Thailand: violence grows as the state reacts to the protests

[Patchd]

Working Class militancy in Thailand escalates: Government continues violent suppression of protesters


Protests in Thailand continue to grow as the state have begun to get increasingly heavy handed; using violence, murder and intimidation as a tactic in an attempt to push the opposition movement off the streets. The protests are the result of working class opposition to the military coup which ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and put in his place, Abhisit Vejjajiva in 2006. However, we can't look at the troubles from merely a political basis, as it has social and economic causes too; the 'yellow shirt' supporters, in other words, pro-monarchy and largely middle class supporters of the coup, oppose what they see as an anti-monarchical and working class movement, the 'red shirts', many of whom are supporters of Thaksin, benefited from the introduction of a universal healthcare under Thaksin, increasing access to healthcare from 76% to 96%, the subsidising of medication used by HIV patients bringing them to a lower and more affordable price, as well as improved access to university education for people from lower income backgrounds.

Barricades have been set up in Bangkok guarding the 'red shirt' encampment, weapons have been seized from the police and army and even tanks and military vehicles have been captured. In Khon Kaen, northeast Thailand, efforts were made to stop troop trains travelling to Bangkok as well as 'red shirts' managing to convince soldiers to withdraw from the frontlines. This is a result of the Abhisit government's increasing heavy handed approach to the opposition movement; the army and police have opened fire on protesters, recently it was reported that over 50 people had been killed and hundreds injured in May, although the Thai and Western media make out the numbers are lower, snipers are also being used to pick out individual targets within the 'red shirt' encampment, the government claiming that they are only opening fire on 'rioters', apparently amongst the ranks of the 'rioters' included a paramedic called out to treat wounded protesters, foreign journalists and a 10 year old child. In response, 'human rights' groups have called for both sides to stop the violence, spreading the myth that the violence is being equally perpetuated by both sides when in fact, the 'red shirt' protesters have used minimal violence, usually only in defence, although this is no surprise as groups like Amnesty International had already long come out in support of the coup and monarchy. The Abhisit government refuses to negotiate with the opposition movement.

We have to remember though, that Thaksin should not be revered either, despite what has been labelled as the 'pro-poor' reforms that he brought about, he was also responsible for gross state crimes, such as the Takbai incident in 2004 which saw protesters arrested, tied and thrown onto the backs of Thai army vehicles, sometimes 7 people deep, as a result 78 people died. In addition there was a cold blooded execution of youths at the Krue Sa mosque in the same year, not to mention the hundreds of people executed as a result of Thaksin's stepping up of the 'war on drugs'. He introduced policies in government which led to the state hiring companies owned by members of Thaksin's family, as well as corruption in other areas, such as the allegations surrounding his handling of the construction of the new Suvarnabhumi airport. Regardless of what has been said, as the head of state Thaksin himself should be held to account by the working class for the numerous attacks that his government and the ruling class had made on them, including in state owned industries such as the State Railway of Thailand.

Considering the reforms the former Prime Minister has carried out, it is no wonder then that many in the 'red shirt' movement are supporters of Thaksin, just as the Labour party has a working class base in Britain thanks largely to the promise of 'social justice' and its pretence in supporting workers. However, this support for such a capitalist minded person may prove in the future to be a danger for workers in Thailand. There is a history of grassroots militancy against dictatorships in the country such as in the 70s and in 1991, however this militancy usually goes so far as to bring about instalments of new and more liberally minded governments, not to actually remove the framework which allows the bosses to continue their oppression of workers. For a concrete solution, not only do workplaces and communities have to be put into the hands of the workers themselves and the bosses abolished, but the state needs to be removed in it's entirety; this includes, the police force, the military, government and the monarchy.

But we should not kid ourselves either, there are many in the 'red shirt' movement who either secretly or openly oppose the monarchy and Thaksin. Despite the Thai and Western media stressing that the monarchy is widely loved, it is not entirely true, criticism of the monarchy or doing anything that can put the monarchy into disrepute is considered a crime punishable from 3 to 15 years (although some political activists have been imprisoned for longer) so it is no wonder that critics of the monarchy will largely stay silent over the matter. Can we seriously expect to take the Thai media's word for it? In a country where people sleep on the side of railway lines so they can get onto trains to beg for a living, and yet are expected to revere the royal family, the royal family which can afford swimming pools for their own dogs as well as numerous palaces and holiday homes, it would be a surprise if there was less of an anti-monarchy sentiment. The 'red shirt' movement may allow anti-monarchists to voice their opinion openly for the first time in a long while, although a criticism of the royal family alone is not enough, it is not the royal family that suppresses the workers daily, they are merely another tool that can be used by the capitalists running the country, as is evident now.

What can be taken from the recent clashes, and the increased militancy of the 'red shirts' though is that Thailand could potentially see an instalment of a new government (and therefore, repeating this cycle), if not something more serious, as the minor breaks from military command as seen from some soldiers in past events during this crisis have shown that if escalated, may lead to an all out civil war, suppression of opposition voices, or revolution. Right now however, I can only offer my solidarity to the Thai working class.

