Maoists blow up bus in India; 35 dead

[The Vegan Marxist]

I've actually got a couple questions on this, & that is, what were 11 police personnel doing in a bus full of "innocent civilians" & where exactly is this footage?

Maoists blow up bus in India; 35 dead
Last Updated : 2010-05-17 11:36 PM

RAIPUR: At least 35 people were killed after Maoist rebels blew up a bus carrying police and civilians in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh today, an official said.

Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh told reporters in Raipur that the dead included 11 police personnel.

“Twenty-four civilians and 11 policemen have died and 15 persons including 14 police personnel were injured in the blast,” the chief minister said.

He said an unspecified number of bodies were still trapped in the mangled bus following the mine blast in Dantewada district — a Maoist stronghold where rebels ambushed and killed 75 policemen last month in the bloodiest massacre of security forces by the extremists.

Television footage showed bodies laid out on the road next to the wreckage of the bus. The front portion of the vehicle had been almost completely destroyed by the force of the blast.

“The killing and targeting of innocent civilians travelling on a bus is to be strongly condemned by all right-thinking people,” Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai told mediapersons in New Delhi.

The security men among the dead and injured were special police officers, who are recruited from the civilian population to help security forces in anti-Maoist operations, said SR Kalluri, deputy inspector general of police.

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Maoists+blow+up+bus+in+India ;+35+dead&NewsID=244443

[Tablo]

Ewww, a lot of innocent people seem to be getting killed by Maoists in India. Not sure whether this is all propaganda or what. :/

[Saorsa]

The Maoists will probably have a statement out within a few days to give their side of the story. This looks like it might have been a decent sized fuck up, but we don't know all the details yet.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'd like to also point out that, even though I'm not justifying what had happened on the deaths of innocent life, revolution's are never bloodless & never come without a death count on the innocent from both sides. Let's also keep in mind that, compared to how much innocent life have been saved since the Naxalites waged armed warfare & the numbers of police personnel in which they've killed, the death toll of innocent life on this particular incident isn't that really high. It's still a shame to see such, nonetheless, though.

[Q]

Regardless of who was on that bus, this was a terrorist attack which is an anti-working class tactic, strengthening the state as "law and order" will be given even more prominence now. The experiences of the Narordniki already pointed out that you can't blast away the Tsar and with it the state and the system, yet 130 years on the Maoists still carry out such bankrupt tactics. This goes beyond having a "decent sized fuck up", this deserves condemnation.

[Saorsa]

Should we apologise for every innocent person killed by Trotsky's Red Army? Or by the Cheka, with his approval?

Don't be a hypocrite.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Regardless of who was on that bus, this was a terrorist attack which is an anti-working class tactic, strengthening the state as "law and order" will be given even more prominence now. The experiences of the Narordniki already pointed out that you can't blast away the Tsar and with it the state and the system, yet 130 years on the Maoists still carry out such bankrupt tactics. This goes beyond having a "decent sized fuck up", this deserves condemnation.

I'd recommend you holding off your macho antics & wait to see if this is true or not, & what the Maoists have to say about this incident as well. Let's not be like the capitalist court systems & only get one side of the story & use that as our reasoning behind our actions or words.

[Q]

Should we apologise for every innocent person killed by Trotsky's Red Army? Or be the Cheka, with his approval?

Don't be a hypocrite.
This short post includes many assumptions and wrong parallels.
1. You assume I approve all what Trotsky did.
2. You assume I disapprove what Maoists do.
3. You make a face value parallel between what happened in Russia about a century ago to what is happening today in India.
4. You make a parallel between guerillia tactics and terrorist bombings with an army and a class movement fighting in the context of a civil war.

I'm a bit lost by your post really as you assume I made my comment out of sectarian motives. This is not the case. I condemn terrorist tactics always regardless of who carries it out.


I'd recommend you holding off your macho antics & wait to see if this is true or not, & what the Maoists have to say about this incident as well. Let's not be like the capitalist court systems & only get one side of the story & use that as our reasoning behind our actions or words.
There is a possibility of the state blowing up its own people in order to have a reason to step up state intervention. I'm not informed enough to rule that out. I'll await the Maoist response.

[Starport]

Regardless of who was on that bus, this was a terrorist attack which is an anti-working class tactic, strengthening the state as "law and order" will be given even more prominence now. The experiences of the Narordniki already pointed out that you can't blast away the Tsar and with it the state and the system, yet 130 years on the Maoists still carry out such bankrupt tactics. This goes beyond having a "decent sized fuck up", this deserves condemnation.

Why do you think terrorist attacks are anti-working class?

Are you saying that it would be wrong to assassinate a brutal state official and his murderous unit if such an action was of benefit, and had the support of, the workers in the area/country. Provided that terror isn't the dominant or only form etc, it is not to be ruled out at all.

As for your "condemnation" it is only important frustration that will have no effect on the activities of any of the combatants in a class struggle that is now well advanced in India.

[Q]

Why do you think terrorist attacks are anti-working class?

Are you saying that it would be wrong to assassinate a brutal state official and his murderous unit if such an action was of benefit, and had the support of, the workers in the area/country. Provided that terror isn't the dominant or only form etc, it is not to be ruled out at all.
My position is summarised by Trotsky who wrote about the subject (http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm) in 1911 in a bit which is still very up to date I think.


As for your "condemnation" it is only important frustration that will have no effect on the activities of any of the combatants in a class struggle that is now well advanced in India.
Besides the reasons mentions in the article by Trotsky you have to ask yourselves what kind of "socialist" state you would get in which a guerillia army takes over power. The model the Maoists are basing themselves on is China which was never a workers democracy, let alone socialist. Even the "best case" Cuba has been a failure to spread any kind of revolution internationally, Che died trying.

The points to the old axiom of Marxism, namely that the only group of people that can successfully and consistently carry out the revolution is the working class. Even if it is a tiny minority among the general populace only this class can, because of its role within the capitalist system, free the entire human race. No other class can do this, let alone a bunch of guerillia's throwing bombs.

My condemnation is a working class response as such a bombing does nothing to strengthen our class, on the contrary.

[Saorsa]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this is a false flag attack. The Maoists have never blown up a civilian bus with an IED before, usually they're much better at picking their targets. This bombing took place in the same area as where the Maoists killed 76 armed police, so this could be an attempt by the state to discredit them.

We don't have enough information to judge yet. It's possible that the Maoists did do this, and if so that's very unfortunate.

[Starport]

My position is summarised by Trotsky who wrote about the subject (http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm) in 1911 in a bit which is still very up to date I think.


Besides the reasons mentions in the article by Trotsky you have to ask yourselves what kind of "socialist" state you would get in which a guerillia army takes over power. The model the Maoists are basing themselves on is China which was never a workers democracy, let alone socialist. Even the "best case" Cuba has been a failure to spread any kind of revolution internationally, Che died trying.

The points to the old axiom of Marxism, namely that the only group of people that can successfully and consistently carry out the revolution is the working class. Even if it is a tiny minority among the general populace only this class can, because of its role within the capitalist system, free the entire human race. No other class can do this, let alone a bunch of guerillia's throwing bombs.

My condemnation is a working class response as such a bombing does nothing to strengthen our class, on the contrary.

It would be Trotsky- try Lenin.

..."It is not guerrilla actions which disorganise the movement, but the weakness of a party which is incapable of taking such actions under its control."...

..."It may be objected that if we are incapable of putting a stop to an abnormal and demoralising phenomenon, this is no reason why the Party should adopt abnormal and demoralising methods of struggle. But such an objection would be a purely bourgeois-liberal and not a Marxist objection, because a Marxist cannot regard civil war, or guerrilla warfare, which is one of its forms, as abnormal and demoralising in general. A Marxist bases himself on the class struggle, and not social peace." ...

..."When I see Social-Democrats proudly and smugly declaring "we are not anarchists, thieves, robbers, we are superior to all this, we reject guerrilla warfare", -- I ask myself: Do these people realise what they are saying?"...

..."I realise that this question must be settled by the local practical workers, and that the remoulding of weak and unprepared organisations is no easy matter. But when I see a Social-Democratic theoretician or publicist not displaying regret over this unpreparedness, but rather a proud smugness and a self-exalted tendency to repeat phrases learned by rote in early youth about anarchism, Blanquism and terrorism, (Q your Narordnikis Ed)I am hurt by this degradation of the most revolutionary doctrine in the world..." Lenin on Guerilla Warfare, Proletary No 5

[Q]

I have to say that I'm unimpressed by your cobbling up of some random quotes of Lenin, but I'll read the full text (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/gw/index.htm) and respond later if this is relevant.

What is your response to the rest of my previous post? I have the impression you only replied to the first line of it.

[Starport]

Q

Thanks for posting the Trotsky link. It's going to be very useful in this and future debates. It will help show the contrast between Lenin's revolutionary grasp and Trotsky's distortions and blatant lies, like this.

"However, it must be said that when they reproach us with terrorism, they are trying – although not always consciously – to give this word a narrower, less indirect meaning. The damaging of machines by workers, for example, is terrorism in this strict sense of the word. The killing of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in hand, against a government minister – all these are terrorist acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has an idea of the true nature of international social democracy ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism, and done so in the most irreconcilable way."

And this from one of the main exponents of terror in the civil war.

[Q]

Q

Thanks for posting the Trotsky link. It's going to be very useful in this and future debates. It will help show the contrast between Lenin's revolutionary grasp and Trotsky's distortions and blatant lies, like this.

"However, it must be said that when they reproach us with terrorism, they are trying – although not always consciously – to give this word a narrower, less indirect meaning. The damaging of machines by workers, for example, is terrorism in this strict sense of the word. The killing of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in hand, against a government minister – all these are terrorist acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has an idea of the true nature of international social democracy ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism, and done so in the most irreconcilable way."

And this from one of the main exponents of terror in the civil war.

What are you trying to prove here? What "distortions"? What "lies"? What "contrast"?

Anyway, may you have good fun with the article. I'm sure you'll be "exposing" Trotsky once and for all, or something.

[Starport]

Q

I am not yet permitted to post links and you will discover if you do in fact read the brilliant short text, that my quotes from Lenin are not cobbling up, or random. They are about you and Trotsky.

[Q]

Q

I am not yet permitted to post links and you will discover if you do in fact read the brilliant short text, that my quotes from Lenin are not cobbling up, or random. They are about you and Trotsky.

You can post links when you reach 25 posts or more, you're currently at 32 posts. So you may start "expose" us now and start yet another idiotic flamewar. I won't be active in such a waste of time though.

[AK]

Strangely enough, the Australian media reported the number of dead as 20.

[Delenda Carthago]

Regardless of who was on that bus, this was a terrorist attack which is an anti-working class tactic, strengthening the state as "law and order" will be given even more prominence now. The experiences of the Narordniki already pointed out that you can't blast away the Tsar and with it the state and the system, yet 130 years on the Maoists still carry out such bankrupt tactics. This goes beyond having a "decent sized fuck up", this deserves condemnation.

hahaha

go tell them,them fuckin counter revolutionaries!

maybe you should go and show them how its done,right?

[AK]

hahaha

go tell them,them fuckin counter revolutionaries!

maybe you should go and show them how its done,right?
Maybe you should blow up a bus with civillians. Terrorism is an unacceptable tactic and does not help class struggle one bit. If anything, the "terrorists"/what-have-you just distance themselves from the working class.

[Saorsa]

The Maoists have developed a parallel government in which millions of people are involved. They're not lacking in popular support, you just have to get off the beaten track a bit to see it for yourself.

We don't know what happened here, and I'm sure the CPI (M) will release a statement clarifying its perspective on what happened. So far, I'm not sure if the Naxalites have even claimed responsibility.

[Starport]

This goes beyond having a "decent sized fuck up", this deserves condemnation.


You can post links when you reach 25 posts or more, you're currently at 32 posts. So you may start "expose" us now and start yet another idiotic flamewar. I won't be active in such a waste of time though.


What a philistine contempt for everyone. First you through out your self-righteous, if impotent, "condemnation" of real genuine anti-imperialist fighters in India, without the full facts or context, but ever ready to swallow any press report and rapidly distance yourself from any taint of terror under the entirely lying pretext that terror is not part of the class struggle.

Then you want to run away. Pleas yourself mate.

[Delenda Carthago]

Maybe you should blow up a bus with civillians. Terrorism is an unacceptable tactic and does not help class struggle one bit. If anything, the "terrorists"/what-have-you just distance themselves from the working class.

are you sure they were "civillians"?Why?Cause the media told you so?

you think a force so close to have a revolution didn't think that one through and needs a nobody like you to point to them out something like "terrorism blah blah blah"?

What have you done or expirienced that is even cloes to their situation that makes you think you may know better on their condition?

[ZeroNowhere]

It seems that these threads are more or less guaranteed to have an ad hominem argument by at least the second page, although mostly it doesn't take that long, and it did not in this case.

[pranabjyoti]

I just want to ask one question to our pro-worker and ANTI-TERRORIST :wub: comrades that why this "civilians" were traveling on the same bus with "special police force" personals? I am pretty sure, if security forces kill some villagers near any Maoist outfit, they will certainly raise the question that "what this innocent villagers were doing near a Maoist outfit".
So far, it has been found that the armed police personals were traveling on the roof of the bus with their arms. So, Maoists can certainly mistaken the bus as an police vehicle. It is the callousness of the state that is much more responsible for the death of the civilians. Perhaps they are deliberately doing so for using common people as human shield.

[comrade_cyanide444]

I'm not sure if this is true or not (the story), but if indeed those people on the bus were civilians, I'd strongly condemn the act. What good comes out of bombing a civilian bus, probably filled with working class people (who are the basis of the Communist movement)? Terrorism is not a tool that should be used without discretion. It gives a message to people saying "We are unethical, we think that preying on you is fine for the greater good". Terrorist attacks are also generally a waste of resources. Bombings should only be on high priority targets and military facilities, kidnappings only on people who are a threat to a revolution, and assassinations only on enemy officers and military. This sort of terrorism only weakens the movement.

However, I do agree with the above. But in a revolution, one must make themselves look BETTER than their oppressors. If the military kills villagers who associate with Communists, don't do the same for them. Instead, increase attacks on the oppressive force. Now if this bus was chock full of "counter-terrorist" forces, along with high priority targets, but still carrying a few civilians, this attack is perfectly justified.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I just want to ask one question to our pro-worker and ANTI-TERRORIST :wub: comrades that why this "civilians" were traveling on the same bus with "special police force" personals? I am pretty sure, if security forces kill some villagers near any Maoist outfit, they will certainly raise the question that "what this innocent villagers were doing near a Maoist outfit".
So far, it has been found that the armed police personals were traveling on the roof of the bus with their arms. So, Maoists can certainly mistaken the bus as an police vehicle. It is the callousness of the state that is much more responsible for the death of the civilians. Perhaps they are deliberately doing so for using common people as human shield.

You actually pull up a great point. The IDF soldiers in Palestine have used this to try & condemn members of the PFLP. They would use human shields so that, if a firefight began, if any casualty was done on the IDF soldier, then it'll mark the casualty of the innocent civilian as well. So this would be used to say that the PFLP are killing innocent civilians with the IDF soldiers.

So, when we look at the situation in India, we find ourselves in the area of where over 70 indian police personnel were killed by the Maoists. So there's a huge uplift of Maoist control over there. So this could lead to the police staying as close to the civilian population as possible. This way, if the Maoists attacked again, then they can blame them for the innocent casualties as well. The fact that the bus looked like a police personnel bus just shows what kind of tactics the police are using against the Maoists. We shouldn't condemn this act against the Maoists, but rather against the police.

Either way, let's wait 'til the Maoists give their own statement on the situation.

[Starport]

Of course each case should be regarded separately but it is always reactionary to 'condemn' anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist attacks. Such 'condemnation' only ever aids the enemy. The best thing is to regard each case and try to explain (that doesn't mean always justify or defend such actions) why imperialism/capitalism is responsible for creating the murderous conditions which affect hundreds of millions of lives.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Alright, I'm starting to really doubt the credibility of the story above after reading this article. What is the truth?

Naxalites blamed for deadly attack
Mon, 17 May 2010 23:56:49 GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/photo/20100517/davari-s20100517175833437.jpg

A passenger bus has been blown up in India, killing at least twenty people including civilians and police officers, a local police official reported.

On Monday, a government statement said it is believed that Maoist rebels were behind the attack.

Apparently a mine was set off under the bus in the Dantewada district of the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh.

Many local TV stations reported that as many as 50 people had lost their lives in the attack.

"About 40 people were travelling on the bus and at least 20 police personnel and a couple of civilians have been killed in a landmine blast," local official S.R. Kalluri told the BBC.

Kalluri said that the bus was transporting special pro-government militiamen helping security forces in anti-Maoist operations.

Another Indian official said 35 people were killed in the incident.

