How about you read this translated article from the actual Nepali youth, who were situated at the centre of the movement? They sobrely analysed the situation they found themselves in and came to a nuanced and intelligent conclusion. Of course, they should have read this months ago, and they should have followed the social media of the Maoists engaged in the struggle who showed the revolutionary potential of the conflicted youth who needed people working within them in order to realise said revolutionary potential and avoid falling to the CIA reactionaries, but these people do not follow any real people and only these CIA/Mi6/FSB/MSS plants like HinKKKle, Greyzone etc., but they didn't so now they must be educated today.
https://redherald.org/2025/09/13/revolutionary-students-front-context-nepal-imperialist-plot-vs-revolutionary-potential/The "leftists" who call everything CIA are not really communists because they do not see revolutionary potential in the people, but only dumb sheep who would be lead astray by any CIA agent. They do not understand there is great contradiction in any movement and in any body of people, and do not have it in them to work with these masses. These "leftists" are only communists in aesthetics, while in actuality they support maintaining colonies for their favourite imperial power. They are truly the worst of the worst. They are not identifying that the CIA is working in any uprising, but instead they are just angry that the opposing imperial block might be trying to steal away a colony from them, without seeing the genuine potential of the people stuck in the middle. These anti-communists need to be thrown away into the latrine.
>>2598195Thank you for the article anon, I will read it. I could do without the posturing tho
>>2598195>>2598231Damn that was a big nothing burger. Was this supposed to be enlightening somehow S? Nothing new was brought to the table, a basic history summary and very little analysis. CIA meddling from the beginning was admitted to, just disregarded in favor of a vague platitude about trusting the people.
Man I really want to like Maoism, but this ain't it chief
>>2598261I mean, what more can really be said? With popular uprisings like this nobody really knows what is happening on a broad scale, and only the people in the middle can have a hope of understanding its true nature, which these people were. I would link the social media of what was happening but by nature that is very transitory and it goes away. What I'm trying to say is the revolutionary student front has the best understanding of what was going on even if they can't really enlighten you.
>>2598274My point is that this doesn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already understood from the get go. I would be much more interested in an analysis of how these movements are preempted by the imperialists, strategies on how to identify them and prevent that from happening. Instead I find mostly a moral indignation at "conspiratorial leftists" for pointing out the meddling. You went on a whole tirade about how "leftists" call everything CIA and then the authors of the article you posted admit CIA meddling is apparent, but there is no further analysis provided on why they are wrong for being concerned about that, rather more indignation that the government is supported too much or "the people" aren't trusted enough or something. I'm asking, how does this prove your point at all? How are the people shouting color revolution (coopted by imperialism) wrong?
>>2598195The article was bad. I agree with his statement in general:
>If the imperialists’ ‘meticulous design’ is really to be thwarted, then the main task should not be to support the Nepalese State, but to build a united revolutionary alternative power center in the interests of the workers-peasants-middle class in the ongoing battle against the Nepalese State.But the rest of it was terrible, all the author had to contribute is
>Even if this ‘meticulous design’ is using the justified anger of the people, the struggle for social change must be fought through trusting the people and revolutionary communist politics.And that's cope, that's not how you can fight a class struggle. Lenin didn't trust the people when they supported war or SRs, socialist construction was also not done by simply trusting the people in any country. Mao arguably leaned into this direction and that got Chinese people and communists into a pickle more than once.
I agree that of course there is a lot to learn from the people, but we already know the tired NED cliches about muh nepo babies and the tales of people's righteous anger at them. That's what they tried to pull in my country to conduct regime change. I "learned from the people" and it was not that deep, most of them clearly just did it because that's what the cool kids do or vaguely because nepo babies bad and government bad.
At the same time, screams of CIA meddling are mostly cope. Political change is notorious for being one of the most unpredictable things. People tend to not give credit to the autonomy and strength of local reactionary forces, which always do the heavy lifting 100% of the time. CIA or others may help out with money and expertise, but they are not locals, they can't do it for them. It's in some ways analogous to the dynamic USSR and communist parties in other countries used to have before WWII.
In other words, CIA is not an excuse for idiocy. Five eyes leftists are actually pretty good at not falling for this kind of stupid language, and they are right at the origin of it. They keep saying that it's CAPITAL and CAPITALISM. Not oligarchs or extractivism or nepotism or authoritarianism or any of that gaslighting liberal diarrhea that describes western countries even better than the ones they are mostly aimed against while conveniently avoiding the topic of private property.
