Bangladeshi Mutiny

[The Feral Underclass]

So a section of the Bangladeshi army has mutinied and executed 58 people, mostly officers and some of their family members. There have been allegations of rape, but it's unsure whether this is true or not.

It initially started when the soldiers made demands for better pay and conditions. How do we feel about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7912112.stm

[Bilan]

I saw a bit about this on the news. Although, have nothing to contribute. :p

[bcbm]

We support our troops when they shoot their officers.

[Madvillainy]

We support our troops when they shoot their officers.

Well yeah, but this does not seem to have anything to do with class but is more of a military squabble(to put it lightly). It is interesting though...

[bcbm]

Complaints about pay and conditions aren't a class issue?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, it sounds to me like a case of some armed thugs (in this case, a paramilitary border enforcement wing of the Bangladesh military) getting their feathers ruffled because they feel that their pay is inadequate. Usually I don't have much sympathy for soldiers who feel that their blood money is insufficient.

Some officers did die, but I feel that it's one of those cases where the right thing happened for the wrong reason.

[ibn Bruce]

It was a Border Patrol Unit, not part of the Army. They get none of the pay or benefits of the regular Army and in a meeting about it (realising this would not change) shot their officers and killed any who opposed them. Bangladesh is a very complex place, the army cannot simply be seen as a tool of the state, as there is no unified state in Bangladesh at all. Therefore describing such a unit as receiving 'blood money' when often people chose such outfits over starvation is a bit rich.

[Coggeh]

We support and encourage the right for soldiers to strike to defend their pay and conditions . In this case however we do not support the methods . Their counter productive to their cause .

[bcbm]

We support and encourage the right for soldiers to strike to defend their pay and conditions . In this case however we do not support the methods . Their counter productive to their cause .

Shooting officers sounds productive to me.

[rioters bloc]

Frankly, I will be extremely surprised if it turns out that the BDR mutiny was just over a pay dispute. It's still very unclear at the moment as even the Bangladeshi media are only just starting to put together the pieces, but so far there is some quite legitimate talk about the BDR being used as a tool by people in much higher places in order to instigate a political coup, which has (at least temporarily) failed. Many Bangladeshi nationals who held rallies in support of the mutiny are now realising that what they were actually supporting was not simply the BDR's right to better pay and better working conditions but something much more complex and sinister than that. As my mum said to me (of all people to quote, but I can't read Bengali properly so I am counting on her and the one satellite channel we get from Bangladesh at the moment to give me the media's run down of events) it is understandable why they would kill army officials and battle it out with them, but less so why they would take civilians hostage, kill children (pre-teen maids, so I don't know how much this is a "class" struggle) and pregnant women, using methods that the Pakistani army used against Bangladeshi civilians in the war of 171 - such as bayonetting pregnant women through the gut, bayonetting others through the mouth, setting people on fire, rape, and creating mass graves for the dead.

Not claiming to know exactly what went down and what was behind all of this, but Bangladesh is not unfamiliar with violent protest and this is NOT how it is usually done by the masses. It represents something much darker, more organised, and far more calculated, and I won't be surprised if this was instigated by another group entirely, for completely different political purposes.

[Coggeh]

Shooting officers sounds productive to me.
How so ?

How does shooting officers progress the movement ?

I'm not a pacifist but in general , when some section of society or ellitist organisation starts killing it alienates the working class and doesn't empower them but divides them .

[The Feral Underclass]

How does shooting officers progress the movement ?

Being in the Socialist Party I can understand your dislike of radical politics :ohmy:, but for revolutionaries we understand that mutineering soldiers 'liberating' themelves from their officers is a necessary move towards a successful revolution.

Not that this is the situation in Bangladesh, but let's be clear: Soldiers shooting their officers is both necessary and ultimately desirable.

[Coggeh]

Being in the Socialist Party I can understand your dislike of radical politics :ohmy:, but for revolutionaries we understand that mutineering soldiers 'liberating' themelves from their officers is a necessary move towards a successful revolution.

Not that this is the situation in Bangladesh, but let's be clear: Soldiers shooting their officers is both necessary and ultimately desirable.
So soldiers go on strike in Britain tomorrow and then start killing officers.

Thats tactically desirable ?

This is not about being "revolutionary":rolleyes: its just what works and what doesn't . Its not a morality issue with me its purely a tactical one.

[apathy maybe]

rioters bloc! Long time no see!


So soldiers go on strike in Britain tomorrow and then start killing officers.

Thats tactically desirable ?

Why are they doing it? Such a hypothetical is useless. But, TAT said, ultimately desirable, not tactically always useful. But regardless, top ranking army officers are always legitimate targets.

Oh, and I know nothing about this particular case, but anyone who thinks that we don't want to get rid of the army sounds like they might not be a real revolutionary...

[The Feral Underclass]

So soldiers go on strike in Britain tomorrow and then start killing officers.

Thats tactically desirable ?

It depends what you're tactics are trying to achieve?


This is not about being "revolutionary":rolleyes: its just what works and what doesn't . Its not a morality issue with me its purely a tactical one.

Ah, the politics of pragmatism. Why would we not support them?

[Coggeh]

It depends what you're tactics are trying to achieve?



Ah, the politics of pragmatism. Why would we not support them?
Well how about socialism for one and not the division of workers.I don't "condemn" these shooting , I just don't see them as anyway useful to not only their cause but the cause of the working class .

Workers must unite against the bourgeoisie and not succumb to individual terrorism ,that rarely provides much gains in the way of improving rights for the working class .In fact more often than not it works against that .

[Coggeh]

rioters bloc! Long time no see!