Twenty-four civilians and 11 policemen have died while 15 persons, including 14 police personnel, were injured in the blast on Monday, Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh added.

He went on to say that 55 people, including police personnel, were travelling on the bus.

Last month Dantewada suffered its deadliest attack by the rebels, in which 76 people were killed.

The Maoists, also known as Naxalites, aim to overthrow the government of India.

They say they are fighting for the rights of the rural poor.

The Indian government deployed 50,000 troops in several states, including Chhattisgarh, last October after announcing a "massive anti-Maoist offensive."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126830&sectionid=351020402

[Starport]

Yes some very mixed-up reporting. It looks as if the comrades are having an inquiry into this.

[Sir Comradical]

Bingo.

"The bus was an ordinary public transport bus, but many of the passengers were security forces in civilian clothes."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/05/2010517125439433390.html

Let's suppose there were civilians in the bus. What were Police Officers and Security Personnel doing travelling in a Bus with civilians? Using them as human shields perhaps?

If civilians were killed then yes, the Maoists should be criticized for it, but let's put it in context.

[Robocommie]

Should we apologise for every innocent person killed by Trotsky's Red Army? Or by the Cheka, with his approval?


I'm not a Trotskyist, but I don't see why this would be such a bad idea.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So it looks like we've now, for the majority of it, derailed the accusations against the Naxalites on the bus bombing. The majority of those on the bus were police personnel & security forces, & the bus was being used as a transport for those taking part in "Operation Green Hunt". Those that were actually civilians, which were not of the many as reports tried making it out to be, (& this is based on the only logical reasoning behind it) were being used as human-like-shields in order to discredit the Maoists if they did an attack against them.

[Saorsa]

If the police transport their death squads in buses full of civilians to use these civilians as a human shield, it's not the Naxalite's fault if afterwards they discover the bus they blew up had civilians in it. If it has machine guns on the roof and is full of people in uniform, it's generally safe to assume it's not your regular civilian bus!

Anyway, the Maoists have commented on the issue.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cnnibn-interview-with-maoist-ramanna/115646-37-64.html

Ramanna,member, special zone committee, CPI ( Maoist ), Dandakaranya spoke to CNN-IBN's Rupashree Nanda from Bastar over phone. Rammana says Maoists regret the killing of civilians, alleges that the police used them as human shields and rejects the offer of conditional talks by the home minister.

CNN-IBN: What you have to say about yesterday's killing of civilians?

Ramanna: In yesterday's incident it is alleged that Maoists targeted civilians. Our target was Koya Commanders. Our aim was precise and correct. 16 Koya Commanders are dead. Police was using civilians as human shields.

CNN-IBN: If the government did a wrong thing by using civilians as human shields, can you say that you did the right thing in blasting a bus and killing innocent and poor people?

Ramanna: You are right. Out target were not civilians Our target was the Koya commanders. The administration is using civilians as a human shield, so they got killed. But I regret this.

CNN-IBN: Chidambaram has offered talks if you give up violence. Are you ready to give up violence and accept the offer for talks?

Ramanna: Our party has already responded to his offer. The government did not even believe us. Over here when there is a heavy presence of security forces, and their atrocities are continuing every day, villagers are fleeing what is the purpose of talks?

CNN-IBN: Sir, don't you think if you engage the government in talks, some solutions can emerge, that it is worth giving talks a chance?

Ramanna: First, administration has to stop operation Green Hunt and create an atmosphere of peace. We cannot give up our weapons. We are not ready to give up our weapons.

CNN-IBN: If you don't lay down arms, how will the govt talk with you... are you being reasonable?

Ramanna:In Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura... in this country and the world... even in Nepal discussions were always held as the rebels still held weapons. Why is the government asking us to give up weapons? The government is using its military option to displace people and hand over the land, forest, and water to private companies. We can never agree to that.

CNN-IBN: Do you have anything to say to Chidambaram, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi?

Ramanna: They must stop operation Green Hunt, and withdraw forces. Chidambaram ji does not know about people. He is a corporate director and works like one. He is not a political leader, he does not think like a political leader, he has no understanding of the issues of ordinary people; he does not have the right to be a political leader.

CNN-IBN: So who in the Congress party is a political leader? Who would you talk with?

Ramanna: There is no one in the Congress party. Our party has already named some people (from civil society).

CNN-IBN: If the govt does not withdraw operation Green Hunt, what will be your strategy?

Ramanna: We will continue to fight; we will take the struggle forward. We have the support of the people. Our people's organisation constitutes of lakhs of people. We will continue to do what we have been doing.

CNN-IBN: Chidambaram has offered talks if you abjure violence?

Ramanna: He is making fools of the media. No one will believe him.

CNN-IBN: What are your issues ... what can be done so that people stop killing and being killed?

Ramanna: We also agree that the killing has to stop but it is the government ( shashan ) that is killing its own people. In operation Green Hunt they have already killed 150 adivasis (tribals). The Gompad massacre is still being heard in the Supreme Court. They have burnt down 3000 houses. More than 200000 adivasis have become refugees. The government has to first rehabilitate the displaced people. When people are being displaced, how can you hold discussions? When people are not here, who will you discuss with?

CNN-IBN: If you target civilians, don't you fear that you will lose popular support?

Ramanna: Yes. Civilian deaths constitute less than 1 per cent of the killings. In every operation we exercise extreme caution that ordinary people should not suffer. That is the discipline we follow. That is our code of conduct. About yesterday, we agree we made a mistake, we regret it. We don't have a policy of killing people. We serve people. You can come, investigate and find out how many innocent civilians we have killed.

CNN-IBN: Our viewers would want to know whether you will target civilians again?

Ramanna: No we will not target civilians We have not done that before, are not doing it now and will not do it in the future. It is the police, which brought the civilians in the bus.

[pranabjyoti]

Very very much clear that the state authority were using the civilians as "human shields" in this case for transporting of police personals. Now, our "leftist(!)" comrades, kindly condemn the state too (I have rarely seen them to do so).

[Sankofa]

This is not a new tactic; it is a tried and true move out of the bourgeoisie play book.

The Israelis currently use it against the Palestinians.

Back during Fujimori's reign in Perú, peasants as human shields was a primary strategy utilized by his paramilitary death squads during their incursions into the countryside.


The policy of pitting masses against masses was seen initially in the southern portions of the country, in the sierra. Now that the People's War has vigorously expanded nationwide, the reactionaries have also expanded their paramilitary, for example in Northern Peru and the jungle region (e.g., Huallaga). The tactic of the genocidal army to build their anti-guerrilla bases is as follows: in a given town or community, the counter-insurgent forces gather together all the survivors from the various settlements scorched or wiped out by the armed forces. The peasants selected to prevent Maoist infiltration are forced to do tasks, including building houses for the soldiers and a series of military fortifications. The women are compelled to abandon their own families so that they can cook and feed the criminals. Women are used as servants and even as sexual objects by these butchers.

For a period of about three or four months, the peasants are trained physically, with minimal nutrition provided by the Army or by a non-governmental organization (NGO) working with the military (in many cases this causes them to contract diseases such as tuberculosis). The Army devises a watch system for the rondas. In their search for guerrillas, the genocidal armed forces deploy themselves behind the members of the rondas. For example, they force the ronderos to walk "in point," first in the column, exposing them as cannon fodder, highly vulnerable in any ambush by the Maoists. The purpose is two fold:

1) to cowardly preserve the army forces by using the rondas as a buffer,

2) if the Maoists attack the rondas, the NGOs working with the military (e.g., fake human rights groups) or the military itself, can accuse the PCP of "killing peasants."

Source: http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/newflag/nf0401/rondas1.htm

Anybody calling for the condemnation of our comrades in India have fallen for their trick.

The ruling classes would gladly sacrifice innocents by the thousands to quell the revolution.

[Spencer]

I’m sorry, but whatever you think of the Maoists, some of the comments here are just wrong, and if they were made by apologists for the actions of the US military or the Waffen-SS even those making them now would accept that they were largely bankrupt.

Now I freely admit that I may have completely misunderstood what these people were saying, but sadly I doubt that this is the case.

But to kick off, the OP, The Vegan Marxist, would like to imply that it didn’t take place at all:

where exactly is this footage?

And further to imply, through the use of quotation marks, that “The Victims Deserved It”* (and in this they are joined by the user pranabjyoti):

"innocent civilians"

"civilians"

In their second post their efforts at justification go down the “War is Hell”* route:

revolution's are never bloodless & never come without a death count on the innocent from both sides.


They then offer up a variation of what might be called an argument of “Immoral Equivalence”*:

Let's also keep in mind that, compared to how much innocent life have been saved since the Naxalites waged armed warfare & the numbers of police personnel in which they've killed, the death toll of innocent life on this particular incident isn't that really high.

And along with pranabjyoti they repeat it in a more explicit form**:

I am pretty sure, if security forces kill some villagers near any Maoist outfit, they will certainly raise the question that "what this innocent villagers were doing near a Maoist outfit".


You actually pull up a great point. The IDF soldiers in Palestine have used this to try & condemn members of the PFLP. They would use human shields so that, if a firefight began, if any casualty was done on the IDF soldier, then it'll mark the casualty of the innocent civilian as well. So this would be used to say that the PFLP are killing innocent civilians with the IDF soldiers.

But the talk of human shields misses the point (it is after all simply a form of the idea of immoral equivalence), which is that one crime does not justify another.

And whether or not the Maoists were responsible, whether or not they deliberately carried it out knowing that civilians would also be on the receiving end, whether or not they regret that civilians were killed or injured and whether or not their “aim was precise and correct” is irrelevant to the point that I’m trying to make, which was that if the Maoists had carried out the attack knowing that civilians would be killed or injured there are posters who were prepared to justify it.


* The categories in quotation marks are, to emphasis my point, from James Pontolillo’s book on Waffen-SS war crimes “Murderous Elite” where they are identified as rationalisations commonly used by SS veterans, sympathisers and apologists.

** and in this case the apologists for the Waffen-SS are more convincing than these posters because they are able to come up with real, relevant examples of allied war crimes. Conversely, The Vegan Marxist uses the IDF as an example, and pranabjyoti has to preface their comment with “I am pretty sure”. Real evidence for us to view would be a mere hyperlink away if these posters felt they were needed, but they do not, since they are only interested in apologising for the event if it turns out that it was indeed perpetrated by Maoists.

[Saorsa]

Did you really just compare people asking questions about the official story here to the Waffen SS?

You're an idiot.

[Starport]

But the talk of human shields misses the point (it is after all simply a form of the idea of immoral equivalence), which is that one crime does not justify another.

What is the pompous academic nonsense?

The rapacious capitalist land owners and capitalists are descending on these areas to loot and plunder and they are being aided by a vicious Indian state forces.

The communists are organised to fight this crime all across the whole of central India precisely because they have the support of the poor communities there.

Predatory capitalist imperialism is itself a crime without equivalence in the annals of human history. And they do and will use human shields and then say they are representing the "biggest DEMOCRACY in the world".

What is exposed is here is the hypocrisy of DEMOCRACY and its moralising apologists on this site.

[ЗимнийСолдат]

People seem to believe everything comming outta the sworn enemies of communism , heres my take on it : Cia drug random people , dress em in maoist uniforms put em in a bus and press trigger from safe distance...

[Spencer]

Did you really just compare people asking questions about the official story here to the Waffen SS?

No I did not, as anyone who actually read my post properly could easily tell. In fact I did not even compare the Maoists with the Waffen-SS. What I did do was point out that the people ‘asking questions’ were deploying the same kind of rationalisations as those deployed by the apologists for the SS (and the US military), and deliberately pointed out such a parallel because I think that when they consider this:


…even those making them now would accept that they were largely bankrupt.

But even if this wasn’t the best way to approach it, this does not change the fact that there were (again, unless I have wildly misunderstood) attempts to suggest that any civilians killed deserved it or that criminal actions on the part of the Maoists are justified by the criminal actions of the special police forces, paramilitaries or whoever.

Again, the mention of the Waffen-SS was an attempt (however poor) to show that these arguments are suspect because of the ease with which they can be used to justify anything, and the fact that they are less successful when used by apologists for the SS has more to do with the universally acknowledged criminality of that organisation than it does with the fact that these arguments can be used illegitimately in one case but not another. (In fact I am hard pressed to think when they might be appropriate).



What is the pompous academic nonsense?

I assume you are referring to the phrase “Immoral Equivalence”. Do you have a better term to sum it up?


The rapacious capitalist land owners and capitalists are descending on these areas to loot and plunder and they are being aided by a vicious Indian state forces. (etc.)

And? I don’t see how recognising any of this implies that one must be prepared to defend an attack carried out in the full knowledge that civilians will be killed or injured. (Furthermore I don’t say that this is necessarily what actually happened).

[AK]

People seem to believe everything comming outta the sworn enemies of communism , heres my take on it : Cia drug random people , dress em in maoist uniforms put em in a bus and press trigger from safe distance...
This has about as much credibility as the ZOG conspiracy theory.

[Saorsa]

I don’t see how recognising any of this implies that one must be prepared to defend an attack carried out in the full knowledge that civilians will be killed or injured.

Um, what? The police put machineguns on top of a bus, fill it up with their uniformed mercenaries, and drive it into liberated territory with some civilians brought along to act as human shields. Why were those people even in the same bus as the armed police? These guys know they're targets, and they're purposefully travelling alongside civilians.

The police are the ones responsible for those civilian deaths, if the official story is correct. The Maoists appear to have claimed responsibility, so the bus may well have been carrying some civilians. But we still don't know who these people are. Even if the state was trying to use civilians as human shields, it strikes me as strange that the bus just happened to have a bunch of civilians on it, I don't think this is a particularly major bus route.

The civilians may have been collaborators or even Salwa Judum (http://cpjc.wordpress.com/what-is-salwa-judum/) This would explain why they were travelling with the police in the first place...

[Jolly Red Giant]

For years the Shining Path denied carring out atrocities like the Lucanamarca massacre (and many others), and torturing and shooting trade union activists who opposed their campaign - only to later admit that they did actually carried out these actions - and had the audacity to then dismiss the result with the following -

'we reject and condemn human rights because they are reactionary, counter-revolutionary, bourgeois rights; they are presently the weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally of yankee imperialism'

[Saorsa]

The PCP came very close to bringing down the Peruvian state, and because they tried to do it in the USA's backyard at a time when communism was supposed to be dying they've been slandered and demonised beyond belief.

It doesn't really matter in the end. The revolution continues whether it gets attacked by imperialism from the left or the right.

[pranabjyoti]

DEAR LEFT-COMMUNIST(!) COMRADES,
I hope you can understand the difference between "crime" and "mishap". If the killing of "civilians" are a crime, then kindly explain what purpose this crime will serve i.e. what is the motive behind this crime. Motiveless crime are acts of psychopaths, I hope you people don't consider Maoists of India as psychopaths.
Those police and/or paramilitary persons were family men and certainly their death is a good blow to their family who may even belong to working class or other kind of oppressed people. Therefore, THIS TOO CAN CERTAINLY CRIMINAL ACT BY MAOISTS, AS PER YOUR OPINION.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The PCP came very close to bringing down the Peruvian state, and because they tried to do it in the USA's backyard at a time when communism was supposed to be dying they've been slandered and demonised beyond belief.


Are you denying that the Shining Path carried out the Lucanamarca massacre?

Are you denying that the Shining Path made the statement above about basic human rights?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Um, what? The police put machineguns on top of a bus, fill it up with their uniformed mercenaries, and drive it into liberated territory with some civilians brought along to act as human shields. Why were those people even in the same bus as the armed police? These guys know they're targets, and they're purposefully travelling alongside civilians.

The police are the ones responsible for those civilian deaths,
Hamas put rockets in a school yard - the IDF blow the crap out of the school killing children - who is responsible - Hamas or the IDF?

[pranabjyoti]

Hamas put rockets in a school yard - the IDF blow the crap out of the school killing children - who is responsible - Hamas or the IDF?
I think it's an IDF explanation.

[Saorsa]

Are you denying that the Shining Path carried out the Lucanamarca massacre?

No.


Are you denying that the Shining Path made the statement above about basic human rights?

'Human rights' are a bourgeois concept. It's telling that it's a concept you appear to uphold.


Hamas put rockets in a school yard - the IDF blow the crap out of the school killing children - who is responsible - Hamas or the IDF?

We're talking about India. But my answer to your question would be that although they both share part of the blame, the bulk of the blame falls on Israel, the occupying force.

[Starport]

But even if this wasn’t the best way to approach it, this does not change the fact that there were (again, unless I have wildly misunderstood) attempts to suggest that any civilians killed deserved it or that criminal actions on the part of the Maoists are justified by the criminal actions of the special police forces, paramilitaries or whoever.

All smoke and mirrors.


I assume you are referring to the phrase “Immoral Equivalence”. Do you have a better term to sum it up?

Yes but the chances are that you won't appreciate the better term. CLASS STRUGGLE and all it entails!




