More on the debate in Nepal

My personal opinion is that it is dangerous to try and persuade a party in another country, such as Nepal, to follow the recommendations of others outside the country. We don’t know the circumstances this party faces. On one hand the party could give in too much and loose it revolutionary agenda. On the other hand it can push for too much and end up being wiped out.

No Maoist wants the UCPN(Maoist) to fail. There are two wings arguing these points at this time. I really think those on the ground in that country know best what to do than we outsiders do. Still I have posted this to stimulate debate, not encourage others to tell a small party in a small country what they should do. សតិវ អតុ

From (new)Italian Communist Party
   Central Committee
        Website: http://www.nuovopci.it
        e-mail: lavocenpci40@yahoo.com

To Mike Ely and the others signers
of the call Support The Revolution In Nepal!

To all concerned people

Dear comrades;

I read carefully your call, and I send you some comments about it, about the situation and the tasks of communists as regards Nepal and the International Communist Movement.

You write that in the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (maoist) “one influential minority wing of that party has aggressively (and rather articulately) advocated a road of capitalist modernization”. Amongst other things “international conditions are too adverse, they say, for Nepal to take a radical course alone.”

Is the international situation adverse?

As a matter of fact, neither the comrades who declared themselves in favor of continuing or starting again the war nor those who declared themselves in favor of a definitive stop of the war, gave a concrete and let alone complete characterization of the international situation.

Surely, one year ago comrade Guarav talked about whether the international situation was favorable or not (see http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/maoist-theory-from-nepal-is-the-international-situation-favorable-to-revolution/#more-8937).

He told that “in many cases, the question of “unfavorable international situation" is being (mis)used by rightists or revisionists to justify their degeneration from a communist or revolutionary to a revisionist or a bourgeois politician”, adding that “What MLM teaches us that if situation is not favorable we should not sit idle, we should be active in changing the situation to make it favorable.”

Comrade Guarav is right: they are the communists who make the situation favorable or not. Anyway, communists’ action must be based on the concrete analysis of the concrete situation, and the concrete international situation today is determined by the general crisis of capitalism.

In his article, comrade Gaurav gives not so much space to the matter of the crisis, and does not says something new and different or more detailed than what is commonly known. The same attitude I find in the “Political resolution adopted by the 5th Conference of CCOMPOSA”. The resolution says that “the specific causes underlying this crisis and its particular dynamics need to be further probed”, and just describes the effects of the  crisis.

I say that we first of all need to understand the structural causes and the structural effects, that is to say we need to have a scientific understanding of the crisis just now and first of all. It is not enough to describe the present effects of the crisis: the peoples and the popular masses in the imperialist and in the oppressed countries are already experiencing them. They need to know why we are in this situation and how we can get out of it. They wait for the communist forces to tell them why.

So, the communist forces start their action understanding “the specific causes underlying this crisis and its particular dynamics”, and they do it with the scientific debate and the scientific research.

Without knowing “the specific causes underlying this crisis and its particular dynamics” the leftists wings will hardly be able to fulfil their tasks, to face the rightists, to demolish their statements about “adverse international conditions”. So it is in general (in the ICM), and in particular (in Italy and in Nepal). That is why the (new)Italian Communist Party has paid and pays so much attention to the matter of the crisis. That is why I proposed to comrades of UCPN-M (Basanta, Gaurav and others) to analyze the conclusions about the crisis of the (new) Italian Communist Party, as a weapon for their struggle ((see The Interpretation Of The Nature Of Current Crisis Decides Communist Parties’ Activity in http://www.nuovopci.it/eile/en/intcrisis.html).

The general crisis of capitalism is going on, and there are no ways out of it but revolutions and war. What decides which way we shall turn into, or revolution or war, is communists’ action.

It is obvious that the rightist wings of parties and organizations in the International Communist Movement, and in UCPN-M too, portray the imperialist system stronger than it is without talking about its crisis. On the contrary, the leftist wings of parties and organizations in the ICM need to know nature and course of the crisis. It is not enough to do as many of them do, to say that “this crisis is bigger than ever” and something like this and to describe its effects more or less in detail.

The left wings of parties and organizations in the ICM need to know the nature and the course of the crisis, and its possible ways out, because according to dialectical materialism the communists need to know the objective situation in order to fulfill their tasks. If the leftist wing does not know this enough well, then it not only is not able to advance, but it withdraws. On the other side, the rightist wing advances: it has no need to have a scientific knowledge because such a knowledge is a need for building revolution, and the right wing is not doing it (it opposes it).

This is what happened in the ’50 of the last century, when modern revisionists took the upper hand in the International Communist Movement. The leftist wings of the ICM were not able to fight and win the right wing because they had not an enough right conception, an enough right line, an enough right strategy. They were defeated not because the revisionists were traitors. The struggle within the communist movement is not a matter of ethics, between honest people and traitors. It is a matter of science, of developing the dialectical materialism as a weapon to fight the imperialist bourgeoisie and its influence within the communist parties, that is to say to fight against the rightists who bring imperialist bourgeoisie’s influence within the parties.

