General strike in India planned over price rises

[Devrim]

From Libcom news:


India's major unions have called for a nationwide general strike this September over numerous issues including the rising cost of living and demanding an improved social security net. The Hindu reported that all central trade unions have called for a nationwide strike against the Centre's policies regarding price rise and other issues concerning workers including the violation of labour laws, Gurudas Dasgupta, general secretary of the All-India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), announced here on Wednesday.
“The decision on when the strike will be held will be taken at a national convention of all central trade unions to be held on July 15, but the tentative date for the strike will be in the first week of September,” Mr. Dasgupta said at a press conference.
This is the first time that all trade unions, including the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), are coming together in calling a general strike, claimed Mr. Dasgupta.
The decision to call for a strike was taken at a meeting of representatives from all eight central trade unions that was chaired by INTUC president, Dr. G. Sanjeeva Reddy, he added.
Concerns on issues including price rise, violation of labour laws, disinvestment of profit-making Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and the demand for a national fund for social security of the unorganised sector were raised at the meeting, he said.
On being asked about the involvement of the Congress' trade union wing, INTUC, in the strike which has several demands that the Left parties have repeatedly raised, Mr. Dasgupta clarified that several issues including violation of labour laws, continuous loss of jobs and the need for a fund for the unorganised sector were exclusive demands of the trade unions.
Mr. Dasgupta said the trade unions were forced to take this step after several attempts to voice their concerns to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee failed.


http://libcom.org/news/general-strike-india-planned-over-price-rises-17052010

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

:laugh::lol::blink::p
Unions sponsored by parties like CPI(Marxist) (killers of Singur, Nandigram) and their allies like CPI, RSP, FB etc along with unions sponsored by BJP, the B******* agent of imperialism and the very dirty, Hindu communal party.
All this are nothing but cheap opera drama to make the workers fool.

[Starport]

:laugh::lol::blink::p
Unions sponsored by parties like CPI(Marxist) (killers of Singur, Nandigram) and their allies like CPI, RSP, FB etc along with unions sponsored by BJP, the B******* agent of imperialism and the very dirty, Hindu communal party.
All this are nothing but cheap opera drama to make the workers fool.

This is all true and great opportunity for the revolutionaries to expose the lying reformism of the CPI(Marxist) , CPI, RSP, FB etc (none of who are Marxist) and prepare the workers for future struggles.

[Devrim]

:laugh::lol::blink::p
Unions sponsored by parties like CPI(Marxist) (killers of Singur, Nandigram) and their allies like CPI, RSP, FB etc along with unions sponsored by BJP, the B******* agent of imperialism and the very dirty, Hindu communal party.
All this are nothing but cheap opera drama to make the workers fool.

Certainly we don't have much faith in the unions , of whatever political persuasion. In fact my first thought upon reading it is that it is far enough in the future for them to call it off.

Unions tend not to go around calling general strikes for nothing though. When it happens it is usually due to widespread anger within the working class, and indeed recently in India there has been an increase in workers' struggle.

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

Certainly we don't have much faith in the unions , of whatever political persuasion. In fact my first thought upon reading it is that it is far enough in the future for them to call it off.

Unions tend not to go around calling general strikes for nothing though. When it happens it is usually due to widespread anger within the working class, and indeed recently in India there has been an increase in workers' struggle.

Devrim
In recent years, there is an increase in struggle of NOT ONLY WORKERS, BUT ALSO OTHER OPPRESSED PEOPLE TOO. In fact, the working class is controlled mostly by revisionist and parliamentary parties, which makes them unable to conduct any proper struggle.

[Devrim]

In recent years, there is an increase in struggle of NOT ONLY WORKERS, BUT ALSO OTHER OPPRESSED PEOPLE TOO. In fact, the working class is controlled mostly by revisionist and parliamentary parties, which makes them unable to conduct any proper struggle.

To me this is an abandonment of Marxism. In Marxist theory, the working class is the only truly revolutionary class.

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

To me this is an abandonment of Marxism. In Marxist theory, the working class is the only truly revolutionary class.

