Monday, March 14, 2011

Nepal: Which Way Forward?

Written by Adam Pal in Lahore, Pakistan
Friday, 11 March 2011



In Nepal the stalemate in power is continuing while the ideological battle inside the communist movement intensifies. The struggle for power through constitutional means by the largest party in parliament UCPN (M) faced another defeat when on November 1st parliament failed to elect a new Prime Minister for the 16th time.

Read the rest here



RENEGADE EYE

27 comments:

Joe Conservative said...

o/t

When conservatives talk about less state, they talk about defunding tsunami warning systems, closing health centers and schools etc.

All the state does is road building and defense. That is why they have to be dishonest about their intentions as Walker.


There's a federal state and a regional state. The federal state has no business building hospitals and schools. That's what the regional states are for. That's why Obama and the Democrats in Congress had to be dishonest about their intentions...

Joe Conservative said...

PS - You guys b*tch and moan about Stalinism and Napoleonic tyrants, yet you don't seem to grasp the concept of separating and enumerating powers.

What's up with that?

The Pagan Temple said...

They don't think that's necessary, Joe Conservative. Under socialism (which is a perfect system, you know), there is no need for such outmoded tactics, which might enable some misguided bureaucrats to stand in the way of true socialist progress. Therefore, they not only feel they don't need such things, but they are counter-productive.

That's under true socialism, you see, not Stalinism, or Bonapartism, or Maoism, or North Korean Sunism, or Mugabeism, or Qadaffism, Khmer Rougism, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Speedy G said...

In other words, to hell with working towards achieving a social consensus, they'll trust their souls to the care of an infallible Pope... or an "elite Vanguard", all depending upon what stage of "the Revolution" they're currently in.

"To the barricades, me hearties!"

Renegade Eye said...

Incidently is anyone talking about Nepal?

Joe Conservative: One real difference between real Marxists, and both liberals and conservatives, is Marxists use the dialectical method. One aspect of it is, matter is always in motion, always changing. Regional government is a step above feudalism. It is fairer than having to be ruled by the church or a landowner. It's 2011 now. We are living in a time of world economic crisis. Regional solutions are out of date, because problems don't respect borders.

If you don't understand Bonapartism in all of its forms, you can't understand what is happening in the Middle East.

Pagan: I never used the word perfect.

There are deformed types of socialism around, not based on worker's power.

Speedy G: I don't understand your raving. It's not related to anything on this blog.

Joe Conservative said...

One real difference between real Marxists, and both liberals and conservatives, is Marxists use the dialectical method.

I'm a Platonist. Don't talk to me about the dialectical method. Plato invented it. The problem with you "materialist" Marxist's is that you don't take either Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" and/or Nietzsche's "Origins of the Logical" seriously enough.

One aspect of it is, matter is always in motion, always changing. And so are the answers... so your answer had better allow for conditions that require motion in an opposite direction... like a "balance of powers" condition DOES.

Regional government is a step above feudalism. It is fairer than having to be ruled by the church or a landowner.

"Fairer" is a matter of opinion. It requires one to believe that a "Disciplinary Society" is in many ways "better" that one of "Sovereignty". I am not one who holds that belief to be "true".

Regional solutions are out of date, because problems don't respect borders.

They do if the borders are strictly ENFORCED. But then, who enforces your U.N.'s "laws" and "borders"? The Security Council? Those countries with vested "interests"? Or, whoever "wants" to.

Your international organizations are merely excuses for governments to shirk their responsibilities to actually ENFORCE their own borders. Their a "salve" to their collective conscience from neglect of duty and a monument to "future irresponsibility".

You worship "Zeus/Jupiter" but you tie him to his throne and prevent him enforcing "just" boundaries.

Speedy G said...

It's not related to anything on this blog.

Pagan's comments aren't relevant, then? Take note, Pagan.

sonia said...

Ren,

Nepal is completely off the news grid at the moment.

Pilsudski was for a period a weak fascist.

the use of thugs, is the main aspect of fascism.


Pilsudski never used any 'thugs'. He didn't have to. The entire working class supported him. His supporters were trade unionists, socialists and Jews. Even the Communists supported his 1926 coup because it was directed against a right-wing 'bourgeois' government. Fascist, anti-semitic supporters of Maurycy Zamoyski (who assassinated the first President, pro-Pilsudski Gabriel Narutowicz) were defeated in the 1926 coup.

It was only after Pilsudski's death in 1935 that a re-conciliation between Pilsudski's supporters and their anti-semitic rivals occured.

Anonymous said...

Ren, you're snowed under with right-wing trolls here, who use your space to vent their ignorance. I feel sorry for you.

