26 Indian police killed in Maoist ambush

[Saorsa]

26 Indian police killed in Maoist ambush: police

By Prakash Hota (AFP) – 3 days ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/media/ALeqM5hwsvhmIwx_wNh7F5GIsDmHPH6yjA?size=s2

RAIPUR, India — Maoist rebels killed 26 police officers in an ambush in central India on Tuesday, police said, in the latest of a series of deadly strikes against security forces.

The targeted group were returning from a road-opening ceremony when they were attacked by a large number of heavily armed militants, Ram Niwas, the head of anti-Maoist operations in the state of Chhattisgarh, said.

The Maoists, who massacred 76 policemen in Chhattisgarh in a similar assault in April, numbered as many as 100 and opened fire with automatic weapons from a hilltop.

The officers were surrounded in the ambush, which took place in Dhodai, 300 kilometres (190 miles) south of the state capital Raipur, and they fought back in a gun battle that lasted three hours, Niwas said.

"At least 26 security forces were killed and several injured," he said, adding that some of the wounded were evacuated by helicopter and reinforcements had been sent to the area.

The government launched a major offensive last year to tackle the worsening left-wing insurgency, but since then the Maoists have hit back -- triggering widespread criticism of officials and politicians.

Maoist rebel groups have fought for decades throughout east and central India against state and government rule, drawing support from landless tribal groups and farmers left behind by the country's economic development.

Last month a Maoist landmine in Chhattisgarh hit a bus, killing 24 civilians and 11 police personnel, while 25 officers were also killed in February when Maoists overran a security camp in West Bengal state.

The scale of recent rebel strikes has highlighted the government's struggle to find an effective strategy against the Maoists, with ministers coming under severe pressure to clamp down on the violence.

As the attacks have worsened, calls have grown for the army and air force to be drafted in.

But until now, the government has insisted that paramilitary and state police forces were capable of flushing the Maoists out of their jungle bases.

Analysts say the government is hamstrung by internal disagreement, with some urging a more aggressive policy and others favouring a long-term strategy to addresses the plight of impoverished tribespeople and farmers.

Home Minister P. Chidambaram is seen as belonging to the former camp, while his ruling Congress party chief, Sonia Gandhi, has stressed the need to combat the "root causes" of the insurgency.

"There is a conflict between the so-called hawks who want to crush the rebels and the so-called doves who call for development in Maoist-dominated areas to wean away their support," Ajai Sahani, a counter-terrorism expert, told AFP recently.

Military chiefs have made it clear that they are opposed to involving the armed forces in any direct combat operations.

Little is known about the Maoists' structure, but their current strength is estimated at between 10,000-20,000 guerrillas, who operate out of jungle camps where they undergo weapons and ideological training.

Security forces say their principal sources of funding are from abductions, extortion and looting. They have also set up unofficial administrations in some rural areas to collect taxes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ibNqQgeIH42uSTiOZ6Ntj2uWwejg

[bcbm]

but violence alienates the proletariat!

[XxKrebsxX]

26 Indian police killed in Maoist ambush: police

"There is a conflict between the so-called hawks who want to crush the rebels and the so-called doves who call for development in Maoist-dominated areas to wean away their support," Ajai Sahani, a counter-terrorism expert, told AFP recently.



The bolded is what is actually dangerous for the Maoists. All the former will do is embolden their ideology and strengthen their cause.

What is it about hawks that cannot understand this? I'm no professional and even I know this shit will backfire on them.

[the last donut of the night]

but violence alienates the proletariat!

but...but...but these police officers are workers too! they have families to tend to! these stoopid maoists have it all wrong! :(:(:(:(

[Adi Shankara]

Why are the Maoists even fighting, if they aren't a banned political party? why can't they win power by the ballot box like the Nepalis did (even though admittingly, they led a revolution first) and take power from there?

or why can't they lead a non-violent revolution? what's the point of all the guns etc. if India is democracy (as far as capitalist standards go)? shouldn't a non-violent revolution be possible?

[Imposter Marxist]

This is a fucking revolution. Ballot box most likely is rigged in India. Sometimes, Comrades, we must take up arms against those who are opressing us and our people. The state seeks to force the workers and peasantry into submission, and the Maoists will defeat them.

Yes, killing is never a "Good" thing, but damn people. We are trying to OVERTHROW the Bourgeoisie.

[Nachie]

they are a banned political party.

plus if they were nonviolent it wouldn't be maoism.

that said, the dude who posted directly above me really needs to lay off the kool aid.

[Paulappaul]

Why are the Maoists even fighting, if they aren't a banned political party? why can't they win power by the ballot box like the Nepalis did (even though admittingly, they led a revolution first) and take power from there?

or why can't they lead a non-violent revolution? what's the point of all the guns etc. if India is democracy (as far as capitalist standards go)? shouldn't a non-violent revolution be possible?

The state represents the ruling the class, the Capitalist class isn't intrested in Socialism, thus only a revolution is capable of removing a ruling class. Reformism, parties, democracy can't do anything for the revolution, but pacify it's participants.

[Imposter Marxist]

they are a banned political party.

plus if they were nonviolent it wouldn't be maoism.

that said, the dude who posted directly above me really needs to lay off the kool aid.

The kool aid? Because im upset when people say its wrong to attack those who are harming them?

[Nachie]

No, because you capitalized "Comrades"

[Imposter Marxist]

No, because you capitalized "Comrades"

Hey, haha, Its 3, and I worked in a hot factory all day, cut me some slack, "Comrades" :sleep:

[Adi Shankara]

plus if they were nonviolent it wouldn't be maoism..