>>2598331>identify them and prevent that from happening.unless you're in your country secret service (or one that has spy influence over the concerned country),you can't do shit about it.
or make a people's militia and be ready to beat the shit out of protestors who are useful idiots,which nobody in your group is ever going to want to do.
When is China annexing this splinter of the Tibet Autonomous Region?
>>2598556Fair enough, it is maybe a bit much to ask for
>>2598331It's a clarification of the situation from the people on the ground, that is the point of it. As I said if you want to know the details you will have to be there.
CIA will always try things. That's their job, they infiltrate movements and make them work for the USA. But what I have to say is what does a colour revolution even mean? They're discounting the communists on the ground because they're afraid one imperial bloc will take over from the other that already has power in the colony.
>>2598580Chauvinism. Anyway Nepal doesn't have anything to do with Tibet culturally.
>workers rise up NOW!
<ogey
>NOOO CIA CIA CIA THIS IS A BASED MVLTIPQLAR NATION STOP IT
>>2598629Which imperial bloc has power in Nepal currently?
>>2598629>Nepal doesn't have anything to do with Tibet culturally.Wrong. Nepal was a tributary state to the Qing, the sovereign over Tibet.
>>2598783
I just realized that don't think I've ever as much as smiled at an ultraleft meme.
>>2598783
>Le deprogram
Obsessed. Go back to r/ultraleft
>>2598831>>2599361I’ve no idea what any of the images in the meme are references to
>>2598783
I dont get it
The Deprogram supported the invasion of iraq?
>>2598831Hard to laugh when the joke is yourself
>>2599378No, they just support every group and policy of the Bush admin from Islamists to foreign investments to killing brown workers for protesting
>>2598195>liberal counter revolution>progressiveYou can only pick one.
>>2599658or just that r/ultraleft types are extremely unfunny people.
>>2598195You are making the mistake of the so-called "Economists" who worshipped spontaneity and were subservient to it, believing that the masses will supposedly develop revolutionary socialist consciousness so that communists remain passive, allowing the masses to be co-opted by the bourgeoisie or have their movement wither away without direction. In this case, you are more wrong than the cautious communists who don't want to do anything because any spontaneous movement would be co-opted by the bourgeoisie. The correct approach is to take advantage of spontaneity to spread communist propaganda, making co-optation more difficult, even if the movement withers because all the media, along with the bourgeoisie and the so-called middle class, become hostile to it due to slogans defending economic sovereignty, the defense of public property, and the democratization of the economy, demanding the participation of the population in everything without any "techocrats." It would also be necessary to beat liberals in the streets until the masses accept that all classes must serve the supremacy of the proletariat to socialize the economy and abolish social classes.
I'll leave a warning quote for those romanticizing depoliticized spontaneity who try to seek an "organic" movement against the "authoritarianism" of building the workers' movement for proletarian domination, defending economic sovereignty, and democratizing with popular councils for greater participation in the economy without letting politicians and so-called "technocrats" negotiate behind closed doors with the bourgeoisie. This is why the workers' movement must be independent of the bourgeoisie without exception and never regress to generic discourses of "corruption" that demonstrate co-optation by the bourgeoisie to privatize and surrender as lackeys to the finance capital of capitalist imperialism.
<Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement,[15] the only choice is — either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a “third” ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or an above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. There is much talk of spontaneity. But the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology, to its development along the lines of the Credo programme; for the spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism, is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy. The sentence employed by the authors of the Economist letter published in Iskra, No. 12, that the efforts of the most inspired ideologists fail to divert the working-class movement from the path that is determined by the interaction of the material elements and the material environment is therefore tantamount to renouncing socialism. If these authors were capable of fearlessly, consistently, and thoroughly considering what they say, as everyone who enters the arena of literary and public activity should be, there would be nothing left for them but to “fold their useless arms over their empty breasts” and surrender the field of action to the Struves and Prokopoviches, who are dragging the working-class movement “along the line of least resistance”, i.e., along the line of bourgeois trade-unionism, or to the Zubatovs, who are dragging it along the line of clerical and gendarme “ideology”.
<Let us recall the example of Germany. What was the historic service Lassalle rendered to the German working-class movement? It was that he diverted that movement from the path of progressionist trade-unionism and co-operativism towards which it had been spontaneously moving (with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and his like). To fulfil such a task it was necessary to do something quite different from talking of underrating the spontaneous element, of tactics-as-process, of the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A fierce struggle against spontaneity was necessary, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible, for instance, to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the progressionist party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy. This struggle is by no means over even today (as might seem to those who learn the history of the German movement from Prokopovich, and its philosophy from Struve). Even now the German working class is, so to speak, split up among a number of ideologies. A section of the workers is organised in Catholic and monarchist trade unions; another section is organised in the Hirsch-Duncker[33] unions, founded by the bourgeois worshippers of English trade-unionism; the third is organised in Social-Democratic trade unions. The last-named group is immeasurably more numerous than the rest, but the Social-Democratic ideology was able to achieve this superiority, and will be able to maintain it, only in an unswerving struggle against all other ideologies.
<But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination.[16] And the younger the socialist movement in any given country, the more vigorously it must struggle against all attempts to entrench non-socialist ideology, and the more resolutely the workers must be warned against the bad counsellors who shout against “overrating the conscious element”, etc. The authors of the Economist letter, in unison with Rabocheye Dyelo, inveigh against the intolerance that is characteristic of the infancy of the movement. To this we reply: Yes, our movement is indeed in its infancy, and in order that it may grow up faster, it must become imbued with intolerance against those who retard its growth by their subservience to spontaneity. Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that we are “old hands” who have long ago experienced all the decisive stages of the struggle.
<Thirdly, the first issue of Rabochaya Mysl shows that the term “Economism” (which, of course, we do not propose to abandon, since, in one way or another, this designation has already established itself) does not adequately convey the real character of the new trend. Rabochaya Mysl does not altogether repudiate the political struggle; the rules for a workers’ mutual benefit fund published in its first issue contain a reference to combating the government. Rabochaya Mysl believes, however, that “politics always obediently follows economics” (Rabocheye Dyelo varies this thesis when it asserts in its programme that “in Russia more than in any other country, the economic struggle is inseparable from the political struggle”). If by politics is meant Social-Democratic politics, then the theses of Rabochaya Mysl and Rabocheye Dyelo are utterly incorrect. The economic struggle of the workers is very often connected (although not inseparably) with bourgeois politics, clerical politics, etc., as we have seen. Rabocheye Dyelo’s theses are correct, if by politics is meant trade union politics, viz., the common striving of all workers to secure from the government measures for alleviating the distress to which their condition gives rise, but which do not abolish that condition, i.e., which do not remove the subjection of labour to capital. That striving indeed is common to the English trade-unionists, who are hostile to socialism, to the Catholic workers, to the “Zubatov” workers, etc. There is politics and politics. Thus, we see that Rabochaya Mysl does not so much deny the political struggle, as it bows to its spontaneity, to its unconsciousness. While fully recognising the political struggle (better: the political desires and demands of the workers), which arises spontaneously from the working-class movement itself, it absolutely refuses independently to work out a specifically Social-Democratic politics corresponding to the general tasks of socialism and to present-day conditions in Russia.[…]
<Footnotes:
<[15] This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge. But in order that working men may succeed in this more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “literature for workers” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature. It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known. —Lenin
<[16] It is often said that the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that socialist theory reveals the causes of the misery of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to assimilate it so easily, provided, however, this theory does not itself yield to spontaneity, provided it subordinates spontaneity to itself. Usually this is taken for granted, but it is precisely this which Rabocheye Dyelo forgets or distorts. The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism; nevertheless, most widespread (and continuously and diversely revived) bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still greater degree. —Lenin
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT, II The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democratshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm >>2599976
>zoomers burning down Communism
Your communism (liberalism) is pathetic l m a o
>>2600490How is this related to OP? He never claimed spontaneity will achieve communism. He merely suggested that it should be treated as an inevitable outcome of class struggle rather than a conspiracy against third world bourgeoisie. That we should sympathise with protesters rather than dehumanize them and cheer for their murder.
