Yesterday I heard a presentation on the Maoist revolution in Nepal, by Li Onesto of the U.S. Revolutionary Communist Party. The Maoists have occupied over 80% of the countryside, having reached the 'strategic phase' of the war to seize state power from the monarchy. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN(M)), and their People's Liberation Army (PLA) have created base zones in which land has been redistributed to peasants, landlords have been kicked out and people's courts have been established. 'Semi-feudal' relations have been broken down, resulting in legalization of divorce and inter-caste marriages.

Mass party, or just massive? - Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

Note that I write everything in the passive tense. This has all been done 'for' the peasants by the CPN(M), from the government to the new irrigation systems. This is a key tenet of Maoist ideology: the party and army do things on behalf of the people, up to taking state power. I'd argue that this betrays a fundamentally anti-democratic, authoritarian strain within Maoism. The people only act within the bounds the Maoists set.

This is what democracy looks like?

After the talk, someone asked about how stable those democratic reforms are. Onesto answered that the first question was power: in whose interests does democracy operate? Democracy is always a question of class power, 'democracy for' a particular ruling class.

As straightforward as this sounds, it evades the question. Democracy - a democratic, representative system of government - serves a particular class. But the answer isn't to do away with democracy altogether, making self-government dependent on the benevolence of a minority party. It's to deepen it: create institutions that are answerable to the working class. And, I might add, those institutions aren't created by revolutionaries: they arise spontaneously out of struggle.

Party is not class

This was one of Trotsky's great insights: soviets form the basis of a new democratic system. The goal of the Bolshevik party was not to abolish Soviets and create their own, controllable structures; nor was it to turn soviets into instruments of Bolshevik rule (at least not until Stalin took over.)

Workers' councils, not council workers. Anne Zahalka

The Bolsheviks tried to deepen the democratic power of the soviets, in 1905 and 1917: the slogan 'all power to the Soviets' meant that the old, undemocratic institutions, based on class power, were no longer representative. The working class demanded its own institutions of rule, and that meant Soviet power. Not Bolshevik power. The fusion of party and class is the first step towards dictatorship, which is anethema to socialism - but something Maoists have no problem with.

Goin' to the country

This is reflected in the Maoist phrase, 'encircle the cities', which Onesto repeated many times. The PLA isn't trying to instigate a revolt in the cities, but to assemble overwhelming force outside it, and harass the government forces enough to precipitate a crisis. Then, with the ruling class disoriented and demobilized, the PLA marches in triumphantly to take over.

Sisters are doin' it for themselves - Bertolucci's 1900

Where's the democracy? How is this different from any ordinary coup? The Maoists justify this tactically and ideologically: the cities are where the mass of counter-revolutionary elements gather i.e. different classes. To organize in cities is inevitably to create cross-class coalitions that will ultimately oppose socialism. But people aren't the embodiment of their class position (though, of course, the Maoist cultural revolution proceeded precisely on these lines, defining class as a sociological, rather than productive relation i.e. If you came from a professional family, you were petit-bourgeois, no matter what you did.)

Although the Maoists admit most of their forces are peasant-based, their leadership is proletarian - not in class composition, organization or % of party forces, but ideologically. Which is to go to the other extreme: now class, instead of being fixed by birth, is simply a mental attitude - as long as you're a Communist. This must be one of those contradictions they always go on about.

I'd argue the 'encircle the cities' tactic is not ideology, but pure expediency. Mao told the workers of the cities to remain calm and accept the Chinese PLA's invasion, because he feared they might be an alternate power base. In a revolutionary situation, the people create democratic institutions themselves - outside of the control of the PLA, they would be a threat.

Thanks for coming, Chairman! Class struggle would never have occurred to us otherwise.

Socialism-from-the-direction-the-Chairman-chooses

Peasants want land and freedom. According to Leninism, a revolutionary movement can't be based on the peasantry, because the peasantry isn't interested in state power: its social conditions, away from the levers of power, mean it will never form a cohesive revolutionary force.

For a party based on peasant liberation, it's a little odd that Maoists subscribe to this elitist view. Their revolutionary forces are always based on the support of the peasantry, not the peasants' independent initiative. The peasants remain firmly in their control, and the cities - where independent, proletarian movements could develop - are subdued beneath the people's army.

In short, Maoism is not socialist. It subjugates peasants and workers beneath a small revolutionary elite. Its cadres may gain vast support, as appears to have happened in Nepal. But its tactics ensure that support is dependent on the party. It's 'toy-Bolshevism', a caricature of revolution based on Stalinist fantasies. It has nothing to do with democracy or real revolutionary transformation.

No back-talking!

In Nepal, the Maoists themselves have implemented land reforms. To that extent, I'd argue they're a reflection of the strength of the peasant movement they speak for. The fact that the Maoists get so much support from the peasantry, that the peasants are willing to hand over leadership of their revolution, speaks volumes about the limited nature of peasant revolutions.

Nepal needs a socialist revolution just like everywhere else. I would never suggest Nepalese peasants stop what they're doing and start over again - that'd be sectarian. However, I'd argue that, here in the west, revolutionaries should be a lot more critical of the political groupings leading the movement, and their elitist vision of social change.

For further reading, I'd recommend Duncan Hallas' Party & Class... and of course my scintillating, bloody brilliant summation last September (Vanguard Revisited, down the page)