Thai govt massacres Red Shirts

[Saorsa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8612783.stm

Bangkok clashes death toll climbs to 18, with 800 hurt


Bangkok death toll climbs to 18

At least 18 people are now known to have died in clashes between Thai troops and opposition supporters in Bangkok, and more than 800 were hurt.

The worst violence came when soldiers and police made an unsuccessful attempt to retake an area held by opposition supporters on Saturday evening.

They fired tear gas and rubber bullets while protesters hurled petrol bombs, in the deadliest violence in 18 years.

At the height of the confrontation, live rounds were reportedly fired.
The army then called for a truce, saying its troops were pulling back. At least four soldiers were among the dead.

The army were firing live rounds on civilians. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself
Paul, British teacher

Eyewitness: 'Shot in the chest'

Hundreds of red-shirted opposition supporters also reportedly forced their way into government offices in the northern cities of Chiang Mai and Udon Thani in protest at the crackdown in the Thai capital.

Both the security services and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's government had promised to show restraint in dealing with the demonstrators in order to avoid a repeat of last year's riots, when two protesters were killed.

But the BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Bangkok says the deaths of so many more in Saturday's clashes can only mean greater political uncertainty for the country.

'Regret'

Reports from Bangkok on Sunday morning said the city of 15 million appeared to be calm as an unofficial truce took hold.

COLOUR-CODED PROTESTS

Many rural dwellers and urban poor support red-shirts, while yellow-shirts comprise mainly middle classes and urban elite

In September 2008 yellows rally against government, reds counter-rally, clashes in Bangkok

Yellows blockade airport in November 2008, government collapses, yellow-friendly government installed

In April 2009 red protests halt Asean summit, two people die in Bangkok clashes, rallies called off

Reds relaunch protests in March 2010, splash blood on government buildings, march on parliament

Reds and yellows

Q&A: Thailand protests

The protesters, who want the government to call new elections, have been camped out in parts of the city for a month.

Hundreds of soldiers and riot police advanced after nightfall on one of the red-shirt camps, near Phan Fah bridge and Rajdumnoen road, close to several government buildings and a UN office.

Local media say both sides fired weapons and detonated explosive devices in the clashes which ensued. Television footage showed chaotic scenes, with clouds of tear gas enveloping the streets.

Paul, a British teacher who lives in Thailand, told the BBC he had been in a crowd of protesters across the road from the Khao San intersection when he saw a man of about 50 being shot in the chest as he waved a flag from a pick-up truck.

"The army were firing live rounds on civilians," he said. "I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself."

Shortly before midnight, Prime Minister Vejjajiva went on national television to say troops had halted their operation and express his "regret" to families of victims.

Soldiers, he insisted, would only have fired live rounds "into the air and in self-defence".

"The government and I are still responsible for easing the situation and trying to bring peace and order to the country," he added.

Earlier confrontations left several people with gunshot wounds

An army spokesman, Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd, accused some protesters of using live bullets and grenades.

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan called on King Bhumibol Adulyadej to intervene after Saturday's violence, saying it was the "way to prevent further deaths".

'Darkest hour'

The red-shirts - a loose coalition of left-wing activists and supporters of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra - want Mr Abhisit to dissolve parliament and call an election.

They say Mr Abhisit came to power illegitimately in a parliamentary vote after a pro-Thaksin government was forced to step down in 2008. Mr Thaksin was ousted in a military coup in 2006.

They have vowed to defy the state of emergency declared on Wednesday with more rallies. Arrest warrants have been issued for several of the protest leaders.

Washington has urged both sides to show restraint.

"We deplore this outbreak of political violence in Thailand, our long-term friend and ally, and urge good faith negotiations by the parties to resolve outstanding issues through peaceful means," White House spokesman Mike Hammer said.

Editorials in Bangkok newspapers on Sunday also called for urgent talks between the government and the red-shirts to end the violence.
The Nation daily newspaper called the violence "our darkest hour".

"Yesterday's bloodbath is a wake-up call to halt the slide towards anarchy," it said in a front-page commentary.

[Saorsa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcmOB2f4M0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVGKm7GSqcw&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=NT_B6EYWjzE&feature=channel

[Sasha]

shame that these people are dying to get the current corrupt bastards out to replace them with last corrupt bastards.