Lenin would've 100% supported third world workers in their spontaneity over le wholesome bourgeoisie that's destroying them
The fact that this is even discussed speaks volumes to the depths leftists have sank in their appalling revisionism
>>2600572>>2600568Wrong. If there is no workers' organization demanding that their government not pay debts, end any spending caps or fiscal responsibility laws, not accept the independence of their national bank, and democratization with the participation of the population in the economy, thus politicizing society more instead of apolitical technocrats, then there is co-optation for financial capitalism, and therefore communists must beat individuals spreading this ignorance. Remember that state capitalism is superior to private capitalism, and if there are middle-class youths talking about "freedom" with slogans compatible with the bourgeoisie's interests, then these individuals must be violently attacked until they accept the supremacy of the proletariat, where the vanguard will spread propaganda to expand and radicalize the masses.
This means defending economic sovereignty and separating from the dollar's domination of the economy; this again means zero tolerance without exception for liberals.
Nepal’s Gen Z uprising, born from rage against elite corruption, promised a new dawn of sovereignty….well, just slogans.
Instead, it’s being hijacked by a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution, with Tashi Lhazom’s potential appointment as Minister for Women, Children and Senior Citizens as the smoking gun. Her USAID-tainted resume and murky affiliations reveal a Western plot to install a puppet government, undermining Nepal’s delicate balance with China. As Prime Minister Sushila Karki finalizes her cabinet, Gen Z Karnali leaders demand answers, warning that Lhazom’s role—overseeing NGOs via the Social Welfare Council—could serve as a Trojan horse for American agendas. Nepal’s youth revolution risks becoming a footnote in Washington’s global playbook.
Why Lhazom’s Appointment Screams U.S. Meddling:
- USAID Connections Run Deep: Lhazom’s work orbits NGOs flush with American cash. Girl Rising, which named her a “Future Rising Fellow,” thrives on USAID grants for girls’ empowerment. The Aga Khan Foundation, a USAID partner, funded her documentary No Monastery, No Village. Her Mountain Youth Hub ties to UN Mountain Partnership players like ICIMOD, awash in USAID dollars.
- Free Tibet Ties Threaten China Relations: Educated at a Tibetan Dharmashala in India, Lhazom’s rumored links to the Free Tibet movement raise alarms. “We can’t have a minister pushing Tibetan independence,” says Gen Z Karnali’s Supriya Shahi, stressing Nepal’s need for stable Beijing ties.
- Color Revolution Blueprint: Nepal’s protests mirror U.S.-backed upheavals in Ukraine and Georgia, where USAID and NED fund NGOs to weaponize youth rage. Peaceful marches turned violent, with parliament breaches and arson hinting at infiltrators steering chaos toward a pro-West pivot.
- Embassy Meddling and Gen Z Betrayal: Former lawmaker Gyanendra Shahi alleges U.S. Embassy lobbying for Nepal’s Gen Z uprising, born from rage against elite corruption, promised a new dawn of sovereignty….well, just slogans.
Instead, it’s being hijacked by a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution, with Tashi Lhazom’s potential appointment as Minister for Women, Children and Senior Citizens as the smoking gun. Her USAID-tainted resume and murky affiliations reveal a Western plot to install a puppet government, undermining Nepal’s delicate balance with China. As Prime Minister Sushila Karki finalizes her cabinet, Gen Z Karnali leaders demand answers, warning that Lhazom’s role—overseeing NGOs via the Social Welfare Council—could serve as a Trojan horse for American agendas. Nepal’s youth revolution risks becoming a footnote in Washington’s global playbook.
Why Lhazom’s Appointment Screams U.S. Meddling:
- USAID Connections Run Deep: Lhazom’s work orbits NGOs flush with American cash. Girl Rising, which named her a “Future Rising Fellow,” thrives on USAID grants for girls’ empowerment. The Aga Khan Foundation, a USAID partner, funded her documentary No Monastery, No Village. Her Mountain Youth Hub ties to UN Mountain Partnership players like ICIMOD, awash in USAID dollars.
- Free Tibet Ties Threaten China Relations: Educated at a Tibetan Dharmashala in India, Lhazom’s rumored links to the Free Tibet movement raise alarms. “We can’t have a minister pushing Tibetan independence,” says Gen Z Karnali’s Supriya Shahi, stressing Nepal’s need for stable Beijing ties.