In that case, then Maoism is a fundamentally flawed ideology if they can only achieve things through violent means...afterall, what happens once they gain power? do they become another authoritarian state like PRC or Democratic Kampuchea?

[Nachie]

i mean yeah that's... kinda the whole idea

[Sir Comradical]

Why are the Maoists even fighting, if they aren't a banned political party? why can't they win power by the ballot box like the Nepalis did (even though admittingly, they led a revolution first) and take power from there?

or why can't they lead a non-violent revolution? what's the point of all the guns etc. if India is democracy (as far as capitalist standards go)? shouldn't a non-violent revolution be possible?

They're are banned. You're probably thinking of the CPI(M).

Winning elections in India, like in many other countries, comes down to how much money you can get corporations to throw at you. India's two main coalitions the NDA and the UPA are both in bed with big corporations, the same corporations that want to see India's tribal people removed from their land so minerals valued at around $1 trillion can be extracted. Asking the poorest people in India to counter that machine by playing by their rules is a failed method. The CPI(M) decided to take that path and ended up being infiltrated by people that have too much of a stake in India's capitalist machine.

In short. It's a pathetic idea from every angle.

What do I think about this attack? Police officers, Army Personnel and Salwa-Judum mercenaries are fair game.

[Sir Comradical]

In that case, then Maoism is a fundamentally flawed ideology if they can only achieve things through violent means...afterall, what happens once they gain power? do they become another authoritarian state like PRC or Democratic Kampuchea?

Even the left-communists on this forum would argue that revolution itself is an authoritarian act, which it most certainly is.

[Devrim]

Even the left-communists on this forum would argue that revolution itself is an authoritarian act, which it most certainly is.

What do you mean even the left communists?

Devrim

[Sir Comradical]

What do you mean even the left communists?

Devrim

Sorry.

[Blackscare]

What do you mean even the left communists?

Devrim


Well, being libertarian communists, it may seem a contradictory stance to some.

Thats part of why I like Left Communists a good bit, they seem to lack the Anarchist compulsion to deny the harsh realities of the implications of various elements of leftist theory in order to maintain a certain aesthetic.

[Saorsa]

Why are the Maoists even fighting, if they aren't a banned political party

As others have mentioned, they are an illegal organisation. It is illegal to be a member or support of the CPI (Maoist).


why can't they win power by the ballot box like the Nepalis did (even though admittingly, they led a revolution first) and take power from there?

The UCPN (M) has not won power. A 90,000 strong Nepal Army stands in between the Nepali Maoists and state power. The People's War in Nepal is not finished.

You might also want to read this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)


or why can't they lead a non-violent revolution?

There's no such thing. A revolution is by its very nature a violent act.


what's the point of all the guns etc. if India is democracy (as far as capitalist standards go)?

The point of the guns is to enable to working people of India to challenge the oppression they suffer at the hands of the landlords and the capitalists. The Indian ruling class has guns, and it's quite happy to use them - therefore, the oppressed need guns as well.


shouldn't a non-violent revolution be possible?

It'd be lovely if it was. But do you really expect the ruling class to give up without a fight? They control the armed forces, the police, the courts, the immigration service... you really expect them not to use these things just because some socialist group wins a parliamentary majority?

You're asking the bourgeoisie to commit suicide as a class. I think that's kinda unlikely.

[People's War]

Kampuchea was not Maoist ftr, it was more or less a bizarre nationalist-primitivist state.

[scarletghoul]

A top Maoist leader, Azad (Cherukuri Rajkumar) has been killed in another 'encounter'

Things really are escalating.

[Saorsa]

We don't know if Azad is really dead. It could be a lie - the Indian state has claimed to have killed him before. Let's wait until the CPI (Maoist) release an official statement on the matter.

For those who don't know, Azad is the spokesperson of the party, probably the 3rd highest ranked leader after Kishenji who leads the armed wing and Ganapathi, General Secretary of the party.

[Saorsa]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Villagers-say-they-did-not-hear-any-gunshots/articleshow/6122661.cms

[Adil3tr]

Don't you understand this situation in Nepal? The government is trying to kill these people and throw them off their land, build mines and dams, and rob these people of what little they have. The police are thugs, they rape and kill. Read Arundhati Roy. Read his Walking with the Comrades article in ISR.

[Saorsa]

Read Arundhati Roy. Read his Walking with the Comrades article in ISR.

Arundhati Roy is a woman ;)

[Adil3tr]

:blink:

[Saorsa]

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/1fe92a8041d221ca8e6eaeef1aadd073/roy_002_608.jpg?MOD=AJPERES

http://photo.outlookindia.com/images/gallery/20100318/arundhati_roy_moist_20100329.jpg

[The Vegan Marxist]

:blink:

May I ask why this surprises you?

[Sir Comradical]

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/1fe92a8041d221ca8e6eaeef1aadd073/roy_002_608.jpg?MOD=AJPERES

http://photo.outlookindia.com/images/gallery/20100318/arundhati_roy_moist_20100329.jpg

Arundhati Roy is a legend, no other writer would ever do what she's done, that is, actually talking to Maoists. My cousin's family knows AR fairly well.

[M-26-7]

but violence alienates the proletariat!

I'd have to say I'm more worried about what the Maoists would do if they ever came to power than I am about a few dead police. In fact, dead cops don't worry me at all, and Maoists in power worry me a lot. I wonder how long until they would ban workers' strikes, proclaim an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie", and militarily attack neighboring countries (as Maoist China did to Vietnam and the USSR)?

[Chimurenga.]

Maoists in power worry me a lot.

Uhh... why?

[M-26-7]

Uhh... why?