Why are they doing it? Such a hypothetical is useless. But, TAT said, ultimately desirable, not tactically always useful. But regardless, top ranking army officers are always legitimate targets.

Oh, and I know nothing about this particular case, but anyone who thinks that we don't want to get rid of the army sounds like they might not be a real revolutionary...
This has nothing to do with the status of an army , but if you apply the same logic to an average workplace where workers are demanding better pay and conditions and the bosses won't listen , they shoot them ... It sounds like the right thing but ultimately it works against their cause.

[KC]

So soldiers go on strike in Britain tomorrow and then start killing officers.

Thats tactically desirable ?

Except this isn't Britain; it is Bangladesh. The conditions are radically different. And even if you believe this to be an incorrect action, you must analyze it in the conditions in which it takes place and go from there.

Simply making a statement condemning this action is ridiculous; you can't expect people just to leap to a high level of consciousness in an instant. You praise the good and explain why the bad is bad, and what could be done better. So far you have done none of that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well how about socialism

You're not going to achieve socialism by not supporting striking soldiers who execute their officers.


for one and not the division of workers.

What would be the reasons for such a division?


I don't "condemn" these shooting , I just don't see them as anyway useful to not only their cause but the cause of the working class .

How have these shootings or the hypothetical shootings in the future harming the working class?


Workers must unite against the bourgeoisie and not succumb to individual terrorism

So you consider mutineeing soldiers an act of "individual terrorism"? In the same way the SP did when it named and shamed poll tax activists in their newspaper causing them to be arrested...


that rarely provides much gains in the way of improving rights for the working class

Ah, well, here's the difference. I'm not looking to "improve rights". I'm looking to destroy capitalism, smash the state and create a communist society.

I'm mad aren't I? :blink:


In fact more often than not it works against that

With your reformist and parliamentarian agenda of course it does.

[Forward Union]

Being in the Socialist Party I can understand your dislike of radical politics :ohmy:, but for revolutionaries we understand that mutineering soldiers 'liberating' themelves from their officers is a necessary move towards a successful revolution.

Not that this is the situation in Bangladesh, but let's be clear: Soldiers shooting their officers is both necessary and ultimately desirable.

Exactly.

Unless the officers participate in the Mutiny then they need to be removed from their position. As TAT says, the death penalty is the most effective and permanent means of doing so.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Is soilders showing a willingness to turn against and execute their officers (which lets face it is going to need to happen if a revolution is going to be successful) better then them wasting their lives in the armed forces.

Yes, yes it is.

[apathy maybe]

This has nothing to do with the status of an army , but if you apply the same logic to an average workplace where workers are demanding better pay and conditions and the bosses won't listen , they shoot them ... It sounds like the right thing but ultimately it works against their cause.

Top-ranked CEO's are always legitimate targets too...

It's like this, the workers demand something, the bosses say no, the workers get uppity and strike, the police are called in to break up the strike, someone is going to get shot, why not the bosses?

It is very unlikely that there is going to be a revolution without a bit of bloodshed.

[Coggeh]

Is soilders showing a willingness to turn against and execute their officers (which lets face it is going to need to happen if a revolution is going to be successful) better then them wasting their lives in the armed forces.

Yes, yes it is.
Thats not what I'm arguing . I'm saying their actions against their officers is not productive .

[Coggeh]

Top-ranked CEO's are always legitimate targets too...

It's like this, the workers demand something, the bosses say no, the workers get uppity and strike, the police are called in to break up the strike, someone is going to get shot, why not the bosses?

It is very unlikely that there is going to be a revolution without a bit of bloodshed.
Come on , your telling me in the event of police break up of strikes you'd tell workers to shoot the bosses ?

Its ultra-leftist and counter productive to call for such a thing , it not only harms the cause of unity of workers but also to their own cause .

[cyu]

your telling me in the event of police break up of strikes you'd tell workers to shoot the bosses
If the police are attacking employees, then the employees should defend themselves - with weapons if necessary. It's call self-defence.

If someone is actively giving orders to attack the employees, the employees should also respond appropriately to eliminate that threat.

Once the immediate threat of physical harm is gone, then it's time to investigate the chain of command - what led to the employees being attacked? If it was the bosses that ordered / begged for it, then they should be "arrested" - I wouldn't kill them though - not unless they were in the act of attacking someone.

[Coggeh]

If the police are attacking employees, then the employees should defend themselves - with weapons if necessary. It's call self-defence.

If someone is actively giving orders to attack the employees, the employees should also respond appropriately to eliminate that threat.

Once the immediate threat of physical harm is gone, then it's time to investigate the chain of command - what led to the employees being attacked? If it was the bosses that ordered / begged for it, then they should be "arrested" - I wouldn't kill them though - not unless they were in the act of attacking someone.
I agree with the self defence of workers , but in the case of the Bangladesh soldiers , this was not self defence , this was just stupidity at work .

[apathy maybe]

Come on , your telling me in the event of police break up of strikes you'd tell workers to shoot the bosses ?

Its ultra-leftist and counter productive to call for such a thing , it not only harms the cause of unity of workers but also to their own cause .

I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'll leave that up to the authoritarian scum. I'm saying that there are certain people who are always legitimate targets in this system. CEOs from large corporations are some of these legitimate targets.

(Whether your immediate boss is a legitimate target or not is something I can't tell from here, and something you would have to decide for yourself. Probably not.)

Yeah, that's pretty much it, I'm not telling anyone what to do. It's not my place, I'm not in the situation, I can't even offer more than general advice.

[Pogue]

The point is this wasn't motivated by revolution or class issues. It was just about shooting officers and family members, and possibly also raping people.