We Can Not Agree At Maoists Violence
Kamala Sarup
I'm amazed that the Nepalese Maoist insurrectionists are able to
sustain themselves after so many years of fighting against the
Nepalese people. We can not agree, at Maoists violence and terrorism,
they must be getting to be too much for our freedom, especially since
we love democracy and non-violence. Unfortunately, Maoists could not
provide almost full peace and respect for the freedom loving Nepali
people. Maoists now seem to get along well, so socially I think nation
will get peace benefit from the change, although Maoists may initially
put up a fuss. However, when we agree to the change, then Maoists do
not have any realistic options.
If they don't feel up to caring for Nepali peace and our nation any
more, then now is the time to make the change, while Maoists are
Kathmandu already,then they won't be wanting to get back our peace and
democracy again for a long, long time.
If they started to killing again then we'll work out the transition,
which would seem to be pretty simple. With general people help on how
to do this, we get peace, right to survive so people receives good
environment to survive with security.
We suppose we would need to get a powerful people voices for handling
Nepal's affairs and dealing with our national security. We can work
out all the changes from here except for removing terrorism and
violence. We need a couple of volunteers to load up a non-violence
sentiments with security vision then, what we don't want, the killing,
violence which Maoists can take back and keep themselves. Nepali
people will pay all the peaceful live they deserve, they know that
someone will help them to make life moving arrangements. They also
know that people become respectful and wealthy only if they work hard.
In my opinion, Nepali also will defeat terrorism and violence one day.
Whether Nepali will prevail in the volatile Nepal and against radical
violent Maoists is a good question that has no immediate answers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Differences between Maoism and Democracy
For one thing, I made political and economic distinctions that people
don't recognize. The polar economic types are Maoists communism and
Democratic capitalism, ownership by individuals.Therefore, we cannot
compare Maoists communism with democracy because Maoists communist
dictatorships with capitalist democracies is different.
I also give my views on capitalism v. communism in poor countries and
its failure.
According to Karl Marx, the preacher of communism, exploitation was
the main source of wealth. He reasoned that after having first
acquired the power to govern, the ruling class exploited the masses.
In other words, the ruling class manipulated the working people to
create a product at a low wage. With added value, the final product
would then sell for a higher price. The difference in the cost of
production and the selling price is commonly known as profit, which
Marx called surplus value that labor created. He maintained that the
ruling class, by simply confiscating this surplus value created by
labor through production, not only has accumulated its wealth but also
will continue its accumulation through this process. So, his
prescription was the overthrow of the ruling class by the proletariat
or the working class, and thereby eliminating exploitation altogether.
The production would then take place based on contribution by each as
per ability and the output would be distributed based on one's need.
This was the basic theme of communism, though Marx himself was a
little vague on the fundamental workings of communism or just how to
achieve and maintain economic progress under communism.
In any case, there are conflicts and tradeoffs involved in pursuing
either the communist or capitalist system. It's obvious that fairness
wouldn't bring efficiency, and efficiency would require giving up on
fairness. Communism has failed to achieve efficiency, and capitalism
has failed to achieve fairness. Now the big question is, why did
communism's failure lead to its apparent end, but capitalism's failure
didn't lead to its destruction? Could it be because society has
regarded efficiency as more important than fairness? Opinion varies.
These questions will no doubt receive a thorough scrutiny. It may even
be too early to celebrate the demise of the communist system. How the
future of communism will evolve and whether it will be able to revive
as a viable system is very much up in the air at this point. What can
be said with certainty though is that capitalism brought communism,
and then capitalism had to change under pressure of communism. The
universal health insurance, unemployment benefits, social security for
the retired, welfare benefits for the poor and the disabled,
government regulation of industries, and workers' rights to unionize
that many industrialized countries have adopted are good examples of
the type of changes communism has brought to capitalism.
In advanced countries, such as Sweden, the government now plays such a
role that public spending makes up more than 50 per cent of total
gross domestic product. It's clear that the capitalist countries have
already embraced many features of communism.
It should be pointed out here that a kind of division of power between
the two segments of society, one private and one public, has emerged
within the capitalist system. The policy of the government is
influenced by the extent of power each segment holds. For example, the
reason why European countries provide a better safety net for people
than the United States is because the powers of public segment there
is stronger. Thus, pure communism may have died, but so did pure
capitalism. What we now have is in fact a combination of the two
systems, though the system may not be uniformly practiced everywhere",
Professor Mahfuz Chowdhury said.
