It is always satisfying to read a soulful piece like this one — an interview with Tariq Ali. Plus, interviews are a much better medium to find out where people stand than their writings, especially when the questions are sharp.

Since I have not read Ali’s Guradian piece, it is not appropriate for me to comment that. However, I do want to make a point about his characterization of Nepal’s latest political uprising as a “genuine old fashioned revolution.” I hate to disagree with Ali, but disagree I do (and must) in the good old traditions of western liberal education and Marxian dialectics. To characterize what recently transpired in Nepal as a genuine old fashioned revolution is little more than a leftist nostalgia or simply an unfulfillable yearning for a genuine revolution as it has, for long and unfortunately, been left in dust by the seductive power of neoliberal wet dreams. I certainly wish it was a genuine revolution though, but it was not. It was ALMOST a (genuine?) revolution. Specifically, as I have said in my Leadership piece, it was a missed opportunity for a revolution. That’s all. But it certainly was a successful protest movement as it achieved what it set out to achieve.

A genuine revolution of the past is no longer possible — and, in light of many historical follies, I am not sure at this point it is necessarily desirable either, unless there is some guarantee that it is guided by a genuine, selfless leadership. Even the notion of such a revolution is essentially dead. BUT I DO GENERALLY AGREE WITH ALI ON HIS ASSESSMENT OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE SWEEPING ACROSS LATIN AMERICA — A WIND OF ELECTORAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (perhaps this is what BP had in mind when he preached the virtues of social democracy; at least, I hope that was the case). Assuming that such a wind can be adapted to suit Nepal’s socioeconomic realities, the Venezuelan and Bolivian model of social revolution is perhaps what we should shoot for to create a new Nepal that the Samudaya T-shirt advocates: “Naya Nepal Sambhav Chha.”

So, my friends and Nepali Netajis, pay attention to the following quote from Ali’s piece:

“I hope that the Nepali Maoists have learnt some lessons from the collapses of the Soviet Union and the old system in China. A one-party system would be disastrous. In fact, I think it is up to the Left now to revive genuine democracy….the authorized version represented by the Washington Consensus is more and more the dictatorship of Capital.”

I know, how right you are Nandaji. That para struck to me like a bolt of lightening on route 66. Tariq Ali hopes the Maoists have learned the lesson — but from which angle? If one is to say the bolshevik government and their ‘one party rule’ is the only flaw of ultra-leftist, heck communists, then aren’t we simply talking about a new definition of democracy where the left always seem to have this pipe-dream of creating equality when the case clearly is that such is extremly difficult to attain without fundamentally altering the basic notion or idea of democracy itself — for instance, individual freedom and private enterprise? Death of pragmatism amongst some if you ask me.

What ali does not realize is that the maoist movement in nepal is not like the social movements that took place in much of latin america, mostly in response to us imposed neo-liberalism. to equate maoism in nepal to a geniune social movements is like comparing apples and oranges. the maoists want state power to fashion it according to their goals. that’s not how Evo Morales, for example, came to power. nor was the capture of state power the only reason for their social movement in bolivia. maoism as an ideology has not shown itself to be complex enough to navigate its way around the various demands of the current global order.

the primacy of the washington concensus today needs to be challenged. but maoism is not the one to do it. liberalism needs an opponent but pinning our hopes on our nepali comrades will not bring about our salvation. its time to bring some analytical precision into the term social movement and prevent it from feeding the unfullfilled dreams of leftist western academics.

The Maoists themselves ‘exploited’ the social stratification to get themselves in power. Thus Rajani and Diwas should have asked Ali to deconstruct ‘exploitation’ in universal sense. How do people get away with words like that is beyond me! Dammit, I should be the one pressing these ultra-leftists and neo-liberals at the same time.

True that! Maoism as an ideology is not suited to attack complex politico-economic structure of modern times. All they talk about is ‘process to obtaining power’, almost like a military handbook for guerillas.

teita,
i think a much more incisive last question would have been to ask ali to explain “exploitation” and relate that to the nepali context than by letting him off the hook by asking him to talk about partyless mass mobilization.

but didn’t prachanda complain that charles haviland wasn’t asking him enough questions about ideology? perhaps ali would have enjoyed some ideological questions too. (did he complain btw?)

there was no opportunity to ask him follow-up questions because of his tight schedule (from what i know).

must have been a very tight schedule indeed. last few questions were longer than the answers. he seems almost uninterested towards the end of the interview. also, his reading on the maoist movement does not seem “genuine”. and, the first in the human rights in the right to live.

