What is the stance of anarchists in Nepal?

[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 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.

[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 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.

(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.co...-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 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.

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 oppression

Class-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)