What is the stance of anarchists in Nepal?

[Delenda Carthago]

First of all,is there any anarchist movement worth of mentioning in Nepal?

And if there is any,what is their relations with the Maoists?Are they taking sides on the class war or are they stay isolated?

[Saorsa]

I've never heard of any, although I think I saw a youtube video of a Nepali punk band who had an anarchy flag. It was posted on Kasama last year...

Anarchism and Trotskyism don't seem to have really developed any support in Nepal.

[mosfeld]

First of all,is there any anarchist movement worth of mentioning in Nepal? No. And there's an easy understanding why ultra-left ideologies like Anarchism don't have any significant footing or influence in Nepal, or any third world country for that matter. When you're super-exploited by imperialism, starving to death and looking to change that you most likely look for an ideology which actually has some significance and has actually brought positive change to society and done something for the oppressed masses. Bluntly put, that's not Anarchism, but Scientific Socialism.

[Delenda Carthago]

No. And there's an easy understanding why ultra-left ideologies like Anarchism don't have any significant footing or influence in Nepal, or any third world country for that matter. When you're super-exploited by imperialism, starving to death and looking to change that you most likely look for an ideology which actually has some significance and has actually brought positive change to society and done something for the oppressed masses. Bluntly put, that's not Anarchism, but Scientific Socialism.

yes I am sure "no gods,no masters" seems small to nepalese people.Instead,they are loving to analyse Marx and Engels all night long.

[mosfeld]

yes I am sure "no gods,no masters" seems small to nepalese people.Instead,they are loving to analyse Marx and Engels all night long. Thankfully the Nepalese aren't dabbling in pointless and idealistic Anarchist slogans but are actually carrying forth a revolution, something which Anarchists have never successfully done. Since their ideology is Scientific Socialism, the Nepalese revolutionaries realize that religion arose with class society and will wither alongside with class society, on the road towards communism -- no reason to force everyone to end their faith. Also, unlike Anarchists, the Nepalese Maoists aren't politically suicidal, reactionary and stubborn enough to denounce leadership under the premise that they're "masters", and as such, realize the importance of leadership in revolution, based on historical analysis' of revolutions. So yes, you're absolutely correct in saying that Anarchist slogans like "no gods, no masters" have no place in Nepal, just like the ideology these slogans belong to. Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought does, however, since it can, and the Nepali revolutionaries know this, radically change their society for the better, something Anarchism never has and never will do.

[kefka]

I haven't heard of any major anarchist left in any third-world country. Are there any large movements i've missed out on?

[Proletarian Ultra]

I haven't heard of any major anarchist left in any third-world country. Are there any large movements i've missed out on?

When I was in Argentina just before the Big Crash, I was at a rally in the Plaza de Mayo to commemorate the anniversary of the military coup. There was the Madres, and some very polite ladies at an Argentine Communist Party stall, altogether it was a progressive professional petit-bourgeois crowd.

And then the rally got interrupted by a very loud demonstration of students and Indians (I assume illegal immigrants from Bolivia) waving red and black banners with slogans about jobs and ending discrimination.

I don't know for sure if the group was anarchist (some left-nationalists in Latin America also use red and black) but they were certainly not orthodox Marxist-Leninists and they were much more advanced than the Communist crowd.

BTW: I count Greece as Third World, and the anarchists, whatever their theoretical and organizational failings, have been much more out front on the present crisis than the KKE. (I say that as a 'Stalinist').

[Saorsa]

This is not the place for a tendency war...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I haven't heard of any major anarchist left in any third-world country. Are there any large movements i've missed out on?

Cuba had a significant syndicalist current in the 1950's, if I recall correctly. It didn't survive Castro, though.

In any case I could care less what Marxist-Leninists say about anarchism and it's relevance. These are the same clowns that entirely disregard anarchism's influence on the industrial working class (when unfortunately the numbers tell a different story...at the turn of the 20th century revolutionary syndicalism dominated radical working class politics, something even people like Eric Hobsbawm admit). Anarchism we're told is the ideology of the artisans and backwards peasants...except modern day peasants, cuz they hate anarchism and love Mao.

Oh, wait...I thought it was the industrial proletarians who were supposed to be the vanguard of the revolution? :rolleyes:

[Red Saxon]

Hate to say it, but Anarchy as a movement is really confined to Europe and North America.

[mosfeld]

Oh, wait...I thought it was the industrial proletarians who were supposed to be the vanguard of the revolution? :rolleyes: Maoists never claim anything else. They, however, emphasize a worker-peasant alliance, under the leadership of the proletariat, in countries with a peasant majority, since the proletariat Isn't large enough to carry forward a revolution on its own.

Don't Anarchists view peasants as class allies?

[Ovi]

Maoists never claim anything else. They, however, emphasize a worker-peasant alliance, under the leadership of the proletariat, in countries with a peasant majority, since the proletariat Isn't large enough to carry forward a revolution on its own.

Don't Anarchists view peasants as class allies?
Sure we do. It is you who we don't see as a class ally.

[scarletghoul]

There was a time when the Anarchist movement covered much of the world, including many third world countries, and was a major international revolutionary force. Aside from the well-known Spanish and Ukranian anarchists (these countries were not first world), there was also significant Anarchist movements in East Asia and Latin America, possibly other regions too. It was without a doubt a great movement of the working masses.

Now, however, the Anarchist movement is completely differant. It is very rare to see a significant Anarchist group outside of Europe or North America, it seems to have died elsewhere. Even in first world countries where it survives, it has lost a lot of working class support, relying too much on students, and (perhaps because) the ideology itself has degenerated somewhat with 'post-leftist' and liberal bullshit.

A massive distinction must be made between the Anarchist movement as it is now, and the worldwide workers' movement it was in the early 20th Century. They are completely differant. I can not imagine Durruti would have had much time for the liberal crap many anarchist students spout nowadays, and I can not imagine these students would have the balls to do what the Spanish Anarchists did ("waaaa theyre forcing peasants to collectivise and burning churches waa waaa stalinists". Similarly, the Third World also does not have time for the crapulence of modern Anarchism.

As Mosfeld pointed out, the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Mao have had much more historical success, and certainly much more current success, so the people are of course drawn to them more than Anarchism.
This is even true of the old Anarchists themselves, who were around when Anarchism was a proper movement. For example, a lot of Korean Anarchists moved to the socialist North and joined the Workers' Party (which was Marxist-Leninist at the time) after it became clear that the Communists were the only possible revolutionary force in Korea. A lot of Chinese Anarchists joined the CPC when it emerged as the leader of the Chinese Revolution.

In other words, Anarchism is no longer present in the third world because:
1. ML/MLM has proven itself in practise to be a more successful revolutionary force.
2. Anarchism as it is is full of a lot of ultraleftist crap and liberalism and therefore is not appealing to most third world people.

