On 4/26/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Hoover mentions "mao's theory of guerrilla war" and "mao's
> adaptation of marxism-leninism to needs of over-whelmingly
> agricultural and still traditional society."
>
> I'm sure these two points made sense to Nepal's Maoists, but, then
> again, no left-wing political movement that neglects the countryside
> in a country whose population is more than 80% would get anywhere.
> So, I'd think that Nepal's Maoists' doings have largely been dictated
> by the country's real social, political, and economic conditions as
> well as their own political fortunes, rather than any particular ism
> at the level of ideas.
>
> Really, I don't understand folks getting stuck on the question of mere
> names in countries like Nepal. The main parliamentary Communist Party
> there is called CPN-UML, UML being "Unified Marxist-Leninist." What's
> in that name? Why should anyone care? :-|
>
> At least, the Financial Times that Travis posted here doesn't give a
> damn about names and ideologies and goes right to the heart of
> questions: political economy.
>
> --
> Yoshie
> <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
> <http://mrzine.org>
> <http://monthlyreview.org/>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles