DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Maoists win the election in Nepal

Nepali Maoist flags

The Maoist party - former guerrillas CPN(M) - have won a clear majority in last week's elections. But what changes will this mean for Nepal's workers and peasants?

The result so far is for the 240-seats first-past-the-post vote for the Constituent Assembly. Results for the decisive 335-seat proportional representation part of the Assembly will take longer, but the Maoists are expected to do well in this too.

The result is a big surprise that goes against most media predictions. It seems that the Maoists' organisational structure, which extends to the remoter areas, has survived largely intact since the end of their guerilla war. This network served well as an election campaigning machine, particularly in the less accessible rural areas where other parties have no presence. There were reports by other parties of Maoist intimidation of voters and rival candidates. Official election observers, including some representing the UN, were reported to be overstretched in their work, and the Election Commission overseeing the fairness of procedures ordered 106 polling centers to hold re-polling due to irregularities. Nevertheless, most observers seem willing to accept the overall result. (Many who might have otherwise challenged the result may have been put off by the Maoists' pre-election declaration that they would not accept defeat in the election; they claimed to be so sure of victory that a defeat would be evidence of their being cheated!) Even with some irregularities, the vote does appear to reflect a big shift in political allegiances among the population. Perhaps, in the world of generalised corruption that is Nepali politics, the voters decided - better the devil you don't know than the one you do.

What is the programme of the Maoists? They have been eager in recent days to reassure local capitalists, potential foreign investors and regional neighbours. Nepal being a buffer state between China and India, the world's two fastest growing economies, they hope to reap some benefits from the proximity and have been cultivating diplomatic relations for some time. They are quite explicit that they will pursue a programme of economic expansion; one can assume this will include some modest land reform and redistribution, attempted job creation and will follow the model of other Asian economies in attracting foreign investment with Economic Processing Zones where major tax concessions are available to foreign capital enticed by a plentiful supply of dirt-cheap labour.

Reading statements made in recent days by Maoist party leaders one can see new government policies in the making;

The Maoists central leadership has said that the party which has swung the country’s politics during the freshly concluded CA poll will not deviate from the “globalization and liberalization” process that was on in the world today.

Outlining the would be economic policy of the Maoists party when in power, Comrade Prachanda said that “we will not confiscate the properties of the owners contrary to what has been disseminated in order to malign the Maoist party”.

According to him, after the political revolution that has just finished, the Maoists will henceforth concentrate its entire efforts aimed at bringing about what he called “economic revolution in the country”.

Rest assured, we are in favor of the capitalist economy”, Prachanda said.

Talking on the Maoists militias, Prachanda said that they could be used as “industrial security force” time permitting.

This may mean that the troublesome bored youth of the Young Communist League (see earlier report) - demobilised Maoist guerillas at a loose end with no clear role in the post-war society - will now be deployed to maintain a militarised labour discipline to make foreign investment even more attractive.

Prachanda also had all praise for the Indian establishment for all that the Indian government did in creating an atmosphere which could bring the Maoists back to Nepal.

“I hope India will continue its support to Nepal”, Prachanda added.

Prachanda also made it clear that his government would continue its relations with China, the European Union, World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the IMF.
Telegraphnepal.com 17 Apr 08

And so all the regular 'anti-imperialist' sloganising so often heard coming from the Maoist camp is quickly airbrushed from history and disappears into the Himalayan mist.

... Dr. Bhattarai said that the “mantle of economic revolution would be handed over to the businessmen/industrialists and that we in the government would only facilitate their march towards economic revolution”.

We would like to assure everyone that once the Maoists come (into government) the investment climate will be even more favourable. There shouldn’t be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that. The rumours in the press about our intention are wrong, there are reports of capital flight, but this shouldn’t happen. And the other aspect is that once there is political stability, the investment climate will be even better. Our other agenda is economic development and for this we want to mobilise domestic resources and capital, and also welcome private foreign direct investment. The only thing we ask is to be allowed to define our national priorities.