And? I don’t see how recognising any of this implies that one must be prepared to defend an attack carried out in the full knowledge that civilians will be killed or injured.
'Recognising' (as you so clinically and oh so objectively put it) the hideous violence that is dished out to the masses of India routinely by the ruling classes morning, noon and night and the unimaginable poverty debt, virtual slavery and ignorance that the rural workers are imprisoned in, is one thing - then actually having to live, organise and fight a guerrilla war against massive odds - and you have the brass nerve to talk about "equivalence". You should be ashamed and put your liberal education to some useful task.


(Furthermore I don’t say that this is necessarily what actually happened).

Well did it or didn't it happen? your clever you tell us when you make your mind up.

[Jolly Red Giant]

No.
Okay - now do you defend the Shining Path for carrying out the Lucanamarca massacre?



'Human rights' are a bourgeois concept. It's telling that it's a concept you appear to uphold.
So you are justifying the Lucanamarca massacre on the basis that 'human rights' is a bourgeois concept?



We're talking about India.
I am following your logic - the Indian army put soldiers on a bus with civilians - the Maoists blow up the bus killing the civilians - it's the fault fo the Indian army.


But my answer to your question would be that although they both share part of the blame, the bulk of the blame falls on Israel, the occupying force.
So the Indian army use civilians as human shields and the maoists kill them - it's the fault of the Indian army.

Hamas use civilians as human shields and the IDF kill them - it's the fault of the IDF.

makes sense - :confused:

[Jolly Red Giant]

Yes but the chances are that you won't appreciate the better term. CLASS STRUGGLE and all it entails!
Be more definitive - collateral damage !



'Recognising' (as you so clinically and oh so objectively put it) the hideous violence that is dished out to the masses of India routinely by the ruling classes morning, noon and night and the unimaginable poverty debt, virtual slavery and ignorance that the rural workers are imprisoned in, is one thing - then actually having to live, organise and fight a guerrilla war against massive odds - and you have the brass nerve to talk about "equivalence". You should be ashamed and put your liberal education to some useful task.
I would suggest that it would be better to adopt tactics that don't end up with the maoists causing the the exact same 'hideous violence' as the state.

[Starport]

So the Indian army use civilians as human shields and the maoists kill them - it's the fault of the Indian army.

Hamas use civilians as human shields and the IDF kill them - it's the fault of the IDF.

No all wrong. Imperialism/capitalism and its agents have to bare the responsibility for all of it.

The communists take full responsibility for not organising matters better.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The communists take full responsibility for not organising matters better.
The maoists should take full responsibility for adopting a strategy that will inevitably mean them killing the very people they claim to be trying to free.

[Saorsa]

Okay - now do you defend the Shining Path for carrying out the Lucanamarca massacre?

No. I think it was a tragedy that should never have happened. However, the Red Army under Trotsky's leadership was responsible for incidents just as bad, perhaps worse. Should we condemn the Red Army? Should we condemn Trotsky?


So you are justifying the Lucanamarca massacre on the basis that 'human rights' is a bourgeois concept?

It's really unpleasant debating someone as dishonest as you. No, I never drew any link between the two. Stop the bullshit and debate the issue at hand.


I am following your logic - the Indian army put soldiers on a bus with civilians - the Maoists blow up the bus killing the civilians - it's the fault fo the Indian army.

The Indian army is well known for putting human shields in between it and the Maoists. The Indian state forces make a habit of occupying schools and turning them into barracks, so that if the Maoists attack they can claim the Maoists attacked the school cos they're evil.

Of course, I shouldn't really even be bothering to debate this with you. You have no interest in the actual issues, you're just seizing this opportunity to condemn Maoist adventurism from the safety of your left social-democratic, gas and water reformism.


So the Indian army use civilians as human shields and the maoists kill them - it's the fault of the Indian army.

Hamas use civilians as human shields and the IDF kill them - it's the fault of the IDF.

You're drawing a lot of bizarre parallels. The two situations are barely comparable at all. The Maoists saw a machine gun armed troop carries heading down the road full of state murderers, and they attacked it. Because the state had brought some civilians along for the ride, without telling the Maoists, they appear to have tragically been caught in the crossfire. But that's a crossfire they should never have been in, and it's a crossfire the state put them in with a complete disregard for their lives and in all likelihood with the deliberate intention of causing something like this to happen.

The IDF is occupying Palestine. It has created the conditions that necessitate armed resistance by the Palestinians, and if Palestinian civilians are killed when the IDF retaliate, should we blame the Palestinians for attacking Israel? Someone like you might, but actual revolutionaries wouldn't.

I'm not going to start discussing Palestine and the CWI's shit line on it in this thread. Maybe some other time.

[Spencer]

Um, what? The police put machineguns on top of a bus, fill it up with their uniformed mercenaries, and drive it into liberated territory with some civilians brought along to act as human shields.

No one is arguing that they have any right to do this. What I am arguing is that this does not give the Maoists a free hand in killing those civilians. Human rights groups constantly point this out in relation to Israel-Palestine, for example, Amnesty International:


Fighters on both sides must not carry out attacks from civilian areas but when they do take cover behind a civilian house or building to fire it does not make that building and its civilian inhabitants a legitimate military target. Any such attacks are unlawful

[Saorsa]

What I am arguing is that this does not give the Maoists a free hand in killing those civilians.

I don't think anybody's arguing that it does. The Maoists aren't arguing that themselves.

[Saorsa]

JRG:
The maoists should take full responsibility for adopting a strategy that will inevitably mean them killing the very people they claim to be trying to free.

The Russian Revolution resulted in a huge number of deaths, mostly innocent civilians and mostly either workers or peasants. We should condemn Lenin and Trotsky for adopting a strategy (i.e. revolution) that will inevitably mean them killing the very people they claim to be trying to free!

[Devrim]

DEAR LEFT-COMMUNIST(!) COMRADES,...


None of them people who have posted in this thread are left communists. The people who you are arguing with here are the CWI (Q and Jolly Red Giant). They come from a very different tendency to left communists, and have very little in common politically.

In fact possibly the only think that you could say is similar about them at all is that they both attempt to orientate their political approach towards the working class. I can understand how that leads Maoists to confuse them.

Devrim

[Jolly Red Giant]

No. I think it was a tragedy that should never have happened. However, the Red Army under Trotsky's leadership was responsible for incidents just as bad, perhaps worse. Should we condemn the Red Army? Should we condemn Trotsky?
So you are trying to parallels between the atrocities of a maoist guerilla army operating in 1980's Peru and a Revolutionary Army in 1921 Russia defending the revolution in a war against the Russian Whites and 21 imperialists armies.

Nice of you to throw in the Trotsky jibe as well (maybe you would be as willing to throw in a jibe about Stalin - seeing as he ordered a lot of the atrocities).


It's really unpleasant debating someone as dishonest as you. No, I never drew any link between the two. Stop the bullshit and debate the issue at hand.
Let's be clear - I knew a lot more about the Shining Path than I do about the Maoists in India - I have seen a lot of stuff on here from those supporting the Maoists - some of the support from my perspective is somewhat dismissive of criticisms that could validly be made about their tactics.

What I am getting at here is as follows - The Shining Path got up to some pretty reprehensible actions during their campaign against the Peruvian state - a campaign if it succeeded would have opened some very serious questions about the nature of the regime they would install. What comparisons and what differences do you regard exist in comparing the Shining Path and the Maoists in India?



The Indian army is well known for putting human shields in between it and the Maoists. The Indian state forces make a habit of occupying schools and turning them into barracks, so that if the Maoists attack they can claim the Maoists attacked the school cos they're evil.
I have no doubt that the Indian state is using every method at its disposal in combating and propagandising against the Maoists. The question is to what degree should the Maoists facilitate this by their own tactics. In terms of this bus attack - it appears that you are suggesting that the Maoist guerillas saw a bus with a machine-gun on top and decided to attack it - I would pose the question - what thought went into deciding on this attack? what consideration was given to the fact that there might be civilians on the bus? or that the Indian forces might have forced civilians onto the bus. Do the Maoists simply attack the state forces when the opportunity arises irrespective of whether it is the best tactic and without considering the consequences?


Of course, I shouldn't really even be bothering to debate this with you. You have no interest in the actual issues, you're just seizing this opportunity to condemn Maoist adventurism from the safety of your left social-democratic, gas and water reformism.
Now you can engage in a sectarian rant if you want - I am attempting to find out a little more about the Maoist campaign in India - and there is a more information on here than in most other places. I have not condemned the Maoist campaign as 'adventurism' although I definitely would criticise actions that involve targetting civilians in the current circumstances. The Maoists in India have been engaged in this campaign since 1967 (43 years) to one degree or another - clearly they have made some ground in the recent past and now have a much higher profile and are having a greater impact. But they are not even close to the same situation as in Nepal.



You're drawing a lot of bizarre parallels.
Over the past 30 years I have seen Maoists and Hoxhaists drawing some really off the wall and bizarre parallels when arguing politics. I am trying to see where the logic of an argument is taking you.



The IDF is occupying Palestine. It has created the conditions that necessitate armed resistance by the Palestinians, and if Palestinian civilians are killed when the IDF retaliate, should we blame the Palestinians for attacking Israel? Someone like you might, but actual revolutionaries wouldn't.
I most definitely criticise Hamas for their tactics - I support the right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves - but I do not support a right-wing reactionary fundementalist organisation that is Hamas and I do not support their use of human shields to protect their weapons intent on indiscriminately striking at Israelis.

Now - back to India - I see significant parallels between what is currently happening in India and what happened in Peru with the Shining Path (there are fundemental differences with Nepal given the nature of society and the state in that country). There are also some differences - The Shining Path began among students in Peruvian universities before absconding to the highlands in 1980. However they developed support among a section of the peasantry in their campaign against the gangsters in the highlands. As the Shining Path increased the territory under their control they faced difficulties in ensuring continued support from the peasantry, (and given the background of the leadership particularly with their disrespect for indigenous culture - is that potentially a problem for the Maoists in India?). The Shining Path also embarked, among other things, on a campaign of assassinating left-wing militants who were opposed to their strategy.

The bigger the Shining Path got and the greater the area under their control, the more difficulty they had maintaining the support of the peasantry and of the working class. This led them to carrying out more and more indiscriminate attacks. They were ultimately defeated not by the Peruvian state but by a growing opposition among the peasantry and the working class to their campaign.

The Maoists in India face almost exactly the same future difficulties. As their size and the area they control grows and as the Indian state take a more confrontational approach towards them it is likely that the Maoists will feel the pressure and begin to lose their discipline (and I don't know how good it currently is) and we will see an increase in indiscriminate attacks (like the bus attack appears to be) and also likely attacks on others on the left who do not support their campaign.

I do not think that the Maoist campaign will be successful. Militarily the Indian state is powerful enough to defeat them and I think they will have significant difficulty gaining a base among the Indian working class. India in 2010 is not China in 1949. The tactics that succeeded in bringing Mao to power could well be the undoing of the Maoists in India.

[The Vegan Marxist]

For years the Shining Path denied carring out atrocities like the Lucanamarca massacre (and many others), and torturing and shooting trade union activists who opposed their campaign - only to later admit that they did actually carried out these actions - and had the audacity to then dismiss the result with the following -

'we reject and condemn human rights because they are reactionary, counter-revolutionary, bourgeois rights; they are presently the weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally of yankee imperialism'

Woah woah woah, first of all, the PCP never tried denying the Lucanamarca massacre. They were outright with their involvement in it, because it was a justifiable attack against the Rondas, the anti-rebel peasant army which was helped trained by the Peruvian military. There were talks of women being killed, which was used to help clarify to the Peruvian people that the PCP were somehow "immoral", when in fact that, on both sides, women were revolutionary guerrillas as well. The attack against the Rondas took place because of what happened before. The Rondas led an attack against the PCP & killed some of their people. And so they retaliated by waging a counter-attack. So seriously, shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about.

[Starport]

I do not think that the Maoist campaign will be successful. Militarily the Indian state is powerful enough to defeat them and I think they will have significant difficulty gaining a base among the Indian working class. India in 2010 is not China in 1949. The tactics that succeeded in bringing Mao to power could well be the undoing of the Maoists in India.

You would like to prove that the Maoists did an atrocity, but you can't, so you fall back on your miserable pessimistic undermining as if you cared about the revolution really.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Woah woah woah, first of all, the PCP never tried denying the Lucanamarca massacre. They were outright with their involvement in it, because it was a justifiable attack against the Rondas, the anti-rebel peasant army which was helped trained by the Peruvian military. There were talks of women being killed, which was used to help clarify to the Peruvian people that the PCP were somehow "immoral", when in fact that, on both sides, women were revolutionary guerrillas as well. The attack against the Rondas took place because of what happened before. The Rondas led an attack against the PCP & killed some of their people. And so they retaliated by waging a counter-attack. So seriously, shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about.

Among those killed were 18 children and a number of people in their sixties and seventes - most of the victims died by machete and axe hacks, and some were shot at close range in the head. Shining Path members also tortured some of the villagers scalded them with boiling water.

Guzmen stated the following -
In the face of reactionary military actions... we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983. But everything in life has two aspects. Our task was to deal a devastating blow in order to put them in check, to make them understand that it was not going to be so easy. On some occasions, like that one, it was the Central Leadership itself that planned the action and gave instructions.

The Shining Path set out to be deliberately indiscriminate, to torture and maim and to kill in the most brutal fashion innocent civilians in order to send a message. The real question was who were the sending a message to - the Peruvian state (which was capable of similar atrocities) or the peasantry who the Shining Path were trying to control?


You would like to prove that the Maoists did an atrocity, but you can't, so you fall back on your miserable pessimistic undermining as if you cared about the revolution really.
Starport - most of your posts on here are throw-away comments - try making an effort at being constructive.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So you are trying to parallels between the atrocities of a maoist guerilla army operating in 1980's Peru and a Revolutionary Army in 1921 Russia defending the revolution in a war against the Russian Whites and 21 imperialists armies.

Nice of you to throw in the Trotsky jibe as well (maybe you would be as willing to throw in a jibe about Stalin - seeing as he ordered a lot of the atrocities).

The same can be said with every leader & revolutionary guerrilla in history! Should we apologize for every incident that led to the deaths of innocent lives??? That's what Comrade Alastair was saying.


Let's be clear - I knew a lot more about the Shining Path than I do about the Maoists in India - I have seen a lot of stuff on here from those supporting the Maoists - some of the support from my perspective is somewhat dismissive of criticisms that could validly be made about their tactics.

What I am getting at here is as follows - The Shining Path got up to some pretty reprehensible actions during their campaign against the Peruvian state - a campaign if it succeeded would have opened some very serious questions about the nature of the regime they would install. What comparisons and what differences do you regard exist in comparing the Shining Path and the Maoists in India?

From your earlier statements about the PCP, you clearly know very little about them. And also, why are you forming a question about the PCP in comparison to the Naxalites, in which you then somehow point blame to us for starting it in the first place, which it was actually you?


I have no doubt that the Indian state is using every method at its disposal in combating and propagandising against the Maoists. The question is to what degree should the Maoists facilitate this by their own tactics. In terms of this bus attack - it appears that you are suggesting that the Maoist guerillas saw a bus with a machine-gun on top and decided to attack it - I would pose the question - what thought went into deciding on this attack? what consideration was given to the fact that there might be civilians on the bus? or that the Indian forces might have forced civilians onto the bus. Do the Maoists simply attack the state forces when the opportunity arises irrespective of whether it is the best tactic and without considering the consequences?

Have you never heard of Operation Green Hunt? This operation that was started by the Indian State has led to the deaths of many of their comrades, & have also led to the deaths of MANY innocent lives. So when you see a bus with machine guns on top, armed security forces, & those who were in civilian clothes were security forces, what exactly do you want them to do? Just let them through & hope that they won't attack them or other innocent people?


Now you can engage in a sectarian rant if you want - I am attempting to find out a little more about the Maoist campaign in India - and there is a more information on here than in most other places. I have not condemned the Maoist campaign as 'adventurism' although I definitely would criticise actions that involve targetting civilians in the current circumstances. The Maoists in India have been engaged in this campaign since 1967 (43 years) to one degree or another - clearly they have made some ground in the recent past and now have a much higher profile and are having a greater impact. But they are not even close to the same situation as in Nepal.

They're not targeting citizens whatsoever! They've never purposely targeted citizens, but rather citizens have been killed by the actions of the Indian police personnel & security forces. This bus attack incident pointed out a tactic in which said security forces use against the Naxalites, which is the use of human shields using innocent civilians.


Over the past 30 years I have seen Maoists and Hoxhaists drawing some really off the wall and bizarre parallels when arguing politics. I am trying to see where the logic of an argument is taking you.

How old are you?