- Color Revolution Blueprint: Nepal’s protests mirror U.S.-backed upheavals in Ukraine and Georgia, where USAID and NED fund NGOs to weaponize youth rage. Peaceful marches turned violent, with parliament breaches and arson hinting at infiltrators steering chaos toward a pro-West pivot.
- Embassy Meddling and Gen Z Betrayal: Former lawmaker Gyanendra Shahi alleges U.S. Embassy lobbying for Lhazom, fracturing Gen Z unity. “Our revolution wasn’t for America’s puppets,” a protester told Al Jazeera.Lhazom, fracturing Gen Z unity. “Our revolution wasn’t for America’s puppets,” a protester told Al Jazeera.
UPDATE: 4 out of 5 New Nepali Ministers Drawn from US Government-funded Fronts
Nepal's "interim" gov appoints Om Prakash Aryal as "Home Minister."
He is drawn from the US NED-USAID, Soros Open Society, and Asian Foundation (CIA)-funded "Justice and Rights Institute-Nepal."
Sources:
Kathmandu Post - Om Prakash Aryal, rights lawyer who challenged Lokman, takes charge as home minister:
https://kathmandupost.com/national/2025/09/15/om-prakash-aryal-rights-lawyer-who-challenged-lokman-takes-charge-as-home-ministerJustice & Rights Institute-Nepal - Executive Board, Member Advocate Om Prakash Aryal:
https://jurinepal.org.np/executive-board/member-advocate-om-prakash-aryal/Justice & Rights Institute-Nepal - Partnership:
https://jurinepal.org.np/partnership/That makes now 4 out of 5 new ministers in Nepal's "interim" gov following US-engineered regime change as drawn from US government-funded fronts.
This is how US-engineered regime change works. The US invests millions over many years building up parallel institutions - uses violent regime change to topple a targeted government - then installs these US-funded proxies on top of it.
The US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) spent hundreds of thousands of dollars tutoring dozens of Nepalese youth on “strategies and skills in organizing protests and demonstrations” prior to a violent coup which overthrew the government of Nepal in September 2025, leaked documents show.
The documents reveal a clandestine campaign organized by an NED division known as the International Republican Institute (IRI) that sought to cultivate a Nepalese “network” of young political activists explicitly designed to “become an important force to support US interests.” The leaked documents note that the IRI’s program “connects vibrant youth… and political leaders” and “provides comprehensive trainings on how to launch advocacy campaigns and protests.”
The demonstrations organized under the NED’s umbrella would relate to “issues selected” by the Institute and its local collaborators, thereby “ensuring the U.S. concerns with Nepal’s democracy [would] be resolved,” an IRI report statedNepal was rocked by so-called “Gen Z” protests in September 2025 after authorities blocked access to social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter/X, citing the companies’ failure to abide by local regulations requiring them to register with the government. At least 76 people were killed during the resulting violence, including multiple police officers, leading to the resignation of communist Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli less than a week after the violence began.
Days later, he was replaced by an interim leader chosen in an anonymous poll which registered fewer than 10,000 votes from Discord accounts.
.Nepal held particular importance for the IRI, the leaks show. The Institute gushed over Nepal’s “strategic geographic location” between China and India, which they said “makes the country core” to Washington’s “Indo-Pacific” ambitions — namely, encircling Beijing with pliable governments and US military installations. IRI initiatives to educate Kathmandu’s youth to “use their power for policy intervention” and to influence “national decision-making” were forecast to have an impact “beyond the life” of the underlying projects. Alumni would not only be primed to cause street-level havoc, but create political parties and run for office.
The leaked files show the IRI drew inspiration from the so-called “Enough is Enough” protests which unfolded in Nepal in the summer of 2020 in response to the government’s COVID policies. For the Institute, those demonstrations proved the ability of young people “to shape and play a significant role in Nepali politics,” and extract concessions from the government – a “success” which the NED subsidiary was keen to “sustain” and “capitalize on.” The Institute therefore decided to begin providing the country’s youth with “opportunities and platforms to develop extensive, sustainable networks to effectively advocate for common concerns and be successful champions for democratic change supported by the US.”
Since its creation in 1983, the NED has secretly bankrolled similar initiatives across the globe in an effort to topple sovereign governments, with one of its founders openly boasting that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” The documents strongly suggest that the chaos that played out in Kathmandu in September may have represented the culmination of Washington’s efforts to cultivate a political leadership in Nepal conducive to its “Indo-Pacific strategy.” As the region grows increasingly interconnected amid India’s recent tilt further towards China and Russia, the US national security state would undoubtedly welcome the installation of a more pliable government in the geopolitically vital country of Nepal.