[The Vegan Marxist]

shame that these people are dying to get the current corrupt bastards out to replace them with last corrupt bastards.

This would be a similar situation if the right-wing militias ended forming a successful coup d'etat against President Obama, & then masses of people revolted to get Obama back. It's a battle for two evils, but who is the better evil is the question.

[Sasha]

This would be a similar situation if the right-wing militias ended forming a successful coup d'etat against President Obama, & then masses of people revolted to get Obama back. It's a battle for two evils, but who is the better evil is the question.

i realy don know enough about thai pollitics (to be precise, i know absolutly nothing about it) but, admitetly mostrly based on western biased media, i'm not sure taksin is the lesser evil in this case.

[Delenda Carthago]

Are there revolutionary forces in Thai?

[sotsialist]

revulutionaires do not support,nither side.

[cska]

i realy don know enough about thai pollitics (to be precise, i know absolutly nothing about it) but, admitetly mostrly based on western biased media, i'm not sure taksin is the lesser evil in this case.

Western media is extremely biased in this case. Thaksin is clearly not as bad as the yellow shirt government.

[#FF0000]

This would be a similar situation if the right-wing militias ended forming a successful coup d'etat against President Obama, & then masses of people revolted to get Obama back. It's a battle for two evils, but who is the better evil is the question.

And that is why we vote democrat.

[Red Commissar]

When Thaksin was overthrown, we saw a similar scene with his protesters, the "yellow shirts". Though the situation the Red Shirts have been facing seems to be more violent.

These are two wings of the political elite vying for power, drumming up populist support along the way.

[scarletghoul]

The 2 sides are not the same. People are not dying for something else exactly the same.
Thaksin is of course a corrupt and reactionary capitalist. However he has a lot of support throughout the country, especially among the poor people including working class and rural poor, whose lives have been improved under his government. He is a slightly-leftofcenter populist, but by no means a socialist of any kind. The yellow-shirts however are quite rightwing with many large corporate backers including the tourist industry. They do not have as much popular support as thaksin but they have more support among the elite. They are also evidently much more authoritarian and maybe a little fascisty. Clearly much more reactionary..

[001]

The 2 sides are not the same. People are not dying for something else exactly the same.
Thaksin is of course a corrupt and reactionary capitalist. However he has a lot of support throughout the country, especially among the poor people including working class and rural poor, whose lives have been improved under his government. He is a slightly-leftofcenter populist, but by no means a socialist of any kind. The yellow-shirts however are quite rightwing with many large corporate backers including the tourist industry. They do not have as much popular support as thaksin but they have more support among the elite. They are also evidently much more authoritarian and maybe a little fascisty. Clearly much more reactionary.. You don't know what you're talking about. The PAD (yellow shirts) and UDD (red shirts) or its ally the former PPP all represent equally repulsive ruling class interests.

PAD is supported by various rich media owners, generals, state unions. UDD is, by and large, a supporter of Thaksin a deposed billionaire and a former cop. The UDD is allied with those elements that supported Thaksin (i.e. the Thai Rak Thai, its descendent The People's Power Party and its current descendent the For Thais Party). The PPP had as its leader deceased Samak Sundaravej, who was former prime minister. This pig was involved in massacre of communists at universities during the 70s, he was the host military-ran ultra nationalist radio program, and was allied with right-wing militias. He was also involved in the arrest of hundreds of (allegedly) left-wing journalists or dissidents.

So for all your talk about the yellow shirts being 'evidently more authoritarian' and 'maybe a little fascisty' you expose your total ignorance about the sort of people who compose leadership positions within the red-shirts and their allies. To communists, its irrelevant whether a thuggish bourgeoisie party has popular support. If you're interested in 'popular support' go vote for Obama. If you're interested in a communist or class analysis, look at the interests of those each party serves, and whether the PAD or the UDD dress it up in populist rhetoric, they represent nothing more than competing capitalist factions.

How surprising, another Maoist supporting a right-wing bourgeoisie populist faction.

[001]

Western media is extremely biased in this case. Thaksin is clearly not as bad as the yellow shirt government.