I most definitely criticise Hamas for their tactics - I support the right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves - but I do not support a right-wing reactionary fundementalist organisation that is Hamas and I do not support their use of human shields to protect their weapons intent on indiscriminately striking at Israelis.

Um, I'm sure he wasn't talking about the Hamas, but rather a more powerful revolutionary force in Palestine, the PFLP. Ever heard of them? Or are you stuck attacking only the Hamas?


Now - back to India - I see significant parallels between what is currently happening in India and what happened in Peru with the Shining Path (there are fundemental differences with Nepal given the nature of society and the state in that country). There are also some differences - The Shining Path began among students in Peruvian universities before absconding to the highlands in 1980. However they developed support among a section of the peasantry in their campaign against the gangsters in the highlands. As the Shining Path increased the territory under their control they faced difficulties in ensuring continued support from the peasantry, (and given the background of the leadership particularly with their disrespect for indigenous culture - is that potentially a problem for the Maoists in India?). The Shining Path also embarked, among other things, on a campaign of assassinating left-wing militants who were opposed to their strategy.

The bigger the Shining Path got and the greater the area under their control, the more difficulty they had maintaining the support of the peasantry and of the working class. This led them to carrying out more and more indiscriminate attacks. They were ultimately defeated not by the Peruvian state but by a growing opposition among the peasantry and the working class to their campaign.

Are you not aware of the faction split that took place after Guzman was captured? Where Comrade Artemio stayed in the forest, training his cadres, while the other faction, the revisionist faction, led by a man named Viktor, is conducting the continuance of violence not to just police but also innocent civilians, & they are also conducting business with drug trafficking, which is against the very code of the PCP. Viktor & his group of guerrillas have already been called out upon by Comrade Artemio & Abimial Guzman. Right now, they are trying to hold peace talks & a cease fire initiative with the Peruvian government, but the government is declining the offers. But you are wrong that the PCP was defeated of its entirety. Only held them back, but they're still waging their struggle. In fact, here's a video of the REAL PCP that is growing in Peru:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWr0IYNy3Jg


The Maoists in India face almost exactly the same future difficulties. As their size and the area they control grows and as the Indian state take a more confrontational approach towards them it is likely that the Maoists will feel the pressure and begin to lose their discipline (and I don't know how good it currently is) and we will see an increase in indiscriminate attacks (like the bus attack appears to be) and also likely attacks on others on the left who do not support their campaign.

I do not think that the Maoist campaign will be successful. Militarily the Indian state is powerful enough to defeat them and I think they will have significant difficulty gaining a base among the Indian working class. India in 2010 is not China in 1949. The tactics that succeeded in bringing Mao to power could well be the undoing of the Maoists in India.

How about for starters you start comparing the Naxalites with the Nepalese Maoists instead, rather than with a revolutionary force who's went through different struggles, within different areas, against different people. You might find yourself looking the other way then & not criticize the Naxalites with such baseless semantics.

[Starport]

Starport - most of your posts on here are throw-away comments - try making an effort at being constructive.

I think if you could answer the "throw-away comments" you would.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Among those killed were 18 children and a number of people in their sixties and seventes - most of the victims died by machete and axe hacks, and some were shot at close range in the head. Shining Path members also tortured some of the villagers scalded them with boiling water.

Guzmen stated the following -
In the face of reactionary military actions... we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983. But everything in life has two aspects. Our task was to deal a devastating blow in order to put them in check, to make them understand that it was not going to be so easy. On some occasions, like that one, it was the Central Leadership itself that planned the action and gave instructions.

The Shining Path set out to be deliberately indiscriminate, to torture and maim and to kill in the most brutal fashion innocent civilians in order to send a message. The real question was who were the sending a message to - the Peruvian state (which was capable of similar atrocities) or the peasantry who the Shining Path were trying to control?


They never agreed that they killed children. They agreed they conducted the attack on that area. Who exactly was killed was told by the Peruvian military & government. Were you there to know that this was true? There was never any reports which helped clarify whether or not these certain people were actually victims of the attack. Just like if you did compare to the Naxalites & their attack on the bus. Reports were going crazy over how it was perceived that over 20 innocent civilians were on that bus, in which never mentioned what the bus was being used for. But then, through the use of alternative media, in which we never had in Peru at the time during the PCP's revolution, we came to find out that security forces were dressed in civilian clothes, & that the bus was being used to transfer those conducting Operation Green Hunt.

[pranabjyoti]

None of them people who have posted in this thread are left communists. The people who you are arguing with here are the CWI (Q and Jolly Red Giant). They come from a very different tendency to left communists, and have very little in common politically.

In fact possibly the only think that you could say is similar about them at all is that they both attempt to orientate their political approach towards the working class. I can understand how that leads Maoists to confuse them.

Devrim
I am not particularly attacking anybody. Why are you taking it personally?

[Devrim]

They never agreed that they killed children. They agreed they conducted the attack on that area. Who exactly was killed was told by the Peruvian military & government. Were you there to know that this was true? There was never any reports which helped clarify whether or not these certain people were actually victims of the attack.

Actually they did. They not only admitted to it all. They boasted of it. Actually Guzman's figures for the deaths were actually higher than those given out by the state, which put the figure at 69.


In the face of reactionary military actions... we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983.

Of course this wasn't an isolated incident. Others followed:


Other incidents followed, such as the one in Hauyllo (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauyllo&action=edit&redlink=1), Tambo District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambo_District), La Mar Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mar_Province), Ayacucho Department. In that community, Shining Path killed 47 peasants, including 14 children aged between four and fifteen.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#cite_note-20) Additional massacres by Shining Path occurred, such as the one in Marcas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcas&action=edit&redlink=1) on August 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_29), 1985 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#cite_note-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#cite_note-22)

The report of the truth and reconciliation committee, a body generally criticised in Peru for being leftist, and even having Sandero influences, can be found here (http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/pdf/TOMO%20VII/Casos%20Ilustrativos-UIE/2.6.%20LUCANAMARCA.pdf).

Devrim

[Devrim]

I am not particularly attacking anybody. Why are you taking it personally?

I'm not, in any way. :confused:

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

Actually they did. They not only admitted to it all. They boasted of it. Actually Guzman's figures for the deaths were actually higher than those given out by the state, which put the figure at 69.


Show me where they said they killed children & I'll believe you. Yes, they agreed they conducted the attack, itself, but never said they killed children. That was a story that was created by the Peruvian military.

[The Red Next Door]

More Organizing. less bombing.

[Saorsa]

TVM... Lucanamarca was a horrible massacre. That's a well established fact.

[The Vegan Marxist]

TVM... Lucanamarca was a horrible massacre. That's a well established fact.

It was also a massacre that was brought on by the Rondas when they first attacked the PCP. I'm not trying to justify what they did, but I am pointing out why they did it in the first place.

[Ocean Seal]

It's a shame that the government has to resort to using civilians as human shields. Although it's a shame that so many civilians died, it is even more despicable that the capitalist governments of the world think of their population has human shields.

[AK]

'Human rights' are a bourgeois concept. It's telling that it's a concept you appear to uphold.
Oh please elaborate on this before I think so terribly of you.

[The Grey Blur]

Well CA has a point. Amnesty International etc are bourgeois institutions, the notion of 'human rights' is what differentiates liberals from revolutionaries. It's also the failure of the Chomskyite Anarchists that they are incapable of breaking free from this liberal perspective. We aren't concerned with 'human rights' but the rights of the working class, their emancipation and crucially the tactics most useful in achieving that. Clearly killing workers, individual terrorism, is not a revolutionary tactic, it never has been never will be. Where I'm from, Northern Ireland, it completely failed and has resulted in a deeper division between sections of the working class than ever before. I recognise the rights of the Naxalbari and the peasantry to defend themselves from the Indian state but their tactics are questionable and as a marxist I realise that only the working-class can solve the question of land and rights in India.

[Saorsa]

I recognise the rights of the Naxalbari

Naxalbari is the name of the place where the Naxalite movement originated from.

[Saorsa]

Oh please elaborate on this before I think so terribly of you.

Do some reading. (http://workersparty.org.nz/resources/study-material/human-rights-%E2%80%93-how-human-are-they/)

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh please elaborate on this before I think so terribly of you. I think he means in the sense as how it's used by the bourgeoisie. Even liberal Naomi Klein acknowledges that most human rights organizations mention next to little about human rights abuses and their direct link to market reforms. They just paint the situation as coming out of a vacuum or due to said nation being repressive for no damn reason.

[Saorsa]

I think he means in the sense as how it's used by the bourgeoisie.

No, I mean the concept itself.

[AK]

No, I mean the concept itself.
So you wouldn't mind a day-trip to a Nazi concentration camp, then?

[Saorsa]

I don't quite understand how rejecting the bourgeois notion of 'human rights' means I'd enjoy being in a concentration camp. Perhaps you should explain yourself a bit more.

[AK]

I don't quite understand how rejecting the bourgeois notion of 'human rights' means I'd enjoy being in a concentration camp. Perhaps you should explain yourself a bit more.
From your previous post, I deducted that you rejected even the concept of 'human rights' - not how the idea is used by the Bourgeoisie:

No, I mean the concept itself.
See how I got confused?

[Saorsa]

Right. However, I'm obviously a bit slow today, because I still don't quite get what any of this has to do with concentration camps. Be patient explaining it to me, you're much more intelligent than I am.

[AK]

That was in response to me (mis-?)interpreting your post as against the concept of human rights - not explicitly how the Bourgeoisie conceives it but as a general concept.

[Saorsa]

I don't know how I can make this any more clear for you. I'll settle for repetition:

The 'general concept' of 'human rights' is absurd. I reject the concept of 'human rights'. I do not believe in the concept of 'human rights'. 'Human rights' are bullshit.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

[AK]

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I guess so.

[Starport]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: priceless! Thanks!!!

[Lyev]

So how do we know for sure that this bus was being used for Operation Green Hunt? Now, of course I am not saying that the Naxalites should put down their rifles and let greedy corporations trample on them and the indigenous of India, but what was the point of this? I might have missed it, but where does it say in any of these articles that the bus had a machine gun mounted on the top? Or are we just assuming? Until it is proved, near unequivocally, that this was an act of defence from police and government-backed forced, and not just mindless of aggression, then I fail to see how you can justify this.

[RadioRaheem84]

Do the Maoists have any sort of communication methods to tell their side of the story?

[pranabjyoti]

So how do we know for sure that this bus was being used for Operation Green Hunt? Now, of course I am not saying that the Naxalites should put down their rifles and let greedy corporations trample on them and the indigenous of India, but what was the point of this? I might have missed it, but where does it say in any of these articles that the bus had a machine gun mounted on the top? Or are we just assuming? Until it is proved, near unequivocally, that this was an act of defence from police and government-backed forced, and not just mindless of aggression, then I fail to see how you can justify this.
The Special police officers had taken position at the top of the Bus.

Do the Maoists have any sort of communication methods to tell their side of the story?
http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/operation-green-hunt-action-police-use-civilians-as-human-shields/#more-3353

[RadioRaheem84]

CNN-IBN: Our viewers would want to know whether you will target civilians again?
Ramanna: No we will not target civilians We have not done that before, are not doing it now and will not do it in the future. It is the police, which brought the civilians in the bus.


Why is this fool asking that question? What does he mean by "targeting civilians again". They never attacked them in the first place. It's as if the reporter just brushed him off when he said that they were targeting policemen and the government is using human shields.

[pranabjyoti]

Why is this fool asking that question? What does he mean by "targeting civilians again". They never attacked them in the first place. It's as if the reporter just brushed him off when he said that they were targeting policemen and the government is using human shields.
It's CNN-IBN man.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's CNN-IBN man.

What does that mean?

[GreenCommunism]

is it cnn from america?

[AK]

is it cnn from america?
Is there any other kind?

[DaringMehring]

I do not believe in the concept of 'human rights'. 'Human rights' are bullshit.

The concept of socialism without human rights, is the concept of a monstrosity. Human rights are the most fundamental way of empowering people - right to the product of your labor, free speech, food, to vote, housing, health care, to unionize, etc.

A bourgeois regime that guarantees these things (like a hard-core Scandinavian social democracy) is preferable to a so-called socialist regime that denies them. It's no surprise that the anarchist brought up the Nazis.

The CPUSA has long ago gone off track, but to their credit several decades ago they came up with the phrase "Bill of Rights Socialism." It's a good socialist catch-phrase, because workers in general have the concept of socialism like China, like Stalinism, like what you are saying, that strips their rights, rather than expanding them.

But hey, if you want to reinforce that stereotype, good luck winning the hearts and minds of workers.

[Starport]

The concept of socialism without human rights, is the concept of a monstrosity. [QUOTE=DaringMehring;1755223]Human rights are the most fundamental way of empowering people
But which "people" dose it empower? Certainly not the majority of the "people" on this planet. And what is meant by
right to the product of your labor?
The whole point of capitalism is to prevent workers from receiving the FULL product of their labor because the it is stolen. And as for:
free speech,food, to vote, housing, health care, to unionize, etc. All of these and more can be, and will be, taken away whenever the capitalists and their state want to take them away. If challenged for examples of this, they can supplied in overwhelming quantities.

Here is a very good example of the general ignorance about so called 'human rights' and socialism which is the staple lying propaganda of capitalism.

Notice how 'DaringMehring' talks about "people" in general, and "rights" in general. He talks as if all "people" were operating on the same level playing-field and as if the poor worker's votes some how cancel out the votes of the capitalists and the power of their money.


A bourgeois regime that guarantees these things (like a hard-core Scandinavian social democracy) is preferable to a so-called socialist regime that denies them. It's no surprise that the anarchist brought up the Nazis.

Its interesting to see how our capitalist propagandist here recognises friends among the anarchists. Anarchists take note!


The CPUSA has long ago gone off track, but to their credit several decades ago they came up with the phrase "Bill of Rights Socialism." It's a good socialist catch-phrase, because workers in general have the concept of socialism like China, like Stalinism, like what you are saying, that strips their rights, rather than expanding them.

See he's at it again, "workers in general" when he means better off workers, mostly in the west and living off the product of the labor of others around the world.


But hey, if you want to reinforce that stereotype, good luck winning the hearts and minds of workers.

Which "workers' in general" are you talking about DaringMehring?

[DaringMehring]

But which "people" dose it empower? Certainly not the majority of the "people" on this planet.

You are using the argument that because human rights only go so far in capitalism, therefore there shouldn't be any in socialism.

That is totally incorrect. The point is that because human rights can only go so far in capitalism, we pressingly need socialism.



And what is meant by
The whole point of capitalism is to prevent workers from receiving the FULL product of their labor because the it is stolen. And as for: All of these and more can be, and will be, taken away whenever the capitalists and their state want to take them away. If challenged for examples of this, they can supplied in overwhelming quantities.
You prove the point of why we need "Bill of Rights Socialism" nicely yourself.



Here is a very good example of the general ignorance about so called 'human rights' and socialism which is the staple lying propaganda of capitalism.
I never made the argument that human rights were perfect under capitalism. However, if you honestly think human rights are better in North Korea than Norway, you're delusional. That is part and parcel of North Korea being a failed, anti-socialist state.



Notice how 'DaringMehring' talks about "people" in general, and "rights" in general. He talks as if all "people" were operating on the same level playing-field and as if the poor worker's votes some how cancel out the votes of the capitalists and the power of their money.
I never said that. It's obvious that in capitalism, democratic rights are shallow. But

1) The democratic rights that exist in capitalism do matter, and their extent matters. A Social Democracy is better than a Neo-liberal model, and both are better than fascism.

2) The lack of deep democratic rights in capitalism does not mean that democratic rights under socialism are pointless. Socialism will cut through the hypocrisy and propaganda of capitalism, and provide true democratic rights. If it does not do so, then it is a failure.



Its interesting to see how our capitalist propagandist here recognises friends among the anarchists. Anarchists take note!


Very insightful.



See he's at it again, "workers in general" when he means better off workers, mostly in the west and living off the product of the labor of others around the world.
That's your inference.

Of course, that is where I do my organizing.

But, if you think workers in the 3rd world don't want human rights, and that is where you're organizing, by all means, have at them with your anti-human-rights line. I'm sure they will appreciate living under Kim Jong Il.



Which "workers' in general" are you talking about DaringMehring?Whatever workers are where you are. We can each only work in our own communities. If you are not connected to the workers in your community, then you are nothing.

When I talk to workers about politics, I stress the hypocrisy of capitalist politics, the games they play, and the lies they tell. I talk about the way the capitalists dress up attacks on workers as "reforms". Human rights is always a good subject, because the capitalists tout them, while at the same time violating them.

But if you think you're going to go far talking to them about how human rights are pointless, go ahead and try.

[GreenCommunism]

states give the right to workers that they can afford. and capitalist state frequently violate those human rights. the human rights are mostly invisible barriers that countrys are criticized when they go past those.

it's against human rights to sterilize rapists in canada, thus the proposition was shot down. but the united states don't care. i wish i could find a better and less fucked up example but i can't think of any.

i am sure that north korea has certain human rights that the united states doesn't respect. like healthcare for example, even though it is a poor country healthcare is free.