The "domestic resources and capital" available to the Maoists to "mobilise" are the extremely cheap labour force and the natural resources, primarily potential hydro power projects with all their possible damaging ecological impact.

We want to fully assure international investors already in Nepal that we welcome them here, and we will work to make the investment climate even better than it is now. Just watch, the labour-management climate will improve in our time in office. What happened in the past two years with the unions happened during a transition phase....
Nepali Times 16 Apr 2008

This translates as - "yes, we have in the past called strikes (to further the interests of the Party rather than the workers) by Maoist-dominated unions to prevent printing and distribution of newspapers who gave us unfavourable coverage; and we have attacked and kidnapped officials of rival unions such as GEFONT and DECONT (see allegations here )- but now investing capitalists can expect as firm a hand applied to maintain discipline in the workplace and minimise disruption to profit creation. This is in the grand tradition of Bolshevik labour relations started by Lenin".

The Maoist ambition appears to be a sustained and speedy growth along the lines of China - but they will be starting from a far less favourable socio-economic base, in far less favourable conditions as a global recession begins to bite. The best that the Maoist state can probably hope for - at least in the short-term - is to be used as another out-sourcing area where cheap unskilled labour is exploited by its larger industrial neighbours. But that is quite enough to enrich the new ruling elite. And if, after a few years of discovering that the new whip hurts as much as the old whip, the Nepalese poor then become disillusioned with their Maoist masters and look like voting them out of power; we may then find the Maoists announcing that their industrial development has finally 'abolished feudalism' and completed the 'bourgeois-democratic revolution'. Therefore parliamentary democracy will have become obsolete and it will be time for the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in the form of an indefinite one-party Maoist state.

Posted By

Red Marriott
Apr 17 2008 23:40

Share

Attached files

Comments

petey
Apr 18 2008 13:05

excellent stuff ret.

Quote:
The result is a big surprise that goes against most media predictions.

i have no idea whether the vote was fair or not, but if the maoists are responsible for even half the murderation that was reported in the western press it is amazing to me that anyone at all would vote for them. on second thought, the violence was in rural areas, is that right? viz, not in urban areas where the voters are concentrated. perhaps city-dwellers didn't have the same experience of them?

Red Marriott
Apr 18 2008 13:36

I can't answer with any certainty - but suspect there may be a story of Maoist vote manipulation that will only slowly emerge. In fact 80% of the population is rural and the majority of young Party 'cadres' & ex-guerillas are rural too so the Maoist infrastructure probably swung the vote with a mixture of promises, bribery and intimidation. Their strong republicanism is also popular and those who claim to represent the most exploited always convince some.
But the the Maoists have had a strong hand - the constant threat to return to indefinite civil war if things don't go their way has scared the fragmented ruling class. Maybe they prefer to pay the price for political/economic stability with a period of Maoist govt.

Mazen Kamalmaz
Apr 18 2008 17:40

that is nice..but the big issue now to make real difference in the life of the masses..

Sean Siberio
Apr 18 2008 18:46

And the answer to that...some, but certainly not much. I've already struck the hornets nest by arguing with a bunch of Maoists on other sites (notably mikeely.wordpress.com), where they've argued against me that being good terms with foreign capitalists is not a sign of capitulation. Like China and Vietnam, the Maoists in Nepal are simply going to become BETTER managers of bourgeoisie capitalism. Certainly, the material condition of people in the country will improve, but we should have no delusions of the class orientation of the Maoists.

Edit: Also, I don't think the measuring stick for groups or people should be, as said above, "what they do for the masses". Bill Gates could distribute all of his money to the poorest in the world, that doesn't make him a communist. It may make him a populist, which is a distinctly different form, usually predicated around the idea of some figure (be it an individual or the government) handing down things in a kind of paternal way. But that is not, or shouldn't be the position, of anyone who describes themselves as a communist;workers control should be.

Steven.
Apr 18 2008 23:14
Quote:
Certainly, the material condition of people in the country will improve,

What's your evidence for that? The great conditions in Vietnam?!