Devrim
I suggest you better go back to German philosophy again.

[Crux]

In recent years, there is an increase in struggle of NOT ONLY WORKERS, BUT ALSO OTHER OPPRESSED PEOPLE TOO. In fact, the working class is controlled mostly by revisionist and parliamentary parties, which makes them unable to conduct any proper struggle.True, but other than wanton use of capslock I don't see you offering any alternative. A general strike in itself poses many possibilities.

[zimmerwald1915]

You just have a biased western chauvinist perspective which goes against universalism. Your narrow interpretation of Marxism applies only to advanced industrial countries. In the not-so advanced countries, workers have to ally themselves with the poor peasantry and middle classes as these classes form the majority of those exploited under really existing capitalism in those countries. Also, since you seem to have forgotten, the majority of human beings do not live in Europe where alone a pure working class revolution is possible. I see why European workers wouldn't need to ally themselves with the peasants, since there are no peasants in Europe to speak of. However, that is not the case in the rest of the world. So, please keep your biased chauvinist perspective to yourself and stop calling yourself a 'Marxist'. You and your kind of 'pure Marxists' are nothing more than white nationalists to be honest.
Actually, it seems to me that it is folks who hold the position you just defended who are slandering people in the "not-so advanced countries". Specifically, you believe that the workers in those countries are so weak that their struggle on their terrain is "impossible", and that they have to form "alliances" with the "middle classes". That is, workers in these countries have to abandon any hope of political independence, of breaking free from the capitalist parties, in the name of alliances with "the majority of the population". In simpler terms, workers in the less advanced countries are incapable of revolution. It is in fact this position which is paternalistic and not a bit racist.

The Marxist position is rather different. This position holds that the working class cannot gain victory in the less advanced countries by alliances with the middle classes, but by drawing other sectors of society behind itself in its struggle. It can only do that by providing its own examples of struggle, on its own terrain, for its own demands. A general strike, even if called by the unions, can provide the opportunity for the working class to break the unions' stranglehold on working class life. It's happened before, when workers have created their own organs to take the management and evaluation of their struggle away from the unions. Something similar is happening in Turkey now. And in doing so, the working class provides its leadership for other sectors of society.

[Leo]

You just have a biased western chauvinist perspective which goes against universalism. Your narrow interpretation of Marxism applies only to advanced industrial countries. In the not-so advanced countries, workers have to ally themselves with the poor peasantry and middle classes as these classes form the majority of those exploited under really existing capitalism in those countries. Also, since you seem to have forgotten, the majority of human beings do not live in Europe where alone a pure working class revolution is possible. I see why European workers wouldn't need to ally themselves with the peasants, since there are no peasants in Europe to speak of. However, that is not the case in the rest of the world. So, please keep your biased chauvinist perspective to yourself and stop calling yourself a 'Marxist'. You and your kind of 'pure Marxists' are nothing more than white nationalists to be honest.

Did you know that Tehran is a more industrialized city than London? Did you know that there has been strikes involving tens of thousands in Palestine and hundreds of thousands in Lebanon? Have you heard of the massive clashes between the garment workers and the police in Bangladesh? What can you say about the results of the strike in al Mahalla (or do you even know what al Mahalla is)? How many sponteneous mass confrontations between the workers and the riot police happen in China in one year? Did you know there was a 500,000 strong strike in South Africa recently? Did you know that strikes are currently going on or about to start in Guinea, Zimbabwe and Nigeria? How big do you think this strike in India will be? Which class made the revolution in Russia?