(I don't mean that as a sectarian insult against Anarchism, it was a genuine attempt to explain what's going on)


BTW: I count Greece as Third WorldWell countries like Greece are hard to categorise, and make me think that the three worlds label system is inadequat..


I've never heard of any, although I think I saw a youtube video of a Nepali punk band who had an anarchy flag. It was posted on Kasama last year...Tank Girl !!! Pretty great.
kDDeTCQ_zt8

[mosfeld]

It is you who we don't see as a class ally.

That's because the Anarchist, or more like liberal, sit-on-the-fence, do nothing, denounce socialist revolutions, oppose anti-imperialism etc attitude does not in any meaningful sense represent proletarian class interest, something which Maoism actually does. If anything, Anarchism is a pathetic attempt to co-ordinate the proletariat class against their own interests in favor of bourgeois ones. As such it's just natural for you to not view Maoists as class allies.

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is not the place for a tendency war...

Like talking to walls, eh?

[this is an invasion]

I'm sure there are anti-authoritarians in Nepal. But they probably aren't ideologically anarchist. Not that this is a problem. People don't need Bakunin or Malatesta to understand the state to be detrimental to freedom.

That being said, I don't think it's really correct to say that anarchists have never had a successful revolution implying that Maoists have. As far as I know, every country in the world still operates within capitalist socialization and economy.

[this is an invasion]

That's because the Anarchist, or more like liberal, sit-on-the-fence, do nothing, denounce socialist revolutions, oppose anti-imperialism etc attitude does not in any meaningful sense represent proletarian class interest, something which Maoism actually does. If anything, Anarchism is a pathetic attempt to co-ordinate the proletariat class against their own interests in favor of bourgeois ones. As such it's just natural for you to not view Maoists as class allies.

You sound really stupid right now.

[Ovi]

That's because the Anarchist, or more like liberal, sit-on-the-fence, do nothing, denounce socialist revolutions, oppose anti-imperialism etc attitude does not in any meaningful sense represent proletarian class interest, something which Maoism actually does. If anything, Anarchism is a pathetic attempt to co-ordinate the proletariat class against their own interests in favor of bourgeois ones. As such it's just natural for you to not view Maoists as class allies.
About this whole tendency war...If I didn't know better, we still live in a capitalist world. The so called socialist countries failed to achieve a living standard even close to what capitalism provided; and you talk about progress; all these socialist countries, although they were the most democratic countries on the planet, as some pathetically suggest, went to shit as soon as daddy the dictator died; so people didn't have the power after all, huh?
You talk about Nepal like you (not really you, since I'm sure your achievements are null) managed to achieve something that we did not, which is false; we are part of different movements with different goals. The success that you claim is what I would call yet another failure to achieve anything close to a society under worker control and if history is a good indicator , Nepal will revert back to capitalism as soon as the wrong person gets to rule the country.

[revolution inaction]

As Mosfeld pointed out, the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Mao have had much more historical success, and certainly much more current success, so the people are of course drawn to them more than Anarchism.
This is even true of the old Anarchists themselves, who were around when Anarchism was a proper movement. For example, a lot of Korean Anarchists moved to the socialist North and joined the Workers' Party (which was Marxist-Leninist at the time) after it became clear that the Communists were the only possible revolutionary force in Korea. A lot of Chinese Anarchists joined the CPC when it emerged as the leader of the Chinese Revolution.

actual from what i have found out about the anarchists in korea and china it seems that a lot of them were really just radical liberals, hence them abandoning revolutionary politics, if there had any to start with and joining the leninists

[revolution inaction]

Hate to say it, but Anarchy as a movement is really confined to Europe and North America.

actualy there are anarchist groups in South America including the FLA which is a member of IFA and organisations in African too, also in Japan and some small ones in China.

[Zanthorus]

Cuba had a significant syndicalist current in the 1950's, if I recall correctly. It didn't survive Castro, though.

It goes back further than that. Proudhonism began spreading to Cuba in the 1850's and was succeeded by revolutionary collectivism in the 1870's. The same story holds true for quite a few latin-american countries (Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil all had organised anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist movements before the year 1870) because of the strong influence of the Spanish labour movement over there. You cannot tell the story of the latin-american labour movement without talking about anarcho-syndicalism.

[Delenda Carthago]

That's because the Anarchist, or more like liberal, sit-on-the-fence, do nothing, denounce socialist revolutions, oppose anti-imperialism etc attitude does not in any meaningful sense represent proletarian class interest, something which Maoism actually does. If anything, Anarchism is a pathetic attempt to co-ordinate the proletariat class against their own interests in favor of bourgeois ones. As such it's just natural for you to not view Maoists as class allies.


really?Um...tell me,where are you from and what have you done to organise the revolution?
We,useless-sit-on-the-fence anarchists on Greece have done a litle something that,i dunno,might be one of the greatest things worldwide.

What have your tendecy done?Bloging?Youtubing?Collect 12 votes on national elections?


(no offence to anybody else though)

[Barry Lyndon]

really?Um...tell me,where are you from and what have you done to organise the revolution?

We,useless-sit-on-the-fence anarchists on Greece have done a litle something that,i dunno,might be one of the greatest things worldwide.

What have your tendecy done?
really?Um...tell me,where are you from and what have you done to organise the revolution?
We,useless-sit-on-the-fence anarchists on Greece have done a litle something that,i dunno,might be one of the greatest things worldwide.

What have your tendecy done?Bloging?Youtubing?Collect 12 votes on national elections?


(no offence to anybody else though)

Hahaha owned.

[Omi]

Just because people don't know about third world anarchism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read up on it a bit, theres quite some literature on the subject.

[Ravachol]

Just because people don't know about third world anarchism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read up on it a bit, theres quite some literature on the subject.

Also, it isn't required to call oneself an Anarchist to behave like one and to effectively BE one.

Abahlali baseMjondolo (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=457)

Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Teto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_Workers'_Movement)

are just two examples. While neither are explicitly anarchist (or Autonomist-Marxist) both effectively behave quite a lot like that and are at the very least genuine mass-movements with Anarchist influences, whether ideological or as a result of practice is not that relevant.

[Ravachol]

That's because the Anarchist, or more like liberal, sit-on-the-fence, do nothing, denounce socialist revolutions, oppose anti-imperialism etc attitude does not in any meaningful sense represent proletarian class interest

Cool story bro. Honestly how do you come up with such delightfull folly :laugh: Obviously i'm a liberal fence-sitter who does nothing whilst at the same time opposing anti-imperialism, because that's just how I roll :rolleyes: You're hillarious, not hindered by any sense of reality, of course.

[Omi]

I agree, but would like to stress one thing very clearly: There can be reasons outside of our knowledge for these movements not to openly identify with anarchism as such. We have to respect these choices and not pigeon-hole these movements into our own camp as it were.

