Maoists in Nepal paying men to remarry widows.

[BonnyPortmore]

Watched unreported world last night, it was about the neglect and abuse of widows of the civil war in nepal.
Women are getting married at 12 and becoming widows at 16 and because everyone ostrecises them after their husbands are dead, they often kill themselves to avoid the apparent hate and neglect by society.
It seemed the maoists in government were the main discriminators, with the maoists not changing laws to help widows survive without them having to marry, forcing them to belong to a man like objects, this quite frankly upset me as i had heard of a great new revolution in nepal, they sound judging granted from this one documentary to be a bunch of mysodginist wankers.
Can anyone explain why this is?

[scarletghoul]

I've not seen the documentary, but when the Maoists were in government they didn't have enough power to fully implement revolutionary changes. It was still a bourgeois democracy, and their hands were tied by the power of the reactionary parties. Their stay in government was not supposed to be the revolution, but was a strategic step towards creating a socialist state. Once this is achieved they probably will address this problem properly, and many others, when the revolution has full power.

[BonnyPortmore]

i hope so

[revolution inaction]

I've not seen the documentary, but when the Maoists were in government they didn't have enough power to fully implement revolutionary changes. It was still a bourgeois democracy, and their hands were tied by the power of the reactionary parties. Their stay in government was not supposed to be the revolution, but was a strategic step towards creating a socialist state. Once this is achieved they probably will address this problem properly, and many others, when the revolution has full power.

Revolutionary changes like banning strikes? (http://libcom.org/news/nepal-victory-turns-sour-22012009)

[pranabjyoti]

Watched unreported world last night, it was about the neglect and abuse of widows of the civil war in nepal.
Women are getting married at 12 and becoming widows at 16 and because everyone ostrecises them after their husbands are dead, they often kill themselves to avoid the apparent hate and neglect by society.
It seemed the maoists in government were the main discriminators, with the maoists not changing laws to help widows survive without them having to marry, forcing them to belong to a man like objects, this quite frankly upset me as i had heard of a great new revolution in nepal, they sound judging granted from this one documentary to be a bunch of mysodginist wankers.
Can anyone explain why this is?
The problem with you people is that YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE IDEA ABOUT THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF NEPAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES OF ASIA. In India, during the 18th century, widows had been burned alive with their dead husband so that she can go to heaven with the husband. Nepal is a socially backward country in South Asia and those kind of backward feudal and semi-feudal mentality can strongly exist in the society. Perhaps, what they want to do is to encourage the practice of marrying to widows, because this marrying widows isn't socially accepted throughout South Asia, including Nepal. Therefore, by helping and encouraging couples, who have the courage to swim against the stream, actually they want to break down century old feudal traditions and you are portraying this as TAKEOVER OF WOMEN AS OBJECT. What a wonderful revolutionary way of viewing matters!

[Pogue]

The problem with you people is that YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE IDEA ABOUT THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF NEPAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES OF ASIA. In India, during the 18th century, widows had been burned alive with their dead husband so that she can go to heaven with the husband. Nepal is a socially backward country in South Asia and those kind of backward feudal and semi-feudal mentality can strongly exist in the society. Perhaps, what they want to do is to encourage the practice of marrying to widows, because this marrying widows isn't socially accepted throughout South Asia, including Nepal. Therefore, by helping and encouraging couples, who have the courage to swim against the stream, actually they want to break down century old feudal traditions and you are portraying this as TAKEOVER OF WOMEN AS OBJECT. What a wonderful revolutionary way of viewing matters!

So crticising patriarchy is un-revolutionary these days, just as how I suppose banning strikes is revolutionary. Orwell wasn't joking about doublespeak clearly.

[Random Precision]

The problem with you people is that YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE IDEA ABOUT THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF NEPAL AND OTHER COUNTRIES OF ASIA. In India, during the 18th century, widows had been burned alive with their dead husband so that she can go to heaven with the husband.

Sati is of course something that has unfortunately continued into modern times in some cases, with all the credit due to the British who with their civilized, Christian face condemned it as a barbaric practice and with their imperial face tolerated it when it was found that it was what the widow "really wanted" to do.


Nepal is a socially backward country in South Asia and those kind of backward feudal and semi-feudal mentality can strongly exist in the society. Perhaps, what they want to do is to encourage the practice of marrying to widows, because this marrying widows isn't socially accepted throughout South Asia, including Nepal. Therefore, by helping and encouraging couples, who have the courage to swim against the stream, actually they want to break down century old feudal traditions and you are portraying this as TAKEOVER OF WOMEN AS OBJECT. What a wonderful revolutionary way of viewing matters!

