Egyptian Revolution solidarity rally, Aotea Square, Auckland, 2pm, Saturday 5th Feb

Powerful images of the people's revolution in Egypt

Video: Wellington public meeting on the Nepal revolution

There’s a revolution going on, but most New Zealanders – including most activists – haven’t heard of it.

That’s why the current national speaking tour by Australian socialist Ben Peterson is important.

Ben has been talking about the unfolding revolution in Nepal. Last year, he spent four months in the country with the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

“It’s so hard to get good information about what’s going on”, says Ben. “That’s why I decided to go there myself”.

The national tour was jointly organized by the Workers Party, Socialist Worker (publishers of UNITYblog) and the International Socialist Organisation.

The third meeting of the tour drew over 20 people to the Newtown Community Centre in Wellington. Ben explained some of the history of Nepal and its oppressive monarchy, before focusing on the development of the Maoist revolutionary movement.

“They launched a People’s War On February 13, 1996. It wasn’t a meaningful insurgency initially, but the Maoist movement started to gain popular support.

“They would take up people’s day to day demands, the rights of women, people of low caste, of national groups to be taught in their native language. They would redistribute land to people without it and force corrupt police, or money-lenders, out of the village.

“In 2001, the Maoist Party adopted the Prachanda Path, getting away from some of the more dogmatic beginnings and started to look to the cities for people to get involved in a broad democratic movement against the King.

“In 2002, King Gyanendra dismissed Parliament and took all power back under his personal control. In 2006, the Jana Andolan 2 (the Second People’s Movement) started as a call for a general strike. The King declared ‘shoot on sight’ notices for protesters. He was forced to back down.

“Under popular pressure, led by the Maoists, elections to the Constituent Assembly were finally decreed in 2008. The Maoists won 40 percent of the seats. The Royalist parties got less than half a dozen seats. It was a vindication of the revolution.

“As part of the peace agreement, it was agreed that the old Royalist military and the Maoist Peoples Liberation Army would be integrated into a new army around a new constitution drafted by the people.

“After repeated insubordination, the Maoists dismissed the head of the army. Then the right wing parties used the president to reinstate him unconstitutionally. The Maoists resigned from the government.

“The whole time this process has been happening, the real fundamental change has been happening at the grassroots level. I spent two weeks with the Peoples Liberation Army. There’s a lot of frustration. They wanted to be out doing meaningful development tasks.

“The biggest changes in Nepal are the social changes. The fact that a dalit (someone from a low caste family) can marry someone from a different ethnic group would not even have been close to a realistic possibility a few years ago. The gender roles have been challenged, too.

“The Maoists are a listed terrorist organisation in the US. From the mainstream political parties, there are accusations that there is supposedly a culture of fear in the countryside. Those claims of oppression are hollow.

“In the villages of Rolpa, road building was organized by the Maoists and made by their activists and the local community. The police and military arrested people for working on the road, and some were shot. That shows how oppressive the police and military are.

“Since 2006, the Maoists have been able to operate overground. They’ve been able to play a role in trade union organizing, building up democratic, rank-and-file unionism.

“The thing that’s exciting, that makes it a revolution, is that the people of Nepal have the absolute knowledge that they have the power to change the way their society operates. That is what I saw when I was in Nepal.”

The discussions and questions from the floor that made up the last part of the meeting focused on the current balance of power in the country, the tactics and alliances that the Maoists have pursued, the role of Western NGOs and aid agencies operating in Nepal and the Maoist approach to the peace process.

You can watch full video footage of Ben’s talk below.

Ben Peterson BFM interview

Ben Peterson (pictured with hat) was interviewd by Mikey Havok on BFM’s breakfast show on Monday. Ben’s speaking tour continues with talks in Christchurch and Dunedin still to come.
See details here.

Click link below to listen:

Revolutionary movement in Nepal: Ben Peterson

Ben is a 20 year old Australian activist who lived in Nepal last year. He’s doing a speaking tour of New Zealand (March 21-26) talking about the revolutionary movement in Nepal. Ben Peterson was interviewd by Mikey Havok on BFM’s breakfast show on Monday.

Marx’s Ecology and The Ecological Revolution

An interview with John Bellamy Foster by Aleix Bombila for En Lucha (Spain).
From MRzine

John Bellamy Foster, is editor of Monthly Review, 

and author of Marx’s Ecology and The Ecological Revolution.

En Lucha: In your book Marx’s Ecology you argue that Marxism has a lot to offer to the ecologist movement. What kind of united work can be established between Marxists and ecologists?

JBF: I think it is important to recognize that Marxists and ecologists are not entirely different groups. Of course it is true that there have been Reds who have been anti-ecological, and Greens who have been anti-Marxist. But it is not uncommon for the two to overlap, and increasingly to converge. Many socialists are environmentalists and many environmentalists are socialists. Indeed, there is a sense in which Marxism and ecology, both classically and today, lead to the same conclusion. For Marx, the goal was the creation of a society in which the metabolic relation between humanity and nature (i.e. production) was rationally regulated by the associated producers. The original title of my book that you refer to was supposed to be Marx and Ecology, but I changed it to Marx’s Ecology because of the depth of Marx’s ecological conceptions.

I would argue that a critical Marxist approach, especially in our time, requires an ecological worldview, while a critical human ecology requires an anti-capitalist and ultimately socialist orientation (i.e., a Marxist one). In terms of united work that Marxists and ecologists can share, I would say social justice and environmental sustainability: saving humanity and saving the earth. You can’t expect to achieve one without the other, and neither is possible under the existing system. Probably the strongest single voice for an ecological relation in the world today is Evo Morales, the socialist (and indigenous) president of Bolivia. After the failed Copenhagen conference on climate change, Fidel Castro said that we used to think we were in a struggle simply to determine the society of the future, but we now know we are in a struggle for survival. We have reached a point where historical materialists are taking global leadership in defining the ecological needs of humanity.

Eyewitness to a Revolution in Nepal

NZ speaking tour by Ben Peterson

21-26 March 2010

Ben Peterson is a young Australian socialist who spent one year in Nepal in close association with the revolutionary forces who recently overthrew feudalism and are today confronting capitalism and imperialism. Ben is crossing the Tasman for a speaking tour of New Zealand from 21-26 March. His visit will be a great opportunity to learn more about the exciting events in Nepal.

Ben has this to say about the struggle:

"In 2006, a Peoples’ Movement overthrew Nepal’s ruling monarchy. They’re fighting to build a new Nepal free of poverty, oppression and discrimination by sex, caste or race.

When I was in Nepal I met amazing people, peasant farmers, workers, students, youth, and the elderly, all fighting for a democratic future. Everywhere I went there was a common desire for something better.

Leading the struggle is the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), who built on support earned during the Peoples’ War (1996-2006) to win a majority of votes in democratic elections, enabling them to form a revolutionary government. That government was undermined by forces hostile to the Peoples’ Movement.

