爱学记
尼泊尔革命：伟大的胜利还是处于危急之中？
本文详细讲解SEO优化核心方法，涵盖关键词布局策略、内容优化技巧及长尾词挖掘方法，提供提升网站流量和搜索引擎排名的实用指南，帮助您掌握SEO优化策略技巧。
编者按：这篇文章反映了国际马列毛主义政党与尼共（毛）右倾机会主义路线的严肃斗争，马列毛主义论坛从 2008 年初独立判断尼共（毛）走上机会主义道路后，也参与了这场伟大的斗争。全世界马列毛主义者的心是相通的。打倒机会主义！尼泊尔革命万岁！
下面的文章摘自Haghighat- 40 (May 30, 2008)。
Haghighat是伊朗共产党（马列毛主义）的机关报。
这个翻译基本上是准确的，但也有一些问题需要指出。英语原件是从波斯语中翻译出来的。例如从赢得整个世界上贴出的新闻。这会导致形式上而非内容上的差异。以后的版本会通过更多地利用原件的方式来纠正这些差异。
May 30, 2008
2008年5月30日
尼泊尔革命：伟大的胜利还是处于危急之中？
尼泊尔共产党（毛）在立宪大会选举中取得胜利并宣布了240年君主制度的终结以及在立宪会议第一次会议（2008年5月28日）中建立了“尼泊尔联邦共和国”，从而使世界的目光都聚焦在尼泊尔进一步的发展上了。这使世界上很多的革命者和进步力量感到喜悦，并且世界上很多左翼政党向尼泊尔共产党（毛）发去了祝贺选举胜利的电报。
首先，这种喜悦是可以理解的。很多同志高兴的是在新的世纪共产主义再一次被作为一种政权力量被提上日程。但问题是，这种喜悦的理由是什么呢？它的客观基础是什么呢？并且未来尼泊尔革命是否还会走在光明的道路上？
.
当然，在尼泊尔共产党（毛）的领导下，通过工人和农民的斗争，推翻了印度教君主制度确实事是一个让人感到高兴的胜利。但是尼泊尔建立了“共和”并没有解决人民战争中所要解决的阶级矛盾。
我们党并没有对选举的胜利而宣称高兴。鉴于我党和革命国际主义运动，以及所有参加这一国际组织的政党和组织都对尼泊尔人民战争给予了最大的支持。因此，我党的这种态度使人产生了很多的疑问。特别需要指出的是，由于在尼泊尔四月运动（2006）之后，以及人民战争的加强，使其由农村发展到了城市，Haghighat(2006年10月第30期)预测尼泊尔革命的最后胜利以及建立社会主义国体的前景近在咫尺了。尽管那一期Haghighat也正确指出了尼泊尔共产党（毛）在这一革命进程中存在的问题，并在吸取了20世纪中国和俄国经验基础上指出了他们对无产阶级专政认识中的一些混乱。这篇社论（特别是它的题目）指出了尼泊尔毛主义者将很快取得全国政权的幻想。事件进程表明，一厢情愿的预测革命的胜利还不成熟。事实上，尼泊尔革命遇到了非常严峻的和错综复杂的问题，他们取得政权的进程遇到了困难。
需要强调的是尼泊尔革命属于无产阶级和世界人民。国际共产主义运动，特别是毛主义政党更应该从这一革命中学习，为它的胜利而高兴，时刻关注并对它面临的政治危险和错误的思想倾向提出自己的意见。我们党到目前为止已经这样做了，并将继续这样做。任何分歧以及那些形左实右的的观点，如要号召“另一场革命”或者想当然地认为并天真的强调“尼泊尔共产党的策略是对具体问题具体分析的经验”并且适用于国际任务。这样就对尼泊尔革命这场21世纪最大的革命成就采取了一种不负责任的态度。这样就不能解决今天无产阶级革命所面临的真正问题。
*****
显然，尼泊尔共产党（毛）立宪会议选举胜利并领导了政府，并不意味着无产阶级真正取得了政权。共产党（毛）加入政府并不是新政权的诞生。他们加入了一个封建买办的政权并不能使这一政权的性质变为无产阶级专政下的革命政权。在马克思主义的革命学说中，国体和政府不是一回事。国体是一个阶级对另一个阶级进行政治、经济统治的工具。政体是在不同的历史政治背景下不同性质的国家都可以采用的政府组织形式。例如资产阶级的国体可以采用共和国、君主制和神权法西斯体制（如伊朗）。无产阶级的国体可以采用人民民主共和国、苏维埃和联邦制等等。因此，仅仅变革了政权的组织形式并不能改变一个国家的国体。历史上有无数的例子，他们的政权形式变了但他们的国体依然如故。伊朗1979年革命推翻了萨阿政权但没有触动资产阶级和大地主的统治结构。萨阿被推翻了，但工人阶级联合广大被压迫人民的新政权却没有建立起来。只有这样的政权的建立才能说奠定了新经济、新社会、新文化的基础。萨阿政权依靠的国家系统（具体来说就是军队、安全体系及其机构、监狱、法庭、国际关系等）不但没有摧毁，而且随着反动神权统治的巩固而被重新确认。这个政权不仅不是新政权，而且由于它贴上了宗教的标签而变得更加反动，从而在镇压人民特别是妇女方面显得更加有效率。不仅政权的经济社会基础没有变动，并且由于人民希望“革命”，因此它又避免了愤怒的攻击，而争取了时间来巩固自己的统治。它更加依赖于帝国主义的资本体系，这使伊朗的国体不仅保持完好，而且用“独立”的伪装欺骗了人民的眼睛。我们强调这个是为了说明改变了政府并不意味着改变了国体。这就是为什么共产主义者一直以来就是把彻底的胜利定义为“完全打碎旧的国家机器”。在尼泊尔，革命的新政权还没有在打碎旧的国家机器的过程中诞生。