It's not revolutionary in the slightest, it's giving in to the patriarchal customs of the region rather than launching an intransigent defense of the widow's absolute right to remain single until she herself chooses to remarry. If the Maoists are so strong, why don't they do this? Why shouldn't they provide defense and encourage girls in this situation to stand up for and defend themselves? This is what being a social revolutionary means.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Ok, so the Maoists, having to operate in a very patriarchal Third-world society, decide to help widows. They provide financial encouragement to men so that they marry widows: something which has been considered almost taboo for centuries.

But since a real revolutionary movement in the Third World remains rather far from the hippie commune that some of our First World comrades hope to see, they start dissing a very progressive step in Nepal.

I think a better step for the Maoists would be to hold nationwide classes where Nepali men are made to read Virginia Woolf and Emma Goldman and Naomi Wolf. I'm sure that would help break down the chains of patriarchy in Nepal faster than actually providing incentives to marry widows and integrating them into mainstream society.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Revolutionary changes like banning strikes? (http://libcom.org/news/nepal-victory-turns-sour-22012009)

The Maoisty lead massive strkes themselves, and it is indeed probably counterrevolutionary actions will be banned.
This is the exact reason why anarchism will always fail: you are always so happy to allow everything, that you'll simply allow the reactionary and imperialist forces to overthrow the People's society again and again.

[pranabjyoti]

It's not revolutionary in the slightest, it's giving in to the patriarchal customs of the region rather than launching an intransigent defense of the widow's absolute right to remain single until she herself chooses to remarry. If the Maoists are so strong, why don't they do this? Why shouldn't they provide defense and encourage girls in this situation to stand up for and defend themselves? This is what being a social revolutionary means.
From you posts, it seems that they are forcefully marrying the widows. But, so far I think that they are helping those courageous couples to against the stream. To me, it seems totally idiotic to apply force to both against ones will and go against social custom.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA THAT HOW DIFFICULT THE SITUATION OF A SINGLE WOMAN, SPECIALLY WHEN SHE IS WIDOW IN THE SEMI-FEUDAL SOUTH ASIAN COUNTRIES?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

From you posts, it seems that they are forcefully marrying the widows. But, so far I think that they are helping those courageous couples to against the stream. To me, it seems totally idiotic to apply force to both against ones will and go against social custom.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA THAT HOW DIFFICULT THE SITUATION OF A SINGLE WOMAN, SPECIALLY WHEN SHE IS WIDOW IN THE SEMI-FEUDAL SOUTH ASIAN COUNTRIES?
Indeed, Comrade. If only some people here would think twice before using everything within their grasp to attack "evil Maoism" once more...

[scarletghoul]

Revolutionary changes like banning strikes? (http://libcom.org/news/nepal-victory-turns-sour-22012009)
Do you know anything about Nepal? Anything about the situation? Clearly not, dude. First, the Maoists never actually banned the strikes as far as I know. And the proposal to ban strikes was not some evil counterrevolutionary turncoatism on behalf of the Maoists (why would they fight a decade long guerilla war just to betray the workers?). The proposed ban was only on strikes in the public sector. The reactionary parties have a lot of power in the public sector, and were using this power to sabotage the Maoists' governance and prevent them from carrying out the reforms and changes they wanted to. In other words, these strikes were not workers' uprisings but a counterrevolutionary tactic of the reactionary elements of state. Again, the bigger picture of the UCPN(M) will emerge once a socialist state is established.

[pranabjyoti]

Do you know anything about Nepal? Anything about the situation? Clearly not, dude. First, the Maoists never actually banned the strikes as far as I know. And the proposal to ban strikes was not some evil counterrevolutionary turncoatism on behalf of the Maoists (why would they fight a decade long guerilla war just to betray the workers?). The proposed ban was only on strikes in the public sector. The reactionary parties have a lot of power in the public sector, and were using this power to sabotage the Maoists' governance and prevent them from carrying out the reforms and changes they wanted to. In other words, these strikes were not workers' uprisings but a counterrevolutionary tactic of the reactionary elements of state. Again, the bigger picture of the UCPN(M) will emerge once a socialist state is established.
I think as per them, the strike to overthrow Hugo Chavez was an WORKERS MOVEMENT.

