interests against that of the ruling class. Here's a story from the LibCom site about some of the latest labour unrest in Vietnam.
Vietnamese workers stage walkout over management bullying:
Over 300 workers at a Taiwanese company, Hwata Vina, in Ho Chi Minh City went on strike July 3 after complaining about managers’ draconian rules.





They said that the company, which produces water tanks and Inox appliances for kitchens, had made unreasonable stipulations. For example, workers were permitted to go to the toilet just three times a day for five minutes each. Workers would not get paid for periods when electricity was cut.





They were also asked to be present at the company 20 minutes before work started. Failure to do so, resulted in a deduction of VND100,000 each time a worker is late.





The stipulations were made worse by the bullying and abusive language from managers.





Director of the company, Ly Cheng Yeng said that the company did not have such rules, and it was the managers who set the regulations themselves. He apologized to workers for the bad treatment and pledged to correct the situation.





The managers were also asked by relevant authorities to produce work licenses, they could not.





Although Mr Yeng promised that the company would register the managers, the representative of the management board of industrial zones and export processing zones did not agree. He has asked authorities not to permit the managers to work at the company.





In the early afternoon, workers agreed to return to work.





Ho Chi Minh City authorities recently announced that top executives of two more foreign companies fled the country leaving behind debts, taking the number of such firms in Ho Chi Minh City so far to five. Four of them are Korean and the other Malaysian and the companies have all shut down as a result, leaving 1,246 workers in the lurch.





The companies owe the workers VND2.2 billion (US$129 million) in salaries. Vina Haeng Woon Co.,Ltd tops, with wages owed of VND1.3 billion, followed by Quang Sung Vina with VND553 million.





The companies also owe their customers and the social insurance agency another VND4.8 billion.

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-KRAKOW POLAND:

TWENTY YEARS LATER-POLISH ANARCHIST SPOIL RULING CLASS PARTY:

It has been 20 years since 1989, the year that pretty well wrote 'finis' on the Marxist-Leninist version of managerial society, as opposed to the other corporate model. That was the year of the Tienanmen Square massacre in Beijing where the Chinese Communist Party bared its teeth and demonstrated beyond all doubt that it still had the power to control the transition of China from the failed state socialist model to a more modern form of managerial rule. On another continent it was also the year of the obituary for the Soviet Empire. The new ruling class(borrowing heavily from the personnel of the old one) in Eastern Europe came to power generally without great violence, aside from Romania, but, at the same time, it betrayed the aspirations of freedom and equality that so many oppositionists in that part of the world had held.

Nowadays the aspirations and dreams of 1989 are relegated to the 'memory hole', aside, of course, from the anarchists who strive to keep them alive. In Poland, especially, where the opposition trade union Solidarnosc advanced a semi-syndicalist program and, in exile, actually cooperated with the AIT and other anarchists, the contrast between the dream and the present reality is especially acute. Today Solidarnosc is nothing more than one more centre right social democratic party. The present Polish ruling class are, of course, celebrating their rise to power, but they have opposition that proves that the old ideals are not dead. Poland is not a large country. Its population of about 38 1/2 million is barely above that of Canada (33 million), but it hosts a vibrant and growing anarchist movement that has a wide influence far outside of its numbers. Here is one story from the English language section of the Polish anarchist news site Centrum Informacji Anarchistcznej about recent actions in the city of Krakow that put the lie to the mutual admiration society of the new ruling class.

@@@@@@@@@@

Anarchist Demonstrate in Krakow on 20th Anniversary of 1989 Elections:

On June 4 1989, Poland held elections which marked the end of the era of the People's Republic of Poland. Grand ceremonies were held in many cities. Prime Minister Donald Tusk had wanted to hold a large international event in Gdansk but was afraid of massive (and perhaps violent) demonstrations by shipyard workers who lost their job due to an EU decision. They had demonstration recently in Warsaw and there were violent clashes with the police. Tusk decided instead to hold the event, attended by many foreign heads of state, in Wawel Palace in Krakow. Anarchists went there to show him that he could run, but he can't hide.