Because as I said in the next sentence, "they would ban workers' strikes, proclaim an alliance with the 'national bourgeoisie', and militarily attack neighboring countries (as Maoist China did to Vietnam and the USSR)", among other things. At least that it what I have to assume they would do, based on precedent.

[Chimurenga.]

Because as I said in the next sentence, "they would ban workers' strikes, proclaim an alliance with the 'national bourgeoisie', and militarily attack neighboring countries (as Maoist China did to Vietnam and the USSR)", among other things. At least that it what I have to assume they would do, based on precedent.

Everything you've just said is a generalization, plain and simple. It's still too early to tell what will happen. Maybe try to have a little faith in current revolutionary movements?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Because as I said in the next sentence, "they would ban workers' strikes, proclaim an alliance with the 'national bourgeoisie', and militarily attack neighboring countries (as Maoist China did to Vietnam and the USSR)", among other things. At least that it what I have to assume they would do, based on precedent.

This has be one of the most black & white generalizations on Maoist China that I've seen. That or I'm color blind.

[M-26-7]

You're both mistaken. A list of three historical facts is not a generalization; it is just a list of three facts. Any "generalization" that you got from my post you must have made yourselves as a result of reading those facts.

It is a fact that groups calling themselves Maoist have banned strikes, as recently as last year. It is a fact that Mao proclaimed an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie"--read his work entitled "On New Democracy"--and that Maoist groups in other countries have followed suit. And it is a fact that China during Mao's time attacked the USSR at Zhenbao Island in 1969 over border disputes.

The one thing that was slightly unfair in my post was mentioning the Chinese attack against Vietnam in support of Democratic Kampuchea. Now that I think of it, that occurred a few years after Mao's death.


Maybe try to have a little faith in current revolutionary movements?

I am not saying anything in bad faith. The Naxalites have chosen to call themselves Maoists. They are the ones who want to be identified with Mao. I didn't stick them with any associations they didn't choose for themselves. I can only assume that they call themselve Maoists because they plan to do what Mao did, but hey, I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

I don't want to get into a big argument over Maoism, though; I've said my piece about why I have reservations, to say the least, about the Naxalites.

[Chimurenga.]

You're both mistaken. A list of three historical facts is not a generalization; it is just a list of three facts. Any "generalization" that you got from my post you must have come to yourself as a result of reading those facts.

The mere notion that you think that Nepal will follow all of these "facts" and go down a similar path IS the generalization. :lol:

EDIT: Also, can you find me where establishing relations with the president of an imperialist country, suppressing workers strikes, and militarily attacking neighboring countries is found ANYWHERE in Mao's writing and theory? I must've missed it somehow.

[∞]

I find it sick, the Indian police are proletariat too, they're paid very little, and have families themselves. I'm not surprised you trigger-happy imbeciles would do such a thing. Why can't they follow the EZLN? Where they liberate the workers and DEFEND rather than ambush non-suspecting cops?
:mad:

[The Vegan Marxist]

We never said you *facts* were untrue, but rather very black & white. You just state existence of said events & then leave them at face value. You don't give any details of events leading up to the events, nor do you give any details on what had happened after the events took place. In fact, you don't even explain any of the reasons behind the events. All you've really given us is an un-dialectical view on important events in history & instead leave them under a negative, black & white impression.

[M-26-7]

Feel free to fill in all the details, The Vegan Marxist. Do not let me stop you.

[RedHal]

I find it sick, the Indian police are proletariat too, they're paid very little, and have families themselves. I'm not surprised you trigger-happy imbeciles would do such a thing. Why can't they follow the EZLN? Where they liberate the workers and DEFEND rather than ambush non-suspecting cops?
:mad:

Do you even have any clue the ground reality of what's happening in the forests of India? These so called "proletarian" cops have been killing and raping the tribals! Do you understand that the Indian Moaists are comprised primarily of these same tribals? So you blame the victims for defending themselves by attacking these government forces who are sent into the forests to annihilate them?! Do you know what Operation Greenhunt is? GTFO and go fap off to your DVD of "A place called Chiapas"

[The Vegan Marxist]

I find it sick, the Indian police are proletariat too, they're paid very little, and have families themselves. I'm not surprised you trigger-happy imbeciles would do such a thing. Why can't they follow the EZLN? Where they liberate the workers and DEFEND rather than ambush non-suspecting cops?
:mad:

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

[∞]

Do you even have any clue the ground reality of what's happening in the forests of India? These so called "proletarian" cops have been killing and raping the tribals! Do you understand that the Indian Moaists are comprised primarily of these same tribals? So you blame the victims for defending themselves by attacking these government forces who are sent into the forests to annihilate them?! Do you know what Operation Greenhunt is? GTFO and go fap off to your DVD of "A place called Chiapas"

Proof plz....All cops in India are bad now? Ambush random cops? That will gain popularity with the Indian people *sarcasm* Govt. Forces are diff. than cops. Cops patrol, govt. forces attack, killing army is justifiable but not police.

[Delenda Carthago]

Proof plz....All cops in India are bad now? Ambush random cops? That will gain popularity with the Indian people *sarcasm* Govt. Forces are diff. than cops. Cops patrol, govt. forces attack, killing army is justifiable but not police.

perhaps you should go over there and explain that to them.Tha would be really intresting,wouldn't it?

[Delenda Carthago]

You're both mistaken. A list of three historical facts is not a generalization; it is just a list of three facts. Any "generalization" that you got from my post you must have made yourselves as a result of reading those facts.