在2006年尼泊尔共产党（毛）与议会党签署了《全面和平协定》。该协定的目的是要恢复和平并开始建立立宪会议的和平进程以及建立在包括尼泊尔共产党（毛）在内多党选举基础上的资产阶级共和国。毛主义者宣称人民战争已经结束了并且人民解放军被置于联合国监管之下的营地之中。与此同时，我党中央委员会向泊尔共产党（毛）写了一封严厉批评和警告这一政策的私人信件。此信在总结了包括伊朗1979年革命在内的世界无产阶级和人民斗争的痛苦的和血的经验所得出的真理。我们反对尼泊尔共产党（毛）基于《全面和平协议》中的策略。我们的领导层警告说，“你们党的这一策略只能是导致革命敌人获得新生并帮助它们实现建立一个更加有活力和效率的国家的狡猾的战略。不要忘记了人民战争能迅速扩展的主要原因之一就是由于政权的不稳定和缺乏凝聚力。”
“自1990年起尼泊尔统治阶级以议会民主形式而建立的反人民的反动阶级联盟由于联盟内部的矛盾特别是由于人民战争的原因，并没有导致政权的巩固。现在，它们通过一方面推翻国王，另一方面消灭人民战争的方式来继续这一巩固政权的过程。并且如果它们达到了这一目的，结果将会是一个封建买办的共和国。它们在实现这一目的的过程中充满曲折，因为，它们必须说服国王并且还要满足联合马列（尼泊尔政权中的修正主义政党）的需要或者是把它剔除出去等等。但是能使这整个计划成功的主要事情就能把毛主义者拉进这一进程并借助它的帮助一来实施这一巩固政权的计划。”
这封信还警告说，尼泊尔和印度的统治政党希望通过签署这一协定来达到上述目的。“它们的目的是是要同时推倒国王和在十年人民战争中在革命根据地建立起来的人民政权，并把尼泊尔的旧政体变成以议会政党（亲印度的统治政党）和毛主义政党（当然，如果毛主义者能够从一个发动人民战争的党转变成一个体系内的政党的话）为轴心的买办的封建共和国。”
中央委员会的来信询问尼泊尔共产党（毛）的领导层：“它们（尼泊尔和印度以及美帝国主义等统治阶级政党）是否会实现这一目的？不！当然，国王以及一部分作为国王统治基础的封建买办势力以及尼泊尔的将军们很可能会反对这一计划。伊朗在1979年革命中，我们看到美国的将军们劝服了伊朗军队的将军放萨阿国王离境而把霍梅尼撂在了一边。在尼泊尔，军队的将军们也可能会放走国王并且把议会政党抛在一边。”
然后这封信又提出了另外一个问题：
他们会允许加入一个具有共和国形式但内容却是买办资产阶级专政的政府是可能的吗？
“我们意识到印度和尼泊尔一部分议会政党所代表的封建买办阶级认为这是一个好机会。我们知道印度统治阶级已经这样做了，它们认识到了与前共产党合作的魔力。这一合作使旧国家获得了新生。统治的历史经验，使印度统治阶级已经能够通过让前共产党和压迫人民运动的一部分代表以参与现政权的方式来重组和更新它们的旧国家。通过这样的方式，它们已经力图把一个没有效率的不稳定的独裁国家变成一个更加具有效率的反人民的反动独裁政权。印度各种类型的‘共产党’压制群众造反激情，从而窒息革命的角色不亚于宗教和反动阶级的其他思想意识的破坏作用。印度的反动统治阶级是把共产党从敌人转换成合作者的老手了。现在它们正试图在尼泊尔做同样的事情。”
这封信在分析了敌人与毛主义者签订《全面和平协定》战略计划以后说：“这一战略计划依赖于两项策略。第一，经过立宪会议选举把暂时的封建买办体制永恒化。第二，离间尼泊尔的毛主义者与印度和世界其他各地的毛派。”
这封信清楚地阐明了，“反动阶级的这种战略并不新鲜。列宁把它称为通过旧国家来缓解它的灭亡和合法性危机的‘立宪解决方案’。”
尼泊尔共产党（毛主义者）加入尼泊尔过渡政府并不能改变那个国家的封建买办性质。仅仅通过法律废除帝制并宣布共和并不能改变国家的性质。政府组成形式的变化并不能打碎封建买办阶级性质的政权并使它摆脱帝国主义的控制。这是毛主义政党的领导层所需要了解的一个事实，并且需要让党的各级干部和革命者以及尼泊尔的被压迫群众了解这个事实。
即使立宪会议形式上通过了工人、农民、被压迫民族的政治、社会和经济“权利”，但只要反动国家的核心部分仍然保留着，即反动军队仍然完整保存，那这些“权利”的真实作用只能是在人民中间传播幻想，而把人民通过人民战争所争取的权利剥夺掉。只要军队还仍然在剥削阶级手中并且主要的生产资料都由他们控制，立宪会议保护人民利益的承诺就是没有基础的。资产阶级国家的作用就是为剥削服务的。即使是在最“民主”的资产阶级共和国里，人民的权利仍然被限定在这一框架中。如果向人民承诺的权利与他们的基本目的相违背，那这些权利就很容易被践踏。
