Refuting the Lies about the Revolution in Nepal

[Red Heretic]

This is a GREAT article by Li Onesto, a journalist who visited Nepal to observe the revolution, that takes on all of the lies being told about the People's War in Nepal. I very strongly recommend everyone to read this article.



Telling Lies in Kathmandu

Revolution #007, June 26, 2005, posted at revcom.us <http://www.revcom.us>

Eliza Griswold&#39;s article, "It&#39;s Not Easy Here in Kathmandu--Caught
between the Maoist rebels and the king&#39;s army" appeared in the May 2005
issue of Harper&#39;s magazine. I have traveled into the guerrilla zones in
Nepal and closely follow developments in this conflict, and I&#39;m
constantly angered by this kind of journalism which contributes to a
growing mountain of harmful disinformation.


The Lie of "Caught in the Middle"

People like Eliza Griswold are very disturbed by the reality that the
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) now controls most of Nepal&#39;s
countryside, their People&#39;s Liberation Army is able to mobilize
thousands of guerrillas in battle against the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA),
and in areas run by new revolutionary governments, they are radically
changing the economic, political, and cultural life of millions of poor
peasants.1
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote1>
The Maoists began their People&#39;s War in 1996 and, ever since, Nepal&#39;s
ruling class has been in constant crisis over how to deal with this
insurgency which is now threatening to seize power. But instead of a
serious discussion about why the Maoists have grown so rapidly,
Griswold&#39;s theme, indicated by her subtitle, is that the majority of
people in Nepal are caught in the middle--between a brutal government
guilty of horrendous human rights abuses, and Maoists who are even worse.

To paint this scenario, Griswold introduces: an 18-year-old girl in the
RNA; an RNA Brigadier General trained at Fort Leavenworth; the editor of
a conservative Kathmandu newspaper; the U.S. ambassador to Nepal; a
doctor and several people at a center set up only for "victims of Maoist
torture" (no victims of the RNA); villagers in a contested area in the
Terai; two girls and the principal at Kathmandu Valley school who say
they were "abducted by Maoists"; a human rights researcher who says "no
one wants to abandon Nepal to the Maoists."

Almost all of these two dozen or so people are by definition hostile to
the Maoists and were in cities or other areas under government control.
Sweeping censorship and systematic disinformation by the Nepalese
government2
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote2>
have had a huge impact on people&#39;s opinions and what they know and don&#39;t
know about the Maoists, not only internationally but within Nepal
itself, and this is especially true among many of the people Griswold
quotes.

Griswold talks to three Maoists--two rebels she arranges to meet along
the roadside and a journalist who left the Maoists, was imprisoned and
tortured by the government and now writes for a Maoist newspaper. There
is a quote from a leader in the CPN(M). But other than this, there are
no views from Maoist supporters and no conversations with people living
in Maoist base areas.

In Griswold&#39;s "caught in the middle" scenario, Maoist supporters are
simply written off as if they are not part of the people. But the
People&#39;s Liberation Army is made up of tens of thousands of common
peasants who are not "caught in the middle" but have joined the
insurgency. And many more are participating in the new revolutionary
governments.

In Nepal over 85% of the people are peasants in the countryside,
desperately poor, malnourished, and exploited by corrupt officials,
landlords, and moneylenders. Lower castes and oppressed ethnic groups
face systematic discrimination under a rigid caste system. Women are
intensely suppressed and treated as inferior in every facet of society.
A king controls the army and an oppressive monarchy is deeply embedded
in the ruling structures of society. The whole country is subordinate
to, dependent on, and dominated by India and imperialist countries like
the U.S.

The Maoist revolution aims to get rid of all this. The Nepalese regime
rules over, enforces and is fighting to preserve all this. Are the
masses of people, as Griswold argues, caught between these two fires?
No&#33; The Maoists are organizing and providing leadership to millions who
are brutally and systematically oppressed by the system AND who are
inspired by and support the Maoists&#39; vision and concrete program for
building a new liberating society.

Nepal&#39;s ruling class has not and cannot solve the basic problems of
food, water, sanitation, and health care because this requires tearing
up the existing economic, social, and political relationships within
Nepalese society and between Nepal and other countries. While Griswold
acknowledges the dire situation of the masses, she wants us to believe
the Maoists are cynically "taking advantage" of and manipulating this.
In truth, the Maoists have support in Nepal exactly because they are
addressing the deeply embedded oppression people face. In areas they
control real changes are taking place: redistribution of land, equal
rights for women, end to the caste system, autonomy for oppressed ethnic
groups, healthcare, education and the building of roads and bridges.
Even a young woman in the government&#39;s army tells Griswold: "The Maoists
have high principles.so they attract everyone who is interested in
struggling for equality. Some of my friends from my village have joined
them. If I lived in the village, I&#39;d be a Maoist, too."

When I was in the guerrilla zones in 1999, I was very struck by the
composition of the PLA squads and platoons. They were overwhelmingly
made up of those on the very bottom of society--lower castes, ethnic
minorities, peasant youth and many, many young women. This says a lot
about the nature of this revolution.


Revolutionary Authority

Let&#39;s get right down to it. People like Griswold may talk about
government repression, deep poverty, and powerlessness among the poor.
But they don&#39;t uphold the right of the people to really struggle against
any of this. And what they hate a lot more than the oppressive status
quo is revolutionary authority being exercised to actually transform the
prevailing economic and social relations, as well as the culture and
thinking that goes along with this oppressive setup. In effect, this is
an argument that the people should just accept their horrible conditions
and ends up justifying crushing the revolutionary struggle.

Griswold mentions that the Maoists hold power in 73 of the 75 political
districts, but is content to stay in the disinformation zones and never
goes into areas under Maoist control--which constitute most of Nepal&#33;
She doesn&#39;t even talk about what&#39;s happening in these areas. Instead,
the view running through her article is that Maoist rule is a
totalitarian and horrible thing.

But what is actually being accomplished under Maoist authority in Nepal?
Another way to pose this is: What is the power the Maoists have achieved
through armed struggle good for?

I could go into a lot of examples here. But just take the question of
women--which revealingly Griswold doesn&#39;t talk about, even though the
huge participation of women in this revolution is a fact widely
acknowledged.

Feudal traditions like arranged marriages, dowries, and polygamy are
enforced in many ways and under a mixture of feudal and capitalist
rules; women&#39;s bodies are owned, controlled, and bargained over in
everything from marriage to sex trafficking. Religious and cultural
practices promote and perpetuate male domination. And everywhere a woman
turns, her freedom and independence is policed and smothered. For women
to be free of all this, the basic economic relations of land ownership
in the countryside have to be upended. Control has to be taken out of
the hands of the religious, political, and military forces which back up
the tyranny of local landlords, corrupt politicians, and moneylenders.
Social and cultural institutions which provide a foundation for the
patriarchal control of fathers, brothers, and mother-in-laws have to be
done away with. The whole education system has to be revolutionized.

