A nice article overall, but I have serious problems with the para:
"There is however another view that global warming may be happening due to factors much beyond human activities. Despite all scientific advances the one area where little is known is what is happening under our feet on our planet. Drilling for 19 years to probe the depths of Earth, whose radius is over 6000 kilometers, the Soviets reached a depth of nearly 13 kilometers before the Soviet Union collapsed. No one has ever ventured beyond this. Even this minuscule penetration revealed many surprises negating what scientists presumed on the basis of seismic wave and other indirect methods. For instance at a depth of 10 kilometers the temperature was found to be 180oc, nearly twice the forecast level. These happenings may well be impacting on temperatures at the surface. "
This is a completely unfounded concession to skepticism about the human-generated nature of global warming. In the Earth's energy budget, geothermal energy accounts for only 0.013% of the incoming energy, so an increase in it would have to have been enormous to account for the observed rise in the mean global temperature. I have not seen any credible scientific source even suggesting that such an enourmous increase might have happened, and Yechury does not cite any. Given the attempts by the Right to obfuscate the scientific evidence on global warming, I find Yechury's off-hand remarks lending support to such scepticism very irresponsible.
pragoti is doing a very good job. it does not need to justify its content to individual readers. it is sharp, very balanced and informative. its readership has grown over time considerably, which is now substantially more than any other leftwing sites based in India (i.e. . compared with sanhati, kafila, leftvoice etc.). this only shows that its political positions are more attractive than anything else being offered from within the indian left. it needs to improve a lot no doubt. but not by abandoning its politics.
as far as this article is concerned, it has been re-posted in various websites,
like in here http://www.communist-party.org.uk/ and also http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1759/1/
so readers have already voted. of course those who did not like it have a right to criticise. but if they agree with the politics of the article but don't like its form/presentation etc, why don't they write something themselves...why place unnecessary burdens of their own expectations on the author of this particular article.
Kanika is very wrong in using blanket criticisms of pragoti. I, like many others here, have been a regular reader of pragoti and have been witness to different points of view expressed here.
Kanika, or any other reader has every right to criticise the article. The article in fact does repeat a lot of what has come with unabated regularity on Party channels. There is very definitely a lack of both incisive and forthright articles. I do not also summarily reject the idea of a shadow of conformity from what has come up on the website in the recent past. Nor do I disagree with the sentiment that Kanika echoes at the core of her statements - the need for inclusiveness and the need for keeping moderation to the bare minimum in the interest of curing the fester that even the official Party documents admit to.
However Kanika must realise that if she means well for the Indian Left, as she says, she must choose her words well. Every word which a Party member or sympathiser places wrongly will be used against him/her and the Cause by enemies of the Party both within and outside. Moreover such confounded attacks serve little purpose and in fact more often than not prove detrimental becoming rallying points for those with ill intentions and the line between those with us and those against get blurred.
Lastly pragoti and other Left fora serve an immense good for the Cause. In spite of their weaknesses they must be encouraged - which again is being inclusive, the bane of policing.
Some clarifications are due -
In essence, your allegation that there is a total conformity between Pragoti and the CPI(M) in particular is not true.
As regards Prasenjit Bose's article, I see no "apology" (whichever way you use the word). The article is a political indictment of a) the supporters of the Maoists and b) the political opposition in West Bengal which is bent upon the physical annihilation of ruling party supporters/ sympathisers in many areas. It is evident that you fail to see this in your reading of the article. You might find the argument about the Trinamul-Maoist acting in tandem repetitive; but that does not hide away the truth there is to the same. Reiterating it is necessary because the very form of democracy in West Bengal is at stake. How can a government perform its regular activities in areas where the opposition is bent upon physical annihilation through a proxy? It is necessary to keep persisting with a political argument against this form of anarchism. There have been other critiques of the Maoists in other places and sites; but they are silent on the role the political opposition in West Bengal has played in this regard. It is necessary for a left democratic forum like Pragoti to point to this..and relentlessly.
The car factory issue etc are extraneous to the article. Dredging this up is not supportive of your original claim on the article or on the site.
At the onset, thank you Abhay for acknowledging me having written the comment. I'm doing my bit to keep pragoti alive.
I don't want to prove my credibility by countering Abhay's allegations that I have not read the article. It by far misses the point I'm trying to take up here. In fact I don't disagree with even a single point (factually speaking) that this article refers to. My criticism of this article and the forum is on a different plane.
First the article. Mr Bose is a formal office bearer of the CPI(M) so his views can be treated as that of the CPI(M) itself. And it is! Even a cursory viewing of the Ganshakti from the past year or so will show how strongly it is the view of the CPI(M) that the party is a victim. For the past so many months exposing the nexus between Mamata and the Maoists has been the central theme of all of Ganshakti's (or other party channels) political writings. I doubt there is any person in Bengal who needs to be made aware anymore. It is a long dead horse that needs to be let off the flogging.
The question myself and many others are asking is what is the CPM doing when all these people are wreaking havoc?Is this shedding of tears about a bad governor, a bad media, a bad opposition going to cure bengal and the party of its evils?After the elections the Bengal CPM went around town saying since they parted ways with the congress they lost. If this is true then that amounts to the CPM living only if the congress supports it. The same is true for media, the governor, the TMC and Mamata.
So if the CPM and its chief minister are incapable of creating even a car factory just because Mamata does not allow then why vote them back to power? What is the use of voting them to power if they do not how to use the power that comes with the vote? What is this if not an apology for miserable leadership and pathetic statesmanship?
Mr Bose, the author here heads the research wing of the party. A credential that is very often published in clear print. So how wrong is it if one was to expect such a learned person to write something that goes beyond the nagging? At least two years later after the full blown fiasco started?
Lastly pragoti. Is the site an official CPM forum? I never knew of that. Then why is it that I get to read only articles and views that conform to the "official party line"...whatever that is supposed to mean today in the CPM. The one to one correspondence between what is said by the CPM in its press releases and what is put up on the site is it a mere coincidence? Am I imagining things?
I deeply wish I was.
Dear Com. Nandan,
I am extremely thankful for your comments on my piece. Your comments are very helpful in revising my piece to publish in a journal with wide international circulation so that on the part of the Left, we can debate with Prof. Sen. In fact, I would suggest that you should also write a piece on the problems of Sen’s approach, particularly your Hegelian analysis of Sen, which seems most promising. You have rightly pointed out that Sen’s ‘range of philosophical and ethical material is decidedly inadequate’. In my revised version of the piece, which I am going to send to a widely circulated journal of international repute, I have pointed out more of Sen’s ‘parochial disengagement’. In fact, I have also referred to Alasdair MacIntyre’s A Short History of Ethics in the modified version.
Well, Sen, who is a liberal but, carries the burden of ‘leftwing past’ in his student days would hardly discuss, committed left intellectuals like Žižek and Badiou, and I would also add Laclau to this list. Neither he would be interested in Heidegger’s What is a Thing?, a fundamental text about ‘scientific’ and ‘philosophical’ questioning of ‘the thing’ and the notions of ‘subjective’ versus ‘objective’ analysis of ‘truth’ nor Deleuze’s A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Although Žižek rates Heidegger, Deleuze, Badiou as great thinkers of 20th century, we know that Hegel, Marx and Lacan are his ultimate Gurus. Lacan said that in Deleuze, he got a good student but ‘schizophrenia’ does not exist rather ‘paranoia’ would be the right term to explain the phenomena of what psychologists like Eugen Bleuler coined it to describe a long-term mental disorder whose symptoms include inappropriate actions and feelings and withdrawal from reality into fantasy. Lacan goes with Emil Kraepelin’s definition of ‘paranoia’—a mental condition in which one mistakenly believes that one is being persecuted, or that one is very important, a kind of self-obsession mixed up with unjustified suspicion and mistrust of others. Today, we see this ‘mistrust of the other’ in capitalism and imperialist set-up and also the symptom of ‘self-obsession’, which Freud already diagnostically termed as ‘megalomania’ and ‘narcissism’.
