This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

The national question in Nepal

April 22, 2007

The agitation in the Terai of Nepal raises important theoretical questions connecting the national question to the bourgeois and socialist revolutions. Demands for the breakup of Nepal and independence for the Terai region arose in militant form just as the government in Nepal reached an agreement with anti-monarchist rebels. The agitation continues, as today a three day strike by the Madhesi Peoples' Rights Forum's for Terai demands came to an end.(1) Other strikes are being announced.

The imperialists and Indian bourgeoisie see the upsurge of the exploited in Nepal as an opportunity to undertake a strategy of divide-and-conquer. Nonetheless, the arousal of the exploited in Nepal is bound to take national forms. The only question is whether the process will proceed far enough to target the correct enemy.

The correct strategy is the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations (JDPON). On a class basis in the Third World, it may seem that there is no particular reason that we should wish to see more nations take political form than fewer. The question has to be scrutinized closely.

The reasons the JDPON is correct strategy are two-fold: 1) the old outlook from Marx's pre-imperialist day is no longer appropriate because U.$. imperialism has no white proletariat and an insufficient migrant proletariat to take it down. 2) the principal cause of the backwardness of the Third World conditions is super-exploitation by imperialism, not exploitation by local elites. For this reason, simply adopting Western bourgeois ideologies to battle feudal remnants will not succeed. Feudal remnants would have been dispensed with already if not for the political backing of imperialism and the economic stunting of the local bourgeoisie. We need to look at why the local bourgeoisie cannot get the job done.

In Russia's revolution, the unleashing of oppressed nations nationalism even of a bourgeois sort spelled doom for backward agriculture and the imperialist tsar. In a country such as Nepal, the difference is that there is no embodiment of imperialism such as the tsar at the local level.

So one could make the mistake of thinking that in Nepal the task is to squelch nationalism of various sorts. It would appear that imperialism and India lie in wait to take advantage of divisions of Nepal's 28 million. In reality, oppressed nations nationalism should be treated as political concern for the conditions of a people. It is an indicator of the politicization of the people.

Even the theocrat-king of Nepal is not really an adequate target for the upsurge in nationalist demands. Once removed, imperialism is still there, unlike the situation in the Russian Revolution, where the revolution could accomplish the removal of a real imperialism, Russian imperialism. The secular democracy that came to power in Russia eventually gave way and Russian imperialism died only to be reborn under Khruschev.

The Prachanda Path people in Nepal have argued that with the removal of the king it is possible to have the eight parties undertake a common anti-imperialist platform. Such a unity also replaces the unity previously offered by the king.

The suspicion will be that since Nepal has no real tangible symbol of imperialism, the peoples there are divisible, as Terai agitation may prove. On the other hand, ironically and dialectically, the more the U.$. media dominates the world, the more possibility exists that the u.$. oppressors and exploiters will unite the people of Nepal against their own super-exploitation instead of each other.

Ambassador Moriarty has virtually claimed the Terai agitation for India and the united $tates.(2) Murder in the name of "inclusiveness" brings the twisting of liberal political correctness to a new level. The United Nations has reported that some Terai agitation was coordinated in advance against the so-called Maoist rebels massacred in Gaur.(3) Even if we agreed with Terai separation, it would still be true that other people in Nepal are oppressed and exploited brothers of the Terai.

The timing of the Terai uprisings seems to favor the monarchy, which itself is not on record as favoring Terai independence. Thoughts along these lines point to India and U.$. imperialism. On the other hand, India and U.$. imperialism could promote no mischief if Terai nationalists organized their own "joint" repudiations of the monarchy. This is the element that seems to be lacking and it suggests a way of driving a wedge between the bought-off troublemakers for India and U.$. imperialism and any real Terai nationalists.

The politics of Nepal's central government proceed a step at a time to educate the people. We learn about what is holding up declaration of a republic for example.

If any nationality or region held a referendum that supported the king or simply refused to handle the issue at all, surely other regions of Nepal would then be right to launch an attack to assert central control, so as to allow no political threat anywhere from regressive forces. On the other hand, what is the harm in having several nations repudiate the monarchy? Will this not rebuff Hindu extremism in such a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of South Asian peoples? Then if the resulting political formations fall into an Indian orbit, instead of an anti-imperialist orbit, that can be exposed then. In discussing the possible break-up of Nepal, we may seem to go "too far," but what is "too far" when it comes to the politicization of the oppressed and exploited? From history of the Soviet Union, we know that once certain windows for politicization closed, they never opened again until capitalist restoration opened them the wrong way. If India and the United $tates want to politicize the Terai question, why not let them? They have no prospect of closing the question once opened through some bourgeoisification of the Terai people. That is their mistake.

As with the issue of monarchy, the issue of super-exploitation needs to be concrete to foster the unity of the oppressed nations. The real question is where backwardness comes from. Is discrimination by the hilly people against the Terai the real cause of backwardness? It sounds good via a certain rhetoric of political correctness, but such a notion could only arise among people without a true picture of the global class structure. If we do not know where the bourgeoisie is globally, we do not know where the real exploitation is going on, where the surplus-value is really flowing.