[Ravachol]

I agree, but would like to stress one thing very clearly: There can be reasons outside of our knowledge for these movements not to openly identify with anarchism as such. We have to respect these choices and not pigeon-hole these movements into our own camp as it were.

Agreed. I however don't think they identify with Anarchism on a theoretical level at all. They do,however, behave very similar to an Anarchist movement and their actions and politics often constitute de-facto Anarchism in the sense that 'an Anarchist by any other name is still an Anarchist'. Or, to quote Psycho's signature:

"Our comerades had not read Marx and were scarcely familiar with all of Proudhon's theories, but comon sense was their guide." Gaston Leval on the spanish revolution

[Old Man Diogenes]

This is not the place for a tendency war...


First of all,is there any anarchist movement worth of mentioning in Nepal?


No. And there's an easy understanding why ultra-left ideologies like Anarchism don't have any significant footing or influence in Nepal, or any third world country for that matter. When you're super-exploited by imperialism, starving to death and looking to change that you most likely look for an ideology which actually has some significance and has actually brought positive change to society and done something for the oppressed masses. Bluntly put, that's not Anarchism, but Scientific Socialism.

He started it :p

[Devrim]

No. And there's an easy understanding why ultra-left ideologies like Anarchism don't have any significant footing or influence in Nepal, or any third world country for that matter.

Yes, I would say that there is. It is down to the weakness of the working class. Nepal has a small working class with only 6% of the workers in manufacturing/craft based industry. Most of the countries in latin America have anarchist movements, and some have historically had quite large ones with the Argentinian FORA having tens of thousands of members. Also there are anarchist organisations today in industrial countries such as South Africa.

I think it would be quite idealistic today to expect that there would be large anarchist organisations in countries where the working class is small at a time when the working class is, in historical terms, quite weak. The sort of organisations that tend to be successful in these places are those which put forward cross class alliances, and other anti-working class ideas.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

Devrim, I'm curious on what the left communists and ICC expect people in countries like Nepal to do. There is a small working class there yeah, but does that mean they are just supposed to accept capitalism until the working class becomes a substantially larger percentage of the population?

[Saorsa]

A cross class alliance between the various forces which can be united in support of the workers and peasants revolution is in no way 'anti-working class'.

[griffjam]

I haven't heard of any major anarchist left in any third-world country. Are there any large movements i've missed out on?

Everywhere from Eastern Europe to Argentina, from Seattle to Mumbai, anarchist ideas and principles are generating new radical dreams and visions. Often their exponents do not call themselves "anarchists". There are a host of other names: autonomism, anti-authoritarianism, horizontality, Zapatismo, direct democracy... Still, everywhere one finds the same core principles: decentralization, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model, and above all, the rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun.

[Devrim]

Devrim, I'm curious on what the left communists and ICC expect people in countries like Nepal to do. There is a small working class there yeah, but does that mean they are just supposed to accept capitalism until the working class becomes a substantially larger percentage of the population?

It is an important question. I am not quiet sure what you mean by 'people' though. Do you mean communists, or workers or peasants? I'd prefer to know what you mean before I start going off in the wrong direction.


What interests does the working class have in maintaining and managing the neo-colonial empire of today or the colonial empire of yesteryears?

Absolutely none, which is why we argue against these cross class alliances, which in the end result in just that if they are successful. No individual nation like Nepal can break out of the imperialist system today.


A cross class alliance between the various forces which can be united in support of the workers and peasants revolution is in no way 'anti-working class'.

They are not 'united in support of the workers and peasants revolution'. There isn't a 'workers (and peasants') revolution'. Are you really trying to claim that the SE Asia Maoist organisations are in any way 'working class'.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

It is an important question. I am not quiet sure what you mean by 'people' though. Do you mean communists, or workers or peasants? I'd prefer to know what you mean before I start going off in the wrong direction.
Sorry, "people" is a bit vague I guess. I mean both workers and peasants.

[Saorsa]

They are not 'united in support of the workers and peasants revolution'. There isn't a 'workers (and peasants') revolution'. Are you really trying to claim that the SE Asia Maoist organisations are in any way 'working class'.

Yes, there is.

And yes, I am.

[Devrim]

You may say that, however, your argument against national liberation suggests that the working class have an interest in the continued oppression of colonies and the white bourgeoisie has a duty to "civilize" the colonized peoples.

You may say that, but that probably comes from the fact that your idea of a political point is to try to imply that anybody who disagrees with you is a racist.

Obviously my point of view 'suggests' nothing of the sort, and is completely different.


My view is that it is not progressive for Nepal to be under neo-colonial rule and there is a vast difference between national liberation and neo-colonial rule.

If the Maoists in Nepal were to take power tomorrow, it would still be under neo-colonial rule.


For example, under colonial rule in Congo, there were less than university graduates under colonial rule. Today, there are thousands. ... This proves that national liberation is a progressive step for colonized countries (and yes, for the working class).

I don't quite see how it is 'a progressive step' for the working class is the children of the bourgeoisie can go to university in their own country.

Wiki has this to say about the education system in DR Congo:


Primary school education in the Democratic Republic of Congo is neither compulsory, free nor universal, and many children are not able to go to school because parents were unable to pay the enrollment fees.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo# cite_note-ilab-0) Parents are customarily expected to pay teachers' salaries.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo# cite_note-ilab-0) In 1998, the most recent year for which data are available, the gross primary enrollment rate was 50 percent.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo# cite_note-ilab-0) Gross enrollment ratios are based on the number of students formally registered in primary school and therefore do not necessarily reflect actual school attendance.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo# cite_note-ilab-0) In 2000, 65 percent of children ages 10 to 14 years were attending school.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo# cite_note-ilab-0) As a result of the 6-year civil war, over 5.2 million children in the country receive no education.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo# cite_note-ilab-0)

I don't imagine that it is the ruling class who can't afford to send their kids to school, and this is primary school.

What do you imagine the class basis of the students at university is?

This in no way proves anything, let alone that national liberation has anything to offer the working class.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Are you really trying to claim that the SE Asia Maoist organisations are in any way 'working class'?And yes, I am.


While what you're saying is true, and the majority of people involved in the People's War are not proletarian, that doesn't concern me.



The Maoists themselves agree they don't have enough working class support. And they're working on changing this, as they made clear in their Urban Perspectives document. We know for a fact that they are operating in the urban areas, and that they have *some* support.

The Maoist organisations on the whole consist of urban 'middle class' intellectuals and peasants, and as you point out above they don't even have much support amongst the working class, let alone are they 'working class organisations'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Devrim, I'm curious on what the left communists and ICC expect people [both workers and peasants] in countries like Nepal to do. There is a small working class there yeah, but does that mean they are just supposed to accept capitalism until the working class becomes a substantially larger percentage of the population?