[Искра]

This is the exact reason why anarchism will always fail: you are always so happy to allow everything, that you'll simply allow the reactionary and imperialist forces to overthrow the People's society again and again.
And who the fuck are you or your party to ban something to working class?
Same goes to Maoists... :rolleyes:

[BonnyPortmore]

the point was not that they are forcing women to get maried the point is no one will marry widows, it is against some law for widows to go to public music festival according to the documentary aswell as other activities, instead of saying they plan to change the law and make verbal and physical abuse to widows illegal and teach society it is wrong to ostrecise them the maoists have decided to pay men to marry the widows.
Paying men to TAKE women off societys hands is a disgrace and is as sexist as ricky gervais' characters reporting "these women were suferagettes or more commonly known as lesbians" remark if it was said in real life.

This is surely not the moral stance that a maoist should take.

[Random Precision]

From you posts, it seems that they are forcefully marrying the widows. But, so far I think that they are helping those courageous couples to against the stream. To me, it seems totally idiotic to apply force to both against ones will and go against social custom.

If it is what they want to do, then I am all for it. If however they don't want to get remarried, then they should be allowed to remain single, and revolutionaries should speak for acceptance of that too.

The OP however made it sound like the Maoists were just subsidizing any man who would agree to marry a widow. That would hardly be something the widow herself would be involved in deciding in most cases.

[pranabjyoti]

the point was not that they are forcing women to get married the point is no one will marry widows, it is against some law for widows to go to public music festival according to the documentary as well as other activities, instead of saying they plan to change the law and make verbal and physical abuse to widows illegal and teach society it is wrong to ostrecise them the Maoists have decided to pay men to marry the widows.
Paying men to TAKE women off societies hands is a disgrace and is as sexist as ricky gervais' characters reporting "these women were suferagettes or more commonly known as lesbians" remark if it was said in real life.
This is surely not the moral stance that a Maoist should take.
Actually, they are not paying men for TAKING the widows. They are helping those men, who have the courage to go against stream and marry a widow. "No one want to marry a widow" actually means as per the semi-feudal social rules, widows have been taken as some kind of burden and if any man is willing to marry a widow, that means he is taking the risk of burdening himself with social opposition. Widows was once married, and do you think it is biologically possible that after just a marriage, no men will be attracted to them?

[Red Heretic]

Hmm.. the framework of this thread seems way off.

Firstly, The Maobadi have fought for a demand of "love matches" (consensual love in opposition to the dominant culture of arranged marriages). They have organized women who were formerly treated as property to become revolutionary leaders. They are shattering the caste system through the revolutionary struggle.

To take one sentence from whatever bourgeois anti-communist propaganda gets spread about the Maobadi, and then have a whole debate on why the Maobadi are supposedly doing this thing without ever even hearing their position or thinking is just worthless. How do we have a debate about this without understanding the Maobadi's position?

Are transitional demands that break down feudalism the same as the kinds of demands that we would put forward in the capitalist and imperialist countries? Obviously not.

Years ago, the bourgeois media spread lies the the Maobadi wanted to "eliminate homosexuality," (seems the bourgoeisie confused the Nepali Maoists with the RCP,USA and Bob Avakian, hehehe) when in reality, the Maobadi actually have been fighting for LGBT liberation and performing gay marriages in a society dominated by the caste system.

These are communist revolutionaries who are fused with the masses of people in their millions, who have successfully waged revolutionary struggle for fourteen years. We are radicals in imperialist countries who are often childish and ignorant, and often do not understand all of the complexity facing this revolution on the ground. Maybe we should be a little humble?

And this non-sense about "banning strikes..." what the hell are you talking about? The Maobadi are leading the strike, they've been doing general strikes for the last two weeks.


And who the fuck are you or your party to ban something to working class?
Same goes to Maoists... http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Jurko, you are gravely mistaken. There was a right-wing sabatoging of the Contituent Assembly when the Maobadi were still in the government by pro-USA counter-revolutionaries, as a part of their attempts to seize control of Nepali society. These people are not "the working class" any more than the fascist "tea-baggers" are in the USA.

There is a real problem with methodology and sectarianism here. People are just gobbling up whatever slanders the pro-USA bourgeois media spreads like they are truth, and doing a lot of damage to an on-going revolution that needs our support.

[BonnyPortmore]

the maoist admitted on the documentary, he was seemingly proud

[spiltteeth]

Unless the Maoists can overturn centuries of religious repression, grinding poverty, sexual repression, bigotry, racism, ignorance, illiteracy, cultural conservatism, and societal prejudice overnight into a completely enlightened socialistic utopia then it is not authentic, :rolleyes:

[BonnyPortmore]

no one said that now did they, moron

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

This is a fucking joke , if i am ever feeling lonely I am going to buy a gun and strap a red flag to my prick so I get a cult following.