OliverTwister
Apr 19 2008 01:36
Quote:
I've already struck the hornets nest by arguing with a bunch of Maoists on other sites (notably mikeely.wordpress.com), where they've argued against me that being good terms with foreign capitalists is not a sign of capitulation.

Good to hear that. Quite a few honest-minded ex-RCPers are on that site, and I know at least a few of them are open to hearing our perspective on these things.

Sean Siberio
Apr 19 2008 06:49
Quote:
What's your evidence for that? The great conditions in Vietnam?!

Touche. Maybe I was being too generous with the Maoists; in the sense that their development will "trickle" down to most; more than likely it will not, anymore than the ability to buy various things in this country (USA) is a sign of great wealth (I got a DVDplayer! Isn't capitalism great?).

Quote:
Good to hear that. Quite a few honest-minded ex-RCPers are on that site, and I know at least a few of them are open to hearing our perspective on these things.

I hope some more libcom people make the jump, if for no other reason than to buttress or make up for any flaws in my arguments (of which I am sure there are many). No matter how much Maoists and other leftists argue about anarchists being non-existent, its my fundamental belief that even WITHOUT focusing on trying to get massive numbers of people, we still win the numbers game anyways. And I should hope the movement of people onto that site to debate the issue should show that, numerically, we outdo the old left anyways.

baboon
Apr 19 2008 14:28

It's a further advance for Chinese imperialism and a blow to India, whatever the "fierce one' says. China now has Burma, Tibet and now Nepal falling into place in its imperialist machinations. Safe havens and training facilities for insurgent Indian maoists will be provided by Nepal at least. Pakistan, China's main ally, will not be unhappy, particularly at the India's discomfort at losing its close ally in the Hindu regime.
The many Tibetan refugees in the country will be open to repression. The rest of the population will at least continue to suffer under the hands of this new set of gangsters.

petey
Apr 19 2008 15:19
Quote:
In fact 80% of the population is rural and the majority of young Party 'cadres' & ex-guerillas are rural too so the Maoist infrastructure probably swung the vote with a mixture of promises, bribery and intimidation.

ah - i didn't know the percentages were like that.

Red Marriott
Apr 19 2008 15:51
Quote:
It's a further advance for Chinese imperialism and a blow to India,

Too early to say for sure - deals will probably be done with India, which is downstream from the hydro-electric potential locked in Nepal's waterways. India has long had plans to exploit this, along with the water byproducts as crop irrigation. And Indian guerilla Maoism exists only in remote regions and has done so for decades without Nepalese help. They will probably be insignificant compared to Nepal's potentially lucrative relationships with its big brother neighbours. India is an essential commercial/transport outlet for a Nepal that is landlocked and bordered in the north by the Himalayas.

OliverTwister
Apr 19 2008 18:03

Also the CPN(M) is not ideologically pro-China, they believe Deng Xiao-Ping was a revisionist, etc. Of course, I'm sure they wouldn't be any more adverse to being China's lapdog than India's but it's not definite at this point.

In fact, ideologically they believe that China should be overthrown through guerilla war just like India. Of course, they were also ideologically opposed to elections until recently.

Red Marriott
Apr 19 2008 18:22

That's right, OT, but there have been recent meetings between China and Nepal Maoists to cultivate closer relations.
Edit; As you say, their official ideological position on China as 'revisionist' is unlikely to stand in the way of closer links.

Sean Siberio
Apr 19 2008 20:08

I'm not seeing how their economic program deviates in anyway from the Four Modernizations that Deng argued for. And like that program, the idea that it will lead to better material conditions for a specific, and limited class, will be true. But the idea that is in anyway something that will lead closer to control of economic means, other than the "land to the tiller" program., is bullshit.