Besides the anarchists, a group of tenants showed up. They have been protesting and organizing in Krakow for more than a year now. The night before, they had a picket at the Sheraton hotel where VIP guests were staying. They also picketed on the main square in Krakow before the demo.

Anarchists had slogans like "Without Us There is No Democracy" and "Enough Compromises - the Class War Continues". They marched though the city to Wawel where there were some speeches. In newspapers given out, anarchists called for a boycott of elections and for direct democracy.

Some photos are below. There are also nice ones here and here.

The mainstream paper published some short films (not too good) here. (You have to scroll down a bit.)

MOLLY'S POLLS:

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF MARXISM ?:

Marxism has had considerable "historical traction", though, outside of South America, its appeal today is pretty well limited to the academy (and an aging set of professors at that). As a model of radical historical change it has been a demonstrable failure. many anarchists think that there is much to admire in Marxism, and the major modern anarchist criticism of Marxism has been restricted to the very restricted idea that it doesn't accommodate new movements against hierarchy such as feminism, the ecology movement and anti-racism (amongst others). All this is, of course, merely sniping at the edges of the ideology of Marxism, and none of it explains the failure of Marxism in its real world political incarnations. Some of it is grossly !!! beside the point, such as the anti-racist position. At its best such a position would advocate nothing more than a diluted version of the "proletarian internationalism"-minus the "proletarian" part, of course, system of propaganda that was practiced with a "vengeance"(and I do mean vengeance) in the former Soviet Empire and even in the old Yugoslavia. The historical results, after the collapse of communism. show the limitations of this propaganda model.

Molly is of the opinion that "fashionable leftism" ie a demand to incorporate anything and everything that is the shared belief of a small leftist subculture is not a reasonable alternative to the Marxist "God that failed". Molly is also of the opinion that anarchism can provide a much better guide to action than Marxism ever did. This guide, however, is still very much in the making, and it demands that anarchists abandon the superstitions of the past. Parts of Marxism are very much such crude superstitions.

Please go over to our sister site Molly's Polls to express your opinion on Marxism. Molly will soon conduct her own post-mortem on the decaying corpse of Marxism over there.

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-NEPAL:

MAOISTS BECOME CAPITALISTS:

The following article is from the LibCom website. I republish it here, not because its subject matter is of tremendous, earth-shattering importance. In actual fact the political gyrations of the Maoists in the country of Nepal have minimal impact on anything else in the world, aside from being a bone of contention between China and India. Maoism, as a serious political current, has been a spent force for decades, barely able, in most countries, to raise the number of recruits that are signed up by fifth rate religious cults. Maoism, however, always had more than a little of the cultish about it.

The following is presently therefore mostly for pure intellectual interest. If it has any overriding "message" it is merely as a cautionary tale for those who might put their faith in other, less bizarre, leftist political movements. Even those who might seem most "revolutionary" while in opposition usually become quite tame once in power. In actual fact this "backsliding" on the part of the Maoists in Nepal spares the Nepalese people a repetition of the tragic events of "ideologues in power" that filled the graveyards of the 20th century.

...............................

Nepal: victory turns sour:
Submitted by Ret Marut on Jan 22 2009
As a strike wave sweeps the country, the Maoist leadership agrees to banning strikes.
Since the Maoists emerged in the April 2008 Nepal elections as the largest party (though without an absolute majority) to lead the new coalition government, they have failed to heal existing divisions - in their own party, within the parliamentary political system and its ruling class - or within the intermingled social, caste and ethnic tensions across the wider society. In fact, all these divides have widened. And since November a strike wave has spread across the country.