Today, the struggle continues at all levels of Nepalese society. It’s not over, but the people of Nepal are experiencing more control over their lands and communities. And if this 21st century revolution continues it will impact on the lives of many more.”

To find out more about Ben's experiences and the Nepal Revolution go to Ben's blog: http://maobadiwatch.blogspot.com/ 

Activists from the Workers Party and Socialist Worker are organising the tour, with meetings planned in Auckland, Hamilton, Rotorua, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.

We're inviting other interested groups and individuals to support and promote Ben's tour. If you would like to help out, contact these regional and national coordinators:

Auckland - Daphna Whitmore, wpnz(at)clear.net.nz.

Hamilton - Jared Philips, jared(at)unite.org.nz, 029-4949 863.

Rotorua - Bernie Hornfeck, bernieh(at)clear.net.nz, (07)345 9853.

Wellington - Alastair Reith, alastair.reith(at)gmail.com, 027-711 9591.

Christchurch - Phil Ferguson, philp.ferguson(at)canterbury.ac.nz, 021-443 948.

Dunedin - Andrew Tait, andrewmtait(at)hotmail.com, 027-606 9549.

National coordination/publicity - Vaughan Gunson, svpl(at)xtra.co.nz, 021-0415 082.

As meeting details are finalised a full tour itinerary will be circulated.

You can join the Facebook group: Ben Peterson NZ Speaking Tour. More information and links will be posted there.

A PDF publicity flyer can be downloaded here. 

LINKS ON THE NEPAL REVOLUTION:

Mike Ely, Eyes on the Maobadi: Four Reasons Nepal’s Revolution Matters.
Introductory PDF pamphlet - A Revolution at the Brink: Stand with Nepal.
More in depth PDF pamphlet - Kasama Articles: On the Maobadi and the Crisis in Nepal.

Scottish socialists on 1989 & the Fall of the Wall

Scottish-based online magazine Democratic Green Socialist has extensive coverage of the Fall of the Wall, with British socialists giving different perspectives on life under Stalinism, whether Russia and it’s East European satellites were really socialist etc. [Picture shows statue of Karl Marx and Frederik Engles in Berlin]. Their blurb says: For all those seeking a left antidote to the mainstream media free market triumphalism around the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Issue No 9 of DGS is a special issue dedicated to debate and discussion around 1989, the fall of communism and all things Soviet Bloc related. Contents this issue are: Editorial: Fall of the Wall – Twenty years on, DGS dedicates an entire issue to the fall of the Soviet Bloc and asks whether its time for a historical re-evaluation. Histories, Analyses and Views – Part 1: Auferstanden Aus Ruinen, Andy Newman argues we need to remember both the good and the bad about the DDR. John Wight laments the passing of the USSR in a brief history of the Soviet Union. Neil Davidson celebrates The revolutions of 1989. Sinead Daly and Christine Thomas on Women & Family after the fall of the Wall. Kevin Williamson argues Freedom is a Noble Thing Science: Steve Arnott on The cold war and the space race Culture: Graeme McIver reviews Goodbye Lenin, Anne Edmonds reviews The Lives of Others Graham Jepps reviews The Case of Comrade Tuleyev by Victor Serge. Three cheers for more equal societies as Dave Watt reviews The Spirit Level Art. Liz Walker on Art and the Revolution – before, during and after. Histories, Analyses And Views – Part 2: Defend October, not Stalinism argues Luke Ivory. As an ‘informed tourist’ Steve Mowat casts his eye From Berlin to Bulgaria and The People behind the Wall. Gary Fraser on the sociological history of East Germany.

The revolutions of 1989 – bringing down the Wall

It is twenty years this month since the Berlin Wall and the Stalinist dictatorships of Eastern Europe fell. In the following articles Eastern European socialists, from the groups affiliated with the International Socialist Tendency (IST), recall what happened twenty years ago. The IST (of which Socialist Worker NZ is a member) upholds the view that the Stalinist countries were state capitalist, not socialist or communist in any way. These articles first appeared in the British newspaper Socialist Worker. Gabi Engelhardt [right] was a leading member of the underground left in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989. She spoke to Yuri Prasad about her experiences, and the unfinished business of the revolution that she and her comrades helped to initiate. The events of autumn 1989, and the end of the East German state, can be traced back to the spring and summer before the Wall came down – and even further back in history as well. The revolutions of 1989 stood in the tradition of the revolts of East Germany in 1953, Poland in 1956 and 1968 in Czechoslovakia. In East Germany people “voted with their feet”, by leaving for West Germany. The worldwide deterioration of the economic and political situation in 1989 – particularly in the Eastern Bloc – saw the trickle turn into a flood. I was part of a group who decided that we didn’t want to leave, and give up our homes, families and lives – we wanted to make change at home.

Continue

US ratchets up pressure on Russia amidst shifting imperial relativities

by Grant Morgan 27 October 2009 During October 2009, Washington suddenly ratcheted up its pressure on Russia. We are starting to see a slide back to a Cold War chill between the world’s two big nuclear powers. Acting on orders from US president Barack Obama, his vice-president Joe Biden toured Eastern Europe where he called for revolutions against authoritarian rule in Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Biden specifically named these six countries, which all happen to border Russia. Revolutions against authoritarian rule is, of course, code for pro-US revolutions. Likewise, Biden’s talk about spheres of influence being an outdated 19th century concept is code for Washington’s drive to undermine Moscow’s influence over bordering countries in order to defend US global influence. The US private intelligence agency Stratfor has analysed Washington’s renewed pressure on Moscow and its likely downstream implications. See the essay “Russia, Iran and the Biden Speech” on the Stratfor webpage. Washington’s renewed sabre rattling against Moscow grows out of the relative decline of American imperial power in the face of the economic, political and military rise of China, which is allying with Russia. The 20th century’s two World Wars grew out of Great Power moves to redivide an already divided world at a time of shifting imperial relativities. Now we are beginning to experience something similar with the upturn in Washington’s belligerence towards Moscow as a consequence of America’s relative decline, especially in relation to China. This frightening scenario contains the germs of new wars, possibly on a global scale and including nuclear exchanges. The shifting imperial relativities of the early 21st century both spring from and intersect with the quartet of contradictions driving late capitalism towards global collapse. The profitability crisis, the ecological crisis, the resource crisis and the legitimacy crisis are accelerating and coalescing worldwide. While the existential impacts of this quartet of contradictions may be slowed by intelligent government actions, they cannot be halted. Indeed, they are more likely to be hastened by stupid government actions flowing from the imperatives of competitive profiteering and imperial rivalries. The world is entering very dangerous times as social collapse contradictions become interwoven with shifting imperial relativities. Nearly a century ago, the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg predicted our future in her famous phrase “Socialism or Barbarism”. Given today’s perils of climate warming, nuclear warfare and resource depletion, we possibly need to upgrade her warning to “Socialism or Extinction”. Some of the feedback I get from good people runs along these lines: “We hate and fear what’s happening in the world. But socialism as a global force appears to be dead. There doesn’t seem to be any believable alternative to capitalism.” While I understand these sentiments, I don’t share them. Why? Because the intensification of social contradictions and imperial tensions mean that global capitalism is on a slide towards collapse and revolution. The real question arising within a historically short time period will be: “Capitalism is dying, so what will replace it?” During that interregnum the world will experience turbulent conflicts between opposing social forces. A new global order that’s better, not worse, than capitalism will grow from struggles for practical gains that strengthen the grassroots and weaken the elites. This is the living terrain of a powerful socialist rebirth. This is a process already underway in every country. This is where hope can realistically be found. If you liked this story, forward it to your friends. Feel free to contact the author at grantmorgan@paradise.net.nz Full address of the Stratfor article: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091026_russia_iran_and_biden_speech?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091026&utm_content=readmore

Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #1 ― Insurrections or revolutions? The role of the political instrument

Marta Harnecker (left)

by Marta Harnecker, translated by Federico Fuentes for Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal 1. The recent popular uprisings at the turn of the 21st century that have rocked numerous countries such as Argentina and Bolivia ― and, more generally, the history of the multiple social explosions that have occurred in Latin America and the rest of the world ― have undoubtedly demonstrated that the initiative of the masses, in and of itself, is not enough to defeat ruling regimes. 2. Impoverished urban and country masses, lacking a well-defined plan, have risen up, seized highways, towns and neighbourhoods, ransacked stores and stormed parliaments, but despite achieving the mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of people, neither the size nor their combativeness have been enough to develop from popular insurrection into revolution. They have overthrown presidents, but they haven’t been able to conquer power and initiate a process of deep social transformations. 3. On the other hand, the history of triumphant revolutions clearly demonstrates what can be achieved when there is a political instrument capable of raising an alternative national program that unifies the struggles of diverse social actors behind a common goal; that helps to cohere them and elaborate a path forward for these actors based on an analysis of the existent balance of forces. Only in this manner can actions be carried out at the right place and right time, always seeking out the weakest link in the enemy’s chain. 4. This political instrument is like a piston that compresses steam at the decisive moment and ― without wasting any energy ― converts it into a powerful force. 5. In order for political action to be effective, so that protests, resistance and struggles are really able to change things, to convert insurrections into revolutions, a political instrument capable of overcoming the dispersion and fragmentation of the exploited and the oppressed is required, one that can create spaces to bring together those who, in spite of their differences, have a common enemy; that is able to strengthen existing struggles and promote others by orientating their actions according to a thorough analysis of the political situation; that can act as an instrument for cohering the many expressions of resistance and struggle. 6. We are aware that there are a number of apprehensions towards such ideas. There are many who are not even willing to discuss them. Such positions are adopted because they associate this idea with the anti-democratic, authoritarian, bureaucratic and manipulating political practices that have characterised many left parties. 7. I believe it is fundamental that we overcome this subjective barrier and understand that when we refer to a political instrument, we are not thinking of just any political instrument, we are dealing with political instrument adjusted to the new times, an instrument that we must built together. 8. However, in order to create or remodel this new political instrument, the left has to change its political culture and its vision of politics. This cannot be reduced to institutional political disputes for control over parliament or local governments; to approving laws or winning elections. In this conception of politics, the popular sectors and their struggles are completely ignored. Neither can politics be limited to the art of what is possible. 9. For the left, politics must be the art of making possible the impossible. And we are not talking about a voluntarist declaration. We are talking about understanding politics as the art of constructing a social and political force capable of changing the balance of force in favour of the popular movement, so as to make possible in the future that which today appears impossible. 10. We have to think of politics as the art of constructing forces. We have to overcome the old and deeply-rooted mistake of trying to build a political force without building a social force. 11. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of revolutionary phase-mongering among our militants; too much radicalism in their statements. I am convinced that the only way to radicalise a given situation is through the construction of forces. Those whose words are filled with demands for radicalisation must answer the following question: What are you doing to construct the political and social force necessary to push the process forward? 12. But this construction of forces cannot occur spontaneously, only popular uprisings happen spontaneously. It needs a protagonist. 13. And I envisage this political instrument as an organisation capable of raising a national project that can unify and act as a compass for all those sectors that oppose neoliberalism. As a space that directs itself towards the rest of society, that respects the autonomy of the social movements instead of manipulating them, and whose militants and leaders are true popular pedagogues, capable of stimulating the knowledge that exists within the people ― derived from their cultural traditions, as well as acquired in their daily struggles for survival ― through the fusion of this knowledge with the most all-encompassing knowledge that the political organisation can offer. An orientating and cohering instrument at the service of the social movements. Marta Harnecker is originally from Chile where she participated in the revolutionary process of 1970-1973. She has written extensively on the Cuba Revolution, and on the nature of socialist democracy. She now lives in Caracas and is a participant in the Venezuelan revolution.

Nepal: The people resist elite coup

by Stuart Munckton 10 May 2009 from Green Left Weekly “This is not just a Maoist movement”, said Green Left Weekly’s correspondent in Kathmandu, Ben Peterson. “This is threatening to become a new people’s movement, like the one that swept away the monarchy.” Peterson was commenting on the large number of daily demonstrations across the country to demand respect for the people’s will. They have come in the aftermath of the May 3 resignation of Prime Minister Prachanda and other members of the government belonging to the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M).

Continue

See also Who is endangering civil peace in Nepal?

Background On Nepal's Revolution

by Walter Smolarek

12 May 2009

from Countercurrents.org

Fiery speeches about revolution and socialism ring across factories, fields, and the slums. A new, radically left-wing government takes power and attempts to fundamentally change the country. Opposing them in this nation of thirty million are the landowners and capitalists, while imperial powers play a hand in a secessionist movement. This isn't Venezuela; in fact it's thousands of miles from Latin America. A revolution has rocked the former Hindu kingdom of Nepal, and it now faces one of its greatest challenges as the army blatantly disregards the constitution and massive demonstrations are held daily. While the situation in Nepal may have just now caught the attention of the wider progressive community, it's important to go back and understand the roots of the movement against both autocracy and capitalism, twin agents of exploitation.

Continue

Lenin on liquidationism

by Chris Slee from LINKS - International Journal of Socialist Renewal In recent years there have been a number of cases where revolutionary Marxist parties have initiated or participated in attempts at building broad left parties. Examples include the Scottish Socialist Party; the Socialist Alliance and later Respect in England; the Socialist Alliance in Australia; Papernas in Indonesia; the participation of Italian Trotskyists in the Party of Communist Refoundation; and the New Anti-Capitalist Party initiated by the Revolutionary Communist League (Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire) in France.