Red Marriott
Apr 19 2008 21:36

But China has an internal economy as big as some continents and was not starting its modernization from the same conditions at all. The situation couldn't be more different in Nepal. Its dependence on foreign investment in the midst of a global recession makes thing only harder. And there's no guarantee that any increased wealth will trickle down - e.g. Chinese coal miners are unlikely to be that appreciative of "modernisation" as they labour in conditions akin to UK miners 120 years ago.

baboon
Apr 22 2008 14:02

What the bit players do in these regional "perturbances" is not unimportant, but the main context here has to be the development of Chinese imperialism. It has explicitly stated its designs over all this region including the northeastern Indian state of Arranchal. The People's Liberation Army has always been consistent and relentless in pursuit of its territorial claims. This region has given rise to aspects of a China/Pakistan axis against the strength of the developing and militarily strenthening US/Indian alliance. This is entirely within the framework of the new world disorder of imperialism since the collapse of the relative security of the Cold War.

OliverTwister
Apr 22 2008 18:44

Right. And clearly the Nepalese state has to be in the sphere of India, or China. All that we've said is not to automatically assume that they're pro-China simply because they're Maoists. They may have links to Guerillas in India, but those groups have also talked about the necessity of guerillas in Tibet if i recall correctly.

Red Marriott
Apr 23 2008 17:04

For most of its history Nepal has been closer to India, for various reasons - linguistics, geography, accessible trade routes etc, and this may well remain so. In standard guerilla Maoist style, the Nepalese Maoists have referred to post-Gang of Four China as 'revisionist'. So the supposed shared Maoism is a total red herring, and would only now be pretended to be politically important by Nepalese and Chinese Party hacks for opportunist reasons of military strategy and/or economics. As I said 2 yrs ago;

Quote:
The Chinese government has pledged support towards the Nepalese government's move in curbing the Maoist insurgency. China terms them only as 'ultra-leftist guerrillas', and certainly not truly Maoist, unsurprisingly. It was reported last year that they sent 6 armoured personnel carriers to the King to aid his fight against the 'Maobadi' insurgents. http://libcom.org/news/article.php/nepal-maoists-protests-analysis-2006

Since then everything has changed, and the Chinese - realising the Maoists are not fading away, quite the opposite - have changed tack and courted them with several meetings and visits to Beijing. But I doubt Nepalese Maoism in power will have to choose between India or China - there are different things to be gained from the 2 relationships, and to judge the ideological factor as definitive is to give it an importance neither the Nepalese nor the Chinese have ever given it.

Quote:
The People's Liberation Army has always been consistent and relentless in pursuit of its territorial claims.

Are you seriously suggesting that, after 60 yrs, the Chinese will now invade Nepal? If so, I'd have to disagree. That would in fact be a declaration of war with India, Nepal being the buffer state. China has also, afaik, never made any territorial claim on Nepal. Applying a simplistic imperialist bloc analysis just doesn't fit with more complex realities. The border disputes with India over Arunachal are unresolved , but have cooled somewhat through diplomacy recently, and I doubt China is very interested now in another border war. But it's true there's been a big increase in military spending in south Asia on all sides in recent years.

petey
Apr 25 2008 15:55

a little something to confirm a thing ret speculated above:

Quote:
Nepal's former Maoist rebels, on the verge of becoming the country's largest political party after a historic election, said on Thursday they were committed to the peace process but would not yet renounce violence completely.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=140897

juanramon.ballista
Apr 27 2008 20:56

I think this is just another attempt from international capital to create create an homogenious leadership and try to generalize its war against the proletariat. The international capitalista class tried with Mao himself and they couldn't move the world's proletariat to follow through. They did the same with Saddam and Castro, and now they're trying with Hugo Chavez but the revolutionary resistance of the proletariat has been an obstacle to their military plans. The SouthCom still exercises its power over all military structures of the region and it will continue that way until a comunist revolution puts an end to it. So for me is not a surprise that as a result of a reformist line the maoists in Nepal, negating the historical, theoretical and organic ruptures in the internationalist communist movement, today achieve capital's administration: its all business as usual!!!

