Maoism in the Third World Today

[Gorth]

I don't know much about Nepalese politics other than there's like 5 different "Communist Party"-s, so that may or may not be one of their goals.

Executive summary: They had a royal family that, while not being particularly progressive, wasn't too oppressive either (all things considered). A junior member of the family then murdered them all and seized power, deciding to run the country in a completely authoritarian and abusive way. Nobody really liked the new guy.

[Humodour]

Guys, I think if you'll look at this thread objectively for a second you'll notice that this is one of LoF's more serious, thoughtful, and rational threads.

 

I hate Mao as much as anybody, but instead of knee-jerk reactionism (Maoism = murder!) this would be an appropriate place (compared to most of LoF's other threads) to actually put forth convincing arguments and cite sources.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Krezack

[Zoraptor]

I guess democracy is only a good thing when the 'right' people get elected though.

Well, that's kind of the point. If those elected have in their agenda the abolition of democracy and the outlawing of all parties...

 

I don't know much about Nepalese politics other than there's like 5 different "Communist Party"-s, so that may or may not be one of their goals.

 

Also, lof's attempt to appropriate the transition to democracy in Nepal for the CPN(M) doesn't look particularly fair and balanced.

That comment was primarily aimed at teh Kotors tacit defence of feudal totalitarianism because at least it wasn't communist, even if the communists were elected democratically as opposed to a king appointed by Vishnu or whatever the justification was.

 

The establishment of democracy and the abolition of the monarchy were part of the peace process which the Maoists could very easily have... well there wouldn't have been a peace process at all if they hadn't wanted it, and the civil war would still be going if they wanted it to. If they won the civil war then they could implement whatever system they wanted so it's not like they didn't have motivation.

 

I'm not particularly a fan of the Maoists but they do deserve credit as they could have decided to achieve their goals by carrying on fighting rather than via the ballot box- and if they'd decided to just sit back and just grow rice like good serfs then Nepal would still be a vestige of feudalism.

[Walsingham]

Guys, I think if you'll look at this thread objectively for a second you'll notice that this is one of LoF's more serious, thoughtful, and rational threads.

 

I hate Mao as much as anybody, but instead of knee-jerk reactionism (Maoism = murder!) this would be an appropriate place (compared to most of LoF's other threads) to actually put forth convincing arguments and cite sources.

 

While I applaud your spirit of generosity, I have literally a shelf of Mao's own words downstairs in my library which suggest LoF is being revisionist to say the least. Mao's revolutionary doctrine is predicated at the most basic level on undermining the status quo through violence and fear. The people must be made to doubt the authorities' ability to govern first before they will consider any alternative.

 

As I say, I need to look up the Nepalese point this weekend, when I have some proper time. But I don't see the Indian Maoists shying away from violence and thuggish intimidation.

[Humodour]

Guys, I think if you'll look at this thread objectively for a second you'll notice that this is one of LoF's more serious, thoughtful, and rational threads.

 

I hate Mao as much as anybody, but instead of knee-jerk reactionism (Maoism = murder!) this would be an appropriate place (compared to most of LoF's other threads) to actually put forth convincing arguments and cite sources.

 

While I applaud your spirit of generosity, I have literally a shelf of Mao's own words downstairs in my library which suggest LoF is being revisionist to say the least. Mao's revolutionary doctrine is predicated at the most basic level on undermining the status quo through violence and fear. The people must be made to doubt the authorities' ability to govern first before they will consider any alternative.

 

As I say, I need to look up the Nepalese point this weekend, when I have some proper time. But I don't see the Indian Maoists shying away from violence and thuggish intimidation.

 

Well...

 

itt white first worldists don't realize that Maoism is a (highly effective) revolutionary strategy and that modern Maoists don't suck off Mao about the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward any more than capitalists suck off George Washington about lynching Tories.

 

Wals, does the above post not indicate that LoF recognises modern Maoism is divorced from Mao? At least in Nepal.

 

True, the Indian Maoists are mass murderers truely fitting of the term 'Maoist'.

[Walsingham]

I don't follow you, Krez. What LoF describes as a 'highly effective revolutionary' system is a doctrine predicated on slaughtering and terrifying everyone, especially the civilian population, until the entire state collapses, at which point the revolutionaries substitute themselves as the only viable authority.

 

If, as he suggests, they simply ran for election peaceably, then failed to enact any Maoist revolutionary plans... then what EXACTLY is Maoist about them?

[lord of flies]

I don't follow you, Krez. What LoF describes as a 'highly effective revolutionary' system is a doctrine predicated on slaughtering and terrifying everyone, especially the civilian population, until the entire state collapses, at which point the revolutionaries substitute themselves as the only viable authority.

 

If, as he suggests, they simply ran for election peaceably, then failed to enact any Maoist revolutionary plans... then what EXACTLY is Maoist about them?

Hmm, no actually, that's not how Maoism works. The point of Maoism is to do two things:

a) build up strength, collect support via providing services, laws, protection, etc to the rural poor, while making promises that they can keep when they come to power (i.e. land reform)

b) attack the government (in particular police/military structures) in order to reduce its power and provoke a response. For the sort of governments that Maoists attack, the government will attack wildly and erratically because they're regressive totalitarian ****heads (e.g. Operation Romeo, Operation Kilo Sera II).

 

This produces a natural system wherein the public's opinion of the Maoist rises (they're protecting us, helping us out, etc) while their opinion of the government simultaneously drops. The focus on public support allows Maoist rebels to easily "fade into the wilderness" when police come to **** them up, and the police inevitably do what police in backwards states do, granting the Maoists renewed support.

 

Also, Krezack, please don't badmouth the Naxalites. They're just defending their ancestral homes.