[Starport]

I think you are the hypocrite together with your capitalist mentors from who you get your views and assertions. You stand in a long and discredited reformist tradition, always promising 'extensions' of this that and the other right UNDER CAPITALISM!

You say: "1) The democratic rights that exist in capitalism do matter, and their extent matters. A Social Democracy is better than a Neo-liberal model, and both are better than fascism."

Every capitalist on the planet would thank you for spouting this drivel of theirs, mostly because you believe it. You are a hypocrite because you believe it, but then go about telling workers that you are some kind of 'socialist' with a program for "Bill of Rights Socialism" which can be got via capitalist democracy etc.

Capitalist class rights are to keep the working class down, working class rights are to keep capitalists down.

[DaringMehring]

I think you are the hypocrite together with your capitalist mentors from who you get your views and assertions. You stand in a long and discredited reformist tradition, always promising 'extensions' of this that and the other right UNDER CAPITALISM!


The whole point of saying "Bill of Rights Socialism" is to make it clear that you cannot get these rights under capitalism. Otherwise it would just be "Bill of Rights-ism" or something like that.

But there can be 'extensions' or improvements in rights under capitalism. Just look at the history of the capitalist USA. Slavery was abolished, women got the vote, labor won many battles, etc. Our rights have definitely been 'extended' since the founding of the country.



You say: "1) The democratic rights that exist in capitalism do matter, and their extent matters. A Social Democracy is better than a Neo-liberal model, and both are better than fascism."

Every capitalist on the planet would thank you for spouting this drivel of theirs, mostly because you believe it. You are a hypocrite because you believe it, but then go about telling workers that you are some kind of 'socialist' with a program for "Bill of Rights Socialism" which can be got via capitalist democracy etc.
You call that drivel, so you are saying that Social Democracy is no better than Neo-liberalism, is no better than fascism. In other words, it's no matter whether the capitalist government is Social Democratic (ala Sweden) or fascist (ala Nazi Germany).

And I'm the one whose supposed to be spouting drivel? Ha ha ha.

And where did I ever say that "Bill of Rights Socialism" could be achieved through capitalist democracy? That's your own imputation.



Capitalist class rights are to keep the working class down, working class rights are to keep capitalists down.If by "capitalist class rights" you mean rights under capitalism, then you are wrong. The gains that have been made in womens' rights, civil rights, labor rights, etc. --- why did the ruling class fight so hard against them? Millions struggled to achieve those gains, but apparently to you, it was all a plot by the capitalists who really wanted to give them all along, so they could keep the workers down.

So I guess your super-smart insight has shown that all of these struggles waged by millions were a pointless trap set by the capitalists. The only right move was to not play the game. Workers and the oppressed should have stayed at home.

What you mean by "working class rights" I don't know. Rights under socialism only function to keep capitalists down? Well then, the socialist right to food is unnecessary if it doesn't keep capitalists down? That's some vision of socialism you have right there.

[RadioRaheem84]

Rights in a capitalist country = concessions "won" from the ruling class.


You call that drivel, so you are saying that Social Democracy is no better than Neo-liberalism, is no better than fascism. In other words, it's no matter whether the capitalist government is Social Democratic (ala Sweden) or fascist (ala Nazi Germany). I do not think anything solidifies the rights of private capital more so than social democracy. A great number of people look to social democratic countries as some model of "stability" and "equilibrium". It is preferable to a neo-liberal third world nation or fascist country but let's be real here, social democrats can be the strongest proponents of capital out there, as evidenced by the larger share of capitalist nations being social democracies.



So I guess your super-smart insight has shown that all of these struggles waged by millions were a pointless trap set by the capitalists. The only right move was to not play the game. Workers and the oppressed should have stayed at home.They weren't traps, but the game, i.e. under a capitalist state that fundamentally respects private property rights, is rigged to where the capitalists will always come out on top. They will always find other ways to exploit and make their money.

Japan for example transfers environmental costs to the Philippines by building environmentally unfriendly factories that pollute the towns and hurt the workers health. They import the materials back, sell them, make a profit and reward themselves for being environmentally friendly back home. The taxes from that super-profitable company helps subsidize public health care and other 'rights' conceded by the major players to the public.

Every move that we the public make to win rights, they move to win those profits back elsewhere. These companies do not accept any drop in their profit margin. They will circumvent any rights gained by workers to keep their profits rolling. So they're not really fundamental rights we've gained for ourselves, but temporary gains that the ruling class has allowed to appease the working class, 'rights' they can take away and are currently rolling back.

[DaringMehring]

Rights in a capitalist country = concessions "won" from the ruling class.


Yes.



I do not think anything solidifies the rights of private capital more so than social democracy. A great number of people look to social democratic countries as some model of "stability" and "equilibrium". It is preferable to a neo-liberal third world nation or fascist country but let's be real here, social democrats can be the strongest proponents of capital out there, as evidenced by the larger share of capitalist nations being social democracies.
You really think capital is more secure in a Social Democracy than in Fascism? What possibility does labor have to challenge capital under fascism? In a Social Democracy at least you can go on strike, organize with some hope that the state will not be curtailing you free speech via the death penalty, and so on.



They weren't traps, but the game, i.e. under a capitalist state that fundamentally respects private property rights, is rigged to where the capitalists will always come out on top. They will always find other ways to exploit and make their money.
How can you consider they came out on top when they had to give up the 8-hour work day? They lost that one, and they've been trying to claw it back ever since then. Same with plenty of other stuff.



Japan for example transfers environmental costs to the Philippines by building environmentally unfriendly factories that pollute the towns and hurt the workers health. They import the materials back, sell them, make a profit and reward themselves for being environmentally friendly back home. The taxes from that super-profitable company helps subsidize public health care and other 'rights' conceded by the major players to the public.
The solution to that is not for the Japanese to give up on environmentalism and ecological values because "they just outsource the pollution." That wouldn't help. It would just make the polluters life easier.

The solution is for the Philippinos to beat their own bourgeoisie.



Every move that we the public make to win rights, they move to win those profits back elsewhere. These companies do not accept any drop in their profit margin. They will circumvent any rights gained by workers to keep their profits rolling. So they're not really fundamental rights we've gained for ourselves, but temporary gains that the ruling class has allowed to appease the working class, 'rights' they can take away and are currently rolling back.Yes they do constantly counter-attack, trying to strip rights. They work with all their insidious tricks and vast resources.

So then, why haven't they managed to take them all away?

It's for the same reason that they had to grant them in the first place. Cause millions fought for them and millions will fight for them.

It is defeatist to say that the capitalists chose to give the rights because they wanted to. They did not want to, we forced them to.

*Of course* as I have said maybe five times already in this thread, the only way to fully win deep democratic and human rights is by overthrowing the bourgeoisie. But that does not imply that rights under capitalism are worthless, or still worse, some kind of reverse-psychology plot by capitalists. Marx and Lenin both rejected these ideas.

And one last question, if you're adamant that the big bourgeoisie want to strip down human rights to the bone, then why don't you automatically oppose them, and therefore defend human rights? Seems like by your own admission, you're on the same page as the capitalists when it comes to rights.

[RadioRaheem84]

You really think capital is more secure in a Social Democracy than in Fascism? What possibility does labor have to challenge capital under fascism? In a Social Democracy at least you can go on strike, organize with some hope that the state will not be curtailing you free speech via the death penalty, and so on.In a fascist-like country like Suharto's Indonesia, it was the foreign capital from social democracies and the US that kept repression rampant there. All of the repression stems from the private capital solidified as good under a social democratic country. We can only organize because the people in Indonesia cannot (even though they do and meet the brute force of the State).



The solution to that is not for the Japanese to give up on environmentalism and ecological values because "they just outsource the pollution." That wouldn't help. It would just make the polluters life easier.In a capitalist society, environmentalism and ecological values are heavily skewered by private business. How is this not evident to you by listening to liberals and even progressives? Read John Bellamy Foster's excellent article on What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism in Monthly Review. It is brilliant. Yes, the liberal environmentalist values need to go and replaced with socialist values, pure and simple. When values in a capitalist country equal to solutions like "cap and trade", they need to go.


The solution is for the Philippinos to beat their own bourgeoisie.Then the bourgeois would just relax laws at home or look for another country to exploit.


Yes they do constantly counter-attack, trying to strip rights. They work with all their insidious tricks and vast resources.

So then, why haven't they managed to take them all away?Because the public would bemoan the loss of the concessions.


It's for the same reason that they had to grant them in the first place. Cause millions fought for them and millions will fight for themIt's actually amazing how much has been rolled back the last 30 years without much of a fight, especially in the US.


It is defeatist to say that the capitalists chose to give the rights because they wanted to. They did not want to, we forced them to.And to save their companies from the total ruin of free market libertarianism. The State helps them too, ya know. They benefit more from the public trough than we do.


*Of course* as I have said maybe five times already in this thread, the only way to fully win deep democratic and human rights is by overthrowing the bourgeoisie. But that does not imply that rights under capitalism are worthless, or still worse, some kind of reverse-psychology plot by capitalists. Marx and Lenin both rejected these ideas.No one here is saying that we should abolish these gains, but that we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking these are lasting.



And one last question, if you're adamant that the big bourgeoisie want to strip down human rights to the bone, then why don't you automatically oppose them, and therefore defend human rights? Seems like by your own admission, you're on the same page as the capitalists when it comes to rights. The capitalist preaches and practices social democracy at home but free markets abroad. He wants to rollback the gains in the West, but doesn't advocate their total abolition for fear of reprisal. We are not on the same page.

What you take is a slightly liberal approach to defending a delusional ideal that the Communist and the Capitalist knows does not really exist in a capitalist society, except temporarily (and as a result of capitalist shifting crises from one place to another).

And if you haven't noticed the capitalists have pretty much taken the world back to the early twentieth century in terms of wealth distribution with most of the major fighting happening in third world countries not first world social democracies. Why are most of the major people's movements not social democratic?

[DaringMehring]

In a fascist-like country like Suharto's Indonesia, it was the foreign capital from social democracies and the US that kept repression rampant there. All of the repression stems from the private capital solidified as good under a social democratic country. We can only organize because the people in Indonesia cannot (even though they do and meet the brute force of the State).

And what about a fascist country like Nazi Germany? Did all the repression stem from foreign capital in social democratic countries? What about Mussolini's Italy? Franco's Spain?

To say that fascism is the automatic compliment of Social Democracy is bad political insight.



In a capitalist society, environmentalism and ecological values are heavily skewered by private business. How is this not evident to you by listening to liberals and even progressives? Read John Bellamy Foster's excellent article on What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism in Monthly Review. It is brilliant. Yes, the liberal environmentalist values need to go and replaced with socialist values, pure and simple. When values in a capitalist country equal to solutions like "cap and trade", they need to go.


Yes, capitalist pollutes and degrades environmental values. It reduces the EPA to a mockery. But the solution is not to give up on the values, to solution is to use the fact that capitalism cannot deliver on them, to move to socialism.

If you just give up on the struggle for the environment, then you give up on an important reason that socialism is necessary.



Then the bourgeois would just relax laws at home or look for another country to exploit.


You have this view of the bourgeoisie as invincible. You seem to think they can do whatever they want. But they can't "relax laws at home" or "look for another country to exploit" if the people in those places - Japan or the Phillipines, are ready to fight them on it. They can fight, and they can win....



Because the public would bemoan the loss of the concessions.


... as you admit here. Though you put "the public" in the passive role of just bemoaning the losses. I doubt the greedy capitalists care about moaning. It's fight-back they fear.



It's actually amazing how much has been rolled back the last 30 years without much of a fight, especially in the US.

No one here is saying that we should abolish these gains, but that we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking these are lasting.


Nothing is lasting. Everything is in a process of change, that is dialectics. There is a constant struggle in which we can move forward (like the New Deal) or backwards (like neo-liberalism). We can never win the war fully under capitalism, but to say in a defeated manner as you do that the erosion of gains is inevitable is to say that the ongoing struggle is pointless as defeat is pre-determined.



The capitalist preaches and practices social democracy at home but free markets abroad. He wants to rollback the gains in the West, but doesn't advocate their total abolition for fear of reprisal. We are not on the same page.


Why do you say the capitalist preaches Social Democracy at home? The USA is not a Social Democracy, it is thoroughly neo-liberal. Obama is neo-liberal, not Social Democratic. In Europe, the old Social Democratic parties have become more and more neo-liberal. Tony Blair was neo-liberal. Look at Papandreou.

The capitalist does not want Social Democracy at home!



What you take is a slightly liberal approach to defending a delusional ideal that the Communist and the Capitalist knows does not really exist in a capitalist society, except temporarily (and as a result of capitalist shifting crises from one place to another).


All of your thinking is saturated by the idea that capitalists are in complete control of capitalist society, and that popular resistance has zero effect on them.

Yes capitalists are the ruling class, but the ruling class does not mean absolute control. People can and have fought back and despite the uneven playing field, won some gains. This isn't socialism, but it is good.



And if you haven't noticed the capitalists have pretty much taken the world back to the early twentieth century in terms of wealth distribution with most of the major fighting happening in third world countries not first world social democracies. Why are most of the major people's movements not social democratic?

I never argued that Social Democracy was the solution for emancipating humanity. I argued that Social Democracy was better than neo-liberalism and fascism, as an extension of saying that the level of development of human rights under capitalism is important.

Just as important --- that we keep the concept of human rights under socialism, that we expand it, and deepen it. That is what a positive socialist future is all about. Not this garbage about "rights aren't important." My socialism is one that takes people's desire for increased rights that is not being fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled under capitalism, and achieves it under socialism. You can keep yours...

[The Vegan Marxist]

Not getting in this debate, but I will point out a couple things needing to be pointed out:



Yes, capitalist pollutes and degrades environmental values. It reduces the EPA to a mockery. But the solution is not to give up on the values, to solution is to use the fact that capitalism cannot deliver on them, to move to socialism.

If you just give up on the struggle for the environment, then you give up on an important reason that socialism is necessary.

Actually, what he was saying wasn't that environmentalism is more important than socialism, but rather environmentalism under capitalism is quite pointless & only leads itself as a false movement as the environment remains being harmed. He rather pointed out that environmentalism needs to be brought about under socialistic views, not capitalist. This is not an abandonment of socialism, but rather an embracement of socialism towards the environment.



You have this view of the bourgeoisie as invincible. You seem to think they can do whatever they want. But they can't "relax laws at home" or "look for another country to exploit" if the people in those places - Japan or the Phillipines, are ready to fight them on it. They can fight, and they can win....


Not sure if this will help in anything, but he didn't say bourgeoisie. He said bourgeois. :thumbup1:

[Starport]

I never argued that Social Democracy was the solution for emancipating humanity. I argued that Social Democracy was better than neo-liberalism and fascism, as an extension of saying that the level of development of human rights under capitalism is important.

Just as important --- that we keep the concept of human rights under socialism, that we expand it, and deepen it. That is what a positive socialist future is all about. Not this garbage about "rights aren't important." My socialism is one that takes people's desire for increased rights that is not being fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled under capitalism, and achieves it under socialism. You can keep yours...


Let’s not mess about here. The point of DaringMehring's intervention on this tread was to undermine the valuable revolutionary significance of the Maoist fight in India in particular, and the growing anti-imperialist struggle world wide. The reformist ‘socialism’, cuddling-up to ‘human rights’ parliamentary democracy, has been caught off guard everywhere by the sharp turn of the relentless economic crisis of capitalism and the ferocious revolutionary resistance it is provoking. Now every possible kind of anti-communist argument, (suitably dressed-up as ‘socialist’) and well rehearsed throughout the post WW2 ‘boom’, is going to come forward to tell workers that they must avoid revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat at all costs. Recognising these types was made easy by Lenin:

“Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the boundaries of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To confine Marxism to the doctrine of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something which is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary ‘petty bourgeois’ (as well as big).”...

DaringMehring makes the ‘petty bourgeois’ stance even easier to recognise with the first post in this part of the argument (below), and no amount of crafty word-play, evasion, and hair splitting later, can conceal his deep appreciation of what he believes are the liberal ‘benefits’ of ‘human rights’ capitalism. ‘If we just keep nibbling at their ankles a bit more, one more strike, one more demo, one more election’ he tells the workers, ‘we can get ‘socialism’ without the difficulty of imposing our own working class dictatorship over their capitalist class dictatorship’, runs the argument. The general abstract “concepts” are another pointer to the disembodied idealism of the reactionary stance with not a word of where all his anti-communist “concepts” actually emerge from of course.

“The concept of socialism without human rights, is the concept of a monstrosity. Human rights are the most fundamental way of empowering people - right to the product of your labor, free speech, food, to vote, housing, health care, to unionize, etc.”