[Plagueround]

Let's try and keep this thread civil please. I'm not in a warning handing out mood (I'm in an eat ice cream mood, and the two just don't mix).

[pranabjyoti]

the maoist admitted on the documentary, he was seemingly proud
Admitted what? TAKING of an widow?

[chegitz guevara]

This is a fucking joke , if i am ever feeling lonely I am going to buy a gun and strap a red flag to my prick so I get a cult following.

Because there are no anarchist cults. (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/lessons-of-being-a-bookchinite/)

[spiltteeth]

This is a fucking joke , if i am ever feeling lonely I am going to buy a gun and strap a red flag to my prick so I get a cult following.

Do they sell flags that tiny? Better use a red napkin.

I couldn't resist, forgive me comrade Joe.

[Bilan]

Because there are no anarchist cults. (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/lessons-of-being-a-bookchinite/)

I'd never heard about that, but I am seriously disturbed. What. the. fuck?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Do they sell flags that tiny? Better use a red napkin.


Me doth think the lady protest too much

[RHIZOMES]

I like how noone on the counterrevolutionary side of this thread can actually back up any of the petty, sectarian and illogical bourgeois shite they're regurgitating. HURDUR BANNING STRIKES "Uhhh but they're sort of leading stri--" HURDURHURHUDKLAK INSERT WITTY SAYING HERE

[Pogue]

I like how noone on the counterrevolutionary side of this thread can actually back up any of the petty, sectarian and illogical bourgeois shite they're regurgitating. HURDUR BANNING STRIKES "Uhhh but they're sort of leading stri--" HURDURHURHUDKLAK INSERT WITTY SAYING HERE

'They' are banning strikes, 'they' are leading strikes.

Forgive me for thinking it was the working class who were meant to dictate how the revolution went about, not a bunch of middle class academics or commanders with rifles. :lol:

[leninpuncher]

Do you know anything about Nepal? Anything about the situation? Clearly not, dude. First, the Maoists never actually banned the strikes as far as I know. And the proposal to ban strikes was not some evil counterrevolutionary turncoatism on behalf of the Maoists (why would they fight a decade long guerilla war just to betray the workers?). The proposed ban was only on strikes in the public sector. The reactionary parties have a lot of power in the public sector, and were using this power to sabotage the Maoists' governance and prevent them from carrying out the reforms and changes they wanted to. In other words, these strikes were not workers' uprisings but a counterrevolutionary tactic of the reactionary elements of state. Again, the bigger picture of the UCPN(M) will emerge once a socialist state is established.
If you'd actually read the Libcom link that was posted, you'd know that all of the seven main political parties joined with the Maoists in banning the strikes. Do you think there's something impressive about the Maoists only banning striking in the public sector? The public sector is where the Maoists rule; so all that means is they're criminalizing dissent. I wouldn't expect them to care about people protesting against the private sector; it has nothing to do with them. Unless of course, the idea is to to encourage striking in the private sector, nationalize the industries, then criminalize all further striking under the new bosses.

The strikers are counter-revolutionaries, Trotsky is a fascist spy, the CNT is an arm of Franco etc etc.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

And who the fuck are you or your party to ban something to working class?
Same goes to Maoists... :rolleyes:
We are Communists, mate. We actually protect the Revolution at all costs.

[Pogue]

We are Communists, mate. We actually protect the Revolution at all costs.

Protect it from who? On behalf of who? What do you even mean by revolution?

[RHIZOMES]

'They' are banning strikes, 'they' are leading strikes.

Forgive me for thinking it was the working class who were meant to dictate how the revolution went about, not a bunch of middle class academics or commanders with rifles. :lol:

Good luck with that utopian and idealistic ideology, have fun jacking off over the Spanish Civil War and being completely irrelevant your entire life. Have you actually read anything about the revolution in Nepal, or do you just wait for Libcom to report the latest turd (out from a field of gold) for you, so you can further justify your useless sectarianism? There's a stark difference in how our minds operate Pogue, real living revolutions (rather than your idealized version of one, which imho serves the same useless role the Mensheviks served in 1917) have good and shit things happen to them due to their anarchic (lol) and unpredictable character, real revolutionaries see that and we hope the line of good things (Something like 90-99% of the Nepal revolution) continue to the develop, such as the abolishing of fuedal norms, the seizing of private property and the establishment of collective farms, proof that the cadres having quite a profound ability to reign in the excesses of their leaders, the fact they're on the brink of toppling an emerging bourgeois capitalist state, etc etc etc. But no, the anarchists just fart out that "Banning strikes" bullshit over and over and over and over again, because anarchists have never had the chance to do anything wrong or commit a strategic temporary halt to their ideals, since their utopian ideology makes them completely irrelevant.

