[Comrade Mohan Baidya has brought forward some unique and helpful insights regarding the quandary that now exists concerning the refoundation of the CPN through the merger of the CPN(UML) and UCPN(MC). Having played a formative role in the development of the CPN(M) throughout the people’s war in Nepal, and later having led the split in 2012 that saw the creation of what is now known as the Communist Party of Nepal Revolutionary Maoist, Comrade Baidya should be seen as a trusted and valuable source on the political situation in Nepal. His assessment of the revisionist trends present in both the UML and MC as well as the new CPN should be taken seriously as it not only explains the past actions of the UML in its own reactionary partnership with state power, but as well makes the recent merger a predictable outgrowth of both parties’ political development, despite onlookers describing the merger as a surprising development. That said, Comrade Baidya’s analysis has not given us any concrete understanding of how these developments, and the possibility of a new constitution, change the qualitative conditions around which struggle will be advanced by revolutionary communists, or what the resolution of revolutionary communists should be in uniting against the CPN’s reactionary leadership. Hopefully this too will be explored soon. As always, the following has been made available here for the purposes of study and struggle.]

The history of Nepalese communist movement is going ahead amid the process of intense contradiction between progression and regression. Right in this course, the CPN (Maoist Centre) has been dissolved into CPN (Unified Marxist-Leninist). Having abandoned revolution, communism and Maoism, the Maoist Centre has accepted parliamentarian theory based on peaceful multiparty competition. This phenomenon should be regarded as a theoretical and political degeneration, a culmination of right revisionism and a backward journey of the Maoist Centre. Now, the relation of Maoist Centre with Maoism and scientific socialism has broken. Given that Maoist Centre has been dissolved into UML, the relation of the previous Maoist leaders has ruptured with the history of Maoism and the people’s war. It is a serious irony and a backward leap in the history of communist movement and the Nepalese revolution.

In the course of great people’s war, Prachanda the leader of erstwhile CPN (Maoist) had said:

The traitor UML clique that has openly downgraded the great terminology, Marxism-Leninism, into a trademark of parliamentary election by adopting reactionary strategy of multiparty democracy has now appeared in the most reactionary form. As an open agent of Indian expansionism, the revisionist traitor UML clique that had shamelessly betrayed the nation at Mahakali treaty to attain the chair of the reactionary state was most actively involved in drafting the so-called anti-terrorist act and mobilising army against people’s war as a partner of the reactionary state. (The problems of Nepalese revolution, part 3, pp. 168)

The UML has been strongly opposed and repudiated in the excerpt above. In the excerpt it is said that the UML, (1) has pursued the reactionary strategy of multiparty democracy, (2) has downgraded Marxism-Leninism into a trademark of parliamentary election, (3) as a reliable agent of Indian expansionism has shamelessly betrayed nation at Mahakali treaty to get hold of the chair of reactionary state, (4) has most actively involved in drafting the so-called anti-terrorist act and mobilising army against people’s war, (5) has been a revisionist traitor clique appeared in the most reactionary form. But on the contrary, the Maoist Centre has been dissolved into UML by taking an 1800 turn.

The letter of consensus signed jointly by Oli, Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai regarding party unity writes:

After bringing the monarchy to an end, writing of socialism-oriented constitution with democratic republic, federalism, proportional representation, secularism and social justice has been possible under the leadership of CPN (UML) and CPN (Maoist Centre). In the course of defending and putting into action the constitution adopted from the constituent assembly, we have arrived at a common conclusion of preparing ground of socialism through democratic method and peaceful competition. (Letter of consensus, October 3, 2017)

The letter of consensus issued by CPN (UML) and CPN (Maoist Centre) has stated that they have reached to a common conclusion of preparing base of socialism by means of (1) democratic republic, (2) writing of socialism-oriented constitution, (3) democratic method and (4) peaceful competition. This common conclusion is the basis of theoretical and political unity between them. Based on this, they decided to set up a party unity coordination committee and unitedly participate in the parliamentary election.

Comparing the concept agreed in the letter of consensus and the aforesaid statement made by Prachanda, there is a difference of sky and earth in theoretical, political and organisational fields. But that difference has now ended. They had tried to eliminate that difference right from the last part of people’s war period and that difference was getting finished till the writing of constitution that re-established parliamentarian system. From this perspective, this unity is going to take place, not all of a sudden, but in a planned way and in the form of a leap from quantity to quality towards opposite direction.

The meeting held on February 19 of the party unity coordination committee between the UML and MC has reached a 7-point consensus. Accordingly, it has (1) decided to name the unified party as Communist Party of Nepal, (2) agreed to accept the guiding principle as Marxism-Leninism, (3) made sure that the multiparty democracy of UML and the peaceful multiparty competition of Maoist Centre had a common understanding, (4) decided to converge at one point the multiparty democracy of UML and Maoism and the democracy in the twenty-first century of Maoist Centre, (5) agreed to run a unified party by preparing a political report and constitution on the aforesaid basis, (6) decided to defend the achievements and then build socialism and (7) taken decision to go to unity congress. (Party unity coordination committee, Feb 19, 2018).