A bourgeois regime that guarantees these things (like a hard-core Scandinavian social democracy) is preferable to a so-called socialist regime that denies them. It's no surprise that the anarchist brought up the Nazis.

The CPUSA has long ago gone off track, but to their credit several decades ago they came up with the phrase "Bill of Rights Socialism." It's a good socialist catch-phrase, because workers in general have the concept of socialism like China, like Stalinism, like what you are saying, that strips their rights, rather than expanding them.

But hey, if you want to reinforce that stereotype, good luck winning the hearts and minds of workers."

The harts and minds of the working class are much more than a passive audience to be cynically contended for by every petty bourgeois electioneering union representative and would-be politician. The hearts and minds of the working class are being relentlessly forged by capitalism into the instruments the will smash the capitalist state and construct their own state – the dictatorship of the proletariat as Marxism recognised.

[DaringMehring]

Let’s not mess about here. The point of DaringMehring's intervention on this tread was to undermine the valuable revolutionary significance of the Maoist fight in India in particular, and the growing anti-imperialist struggle world wide.


Actually my intervention was against an atrocious post.

Nothing that is said on this thread can undermine the "significance of the Maoist fight." Unless there are breathless Indian Maoists reading it, waiting to get their ideas.



The reformist ‘socialism’, cuddling-up to ‘human rights’ parliamentary democracy, has been caught off guard everywhere by the sharp turn of the relentless economic crisis of capitalism and the ferocious revolutionary resistance it is provoking. Now every possible kind of anti-communist argument, (suitably dressed-up as ‘socialist’) and well rehearsed throughout the post WW2 ‘boom’, is going to come forward to tell workers that they must avoid revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat at all costs.
Number of times I said revolution was unnecessary --- 0.

Where I deployed "anti-communist" arguments --- unclear. But I guess you think that anyone who criticizes a so-called socialist country with mass starvation, prison camps, no democratic rights, cult-like brainwashing, etc. like North Korea is "anti-communist."



DaringMehring makes the ‘petty bourgeois’ stance even easier to recognise with the first post in this part of the argument (below), and no amount of crafty word-play, evasion, and hair splitting later, can conceal his deep appreciation of what he believes are the liberal ‘benefits’ of ‘human rights’ capitalism. ‘If we just keep nibbling at their ankles a bit more, one more strike, one more demo, one more election’ he tells the workers, ‘we can get ‘socialism’ without the difficulty of imposing our own working class dictatorship over their capitalist class dictatorship’, runs the argument.
Your deployment of the term dictatorship is in one of the stupider traditions of Leninism. I live in the USA right now. You say I live in a capitalist class dictatorship. Well what is the difference between the USA and a capitalist country with a political dictatorship then? It's just bad use of language.

Unless you think there is no difference. Nobody has given a serious answer to my point of whether its better to live in fascism or Social Democracy. RadioRaheem tried to say "well it may be better in Social Democracy but that's only because you necessarily export fascism abroad" (uh, ok). You seem to be saying there is no difference. Social Democracy = fascism, red = brown. Very deep political analysis, with a great track record in history.

When the workers seize the power, they need to install a democracy with citizens' rights, not a dictatorship. That is how socialism will achieve victory.



The general abstract “concepts” are another pointer to the disembodied idealism of the reactionary stance with not a word of where all his anti-communist “concepts” actually emerge from of course.
Human rights is an anti-communist concept eh? You make a good argument against communism. I wouldn't want to live in a society without rights.


The harts and minds of the working class are much more than a passive audience to be cynically contended for by every petty bourgeois electioneering union representative and would-be politician. The hearts and minds of the working class are being relentlessly forged by capitalism into the instruments the will smash the capitalist state and construct their own state – the dictatorship of the proletariat as Marxism recognised.So far the class rule of the proletariat has taken the form of a Party dictatorship.

So far the class rule of the proletariat has a great track record of collapsing in shambles.

Without democracy and human rights, all the benefits of socialized property, all the achievements made from expropriating the capitalists, are doomed. We need "Bill of Rights Socialism," not a Party dictatorship with absolute power over the citizenry.

[Crux]

Well what is the difference between the USA and a capitalist country with a political dictatorship then? It's just bad use of language.
Well, no not really. Class dictatorship is distinct from political dictatorship, because class dictatorship is the dominance of one class, through the state, be it democratic or fascist, over another.

Otherwise I would actually largely agree with you. In many ways the class struggle live off of past victories, and when these are threatened this, sometimes result in the working class moving into action. We are seeing examples of that right now in Greece for example. And are these not struggles largely for reformist goals? True, but reformist goals unattainable without forcing the bourgeoisie back, and victories that might be lost again unless we move against the total defeat of the international bourgeoisie. But I don't need to tell you that.
The short comings in human rights is not that they are rights, but that they presuppose us all equal, that everyone gets their rights served. I think it's not unreasonable to argue from that standpoint for socialism.

[Starport]

Your deployment of the term dictatorship is in one of the stupider traditions of Leninism. I live in the USA right now. You say I live in a capitalist class dictatorship. Well what is the difference between the USA and a capitalist country with a political dictatorship then? It's just bad use of language.

It was you who started posturing the Marxism Leninism here:


Marx and Lenin both rejected these ideas.

I'm only trying to show that you are not any kind of Leninist and you helpfully say:

Your deployment of the term dictatorship is in one of the stupider traditions of Leninism.

It's the core of Leninism. My Job is done here.

EDIT: BTW The correct phrase you avoided using is dictatorship OF THE PROLETARIAT.

[Starport]

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
Karl Marx (http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/karl-marx/index.htm)

And this is what all the little bourgeois 'socialists' hate and fear.

[RadioRaheem84]

RadioRaheem tried to say "well it may be better in Social Democracy but that's only because you necessarily export fascism abroad" (uh, ok). You seem to be saying there is no difference. Social Democracy = fascism, red = brown. Very deep political analysis, with a great track record in history.

I don't understand how this is not evident to you? Social Democracy is not "red" if you mean aligned politically with the left. Most major corporations only tolerated the high wages of workers and the high taxation because they had reserve profits being made in the third world.

But if there is any indication that companies have less power in a social democracy, think again:


From the beginning, the Swedish model contained the seeds of its own destruction. It built a powerful financial elite whose interests were far removed from those of the majority middle class. It bred a sense of welfare complacency among the Swedish people. It failed to install in the younger generation an awareness of democracy's need to be continually re-created through constant citizen vigilance and political activism. And its prosperity had been built on the unsustainable exploitation of Sweden's natural resources of timber, iron ore, and hydroelectric power.

As the elites gained more financial power, they were able to pyramid their claims on the resources of society without making a corresponding productive contribution. As the economic borders were opened, the jobs of those who depended on earning wages for doing productive work became hostage to those who controlled capital. The more the government, in its desperation to keep jobs at home, gave in o the demands of the financial elites, the greater the amount of money hat passed into their hands, the greater their power to dictate public policy in their own interest, and the greater the stresses on the social fabric. The parallels to the U.S. experience ... are striking.



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Korten/DeclineDemoPlural_WCRW.html



When the workers seize the power, they need to install a democracy with citizens' rights, not a dictatorship. That is how socialism will achieve victory.

I was always under the impression that dictatorship of the proletariat meant the state would be dictated or directed by the working class, not a literally become a fascist-like dictatorship to anyone except maybe the bourgeoisie.

Isn't there a difference between the rights under socialism than the ones fought for under capitalism. It seems like the 'rights' gained in capitalist countries would be a given under socialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

And what about a fascist country like Nazi Germany? Did all the repression stem from foreign capital in social democratic countries? What about Mussolini's Italy? Franco's Spain?

Well social democracies were little in number but as I recall Wiemar was run by soc dems and they seemed to foster up right wing groups, heck even employing some of them to murder leftist revolutionaries like Rosa Luxembourg. Anyways, foreign capital did help out the fascist powers.


To say that fascism is the automatic compliment of Social Democracy is bad political insight.

I am saying that social democracies wouldn't be so social democratic without capital having the final say in other less democratic countries.


You have this view of the bourgeoisie as invincible. You seem to think they can do whatever they want. But they can't "relax laws at home" or "look for another country to exploit" if the people in those places - Japan or the Phillipines, are ready to fight them on it. They can fight, and they can win....

Win what? A temporary gain that will just be shifted elsewhere? That is the only way the people can win, if the company finds another way to shift it's costs.


We can never win the war fully under capitalism, but to say in a defeated manner as you do that the erosion of gains is inevitable is to say that the ongoing struggle is pointless as defeat is pre-determined..

It is inevitable. That is why I fight for socialism, not just temporary gains. I don't disparage them but dislike it when they're just seen as an end.


Why do you say the capitalist preaches Social Democracy at home? The USA is not a Social Democracy, it is thoroughly neo-liberal. Obama is neo-liberal, not Social Democratic. In Europe, the old Social Democratic parties have become more and more neo-liberal. Tony Blair was neo-liberal. Look at Papandreou.

Because they never outright say that workers need to work more hours for less pay, they usually mask it in populist rhetoric and say its democratic. They preach the plight of the common man while eroding what ever gains were won before. And most of the politicians in capitalist countries are Third Way neo-liberal/diluted social democrats.


The capitalist does not want Social Democracy at home!

No but the politician wants some traces of it to remain.



All of your thinking is saturated by the idea that capitalists are in complete control of capitalist society, and that popular resistance has zero effect on them.

Yes capitalists are the ruling class, but the ruling class does not mean absolute control. People can and have fought back and despite the uneven playing field, won some gains. This isn't socialism, but it is good.

Yes, it's good but why is it something to praise and debate about for nearly ten posts on here? The point is to not get stuck on these rights won in a capitalist country as something great in and of itself. These gains are rights won under capitalist country which are different from rights under a socialist country. The items on your grade sheet may be liberal, a list of rights we fight for under capitalism and then turn into universal principles.

[DaringMehring]

Yes, it's good but why is it something to praise and debate about for nearly ten posts on here? The point is to not get stuck on these rights won in a capitalist country as something great in and of itself. These gains are rights won under capitalist country which are different from rights under a socialist country. The items on your grade sheet may be liberal, a list of rights we fight for under capitalism and then turn into universal principles.

The reason to praise and debate, is that people like Starport have a hateful vision of socialism that denies these rights, that is to say, rather than extending and deepening citizens' rights, his type of socialism cancels them. It is regressive, not progressive.

[DaringMehring]

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
Karl Marx (http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/karl-marx/index.htm)

And this is what all the little bourgeois 'socialists' hate and fear.


You're implying that everything Marx and Lenin ever thought was correct, including about things that didn't happen in their lifetimes. That's more cult-like than scientific.

So far, the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" has a terrible record in making socialism. The USSR collapsed, China is a state capitalist dictatorship, North Korea, Albania, the list is one disaster after another. None of these states successfully constructed socialism in any long term sense.

Participatory socialism rather than dictatorial socialism is the solution. Bill of Rights and respect for human life and labor.

[RadioRaheem84]

You're implying that everything Marx and Lenin ever thought was correct, including about things that didn't happen in their lifetimes. That's more cult-like than scientific.

So far, the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" has a terrible record in making socialism. The USSR collapsed, China is a state capitalist dictatorship, North Korea, Albania, the list is one disaster after another. None of these states successfully constructed socialism in any long term sense.

Participatory socialism rather than dictatorial socialism is the solution. Bill of Rights and respect for human life and labor.

Disaster according to whom? These nations were inflicted with not only contradictory elements that impeded their progress but external menaces that wanted to kill off socialism in their nations. They weren't fascist hellholes, in fact many of the countries were liberated from real Fascist dictatorships, right wing nationalist regimes, and US imperial client states. They brought a lot of change, progress and yes, bureaucracy/political suppression but no where near the level encountered before they took down the previous regimes.

You're the type that likes to begin with the post War USA and Europe as a model for the world to emulate, totally de-linking them to the barbaric development of capitalism they undertook to get to that stage you revere centuries later, something the Communist countries bypassed the industrial pit of colonialism to become an industrial powerhouse second only to the US. This is what made the USSR the object of reverence for many people in the third world. It is to be praised and maligned where it needs to be, particularly in its repression of dissidents and corrupt bureaucratic elements. But it was not the equivalent in any way shape or form to Nazi Germany or even a US client State like Indonesia.

Where were the Nuremberg like trials after the fall of the Wall if these regimes were so fascistic? Get real. You've read too much anti-communist propaganda. The deficiencies in democracy for many of the States was also due to the constant state of war they were in and many continue to be. The Cold War with the USSR never began after WWII, it began at the USSR's inception with US troops landing in Russia to help the White Army.

[Crux]

Where were the Nuremberg like trials after the fall of the Wall if these regimes were so fascistic? Get real. You've read too much anti-communist propaganda. The deficiencies in democracy for many of the States was also due to the constant state of war they were in and many continue to be. The Cold War with the USSR never began after WWII, it began at the USSR's inception with US troops landing in Russia to help the White Army.
Well, in the case of russia many parts of the old bureaucracy just shifted shape and became the new elite. Also having a relative in the old bureacracy gave you an upper hand when it came o the massive privatizations and sell-outs in russia. In the case of Romania Ceauşescu was executed on the spot. I also have some memory of members of the Stasi being tried and sentenced after the fall of the berlin wall.
Of course, they are not *equal* to fascism but that does nto mean we should fall into the trap of relativizing too much. The suppression of political rights of the working class was very real in all of the former soviet republics.

DaringMehring: again, I think both sides in the debate here are misrepresenting what Marx and Lenin actually meant by the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not a dictatorship, well at least it is not supposed to be, in the political sense, as in say a military dictatorship, but in the class sense, in that the bourgeois as a class is denied power. Their existence as a class relies precisely on that power, and while we could discuss what terminology we should use today, a dictatorship of the proletariat is very much needed to eventually destroy not only the bourgeoisie as a class (defined by their role of power in the production) but also the proletariat as a class (defined by their oppressed role of having little or no control over the production and being forced to sell their labour).

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, in the case of russia many parts of the old bureaucracy just shifted shape and became the new elite. Also having a relative in the old bureacracy gave you an upper hand when it came o the massive privatizations and sell-outs in russia. In the case of Romania Ceauşescu was executed on the spot. I also have some memory of members of the Stasi being tried and sentenced after the fall of the berlin wall.Weren't some of the East Germans like Erich Honecker tried for abusing power like shooting East German deserters at the Wall? That's one of the biggest trials I can find for the Stasi. Point is, not to exonerate the crimes of the old Communist countries but the case of Nazi like represion is very weak.
Many of he old elite in he former USSR loved and praised the US though, as Michael Parenti notes that many of the intellectuals and politicians he spoke to couldn't wait for the fall and championed American consumerism. They were racist and rejected any notion of poverty in the US.



Of course, they are not *equal* to fascism but that does nto mean we should fall into the trap of relativizing too much. The suppression of political rights of the working class was very real in all of the former soviet republics.

Agreed. It is just that the US built itself a propaganda machine that insisted that supporting client states was preferable to the Soviet model

[this is an invasion]

[email protected] maoist that talked shit on the anarchists in greece for accidentally killing three people

[Saorsa]

Um, how many of us did that?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

[email protected] maoist that talked shit on the anarchists in greece for accidentally killing three people

To be fair(Although I wasn't one of those people for the record) that bank wasn't full of Greek police or soldiers, but this bus was. There is a big difference between throwing a molotov into a bank and accidentally killing workers and being in an armed struggle with the State and killing innocent civilians who are on the same bus as more than a dozen police.

[this is an invasion]

Um, how many of us did that?

Don't really care.

[The Vegan Marxist]

To be fair(Although I wasn't one of those people for the record) that bank wasn't full of Greek police or soldiers, but this bus was. There is a big difference between throwing a molotov into a bank and accidentally killing workers and being in an armed struggle with the State and killing innocent civilians who are on the same bus as more than a dozen police.

Though, these are all black n' white views on these issues as well. We're not putting into account on, 1) the bank that was attacked in Greece, the workers in the bank (unknowingly by the anarchists) were forced to stay in the bank even when all safety protocols urged for the contrary. The blame should be pointed to those who kept the workers in the bank, knowing damn well of the situation taking place in Greece. 2) Same thing goes with the bus attack by the Maoists. (Again, unknowingly by the Maoists) the police personnel & security forces had some civilians in the bus with them, using them as human shields. They even had personnel dressed in civilian clothes to try & fixate a false view of the situation, which allowed the mainstream media to cover a false fixation of the story for over 24 hours (which does harm to the movement). So the blame shouldn't be put on the Maoists, but rather those police forces who used civilians as their shields & excuse to discredit the Maoists.

[this is an invasion]

To be fair(Although I wasn't one of those people for the record) that bank wasn't full of Greek police or soldiers, but this bus was. There is a big difference between throwing a molotov into a bank and accidentally killing workers and being in an armed struggle with the State and killing innocent civilians who are on the same bus as more than a dozen police.