This is the same man (ignoring that he was the richest man in Thailand *and* involved in numerous examples of corruption) that instigated martial law in several provinces Southern Thailand, replaced legislative assemblies dominated by Muslims with corrupt policemen, intensified the war effort against the insurgency and threatened to cut of government funding to villages alleged to be supporting the insurgency. Sure.

[sotsialist]

look, they are both rightwing "big business" backers,not social democratic. lets be clear: they are both as bad in this 1 case.niether side is to be upheld.

[scarletghoul]

You don't know what you're talking about. The PAD (yellow shirts) and UDD (red shirts) or its ally the former PPP all represent equally repulsive ruling class interests.

PAD is supported by various rich media owners, generals, state unions. UDD is, by and large, a supporter of Thaksin a deposed billionaire and a former cop. The UDD is allied with those elements that supported Thaksin (i.e. the Thai Rak Thai, its descendent The People's Power Party and its current descendent the For Thais Party). The PPP had as its leader deceased Samak Sundaravej, who was former prime minister. This pig was involved in massacre of communists at universities during the 70s, he was the host military-ran ultra nationalist radio program, and was allied with right-wing militias. He was also involved in the arrest of hundreds of (allegedly) left-wing journalists or dissidents.

So for all your talk about the yellow shirts being 'evidently more authoritarian' and 'maybe a little fascisty' you expose your total ignorance about the sort of people who compose leadership positions within the red-shirts and their allies. To communists, its irrelevant whether a thuggish bourgeoisie party has popular support. If you're interested in 'popular support' go vote for Obama. If you're interested in a communist or class analysis, look at the interests of those each party serves, and whether the PAD or the UDD dress it up in populist rhetoric, they represent nothing more than competing capitalist factions.

How surprising, another Maoist supporting a right-wing bourgeoisie populist faction.Umm what. When did I ever say I supported them or that they are good ? I stated a that he is reactionary, capitalist, populist, and not socialist. I was just explaining the situation for those of us who didn't know about it. No one ever doubted that they ultimately serve bourgeois interests. You're just being an idiotic prick, trying to twist explanation into endorsement.


To communists, its irrelevant whether a thuggish bourgeoisie party has popular support. No its not you fool. It is vital for us to understand popular opinion, aswell as the differant bourgeois factions and their support bases.

[001]

Umm what. When did I ever say I supported them or that they are good ? I stated a that he is reactionary, capitalist, populist, and not socialist.

You stated: "They do not have as much popular support as thaksin but they have more support among the elite. They are also evidently much more authoritarian and maybe a little fascisty. Clearly much more reactionary."

Which is, in fact, wrong and a liberal delusion that Trotskyists spout.


I was just explaining the situation for those of us who didn't know about it.

Then educate yourself first before talking about how the PAD is 'much more authoritarian' and 'maybe a little fascisty' and 'clearly much more reactionary' when the opposing faction has people involved in the massacre of leftists and communists.


No one ever doubted that they ultimately serve bourgeois interests. You're just being an idiotic prick, trying to twist explanation into endorsement.

And your explanation was wrong, which could leave to the endorsement, like some Thai leftists, of the red-shirts in 'critical support' because the opposing side is the 'worse of two evils.'


No its not you fool. It is vital for us to understand popular opinion, aswell as the differant bourgeois factions and their support bases.

Understanding why such and such a party has popular support is important, basing your decisions on whether they have popular support isn't. The Bolsheviks at numerous stages didn't have popular support, that didn't negate their revolutionary character.

Your whole rambling about how Thaksin has popular support amongst the poor (*any* ruling party has support amongst the rural population, because the rural poor make up the majority of the population, duh!) and how their lives have improved under them spits in the face of reality. As if the richest man in the country somehow gives a fuck about poverty, which has increased in urban areas owing to migration of the rural poor to the cities, and where family debt has risen rapidly where most will never be able to pay it off. Growth under Thaksin was actually very small in comparison to other periods, owing to the Asian Financial Crisis. This is a man who would spend more on a watch then a poor Thai would earn in a year (or several years). And the relevance of popular support decreases when that support is based on the fact that Thaksin supporters paid cash for it.

[Saorsa]

It's also important to analyse the class composition of the people on the streets, and why they're risking their lives. They have reasons beyond being empty headed, blind supporters of the evil overlord Thaksin.

The Red Shirts are overwhelmingly made up of the urban and rural poor. The Yellow Shirts tend to be comparatively well of workers, middle class professionals - the more well off, privileged people in the cities. This is a deformed class war, with bourgeois politicians claiming leadership on either side. However the fact remains that these are poor working people struggling against a privilieged elite, and I think it's possible to offer support to the ordinary people marching in red shirts without giving support to the bourgeois politicians claiming to lead them. Through struggle, through coming up against the brutality and power of the state, through realising the power they have in numbers and in organisation, sections of the Red Shirts can quite easily come to revolutionary conclusions. I hope people are working within their movement to win people over to revolution.

And before anyone compares this to the Obama campaign or a Labour campaign or whatever, don't go there. The two situations are very different and I don't call for CPs to work within reformist capitalist parties. The Obama campaign was a mobilisation of people in support of a capitalist, imperialist candidate in an election. The Red Shirt movement in Thailand is just that, a social movement, and the people are struggling to overthrow a sitting government and prevents it and its supporters from taking away their democratic rights.

Communists in the Philippines shouldn't dissolve into the Phak Phuea Thai, but they should be on the streets with the Red Shirts as they battle the police and face repression by the state. I can just picture some of you people in Russia 1905, refusing to participate in the movement against the King (except perhaps in some limited cases where it involved strikes and occupations) because of the political influence of the Cadets and their predecessors!

The great problem in Thailand is that there is no revolutionary party to lead these protests. But the workers and poor peasants are still struggling, and out of this struggle they could poentially end up organising to form a revolutionary organisation separate from the bourgeois populists in the Phak Phuea Thai.

Why did people get so (justifiably) excited about Iran yet nobody's paying any attention to this? Perhaps it's because the Western media loves to attack Iran which makes it easy to join in. You can openly be on the side of the liberals in your country! Yes! But Thailand isn't a pet project of the imperialists like Iran, so it's not in the news as much and nobody cares.

[001]

I don't think this is a class war at all, not even a 'deformed one.' It would be a class war if the workers and agriculture workers united in opposition to both the generals and the business leaders. We would know it would be a class war then because both the PAD and the UDD leaders would unite in opposition and the numbers of dead currently would be small in comparison. Unfortunately, as it stands, both the red-shirts and yellow shirts are pawns in a battle between competing bourgeois factions.

You say that its possible to give support to the red-shirts without supporting their leaders etc. Well this is what happened several years ago with the yellow shirts who likewise used democratic slogans and who likewise wanted to fight the corruption of the Thaksin government. And what was the result?

The current government that is being protested against again, but this time by the supporters of the formerly ousted government. These are the results, and results speak better than intentions about defending 'democratic rights.' All these movements use the same rhetoric about democratic rights, about democracy. I very much doubt that the violence being used against the protesters or by the protesters is going to result in a revolutionary consciousness. It is going to result in more anger against the government, but so far as a revolutionary anti-capitalist consciousness? I'm doubtful.

The past 18-19 coups have all involved violence and riots. They all resulted in new constitutions (about 17 from memory). In Western countries governments change via elections, in Thailand they change (largely) from coups, but the essence is the same. It is only the realization that neither factions offer anything that a genuine working class organisation can be formed.

[Saorsa]

It is only the realization that neither factions offer anything that a genuine working class organisation can be formed.

And how are the workers going to come to this realization? Reading it in a book? Being lectured by a communist intellectual?

Or through learning it on the streets?

[sotsialist]

Why did people get so (justifiably) excited about Iran yet nobody's paying any attention to this? Perhaps it's because the Western media loves to attack Iran which makes it easy to join in. You can openly be on the side of the liberals in your country! Yes! But Thailand isn't a pet project of the imperialists like Iran, so it's not in the news as much and nobody cares.

comrade, on the situation in iran, we should support ahmadinejad. these parties, in thailand,offer nothing antiimperialist\progressive to the workeing class.dont get these confused,there are ultralefts who wouldnt be in the russian evolution, or would join the mensheviks but lets be clear when we say our part: we look for the most progressive force & seek to join it,if only reactionary sides exist then we have to form our own way.if you where offered kenesian free market libertarians..or..free market keneysian "liberals",what choice is there?in the USA there is none,same it is for thailand comrade.