---------

Pictures:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs452.ash1/24879_385521359924_537184924_3646958_3660362_n.jpg

Seized weapons in the 'red shirt' camp

Pictures of the troop train travelling to Bangkok halted in Khon Kaen:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-sjc1/hs486.snc3/26580_388834489924_537184924_3724274_1713693_n.jpg

Troops in Bangkok:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs547.snc3/29961_396512819924_537184924_3872267_998434_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs527.snc3/29961_396693104924_537184924_3875294_1365018_n.jpg

^ That is a paramedic from Wachira hospital sent to help protesters, shot by the troops

[Dr Mindbender]

damn ninja'd.

:blushing:

Delete my thread if you like.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The red shirts are growing more & more every day. Keep it up!

[Dr Mindbender]

The red shirts are growing more & more every day. Keep it up!

Is anyone else of the opinion that Thailand also deserves a forum?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Is anyone else of the opinion that Thailand also deserves a forum?

Me! Despite whether they're not "Socialist" or "Communist", this is still a workers revolution & deserves our support!

[Stand Your Ground]

This type of thing seems to be spreading. :thumbup1:

*Impatiently waits for it to hit the U.S.*

[The Vegan Marxist]

Okay, seriously, we need to create a "Situation Room" for everything that's happening lately. We can't just keep making different sections for each huge situation taking place. 2010 has been a year where a lot's happening. From Nepal, India, Philippines, Greece, Venezuela, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Ireland, etc. This is a revolutionary year, so I feel there needs to be a "Situation Room" here on revleft.

Anyone with me?

[Stand Your Ground]

Okay, seriously, we need to create a "Situation Room" for everything that's happening lately. We can't just keep making different sections for each huge situation taking place. 2010 has been a year where a lot's happening. From Nepal, India, Philippines, Greece, Venezuela, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Ireland, etc. This is a revolutionary year, so I feel there needs to be a "Situation Room" here on revleft.

Anyone with me?
Agreed. A section for that would be good.

[Red Commissar]

If I may interject here... While it is an outpouring of the people's rage against the current regime, I think some background on the situation is needed. It may be simplistic to say this is a workers' movement.

The red shirts are a group of demonstrators opposed to the current government, led by the Thailand Democratic Party PM Abhisit Vejjajiva. Their main demands is for the government to hold new elections and dissolve immediately. This issue goes back to the deposed PM Thaksin, who the Red Shirts supported, and the subsequent political turmoil.

Politically they're traditional populist groups we see a lot in African and Asian countries. Formally the Red Shirts are known as the "National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship" (UDD).

Thaksin was forced out of government back in 2006 by the army and so-called "Yellow Shirts", formally known as the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) that was opposed to Thaksin and his supporters. Thaksin was charged by this group for being corrupt, encouraging cronyism, abusing his power, and being anti-monarchical.

The yellow shirts acted similarly to what the Red Shirts are doing now, in that they went to Bangkok, protested, blocked parliament, and what not until the military moved in. Thaksin responded with force as wel. Thaksin was forced out of power, his party the TRT was shut down, many of the candidates barred from holding office again.

Thaksin was a powerful businessman in Thailand, and he promised some progressive notions here and there mostly in social welfare. Some of his diehard supporters feel he was pushed out unlawfully and believe it has something to do with the fact that Thaksin existed outside of the traditional power triangle in Thailand, between the government, military, and the monarchy, who saw him as a threat.

The part that really ticked off the red shirts was the events that followed in the government- after Thaksin's overthrow elections were held in 2007 to form a new government. A successor to the TRT (Thaksin's old Party) was formed- the People's Power Party (how it reeks of populism), and ended up winning a majority of votes in the elections over the opposition "Democratic Party".

Subsequently the PPP formed a government led by Samak Sundaravej. Sundaravej ran into issues like Thaksin, and eventually turmoil exploded again.

The same bunch that forced Thaksin out of power- the PAD/ Yellow Shirts- took to the streets again and protested, causing havok and chaos (blocking parliament again, occupying airports, seizing control of government buildings, getting into violent confrontations with who would later become Red Shirts, and forcing the military's hand against the government) until eventually the court of Thailand banned the PPP and their associates, allowing for the Democratic Party to form their current government led by Vejjajiva to rule unopposed, which the Red Shirts are currently protesting.

You may see why the Red Shirts might feel jilted- first they had to deal with Thaksin being given the boot, and later to see the party they backed get dissolved, rob them of their representation, and essentially leave the Democratic Party to run unopposed in government. That is why one of their demands is to have new elections, because it's obvious the Democratic Party was handed the government on a silver platter.

The main aim of the protesters is to cause enough of an economic drain (tourists are already staying away from Thailand, banks are closing, etc. to force the government to step down. Most nations have already issued warnings to their citizens in traveling to Thailand.