”..the whole question of human rights has become an idealogical construct, utilized by the Empire to get its way”.

My! My! Has the goon even read what is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Am posting the whole text for him to read.

Pl don’t try to brainwash us. The Cold War is long over, Comrade! Read Articles 25 and 26, Comrade!

Human Rights Universal Declaration

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following . Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the
political status of countries or territories.”

In detail here

Calm down, Human Rights! It isn’t all that healthy to get all huffed up and puffed up without paying careful attention to the context in which the comment was made.

I ain’t trying to defend Ali here (he can do that himself better than I can), but I’m certainly attempting to demystify some callous and ideologically-biased reading and interpretation of his comment that some high-minded but low-sighted human rightist is serving for public consumption.

At any rate, I am sure his reference was not to what the declaration actually says or how it reads. He was talking about how the west/US abuses and applies HR.

If you are a true, genuine human rightist, you would have never lodged such a naive/blind charge against him. For the sake of morally consistent application of human rights, why don’t you for a moment take off your glasses that are obviously all fogged up by the juice of your “west can’t do no wrongs” wet dreams and look around? And, now, tell us what you see, Mr/Ms Human Rights. Tell us how the west/US applies what the HR delcaration says, how it uses/abuses human rights. Don’t just get all soaked up in your intense reading of the HR declaration; it is important to observe the hisotrical and (geo)political realities as related to the selective application of HR principles by the west/US or even their outright suffocation of these principles whenever and wherever they get in the way of western/US interests.

At the end of the day, it is not the principles/declaration that carries the day; what really matters is how those principles are applied in practice.

So, Mr/Ms Human Rights, wake up from your soaking wet dreams, take a cold shower, and observe the vast panorama of western/us applications and abuses of human rights; their shameless, endless and pervasive hypocracy/double standards simply because they can get away with their morally-challenged behavior.

PS: By the way, do you really believe in your right mind that Ali has not read Human Rights Universal Declaration? Get off your high horses of intellectual superiority!!! It ticks me off that somebody like you who is obviously well-educated and, by implication, intellectually enlightened would openly hold such a low opinion of other intellectuals as if they are fake. Challenge them, if you must, on their views/ideologies, but not on their authenticity. The kind of hollow remark that you made about Ali (going so far as to call him “goon”) reveals more about you — your inherent insecurity and lack of confidence in your own position/views — than about Ali. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

I hate both ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’!

People who want to do some good to the country do not need ‘ism’ at all.

Today’s communists are trying to retain the old and useless Marxism by criticizing the US imperialism and by hailing multy-party system. They know they have no existence otherwise. However, socialism of any guise cannot be the alternative of US imperialism. We, the people of the world, are slowly beginning to understand the conspiracy behind the ‘socialist trick’ to justify Marxism in terms of their criticism of US capitalism.

The capitalism of US is evil, but this does not mean that socialism is good. Cannot both be bad?

We have and must move beyond any theory. Theories are sets of lies, a kind of trap which ignores and humiliates people’s freedom and independence.

Tariq Ali criticizes the current notion of human rights by arguing that the right to education etc. also fall within its definition. He seems to be a good samaritan, but in fact he is no different from the orthodox outdated communists who have been arguing in the same manner for decades. Socialism cannot guarantee people’s right to education, food, shelter, etc. We have had enough lessons from Eastern Europe, we don’t need no other experiment.

Even the polemics of socialism differ according to people who practice them. The idea of classless and non-authoritarian society is much better expressed by ‘anarchists’ than by Marxists themselves, me thinks. While Marxism propounds on ‘stages to a classless society’ where socialism become the foundation to achieve the end goal — an egalitarian society; anarchists believe that replacing one authority by another is no substitute for the end goal of a free and classless society. A dictatorship is a dictatorship — whether of a proliteriat or a bourgeoise.

Mystichacker,

Just when you thought it was safe to write crap again. I am back.

Your ignorance on Marxism is revealing:

1. The stagist view of Marxism is classical Marxism and predates Russian Marxism and the Lenin school. Neo-Marxists do not believe in the stagist view of history either. Even Karl Marx began to question this view in his later writings.

2. You say that a dictatorship is a dictatorship -whether a proletariat or a bourgeoisie. The dictatorship of the proletariat only exists are capitalism and it is replaced by socialism before communism. Communism is the end goal.