Who is the biased western chauvinist here? Your ignorance of the real situation in the so-called third world, combined with your chauvinistic bias seeing the people living there as "lesser peoples", makes you a typical western chauvinist. Most mainstream chauvinists in the West, who are supportive of the Western powers obviously and go on about the "dangers coming from the east" actually do not even have a different premise than yours. The only difference is that you are some sort of an ultra-liberal, who has decided its cool to support those "dangers". However like all white nationalists, your approach is one of typically downplaying the workers in the third world, almost denying their existence or claiming they are very weak and so forth. Accordingly, just as the politics of mainstream chauvinists are based on supporting the Western bosses over the native workers in the third world, yours is based on supporting native bosses because "otherwise they would be dangerous to democracy" or wanna-be bosses like the Maoists or whatever, over the workers, in order for them to wage a struggle against the Western powers, with established national unity of course and cross-class alliances. The only difference you have with the white-nationalists you go on about is that what they present as a phantom, you see as something to wish for - your perspective, analysis of and approach in regards to the working class in the third world is identical. Being a Kurdish worker living in Turkey, I don't see any difference between your kind and main-stream biased western chauvinist and white nationalists. Your third-worldism isn't loud enough to cover your similarities with them.

By the way, I suggest you check out what "exploited" means in marxist terms before going on about how the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie is "exploited".

On the actual point, of course some sections of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie everywhere will support the proletariat in its struggle, while some wont. This doesn't make them revolutionary classes - it is ridiculous to claim that they are.

[the last donut of the night]

In recent years, there is an increase in struggle of NOT ONLY WORKERS, BUT ALSO OTHER OPPRESSED PEOPLE TOO. In fact, the working class is controlled mostly by revisionist and parliamentary parties, which makes them unable to conduct any proper struggle.

I have to disagree. Claiming the workers cannot carry on any struggle anymore is ridiculous. In many countries the proletariat has almost no class consciousness and is manipulated by both the government and the unions. Does that mean we should completely disregard their struggles too?

[zimmerwald1915]

I have to disagree. Claiming the workers cannot carry on any struggle anymore is ridiculous. In many countries the proletariat has almost no class consciousness and is manipulated by both the government and the unions. Does that mean we should completely disregard their struggles too?
Good post. Of course, it is important to be able to discern when the proletariat is able to break that manipulation, and, if an organization's forces are able, to help in that breaking.

[pranabjyoti]

True, but other than wanton use of capslock I don't see you offering any alternative. A general strike in itself poses many possibilities.
A GENERAL STRIKE UNDER CONTROL OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES. NEVER.
Until and unless, the working class has been able to start and continue some kind of armed struggle, THEY CAN NOT TAKE THE LEADERSHIP.

[Crux]

A GENERAL STRIKE UNDER CONTROL OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES. NEVER.
Until and unless, the working class has been able to start and continue some kind of armed struggle, THEY CAN NOT TAKE THE LEADERSHIP.
haha, go back to your neo-blanquist nonsense. Class struggle is not dependent on the working class doing "some kind of armed struggle". Now it does not exclude it, certainly, but I am a bit uncertain whetever you know what the working class is, in marxist sense, and what class struggle is. I'd be happy to explain if you are curious.

[pranabjyoti]

haha, go back to your neo-blanquist nonsense. Class struggle is not dependent on the working class doing "some kind of armed struggle". Now it does not exclude it, certainly, but I am a bit uncertain whetever you know what the working class is, in marxist sense, and what class struggle is. I'd be happy to explain if you are curious.
I suggest you better try to take part in some real life struggle. Then I hope you can understand why "armed struggle" is so much necessary.

[Crux]

I suggest you better try to take part in some real life struggle. Then I hope you can understand why "armed struggle" is so much necessary.
I am, yet strangely I have not developed a gun fetishism. I suggest you learn a thing or two about what class struggle means. Hint: getting a hard-on for men and women carrying guns isn't it.

Gracchus Babeuf: Pathetic, irrelevant straw man as usual. If you are unwilling or unable to actually debate, why don't you just go somewhere else?

[zimmerwald1915]

More of the same old white nationalist blabbering. I support working class strikes everywhere. However, I don't see the working class as the ONLY revolutionary class in places where they are not strong enough. You bring up Russia. Why don't you bring up China, where a peasant-worker alliance led the revolution? The only reason seems to be that the Russians were white.
Please. He brings up the Russian revolution because the working class brought the peasants along on its own political programme, which political programme is the only route for the liberation of all humanity. In China, as you point out, the proletariat's programme was suborned to the interests of other classes, including the bourgeoisie. The Russian revolution was a revolution. The Chinese "revolution" was not. China's revolutionary workers' movement was crushed, with CCP complicity, in 1928.

