Re: [Marxism] ISO's conference.

[John <johnedmundson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 23:02 -0400, Mark Lause wrote:
> Sam B <sam.b.ann.arbor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on the importance of the
> Soviet question:
> >
> > When they [revolutions] happen, the West has to decide how to orient 
> > themselves to
> > those revolutions, what position to take, etc.
> >
> > Your positions on the SU's trajectory are going to color what position
> > you take on what's now happening in Nepal, for example. (For instance,
> > one way to look at Nepal is that 2006 was Nepal's 1905, and 2009
> > was/is Nepal's 1917...)
> >
> 
> This makes no sense to me.  People in the west need to take one
> position: resistance to the imperialist drive to act against these
> revolutions.  We don't have to agree with what's happening somewhere
> else to do this.  We don't even have to know that much about what's
> happening there.
> 
> We oppose western intervention into Nepal, and it doesn't matter a
> damn what happened in Russia 92 years ago.  We oppose western
> intervention there whether Nepal is experiencing a 1917, a 1905 or a
> 4:30 in the afternoon.

I agree. Actually sometimes I wish people knew LESS about 1917 than we
do, not more. What happened in Nepal in 2006 wasn't its 1905 or its
1917, it was its 2006. Why should we assume that Nepal will even vaguely
follow the Russian pattern. It is already very different in a couple of
absolutely key ways. 1. A protracted "people's war" in the Maoist
tradition, which is nothing like what happened in Russia. 2. The country
wasn't involved in a World War. 3. It's a small landlocked country with
a very different economic base - just being a peasant based economy is
not enough. Furthermore Nepal's revolution exists in an entirely
different epoch. What earthly difference does it make where an
organisation in the West decides to put its stake in the ground over
which stage of the Russian revolution Nepal has just had. That is
precisely what causes another basis for splits and divisions, which only
hinders real solidarity with Nepal and real progress in the West.

In the (micro)party I belong to we have had no such debates over Nepal,
attempting to shoehorn it into a Russian paradigm. Instead, we just knew
to be in solidarity with the process over there, and to try to better
understand it on its own terms. Needless to say the Maoists in our party
tend to be more optimistic, those from a Trot or "nonaligned" background
are a bit more circumspect. But we're entirely in agreement with the
need for solidarity with the Nepalese comrades and our opportunity to
learn from their experience.

We (the pro-Mao, loosely Trot and independents) came together over two
main points of common agreement - the primacy for us of an analysis of
New Zealand society and opposition to the Afghanistan war on the basis
of principled opposition to imperialism. That was all we needed. If we'd
needed to figure it out via an arcane debate over how Nepal fitted into
the Russian paradigm, we'd probably still be arguing and still wouldn't
be a party.
 
If understanding via the Russian lens was required we would understand
Nepal less well, understand our own situation less well and be further
from building a new powerful left, and we're far enough away from that
already without making it harder.
Cheers,
John


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu