I feel that the problem of the RCPUSA is that they are dealing with Badiou has if he was an enemy in the movement and he clearly is a Maoist comrade even if some of his views are clearly mistaken. Letters to a Comrade would have been a better style of polemical discussion with Badiou.
It is precisely on the point of how to conduct a two line struggle that Nepalese comrades lead the way and demonstrate that the Party concept just like other Marxist concepts are still developing in the 21st Century and also paradoxically refute Badiou’s anti Party arguements by their dynamic practice.We should be learning from this and not dismissing it as the RCPUSA do.Read Bhattarai article on Party building in Nepal Revolution-Problems and Prospects
The two line struggle has been institutionalised in the Nepalese Party and there can be serious debate amongst comrades. Matrika Yadav by resorting to personal abuse placed himself outside the Party and reflects the old wrong headed style of two line struggle which the communist movement has had enough of.
Prachanda in particular has been criticised by the Party and in particular by Comrade Kiran and dressed down by the central committee on at least one occassion I know of.Just what I expect of a democratic centralist party but rarely see !
The ease of mind in the Party which Mao was so keen on has been taken seriously by the Nepalese Maoists and it gives them enormous strength.Ignoring such questions cost the communist movement deeply in the 20th century.
I welcome this discussion on Badiou and find your comment about Badiou reducing ontology to mathematics problematic but helpful has I have wrestled with Being and Event and still don’t know if this is the right direction or not but welcome the opening up of this philosophical space.
I want Badiou and Prachanda and Bhattarai sympathically criticised and initially welcomed the RCPUSA polemics but now have to conclude they are not up to the task has they are locked into past mindsets.
Critically engaging with these three is vital for 21st Century Communist development and here the RCPUSA by provoking us has done a service.
It is precisely on the point of how to conduct a two line struggle that Nepalese comrades lead the way and demonstrate that the Party concept just like other Marxist concepts are still developing in the 21st Century and also paradoxically refute Badiou’s anti Party arguements by their dynamic practice.We should be learning from this and not dismissing it as the RCPUSA do.Read Bhattarai article on Party building in Nepal Revolution-Problems and Prospects
The two line struggle has been institutionalised in the Nepalese Party and there can be serious debate amongst comrades. Matrika Yadav by resorting to personal abuse placed himself outside the Party and reflects the old wrong headed style of two line struggle which the communist movement has had enough of.
Prachanda in particular has been criticised by the Party and in particular by Comrade Kiran and dressed down by the central committee on at least one occassion I know of.Just what I expect of a democratic centralist party but rarely see !
The ease of mind in the Party which Mao was so keen on has been taken seriously by the Nepalese Maoists and it gives them enormous strength.Ignoring such questions cost the communist movement deeply in the 20th century.
I welcome this discussion on Badiou and find your comment about Badiou reducing ontology to mathematics problematic but helpful has I have wrestled with Being and Event and still don’t know if this is the right direction or not but welcome the opening up of this philosophical space.
I want Badiou and Prachanda and Bhattarai sympathically criticised and initially welcomed the RCPUSA polemics but now have to conclude they are not up to the task has they are locked into past mindsets.
Critically engaging with these three is vital for 21st Century Communist development and here the RCPUSA by provoking us has done a service.
No comments:
Post a Comment