And this is exactly what revolutionary authority and power is good for&#33;
In the Maoist base areas land is being redistributed, and for the first
time women own land. Arranged marriages, polygamy, and other feudal
traditions oppressive to women are no longer practiced. Wife beating and
rape are severely punished by people&#39;s courts. Women are given the right
to divorce, go to school, and fight in local militias as well as the
People&#39;s Liberation Army. And women are equal participants in the new
economic, political, and social life of the villages.

Extremely significant and liberating changes are taking place in the
Maoist base areas, but Griswold cynically writes them off. When she sees
men building the roof of a new school, her only response is to question
why the Maoists charge a &#036;3 tuition. For literally hundreds of millions
of people around the world, life is dictated, ruined and suppressed by
horrible caste distinctions. No amount of capitalist globalization and
westernization has gotten rid of this. But Griswold doesn&#39;t even comment
when she hears that in the Maoist areas caste distinctions have been
abolished and intercaste marriages are common.

The Nepalese people need revolutionary change--not a "solution" within
the present order which has as its foundation exploitative economic
relations and intense social inequality, as well as an entrenched
dependence on foreign powers. Daily life for the majority of people
concretely and repeatedly demonstrates this--which is why the Maoists
have real support.


Tales of Coercion and Terror

Griswold&#39;s analysis includes quoting a man who tells her, "99 percent of
the country don&#39;t like the Maoists"--a ridiculous claim given the growth
of the insurgency, which even those unsympathetic to the guerrillas
admit. But this goes along with Griswold&#39;s claim that the Maoists only
get support through coercion and terror. She says: "The Maoists have
begun to demand that every family sacrifice one person to their cause."

A reporter in Nepal for the Maoist newspaper Janadesh responded to
Griswold&#39;s charge, saying,

"The Maoists do not force anybody to fight. How can anyone force a
man or woman to fire a gun? You need courage, dedication and spirit
of sacrifice to become a fighter in the People&#39;s Liberation Army.
It&#39;s not like playing video war games on a computer. It&#39;s a life and
death struggle. Only the most courageous men and women can prepare
themselves to fight for revolution. There is a saying in Nepal that
&#39;a carried dog cannot hunt a deer.&#39;"

Think for a moment. The guerrillas started off small and up against the
brutal coercion of a regime backed by India and the U.S. How could the
Maoists have achieved their current military and political strength
without the genuine support and participation of thousands who believe
in the goals of the revolution and on this basis are willing to go into
battle and risk their lives?

There is video, photographs, and reports of massive Maoist rallies in
the countryside.3
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote3>
Reporters who have been in Maoist-controlled areas have written about
the guerrillas organizing people to build roads, bridges, and schools.4
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote4>
During the 2003 negotiations 30,000 people attended a Maoist rally in
Kathmandu.5
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote5>And
the RNA has engaged in battles where they faced thousands of guerrilla
fighters. Can anyone seriously explain this as just "coercion"?

Most of the poor peasants in Nepal&#39;s countryside are illiterate and
uneducated-- but they are not stupid and childishly na


Tortured Arguments

Griswold quotes someone saying, "The Maoists torture roughly 60 percent
of those in their custody, but the army tortures 80 percent."6
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote6>
She talks with a doctor at a center for "victims of Maoist torture" who
claims torture is increasing on both sides. She then writes, "His theory
was that local Maoists and government forces were engaged in a game of
one-upmanship over who could be more brutal. He cited the now familiar
torture statistics for the Maoists and the government." (Note how
Griswold gives a "now familiar" adjective to an unsubstantiated
statistic.) This passes for "theory" about a serious conflict-- that the
Maoists and RNA are having a contest over who can torture more?&#33;

The Maoist guerrillas, unlike the RNA, do not believe "the ends justify
the means." Their actions reflect their goal of bringing into being a
new consciousness among the people that will lead to building a society
aimed at getting rid of oppression and inequality.

One way this comes out is in how the Maoists treat prisoners of war in a
humane manner along the lines of the Geneva Convention. The PLA has
released many captured POWs in good health to the Red Cross or other
human rights organizations.7
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote7>
RNA soldiers and police captured by the Maoists have told reporters that
while they had to listen to propaganda and were asked to join the
revolution, they were not harmed. They were warned that if they were
captured again, they would be severely punished, but they were given
money and food so that they could go back to their village instead of
returning to the RNA. This reflects the Maoists&#39; policy of politically
struggling with even those who are working with the government. I have
heard numerous stories about the rebels giving such people at least
three warnings, asking them to stop their counter-revolutionary
activity, before administering any punishment.

The Kathmandu Post , reporting on 18 captured police, said, "Their
release has a human ring about it. In fact the rebels had set them free
only after handing out sums ranging from Rs 800 and Rs 1500 as expenses
for their return journey... The freed hostages have said that the rebels
did not misbehave with them throughout the period they were under their
control. &#39;Don&#39;t involve in vile deeds. You would certainly have killed
had you taken us under your control,&#39; rebels have been quoted as saying.
They also had sent two of their cadre to guide the cops out safely."8
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote8>

Griswold paints a picture where "both sides" are killing innocent
people. But let&#39;s compare the policy and practice of the RNA and the
PLA. The vast majority of the 12,000 killed since the start of the war
have been civilians murdered by the Royal Army, along with suspected
revolutionaries also tortured and murdered. And like the U.S. policy,
from Vietnam to Fallujah, of "destroying the village to save the
village," the U.S.-trained RNA has carried out human rights abuses
against a wide swath of the population, killing thousands suspected of
"supporting the Maoists," which could mean simply providing food and
shelter for the guerrillas. Human rights organizations have documented
how the police and RNA have burned whole villages and rounded up,
tortured, murdered and jailed thousands of people. In 2003 and 2004,
Nepal recorded the highest number of new cases of disappearances by
security forces in the world.9
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote9>

On the other hand, the vast majority of people killed by the Maoists
have been police and soldiers in combat. When others, like informants,
have been targeted, this is because their actions have directly led to
Maoists and others being jailed or killed.

The CPN(M) is leading a mass armed revolution which is unleashing
thousands of poor, angry peasants. Their families were suffering and
dying under "normal times." And now, the RNA and police are carrying out
horrendous crimes against the people. When the people rise up against
their oppression it isn&#39;t "nice and neat" and leadership is necessary
for the struggle to go beyond bitter revenge. This is exactly what the
CPN(M) is providing. On several occasions, the Maoists have issued
criticisms of actions they felt were wrong and have even changed some
policies after being criticized.10
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote10>


An Argument for More Blood, More U.S. Intervention

Griswold quotes James Moriarty, the U.S. ambassador to Nepal, saying he
is "appalled by how easily they [the Maoists] move through the country,
how much terror they spread." And Griswold notes that "The United States
has placed the Maoists on the State Department&#39;s terrorist watch list,
one step below those groups that, in the ambassador&#39;s words, belong to
&#39;The Great War on Terrorism.&#39; " Moriarty says,

"It&#39;s not Islamic fundamentalism, obviously. but it is a very
fervent brand of Maoism that could cause great trouble in this area.
They&#39;ve said they&#39;re going to invade the United States. I&#39;m not too
worried about that, but you ignore what they say at your own peril.
You can&#39;t pooh-pooh the Maoists and the threat that they represent."