The call to "inclusiveness" is a liberal one, based in the economics of an expanding bourgeoisie. In going beyond a family-based or theocratic ruling class, the liberal bourgeois ideology of "inclusiveness" has some progressive thrust, sometimes to an extent that it fools even the communists.

"Inclusiveness" has created the illusion in the united $tates of a kind of justice within u.$. borders. The "civil rights" movement creates a certain impression that must be dispelled internationally. The United $tates has not achieved national and racial justice and what harmony there is is simply unity for super-exploitation. There are now millions of Blacks, Latinos, indigenous and Asian-descended people in the united $tates that are part of the petty-bourgeoisie. The underlying unity of the "rainbow coalition" in the united $tates is super-profit sharing. Black troops patrol in Baghdad and Boricuans sit occupying southern Korea. The rainbow in military practice is globalization which is imperialism. On a global scale, the people of color partaking in super-profit sharing are but tokens. The left-wing of parasitism with its "one working class" idea is simply the vanguard of imperialist globalization, preparing the way for rainbow interventions the globe over. Without taking in increasing non- citizens and oppressed nationalities, the U.S. Army would be really pinched right now. When the truly exploited workers raise their Mexican flag inside the u.$. borders, the white nationalists bitch about "bourgeois nationalism." Instead, we tell the Blacks, Koreans and Boricuans not to be serving imperialism in other countries, but to look to freeing your own countries. At the same time, there is not necessarily a direct parallel in the Nepal situation, just because Nepal also has a central government: Nepal is not imperialist. Instead, what we are saying is that "inclusiveness" only goes so far even in the united $tates which is advocating it.

The ideology of "one working class" in the imperialist countries has to be smashed. Whenever the oppressors talk about "bourgeois nationalism" opposing U.$. imperialism, let it be said no Third World nationalism opposing U.$. imperialism is bourgeois. Such nationalism is the unity of the exploited against the exploiters. There is no world party simultaneously mobilizing the world's proletariat as one against imperialism. The mobilizations against imperialism always occur in concrete forms, in local conditions. There is in fact no politics opposing superexploitation that is not nationalism. Protests contrary are the white nationalism of the exploiters.

So we say if some of the people in Nepal have doubts about Prachanda, Koirala etc., let the issues go a nation at a time. Let each take a stand on Terai agitation. The exploited need strong alliances among the oppressed nations to prepare joint dictatorship over imperialism. Where there is enough trust there is no harm in dissolving nations into each other. Where there is doubt and questions are not settled in the people's minds, it is especially wrong to rush the question before the agrarian questions are settled.

There are two different progressive thrusts operating in the world. The bourgeois thrust is expanding the ranks of the bourgeoisie in mostly agrarian countries. "Inclusiveness" can be a watchword of this bourgeoisie. The second more progressive and revolutionary thrust is the proletarian thrust.

The proletarian thrust has been globally obscured in large part because of the phony Marxists of the imperialist countries. Failing to demarcate correctly between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat, the vast majority of people calling themselves "Marxist" in the imperialist countries allowed themselves to be sucked in by the liberal civil rights project, not just as tactically correct in many situations, but as the overall strategy of a "united working class."

In reality, the "united working class" strategy and civil rights would be more useful in Nepal than the united $tates, but without the super- profits to distribute, the "inclusiveness" strategy will end up ringing hollow in South Asia. The ranks of the bourgeoisie cannot expand as far as they do in the united $tates. The chances that a civil rights movement in Nepal would end up integrating everyone are nil, because the bourgeoisie is not that strong and commonplace and it is impossible to integrate the bourgeoisie with the proletariat. Racial and other integration strategies can only succeed so far as the underlying class realities allow and the bourgeoisie and proletariat do not integrate. Integration only has some reality now in places where everyone is bourgeoisie or in the distant communist future without classes. Even in a country as rich as the united $tates, the prisons end up filled with oppressed nationality people and a lumpen still exists, to the point where the united $tates is the least free country in the world judging by imprisonment statistics--again, so much for "inclusiveness."

With the aid of phony Marxists for the civil rights project standing behind him, Ambassador Moriarty tells Nepal to copy the Western "inclusiveness" project. Together, they deny that the wealth of the U.$. so-called workers stems from super-exploitation; hence, they believe their example can extend to Nepal. Together the phony Marxists and Moriarty tell tales that amount to what Marx called "the theory of the productive forces," by which the wealth produced by the individual can expand through the magic of inanimate objects brought to bear. It is not that these people are capitalist exploiters: they are just more "productive" say the exploiters, because they use more "technology" and other inanimate objects.

Moriarty and the phony Marxists expect "fear-free" elections in Nepal. They do not understand that super-profits that turn people into couch-sitting apolitical marshmallows are limited to the imperialist countries where political unity occurs through near-total bourgeoisification. The proper comparison would be Nepal with the united $tates when the united $tates itself was having a bourgeois revolution. At that time, Americans were much more violent than the people of Nepal today. Moreover, the elections in the united $tates are conducted in a permanent state of fear whipped up by the politicians themselves, with everything from fears of crime, migrants, gays and Osama Bin Laden playing the main roles.