There are fears that a low level civil war might erupt over this. There is a regional aspect to this strife. Supporters of the Yellow Shirts/ PAD tend to come from the traditional south of the country, around the economic muscle of Thailand, Bangkok. The Red Shirts/UDD supporters tend to come from the undeveloped and poor north, who have felt jilted by the traditional power structure. The country has increasingly polarized into these two groups, which has already existed from the times of Communist insurrection in the past, which often found support from where Red Shirts are currently deriving theirs.

The yellow shirts are threatening themselves to try and deal with the matter themselves. That hasn't happened yet, and with the military now intervening it's doubtful they'll rear their ugly heads.

Ultimately, more so at the leadership positions, the yellow shirts and red shirts are being manipulated by two groups in Thailand vying for power, the old and the new, but who'll win in the process? Who knows.

It would be nice if we can see an internal ideological shift in the Red Shirts, to become a genuine people's movement rather than linked to the old Thaksin circle. It's obvious this is an outpouring of the grievances of the peoples in the more impoverished north eastern parts of Thailand, who have thusfar been ignored as Bangkok and its surrounding regions get the focus of the government.

It has become a definite mess so far. This has overshadowed the Yellow Shirt protests and may reach the level of the Thai instabilities in the early 1990s. I hope the world will at least see the face of Thai "democracy" in action.

I also agree on the necessity of a "situation room" of sorts to track insurrections and what not.

[Patchd]

Me! Despite whether they're not "Socialist" or "Communist", this is still a workers revolution & deserves our support!
It's not a workers' revolution, but a revolutionary situation may arise from it.


If I may interject here... While it is an outpouring of the people's rage against the current regime, I think some background on the situation is needed. It may be simplistic to say this is a workers' movement.

The red shirts are a group of demonstrators opposed to the current government, led by the Thailand Democratic Party PM Abhisit Vejjajiva. Their main demands is for the government to hold new elections and dissolve immediately. This issue goes back to the deposed PM Thaksin, who the Red Shirts supported, and the subsequent political turmoil.Yes, you're right, it's not a workers movement, it's a movement with predominantly working class sentiments however bourgeois. As I said to the rest of the AFed, I may have been a bit too lenient on the red shirts, failing to mention it's nature, leadership and stated aims. However, saying this, we can't look to the red shirts as one homogeneous bloc either, it is largely a network surrounding the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship and contains not only staunch monarchists, but also republicans, nationalists, socialists (I wouldn't be surprised if the former maoist insurgents could be found in the ranks of the red shirts) and I even know an anarchist taking part in the struggle.

As you said, yes, their stated aim is to 'restore [bourgeois] democracy', and unfortunately because of the nature of Thai legislation (especially the lese majeste laws) and the historical downfall of revolutionary communism in Thailand, there are very few revolutionary groups in the country, which may help to explain the lack of revolutionary politics in the encampment, even still, Thailand does have a history of violence against dictatorships and many rank and file red shirts have broken with their more pacifist leadership who want to take the legal road to power.


There are fears that a low level civil war might erupt over this. There is a regional aspect to this strife. Supporters of the Yellow Shirts/ PAD tend to come from the traditional south of the country, around the economic muscle of Thailand, Bangkok. The Red Shirts/UDD supporters tend to come from the undeveloped and poor north, who have felt jilted by the traditional power structure. The country has increasingly polarized into these two groups, which has already existed from the times of Communist insurrection in the past, which often found support from where Red Shirts are currently deriving theirs.Yet, the red shirts in Bangkok still outnumber by far the yellow shirts, thanks partly to the amount of economic migrants in the city from rural areas, mainly from the north and centre of Thailand, these are the people who usually work in Bangkok for part of a year, you'll find a lot driving taxis, and return to their families for the other part, they have benefited the most from Thaksin's reforms.

The fears of civil war may also erupt into fears of separatism from the muslim insurgents in the south of Thailand also, and that may be used to the government's advantage to rally 'nation lovers' to the monarchy (and therefore to Thailand). We shouldn't underestimate this either, Thailand remains a highly nationalist nation.

[scarletghoul]

If this isn't fascism I don't know what is. In the face of such disgusting oppression, even a populist bourgeois-democratic movement is heroic.

Still of course it would be great if they turned socialist etc etc, but thats unlikely to happen as long as Thaksin's still in the picture. Will however be very interesting to see what arises,, and we should support the red-shirts wholeheartedly (even if they've not got the most proletarian leadership)

[Saorsa]

My post is gone :(

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If this isn't fascism I don't know what is. In the face of such disgusting oppression, even a populist bourgeois-democratic movement is heroic.

Still of course it would be great if they turned socialist etc etc, but thats unlikely to happen as long as Thaksin's still in the picture. Will however be very interesting to see what arises,, and we should support the red-shirts wholeheartedly (even if they've not got the most proletarian leadership)

Why should we support anti-communists of any kind? One oppressive faction versus another, taking sides is useless?