The working class can struggle to defend its own economic interests, and in doing so can begin to develop its own consciousness as a class. It is pretty much what workers ever where are doing. Today, we are not in a revolutionary situation. Communist revolution is not on the immediate agenda, and no amount of people running around with guns and red flags changes that.

Communist revolution is a working class revolution. I don't think that their is any reason for the working class to sacrifice itself in struggles that are fundamentally those of alien classes.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

There was a time when the Anarchist movement covered much of the world, including many third world countries, and was a major international revolutionary force. Aside from the well-known Spanish and Ukranian anarchists (these countries were not first world), there was also significant Anarchist movements in East Asia and Latin America, possibly other regions too. It was without a doubt a great movement of the working masses.

Now, however, the Anarchist movement is completely differant. It is very rare to see a significant Anarchist group outside of Europe or North America, it seems to have died elsewhere. Even in first world countries where it survives, it has lost a lot of working class support, relying too much on students, and (perhaps because) the ideology itself has degenerated somewhat with 'post-leftist' and liberal bullshit.


The main reason why anarchism dissappeared is that "marxist leninists" took state power and where able to politically and sometimes financially their comrades abroad. It is a very simple explanation. The mexican anarchists were not part of an internationally centralized organization that had as a head a ruling party in a gigantic country like Russia.

[Raúl Duke]

I haven't heard of any major anarchist left in any third-world country. Are there any large movements i've missed out on?

Depends on what you consider 3rd world.

In places like Africa and some regions of Asia there's not much I heard of anarchist organizing.

In Latin-America, there are anarchist though and pre-1950s anarchism, particularly anarcho-syndicalism, were very popular (more so than Leninism perhaps). There's a historical reason for this, in the "Latin" (Spain, Latin-America, and to a lesser extent France and Italy) countries anarchism tended to be more influential than Leninism. Now in Brazil and Argentina I think there's some Anarchist-Communist Federations.

In a way, the defeat of the Spanish Civil War and events like the Cuban revolution plus the fact that the USSR had the comintern (which supplied money to CPs) led to Leninism to grow in Latin-America while anarchism waned.


It goes back further than that. Proudhonism began spreading to Cuba in the 1850's and was succeeded by revolutionary collectivism in the 1870's. The same story holds true for quite a few latin-american countries (Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil all had organised anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist movements before the year 1870) because of the strong influence of the Spanish labour movement over there. You cannot tell the story of the latin-american labour movement without talking about anarcho-syndicalism. Basically, this.

In other words, this is incorrect:


Hate to say it, but Anarchy as a movement is really confined to Europe and North America. In fact, relative to the US, anarchism has a large history in South America

[Ocean Seal]

I really have not seen an intense anarchic movement outside of Europe.

[Agnapostate]

Maoist successes? I'm not aware of any cases in which any Leninist program, let alone a specifically Maoist agenda, has culminated in the establishment of communism. I just see repeated failures blamed on repeated outside interventions. Leninism is the stagnant bonfire that releases toxic fumes; anarchism is the fleeting flicker of flame that briefly brings purity of heat and light.

[syndicat]

No. And there's an easy understanding why ultra-left ideologies like Anarchism don't have any significant footing or influence in Nepal, or any third world country for that matter. When you're super-exploited by imperialism, starving to death and looking to change that you most likely look for an ideology which actually has some significance and has actually brought positive change to society and done something for the oppressed masses. Bluntly put, that's not Anarchism, but Scientific Socialism.

but actually in the '20s anarcho-syndicalism was the dominant influence on the labor movement throughout Latin America. And there are still significant anarchist or libertarian socialist groups and influences in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere. as noted above, historically anarchism has had a larger influence in South America than in North America. after the destruction of the International Working People's Association in the 1880s through state and employer terror, there wasn't a signficant organized anarchist movement til recently in the USA. the IWW originally was organized mainly be people associated with the syndicalist leftwing of the socialist parties.

[the last donut of the night]

Leninism is the stagnant bonfire that releases toxic fumes; anarchism is the fleeting flicker of flame that briefly brings purity of heat and light.

Comrades, we've found the new, leftist and sectarian Yeats!

[GreenCommunism]

he rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun.
did anarchist spain reject that the end justifies the mean, or seize power and begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun?.


Maoist successes? I'm not aware of any cases in which any Leninist program, let alone a specifically Maoist agenda, has culminated in the establishment of communism. I just see repeated failures blamed on repeated outside interventions. Leninism is the stagnant bonfire that releases toxic fumes; anarchism is the fleeting flicker of flame that briefly brings purity of heat and light.
i think even anarchist agree that worldwide revolution is needed because capital will always flee from one country to another. albeit i'm not sure anarchists agree with that.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Maoist successes? I'm not aware of any cases in which any Leninist program, let alone a specifically Maoist agenda, has culminated in the establishment of communism. I just see repeated failures blamed on repeated outside interventions. Leninism is the stagnant bonfire that releases toxic fumes; anarchism is the fleeting flicker of flame that briefly brings purity of heat and light.

Say's the anarchist who's revolutionary ideals have brought about no successes except for Catalonia, in which wasn't even Communism still.

[Agnapostate]

Comrades, we've found the new, leftist and sectarian Yeats!

I've tried to stress that I'm more of a Dwight Schrute.


did anarchist spain reject that the end justifies the mean, or seize power and begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun?.

There was excessive violence associated with the end of capitalism, since capitalists in many regions were involved in associations with Pinkerton-style thugs that violently suppressed labor activism, and there was some retaliation when aggrieved parties who had suffered personal injuries or the deaths of friends and family seized the opportunity. There was also some coercion of individuals to join collectives, which was wrong and should not have occurred. This was not so endemic as to become a general characteristic of anarchist organization, and as long as it remained the exception rather than the rule, it wasn't so problematic as to condemn anarchism itself.


i think even anarchist agree that worldwide revolution is needed because capital will always flee from one country to another. albeit i'm not sure anarchists agree with that.

What do you mean by "capital"? The most common economic definitions of capital are actually quite distinct from "financial capital," since all the currency and credit in the world does little good to a person stranded on an island. Socialization of productive resources, first and foremost capital goods, can be accomplished within individual countries, regions, and even some municipalities. Trade relations with non-socialists may need to be maintained because of inequitable endowment of resources, but that's preferable to capitalism existing everywhere, wouldn't you say?


Say's the anarchist who's revolutionary ideals have brought about no successes except for Catalonia, in which wasn't even Communism still.

I assume you mean communism, since I have no interest in the establishment of (capital 'C') Communism, since that implies Communist Party hegemony. Catalonia was the industrial hub of the Spanish Revolution. Its economic system generally represented a form of collectivism distinct from communism, though rural Aragon might be said to have been characterized by communism. Institution of the family wage was the most obvious characteristic of remuneration approximating the proviso of "to each according to their needs." In The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, Robert Alexander writes this:


There was much variation in what the collectives substituted for money. There were some which experimented with merely allowing the families belonging to the collective to take out of the common storehouse what they needed, without further ado. However, even in such cases, it was often necessary to establish a ration system for goods which were in short supply, particularly those coming from outside the community. In some cases, a general ration system was established, where every family was allotted a given amount of every product depending on the number of members that it had - even in these cases there was sometimes provision for a family's exchanging part of its ration of one product for more of another one.

