Prachanda welcomed by revolutionary activists in NYC
While Wall Street teeters on the brink and threatens to drag down with it the major financial institutions of Western Europe, revolutionary struggles around the world show that there are alternatives. Add to the list of inspirations and examples the peoples’ struggle in Nepal, where the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is now the majority party in the national assembly following its successful strategy of Peoples War against one of the most reactionary and medieval regimes in the world.
Last week, Prachanda, the political and military leader ofthe CPN-M and now the prime minister of Nepal, spoke at several events in NYC. Here is a report from the blog Absent Cause about Prachanda’s talk at a reception given by the International Action Center:
http://absent-cause.blogspot.com/2008/09/prachanda-welcomed-by-revolutionary.html
click here.
4 comments
Marxists have a long, long, long track record of entering into bourgeois governments. But Maoists? That's kind of a new one.
Begin western leftist orientalist fetishizing of another charismatic politico spouting vaguely revolutionary-sounding rhetoric. See, it's easy to do when you don't have to live under their policies, or worry about getting executed if you don't see eye-to-eye with their tunnel-vision program.
Matt, I don't see your point. The people of Nepal have been involved in a tremendous revolutionary struggle that has lasted more than ten years. The CPN-M played a leading role in that struggle and clearly have very widespread support among the people. Prachanda is one of the architects of the CPN-M's "Peoples' War" strategy that proved successful in overthrowing the monarchy.
I think that qualifies him as more than "another charismatic politico spouting vaguely revolutionary-sounding rhetoric." So why shouldn't activists in the U.S. welcome him, express solidarity with the Nepalese people, and be willing to hear from and learn from him and his comrades?
I don't see a problem with this event, but a critical eye needs to remain on any figurehead, no matter what s/he claims to stand for. I'm neither a student of history nor political science and I've only followed this tangentially, but the concerns under this new development would be similar to those of anyone living under a centralized government, if that indeed is what this is shaping up to be: how will this remain a people's movement now that it's not only being represented, but also administered by a small group of people? How much access will the people have to this group? What will assure the symmetry of the people's agenda to this group's agenda? What will hold the people together as a singular constituency whose needs can be met by a condensed set of deciders, and are they even a singular constituency under these new circumstances?
But, as long as his thing doesn't turn into the myopic pageant I see Matt envisioning, which is a real possibility, I don't see anything wrong with it. But if it gives this man reason to treat "revolution" like a trophy on a mantle that spells trouble, as I believe it has in the past.
I think we have to start by trusting the people of Nepal to hold the CPN-M accountable. I think we should also recognize that the CPN-M got where it is today by many years of (highly successful) struggle to win the support of the Nepalese people.
Leave a Comment