baboon
Apr 28 2008 11:08

Where Ret did I suggest, seriously or otherwise, that China was about to invade Nepal? I did not at all. What I said was that the PLA was determined in its territorial claims and pursued them to the hilt, eg, Taiwan. It has a territorial claim on the northeastern Indian province of Arunachal. This is a leftover from the 1962 war between China and India. The new "great leader" in Nepal called, during the election campaign, for all agreements with India to be repudiated. He also supported Chinese repression in Tibet.
Chinese imperialism is not only spending more on arms, it is expanding into space and expanding across Asia (up to the Persian Gulf in fact).
This is not a "simple bloc analysis" as you put it, but an analysis that helps to explain the difficult inter-relations of imperialist rivalries today.
It won't be the locals, nor any particular "ideology" that decides what happens next in Nepal, but the administrations of New Delhi and Washington and the PLA.

Red Marriott
Apr 28 2008 21:31
baboon wrote:
Where Ret did I suggest, seriously or otherwise, that China was about to invade Nepal? I did not at all. What I said was that the PLA was determined in its territorial claims and pursued them to the hilt, eg, Taiwan.

I asked if that was what you were suggesting.

Quote:
The People's Liberation Army has always been consistent and relentless in pursuit of its territorial claims.

"Relentless" implies going all the way. Now in your latest post you say;

Quote:
What I said was that the PLA was determined in its territorial claims and pursued them to the hilt, eg, Taiwan.

No, not "to the hilt" - as they haven't invaded and occupied. Tone down your excitable language for accuracy's sake.

Quote:
This is not a "simple bloc analysis" as you put it, but an analysis that helps to explain the difficult inter-relations of imperialist rivalries today.

You don't actually explain much at all. Your 1st post appeared, to me and to Oliver, to imply that because both the Nepal guerillas and the Chinese state call themselves 'Maoists' there was a natural alliance between them. Which would be an uninformed assumption - if a closer alliance is developed it will be based on something more concrete. You offered no other evidence for the claim that China had "Nepal falling into place in its imperialist machinations".

The actual Maoist post-election statements, afaik, say that agreements with India will be renegotiated, not abandoned with nothing to replace them. This is a bravado nationalistic gesture, IMO, playing to historic popular resentments in Nepal against its overbearing big brother neighbour. The same statements were made by the other non-Maoist Nepalese CP (UML) in 2005 when in power (see here), so are no shocking break with traditional Nepali leftist/nationalist posturing. The support for repression in Tibet is not such a change of Nepalese policy either - in recent years Nepal has, at Chinese request, returned some Tibetan refugees.

Nepal is crucially dependent on its southern border with India as the country's trading frontier. The Madhesi ethnic rebels on the southern plains mounted a short blockade in Feb 2008 and paralysed supplies to the capital Kathmandu. The Maoists did the same several times during the guerilla war. And India squeezed Nepal nearly dry with their 18 month blockade in the 1980s; this was in retaliation for Nepal buying some arms from China. So Nepal is necessarily dependent on India and its sea ports, and there is no good reason nor any advantage, afaics, to provoke any similar situation now. Particularly at a time when their main aim is to attract foreign investment.

Quote:
It won't be the locals, nor any particular "ideology" that decides what happens next in Nepal, but the administrations of New Delhi and Washington and the PLA.

The Maoist Party have been strategically patient and smart enough to gradually achieve all their goals so far and set their own agenda within the limits of the situation, so they are certainly not just simple pawns of greater imperialist powers. As I said, a simplistic 'bloc' analylis applied to every different situation reveals little.

baboon
May 6 2008 16:01

Ret,
relentless doesn't imply "going all the way", it implies relentless - look it up.