No later than the Chunwang CC Meeting had adopted the slogan of democratic republic after abandoning new democracy, the main leadership of the erstwhile CPN (Maoist), talking about people’s insurrection, had again created great confusion among revolutionaries. After accepting regressive constitution, it has now given a new slogan of socialism to create confusion among revolutionaries. On around 1990-1991, the UML had created just this type of delusion. This history is being replicated just in this manner today. Nepali congress too accepts the abstract slogan of socialism. Socialism is of many kinds. The Communist Manifesto has even talked about a reactionary socialism. The socialism that UML and MC are now taking about falls basically under the category of reactionary socialism. After putting Maoism, class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the theory of violence aside, the socialism via reformism takes a form of reaction.

When the news of MC’s dissolution into UML was being publicised, some of the comrades were saying that they will not be dissolved in UML but will continue with their independent revolutionary existence. I specially thank those comrades, who have stood against this dissolution. It is now necessary to carry out serious discussion and debate to unify the revolutionary communist movement and firmly go ahead towards the preparation of revolution on the basis of correct line guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. To raise the banner of rebellion against opportunism and regression is a special duty of the revolutionary communists.

Whatever be it, our ex-comrades do not have any relation with Maoism and the history of people’s war anymore. Notwithstanding their regressive path, the advanced motion and the direction of revolution will continue. In the history of Nepalese communist movement, the process of ending of one chapter and the initiation of another one has been advancing. At the moment, opposing and repudiating all sorts of right opportunism and regressive trends, uniting the genuine revolutionary communist groups and individuals and making preparation of new democratic revolution, we have to firmly go ahead along the direction of attaining scientific socialism and communism. None can stop the final victory of revolution.

Part II

Finally, the official unity between UML and MC has taken place on May 17, 2018. Though they have named the unified party as Communist Party of Nepal, however in essence, it is not a unity but the dissolution of MC into UML. The joint statement issued by them sheds light on it well.

The questions like Party’s name, theoretical and political concept and guiding principle have been briefly sketched in the statement issued as a joint declaration of UML and MC. The joint statement signed by Oli and Prachanda writes:

“Today we have reorganized the Communist Party of Nepal by formally uniting the CPN (UML) and CPN (Maoist Centre).”

“The socialism-oriented people’s democracy will be carried forward in the new context by developing and amending the theoretical and political concept of People’s Multiparty Democracy followed by the CPN (UML) and Democracy in the 21 st Century followed by the CPN (Maoist Centre).”

“The Communist Party of Nepal is committed to the worldwide concept of modern democracy that includes attaining superiority through peaceful competition, supremacy of constitution, rule of law, independent judiciary, guarantee to human and fundamental rights, theory of separation of power, plural open society, periodic election with multiparty competition, formation of government from people-elected representatives, constitutional arrangement of opposition etc.”

“Our guiding principle will be Marxism-Leninism. (‘Joint declaration of UML-MC unity’, Naya Patrika, May 18, 2018)

Now it is necessary to explain the essence of aforesaid statement. It is necessary to be additionally clear on the theoretical and political deviation, the right revisionism present in their party and the regressive trend of UML and MC, which have been betraying to Nepalese revolution and the history of communist movement. In this context, the following questions draw special attention:

First: Vulgarization of Marxism. Marxism is a guiding principle of the Communist Party. Today, it has developed into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The revisionism is opposed to and makes distortion of this guiding ideology. The revisionism has been distorting and vulgarizing the theories of MLM including the dialectical and historical materialism, class struggle, violence and the dictatorship of the proletariat. UML does not agree with Maoism or Mao Zedong thought. It pretends to agree with Marxism-Leninism. Now, the MC too has arrived at Marxism-Leninism only by abandoning Maoism and it is said that their united party’s guiding principle is Marxism-Leninism. In fact, Marxism-Leninism is incomplete without Maoism, on the one hand, and merely the pretension of one agreeing with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism does not make any sense, on the other. In the present context, in order to become a genuine communist, it is unavoidably necessary to firmly pursue the process of defense, application and development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, follow the scientific theories like dialectical and historical materialism, class struggle, violence, the dictatorship of the proletariat, communism etc. The unity, which has taken place between UML and MC, clarifies in its essence that it has abandoned MLM and has followed revisionism.