[Pogue]

Good luck with that utopian and idealistic ideology, have fun jacking off over the Spanish Civil War


Civility sure comes easy to you ey star?


and being completely irrelevant your entire life

I think my political work makes me quite relevant actually.


Have you actually read anything about the revolution in Nepal

Of course I have. What, do you think I don't care about the overthrow of capitalism? I just don't tihnk this 'revolution' will do it, I've given my reasons in the past, shall I do it again for you?


wait for Libcom to report the latest turd

I don't read libcom for news on Nepal, I usually read Comrade Alistair's informative posts.


rather than your idealized version of one, which imho serves the same useless role the Mensheviks served in 1917

I think you misunderstand my politics if you think they are idealised. I just don't think a army assuming power on behalf of the class and a state calling for collaboration between classes, calling for a ban on strikes, etc, is revolutionary. I also beleive representation of the working class is impossible, its been proven to be wrong, and when your leader is a middle class intellectual, its bad times.


continue to the develop, such as the abolishing of fuedal norms, the seizing of private property

Obviously I see these as positive, and have never said anything but this.


But no, the anarchists just fart out that "Banning strikes" bullshit over and over and over and over again, because anarchists have never had the chance to do anything wrong or commit a strategic temporary halt to their ideals, since their utopian ideology makes them irrelevant.

I agree anarchism as flaws. I don't think this is too such an extent as to be irrelevant though. Whether you like it or not it has obviously been relevant in a number of historical circumstances.

But either way, we don't argue over the 'relevance' of ideas, as you'd know if you read my posts or looked at my politics (best summed up in the website of my organisation, L&S, in my signature) I am not so much concerned in abstract ideas as I am in building working class power, any of my ideas comes from this basic premise. Hence my rejection of alot of anarchist idealism and bullshit practices. Alot of anarchists I am sure probably wouldn't even consider me an anarchist. I am far from orthodox.

I would appreciate it if you lowered your tone because this is an argument I am willing to have. Don't assume I am huddling into the anarchist camp and rejecting the events in Nepal on the basis of sectarianism, I am doing it because I believe a movement dominated by a belief in Maoist ideology in all its form (vanguard, workers state, etc) will not succeed. I think this is constructive criticism not mindless dogma, and I wholeheardtedly achknowledge it may have come across as mindless dogma in the past and apologise.

[Ret]

Why do the Maoists never get the facts right about what they pretend to refute? All the pro-maoist 'explanations' and defences here (and much elsewhere) of the proposed Nepal maoist strike bans are talking nonsense - if they bothered to take their blinkers off and read the linked articles they could find the truth of the matter. But perhaps the truth has a bad taste... The legislation had nothing to do with public sector strikes by rival parties, nor was/is it aimed only at public sector strikes - this is made clear in my articles, so stop pretending otherwise (can't link directly to articles, as haven't posted enough);


Maoist governmental Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai tried to justify a ban;
Now, to create a vibrant industrial economy, is in the interest of both the management and the workers. But this reality is not sinking in their minds. This government is playing its role in creating a healthy relationship between the two. [...]

The workers shouldn't resort to bandas and strikes. If this understanding is honoured we'll have a healthy environment in the days to come.

Q: So the party wants to ensure that whenever there is a labour dispute, legal recourse should be taken?

Bhattarai: Yes. At least for some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health, education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors. The government is trying to build political consensus on this issue.
[...]
KATHMANDU, Jan 22: After four years of finalizing the draft, the cabinet on Thursday endorsed Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Act, paving way for the implementation of the SEZ projects in the country. [...]
...the Act treats SEZ as a land where other domestic laws related to labor and industries would not be applicable. It has mooted an autonomous SEZ Authority to oversee its operations.

The source stated that the ratification of the Act, which had so far lingered due to the differences over the tighter labor provisions, had became possible after the seven parties recently agreed not to launch strikes in the industries or disturb productions.

“The Act allows workers to unite and practice collective bargaining, but prohibits them from undertaking activities that affect production and normal operations of industries,” said the source. It also allows the entrepreneurs to hire workers on a contract basis.

SEZ's are industrial Zones common in Asian countries set up with preferential conditions for employers - eg, tax concessions, strike bans - to attract foreign and local capitalists; hyper-exploitative zones. Some months later Bhattarai restated the intention to ban strikes in some sectors;

"We are in a new political set-up and it demands a new outlook in business and industries also," said Bhattrai. He assured entrepreneurs that the private sector would remain a key economic player in the country. He asked business communities to explore fields of competitive advantage.