The Vancouver Sun, 2.5.8, reports western journalists who made their way into Nepal seeing Chinese security forces in civilian clothes operating in the country. The report goes on to say that "Chinese interest in Nepal has accelerated rapidly" since the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule on march 14.
The Times, 30.4.8, says that an internal report to the Indian government says that it should talk to its Maoist rebels "whose influence has spread to half the country" (from the borders of Nepal to the Arabian Sea). Prime Minister Singh last year described the maoist rebels as "the single biggest security threat"
According to the South Asian Terrorism Portal, based in India, the Naxalite maoists have 40,ooo permantly armed cadres and 100,000 militia members. The group is active in 16 of India's 28 states.
The Indian Border Security Forces have recently expressed concern over the cooperation between Napalese maoists and the Naxalites.

It is not a "simple bloc analysis" at all, but quite a complex one. It has far more substance than your "analysis" that "impies" that the Nepalese maoists are on a par with Chinese (or even Indian) imperialism. it seems to me patently obvious that they are not and will just be pawns in a greater game..

Red Marriott
May 6 2008 23:30
baboon wrote:
relentless doesn't imply "going all the way", it implies relentless - look it up.

No, you're quite wrong - you look things up to get a word's dictionary definition - you determine what is implied by how and in what context the word is used.

If I could be bothered (ie, if your comments were worthy of it) I could cite alternate Asian sources that give a different view of the strength of Indian Maoism. Some of your quotes are likely to originate with a section of state security forces playing up the Maoist threat to attract/justify greater funding for their sector, so they can cream off cash for themselves. I already gave an example of this in an earlier article. http://libcom.org/news/maoism-south-asia-republican-nepal-indian-naxalites-25122007

The Times article you quote confirms that, as I said, Indian Maoists are militarily active only in dense remote forest areas (what is described as also being 'active in other areas' could mean as little as a small campaigning presence). They have been a fluctuating presence in remote rural areas since 1967 without developing much beyond that; I don't see why you join in with the occasional bourgeois hysteria that, because of a parliamentary election result, 'the Maoists are threatening to conquer Asia'. After over 40 years, have they achieved that much? But, as usual, you use bourgeois press reports totally uncritically when it helps your preconceived notions.

As for greater links between Indian & Nepal Maoists, there's evidence for and against that, probably reflecting conflicting opinions on the ground. An Indian Maoist is not impressed with Nepalese electoralism:
" a Ranchi-based Maoist supporter, says with a mix of anger and contempt, “We will never forget the betrayal by the Nepali Maoist. We had really thought that Nepal would be a success. And to top it off, they tell us to learn a lesson and give up arms!” "

It's been clear since you entered this discussion - with a simplistic assumption that there is a natural affinity between Nepal and China because they both call themselves 'Maoist' - that you knew next to nothing about the Nepal Maoist situation, but you just jumped in with the standard ICC analysis; projecting it on to every situation, whether it's appropriate or not. I've already explained my position about the likely relationships between Nepal and its neighbours, none of which is refuted by your comments and speculation. I'm happy to change my opinion or be shown to be wrong by more informed analysis. But the ICC dogma is unlikely to provide that. On the one hand you're pointing to the supposed great significance that Prachanda & co are part of a growing massive Maoist corridor straddling the Indian-Nepal border - then you're saying they are mere pawns of greater imperialists; make your mind up.

It is hard to be certain about what is going on on the ground on the other side of the world - so spouting such certainties as you do, so quickly on such flimsy evidence, is not convincing. Your claims of a closer relationship between Nepal & China at the expense of India are one obvious possibility out of many, but you've done nothing to prove it - you've only prematurely asserted it with little evidence (yes, post-election the Nepalese have met with all significant foreign powers, China included) and ignored any evidence to the contrary. It is a possibility, but I suspect the gradually emerging reality will be more complex, with shifting alliances and priorities. As I said earlier, the present absolute dependence of Nepal on its southern border with India for movement of most supplies in and out of the country is a defining fact, one you haven't even dealt with. The situation is further complicated by calls for independence in the southern Terai plains region along that border. That situation alone, with India's inevitable involvement, makes things more complex than your comments suggest.

Quote:
It is not a "simple bloc analysis" at all, but quite a complex one. It has far more substance than your "analysis" that "impies" that the Nepalese maoists are on a par with Chinese (or even Indian) imperialism.