显然，尼泊尔共产主义者发动的人民战争，即“打碎国家机器”并取得政权，对世界的无产阶级来说具有普遍意义，并且他们的这一路线坚持了十年。但是今天，考虑到前进中的困难，他们认为他们能通过和平道路达到建立革命政权的目的。但这是不可能的。历史上还没有一个阶级能够和和平平地取得政权。尼泊尔人民政权是毛主义者领导下的工农通过十年人民战争的浴血奋战取得的革命成果。人民政权不能通过立宪会议选举的方式取得，而应主要通过十年人民战争期间的革命的政治和经济变革。但是这一政权由于不是全国性的，因此是不稳固的，并且处于丧失的危险之中。什么时候能否加入政府，从而在内部改变它，要看这一举措是否能够巩固尼泊尔工人和农民的政治经济权力，还是会导致它的完全毁灭。十年人民战争的目的是用来使反动政权的统治更加完备还是要消灭这一政权。如果结果是建立一个资产阶级共和国，那么人民群众的牺牲将会用来使镇压人民的工具完善化、现代化，而拥有新政权、新经济、新的社会关系和文化关系的新社会却没有建立起来。
如果尼泊尔同志继续走这条道路，那么尼泊尔工人农民所争得的政治经济权利不仅不能巩固而且会丧失掉。然后就会产生一个依附于印度、中国或这两个国家的封建资产阶级共和国。
*****
为了证明这一点，只需指出那些处于支配地位的平衡力量即可。皇家军队保存完好并且得到印度、美国和大的统治政党的支持。人民战争在没有打碎旧国家的脊梁之前就停止了。如果我们看一看这个国家的经济状况，看一看在印度和国际经济中心统治之下的小国，我们就会发现是什么样的平衡力量在支配这个世界。如果仅仅组织一个政府而不是建立无产阶级的国家政权能否打断那些统治这个国家的爪牙呢？
无产阶级的专政与民主需要什么样的政治权力和国家形态呢？摧毁封建主义、官僚资本主义并摆脱对帝国主义的依赖，把尼泊尔变成世界无产阶级革命的红色根据地方。这就是为什么摧毁现有的国家机器不能局限在推翻君主制度上。新民主义革命的对象不仅仅是君主制度，还包括整个官僚买办和封建阶级以及它们的外国和帝国主义主子。废除君主制的口号是正确的的，但是这只是新民主义革命和建立新政权的一个部分。
我们不能把尼泊尔的封建制度仅仅归结为君主统治机构。封建主义是一种土地所有制关系并且是前资本主义的剥削形式。要使农民获得解放，这种所有制关系就必须被摧毁。同时印度代表世界资本主义的利益而对尼泊尔的政治经济控制必须结束。不依靠广大的人民群众和他们的觉悟和有组织的斗争就不能完成这些任务。在帝国主义时代不没收官僚资本就不能摧毁封建主义。资本主义企业也应该被没收，并改变它们的性质，使它们为发展自立经济和满足人民群众需要的目标服务。是哪一个阶级并且是什么样的经济计划将会掌控银行股份和国家的其他财富？世界银行和国际货币基金组织会不会继续以“金融援助”和“外国投资”的形式控制尼泊尔的经济呢？如果这些金融机构能够继续这样做并且印度继续卡住这个国家的脖子，那么即使是封建主义也不可能被废除掉，因为，在帝国主义时代，封建主义的活力不能离开资本主义的作用而独自存在。官僚资产阶级（依附于世界资本主义体系）和整个资本主义体系（不管是通过印度或者是中国的资本还是通过世界银行的“援助”）使封建剥削方式改变并从属于资本的体系。
封建剥削方式（包括它的社会关系）成为为官僚资产阶级服务的工具。今天，彻底根除尼泊尔的封建主义需要在泰拉（Terai）（尼泊尔人民主要的粮仓）实行革命性的土地分配。人民战争已经在山区做到了这一点。但是为了防止封建主义以改革了的形式重新出现，或者为了防止封建主义的剥削方式代替前资本主义的剥削方式，这就需要使政权掌握在无产阶级手中，以便在土改已经完成的地区进行社会主义改造。
由资产阶级的一部分参加的联合政府（或者是前政权的残余分子参加的政权）是不可能推行那样的计划的。因为，私人财产在资本主义中起着中心作用，并且像尼泊尔这样的国家的资产阶级与土地所有制有着很深的联系。此外，一般来说剥削阶级是害怕贫困的农村的，他们不会支持革命性的土地改革。事实上，革命性的土地改革计划，仍然停留在资产阶级民主的范围内。因此，只有无产阶级才能以革命性的姿态实行土地改革。只有这样，才能奠定尼泊尔独立和快速发展的基础。只有土地革命能成为快速发展，自愿合作和集体化的基础。而这些是把新民主主义阶段提升到社会主义阶段的中心工作。如果有胜利的话，他们也不能轻率地宣传这样不负责任的计划，并发明出“过渡时期”的理论来加以实施。在资产阶级共和国中是不可能过渡到新民民主主义革命的。这正如我们党的领导层写给尼泊尔共产党（毛）的信中所指出的：“你们通过这种临时的措施来重整国家政权所得到的甚至不是资产阶级共和国，而是封建买办共和国。这一共和国将削弱从革命暴力中诞生但还没有完全摧毁旧政权的新生的尼泊尔。临时政府将打开旧尼泊尔吞噬新尼泊尔的大门。建立临时资产阶级政府绝不是一个能够服务于新民主主义革命的策略。但却是一个服务于改革封建买办政权的策略。这一策略将是致命的和毁灭性的，并会导致尼泊尔人民所有希望和成就的破灭。加强人民军队并且号召通过合并这两大军事力量的方式组建单一的新军队，将是最具有破坏力的策略。