Nepal is in political transition and there are many problems in trade and commerce sector. "The government knows the problems and is working to solve them," Dr Bhattarai said. The government has been providing subsidies in fuel to industries from the second half of March.

Furthermore, the government is planning to restrict bandhs [street protests] and strikes in industries and essential commodities. "Such regulations will come soon," he assured.
(Himalayan Times online - Apr 10 2009)
No mention of 'sabotage strikes' by other rival parties - there was a consensus among all parties on this disciplining of workers as exploited labour power. So stop making up false excuses.

Recently on another revleft thread - originally about Bangladeshi garment workers' struggles in SEZ zones - Maoists were queueing up to express 3rd worldist solidarity with the workers there. But when Nepal Maoists seek to introduce the same kind of hyper-exploitation SEZ zones for the Nepali working class they make up all sorts of excuses and fictions. On that thread the Maoist strike ban also came up and I replied;


As far as I know, the strike ban was never passed into law, it was just expressed as intended legislation (as I made clear in my articles). In Jan 2009 the Nepal Cabinet "endorsed" the legislation - and in April (shortly before leaving govt.) Maoist finance minister Dr Bhattrai, speaking to Nepal's International Chamber of Commerce, promised "Such regulations will come soon". The Maoist Minister was referring to a law drafted by a pre-Maoist govt. that he intended to make operational. But Prachanda, when in govt., was reported as already trying to use his influence to stop bandhs for some time ('bandh' can variously refer to street protests, strikes, shutdowns/blockades etc).


Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has announced several times that bandas are henceforth banned. No one listened to him. Everyone thought, "They did it when they were underground, now it's our turn." You now have the absurd situation where political parties in the coalition, organisations affiliated to the ruling parties call for shutdowns.
Nepali Times - ISSUE #441 (06 MARCH 2009 - 12 MARCH 2009)
On the other thread I also commented on the further double standards of Maoists here;

... when someone quotes the mainstream press as part of a criticism of Maoists he dismisses it with 'well the bourgeois press would say that' - but on the Nepal sticky thread he and others are happy to cheerlead bourgeois press reports that are interpreted to be flattering to the Maoists. [...]

The Maoists were quoted months apart in the media expressing the same intentions to ban strikes - they never issued any denial or claim of being misquoted after the first mentions nor the second. And, as you should already know, Nepali Maoists have never been slow to take aggressive action against newspapers who they feel misrepresent them.

[leninpuncher]

Good luck with that utopian and idealistic ideology, have fun jacking off over the Spanish Civil War and being completely irrelevant your entire life. Have you actually read anything about the revolution in Nepal, or do you just wait for Libcom to report the latest turd (out from a field of gold) for you, so you can further justify your useless sectarianism? There's a stark difference in how our minds operate Pogue, real living revolutions (rather than your idealized version of one, which imho serves the same useless role the Mensheviks served in 1917) have good and shit things happen to them due to their anarchic (lol) and unpredictable character, real revolutionaries see that and we hope the line of good things (Something like 90-99% of the Nepal revolution) continue to the develop, such as the abolishing of fuedal norms, the seizing of private property and the establishment of collective farms, proof that the cadres having quite a profound ability to reign in the excesses of their leaders, the fact they're on the brink of toppling an emerging bourgeois capitalist state, etc etc etc. But no, the anarchists just fart out that "Banning strikes" bullshit over and over and over and over again, because anarchists have never had the chance to do anything wrong or commit a strategic temporary halt to their ideals, since their utopian ideology makes them completely irrelevant.

Off the top of my head I can think of three different popular anarchist uprisings that took place in the first half of the 20th century. Each of them was in part or in full, crushed by Leninists like you. One of them by that fella in your avatar.

There's nothing utopian about anarchism; we have real world examples of functioning anarchism in Spain, Israel and Mexico. You only repeat the same tired "utopian" argument because you know you have no real argument against anarchism, and there are so many fantastic arguments against Leninism to compensate for.

[Patchd]

The Maoisty lead massive strkes themselves, and it is indeed probably counterrevolutionary actions will be banned.
This is the exact reason why anarchism will always fail: you are always so happy to allow everything, that you'll simply allow the reactionary and imperialist forces to overthrow the People's society again and again.
That must be it, if only we realised how much of a people's society Nepal really is, we won't be so keen on allowing people to strike, and there we have it, utopia.

