Once 1989 had passed, the West assumed that communism had lost its power and would trouble vast areas of the globe. Its effects were confined to a few reactionary holdouts such as Cuba or Corin Redgrave and within a few years Soviet symbols had moved from shock to chic. Even the last of the totalitarian movements, the Sendero Luminoso of Peru, had been smashed.
Yet, despite this process of forgetting, it appears that the twenty-first century may witness self-styled revolutionary movements establishing dictatorships of the proletariat and peasants. The most vulnerable country is Nepal and it is disheartening to read of peasants rising up against their communist oppressors.
However, the Maoists have also received several setbacks in recent weeks. People living in 12 village development committee areas in the Dullu region – a heavily Maoist affected villages 600 kilometers west of capital – revolted against the rebels. The uprising began after the Maoists started forcibly recruiting full-time cadres. More than 20,000 people spontaneously organized a rally in the areas denouncing Maoist atrocities.
The Nepalese Maoists, masking their plans behind a demand for a constituent assembly, pose as would-be democrats whilst terrorising the areas of the country that they control. Recalling the fate of the Socialist Revolutionaries in 1918, one would hold out little hope of a Nepalese ‘Constituent Assembly’ holding power.
Yet even graver is the rapid spread of the Maoist ‘Naxalite’ insurgency in India which has spread to nearly half of the country under the apathetic eyes of the government. These Maoists are linked to the Nepalese party and, by employing the same tactics, hope to enjoy similar success. This increase in political risk threatens the future of India since investment shies away from countries threatened by war or terrorism.
…demonstrating yet again that the easy, surefire way to end up with a socialist insurgency on your hands is to run an undemocratic and corrupt government. There’s just not much to choose between the current Nepalese system (authoritarian monarch presiding over neutered “democracy”) with what the rebels have on offer (authoritarian committees presiding over neutered “democracy”).
With corruption and misrule come revolutionaries; the blood is a second-order effect.
Prosperous middle class w/hope for the bottom, it’s worked for 225++ years.
Forms of totalitarianism is America’s battle as long there is an America.
But we’re slowly sinking into the mindset.
Once 1989 had passed, the West assumed that communism had lost its power and would trouble vast areas of the globe.
Huh?
…it is disheartening to read of peasants rising up against their communist oppressors.
Huh?
Grant.
The difference is that the decrepit Monarchy does not have as its stated aim the destruction of a section of society and the death of those who oppose it.
This is a new Cambodia and if we sit and watch and do nothing we are as guilty as the world was then.
To think that thousands of that sad kingdom’s finest fighting men are serving our Queen, chasing off to Iraq, Ivory Coast and Timor and yet we do precious little to help their own kingdom.
Shame on us.
>> it is disheartening to read of peasants rising up against their communist oppressors.
WTH? That’s EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT. These peasants are clearly ready for more liberty, and are engaging in decentralized resistance in order to get it.
If the locals in Iraq were engaging in large-scale decentralized resistance against Baathist remnants, Zarqawi, and other assholes, our troubles there would soon be over. Unfortunately, the tendency of States (and the USG is no exception), is to engage in moronic “counter-terror” and “counter-insurgency” operations that piss off the locals, encouraging them to ally with scumbags.
The key to victory against the Commies, Islamofascists, etc. is the existence of an accountable military force that the local population will rat out the obnoxious assholes to. For this to happen the locals must like and trust that military force — which usually means that the military force must be likeable and trustworthy. In Nepal it seems like that military force is THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.
I suspect that the Nepalese government is too feeble to effectively engage in US and Soviet style counterinsurgency, with the attendant indiscriminate bombing, torture, etc. This has hindered the ability of the Commies to effectively mobilize the support of the population. The Commies are viewed as the source of the press gangs, not glorious liberators from “capitalist” oppression.
I think his point was that the fact that people still need to be rising up against new communist rulers is depressing.
I live in a student co-op in Berkeley. There’s a guy here who likes people to call him “Mao,” and he went to Nepal recently to participate or something in the communist revolt. Gods, what a stupid, evil moron.
Hey, as long as Communism is espoused by the likes of Ed Asner, Noam Chomsky and Martin Sheen, it will never die in the hearts of the oppressed peoples of uhhhh Santa Monica.
The one thing in favour of the Maoists is that the monarchy had fallen to an all time low in the poeple’s esteem. The one thing against them is that they are trying to resurrect a form of government that could only sweep the problems under the carpet and pretend everything is fine. Do not assume that people will sell away their freedom to feed their stomach. The average Nepali may not understand the arguments of Marx or Popper, but he would never like to be told what to believe and how to live, two things a communist government cannot do without. And no, thanks, he is not expecting any help from the British or the Americans.