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Why should we support anti-communists of any kind? One oppressive faction versus another, taking sides is useless?

Couldn't the ensuing anarchy present opportunities?

The current configuration of global capitalism values stability; it greatly values stability. The political events in the UK caused no small amount of economic disruption, and that was entirely bloodless.

Anything that disrupts their precious stability; anything that hardens a people and encourages them to take radical steps, deserves at least cursory support.

[Saorsa]

This is a deformed class war - the rural and urban poor vs the urban elite, with both sides under bourgeois leadership. We have to condemn politics of the leaders of the Red Shirt movement and call on the grassroots supporters to break with them, but it is ridiculous to condemn the Red Shirts themselves as being exactly the same as the Yellow Shirts. The yellows want to take away the peasants right to vote - the red shirts oppose this. The red shirts are mostly poor peasants and workers from around Thailand, while the Yellow Shirts are urban professionals and generally well off citizens of the main cities.

It should be clear which side we're on. Remember how excited everyone got about Iran when it was on the news? If you support the green shirts, why don't you support the red shirts?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Couldn't the ensuing anarchy present opportunities?

The current configuration of global capitalism values stability; it greatly values stability. The political events in the UK caused no small amount of economic disruption, and that was entirely bloodless.

Anything that disrupts their precious stability; anything that hardens a people and encourages them to take radical steps, deserves at least cursory support.

Yes, it could, technically. But the masses are grotesquely mislead by the bourgeoisie leaders usurping their support as a tool to simply replace the current bourgeoisie-monarchists with their own filthy clique of corrupt scoundrels. As it is now, it's unlikely anything good at all will come out of it, just like Thaksins health reforms, symbolic gesture and deceitful exploitation to follow.


This is a deformed class war - the rural and urban poor vs the urban elite, with both sides under bourgeois leadership. We have to condemn politics of the leaders of the Red Shirt movement and call on the grassroots supporters to break with them, but it is ridiculous to condemn the Red Shirts themselves as being exactly the same as the Yellow Shirts. The yellows want to take away the peasants right to vote - the red shirts oppose this. The red shirts are mostly poor peasants and workers from around Thailand, while the Yellow Shirts are urban professionals and generally well off citizens of the main cities.

I'm not sure it is so clear-cut in terms of classes as you make it out to be. They might not be exactly the same in terms of composition or their aspirations, but the eventual result is likely to be largely the same. Another corrupt government replacing the current one, more forty-metre tall billboards lining Bangkok's roads; the people's blood spilled for naught.

Both factions seem to crawl with pseudo-fascists, anti-communists and general reactionary elements that are using the peasants and workers support for their own ends. Unless the protest change radically in nature and the protesters and movement begins to demand much more than this sort of petty and hollow liberal-democracy demands and praising of the reactionary scum Thaksin and his repugnant political party, I have no hope whatsoever of any positive outcome of this situation.


It should be clear which side we're on. Remember how excited everyone got about Iran when it was on the news? If you support the green shirts, why don't you support the red shirts?

Well, I was never excited about the green shirts. They, like the movement in Thailand, had little actual potential for progress as far as I could see.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

[QUOTE=Comrade Alastair;1749269]We have to condemn politics of the leaders of the Red Shirt movement and call on the grassroots supporters to break with them, but it is ridiculous to condemn the Red Shirts themselves as being exactly the same as the Yellow Shirts. QUOTE]

I respectfully disagree. I think the grassroots supporters should take leadership of the movement rather than splintering off; a fracture in unity now would be a gift of incalculable value to the Thai government.

Has CINO China taken a position on this?

[Qayin]

Why wouldn't we support this? Its a workers movement and they are fighting for better conditions even if its not for socialism(sic). It may not be perfect but damn as a humanist more power to these brave people for fighting for there lives.

[Red Commissar]

None of us are saying that we shouldn't support it- this is an outpouring of the people's discontent against a corrupt and unfair government. The Red Shirts to their credit have been able to stage a protest that lasted weeks, and that is a feat in itself.

I just think we should not hold any illusions about it. It seems every time we have some revolution break out in the world people tend to hold a romantic view of it.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But you can't have revolutions without a little bit of romance :D :thumbup1:

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not at all convinced that there is anything progressive in the Red Shirts' program or demands. It seems to me like a civil war between two factions of the bourgeoisie. Of course workers are involved - I'll bet there's workers on both sides. But there's also a large degree of patriotism and clannishness too. I mean, support for the supporters of Thaksin, one of the most corrupt men on the planet? Surely not.

Oh, I have no idea who the 'Green Shirts' were in Iran, but whether it's the supporters of the reactionary theocracy, or the supporters of the equally reactionary 'liberal westernisers', I don't care. I didn't support either, and instead wept that, as Takayuki has so elequently said, the blood of the workers was spilled for naught.