Maoist 'People's Vanguard' versus striking workers

The ongoing strike wave is diverse(1); everyone from transport workers, labourers and poor villagers to doctors, teachers, students, journalists and other professionals are striking and blockading across the country. The demands are equally wide-ranging; wage rises to counter rising food and fuel prices, demands for better public services, local councils in remote rural areas demanding increased funding from central government, calls for land distribution to the rural poor. There are also many short local strikes and actions in protest at attacks, murders and intimidation by political factions; relatives of murdered victims demand compensation and investigation of the crimes. Some strikes are led by different unions (with their various political affiliations, including the Maoists), others actions are self-organised by participants. Therefore some will be a more genuine expression of self-organisation in pursuit of material need - while others may be called as political strikes to pursue, not workers interests, but only political advantages of one party faction over another.

And the conditions of life giving rise to the social unrest grow worse. Inflation of basic goods continues, the electricity infrastructure cannot meet anywhere near the demand of consumers; 16 hr interruptions to supply for "load-shedding" have become routine across the country and both domestic and business life is planned around them. (Some claim this is partly a result of the Maoist destruction of electricity sub-stations during the 10 year guerrilla war and the subsequent decline in infrastructure projects.(2)) This frustrates employers and workers alike, limiting productivity for bosses and also lowering pay for workers who aren't paid for interruptions. The hungry bellies of the poor are rumbling with discontent, and even the professional middle classes are feeling pangs of frustration.

Faced with the unrest, Maoist Party leader and Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda proposed to fellow politicians a ban on all public sector strikes, to which the seven major parties all agreed. In a recent press interview, just prior to the agreement, the Maoist governmental Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai tried to justify a ban;

Q: The business community's concerns are exactly what you stated. One, they say,
the government's attitude to labour issues leaves a lot to be desired and that
labour problems are getting worse. Second, there cannot be high growth until
there is an adequate supply of power.
Bhattarai: I wouldn't say the situation
is getting worse. Things were much worse in the past. But the people wanted very
fast recovery; that hasn't happened. Things are improving but not to the desired
level. Both the management and workers have a common interest now, for the
development of the economy. They both fought against the feudalism, autocracy
and monarchy. Now, to create a vibrant industrial economy, is in the interest of
both the management and the workers. But this reality is not sinking in their
minds. This government is playing its role in creating a healthy relationship
between the two. There were some disputes, especially regarding the minimum wage
issue. This has been solved. So what I appeal to the management is that they
should provide the minimum wage. The workers shouldn't resort to bandas and
strikes. If this understanding is honoured we'll have a healthy environment in
the days to come.
Q: So the party wants to ensure that whenever there is a
labour dispute, legal recourse should be taken?
Bhattarai: Yes. At least for
some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health,
education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors. The
government is trying to build political consensus on this issue.http://www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&nid=175026

80% of Nepal's population is rural and amid the rocky mountain terrain there is a shortage of arable land (only about 20% can be cultivated) and a lack of infrastructure; unsurprisingly there is increasing seasonal and permanent migration to cities into casualised employment. But most of the country is too economically weak to develop much beyond a subsistence economy - and in the present global recession attracting significant foreign investment looks more remote than ever.

Nepal is in reality an underdeveloped capitalist economy with certain remaining feudal hangovers within social relationships. (These traditions are either declining or adapting to modern-day norms.) Abolition of monarchy and the pro-democracy movements in recent decades might be seen as part of an unfinished bourgeois revolution(3) - yet the Maoist leadership generally present their desire to move towards greater industrialisation as the beginning of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Maoists portray the present period as one in which Nepal is emerging from feudalism (as supposedly evidenced by the recent abolition of the monarchy; unlike, e.g, 'feudal' royalist Britain!) and so needs to build up a strong national industrial economy. The lack of a strong national entrepreneurial bourgeoisie has hindered such a development in Nepal, and - like nationalist and leftist parties across the '3rd World' - the Maoists intend to play that developmental role themselves, in alliance with other 'progressive' bourgeois forces. The Maoist leadership are reported to be discussing with China the creation of Special Economic Zones (SEZ) in Nepal. SEZ's are industrial zones offering partial or complete tax exemption to foreign investors (and sometimes also to native capitalists) along with other financial benefits including stricter labour discipline. Having just passed the relevant legislation, their concern to impose stricter discipline on unruly workers is clearly linked to establishing SEZ's and a general desire to attract greater foreign investment;