In conclusion, you signers of the Call can help the Nepali revolution defining precisely the characters of the international situation: the ongoing crisis of capitalism, the contradictions the imperialist groups and powers are facing, how they are facing them and how many resources they have for doing this.

So doing , you shall be able to deal with a particular aspect of the international situation concerning Nepal, that  is the intervention by India and USA and how to face it.

“Dangers of Indian intervention and blockade” and “little-known U.S. military conspiracies and political threats”

You signers of the Call can help the Nepali revolution denouncing all the forms and extensions of past and present interventions of the Federal State and of the rest of the ruling class of the Indian Federation and of the USA.

You are talking of “dangers of Indian intervention and blockade”, but Indian intervention is already going on. It is a matter of serious activity of information to denounce its present forms and dimensions, and to write its history. So we could also understand its form and dimensions in the future.

You talk about “little-known U.S. military conspiracies and political threats”. Why do you express such a poor knowledge about something that must be and is enough well known? US intervention has been going on for a long time, and it has been openly carried out, as in the case of the activity of International Crisis Group, presided by J. Carter, who supervised peace speeches and agreements in 2006 and supervises the relations derived from this, managing millions of dollars. It is surely supported by documentary evidence, available to a specialists’ research that some of you can surely carry out, as US Government has to document its allocations to the Congressmen. It has been documented recently by Peter Tobin’s report (see http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2011/06/balance-of-military-forces-in-nepal-in.html). Besides, after 2006 UCPN(Maoist) has been head of the government for months and has participated to State and government activity for years at maximum levels, and therefore it has been able to know a lot about th ematterso why to tell that what the US are doing in Nepal is little known?

On November 7-9, 2011 it will be held the Third International Anti-imperialist Conference of the International Anti-imperialist and People's Solidarity Coordinating Committee (IAPSCC) jointly with the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN (M)), in Kathmandu. Maybe you know that the President of IAPSCC is Ramsey Clark, Former Attorney General of USA, and the General Secretary is Manik Mukherjee, Vice-President of the All India Anti-imperialist Forum. So on this occasion there will be the leaders of the Nepali revolutionary movement, and leaders of the anti-imperialist movement from USA and India. Certainly, US and India intervention in Nepal, what consists of and how to face it must be a most topic of the Conference. Surely, the Nepali, Indian and US promoters and organizers of the Conference know everything about the matter and can answer, if requested, to you, to us and to anybody else.

Can Nepal to take a radical course alone?

Yes, it can. Revolution can be built in single countries, it has already been built in single countries in the past, it advances internationally as revolutions built in single countries.

Surely, we have to take into account a negative factor for building the revolution in the single countries: the ICM is weak, and it is particularly weak in the imperialist countries. Let us try to understand which are weaknesses and shortcomings in the ICM, and how the ICM can make the Nepali revolutionary movement less “alone”.

The communist forces in a country help the communist forces and the popular masses of the other countries in two ways:

 Making the revolution in their countries;

Contributing to develop the right conception, strategy and line for building the revolution that is to say, today, developing Maoism.

According to this, it is a duty of all the communist forces all over the world 1. to help the Nepali revolution making the revolution in their countries, and 2. To carry out an open and frank debate in order to develop Maoism. They are absolutely wrong all the forces that say they are revolutionary and that think that to make the revolution in their countries is impossible, and they wait for the revolution to come from elsewhere.

Unfortunately, great revolutionary movements in the oppressed and neocolonial countries are somehow victims of this prejudice. Many parties and people within them believe that the principal contradiction is that between the world imperialist system and the oppressed countries, that revolution in imperialist countries could come after the victory in the oppressed countries, or even could not come, has it happened in the first wave of proletarian revolution.

Maybe they think so because the revolutionary movement in their country is visible. But are we or are we not bearer of a new science, and is not science an instrument to see what is not immediately visible? Was the oak visible when it was a seed underground? Are the data running in the web visible as they run from one side to the other in the world?

Maybe they think so because nobody ever has made the revolution in an imperialist country. So I ask them, but I mainly ask the communists of the imperialist countries, firstly: “Aren’t we communists the ones who are opening new ways?”, and secondly: “Why no communist party has been able to seize the power in any imperialist country?”

And I ask you, after all, if the international situation is favorable to revolution in Nepal, why is the same situation not favorable to the revolution in USA, in Great Britain, in Australia, in New Zealand? Why are USA not able to succeed in Iraq, In Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Palestine?

After all we shall win the game in the imperialist countries. Let’s do it, and we shall give the best help to Nepali revolution and any other revolution. Let’s understand it, and we shall make advance the revolutionary theory, that is today Maoism.

In solidiarity,

Paolo Babini

CARC Party – International Deparment