32 replies to this topic

[DannyJo]

I have been keeping abreast of how things have been going in Nepal, and have seen today on the BBC the report that China has supposedly provided 5 armoured personnel carriers to the Nepali king.

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/4105036.stm

Since Mao is still everywhere in the mainland (banknotes,posters, etc.) how does the PRC government explain to it's people why it offers support to the King's takeover and does nothing for peasants fighting for a Maoist society?

This is a topic for all to join in, but I'd particularly like to hear from those forummers who regard Mao, and his thought, as a good basis for a society.

[Klamath]

I once heard about it, there was a "mao pai" 毛派,right?
But they are no relevance with Maoism, they just hold it as a flag.

[cniht]

Since Mao is still everywhere in the mainland (banknotes,posters, etc.) how does the PRC government explain to it's people why it offers support to the King's takeover and does nothing for peasants fighting for a Maoist society?

Being a Chinese, I don't think there's any need for the government to explain its departure from a simple-minded ideology.

[Yun]

I've always been puzzled by the 'Maoist' movement in Nepal - they may be the last people left on earth who call themselves Maoists.

[DannyJo]

I've always been puzzled by the 'Maoist' movement in Nepal - they may be the last people left on earth who call themselves Maoists. 

Maoism still pops up it's head in Asia (India has a few Maoist groups) and South America- Most famous probably being the Sendero Luminoso "Shining Path" of Peru.

The one thing these people share in common is poor rural populace. When people are desperate for a way to overthrow Feudal landowning powers, they explore the world and history around them to try to find a way out. Mao's ideas of an agrarian revolution and the fact that he succeeded in gaining power thusly becomes very attractive.

The ideas of Geurilla warfare devised by the PRC during the war against Japan and KMT, also seems to fit with these peoples situations. The majority are poor agrarian workers and poor idealists fighting against a ruling clique with vast amounts of money and hardware. So "maoism" becomes a military term aswell as political.

I know people may say Mao is the past, but he still hangs over the forbidden city and adorns banknotes- Country's usually put someone or thing on a banknote which epitomises their state; UK the Queen, US Presidents, Brazil natural treasures.

So if he's on the banknotes there is still an attachment with modern China. What do those who still hold dear to Mao think about those who would use his theories to better their lives being opposed by their own Government?

Edited by DannyJo, 20 June 2005 - 10:35 AM.

[lobster]

I've always been puzzled by the 'Maoist' movement in Nepal - they may be the last people left on earth who call themselves Maoists. 

There are also the Bhutanese Maoists!

[Yun]

What do those who still hold dear to Mao think about those who would use his theories to better their lives being opposed by their own Government?

They'd probably ask the poor souls, "Haven't you heard of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the Four Represents? No? What about 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics'?"

[MING-LOYALIST]

I feel sorry for the Moaists of Nepal.
I wish they could work things out peacefully.
China should try to broker a peace deal instead of help Nepal crush these Moaists.

This is a topic for all to join in, but I'd particularly like to hear from those forummers who regard Mao, and his thought, as a good basis for a society.

China today is run by people who opposed Mao's policies and were purged by him so obvously followers of Mao's policies do not have power in China.

[DannyJo]

China today is run by people who opposed Mao's policies and were purged by him so obvously followers of Mao's policies do not have power in China.

Thank you Ming Loyalist, I also hoped China could play a part in making peace and tell the Maoists their experience of China, when it was a Maoist state.

I know the Government of China is no longer Maoist.

However the power of this man is not dead yet, he still hangs above the forbidden city(not Deng, Jiang or Hu), many of the older generation in Hebei I've chatted to still have a respect for Mao (Probably because they weren't persecuted during his reign and probably because of the very strong propaganda machine he had set up)

So do all those replying to this thread believe Maoist thought is an irrelevance for 21st century China?


Yun-"They'd probably ask the poor souls, "Haven't you heard of Deng Xiaoping Thought and the Four Represents? No? What about 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics'"

They aren't looking to build up the economy, they are looking to create a revolution against the ruling class.

Edited by DannyJo, 21 June 2005 - 11:34 AM.

[MING-LOYALIST]

I know the Government of China is no longer Maoist.

However the power of this man is not dead yet, he still hangs above the forbidden city(not Deng, Jiang or Hu), many of the older generation in Hebei I've chatted to still have a respect for Mao

Actually Mao is respect by large numbers of Chinese including the leadership, however policy wise they follow Deng Xiao Ping.

So do all those replying to this thread believe Maoist thought is an irrelevance for 21st century China?

In the future China will likely be democratic so I don't see any need for it.

[DannyJo]

In the future China will likely be democratic so I don't see any need for it.

In the future China's economic power will increase and along with this comes an increase in responsibility, not just domestically but also internationally.

China wants to play a larger role in international affairs and already it is beginning to work a "dollar diplomacy" (when this phrase turns to Yuan diplomacy, we'll know China has reached primarcy) in the areas surrounding it, supplying resources and contracts to ensure friendly relations. The list of nations benifitting from this is huge and includes the royal govt. of Nepal.