KATHMANDU, Jan 22: After four years of finalizing the draft, the cabinet on
Thursday endorsed Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Act, paving way for the
implementation of the SEZ projects in the country. [...]...the Act treats SEZ as
a land where other domestic laws related to labor and industries would not be
applicable. It has mooted an autonomous SEZ Authority to oversee its
operations.
The source stated that the ratification of the Act, which had so
far lingered due to the differences over the tighter labor provisions, had
became possible after the seven parties recently agreed not to launch strikes in
the industries or disturb productions.
“The Act allows workers to unite and
practice collective bargaining, but prohibits them from undertaking activities
that affect production and normal operations of industries,” said the source. It
also allows the entrepreneurs to hire workers on a contract basis. [Our
emphasis.] http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=1357

Courted by rivals

Last year we observed;

Any future Maoist rule in Nepal, whether in local or central government is
likely to try to model itself on the regimes of those Indian states run by local
'Communist' Parties - crude forms of municipal Stalinism with an increasingly
market-oriented openness to foreign investors enticed by tax-free Economic
Processing Zones. Much like those typically seen in other more developed Asian
economies, but with even more 'competitive' wage levels. But that is so far
wishful thinking for Nepal; one of the least developed economies with one of the
least skilled workforces and a weak infrastructure - and consequently, so far,
one of the least attractive investment options. http://libcom.org/news/nepal-terai-ethnic-strike-ends-concessions-01032008

Maoist leaders have expressed desires for closer economic co-operation with both its big brother neighbours. It is likely that in the long term, China intends to treat Nepal as an extended zone of its economic activity, somewhere with cheaper labour costs to outsource to, so as to offset rising labour costs in China. But, for the moment, the global recession limits the likelihood of such investments. Nepal's southern neighbour, India, is never happy to see closer relations between Nepal and its rival China, but it has its own economic leverage. India is downstream from the untapped hydro-electric potential locked in Nepal's great Himalayan water systems, has longed wanted to exploit it and can offer investment and expertise. China is investing in various infrastructure and transport links in poorer South Asian countries, but northern Nepal is hemmed in by the Himalayan peaks and so remains dependent on India for the continued flow of essential supplies across its southern border. It is a commonplace that Nepali politicians periodically use the anti-Indian nationalist card to distract from their problems and failings at home, as the Maoists are doing at present; but for all the nationalist rhetoric, they know any threat to an open border would be, at present, close to economic suicide. (This was illustrated when India expressed its dissatisfaction at Nepal buying arms from China by closing the border for several months in the 1980s - a move that progressively paralysed Nepal.)

The Nepalese and Indian armies have traditionally had a close relationship. The famous Ghorkas serve in both armies. The Indian army trains most Nepalese officers - there is such a close relationship that the Indian Army chief is honorary chief of the Nepali Army traditionally and vice-versa. The negotiations that are dragging on over how/if/when Nepal's Maoist ex-guerrillas should be integrated into the Nepalese Army are therefore of some concern to India. The Maoists are attempting to gain greater control over the Army, causing serious unease in rival parties.
Old or new Maoism for the Party?

A deep split in the Maoist Party has emerged; Prachanda and co.'s ruling elite are comfortably settled in their lucrative governmental positions(4) and appear to prefer to pursue a 'parliamentary road to [so-called] socialism'. Having ended the 10 year civil war after realising its limits as, at best, an indefinite stalemate between state and guerrillas - and being forced to acknowledge that, in any case, powerful neighbours India and China would probably not sit idly by in the event of a bloody military coup likely to destabilise the wider region - the party leadership committed itself to parliamentary conquest and secured electoral victory.