******
世界各国共产党及左翼进步组织发给尼泊尔共产党（毛）的祝贺信将掩盖上面提到的基本事实。不能深刻而全面理解尼泊尔革命前进中的障碍就不能帮助尼泊尔同志。在一个像尼泊尔这样被两大力量（中国和印度）夹裹着，并且印度会随时准备入侵的贫穷弱小经济落后的国家里面进行革命将会遇到巨大的复杂局面。
更进一步说，尼泊尔革命在世界上显得形只影单，并且国际势力并不支持它。所有这一切因素决定了尼泊尔革命进程将面临各种制约。当革命面临困难和复杂局面的时候，各种势力都会站到前台的。任何革命都是如此。现在最大的混乱就是国际共产主义力量对尼泊尔共产党（毛）所奉行的推进尼泊尔革命现行路线的认识。历史经验证明了，甚至在革命者没有犯错误的情况下革命都有可能被扼杀。在这种形势下，导致失败的原因就是敌对力量的作用。但是当革命党犯了错误，犯了不能正确区分敌友的错误，那革命的失败将是不可避免的了。这是主要的危险！错误的路线和政策将加强敌对势力的力量，并使力量对比更加显得对己不利。战略方向影响正负力量的对比变化。这是因为战略早晚会变成物质的力量。当战略以及与之相应的策略发生了错误，不仅仅是革命进程将沿着下降的路线滑行，而且会导致长期的衰退，对共产主义者造成消极的影响。这就如种下了混乱的种子，使修正主义在革命党中加强了自己的力量。
尼泊尔革命处于危急之中。关注这一点是世界所有共产主义者的职责。勇敢面对来自内部和外部的威胁尼泊尔革命的危险因素毫无疑问会提高世界共产主义者对今天世界革命的复杂性和困难性的理解。但是尼泊尔革命还没有结束。这一革命进入了曲折的漩涡，但并不想预测她的未来，仅看一下大环境，即世界形势的变化为尼泊尔革命提供了背景：我们仍然能够看到风暴在集聚中。革命能够而且必须继续。由于资本主义制度造成的贫乏和饥饿，尼泊尔的资产阶级政党允许毛主义者暂时接过他们政权的罗盘。尼泊尔反动势力已经组织了准军事力量，执行袭击毛主义革命者的计划。印度也在防止本国发生饥馑的借口下，停止向尼泊尔出口大米。他们与美帝国主义一起，希望把社会问题的责任转嫁到毛主义者的头上，并把群众的愤怒引导到尼共（毛）那里。同时，他们通过密谋的方式，力图利用人民中间的分歧（例如民族主义者之间的分歧）以煽动起不和的火焰，并通过不同方式恶化国内安全和动乱的局势。可能的结果是，这样的危机将使“革命的和平演化”转变为“非和平的方式”。阶级斗争的严酷现实将使尼泊尔共产党（毛）尽快脱离错误的路线。可是纠正路线错误，往往需要发动一场全方位的自觉地思想和政治斗争。
尼共（毛）领导层中间存在分歧以及世界毛主义者在尼泊尔共（毛）所采取的路线上存在路线斗争。这并不是一个秘密。尼共（毛）的领导人和发言人已经多次公布了他们中间的分歧。例如，普拉昌达（尼泊尔共产党（毛）的主席）在2007年接受了一次采访，谈到了革命国际运动和印度共产党（毛）在尼泊尔共（毛）路线上的分歧。另外一个尼共（毛）领导人，在接受《红星》记者采访时说：“与布什和印度政府的抱怨相比，鲍勃.爱沃肯（美国革命共产党主席）和甘纳帕提（印度共产党（毛）主席）的批评则是善意的和建设性的。”
值得注意的是，尼泊尔共产党（毛）经常在国际共产主义运动中以及在党的领导层和支持者中公布党内存在的路线斗争。这是一个很好的榜样。但是与群众分享信息是一个方面，而发动一场广泛而严肃的关于路线问题的思想争论和讨论则是一项关系到国际共产主义运动生死的问题。
今天，国际共产主义运动在尼泊尔革命中的主要责任不是一味地赞美她取得的局部的和暂时的成就。当群众（以及革命领袖）被这样的“胜利”冲昏了头脑，并闭眼不看他们长期的利益的时候，我们就必须注意到那些基本的事实，以及决定阶级斗争的那些规律。特别是因为这样的“胜利”就是有毒的花蜜，只能对革命以及对整个国际无产阶级造成灾难性的后果。这正如在《赢得整个世界》的新闻栏中的标题中所说的：“尼泊尔人民战争12年了，可结果却是未知数”。“在任何情况下，我们都不能保证尼泊尔和其他国家的革命一定能够胜利。但是我们可以说，尽管取得革命胜利的道路艰险，这却是改变尼泊尔的真正的和可能的方式。共产主义者必须坚持这一方向，并领导群众实现这一目标。