[pranabjyoti]

I am, yet strangely I have not developed a gun fetishism. I suggest you learn a thing or two about what class struggle means. Hint: getting a hard-on for men and women carrying guns isn't it.

Gracchus Babeuf: Pathetic, irrelevant straw man as usual. If you are unwilling or unable to actually debate, why don't you just go somewhere else?
Don't worry, just come to India and try to build up a real workers struggle here. That will very quickly lead you to a "gun-fetish".

[Palingenisis]

The way I see it is that your views don't represent the working class interests anywhere, either in the west or elsewhere. You just represent the interests of the colonial and neo-colonial bourgeoisie.

Leo was way out of order in calling you a racist. However you have just sunk to the same level he did there. In case you havent read any of his posts he is a Kurd living in Turkey which cant be much fun. Did you ever consider his embracing the crypto-syndicalist and idealism of the ICC might have been born out of the defeat of the national liberation in Kurdistan and the opportunism of its bourgieous and petit-bourgieous leadership rather than any love the pro-western faction of the Turkish ruling class?

[Leo]

More of the same old white nationalist blabbering. A Kurdish worker living in Turkey has just been called a "white nationalist" by someone living in the US. Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Whenever us middle eastern workers stop supporting the bosses here, and start calling for the unity of the international proletariat, we become "white nationalists", or "traitors to the nation" or "betrayers of the anti-imperialist struggle", whatever insults you can think of. Your predecessors were no different, loud defendants of colonial nationalism, like Stalin in the third-international, could only resort to silently plotting when revolutionary theorists like the Iranian communist Avetis Sultanzade, or the Indian communist Abani Muhkerji spoke out against the Third International's colonial policy, increasing pandering to nationalism and so forth - resulting in the likes of Sultanzade and Mukherji ending up murdered by the Stalinist state. As it seems, we've got no "right" to say "Workers of the world, unite", no right to reject nationalism or class alliences, no right to struggle for the world revolution, because we are supposed to be fanatical nationalists in your eyes, that is our role, our stereotype in your little world.


Why don't you bring up China, where a peasant-worker alliance led the revolution? I did bring up China also: "How many sponteneous mass confrontations between the workers and the riot police happen in China in one year?"

If you are talking about 1949 as a "revolution", I don't see it as a revolution, but a bourgeois faction replacing another. 1927, on the other hand, was a revolution and could have been brought up. Lots of other examples could have been brought, since the history of the "East" is full of class struggles, and the international revolutionary wave had a serious impact there as well. I'm sorry if the examples I think of are the same as the nationalist movements you masturbate over, however.


Leo was way out of order in calling you a racist. I was not calling him a racist actually, I was rather saying that his perspective is based around the same view of the world, the same view of races, nations etc. them same or similar stereotypes and so forth. This is of course not surprising, considering this sort of view among the dominant world-views of the bourgeoisie.

What I said was that I don't regard him differently from those who are actually racists for these reasons. I stand by what I said.


the crypto-syndicalist and idealism of the ICC Seriously?


might have been born out of the defeat of the national liberation in Kurdistan and the opportunism of its bourgieous and petit-bourgieous leadership It rather came from realizing on a general level that class struggles, not national struggles had any potential whatsoever to abolish national oppression, and from realizing that this problem can not be solved in Turkey alone.

Even at the periphery of the Kurdish movement, there is never much talk about the general status of the movement and never any talk of it being defeated. It was some time after I stopped being a Kurdish nationalist and started looking into revolutionary theory that I realized that the national liberation movement had actually been defeated in the Turkish Kurdistan, and incidentally had won in the Iraqi Kurdistan.