Meanwhile, the lower level party cadre have gained little from the electoral road. Unlike in many other 'national liberation struggles', the Nepali Maoists did not decisively defeat other ruling class factions - instead, they achieved political power via a compromise with them. So many of the comfortable official posts are already filled; as one of the poorest countries in the world, Nepal has too few resources to expand its existing bureaucratic class or its entrepreneurial middle class sufficiently to absorb former guerrilla personnel to their satisfaction. So, after ten years of war, what's on offer for those lower in the Party hierarchy seems scant reward for their efforts. Now a faction led by a senior Party leader Mohan Biadhya, popularly known as Kiran, are demanding an immediate progression towards 'full communism'; i.e., a one party state capitalist system in the style of traditional Maoism.
What's in a name? The PFDNR

These dissatisfied Party elements who want to 'march firmly onward to a communist state/People's Republic' are becoming more openly critical of the democratic gradualism of the Party leadership and their parliamentary roles. One recent manifestation has been the dispute over names; the pro-democratic faction wants to drop 'Maoist' from the party name and become simply the Nepal Communist Party. This is largely a gesture to the IMF and other foreign aid and investment providers, showing them that the NCP has put down the gun and embraced mainstream politics. But for the Party hardliners this is the most despicable renegade 'revisionism'. (Both sides are aware that such disputes and any resolution symbolically reflect the balance of power in the Party. Those who control the slogans, symbols, labels and icons remake the Party in their own image partly by the dissemination of images of the powerful; for the "vanguard party" they are an essential tool of hierarchical power. See "The Mao Cult"; http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/cult.html) Similarly, a long debate between the two factions at a recent Party conference over 'the way forward' included a clumsy compromise over the retitling of the the nation-state. As "blogdai", a cynically amused Nepali blogger, put it;

Those brilliant Maoists have been banging their heads together for six days to
try and mend a catastrophic rift in their party. It seems most of the
hard-liners want to announce an all Communist "People's Republic" immediately;
while Prachanda wants to go a little slower so as not to throw the country back
into chaos. After what blogdai can only assume to be an excruciating application
of sheer brainpower, our boys in red have decided to call Nepal the "People's
Federal Democratic National Republic." Just think of the expense in stationary
this will incur! PFDNR Nepal.http://nepalnow.blogspot.com/

The growth of political and economic gangsterism

The Young Communist League (YCL) is sometimes described as the disguised military arm of the Maoists, or, increasingly, as their paramilitary wing(5). In 2006, after the Maoists agreed to end their 10-year “People’s War,” they signed a peace pact with the government, thereby agreeing to confine their “People’s Liberation Army” (PLA) in designated cantonments under UN supervision. About 20,000 members of the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA) are living in forest camps as the government seeks to integrate them into the national Army. However, Nepal's military has said it doesn't want to accept the fighters immediately "because they are still politically motivated".

There is general disbelief at the small number of PLA fighters registered in the cantonments. It seems that the party transferred a substantial number of PLA personnel to the YCL so that they could move around freely, provide support to the party’s activities and continue their fundraising activities of extortion and protection rackets levied on businesses.

At present, the frustrated former soldiers have too much time on their hands, too little money and few prospects for advancement. This is a serious problem for the Maoist politicians and for the wider society. Their racketeering and extortion, intimidation and assassination of political rivals and critics destabilises the country, inhibits industrial production, retards the formal political process and encourages the growth of other paramilitary factions such as the UML 'Youth Force' and various ethnic/separatist groups.
Paramilitary or parliamentary?

