How does the anti-stalinist left look upon the Maoist uprisings in Nepal and India

[Little-Lenin]

What do you comrades think about the Maoist peasant uprisings in Nepal and Northern India?

I must admit I have a great deal of sympathy for them. Peasant wars often become brutal, as Engels´book on the theme of peasant wars during and after the reformation shows.

Well, that is my feelings and thoughts at this question. I feel that these uprisings would have been supported both by Bakunin and Lenin.:)

I might be wrong...
What do you others here think about the question about Maoist uprisings and peasant wars?

In Solidarity,
Little-Lenin

[scarletghoul]

Maoists are generally pro-stalin, but this is just a matter of oppinion on a historical figure, with not much impact on the maoists actions. So theres no reason why an anti-stalinist should be againts the maoists. if someone thinks the whole maoist movement is bad just because of their oppinion on someone who died half a century ago, then thats kinda stupid. we should judge by the real things that are happening now, and the actions of the maoists, not their historical oppinions

[revolution inaction]

I cant be bothered right now so here's some articles from libcom http://libcom.org/tags/maoists-0

anti stalinist left is an incredibly vague term though

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Scarletghoul hit it right on the nail. What the Maoists in India and Nepal (and the Philippines, and Bhutan, and Peru, etc.) DO should be the basis of how they are viewed, not their interpretation of history or a historical figure. I personally am not a fan of Stalin and I'm a Maoist (kinda) so we come in many different shapes and sizes :-).

That being said, other "anti-Stalinist" groups, if you will, often have things to criticize about these groups.

1) The people's wars in Southeast Asia are not largely proletarian movements, so many left communists (correct me if I'm wrong, comrades) and "no-dash" Marxists will disagree on the basis that the industrialized, developed countries must first have their revolutions, led by the proletariat, and these countries have to proceed first to capitalism.

2) Trotskyists will disagree on the basis of the Maoist idea of New Democracy which follows the overthrow of the feudal or capitalist state. I would imagine they would also criticize the national character of the movements, in contrast with the Trotskyist idea of Permanent Revolution, though most of these groups have strong ties to other Maoist parties and armies worldwide.

3) Anarchists don't generally support them since they view the goals of said groups as authoritarian and for a ton of other reasons.

I'd say Lenin probably would, albeit not without criticizing them, but Bakunin would not.

But really, who gives a fuck? The interesting thing is, if Lenin was on RevLeft promoting his ideas as they were, people would criticize the shit out of him (and rightfully so!) because we've made so much progress since then. I could give a damn whether or not Lenin would support this or that revolution; the real question is, do we as revolutionary communists in THIS day and age, analyzing present material conditions, see sufficient grounds to support them? I believe that answer to be yes.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Scarletghoul hit it right on the nail. What the Maoists in India and Nepal (and the Philippines, and Bhutan, and Peru, etc.) DO should be the basis of how they are viewed, not their interpretation of history or a historical figure...
I could give a damn whether or not Lenin would support this or that revolution; the real question is, do we as revolutionary communists in THIS day and age, analyzing present material conditions, see sufficient grounds to support them?
Exactly. In this day and age, anyone who bans strikes (http://libcom.org/news/nepal-maoists-restate-intention-ban-strikes-other-news-10042009) is the enemy. Simple as.

[Charles Xavier]

Exactly. In this day and age, anyone who bans strikes (http://libcom.org/news/nepal-maoists-restate-intention-ban-strikes-other-news-10042009) is the enemy. Simple as.


Yeah striking when your country is about to be captured by a fascist state is a good move or in the middle of a civil war against the revolutionary government really helps the working class in general. However the story is different in Nepal. Lets not forget that Nepal cannot jump ahead and implement communism in a broad stroke, Marx said that the Revolutionary government must not progress to communism before its ready.

Lets not forget the NEP period of the Soviet Union, while not the ideal method of development it was necessary for the time which it took place.

[scarletghoul]

Exactly. In this day and age, anyone who bans strikes (http://libcom.org/news/nepal-maoists-restate-intention-ban-strikes-other-news-10042009) is the enemy. Simple as.
Actually they never banned strikes. And anyway the only bans they were considering were on strikes in the civil service etc. Much of the civil service is controlled by the UML and NC, who are reactionary forces of counterrevolution. They use this control to undermine the maoists' ability to restructure and revolutionise the country. The maoists never had adequate control of Nepal's state. This is why they could never fully implement a revolutionary program. Its not because they are evil and decided to suppress the workers.They didn't fight a decade long peoples war just so they could betray the revolution.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Yeah striking when your country is about to be captured by a fascist state is a good move or in the middle of a civil war against the revolutionary government really helps the working class in general. However the story is different in Nepal. Lets not forget that Nepal cannot jump ahead and implement communism in a broad stroke, Marx said that the Revolutionary government must not progress to communism before its ready.

Not being able to jump ahead and implement communism in a single stroke =/= banning strikes, tho.