Against this, we for the proletarian revolution say that income and profits come from labor. We do not believe tall tales of "productivity" under capitalism. We know that they justify exploiter incomes. Surely Bill Gates, Donald Trump etc. are the most "productive" if we use the circular reasoning of the bourgeoisie.

In South Asia there are issues of quotas and affirmative action connected to caste. MIM would say that the liberal project will not succeed in South Asia. Liberalism can move toward equal opportunity to join the bourgeoisie. Yet that bourgeoisie is stunted in South Asia because of super-exploitation and this exacerbates social divisions of all kinds. With a stunted bourgeoisie, the point of much liberalism in South Asia is moot. It is impossible to integrate the bourgeoisie with the proletariat and it is impossible to grow the bourgeoisie big enough to "include" everyone in South Asia.

The imperialists will deny that it is impossible to grow the bourgeoisie to include everyone, because that would mean admitting that the unity of Amerikans and other imperialist country populations is based on super-exploitation of other countries. The imperialists go on advocating their culture for other countries, as if the Third World could take up super-exploitation too.

Thanks to a failure to target the exploitation and national questions correctly, all sorts of odd theories arise in the vacuum. In Rwanda we had Tutsi maids making $800 a year named some kind of privileged exploiters by the Hutu. In countless countries, there is talk as if the Jews were the entirety and not the minority of the international bourgeoisie. When exploitation is not understood correctly, because the international class structure is not pictured accurately, just about any theory can arise to fill its place. Now that the people of Nepal have awakened politically, the question is what implicit theories will the people take up.

The international proletariat has an interest in making super- exploitation concrete for the people of South Asia. In Nepal, it may be difficult to perceive exploiters thousands of miles away and this is the weakness of our class. If the leaders of scientific Marxism fail to make super-exploitation a concrete issue, then the Liberal "inclusiveness" project may carry the day and delay South Asia's development. The real issue is economic development and what is holding it back. When the economy is expanding, various ethnicities work together as Stalin found. When the economy is shrinking or stagnating and when the imperialists play divide-and-conquer, the political correctness agenda is the phony solution that comes to the fore.

Another reason that the "inclusiveness" agenda can come to the fore is the lack of Marxist leadership on demarcating between bourgeoisie and proletariat in the Third World. If the so-called Marxists do not recognize the bourgeoisie in those rare instances when it does exist in a Third World country, then Marxism becomes a disguise for regional, caste or national ideologies of the bourgeoisie. MIM uses the labor aristocracy question to sort out the fakers. If the so- called Marxists do not know the concrete economic facts about Amerikans being the bourgeoisie of the world, then they are weak on super-exploitation. They are also liable to deny the existence of the bourgeoisie in their own country. The "inclusiveness" project gets wind in its sails when the supposed proletarian leaders cover for the real bourgeoisie and give the people the impression that it would be better to pursue equal opportunity to join the bourgeoisie than expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It is one thing to ally with the Third World bourgeoisie to certain ends, but we should not cover up that bourgeoisie, which inevitably has its uneven origins and particularities. Our weakness is that the proletariat must be led to see the real global structure of exploitation and the principal exploiter may seem distant. The weakness of capitalism is that the Amerikan Dream cannot be exported to places without super-profit sharing, and furthermore, bourgeois politics will founder on attempts to integrate the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Larger numbers of super-exploited people united have a better chance of leaving imperialist orbit than smaller numbers. Also larger numbers of people can create a superior division of labor within their own economy. This can lead to a sort of "red empire" building logic. It can only work where existing class forces are already favorable to revolution, and just need the geopolitical and local political atmosphere tipped over to enjoy their own independent class struggle.

Contrary to every nationality in the ex-Soviet Union that thought its own nationality was exploited by the others, when the bourgeois social-imperialist Soviet Union fell apart, all boats sank. Oddly enough, almost all the former Soviet republics know this now, but they will only admit it in private. To this day, the rhetoric is of resentments by the former Soviet republics kept under central leadership. The danger exists in any Third World country that the people will not agree with the scientific Marxist analysis of the causation of poverty, and this can lead to blaming other oppressed or exploited people.

MIM has argued that India is not imperialist. The trick will be to unite the various national upsurges against imperialism, even long before it is tangible as U.$. troops landing to oppose a socialist republic. If the proletariat is forced in Nepal to start piecing together a joint dictatorship of the oppressed nations, because of the Terai agitation, this may end up being more difficult for India than its rulers imagined. The bourgeoisie has the difficulty of moving South Asia forward and fulfilling hopes; even though, super- exploitation is stunting economic development. The proletariat's difficulty is making imperialism concrete in South Asia. The imperialist country parties not belonging to the proletarian camp with MIM are concretely contributing to the disunity of the oppressed and exploited in South Asia by denying the full extent of super- exploitation.

Notes:
1. http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=107449
2. See for example, "He also added that Constituent Assembly (CA) elections could be conducted in a 'fear-free' environment only after resolving the problems of agitating and 'unsatisfied' parties through dialogue."
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=107152
3. http://www.nepalhumanrightsnews.com/news.asp?id=846