It is a fact that groups calling themselves Maoist have banned strikes, as recently as last year. It is a fact that Mao proclaimed an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie"--read his work entitled "On New Democracy"--and that Maoist groups in other countries have followed suit. And it is a fact that China during Mao's time attacked the USSR at Zhenbao Island in 1969 over border disputes.

The one thing that was slightly unfair in my post was mentioning the Chinese attack against Vietnam in support of Democratic Kampuchea. Now that I think of it, that occurred a few years after Mao's death.



I am not saying anything in bad faith. The Naxalites have chosen to call themselves Maoists. They are the ones who want to be identified with Mao. I didn't stick them with any associations they didn't choose for themselves. I can only assume that they call themselve Maoists because they plan to do what Mao did, but hey, I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

I don't want to get into a big argument over Maoism, though; I've said my piece about why I have reservations, to say the least, about the Naxalites.

actually,what's really funny is that noone here really knows anything about the politics of maoists in Nepal.I have asked that like,3-4 times and I got no answer whatsoever...Beeing faithfull is the best answer I got too.

[Chimurenga.]

I find it sick, the Indian police are proletariat too, they're paid very little, and have families themselves. I'm not surprised you trigger-happy imbeciles would do such a thing. Why can't they follow the EZLN? Where they liberate the workers and DEFEND rather than ambush non-suspecting cops?
:mad:

Yes, poor, poor Indian police. The EZLN? You mean, occupy a certain part of a country and try to maintain it while warding off any counter force (are they even still doing this?)? And you mean posing as a revolutionary movement but haven't really done anything positive in the last sixteen or so years? I doubt the Naxalites want to dissolve into obscurity as the EZLN have apparently done so. I'm pretty sure their goal is complete revolution in India.



actually,what's really funny is that noone here really knows anything about the politics of maoists in Nepal.I have asked that like,3-4 times and I got no answer whatsoever...Beeing faithfull is the best answer I got too.

I'm pretty sure Kasama Project has a ton of interviews and articles explaining their politics.

[bcbm]

Proof plz....All cops in India are bad now?

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/acab.jpg

get with the program

[dearest chuck]

police are proletarian now?

[kefka]

...

[∞]

Yes, poor, poor Indian police. The EZLN? You mean, occupy a certain part of a country and try to maintain it while warding off any counter force (are they even still doing this?)? And you mean posing as a revolutionary movement but haven't really done anything positive in the last sixteen or so years? I doubt the Naxalites want to dissolve into obscurity as the EZLN have apparently done so. I'm pretty sure their goal is complete revolution in India.




I'm pretty sure Kasama Project has a ton of interviews and articles explaining their politics.

I'm sorry lets see where this goes, and lets see what ambushing cops does for the revolution. These cops are arresting people who and are probably busting speeders, in this case, not even cops deserve death. You know now more than ever there is more reasons to fight and kill Maoists because. Of this and I'm sorry EZLN doesn't implement revolution, they carry it out only by people who want it. Especially if it's a failed system like Maoism.

[∞]

perhaps you should go over there and explain that to them.Tha would be really intresting,wouldn't it?

What will they do, kill me? Your just proving my point.


Oh yeah and AND INDIA WILL NEVER BE A MAOIST COUNTRY.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Good for the Maoists. :thumbup1:

[Chimurenga.]

I'm sorry lets see where this goes, and lets see what ambushing cops does for the revolution. These cops are arresting people who and are probably busting speeders, in this case, not even cops deserve death. You know now more than ever there is more reasons to fight and kill Maoists because. Of this and I'm sorry EZLN doesn't implement revolution, they carry it out only by people who want it. Especially if it's a failed system like Maoism.

Wow. So you're a cop sympathizer and you justify the killing of Maoists by said cops? I have to wonder why you are even on this forum...

And, if you want to be sectarian, serious LOL at the "Anarchist" saying that Maoism is a failed system.

:laugh:

[∞]

Wow. So you're a cop sympathizer and you justify the killing of Maoists by said cops? I have to wonder why you are even on this forum...

And, if you want to be sectarian, serious LOL at the "Anarchist" saying that Maoism is a failed system.

:laugh:

1st, how the hell is our system failed? 2nd it's one thing to kill armymen THAT ARE ACTUALLY infiltrating them through military force. Whats not okay is killing random COPS. Police, as I know are not involved in this. And if they are then I apologize. Yes Maoism fails,fails,fails. This is only giving the Indian government to suppress them furthermore. And from my understanding the Indian army can easily take on a handful of Maoist rebels

[el_chavista]

Those cops are the state: "groups of men in arms". The Maoist are just compelling them not to serve the state anymore.

[∞]

Last month a Maoist landmine in Chhattisgarh hit a bus, killing 24 civilians
:thumbup1: right?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Do you really see no difference between cops and ordinary civilians?

The primary social function of the police is the protection of property and continuation of class dominance. How are they not legitimate targets?

[∞]

Do you really see no difference between cops and ordinary civilians?

The primary social function of the police is the protection of property and continuation of class dominance. How are they not legitimate targets?

no, because they make maybe 10 grand a month and are TRERE ONLY TO GET BY. THEY ARE NOT BABY-EATING CONTRAS!

[Os Cangaceiros]

no, because they make maybe 10 grand a month and are TRERE ONLY TO GET BY. THEY ARE NOT BABY-EATING CONTRAS!

1) The cops around where I live get paid well, actually.
2) How much money they make or their living conditions have nothing to do with their societal role. People in the developing world usually view their local cops as the dirty scum that they are. I mean, I don't like the cops around where I live, but their conduct is nothing compared to the conduct of cops in Mexico, or Brazil, or India. I have no idea why you're defending them.