[Crux]

Don't worry, just come to India and try to build up a real workers struggle here. That will very quickly lead you to a "gun-fetish".
So you basically admit that you're not a marxist? I am for the right of the armed defense of the tribal people, the worker's and the peasants, the question however isn't that, the question is, do you know what class struggle means?

[Palingenisis]

Seriously?

It rather came from realizing on a general level that class struggles, not national struggles had any potential whatsoever to abolish national oppression, and from realizing that this problem can not be solved in Turkey alone.

Even at the periphery of the Kurdish movement, there is never much talk about the general status of the movement and never any talk of it being defeated. It was some time after I stopped being a Kurdish nationalist and started looking into revolutionary theory that I realized that the national liberation movement had actually been defeated in the Turkish Kurdistan, and incidentally had won in the Iraqi Kurdistan.

Yes I seriously consider the ICC crypto-syndicalist and idealist...Im going to get round to posting something on this. I dont hold you at all the same contempt that I do Trots though because I understand the historical reasons why the Communist Left came into existence and some of the material you produce is incredibly interesting and though provoking. That said I do honestly believe that you are crypto-syndicialist and idealist. And saying that Graceaus is basically some condescending unconcious racist I still believe is out of order. I believe that as much as I believe that you are some lover Turkish colonialism and Western Imperialism i.e. not at all.

The other thing is that though the patriotic cpaitalist, small farming and petit-capitalist classes and the movements led by them can strike blows againstr colonialism and imperialism (and for that reason deserve our support up to a point) that cant deliever national liberation in this era. Also the Kurdish struggle against colonialism is a part of the class struggle. Is it not largely the working class of Kurdistan who suffers most from colonialism?

[Leo]

Yes I seriously consider the ICC crypto-syndicalist

Oh dear.


And saying that Graceaus is basically some condescending unconcious racist

That is not what I am saying either, I do think I made myself clear enough on this.


The other thing is that though the patriotic cpaitalist, small farming and petit-capitalist classes and the movements led by them can strike blows againstr colonialism and imperialism

I don't believe they can, if they are striking blows against one imperialism, they are doing this with the aid of and thus for the interests of another.


Also the Kurdish struggle against colonialism is a part of the class struggle. Is it not largely the working class of Kurdistan who suffers most from colonialism?

Indeed the working class of Kurdistan is who suffers most from national oppression and the general actions of Turkish imperialism. The PKK movement, however, is not on class terrain, and thus no matter how many workers are involved, it is not a part of class struggle - nor does it have any claims to the contrary. Its only relation to class affairs is the struggle it is waging to increase its the number of seats within the trade-union bureaucracies. There is no significant "Kurdish struggle", at least on national terms, aside from the PKK, and the ones there are, supporters of Barzani and so forth, can't be considered on the class terrain any more than the PKK.

[Palingenisis]

Oh dear..

Maybe economist would be a better way of putting it but it amounts to the same thing ultimately. We are not just "workers" we are human beings first and we exist in a much bigger world than just the workplace and economic struggles.

Half out of curiousity do you think that what you said about Graceus applies to me also?

[Leo]

Maybe economist would be a better way of putting it but it amounts to the same thing ultimately. We are not just "workers" we are human beings first and we exist in a much bigger world than just the workplace and economic struggles. I don't think anyone among us would deny that, or claim we are not human beings or that we don't exist in a in a world bigger than just the workplace. What we say is that workplace is at the heart of the capitalist system, and if it is to be struck we must strike at its heart, otherwise we can't damage it. Also what we say is that the class division is, of course the main antagonism in the capitalist society, and that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". And of course we think that the true history of humanity can begin only after the abolition of classes, and that everything will be alienated/alienated in the capitalist society.

On the other hand, I don't see how these could be used to argue that we are economists, let alone "cyrpto-syndicalists" (I would advise against going down the Jacob Richter road of inventing non-existent terms and accusing people of them anyway). What the term "economists" refers to within the workers' movement is the right-wing of the old social democracy: the criticism arose from the fact that these elements focused only on workplace reforms, abandoned the call for the proletariat to take power and downplayed the role of the political organization, favoring instead the trade-union form. As for syndicalism, this term has often been used describing those who favored "revolutionary unions" or "red unions". Evidently, this is not the way we see as the way to go forward either.