As this power grows China will have to provide an example to follow. My concern is that apart from persuading people not to recognise taiwan diplomatically and trying to encourage economic growth, China doesn't have any concrete foreign policy aims.

To the West of China there are Maoist groups operating in Nepal, Sikkim and India, and there is growing evidence of tight co-operation between the group. These people are the poor peasantry and they have picked up on the founding ideas of the PRC.

When China considers it's future now, it is not in the same position as ten years ago, it is now a global player;the issue of Maoism and its legacy is alive at it's borders aswell as domestically. And as the country that gave birth to these ideals, dismissing them as irrelevant is denying the important international attention which China has gained through it's achievements in lifting milllions out of poverty and building a top-ranking nation from a developing country with many problems. The people of the world are watching China and wondering what will be the international policies of the new giant. US hawks say China aims for war, all around we can see China aiming for economic integration, but where is China's moral policy, it's peace-keeping policy and social policy.

I hope you are right and China will become democratic, though I fear it will not and the most powerful country in the world will be authoritarian. China is no longer just a concern for the chinese but the world and Asia in particular.

[DannyJo]

Information from Asia Times concerning China's involvement in Nepal:

http://www.atimes.co...a/GC16Df01.html

"But there are wheels within wheels. To begin with, some analysts in New Delhi claim the February 1 coup by King Gyanendra had the blessings of Beijing. These analysts point to the fact that Gyanendra forced the Nepali cabinet to shut down the Tibetan cultural center affiliated to the Dalai Lama following the Christmas weekend visit to Hong Kong of King Gyanendra's son, Crown Prince Paras, and the fact that the coup itself took place after his second trip to Hong Kong in January. The same analysts cite another reason for believing King Gyanendra got some vocal support from China: namely, the king's decision to open the Lhasa-Kathmandu Road. This road had been built but never opened. New Delhi thought it had a say on this matter; but the king clearly thought otherwise.

These two "events" preceding the coup gave the impression to the US and the UK that China was meddling in Nepal's affairs. This was particularly upsetting for these two Western powers and to India as well, because the Nepali king was getting arms and weapons from all three for his army.

The UK, the US and several European countries have already expressed reservations about continued arms assistance to Nepal. This raises a possibility that the king may turn toward China. China does not seem to share the concerns of the other neighbors for a situation it deems to be Nepal's internal affair.

What troubles New Delhi even more is the response of Islamabad to the coup. Islamabad summarily dismissed the fretting of New Delhi, Washington and London by calling the coup the "internal affair" of Nepal. New Delhi cannot forget that during a visit to Kathmandu last June, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz offered to sell defense equipment to Nepal and was also ready to provide financial assistance in this regard. He said on that occasion that Pakistan was willing to offer military aid to support defense and security cooperation.

What New Delhi notes ruefully is that Pakistan never really condemned the Maoist movement within Nepal. China, by contrast, was always categorical in condemning the Nepali Maoists and supporting the royalty. Following a mid-June trip to Beijing last year, Nepali General Pyar Jung Thapa revealed to state radio and television that China would step up "security cooperation" with Nepal. This will improve Kathmandu's ability to militarily counter the anti-monarchy insurgency that started in 1996, Thapa said. In Beijing for a week, Thapa held talks with top military officials such as Defense Minister General Cao Gangchuan and General Liang Guanglie, chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army. Neither side has revealed the extent of China's military assistance to Nepal... "

"...Some time ago, it was reported that the US was threatening to raise the issue of human rights in Nepal in the United Nations and other world forums. Nepal was threatened with expulsion from the UN, the World Trade Organization, and so on. According to Indian intelligence, Nepal has approached China to veto any such threat."

Edited by DannyJo, 29 June 2005 - 05:54 AM.

[Swi]

PRC just sent over some APC's to the Nepalese government last week.

[DannyJo]

Another version on why China would support Nepal against the Maoists

http://outside.away....0109nepal_2.adp

"Modern geopolitics plays out along parallel lines. Never conquered by the British, Nepal swelters in the economic and political shadow of India, the regional superpower. Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Nepal has reluctantly turned to China. The realpolitik issue for China is Tibet. As long as Nepal clamps down on its tens of thousands of restive Tibetan exiles, Beijing supports Kathmandu, not the Maoists. "

What do people think of this? Is the Tibet seperatist factor a reason for an originally "communist" ruling party supporting an absolute monarchy based on religious divinity.

Edited by DannyJo, 05 July 2005 - 11:01 AM.

[lobster]

What do people think of this? Is the Tibet seperatist factor a reason for an originally "communist" ruling party supporting an absolute monarchy based on religious divinity.

It is no surprise. The country of freedom a.k.a. USA supports/supported absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, tyrants like Shah of Iran, dictitors like Saddam Hussein and theocracies like the Taliban. It all comes down to political benefits.