Why don't you point me to a Maoist country characterized by widespread workers' democratic management of industry, and cite academic literature that affirms its veracity? I'll certainly concede that China's economic conditions are preferable to what would have been produced by capitalism (as indicated by Amartya Sen's comparison of development of China to development of India), but that doesn't mean that Maoism as it's been implemented there, for example, is legitimately socialist, and certainly hasn't culminated in communism, in China or anywhere else.

[Saorsa]

Stupid tendency war = ugh

[Agnapostate]

Do you know of any information on the nature of workers' democratic management in Nepal? This isn't intended as an attack, but as a question.

[Saorsa]

It's a fair question. The short answer is not really - the revolutionary struggle in Nepal does not appear to have taken the form of independent workplace collectives or anything like that. However, the Maoist trade unions have enough strength that capitalists are forced to negotiate the terms of workplace relations with them, and there is at least one case (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/) of Maoist affiliated workers seizing control of their workplace and running it under workers control.

Information on the democratic structures of the Maoist trade unions can be found here. (http://stormingmteverest.blogspot.com/2010/05/trade-union-situation-in-nepal.html)

[RED DAVE]

It's a fair question. The short answer is not really - the revolutionary struggle in Nepal does not appear to have taken the form of independent workplace collectives or anything like that. However, the Maoist trade unions have enough strength that capitalists are forced to negotiate the terms of workplace relations with them, and there is at least one case (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/) of Maoist affiliated workers seizing control of their workplace and running it under workers control.

Information on the democratic structures of the Maoist trade unions can be found here. (http://stormingmteverest.blogspot.com/2010/05/trade-union-situation-in-nepal.html)(emph added)

Problem is, CA, that the emphasized statement of yours is contradicted by the statement of one of the trade union leaders in the second link you provided.


I had an opportunity to interview Comrade Baburam Gautam, Vice-President of the All-Nepal Trade Union Federation (Revolutionary) - ANTUF(R) ... I asked him what he felt was the role of the union movement in the revolution, to which he immediately responded that they are the main weapon of the revolution.http://stormingmteverest.blogspot.com/2010/05/trade-union-situation-in-nepal.html

Now it is obvious that the union movement is not the main weapon of the revolution. So what's going on here? To me it looks like, as usual for Maoists, Marxist rhetoric about the working class is being used to cover a very different strategy, where peasants, and especially a peasant army, are the "main weapon."

Please note also that neither in your statement nor in the statement by Baburam Gautam is it stated that what is to take place is the working class coming to power.

RED DAVE

[Saorsa]

I said:
The short answer is not really - the revolutionary struggle in Nepal does not appear to have taken the form of independent workplace collectives or anything like that.

Dave then said:
Problem is, CA, that the emphasized statement of yours is contradicted by the statement of one of the trade union leaders in the second link you provided.

As evidence, he quoted the following:
I had an opportunity to interview Comrade Baburam Gautam, Vice-President of the All-Nepal Trade Union Federation (Revolutionary) - ANTUF(R) ... I asked him what he felt was the role of the union movement in the revolution, to which he immediately responded that they are the main weapon of the revolution.

It should be fairly easy to spot the problem here. The quote Dave provided from Comrade Gautam does not in any way contradict what I said - in fact, we are talking about completely different things.

I was asked a question by an anarchist about the presence of 'workers democratic management' in Nepal. I answered it - it doesn't really exist. Dave then quoted the Vice-President of the ANTUF (R) in saying that he felt the trade unions were the main weapon of the Nepali revolution.

Dave claims this somehow proves wrong my statement that there is not much in the way of 'independent workplace collectives' running production in Nepal. I don't believe it actually does.


Now it is obvious that the union movement is not the main weapon of the revolution.

I'm not saying the union movement necessarily is the main weapon. But what makes this so obvious to you?


Please note also that neither in your statement nor in the statement by Baburam Gautam is it stated that what is to take place is the working class coming to power.

Because it won't just be the working class coming to power. A united front of revolutionary forces - workers, peasants, Nepali patriots, oppressed ethnic groups, women, Dalits and so on will come to power under the leadership of the UCPN (M).

At the core of the new society will be the worker-peasant alliance, but the revolution encompasses a lot more than just that.

[Agnapostate]

It's a fair question. The short answer is not really - the revolutionary struggle in Nepal does not appear to have taken the form of independent workplace collectives or anything like that. However, the Maoist trade unions have enough strength that capitalists are forced to negotiate the terms of workplace relations with them, and there is at least one case (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/) of Maoist affiliated workers seizing control of their workplace and running it under workers control.

Information on the democratic structures of the Maoist trade unions can be found here. (http://stormingmteverest.blogspot.com/2010/05/trade-union-situation-in-nepal.html)

I'm glad to hear it, but mainstream labor unions in capitalist countries usually have sufficient power to compel some negotiation. And in the U.S.A., the avowedly socialist labor movement compelled reforms that are now considered staples of the labor economy, such as the eight hour work day and weekend holidays. The workplace seizure was implied to be a temporary negotiation tactic as opposed to an institution of permanent workers' management, moreover.

[Lyev]

Well the working class population in China was just under 2%, but the legitimacy of Mao's 1949 revolution is probably one of the most contentious in the leftist movement. The Russian working class was roughly 11% in 1917, but the revolution was mostly centred around the urban areas like St. Petersburg. I am not, by any means, suggesting it was a coup, like a lot of bourgeois scholars do, but it's fair to say that of the small amount of workplace and factory occupation that there was, it mostly happened central to a few, urban areas. Trotsky did call it a "quiet" revolution after all.

However, the dynamic in Nepal is a bit different. The working class population in Nepal is about 6%, so this is somewhere in between China and Russia. And quite a lot of the Prachanda's attention has been focused in the mountains and hills, building a very solid base with the rural peasants there. I think if the Maoists carry on building up a concrete foundation in the trade-unions and workplaces then they're on the right track.

Two last things: the revolution has to start from the working class, and build itself outwards and upwards from there; it cannot start with the peasantry alone. Secondly, leading on from my previous point: the peasants cannot simply be substituted in place of the working class. Sure, they can make an alliance and work together, but it's a fundamental presupposition for a Marxist analysis that the working class are the only true revolutionary class. The peasantry don't have the same relation to the means of production as the working class. It's as simple as that.