Joe Conservative said...

Aw. Poor Troutsky. Nobody visits his stagnant blog anymore.

Joe Conservative said...

Regional solutions are out of date, because problems don't respect borders.

And the Myth of the Good Adminstrators of the Commons is out of date as well. If it were true, the EPA could prevent and clean up oil spills, the IAEC could prevent nuclear proliferation and help the Japanese deal with their current disasters, and the UN Commission on Human Rights would actually protect and enforce international agreements on the subject.

Yet you want is all to simply "B'lieve, Hon". You should run for Mayor of Baltimore.

Joe Conservative said...

Hope. Change.

You won't find any buyers in 2012.

Speedy G said...

o/t - What do you think of Venezuela's "University Transformation" project, to get rid of the old "Division of Labour" based curriculum and replace it with a "Socialist" education tailored to "serving the needs of the collective?"

Is Venezuela going to end up with 20,000 "doctors" qualified to only pass out aspirins (vice perform open heart surgery) like Cuba?

Anonymous said...

It’s because I have because I only have conditioned reactions rather then any actual thoughts of my own that that I have to call others ignorant for expressing their opinions, and it’s because I am a gutless coward that I have to do it anonymously even though every one knows who I am.

Renegade Eye said...

Joe C: Why would you think I don't see any dialectical relationship, in a balance of power. Right now in the government, the dialectic is as a pressure cooker. Should some steam be let out, and risk more, or should no steam be let out. The debate is about what to cut.

You do agree that capitalism is a step forward compared to feudalism? Capitalism is fairer.

Border enforcement couldn't stop revolution from starting in Tunisia and spreading.

How can you regulate, something you don't own? Corporations own the regulators.

Sonia: Usually Trotskyists say there was three and one half examples of fascism. Pilsudski's period was short and weak, after WWI I believe.

I liked your debate with Pagan about the War of 1812 at your blog.

Anonymous: What else is new.

Speedy: Cuba's healthcare system is excellent, considering its a poor tropical island. In Haiti the Cubans played a superior role in providing healthcare, than the US. I'm glad you are happy with the US healthcare system.

I don't follow day to day events in Venezuela. The opposition is prone toward dramatics.

Joe Conservative said...

You do agree that capitalism is a step forward compared to feudalism? Capitalism is fairer.

It is? From all the whining you do about the failures of capitalism to evenly distribute the fruits of an intelligent division of labour's surplus to its' poor exploited workers, a casual reader of your blog certainly wouldn't perceive much difference. But as to the question of fairness, does ANY worker or group of workers (say union strikers) EVER really have the "just" option of temporarily/ permanently withholding/ withdrawing his/ their labour (how about under socialism?, communism?) and still maintain a "right" (under rules of "fairness") to consume 3 squares a day, free healthcare, and retain comfortable lodging at "community expense"? Are such individuals/ groups still members of the "community" (in "good/ fair" standing)? And how many such "good/ fair-minded" members can a community sustain before both the season's surplus AND "seed corn" are all divided up, consumed and the community succumbs to famine (the tragedy of the commons - Garrett Hardin) before the myth of the good/fair "administrators of the commons" exposed for what it really is?

"Fair" is both matter of justice, and often a contentious matter of varying and varied "opinions." And the "opposite" of justice, wisdom is oft believed to describe a more certain knowledge (vice opinion) of what fairness means and even the necessity of being "unjust" (ie - declare war).

Socialism may aspire to be more "just/fair" than capitalism, but it will NEVER be as "wise". For one depends upon the "grace" of a single uncompromising standard of "fairness" under every/ all circumstances (feast/famine) from others, and one does NOT. The other relies upon the individual parties directly involved in each transaction to determine their own standard of "fairness," aka "the price" as it arises. And from a dialectical standpoint, is a more "robust" solution.

Joe Conservative said...

Border enforcement couldn't stop revolution from starting in Tunisia and spreading.

Your statement presumes that current standards of border enforcement and what the Tea Party openly calls border "non-enforcement" are the same thing. Aristotle's first principle denies that possibility.

“It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect”

Joe Conservative said...

How can you regulate, something you don't own? Corporations own the regulators.

Easy. Own what you DO regulate.

For example. The EPA should "own" environmental clean-ups and then tax/bill the "producers" of environmental disasters for their services. Perhaps in THAT manner, we'd actually have viable/ effective cleanup technologies as they could then "sell" these technologies BACK to the polluters in exchange for tax breaks.