[Saorsa]

This thread is a waste of time. Seriously, this is just disappointing. I can handle real, concrete political debate about the revolution in Nepal (and I'm always grateful when people deliver it, even when I disagree with what they're saying, so thanks Pogue for the tone and content of most of your posts on the matter), but it's just really dumb when people start denouncing the Maoists as patriarchal etc etc all because one user on this site made a post that, without linking to the video in question or indeed any kind of evidence, claimed that the Maoists were paying men to marry widows.

Have you thought in detail about what this probably means? I read a lot about Nepal and have never encountered claims of this before, so I'm rather dubious, but even if it is true think about what it would mean in practice. In Nepal, it's very hard for a woman without a husband to find any kind of employment, particularly in the counteyside, where life revolves around the patriarchal family. I fail to see what's so reactionary about the Maoists extending financial support to widows who have married again and are trying to get by with their new family.

I'm not going to get into it beyond that because as far as I can see this is just a stupid, baseless allegation. I've said it a thousand times before but I'll say it again, we should have an instinctive distrust of the bourgeois media when they report on revolutionary movements.

If I made a post saying the Zapatistas were paying men to remarry widows, I doubt most anarchists and Trotskyists would believe me. Why the double standards?

Finally, I find it deeply insulting that the Maoists are being accused of 'patriarchy' when they are responsible for the greatest leaps in women's liberation Nepal has ever seen. I kinda doubt the four women in this recent video from Al Jazeera would agree with you.

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/witness/2009/11/2009111693330120888.html

[ls]

If I made a post saying the Zapatistas were paying men to remarry widows, I doubt most anarchists and Trotskyists would believe me. Why the double standards?

If it was true, it would be true no matter what anyone of any tendency thinks. I think the Zapatistas have done some reactionary things myself, but I don't think this is the thread to go into it on.


Finally, I find it deeply insulting that the Maoists are being accused of 'patriarchy' when they are responsible for the greatest leaps in women's liberation Nepal has ever seen. I kinda doubt the four women in this recent video from Al Jazeera would agree with you.

This is the same Al-Jazeera I linked to, saying that the Nepalese general strike was inspired by the murder of a local Maoist leader by a rival Maoist faction, which you simply seemed to denounce.

I think Ret and leninpuncher's posts here highlight a lot of fundamentally overlooked points from both sides (pro-maobadi and not), it would be interesting to see some pro-maobadi respond to them.

[Saorsa]

If it was true, it would be true no matter what anyone of any tendency thinks. I think the Zapatistas have done some reactionary things myself, but I don't think this is the thread to go into it on.

How does one establish truth though? There's been no evidence presented to back up the claims that the Maoists are paying men to remarry widows, and I suspect that whatever claims were made in the documentary the OP watched were distortions and likely as not outright fabrications. Agree re the Zaps, it'd make an interesting thread somewhere else.


This is the same Al-Jazeera I linked to, saying that the Nepalese general strike was inspired by the murder of a local Maoist leader by a rival Maoist faction, which you simply seemed to denounce.

Sorry which general strike and which thread was this? I'm struggling to remember... :s

The first thing I'd say in response to that though is that I don't know of any Maoist leaders being murdered by other Maoist factions. With the merger of the CPN (Maoist and the CPN (Masal) to form the UCPN (M), there are really only two Maoist groups in Nepal worth mentioning, the UCPN (M) and the small splinter group built around Matrika Yadav, which nows lays claim to the title of CPN (M). As far as I'm aware the Yadav group and the UCPN (M) have not had much outright violence between them, and certainly no death.

I'd rarely just denounce Al Jazeera outright, they're by far the best 'mainstream' news outlet around.


I think Ret and leninpuncher's posts here highlight a lot of fundamentally overlooked points from both sides (pro-maobadi and not), it would be interesting to see some pro-maobadi respond to them.

Dunno if I'll have time to write proper responses tonight, and I still have your India thread posts to respond to, but I'll get around to it when I can. Sadly moving house and starting a new job gets often gets in the way of internet polemics :lol:

[ls]

How does one establish truth though? There's been no evidence presented to back up the claims that the Maoists are paying men to remarry widows, and I suspect that whatever claims were made in the documentary the OP watched were distortions and likely as not outright fabrications. Agree re the Zaps, it'd make an interesting thread somewhere else.

I am about to watch the video:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2009/episode-18

Non-UK people may not be able to watch this, in which case: try this. (http://torrentdownloads.net/torrent/1650754135/Unreported+World+~+Nepal+The+Living+2009+11+13+Ch+ 4)

These claims may be wrong or right, see what you think, the whole documentary is there I do believe.


