I'll just reply mechanically point after point:
Kam wrote:From what I comprehend, the Maoists in Nepal have not yet come into power and are still struggling with the monarchy. Am I correct? If this is so, the revolution is still a peasant revolution.
Well, there's no such thing as communist revolution. What we can agree is there are communist lead revolutions. The stage of the revolutionary process in such underdeveloped, semi-feudal, semi-colonial country as Nepal, is inevitably national-democratic (or New Democratic Revolution, as the Maoists coin it) irrespective of which political party is leading it. The stage of the revolution is dictated by objective factors, not voluntarily.
If the Maoists come in power, I doubt it'll continue to stay that way.
I could say the same about any past anarchist revolutionary movement, none of which has been even close attaining power on a national level.
As for Cuba, the other Communist movement that I know, it is a bourgeoisie revolution, which even many Commie's concede to say.
Cuba is not a communist movement, nor is it a revolution. Many Marxist-Leninists indeed do argue that the Cuban revolution stagnated on the national-democratic stage, not proceeding on socialism. But it's nevertheless lead by declared communists, and we're not arguing here who's a real communist or a real anarchist.
Would you consider yourself as being part of the group that comprehends what Marx and Engels proposed a communist society should look like.
I didn't consider myself a communist before joining communist organisations. Opinions alone don't make one a communist.
"Most "communist" organizations have sold out and are now reformist or, in the case of ruling parties in China, etc., "revisionist." If you exclude those and count only genuinely *revolutionary* movements anarchism is more popular.
If we're to include only those communist parties which are genuinely and consistently revolutionary, then we should do the same with anarchists. Actually about 2/3 of declared anarchists I've have met turned out to be reformists. But this is highly subjective and it would be impractical for us to enter such debate on each and every organisation.
This is especially the case if you count people who act & organize in an anarchistic manner but don't explicity call themselves anarchists, like much of the landless movement in Brazil.
That is just too vague. We're talking about communist/anarchist popularity, not how much this or that movement resembles their methods.
But as I said, this isn't the real world.. It's apparent that this forum needs an anarchist section.