The YCL has been both an asset and a burden to the Maoist leadership since the ceasefire. During tough negotiations with other parties, it has been useful for the Maoists to encourage a certain level of paramilitary activity by the YCL. It has served as a warning that, if the Maoists don't get what they want, the possibility of a return to guerilla war remains. It has also implied that if political concessions are not given, the Maoist leaders will look discredited in the eyes of their hotheaded youth and so risk losing control of them and/or be less concerned at reining them in. But now, as the two rival Party factions - hardliners and parliamentarians - face each other, who can command the loyalty of the YCL may become crucial. It seems likely that the hardliners may have the YCL on their side, the parliamentary road having delivered so little to the rank'n'file soldiers. Yet a hardline effort to immediately advance to a state of one-party rule would mean an attempted military coup; in effect, a probable return to an indefinitely stalemated guerilla war. So we could see a smaller Maoist guerilla faction taking again to the hills, while the Maoist politicians remain in Parliament. (The Maoist parliamentarians could retain their own paramilitary force and/or ally with other parliamentary groups.)

In response to growing post-election Maoist brutality, other political parties have formed youth groups. Youth cadre of the non-Maoist Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML)(6) - the third largest party in Parliament - have been abducted and murdered by the YCL; last week another was viciously attacked with machetes by YCL cadre. Now the UML Youth Force - itself accused of intimidation and involvement in extortion - is threatening its own 'People's War' against the Maoist-led government if the YCL are allowed to continue in their gangsterism. As one former UML leader put it, when expressing fears that the Youth Force may become as much of a problem as the YCL;

"If the ruling party itself keeps a paramilitary force then there is no reason
why other parties won't also try to form their own," he said, adding "and if
everybody starts to form their own paramilitary forces then the atmosphere in
the country will be very dark. The Prime Minister should seriously think about
this thing," Nepalnews reported. http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-59575.html

This seems to be what is increasingly happening - "War is the continuation of politics by other means" - (Clausewitz).

Maoists have also intimidated journalists critical of their brutality and have admitted murdering at least one(7). Several newspapers have been targetted and temporarily shut down by Maoist trade unions and journalists attacked by Maoist goon squads; the union activity here being used for intimidating critics rather than pursuing workers' interests. The UML's Youth Force have also recently carried out a similar attack on a newspaper office.

In the southern Terai plains region an ethnic Madhesi movement (which includes ex-Maoists) continues to call for national independence for the territory and to compete with Maoists and other factions for paramilitary dominance of the area. A female journalist, Uma Singh, was killed in Terai last week; her murder may be a response to her writings against the dowry marriage-payment system that has such oppressive consequences for women in Nepal (8). But she was also critical of land seizures and extortion rackets in Terai carried out by a former Maoist cabinet minister (now sacked)(9), and her father and brother were 'disappeared' by the Maoists during the civil war. Some suspects have now been arrested, one a local Maoist leader.
Class, state or nation?

Back in 2006 during the popular pro-democracy protests that eventually toppled the King and preceded the Maoist ceasefire, we commented;

And the consequences for the development of any autonomous movement of
self-organised class struggle beyond and against bourgeois democracy? The
industrial working class is a minority in a predominantly peasant population. We
make no hierarchies of one sector of the poor being more important or radical
than the other; but the industrial workers have certain specific potential areas
of struggle (transport, industry etc) that are unique to them and would be of
crucial importance in any future movement. The rural and urban poor are
dependent on an alliance with each other to affect any real change in their own
mutual interests. So far they have only taken sides with one or other of the
factions competing to rule over them. To go further than a more democratic
management of continued poverty they will have to stop taking sides and start
making sides. Despite the limits of the pro-democratic framework of recent
events, many of the poor may have realised, through the flexing of their
collective muscle, a sense of their own potential power to act more directly in
their own class interests. Without wanting to be determinist, in the absence of
an autonomous movement of the poor moving beyond demands for democracy, there
will probably need to be a period of disillusionment with a new Kingless
democracy system before any such autonomous movement will emerge.http://libcom.org/news/article.php/nepal-maoists-protests-analysis-2006

Is the time ripe for such a movement, is it close and soon to emerge from the present confusion? The Maoists were, for many Nepalese, a hope for major change in the stagnating corruption of political life. But this illusion is evaporating. The options ahead look difficult for the ruling class and bleak for the poor - as the Parliamentary political process is impeded by distrust and the added decision-making problems of a coalition government; as parliamentary rivalries threaten to spill over into paramilitary war; as a split within the Maoists between gradualist democrats and one-party state capitalists looks more likely; as electricity infrastructure, food and fuel inflation hardships increase daily.

