Saorsa
15th May 2010, 23:27
Things are hotting up for the thai bourgeoisie, it seems there is a hell of a lot of anti-rich anger amongst organised workers.
Anyone else got an analysis of whats happening there?
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7722390/Thailand-protests-violence-flares-as-troops-move-towards-Red-Shirt-encampment.html)
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.
Admittedly it is hard to see where this goes without better leadership...but fuck, let's be on the right side here.
Anyways, Thailand is a grim royalist dictatorship presided over by an ancient vampiric child-fucker, whose rule is concealed beneath the most perfunctory of liberal-democratic appearances. The Red party is the supporters of Thaksin - again, billionaire populist - mostly peasants and recent migrants to Bangkok who support Thaksin because he actually threw a little cash towards infrastructure and social spending rather than just letting foreign companies rape Thai natural resources and cultivating Bangkok as the world capital of tranny- and child-prostitution. Thaksin has been elected (by the peasants and workers) and deposed (by aforesaid vampiric child-fucker) several times; at the moment he's deposed.
On the Yellow side, there's a lot of slogans about democracy and freedom, predictably not-really-concealing a nearly genocidal middle-class hatred of workers and peasants.
The present prime minister is an Eton and Oxford educated enthusiast for natural resources rapeage and paid sexual degradation. The workers, predictably, don't like him.
Here's a longer summary (http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/may2010/thailand.html) from Lalkar.
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/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.
Devrim
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?
Things are hotting up for the thai bourgeoisie, it seems there is a hell of a lot of anti-rich anger amongst organised workers.
Anyone else got an analysis of whats happening there?
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7722390/Thailand-protests-violence-flares-as-troops-move-towards-Red-Shirt-encampment.html)
Its basically the rural people versus the urban dwellers of Bangkok. The rural faction, or the Redshirts, are supporting Thaksin Shinawatra, an authoritarian populist who promised to fight crime and improve standards of life of the poor, while the yellow shirts are the faction of the urban liberal elite in Bangkok. Neither faction is progressive, but the Redshirts are at least more representative of the people outside of the capitol.
Given that there currently isn't any more progressive movement with a realistic capacity to gain power in Thailand, I believe that critical support of the Redshirts should be given.
Its basically the rural people versus the urban dwellers of Bangkok. The rural faction, or the Redshirts, are supporting Thaksin Shinawatra, an authoritarian populist who promised to fight crime and improve standards of life of the poor, while the yellow shirts are the faction of the urban liberal elite in Bangkok. Neither faction is progressive, but the Redshirts are at least more representative of the people outside of the capitol.
Given that there currently isn't any more progressive movement with a realistic capacity to gain power in Thailand, I believe that critical support of the Redshirts should be given.
But their former faction leader (who was shot the other day) was apparently celebrated by the redshirts for his wonderful contribution back in the days of suppressing communists and socialist movements (and he is not the only fascist in their ranks).
Shinawatras health reform, by the way, was about as socialist and effective as the Barack Obamas; it was simply a token "reform" to trick the masses into giving him support.
There is nothing good about either faction, and I cannot see how this political instability can result in anything but another equally repulsive faction of the bourgeoisie gaining power.
Anyone else got an analysis of whats happening there?
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7722390/Thailand-protests-violence-flares-as-troops-move-towards-Red-Shirt-encampment.html)
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.
Admittedly it is hard to see where this goes without better leadership...but fuck, let's be on the right side here.
Anyways, Thailand is a grim royalist dictatorship presided over by an ancient vampiric child-fucker, whose rule is concealed beneath the most perfunctory of liberal-democratic appearances. The Red party is the supporters of Thaksin - again, billionaire populist - mostly peasants and recent migrants to Bangkok who support Thaksin because he actually threw a little cash towards infrastructure and social spending rather than just letting foreign companies rape Thai natural resources and cultivating Bangkok as the world capital of tranny- and child-prostitution. Thaksin has been elected (by the peasants and workers) and deposed (by aforesaid vampiric child-fucker) several times; at the moment he's deposed.
On the Yellow side, there's a lot of slogans about democracy and freedom, predictably not-really-concealing a nearly genocidal middle-class hatred of workers and peasants.
The present prime minister is an Eton and Oxford educated enthusiast for natural resources rapeage and paid sexual degradation. The workers, predictably, don't like him.
Here's a longer summary (http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/may2010/thailand.html) from Lalkar.
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/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.
Devrim
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?
Things are hotting up for the thai bourgeoisie, it seems there is a hell of a lot of anti-rich anger amongst organised workers.
Anyone else got an analysis of whats happening there?
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7722390/Thailand-protests-violence-flares-as-troops-move-towards-Red-Shirt-encampment.html)
Its basically the rural people versus the urban dwellers of Bangkok. The rural faction, or the Redshirts, are supporting Thaksin Shinawatra, an authoritarian populist who promised to fight crime and improve standards of life of the poor, while the yellow shirts are the faction of the urban liberal elite in Bangkok. Neither faction is progressive, but the Redshirts are at least more representative of the people outside of the capitol.
Given that there currently isn't any more progressive movement with a realistic capacity to gain power in Thailand, I believe that critical support of the Redshirts should be given.
Its basically the rural people versus the urban dwellers of Bangkok. The rural faction, or the Redshirts, are supporting Thaksin Shinawatra, an authoritarian populist who promised to fight crime and improve standards of life of the poor, while the yellow shirts are the faction of the urban liberal elite in Bangkok. Neither faction is progressive, but the Redshirts are at least more representative of the people outside of the capitol.
Given that there currently isn't any more progressive movement with a realistic capacity to gain power in Thailand, I believe that critical support of the Redshirts should be given.
But their former faction leader (who was shot the other day) was apparently celebrated by the redshirts for his wonderful contribution back in the days of suppressing communists and socialist movements (and he is not the only fascist in their ranks).
Shinawatras health reform, by the way, was about as socialist and effective as the Barack Obamas; it was simply a token "reform" to trick the masses into giving him support.
There is nothing good about either faction, and I cannot see how this political instability can result in anything but another equally repulsive faction of the bourgeoisie gaining power.