I find it ludicrous that I even have to refute this ridiculous claim
that the Maoists in Nepal have said they are going to invade the U.S.
And I actually think Moriarty and probably Griswold know this is a lie.
But this little lie is part of a bigger lie--that the Maoists in Nepal
are terrorists, so backing the regime in Nepal is part of the "war on
terror."

In 2002, Michael Malinowski, then U.S. ambassador to Nepal, stated that
the Maoists in Nepal are "fundamentally the same as the globally
recognized terrorists."11
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote11>
And the 2002 proposal by Bush for &#036;20 million in economic and military
aid to Nepal said, "We currently do not have direct evidence of an
al-Qaida presence in Nepal, but weak governance has already proved
inviting to terrorists, criminals and intelligence services from
surrounding countries."12
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote12>
The Maoists in Nepal have nothing in common with groups like al-Qaida,
but this has not stopped the U.S. from trying to fabricate some kind of
comparison or arguing that if the "terrorists" are not stopped in Nepal,
the country will become a "safe haven" for other terrorists.

Griswold goes on to fuel an argument for more U.S. military aid and
intervention. She interviews an RNA General and writes, "Peace, the
general thinks, will be forged only through more military spending,
particularly by the United States. &#39;More troops and better weapons will
reduce the loss of human life,&#39; he said. &#39;If we&#39;re weak, the Maoists
will keep fighting. Unless our American friends help us, the Maoist
problem may not be solved. Whether it&#39;s in the name of politics or
religion, terrorism is terrorism whether you like it or not.&#39; "

Here sits Griswold, talking to a general of an incredibly vicious army,
and she is not only totally uncritical of what he says, but actually
provides a forum for him to argue his case for even more weapons of
murder and torture&#33;

*****

So now, in the page of liberal Harper&#39;s, we&#39;ve come to this: From an
article that begins with a premise that "the masses are caught in the
middle" between "two evil" forces, we come to the conclusion: one side
should be crushed--the Maoists. These arguments in Griswold&#39;s article
are hardly original. They aim to convince people--including those who
might support such a liberation struggle--that while the government may
be bad, the Maoists are worse, so there is no other choice but to
support the regime. And they are an outright apology and justification
for the bloody U.S.-backed war against a genuine, mass struggle for
liberation in Nepal.

Li Onesto traveled deep into the guerrilla zones of Nepal in 1999 and is
the author of the book, Dispatches from the People&#39;s War in Nepal (Pluto
Press and Insight Press 2005), available from: Pluto Press,
www.plutobooks.com <http://www.plutobooks.com>; University of Michigan
Press, www.press.umich.edu <http://www.press.umich.edu>; Insight Press,
insight-press.com <http://insight-press.com>; amazon.com
<http://www.amazon.com>; Revolution Books stores and outlets. Go to
lionesto.net <http://www.lionesto.net> for photos, updates on news,
reviews, and speaking engagements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

1. See: "The people&#39;s War in Nepal: Taking the Strategic Offensive," A
World To Win , #31, 2005

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote1return>]

2. Under a state of emergency declared in November 2001, Maoist
newspapers were raided and closed down, their staffs arrested. Editors
and writers in the mainstream press were interrogated for simply quoting
Maoist leaders in their publications. In the first nine months, 130
journalists were taken into custody. When King Gyanendra suspended
parliament and grabbed total power again on February 1, 2005, soldiers
were literally sent into newspaper offices to "edit" articles before
they went to press.

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote2return>]

3. The DVD "Eight Glorious Years of Nepalese People&#39;s War" is available
from BM BOX 7970, London, WC1N- 3XX, England or e-mail
[email protected] <mailto://[email protected]>

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote3return>]

4. Reuters News Service, "Amid war, Nepal rebels build road to win
hearts," March 2005.

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote4return>]

5. BBC News, April 3, 2003.

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote5return>]

6. An article in the Kathmandu Post (September 20, 2004) on the report
by the Center for Victims of Torture reported different statistics
saying, said, "In recent years, almost 60 percent of the people detained
by the state, and 40 percent of those abducted by the Maoists have been
physically tortured, inflicting a serious psychological blow on them
besides causing them physical damage."

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote6return>]

7. See International Committee of the Red Cross Web page
http://icrc.org/eng <http://www.icrc.org/eng>

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote7return>]

8. Kathmandu Post , November 26, 2002, "Freed cops say weapons let them
down."

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote8return>]

9. Human Rights Watch report: "Clear Culpability --Disappearances by
Security Forces in Nepal" available at: hrw.org/reports/2005/nepal0205
<http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/nepal0205>

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote9return>]

10. See: "Nepal Rebels &#39;regret&#39; bus deaths, launch probe," Reuters, June
7, 2005; "Nepal: Maoists offer self criticism after bus bombing,"
AWTWNS, June 13, 2005; and Dispatches from the People&#39;s War in Nepal by
Li Onesto, the section on "Revolutionary Policies," pages 121-124.

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote10return>]

11. Indiatimes news online, February 26, 2002.

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote11return>]

12. FY 2002 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental Funding
justifications available at
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/aidindex.htm

[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote12return>]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolution Online
http://revcom.us
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:34 PM
Griswold mentions that the Maoists hold power in 73 of the 75 political districts, but is content to stay in the disinformation zones and never goes into areas under Maoist control--which constitute most of Nepal&#33;
Might as well criticize her for failing to report from insurgent-held Falluja.


She says: "The Maoists have begun to demand that every family sacrifice one person to their cause."

A reporter in Nepal for the Maoist newspaper Janadesh responded to
Griswold&#39;s charge, saying,

Note this, they cannot find anyone in Nepal, other than the Maoists themselves, to dispute Griswold&#39;s statements. Yes, in fact the Maoists do conscript people to fight for them.


Think for a moment. The guerrillas started off small and up against the
brutal coercion of a regime backed by India and the U.S. How could the
Maoists have achieved their current military and political strength
without the genuine support and participation of thousands who believe
in the goals of the revolution and on this basis are willing to go into
battle and risk their lives?

They didn&#39;t conscript people from the beginning. Didn&#39;t have to initially. The fact that they need to do so now, is a reflection of growing disillusionment with their approach, of intimidating and coercing working people rather than political mobilization. The same basic process that ultimately put an end to their comrades, Shining Path in Peru.

A thread where I gave a great many sources on Nepal. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=0&#entry1291864457) There&#39;s a bunch on every page. Including an ex-Maoists on the use of conscription by the Maoists.