原文
Nepal Revolution: Great Victory or Great Danger! The following article is from Haghighat- 40 (May 30, 2008). Haghighat is the central organ of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) This translation is sufficiently accurate but there are some problems that should be noted. Originally English writings are quoted out of their Farsi translations. For example articles from awts news service. This may have caused some differences in form but not content. In future versions of translation we will rectify this problem by using the originals. May 30, 2008
Nepal Revolution: Great Victory or Great Danger!
Recent victory of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the Constituent Assembly election and announcement of the ending of the 240 year old Monarchy and the beginning of the “Federal Republic of Nepal”, in its first Constituent Assembly sitting (May 28th 2008), once again have turned eyes to developments in this country. Euphoria has taken over many revolutionaries and progressive forces of the world and many Left parties from around the world have sent messages of congratulations to the CPNM for this electoral victory.
At first glance, this euphoria is understandable. Many are happy that the name communism has been brought up once again in the new century as a power. They feel this victory of Maoists in Nepal, has once again, brought to minds Communism as an alternative. But the question is, how justified this euphoria is and what is its objective basis? And whether the future of the revolution in Nepal on this path, can be said to be bright?
Of course the fall of Monarchy in Nepal and its abolition as the seat of Hinduism through the struggle of the workers and peasants of Nepal under leadership of Maoists, is a victory and a happy event. But Nepal’s becoming a “Republic” does not resolve the fundamental class contradictions that the peoples war had aimed to resolve.