Anyone who can read (except you, obviously) can look back at my posts and see I never said anything close to the words you are trying to put in my mouth. I actually said "they are certainly not just simple pawns of greater imperialist powers". Obviously such a notion is either too subtle for your simplistic 'analysis' to grasp or you deliberately misrepresent me. Your 'analysis' is not even based on an ability - or sufficient care - to show an understanding of other people's statements. You have a long and documented history on the libcom forums of this distortion of others' arguments - this is more of the same. Bothering to reply at such length flatters your stupidity.

skeletor
Jun 2 2008 17:06

This blog posting seems to be a little dated but it is interesting nonetheless. The people on this site especially ret, and newyraka who make the voter fraud and intimidation claim are fueled by the same false assumptions the bourgeois press and other pig agents have been making about the elections all along. Not only is it extremely unoriginal, but is typical of the uninformed jargon that fuels bias and ignorance about the plight of the international proletariat and her struggle.
The Nepalese Maoists did indeed win a majority in the Constituent Assembly, Jimmy Carter and his team of liberal rubes even conceded this. This was not done without any basis being laid for their popularity. Not only have they been leading 10 years of successful People's War in the country side, they have periodically called off the guerilla war to strategically build bases of support in Katmandu. Given that around 90% of the country's nearly 350 million population live in the country side, it would make sense to set up base areas in the countryside, however they also gave priority to support from the petit bourgeoisie and intellectuals in the city.
I think grasping the fact that the Maoists not only spoke to the awful conditions of the Dalits (untouchables) along with the many other oppressed minorities, and the women in Nepal, but that they actually changed these conditions by setting up red political power in the countryside through peoples court's, agriculural collectives, abolishing arranged marriages and patriarchy. CPN (M) controlled nearly 85% of the countryside before they entered negotiations concerning the constituent assembly (CA). This was strategic... the majority of Nepalese people had seen that they not only had a program, but were carrying it out. It is shocking how little actual factual accounts of the Nepalese people is referenced or even questioned on this blog. The only thing that approaches it is a dubious quote by an Indian Naxalite Maoist about feeling abandoned and betrayed by the Nepalese Maoists. For the record the debate going on between the Indian and Nepalese Maoists is heated because they have some serious line disagreements. The Indian Maoists have been fighting a guerilla war since 1968 and are mostly isolated in backwards tribal areas. They actually told the Nepalese Maoists before the launching of the 1996 people's war that base areas were impossible to form. However the Nepalese Maoists did form base areas and from there have been waging a steady campaign towards seizing state power. So yes, maybe they do feel a little left behind...
The other thing that is not grasped on this site, or not seemingly grasped because of the shock people have over the CPN(M) proclamation of working with the national borgeoisie, is that of New Democratic Revolution. This is the CPN(M) program! ... that is to say NDR is in line with Mao's theory on agrarian revolution through protracted people's war. The infrastructure in Nepal is non-existent i.e no roads, water pumps, telephone poles etc... in the majority of the country. The aim of NDR is to overthrow the backwards production relations of Nepal by smashing feudalism and semi-feudalism in the countryside so as to free up the proletariat and help build up Nepal's infrastructure. While doing this you are also raising political consciousness of the people and unleashing them to solve their own problems. A perfect example of this in the agricultural sector, 99% of the investment in agriculture goes into human, animal, and labor power. Yet Nepal has fertile land, the greatest water resources in the world and a temperate climate. The aim is to change this by giving "land to the tiller" by abolishing landlords and usurers, and giving more to the peasants in the way of fertilizers, irrigation, and machine technology. This way, less people are enslaved by backwards agricultural practices and have extra time to read, study, etc etc.. This is not some fantasy for the future, these things are actually happening as we speak. These goals of overturning the backwards production relations have historically been the task of the national bourgeoisie, however NDR aims to carry out this task under the leadership of the vanguard revolutionary party of the people, the CPN(M).
I think if anyone on this site were to actually look at the concrete conditions inside Nepal, and look at how the CPN(M) is actually solving many of the people's problems, a different picture emerges. I would like to continue this debate without mocking or arrogance (which seems to be the tone of this site....too bad) So feel free to comment and respond. email is childrenofindustry@yahoo.com or just post on this site

petey
Jun 2 2008 20:24
Quote:
I would like to continue this debate without mocking or arrogance

well you could start by deleting your own post.

