Regarding Fitzpatrick's Nepal assessment.
The context of the article actually fits in well with the ideological make up of Trotskyite-Kautskyite marxist org.
As a part of ideological struggle practice, I always refrain giving link to this Trotskyite monopoly "institution". They themselves confess that they delete and/or revise the note sections of Lenin's, Stalin's writings or writings about them. Thus, I consider the site as unreliable, and serving the interests of Trotskyite point of view in the struggle between "one-thousand-one-faced" Trotskyism (lately spread world wide under the ironic name of "Revolutionary Communists") and Leninism. So, if anyone wants to read, it is, not surprisingly, very easily to accessible from Google.
I will not even touch base on Fitzpatrick's depiction of and statistics for Nepal. None of them reflects the realities of Nepal and written in a typical sophist, insidious way that uses dollar values disregarding the concept of "purchasing power" and "cost of living" of each given country. Similar insidious practice is applied in reference to unemployment and poverty questions without any comparison to any country. Let's focus on his main points.
**
In his "assessment," Fitzpatrick displayed a completely subjective, bourgeois liberal character, embellishing the specific realities (of Nepal) with leftist rhetoric while concealing the broader realities in general (of regional and global). The "masses" overcame the bans? Which masses? Since when did the gangs, looters, anti-communists, and murderers and thieves who escaped from prisons they opened the doors of, become the "masses" in Marxist Leninist literature? The students themselves claim in live videos that they are now in the minority as a result of these participating groups.
With his article, Fitzpatrick confirms the image what the US-NED tried and succeeded in portraying: "Corruption didn't exist in Nepal until March 2024, and it started after the Communists formed a government." The fact is that the (pre-planned) co-opting of the leadership of the student protest by NED puppets and gangs, and transforming the protest into an anti-Communist movement, is of no "importance" to Fitzpatrick. Declaring everyone and every party other than himself "fake communist," Fitzpatrick even conceals the fact that the ruling party came to power just a year ago by practically uniting all socialists and communists against the Monarchists and fascists. "These are all fake communists," he says, so it's permissible to support the Monarchists, Nationalists, and fascists against them, and to define the fascists as "the masses." This approach has nothing to do with the ABCs of Marxism-Leninism. In fact, an approach that separates the particular from the general and ignores the dialectical connection between them cannot be Marxist-Leninist.
The new Prime Minister, who replaced the Communist Prime Minister, (who, incidentally, is pictured holding hands with the US-funded NGO leader who led the protests), is anti-communist. In other words, a groundwork and environment extending from the restoration of the Monarchy to the establishment of a reactionary and fascist government was created in Nepal.
Is this the result of a "popular movement," or is it the exploitation of a student protest whose leadership had been seized by the US and its domestic lackeys for the purpose of "changing government"? I believe Fitzpatrick is also trying to conceal, even "dress up" and sell, the NED's "government change practices" which have even been admitted in the US Senate.
Ultimately, what is happening in Nepal is nothing more than a US-NED attempt to change government and establish its own puppet government in the country.
Let's move on to the general picture. Such political developments are never independent of global political and economic conflicts. The provocations and activities of the US (through the NED and NGOs) in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Cambodia, Myanmar (and the Caucasus and Balkans) cannot be considered or evaluated independently of its conflict with China.
In particular, the incipient conflict between the US and India, India's refusal to submit to the US "on sanctions," and the events and developments that began in Nepal cannot be coincidental. To consider these as "coincidences," one would have to be a sheep in a flock of "collective stupidity."
In conclusion, the "disease of pontification" stemming from Western "superiority complex" and arrogance, which sees the South and East as backward and ignorant, has unfortunately manifested itself clearly in Fitzpatrick's assessment. In our world, where every individual, group, or party labels the other as a "fake communist" and makes their assessments based on that subjectivity, it is inevitable that subjective, pedantic, and arrogant "analyses" will prevail and be disseminated, rather than the analyses based on imperative of objective research and studies, which is called concrete analysis of the concrete situation. . This pedantic, subjective evaluations by those who declare others "fake communists" inevitably ends them up in siding with the Monarchists, Fascists, and fascist, genocidal, and bellicose imperialists against the communists.
Apparently, the "true communist" Fitzpatrick defends the Monarchists, Nationalists, and Fascists against the "fake communist" government. Lenin and Stalin, on the other hand, defend bourgeois democrats, let alone "fake" or not- communists, against monarchists and fascists. What a paradox this is, it's hard to understand, just as it's hard to understand who's a fake and who's a real communist.
Indeed, labeling a communist organization or party from a country other than one's own as "fake" cannot be the practice of an internationalist Marxist-Leninist. When used in this way, the concept of "fake" carries the accusation of "agent" of bourgeoisie." Only "fake internationalists" mired in arrogance and sectarianism can accuse communist parties and organizations who have waged active armed struggle against the monarchy and fascists for years, of being "fake" and lands the accuser in siding with the Monarchists, Fascists, and fascist, genocidal, and warlike imperialists against the communists.
Pontificators without deeds on one side, active communists who wage wars against monarchial, fascist systems on the other side. Which one has more likelihood of being categorized as fake-communist by genuine Marxist Leninist students?
My commentaries on Nepal issue
.jpg)