[Blackscare]

Govt. Forces are diff. than cops. Cops patrol, govt. forces attack, killing army is justifiable but not police. The national military isn't being used against the Naxalites, it's the local police that are basically doing the fighting. So you're wrong.


Also, police are not proletarian, there is no surplus value being extracted from their labor. They are a subclass that exists for the sole purpose of protecting the state and capital, and they benefit from their allegiance with the government. They are hired stooges that willfully carry out the suppression of the populace and actively attempt to destroy the Naxalites with force. Everyone has a family, that doesn't change a damn thing.

This is war, whether or not the Indian government chooses to use it's national military.


[edit]

As the post above me states, I'd like you to go to India and perhaps realize that their cops are nothing like most of the cops here. These aren't your friendly neighborhood cops (that do their dirty work only to minorities where the public can't see and the media can't be bothered to cover).

[The Vegan Marxist]

:thumbup1: right?

Using phone right now, so will someone show this anarcho-clown why this accusation against the Maoists was false & distorted by the Indian media. I'm not going to let a well documented rebuttal against this claim remain unheard of.

[Chimurenga.]

1st, how the hell is our system failed?

Gee, I don't know. A few examples come to mind...


And from my understanding the Indian army can easily take on a handful of Maoist rebels

If that were the case, then why aren't all the Naxalites wiped out?


no, because they make maybe 10 grand a month and are TRERE ONLY TO GET BY. THEY ARE NOT BABY-EATING CONTRAS!

:laugh: more cop sympathizing. When will you give up your "Militant Anarchist" facade and just come out as a liberal? Either you are a complete joke or a troll. I'm not sure which one just yet.

[Blackscare]

no, because they make maybe 10 grand a month and are TRERE ONLY TO GET BY. THEY ARE NOT BABY-EATING CONTRAS!


Also, aren't many members of the military "only doing it to get by"? Aren't most military members from poor/working-class backgrounds? What's your point here?

I'd argue the military has a higher revolutionary potential than do the police. We've seen in revolutionary situations that the military can splinter into revolutionary elements, whereas the cops rarely do. Why? Because most people who join the military absolutely do not have it in mind to use force against citizens of their own nation, whilst the cops join knowing that they will be carrying out the dirty work of the state and enforcing it's power. They are very pro-state and pro status-quo, and use violent means to squash resistance.

[Saorsa]

There have been a few points brought up in this thread about Maoist history and Maoist practice today which deserve attention.

1: "The Maoists banned strikes"

No, they didn't. I addressed that issue some time ago in this piece: http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/did-the-maobadi-ban-strikes/

2: The alliance with the national bourgeoisie

This has been discussed extensively in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-democracy-t136648/index.html), I would suggest you have a look at it. I made this post in that thread explaining what Maoists mean by New Democracy and the alliance with the national bourgeoisie:


It's fundamentally based on the Maoist approach to building a movement - 'uniting all who can be united'. It's not a Menshevik approach at all, as the approach of the Mensheviks was to put the bourgeoisie in power because they argued the proletariat was not yet ready to take power for itself. Maoists argue that a coalition of revolutionary forces, led by the proletariat, must take power and that the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution cannot be carried out by the bourgeoisie itself, but can only be carried out in a revolution led by the proletariat.

Mike Ely made some very insightful comments about the nature of the new democratic revolution, in response to questions similar to yours. This is what he said:

Mike Ely: stagism? every complex process, without exception has stages.


Every revolution has stages.

Nepal is a country where 80 percent of the people scratch the earth with a stick, and are so poor that the semifeudal relations can't even sustain stable feudal classes in much of the country.

In China new democracy gave land (through agrarian revolution) to hundreds of millions of peasants (yes, unleashing capitalist markets and private property in the countryside) while creating the beginnings of socialist planned economy (in the infrastructure and industry).

To be clear: The overthrow of feudalism does create revoltionary new economic conditions (which include new elements of capitalism in the economy). But New Democracy is NOT "capitalism" in the sense that it is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise... this is an antifeudal revolution that is communist led -- and heading toward socialism and communism.

New Democracy is the first stage of communist revolution. Socialism is the second stage.

Mao pointed out that the socialist revolutoin starts (and the new democratic revolution ends) with the seizure of power and the completion of land reform.

As for the inclusion of the national bourgeoisie in the broad united front in china. This is very confusing for some people. Here are a few points that may help:

1) The national bourgeoisie had played a very radical role in the decades leading up to the 1949 seizure of power. They had organized the "great northern expedition" in the 1920s against the feudalists, and had played a role in the war against japan.

2) When the Chinese communists talked of "national bourgeoisie" they were (in general) speaking of very small workshops. Here is an interesting statistic: In 1949, the revolution nationalized the property of foreign capitalists, comprador capitalists and bureaucrat capitalists. The resulting state sector was 80 percent of the indusry of china. In other words the "national bourgeoisie" was numerous, but mainly owned very small shops with small numbers of workers -- and found themselves embedded in a planned economy led by communists.

In other words, this was not an alliance with the MAIN capitalist force in China, this was an alliance that overthrew and expropriated the MAIN capitalist forces in china.

I hope this clears some things up.

[Saorsa]

actually,what's really funny is that noone here really knows anything about the politics of maoists in Nepal.I have asked that like,3-4 times and I got no answer whatsoever...Beeing faithfull is the best answer I got too.

Are you serious?

The politics of the Maoists in Nepal is practically all I talk about on this site. Have you not read anything I've posted in the past, like, two years?

[M-26-7]

2: The alliance with the national bourgeoisie

This has been discussed extensively in this thread....I hope this clears some things up.