Something that follows from a inquiry into this worker-peasant alliance is a matter of strategy. Will the Maoists be too overzealousness, or pragmatic enough? How will the Maoists "seize the moment" when the shit really hits the fan? This was one of the key strengths of Lenin as a revolutionary. Say what you about him as theorist, but when it actually came down the practicality of revolution, he was very good at grabbing an opportunity when it came at him. Anyway, what I am saying is, will they buckle down, strap in tight and wait for the working class to ripen in consciousness further, or will they throw the peasantry into the front-line of struggle straight, in place of the working class, in the heat of the moment? That's just my musings on the issue before I go to bed.

[Obs]

The difference between a proletarian and a peasant is that a peasant works on a farm. Class-wise, they are subject to the same oppression, and they have the same revolutionary potential. If you're going to argue that only the urban proletariat can bring about a revolution, how should a country like Nepal achieve socialism within even the next 200 years? And if the peasantry must be diminished and turned into proletarians, how would a socialist world produce enough food to sustain the world's population?

I maintain that an agricultural worker is still a worker.

[RED DAVE]

The difference between a proletarian and a peasant is that a peasant works on a farm.No. A peasant is the owner or renting tenant on a farm. Peasants and workers belong to a different class. Workers do not own or rent the means of production.


Class-wise, they are subject to the same oppressionClass-wise, they are both subject to oppression, but it's not the same oppression. Peasants attempt to obtain the best possible price for the commodities they produce, primarily food. The are exploited by those who purchase their commodities, rent them the land, hold their mortgages, etc. Workers attempt to obtain the best possible price for their labor power. Proletarians, who's work is primarily collective, are untied by their labor. Peasants, who's work is primarily individual, compete against each other.


and they have the same revolutionary potential.Wrong and dead wrong. The revolutionary potential of peasants is participation in a revolution led by another class: the proletariat, the bourgeoisie or the petit-bourgeoisie. Peasants never make a revolution in their own name as a class.


If you're going to argue that only the urban proletariat can bring about a revolution, how should a country like Nepal achieve socialism within even the next 200 years?The issue of revolution in Nepal, Vietnam, China, Russia, etc., involves the issue of which class leads the revolution. The peasantry participates in such a revolution, but it can never be the leading class.


And if the peasantry must be diminished and turned into proletarians, how would a socialist world produce enough food to sustain the world's population?By the conversion of the peasantry into rural proletarians working on collective farms.


I maintain that an agricultural worker is still a worker.And you are right. But an agricultural worker is not a peasant. The crucial difference is in ownership. An agricultural worker works the land but does not own or rent it.

RED DAVE

[Gustav HK]

Personly I do not see agricultural workers and peasants as the same. Agricultural workers are like urban workers, they do not have ownership over the means of production.
Peasants do, they are like the petite bourgeoisie. - Edit: The post made by Red Dave while I was writing explains a lot better what the peasantry is.
Although some peasants are so poor that they also have to work as agricultural workers on other farms, thus becoming "half-proletarians".

The peasantry can roughly be divided in three groups:

The poor peasantry - ally of the proletariat.

The middle peasantry - Can be won over to the proletariat, but can also be agitated for the reaction.

The large peasantry (kulaks) - Very easy to agitate for the reaction - class enemies.



The proletariat must still be the leader of the revolution, even if they are a small minority, and the vanguard party must be the party of the proletariat.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Personly I do not see agricultural workers and peasants as the same. Agricultural workers are like urban workers, they do not have ownership over the means of production.
Peasants do, they are like the petite bourgeoisie. - Edit: The post made by Red Dave while I was writing explains a lot better what the peasantry is.
Although some peasants are so poor that they also have to work as agricultural workers on other farms, thus becoming "half-proletarians".

The peasantry can roughly be divided in three groups:

The poor peasantry - ally of the proletariat.

The middle peasantry - Can be won over to the proletariat, but can also be agitated for the reaction.

The large peasantry (kulaks) - Very easy to agitate for the reaction - class enemies.



The proletariat must still be the leader of the revolution, even if they are a small minority, and the vanguard party must be the party of the proletariat.

That is why, under Maoism, it's proposed that the poor peasantry are to be the ones to win over the middle peasantry.

[human strike]

Tbh I think anarchism is pretty well suited to the more agricultural economies of the world. As for the question someone asked earlier about any anarchist movements in the "third world", how about the Zapatistas in Mexico? (Somebody has probably already said that but if they did I missed it)

[chegitz guevara]

The main reason why anarchism dissappeared is that "marxist leninists" took state power and where able to politically and sometimes financially their comrades abroad. It is a very simple explanation. The mexican anarchists were not part of an internationally centralized organization that had as a head a ruling party in a gigantic country like Russia.

In other words, we out organized you. Organization is the key. We have it. The ruling class has it. You don't. Fail.

[bcbm]

Yes. There is a ruling class in the DR of Congo, but they are not as brutal as the Belgian colonists, who were some of the most bloodthirsty monsters to have walked this earth. To the colonized people (including the working class), that is a substantial gain. It may not be socialism, but not everything needs to be socialism. For example, have all the strikes you have allegedly participated in resulted in socialism? It is in the interests of the working class to fight for every day living and for livelihood. This is the main reason why national liberation works.

certainly the belgian colonists were disgusting but i think it is strange to use the democratic republic of the congo as an example of "why national liberation works," as the "decolonized" government was supported heavily by the us and belgium and oversaw the continued theft of natural resources by the west, theft of national funds by mobutu and almost everyone he appointed (relatives, friends, etc), severe human rights violations (including the destruction of almost all potentially progressive forces) and was about as corrupt a dictatorship as they come. in short, "zaire" was still a de facto colony, but with an arrangement ultimately more beneficial to western imperialists.

[bcbm]

I already said Mobutu was an extreme reactionary.

yes, but my point was how does national liberation "work" if it maintains the same fundamental relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, but with a slight shift in the arrangement that primarily benefits the colonizer as they no longer have to physically occupy the territory.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Tbh I think anarchism is pretty well suited to the more agricultural economies of the world. As for the question someone asked earlier about any anarchist movements in the "third world", how about the Zapatistas in Mexico? (Somebody has probably already said that but if they did I missed it)

Pretty much. It doesn't really get much more "Third World" than the southern Mexican state of Chiapas (and also Oaxaca/Guerrero, although my understanding is that they're a little less poor than Chiapas is), and the Zaps are explicit in their acknowledgment of the (anarchist) Magon brothers. The Oaxacan rebellion also owes ideological debts to them. In addition, other militant groups in Mexico (such as the ERPI) have expressed admiration for certain people like Proudhon, Bakunin and August Spies in their writings.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I already said Mobutu was an extreme reactionary.

Not to mention that he was helped into power by the ultimate boogeyman for leftists: the CIA (*gasp*)

[Os Cangaceiros]

You've spent enough time on this site to know that answer to that question.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Can someone point out for me where these bastions of Marxist thought following successful socialist revolutions are on a map for me?