Never thought I'd agree with someone who describes themself as an 'authoritarian socialist' but that's another story.

[Patchd]

I'm not at all convinced that there is anything progressive in the Red Shirts' program or demands. It seems to me like a civil war between two factions of the bourgeoisie. Of course workers are involved - I'll bet there's workers on both sides. But there's also a large degree of patriotism and clannishness too. I mean, support for the supporters of Thaksin, one of the most corrupt men on the planet? Surely not.

I don't think many people here have made out that their programme was progressive or revolutionary, the leadership of both movements are bourgeois, like all Thai politicians, however we only support this insofar as to support the grassroots elements who are struggling, albeit without any theoretical basis, against the dictatorship. It is more of a response to the decrease in the standards of living under Abhisit and the coup government since 2006, as the rise in numbers of red shirt protesters since 2009 show. In the same sense that I'd support resistance against zionism in Israel, but not support the means in which it is undertaken (through organisations like Hamas, PFLP, Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade etc.).

In addition, you're right, there are workers on both sides, even my own family there is split on the matter. But c'mon, unless you haven't read anything on this page, you should know by now that the red shirt movement is more of a network, admittedly it largely surrounds the UDD party, although there are many in the red shirt ranks who are neither supporters of Thaksin, Abhisit or the monarchy. This is partly shown as well by the continuous running street battles carried out by militant 'red shirts', despite attempts by the leadership to pacify them slightly to gain more credence as bourgeois politicians.

[Patchd]

The Thai government have rejected a request from protest leaders to hold talks mediated by the United Nations, this isn't the first time the leadership of the UDD, claiming to represent the entire red shirt movement, have requested to start negotiations. Many red shirts do indeed want negotiations to begin, they have been camping in the centre of Bangkok since March now, but even then, the future of this situation may be determined today (Monday 17th).

The Thai authorities issued a warning to the elderly and children yesterday to get out of the encampment by Monday, perhaps signalling a desire to make a large scale assault on the red shirts. I would expect to see three possibilities arising;

- The leadership of the red shirts would back down and capitulate, asking the protesters to go home and come back another day. This will no doubt piss off the majority of protesters, although it may entice many to follow suit. If the leadership does do this, we will possibly see a significant break between militant red shirts, and the UDD party. The red shirts have weapons, and they have already been employing the use of armed guards, the 'red guards' as they call them, who dress in black. Most of the weapons are being stored in the centre stage in the encampment, these may be expropriated by the protesters if the authorities decides to act.

- The leadership calls for the red shirts to take up arms; thus attempting to cement themselves with the more militant elements in the movement. This could be a possibility if the leadership have begun to get arrogant, however, their actions up to now seem to suggest otherwise. They are attempting to conduct a peaceful demonstration, that was their initial goal, and that is still their current goal insofar as my predictions go.

- The Thai authorities back off, they may have issued the warning as a scare tactic in an attempt to clear most of the protesters away so they can assault the encampment without using as much force, and thus not killing as many people (better PR), if large swathes of protesters refuse to leave, perhaps he will back down. If they do back off however, it will increase the morale of the red shirts, but if they carry out an assault of the camp, there will be many casualties which will reflect badly on his current government. Anyway, Thailand has a history of brutal state oppression, I wouldn't be surprised if an assault is carried out today.

[Guerrilla]

Thai Red Shirt leader dies of injuries

Goverment says soldiers will continue to pressure 'terrorists'

BANGKOK - Thai news reports said a renegade army general who worked for Red Shirt protesters died of gunshot wounds, five days after he was shot by a sniper.
Channel 9 television, Thai Rath newspaper and other media outlets said Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdiphol died Monday.
Khattiya was the military strategist of the Red Shirts. He was shot in the head Wednesday.
The attack triggered widespread street fighting between anti-government protesters and the army in central Bangkok. At least 36 people — all civilians — have died in the violence.

[Devrim]

I posted on the other thread about this which got butchered in the merging. I want to repost what I said as I want to reply to what Alistair was saying:



http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1749037#post1749037)
You're going to have a lot of ultra-lefts screaming about how the workers and peasants are supporting Thaksin, a bourgeois (actually, billionaire) politician. It doesn't fucking matter though. The struggle has gotten well beyond Thaksin at this point. This is a genuine workers' and peasants' uprising.
Well, I wouldn't want to disappoint you, but I don't usually do much screaming.


Anyone else got an analysis of whats happening there?

