|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The communists in Nepal are working against a backward monarchy and semi-feudalism. Other, non-communist Nepalese in favor of Jiang Zemin and Deng Xiaoping in China may receive quite a few votes in elections, but they do not effectively bring about the end of monarchy or semi-feudalism in Nepal. There are numerous global organizations that oppose the revolution in Nepal just as the "Communist Party" of China does. Many of these organizations oppose all armed struggle in the world today despite calling themselves "Marxist."
The most proper definition of "terrorism" is the killing of civilians to spread fear with the purpose of achieving a political goal. "Terrorism" should not refer to attacks on police or military forces and "People's War" is targeted at police and military forces, not the general civilian population; hence, "People's War" should not be counted as "terrorism." In a Maoist "People's War," whether it is in Peru, Nepal, the Philippines or anywhere else, the use of force does not have the design to produce fear and hence a change of policy. Rather the strategy of "People's War" is to wear down an imperialist invader or overthrow a regime that is opposed to the toiling workers and peasants. Quite the contrary to producing fear, a People's War only succeeds if it garners popular support, not fear, because the governments People's Wars oppose historically--in China, Peru, the Philippines etc.--all have technologically superior weapons and financial backing from U.$. imperialism.
Without popular support, the People's War would have a severe disadvantage against any invader or lackey regime of imperialism. In the sense that all active military organizations kill civilians, whether it is Zionists killing Palestinian civilians or Amerikkkans bombing Afghans to death -- pacifist-anarchists refer to all organized killing as "terrorism." In this sense, it is only the "pacifist-anarchist" who has any right to be calling People's War "terrorist," simply because the pacifist-anarchist condemns all organized violence as "terrorism." We laugh in the faces of Attorney General Ashcroft and President George W. Bush when they accuse Maoists of having a "philosophy of violence." Ashcroft and Bush also have "philosophies of violence" as proved by their actual use of violence. It is ridiculous for them to be attacking Mumia Abu-Jamal for a "philosophy of violence" or any other country such as Iraq for having "weapons of mass destruction." Clearly Bush has a "philosophy of violence" and "weapons of mass destruction" too. Yet, MIM finds that some U.$. prison censors for example, do not allow MIM Notes into prisons while they do let Bush and his supporters send material into prison--and the reason the prison censors give is MIM's "philosophy of violence." MIM's reply to the pacifist-anarchists is that they fail to accomplish their goals anywhere in the world and hence pacifist-anarchism is a de facto ideology of the status quo of capitalist violence. That is another way of saying that action speaks louder than words. It is not enough to speak against violence consistently: one must come up with a practice that reduces violence, and the approach most successful in reducing overall violence in a highly imperfect world is Maoism. As for those like Bush and Jiang Zemin who carry out violence and justify it, we find it hypocritical for them to be attacking Maoists as "terrorists."
Note:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200112/08/eng200
11208_86202.shtml