>>2600580Meanwhile Marx writing 10 paragraphs about the progressive international character of capitalism and the interdependency of nations
>>2600724Damn, is it still 1840's?
>>2600881No, it's neoliberal evil techno feudalism. Marx is a debooonked old fag. All war but class war.
>>2600881Nepal is still in the 1800s, yes unfortunately. Madagascar too. Sorry, honky.
>>2600881In some ways yes
>>2600724You are wrong to say that communists should tolerate liberal lackeys of financial capitalism. Capitalism currently has no progressive characteristics since the prevalence of financial capital over industrial capital, which has led to the deindustrialization of other countries and the creation of debt dependency. Even in Marx and Engels' time, there was a perception of the conservative and reactionary tendencies of the bourgeoisie towards the growing proletariat. Therefore, it is necessary for the proletariat to have a party independent of the bourgeoisie, where the advanced section of the workers will guide the working classes to advance their class interests and acquire the political supremacy of the proletariat, abolishing private property and social classes by overthrowing the bourgeois state.
Now I will leave quotes from the political programs of Marx and Engels that prove my point about the need for economic sovereignty, which is incompatible with liberals who desire "freedom":
<In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.
<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.[…]
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
<These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
<1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.<2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.<3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.<4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.<6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.<7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.<8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.<9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.<10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmNow, here's a quote from Engels that proves my point again:
<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:[…]
<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htmNow another quote with the program containing Marx and Engels' demands in Germany:
<10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.
<This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.
<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, March 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htmAnother quote from Marx that also proves my point:
<B. Economic Section[…]
<3.Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;
<4.Legal prohibition of bosses employing foreign workers at a wage less than that of French workers;
<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrierhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htmRegarding the question of banks, you can see Engels' criticism of the Paris Commune for not appropriating the Bank of France. This is a lesson that all communist revolutions cannot forget: to appropriate the banks by nationalizing them and suppressing private banking if you want your revolution to succeed:
<It is therefore comprehensible that in the economic sphere much was left undone which, according to our view today, the Commune ought to have done. The hardest thing to understand is certainly the holy awe with which they remained standing respectfully outside the gates of the Bank of France. This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune – this would have been worth more than 10,000 hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favor of peace with the Commune, but what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists. Naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed – as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm – that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school proscribed.
<1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Communehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htmNow I will leave a quote about the obligation to install the revolutionary government of the dictatorship of the proletariat and never accept subordination to class conciliation or the ignorance of the petty bourgeoisie or liberals who deny the supremacy of the proletariat:
<While this utopian doctrinaire socialism, which subordinates the total movement to one of its stages, which puts in place of common social production the brainwork of individual pedants and, above all, in fantasy does away with the revolutionary struggle of the classes and its requirements by small conjurers' tricks or great sentimentality, while this doctrinaire socialism, which at bottom only idealizes present society, takes a picture of it without shadows, and wants to achieve its ideal athwart the realities of present society; while the proletariat surrenders this socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another – the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.
<Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, (1848 to 1850)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch03.htmNow I will post quotes on how a communist should organize and vote in bourgeois elections:
<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1850, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organization of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more quickly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first program of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transient ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves."
<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886,” Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hoboken.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm >>2602305>Vijay PrashadMaybe I'm confusing him with someone else. I thought he was a natocuck but it looks like I was wrong.
https://theanalysis.news/russian-chauvinism-and-an-american-global-monroe-doctrine-vijay-prashad-pt-2/>I don’t justify the Russian invasion, but on the other hand, Paul, I find it offensive that we have to keep saying this. When the United States— and by the way, I know the history of the term, whataboutism. So people can accuse me of whataboutism as much as they want, but what they’re accusing me of is they’re accusing me of thinking. When the U.S. invaded Iraq or when the Saudis bombed Yemen, commentators on MSNBC or CNN are not constantly saying we condemn the invasion of Iraq. They just don’t bother. We are under pressure constantly because any critic of U.S. imperialism is accused of being a stooge for somebody. You’re a stooge for Putin. You’re a stooge for [Bashar al-] Assad. You’re a stooge for [Muammar] Gaddafi. You’re a stooge for this, that and the other. In a way, this is something— we need to push back against this form of information attack. I’ve already said that I’m against this war. I’ve already said I’m not a stooge for Putin. I think he’s doing something grievous here. It’s very interesting that we also feel, in a way, either morally, there’s a moral necessity that we keep saying these things or we feel boxed in, or there’s an insecurity that creeps in that I don’t want to be attacked as a stooge for Putin. This is part of the delegitimization of the criticism or even of thinking. >>2600597So the imperialists have politically educated the Nepali proles for their own interests?