North Korea? Cuba? Give me a break.

Just because Marxism has been more popular than anarchism throughout history does not mean it has been more successful.

Humans learn through trial and error like any other animal. Eventually they'll realize this Marxism stuff isn't creating communism very well.

[the last donut of the night]

Cuba? Give me a break.



I mean, Cuba eliminated child malnutrition. What has the IWW done recently?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I mean, Cuba eliminated child malnutrition. What has the IWW done recently?

I don't remember the IWW ever claiming to have brought about an anti-capitalist revolution.

Just because Cuba proved that a government does have the power to do some actual good against the wishes of private enterprise and greed does not mean they have gotten anywhere near creating an exploitation-free and equal society. I would say anarchists have got much closer.

[this is an invasion]

In other words, we out organized you. Organization is the key. We have it. The ruling class has it. You don't. Fail.

If being more organized means recreating oppressive structures, then yeah, you guys are way more organized.

[Saorsa]

This thread fails on so many levels

[Os Cangaceiros]

I mean, Cuba eliminated child malnutrition. What has the IWW done recently?

Hate to be pedantic here, but the IWW is not an anarchist organization.

[Zanthorus]

Just because Marxism has been more popular than anarchism throughout history does not mean it has been more successful.

Humans learn through trial and error like any other animal. Eventually they'll realize this Marxism stuff isn't creating communism very well.

lol, I like how anarchists accuse Marxists of strawmaning anarchism when they critique Bakunin and claim that because they're wonderful unique flowers they can be as vague and undefined a political tradition as they like yet when it comes time to attempt an actual critique of Marxism they equate it with Stalinist liberalism.


I mean, Cuba eliminated child malnutrition. What has the IWW done recently?

This whole argument that goes on between Marxists and anarchists about whose revolutionary dick is biggest in the real world is ridiculous.

I mean, Obama just got healthcare reform passed in america. What has the Party for Socialism and Liberation done recently?

With that aside, the idea that purely practical results are what counts reeks of opportunism. As if the thought had never crossed anyone's mind that instead of grasping on to any and every movement that got "real world" results we could actually work to build a class conscious revolutionary movement.

[the last donut of the night]

Just because Cuba proved that a government does have the power to do some actual good against the wishes of private enterprise and greed does not mean they have gotten anywhere near creating an exploitation-free and equal society. I would say anarchists have got much closer.

Oh really? Because all I recall is the Spanish Civil War, where workers' councils lasted for a few months and then were destroyed. Cuba and various socialist states managed to keep workers' power for much longer.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that either anarchists or Marxists have gotten close to creating a free and egalitarian society.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't think that either anarchists or Marxists have gotten close to creating a free and egalitarian society.

MLM's have gotten closer though. Can't deny that.

[this is an invasion]

MLM's have gotten closer though. Can't deny that.

ur jokez r funni
:laugh:

[The Vegan Marxist]

ur jokez r funni
:laugh:

and your b.s. is obvious! :lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

MLM's have gotten closer though. Can't deny that.

Sure I can. Watch me:

You're wrong.

[Saorsa]

I don't think that either anarchists or Marxists have gotten close to creating a free and egalitarian society.

Why don't we unite around this basic fact and end this stupid pissing contest?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Oh really? Because all I recall is the Spanish Civil War, where workers' councils lasted for a few months and then were destroyed. Cuba and various socialist states managed to keep workers' power for much longer.

Of course when you consider any authoritarian state capitalist dictatorship to be "under workers control" you can claim any such nonsense.

I'll take a few months of freedom over a lifetime of servitude to the glorious leader.

[the last donut of the night]

Of course when you consider any authoritarian state capitalist dictatorship to be "under workers control" you can claim any such nonsense.

And of course, if you consider every time workers have actual power an "authoritarian state capitalist dictatorship", then you can claim such nonsense too.


I'll take a few months of freedom over a lifetime of servitude to the glorious leader.

Gee, then I guess the Eastern German population must be really stupid, because apparently the majority of them (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html) want the old days back. And even I know that East Germany circa 1989 wasn't socialist anymore, but it kinda proves that there was more than "a lifetime of servitude to the glorious leader" behind that wall, am I right?

[AK]

And even I know that East Germany circa 1989 wasn't socialist anymore
Or rather, never really was. But let's not start this.

[Glenn Beck]

This deja vu is killing me :rolleyes:

[∞]

Thankfully the Nepalese aren't dabbling in pointless and idealistic Anarchist slogans but are actually carrying forth a revolution, something which Anarchists have never successfully done. Since their ideology is Scientific Socialism, the Nepalese revolutionaries realize that religion arose with class society and will wither alongside with class society, on the road towards communism -- no reason to force everyone to end their faith. Also, unlike Anarchists, the Nepalese Maoists aren't politically suicidal, reactionary and stubborn enough to denounce leadership under the premise that they're "masters", and as such, realize the importance of leadership in revolution, based on historical analysis' of revolutions. So yes, you're absolutely correct in saying that Anarchist slogans like "no gods, no masters" have no place in Nepal, just like the ideology these slogans belong to. Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought does, however, since it can, and the Nepali revolutionaries know this, radically change their society for the better, something Anarchism never has and never will do. you must be the most blind person I met so far.

Ask the workers in the Farms of Russia how their day went. "We were forced to work in the icey cold, we thought Stalin knew nothing of this."
The Spainards: "When we went outside, we felt a sense of freedom, EVERYTHING was collectivized." "A feeling of revolutionary spirit."-George Orwell among others.

OPEN YOUR EYES

[∞]

Marxist Leninist: Believes controlling the production of the proletariat will somehow lead to victory.

Anarchist: Knows that the freedom of the working class can only be achieved by the working class themeselves. Not by the same burgeoise accumalation that the STATE has ALWAYS been KNOWN for. To be exact, the politicans in you're system are the MOST wealthy. (Stalin=Huge Palace, Mao=Huge Palace, Kim Jong-Il, huge palace+ collection of Barrcardi. Hell the picture of Stalin with his wife he's driving a godamn ROLLS ROYCE). We'll enjoy our autonomy, guys go ahead and get 6 votes in congress. Then try to resort in some failed coup,or maybe just get your ass kicked again. IDK your choice.

Who really represents the proletariat (hint: Starts with an A and ends with a REAL classless society.;))

http://www.lensculture.com/mt_files/archives/ostrup-104.jpg


http://image57.webshots.com/157/2/25/80/456322580NYJQsX_ph.jpg

http://leonidpetrov.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kumsusan-palace.jpg

http://cdn4.mattters.com/photos/photos/1282699/stalinlimo.jpg

http://www.luxury-insider.com/Current_Affairs/img/2010/3/stalin-car-5.jpg

[∞]

Oh really? Because all I recall is the Spanish Civil War, where workers' councils lasted for a few months and then were destroyed. Cuba and various socialist states managed to keep workers' power for much longer.