Continue

Nepal: The people resist elite coup

by Stuart Munckton 10 May 2009 from Green Left Weekly “This is not just a Maoist movement”, said Green Left Weekly’s correspondent in Kathmandu, Ben Peterson. “This is threatening to become a new people’s movement, like the one that swept away the monarchy.” Peterson was commenting on the large number of daily demonstrations across the country to demand respect for the people’s will. They have come in the aftermath of the May 3 resignation of Prime Minister Prachanda and other members of the government belonging to the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M). Peterson described the events as a “soft coup”. The resignations were forced by the insubordination by the military high command, backed by the president and sections the coalition government. The UCPN (M), which had led the coalition government until its members walked out on May 3, had tried to use constitutional means to sack the chief of the army, General Kul Bahadur Katwal. The army high command had refused to obey instructions from the elected civilian government. The high command refused to implement key parts of the peace accords that, in 2006, ended the armed conflict with the UCPN (M)-led People’s Liberation Army. Sections of the high command in the Nepalese Army, infamous for its human rights abuses during the armed conflict, even spoke openly to the Times of India on April 24 about an aborted plot for a military coup against the elected government. It is difficult to imagine a more blatant threat to democracy. If the military is not subordinated to an elected civilian government, but is allowed to defy it openly on central issues, then there is no democracy — merely military rule with a civilian government as window-dressing. However, Nepalese President Ram Baran Yadav from the conservative Nepalese Congress party (NC), issued a decree countering the UCPN-M decision to remove Katwal from his post. This is despite the fact that under the interim constitution, the power of the president is largely ceremonial. The result was the creation of two military heads: the Maoist-appointed head and Katwal, who, backed by the president, refused to recognise his sacking. Coalition partners, such as the social-democratic Communist Party of Nepal (United-Marxist-Leninist), despite internal divisions, failed to support the UCPN (M) decision. With little choice, the Maoists called a press conference announcing they were withdrawing from the government. The Maoists called for street protests to defend democracy. Just over a year since the historic declaration of a republic, which brought people out into the streets in celebration, Nepal has been thrown into a fresh political crisis. The monarchy was overthrown through a combination of the decade-long Maoist-led “people’s war” and the 2006 mass democratic uprising. A central demand of the Maoists was for elections to a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution to create a “New Nepal”. The central role of the UCPN (M) in the democracy movement, and the degree to which the poor identify with it, resulted in the Maoists winning over 1 million votes more than their nearest competitor. Seeking the widest-possible consensus, the UCPN (M) established a broad coalition government. However, the UCPN (M)’s proposals for a peaceful and democratic pro-poor transformation of Nepal that were endorsed at the ballot box have been frustrated by opposition within the parliament, the state and even the coalition government. The cause of the crisis is the moves of the elite, based in the political and military establishment, that seek to frustrate the popular mandate for a New Nepal based on equality and social justice. Class conflict The Nepalese elite are backed by the government of neighbouring India and the United States — both of whom fear the example of radical, pro-poor change in the region. India, in particular, played a big role in bringing the Maoist-led government down. The former king and leaders of NC and the CPN (UML) all visited India under various pretexts in the weeks before the anti-Maoist coup. For the poor majority, the program the UCPN (M) seeks to implement includes an increase in workers’ rights, land reform for the peasants, equal rights in a federal structure for ethnic and national minorities, access to education and health care, and a plan for extensive pro-people economic development. In the lead-up to the crisis, while the bureaucrats and opportunist politicians were moving to stab the UCPN (M) and its poor supporters in the back, the Maoist deputies were out in the countryside talking to the poor to gather proposals for the new constitution. For all concerned, the stakes are high. The elite, and their foreign backers, are terrified of the consequences of implementing the 2006 peace accords. These require the integration of PLA fighters into the existing army to create a new, democratic armed forces. This could mean the military would no longer be a weapon in the hands of the elite to violently repress the struggles of the poor. The poor, however, have every reason to fear the continuation of the unreformed old army, which committed great crimes against the people. The situation remains uncertain. The UCPN (M) is refusing to take part in any government and are boycotting parliament until their demand for the sacking of Katwal is met. It is likely to prove difficult for the opponents of the UCPN (M) to form a coalition government to replace the one that has now collapsed. The UCPN (M) alone controls 40% of the seats in the assembly. Also, the main point of unity among the other parties is opposition to the Maoists. All this makes it difficult for a government to be formed without them. However, the situation is not simply determined by parliamentary numbers. Rather, the greatest difficulty facing the elite is the genuinely popular support the Maoists enjoy. Peterson explained that recent events have only increased support for the Maoists. He said ordinary people he had spoken to everywhere, regardless of party affiliation, are furious at the actions of the president and the opportunist behaviour of parties like the CPN (UML). He said the overwhelming majority of Nepalese people believed the undemocratic actions that had occurred had been organised by foreign forces like the US and India. There is incredible anger at those political parties that have allowed themselves to be used by foreign powers. 'The mood is angry' The UCPN (M) has called for protests in the streets until its demands have been met. "The protests have been many and all over the place”, Peterson said. “They are organised by a whole range of different groups. Every different group has its own protest. The mood is angry.” The protests ranged from involving hundreds, to tens of thousands, he said. However, he emphasised that these protests occurred simultaneously — there could be dozens of protests in Kathmandu at any one time. “Many of the people I have spoken to at the protests were not Maoists”, Peterson said. As example of the mood, he explained: “The other night I was at the bus park, and about 20 people just waiting around for a bus spontaneously started chanting against the president.” The foreign media have attempted to play up protests by right-wing NC supporters. The Sydney Morning Herald even featured a photo of an NC supporters protest with the caption “People’s Power”. Peterson said that before the UCPN (M) left government, there were some tiny protests involving a few hundred people at most. Since then, no such protests had occurred. In some cases the police have attacked protesters, including tear gassing a demonstration by the pro-UCPN (M) Young Communist League. Police repeatedly attack attempts by protesters, mostly Maoist women, to demonstrate in front of the president’s offices. Protests in that are have been banned, resulting in regular clashes. However, the state has held off from trying full-scale repression. So far, the UCPN (M) has also held back from full-scale mobilisations. It has yet to organise a centralised, all-out demonstration that calls the greatest numbers onto the streets together. However, as the likely futile negotiations by the anti-Maoist parties drags on, that could be about to change. Read Ben Peterson's blog at www.maobadiwatch.blogspot.com