[Red Heretic]

Before replying to Sevarian&#39;s Trotskyite dogma, I&#39;m going to point out that I just realized that this was posted in History, when I ment to post it in Politics. Could someone move it?

[Red Heretic]

Sevarian, going into the 80% of the country that the Maoists control and asking the peasantry what they think about what is going on is absolutely necessary if you are going to write an article about what the peasantry think about what is going on.

Cannot find anyone?&#33; Do you even believe the bullshit you spit out? Even the American media admits that the Maoists have vast support by literally millions of peasantry in the countryside. The entire concept of Protracted People&#39;s War that the Maoists are using means that you depend completely on support from the masses so that you are forced to work among them and strive for their approval. I have read literally hundreds of accounts from people peasants living in the countryside. Anyone who picks up the book "Dispatches from the People&#39;s War in Nepal" will see that what you are saying is pure reactionary bullshit.

It is absolutely contrary to the policy of the Communist Party of Nepal to conscript people. The entire idea of conscription is contrary to the principles of Protracted People&#39;s War. If they were, it is something they should be criticized on and take a self-criticism on, but they in fact, are NOT. Their Party has stated this time and time again, even though the King&#39;s censored media continues to report its lies.

[Andy Bowden]

So the BBC reports about Maoists kidnapping children from their schools are lies? I know the BBC are deeply biased, but I&#39;ve also heard this claim from organisations like AI for example.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 21 2005, 03:30 PM
So the BBC reports about Maoists kidnapping children from their schools are lies? I know the BBC are deeply biased, but I&#39;ve also heard this claim from organisations like AI for example.
They are not "kidnappings." In many cases, when the students are constantly bombarded with lies and propaganda about the revolution, the revolutionary youth in the school in collaboration with the CPNM will plan a walk out to go meet with represenatives of the CPNM to learn about what is really going on.

The BBC in the past has tried to profiteer on these events and make it appear as iff the cihldren were somehow abducted. This simply isn&#39;t the case.

[viva le revolution]

Thank you for that article&#33; giving opinions based on just one source is just brainless. People say that the BBC is unbiased, however they still fall under the Bourgeois establishment, the very establishment we are supposed to be against&#33;
Trusting this source and arguing on the basis of "facts" presented by it is extremely contradictory. Evey people&#39;s movement suffers a smear campaign.
Long Live the people&#39;s army in Nepal&#33;

[bolshevik butcher]

Good to hear some nwews from nepal. Are the maoists going to mount an assault on the major cities soon?

[communist panda]

thank you for posting that I keep reading so many bad stuff about nepal war even in my backpacking magazine i see anti revolution.

[Severian]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 22 2005, 04:14 AM
Thank you for that article&#33; giving opinions based on just one source is just brainless.
I agree. That&#39;s why I gave a great many sources in the thread I linked.

On the other hand, supporters of the Nepalese Maoists seem to rely exclusively on..one source. Maoist publications.

Everyone else compares the Nepalese Maoists to he Khmer Rouge.

[Red Heretic]

Clenched Fist, in response to your question I decided I&#39;d post an article I saw recently in A World to Win Magazine that was reposted in the RCP&#39;s newspaper:

Nepal: People&#39;s Liberation Army Carries Out Four Simultaneous Attacks

Revolution #006, June 19, 2005, posted at revcom.us

The following is an edited version of an article from A World to Win News Service.

May 23, 2005. A World to Win News Service. The Maoist-led People&#39;s Liberation Army took its offensive to a higher level in eastern Nepal with a simultaneous assault on three military barracks and a police post, inflicting serious defeats.

The news agency Nepalnews.com said on May 10, "According to latest reports, hundreds of armed insurgents opened attacks at joint security bases at Bandipur and Chorhawa and Ilaka Police Post at Mirchaiya in the district from around 10 p.m. Monday [May 9]. All three security posts are located near the East-West highway, also known as the Mahendra highway. The rebels had blocked the highway by felling trees. Security re-enforcements were, however, sent aboard night vision-equipped helicopter, reports said."

Some other Nepalese media managed to cover the news before the Royal Army could clamp down on the information. A daily newspaper reported that thousands of Maoist revolutionaries attacked three military barracks and that the fighting continued up to 6 a.m. the next day.

The Royal Army sent a gunship helicopter to attack the Maoists but the revolutionaries were able to resist its attacks. One newspaper reported there were 500 armed police at the Mirchaiya police post, 250 Royal Army personnel at the Bandipur Unified Command Outpost, 800 RNA soldiers at the Chorhawa barrack and around 1,500 were at the Dharapani military barrack. Later, under Royal Army control, the newspaper put out a different version.

The PLA quickly captured the Mirchaiya police installation and the village&#39;s National Development bank, seizing weapons and fought for many hours to capture the Bandipur military camp. Dozens of Royal Army personnel were killed.

Following the assaults, the Royal Army rampaged into villages like vultures whose nest is broken, and different forms of skirmishes broke out. According to a dispatch by the Janadesh correspondent in the Dhanusha district, the Royal Army bombed villages situated near Siwalik hill. More than 50 civilians were injured and dozens more are believed to killed.

In two villages in the Sindhuli and Udayapur districts, the Royal Army tried to encircle and destroy the Maoist forces but fell into a trap and were wiped out in the fighting. In one village, Lek Khani, about 35 RNA were killed on the spot and dozens of others are believed injured. The PLA seized half a dozen rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, along with a huge cache of other war materiel. In Jarayotar, the PLA also seized weapons, a dozen RNA soldiers were killed and a similar number were wounded. Three PLA fighters were killed in this battle. After the PLA attacks, the feudal despot Gyanendra Shah deployed thousands of Royal Army forces, including its Ranger Battalion, considered its best unit, to encircle and destroy the Maoist revolutionaries. The week-long series of mobile and positional battles, a higher level of fighting than guerrilla warfare, is said to have left the Royal Army extremely demoralized.

The Kathmandu regime continues its censorship of the media. The state of emergency has supposedly been lifted, but civil liberties are still curtailed.

A member of the leading Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Eastern Division Commander of the People&#39;s Liberation Army, Comrade Ananta, told Janadesh newspaper,

"Having launched assaults on four military camps simultaneously the PLA has fought positional warfare. We were completely successful in our plan. The Mirchaiya Unified Command barracks were captured. Bandipur was hit and partly captured. The other two, Chorhawa and Dharapani, were hit hard.

Talking talk about what the PLA achieved in these battles, Ananta went on to say:

"The biggest achievement of this fighting is that it has established the basis for positional warfare in the days to come. The success of the first plan of the strategic offensive on the eastern front has confirmed our party&#39;s analysis that the strategic offensive would focus on highways, cities and headquarters. We have learned not only mobile and positional warfare; we have also learned to fight stable positional warfare in the course of fighting.