3. An egalitarian society by its very definition can not be considered to be a dictatorship.

Your knowledge of Marxism is shoddy and poor. Even an amateur like me recognises this!

Well, well. Look who we have here, if it isn’t Ian, the ‘I am on holiday because I get insulted at Samudaya’. Welcome back! Now, I couldn’t care less whether a classical Marxist or a neo-Marxist talked about the ‘stages to communism’. The point I was making — an ‘overall’ egalitarian society is much a pipe-dream of Marxists as immediate stateless society is of anarchists.

I think you had too much sun during your holiday.

“Socialism is a long and most painful route from capitalism to capitalism.” -Catherine Verdery

The term ‘dictatorship of proleteriate’ assumes the existence of bourgeoise even in the so called communist society. Otherwise, they would say ‘dictatorship of the people’.

Federico Mayor:

Recent experience has shown that the introduction of democracy is a complex process which involves more than mere political transformations. The transition to democracy concerns the whole body politic — that is to say, all the individuals that constitute it and their social relationships. Success in constructing a democratic civil society depends on the commitments of the population at large to the democratic ideal, on its active involvement in all aspects of political, social and cultural life, on tolerance of difference combined with respect for majority opinion, as well as on the existence of democratic institutions and wise political leadership. Democracy cannot therefore be achieved rapidly since changes in human attitudes are less easily accomplished than the remodeling of political structures.

While politicians of Nepal are practicing horse trading for power, the people in Nepal have to keep in mind, as said by prominent British satirist Alexander Pope, “Let fools quarrel over the forms of government, that which is governed best is the best.”

No constitution, declaration and proclamation will last long if it is unrealistic and against the ground realities of the country. Only a constitution, which reflects the balance of powers between political forces, will give a lasting stability. Despite the recent upsurge, power balance and country’s ground realities have not changed much.

Communism at its crux is intolerance towards… ironically the best that society has to offer … it does not try and change sentiments and utilise that strata of society… it tries to wipe them out.. and then to make things even more crazier… they then try and bring up the entire country to that same level in one shot…. which gives rise to the inevitable end to each and every communist state this planet has ever seen….(u gotta have heard this saying “BAADAAR KO HAATH MA NAREWAL”) whether its by comunism of old .. or communism the 21st century…

Why, even in the 21st century, anyone would advocate communism is beyond my grasp of comprehension.

There’ve been plethora of failed implementation of all forms of communism; people have tried every distortion of this inherently flawed ideology with nothing but regressive results. As Einstein said, “insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results”.

Advocating communism is like trying to convert everyone to become Amish. Nothing against the Amish but, it’s not for everyone. The minimalist ideology that asks people to suppress their inner desire for prosperity, ingenuity, entrepreneurship and competition has not and will not last, as it goes against some basic human principals. Communism is like any fundamentalist religion; it makes these ‘great’ claims about people in utopian existence, which is not realistic for such flawed beings like us.

I’m sure I don’t need to preach the incompetence of communism, as many of you are already well versed on this matter, I just wonder if there people who still believe this is a viable option for Nepal.

Einstein says - In Capitalism, “Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

“I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.” http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

Well-known Mathematician and MITian Late Prof Dirk J Struik (1894-2000) said - “The struggle of the working people for emancipation in the history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries goes from defeat to defeat and gets stronger every time afterwards. After the revolution of 1848, which was defeated, in fifteen years the labor movement was strong enough to build the First International of 1864. The First International was destroyed after the Commune of Paris of 1871, but only eighteen years afterwards the Second International was created in Brussels, far stronger than the First International with it branches over large sections of the world. I myself lived through the years of the First World War, and I remember how in 1914 the Second International, on which we had placed our hopes that it would prevent the war, collapsed, and it was again a heavy defeat for the forces of emancipation and progress. It was due to overwhelming nationalism - sounds familiar nowadays, doesn’t it?

“In 1917, the Russian Revolution came, followed by revolutions in other countries, and for the first time an attempt was made to build a whole part of the world according to a socialist pattern. This was almost a success. Then in 1941 Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, and the pundits cried, “Hitler will be in Moscow in six weeks!” Those who believed it thought that again the chances for a socialist attempt to build the world would be lost, but it was not Hitler who won - you all know what happened to him. The result was the spread of attempts at socialism over very large sections of the world, including, on my fifty-fifth birthday in 1949 - and there never was a greater present - the creation of the Chinese People’s Republic, at that time on the way to socialism, and perhaps it is even now. There was the catastrophe of 1989, when the whole attempt, to a certain extent successful, to build a better society collapsed. It now seems as if capitalism - which is a capitalism in crisis - is dominating the world.