Background On Nepal's Revolution

by Walter Smolarek 12 May 2009 from Countercurrents.org Fiery speeches about revolution and socialism ring across factories, fields, and the slums. A new, radically left-wing government takes power and attempts to fundamentally change the country. Opposing them in this nation of thirty million are the landowners and capitalists, while imperial powers play a hand in a secessionist movement. This isn't Venezuela; in fact it's thousands of miles from Latin America. A revolution has rocked the former Hindu kingdom of Nepal, and it now faces one of its greatest challenges as the army blatantly disregards the constitution and massive demonstrations are held daily. While the situation in Nepal may have just now caught the attention of the wider progressive community, it's important to go back and understand the roots of the movement against both autocracy and capitalism, twin agents of exploitation. History The revolutionary process can be traced back to 1990. It was then that the first People's Movement, commonly referred to in Nepali as the Jana Andolan, was launched. The movement was led by both the Nepali Congress (an organization that will be dealt with further on) and the United Left Front (which was in many ways a precursor to the Communist Party of Nepal Unified Marxist-Leninist, another group that will be analyzed later). Thanks to massive popular mobilizations, it partially succeeded by bringing about the creation of a constitutional monarchy as opposed to the previous absolutist system. However, this type of government proved to be a disappointment, and parliamentarianism, as it always has done, marginalized the demands of the people. The anti-feudal elites stopped fighting after the enactment of the new constitution, but the poor majority, living in one of the most impoverished nations in the world, did not. In 1992, there was a wave of strikes and protests led by a coalition of communist parties that was brutally repressed. This made it clear to some that the social relations that persisted in Nepal could only be changed by force of arms. In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), led by the charismatic Chairman Prachanda, launched what became known to their supporters as the People's War. Rallying the peasantry around their revolutionary message, the war intensified at the turn of the century, and the United States began giving military aid to the repressive government. It was under these conditions that the Royal Massacre of 2001 (in which the ruling King Birendra was killed by his son) took place, which led to the ascension of Gyanendra to the thrown. To repress the Maoists, he took full control of the state and reestablished the absolutism that prevailed before the 1990 People's Movement. This move alienated the Nepalese bourgeoisie, who found themselves no longer allied with, but in opposition to the ruling feudal class. As the CPN (M)'s People's Liberation Army captured more and more of the countryside, the revolutionary movement climaxed in 2006 with the Peoples Movement II, which definitively overthrew the monarchy. A provisional government took its place, led by the Seven Party Alliance, which consisted of various social democratic and reform-communist parties. The Seven Party Alliance was allied with the Maoists, who suspended the People's War and prepared to contest the election for the Constituent Assembly, a body that would be charged with drafting the nation's constitution. Postponed twice, the election was finally held on April 10th, 2008. Recognized as free and fair by international observes like the Carter Center (1), the results revealed an overwhelming leftist victory (2). Combined, the various communist parties won a little less than 60% of the vote, with the CPN (Maoist) itself winning 38% of the seats, becoming, by far, the most popular political force in the nation. It soon assembled a government along with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MJF), with Prachanda as the Prime Minister. The Political Forces Overall, the political landscape is firmly orientated to the left, but in many cases only rhetorically. There are three significant parties/ movements that can hinder or further the creation of a New Nepal. With tremendous support from the impoverished peasantry, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which added "Unified" to its name after its merger with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre-Masal), is in (not unchallenged) command of the revolution. They have won the support of such a significant portion of the population due to their ability to take real steps towards radical, systemic change in Nepalese society. They advocate the redistribution of land, equal rights for women, a decent minimum wage, and a myriad of other pro-people stances. They have the courage to uphold these positions because, although they aren't flawless, the Maoists are loyal to the working people of Nepal, in whom they seek to vest supreme political power. In constant opposition to fundamental change, the Nepali Congress is, in word, a social democratic party affiliated with the "Socialist" International. In deed, however, the party is situated to the right and strongly supportive of capitalism. Sometimes in alliance and other times in antagonism with the monarchy, the NC has tried to advance Nepal to bourgeois democracy, and no further. In lukewarm support of the UCPN (M) until very recently, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) is, despite its revolutionary-sounding name, a largely Eurocommunist outfit. They had supported the revolutionary government but dragged their feet when it came to transferring political and economic power to the people. Finally, a complex situation is found in the Terai region of Nepal, home to the Madhesi ethnic group (although several other ethnicities reside there). The two major political parties representing the Madhesi people are the Tarai-Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP) and the MJF. The TMLP opposes the Maoists, but the MJF, led by former Maoist Upendra Yadav, seems to have a progressive outlook. The demands of the Madhesi people for sovereignty (to one degree or another) have a good deal of merit, but only after the capitalists, who divide-and-rule the people, are marginalized can the question of nationalities be adequately addressed and a just solution materialize. Solidarity Forever As the people of Nepal continue to fight against oppression and for democracy and socialism, it is absolutely essential that we reciprocate with solidarity. Their revolution is one of the least known despite being one of the most harrowing and inspiring. It is essential that all people who believe that more just and democratic world is possible educate and inform their friends and comrades of the struggle for New Nepal and participate in solidarity demonstrations so that the rebellious masses of this Himalayan nation can go forward knowing that they have the support of progressive people the world over. Notes (1) http://www.cartercenter.org/news/features/p/elections/nepal/political_beginning_apr10.html (2) http://www.election.gov.np/reports/CAResults/reportBody.php Walter Smolarek is a student from Pennsylvania that supports the movement for Socialism in the 21st Century. He encourages you to send him your comments and questions at wsmolarek@hotmail.com