[Crux]

comrade, on the situation in iran, we should support ahmadinejad. these parties, in thailand,offer nothing antiimperialist\progressive to the workeing class.dont get these confused,there are ultralefts who wouldnt be in the russian evolution, or would join the mensheviks but lets be clear when we say our part: we look for the most progressive force & seek to join it,if only reactionary sides exist then we have to form our own way.if you where offered kenesian free market libertarians..or..free market keneysian "liberals",what choice is there?in the USA there is none,same it is for thailand comrade.
Uhm, not to derail the thread here but...the fuck?

[Saorsa]

Mate, if you call for open support for ahmadinejad, I don't really care what else you have to say.

[Crux]

Mate, if you call for open support for ahmadinejad, I don't really care what else you have to say. You're 100% wrong.
Well someone who can find something progressive in Ahmadinejad apparently has some problems with perception.
And for the record I sure as hell don't support neither Mousavi nor Thaksin.

[001]

How workers radicalize is never an easy question; a drop in working conditions, living conditions, oppression for protesting against those fall in standards by the police or military, a financial crisis which opens the eyes to the nature of the capitalist system, environmental degradation, the very degradation of the capitalist system, through the united actions of workers on a class basis, the hypocricy of politicans calling on workers to die in wars so that they can rule, the realization that capitalism cannot be reformed but must be overthrown, the suffering of arbitrary discrimination and yes, through mass action, education and discussion with other communists. There isn't one cause or answer.

But as for 'learning it on the streets', they have been 'learning it on the streets' for the last dozen or so coups. What's new here from the last street violence in protest against Thaksin? There is nothing inherent in street riots which opens people's eyes to the nature of capitalism. Street violence can be just as reactionary as any other form of political expression, so your call to 'learn it on the streets' isn't much different from those anarchists who think that workers can be radicalised by street violence. If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, the answer is that communists can do very little in such circumstances beyond promoting the argument that it is only the mass action of all workers that the corruption and nepotism of the rich can end and their rights to a decent life and political expression be ensured.

Of course we should 'work with' those in the red-shirts and attempt to bring them over to revolution, just as we should do the same with the yellow shirts, or the royalist supporters, or the supporters of ultra-right wing parties because workers all comprise the majority of those parties. But I would never have any delusions about what interests those parties represent or try in anyway to excuse their actions or write one off as better than another.

[Crux]

How workers radicalize is never an easy question; a drop in working conditions, living conditions, oppression for protesting against those fall in standards by the police or military, a financial crisis which opens the eyes to the nature of the capitalist system, environmental degradation, the very degradation of the capitalist system, through the united actions of workers on a class basis, the hypocricy of politicans calling on workers to die in wars so that they can rule, the realization that capitalism cannot be reformed but must be overthrown, the suffering of arbitrary discrimination and yes, through mass action, education and discussion with other communists. There isn't one cause or answer.

But as for 'learning it on the streets', they have been 'learning it on the streets' for the last dozen or so coups. What's new here from the last street violence in protest against Thaksin? There is nothing inherent in street riots which opens people's eyes to the nature of capitalism. Street violence can be just as reactionary as any other form of political expression, so your call to 'learn it on the streets' isn't much different from those anarchists who think that workers can be radicalised by street violence. If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, the answer is that communists can do very little in such circumstances beyond promoting the argument that it is only the mass action of all workers that the corruption and nepotism of the rich can end and their rights to a decent life and political expression be ensured.

Of course we should 'work with' those in the red-shirts and attempt to bring them over to revolution, just as we should do the same with the yellow shirts, or the royalist supporters, or the supporters of ultra-right wing parties because workers all comprise the majority of those parties. But I would never have any delusions about what interests those parties represent or try in anyway to excuse their actions or write one off as better than another.
Fair enough. But when the "image" of the Red Shirt protesters are that of populism in favour of the rural poor against the rich elite this is something we can and should take advantage from.