Half out of curiousity do you think that what you said about Graceus applies to me also? I never had such impression.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the other hand, I don't see how these could be used to argue that we are economists, let alone "cyrpto-syndicalists" (I would advise against going down the Jacob Richter road of inventing non-existent terms and accusing people of them anyway). What the term "economists" refers to within the workers' movement is the right-wing of the old social democracy

Nope. Check this out:

The Nascent Trend of Imperialist Economism by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/sep/00.htm]

The left-comm stance on national liberation is economist, and the "crypto-syndicalists" (I never used that term, btw, but "conning the masses to power via the mass strike and soviet fetishes") are economists too.

[pranabjyoti]

So you basically admit that you're not a marxist? I am for the right of the armed defense of the tribal people, the worker's and the peasants, the question however isn't that, the question is, do you know what class struggle means?
At least I know it with my daily life experience. I want to know whether you are ever engaged in any class struggle so far?

[Saorsa]

Can we hold off on the accusations of racism, white supremacy and so on? This is a debate between people with different perspectives on how to work towards revolution.

It's not a debate between enemies.

[9]

GracchusBabeuf is the third-worldist equivalent of ComradeMan.

[Saorsa]

He's really not.

[Leo]

I don't know about his particular conditions, but I know plenty of wannabe lackeys of imperialism among oppressed minorities and working classes Yes, I have no doubt you traveled the world and all, and saw many oppressed minorities, and were engaged in great heroic struggles, and saw lots of traitors to the cause :rolleyes:


and those who idealize the coolness of imperialism by fetishizing imperialist spokespersons like Clint Eastwood. Ahahahahahahahaha.


No, you complete moronWatch it, this is flaming.


I support the resistance of revolutionaries against the Stalinist state and the Third International and the Middle Eastern workers stance against oppression by the bourgeoisie. Mao had his lengthy critiques of Soviet revisionism which I uphold. Mao never spoke up against Stalin until well after the Sino-Soviet split. Mr. Mustache was long gone when that happened.


Like all ignorant Eurocentric Euro-leftistsHad you even heard of the people I am talking about before?


you ignorantly conflate the revisionist Soviet state and the Third World revolutionariesNo, I conflate your outlook with that of the Soviet state. You are not a "Third world revolutionary", you live in the US, and you are not a revolutionary but a disturbed, sad teenager with a bourgeois outlook, satisfying his emotional needs with regularly changing his politics and trolling on the internet, and nowadays masturbating over the deaths of the workers of the third world for the interests of their bosses.

Do go on embarrassing yourself.

[Palingenisis]

I don't know about his particular conditions, but I know plenty of wannabe lackeys of imperialism among oppressed minorities and working classes and those who idealize the coolness of imperialism by fetishizing imperialist spokespersons like Clint Eastwood.

Turkey is not the USA. There is a strong likelihood that he has had family members murdered and/or tortured by Imperialists so I really doubt he thinks its cool. Also you are forgetting that while indeed there is a contradiction between oppressed and oppressor nations there is a contradiction between the working class and capitalists within the oppressed nations and that often third world capitalists will use anti-imperialist rhetoric as a weapon against their "own" working class. This leaves a bitter taste in a lot of people's mouth. Sometimes even the representives of the oppressed nation's capitalists or middle class will wrap themselves in the red flag...In my own country Gerry Adams the leader of the Provisional Republican movement used to praise Enver Hoxha and happily went from doing so to shaking hands with Bill Clinton and is now administrating British rule and breaking strikes. This doesnt mean that we shouldnt support national liberation movements but we have to remember that there are third world capitalists aswell who exploit and oppress the working class.