Lenin on liquidationism

by Chris Slee from LINKS - International Journal of Socialist Renewal In recent years there have been a number of cases where revolutionary Marxist parties have initiated or participated in attempts at building broad left parties. Examples include the Scottish Socialist Party; the Socialist Alliance and later Respect in England; the Socialist Alliance in Australia; Papernas in Indonesia; the participation of Italian Trotskyists in the Party of Communist Refoundation; and the New Anti-Capitalist Party initiated by the Revolutionary Communist League (Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire) in France. Sometimes Marxist groups that participate in such broad formations are accused of "liquidationism". This was a term used by Lenin to refer to the policy of certain members of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party who wished to dissolve ("liquidate") the RSDLP after the crushing of the 1905 revolution. Critics of the policy of building a broad left party sometimes say that, when a revolutionary Marxist group joins such a broader formation, this amounts to the liquidation of the Marxist group. Those who argue in this way claim that building a broad left party is contrary to Lenin's policy of building a revolutionary vanguard party. How valid is this counterposition? Lenin certainly aimed to build a vanguard party that could lead a revolution. But creating such a party was a long and complicated process. The RSDLP adopted a revolutionary program at its 1903 conference. However it immediately split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions. While the split was apparently over organisational matters, it also reflected incipient political differences. Nevertheless, in subsequent years there were periods when Lenin was willing to work with the Mensheviks, or a section of them, in the framework of a united RSDLP. For example, he collaborated with the "pro-party Mensheviks" led by Georgi Plekhanov to produce a common newspaper, Zvezda, which was published between 1910 and 1912. He built the January 1912 RSDLP conference jointly with some of the pro-party Mensheviks, and all non-liquidationist trends in the party were invited. Ultimately Plekhanov backed away from the opportunity to participate in building the RSDLP together with the Bolsheviks. But many rank and file workers who had supported the Mensheviks or had been non-aligned did join Lenin in this project. Given the diversity of those invited to participate in the January 1912 RSDLP conference, it seems reasonable to say that during this period Lenin was trying to build the RSDLP as a "broad party". But at the same time, Lenin worked to ensure that the politics of the party were not watered down. The conference adopted a clear political line: the key demands which the Bolsheviks had fought for were adopted as the basis for the party's mass campaigning. Of course, this historical analogy does not prove the correctness of any particular broad left party project today. Each must be looked at on its own merits. Liquidationism may be a real danger in some cases. This article looks at Lenin's party-building approach, with a particular focus on his struggle against liquidationism. Liquidationism was a trend that arose within the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in the years following the defeat of the 1905 revolution. The liquidators said that the RSDLP (which was an illegal party with a revolutionary Marxist program) should be dissolved (or liquidated), and that socialists should work solely through legal organisations. Some of the liquidators advocated setting up a legal labour party. But in order to have any chance of legal recognition in the repressive climate of tsarist Russia, such a party would have needed to drop key aspects of the RSDLP¹s program, including its call for the overthrow of the tsarist monarchy. Liquidationism arose within the Menshevik faction of the RSDLP. The division of the RSDLP into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions went back to the second congress of the party in 1903. The immediate cause of the formation of factions was a dispute over the composition of the editorial board of the newspaper Iskra. But there were also political issues involved. The 1903 congress adopted a program that outlined a longer term perspective of socialist revolution, but defined the "immediate political task" in Russia as being "the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy and its replacement by a republic based on a democratic constitution..." (Lenin Collected Works, vol. 6, pp. 27-28). The program also included reforms to benefit workers, including the eight-hour day, and measures aimed at "eradicating the remnants of the old serf-owning system" (LCW, vol. 6, p. 30). The congress was able to arrive at agreement on the main features of the program, despite differences on points of detail. Nevertheless, the discussion at the congress revealed the beginnings of a difference on how the "immediate political task" of overthrowing tsarism would be carried out. Should the working class, in alliance with the peasantry, aim to lead the democratic revolution (as the Bolsheviks said), or should it merely support the liberal bourgeoisie which would lead the revolution (as the Mensheviks said)? (Grigory Zinoviev, History of the Bolshevik Party, New Park, London 1973, pp. 90-92) In 1905 there was a revolutionary upsurge in Russia. Workers carried out political strikes and formed soviets, which were city-wide councils of representatives from factories. The soviets began to play the role of an alternative government to the tsarist regime. Workers began to form their own armed self-defence groups, and in Moscow armed workers fought against the tsarist troops. There were also revolts by sailors, and the beginnings of peasant revolt. The rebellious workers and sailors were crushed, partly because of the lack of political consciousness amongst the peasantry. This meant that the tsarist regime was still able to use the army, which was largely recruited from the peasantry, against the workers. (Zinoviev, p. 136) As well as using repression, the tsarist regime offered some concessions. It called elections for a sort of parliament called the Duma. However the election rules were very undemocratic, with the votes of the upper classes being worth more than those of lower classes: one landlord vote equalled three capitalist, 15 peasant or 45 worker votes. Women could not vote, and students, soldiers, agricultural workers and unskilled workers were also excluded from voting. (LCW, vol. 18, p. 622, note 89). And the parliament had little power anyway. Nevertheless, the concessions were sufficient to persuade the liberal bourgeoisie to reach an accomodation with tsarism. When it became clear that the 1905 revolution had been defeated, there was debate in the RSDLP on the implications for the party's strategy and tactics. The Bolsheviks argued that new outbreaks of rebellion could be expected sooner or later, and it was necessary to continue arguing for a democratic revolution and preparing the party to lead a new revolutionary upsurge to victory. Some Mensheviks, on the other hand, had no confidence in a new upsurge, and thought it was necessary to work within the limitations imposed by the "reformed" tsarist monarchy. They wanted to dissolve the RSDLP and work solely through legal organisations such as unions and workers' social clubs. Some of them hoped to be allowed by the tsarist regime to form a legal workers¹ party. To gain legality they were prepared to water down the politics of such a party. These people were called the liquidators. Lenin summed up the ideas of the liquidators as follows: "Liquidationism in the narrow sense of the word, the liquidationism of the Mensheviks, consists ideologically in negation of the revolutionary class struggle of the socialist proletariat in general, and denial of the hegemony of the proletariat in our bourgeois-democratic revolution in particular... "In respect of organisation, liquidationism means denying the necessity for an illegal Social-Democratic Party, and consequently renouncing the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, leaving its ranks." (LCW, vol. 15, p. 454) However, there was a section of the Mensheviks who thought it was still necessary to maintain the RSDLP as an illegal party. These people were known as the pro-party Mensheviks. Their most prominent leader was Georgi Plekhanov. Ultraleftism At about the same time as the liquidationist current was emerging amongst the Mensheviks, differences also arose amongst the Bolsheviks. An ultraleft current emerged that rejected the need to take advantage of the opportunities, however limited, that existed for legal work. One of the opportunities for legal work was participation in elections for the Duma. I have mentioned the undemocratic nature of the Duma. When the plans for the Duma were first announced in 1905, the Bolsheviks called for a boycott of the elections. They called for political strikes and an armed uprising to obtain real democracy. This resulted in the plans for Duma elections being abandoned for the time being. After the crushing of the uprising, the government was able to hold elections for the Duma. The RSDLP (both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) boycotted the first Duma elections in March 1906. The Mensheviks soon decided they had made a mistake and wanted to participate in new elections called later in 1906 (after the tsarist government had dissolved the first Duma). The majority of Bolsheviks wanted to continue the boycott. Lenin, however, favoured participation in elections for the second Duma. He argued that the Bolsheviks had been correct to campaign for a boycott in 1905, when a revolutionary upsurge was occurring. However, conditions had changed following the crushing of the 1905 uprising. By August 1906 Lenin had concluded that that: "The time has now come when the revolutionary Social-Democrats must cease to be boycottists". (LCW, vol. 11, p. 145) As the revolutionary wave ebbed, Lenin, while remaining optimistic about the prospects for revival of the revolutionary movement, realised that this was likely to be delayed for a number of years. He concluded that it was necessary for socialists to make use of any legal opportunities, including the use of Duma election campaigns, and speeches by socialist members of the Duma, for propaganda. Some Bolsheviks disagreed. They wanted to boycott future Duma elections and to recall the RSDLP representatives who had been elected to it. They became known as "recallists" (or otzovists in Russian). This ultraleft current was also opposed to participation in legal trade unions and other legal workers organisations. Lenin advocated a combination of legal and illegal work, believing that this was the only way to maintain and strengthen the party's links with the mass of workers and peasants. Lenin referred to the ultraleftists as "liquidators on the left", because if their policies were followed socialists would be