The liberals like Sen are generally averse to discuss inter-disciplinary studies of philosophy, political theory, economics and psychoanalysis. This aversion can be partly explained in the structures of our capitalist division of labour itself. Thus, it is not surprising that despite the post-behaviouralist trend in American social sciences with inter-disciplinary studies right from 1970s, we still notice a significant amount of ‘disciplinary provincialism’ and our university discourses and courses are structured around those lines of segregation of disciplines rather than a dialogue between disciplines. It also resists seeing the epistemological system as a cosmic whole, or what Marx called as ‘totality’. In other words, the dominant mainstream academic discourse will not tolerate indiscipline in disciplines as it is meant to discipline the disciple/pupil. Even if we talk about interdisciplinary subjects like ‘political philosophy’, ‘political economy’, ‘political sociology’ or in sciences, ‘mathematical biology’, ‘physical chemistry’, ‘biophysics’ etc. unfortunately, the university discourses are still run by certain Wittgensteinian ‘rules of the game’, which in a way are also linked with the concept of ‘hegemony’ and ‘authority’. That is to say, who decides the ‘rules and regulations’, as discussed in my article.
Regarding Habermas, Sen in fact engages with him selectively, as he did the same with Marx in his book. As you must be knowing that Sen in his book, tries to problematize between ‘normative approach’ of Rawls and ‘procedural approach’ of Habermas on the question of ‘identification of reasonable persons’ (p. 42-45, p. 134) and then withdraw himself to the ‘issues of differentiation…since they are not central to the approach of [t]his book’ (p. 196). Then he problematically argued that although Rawls and Habermas have positively contributed to the theory of democracy (p. 324), yet both ends up with a vision of ‘perfectly just society’, which Sen differs by suggesting that even if Rawls and Habermas are different in approaches, they come to the common conclusions (pp. 324-326).
As you know that the ‘indivisible remainder’ in my text is taken from Žižek, which he borrowed from Lacan particularly from the concept of surplus ‘jouissance’, which Lacan again elaborated from Marx’s ‘surplus value’. You are very correct in saying ‘Sen’s appropriation of Puntam’s fatally flawed dissociation of ethics from ontology.’ But this disjuncture of ethics from ontology and a similar disjointment between ‘normative ideal’ and ‘pragmatic real’ in Sen, which he could not however overcome is connected with the (neo)liberal politics that Sen seems to be now subscribing. A person cannot be associated with Left, even if he assesses himself or claims to be one unless proved by his theoretical arguments, ideological articulations and political praxis; since self-assessment like any other assessment can also become wrong! In Sen, we find a contradiction of his dominant (neo)liberal ‘self’ and much marginalized leftwing ‘self’. But if one analyses Sen’s intellectual trajectory right from his PhD thesis book Choice of Techniques, then it is amply clear that he has increasingly shifted towards the ‘right reactionary camp’. My article was only a modest attempt to expose those hypocrisies in Sen by provoking him that in an imperialist world (dis)order, one has to take a clear position with no ambivalence or ambiguity. As you are a voracious reader of Lenin, and indeed as I enjoyed your pamphlet Contours of Leninism, we can say by reminding Lenin that today, either one has to chose between a bourgeois or socialist ideology, for there is no middle course, for mankind has not created an ideology beyond class lines.
kanika seems to have arrived at conclusions without reading the article. its not an apology but an indictment of endless brutalities:
and an indictment of sheer opportunism:
kanika can check what the author has to say about the CPM:
and finally, kanika said: "As for pragoti, your mail group is as good as dead. Looks like you are big time into euthanasia for the site too. May be you could add two ore words to your catch line ONLY and NO and it would be ONLY STRUGGLE NO PROGRESS." but her own enthusiastic participation in the debate proves that pragoti is far from "dead"; its alive and kicking. SO MORE STRUGGLE AND MORE PROGRESS.