Second: Abandonment of new democracy. Subsequent to the abandonment of new democracy by UML yesterday and MC today, they have now resorted to parliamentarianism. The parliamentarian multiparty system has been acceptable to them today. They chant that the bourgeois democratic or new democratic revolution has been accomplished in Nepal. Evidently, the task of new democratic revolution in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial and neo-colonial countries, like Nepal, is targeted against both: the feudalism and imperialism/expansionism. However, they say that feudalism has been completely brought to an end after the monarchy has ended. They disprove the necessity of opposing imperialism and expansionism for new democratic revolution. They want to make the parliamentarianism interminable in Nepal by maintaining the domination of comprador and bureaucratic capitalism.

In their joint announcement, the phraseology, socialism-oriented people’s democracy, has created another illusion. They have made use of dualism, eclecticism and shameful opportunism by simultaneously urging that the democratic revolution has been accomplished in Nepal and the constitution of parliamentarian democratic republic has to be implemented, on the one hand, and by talking about socialism-oriented people’s democracy in an abstract language, on the other. Hence, the misuse of definitive terminology has become one of the main characteristics of revisionism.

Third: Endorsement of regressive state. The form of revolution is based on class and it is related to the question of attaining state power. Defining revolution and relating it to state power, Lenin had said, “The passing of state power from one class to another is the first, the principal, the basic sign of a revolution.” (Volume 24, Lenin page 44). According to this statement the main sign of revolution is to pass the state power from the hand of oppressor class to the oppressed one. But, MC and UML do not agree with this opinion of Lenin. Their party’s ideological and political objective has been to implement the present constitution in order for maintaining the current regressive state power and the parliamentarian system which are based on comprador and bureaucratic capitalist and feudal class dictatorship.

While talking about state power, one must take note of the state machinery. Marx had said: destruction of old machinery is unavoidably necessary for revolution. Nevertheless, the right revisionists do not pay attention to it. The UML and MC both say that revolution has been completed with the old state power unchanged and it is their unified party’s concept as well. This concept is totally against Marxism.

Fourth: Form of republic and the context of era. The question of republic is related to the question of era. In the course of bourgeois democratic revolution against feudalism yesterday, the democratic republic was a progressive step. However, after the episode of Paris Commune, the degeneration of bourgeoisie into reaction, the experiences of bourgeois and socialist revolutions accomplished in Russia in 1905 and 1917 and the emergence of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the democratic republic has taken a reactionary form. But, the MC and UML did not want to understand it at all.

Lenin says:

The course of world events and the bitter lessons derived from the alliance of all the Russian monarchists with Anglo-French and American imperialism are proving in practice that a democratic republic is a bourgeois democratic republic, which is already out of date from the point of view of the problems which imperialism has placed before history. They show that there is no other alternative: either Soviet government triumphs in every advanced country in the world, or the most reactionary imperialism triumphs, the most savage imperialism, which is throttling the small and weak nations and reinstating reaction all over the world — Anglo-American imperialism, which has perfectly mastered the art of using the form of a democratic republic. (Lenin: Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 28, 1974, page 189-190)

Here Lenin has clarified well the fact that the democratic republic has become historically out of date and the imperialist countries have been using it.

Taking into consideration of new era developed after the First World War and 1917 October Revolution, Mao has mentioned about three kinds of republics. They are: the republic under the dictatorship of the bourgeois, the republic under the dictatorship of the proletariat and the republic under the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes. Here, Mao has mentioned the first type of republic as the republic related to the old democratic state and it is democratic republic. That is the republic of old era. Second type of republic is the proletarian socialist republic established in Russia whereas the third one is new democratic republic established in China. From this angle, the UML and MC both and now their party, keeping aside the new democratic and proletarian socialist republics of new era, have started presenting the democratic republic of old era, being used by imperialism, as the new concept of new era. It is a shameless regression.

Fifth: Class capitulationism. Abandoning the principle of class struggle and class dictatorship, to talk only of pure democracy or democracy for all classes is to prostrate theoretically and practically before the regressive class. It should be taken as class capitulationism. The UML first, then MC, and now the new party formed of these two parties have pursued the path of class capitulation. Both of them have already accepted class collaboration and the dictatorship of the regressive class, by leaving behind the principle of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is class capitulationism and an ugly model of betrayal towards the emancipation of proletariat and the oppressed classes.

Sixth: The principle of peaceful transition. Marxism believes that the theory of violence is universal. To follow the path of peaceful transition and the theory of parliamentarian electoral competition against the theory of violence is right revisionism. The UML yesterday and the MC today have followed right revisionism in the context of means and path of revolution. This is the theory of their unified party also.

Seventh: Millerandist thinking. To participate in cabinet of the reactionary state power is Millerandism. It is also known as cabinetism. Millerand was a leader of opportunist trend in the French communist movement. Taking part in the bourgeois reactionary government in 1899, he worked with the assassins of Paris Commune. The UML had for long followed the path of Millerandism. Today, MC has done the same. Both of them have become Millerandist and their unified party is based on this concept now.