Our party has not declared joy over this electoral success. This approach has raised a lot of questions in the minds of people, given the fact that our party, along with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and all its participating parties and organisations, has been a strong supporter of the people’s war in Nepal. This is so especially because in the aftermath of the great April movement in Nepal (2006) and development in the strength of peoples war, going from the countryside to the cities, the editorial of Haghighat (No 30—Oct 2006) predicted eventual victory of Nepal’s revolution and prospect of establishment of a socialist state there. Although that issue of Haghighat correctly pointed to the objective problems that were in the way of this revolution and existence of some confusion in the strategic thinking of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) concerning features of the dictatorship of proletariat – considering the positive and negative lessons of two great experiences of the 20th century in China and Russia – the editorial (and its title in particular) promoted the illusion that Nepalese Maoists were going to seize country wide power soon. The course of events exposed this to be a premature and one-sided prediction. In practice, the Nepalese revolution faced very severe and complex problems and the process of seizure of state power came to a halt.
It has to be emphasized that the revolution in Nepal belongs to proletarians and peoples of the world. The International communist movement, particularly the Maoist Parties are obliged to, while learning from that revolution and taking joy in its victories, open their eyes and see dangerous political and ideological bends in its road and play their due role in this regard. Our party has done its share of this task up to now and will do more. Any sort of indifference and lack of getting into it under leftist cover (but with deep rightist nature) like calling for "another revolution" or by wishful thinking and naively emphasize the "Communist Party of Nepal’s tactical expertise in making concrete analysis of concrete conditions" is equal to deserting one’s internationalist tasks, taking an irresponsible attitude toward defending the achievements of the most important revolution at the beginning of 21st century, and an inability to face the real problems that the proletarian revolutions of our time are facing.
It is obvious that the victory of Maoists in the Constituent Assembly and their turning into the ruling party in the government is not equal to their seizing of political power. Entrance of the Nepalese Communists in the regime is not birth of a new revolutionary state. Their entrance into a feudal comprador state does not turn that state into a revolutionary state under the leadership of proletariat. The difference between state and government is one of the most basic elements of the theory of State and Revolution in revolutionary science of Marxism. State is an instrument of political, economical and social domination of one class over the other. Government is a form that any state can take in the context of different historical political conditions. For example, the governments of the bourgeois ruling class can take the forms such as bourgeois republic, monarchy, or fascistic theocratic regimes (like in Iran.) Proletarian states also can take the forms of People's Democratic Republic or Soviet Socialist Republic or Federal forms. Changing the form of a regime from one to the other does not means change of the state system. Historically we have seen numerous times when regimes (or governments) have changed without the class character of the state changing at all. In Iran's 1979 revolution the Shah's regime fell without destruction of the rule of capitalist and big land owning classes. Shah's regime was overthrown without a state of the working class in alliance with all other oppressed and toilers, being established. Only by having this kind of state was it possible to reorganize the society on a completely new economic, social and cultural foundation. The state system that the Shah's regime had relied on (concretely the Army, Security system and its organs, prisons, justice, international relations, etc.) not only was not destroyed, but was only reorganized as part of the process of consolidating a reactionary theocracy regime. The new regime not only was not a New political power, but in fact, having its religious label, it became even more reactionary and was more efficient than before in suppressing the majority of the oppressed peoples of Iran and women in particular. Not only the economic-social foundation of the state was left untouched, but also due to people’s hopes about "revolution", it was save from their angry attacks and in this way gained time to reconstruct and consolidate itself. Its deep dependency to imperialist capitalism that had shaped the Iranian state not only remained intact but was hidden from the eyes of the masses with a cover of "independence". The reason of our emphasizing on that experience is to point out that changing of a government should not be mistaken with the change of nature and character of the states. That is why the communists have always defined victory of a revolution with “complete smashing of the state”. In Nepal, a new revolutionary state has not yet been born out of smashing the old state.
In 2006 the Communist Party of Nepal signed an agreement called "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" with parliamentarian parties of that country. The aim of this agreement was establishment of peace and beginning of a peaceful process of establishing the Constituent Assembly and forming a bourgeois republic based one multi party elections including among them the Maoist party. Maoists declared that people's war had ended and People's Liberation Army was put into camps under the observation of the United Nations. At the time, the Central Committee of our party wrote a private letter to CPNM seriously criticizing and warning against this policy while pointing out the truths which has been born out of bitter and bloody experiences of the struggles of the proletariat and people's of the world, including the experience of the 1979 revolution in Iran. (2) In opposition to the tactics of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) based on "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" our leadership warned about the danger that: “… this tactic of your party can give a new life to the enemies of the revolution and help them to come up with a clever strategy for building a viable and efficient state. Don't forget that one of the main reasons the people's war was able to spread very quickly was due to this state’s instability and incoherence."