1. I concur that the range of philosophical and ethical material that Sen engages with is decidedly inadequate. It is not only Thomism in its original form, but also the pertinent modern manifestation of this tradition in left-oriented Christians such as Alasdair Macintyre (especially his work on the ethical centrality of character) and Herbert McCabe that is left unconsidered. But the greatest lacuna lies in Professor Sen's total lack of engagement [minus crossovers like Habermas] with the continental mainstream of substantive philosophy. It is deeply unsettling that we have from someone of Sen's stature and cosmopolitanism a systematic examination of ethics without so much as an engagement with the thought of Levinas. The Professor also goes on to totally skip the work of Heidegger, Deleuze and Badiou - the triumvirate that Zizek rightly terms the greatest of the 20th century's philosophers.
2. I am tempted to interpret the epistemological short-circuit in Sen's logic - what Com. Maidul Islam calls the indivisible remainder - as a simulacrum of the his problematic metaphysics. As Marxists, of course, the natural response here is to attack Sen's appropriation of Puntam's fatally flawed dissociation of ethics from ontology. The Professor's stoutly refuses to recognise Capital as a spectral Real that hegemonically [and tyrannically] determines the human condition within modernity. Instead, his central conception 'redressable injustice' is that which exists exclusively in the form of the discrete mutable crises and the overwhelming emphasis he places their resolution over and above the human condition as such is a sterling example what Zizek terms "ideology at its purest". In rejecting the hegemonic and non-contingent otherness of Capitalism, Sen's conception of justice, along with mainstream theories of ethics , serves to constitute the disjunctive synthesis that ideologically underpins western capitalism. There is little wonder here that every stripe of right-liberal, from David Cameron to David Miliband, wants to jump onto the Professor's boat. One fears that Sen (thus far a man of the left by his own assessment) seems to be quite a distance down the Habermasian highway of state philosophy, capitalist theodicy and the ideology of 'think but obey'.
Then again, irrespective of political partisanship, the deeper philosophical-ontological crisis of this book persists. Sen's ultimately emotivist conception of the ethical Subject is abstract in the precise Hegelian sense of the word. The old Master, in a brilliant passage in Paragraph 18 of the Preface to the "Phenomenology", explores the relationship between Substance and subject . He not only rejects the narratives centred around some purely speculative Substance but also comes down against the sort of casuistry Sen espouses in equal measure. The point of departure lies in the negation of the abstract, whether it is the "immediate simplicity" in the former notion or the "indifferent diversity" patently on display with Sen. The truly dialectical alternative is one that stands in opposition to sameness in abstraction of both these pseudo-ontologies. This third radical category of substance-as-subject postulated by Hegel (and subsequently subjected to a riveting exegesis) is the crucial ontological category completely disregards by Professor Sen at the cost of the fundamental efficacy of his whole theory of justice.
Your info. helped me alot in my project..
apology - "in a literary sense, a formal statement of justification or defense speech"
apology - "a poor example; "it was an apology for a meal"; "a poor excuse for an automobile"
I personally think the rest of the comment was elaborate enough
confused mind is spreading more confusion. if you want to leave the debate because you can't come up with coherent arguments, please feel free to do so. but do not mix up issues. we were discussing multi-party democracy and the cpm. nuclear power is a seperate issue altogether. since you have nothing more to say on democracy and the cpm you are shifting goalposts.
as far as i know cpm has never been opposed to nuclear power per se. i think its stand is that nuclear power, being costly, cannot assume a central role in india's energy policy. having one russian built nuclear power plant in west bengal neither negates that position, nor is it connected to the opposition to the nuclear deal with the americans.
as far as the international meet of the communist parties is concerned, it is not a question of the cpm unilaterally deciding to invite the nepalese maoists. this was the 11th such meeting. please check the background of these international meetings:
"from 1998, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) took up this task of organising international meetings of the communist and workers parties to exchange opinions on some of the important contemporary developments in world and share experiences. From that year onwards seven consecutive meetings were hosted by the KKE in Greece. The number of parties taking part in these meetings saw a steady increase reflecting the growing relevance and validity of Marxism. To facilitate the smooth organisation of these meetings a working group of international communist and workers parties was formed. This group decides on the theme of the meeting, the venue and dates apart from the parties that would take part in the meeting." [http://11imcwp.in/]
if the nepalese maoists are interested in being a part of such meetings, i think they have to approach the international working group. the UML has been a part of this since long.
