Tag Archives: News Analysis

Prachanda Steps Down

In the latest turn of events in Nepal, it appears that Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda, or Pushpa

Prachanda Steps Down

Prachanda Steps Down

Kamal Dahal, as he is also known, has resigned. In recent weeks things have heated up in Nepal, with Prachanda’s dismissal of Army head Rookmangud Katawal. Prachanda dismissed Katawal for continuing to recruit for the Nepalese Army and for refusing to integrate 19,000 Maoist fighters currently restricted to United Nations monitored barracks following a peace accord.

The resignation of Prachanda may come as a surprise to some who have been eagerly following the events in Nepal. However, this may not be such a surprise if we examine the nature of the state in Nepal.

Some claim that the situation in Nepal has been one of “Dual Power,” meaning that the Maoist bloc in parliament represents an a direct challenge on the bloc of landowners and politicians aligned with the former monarchy and of course, its armed wing the Nepalese Army (formerly the Royal Nepalese Army). In order to understand whether or not the situation in Nepal represents Dual Power, it may be worth examining the roots of the term – it was a phrase coined by VI Lenin during the course of the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Now, the point here is not to be dogmatic and say something like, “if Lenin said it it’s right!  And if anyone doing anything that differs in any way is wrong!”  Rather, the point is to examine what the concept of Dual Power meant in practice – in the course of events which gave rise to the theoretical concept.  This helps us to get clarity on the application of the concept to the events in Nepal.

Lenin wrote: “What is this dual power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing—the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralized state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America. This circumstance often over looked, often not given enough thought, yet it is the crux of the matter. ”

The people and the People’s Army were Prachanda’s only real power. These bases which served to bring down the monarchy disappeared long ago with the dissolved councils and with the allowed enclosure of the people’s army into UN barracks…

Forbes: Obama not a Socialist, More like an Oligarch

Just another example of the fact that business news publications tend to be the most honest (they speak honestly to their constituency). Forbes editor Michael Maiello’s newest column proclaims:

Obama Loves The Rich

Here’s an excerpt:

Obama’s no socialist. An observer from Mars would think the man’s a downright oligarch. While the “angry white men” movement assembles into tea parties, the real anger should be felt by those on the left who have so far watched the president continue to follow an economic rescue plan that was outlined by George Bush and Hank Paulson. The only thing that Obama has socialized are the losses incurred by Wall Street’s major banks….

obama-wall-street

Yeah we’d say that’s pretty right on. Obama’s brand of socialism involves foisting the burden of Wall Street excesses upon the people to share, while privatizing profits made by Wall Street Execs (who still continue to receive bonuses…)

Again, it is important to point out that Obama is incapable of bringing any kind of real change because its the system that needs changing not its leadership. Power should (and could) be in the hands of the people, that would be real change. However that kind of change requires much deeper and qualitatively different struggle.