Nepal

not wanting to make an 'interesting topic' out of some pretty horrid warfare, but it will be interesting to see how this pans out in the future, especially if the maoists take over fully. it'll be the first proper 'marxist' take-over this millennium...

yup

just now the indian army may have other priorities: http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9389

latest:

:> link

As I understood it, the mainstream political parties are desperate to contain this movement cos a power vacuum in the cities would play into the hands of the Maoist-controlled countryside. Once the grassroots urban demonstrators start coordinating with the Maoists...then it's a revolutionary situation.

I would venture that if there is mass defiance of a curfew where the instructions are "shoot on sight", the country is clearly on the verge of civil war.

The police/army have only two choices in that situation - defying their orders (in which case the King is fucked) or shooting large numbers of people - in which case an armed response is quite likely, given the Maoists (and other parties?) have plenty of guns.

News so far indicates the shooting option could be happening:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4924610.stm

The question is, what will happen to the working class if the maoists take over?

Does anyone know much about GEFONT? A lot of syndicalist unions link to them, but are there leadership Maoist? Would they be capable of resisting the red bourgeoisie?

BBC:

that is hardcore.

More on guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1757026,00.html

i think it's actually quite fetching. think 'ya basta meets vietcong' 8)

i was beong serious.

i wonder how many working class there are in nepal, but perhaps that's not too important, as the definition of "oppressed person needing our liberation" would for maoists be much larger than "working class" anyway. i assume that any non-co-operation in the areas controlled by the subcontinental maoists is met with death now and will be met with "re-education" after any victory. not knowing any other maoist movement except mao's (and i'm not really up on that) i compare this situation with the shining path, who were cunts. the indian/nepalese maoist leadership appear to be closer to laboring people than the professors who led shining path, but that's no excuse.

i wonder again, for nepal, what the level of contact is between the democats and the maoists. right now they both want the kingship abolished, but beyhond that are the democrats willing to stand up to the maoists?

i learn from leftist trainspotters that the india situation is getting substantial attention only now, "late in the day" as pundits there are saying. i searched the times of india for "maoists" and got a page of hits, but for some reason i couldn't transfer the link. however, see this link from today's front page: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1498290.cms

political power coming out of the barrel of a gun, i think they'd have to swallow any non-violent pose and start shooting

maybe the US wouldn't get involved, it would rather wait to see china do the right thing. and china is too big anymore to worry about ideology, do you think? i mean they're after taiwan, and how do you justify that on marxist grounds?

heah in newyawk revolution books is stacked with pro-nepalese maoist (and pro-shining path) tracts, it's a very strange experience walking into that place, a thing i try not to do anymore. and i really do think that anarchists (for ideological reasons) and the swp (for pure turf reasons) would not only not support but actively oppose the maoists. i'd actually march.

actually, yes. they ran a full slate in the city elections last year, and didn't come in last, and since people in NY can vote for half a dozen lines if they feel like goofing off i take that turnout somewhat seriously. they're also loudly represented at the demos.

i think you're exactly right. makes ya sick, don't it?

just for discussion's sake, would the daily life of a truly poor nepalese peasant be worse under the maoists than it is now?

I know a bit about Nepal, but my info may be a bit dated - but may be useful background for those who don't know much. It's one of the poorest countries in the world, most people have never used a telephone, never mind a computer, the staple diet for most of the country is 'dhal batt' - spuds and lentils with maybe some greens - every day, for life. Terrain is a mix of southern plains, Himalayan mountains and valleys, Katmandu valley being the centre of administration, commerce and what industry there is. It is a mix of Hindu and Buddhist religions (Buddha was born in Lumbini in the south), with a rigid caste system, but I'm not aware of religion being significant in party politics, apart from the class/caste aspect. Most of the Himalayan mountain range areas are only accessible on foot, donkey or helicopter, so the State has always had a minimal presence there. Subsistence farming, seasonal work migration and tourism are the economic base of these areas. It is here that the Maoists have established themselves, in this ideal guerrilla terrain. Less than 10 years ago they were a small student-based grouping, little known in the country and always dealt with heavily by the authorities (in 1997, before guerilla activity started, 400 students were locked up for trying to attend a party conference in a remote area). Like most '3rd World' (excuse the term) guerilla groups (Mao, Zapatistas, Castro/Guevara, Shining Path etc), they have their origins in a 'cadre' of university intelligentsia but have gradually gained peasant support (I've never read anything about the nature of their relationship on the ground with the peasantry, whether they are as ruthlessly authoritarian as the Peruvian Shining Path or not?). This intelligentsia presumably sees its options stifled by lack of economic development, due to an incompetent, small and weak merchant class and a royal family/aristocracy reluctant to abandon their divine right to rule. They appear to have a typical cadre mentality; socialism = sacrifice, hierarchy, industrialisation and obedience to iconic political dogma.

Tourism has recovered alot from the initial decline after the start of the guerilla activity. In Maoist controlled areas the guerillas levy a tax on tourists - they realise this tolerant attitude is both profitable and sensible so as to maintain the support of the many poor who depend on tourism for a livelihood.

The parliamentary system was established after a quite bloody 'democracy' movement in the early 1990s, a reluctant concession from the King. As today, people defied curfews, were shot down - I heard from someone who was there they saw bodies of headless cops in the street. But it was a struggle to establish democracy, and the conceding of it stabilised things; but in those days the maoists were not part of the equation. The parliamentary set-up is a little odd; there are 2 main parties; the Congress Party, conservative and allied to the Indian Congress Party - and the Communist Party, which is, ironically(?), pro-China and pro-parliamentary democracy. The poor mainly vote for the Commies, but are quite cynical about politicians and bureaucrats in general - corruption and bribery is a fact of everyday life, and little has changed materially since the emergence of democracy.

If the Maoists seize power - and the only choices appear to be this or a major accommodation of them into the political system - it will obviously displease both their neighbours, India and China. There are many Tibetan refugees in Nepal who've escaped over the border; China would be concerned that a Maoist victory next door might encourage similar forms of struggle in Tibet or inspire a more militant independence movement. India would also be concerned that it would encourage the extension of peasant struggles there. A repressive attitude towards a Maoist Nepal might be the one thing they could agree on. It could also inspire struggle in China - though the peasants are in a quite different situation there, in a fast developing economy rather than a very stagnant one.

But the figure of 80% Maoist control of the territory is perhaps not quite as impressive as it appears. The real centre of power is the Katmandu valley, centre of government, industry and commerce. The harsh remote mountain terrain may be militarily important, but hardly economically. But the Maoists have launched brief raids into the valley, and it is there that any decisive battle will be fought. But if there is a temporary alliance between the the guerilla movement and the political opposition, the biggest loser (apart from the King) is likely to be any more radical autonomous social movement of the poor - but I've seen no evidence of one existing so far. We live in hope.