cut off from the masses and the party would decline and eventually collapse, i.e. it would be liquidated. Lenin waged a struggle within the Bolshevik faction against the ultraleftists. He eventually succeeded in persuading the vast majority of Bolsheviks that his views were correct. The hardened ultraleftists were expelled from the Bolshevik faction. They formed their own faction, which came to be known as the Vperyod group (Vperyod means forward in Russian). Lenin's tactics proved very successful in winning increased support from workers, whereas the Vperyod group remained isolated from the workers and fell apart after a few years. Pro-party Mensheviks I mentioned earlier that some Mensheviks were opposed to the liquidators. Lenin welcomed this, and was willing to work with the pro-party Mensheviks. Zinoviev in his History of the Bolshevik Party speaks highly of Plekhanov's role during the 1907-1909 period, saying that "his voice proved a great support to the Bolsheviks...", and that his support was "extremely important in the atmosphere of that period" (Zinoviev, p. 158). At that time Lenin did not view the Bolsheviks as a party, but as a "section" (we would say a faction) of the RSDLP. While polemicising against Menshevik ideas, Lenin was willing to work with the pro-party Mensheviks in building the RSDLP. For example, Bolsheviks and pro-party Mensheviks worked together on Zvezda, a newspaper produced between December 1910 and April 1912 (LCW, vol. 17, p. 588, note 24). But over time the leading pro-party Mensheviks pulled back from participation in this project, and it became effectively a Bolshevik paper (Zinoviev, p. 168). January 1912 conference In January 1912, the Bolsheviks took the initiative to convene a conference of the RSDLP. It was not intended to be an exclusively Bolshevik conference. Menshevik-led local party organisations participated in the preparations for the conference. Pro-party Mensheviks, Vperyodists and Leon Trotsky were amongst those invited. However, only two non-Bolsheviks came to the conference. Both of them were pro-party Mensheviks. But Plekhanov, the most prominent pro-party Menshevik, did not attend. The conference elected a new central committee, composed entirely of Bolsheviks (Tony Cliff, Lenin, vol. 1, p 312, Pluto Press, London, 1975). The conference is often said to have marked the final split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. But Lenin, in the resolutions and reports he drafted for the conference, said nothing about a split with the Mensheviks in general. Rather he drew a line of division between the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and the liquidators. He moved a resolution declaring that the liquidators were no longer party members, saying that "the Nasha Zarya and Dyelo Zhizni group has definitely placed itself outside the party" (a reference to two magazines published by the liquidators). The resolution called on "all Party members, irrespective of tendencies and shades of opinion, to combat liquidationism, explain its great harmfulness to the cause of the emamancipation of the working class, and bend all their efforts to revive and strengthen the illegal RSDLP" (LCW, vol. 17, p. 481). Lenin still wanted to keep the door open to the pro-party Mensheviks, and anyone else who might be willing to help build a united party with the Bolsheviks. A conference resolution drafted by Lenin said that: "Everywhere in the localities without a single exception, Party work is being conducted jointly and harmoniously by the Bolsheviks and pro-Party Mensheviks, as well as by Vperyod supporters in Russia wherever there are any, and by all other Social-Democrats who recognise the need for an illegal RSDLP" (LCW, vol. 17, p. 465). The implication was that Lenin hoped this joint work would continue. Unity Why did the Bolsheviks take this approach? Why did they project the January 1912 conference as being open to the whole RSDLP (not including the liquidators, who were deemed to be outside the party), rather than making it a conference of the Bolshevik faction alone? First, they wanted to involve broader forces than just those who identified as Bolsheviks at that time. They wanted to draw RSDLP members who might consider themselves as Mensheviks, or as non-aligned, into joint party-building work together with the Bolsheviks. Second, they wanted to show rank and file RSDLP members that the Bolsheviks were for unity, and make it as hard as possible for their opponents to blame the Bolsheviks for any split that might occur. Paul Le Blanc states that there were "a significant number of RSDLP members who favoured the combination of legal and illegal tactics, who maintained a revolutionary class struggle orientation, but were unalterably opposed to a split in the RSDLP". He quotes one such person as saying "I, like many others... am not a Bolshevik, I am not a Menshevik, I am not an Otzovist [ultraleftist], I am not a Liquidator -- I am only a social-democrat" (Paul Le Blanc, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1993, p. 178). Lenin had to relate to this sentiment. The fact that all non-liquidator elements of the RSDLP were invited to the conference showed that the Bolsheviks were not sectarian. The fact that most of those invited didn't turn up showed that they, not the Bolsheviks, were opposed to unity on a principled basis. As Lenin noted in a speech to the conference: "All have been invited and only those who refused to help the Party are absent" (LCW, vol. 41, p. 246). In effect, the invitation to attend the conference, and the invitation to participate in carrying out the decisions of the conference, were a test for the pro-party Mensheviks. Were they serious about building the party or not? Plekhanov failed this test. However, the Bolsheviks' efforts to bring about unity were not wasted. In the period after the conference there occurred a process which Lenin referred to as "unity from below". Writing in February 1913, he said: "The workers have already started of their own accord, from below, on the solution of the problem of unity.... "Worker Social-Democrats everywhere are re-establishing integral illegal organisations of the RSDLP in the form of factory nuclei and committees, district groups, town centres, Social-Democratic groups in all kinds of legal institutions, etc." (LCW vol. 18, p. 454). It is important to note that Lenin, in offering to work in a united party with the pro-party Mensheviks, was not proposing to water down the politics of the party. The January 1912 conference adopted a clear political line. A key question was that of overthrowing the tsarist monarchy. Although the call for a democratic republic had been included in the 1903 RSDLP program, the majority of prominent Mensheviks, especially the liquidators, had in practice dropped that demand. The conference resolved that: "Propaganda for a republic, and against the policy of the tsarist monarchy, must be given special prominence to counteract, among other things, the widespread propaganda in favour of curtailed slogans and of confining activity to the existing 'legality'" (LCW, vol. 17, p.468). The conference decided that the main election slogans for the coming Duma elections should be: a democratic republic; the eight-hour working day; and confiscation of all landed estates (LCW, vol.17, p. 468). The party which emerged from the January 1912 conference was officially known as the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. But because its political line was that which had come to be associated with the Bolshevik faction, and because its central leaders came from the Bolshevik faction, it was often referred to as the Bolshevik Party. August 1912 conference In August 1912 there was a conference of groups and individuals who rejected the authority of the January 1912 conference. The August conference brought together liquidators, ultraleftists, Trotsky and others. This conference could not agree on anything except opposition to the Bolsheviks. The so-called "August bloc" soon fell apart. Trotsky, who played a leading role in convening the conference, was later to cite it as a classic example of an unprincipled combination. Growth of the Bolsheviks Following the January 1912 conference the Bolsheviks deepened their roots in the working class. They launched a daily paper (Pravda) in April 1912. The liquidators also launched a daily paper (called Luch). However Pravda had much more support from the working class. This was indicated by the fact that four times as many workers' groups made donations to Pravda as compared to Luch (LCW, vol. 21, p. 334). Mass working-class support for the Bolsheviks was also shown when they won six seats in the Duma from working-class electorates in the 1912 elections (LCW, vol. 18, p. 515). War and revolution The real test for all groups claiming to be socialist came with the outbreak of the first world war. The Bolshevik Party (which was still officially known as the RSDLP) took a principled stand against the war. It called for "the conversion of the present imperialist war into a civil war" (LCW, vol. 21, p.34), i.e. for the workers in all countries to overthrow the governments which had led them to war. This actually happened in Russia in 1917, with first the February revolution, then the October revolution. The Mensheviks either became social chauvinists, supporting the Russian state in the war, or at best took a pacifist approach, opposing the war but being unable to organise a real struggle against it. The liquidators generally became social chauvinists. But Plekhanov, the former "pro-Party Menshevik", also became a social chauvinist. This was a sad outcome for one of the founders of Russian Marxism. Since 1903, he had vacillated between revolutionary and reformist politics. His failure to accept Lenin's invitation to help build a united party in 1912 was an important step in his degeneration. On the other hand, Trotsky moved in the opposite direction. Seeing the sellout by the Mensheviks, and the anti-war position of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky began to move closer to the Bolsheviks. During 1917 Trotsky and his supporters joined the Bolshevik Party. This fusion was based on agreement around the key political questions which had come to the fore in the new situation, including opposition to the imperialist war, opposition to the bourgeois provisional government, and the need for the soviets to seize power. Conclusion The fight against liquidationism was crucial in building a revolutionary party in Russia. At the same time, the fight against ultraleftism was also very important, to prevent the party being cut off from the masses. These two inter-related struggles helped create the mass revolutionary party that was able to oppose the war and lead the revolution to victory in 1917. Chris Slee is a long-term member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, an Marxist organisation affiliated to the Socialist Alliance of Australia. This is an edited version of a talk he presented at the January 2007 DSP educational conference.