"If you talk about the eastern command, a great achievement for the PLA is to fight an unprecedented level of positional warfare with simultaneous attacks on four military camps located on what the Royal Army considers its backbone and heart, the East-West highway. After the accomplishments of this battle, the enemy mobilized thousands of Royal Army soldiers, including its Ranger Battalion, its best contingent, to encircle and destroy us. But the PLA not only fought heroically and foiled their attempts but also inflicted serious losses on the enemy and captured heavy weapons and ammunition from them."

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolution Online
http://revcom.us
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

-------------------------------------------------------------

As for Severians comment... I&#39;m going to have to learn to stop feeding the troll.

Edit: By the way, I just wanted to say thanks for everyone support. The Nepalese need our soldarity more than ever right now as they prepare to face the threat of Indian and US imperialism.

[Severian]

I think I&#39;m about ready to start a Maoist-to-English dictionary.

"Cutting off the toes to fit the shoe": ignoring facts in favor of Trotskyite dogma.

Facts: the Truth as revealed by Mao, Avakian, whoever&#39;s pope of the MIM, etc.

Dogma: Any statement which conflicts with the Truth as revealed by, etc.

Trolling: Attempting to discuss a subject with sources, reasoning, etc. The mark of a serious poster is reliance on name-calling and unsupported assertions instead.

[Red Heretic]

Severian, you do not seek to discuss topics, but rather stalk Maoists all over the internet and try to distort facts, while reciting dogmatic lies such as accussing Maoists of being like the Khmer Rouge when Pol Pot himself called Maoists "counter-revolutionary."

Your utter pleasure in trying to shame peasantry for standing up off of their knees is reactionary. The fact that you so avidly oppose revolution makes you no better than Bush and the rest of his brigade.

Severian, I want to ask you a question. If you oppose revolutions by the masses of people, who is it that you support revolutions by?

[Severian]

That&#39;s question&#39;s like: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[maoist_revolution]

the people will be in control of Nepal very soon

[viva le revolution]

In today&#39;s day and age, the urban proletariat and the rural peasantry form equally important parts of the revolution. the third world is mixed between between cheap labour pools and pariah agrarian economies. The chinese revolution showed that the peasantry is capable of toppling regimes and carrying out revolution. Therefore the answer somewhere between Maoism and strict marxism-leninism.
All those that just criticize everything under the su8n do not realize that for all it&#39;s faults at least it&#39;s a step forward. waiting for the perfect utopian revolution is just useless and they might as well wait forever. opportunity does not knock on your door by itself, it has to be taken.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think that it is ebtter to ahve an industrilaised working class, but what are these people meant to do? Sit around and wait?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 24 2005, 11:06 AM
In today&#39;s day and age, the urban proletariat and the rural peasantry form equally important parts of the revolution. the third world is mixed between between cheap labour pools and pariah agrarian economies. The chinese revolution showed that the peasantry is capable of toppling regimes and carrying out revolution. Therefore the answer somewhere between Maoism and strict marxism-leninism.
All those that just criticize everything under the su8n do not realize that for all it&#39;s faults at least it&#39;s a step forward. waiting for the perfect utopian revolution is just useless and they might as well wait forever. opportunity does not knock on your door by itself, it has to be taken.
I think you have a great point about them forming equal parts of the revolution. I think its important for us to analyze each country, and find where the potential for revolution is in that country. In the majoirty of the third world, where oppression is the worst and revolution is most imminent, revolution obviously is going to start among the peasentry who are most oppressed, and then find itself spreading into the ranks of the industrial proletariat (if there is an industrial proletariat). It&#39;s important to understand that while Mao did do alot of work around the peasantry, he wasn&#39;t so narrow to believe that that was the way it should be done all around the world. Maoism encomposes revolutions according to the individual situation of the country. For example, the RCP sees the base for revolution in the USA being huge insurrections of the people in mass all over the country simulateously, because there is little industrial labor in this country (with most of it being outsourced) and nearly no peasantry.

[Misbach]

Thank you Comrade Makhno, for the interesting insights on Nepal..
Regardless of how much support the Nepalese Maoist actually have,
may I ask you: how democratic is "the new Maoist-Nepal" they envision ??
Can you help and post more articles on this matter ??
I am not just referring to conceptional statements, but also some factual
practises that might shed some light on the issue....

Call me naive, but the one thing that really interest me with Mao (aside from the fact that he is a fellow Asian), is that he actually tried to avoid complacency,
and authotarian-bureaucratism, with a permanent revolution.

In simpler words, comrade Makhno, are the Nepalese Maoist well prepraed
to face the inevitable corruption of any Political Power ??

Hopefully, U shall be able to answer my curiosity. :che:

[kurt]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 24 2005, 11:06 AM
In today&#39;s day and age, the urban proletariat and the rural peasantry form equally important parts of the revolution. the third world is mixed between between cheap labour pools and pariah agrarian economies. The chinese revolution showed that the peasantry is capable of toppling regimes and carrying out revolution. Therefore the answer somewhere between Maoism and strict marxism-leninism.
The chinese revolution did indeed show us that the peasantry could lead a revolution and topple an existing regime. However, it did not show us a communist revolution; it simply showed us a capitalist revolution. If anything, I think it, along with the Russian revolution should have shown you Maoists that communism won&#39;t come into effect in backward, peasant-based countries.

The material conditions in a country like Nepal simply aren&#39;t there for revolution. The proletariat is the only class that can lead a successful socialist revolution.


All those that just criticize everything under the su8n do not realize that for all it&#39;s faults at least it&#39;s a step forward. waiting for the perfect utopian revolution is just useless and they might as well wait forever. opportunity does not knock on your door by itself, it has to be taken.
Cutting corners and making compromises is exactly what leads to despotism. We don&#39;t need another pseudo-socialist state. Unfortunately, when the material conditions aren&#39;t right for socialism, compromises happen, and we end up with capitalism. Maoism isn&#39;t a form of marxism, it&#39;s simply a mess of compromises.

[kurt]

double post, sorry

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:30 PM
Sevarian, going into the 80% of the country that the Maoists control and asking the peasantry what they think about what is going on is absolutely necessary if you are going to write an article about what the peasantry think about what is going on.
You seem to have missed my point: in Iraq or Nepal, it is hard to report on anything without a head.

Committee to Protect Journalists: (http://www.cpj.org/attacks04/asia04/nepal.html)

Rural journalists remained at the greatest risk in 2004. Maoists retained control over journalists&#39; access to entire remote regions of rural Nepal. In the summer, stepped-up attacks on journalists by Maoist rebels reached their apogee with the killing of state-run Radio Nepal reporter Dekendra Raj Thapa. Amid months of violence that included abductions, assaults, and threats against journalists reporting from Maoist strongholds, rebels abducted Thapa from the midwestern Dailekh District on June 26. On August 16, a rebel commander said they had executed Thapa five days earlier for crimes against the "people&#39;s regime."