i am not interested in branding you either as a "Trinamooli or a Maoist or a Congshal or a Tata-CPM". you simply seem to be a confused mind, who badly needs more clarity and less prejudice in his/her thinking.
apology for what? "The only thing that this miserable series of apologies dished with nauseating regularity..."; "not such apologies article after article": how does kanika find this to be apologetic? please elaborate further.
Dear Enlightened mind
None of my questions you have replied. I think it is better to end the debate here. It is difficult to debate with supporters of the CPI(M) who in various times spoke in different voices. See what the party says on Haripur. Biman Basu says it is a question of Unnayan (Ganashakti 8th of Dec 2009), criticising the Indo-US deal CPM says nuclear power cannot provide cheap energy and most of the countries are leaving nuclear options (Left Stand on the Nuclear deal) . So how a nuclear power station becomes a symbol of Unnati and Unnayan in West Bengal when it is not in other countries. This is just one of the thousands double speaks of CPM party. I will end by citing another double speak. If Maoists in Nepal have contributed so much in South Asian movement why CPI(M) did not call Prachananda in the recently heldcommunist parties conference in New Delhi. Why CPM called only the Madhav Nepals party, did the party send any invitation, curious to know.
There is something called Revenge of History. This may sound quite Hegelian but I am certain that CPI(M) has nothing more to offer to the Indian working class and more generally to the South Asian working class. That does not mean Maoists have anything to offer. (By the way I am not a Maoist but in Bengal today anybody who opposes CPM, the party leadership brands as either a Trinamooli or a Maoist or a Congshal or a Tata-CPM). They all are waiting for the revenge of history like their past masters of East European states. Compare the programme of the most militant Left party in Germany - The Left - with the East German communist party and anonymous will realise what I mean by the revenge of history.
You are correct in identifying the area to be stressed. I have also tried to stress that area by giving an alternative of cooperative publishing efforts, may be I should be more concrete in the matter.
I was trying to say about Open Source Publishing, not Open Access Publishing. That I have made clear in one paragraph also (open source misunderstood). For LaTeX applications, the tex file is needed to be distributed for the source, and I have mentioned LaTeX and Scribus because they are FOSS. Open Source Publishing needs extensive use of FOSS, and the development of FOSS in this area also need to be standardized for a coherent development of the matter. Take the example of Unicode font in Indian languages, which is still not standardized, and creating hindrance to publish a huge amount of digitized material in open domain.
I think the author meant 'Open access publishing' by 'open source publishing'. The latter term is not appropriate. The source of documents is 'open' for a few proprietary formats too, while latex documents will not be 'open' without the tex source files.
The basic idea of open publishing is to free publishing from the shackles of corporate publishers. This aspect should have been stressed. Otherwise nobody in the publishing arena has a problem with copyright. Wiki-like licenses and some of the more restrictive creative commons licenses have different goals in general. Both types are part of the open publishing concept and address different requirements of authors. Corporate publishers charge excessively for mere access to published work and that is the main problem.
The problem is most acute in the academic sphere. The closed publishing model has a bad ecosystem based on commissions. Routine work that should be done by universities in collaboration is done by private players. This calls for a much more effort from the open publishing advocates. Some work has already been done and we have some good open publishing journals in place, but of course a lot remains to be done.
in my opinion as classes still exist in the socialist system one cannot wish away the space for their political expression; nevertheless, as the defeated classes will try to take advantage of that freedom , genuine and open in a socialist democracy, the communist party has to be doubly careful not to allow the reactionary forces, in alliance with their foreign masters, to make use of it to reestablish their despotic rule , for which it has to be in constant touch with the masses to educate and empower them so that they are not only numerically superior but also ideologically united in its practical sense.
CPI is contesting the jharkhand assembly elections in alliance with RJD. the CPI (M) is not a part of the alliance.