>>2602357Meanwhile 1885 Engels preface of the manifesto
>It must be recalled today that this passage is based on a misunderstanding. At that time – thanks to the Bonapartist and liberal falsifiers of history – it was considered as established that the French centralised machine of administration had been introduced by the Great Revolution and in particular that it had been used by the Convention as an indispensable and decisive weapon for defeating the royalist and federalist reaction and the external enemy. It is now, however, a well-known fact that throughout the revolution up to the eighteenth Brumaire c the whole administration of the départements, arrondissements and communes consisted of authorities elected by, the respective constituents themselves, and that these authorities acted with complete freedom within the general state laws; that precisely this provincial and local self-government, similar to the American, became the most powerful lever of the revolution and indeed to such an extent that Napoleon, immediately after his coup d’état of the eighteenth Brumaire, hastened to replace it by the still existing administration by prefects, which, therefore, was a pure instrument of reaction from the beginning. But no more than local and provincial self-government is in contradiction to political, national centralisation, is it necessarily bound up with that narrow-minded cantonal or communal self-seeking which strikes us as so repulsive in Switzerland, and which all the South German federal republicans wanted to make the rule in Germany in 1849. >>2602393>Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else. I thought he was a natocuck but it looks like I was wrong. IIRC he had a short period of knee-jerk railing against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Many did,IMO to remain the "good communists". Then it became clearer this was part of a wider process… or they got their Chinese/Russian paycheck to lose the fear of bad PR.
Either way, the Gaza genocide really put the spotlight on the "non-tankie" left, proud to "support both Palestine and Ukraine" and so on. Anyone who doesn't see what their principles are (NATOids) by now, doesn't want to.
>>2602393>I thought he was a natocucknah he writes and speaks for tricontinental which is like the international behind psl answer coalition code pink etc and big on china
he posts too fast some times and i didnt read but the coalition sounds to me like a counter-counter-revolution
>>2602435>the Nepali prolesjust the "leadership" it sounds like. lots of finding smart motivated people and giving them a scholarship to harvard where they can teach them that the reason their country sucks is cause the people are too dumb and how the "leaders" should educate them away from disinformation narratives like imperialist exploitation and how good corporate investment is for minority rights
>>2598195>they should have followed the social media of the Maoists engaged in the struggle […]What RSS feeds are you eluding to here?
>>2602305Fuck Prachanda and all the other traitors to the revolution. They literally gave up state power. True opportunists.
>>2602667Can you please elaborate how they 'gave up state power'?
>>2602674They won the civil war and then just let the bourgeois back into power in a parliamentary democracy, saying the country was not ready for socialism. It is now still a bourgeois dictatorship, the bourgeois have more power than the socialists, and they stopped even pretending to be Maoists. They're Menscheviks basically.
>>2602305How are there so many goddamn splits in nepal bro? It is crazy.
>>2602305So basically CPN (MC) absorbed bunch of insignificant parties, and is still lead by Prachanda.
>>2602447Incorrect. The text you are referring to is linked to a correction of what had occurred during the French Revolution, found in "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League". Marx and Engels, in all situations where there was a conflict between centralism and decentralization, sided with centralism, not allowing themselves to be co-opted by the petty bourgeoisie, which has anti-social tendencies and invents reasons not to organize with the workers as a whole. Therefore, this class must act according to what it has in common with the class interests of the proletariat and not fantasize about decentralization or succumb to superstitions about the state.
I will quote Marx about the Paris Commune to correct those who fantasize about decentralization:
<The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.
<In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.[…]
<The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.
<The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.
<Karl Marx: The Civil War in France, The Third Address, May, 1871, [The Paris Commune]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm Unique IPs: 33