[Palingenisis]

No, I conflate your outlook with that of the Soviet state. You are not a "Third world revolutionary", you live in the US, and you are not a revolutionary but a disturbed, sad teenager with a bourgeois outlook, satisfying his emotional needs with regularly changing his politics and trolling on the internet, and nowadays masturbating over the deaths of the workers of the third world for the interests of their bosses.

Do go on embarrassing yourself.

Oh come on...Group hug! :)

[Crux]

At least I know it with my daily life experience. I want to know whether you are ever engaged in any class struggle so far?
Yes, yes I have. Funny though how you avoid my question, what do you think class struggle is? Define it. Or do you mean to say you run around gun-in hand everyday, like your blanquist understanding of class struggle seems to imply?

[pranabjyoti]

Yes, yes I have. Funny though how you avoid my question, what do you think class struggle is? Define it. Or do you mean to say you run around gun-in hand everyday, like your blanquist understanding of class struggle seems to imply?
The way a group of people is attached to production or service, is defined as their class. Different classes have different class interest and the clash between different classes is defined as "class struggle". Are you happy now? IF NOT, THEN LEAVE ME ALONE. At present, I am not in mood to get examined by an examiner about my basic knowledge of dialectic materialism.
I suggest you better try to build up workers movements here in India and SHOW US HOW TO BUILD IT WITHOUT "GUN FETISHISM".

[Palingenisis]

The way a group of people is attached to production or service, is defined as their class. Different classes have different class interest and the clash between different classes is defined as "class struggle". Are you happy now? IF NOT, THEN LEAVE ME ALONE. At present, I am not in mood to get examined by an examiner about my basic knowledge of dialectic materialism.
I suggest you better try to build up workers movements here in India and SHOW US HOW TO BUILD IT WITHOUT "GUN FETISHISM".


Dont worry his brand of Trot fetishizes Trade Unions and elections....He isnt to be taken seriously.

[pranabjyoti]

Dont worry his brand of Trot fetishizes Trade Unions and elections....He isnt to be taken seriously.
Sometimes, he is too much irritating.

[Crux]

The way a group of people is attached to production or service, is defined as their class. Different classes have different class interest and the clash between different classes is defined as "class struggle". Are you happy now? IF NOT, THEN LEAVE ME ALONE. At present, I am not in mood to get examined by an examiner about my basic knowledge of dialectic materialism.
I suggest you better try to build up workers movements here in India and SHOW US HOW TO BUILD IT WITHOUT "GUN FETISHISM".
Yes, you sure do seem a bit moody.

Oh, I don't know, intervening in the class struggle perhaps? A general strike, even under a right-wing leadership, opens up a momentum for intervention., just to, sort of, stay with the topic of the thread. That's teh problem I have with your out of hand dismissal, not of the likes of the CPI(m), but seemingly of the working class itself.

[Palingenisis]

He was also the one saying a while earlier something to the effect of the imperialist tribal leaders of the Indian jungles that the Maoists are supposedly cooperating with. According to his bizarre ideology, American and Kurdish imperialism are both reactionary, which assumes that there is something imperialist about the Kurdish nationalists. Not only that even the tribal leaders in the jungles holding their sticks and bows are also imperialist!! Such absurdities are comonplace with such infantile thinkers.

The reductionism of the International Commmunist Currents also drives me mad at times. People arent intellectual abstractions though, most of us draw our views from experiance however limited that maybe and however much that limited experiance stops us from seeing the bigger picture. I dont consider a Kurdish Left Communist living in Turkey some type of reactionary. Its also pretty foolish to just state to someone that the conclusions they have reached come from intellectual limitation. Members of family have been killed fighting in a national liberation struggle..Members of my family have also been killed (justly) by national liberation forces. There is a real and often not very nice world out there. Instead of going on about how clever you are imagine for a moment what it must feel like to actually kill someone and than imagine what it must feel like to be killed.

[pranabjyoti]

A general strike, even under a right-wing leadership, opens up a momentum for intervention., just to, sort of, stay with the topic of the thread.
Just the opposite, this kind of "road shows" actually produce disbelief about the means of struggle like strike, procession among general people.