News of Thapa&#39;s murder, followed by death threats against 10 other journalists, provoked outrage among the local press. Faced with a unified reaction from a normally fractured media, Maoist leaders issued a statement to the Federation of Nepalese Journalists calling the killing a violation of central policy. Maoist spokesman Krishna Bahadur Mahara wrote that the Communist Party of Nepal respects press freedom and would investigate attacks on journalists by its personnel.

Journalists expressed skepticism that rebel cadres would follow the rhetoric of
their leaders; rebels have not accounted for several journalists missing and feared abducted or killed by Maoists. No one has yet been held responsible for Thapa&#39;s killing, or for the 2003 slaying of Gyanendra Khadka, a journalist for the state-owned news agency Rastriya Samachar Samiti who was murdered in Nepal&#39;s eastern Sindhupalchowdk District.

Illustrating the risk to journalists from both sides of the conflict was the case of Shakti Kumar Pun, a journalist for the Nepalese-language daily Rajdhani (Capital). In mid-November, Maoists in Rukum District abducted him, accusing him of involvement in the arrests of several Maoist leaders. Local journalists said that Pun was targeted for his writing about Maoist activities. On December 12, the Nepalese army seized Pun from Maoist captivity but held him for an additional month to interrogate him.

The CPJ is perhaps even more critical of the Nepali government; or at least spends more space on it. But the nature of that government is not in dispute on this board, so I didn&#39;t paste that part; and a U.S. reporter is probably at less risk from the government than from the rebels, so Griswold&#39;s decisions are understandable.

The CPN (Maoist) prevent journalists from reporting independently on its activities in the zones it controls, then complains (through its international shills, er comrades) that journalists have failed to do so. The hypocrisy is hip deep.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:41 AM
Thank you Comrade Makhno, for the interesting insights on Nepal..
Regardless of how much support the Nepalese Maoist actually have,
may I ask you: how democratic is "the new Maoist-Nepal" they envision ??
Can you help and post more articles on this matter ??
I am not just referring to conceptional statements, but also some factual
practises that might shed some light on the issue....

Call me naive, but the one thing that really interest me with Mao (aside from the fact that he is a fellow Asian), is that he actually tried to avoid complacency,
and authotarian-bureaucratism, with a permanent revolution.

In simpler words, comrade Makhno, are the Nepalese Maoist well prepraed
to face the inevitable corruption of any Political Power ??

Hopefully, U shall be able to answer my curiosity. :che:
That is a great question comrade&#33; I&#39;m really glad you&#39;ve shown interest.

Before answering your questions, I would like to link you to an absolutely wonderful documentary that shows what I&#39;m about to talk about, called Eight Glorious Years of Nepalese People&#39;s War. It can be downloaded here: http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDeta...p?TorrentID=149 (http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=149)

In answer to your question, Comrade Prachanda has not deviated, but strengthened the ideas of Mao. He has stressed such things as dissent and criticism, and People&#39;s Power. All through out Nepal Autonomous Regional People&#39;s Governments are being formed (which can be seen in the above movie I linked you to), in which the peasantry are unleashed to transform all of society.

On the topic real Democracy, and what it means to have what Prachanda calls New Democracy, I&#39;ll link you to a few really great articles by Comrade Prachanda...

"Down with Parliamentarism&#33; Long Live New Democracy&#33;": http://insof.org/collected/p_dw_parliament.html
"New Democratic Revolution and the Theory of People’s War": http://insof.org/collected/p_ndr_theory.html

These two essays are excerpts from Comrade Prachanda&#39;s book "Problems and Prospects of the Revolution in Nepal, which can be read in its entirety, here: http://www.cpnm.org/new/collected_articles/cover.htm

One of the things I strongly commend Prachanda for is his ability to carry forward Mao&#39;s struggle against revisionism. Prachanda is extremely aware of revisionism, and has made it his highest priority to form new forms of polical organs that can defend the country against revisionism in the future.

[Red Heretic]

The chinese revolution did indeed show us that the peasantry could lead a revolution and topple an existing regime. However, it did not show us a communist revolution; it simply showed us a capitalist revolution.

Communism can only come after a socialism has spread across the entire earth, when there are no longer any fundamental contradictions between nations or classes. The Chinese didn&#39;t achieve communism because the world revolution wasn&#39;t complete. There was nothing "capitalist" about it.


If anything, I think it, along with the Russian revolution should have shown you Maoists that communism won&#39;t come into effect in backward, peasant-based countries.

You do not realize it, but you are using a reactionary circle arguement. You see, as history has shown, socialism is going to arise in the most backward and exploited nations first. It is not a coincidence that Russia was the most backward country in Europe, and that China was the most backward and exploiter country in Asia. Today, it is not a coincidence that the third poorest country in the world (and the poorest country in the world that is actually inhabitable), Nepal, is having a revolution. Backward exploited conditions in the third world create the beginning of the world revolution. It is infinitely more difficult to build revolution in the first world because the first world profits from the labor of the third world.

So, because you say that revolution can&#39;t occur in the third world, you are essentially saying that the world revolution cannot start at all. It goes in circles. We can&#39;t start the revolution in the first world because the first world is profitting from the third world, but we can&#39;t start revolution in the third world because you say they aren&#39;t developed enough. Therefore, your logic runs in circles of impossibility and opposing all progress.

[viva le revolution]

I agree. The revolution will only be carried out in the third-world.

[maoist_revolution]

South america and Africa are the best places for communist revolutions

[romanm]

There is some confusion here because Makno is using "communism" and people are reading it as "socialism". It is true that COMMUNISM can only come under those conditions. The entire earth must be socialist, ruled by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The RCP=u&#036;a doesn&#39;t believe you need a 3rd world encirclement of the 1st world to have 1st world socialist revolution. They think there is an Amerikkkan proletariate right now, so they don&#39;t think there needs to be a massive encirclement and reproletarization. RCP=u&#036;a criticizes this kind of idea (falsely in my opinion) as"Lin Baioist" in the past.

I don&#39;t speak for MIM. However, they do have a 3rd world orientation. They don&#39;t think there is a 1st world proletariat. Socialist revolution in the u&#036;A is impossible without some kind of re-proletarization. The re-proletarizatiion can happen either by occupation of Amerikkka by an invading proletarian army or it will happen through an encirclement as a result of Amerikkka losing its neo-colonies. MIM refers to "RCP"=u&#036;A as "Crypto-Trotskyists".

There is a forum that uphold the 3rd world view. It is marxleninmao.proboards43.com.. We ecourage people to visit.

Also, we have a math section for anyone who thinks that there is a first world proletariat. If anyone can refute our class analysis, I ask them to educate us. I&#39;ll shut up shop tommorow if someone can show us using Marxist science where we are wrong. I&#39;m a scientist afterall.

[Red Heretic]

romanm, what k00l &#036;p311ing&#036; k0mr4d3&#33; Seriously, grow up.

