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?

[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?

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 World

Well 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.

+ YouTube Video

[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.