The problem with the current EPA is that all the money it collects from oil producers for its' multi-billion dollar cleanup "trust fund" gets pumped into the government's general revenue trough and never set aside to acquire spill fighting/ cleanup assets. It ends up going to pay unrelated Social Security or other non-discretionary social benefits, instead. So no R&D is performed, and every disaster is as bad as the last one... (Santa Barbara, Exxon Valdeez, Deep Water Horizon)... and YES, the ranks of the regulated (via specialized expertise) take over the ranks of the regulators.

Speedy G said...

In Haiti the Cubans played a superior role in providing healthcare, than the US.

Earthquake relief is NOT healthcare. And you can bet your booties that ALL the serious "health care cases" were handled by non-Cuban medical representatives. When the Haitians needed aspirin's they went to the Cubans.

The opposition is prone toward dramatics.

lol! The article I linked to was about the Chavistas dramatics, NOT the "opposition's."

But it's good to confirm that you don't think much of a "socialist" education.

Joe Conservative said...

On opinions of "fairness" (justice) from Pascal's "Pensees"

The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur."

Joe Conservative said...

....and Euripides, "Medea":

I may be a slave and weak as well, but the gods are strong, and custom too which prevails o'er them, for by custom it is that we believe in them and set up bounds of right and wrong for our lives. Now if this principle, when referred to thee, is to be set at naught, and they are to escape punishment who murder guests or dare to plunder the temples of gods, then is all fairness in things human at an end.

The Pagan Temple said...

Down with the EPA and the FDA. End the bureaucratic nightmare. Strip regulations to the bare bone minimum and let the states run what's left with a minimum of federal oversight.

Privatize social security, medicare, and medicaid, again with government and state oversight. Everybody pays into it just like they do now.

Close down eighty percent of all foreign military bases, especially those in Europe, and most especially those in Western Europe.

Immediate freeze on all civilian hiring at the Pentagon and Department of Defense.

Ten percent at least reductions across the board on all federal agencies and cabinet departments.

Institute a 28 percent tax across the board.

Raise minimum wage to 14.90 per hour.

Put an end to tax deductions, exemptions, and refunds. Everybody has a stake, everybody pays.

End Obamacare.

Put a stake through the heart of Cap And Trade at the regulatory level.

Secure the borders.

Open war on criminal gangs, no rubber bullets, REAL ONES!!

Problem solved.

Renegade Eye said...

Pagan: LOL

Speedy: Since 1998, Cuba's health cooperation with Haiti has made it possible for 6000 doctors, paramedics and health technicians to work there. Besides, 450 young Haitians have graduated as doctors from Cuban colleges, free of charge, in the past 12 years. More than 400 Cuban specialists, 344 of them doctors and paramedics, have been in Haiti, jointly sponsored by the United Nations and the Cuban government. But in the wake of last Tuesday's disaster, the largest earthquake ever to hit the Caribbean Basin, Cuba dispatched another team of 60 doctors, health technicians and medications to join the doctors on the ground in Haiti. Cuba has also sent ten tons of medications from CNN 07/2010

There can't be socialist education as long as classes exist.

Joe C: You need to be more concise.

It is? From all the whining you do about the failures of capitalism to evenly distribute the fruits of an intelligent division of labour's surplus to its' poor exploited workers, a casual reader of your blog certainly wouldn't perceive much difference. But as to the question of fairness, does ANY worker or group of workers (say union strikers) EVER really have the "just" option of temporarily/ permanently withholding/ withdrawing his/ their labour (how about under socialism?, communism?) and still maintain a "right" (under rules of "fairness") to consume 3 squares a day, free healthcare, and retain comfortable lodging at "community expense"? Are such individuals/ groups still members of the "community" (in "good/ fair" standing)? And how many such "good/ fair-minded" members can a community sustain before both the season's surplus AND "seed corn" are all divided up, consumed and the community succumbs to famine (the tragedy of the commons - Garrett Hardin) before the myth of the good/fair "administrators of the commons" exposed for what it really is?

Can worker's withold labor under socialism? Certainly.

Speedy G said...

Can worker's withold labor under socialism? Certainly.

Any idiot can stop working. THAT doesn't make it "fair" and or "just". But then, avoiding/ducking the actual questions and pretending not to understand is what the Left does...

Anonymous said...

What else is new? Indeed, it's a problem you've suffered with for some time.

Speedy G said...

Danny? Is it really you? Come on, don't be shy... you can come out of the anonymous closet.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

You really are censoring a response again. I thought it was a technical problem, I guess I should know better by now.

You allow this idiot to come here just to blatantly attack me and others and censor any response to it.

It took you a while to get into the swing of being underhanded, but you are quite the enthusiast now.

Go on then, at least have the decency to comment on why his comment is acceptable but my response is not…