Sorry which general strike and which thread was this? I'm struggling to remember... :s

I'm pretty sure they've edited the Al-Jazeera thing, I think it said UML, another article says UML was alleged to have done it by the YCL:

http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/jun/jun15/news01.php

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/06/20096156484445716.html

It looks quite odd and suspicious to me, I doubt they would lie about something like this, perhaps you can link to a blog refuting this I don't know, but it looks very strange to me.


The first thing I'd say in response to that though is that I don't know of any Maoist leaders being murdered by other Maoist factions. With the merger of the CPN (Maoist and the CPN (Masal) to form the UCPN (M), there are really only two Maoist groups in Nepal worth mentioning, the UCPN (M) and the small splinter group built around Matrika Yadav, which nows lays claim to the title of CPN (M). As far as I'm aware the Yadav group and the UCPN (M) have not had much outright violence between them, and certainly no death.

Perhaps, but it isn't easy to know the intricate details unless you are there I believe, no matter what perspective you take.


Dunno if I'll have time to write proper responses tonight, and I still have your India thread posts to respond to, but I'll get around to it when I can. Sadly moving house and starting a new job gets often gets in the way of internet polemics :lol:

Fair enough. :)

[Saorsa]

Fuck anal shit fuck fuck fuck fuckl wrote a reply to lenin puncher and it all got lost so fucking angry fuck fuck fuck

[ls]

I have edited the original link to be correct. Apologies for my mess up there.

[Saorsa]

The UML aren't Maoists.

[ls]

The UML aren't Maoists.

Alright, having googled the names of the minister concerned, it seems they are the government forces, I was under the impression it stood for "unified marxist leninists" an abbreviation of the former term. My mistake, I've always seen the Nepalese government referred to as.. the government. :p

How comes the youth forces are the ones struggling against each other and not the general militias?

[Saorsa]

It does stand for that. The current government is led by the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist), which began in the I believe in the late 80s as a coalition of various marxist groups seeking to take a parliamentary path. However, it's long since sold out and is essentially a social-democratic party at best. Even the Nepal Congress claim to be 'socialists' in their constitution.

In practice the youth forces are the militas I suppose. The PLA is confined to barracks, and the UML, NC and others never really organised private party militias that much. The UML's Youth Force was formed in response to the existence and growing strength and popularity of the YCL, and they frequently clash.

[Ret]

The OP mistook the UML for the Maoists. But the proposal is old news and was reported by the BBC on 16 July 09 - according to the documentary it was proposed a year after the King stepped down, which is just after the Maoists left government. This poorly translated piece is a recent criticism of the proposal;


SANJAY SHRESTHA
Government puts tags on WOMEN

The incentive plan for inter-caste and widow marriages really has ridiculed the women of Nepal. This coalition government’s plan really aggravates all Nepalese women who come from any walks of Nepalese society. The annual budget brought in this fiscal year contains many defects and require correction with appropriate amendments in different allocated fields. On the top of that, this budget has made a mockery of all Nepalese women regardless of their status in the society. The government has put a tag on women and has tried to play with their sentiment by pricing their personal lives in the name of marriage. The sums Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 100,000 have been allocated for a widow marriage and inter-caste marriage respectively and are entitled to receive the sum. The plan really ridicules all women and is full of perplexity in itself as it fails to assess the aftermath of its future consequences. As of now, there is no exemplary of this plan. If a widow becomes ready and gets married, she will be living the previous life anytime as there is no law that guarantees her being married. In Nepalese society, we can find widows who are above 6o years. Do such marriages last long? No, it won’t. The Nepalese now society isn’t position to accept such marriages. As the budget has so many dearths as it fails to legally mention the age bar on such marriages that will likely take place in future pertaining to widow. Obviously, such marriage will happen just for just monetary intention. And, of course, it will not help widows lead life happily. This is a ridiculous plan. Also, if such kind of marriage takes place, the government must keep its eyes regularly on such marriage. Only then it will help the government to make this absurd plan effective. In addition, the government is on the wrong track and is adding up more ill practice to the society. Moreover, the plan has played with the emotions of women and has tagged women with price. (HimalayanTimes-13 Nov 09)But in a satirical piece in Nepali Times 4-10 Sep 09 it was reported that the Maoists have their own moral concerns;

Worried by growing illicit liaisons among his flock, Chairman Tremendous [ie, Prachanda/Dahal] has got his party secretariat to dash off a directive to female comrades to get married forthwith. The letter from Paris Danda to 13 women CA members of marriageable age states that female comrades currently living in sin should tie the knot, settle down and raise families. This hasn't gone down too well with feminist comrades like Jayapuri Didi who have told the party to go mind its own business.