I read the whole thread. The most remarkable thing that I came across was this rather amazing quote from you:


I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the CCP ordering the masses to keep working, keep producing, keep the wheels of production and distribution turning

Well, that certainly does "clear some things up". Namely, that your allegiance is not to the working class, or to socialist relations of production, but to the Communist Party and its dictates. It could not be clearer. Pardon me if I, as a worker, call bullshit.

[Saorsa]

Ah, selective quoting. I'm so glad the modern left continues to make use of this wonderful habit :rolleyes:

For the record, here is my full argument, and it's a bit more nuanced than you try to make out.


As for the often 'evidenced' call by the Communist Party to the Chinese workers to stay disciplined... so what? Really, this is proof of nothing other than that the Chinese communists lived in the real world.

China had been ravaged by civil war and foreign invasion for decades. There was famine in the countryside and economic chaos throughout the country. So as the tide turned, and the communists came close to liberating the whole of China and unifying it under the people's control for the first time in decades, they had the strange idea that perhaps they wanted to take over a country where the factories which belonged to ALL THE PEOPLE were not burned down or destroyed by SOME OF THE PEOPLE. The communists wanted to begin reconstructing a country with its factories, its wealth, its buildings and its cities INTACT.

What should they have done? Called on the workers to loot the rich people's mansions and take the jewels home as an act of 'expropriation'? The plan was to reconstruct China and raise the living standards of all people, in a process that took place with the participation, supervision and oversight of the masses. NOT TO DESTROY CHINA IN 1949 IN A WAVE OF RIOTS, POGROMS, LOOTING, BURNING AND PILLAGING.

Perhaps that would have satisfied you a bit more Dave, to see Beijing burn... but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the CCP ordering the masses to keep working, keep producing, keep the wheels of production and distribution turning so that the country didn't starve and collapse any more than was absolutely necessary!There's nothing revolutionary about mass starvation. There's nothing revolutionary about encouraging individualized acts of looting, rather than the seizure of the (intact!) means of production by the working class. The Chinese communists successfully pulled of the latter and avoided the former, and while I'm sure you could have done much better, you would have had to leave your theoretical ivory tower to make it happen.

In Russia, when the workers and soldiers stormed the Winter Palace, the Bolsheviks told them not to take anything and forced those who did to give back what they took. Should we condemn them for siding with feudal tradition and preserving the wealth of the Tsar when starving workers were trying to expropriate it?

[Saorsa]

Pardon me if I, as a worker, call bullshit.

Pardon me if I, as a communist, call bullshit on your prolier-than-thou bullshit. Engage with actual arguments, not with childish namecalling.

[M-26-7]

For the record, here is my full argument, and it's a bit more nuanced than you try to make out.

Yes...because I'm really going to be more receptive to "nuanced" arguments telling me why I and my fellow workers should shut up and get back to work to produce surplus value for the Communist Party bureaucracy and not raise a fuss about it.


There's nothing revolutionary about mass starvation. There's nothing revolutionary about encouraging individualized acts of looting, rather than the seizure of the (intact!) means of production by the working class. The Chinese communists successfully pulled of the latter and avoided the former, and while I'm sure you could have done much better, you would have had to leave your theoretical ivory tower to make it happen.

Look, we're just going to argue past each other. I don't think workers have any more interest in being tossed about by Maoist social engineering than they do in being ruled by a capitalist class. And as RED DAVE aptly pointed out in that thread, "Maoism" has always given way to private property and full-blown capitalism within a few decades anyway.

Feel free to be a Maoist. I and millions of others of workers will take a pass.

I won't even get in your way if you want to kill cops.


Pardon me if I, as a communist, call bullshit on your prolier-than-thou bullshit. Engage with actual arguments, not with childish namecalling.

I haven't called anyone a name. As for prolier-than-thou, I have no idea what you do for money nor have I pretended to know. Although you did somewhat imply that I was a student or something with your "ivory tower" remark.

[Saorsa]

The CCP, at a time when the forces of the GMD were crumbling and a new China was just becoming possible, looked around and happened to notice that the country was starving and decades of war had ground China's economy into the ground. Huge amount of China's industrial capital had been destroyed, and the capitalists were destroying huge amounts more as they retreated.

With this in mind, the CCP called on Chinese workers to continue to work and to try and work hard for the benefit of the masses, and not to allow chaos to fill the void left by the collapse of the GMD state. The people needed to be fed. They needed medicines, and clothes, and farming equipment, and so on. These things need to be created by workers in the factories. The CCP called on the Chinese workers to keep producing these things at the same time as the workers and peasants took control of the country. Because, you know, a socialist country is always better off if it can feed and clothe its people.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. This is petty point scoring at it's lowest and most cynical.


And as RED DAVE aptly pointed out in that thread, "Maoism" has always given way to private property and full-blown capitalism within a few decades anyway.

You could just as easily point out that Lenin and Trotsky's Soviet revolution degenerated and gave way to 'private property and full-blown capitalism'. The Spanish revolutionaries failed to defeat fascism. Were either of these things inevitable? Did either of these things happen due to inherent flaws within the Bolsheviks, or the Spanish anarchists?

I doubt either of you would argue that. But you think it's ok to argue that about China and Maoism. How strange.

[M-26-7]

You could just as easily point out that Lenin and Trotsky's Soviet revolution degenerated and gave way to 'private property and full-blown capitalism'. The Spanish revolutionaries failed to defeat fascism. Were either of these things inevitable? Did either of these things happen due to inherent flaws within the Bolsheviks, or the Spanish anarchists?