just a few points tho':

Quote:
Not only have they been leading 10 years of successful People's War in the country side

"People's War", capitals and all?
is it successful because they got into government?
remember, when you use words like "leading", that this is a libertarian site

Quote:
they actually changed these conditions by setting up red political power in the countryside through peoples court's, agriculural collectives, abolishing arranged marriages and patriarchy.

really? patriarchy has been abolished in rural nepal? wow.
was all that (particularly the collectivization of agriculture) done with the co-operation of those affected?

i could go on.

skeletor
Jun 3 2008 00:45

Admin - repetitive, boring, predictable pro-maoist 3rd worldist rant deleted. You've made your point sufficiently in earlier posts. Enough.

skeletor
Jun 3 2008 00:43
Quote:
i have no idea whether the vote was fair or not, but if the maoists are responsible for even half the murderation that was reported in the western press it is amazing to me that anyone at all would vote for them.

LOL ...need I even say anything

the fact that noone called out this idiotic post is actually quite telling of the level of political discourse on this site.

p.s what the hell is murderation?

People voted for them because the people they "murderated" were Royal Nepalese Armys soldiers who had such a despicable record with Human Rights Watch that when the U.S. began funding them it was actually a low level scandal in the Bourgeoisie press. Because the peasants in Nepal are also not passive subjects who watched the events unfold before them mesmerized or as you intimate, cowering in fear. They were participating in the people's war, so its obvious why they voted like they did.

skeletor
Jun 4 2008 00:27

Thanks for the delete big brother.... as if everything up to that was not repetitive B.S. Thought maybe I'd inject some facts in to the speculation and "anarchist" anger over leaders fighting to better people's condition.

Quote:
pro-maoist 3rd worldist

Third worldist... I'll ask about that at my local anarchist bike collective. Keep up the good work of dumpster diving against capitalism.

Does this post get deleted too, how authoriatarian , Stalin would be proud!

Red Marriott
Jun 4 2008 18:27

So you're saying Stalin was authoritarian - and you're correct. Well, Mao was a loyal Stalinist, that's why the Maoists you slavishly adore have often had Stalin on their logos (alongside Mao, Lenin, Marx, Engels); so you should be proud too. The irony - a Maoist whining about authoritarianism.

naima
Jun 4 2008 22:58

Mao was not a loyal stalinist in the later part of his life. a good resource on this is (a non-Maoist) Lee Feigon, his brief book "Mao": A Reinterpretation" attempts to look at Mao's life and leadership in the CCP (and its development) without partisanship. Why must one have slavish adoration towards Maoists? Is it not possible to support something while also maintaining a critical stance? I would agree that most Maoist parties in the US and elsewhere have a rather dogmatic approach to the history of both the soviet union and china, though especially stalin, where they have traditionally been unquestioningly affirming- in the same ways that most other leftist trends whether, trotskiest or anarchist or liberal democrat, etc. unquestioningly deny any sort of positive achievements or anything good came out of these experiences or that we could possibly learn anything from them except that they were a horror and that anyone who ever tries to do anything like what they set out to is a totalitarian and it will inevitably lead to disaster.

But how are we going to get out of this shit hole, all of us with our brothers and sisters across the world? I believe it is important to take these attempts as more than misguided or wrong, especially without knowing much about what's going on there. Can we not take another look at all this experience of history and the present attempts to transform all of society.

Why delete actual facts that back the claims of achievements that you mock? We should have all the information possible to us in order to make an informed decision. We shouldn't be afraid of the counter-opinion.