“But let us carry some hope from the lessons of history, of which I have given you a few examples as I see it. I think that the chances are that out of this world of crises, in the near future even a greater struggle for human emancipation will arise than we have ever seen before. But we have to work for it, because we need to mind the words of Einstein, which I have quoted, that we need a new type of thinking. Because not only have we digressed in the organization of the working classes of the whole world, but also in the struggle for the preservation of the very Earth on which we stand and live.

“This combination of the struggle for the emancipation of mankind and the struggle for the preservation of the Earth needs a lot of new thinking, and I believe that the new thinking does not come from Washington, D.C. We must do the new thinking - by that I mean the masses of the world who suffer under the present decay of the capitalist system, with all its boasting. There is plenty of opportunity to do this, but new ways have to be found. It is up to you younger people to find answers! Red and green have to find ways to collaborate. Red is mostly labor and working class, and green is mostly middle class. There have been conflicts, but there has to be a way found in which they can work together. Not only must red and green work together, but also white, brown, and black.”

Socialism is a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

The almost one century old experiment on social control has showed us all where it has ended. Then, what next, then. Where is the Utopia? Will it ever surface in the horizon? It has always ened in ‘Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others’ (Orwell).

Socialism refers to both a set of doctrines and the political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice. Although doctrinal aspects loomed largest in the early history of socialism, in its later history the movements have predominated over doctrine, so much so that there is no precise canon on which the various adherents of contemporary socialist movements agree. The most that can be said is that socialism is, in the words of Anthony Crosland, a British socialist, ‘a set of values, or aspirations, which socialists wish to see embodied in the organization of society.’

Although it is possible to trace adumbrations faintly of modern socialist ideas as far back as Plato’s ‘Republic’, Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’, and the profuse Utopian literature of the 18th-century ‘Ellightenment’, realistically, modern socialism had its roots in the reflections of various writers who opposed the social and economic relations and dislocations brought by the Industrial Revolution. They criticized what they conceived to be the injustice, the inequalities, the suffering brought about by the capitalist mode of production and the free and uncontrolled market on which it rested. To the acquisitive individualism of their age they opposed a vision of a new community of producers bound to each other through fraternal solidarity. They conceived of a future in which the masses would wrest control of the means of production and the levers of government from the capitalists.

Dear Pradip,

There you understand more than anybody, when you say, “Although doctrinal aspects loomed largest in the early history of socialism, in its later history the movements have predominated over doctrine, so much so that there is no precise canon on which the various adherents of contemporary socialist movements agree.” This is what we will have to understand - Marx time and again stressed the idea of “self-emancipation” of the oppressed and downtrodden. When you grasp this point, you will see doctrinaire socialism as ideas uprooted from the reality, mere sectist socialism. Marx himself says - “The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers’ movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other. So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary.”

People have time and again struggled to develop a social atmosphere that is best suited for their development, and in this course they develop ideas about the “social system” that is best suited for this goal. When you extract ideas away from the particular level of struggle that bore them, they become stale sectist “doctrines”. The living idea of “socialism” is that idea which is continuously built and enriched in the struggle of humanity for its self-emancipation. That is why people like Marx, and even Lenin never provided any recipe for socialism. It is for the concrete movements to build it for the goal of satisfying human needs.

If you understand this, and if you recognise the struggles around you, then you’ll comprehend that socialism is continuously built in those struggles. Particular models fail as they are for particular junctures, but as long as people as communities struggle for their well-being, socialism as the means to that end survives. Ciao

Yes, I agree, Einstein.

Although the great majority of men calling themselves socialists in the 19th and 20th centuries have shared this vision, they have disagreed about its more specific ideas. Some of them have argued that only the complete nationalization of the means of production would suffice to implement their aims. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries, with controlled private ownership of the remainder. Some socialists insist that only strong centralized state direction and a command economy will suffice. Others advocate a “market socialism” in which the market economy would be directed and guided by socialist planners.

The uses and abuses of the word socialism are legion. As early as 1845, Friedrich Engels complained that the socialism of many Germans was “vague, undefined, and undefinable”. Since Engels’ day the term socialism has been the property of anyone who wished to use it. The same Bismarck who as German chancellor in the late 1870s outlawed any organization that advocated socialism in Germany declared a few years later that “the state must introduce even more socialism in our Reich”. Modern sophisticated conservatives, as well as Fascists and various totalitarian dictators, have often claimed that they were engaged in building socialism.