[pranabjyoti]

Hey, can we call the Thai Government "Stalinist"? :lol: But the problem is, there are competitors of Thai Government in this regard and TRAGICALLY :lol: some are very close to the WORLD POLICE USA.

[Crux]

Hey, can we call the Thai Government "Stalinist"? :lol: But the problem is, there are competitors of Thai Government in this regard and TRAGICALLY :lol: some are very close to the WORLD POLICE USA.
You are making jokes at your own expense, comrade.

[sotsialist]

..so no one has adressed my argument ? the best you can do is about iran. :confused: ....

[Chambered Word]

I'll address it then.


comrade, on the situation in iran, we should support ahmadinejad. these parties, in thailand,offer nothing antiimperialist\progressive to the workeing class.

Overthrowing a monarchy isn't progressive?


dont get these confused,there are ultralefts who wouldnt be in the russian evolution, or would join the mensheviks but lets be clear when we say our part: we look for the most progressive force & seek to join it,if only reactionary sides exist then we have to form our own way. if you where offered kenesian free market libertarians..or..free market keneysian "liberals",what choice is there?in the USA there is none,same it is for thailand comrade.

What the fuck is an ultra-left? Stop the sectarian waffling.

We can't really form our own way from behind a keyboard. Unless we can make a real-life impact in Thailand ourselves all we can really do is debate the way we relate to different factions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Of course this is not a worker's revolution, but I think people are overstating the control of the red-shirts that the exiled party has. The irony or contradiction of the pro-democracy demands of the Red-shirts is that their demands could not be met within legal existing means because in order to have democracy they would need to take on the military which really runs things and the monarchy. The former PM has no real intention of doing this because, as people pointed out, he supports the system in Thailand and is a millionaire media tycoon.

Because of this contradiction, these uprisings can be very dynamic and lead to further radicalization and a real independent movement of workers and allied rural poor.

All these things... Iran, Kyrgistan (SP), and Thailand are the result of ongoing problems in capitalism that the mainstream parties can not solve coupled with a situation where there is no clear alternative to capitalism for the population. This situation is also causing people to turn to openly fascist parties like in Hungary or neo-nazi groups in the former Soviet bloc. So I don't think we should be dismissive of movements like this just because they are still generally stuck to one or the other establishment party or figurehead and have not yet radicalized.

[MortyMingledon]

Firstly, a note on the anti-monarchistic tendencies of the redshirts previously mentioned in this forum. In the protests leading up to the 2006 coup to oust the corrupt and authoritarian Thaksin, the protesters wore yellow, the color of the king, to display the backing they had received from high up in the political hierarchy (there are rumours that the queen met the coup leaders the night before the coup). The yellow shirts wanted to cash in on the Thai population's near reverence of the monarch, thus giving them power; Thaksin would have a lot of trouble explaining to the Thais that he had cleared away a bunch of supporters of the king.

This brings us to the red shirts. The red shirts chose red as the color of their movement not in defiance of the yellow color of the monarchy, but as a protest to the yellow color of the elitist yellow shirts. The red shirt movement does not have serious anti-monarchistic tendencies. The large majority of the rural Thai that make up the movement still revere the king as a demi-god. Here in Thailand accusing people of lese majeste is an accepted political tool used by both sides of the divide.

Secondly, I'd like to add a note on a new movement which has emerged in the chaos here. The pink shirts (also called the no-colors) claim to want nothing more than peace. They say they occupy a position between the yellows and the reds. This is not true. The pink shirts are just yellow shirts with a different shirt on. They actively support the current elitist and corrupt government, and it is difficult to find differences between the standpoints of the pink shirts and the yellows. Furthermore, the pinks get most of their support from a the large bourgouis tourism industry which is afraid that instability will reduce the number of tourists visiting the country.

Living in Thailand, I have definite sympathies toward the redshirt cause. The rural poor from the north east Isaan region are not only materially oppressed, they are also looked down upon by the Bangkok elite. I believe this is the first time in Thai history that the poor have decided to take matters into their own hands, even though at the moment they have misdirected their support to bourgouise overlords.

I recommend "Thailand Unhinged: Unraveling the Myths of Thai-style Democracy" by Frederico Ferrara for those interested in more background about the situation here.