"…the anti people and reactionary class alliances that had taken place in Nepal since 1990 in the form of parliamentarian democracy, could not consolidate the state due to inherent contradictions of those alliance and more so due to people's war. Now, they are trying to carry out this consolidation process through, on the one hand, pushing out the King and pushing out the people’s war, on the other hand. And if they achieve this the result will be a feudal comprador republic state. his process could go through a lot of ups and downs, since they have to convince the king and; should satisfy trends such as the UML (the revisionist party that is in the regime) or, kick it out.etc. But, the main thing in making the whole deal successful is to pull the Maoists into this and enlist their help in implementing it.”
That letter also warned about the aims that the ruling parties in Nepal and India are seeking through signing this Agreement: “their aim is to push out both the King and the revolutionary people's power which has been formed through 10 years of people’s war in the base areas; and reorganize the old state as a comprador-feudal Republic around the axis of the Congress Party (pro-India ruling party) and the Maoists—of course if the Maoists transform from a party waging people's war into a political party within the system.” .
The Central Committee's letter asks the CPNM’s leadership: "Is it impossible for them (for the ruling classes of Nepal and India and US imperialism) to achieve this? No! Of course it is possible that the king and a part of the feudal compradors who are the base of the King as well as the Nepali military generals might resist this plan. But, even in the example of Iran in 1979 we saw that the American generals convinced the Iranian Army generals to let the Shah go and take the side of Khomeini. In Nepal also it is possible that the Nepalese generals might let the King go and take the side of the Congress Party.”
Nepal Revolution: Great Victory or Great Danger!
Recent victory of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the Constituent Assembly election and announcement of the ending of the 240 year old Monarchy and the beginning of the “Federal Republic of Nepal”, in its first Constituent Assembly sitting (May 28th 2008), once again have turned eyes to developments in this country. Euphoria has taken over many revolutionaries and progressive forces of the world and many Left parties from around the world have sent messages of congratulations to the CPNM for this electoral victory.
At first glance, this euphoria is understandable. Many are happy that the name communism has been brought up once again in the new century as a power. They feel this victory of Maoists in Nepal, has once again, brought to minds Communism as an alternative. But the question is, how justified this euphoria is and what is its objective basis? And whether the future of the revolution in Nepal on this path, can be said to be bright?
Of course the fall of Monarchy in Nepal and its abolition as the seat of Hinduism through the struggle of the workers and peasants of Nepal under leadership of Maoists, is a victory and a happy event. But Nepal’s becoming a “Republic” does not resolve the fundamental class contradictions that the peoples war had aimed to resolve.
Our party has not declared joy over this electoral success. This approach has raised a lot of questions in the minds of people, given the fact that our party, along with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and all its participating parties and organisations, has been a strong supporter of the people’s war in Nepal. This is so especially because in the aftermath of the great April movement in Nepal (2006) and development in the strength of peoples war, going from the countryside to the cities, the editorial of Haghighat (No 30—Oct 2006) predicted eventual victory of Nepal’s revolution and prospect of establishment of a socialist state there. Although that issue of Haghighat correctly pointed to the objective problems that were in the way of this revolution and existence of some confusion in the strategic thinking of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) concerning features of the dictatorship of proletariat – considering the positive and negative lessons of two great experiences of the 20th century in China and Russia – the editorial (and its title in particular) promoted the illusion that Nepalese Maoists were going to seize country wide power soon. The course of events exposed this to be a premature and one-sided prediction. In practice, the Nepalese revolution faced very severe and complex problems and the process of seizure of state power came to a halt.
It has to be emphasized that the revolution in Nepal belongs to proletarians and peoples of the world. The International communist movement, particularly the Maoist Parties are obliged to, while learning from that revolution and taking joy in its victories, open their eyes and see dangerous political and ideological bends in its road and play their due role in this regard. Our party has done its share of this task up to now and will do more. Any sort of indifference and lack of getting into it under leftist cover (but with deep rightist nature) like calling for "another revolution" or by wishful thinking and naively emphasize the "Communist Party of Nepal’s tactical expertise in making concrete analysis of concrete conditions" is equal to deserting one’s internationalist tasks, taking an irresponsible attitude toward defending the achievements of the most important revolution at the beginning of 21st century, and an inability to face the real problems that the proletarian revolutions of our time are facing.