Post 9.

The idea of human rights as natural rights was not without its detractors, however, even at this otherwise receptive time. In the first place, being frequently associated with religious orthodoxy, the doctrine of natural rights became less and less acceptable to philosophical and political liberals.

Additionally, because they were conceived in essentially absolutist — “inalienable,” “unalterable,” “eternal” — terms, natural rights were found increasingly to come into conflict with one another. Most importantly, the doctrine of natural rights came under powerful philosophical and political attack from both the right and the left.

This assault upon natural law and natural rights, thus begun during the late 18th century, both intensified and broadened during the 19th and early 20th centuries. John Stuart Mill, despite his vigorous defense of liberty, proclaimed that rights ultimately are founded on utility. The German jurist Friedrich Karl von Savigny, England’s Sir Henry Maine, and other historicalists emphasized that rights are a function of cultural and environmental variables unique to particular communities.

By World War I, there were scarcely any theorists who would or could defend the “rights of Man” along the lines of natural law. Indeed, under the influence of 19th-century German Idealism and parallel expressions of rising European nationalism, there were some — the Marxists, for example — who, although not rejecting individual rights altogether, maintained that rights, from whatever source derived, belong to communities or whole societies and nations preeminently.

Yet, though the heyday of natural rights proved short, the idea of human rights nonetheless endured in one form or another. But it was not until the rise and fall of Nazi Germany, that the idea of rights — human rights — came truly into its own.

The laws authorizing the dispossession and extermination of Jews and other minorities, the laws permitting arbitrary police search and seizure, the laws condoning imprisonment, torture, and execution without public trial — these and similar obscenities brought home the realization that law and morality, if they are to be deserving of the name, cannot be grounded in any purely Utilitarian, Idealist, or other consequentialist doctrine.

Certain actions are wrong, no matter what; human beings are entitled to simple respect at least.

good job, Diwas and Rajani. Good, thoughtful questions. I like this Tariq Ali man. Hope to have more of such pieces in samudaya.

Human Rights,

I truly appreciate your brief historical background on NR and HR. But my question to you is: What does this all have to do with the points I was making in my comments on your earlier blog entry?

The article has very good insight into Nepali contemporary politics and reality.

What caught my attention most in the following BBC news report is a line that reads: “The talks are being held at a luxury hotel.”

How sad and absurd! While millions of Nepalis are suffering severely from hunger and malnutrition, these so-called leaders want to seclude themselves in the lap of luxury. This seems like a telling omen of what lies ahead for Nepal and Nepalis. PEACE TALKS in a “luxury hotel” — a hotel where people probably have to pay handosomly even for a DRINK OF WATER, one of their most fundamental rights or survival necessities.

If this is any indication of these leaders’ commitment to serve the masses, then I must be going senile. I hope this inauspicious beginning of peace talks in a luxury hotel does not signal the end of our hope and vision for A NEW NEPAL.

Have your say and make your voice heard, my friends.

Click here softly!

Interesting story in TEHELKA by Amit Sengupta
EXCLUSIVE : NEPAL POST-GYANENDRA

After victory, revolution!

Amit Sengupta travels through the still tense and volatile countryside and finds that Maoists are ready for another push if the Koirala government belies popular aspirations
Visit TEHELKA >

Yes, indeed, brilliantly written!

Lifted lot of my cobwebs.

A tale of two cows:

Socialism: You have two cows and you give one to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. The Government takes both and gives you some milk.

Fascism: You have two cows. The Government takes both and sells you some milk.

Nazism: You have two cows. The Government takes both and shoots you.

Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. You herd multiples, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

aitaraj,

your astute analysis of capitalism fails to account for the government subsidies you will recieve along the way to your retirement - grazing pastures rented for pennies, water damned up and delivered to your farm at peril to the ecosystem, a surplusage of food grown so that your herd can be fed, “tax relief” for you and your brethren, tarriffs on foreign beef, ………….and if you’re truly lucky, you won’t meet me in a dark alley along the way to your idyllic retirement.

Andrey Sakharov wrote:

The ideology of human rights is probably the only one which can be combined with such diverse ideologies as communism, social democracy, religion, technocracy and those ideologies which may be described as national and indigenous. It can also serve as a foothold for those … who have tired of the abundance of ideologies, none of which have brought … simple human happiness. The defense of human rights is a clear path toward the unification of people in our turbulent world, and a path toward the relief of suffering.