Of interest -- You can see a clip of Toussaint's last moments in prison from the new short film "The Last Days of Toussaint L'Ouverture" at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2468184/ This short film is the basis for a new feature (not with Danny Glover) that is in development.
dear confused mind,
firstly, your confusions are deliberate. you have obvious prejudices against prakash karat and his party, which i do not share. nor do i share your sectarian understanding about nepalese maoists or cpn(uml).
secondly, rather than going round and round in circles about peoples' democratic state, socialist state, China, NPC, Stalinism, Maoism etc., which seems to be the result of serious intellectual indigestion on your part, please realize that the overall trend in the communist movement in India has been to take a different view about the practices in erstwhile and present day socialist regimes with regards to democracy (unlike the indian maoist loonies but without shouting from the rooftops which you perhaps want them to do) and adapt themselves to functioning in a multi-party bourgeois democratic setting and in turn radicalise and enrich the democratic process. cpim in fact has a good record in this regard: it was in the forefront of the fight against the emergency; and it introduced democratic decentralization in west bengal, kerala and tripura which became a national model of local self government to be emulated by other states. the cpim has also remained free from trends like the "cult of individualism", which consumed many communist parties in the past. With all their shortcomings and weaknesses, one has to admit these virtues of the cpim. however, individuals who are fed on a heavy diet of anti-communist propaganda and who choose to look at the cpim through tinted glasses find it difficult to digest.
thirdly, i quoted baburam bhattarai to show that serious and major communist parties in south asia are thinking on similar lines. it is possible that they took into account cpim's positions and experience before formulating their own positions. there is nothing wrong in that. communist parties must learn from each other. the cpim also has things to learn from the nepalese maoists, especially the way they deal with the caste question.
finally, if the composition of the national peoples' congress in China is causing so much anxiety, why don't you write to mr. hu jintao or mr.wen jiabao. why are you raving and ranting against prakash karat for your disappointment at the political system in china? rather seek some spiritual solace for your confused and agitated mind from his excellency the dalai lama.
Sorry Enlightened Mind, I am still confused. A confused mind is always a problem to a communist party married to Stalinist and Maoist prescriptions. Just one question when Karat is talking about multi-party in socialism does he mean multi party in people's democratic state or in a socialist state ? I am not clear on this. This is because I think it is oxymoron to say that there can be a socialist state under people's democratic dictatorship ( as in China now). In class terms there can`t be a socialist state under people`s democratic dictatorship. This is just ABC of Marxism. This is used to camouflage the issue who rules the state - in this case it is the communist party who only rules, others suck their thumbs or languish in labour camps. Secondly long before 2000 CPM updated party programme, the Chinese party during the new democratic revolution stage after the revolution said that it is a multi-party state. There is nothing unique in this. Even today the NPC is a multi party assembly where essentially only communist party rules. In fact seeing how the people dislodged the single party authoritarian regimes in the Eastern Europe, the realistic leadership of CPM thought it is better to say that we are for a multi party state during the stage of the people's democratic revolution.
In Mao's theory of new democratic revolution under the communist party leadership, the state will have multi party system. Then when China became a socialist state after the transition period [ The period of officially designated "transition to socialism" corresponded to China's First Five-Year Plan (1953-57), The period was characterized by efforts to achieve industrialization, collectivization of agriculture, and political centralization] it remained a multi party state as other smaller parties can participate in the election like ( technical experts from other smaller parties) in National Peoples Congress, but in reality they have no power in NPC. More than 70% of NPC members are the communist party members (there are many detailed study on this) . In essence National Peoples Congress is a Communist Party controlled parliament.