Agreed, you could argue that about Lenin and Trotsky's revolution, and I do. As for anarchism, you are right to point out that it did not fail (become an authoritarian nightmare, collapse into capitalism, etc.) but was defeated from the outside.

[∞]

The national military isn't being used against the Naxalites, it's the local police that are basically doing the fighting. So you're wrong.


Also, police are not proletarian, there is no surplus value being extracted from their labor. They are a subclass that exists for the sole purpose of protecting the state and capital, and they benefit from their allegiance with the government. They are hired stooges that willfully carry out the suppression of the populace and actively attempt to destroy the Naxalites with force. Everyone has a family, that doesn't change a damn thing.

This is war, whether or not the Indian government chooses to use it's national military.


[edit]

As the post above me states, I'd like you to go to India and perhaps realize that their cops are nothing like most of the cops here. These aren't your friendly neighborhood cops (that do their dirty work only to minorities where the public can't see and the media can't be bothered to cover).


Oh, why couldn't anyone tell me that? And also, a surplus labor doesn't exist. Surplus labor is rejected today by anyone who can comprehend the properties of production.

[∞]

Gee, I don't know. A few examples come to mind...



If that were the case, then why aren't all the Naxalites wiped out?



:laugh: more cop sympathizing. When will you give up your "Militant Anarchist" facade and just come out as a liberal? Either you are a complete joke or a troll. I'm not sure which one just yet.
Your an idiot fuck you, I got more gauges than a scene kid fucker.

[∞]

Using phone right now, so will someone show this anarcho-clown why this accusation against the Maoists was false & distorted by the Indian media. I'm not going to let a well documented rebuttal against this claim remain unheard of.

HURRR DUR EVERYTHING IZ PROPAGANDA. I'm sorry I'm the only poster who follows the Kantist-Marxist view on rationality and the means. I'm sorry I can only see that in this case the ends do not justify the means. If you have any evidence on what Maoism has accomplished or in that case, why the Indian media is a huge conspiracy, I suggest you sit your fatass down.

[M-26-7]

Quit trolling.

[∞]

Quit trolling.

I'm semi-trolling, but I still have a point.

[Hiratsuka]

Also, aren't many members of the military "only doing it to get by"? Aren't most military members from poor/working-class backgrounds? What's your point here?

I'd argue the military has a higher revolutionary potential than do the police. We've seen in revolutionary situations that the military can splinter into revolutionary elements, whereas the cops rarely do. Why? Because most people who join the military absolutely do not have it in mind to use force against citizens of their own nation, whilst the cops join knowing that they will be carrying out the dirty work of the state and enforcing it's power. They are very pro-state and pro status-quo, and use violent means to squash resistance.

More like pro-legalism. A lot of officers I've talked to - including DEA agents - are fairly sensible on how the War on Drugs degrades poor neighborhoods, for example, but they like the idea of public service, and it's a career that one doesn't easily move away from after a few years in service. Job security and decent pay is just a concomitant way of smoothing over any distaste one has for the job, similar to the prestige one gets from enlisting in the military. At the end of the day, cops are middle-class servants of others in powers. Lawyers and judges who continuously enforce abhorrent laws should be held with more contempt. (As this relates to the OP, I would never kill someone unless I absolutely had to out of dire defense of either myself or another, personally.)

Police use violent means because that's the purpose of security in any society. I really don't understand the differentiation between military personnel and police officers. Leftists can recognize that they both serve destructive purposes under the current system of governance but still comprehend the circumstances which shuffle bodies into service. I hate the penal system, but I'm glad somebody is there watching Charles Manson.

[The Vegan Marxist]

HURRR DUR EVERYTHING IZ PROPAGANDA. I'm sorry I'm the only poster who follows the Kantist-Marxist view on rationality and the means. I'm sorry I can only see that in this case the ends do not justify the means. If you have any evidence on what Maoism has accomplished or in that case, why the Indian media is a huge conspiracy, I suggest you sit your fatass down.

Never stated everything is propaganda, & from how any pro-Capitalist state run media operates when it comes to information on any proletarian struggle, I would say a "conspiracy" is only simplifying the very tactics they go about.

And when it comes to showing you what all Maoism has accomplished, I'll let Comrade Alastair help you with this since he's better qualified than me on it & I don't want to miss anything out. When it comes to the bus incident, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-blow-up-t135585/index.html) is the entire discussion that was started by me here on revleft.

But if you don't want to read the entire discussion, which a lot of it after all the points were made turned into a maoist vs anti-maoist debate, then I'll point out the articles that were released throughout the discussion which helped clarify both the innocence of the Naxalites & the deliberate distortion of the story by the Indian media:

Unconclusive, diverse stories on what truly happened that day: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126830&sectionid=351020402

Security forces dressed up in civilian clothing: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/05/2010517125439433390.html

Maoists speak out against the media's accusations: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cnnibn-interview-with-maoist-ramanna/115646-37-64.html

[Blackscare]

And also, a surplus labor doesn't exist. Surplus labor is rejected today by anyone who can comprehend the properties of production. What are you talking about here?

Extracting surplus value goes as follows:

1) Employer hires worker to perform task that somehow produces wealth.
2) Employer only pays worker a % of the wealth created.
3) Employer keeps remainder of the wealth for himself (the surplus wealth left after paying wages).

I don't know what you mean by surplus labor, where you got that from, or what you mean by saying that it is rejected today. If you're talking about what I just described, you literally have to be crazy to believe that that isn't how shit happens.



Also, here's just a random link that I stumbled upon that may give you a different perspective on the cops in India.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/cp-of-india-maoist-on-the-murder-of-azad/

[Saorsa]

Agreed, you could argue that about Lenin and Trotsky's revolution, and I do.