They clearly should have been more on top of things. 24 dead civilians (most likely working class too D: ) versus 11 dead cops, dayum.



I actually don't really care. I just wanted to be snarky. People die and shit. Whatevs.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Don't really care.

Of course, because none did. Get your anti-maoist agenda out of here.

[The Vegan Marxist]

They clearly should have been more on top of things. 24 dead civilians (most likely working class too D: ) versus 11 dead cops, dayum.



I actually don't really care. I just wanted to be snarky. People die and shit. Whatevs.

Wrong! Try again.

[this is an invasion]

Of course, because none did. Get your anti-maoist agenda out of here.

I must be part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the on-going Maoist world revolution! D:


Wrong! Try again.
I see you have selective reading comprehension. Cute.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I must be part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the on-going Maoist world revolution! D:


I see you have selective reading comprehension. Cute.

Nope, you just fail to read from mainstream media news & actually believe 24 "civilians" were on the bus.

[Saorsa]

Don't really care.

SNAP

that'll teach me to try and debate you! You burned me good man, I just got ooowned like a motherfucker. Damn you're good.

[DaringMehring]

DaringMehring: again, I think both sides in the debate here are misrepresenting what Marx and Lenin actually meant by the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not a dictatorship, well at least it is not supposed to be, in the political sense, as in say a military dictatorship, but in the class sense, in that the bourgeois as a class is denied power. Their existence as a class relies precisely on that power, and while we could discuss what terminology we should use today, a dictatorship of the proletariat is very much needed to eventually destroy not only the bourgeoisie as a class (defined by their role of power in the production) but also the proletariat as a class (defined by their oppressed role of having little or no control over the production and being forced to sell their labour).


Historically, the Party dictatorship is justified by the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Isn't that why every "Leninist" country has had one-Party rule?

What about the USSR. What bourgeoisie of note were there? The big bourgeoisie were expropriated during the Civil War and aftermath, and the kulaks, the paltry shadow of a petit-bourgeoisie, were destroyed in collectivization. There was nothing resembling a bourgeoisie by the mid-30s, except for the Party bureaucracy. So what was the historical role of the Party dictatorship (oh excuse me the dictatorship of the proletariat) then? Enriching the proto-bourgeoisie in the Party until they passed from their larval stage and emerged as full-fledged bourgeois butterflies and took down the USSR.

Is it really any surprise that a dictatorship spawned not an egalitarian but a hierarchical society? Come on.

Democracy would have stopped this! People who feel they have rights to stand up for, people who are used to participating in politics and do so without fear, these people were the proper constructors and protectors of socialism. They died in their millions in the Civil War to win it, because of the relentless message that it was their society. They built it, they power it, they should run it and it should run for them!

It seems not many people felt that way at the end of the USSR.

[Starport]

Historically, the Party dictatorship is justified by the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Isn't that why every "Leninist" country has had one-Party rule?

What about the USSR. What bourgeoisie of note were there? The big bourgeoisie were expropriated during the Civil War and aftermath, and the kulaks, the paltry shadow of a petit-bourgeoisie, were destroyed in collectivization. There was nothing resembling a bourgeoisie by the mid-30s, except for the Party bureaucracy. So what was the historical role of the Party dictatorship (oh excuse me the dictatorship of the proletariat) then? Enriching the proto-bourgeoisie in the Party until they passed from their larval stage and emerged as full-fledged bourgeois butterflies and took down the USSR.

Is it really any surprise that a dictatorship spawned not an egalitarian but a hierarchical society? Come on.

Democracy would have stopped this! People who feel they have rights to stand up for, people who are used to participating in politics and do so without fear, these people were the proper constructors and protectors of socialism. They died in their millions in the Civil War to win it, because of the relentless message that it was their society. They built it, they power it, they should run it and it should run for them!

It seems not many people felt that way at the end of the USSR.

Having successfully demonstrated that you are not a Marxist, but are in fact an ordinary propagandist for imperialist anti-communism, pherhaps you can now tell us how you explain to your worker acquaintances your program of democratic transformation to socialism in the context of imperialist world war and civil war conditions that are now developing. Again.

[RadioRaheem84]

Historically, the Party dictatorship is justified by the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Isn't that why every "Leninist" country has had one-Party rule?

What about the USSR. What bourgeoisie of note were there? The big bourgeoisie were expropriated during the Civil War and aftermath, and the kulaks, the paltry shadow of a petit-bourgeoisie, were destroyed in collectivization. There was nothing resembling a bourgeoisie by the mid-30s, except for the Party bureaucracy. So what was the historical role of the Party dictatorship (oh excuse me the dictatorship of the proletariat) then? Enriching the proto-bourgeoisie in the Party until they passed from their larval stage and emerged as full-fledged bourgeois butterflies and took down the USSR.

Is it really any surprise that a dictatorship spawned not an egalitarian but a hierarchical society? Come on.

Democracy would have stopped this! People who feel they have rights to stand up for, people who are used to participating in politics and do so without fear, these people were the proper constructors and protectors of socialism. They died in their millions in the Civil War to win it, because of the relentless message that it was their society. They built it, they power it, they should run it and it should run for them!

It seems not many people felt that way at the end of the USSR.

Oh man you clearly do not know what you're talking about. I was wasting my time.

[DaringMehring]

Having successfully demonstrated that you are not a Marxist, but are in fact an ordinary propagandist for imperialist anti-communism, pherhaps you can now tell us how you explain to your worker acquaintances your program of democratic transformation to socialism in the context of imperialist world war and civil war conditions that are now developing.

You keep saying that I argue for a democratic transformation to socialism through some kind of reforms in capitalism.

That is incorrect.

The seizure of power by the workers will not be through the means of bourgeois democracy.

However, the society that they construct must be democratic, and deepen and extend all the rights that exist as half-truth half-fiction ideals today. It must not be a Party dictatorship.

You might be surprised, but this line goes down pretty well among class-conscious workers.

If it makes me "not a Marxist," then all I know, is I am no Marxist. You can play the label game all you want, or lie and say I'm "anti-communist" --- it doesn't matter. I'm not a religious person who believes in the Eternal Word of whatever infallible True Prophet. Socialism is a science, and I take into account new data.

[Guerrilla22]

No one knows who exactly is responsible for the attack so I will withhold judgement until then.

[DaringMehring]

Oh man you clearly do not know what you're talking about. I was wasting my time.

You know, you'd think on the face of it, given the ignominious collapse of the USSR, the whole historical records of dictatorship and democracy, etc. people would be more able to think critically about these issues.

I had two relatives in older generations who were communists killed by the regime in the USSR. The murderous result of dictatorship is close at hand for me. So is the distrust of all politics fostered by the repressive regimes in their citizens.

I know what I am talking about.

But if you want to keep defending Party dictatorship, go ahead. And please, think that you are so smart in this historical revelation, that people who disagree with it are wasting your time.

[RadioRaheem84]

You know, you'd think on the face of it, given the ignominious collapse of the USSR, the whole historical records of dictatorship and democracy, etc. people would be more able to think critically about these issues.

I had two relatives in older generations who were communists killed by the regime in the USSR. The murderous result of dictatorship is close at hand for me. So is the distrust of all politics fostered by the repressive regimes in their citizens.

I know what I am talking about.

But if you want to keep defending Party dictatorship, go ahead. And please, think that you are so smart in this historical revelation, that people who disagree with it are wasting your time.

That's interesting, because I know thousands of innocents that were murdered under an operation called Phoenix in Vietnam at the hands of troops belonging to a bourgeoisie democracy, where the precious rights in democracy are "protected" or dare I saw tolerated. Heck look up COINTELPRO and see how these rights that were won were protected.

The point is not to exonerate soviet crimes but to not get caught up in the malarkey of universal liberal principles.

[Starport]

You keep saying that I argue for a democratic transformation to socialism through some kind of reforms in capitalism.

That is incorrect.

The seizure of power by the workers will not be through the means of bourgeois democracy.

However, the society that they construct must be democratic, and deepen and extend all the rights that exist as half-truth half-fiction ideals today. It must not be a Party dictatorship.

You might be surprised, but this line goes down pretty well among class-conscious workers.

If it makes me "not a Marxist," then all I know, is I am no Marxist. You can play the label game all you want, or lie and say I'm "anti-communist" --- it doesn't matter. I'm not a religious person who believes in the Eternal Word of whatever infallible True Prophet. Socialism is a science, and I take into account new data.

I am really sorry you seem to be so personalty upset and disoriented by the augments or the realities of imperialist war and civil war conditions that give rise to revolutions, but all you were being asked to do was explain your program for transfomation out of war torn capitalist chaos.

I said:
Having successfully demonstrated that you are not a Marxist, but are in fact an ordinary propagandist for imperialist anti-communism, perhaps you can now tell us how you explain to your worker acquaintances your program of democratic transformation to socialism in the context of imperialist world war and civil war conditions that are now developing. Again. Go on Have a go.

[DaringMehring]

That's interesting, because I know thousands of innocents that were murdered under an operation called Phoenix in Vietnam at the hands of troops belonging to a bourgeoisie democracy, where the precious rights in democracy are "protected" or dare I saw tolerated. Heck look up COINTELPRO and see how these rights that were won were protected.

The point is not to exonerate soviet crimes but to not get caught up in the malarkey of universal liberal principles.

Ok. I am not making an argument that the US government is somehow a paragon of morality just because we have a Bill of Rights here at home. The US is the world's leading imperialist power and it has a long history of committing crimes against humanity.

But as you say, that does not exonerate so-called socialist criminality. In fact, it only makes it doubly criminal, because the crimes are not only horrible in themselves, they set back the cause of socialism by causing people to turn away from it, thereby allowing capitalism to continue committing its crimes even longer.

And to call the "universal liberal principles" "malarkey" is to say that it does not matter whether they are enacted 0%, 10%, 80%, or 100%. But it does matter. Under socialism, many of those same principles will be enacted 100%, and that will be a huge qualitative advance over capitalism.

[DaringMehring]

I am really sorry you seem to be so personalty upset and disoriented by the augments or the realities of imperialist war and civil war conditions that give rise to revolutions, but all you were being asked to do was explain your program for transfomation out of war torn capitalist chaos.

I said:
Having successfully demonstrated that you are not a Marxist, but are in fact an ordinary propagandist for imperialist anti-communism, perhaps you can now tell us how you explain to your worker acquaintances your program of democratic transformation to socialism in the context of imperialist world war and civil war conditions that are now developing. Again. Go on Have a go.

Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit.

I never advocated that a "democratic transformation to socialism" from capitalism is possible. The probably route to socialism is through a mass strike precipitating a political crisis, followed by the overthrow of the bourgeois regime. Some degree of violence will be involved. But the forcible overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not mean that the ensuing society should be a Party dictatorship that denies human rights.

Also, I tend not to talk on this theme to my "worker acquaintances." We stick to the fights we are involved in, not hypothetical future fights.

[Starport]

Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit.

I never advocated that a "democratic transformation to socialism" from capitalism is possible. The probably route to socialism is through a mass strike precipitating a political crisis, followed by the overthrow of the bourgeois regime. Some degree of violence will be involved. But the forcible overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not mean that the ensuing society should be a Party dictatorship that denies human rights.

Also, I tend not to talk on this theme to my "worker acquaintances." We stick to the fights we are involved in, not hypothetical future fights.

Maybe you should try to reply to the questions I asked later.
Take your time.

[RadioRaheem84]

The probably route to socialism is through a mass strike precipitating a political crisis, followed by the overthrow of the bourgeois regime. Some degree of violence will be involved. But the forcible overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not mean that the ensuing society should be a Party dictatorship that denies human rights.

What the flip are you talking about? The bourgeois will not go down without a major fight. Where the hell have you been the last century? The ensuing society would be a dictatorship for the bourgeois, as they have repressed us. They will not be allowed to exploit but will have to work. Do you not get that 'dictatorship' mainly means directed by the people not a literal fascist totalitarian regime? Most of the deficiencies in democracy of the past socialist regimes were due to a mix of things but mostly due to never ending state of war they were always in. They didn't deny human rights. In fact they upheld rights that were before laughed at by the previous regimes that ruled there and by capitalist democracies.

You're clearly either misinformed or an agitator because I never exonerated the crimes of the former socialist nations. I was trying to say that human rights as declared under universal liberal principles are simply things the ruling class tolerate for the time being and would never employ them in places where they make the most loot. These rights, while they improve the lives of many, are nothing to praise as an end to struggle or even as a road to socialism. I would never support their rollback or not fight back if it was tried but I wouldn't claim that they're universal.

Most of the time, human rights under the bourgeois context, have been wrongly lobbied at places like Cuba. While there is enough to critique about the Cuba government, the capitalist democracies lobby ridiculous accusations sometimes under the banner of human rights.

[Starport]

Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit.

I never advocated that a "democratic transformation to socialism" from capitalism is possible. The probably route to socialism is through a mass strike precipitating a political crisis, followed by the overthrow of the bourgeois regime. Some degree of violence will be involved. But the forcible overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not mean that the ensuing society should be a Party dictatorship that denies human rights.

Also, I tend not to talk on this theme to my "worker acquaintances." We stick to the fights we are involved in, not hypothetical future fights.

Exactly, you are as we have said throughout this discussion, a reformist economist and not a revolutionary socialist. As such you have no 'solutions' to any of the problems that beset the working class in the USA or anywhere else. How can you progress"the fights you are involved in" if the solution always remains within the gift of capitalism to grant or withdraw, depending on the level of crisis it is in. The revolutionary workers in India are not depending on this kind of trickery of capitalism and have decided to take matters into their own hands and you have cheek to complain about them.

[DaringMehring]

Exactly, you are as we have said throughout this discussion, a reformist economist and not a revolutionary socialist. As such you have no 'solutions' to any of the problems that beset the working class in the USA or anywhere else.

Because I abhor the idea of a repressive and in the end usually murderous dictatorship masquerading as socialism, I'm a "reformist economist." Ok...

I have the feeling that your revolutionary activity consists of internet diatribes and plastering your walls with Mao posters. That is about the depth of your contribution to the "solution" to the problems of the working class.

Meanwhile, some of us actually try to get into dialogues with first world workers that aren't just shouting slogans at them or bombing them with newsletters.

"Hey did you hear about the latest counter-revolutionaries sent to the camps in North Korea! Go Kim Jong-Il! Beat imperialism!" -- I'm sure you go far.

But I guess you think that those first-world workers who want rights, and who aren't falling over themselves for "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" are all "bourgeoisified" and so it's pointless to try to do anything with them. It's pointless to engage in ten discussions where you get shot down, only to succeed in at least getting a good conversation in the eleventh, and making a friend in the twentieth.

If Marx used his historical method to show that the workers of the advanced industrial countries were actually the only force that could make socialism, he must have been wrong. It's too much work. I mean, shouldn't they just be lining up for socialism?


How can you progress"the fights you are involved in" if the solution always remains within the gift of capitalism to grant or withdraw, depending on the level of crisis it is in.

If you'd been following the thread, you'd have seen that I argued that only a simpleton would think that the capitalists can withdraw victories won by working people at will.

Democratic achievements were hard fought for, and sectors of capital would like to see them withdrawn. But they can't achieve it. They aren't omnipotent. Popular resistance determines what they can and can't do.

Objectively, a demoralizer like you is a zero or a negative in the struggle that surrounds us. I imagine you have some kind of a hate-complex where you'd like to see first-world workers enslaved into third-world conditions, so probably you are kosher with being a prop of the bourgeoisie in their ongoing battle to cut back on democratic protections.



The revolutionary workers in India are not depending on this kind of trickery of capitalism and have decided to take matters into their own hands and you have cheek to complain about them.

Actually I intervened in this thread against your stupid post. Not against the Maoists.

I tried to start a reasoned discussion on the Indian Maoists (or rather, the Maoists, and the tribals who follow them) by posting a reference to the article "Arms Before People" by Mukherji. Nobody took it up though. There is plenty to criticize about them and also to praise, but ultimately, I don't think it's very relevant to my own activity or to socialism in general.

[DaringMehring]

These rights, while they improve the lives of many, are nothing to praise as an end to struggle or even as a road to socialism. I would never support their rollback or not fight back if it was tried but I wouldn't claim that they're universal.


Can't you see that these statements are paradoxical?

[Saorsa]

I tried to start a reasoned discussion on the Indian Maoists (or rather, the Maoists, and the tribals who follow them) by posting a reference to the article "Arms Before People" by Mukherji. Nobody took it up though

There was nothing to take up. I read the article, but it was just the usual bourgeois slander and rubbish. The evil Maoists are outside agitators stirring up the tribal people, who until now were peaceful and content with their lives!

That sort of rhetoric sounds awfully familiar...

[DaringMehring]

There was nothing to take up. I read the article, but it was just the usual bourgeois slander and rubbish. The evil Maoists are outside agitators stirring up the tribal people, who until now were peaceful and content with their lives!