Eighth: The hallucination of socialism. The UML and MC both are trying to create a big confusion among the people by saying that they favour socialism. Can the forces, which work for institutionalising parliamentarian republic and which have abandoned class struggle and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, favour scientific socialism in the present era of imperialism and proletarian revolution? Socialism is of many kinds: reactionary, reformist, utopian and scientific. Do the UML and MC stand for scientific socialism? It cannot be replied in positive. In fact, they don’t favour scientific socialism. In the backdrop of October Socialist Revolution Stalin, on democratic republic and Soviet Republic, says:

As a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets. [History of CPSU (Bolshevik), page 356, paragraph 3]

This statement of Stalin is noteworthy.

Ninth: Leftist and communist hallucination. The UML used to deceive masses by creating delusion of the left, communists and communism yesterday. In fact, neither their unified party is left-wing, nor is it communist and nor is it in favour of communism, nor either of them previously. The unified party has presented itself in left and communist label or appearance to confuse the people.

Tenth: brokerage of imperialism and expansionism. The UML and MC have been pro-imperialist and pro-expansionist parties since before and their unified party also at present has stood on this legacy. The CPN (ML), the predecessor of CPN (UML), used to perceive, in the later part of time, that soviet social imperialism was socialism. It used to call India hegemonist, not expansionist. At the start of UML era, it had worked hard to approve the anti-national Mahakali treaty. In the same manner, the opportunist section of the erstwhile CPN (Maoist) had said in the political report of Chunwang meeting that Lenin’s and Mao’s concept as regards the imperialism has lagged behind. In the later part of people’s war, it had seriously colluded with Indian expansionist ruling classes against the national independence of Nepal and Nepalese revolution. In this course, the UML and a part of the CPN (Maoist) had handed over Upper Karnali and Arun III to India. The BIPPA was signed with India right in this process. Prachanda, in the course of his visit to India in September 2016, had stamped on the entire treaties reached in the past through a 25-point anti-national agreement. Even though Prime Minister K. P. Oli was seen to be positive towards national independence at the time of blockade, his submission to India has increased after the last election and it is clear to all that Oli got to stamp on the entire old treaties and agreements through joint communiqués signed when Modi visited Nepal and Oli visited India. Although the UML and MC used to confuse the people by calling themselves left and communist in the past, nonetheless they were compliant to the imperialist privatisation and neo-liberalism. Their unified party’s thinking now is so as well. It is an ugly model of their brokerage towards imperialism and expansionism and of national capitulationism.

In total, the conclusion that can be drawn from the aforesaid theoretical concepts and characteristics of UML, MC and their unified party is that their unified party no longer remains only within right revisionism, but has turned reactionary. It is a big misfortune in the history of Nepalese communist movement.

The right revisionists, accusing Marxists of dogmatism, talk of so-called creativity and abandon Marxism. Right here, we must understand the difference between dogmatism and revisionism. Dogmatism, in the name of defending theory, does not pay attention to the experiences acquired during revolution. Revisionism, keeping the theory aside, talks of creativity on the basis of experience only. In the history of the Nepalese communist movement, the UML had done this and for some time now MC has been doing this as well. Their new party too has been erected precisely on this footing. Marxism lays emphasis on the dialectical relation between theory and practice and opposes dogmatism and revisionism both.

On dogmatism and revisionism Mao says:

It is dogmatism to approach Marxism from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the basic principles of Marxism and to negate its universal truth. Revisionism is one form of bourgeois ideology. The revisionists deny the differences between socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What they advocate is in fact not the socialist line but the capitalist line. In present circumstances, revisionism is more pernicious than dogmatism. (Mao: collected works, volume V, page, 434-435)

These statements by Mao are notable in the present context. The socialist line the right opportunist party formed of UML and MC is talking about now is in the real sense a capitalist line i.e. imperialist line not the socialist one. In fact, in the name of opposing dogmatism they are attacking upon Marxism from the imperialist angle.

Speaking at the time of party unification i.e. the dissolution of MC into UML, the chairmen duos of UML and MC had said that the party unity is not a mixture but a compound. What should we understand here is that whatever – mixture or compound – it be said, it is UMLisation of MC. During speech, Prachanda, the chairman of erstwhile MC, had said that this event is a good beginning and a qualitative leap of new era. In fact, it is nothing other than a backward journey towards old era and a regressive leap.

At last, where we must lay emphasis on is that in the present situation when the revolution has suffered a serious setback and the right revisionism has taken a form of reaction we, being enriched with revolutionary optimism, should proceed firmly toward the preparation of new democratic revolution and the unity of revolutionary communists. Our goal is to go towards communism via socialism. The fall of reaction and revisionism and the victory of revolution and Marxism are inevitable.