We had to FACE Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler. Basically by ourselves. The defeat was not from economic hardships (*cough* Soviet Russia). And from what I recall Germany stationed troops for two weeks in Stalingrad. In fact production wise we were doing pretty well...awesome.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/essay/martin_cnt_state.html

[∞]

MLM's have gotten closer though. Can't deny that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Saorsa]

This thread is stupid... and it's not about Nepal. Can it either be trashed or moved to a different forum, like Chit chat?

[∞]

Doesn't matter cuz I'll pwn either way.

[revolution inaction]

We had to FACE Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler.

and Starling also

[∞]

and Starling also

You mean Stalin...

[∞]

This thread is stupid... and it's not about Nepal. Can it either be trashed or moved to a different forum, like Chit chat?

And yo rhymes suck, nigga

[Saorsa]

Lol ur funny.

Now can this thread be closed or moved please?

[∞]

Yeah, so anyway Anarchists don't care, you know why? Because Maoism is dead, just like this thread, in a Berlin Bunker, AN HEROED in the head.

[eclipse]

Concerning the topic, it might be interesting to look into Tank Girl/ Rai Ko Ris. As far as I know they`ve set up an infoshop in Kathmandu and if it is possible to contact them perhas they can enlighten us on the state of the anarchist movement in Nepal. I am quite sure it must somehow exist there.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thankfully the Nepalese aren't dabbling in pointless and idealistic Anarchist slogans but are actually carrying forth a revolution, something which Anarchists have never successfully done.

It depends what you mean by successful. Since no "scientific socialist" revolution has ever actually achieved communism, then I think it's safe to say that it has never succeeded either. Unless of course, your interpretation of communism is the establishment of an authoritarian state bureaucracy and the re-emergence of capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

And as a matter of fact there are anarchists in Nepal. The British AF has been in contact with some. For obvious reasons, they find organising quite difficult.

[Saorsa]

Obvious reasons like complete lack of interest or support? While the Maoists were driving the state out of the countryside and organising the urban workers into a radical union movement, the 'anarchists' were organising punk gigs.

[∞]

Obvious reasons like complete lack of interest or support? While the Maoists were driving the state out of the countryside and organising the urban workers into a radical union movement, the 'anarchists' were organising punk gigs.

Punk is more important so...

[eclipse]

While the Maoists were driving the state out of the countryside and organising the urban workers into a radical union movement, the 'anarchists' were organising punk gigs.
We don`t know what else, so this is an assumption.
The Maoists certainly organized some concerts playing revolutionary music too along the way. :P

[The Red Next Door]

Sure we do. It is you who we don't see as a class ally.

But would the working class say about that statement?

[The Red Next Door]

I mean, Obama just got healthcare reform passed in america. What has the Party for Socialism and Liberation done recently?
.


The Seize BP, the successful boycott of a Israeli shipments, won the primary in california, and Obama gave us a corporate run healthcare reform. so there is nothing good about that.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, so anyway Anarchists don't care, you know why? Because Maoism is dead, just like this thread, in a Berlin Bunker, AN HEROED in the head.
is it opposites day or something

[Os Cangaceiros]

This thread should be locked and set ablaze.

[scarletghoul]

Superior Anarchist tactics I see. No wonder you've almost established socialism across Nepal. ohh wait

[Os Cangaceiros]

My opinion has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. It has everything to do with the usual RevLeft sectarian circle-jerk, which your "Superior Anarchist tactics" comment illustrates quite nicely.

To quote another post in this thread:


This thread is stupid... and it's not about Nepal. Can it either be trashed or moved to a different forum, like Chit chat?

[scarletghoul]

I was jokin, as this thread is already rubbish.. chill

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was jokin, as this thread is already rubbish.. chill

Oh. In that case, my bad.

This site just really gets to me sometimes. I think I need to take a sabbatical from it. It's been getting too easy for me to jump right into Hulk Smash mode lately.

[scarletghoul]

Haha I know how you mean. sometimes i just cant think of anything else but "..must ....combat ....incorrect... lines..."
RevLeft discussions certainly can kill parts of us inside :(

[Saorsa]

Kill this thread with icepicks it's full of sectarianism

[scarletghoul]

then bake it into cookies

[∞]

SOMEONE CLOSE THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2l47t6uqBo&playnext_from=QL

[Saorsa]

Why don't any of the mods or admins read the Nepal forum :-(

[∞]

Or we can all just shut up :thumbup1:

[Fietsketting]

Superior Anarchist tactics I see. No wonder you've almost established socialism across Nepal. ohh wait

Superior Communist Tactics I see. No wonder you've almost established socialism across the world but they all failed miserably and turned in dictatorships. Ohh yes. ;)

[Saorsa]

Sectarianism aside, I'd be keen to learn more about the Nepali anarchists. If they've been in touch with the AF, could anyone from the AF give me any links? Or just some general info?

[The Feral Underclass]

Obvious reasons like complete lack of interest or support? While the Maoists were driving the state out of the countryside and organising the urban workers into a radical union movement, the 'anarchists' were organising punk gigs.

Nepalese anarchist were organising punk gigs?

[The Feral Underclass]

Sectarianism aside, I'd be keen to learn more about the Nepali anarchists. If they've been in touch with the AF, could anyone from the AF give me any links? Or just some general info?

I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.

[Saorsa]

Nepalese anarchist were organising punk gigs?

Yes.


I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.

You trust Roman Polanksi, but not me. That says a lot about you. :)

What am I gonna do, tell the Maoists to kill them? I think you overestimate the amount of influence I have on Prachanda. If the Nepali Maoists wanted to kill these anarchists they'd already be dead. And I suspect the UCPN (M) is well aware of whatever these very quiet Nepali anarchists are up to.

I asked purely out of curiosity, since I've never heard anything about anarchists in Nepal apart from Tank Girl. If you're not going to reply, that's cool... you can get back to reading a NAMBLA pamphlet or whatever you do in your spare time.

[scarletghoul]

I'm guessing TAT has no info on any AF activity in Nepal and just wanted to cover it up with a weiird remark that makes him look deluded and stupid.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm guessing TAT has no info on any AF activity in Nepal and just wanted to cover it up with a weiird remark that makes him look deluded and stupid.

Yes, that's what's happened. I won't give out information about Nepalese anarchists on a public website because I'm deluded and stupid. :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Yes.
Further info on the organizing of punk gigs?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, that's what's happened. I won't give out information about Nepalese anarchists on a public website because I'm deluded and stupid. :rolleyes:

?? I don't think he asked for their names or locations. He merely asked for links in which were either directly or indirectly related to the Nepalese Anarchists in order to learn more about them.

[Saorsa]

I wasn't asking for their address lol. I was asking for some basic info about their organisation and what they do.