Kamala Sarup: We Can Not Agree At Maoists Violence

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.

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.

Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury stated that "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", he said.

Nepali journalist, Kamala Sarup is an editor of peacejournalism.com. She has also been invited as a speaker at a number of peace and women conferences. She is specialising in in-depth reporting and writing on Peace Resolutions, Anti war, Women, Terrorism, Democracy, Development, Politics and HIV/AIDS. Some of her publications are: Women's Empowerment (Booklet). Prevention of trafficking in women for prostitution through media, (Book) Efforts to Prevent Trafficking in Women & Girls - A Pre-Study for Media Activism. Ms. Kamala Sarup has been nominated as Universal Peace Ambassador [2006] in the framework of the Universal Peace Ambassadors Circle, Geneva Switzerland.

© Scoop Media