Capitalism: You have two cows. Whoever has more money, take both the cows, whether you want to sell them or not. Or else, because you have nothing else but cows, you yorself end up eating them, and you come to the labour market to work in the sweatshops. As now you have become a beef-eater, you face the wrath of the veggies and Hindu Fascists.

Have some rigour and get some knowledge about political economy. Don’t become newspaper savvy. Do you know the history of fascism, how world corporate capitalism used it for the monopolisation of the markets? Who were the funders of the Nazi regime and the fascists?

Lal Salaam, Comrade!

The bourgeois media-the running dogs of imperialism- are misrepresenting so-called human rights violations by the political and military wings of the CPN Maoist by calling “atrocities”.

Moreover, what do 15,000 deaths matter compared to the achievements of the People’s Movement and the People’s War?

Girija: Your two cows are mine. Now, go find more cows for the rest of my family and some for my party… after all, I have to promote my dynasty to replace the one gone. Damn Commies, dreaming that that the Great Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal will be the First Revolutionary Chairman of the People’s Council. Damn him. I will manipulate for a non-Nepali, young, seducive, female, temperamental, corrupt… but after all, a former Koirala- Sujata Jost. What is good for my family is good for you.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal: Your two cows are mine plus the land they stand on. Now, you have to work for me to take care of the cows. Plus you have to give informal tax (chanda) to take care of the cows, feed you as laborer, dress you in green and give you a bicycle. Why are you not listening to me?

Maoists must remember their 40 Point Demands that they made in 1996. They must be ensured to have any meaningful change in the Nepali political economy (of course after reframing them to suit the new situation). The peasant and landless interests must not be compromised. Certainly, this will bring the division within the political leadership in power to the fore. But that is needed for the ‘demos’ to know the ‘cracy’ and ‘crats’, their real colours.

{text of 40 points removed for technical reasons}

We offer a heartfelt request to the present coalition government that they should, fulfill the above demands which are essential for Nepal’s existence and for the people’s daily lives as soon as possible. If the government doesn’t show any interest by Falgun 5, 2052, (February 17, 1996,) we will be compelled to launch a movement against the government. *** The above demands put forth by the Samukta Jana Morcha, led by Dr. Bhattarai, were handed over to the then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.

It is farfetched to hold that the capitalist state of Venezuela with its military politicians can deliver any workers and popular power from above.

Chavez is supporting a statecapitalist party dictatorship on Cuba. He don’t support the working class population Russia, Iran and China, states he have declared a ‘strategic’ alliance. He supports the upper class and it is these countries. This has nothing to do with with all power to workers and popular institutions from the working places and where people are living. It is a bourgois foreign policy produced by a statecapitalist system.

Chavez is a left peronist, a corporativist which is the same as a fascist, even if he yet have not sent his police and military against the majority. But his ‘strategic’ allies do it. Trotskyist/leninist and all this statecapitalist jazz from above. What Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias is striving for is a capitalist union of Latin America which can be bigger capitalist on the world market.

Socialism is international with no fatherland, patria. Even Karl Marx knew that.

* http://www.geocities.com/youcreatedcosmos/news.html

Nemo Etomer

The specific feature of the present situation in Nepal is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organization of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants.

This transition is characterized, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognized rights (Nepal is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism.

This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special conditions among unprecedented large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life.

LONG LIVE THE VICTORY OF PEOPLE’S WAR! LONG LIVE PRACHANDAPATH!!

We are inviting comments on Tariq Ali’s book THE LEOPARD AND THE FOX for our book club. Check out our announcement by clicking on the following URL http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/070311/books12.htm

We are inviting your comments on THE LEOPARD AND THE FOX. For more details click on the

following correct URL: http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/070304/books8.htm

I am ethnically not considered as Madhesi until now but I belong from Madhesh and proud to be a Madhesi. As we know that, our country has been crossed the limitation of crisis. Maoist has forcedly changed into the previously declared peaceful movement of Madhesi, indigenous people and others’ into brutal violent due to their guerrilla attack on peaceful demonstration e.g. in Lahan, Butwal, Dang, Nepalgunj, Bardia etc.

DOWN WITH GIRIJA AND HIS INDIANBAAD!!

NAAKCHUCHE AND HIS FOR A FEW RUPEES MORE!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!