NOTÍCIAS DA GUERRA POPULAR: [** MAOIST_REVOLUTION **] Debate between British based Maoists 'Trotskyism and Nepal'

Dear ****,

After returning home from the march this evening, I managed to trace some discussions on different websites regarding Trotskyism and Nepal, which you were referring to. It seems it is about an article Baburam Bhattarai, a leading theoretician of the UCPN (Maoist), wrote last July in a journal called The Red Spark, probably associated with the Maoist party. I cannot find the whole article, but found only an excerpt, quoted in English by the Trotskyist sect "International Marxist Tendency". I spoke to Cde Kailash of the Nepalese Society about it and he has no idea of the article.

I noticed quite sometime ago that Bhattarai mentioned Trotsky's 'Military Writings' in one of his major articles, in the bibliography. I wondered then why he did that as there was no actual reference in the article to that work of Trotsky. I thought he was testing the water if there would be any adverse outcry against his 'approved' reference to Trotsky. Today, Kailash confirmed that Bhattarai is of the opinion that Trotsky's writings should be read. I agree with him and had read Permanent Revolution 3-4 times.

I would maintain that the problems of transition to socialism in feudal or semi-feudal countries remain largely unresolved and not much attention has been paid to these problems in the post-Mao period. Marxism developed out of democratic revolutions in European countries, where democratic revolutions were taking place against feudalism and led by pioneering bourgeoisie. Today's democratic revolutions are in colonial or ex-colonial countries with poorly developed national bourgeoisie and working class, and with the presence of strong comprador classes.

In a very special international situation arising from the failure of socialist prospects, particularly after the German revolution, Lenin, and later Stalin, had to accept that the development and consolidation of socialist revolution in the Soviet Union was a necessary precondition for the world revolution, which, in Marxist guidance can only guarantee the final victory of socialism. Towards the end of the Cultural Revolution Mao recognised the need to re-assert that the final victory of socialism could not take place in the confinement of a single country.

To me Trotsky or Trotskyism is not a holy cow or untouchable. We really need to be acquainted with the basic teachings of Trotskyism, particularly in Europe. This is due to the fact that Trotskyism gradually became a dangerous distraction from the actual developments of revolutions anywhere on the globe, and Trotskyists find themselves in opposing revolution wherever it develops.

The excerpt from Bhattarai's article quoted in English is as follows:

"Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many-fold as compared to the period of the October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to the unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism this has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries. In this context, Marxist revolutionaries should recognize the fact that in the current context, Trotskyism has become more relevant than Stalinism to advance the cause of the proletariat". (The Red Spark, July 2009, Issue 1, Page-10, our translation from Nepali language).

It seems (without having the opportunity of reading the whole article) that Bhattarai thinks in today's situation of globalisation 'Trotskyism is more relevant than Stalinism'. I think the aforementioned statement is based on subjectivism. I fully agree with the UCPN (Maoist)'s position of a 'South Asian Revolution' and am surprised when the CPI (Maoist) rejects this position as being Trotskyist! And what Bhattarai advocates as a 'sub-stage' in the democratic revolution is totally opposed to Trotskyism, which rejects the so-called 'stages theory' associated with the stage of democratic revolution ("Road to socialism goes via democracy" - Trotsky).

The present stage of the Nepalese Revolution is definitely causing some concern; from outside, sometimes, it is becoming difficult to recognise in it any definite trend of significance. It has been said in some quarters that Bhattarai and the 'line' he advocates is in favour of prolonging this 'sub-stage' further in the light of Nepal's feudal society, the implications of which had not been fully grasped until recently. If this is a correct presentation of Bhattarai-Prachanda line, then it definitely contradicts the basic line of Trotsky, which does not recognise at all an independent democratic stage on the road to socialist revolution.

World revolution is not a lofty ideal but a necessary condition for the ultimate victory of socialism in any country, where it may have initiated. Particularly for the industrially backward countries, the solidarity and assistance of the working class of advanced capitalist countries is necessary even at the democratic stage - this is basic Marxism and not an exclusive contribution of Trotskyism, which is a dogmatic variant of basic Marxism.

Fraternally,