We discuss it in the new issue of WR:


Thailand: not a workers' movement
...
The events in Thailand also seem to be a struggle between different factions of the ruling class. The ‘Red Shirts', the nickname of the ‘National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship', is mostly a movement in support of the multi-billionaire, Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Prime Minister of Thailand in exile from Thailand due to corruption charges. The ‘Red Shirt' movement is basically one of the urban and rural poor, mobilised behind the new bourgeoisie, who are opposed to the ‘old' military and monarchist factions. It is not a movement of, or controlled by, the working class. The only workers' action during this period, a strike of 8,000 workers at the Camera maker Nikon, emerged completely independently of the ‘Red Shirt' movement.
And here lies the central point of our argument. These so-called ‘revolutions', like the ‘Green movement' in Iran recently, are not movements of the working class. Yes, there are many workers involved in them, and probably in the case of Kyrgyzstan a majority of the participants were workers, but they take part in these actions as individuals not as workers. The movement of the working class is one that can only be based upon class struggle of workers for their own interests, not cross-class alliances and populist movements. It is only within a massive movement of strikes that the working class can develop its own organs, mass meetings, strike committees and ultimately workers' councils, that can assert working class control over the movement, and develop a struggle for working class interests. Outside of this perspective is only the possibility of workers being used as cannon-fodder for different political factions. In Greece, perhaps, we can see the very start of the long slow development towards this process. In Kyrgyzstan, and Thailand, we only see workers getting shot down in the streets on behalf of those who want to be the new bosses.

The full article can be found here:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/33...and-kyrgyzstan (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/wr/334/thailand-kyrgyzstan)



it seems there is a hell of a lot of anti-rich anger amongst organised workers
I don't think that it is a movement of 'organised workers'.

As the above article states:




It is not a movement of, or controlled by, the working class. The only workers' action during this period, a strike of 8,000 workers at the Camera maker Nikon, emerged completely independently of the ‘Red Shirt' movement.

Alistair replied:


Im actually starting to find all this abit interesting. Initially, I thought that this as just a iranian style colour revolution attempt like we saw last year. Now im really beginning to believe that this is much more than that and could see the largest change in Thailand for centuaries. In all fairness, it is due. Thailand has had to deal with hugescale poverty due to the behavour of its aristrocracy and royal family for years and years.

Believe it or not Devrim the workers movement encompasses more than just strikes. This is a deformed class war - the rural and urban poor vs the urban elite, with both sides under bourgeois leadership. We have to condemn politics of the leaders of the Red Shirt movement and call on the grassroots supporters to break with them, but it is ridiculous to condemn the Red Shirts themselves as being exactly the same as the Yellow Shirts. The yellows want to take away the peasants right to vote - the red shirts oppose this. The red shirts are mostly poor peasants and workers from around Thailand, while the Yellow Shirts are urban professionals and generally well off citizens of the main cities.

It should be clear which side we're on. Remember how excited everyone got about Iran when it was on the news? If you support the green shirts, why don't you support the red shirts?

[Devrim]

Believe it or not Devrim the workers movement encompasses more than just strikes.

Of course it does. What ı think that we have to consider though is that strikes do show that workers are involved in activity as workers. Any sort of demonstration, from fascist to communist, is attended by many workers. A workers individual presence on a demonstration is an individual act. A strike on the other hand is a collective act of workers as workers.

Strike are, of course, not the be all and end all. However, when there is a massive movement without them, I don't think that it is too outrageous to suggest that it says something about its nature.


It should be clear which side we're on. Remember how excited everyone got about Iran when it was on the news? If you support the green shirts, why don't you support the red shirts?

We weren't that excited about Iran either. In fact we were extremly cautious and said very similar things:


So where do the communists stand on events in Iran today? That the Green movement is a completely bourgeois movement with nothing to offer workers seems to us very clear. Also it seems that it is also losing momentum. While the initial protests brought hundreds of thousands out into the streets, the numbers today seem to be getting smaller and smaller. It seemed possible in the early days of the struggle that the working class might make impose itself on the situation. After the repression used by the police against demonstrators in Tehran, workers at the massive Khodro car factory walked out on a twenty four hour strike, not in support of either candidate in the election, but against the violence used by the state. But apart from a few statements from the bus drivers' union, this was the limit of workers' participation in the movement as workers. Yes, of course there were many workers involved in the protests, but they were there as isolated individuals, not as a collective force. In these situations, in a cross-class movement, which all of the various reports coming out of Iran from different leftist groups seem to agree that it was, without acting as a collective force, workers can only be submerged in the great mass of ‘the people', a mass that is being used by other class forces to further their own interests.

What the ICC wrote in 1979 commenting on the Iranian revolution still rings true today. In fact the absence of the working class from the struggles of the last year confirms it: "For all the talk of people in the streets overthrowing the regime, what was clear in 1979 was that the strikes of the Iranian workers were the major, political element leading to the overthrow of the Shah's regime. Despite the mass mobilisations, when the ‘popular' movement - regrouping almost all the oppressed strata in Iran - began to exhaust itself, the entry into the struggle of the Iranian proletariat at the beginning of October 1978, most notably in the oil sector, not only refuelled the agitation, but posed a virtually insolvable problem for the national capital, in the absence of a replacement being found for the old governmental team. Repression was enough to cause the retreat of the small merchants, the students and those without work, but it proved a powerless weapon of the bourgeoisie when confronted with the economic paralysis provoked by the strikes of the workers."