Of course you do. It gives you an easy way out when right wingers attack revolutionary socialism and argue that the revolutions of the 20th century degenrated due to some inherent tendency within them... it allows you to go to these right wingers and unite with them against the people and the forces who sacrificed so much to try and transform the world. That's why you're an anarchist - it gives you an easy way out.


As for anarchism, you are right to point out that it did not fail (become an authoritarian nightmare, collapse into capitalism, etc.) but was defeated from the outside.

The anarchists have failed at everything they tried to do. The Spanish revolution was defeated. The Makhnovists were defeated. The IWW dwindled away into practically nothing. The Greek anarchists have spent decades trying to bring down the state, and they have failed to do so.

This must be due to inherent flaws within anarchism. And even if we do accept your (very convenient :lol:) explanation that it was due to 'outside forces', why was it so easy for these outside forces to defeat the anarchists? I know why - because anarchism is inherently flawed.

I'm being sarcastic of course. But you see how easy it is to make this kind of stupid argument? The only reason you find it easy to get away with yours is because it puts you on the same side as bourgeois academia and the bourgeois media... "nice idea in theory, but inevitably degenerated into AUTHORITARIAN EVIL in practice."

Anyway, we're going off topic. Why don't you save the hackneyed attacks on Maoism for a different thread?


why the Indian media is a huge conspiracy,

Mate, do you really need me to explain to you why we shouldn't ever trust what the bourgeois media have to say about a revolutionary movement, particularly one in their own country?

The incident with the bus is quite simple. State police murderers were off to another day hard at work raping, torturing and murdering the people. Many of them were travelling in civilian clothes on a bus they had purposefully filled with civilians to use as human shields. The bus had machine guns mounted on top, and was clearly filled with uniformed and armed police thugs. These police were part of Operation Green Hunt, the Indian state's ongoing campaign to try and wipe out the Maoist movement.

The Maoists blew up the bus. Once they realised innocents had died in the attack, they immediately spoke to the media (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cnnibn-interview-with-maoist-ramanna/115646-37-64.html) and expressed their regret over the civilian deaths, while clarifying that the people truly responsible were the police who used the civilians as human shields.

End of story.

Also, the Maoists had nothing whatsoever to do with the train derailment.

[∞]

What are you talking about here?

Extracting surplus value goes as follows:

1) Employer hires worker to perform task that somehow produces wealth.
2) Employer only pays worker a % of the wealth created.
3) Employer keeps remainder of the wealth for himself (the surplus wealth left after paying wages).

But there is no surplus labor involved thats just a capitalist distribution of

I don't know what you mean by surplus labor, where you got that from, or what you mean by saying that it is rejected today. If you're talking about what I just described, you literally have to be crazy to believe that that isn't how shit happens.



Yes, but that is the capitalist mode - of producing profits. However under any reasonable supply-demand system the worker does not produce more than he/she is supposed to. He/She is just satisfying the needs of the upper class.




Also, here's just a random link that I stumbled upon that may give you a different perspective on the cops in India.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/cp-of-india-maoist-on-the-murder-of-azad/

If they hadn't done it, I'm fine. I'm just tired of people trying to justify killing civilians.

[∞]

Never stated everything is propaganda, & from how any pro-Capitalist state run media operates when it comes to information on any proletarian struggle, I would say a "conspiracy" is only simplifying the very tactics they go about.

And when it comes to showing you what all Maoism has accomplished, I'll let Comrade Alastair help you with this since he's better qualified than me on it & I don't want to miss anything out. When it comes to the bus incident, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoists-blow-up-t135585/index.html) is the entire discussion that was started by me here on revleft.

But if you don't want to read the entire discussion, which a lot of it after all the points were made turned into a maoist vs anti-maoist debate, then I'll point out the articles that were released throughout the discussion which helped clarify both the innocence of the Naxalites & the deliberate distortion of the story by the Indian media:

Unconclusive, diverse stories on what truly happened that day: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126830&sectionid=351020402

Security forces dressed up in civilian clothing: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/05/2010517125439433390.html

Maoists speak out against the media's accusations: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cnnibn-interview-with-maoist-ramanna/115646-37-64.html

If that is not part of their tactics, then we have nothing to discuss. Maoism however, is still inevitable failure. I will post on THAT discussion.

[Blackscare]

I'm just tired of people trying to justify killing civilians.

Changing points now? We're talking about cops, not civilians.


However under any reasonable supply-demand system the worker does not produce more than he/she is supposed to. He/She is just satisfying the needs of the upper class.


What? You're mistaking what I mean here I think. I'm talking about profit. Bosses seek to maximize the amount of profit that their employees produce and try to pay them as little of it as possible. Pretty simple. What exactly are you on about here?

[Saorsa]

Maoism however, is still inevitable failure. I will post on THAT discussion.

no anarchism is inevitable failure. And so is your mum.

Come on, stop trolling.

[∞]

HURRR DUR EVERYTHING IZ PROPAGANDA. I'm sorry I'm the only poster who follows the Kantist-Marxist view on rationality and the means. I'm sorry I can only see that in this case the ends do not justify the means. If you have any evidence on what Maoism has accomplished or in that case, why the Indian media is a huge conspiracy, I suggest you sit your fatass down.

Hey that wasn't trolling...

[∞]

Changing points now? We're talking about cops, not civilians.



What? You're mistaking what I mean here I think. I'm talking about profit. Bosses seek to maximize the amount of profit that their employees produce and try to pay them as little of it as possible. Pretty simple. What exactly are you on about here?

It's surplus "labor". And all production of the working class is just the demand of the higher class.