“I’m not sure what this means Zack.”

I was just making fun of the notion the author makes in the article, or the way I read it…

Leaving the Maoist army away from their former comrades is equated as “going back to society.”

BUT

Being in the Maoist army and having their politics is equated to dogma.

Just thought that made up distinction was funny.

But Mike, all I’m good for is stating the obvious.

We all know well that this isn’t true. But I do think that some people don’t undestand why a revolutionary site (like this) would post articles by reactionary forces. Some people wonder if we are agreeing with them, or accepting them as truth. (This comes up all the time — especially from people who think communists should only post and circulate articles that are communist, or that come with clear labels explaining “what to think” about the piece). So it is worth writing (some times) why a piece like this is made available.

“Schools of dogma, Mike.. DOGMA.”

I’m not sure what this means Zack. Are you saying your response is the result of being in “schools of dogma” or are you saying that the Mike response is a “school of dogma”? Or something else? I’m just not sure what it means.

The Armed Police have expanded, but nowhere near as dramatically as the YCL which is more than a match for it. Overall the military balance remains unchanged until the NA is actually democratized.

But the political balance has shifted overwhelmingly towards the Maoists.

Whether Prachanda’s estimate that 20 out of 27 million would side with them is over optimistic or not, nobody seriously doubts that their organization and mass base has now extended dramatically throughout Nepal since the peace agreement. While the forces “in being” or “real and ready” are decisive in the initial phases of an armed conflict, the latent forces that can be generated over time are decisive for the long term outcome. The PLA grew in 10 years from just one rifle. As always, a focus on the masses has been proved correct.

Schools of dogma, Mike.. DOGMA.

But i agree with TNL — the importance here is the fact that the New York Times (mouthpiece of liberal imperialism) writes about this army underscores its continued existence as a potent player in Nepali politics — and as a particular problem to those who (precisely) want to stabilize Nepali society AS IT NOW EXISTS.

You also get a sense of how the cantonments have been schools of communism — i.e. training recruits and army cadre as organizers for the revolution. Dispersing them “back into society” will precisely help destabilize that society — and deepen the possibilities of revolution. (similarly the Long March through 1930s China trained many soldiers and peasants in communist thinking and the goals of the revolution).

Because life in the country side and fighting against the monarchist army was clearly “outside of society”, right? Puuuuhlease.

And again with “coming back into society” bullshit talk:

“Even though the Maoist soldiers have remained in the cantonments for three years, the terms of the peace deal have tightly restricted access to them by United Nations caseworkers, allowing almost no opportunities to interview or counsel them. Instead, the soldiers have been subjected to regular political education sessions on Maoist dogma, something that may make their re-entry into society even harder.”

Methinks Mr. Yardley just might, just maaaay have an motive with none too subtle a bias spewing all over the place in this article, no?

Dude is fuckin’ bogaton.