If the Maoist hardliners break away from the parliamentarians and take the YCL paramilitaries with them, this could easily spark a renewed civil war involving the national Army, various paramilitary wings of parliamentary parties (including Maoist oppositionists) and also smaller ethnic separatist groups.

Perhaps the one bright spark is the ongoing strike wave; maybe an independent social movement of rural and urban poor will emerge from the growing cynicism with the false promises of political solutions. Most Nepalis appear weary of war and many disillusioned with politics. But with these class struggles surrounded by a tangled web of intersecting ethnic, separatist, nationalist and political group tensions, and these divisions and rivalries becoming more brutal and militarised - the potential of an autonomous working class movement emerging look difficult, to say the least. And divided though the ruling class is, the one thing that unites them, from left to right, is the necessity to ban strikes. The politicians have already illustrated that - whatever the gloss put on it - they understand their conflict as an inter-class one to decide among themselves who will govern and exploit the poor, and by what methods.
====88888888====
Footnotes

1) http://www.nepalbandh.com/index.php - is a site that lists an updated chronology of 'bandhs' ([b-awN-dh] adj.: Bandh, a Nepali word literally meaning 'closed') - i.e. strikes and public protests in Nepal.

2) Even a relative sympathiser of the Maoists admits "The Maoists can not just shrug off from their share of responsibility to their bourgeois counterparts for accepting past mistakes. While the past Panchayat, Kangressi, & “hijda” UML governments were certainly corrupt to their bone-marrows, the Maoists should not forget that they were also running a parallel government for the past 15 years. During their People’s War, the Maoists claimed to control all Nepal’s territory except Kathmandu and not only obstructed new development projects but also destroyed the existing infrastructures – a revolutionary method of weakening the “feudal governments” by forcing people into the Dark Ages. The Maoists even used to warn people not to expect any construction projects, as they were uprooting the remnants of feudalism." http://drdivas.wordpress.com/

3) See our earlier analysis; http://libcom.org/news/article.php/nepal-maoists-protests-analysis-2006

4) See our earlier comments; http://libcom.org/news/nepal-a-nice-little-earner-maoist-ruling-class-lenins-footsteps-12052008

5) See our earlier comments on the YCL; http://libcom.org/news/democratic-stresses-nepal-its-regional-implications-21062007

6) Somewhat confusingly, the non-Maoist 'Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist' (UML) is a long-established parliamentary party, while the Maoist party - until recently the 'Nepal Communist Party (Maoist)' (NCP-M) - has just merged with/absorbed the smaller CPN-Ekata Kendra Mashal (EKM) and so become the UnitedCPN-Maoist. Though, as noted in the text above, the 'Maoist' may soon be dropped.

7) "In 2007, a year after signing the peace agreement and pledging not to attack the media, Maoists killed journalist Birendra Shah in southern Nepal. For almost a month, the former guerrillas denied having a hand in Shah’s disappearance. However, after continuous pressure by Nepal’s leading media organization, the Federation of Nepalese Journalists, [the Maoists] accepted responsibility. The main suspects accused of actually carrying out the attack are still at large." http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?fecvnodeid=118628&groupot593=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&fecvid=33&ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&v33=118628&id=95232http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/

8) Dowry is a financial obligation paid by the bride's family to the family of the bridegroom. (Less commonly, in some cultures payment can be in the opposite direction -referred to as "bride-price".) On dowry, see; http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=319188&rel_no=1 and for speculation on the caste basis for dowry and bride-price traditions; http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/practices1.html

9) http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/2009/01/19/Comment/15576