It is likely that the Mousavi movement will slowly fade away, possibly with some of their demands being incorporated into state policy. Iran is not on the verge of any revolution. The coming months will see the death of the ‘Green Movement', not that of the regime. This could be a very bloody process, but unless workers can enter the struggle in their own interests, not those of bickering politicians, it is what inevitably must happen.


Devrim

[Devrim]

If this isn't fascism I don't know what is.

No, I am sure that you don't Fascism was a specific movement in 1930s Europe, not just a word to throw around at nasty authoritarian regimes.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Why wouldn't we support this? Its a workers movement and they are fighting for better conditions even if its not for socialism(sic). It may not be perfect but damn as a humanist more power to these brave people for fighting for there lives.

Are they? Are there any wage demands? I was under the impression they were fighting for new elections in order to elect another bunch of crooks.

Devrim

[Patchd]

Yeah, sorry about my poor attempt at merging threads together *facepalm*

Anyways, as one of the possibilities that may have happened today, the leaders as I expected have not urged the protesters to utilise violence against the Thai state in order to defend themselves. I found this quote off the BBC news website;

""We will stay here persistently. And we'll ask (tell) every people don't be afraid. Just sit still and stand still here. And don't fight back. And if they would like to kill us, let them kill us," protest leader Weng Tojirakarn told demonstrators."

Disgusting to say the least. Obviously, many aren't heeding their leaders' call to 'sit still' and be peaceful, the first soldier death has come today also, suggesting that the weapons the protesters have seized over this period are being used against the Army.


Thai news reports said a renegade army general who worked for Red Shirt protesters died of gunshot wounds, five days after he was shot by a sniper.

The authorities have completely denied any involvement in the killing of Se Dang, although I've read reports from protesters on the ground who say it was a military sniper, this commander had been bullied and harassed by his superiors before for showing support for the red shirt movement. Still, he's a nob, his training was probably very useful for those involved, however he was a staunch Thaksin supporter, and inside the encampment, enjoyed the revered status the red shirts gave him.

[Starport]

It is economic meltdown that is making this a decade and more of uprisings everywhere.

[Red Commissar]

The ultimatum for the Red Shirts to leave has lapsed, and the military is now setting up more live fire zones to contain Red Shirts to certain positions.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Thai Red Shirt leader dies of injuries

Goverment says soldiers will continue to pressure 'terrorists'

BANGKOK - Thai news reports said a renegade army general who worked for Red Shirt protesters died of gunshot wounds, five days after he was shot by a sniper.
Channel 9 television, Thai Rath newspaper and other media outlets said Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdiphol died Monday.
Khattiya was the military strategist of the Red Shirts. He was shot in the head Wednesday.
The attack triggered widespread street fighting between anti-government protesters and the army in central Bangkok. At least 36 people — all civilians — have died in the violence.

Can't say that's a bad thing he died, the twat was apparently famous in the red shirt movement for his anti-communist and violent union-busting in the 70's and 80's. Maybe if all of these idiot bourgeoisie leaders are shot something real can come out of this mess.

[Proletarian Ultra]

As predicted, the ultra-lefts have popped up to offer vigorous objective support for the right-wing coup artists. (I don't mean Devrim, who is at least consistent on this subject; I mean those who ought to know better.)

Here are two propositions:

A. Voting in bourgeois elections cannot bring about revolutionary change.
B. The right to vote in bourgeois elections is trivial, and not worth defending.

The first proposition is scientific socialism. The second proposition is out-and-out scabbism. I'd like some of the ultra-lefts to come down to the black proletarian neighborhoods of Baltimore, where I live. Tell people that elected politicians serve the interests of the ruling class and real change cannot come from voting alone, they will agree with you. Tell them the right to vote was a worthless victory, and the civil rights struggle was just a waste of time, they will beat your fucking face in, and rightly so.

Working class suffrage was a historic victory and must be defended at all costs.

"If voting could change anything, it would be illegal" says Emma Goldmann. Well, if Emma Goldmann could change anything, she would have changed something. Working class suffrage may not be a fatal threat to bourgeois rule, but it is a major inconvenience for the bourgeoisie. Were it not so, they would not expend so many resources to monitor, guide and when necessary overturn it.

Even when all of the politicians are bourgeois, there is a real danger that one of them will go off the reservation and campaign on popular issues that endanger bourgeois hegemony. The corporate media works overtime during elections to make sure this does not happen, and to discipline any candidate that does so. (This is why so many Democratic candidates intentionally lose presidential elections.)

We should urge the working class not to vote for bourgeois candidates. But if they do, and their bourgeois candidate of choice is removed from office unconstitutionally, it is incumbent upon all revolutionary leftists to resist the coup, and to make common cause with all others who resist it. Doing otherwise would be selling out the working class.