To make things clear is Prakash Karat saying that under socialist state ruled by people's democratic dictatorship, there would be multi party system or is he saying that in socialism there would be a multi party system. Two are entirely different. I hope your enlightened mind would recognise this. Today if a BBC reporter asks Wen Xiabao that what is China`s political landscape in terms of pluralism. He would say that China has a multi party political system citing NPC and it is not a one party system. He is 100 % right. So when Karat is saying that under socialism there will be multi party system he is also correct because he wants Indian parliament to take the form of NPC where Communist party will rule and others will be there as showcase item. Nothing more, nothing less. He is certainly not talking about a socialist society where there will be multi-party system with the flowering of democratic values, not formal democracy of capitalism. It is the real democracy of the workers where workers rule through soviets, trade unions and communes, where workers are free to form their own party if they feel that the communist party is not their party and where in a communist party there is a right to form a faction (a right communists in Bolshevik party enjoyed in the early years of revolution, if I am not mistaken till 1921).
Lastly, why the Enlightened Mind used the quote of Baburam Bhattarai. He should have quoted Madhav Nepal. Since Nepal`s party is a fraternal organisation of CPI(M). Is the Enlightened Mind little ashamed that this party has become a stooge of Nepali Congress and the ruling class.
in the present context, we are discussing the contours of a peoples' democratic state (a socialist state, whether half or full, will become relevant in the south asian context, only after peoples' democracy is achieved; the road to socialism is through peoples' democracy).
writing in the Marxist following the adoption of the updated party programme in 2000, thethen general secretary of the cpim com. harkishan singh surjeet had written: "Another provision made in the updated programme concerns the multi-party system and the right to form political parties and associations in the peoples’ democratic stage. It is a new idea that has been added, particularly the right to form political parties and associations, freedom of movement and occupation, right to dissent. These shall be ensured. This new idea has been incorporated in view of the experience of various countries that after achieving peoples’ democracy are advancing towards socialism."
The 1964 programme of the cpim had envisaged the peoples' democratic state in India to be run on the basis of "democratic centralism". The updated programme of 2000 replaced this concept, in the light of the experiences of socialist construction in the 20th century, and accepted the multi-party system as appropriate under the peoples' democratic state.
the Nepalese Maoists also arrived at similar conclusions at the Rolpa Plenum, held in May-June 2003, where the CPN (M) adopted a document “The Development of Democracy in the 21st Century”. baburam bhattarai writes: “After making a critical review of the experiences of revolution and counter-revolution in the 20th century, the document advocated the need to ensure the supervision, intervention and control of the masses over the Party, army and the state in order to march along the path of continuous revolution after making the revolution, and for this advanced the concept of practicing a multi-party competitive system within the stipulated constitutional framework. This was a new milestone in the development of revolutionary ideas”.
please clear your confusions once and for all.
Is there a difference between people's democratic state and a socialist state ? If yes what is that difference ? When the Eastern European states completed its democratic revolution and became socialist states. These are not resolved questions especially to a confused people like me. Perhaps we are not imbibed with the right communist culture and consciousness. Will there be muliti party democracy in a socialist state which according to Lenin is not a state but a dying state. China finished its new democratic revolution long back and declared itself a socialist state. And it is a one party state with glorious records of democracy like the previous one party ruled Eastern European states. To quote Karat, "Our party has the maximum experience amongst communist parties of working in a democratic set up. We believe that even in socialism there should be a multi-party system." Is he talking about people's democratic state or a socialist state. He is clearly saying under socialism there should be a multi-party system. Does Karat mean people's democratic state as socialist state ?
Will the enlightened mind let us know whether in a socialist half state there will be multi party democracy or a one party communist rule ?
Lastly I know Li Peng has retired long back and was the premier between 1987-1998. The name was mentioned along with Wen Jiabao as examples to include all past and present Chinese leaders. I am also aware that some names we should not include like Zhao Ziyang who was the premier between 1980-1987. He was removed and was under house arrest for the rest of his life because he was against the Tiananmen square massacre. The enlightened mind can read his secret journal "Prisoner of the State" published in 2009 after he died, to understand the nature of Chinese politics and democracy.
the chinese government need not directly "supply" arms to the indian maoists. arms produced by china or america or the russians can be purchased in the grey market fairly easily. that is what the military industrial complex has led to. and now the indian government is also moving in the same direction: http://pd.cpim.org/2009/0906_pd/09062009_11.html