It is obvious that the victory of Maoists in the Constituent Assembly and their turning into the ruling party in the government is not equal to their seizing of political power. Entrance of the Nepalese Communists in the regime is not birth of a new revolutionary state. Their entrance into a feudal comprador state does not turn that state into a revolutionary state under the leadership of proletariat. The difference between state and government is one of the most basic elements of the theory of State and Revolution in revolutionary science of Marxism. State is an instrument of political, economical and social domination of one class over the other. Government is a form that any state can take in the context of different historical political conditions. For example, the governments of the bourgeois ruling class can take the forms such as bourgeois republic, monarchy, or fascistic theocratic regimes (like in Iran.) Proletarian states also can take the forms of People's Democratic Republic or Soviet Socialist Republic or Federal forms. Changing the form of a regime from one to the other does not means change of the state system. Historically we have seen numerous times when regimes (or governments) have changed without the class character of the state changing at all. In Iran's 1979 revolution the Shah's regime fell without destruction of the rule of capitalist and big land owning classes. Shah's regime was overthrown without a state of the working class in alliance with all other oppressed and toilers, being established. Only by having this kind of state was it possible to reorganize the society on a completely new economic, social and cultural foundation. The state system that the Shah's regime had relied on (concretely the Army, Security system and its organs, prisons, justice, international relations, etc.) not only was not destroyed, but was only reorganized as part of the process of consolidating a reactionary theocracy regime. The new regime not only was not a New political power, but in fact, having its religious label, it became even more reactionary and was more efficient than before in suppressing the majority of the oppressed peoples of Iran and women in particular. Not only the economic-social foundation of the state was left untouched, but also due to people’s hopes about "revolution", it was save from their angry attacks and in this way gained time to reconstruct and consolidate itself. Its deep dependency to imperialist capitalism that had shaped the Iranian state not only remained intact but was hidden from the eyes of the masses with a cover of "independence". The reason of our emphasizing on that experience is to point out that changing of a government should not be mistaken with the change of nature and character of the states. That is why the communists have always defined victory of a revolution with “complete smashing of the state”. In Nepal, a new revolutionary state has not yet been born out of smashing the old state.
In 2006 the Communist Party of Nepal signed an agreement called "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" with parliamentarian parties of that country. The aim of this agreement was establishment of peace and beginning of a peaceful process of establishing the Constituent Assembly and forming a bourgeois republic based one multi party elections including among them the Maoist party. Maoists declared that people's war had ended and People's Liberation Army was put into camps under the observation of the United Nations. At the time, the Central Committee of our party wrote a private letter to CPNM seriously criticizing and warning against this policy while pointing out the truths which has been born out of bitter and bloody experiences of the struggles of the proletariat and people's of the world, including the experience of the 1979 revolution in Iran. (2) In opposition to the tactics of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) based on "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" our leadership warned about the danger that: “… this tactic of your party can give a new life to the enemies of the revolution and help them to come up with a clever strategy for building a viable and efficient state. Don't forget that one of the main reasons the people's war was able to spread very quickly was due to this state’s instability and incoherence."
"…the anti people and reactionary class alliances that had taken place in Nepal since 1990 in the form of parliamentarian democracy, could not consolidate the state due to inherent contradictions of those alliance and more so due to people's war. Now, they are trying to carry out this consolidation process through, on the one hand, pushing out the King and pushing out the people’s war, on the other hand. And if they achieve this the result will be a feudal comprador republic state. his process could go through a lot of ups and downs, since they have to convince the king and; should satisfy trends such as the UML (the revisionist party that is in the regime) or, kick it out.etc. But, the main thing in making the whole deal successful is to pull the Maoists into this and enlist their help in implementing it.”
That letter also warned about the aims that the ruling parties in Nepal and India are seeking through signing this Agreement: “their aim is to push out both the King and the revolutionary people's power which has been formed through 10 years of people’s war in the base areas; and reorganize the old state as a comprador-feudal Republic around the axis of the Congress Party (pro-India ruling party) and the Maoists—of course if the Maoists transform from a party waging people's war into a political party within the system.” .
The Central Committee's letter asks the CPNM’s leadership: "Is it impossible for them (for the ruling classes of Nepal and India and US imperialism) to achieve this? No! Of course it is possible that the king and a part of the feudal compradors who are the base of the King as well as the Nepali military generals might resist this plan. But, even in the example of Iran in 1979 we saw that the American generals convinced the Iranian Army generals to let the Shah go and take the side of Khomeini. In Nepal also it is possible that the Nepalese generals might let the King go and take the side of the Congress Party.”
很赞哦！ (1025)
相关文章
微信收款码
支付宝收款码