What MIM does in analysis of the first world is exagerate reality to the point where reality becomes reactionary. The exagerated "reality" that MIM puts forward is harmul and counter-revolutionary.

Are there forces in the first world that are pushing against revolution, and forces in the third world pushing for revolution? Absolutely. Does that mean that it is physically impossible to have a revolution? No.

It is infinitely more difficult to build revolution in the USA, and revolution in the USA is going to need revolutions in the third world to upset the balance of the first world, but that does not mean that we should not organize for revolution now. What MIM does is basically tell all of the poor people in this country that they aren&#39;t really poor, and that is straught up counter-revolutionary. Try telling a single mother with five kids working 12 shifts that she isn&#39;t a proletarian.

What MIM does is basically say "Ok, well, according to our analysis it&#39;s going to be a long time before there is a revolution, so let&#39;s sit on our asses and wait. Don&#39;t start organizing or preparing now, let&#39;s just sit around not be productive." Not only that, but when is it going to enough for MIM? Is MIM going to say "Well, now that 6.37 countries are socialist, it&#39;s ok to start organizing for revolution." Seriously&#33; MIM&#39;s line is fucking ridiculous.

It is absolutely essential for us to build the vanguard party that will lead revolution now, so that when the opportunity for revolution arises, we will be prepared, and we will have the leadership to move forward.

The 60&#39;s should give testimony to what I am saying. There was all of that revolutionary momentum in the USA, and there was no political party here in the USA that was ready to lead it forward to revolution. So because of that, we need to build up the revolutionary party that will lead the revolution, regardless of how much revolutionary momentum there is going on at this particular moment in time. To tell poeple not to organize will just result in another lost opportunity for revolution.

[romanm]

Okay. I don&#39;t speak for MIM. I speak for IRTR. Let&#39;s make that clear.

You don&#39;t know anything about MIM&#39;s practice. You are a liar. No suprise there.

There is a standing offer on IRTR to have crypto-Trotskyists show us where we are wrong. I&#39;ll stop being a Maoist tommorow if you can show me where I am wrong in the class analysis. Again, there is an open invitation to a public debate in the Math 101 section over class analysis.

This is my last post on this subject. If you want to talk as Marxists, come to debate on IRTR in the economics section. Anyone can reply there as a guest, you don&#39;t even need to log in.

[maoist_revolution]

There is nothing wrong with Maoism

[romanm]

I agree. Viva Maoismo&#33;

[Red Heretic]

Where did I "lie." If you are going to fall back to personal attacks because you are losing a debate, you had better be able to at least back up your personal attacks.

and yes, Long live Maoism and Prachanda Path&#33;&#33; :D

[kurt]

Communism can only come after a socialism has spread across the entire earth, when there are no longer any fundamental contradictions between nations or classes.
Yes, and a bureacratic state run by a &#39;vanguard&#39; of the proletariat is not socialism.


The Chinese didn&#39;t achieve communism because the world revolution wasn&#39;t complete.
You&#39;re right, they didn&#39;t achieve communism, nor did they achieve socialism. You say that the world revolution was not complete, which is a rather obvious statement to make, but it still doesn&#39;t give backward third-world countries the material conditions for socialism.


There was nothing "capitalist" about it.
Well, I don&#39;t doubt Mao, or his intentions, and I supported the Chinese revolution as progressive, and as a necessary step towards socialism. The reason the Chinese revolution was in fact a capitalist revolution is simply due to the fact that China at the time was still in the grip of feudalism. Capitalism is a necessary step of social, and economic development, which is why the Chinese revolution was doomed to never reach socialism. There was barely any proletariat to lead a socialist revolution&#33;


You do not realize it, but you are using a reactionary circle arguement. You see, as history has shown, socialism is going to arise in the most backward and exploited nations first.
History has simply shown us that third-world revolutions under the flag of socialism are doomed to revert to capitalism. It has also shown us that leninism is faulty, at best. Socialism has never come into effect.


It is not a coincidence that Russia was the most backward country in Europe, and that China was the most backward and exploiter country in Asia. Today, it is not a coincidence that the third poorest country in the world (and the poorest country in the world that is actually inhabitable), Nepal, is having a revolution. Backward exploited conditions in the third world create the beginning of the world revolution. It is infinitely more difficult to build revolution in the first world because the first world profits from the labor of the third world.
You&#39;re right, it is necessary for third-world nations to have bourgeois revolutions, in order to rid themself of super-exploitation. Once this has happened, and the class distinctions throughout the whole world are clearly defined, socialist revolution will be possible.


So, because you say that revolution can&#39;t occur in the third world, you are essentially saying that the world revolution cannot start at all.
Don&#39;t put words in my mouth. I simply said that socialist revolutions are impossible in countries where the feudal class structure is still in place.

It goes in circles. We can&#39;t start the revolution in the first world because the first world is profitting from the third world, but we can&#39;t start revolution in the third world because you say they aren&#39;t developed enough. Therefore, your logic runs in circles of impossibility and opposing all progress.
Don&#39;t confuse my logic with your misunderstanding ;)

[Red Heretic]

comradekurt, you have given no real evidence or explanation as to why there cannot be revolutions in the third world, with the exception of the dogmatic claim that "there is hardly a proletariat" and "the material conditions aren&#39;t there."

The thing that makes socialism possible, as Marx pointed out, was what he called the proletarian class. In his analysis, the proletarian class would be industrial, and would be the result of the industrial revolution. However, Marx did not take imperialism into consideration, because it simply didn&#39;t exist in his time. Now, because of imperialism, there is what we call a third-world proletariat. It is composed of people who have "nothing to loose but their chains," just like Marx said. The only difference is that they do agricultural work instead of industrial work, but that means absolutely nothing, because the third world proletariat are still subjected to landlords and foreign imperialists. Marx did not believe that agricultural workers would ever be subject to such things on the level that they are today, because he did not predict the rise of imperialism.

There absolutely is a class that can lead a revolution in places like China and Nepal, and it is our duty as internationalists to stand in solidarity with them.

[romanm]

Actually.. the first world has less and less of a proletariat. Its industrail base has been in decline since WW2. Most industrial labor is in the 3rd world.

[Red Heretic]

That&#39;s a great point romanm, but only in the context that they mean it. There certainly are proletarians here in the USA, and many other parts of the first world, but they certainly are subject to imperialist outsourcing.

[Misbach]

Originally posted by makhno+Jun 27 2005, 04:12 AM--> (makhno &#064; Jun 27 2005, 04:12 AM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 10:41 AM
Thank you Comrade Makhno, for the interesting insights on Nepal..
Regardless of how much support the Nepalese Maoist actually have,
may I ask you: how democratic is "the new Maoist-Nepal" they envision ??
Can you help and post more articles on this matter ??
I am not just referring to conceptional statements, but also some factual
practises that might shed some light on the issue....