That sort of rhetoric sounds awfully familiar...

The Maoists are "outsiders."

The article never states that the tribal people were content with their lives.

The article's criticism, is that after decades of Maoist control, the improvements made by the tribals are not of a large scale. It points out that the tribals standard of life is less than workers in other parts of India despite these decades. The article accuses the Maoists of leaving the contractor-system in place, and harvesting profits off of the tribals to put to military use.

While I support the Maoists in their opposition to the Indian state, and hence have some tolerance for harvesting surplus value from tribals in order to develop a military force, the question of what they are constructing in the place of the Indian state is also a valid one.

[Comrade Awesome]

Daring, what will this socialist democracy look like, if not the workers democracy described in 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

[Saorsa]

The Maoists are "outsiders."

No, they are not. You do not know what you're talking about and neither does the author of that bullshit article you linked to. The Maoists have been among the tribals for decades, and other than the initial cadres who entered the forests and the various cadres that have arrived since, the people who make up the Maoist movement ARE tribals.

And furthermore, communists are internationalists. Why on earth is it relevant what geographic location you're born in?


The article never states that the tribal people were content with their lives.

The whole thrust of that article is that this is not a struggle being waged by the oppressed tribals against their oppressors, but that it is rather a campaign of terrorism being waged by Maoist cadres on the backs of tribals who don't really support the Maoist cause.

Anyone, no matter what their politics are, can look at the evidence and know what a load of crap that is.


The article's criticism, is that after decades of Maoist control, the improvements made by the tribals are not of a large scale.

First. There have not been decades of Maoist control. The situation is fluid, it's not as simple as 'this area is under Maoist control' and 'this area isn't'. The Maoists have fused with the masses and developed base areas in the tribal regions, and they have driven the police and the state in general out of wide areas. But it's not an area where they have complete and unchallenged control.

Secondly, no shit. The Maoists are an underground political movement - they don't have the resources to build power lines and so on. You're looking at this from an NGO perspective. What is important is not flashy 'development' projects, but the development of people's power and the creation of a new and revolutionary culture amongst the masses, where women are equal and so on.

Plus, the Maoist areas are under constant attack from the state. The Salwa Judum rape and torture the people and burn down their houses - this makes it kinda hard to peacefully improve the local infrastructure.


It points out that the tribals standard of life is less than workers in other parts of India despite these decades.

Um, no shit.


The article accuses the Maoists of leaving the contractor-system in place, and harvesting profits off of the tribals to put to military use.

The Maoists ARE tribals, and the tribals ARE Maoists. There is no contradiction there. Have you read Arundhati Roy's report? She went there as a skeptic and as someone who has criticised the Maoists a lot over the years, and she came away convinced of the mass support the Maoist movement has among the people. The Maoist militias are made up of armed tribals and poor peasants - I fail to see how arming the people to defend themselves and fight for their own liberation is in any way exploitative.


While I support the Maoists in their opposition to the Indian state, and hence have some tolerance for harvesting surplus value from tribals in order to develop a military force,

I don't think you know what surplus-value means.


the question of what they are constructing in the place of the Indian state is also a valid one.

A New Democratic state, based on people's committees where ordinary people can elect their own leaders (with right of recall) and have control over their own communities.

Revolutions are always attacked from the right and the left.

[blackwave]

So now they appear to have derailed a train full of ordinary civilians as well. What is the point of all this, I ask?

[pranabjyoti]

So now they appear to have derailed a train full of ordinary civilians as well. What is the point of all this, I ask?
You already CONCLUDED that Maoists have derailed the train! The Govt. of India will like people like you very much.

[blackwave]

Right, because communists are always the good guys, and any indication otherwise is almost inevitably lies from the capitalist oppressors. Get real. Note how I used the word 'appear', as in 'it would seem', 'lacking any evidence to the contrary'.

[Jolly Red Giant]

You already CONCLUDED that Maoists have derailed the train! The Govt. of India will like people like you very much.
For years the Shining Path denied carrying out massacres (in order to send a message) only to subsequently admit that they actually did do it.

I am extremely skeptical about anything that comes from the mouths of the Indian State or the bourgeois media - but the reality is that questions also have to be raised about the bona fides of Maoist statements as well. It would not be the first time that Maoists have lied about activities they were engaged in.

And this does not even touch on the real issue of whether Maoist tactics are valid and progressive.

[Steve_j]

The police claim they have found posters signed by a local Maoist militia claiming responsibility for removing part of the track, which led to the train skidding off and colliding with a freight train coming in the opposite direction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8710747.stm


India's railways minister Mamata Bannerjee said the incident was "definitely sabotage" and that a bomb attack had derailed the train.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7778419/65-killed-in-train-crash-following-Maoist-explosion.html


Some very conflicting reports here. Maybe the government and the police need to sit down and get their stories straight.

[Dimentio]

Completely idiotic and anti-humane action. Read that they also were behind the derailing of a train, causing the death of 65. This kind of terrorism is unacceptable from any kind of progressive movement, and is a signal that the maoists do not care about anyone except the tribal people in the zones they control (and probably hardly even them).

[Steve_j]

Completely idiotic and anti-humane action. Read that they also were behind the derailing of a train, causing the death of 65. This kind of terrorism is unacceptable from any kind of progressive movement, and is a signal that the maoists do not care about anyone except the tribal people in the zones they control (and probably hardly even them).

Im not a general supporter of the maoists, but it might be worth waiting to the dust settles before going off on one.

[chegitz guevara]

It would be Trotsky- try Lenin.

..."It is not guerrilla actions which disorganise the movement, but the weakness of a party which is incapable of taking such actions under its control."...

..."It may be objected that if we are incapable of putting a stop to an abnormal and demoralising phenomenon, this is no reason why the Party should adopt abnormal and demoralising methods of struggle. But such an objection would be a purely bourgeois-liberal and not a Marxist objection, because a Marxist cannot regard civil war, or guerrilla warfare, which is one of its forms, as abnormal and demoralising in general. A Marxist bases himself on the class struggle, and not social peace." ...

..."When I see Social-Democrats proudly and smugly declaring "we are not anarchists, thieves, robbers, we are superior to all this, we reject guerrilla warfare", -- I ask myself: Do these people realise what they are saying?"...

..."I realise that this question must be settled by the local practical workers, and that the remoulding of weak and unprepared organisations is no easy matter. But when I see a Social-Democratic theoretician or publicist not displaying regret over this unpreparedness, but rather a proud smugness and a self-exalted tendency to repeat phrases learned by rote in early youth about anarchism, Blanquism and terrorism, (Q your Narordnikis Ed)I am hurt by this degradation of the most revolutionary doctrine in the world..." Lenin on Guerilla Warfare, Proletary No 5

Guerrilla warfare and individual terrorism are two different things. Lenin consistently denounced the individual terrorist tactics of the Narodniks and Socialist Revolutionaries. This is, as opposed, to using mass terror during the Civil War, of which both Lenin and Trotsky approved.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So now they appear to have derailed a train full of ordinary civilians as well. What is the point of all this, I ask?

Well the fact that they didn't blow up a bus in the first place filled with innocent civilians, that's just you buying into that crap, even after proving that the bus was being used through Operation Green Hunt & had security personnel dressed in civilian clothes. And now we have this derailment. It just happened, & yet here you are, blaming them without hesitation. You really are just trying to throw as much dirt on the Maoists as you can, because it benefits your belief. That's called an agenda, my friend.

[chegitz guevara]

Every move that we the public make to win rights, they move to win those profits back elsewhere.

That's why we call it the class struggle, instead of victory. It is through the struggle the class learns its strength and the limitations of what can be achieved through class struggle within socialism.

One of the big problems, however, is the worker class is actually fairly modest in its wants. If we can win from the capitalists enough to have a decent life, we're content not to overthrow the bastards. We don't want everything, just enough, and the capitalists use that to hold on to power and property.

[blackwave]

Well the fact that they didn't blow up a bus in the first place filled with innocent civilians, that's just you buying into that crap, even after proving that the bus was being used through Operation Green Hunt & had security personnel dressed in civilian clothes. And now we have this derailment. It just happened, & yet here you are, blaming them without hesitation. You really are just trying to throw as much dirt on the Maoists as you can, because it benefits your belief. That's called an agenda, my friend.

Forgive me if I didn't have access to any indian maoists to go and ask them personally whether they did it, clearly that was sheer laziness on my behalf... If we do not have discussions around things as reported by the media, then we wouldn't discuss any news at all.

Oh, and you accuse me of an agenda, yet I've just spotted 'support the indian maoists' in your sig. More evidence for an agenda on your behalf than any of my comments.

Simply put, I think such actions are cruel and counter-productive. And if, that is if they did it, I condemn it. You have consistently made light of such actions, as if it is 'all part of the revolutionary process'. How about I blow up your family in the name of 'freedom'? I bet you wouldn't hesitate to condemn me as 'evil', etc.

[DaringMehring]

Daring, what will this socialist democracy look like, if not the workers democracy described in 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

I don't claim to be an oracle, and historically, attempts to predict the precise form of socialism have been laughable. Similar with bourgeois revolutions --- its not like the founding father's predicted even fifty years ahead very well. They just put some basic principles into practice, and let history unfold.

In the socialist case, I would argue for those principles having to include

1) Bill of Rights for citizens guaranteeing them certain protections against other citizens and the government. Included here -- freedom of expression, and the right to organize politically.

2) Separation of powers (an independent judiciary, for instance).

3) Checks and balances limiting the power of any one organ of government and any one person within government.

4) The opportunity for a multi-Party system.

These are all basic prerequisites of a truly democratic society! And they are all denied by a Party dictatorship.

[DaringMehring]

A New Democratic state, based on people's committees where ordinary people can elect their own leaders (with right of recall) and have control over their own communities.



Putting the stuff on the relationship between the tribals and the Maoists (which implicitly requires a definition of what it means to be "Maoist," etc.) to the side, my question is, what does this have to do with socialism.

You admit that the tribals are dirt-poor, that they still live in a market economy, and give their aims as essentially democratic-liberationist.

It seems to me, that those exact rights that I was saying are important under capitalism, are what the tribals/Maoists are fighting for right now. They're not fighting for socialism with workers' control over production in the classical Marxist tradition --- as you say, how can they in such a backwards state of development mired with poverty.

Marx's theory showed that it is impossible for the peasantry to make socialism. Downtrodden peasants have existed for millennia, it's no accident that they have never managed to construct socialist society.

I support the tribals/Maoists in their fight for these basic democratic rights (funny that those who here attack the importance of those same rights are the most rabid supporters of the tribals/Maoists). But I don't call it socialism, and I don't think it has any implications for socialism. It's a misnomer.

[Starport]

I don't claim to be an oracle, and historically, attempts to predict the precise form of socialism have been laughable. Similar with bourgeois revolutions --- its not like the founding father's predicted even fifty years ahead very well. They just put some basic principles into practice, and let history unfold.

In the socialist case, I would argue for those principles having to include

1) Bill of Rights for citizens guaranteeing them certain protections against other citizens and the government. Included here -- freedom of expression, and the right to organize politically.

2) Separation of powers (an independent judiciary, for instance).

3) Checks and balances limiting the power of any one organ of government and any one person within government.

4) The opportunity for a multi-Party system.

These are all basic prerequisites of a truly democratic society! And they are all denied by a Party dictatorship.

These are "all denied" by all class societies throughout recorded history.

[chegitz guevara]

These are "all denied" by all class societies throughout recorded history.

Really? You have some evidence for that?

[Starport]

Really? You have some evidence for that?

You have evidence otherwise?

[chegitz guevara]

You have evidence otherwise?

As it only takes one example to render your assertion false ...
http://www.revleft.com/vb/judge-weinstein-takes-t135795/index.html

[Saorsa]

The Maoists have NOT claimed responsibility for what happened to that train. The only 'evidence' we have of Maoist involvement is the claims of the Indian state.

And you all just uncritically believe them?


Putting the stuff on the relationship between the tribals and the Maoists (which implicitly requires a definition of what it means to be "Maoist," etc.) to the side, my question is, what does this have to do with socialism.

Socialism is about empowering the workers and peasants to run society. Do I really need to explain this further?

[scarletghoul]

The Maoists have NOT claimed responsibility for what happened to that train. The only 'evidence' we have of Maoist involvement is the claims of the Indian state.

And you all just uncritically believe them?
Yeah, its ridiculous.

There's a train thread here btw http://www.revleft.com/vb/train-derailed-india-t136122/index.html I'm not one for insensitive puns, but let's not derail this thread.

Though they are linked of course. These 2 strange incidents suggest that there is an increased state campaign of misinformation and manipulation to make it look like the maoists are nothing but evil terrorists, to compliment Operation Green Hunt.

[DaringMehring]

Socialism is about empowering the workers and peasants to run society. Do I really need to explain this further?

Socialism is a more precise concept than that.

But I guess Maoists who want to claim New Democracy is socialism have to give a vague definition of socialism.

And --- you failed to address the points in the previous post.

[bailey_187]

Oh please elaborate on this before I think so terribly of you.

again, u expose ur infantile anti-marxism.

[Saorsa]

But I guess Maoists who want to claim New Democracy is socialism have to give a vague definition of socialism.

Maoists don't claim New Democracy is socialism. The New Democratic revolution is the democratic revolution carried out under the leadership of the proletariat, based on an alliance of all progressive forces, land reform and the destruction of foreign imperialist domination.

I guess 'leftists' who look overseas, see oppressed people up in arms, and feel the need to condemn rather than support are really irrelevant and worthless.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Forgive me if I didn't have access to any indian maoists to go and ask them personally whether they did it, clearly that was sheer laziness on my behalf... If we do not have discussions around things as reported by the media, then we wouldn't discuss any news at all.

Oh, and you accuse me of an agenda, yet I've just spotted 'support the indian maoists' in your sig. More evidence for an agenda on your behalf than any of my comments.

Simply put, I think such actions are cruel and counter-productive. And if, that is if they did it, I condemn it. You have consistently made light of such actions, as if it is 'all part of the revolutionary process'. How about I blow up your family in the name of 'freedom'? I bet you wouldn't hesitate to condemn me as 'evil', etc.

If there was no reason behind the killing of my family, yes. If my family were on that bus that exploded, from what I know now, I'd blame the Indian government for allowing security personnel to use civilians, such as my parents, as human shields under "Operation Green Hunt" in order to discredit the Maoists. Not everything is black & white, & should be taken as an evolving situation, not something at face-value.

[Starport]

As it only takes one example to render your assertion false ...
http://www.revleft.com/vb/judge-weinstein-takes-t135795/index.html

If I was so minded and had the time, I think I could find many exceptions that prove the rule that the judges are senior officers of the capitalist state. Are you seriously saying otherwise?

[DaringMehring]

Maoists don't claim New Democracy is socialism. The New Democratic revolution is the democratic revolution carried out under the leadership of the proletariat, based on an alliance of all progressive forces, land reform and the destruction of foreign imperialist domination.

I guess 'leftists' who look overseas, see oppressed people up in arms, and feel the need to condemn rather than support are really irrelevant and worthless.

I don't condemn them. I support them as a national-liberation struggle against the Indian state imperialism. But I don't call it socialism --- just as you admit.

It's funny that you deny the possibility/importance of democratic rights under capitalism, but when the Maoists fight for democratic right they can supposedly actually be achieved under capitalism. Even if the Maoists install a political system of Party dictatorship.

I would counter that important democratic rights can be achieved under capitalism.

As for relevance, I'm confident that trying to achieve things in the community in which I actually am, makes me relevant. What's close to irrelevant is what I think about the non-socialist revolution of Indian Maoists.

[Saorsa]

I don't condemn them. I support them as a national-liberation struggle against the Indian state imperialism. But I don't call it socialism --- just as you admit.

No Maoist has called it socialism.


It's funny that you deny the possibility/importance of democratic rights under capitalism, but when the Maoists fight for democratic right they can supposedly actually be achieved under capitalism. Even if the Maoists install a political system of Party dictatorship.

I never denied the importance of democratic rights. What I did do was deny the existence of eternal, inalienable 'human rights' that exist in a void and can never be violated under any circumstances.


As for relevance, I'm confident that trying to achieve things in the community in which I actually am, makes me relevant. What's close to irrelevant is what I think about the non-socialist revolution of Indian Maoists.

For once we can agree on something.

[Saorsa]

http://www.icawpi.org/en/peoples-resistance/statements/467-both-the-cpi-maoist-and-pcapa-have-denied-their-involvement-in-the-friday-train-derailment

[chegitz guevara]

If I was so minded and had the time, I think I could find many exceptions that prove the rule that the judges are senior officers of the capitalist state. Are you seriously saying otherwise?

That wasn't what was being debated, so you don't get to switch the goal posts. You claimed that all bourgeois rights were denied in all societies. So I only need provide one example to prove your assertion false, which I did.