AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: The Maoists take over in Nepal
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The Maoists seem to have won a surprise victory in Nepal elections taking maybe more than 60% of seats in the parliament. See:

http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/13/top13.htm

This means that communists will rule in Nepal.

Rising food prices is much behind the victory.

So we can foresee a dramatic change in the world if this pattern is spreading to other countries which is quite probable since food price rioting take place in virtually every 3rd world country.

Thanks to the US subsidies for ethanol production (which started all this) we will get a new socialistic world...

/track_snake
Maoism and communism are fundamentally different. Communism is a collectivist leadership, Maoism the dictatorship of one leader. Note that there is a communist party in Nepal which has nothing to do with the Maoists.
quadrat Wrote:Maoism and communism are fundamentally different. Communism is a collectivist leadership, Maoism the dictatorship of one leader. Note that there is a communist party in Nepal which has nothing to do with the Maoists.
----------------------------
Yes, but even so... On the left-right scale Maoists in Nepal would be placed in the extreme left. And the same in other countries. What we will see as a result of the galloping food prices is that socialism will take over everywhere...

/track_snake
Track,

No offense,but your linking of Americans using tiny amounts of corn to enhance the feedstock of our gasoline levels to Nepalese voting for Maoist insurgents to rule their nation is downright stupid. Nepalese do NOT EAT CORN,how hard is this for you to figure out?
T_S, what is it that makes you so much smarter than everyone else?
quadrat Wrote:Maoism and communism are fundamentally different. Communism is a collectivist leadership, Maoism the dictatorship of one leader.

Yeah, sure. Stalin's communism was an exercise in collectivism, so was Tito's communism, and all the others. Not.

Just because Khrushev found it convenient to invent the term "collectivist leadership" to use against the oppositions to his personal rule it really does not mean one should take it seriously.

Generally, terminology like "collectivist leadership" arises when there is a need to suppress an opposition and better arguments are lucking. For example, on a forum, when there is a need to restrain or ban an unruly member, one common argument is "we all collectively found you a scumbag not to our liking". Back in 1955, when the term was used the first time -- I think -- Khrushev found three quarters of the ruling Mob Council running across the collective leadership of the remaining three members.

Now, more seriously:

I really wonder what the terms "Maoist" or "Trotskyist" mean today. For example, does "Maoist" simply mean that they have a photo of the dear Chairman on the wall of the main office? Or something more is involved?
John L Wrote:T_S, what is it that makes you so much smarter than everyone else?
----------------------------
Because I see this connection that Palladin does not see. That ethanol subsidies in the US was the spark to rising food prices which is the spark to food riots in many third world countries which is the spark for a change in opinion in those countries which make the leftist take over in many places. Now no. 1 is Nepal. Who is next?

/track_snake
mv Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:Maoism and communism are fundamentally different. Communism is a collectivist leadership, Maoism the dictatorship of one leader.

Yeah, sure. Stalin's communism was an exercise in collectivism, so was Tito's communism, and all the others. Not.

Just because Khrushev found it convenient to invent the term "collectivist leadership" to use against the oppositions to his personal rule it really does not mean one should take it seriously.

Generally, terminology like "collectivist leadership" arises when there is a need to suppress an opposition and better arguments are lucking. For example, on a forum, when there is a need to restrain or ban an unruly member, one common argument is "we all collectively found you a scumbag not to our liking". Back in 1955, when the term was used the first time -- I think -- Khrushev found three quarters of the ruling Mob Council running across the collective leadership of the remaining three members.

Now, more seriously:

I really wonder what the terms "Maoist" or "Trotskyist" mean today. For example, does "Maoist" simply mean that they have a photo of the dear Chairman on the wall of the main office? Or something more is involved?
---------------------
There are maoists in many Asian countries. The strongest movement is in Nepal right now were they are a majority after last elections. But also in certain provinces of India they are strong and in the Philippines they have been in action for many years; there armed wing is called the NPA (New Peoples Army) and they have waged a guerilla war for more than 30 years now attacking remote police stations and other objects.

/track_snake
Yes, I understand that we call them Maoists. I still would want to know the exact meaning of the term.
(I suspect it reflects the state of the disease before Brezhevite Russia and Deng's China interfered with the purity...)
mv Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:Maoism and communism are fundamentally different. Communism is a collectivist leadership, Maoism the dictatorship of one leader.

Yeah, sure. Stalin's communism was an exercise in collectivism, so was Tito's communism, and all the others. Not.

Just because Khrushev found it convenient to invent the term "collectivist leadership" to use against the oppositions to his personal rule it really does not mean one should take it seriously.

Generally, terminology like "collectivist leadership" arises when there is a need to suppress an opposition and better arguments are lucking. For example, on a forum, when there is a need to restrain or ban an unruly member, one common argument is "we all collectively found you a scumbag not to our liking". Back in 1955, when the term was used the first time -- I think -- Khrushev found three quarters of the ruling Mob Council running across the collective leadership of the remaining three members.

Now, more seriously:

I really wonder what the terms "Maoist" or "Trotskyist" mean today. For example, does "Maoist" simply mean that they have a photo of the dear Chairman on the wall of the main office? Or something more is involved?
You think all communist countries were the same. That's not the case. Mao's China was egalitarian with the word of Mao being the absolute law, they didn't embrace private property, and any differences between people, and incomes according to their efforts, and any material benefits for their work, and any material progress at all. We did. DDR was far closer to you than to China. We didn't trade wealth for some obscure spiritual well being, that's not what people want. The great difference to you was that we regarded certainties and securities as part of wealth, trading excessice luxury for a minority.
Q Wrote:Mao's China was egalitarian.
That's a laugh. Nice joke, Q.