Call me naive, but the one thing that really interest me with Mao (aside from the fact that he is a fellow Asian), is that he actually tried to avoid complacency,
and authotarian-bureaucratism, with a permanent revolution.

In simpler words, comrade Makhno, are the Nepalese Maoist well prepraed
to face the inevitable corruption of any Political Power ??

Hopefully, U shall be able to answer my curiosity. :che:
That is a great question comrade&#33; I&#39;m really glad you&#39;ve shown interest.

Before answering your questions, I would like to link you to an absolutely wonderful documentary that shows what I&#39;m about to talk about, called Eight Glorious Years of Nepalese People&#39;s War. It can be downloaded here: http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDeta...p?TorrentID=149 (http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=149)

In answer to your question, Comrade Prachanda has not deviated, but strengthened the ideas of Mao. He has stressed such things as dissent and criticism, and People&#39;s Power. All through out Nepal Autonomous Regional People&#39;s Governments are being formed (which can be seen in the above movie I linked you to), in which the peasantry are unleashed to transform all of society.

On the topic real Democracy, and what it means to have what Prachanda calls New Democracy, I&#39;ll link you to a few really great articles by Comrade Prachanda...

"Down with Parliamentarism&#33; Long Live New Democracy&#33;": http://insof.org/collected/p_dw_parliament.html
"New Democratic Revolution and the Theory of People’s War": http://insof.org/collected/p_ndr_theory.html

These two essays are excerpts from Comrade Prachanda&#39;s book "Problems and Prospects of the Revolution in Nepal, which can be read in its entirety, here: http://www.cpnm.org/new/collected_articles/cover.htm

One of the things I strongly commend Prachanda for is his ability to carry forward Mao&#39;s struggle against revisionism. Prachanda is extremely aware of revisionism, and has made it his highest priority to form new forms of polical organs that can defend the country against revisionism in the future.[/b]
Thank you for the answers comrade Makhno &#33;&#33;

I&#39;ll be studying these writtings first, before I shall
come back with more questions and or opinions..
Mind you, as a fellow Asian, where Asia&#39;s biggest Communist
Party once existed, such issues as the peasantry revolution
have always captured my zest and interest quite a lot.

And, sadly enough, I can&#39;t actually watch the damn movie,
but I&#39;ll try later on... Thank you again &#33;

[Red Heretic]

I&#39;m glad it helped&#33;&#33;&#33; :D

How come you can&#39;t watch the movie? :(

By the way, if anyone is interested, I will mail you a free DVD copy of Eight Glorious Years of Nepalese People&#39;s War if you don&#39;t want to download it.

[riverotter]

Whew - you all are making me think hard about what happened in China. I think I&#39;ll focus my response on the stuff comradekurt posted.

China, and any other feudal country, first has to go through a democratic revolution before they can work on changing to socialism. But that doesn&#39;t make it capitalist. Sure, there were plenty of people in the country - especially in the party&#33; - who wanted to stop revolution and change the proletarian democracy to a bourgeoise one (with themselves as the new bourgeoisie) but China didn&#39;t actually become capitalist until the coup after Mao&#39;s death that ended in the arrests of the so-called "Gang of Four" and Deng as the new, bourgeois leader of the state.

In addition, part of a proletarian democratic revolution is going to have to allow some forms of capitalism to flourish - like small collective factories or farms using money to exchange goods - but even that must be planned and controlled as part of the push towards socialism. People have to keep in mind that it&#39;s not about getting rich but about going through phases towards communism.



And I agree - what&#39;s happening in Nepal is great and I wish them all the luck in the world. I hope just hope they don&#39;t get crushed - after all, the two successful socialist countries, Russia and China, were huge, had enormous resources and a large population. I&#39;m worried what will happen to the Nepalese.

Then again, Vietnam managed to beat the shit out of the US bourgeoisie... and they weren&#39;t even really communists&#33;

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:35 PM
There is some confusion here because Makno is using "communism" and people are reading it as "socialism". It is true that COMMUNISM can only come under those conditions. The entire earth must be socialist, ruled by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The RCP=u&#036;a doesn&#39;t believe you need a 3rd world encirclement of the 1st world to have 1st world socialist revolution. They think there is an Amerikkkan proletariate right now, so they don&#39;t think there needs to be a massive encirclement and reproletarization. RCP=u&#036;a criticizes this kind of idea (falsely in my opinion) as"Lin Baioist" in the past.

I don&#39;t speak for MIM. However, they do have a 3rd world orientation. They don&#39;t think there is a 1st world proletariat. Socialist revolution in the u&#036;A is impossible without some kind of re-proletarization. The re-proletarizatiion can happen either by occupation of Amerikkka by an invading proletarian army or it will happen through an encirclement as a result of Amerikkka losing its neo-colonies. MIM refers to "RCP"=u&#036;A as "Crypto-Trotskyists".

There is a forum that uphold the 3rd world view. It is marxleninmao.proboards43.com.. We ecourage people to visit.

Also, we have a math section for anyone who thinks that there is a first world proletariat. If anyone can refute our class analysis, I ask them to educate us. I&#39;ll shut up shop tommorow if someone can show us using Marxist science where we are wrong. I&#39;m a scientist afterall.
Call me crazy, but I have to ask... what is a party that says revolution cannot occur in the US doing in the US?? :blink:

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Jul 2 2005, 02:36 AM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad &#064; Jul 2 2005, 02:36 AM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 04:35 PM
There is some confusion here because Makno is using "communism" and people are reading it as "socialism". It is true that COMMUNISM can only come under those conditions. The entire earth must be socialist, ruled by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The RCP=u&#036;a doesn&#39;t believe you need a 3rd world encirclement of the 1st world to have 1st world socialist revolution. They think there is an Amerikkkan proletariate right now, so they don&#39;t think there needs to be a massive encirclement and reproletarization. RCP=u&#036;a criticizes this kind of idea (falsely in my opinion) as"Lin Baioist" in the past.

I don&#39;t speak for MIM. However, they do have a 3rd world orientation. They don&#39;t think there is a 1st world proletariat. Socialist revolution in the u&#036;A is impossible without some kind of re-proletarization. The re-proletarizatiion can happen either by occupation of Amerikkka by an invading proletarian army or it will happen through an encirclement as a result of Amerikkka losing its neo-colonies. MIM refers to "RCP"=u&#036;A as "Crypto-Trotskyists".

There is a forum that uphold the 3rd world view. It is marxleninmao.proboards43.com.. We ecourage people to visit.

Also, we have a math section for anyone who thinks that there is a first world proletariat. If anyone can refute our class analysis, I ask them to educate us. I&#39;ll shut up shop tommorow if someone can show us using Marxist science where we are wrong. I&#39;m a scientist afterall.
Call me crazy, but I have to ask... what is a party that says revolution cannot occur in the US doing in the US?? :blink: [/b]
A wonderful question&#33; :lol:

Although, I wouldn&#39;t actually consider MIM to be a party, but rather a group of ten nerds who run an immature website.