Venezuela's young militants: An antidote to the weaknesses of the revolution

by Tamara Pearson from LINKS - International Journal of Socialist Renewal 30 July 2008 We stayed up until 2 am two nights in a row - students from a range of faculties, and young people from various movements and revolutionary organisations. In the campsite of La Mucuy in the Andean city of Merida, we discussed and debated the role of youth in Venezuelan’s revolution and the construction of a youth wing of the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), while around us clouds hugged the buildings and mountain slopes, horses slept in the foreground and mosquitos made meals of our legs and faces.

Continue

A revolutionary constitution based on Tikanga Maori

UNITYblog has asked the question: Do we need a new constitution for Aotearoa? If you would like to have your thoughts on this issue posted on UNITYblog send to editor@unityblognz.com Our first response to the question is from Penehamine Netana-Patuawa. Tena koutou katoa. E mihi ana ahau i te Matua nui i te Rangi. Ko Mahuhu ki te Rangi te waka. Ko Ngati Whatua raua ko Te Roroa nga iwi. Ko Taita raua ko Waikaraka nga marae. Ko Maunganui te maunga. Ko Kaihu te awa. Ko Waipoua te ngahere. Ko Omamari te moana. Ko Raroa toku Papa. Ko Betty toku Mama. Ko Penehamine Netana-Patuawa taku ingoa. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena no tatou katoa.Any written constitution must be revolutionary in nature. The word revolution can be divided into two parts: Revolve; Evolution. Each part is separate, yet linked. Revolve, to turn completely around. Evolution, to progress and change.

Continue

Venezuela: Struggle in the PSUV - 'If the people don't stand firm, the right will screw it up!'

Elected delegates to the PSUV's founding congress earlier this year

by Stuart Munckton
from LINKS - International Journal of Socialist Renewal
27 May, 2008

The two Venezuelanalysis.com articles below, by Kiraz Janicke (a member of the Green Left Weekly Caracas bureau and Venezuelanalysis.com journalist), give a feel for the increasingly intense struggle that is taking place within the Chavista camp.

"Venezuela gets ready to choose candidates for regional elections" http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3487

"Controversy erupts over nominations for PSUV candidacies in Venezuela"
http://www.venezuelanalysis. com/news/3494

In fact, as articles from the GLW Caracas bureau among a fair few others have pointed out in recent times, the key struggles in Venezuela are occurring within the Chavista camp — and the outcome of this struggle will play a major role in determining the fate of the Venezuelan revolution.

Continue

Socialism is the future - Build it now

by Michael A. Lebowitz from LINKS - International Journal of Socialist Renewal Ideas become a material force when they grasp the minds of masses. This is true not only of ideas which can support revolutionary change. It is also true of those ideas which prevent change. An obvious example is the concept of TINA – the idea that there is no alternative, no alternative to neoliberalism, no alternative to capitalism. Certainly we know that there have been significant changes in the terrain upon which the working class must struggle – changes which are a challenge because of a new international division of labour and because of the role of states in delivering a passive, docile working class to international capital. It is not only changing material circumstances which affects the working class, however. It is also the loss of confidence of the working class that makes these material changes a deadly blow. Even the Korean working class that has demonstrated so clearly in the past its militancy in the struggle against capital has been affected. But it does not have to be that way. Because things are changing. Look at Latin America where the effects of global restructuring and neoliberalism took a very heavy toll. People said ultimately – enough! And they have said this not only to neoliberalism but, increasingly, they have moved further and say no to capitalism. For many, it came as a great shock when Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, said at the World Social Forum in January of 2005 in Brazil that "we have to reinvent socialism". Capitalism, he stressed, has to be transcended if we are ever going to end the poverty of the majority of the world. "We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything." That statement, however, did not drop from the sky. It was the product of a spontaneous rejection of neoliberalism by masses in 1989, the election of Chavez with a promise to change things in 1998 and the response to the combination of the domestic oligarchy and imperialism in their attempt to overthrow Chavez in 2002 and 2003. The embrace of this new socialism, in short, was the product of struggle. The struggle continues. And, we can see that out of struggle comes creativity. In particular, the struggle in Venezuela has stressed the importance of a revolutionary democracy – a process in which people transform themselves as they directly transform circumstances. Through the development of communal councils representing 200 to 400 families in urban areas and as few as 20 in the rural areas, people have begun to identify their needs and their capacities and to transform the very character of the state into one which does not stand over and above civil society but rather becomes the agency for working people themselves. "All power to the communal councils" has been the call of Chavez; “The communal councils must become the cell of the new socialist state.” Ideas can become a material force when they grasp the minds of masses. In Latin America, the idea of a socialism for the 21st century is beginning to move the masses, with its emphasis upon Karl Marx's concept of revolutionary practice – the simultaneous changing of circumstances and self-change. At its core is the concept of revolutionary democracy. In contrast to the hierarchical capitalist state and to the despotism of the capitalist workplace, the concept is one of democracy in practice, democracy as practice, democracy as protagonism. Democracy in this sense – protagonistic democracy in the workplace, protagonistic democracy in neighbourhoods, communities, communes – is the democracy of people who are transforming themselves into revolutionary subjects. Here is an alternative to capitalism – the concept of socialism for the 21st century with its emphasis upon struggle from below, upon solidarity and upon building the capacities of working people through their own activities. It is an idea that a working class with a tradition of struggle against capital should have no difficulty in grasping. Socialism is the future – build it now. This the Preface to the forthcoming Korean edition of 'Build It Now: Socialism for the 21st century'.