Second point: we cannot underestimate the effects of right-wing politicide over the last 60+ years. In much of the world there is no Marxist left to support because they were all killed or terrorized into submission. Thailand is a perfect example. But there are many more especially in the 'Islamic world.' Left- and national-populist movements are all there is for resistance.

The only way a class-conscious revolutionary movement can be re-formed is for the working class to struggle as a class in itself. The red shirt movement is a struggle by the working class in itself - it is not yet a struggle of the working class for itself. But struggle for itself can't come about any other way than movements like the present one.

Third point: I'd like to introduce you to some petty bourgeois scabs. Over here is the Paris Commune, crawling with Proudhonians and Blanquists. And this is the Petrograd Soviet, formed by Mensheviks, anarchists, social-democrats. Also, meet my friends Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, of the thoroughly bourgeois-nationalist July 26th Movement. Clearly, none of them worthy of any regard.

[Devrim]

As predicted, the ultra-lefts have popped up to offer vigorous objective support for the right-wing coup artists. (I don't mean Devrim, who is at least consistent on this subject; I mean those who ought to know better.)

Thanks, I think. I am one who for some reason shouldn't know better?


The only way a class-conscious revolutionary movement can be re-formed is for the working class to struggle as a class in itself. The red shirt movement is a struggle by the working class in itself - it is not yet a struggle of the working class for itself. But struggle for itself can't come about any other way than movements like the present one.

It certainly isn't am movement of the working class for itself as you rightly point out. The question arises of what class it is for?

I don't think it is a movement of the working class in itself either. It is a classic cross class movement.

Devrim

[Starport]

The international economic crisis of capitalism is what is driving competitive struggles between classes and among classes. The various capitalist gangs will drag poor workers and the more middle classes into their fights hoping the poor will do the fighting and dying. The working class and middle class have to fight in these wars and revolutions, (nationalist, religious, economic, etc) and carry them further and beyond the original intended goal. We don't have to Support or Condemn. First we have to understand and explain.

[Red Commissar]

Video

nwGq7jKdmrI

[Devrim]

The international economic crisis of capitalism is what is driving competitive struggles between classes and among classes. The various capitalist gangs will drag poor workers and the more middle classes into their fights hoping the poor will do the fighting and dying.

I agree completely.


The working class and middle class have to fight in these wars and revolutions, (nationalist, religious, economic, etc) and carry them further and beyond the original intended goal.

I disagree completely. I am not particularly concerned about the so-called 'middle class', but the working class must start from defending its own interests.

Devrim

[Starport]

I disagree completely. I am not particularly concerned about the so-called 'middle class', but the working class must start from defending its own interests.

OK but as you probably know our personal concerns are not undermost in all this. Whether we like it or not the capitalist class rules through other classes - middle class, wealthier presents, casts, and all kinds of complex stratification of the whole of society. The working class can, and often is, persuaded that it is in their interests to fight for a particular section of the capitalist class. E.g. workers and employers against customers. British car workers against German. Japanese, or Indian car workers etc. In Thailand it starts with poor rural workers defending what they believe is a capitalist/feudal leadership and parliamentary set-up that they are told is in their best interests and against a better off sections of society. This puts them on the front line - unfortunately without a developed communist leadership because the Chinese influence on the local party got it to stand down and do social work. So while the working class "must start from defending its own interests." as you say, without a developed communist leadership with an independent revolutionary proletarian program it has no option but to side with a faction of the ruling class, at least temporarily.

This is the true cost of revisionist compromise, but it is not going to prevent workers learning fast who their true friends are in the pressure cooker that is driving all class contradiction to bursting point.

[Red Commissar]

Armored vehicles have been sighted in Bangkok moving in to positions around protester positions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64C0L620100519

[Red Commissar]

Red Shirt leaders surrendered following the armored incursion into their camps, claiming that they want to prevent the loss of further life. They are appealing to their followers to disperse as it is well be destructive in resisting the armed military. There are still hold outs of red shirts who relocated from the main camps and are continuing to cause issues- a number of buildings were set on fire including a major shopping center and TV station. Curfew has been imposed on Bangkok as the military now moves into clean up the city.

It seems this episode is coming to an end in Bangkok for now, though there are somethings to take away from it,

-The anti-government sentiment remains, if not intensified, among some segments of the population.
-Protests might spring up in other parts of the country. There are reports of some violence towards government institutions in the northeast where Red Shirt support is strong.
-The protests have revealed the divisions in the political scene, unaddressed by the state after many decades.

[Antifa94]

Don't be so optimistic.

[cyprose]

Me! Despite whether they're not "Socialist" or "Communist", this is still a workers revolution & deserves our support!

I recently contacted some redshirts,I suggested to them,the idea of joining in their protest on the streets as,as some are leftist,i support them in solidarity.. I got a reply from a redshirt who told me that it is their countryman's fight,they do not want foreigners interferring in their protest. They do not want double standards.

You guys can google on foreigners at redshirt's.